In August a study by CERN physicist Draga Slavkov Hajdukovic suggested that dark matter may be an “illusion” caused by the quantum vacuum. Currently mainstream physics assumes there is only a positive gravitational charge. Hajdukovic suggests that if matter and antimatter are gravitationally repulsive, then it would mean that the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that exist for a limited time in the quantum vacuum are gravitational dipoles.

In the most recent study described, he demonstrates the credibility of this idea by showing that the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum can explain four cosmological observations. It has revealed the surprising possibility that the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum can produce phenomena usually attributed to dark matter.

“I would say a theory in the early stage,” he told PhysOrg.com. “Thousands of scientists work on the development of the cold dark matter (CDM) theory and the theories of modified gravity (MOND); I am working alone in this third direction.

Well, not quite alone. Hauser and Droescher’s earliest papers on EHT in 2004 proposed using the quantum vacuum as a means for symmetry breaking. This would lead to the breaking of a photon into an attractive and repulsive gravitophoton pair that creates a gravitational dipole.

Here are my postings since May in the PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=3030

Also here are recent papers by Hauser, peer reviewed for conferences:

The AIAA paper:
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/AIAA-2011-6042.pdf

And another recent offering:
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/Pages_from_ID5258-2.pdf
The AIAA paper is short on pictures and long on text.

On an alternative explanation for Tajmar’s experimental results –

My reply 7-27-2011:
I noted a few days ago that M.E. McCulloch posted a second paper ascribing the Tajmar Effect to a Hubble-scale Casimir Effect. See http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3266

Now it’s been picked up in an article in PhysOrg. I noted in my book that Tajmar thinks quantized inertia a better explanation for his effect than EHT. Now McCulloch hopes Tajmar’s group will test the theory with a rotating superconductor 0.01% the mass of the original ring Tajmar and deMatos experimented with.

Unanswered questions from me include that Tajmar et al did not find the effect for rotating Type 2 superconductors. Why should such supercooled materials not elicit a quantized inertia effect? Also, MiHsC is posited as an explanation for the Pioneer effect, even though less complex and equally plausible mechanisms have claimed their own explanations for that effect.

Very interesting nonetheless.

On lack of a Higgs particle –

djolds1: IIRC, EHT explicitly posits a Higgs mechanism. Looks like particle physicists are finally giving up the ghost on that, and by extension the entire Standard Model.

My reply 8-28-2011:
The lack of a discovery of a singular Higgs particle of ordinary mattery by the LHC is actually good news for EHT.

In their paper “Gravitational Field Propulsion” (AIAA 2009-5069) Hauser and Dröscher state, “Any admissible subspace combination needs S2 or I2 coordinates to be present in order to realize physical events in our spacetime. The only exception is the Hermetry form H16 for the Higgs field.”

In their late 2009 paper “Emerging physics for novel field propulsion science” they expand their description that EHT’s three R subspaces deliver, “15 fundamental groups of particles… of gravitational or non-gravitational nature, while the O(2, q) 2 O(2, q) stands for the 6 Higgs and 6 anti-Higgs bosons, responsible for all types of charges that fundamental particles can possess. It is believed that all particles of OM or NOM… interact with its respective Higgs particle and gain charge (e.g mass or electric charge etc.), but their inertia (energy) should come from group O(1, q) , which denotes a special Hermetry form, H16 from subspace T1.”

OM stands for ordinary matter. NOM or Non-Ordinary Matter are particles of imaginary mass that should occur “as virtual particles, which means that they are not present (do not occur) in the initial and final states of a reaction, but act in the intermediate steps.”

In “Coupled Gravitational Fields A New Paradigm for Propulsion Science” (AIAA2010-021-NFF) they clarify that “there are three degenerated Hermetry forms that describe partial forms occurring in NOM, namely the families of imaginary messenger particles, i.e. photon, gluon, and dark matter… Hermetry form 16 is reserved for the inertia field, which is some kind of Higgs field pervading the whole Universe” They continue, “Imaginary particles are formed via the Higgs mechanism, for instance, as described by M. Kaku, (Kaku, M.: Quantum Field Theory, Oxford, 1993. Chap.10.).

So EHT postulates a total of six Higgs and anti-Higgs fields. These 12 Higgs bosons are transitory particles of imaginary mass. It is the interaction between fundamental particles and the Higgs mechanism that imparts charge and mass to them. EHT does not predict a singular Higgs boson of ordinary matter (OM), which has been the focus of the LHC’s search.

On Reed’s analysis:

gocrew: It’s hard to get excited about Heim Theory after Reed’s analysis. The only reason to pursue it was some of the possibilities it offered, which now seem to have been, well, I’ll not say fraudulent, just wrong. In a very suspicious way.

Without the predictions of mass, there really is little to get excited about, little to make us think he was on to something.

My reply 11-5-2011:
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that Heim was “on to something.” Even though my understanding of the physics is limited, I do believe that Dr. Reed’s analysis of the shortcomings of Heim’s original theory is correct. However, I don’t think Reed’s conclusions should be applied by others to Dr. Hauser’s work in Extended Heim Theory.

In discussions with Hauser, it was pointed out to me that the idea of how to construct a poly-metric tensor was of much greater importance than Heim’s actual derivation. As applied to their (Hauser and Dröscher’s) eight-dimensional gauge space extension of Heim Theory, it seems to give a more complete and correct picture than Heim’s six-dimensional approach. The basic ideas of physics in Heim’s books are essential, but provide only a starting point. All of the formulas have to be derived anew, which is what EHT has accomplished.

Hauser and Dröscher have already pointed out in their papers that Heim’s mass spectrum analysis must at least be incomplete, simply because of his use of six-dimensional space. It was also pointed out to me that the new formulations in EHT did reveal additional errors in Heim’s math and that Reed’s correct analysis of Heim’s wrong spherical Laplacian had already been taken into consideration by EHT’s formulations.

gocrew: I have read that EHT is very separate from Heim Theory. However, does EHT have anything to get excited about? The possibility of deriving mass was exciting. Now, all EHT has, unless I am mistaken, is the possibility of a single experiment that has other explanations.

I’m not trying to put the last nail in the coffin. All I’m saying is I don’t see much reason to get excited anymore.

My reply 11-11-2011:
Like many others here, I’m all for a demo levitating a Hummer, but until that day there are some interesting new leads from disproving older theories… and from new ones… that improve EHT’s position among other “outlier” theories. And other refinements (read his last paper AIAA2011-6042) that give multiple ways to test its predictions:

1. If the LHC does not find a massive Higgs boson, that would give more weight to EHT since it would put the Standard Model into greater question and EHT would be there (among many others) to fill the gap. EHT predicts several less massive Higgs and anti-Higgs particles.

2. Verlinde’s holographic theory makes information and the organization of structures key to understanding space-time. You may have seen this theory referenced in recent episodes of PBS’s NOVA. Alternatively, holographic theory mirrors EHT’s four subspaces representing the formation of information structures (I2) and organizational structures (S2).

3. Hauser mentioned in his last paper that if physical experiments can be set up that lead to a conversion from photons into gravitophotons, a coupling between electromagnetism and gravitation would be established. Hyperbolic metamaterials have created electromagnetic “event horizons”, which are analogous to gravitational black holes. I would like to see if gravitomagnetic predictions can be represented analogously in the laboratory by employing metamaterials.

4. If symmetry breaking as the underlying cause of producing gravitophotons is real, then one outcome should be the production of a new real particle with lower ground state that should be detectable… if someone is looking for it.

On mention of Dr. Tajmar’s new publication, “Evaluation of enhanced frame-dragging in the vicinity of a rotating niobium superconductor, liquid helium and a helium superfluid” doi:10.1088/0953-2048/24/12/125011 contradciting earlier findings:

Mindrust: I wonder how gdaigle is reacting to this. If I remember correctly, he made a blog dedicated to Tajmar’s discovery in 2006.

djolds1: Greg recently wrote a book on the subject. My guess would be… sadly.

My reply 11-16-2011:
Disappointed, but not sad.

My blog has followed the theory of EHT as well as the findings of Dr. Tajmar, but has always had as its main focus the design implications of manipulating gravity-like fields.

I am still reviewing Dr. Tajmar’s paper for its full impact on his nine previously published papers on the topic. Determining exactly why he got his previous results at AIT is as interesting to me as his report of no significant results achieved with his new apparatus at KAIST.

Dr. Tajmar’s configurations for his earlier experiments were never going to produce the much stronger and axially propulsive field effects that Dr. Hauser envisioned, but they did provide a dataset with fewer alternative explanations than Gravity Probe B and the other anomalies that give weight to EHT.

Certainly this puts into question the bosonic pathway for EHT, but not the fermonic (really strong magnets) pathway originally posited by Hauser and Droescher. I am less clear about the impact of this newest study on Hauser’s proposed mechanism for gravitomagnetic fields, which is symmetry breaking rather than Cooper-pair coupling.

As for me, I’m planning to present a slideshow tomorrow on my book to fellow faculty members and will certainly mention Dr. Tajmar’s most recent findings… disappointing or not, it’s all part of the discovery process.

For those not in the know, MIT’s Technology Review reports that a new computer model of the way heat is emitted by various parts of the Pioneer spacecraft and reflected off others, finally solves one of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics. By using a computer modeling technique called Phong shading to work out exactly how the emitted heat from the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts is reflected and in which direction it ends up traveling, it undercuts support for two theories of modified gravity and inertia that had relied upon “new physics” to explain the anomaly.

These two theories, MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) and MiHsC (Modified Inertia due to a Hubble-scale Casimir effect) have employed data from the Pioneer spacecraft to give weight to their theories of how gravity (or inertia) might change over long distances.

In MOND, gravity changes are described as an alternative explanation for what is commonly known as dark matter. If the gravitational constant changes with distance there is no requirement for additional matter.

Currently MiHsC is the theory held by Dr. Martin Tajmar of KAIST as the most likely candidate to describe his dipolar gravity effects discovered at ARC/AIT and announced in 2006. But Tajmar’s results are also cited by Drs. Hauser and Droescher as experimental proof of EHT (Extended Heim Theory) which also predicts previously undetected massive particles (though not WIMPS) as the basis for dark matter without need for the changes in gravity due to distances (albeit gravity is modified in other manners).

With this new finding MOND’s explanation for dark matter becomes less likely, and the support for MiHsC also fades, though MiHsC also sites flyby anomalies as evidence supporting their hypothesis. This gives EHT a more preferred (though certainly not proven) position to explain both Tajmar’s findings and dark matter.

However, EHT still remains an outlier theory and additional experimentation must be completed to secure its position as an explanation for dark matter, dark energy and the complete view of gravity.

MIT article here: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/
ArXIV article here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.5222

Gravity 2.0 was mentioned at the 2011 SPESIF Conference held March 15-17 at the University of Maryland. The presenter, Dr. Jochem Hauser, was presenting a paper for the American Institute of Physics on Extended Heim Theory (the physics focus of my book) and has been very generous in his time to review my book before publication.  The conference was organized in cooperation with the the American Astronautical Society (AAS), the “premier independent scientific and technical group in the United States exclusively dedicated to the advancement of space science and exploration.”

Dr. Hauser is a Professor of High Performance Computing in Suderburg, Germany. In 2007 he was a Visiting Scientist at the Institute of Mechanics at the Technical University of Clausthal, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany, teaching plasma physics and performing research in advanced space propulsion through gravitomagnetic fields.

Other areas of research interest include modern Riemann solvers for computational fluid dynamics and electrodynamics, heat flux and aerodynamic control of space vehicles using magnetic and time dependent electric fields.

He is also an Advanced Space Propulsion Consultant in the field of aerodynamic simulation and high-performance computing for the European Union and the European Space Agency, and from 1988-1992 headed the Aerothermodynamics Section at the European Space Research and Technology Center (ESTEC) of the European Space Agency in Noordwijk, The Netherlands.

The book was also reviewed by Dr. Martin Tajmar, formerly a professor of micropropulsion physics in Austria and now at KAIST (Korea’s Institute of Science and Technology).  Drs. Tajmar and de Matos did the original experiments at ARC/AIT (the largest research institute in Austria) demonstrating a dipolar (attractive and repulsive) gravitomagnetic-like field in the laboratory that was as strong as the naturally occurring field of a white dwarf star – and with a strength 18 orders of magnitude larger than predicted by general relativity.

You can see the presentation below. Click the red, then the green play buttons. The citation of the book appears right away and it completed within the first three minutes of Dr. Hauser’s presentation.

Ordinary and Non-Ordinary Matter, Imaginary Matter and Space Drives – Part 2 of Emerging Physics

In the paper “Emerging Physics for Novel Field Propulsion Science”, Drs. Jochem Hauser and co-author Walter Dröscher delve deeper into their descriptions of ordinary and non-ordinary matter.

In Extended Heim Theory (EHT) Ordinary Matter (OM) describes all messenger particles (gauge bosons) including the graviton, photon, vector bosons and gluons as well as leptons and quarks. Non-Ordinary Matter (NOM) describes virtual particles of imaginary matter that do not occur in the initial and final states of a reaction. Imaginary matter is not a new type of matter. These particles occur as interim states and are possibly catalysts allowing novel interactions, such as the decay of a neutral gravitophoton to a graviton/quintessence pair or to a ± gravitophoton pair.

In this model dark matter may be composed of a new class of particles, the neutral leptons (fermions). Neutral leptons are the only class of NOM that exist as real particles rather than imagery particles. The masses of neutral leptons are close to those of their charged counterparts and much less than those of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPS).

Some predictions of EHT unexpectedly align with new theories of physics put forward only in the past year. As mentioned previously, Dr. Erik Verlinde expanded on the ideas of Dr. Ted Jacobson that gravity is an emergent quality of space dependent upon the structured “holographic” information it contains. Under this view gravity may also be seen as a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics.

Similarly, EHT posits that four subspaces representing the formation of organizational structures (S² negative entropy) and information structures (I² entropy) make up the 16 different forms of hermetry, three of which define particles whose fields in combination are recognized as gravity.

Recently the DØ Experiment at Fermi Labs (http://www-d0.fnal.gov/) reported evidence for five types of Higgs particle (two Higgs doublets of four with some particles interpreted as W and Z bosons), while the Standard Model allows for only a single Higgs doublet. This evidence more closely aligns with the 6 Higgs bosons of ordinary matter (in addition to the 6 Higgs bosons of non-ordinary imaginary matter) predicted by EHT and outlined in Hauser-Dröscher’s recent paper.

Finally, the authors bring their discussion back to the implications for space propulsion. When a space vehicle is in the presence of the decay of photons to gravitons and quintessence particles, the gravitons are absorbed by the space vehicle while the quintessence particles are absorbed by the surrounding spacetime, leading to its expansion. Total momentum is conserved though the repulsive force of the quintessence and results in the expansion of the Universe (dark energy).

In the case of decay into non-neutral gravitophotons the negative gravitophotons act on the spacecraft and the positive gravitophotons act on spacetime such that total momentum is conserved. As long as the experimental conditions for the production of gravitophotons along with their respective decay are maintained, the proper acceleration field will be generated.

An experimental setup utilizing a disk rotating directly above a superconducting solenoid should be able to lift itself from the surface of the Earth. The technology required to meet the experimental requirements are currently within reach.

Walter Dröscher and Jochem Hauser have published a new paper for the 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit and Dr. Hauser presented it last month in Denver, Colorado.

The title is “Gravitational Field Propulsion” and it is accessible at:
http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/documents/AIAA-2009-5069-885Gravitational_Field_Propulsion.pdf . Be sure to read the corrections here: http://www.hpcc-space.de/

It is to date the most comprehensive and complete overview of Extended Heim Theory and includes several sections that are either completely new or expand upon areas only mentioned before in passing. It also ties current EHT to their prior award-winning AIAA paper on subliminal space travel. This is a must read.

The paper clearly recounts the experiments of Tajmar, et al. and does an in-depth analysis vis-a-vis EHT, Dr. Tajmar having given D&H access to his data. The paper also presents a very clear picture of the novel physics required by EHT and demonstrated in Tajmar’s experiments for ESA and ARC.

Items of particular note include:

1) Non-Ordinary Matter (NOM): Virtual particles with imaginary mass (but real charge) that lead to novel groups including graivtophotons and quintessence particles. In EHT, dark matter is composed of a new class of particles, the NOM neutral leptons (fermions, though not neutrinos), but these are not WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) and have roughly the same inertial mass as electrons.

2) During spontaneous symmetry breaking similar to that of superconductors or ferromagnets, symmetry is regained by generation of NOMs which are subsequently converted into gravitophotons. This unique symmetry breaking for gravitational fields is termed “gravitomagnetic symmetry breaking” (GSB), which is associated with the formation of virtual electrons and protons.

3) A clear step-wise description of the Production mechanism for Imaginary Matter (PIM).

4) Describes in detail the experimental basis for gravitational fields in setups by Tajmar et al. and Graham as well as G-PB. Also, a parsing of the three different types of Gravitational Experiments discerned: GE1: gravitomagnetic twisting of spacetime; GE2: gravity-like acceleration; GE3: the long-proposed vertical gravity-like acceleration field for GME2.

5) A clear comparison of the two coupling mechanisms: fermion and boson.

6) A description of the physical processes in setups covering rotation of the Nb-ring, rotation of the Nb-ring plus Al sample holder (and liquid He), Al sample holder alone, and the conversion from an electromagnetic to gravitomagnetic field.

7) Finally, a specification list for GME2:
– a mass placed above the rotating disk of 3.15 x 10^3 kg
– rotation speed of 200 m/s
– coil of 1 m diameter with 2,500 turns and current of 8 A
– cross sectional area of coil at about 2.5 x 10^-2 m^2
– a total spacecraft mass is assumed to be 150 x 10^3 kg (165 short tons)
– generation of a force of 1.98 x 10^6N (about 2.02 x 10^5 kg or 222 short tons)

These figures came with a reference to a forthcoming review article to recompute these numbers.

I can’t help but think that this grand restatement of EHT, Tajmar’s experiments, G-PB, and references to the first AIAA article on space travel through parallel space is a prelude to a groundbreaking paper reporting on the experimental results of GME2.