Sorry for the long response on this — had to go dig up the paper and read through this… As a bit of background. I’ve got a couple of degrees in Physics, but I’m wwaaayyyy out of practice in the state of the art in “Grand Theories of Everything”. So accept this discussion with a bit of a skeptical eye…
Is there something there? Who knows — there’s a lot of derivation of things from a barely understood theory written in non-standard formulation and terminology, with some added speculation from quantum gravity theory. It doesn’t look testable with today’s hardware, but its right on the edge of what we can test to see if it might have some basis in reality — but no one really understands the theory well enough to say that confidently. My guess is that to test this is going to same some years and some big bucks, well beyond the wishful thinking in the reference New Scientist article.
The rest of this is why I say that…
First, what’s being talked about as “hyperspace drive” is at the moment, a strictly theoretical outcome of some calculations coming out of 40 year old mathematical models build up by Heim in Germany. The recent papers were published by the AIAA, which is a non-peer reviewed forum, usually used for engineering practice data, but also theoretical and speculative papers. Since its not peer reviewed, the stuff published in the AIAA isn’t the highest quality overall like Physical Science Review or Science, where papers getting in have to reviewed by other leading lights in the field in question.
Now, Heim the originator of this theoretical approach to looking at the world, had some significant personal challenges to put it mildly, including loss of his hands and vision. He worked from home, and was not part of the mainstream of physics work at the time, so his work was never subjected to the rigor of peer review and discussion. As a consequence of this, he also used non-standard terminology, his mathematical approaches were rather obtuse, some of his assumptions are questionable, and the techniques he used in getting the solutions to some of the equations he derived from these postulates and assumptions are obscure (at best). He didn’t even use standard notation or units, which means everything has to be translated from a rather idiosyncratic notation into something that can be compared to current physical terminology and notation.
Since he dictated his work to assistants who were not physicists (members of his family) he could not check their work or even check for typographical errors in the papers that he had published. But he did have some correspondence with some of the leading lights in physics in the 50s and 60s. They encouraged him to come up with some way to develop a means to experimentally test his theory. This resulted in his ONLY peer-reviewed paper in 1977 where he worked out a means to calculate some of the properties (charge, angular momentum, mass) of some fundamental subatomic particles. However, he did it still in his rather obtuse notation and approach, which few people even claim to understand.
In the 80s these were shown to produce particle masses to a pretty high precision, and that approach seems to have held up.
The basis of all this was work Heim had done in the 50s. In the 2000 time period, a retired Austrian named Walter Droscher extended Heim’s work into a more general mathematical model of the physics of the universe. I should note that the “Heim-Droscher” “Standard Model” is an amalgam of experimental observations and theoretical derivations, but needs around 30 adjustable parameters to be determined from experiments. The context of the model is that the universe is an 8-dimensional space, comprising 2 subspaces which are used to construct a “polymetric”. Digging through the mathematics that derive physical properties, it is derived that there are 6 fundamental interactions, instead of only the 4 known interactions or forces (The 4 forces are electromagnetic, gravitational, strong and weak nuclear forces). I’ll note unifying the underlying physics between these 4 forces is the basis of “grand unified field theory” or “the theory of everything” and has been pursued in a number of different directions over the last several decades.
What’s different about Heim’s derivation, is that the two additional interactions are gravitational-like, allowing the conversion of photons into hypothetical “gravitophoton” particles generated from the vacuum, and the gravitophotons come in two forms, namely repulsive and attractive. If the theory holds, then it also allows for a special Lorentz-type transformation permitting at least theoretically, some type of travel outside the boundaries of light speed limitation.
Droscher and Heim extended their initial work in a paper (AIAA 2004 – 3700, “GUIDELINES FOR A SPACE PROPULSION DEVICE BASED ON HEIM’S QUANTUM THEORY” by Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser). They added an additional concept that concerns the transition of a material object into a so-called parallel space or parallel universe, where the limiting velocity is nc (c being the speed of light, and n an integer greater than 1) . This isn’t explained well at all – the paper says “A complete mathematical discussion of parallel space cannot be given in the framework of this paper. Therefore, only the salient physical features and their consequences are presented.”. This is the hyperspace part, as they discuss building “type one” propulsion systems using just the Heim system, and “type two” propulsion systems which “transition to a parallel universe” where they can go faster.
Reading through the papers on hand, it appears they believe the Heims-interactions can produce a change in the gravitational constant, which can produce propulsive force, powered by vacuum energy. Under the assumption that the gravitational potential of the spacecraft can be reduced by the production of such gravitophotons, a transition into parallel space is postulated to avoid a potential conflict with relativity theory, then some of the properties of this parallel space or “hyperspace” are derived from the theory of quantum gravity using Heim’s 8D formulation.
But it’s really important to note the paper ends with “Substantial work needs to be done to refine the calculations for the gravitophoton force and the experimental setup.”
The final paper I can find is AIAA 2005 – 4321 “MAGNET EXPERIMENT TO MEASURING SPACE PROPULSION HEIM-LORENTZ FORCE” again by Droscher and Hauser. Here they work out in more detail what the theoretical requirements for an operating spacecraft propulsion system might be, and the requirements of an experimental set up to test the basis for this – to produce a measurable Heim-Lorenz force. I’ll ignore the spacecraft calculations, and look only at what it would take to demonstrate this force might actually exist.
To get a measurable change in the weight of an object that you can measure (they use about 1 part in 100,000), you’re going to need a LARGE magnetic field. Moreover, you’re going to need a very high velocity of electrons in the current loop, which means a high current in the magnetic loop as well. Depending upon the specific design factors, they’ll need a magnetic field current of several tens of Teslas (1 Telsa is a BIG magnet), and they may need up to 100 T to demonstrate the transition to parallel space), plus current of at least several hundred Amps per square mm (up to 1000 A/ mm^2 — that’s a pretty powerful current). For a number of reasons, they would prefer a steady magnetic field as well, so pulse magnetic field generators aren’t quite the answer. If anyone has ever done the exploding wire trick in high school physics lab, you know that if you’re running a high current you’ll need virtually no conductivity in the wires you’re using, or else this experiment is going to explosively disassemble itself. So they’re going to require a very BIG superconductor – but for a number of technical reasons, the Heim Lorentz field test can’t use metal superconductors (has to do with the atomic number). Current Type II (alloy) superconductors might work, but they are notorious for failing at high current densities. There are a couple of compounds around which might work, but as of this time, no one has managed to make suitable wire for a magnetic coil from them.
The best solution to test the approach looks like a 3 meter diameter coil with several tens of thousands of turns of superconducting wire around it, with enough current to get to around 20 T. You can trade off current for “turns” of conductors to some extent, but you’ll need to get the electron velocity in the wires up pretty high, and for other technical reasons, you’ll want a larger current instead of more turns of wires (they’re assuming 10s of thousands already). Pretty demanding… but probably doable if you throw money at it.
This will demonstrate the Heim-Lorentz field works, and that you can generate graviphotons. It won’t generate enough force to actually move anything (remember it’s a 0.01% change in the weight of something), and it won’t be enough to prove you can do the “hyperspace transition” – that would require something closer to a 100T magnetic field, and larger currents. There are some basic engineering problems in just making a device that will work doing that, that would turn my hair white if I was involved with it – how to handle the large currents, building the superconducting wire and coils, magnetic effects etc…. And of course, if you want to develop an actual usefully operating device, that would be even larger system with a requirement for a larger magnetic field (and larger currents as well).
So.. what does all this mean? It’s an interesting theoretical approach, and something that looks like it might be testable, at least for the Heims-Lorentz gravitiphoton effect. It’s right at edge of what today’s physics and engineering can do… and something that I don’t think any existing experimental setup can test right now. You can get the high magnetic fields in a couple of places – the Grenoble High Magnetic Field Laboratories can generate up to 28-30 T now, in a steady state for example – but you can’t generate the high electron velocities needed as well. Plus, there’s no real guarantee that the logic or mathematics behind this approach will really turn out to be true.
What needs to be done is to first throw some smart Physics post-docs and grad students at it, to redo Heim’s rather obtuse notation, work their way through all his derivations and put it into standard format. If you get through that, without discovering some fatal logic flaw in the mathematics and assumptions, then you can start working on refining the calculations for something to test. And if that test works out, and IF you can derive a better case for the “hyperspace” logic (which is quite speculative at best, right now), then you can scale up the test setup to maybe test that.
Cost to get to the first test verification? Maybe 5-7 years, and I’d guess around $200 -500 M dollars. (The Z machine pulsed high-magnetic field machine at Sandia has cost well over $100 M and uses known engineering techniques and costs $200 K every time you fire it. The test machine will probably quite a bit more since you’re going to have to develop the new superconducting wire, plus enough money for a good test series…)
Is there something there, after all this? Who knows… I’d bet against it, since there are lots of grand theories which haven’t panned out although they explain one or two things really well – and there’s enough strangeness in the way this has been derived and tested that some minor mistakes could really screw up the finally results when you check the math. It’s a good bet in my books to send out the post-doc’s and graduate students to check the math first. But we’re certainly not a few years away from hyperdrive spacecraft by any means…
My gut says this is probably crazy. Large lightning strikes and auroral discharges produce very large fields and currents, particularly if you look at astrophysical data from places like Jupiter. If there really was a 5th and 6th force resulting in an antigravity force, you’d probably see something that not quite explainable in the astronomical and spacecraft data — which we haven’t seen yet. And we haven’t seen it in terrestrial data either.
heim allowed for a differing feild equations i remember long ago that maxwells feild equations were adjusted to suit eienstien in our space time but originally suited 8 speed of light dimention.or rather feild equations now 8* speed of light occures in heim on matter? time dimentions are different and feilds , also mentioned,that things like this can,co extential…can co exist.that friction on space time may allow for other spacetimes.and other matter quintesences.matter creation and zero point.where matter pops into existence in the form of energy fields on space time matter = twisted feilds on manofold?”or space frabric.
matter.higgs , matter feild particals predictions,bosons .ect.space time speeding up..that other feild particals push, i also remember that there have been like paticals found ,,gravity, in feild colliders.
complexity should be very testable,as this is….whole or opened in this theory and ajustable.ultimately testable.