We *know* Einstein's relativity is incomplete. We *know* quantum theory is incomplete. We *know* the standard model of particle physics is incomplete.

There is an enormous ferment in extended theories of physics showing up on xarchive.org, much oriented at a greater theory that can explain big bangs, dark matter and dark energy, together with the minor detail that our part of the universe permits us to exist. Speculations/Hypotheses/Theories being published in the preprints range from Loonatik to Fringe to Exotic to Extended variations on conventional physics.

I'm UTTERLY unqualified to understand the mathematics and physics behind the ideas beyond the armwaving-over-beers level, but I'm happy to applaud as the show gets interesting. I LIKE magnetic monopoles. I LIKE shadow-matter or mirror-matter. I LIKE tachyons. I LIKE cosmic-string. I have no idea, no prejudice whether any of these exist in our universe, but I'm rooting for the more, the merrier.

My impression is that the 1950's theory that's the basis for this new article and proposals is "far fringe", but not lunatik Hoaxland class physics.

I hope that we'll find the universe's laws permit some equivalent of warp drive and some equivalent of Faster-than-light drive. I doubt that it does, but that's pure prejudice, too. All we know now is that what we think we know is wrong because it's incomplete, but we suspect that what we know now is mostly a reasonably accurate subset of what the more complete theory will reveal, as Newtonian Physics is a subset of Einsteinian Physics.

We DO live in "Interesting Times"

There is a short SF story (I forget who by) about this. The main character is convinced hyperspace exists, and that the government is covering up work on it. He gets to the heart of the secret project, to be told that yes, hyperspace does exist, and that the speed of light is much, much slower there....

Chris

I agree with a lot you have said except

and

If its not repeatable, I'm afraid that to me it belongs in that category, besides it contravenes E = mc2. The has just recently again been tested and again and found to be to be correct to 1 par in an even larger squillion
Newtonian Physics is not a subset of Einsteinian Physics
This discussion reminds me of a Beach Boys song

I don't think we're barking up the right tree when we describe "alternate dimensions" as if they were classic, comprehendable three-axis dimensions that just don't happen to exist within our own dimensional frame of reference.

As I understand the "gestalt" of some of the cosmogenic theories out there, some of the ways the Cosmos shows itself to us seem to require that, very early on during the Big Bang, there must have existed a much larger number of physical dimensions than the three we can perceive. I know I've read one theory that suggests the expansion of the observable Cosmos is related to the collapse to zero or near-zero lengths between any two given particles along most of the other physical dimensions that exist.

If we're going to postulate moving through or within other dimensions, I think we should do so with the idea that we need to find a set of physical dimensions where all distances have collapsed to near-zero, but within which particles are separated *just enough* that we can correlate them to their positions in our perceived three dimensions. That would allow controlled information flow from any one spot in the Cosmos to any other given spot -- and that woud *have* to open up some pathways for physical travel. I would hope.

So -- the idea of finding "some other dimension" where the speed of light is faster seems a little, I don't know, parochial. I think that the real Cosmos will be much mroe complex and interesting than that.

And, BTW, if a really strong magnetic field can drop a mass into other dimensions, why doesn't the Sun drop into another dimension? Or Jupiter? Or Earth, for that matter?

-the other Doug

I agree.

You refer to the "superluminal expansion" that have been found at some quasars and galacitc centers and observed with VLBI (very long baseline interferometry) and perhaps other means now.
Well that phenomenon have been nicely explained and there was a very good article in Scientific American a number of years back that explained it in a way that even I could understand. A very short summary would be that the jets move so fast that relativistic effects comes into play and make it appear that the 'blob' do exceed the speed of light even though it actually doesnt. It all depends on the angle at which we observe the jet and that it travels at a good fraction of the speed of light.



Yes I am aware of the claims of Eugene Podkletnov, it caught my interest very briefly when I first read something in one ordinary newspaper. And I dont turn any idea down just because it is unusual, so I searched for additional informaiton, but it soon dawned to me it was yet another 'cold fusion thing'.

As for the other dimensions, its no great mystery, but one everday event .....in case you happen to be born as one electron!
But that you would be able to get a big chunk of matter to drop into that realm just with one magnetic field (regardless of how strong it is) does not sound likely at all.

To say nothing of magnetars

Chris

Maybe that's what black holes are - when a magnetar creates such a powerful field that it blinks itself into another dimension, leaving a "hole" in ours. Or maybe they're what's left from a starship making the jump using a Heim Drive.

If only Heim had collaborated with a guy named Lick, we could call warping through space like this the Heim-Lick Manuever.

Hey, they used to speculate that gamma-ray bursts were the antimatter reaction drives of starships or even interstellar space battles, and pulsars were interstellar navigation beacons or immense galactic communications systems. Maybe some still are.

Regarding Heim, Wikipedia has a few things to say on his ideas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim

Some major tidbits from the New Scientist article:

Claims of the possibility of "gravity reduction" or "anti-gravity" induced by magnetic fields have been investigated by NASA before (New Scientist, 12 January 2002, p 24). But this one, Dröscher insists, is different. "Our theory is not about anti-gravity. It's about completely new fields with new properties," he says. And he and Häuser have suggested an experiment to prove it.

This will require a huge rotating ring placed above a superconducting coil to create an intense magnetic field. With a large enough current in the coil, and a large enough magnetic field, Dröscher claims the electromagnetic force can reduce the gravitational pull on the ring to the point where it floats free. Dröscher and Häuser say that to completely counter Earth's pull on a 150-tonne spacecraft a magnetic field of around 25 tesla would be needed. While that's 500,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field, pulsed magnets briefly reach field strengths up to 80 tesla. And Dröscher and Häuser go further. With a faster-spinning ring and an even stronger magnetic field, gravitophotons would interact with conventional gravity to produce a repulsive anti-gravity force, they suggest.

Dröscher is hazy about the details, but he suggests that a spacecraft fitted with a coil and ring could be propelled into a multidimensional hyperspace. Here the constants of nature could be different, and even the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience. If this happens, it would be possible to reach Mars in less than 3 hours and a star 11 light years away in only 80 days, Dröscher and Häuser say.

So is this all fanciful nonsense, or a revolution in the making? The majority of physicists have never heard of Heim theory, and most of those contacted by New Scientist said they couldn't make sense of Dröscher and Häuser's description of the theory behind their proposed experiment. Following Heim theory is hard work even without Dröscher's extension, says Markus Pössel, a theoretical physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, Germany. Several years ago, while an undergraduate at the University of Hamburg, he took a careful look at Heim theory. He says he finds it "largely incomprehensible", and difficult to tie in with today's physics. "What is needed is a step-by-step introduction, beginning at modern physical concepts," he says.

The general consensus seems to be that Dröscher and Häuser's theory is incomplete at best, and certainly extremely difficult to follow. And it has not passed any normal form of peer review, a fact that surprised the AIAA prize reviewers when they made their decision. "It seemed to be quite developed and ready for such publication," Mikellides told New Scientist.

At the moment, the main reason for taking the proposal seriously must be Heim theory's uncannily successful prediction of particle masses. Maybe, just maybe, Heim theory really does have something to contribute to modern physics. "As far as I understand it, Heim theory is ingenious," says Hans Theodor Auerbach, a theoretical physicist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich who worked with Heim. "I think that physics will take this direction in the future."

It may be a long while before we find out if he's right. In its present design, Dröscher and Häuser's experiment requires a magnetic coil several metres in diameter capable of sustaining an enormous current density. Most engineers say that this is not feasible with existing materials and technology, but Roger Lenard, a space propulsion researcher at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico thinks it might just be possible. Sandia runs an X-ray generator known as the Z machine which "could probably generate the necessary field intensities and gradients".

...

Supporters of Heim theory claim that it is a panacea for the troubles in modern physics. They say it unites quantum mechanics and general relativity, can predict the masses of the building blocks of matter from first principles, and can even explain the state of the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.n....200&print=true

So the big reason Heim has been ignored by mainstream scientists is that he worked outside of academia and wasn't big on publishing his work right away.
Sound familiar?

Many thanks for the explanation. Previously, I had a vague idea about warp since it has many meanings. It is like to make a perpetual movement by the feedback of created energy. The space and time are warped.

Rodolfo

No I was not refering to this. I knew that this was explained by a kind of perspective effect.

A physicist named Miguel Alcubierre came up with his own Warp Drive concept in 1994:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

The paper:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0009013

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/364496.stm

Many thanks ljk4-1, This night I will read them. Now is almost impossible to read but yes with calm.

Rodolfo

That joke about the Heim-Lick Manuever made me want to, er, you know.

Puke.

Well done, keep up the bad work, etc, etc.

Bob Shaw

I'm *not* an apologist for Heim, but the descriptions I've read of his work - so far - suggest that he's not simply another member of what Patrick Moore cannily described as the 'Green Ink' brigade. He appears to have made the jump from unusual theories to actual predictive accuracy with some aplomb, and although he's most likely wrong (just on the balance of probabilities) he's probably no dafter than Tommy Gold or Fred Hoyle on their better days (or poor old Eric Laithwaite on his worst).

At the least, he's stimulating, and an iconoclast rather than just another (boring) heretic.

Bob Shaw