So how obscure is this physics?

[wacki]

Fancy a trip through another dimension? New Scientist Space uncovers the curious tale of the rocket driven by quantum gravity

EVERY year, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics awards prizes for the best papers presented at its annual conference. Last year's winner in the nuclear and future flight category went to a paper calling for experimental tests of an astonishing new type of engine. According to the paper, this hyperdrive motor would propel a craft through another dimension at enormous speeds. It could leave Earth at lunchtime and get to the moon in time for dinner. There's just one catch: the idea relies on an obscure and largely unrecognised kind of physics. Can they possibly be serious?

The AIAA is certainly not embarrassed. What's more, the US military has begun to cast its eyes over the hyperdrive concept, and a space propulsion researcher at the US Department of Energy's Sandia National Laboratories has said he would be interested in putting the idea to the test. And despite the bafflement ...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam.../mg18925331.200

[Zygote]

crazy

[wacki]

Come on guys, somebody here has to know something about this "obscure form of physics".

[diebitter]

We Brits postulated this years ago... see the section on 'Dimension Jump' (http://www.dvdlard.co.uk/content.aspx?ContentID=1405)


I hope a proper citation was given.

[Pauwl]

Diebitter,

Welcome to SMP, I've read you for a long time on OOT and have enjoyed your movie reviews. You're a funny guy. Welcome to the club.

[BluffTHIS!]

I've read of this possibility before, and read that article. But is obscure simply because although his empirical results in precisely calculating the mass of particles seems to be obviously true, the rest of the theory has yet to be presented in a methodical mathematical manner allowing other physicists to evaluate it. Until that happens it will remain obscure. And it is obvious, that even if parts of it are true, then all of the theory doesn't have to be.

[Borodog]

Being able to precisely calculate the masses of the fundamental particles is astounding. I can't overstate that fact.

Hyperspace or not, unless we're being punked, I am extraordinarily impressed. I hope it's all true.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
Diebitter,

Welcome to SMP, I've read you for a long time on OOT and have enjoyed your movie reviews. You're a funny guy. Welcome to the club.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why thankyou. I am actually a scientist by training, with a background in ecology/evolution and AI, so this seems a good place to stretch the intellectual muscles. And wow the hot babes.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Being able to precisely calculate the masses of the fundamental particles is astounding. I can't overstate that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But that by itself doesn't make the rest of it true, though certainly more likely to be so. It would be nice if the Planck Institute would translate all the relevant writings so that other world physicists could review them.

[Metric]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory#Further_technical_details

I am very skeptical. The above "technical details" section simply starts writing down equations and big matrices without introducing the postulates of the theory in an axiomatic way that would be much more useful for the reader. The mathematics should follow from physical ideas and postulates, not "my theory is based on this matrix" type of logic. Furthermore, words like "energy density tensor" send up a red flag with me -- energy density does not transform like a tensor in relativity (but it is possible they are using shorthand for what is usually called the stress-energy tensor or energy-momentum tensor -- but this would be the first time I've seen it referred to in this way).

In any case, I too would like to see a clear presentation of the postulates of the theory, but at this point I am almost tempted to believe that it's a hoax.