[hdeasy]

Good web site on this is http://heim-theory.com/ - alternatively check out the Wikipedia pages I started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkhard_Heim and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_Theory . Have fun,
Hugh.

[hdeasy]

Not many TOEs predict all particle masses (including Leptons) with a non-pertubative method. Heim called it his ' mass formula ' - a nested series of equations, programmed up at DESY in Hamburg to good effect (see above links).
H (yeah me again - I like to set the ball rolling even on my own threads )

[Guille]

hdeasy,

What are (if there is any) relations between the chronons and metrons?

Are there any particles for the two extra dimensions, or it's the same as the others (metrons)?

[hdeasy]

Hi Guille,

Chronons are the quanta of time, whilst metrons are quanta of area. Now it's a good question and I'm not clear on this myself yet, as to whether metrons may span any 2 dimensions, where one of these may be time. If the latter were true, then there might be an intersection between the two.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by hdeasy Hi Guille, Chronons are the quanta of time, whilst metrons are quanta of area. Now it's a good question and I'm not clear on this myself yet, as to whether metrons may span any 2 dimensions, where one of these may be time. If the latter were true, then there might be an intersection between the two.

Shouldn't metrons be quanta of volume? Because remember, infinite 2d objects can fit in a 3d object, so space should be 2d if metrons are 2d, or space 3d with infinite metrons 2d. But infinites are not very fancy for TOEs...

[hdeasy]

Originally Posted by <<>> Shouldn't metrons be quanta of volume? Because remember, infinite 2d objects can fit in a 3d object, so space should be 2d if metrons are 2d, or space 3d with infinite metrons 2d. But infinites are not very fancy for TOEs...

No, not if the metrons are a scaffold - just as Meccano or Lego can build a 3-d geodesic dome from 1-d scaffolding, so can 2-d metrons span 3-d space with their scaffolding. See Loop Quantum Gravity of Rovelli, Smolin, Ashtekar & co. where they reduce everything to a spin matrix, which is more like Meccano to the Metron Lego. What's inside the metronic boxes? Good question - the same problem for LPG. But both these theories, as well as general Relativity, are background free, whereas String Theory is background dependent.

[Guille]

ok thanks for the info.

I also wonder... What are the properties of metrons and cronons? I mean, do they have mass? spin? charge?....or any other.

[hdeasy]

Originally Posted by <<>> ok thanks for the info. I also wonder... What are the properties of metrons and cronons? I mean, do they have mass? spin? charge?....or any other.

Well, Chronons don't have mass or spin as they are merely quanta of time. One might say that you need time to allow other properties to manifest, so in that sense time is the 'catalyst' for mass etc. as it is for everything. Metrons and spin: Heim writes at one point:

" The Building Material of Elementary Particles

Empty space has been shown to consist of an invisible lattice of metronic cells. One can visualize them as little volumes, whose walls are metrons, touching each other and filling all of space. The orientation of the areas is related to the quantum mechanical concept of spin."


Complex interactions of metrons result in what Heim called condensations, which are essentially distortions in the lattice - these distortions result in mass and inertia. Six dimensional distortions can give rise to charged particles in Heim's scheme.

[dleviwing]

Hdeasy;
Heim's theories do nothing to simplify current Standard Models. In fact it tends to impose greater complexity to theses gauge theories just as string theory dose. What Heim seems to be explaining is random wave interference patterns and calling them particles. A true candidate for a TOE theory will do just the opposite and simplify the math functions. When a cause-and-effect mechanism can be shown for the forces of nature, it will not include exotic new particles.
Like current theories, Heim's theory requires to much supernatural magic to be real.
If you can show me exactly were his theory provides better explanations for defining the forces of nature, I would be willing to review it further.
His work is exceptional but it dose not do what you have claimed.
Best regards;
Dave

[hdeasy]

Dave,
as I already said elsewhere here, the thing that really impressed me about Heim Theory was that it predicts the masses to a relative accuracy of 0.000008, which neither String theory or the standard model can dream of. And the mass values can be calculated in a matter of minutes, using only 4 input parameters - G, h, and Permitivity & permeability.
Also, its assumptions are only those of QM and GR - so it is no more complex than those two together.