Its row in the atlas →

Heim theory and the Dröscher-Häuser propulsion proposal (2004 to 2005)

A 12-dimensional quantised "poly-metric" with six interactions, a photon-to-gravitophoton converter and an integer-indexed parallel space with light speed nc; conference papers, no derivations, no reproduction.

Kind: physics · Loophole: L4 · Standing: K1 · Bill: B-new, B-caus · Last reviewed: 2026-09-12

The claim

Burkhard Heim (1925 to 2001), working largely alone in Northeim after a laboratory accident left him blind and without hands, built over four decades a theory in which all physical interactions are geometry in a quantised space of six, eight or twelve dimensions, with a smallest elemental area, the "metron", of roughly $10^{-70}\ \mathrm{m}^2$. His 1977 paper in Zeitschrift für Naturforschung proposed a path to a unified description of elementary particles, and his two-volume Elementarstrukturen der Materie (1980, 1984) claimed to derive the mass spectrum of the known particles from eigenvalue equations of this geometry.

After Heim's death, Walter Dröscher, who had worked with him, and Jochem Häuser, a computational fluid dynamicist, presented the propulsion consequences at the AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference in 2004 (paper 2004-3700) and at the Space Technology and Applications International Forum in 2005. Stated as they state it: "Heim quantum theory" (HQT) predicts six fundamental interactions rather than four. "The two additional interactions should enable a completely different type of propulsion, denoted gravitophoton field propulsion. The fifth interaction, termed gravitophoton force, would accelerate a material body without the need of propellant" (Dröscher and Häuser 2005, abstract). Gravitophotons come in attractive and repulsive pairs, are generated from the vacuum by vacuum polarisation "under the presence of a very strong magnetic field", extract zero net energy, and the attractive ones act on matter. And: "The third condition for advanced spaceflight, superluminal speed, may be realized by transition into a parallel space, in which covariant laws of physics are valid, with a limiting speed of light nc, where n is an integer and c is the vacuum speed of light" (2005, abstract). The papers propose an experiment, a rotating torus above a superconducting coil, to measure the gravitophoton force, and estimate mission times: four hours to the Moon, 34 days to Mars in ordinary space or 2.5 hours through parallel space, and about 80 days one-way to a star 11 light-years away.

The AIAA's Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion technical committee named paper 2004-3700 its best paper of 2005. The award is why the proposal is widely cited, and why it is catalogued here.

Origin and lineage

Heim's published record consists of the 1959 papers on "dynamic Kontrabarie" in Zeitschrift für Flugkörper, the 1977 Z. Naturforsch. paper and the Resch Verlag volumes; the derivations behind the mass formula were never published in a form anyone outside his circle could follow, and a 1982 evaluation of the formula on a computer at DESY produced results that "were not widely published" [LOW] S3 (Wikipedia, citing the Heim theory group's own account). Dröscher and Häuser's extension, which they call Extended Heim Theory, appeared in AIAA conference papers from 2002 to about 2010 and in the 2005 STAIF proceedings. The physics community's response is thin because the mathematics was not available to respond to: New Scientist's January 2006 feature reported that physicists asked to comment "couldn't make sense of Dröscher and Häuser's description of the theory" [LOW] S4 (via Wikinews, 8 January 2006), and Gerhard Bruhn of TU Darmstadt posted a critique the same year. Later, John Reed, who had programmed Heim's unpublished equations, concluded the mass formula was fitted to data (see status). The proposal has no register entry of its own; it is governed by MAN-1 (a parallel space with its own light speed is exactly the "hyperspace with laxer rules" the entry addresses) and by CAU-1. Fiction did not descend from it; its parallel space has the shape of fiction's hyperspace, and the papers do not derive it from anything else.

The mechanism

The dossier's task here is to state what the papers contain, which is a physical picture, a table of coupling constants, a set of conditions and a set of numbers, and to say where the derivations are.

The space. The 2004 paper describes a 12-dimensional "Heim space" with five semantic units: $\mathbb R^3$ (space), $T^1$ (time), $S^2$ (organisation), $I^2$ (information) and $G^4$ (steering of $I^2$), all coordinates other than the three spatial ones being imaginary; the 2005 paper works in the 8-dimensional subspace $\mathbb R^3 \cup T^1 \cup S^2 \cup I^2$ [HIGH] S1 (2004, abstract and §1.1; 2005, §Physical Concepts). Metric tensors built from subsets of these coordinates are "hermetry forms", each identified with an interaction; analysing those acting in $\mathbb R^4$ "predicts six fundamental interactions, instead of the four experimentally known ones" [HIGH] S1 (2004, abstract). The gravitational constant is decomposed as $G = G_g + G_{gp} + G_q$ with $G_{gp} \approx G_g/67^2$ for the gravitophoton and $G_q \approx 4 \times 10^{-18}G_g$ for the "quintessence" or vacuum particle [HIGH] S1 (2004, nomenclature; 2005, eq. after Table 1). Where the factor 67 comes from is not shown in either paper.

The converter. Virtual electrons produced by nuclei in a rotating torus, in the vector and tensor potentials of a superconducting coil, are said to shield the nuclear charge at a radius $r_N$ so that a "photon conversion potential" vanishes and photons convert into pairs of gravitophotons; the condition is written as $h_4^{ph} h_4 \approx 0$ for a metric component and a threshold value $\tilde A$ of the shielding potential [HIGH] S1 (2005, items 1 to 10 of the acceleration principle). The force on the torus is given by a "Heim-Lorentz formula", modelled on $\mathbf F = q\,\mathbf v_T \times \mathbf B$ with the torus velocity $v_T$ of about $10^3$ m/s [HIGH] S1 (2005, §Acceleration Principle). The 2004 paper's Table 2 gives the total gravitophoton force in newtons on a 100 kg torus for coil currents of 100 to 250 A and various turn counts; the text states that a 30 T field, a current density of 230 A/mm² and $4 \times 10^5$ turns should give an acceleration of $3 \times 10^2$ m/s² next to the torus and about $1$ m/s² ten metres away, and that a $10^5$ kg craft with a $10^3$ kg ring needs about 13 T for a constant 1g [HIGH] S1 (2004, §3.2 and §3.3; 2005, Table 2 caption). The derivation of the conversion probability amplitude $w_{gp}$ from the field strength is referred to equations in earlier conference papers by the same authors.

Parallel space. The one part of the proposal that is FTL is the claim that reducing a spacecraft's gravitational potential, by converting its gravitons together with positive gravitophotons into vacuum particles, causes a transition into a parallel space $\mathbb R^4(n)$, $n \in \mathbb N$, related to ours by the discrete scaling

$$x^i(n) = \frac{x^i}{n^2},\quad t(n) = \frac{t}{n^3},\quad v(n) = n\,v,\quad c(n) = n\,c,\quad G(n) = \frac{G}{n},\quad \hbar(n) = \hbar,$$

with the integer $n$ fixed by the ratio of the gravitophoton field strength to the craft's own gravitational field, $n = g^+_{gp}G_{gp}/(g_g G)$ [HIGH] S1 (2004, eqs. 51, 52). The papers rule out $c' > c$ within $\mathbb R^4$ itself by appeal to loop quantum gravity's minimal area, and place the larger light speed in the parallel space instead [HIGH] S1 (2004, §3.3). On re-entry "the spacecraft has moved a distance $nv\Delta T$" in ordinary space, where $\Delta T$ is the elapsed time measured by an observer who stayed behind [HIGH] S1 (2004, §3.3). For a $10^5$ kg craft with $g_g \approx 6.67 \times 10^{-8}$ m/s² the paper obtains $n = 3.3 \times 10^4$ and "an effective speed of $3.3 \times 10^2\,c$", so that "a distance of 10 light-years could be covered within 11 days" and a one-way trip to Procyon takes about 80 days including deceleration [HIGH] S1 (2004, §3.4). The paper says of the transformation into and out of the parallel space: "A complete mathematical discussion of parallel space cannot be given in the framework of this paper" and "For the lack of space, the detailed discussion for the two mappings ... cannot be presented" [HIGH] S1 (2004, §3.3). No later paper by the authors supplied it.

What is missing. There is no Lagrangian or action from which the six interactions follow; there is no field equation for the gravitophoton whose solution gives Table 2; the factor $1/67^2$ and the value $4 \times 10^{-18}$ are stated, not derived; the scaling law for parallel space is postulated ("It is postulated that a spacecraft, under certain conditions ... will be able to transition into such a parallel space") [HIGH] S1 (2004, §3.3); and the mass spectrum on which the theory's credibility rested is in unpublished German manuscripts and a Fortran code. Bruhn's 2006 critique of the authors' foundational equation is precise: their eq. (1) defines the metric through $g_{jk}\,d\eta^j d\eta^k = \sum_m (dx^m)^2 > 0$, which is positive definite, "while in GR the matrix $(g_{jk})$ must be indefinite like the Minkowski-matrix", and "curvature of the manifold is coordinate independent", so a coordinate transformation of flat space cannot produce the curvature the authors read as interactions; Bruhn records that the authors did not correct the equation when told [MED] S3 (Bruhn, TU Darmstadt, March 2006). On the mass formula, John Reed, after programming Heim's equations, concluded in 2006 that the mass formula had been fitted to the data; in 2007 he reported deriving masses without the disputed input matrix but with predictions that failed for particles found after 1975 [LOW] S5 (Reed's forum postings, as reproduced on NextBigFuture, 2011, and summarised by Landis; no peer-reviewed version exists).

What it costs

B-new. Two new interactions with two new messenger particles, a 12-dimensional discrete space with imaginary coordinates, a metron, a photon-to-gravitophoton conversion and an infinite family of parallel spaces with rescaled constants. Nothing in this list is in the Standard Model or general relativity, and nothing in the papers derives any of it from anything that is.

B-caus. The re-entry displacement $nv\Delta T$ in ordinary space with $n \sim 10^4$ is, to any observer in $\mathbb R^4$, a superluminal displacement of matter with no stated frame; the papers assert that the Lorentz transformation is invariant under their scaling and never mention causality. Either a frame is picked, which the papers do not do, or the antitelephone follows. The mark is charged for the omission.

There is no B-mass: the papers' point is that the fields required (13 to 30 T) are within reach, and that the energy comes from the vacuum at zero net cost. That a body gains kinetic energy from a process that "extracts zero energy from the vacuum" is not scored as a bill because there is no stress-energy tensor in the papers against which to score it; it is noted under ENE-1.

Constraint scoring

ConstraintVerdictNote
CAU-1SILENTThe re-entry displacement $nv\Delta T$ is an FTL transport of matter as seen from $\mathbb R^4$ with no frame specified; neither paper mentions causality, and the register's constraint that any such signal is a message to the past in some frame is never addressed.
CAU-2N/ANo closed timelike curves of any metric are constructed; the parallel-space picture is a postulated scaling, not a spacetime with a causal structure to check.
CAU-3N/ANo wormhole or bubble device.
CAU-4SILENTThe papers claim Lorentz invariance under their dilatation and give the parallel space a light speed $nc$, but never say what frame the speed $nc$ is fixed in; the register's demand that a scheme avoiding the time machine say what picks the frame goes unanswered.
CAU-5N/ANo entanglement.
ENE-1SILENTThe kinetic energy of the craft is said to come from the vacuum with zero net extraction; no stress-energy tensor is written for the gravitophoton field, so whether any energy condition is violated cannot be checked from the papers.
ENE-2DODGESThe parallel-space transit is effective superluminal travel, which the register says requires negative energy in general relativity; the papers place the transit in a different theory of gravity (HQT), which is the register's listed escape, but supply no equations in which the escape could be verified.
ENE-3N/ANo negative energy density is claimed.
ENE-4N/ANo bubble.
ENE-5N/ANot a warp metric.
ENE-6N/AVacuum polarisation is invoked but not the Casimir effect; no negative energy is priced.
ENE-7DODGESThe transit through a parallel space is not a handle in an asymptotically flat spacetime of general relativity; it lives in a different theory of gravity with extra dimensions of its own, which puts it outside the theorem's hypotheses. As with ENE-2 the escape is asserted, not shown: no equations are supplied in which the achronal ANEC could be checked.
CON-1N/ANo bubble, no horizon; the vehicle is an ordinary body with a torus.
CON-2N/ANo route is laid; the transit needs nothing along the way.
CON-3N/ANo tube.
STA-1N/ANo bubble horizon.
STA-2N/ANo throat.
STA-3N/ANo chronology horizon.
HAZ-1N/ANo bubble wall.
HAZ-2N/ANo horizon flux.
HAZ-3N/ANo throat.
LOR-1DODGESThe craft accelerates in ordinary space at 1g and the papers explicitly rule out $c' > c$ in $\mathbb R^4$; the superluminal displacement is assigned to a space with $c(n) = nc$, which is the leave-the-manifold move and is outside what Einstein's argument covers.
LOR-2N/ANo tachyons.
LOR-3N/ANo wave propagation or signal velocity is computed.
LOR-4N/ANeither the Scharnhorst effect nor OPERA bears on the proposal.
WRP-1N/ANot a warp drive, and the papers say what it is instead: a field-propulsion device plus a parallel-space transition.
WRP-2N/ANo shell.
WRP-3N/ANo positive-energy warp claim.
MAN-1VIOLATESA parallel space $\mathbb R^4(n)$ with its own light speed $nc$, its own $G/n$ and its own clock $t/n^3$, entered by a vehicle and exited displaced, is exactly the "hyperspace as a separate space with laxer rules" that the entry says has no counterpart in physics; the proposal requires it.

Status of the argument

Sources