Talk:Heim theory

Please have a look at Talk:Burkhard Heim for things already discussed. --Pjacobi 16:39, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Please see

for further previous discussion. ---CH 23:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podkletnov claims

Regarding Podkletnov theory - NASA BPP program mentions it and all repeated attempts to verify it showed ZERO results:

"A privately funded replication of the Podkletnov configuration was completed by Hathaway, Cleveland and Bao, and the results published in 2003.This work "found no evidence of a gravity-like force to the limits of the apparatus sensitivity," where the sensitivity was "50 times better than that available to Podkletnov." (Hathaway, Cleveland, and Bao, "Gravity modification experiment using a rotating superconducting disk and radio frequency fields", Physica C, 385 (2003), pp. 488-500.) [1]

(unsigned comment by 70.49.117.35)

Hi, 70.49.117.35, if you create a user account (which increases your privacy, if that is a concern), you can sign your posts using ~~~~. Anyway, go ahead and add the link to the main article. ---CH 01:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Podkletnov's experimetn has nothing to do with Heim, as the predicted Heim-Lorentz force only produces noticeable effects at very high magnetic field strengths of at least 15 Tesla. Podkletnov was using a weaker magnet: but how weak? I saw one report of an attempt to reproduce his effect using a 1 Tesla magnet - still a bit too weak for an effect. --hughey 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Str or gtr?

Austin anon 70.112.33.29 changed For sufficiently large and unbound systems, special relativity proposes that energy and mass are interchangeable to For sufficiently large and unbound systems, general relativity proposes that energy and mass are interchangeable, which is less correct. I reverted this.---CH 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First time on Wikipedia. Please be gentle. I think there's a problem here, but not one which is solved by changing general relativity to special relativity. The thing is that special relativity also equates mass and energy and requires that they be continuous. However, special relativity has been unified with quantum mechanics in quantum chromodynamics, so the statement that This is because discretization of energy proposed by quantum mechanics is apparently incompatible with the continuum of energy proposed by general relativity and its consequences. is false. I think this issue is better covered under quantum gravity so there should be a link there and perhaps a summary included here. Nturton 13:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a general misconception here about when and how relativity was combined with QM. In 1928, Dirac combined the principles of QM and special relativity to create a relativistic wave equation (leading to his prediction of antiparticles). By the 1940s, a full relativistic quantum field theory of electromagnetism was developed (Quantum Electrodynamics). Quantum chromodynamics was developed much later and it is the quantum field theory of the strong force. Hope that helps to clear up the confusion. Thaumaturgist227 01:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose cleanup

The current version is unacceptable for many reasons. One which we can probably all agree upon is that it is disorganized, full of poor diction, and generally makes for unattractive reading. I propose to completely rewrite it to fix these problems and also make it more WP:NPOV the simple way: remove contentious details and refer interested readers to a few pro and con documents on the web.---CH 04:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is pretty good the way it is right now. It gives a good overview of the ideas (i avoid the term "theory"), is neither too superficial nor goes too deep into details, and shows how HT relates to mainstream physics. In my humble opinion, the amount of NPOVity is just right, i wouldnt like to see it being neither closer nor further to the "one and only roman catholic" POV .. ;-P

Maybe i'm just a sissy, but "complete rewrite" sound a little bit like "nuke and rebuild" while humming that ole Frank Sinatra song (I did it my way) .. ;-P

However i have no objections at all to improvements, so I would like to suggest that you show your new version here on the talk page first. What parts exactly of the current page are you unhappy with ?

After following the discussion here for a while now, i think i will not be possible to have ONE text that everybody is totally happy with. Maybe a pro / con section should be added, so that both camps can say what they think is absolutely necessary. Maybe that section could be in form of a table with three columns: topic, con, pro, e.g.

topic: Calculation of elementary particle masses

con: HT must be wrong, cause results are 1 percent off ! Further study of HT therefore is a waste of time.

pro: Maybe HT is wrong, but results are 99 percent closer than what we have now. Maybe further study of HT finds a handful of puzzle pieces that could improve the big picture in mainstream physics.

Oh, and please dont miss the ";-P" in my comments ..

MillKa 08:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I might not get to this for a while after all, but I will try to remember to concoct the new short and sweet version in my own directory first, and announce that here. Assuming you (Millka) have some website where you can put up your large table and generally present any amount detail you want, you might not be displeased with what I come up with. The idea is to improve the reading experience of the average reader, giving some background, briefly sketching claims and counterclaims, and then giving a short list of links pro and con. Then the thing is for every to cooperate in not just adding back all the cruft and POV arguing in a poorly organized fashion. ---CH 12:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree about the current state of the page: I think that it presents Heim theory in far too favorable of a light, given its near-total lack of peer review and complete lack of experimentally verified predictions (rather than post-dictions). As I've said many times before, I have seen nothing in Heim theory that gives me any confidence that it is either correct or self-consistent. Given that this is an encyclopedia rather than a discussion forum, I'd like to see its treatment of non-mainstream theories err on the side of caution.

As for your specific example, a couple of responses. First, the big issue with the "1% off" for me is that it's very suspicious to see a theory like this come pretty close to the right answer (1%) while still being incorrect by many, many standard deviations compared to experiment. It really feels like somebody hand-tuned the results, whether they knew that's what they were doing or not. That impression is strengthened by the few actual Heim theory equations that I've been able to find: some of them make no sense dimensionally (apparently "1 meter^2" is a fundamental constant of nature), and in the one case where I was able to numerically evaluate a formula, I found that the numerical result claimed in the paper it came from was actually wrong! That sort of sloppiness (together with glaring omissions like theoretical error bars) makes me seriously wonder if the mass predictions (based on presumably similar formulas) are any more reliable.

Meanwhile, your suggestion that Heim's results are "99% closer than what we have now" is very much incorrect (or at least outdated). Current work in Lattice QCD (computer simulation of particle physics) can predict composite particle masses to within about 2% (after using five well-measured quantities to fix the lighter quark masses and the QCD coupling strength) with error bars consistent with experimental data. At least one Lattice QCD calculation has even been a prediction rather than a post-diction: a description of that work can be found in this news update; the paper linked from that summary has more details. Heim theory clearly has at least some tunable parameters, too (most notably the gravitational constant), so that's not a major difference between the two. And QCD has the advantage of not predicting a bunch of particles that should have been observed but haven't (while also being able to handle the idea of direct measurements of quark masses, which I think is completely foreign to Heim theory).--Steuard 16:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha Steuard – trotting out that old canard about the supposed inaccuracy of the accuracy, eh? Well, that just won’t do. The lattice QCD computations have several free parameters that must be constrained by experiment – Heim has none, its only inputs being G, h and c. Then the computations consume a lot of CPU time – Heim’s mass equation takes a miniscule fraction of a second of CPU on a normal Sun workstation. The point about the error bars is fallacious – I’ve seen many papers where the experimental data is given with error bars, as is the case in the Selected Results of the Heim Theory web site, with different versions of theoretical curves superposed – with no error bars. And the predictions of the masses are theoretical predictions. Also, Heim has many predictions – the neutral electron, like it or not is still in the running, as those searches for heavy neutral leptons assume certain interaction paths and anyway focus on higher mass ranges (Gev etc). Then there is the Heim-lorentz force, which your glorious military is interested in testing – don’t rub them the wrong way! Finally, precise values are given for neutrino masses, which ever more accurate measurements may converge on. And since Heim’s ‘world selector’ is constantly being refined to filter out forbidden values in the mass spectrum of non-ground state resonances, the list of these resonances predicted is being narrowed down. So don’t think you can ride a coach and four through the page when nobody’s looking – your case is as flimsy as ever! --hughey 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid possible confusion: I

agree with Steuard concerning the scientific status of Heim theory,
strongly disagree with MillKa's statement that the current article is in good shape,
have concluded that in general pseudoscience at WP is best treated with shorter articles which give the shortest possible WP:NPOV summary of controversial issues and then offers the reader a short list of the most relevant pro and con websites, and the most relevant pro and con books (if any), but which avoids turning into two review articles with opposing viewpoints which have been interleaved in an unreadable mishmash.
have agreed to write my proposed short and sweet new version in my own user space and then invite comment on that in this talk page.

When I get to it, that is... ---CH 01:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why Heim's mass formula is qualified as pseudoscience. To me, pseudoscience translates to non-science. So what exactly makes HT pseudoscience ? Whats the difference between HT and any other new, possibly right or wrong, not yet proven and accepted scientific theory ? Please enlighten me .. MillKa 14:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is in the process. Results and theories of science are proposed, discussed, supported and falsified within a specific process. --Pjacobi 19:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, as usual from all you pseudo-sceptics - according to that stupid definition, Newton was a Pseudo-scientist as there was no discussion etc. of his theory for decades until he finally published his Principia. Similarly Heim just had a long gestation period. His theory, like Newton's, was completed in seclusion, is now entering the phase of discussion - see discussions here and on Physorg (Java mass calculator now working well there) and in AIAA. It was also discussed at Max Planck institues , in DESY, CERN and elsewhere. It has been supported by its postdiction of the masses and may be further confirmed or falsified when more accurate values of hte neutrino masses become available. But again I'm repeating myself ad nauseum - you anti-Heim fans appear to have zero memory and your only answer is to repeat the insult of pseudoscience. --192.171.3.126 14:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, anon from ESA, wrt to your comment you anti-Heim fans appear to have zero memory, please keep in mind WP:CIV. TIA. ---CH 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that Heim theory is pseudoscience because of its "complete lack of experimentally verified predictions". Please enlighten me: what new predictions does the String theory, or the loop-quantum theory make that have been experimentally verified so far? AFAIK, there are none. A quote from the String theory Wikipedia page: "String theory remains to be verified. No version of string theory has yet made a prediction which differs from those made by other theories—at least, not in a way that could be checked by a currently feasible experiment. In this sense, string theory is still in a "larval stage"."

Talk about "post-dictions"! Should String theory be discarded as pseudoscience? Why is there no POV label on the String theory page? The important thing is, Heim theory is rigorous and falsifiable; it does make verifiable predictions that may be tested (neutrino masses, for instance). It would seem to me that, in this respect, Heim theory is more scientific than String theory. Eventually its predictions will be verified one way or the other; until such time, Heim theory is as valid a contestant as the others.

I see no reason to support your attempt to sabotage this page, simply because you personally dislike the theory. Wikipedia editing involves a consensus: arbitrary rewriting of articles to reflect individual biases smacks of vandalism. --Freederick 12:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freederick, if you look up above, you will see that it was User:Steuard who mentioned complete lack of experimentally verified predictions. Nor am I vocal proponent of string theory or loop quantum gravity. However, these do boast strong theoretical motivatation and are associated with a large body of fairly mature theory. What I did say about "Heim theory" is that to judge from the article Heim theory, this seems to be merely an unmotivated Ansatz for a mass formula rather than a theory of fundamental physics as I understand that term. For this reason, I believe that even Heim theory fans cannot claim Heim theory is as valid a contestant as [string theory etc.], because this is like comparing apples and oranges. Put another way, as far as I can see, while string theory claims to unify a whole buncha earlier theories using deep new ideas, and to in fact constitute a theory of fundamental physics, Heim theory claims only to concoct an mass formula without any clear deeper physical motivation. This leaves aside the obvious followup question: does Heim theory really achieve even this limited goal? It seems that even this claim on its behalf is highly controversial, as is evident from the discussion on this page. Therefore, WP:NPOV demands that the article should accurately and fairly describe the controversial status of various claims made on behalf of Heim theory.---CH 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily public vigilance will prevent vandalism. The increased interest in Heim Theory ensures that the eyes of the world are on this page so that no smeaky attempt to impose personal dislikes in a biased POV will be allowed to pass. Many are now achieving an understanding of Heim Theory's principles far in advance of that implied by CH's comment above. CH: read up on Heim a bit before shooting from the hip. It does unite physical principles - far better than String Theory it unifies QM and GR. So it is much more than an 'ansatz' for a mass formula. It is a self consistent description of space, time, matter and energy. As several independent investigators are finding by implementing the mass formula in different computer languages, the formula posseses great internal self-consitency. See discussions at http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&f=16&t=4385&st=375#entry73228 . --hughey 10:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. Did you just accuse me of vandalism, or of planning vandalism? Where in heaven's name did you get that? (Even if I did make changes to this article to focus more on Heim Theory's problems and disagreement with mainstream physics, that would be a content dispute, not vandalism. But note that I have not in fact made such changes.) Those are serious accusations that you're making!--Steuard 16:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - maybe it was a bit over the top. I have now removed it. --hughey 18:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CH, though I lack his technical expertise in this area. So I've restored the "disgraceful" cleaup tag... William M. Connolley 11:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging: It would be really nice, if those who think that this article absolutely requires NPOV and CleanUp tags could be a little bit more specific what they think is wrong and why those tags are required. Please note that i do NOT demand that those tags should be removed ! MillKa 14:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First NPOV: The first NPOV tag says: "Heim theory is not part of mainstream physics, and has not been extensively subjected to peer review." The first paragraph of the article starts with: "Heim Theory is a non-mainstream proposed Theory ...". The second paragraph clearly states, that (and why) HT has only been subjected to extremly limited peer review. In my humble opinion it is not necessary to repeat that in form of an NPOV tag. Kindly note that im perfectly OK, if the line "Heim theory is not part of mainstream physics, and has not been extensively subjected to peer review." would be added to the articles text at the very beginning to inform or warn the reader. The NPOV tag however claims that the article as a whole lacks a neutral point of view. MillKa 14:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second NPOV: The second NPOV tag in the section "Comparison between theoretical and experimental values" doesnt tell at all what is disputed in that section. Either an apropriate information should be added to that NPOV tag, or it should be deleted. I would prefer critical remarks to be added to the text of that section. MillKa 14:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of NPOV: As far as i understand, the purpose of WP:NPOV is not the categorization of a theory or idea being part or not being part of science or mainstream science. The apropriate policy for that would be WP:SPOV, however that policy is inactive. Wikipedia is not the holy canon of Physics (wait, dont burn me yet .. ;-P). Instead Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, something where Physicists as well as Non-Physicists look for explanations of things they dont know yet. For example, after reading that recent New Scientist article, a US tax payer might want to find out whether NASA "wastes" their money on some "crackpot hyperdrive stuff" or "invests" their money on a "insanely great propulsion idea" (Please note the balanced use of quotes). That reader should find an explanation here, that describes the most important things about the theory or idea, whether its part of mainstream science or not, whether its accepted or refused (or not yet qualified) by a majority of scientists, whether it contradicts other branches of science or not. MillKa 14:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive and consensual editing: As Wikipedia editors, we should try to provide balanced and unbiased information to the reader. The Wikipedia rules demand that we try to reach consensus on the articles content, even when we cant reach consensus on the articles topic ! The only way i see how to reach that consensus, is going through the article, section by section or (where necessary) even paragraph by paragraph, finding out where we agree and where we dont agree, and then find a wording that both sides can live with. That requires stating precisely what one considers wrong, instead of general sledgehammer "uh, i hate the whole thing" tagging. MillKa 14:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I agree with you wrt the first POV tag - the article does indeed begin by stating that its non-mainstream, so there is no need for the tag. Given a choice or just one tag at the start, I think the cleanup one is better than the NPOV one. The second NPOV one, however, I do think justified - that section appears to present the stuff as essentially true, which I think is dubious William M. Connolley 15:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Thanks. Since youve been so kind to remove the first NPOV, I inserted the bold fragment into the first sentence: Heim theory is a non-mainstream proposed 'theory of everything' , which has not yet been extensively peer reviewed. It is based on the work of the German physicist Burkhard Heim that attempts to resolve incompatibilities between quantum theory and general relativity. Readers concerned about the status of HT may drop out very early, while those interested in the ideas may read on. I hope that helps others to withstand the urge to readd the NPOV tag ;-)

About the 2nd NPOV: I am working on a suggestion to improve that section - stay tuned ..

MillKa 17:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I deleted "yet" - I don't think we should be trying to predict the future William M. Connolley 19:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

OK. I withstand the urge to write some smartass reply about the various current theories of the exact physical nature of time, past and future. Instead I just admit that "yet" contained hope and therefore was not neutral enough .. ;-) MillKa 11:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Petri Krohn has added the Category:Pseudophysics (among others). I would prefer the Category:Protoscience because it expresses the valid doubts in HT in a more neutral, less judgeing way. So i added it, but i did not delete the Pseudophysics category. Whats the opinion of the other editors ? Both categories, none, or just one ? MillKa 11:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe its better to discuss first and edit then .. Category:Protoscience is gone. If no one objects, i would add it back in a few days, OK ? MillKa 11:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't let ' pseudophysics' stand - that is most definitely negative POV as this theory is full of rigourous science. Anything which works from the Christoffel symbols, quantises them and builds on the results in the methodical way done by Heim cannot be characterised in this shoddy fashion. --hughey 11:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the tag, I have attempted to clean up the first paragraph of the page, which seemed to consist of a muddle of edits; it was becoming very hard to understand from it what the page is all about. Most of this stuff really belonged in the Burkhard Heim page, as it dealt with who developed what, when, and with what intent. I rewrote a few sentences to summarize the scope, claims, and salient points of the theory and introduce the rest of the page. Freederick 15:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heim-Lorentz force?

Any news about confirmation of Heim-Lorentz force, if any? DarkFighter 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No news is expected for a few years, as for the experiment they need the Z machine, which can produce magnetic fields strong enough. This will take time, as one also has to adapt the Z-machine to the Hauser-Droscher set-up, which will involve building a high speed rotating ring atop the magnet etc. Millis, head of the Breakthrough Propulsion scheme of NASA, though very positive on the idea, would still like to see Hauser & Droscher's journal articles or a proof of the mass formula in standard notation [2] . That would give it the edge over other simlar proposals seeking funding in the propulsion area. --hughey 15:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! DarkFighter 21:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral electron

I changed the wording of that section from "should" to "might" (be a neutral electron). HT does not demand its existence, it only predicts its mass. HT doesnt forbid the neutral electron, which might be a hint to an incomplete selection rule. For example, in his MBB lecture (1976 or so), Heim points out, that the neutral electron does not have to exist. MillKa 13:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source to my claim above can be found in

MBB Vortrag (lecture) 1976

which is available here

German Protosimplex Website.

In that lecture in Chapter 9, page 54, the last two paragraphs around Equation 33 say:

"... Nun kann man aber zeigen, dass unter dieser Elektronenmasse theoretisch noch ein neutraler Massenterm denkbar ist, der als absolut kleinste Masse ponderabler Art, (Gleichung 33), die übrigens gar nicht zu existieren braucht, das diskrete Spektrum ponderabler Elementarteilchenmassen nach unten begrenzt. ..."

which means

"... Now, one can show, that below this electron mass theoretically a neutral mass term is thinkable, which as the absolute smallest mass of ponderable (weighable) kind, (Equation 33), which by the way doesnt have to exist at all, is limiting the discrete spectrum of ponderable elementary particle masses in direction to the lower end."

Please note that my translation painfully tries to stay as close as possible to the original german text, even if that results in some subterran rotations on a certain graveyard in Stratford upon Avon .. ;-P

As far as i understand the above quote, Heim says:

The "neutral electron" mass (Eq. 33) is just the lower border of all possbile ponderable masses.
A real particle of that mass doesnt have to exist at all.
No ponderable particle can have a lower mass.
Should such a particle actually exist, it would have that (Eq. 33) mass.
It would be uncharged.
Since its only difference to the real electron would be that missing charge, the name "neutral electron" wouldnt be that farfetched.

I would like to add: Careful reading really helps. Heims style quite often puts a whole lot of information in just one or two sentences, where mere mortals would blabber half a page. That makes it quite hard to read, even to native german speakers. And it makes translating Heim a pretty tough task.

As far as i know, Heim nowhere else claims that a neutral electron actually exists. So unless someone comes up with a quote, where he demands existance of a neutral electron, i would suggest that the section "Unresolved inconsistencies .." should be either deleted or significantly edited, cause i cant see any inconsistency about the "neutral electron". MillKa 04:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claims that "No ponderable particle can have a lower mass" and "the neutral electron mass is just the lower border of all possible ponderable masses" are false. Neutrinos are like "neutral electrons", and have mass, but are at least hundreds of thousands of times lighter. So if Heim theory does make these claims then Heim theory must be rejected. Rotiro 07:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implementations

Will314159 added a link to a forum with several implementations of the Mass Formula in Java, C, C# and Mathematica. I added a link to the Java applet version from that forum, cause the Java applet runs directly in the web browser.

It should be noted, that these various implementations are still under development, discussion and investigation. There might still be bugs in the code. Differences in the results may come from typos, selected data types and differences in the runtime libraries of the various implementations. MillKa 13:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of NPOVity

Thanks Milka. It should be noted that HEIM is the only theory that is deep enough to predict particle masses from first principles.

QCM or Hydrino Theory also has a Mass formula but that formula has in it the Bohr radius of the Hydrogen atom which is an experimental result.

However, the Wikipedia entry for hydrino theory does not have any warnings, but HEIM THEORY has all kind of bullcrap warnings and stop signs. What other theory unites quantum mechanics and general relativity so elegantly? What other theory allows you to calculate from FIRST PRINCIPLES the masses of the LEPTONS & BARYONS? The Silence is deafening! Will314159--Will314159 21:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue whether HT is right or wrong. However i see that the mass formula hits pretty close. Close enough, in my humble opinion, that some bigger branes .. err .. brains than me should check out WHY the heck it comes that close. Sure, HT doesnt hit the measured masses exactly, but a formula which comes as close as HT could be starting point to find the EXACT formula - instead of waiting that it falls from heaven .. The physical interpretation (metrons vs. strings or branes, etc) is a different issue. As far as i understand, no physicist in QCD actually believes that quarks are colored - the colors are just funny labels for something not yet completely understood. However that something can be calculated with QCD pretty well. I think, in a similar line of reasoning, HT or any other theory which is able to calculate the masses deserves to be investigated, even if its author talks about weird stuff like metrons, dark matter, dark energy, multiple universes, higgs bosons or the tooth fairy .. First, get the math straight, then find out what it REALLY means (or might mean).

Right now, HT seems to be pretty unknown to most physicists, so i think its neither an accepted nor refused theory. Therefore i am OK with the WP:NPOV warnings.

CQM (Hydrino_theory) unfortunately has that little problem of contradicting several well proven branches of mainstream physics. HT only has a problem with the neutral electron, which is not really a problem, cause HT only predicts its mass, not its existence. I think it makes an important difference, whether HT demands a neutral electron or whether HT just doesnt forbid it. MillKa 15:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a Pravda news story link[Will314159] --Will314159 04:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, last time i checked, "pravda" translated to "truth", but that shouldnt be overrated .. ;-P

Im not so happy with all that hypedrive stuff. I would be extremly surprised if all the late Heim stuff (e.g. the metaphysical meanings/interpretations he assigns to dimension 7 til 12) would be true. I would still be very surprised if his meanings of dim 5 and 6 would be true. However i have no problem that HT uses additional dimensions for calculation (just like string/brane theory). The fact that im unable to notice those dimensions in everyday life even under influence of certain substances just means that until lately there was no evolutionary advantage for furless apes to notice them. I cant smell radio waves either, but im convinced that they actually exist .. ;-P

However, if additional dimensions exist, there should be some measurable physical evidence of them. I would not be sursprised if those additional dimensions in ST/BT/HT allow some less strange explanations of certain strange experiments e.g. in quantum physics. Me and my two zombie cats Heisinger and Schrödenberg still have some problems to believe that every time we drill our noses, the number of universes quadruples (see Everett_many-worlds_interpretation) .. ;-P

Back to the hyperdrive - dont hold you breath. As every well informed Wikipedophile knows, we still have to wait until 2063 for the Warp_drive .. ;-P I dont know if Heim-Dröschers 8-dim Theory is true. I would be somewhat sursprised and pleased, if it is possible to mess around with gravity using some electromagnetic stuff. Whether that leads to a usable engine or not is a different issue. Im almost sure that even if those graviphoton stuff comes out as true, that there still would be a gazillion other nasty problems why it cant be used for space ships. I think, the first step should be to check the base stuff, e.g. the mass formula of HT !

And there we are at the exact point, where i cant understand mainstream physics. Why the heck dont they check the mass formula ?

As far as i know, no other theory claims to be able to calculate particle masses from first principles and a handful of universal constants. If i were a string theorist, i would think it would be really nifty to have something similar in ST/BT. I would carefully analyze how exactly Heim pulls the rabbit out of the hat, compare where HT and ST/BT use similar ideas, and where they differ.

Instead, some complain about Heim writing in German. Well, that was his native language, just like the native language of Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Planck and several others. If i wanna study Voltaire, i better learn french, instead of relying on its russian, english or whatever translation. Its not the authors fault, if the reader doesnt understand the authors language. (Its not the readers fault either, but if the author is already dead, only the reader can solve the problem).
Some complain missing peer review. Well, someone has to be the first peer and start with peer review. Most likely someone from the bottom of the food chain. Shall we wait until Edward Witten himself has blessed every idea, before we even think about it ?
Some complain that UFO and New Age folks praise him. Well, that disgusts me too. However, an idiot quoting Phytagoras doesnt prove Phytagoras wrong.
Some complain that HT math is so strange and hard (Selektorkalkül, selector calculus). Well, back in school when i was complaining about differentiation and integration being painfully to my poor tiny sparrow brain, i didnt get through with that either. Yep, HT math is hard. ST/BT math isnt exactly trivial either.
Some complain HT predicts non existant particles, e.g. the neutral electron. Well, it doesnt. Look above. And then, who knows what particles actually exists. All we know is what we have already found.
Some complain HT only postdicts the existing particles. Well, first please decide if you wanna ride this or the previous horse. Maybe all particles have been found already ? And whats wrong with postdiction ?
Some complain that even if the HT mass formula hits pretty close, its still several standard deviations off. Well, the latest C implementation used the formulas from the german papers instead of their sloppy english translations with lotsa errors, and bingo - the results are even closer now (99.9 percent). That might still be off a bit. Most likely the mass formula is simply wrong. However not as wrong as e.g. particle mass = pi * sum of quantum numbers or whatever. If we have a formula that hits as close as HT, we have two ways to handle it. Either we dismiss it for being not close enough and wait til St. Albert throws the REAL ONE from heavens above right in front of our feet, or we try to figure out how exactly the HT mass formula works, and use that as a starting point from where we search and maybe even find the correct mass formula, which hits exactly. Usually stuff like that results in a trip to Stockholm. Or we find out why HT is wrong, and finally can get rid of that icky UFO and New Age crowd. I really googled my b?tt off in the last few weeks, but i wasnt able to find just one single paper, where some serious physicist rips apart the HT mass formula showing that and why it is wrong. For example, does HT's math contradict any well proven branch of physics ? I am quite aware, that some of Heims interpretions might be slightly offending, but if i see the tooth fairy at work in a^2 + b^2 = c^2 neither makes Phytagoras an idiot or proves him wrong. Considering that most of HT is at least 30 year old stuff, that should be enough time to prove it wrong ?

As i already pointed out, i dont buy much of Heims stuff, but as long as there are not any other mass formulae deriving particle masses just from first principles and a few universal constants, i simply cant understand why mainstream physics refuses to even investigate the case. To me it looks as if Heim found some interesting puzzle pieces, which shouldnt get lost just because of his or others cloudy interpretations. After all, the Standard Model of Elementary Particles is not some esoteric fringe branch of Physics, but instead its foundation (and therefore the foundation of Astronomy, Cosmology, Chemistry, Biology and any other Nature Science). I dont expect HT to sweep away ST/BT. Instead i expect HT might be able to add a few missing pieces to ST/BT, or maybe not. Its not that long ago that there were several similar but slightly contradicting string theories. Why doesnt it make sense at least to try again what Witten did when he unified those string theories ? Especially if it only takes brain, pencil and paper instead of some huge collider ?

I ask for Enlightment ... MillKa 07:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

News of interest

Gravitational effects in rotating superconductor rings: [3] This is recent, and from reliable sourses. DarkFighter 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split up: Space travel

I think we should move material related to space travel to a separate article. The name could be Heimian Space Propulsion or something similar. Petri Krohn 06:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a stronger separation of the various layers of Heim's ideas could improve the readability and comprehensibility of the article. However, since User:Hdeasy has written significant parts of this article, i would like to hear his opinion first.

I would suggest three blocks:

Part 1 should describe the basic Heim Theory (BHT ?), which tries to unify quantum physics and gravitation. Since it promises to calculate the particle masses, Heim's mass formula would belong in this part.
Part 2 should describe the (slightly more controversial) extended Heim/Dröscher Theory (EHT ?), which tries to add the other forces and interactions, and promises to calculate the particle lifetimes. Since it predicts or at least allows the so called gravi-photons, the so called Hyperdrive stuff would belong in this part.
Part 3 should describe Heim's (even more controversial) remaining philosphical work (PHT ?), which assigns meanings to the addtional dimensions. In my humble opinion that stuff is beyond Physics. If i were a librarian, i would look for a place somewhere between the less strange theories of Quantum_mind (e.g. Roger_Penrose/Stuart_Hameroff) and the slightly more strange Everett_many-worlds_interpretation (e.g. David_Deutsch).

A separation as outlined above respects the theoretical dependencies, follows the historic development of Heim's ideas, corresponds to his major published works, and last but not least orders his works along a line of increasing controversiality (at least in my opinion). The separation could be implemented either by three mayor sections in one article or by three individual articles. The latter option would allow a more detailed, fine-grained qualification by Wikipedia categories and tags, which i would consider as an advantage. It would also be easier to compare or confront HT with corresponding or similar theories which are closer to mainstream physics.

Before we start a major rewrite like that, we should reach a somewhat strong consensus. It would be pretty frustrating, if right after separation, someone extremely smart walks by and demands: "uh, put all that crap on one pile"

I have to admit, that ive only scanned the stuff for Part 2 and 3. As a programmer, I work bottom-up - I dont start building the roof, when im still busy with the basement. Until the Heim mass formula has not been proven either wrong or right, i wont worry about that hyperdrive stuff. That means i cant help very much with part 3 and the second half of part 2. MillKa 11:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i admit that many-world-stuff is my personal pet peeve. I cant prove it wrong, i will never ever call anyone a crackpot just because they think its true, but i promise to eat my hat on the day that stuff turns out as true beyond any doubts ! Meanwhile i wonder whether the related Quantum_suicide thought experiment is just a brilliant satire or a serious suggestion. It has inspired me to ask a question to those of you, who believe in the many world interpretation AND who are sure that Heim Theory is pseudoscience: Are you sure that HT is pseudoscience only in this universe or in some of them (how many ?) or in all of them ? .. ;-P -- Sorry, sometimes i cant resist a lame joke. MillKa 11:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to David Deutsch, the many worlds or multiverse is Gospel. He says it's easy to prove. Quatum computers are real. There aren't enough particles in this universe to do the computations they do. The only place these computations can occur are these alternate universes. :) --65.184.213.36 21:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)--Will314159 21:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiverse is Gospel: Problem is, i am an atheist. Somewhere else someone uses a post signature which always makes me grin. It goes like: "There is no god and Dirac is his prophet" .. ;-P

Quantum computers are real: Nifty. Where can i buy one ? I heard they are pretty fast.

.. computations require particles from all parallel universes ..: Uh, oh. So every time play Minesweeper on my shiny new Intel Quantium, i bring down all other computations in all other parallel universes ? Or do i force them to play Minesweeper, too ? (I always knew that whole world revolves around me instead of you all, but my shrink said no). i bet over there they will get a little mad ad me. -- Now, lets call the set of all universes the Metaverse. Since it contains all universes, there cant be terribly much outside. Now take an Intel Quantium D (D means it is the brand new dual core). Obviously it requires two Metaverses to run. Thats slighty worse than the 130 W TDP of my current CPU .. ;-P -- And what about the AMD Quanthlon ? Where do they get their Metaverses from ... MillKa 04:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Good News (Gospel in Greek) is that even Atheists can Ascend or go to Heaven according the latest teachings of the Church. Even though all electronic devices function at the level of quantum mechanics, a quantum computer is a "term of art." Currently they are only at three or four "Qubits" level, http://www.qubit.org/people/david/Articles/PhilosophyNow.html I have actually met Dirac. he was an older man at the time. He was a professor in Florida and i wss a student at UNC-Chapel Hil. he gave a lecture at the Morehead Planeterium. he autographed my copy of his book Principles of Quantum Mechanics. I will always remember his famous words to me. "Does this pen write?" When I was in Lsw School and I got Justice Antonio Scalia's autograph, he asked the same dumb question.--Will314159 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Milka – thanks for asking for my opinion before restructuring the article. If anything I would like the 3-articles option, as this way the present article would need relatively little adjustment – only hiving off the propulsion and philosophical material, which is not so large a fraction of the total at the moment. Or maybe another option would be better – namely parts 1 and 2 as sections of one article with the philosophy off in a separate page, where it belongs as it is more speculative and not part of the physics.

On the Many Worlds interpretation of QM, it is also a pet hate of mine, though I started out liking it. The thing is that at the moment there is no way to distinguish between the different interpretations – recently the transaction version has been rearing its head as well. But both the latter and many worlds I now see as desperate attempts by fans of determinism and enemies of free will to restore the old pre-ordained Newtonian picture. Now Deutsch is most decidedly wrong to think that you need multiverse to explain quantum computing or Young’s slits. Superposed states and probabilities topped by a delicious collapse of the wave packet is quite sufficient – and I think it’s again Gribbin who suggests a way to distinguish MW from Copenhagen – it’s a weird idea necessitating a conscious computer, and even then iffy. I would say that Occam’s razor can draw blood from MW and Transaction as they both postulate extra stuff – MW an outrageous proliferation of universes that seems to violate conservation of energy as well as Occam, and Transaction time travelling waves of a very special nature. Against MW also is that universes are supposed to split off regardless of the weighting assigned by the probabilities of the various states. Then there are unphysical cross terms whose status is grey in MW. No, I like Copenhagen as described by Henry Stapp. But that’s all off-topic – incidentally though, the philosophical Heim material includes pointing out that since Colin McGinn expertly describes how the world we see is not the external one but an internal one of subjectively conscious perception that is effectively another dimension, then the extra Heim dimensions might be involved in explaining this extra space. However, even this idea cannot explain how subjective qualia emerge from extra space or time-like dimensions. --hughey 18:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, what about this slightly different separation:

1A) 6-dim, quantized spacetime + GR, particle mass calculation
1B) 8-dim, above + remaining forces and interactions (electromagnetism, etc), particle lifetime calculation
1C) 12-dim, above + full QM, quintessence and graviphoton stuff
2) propulsion stuff (aka Hyperdrive)
3) philosophical stuff beyond physics

Of course, 1A-1C would be one article covering the physical theory. 2 is about its application. Even when each and everything in the theoretical part turns out to be true by 100 percent, i can still imagine a bunch of nasty engineering or probably even deeper problems in hyperdrive construction (e.g. shouldnt there already be cars running on hot fusion ..). Or maybe someone is brave enough and tries to unify LQG and HT - most likely both would "loose some feathers" and look slighty different afterwards. I think, until the first graviphoton has been caught, the hyperdrive stuff is a bit too speculative for belonging into the theoretical part.

Have you seen the particle table on the french page ? Would be nice to have it here too. However i would reorganize the table a bit: on the left those columns which come from mainstream physics, and to the right those that HT adds. The "protosimplex" structure stuff would be nice too. And some enlightning graphics would be really cool (e.g. like Zephers stuff).

Another topic im pretty unsure about: How much simplification of the article text does Wikipedia allow, how precise does the text have to be ? Or in other words, what type of reader is the target group: e.g. Witten & Smolin / professional physicists / engineers / average John Doe who has seen or read Brian Greene's Elegant Universe / average John Doe who hasnt / 14 year old kid interested in Nature Science ?

OK, that was the serious part - and now for something completly different ..

Well, about the conscious computer - mine sometimes develops a mind of his own, although i fear its not of the kind needed in QM .. ;-P

Speaking of Occam, thats one of things i like about HT - it looks pretty well shaved - .. ;-P MillKa 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Milka, your proposed split looks very good. If you have the time and the patience to separate it out like that – as long as the information already present is not lost. E.g.. the tables should be retained or expanded, maybe with some values from the different language implementations of the mass formula. As for the level to pitch it at: the general Wikipedia policy seems to be to keep it comprehensible for a general reader. In many relativity Wiki-pages some familiarity with physics / maths is assumed, so we can get away with a little on that – the Heim-theory article is not worse than many physics pages in that way. But it shouldn’t get too technical. Again I think the level is not bad as it is – with maybe a little more explanation of terms used, or Wiki-links where needed. Though quite a few little changes have been made by various editors so that what is there now is not particularly hard to understand--hughey 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Hdeasy, im glad you like the idea. However, I think the separation itself should be done by a native speaker, coz my enklisch iz vay to zloppy .. ;-P

Instead i should wait until you or someone else does it, and then use that to create a corresponding article for the german language Wikipedia. MillKa 09:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much support the split -- I think that the first idea (Heim theory vs. Heim-Droescher theory) is slightly better, as the "propulsion stuff" is only understandable in the context of proposed additional interactions. Still, I won't shed any tears if you go with the other scheme (theory vs. propulsive applications). The mataphysics stuff definitely belongs in a separate section, possibly with warning tags; but I can't really be sure since (not knowing German) I am not much familiar with it. Split away! Freederick 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will have a go at it - but that must wait until after Easter + a week as will be travelling. --hughey 08:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed removed

I don't see any evidence that this was really intended to be a theory of everything. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Because it unites general relativity and quantum mechanics.

As much as I could understand Heim theory is in the same area as string theory and is more-or-less mainstream.

(unsigned comment by 141.117.233.23) - Please create an account and sign your comments with ~~~~.

Hi Arthur,

we enjoy quite different opinions on how close or far Heim and Dröscher actually have come to a Theory Of Everything (TOE). But as diverse our opinions are, i think we all agree, that Heim and Dröscher think that they have found a TOE. HT claims unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics based on Quantized Spacetime. Its extension claims further unification of the remaining forces and interactions and predicts additional forces. It claims to be able to calculate all Elementary Particle masses and lifetimes from first principles and a few universal constants (G, c, h). One might be sceptic, if all that is a little bit too much to be true, but Heim/Dröscher definitely consider their Theory as a TOE. As far as I understand the HT publications, HT absolutely requires Selector Calculus (SC) at the extremely small scale to handle the quantized spacetime elements (metrons) and their behaviour, because that behaviour emerges as particles. SC avoids singularities, because HT defines a lower border for the size of spacetime quantums. In HT, smaller space or time fragments are impossible, just like there are no half electrons in mainstream physics.

I have no clue, whether applying SC elsewhere might make any sense or not.

Since the first sentence of this arcticle clearly states that HT is a proposed TOE, i would like to suggest removal of the dispute tag.

I would like to correct the previous poster, that mainstream considers HT definitely not as part of mainstream.

However it is true, that HT tries to solve the same problems as String-, Brane- or Loop Theories. MillKa 17:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing dispute. Although Heim may not have claimed a theory of everything, Dröscher thinks he has. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arthur, thanks for removing the dispute tag.

Heim's basic 6 dimensional Theory "only" tries to unify GR and QM, which is not enough for a TOE. Quite some time later Heim and Dröscher worked together on the 8 dimensional extension, which attempts to bring in the other forces and interactions, and then HT reached the critical mass (pun intended .. ;-P) to become a TOE candidate. At least after time, not only Dröscher, but Heim as well considered HT as a TOE. MillKa 03:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this article sourced more clearly. That is, which ideas are based on Heim's writings, which on Droescher's, and which on the present group's? Also, the information on how the calculations are made, and how the formulas are derived, does not seem to be available in English anywhere. That would be quite useful. -- SCZenz 16:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the links at the bottom of the article. Unfortunately most older publications are in german, but some newer publications are available in english as well. Also check out the link to the Physorg forum. Several implementations of the mass formula are under development. Caution, if you want to recalculate: In the english translations, several errors / differences to the german papers have been found. I would recommend to use the formulas from the german papers. The Physorg forum thread is working on them as well as the Heim Theory Group. MillKa 17:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-classification Request

Heim Theory has been catagorised as 'Pseudoscience'. The form of calculus employed by Heim Theory has been catagorised as 'Fringe Science'.

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

I would request that in the interests of consistancy and in light of the current scientific debate that it has generated, that all material relating to 'Heim Theory' be catagorised under 'Fringe Science'.

'Fringe Science' would be the appropriate catagory for scientific material that is not mainstream, but still considered worthy of further scientific exploration. Most solid new theories would also fall under this catagory. -MMC 18:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The word FRINGE has poor connotations. It's usually associated with lunatic. Such as he belongs to the "fringe and lunatic faction." There has to be a better word to describe "non-mainstream." How about NON-MAINSTREAM?--Will314159 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

As bad as "Fringe Science" may be, "pseudoscience" is worse. I'm in favor of the move.

I have moved the article to Category:Protoscience (along with Alternative medicine and Quantum mind).

As for Selector calculus, I do not think that any useful mathematical tool can be classified as fringe or pseudoscience. Petri Krohn 07:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petri Krohn, thanks for accepting my suggestion above about Category:Protoscience. I think that category describes the status of HT in a neutral way to the WP reader, that everybody should be able to live with it. MillKa 08:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV on predictions

I really don't see where the hard data can not be "neutral", unless you're implyiing that the people who posted the data were non-neutral, so that the data may be non-neutral. In that case, say the data has not been confirmed outside those who propose the theory, making it more clear.

heim's theory is not much of a theory, yet censoring it seems to be excessive. afterall, science has no dogmas; that is the provence of religion. I know that in some circles heim is not well thought of because of allegations of past nazism; i sincerely hope that is not what is fueling all of these arguments.

Are the findings by this experiment related to Heim theory?

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

IOOI 00:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. linas 00:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I dont want do die as dumb as I was born, I would appreciate a slightly more detailed explanation .. MillKa 03:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe: ( Petri Krohn 02:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

"Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth’s gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts. Initially, the researchers were reluctant to believe their own results."

London moment

The paper is called Experimental Detection of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment. Wikipedia has no entry on London moment, there is a definition in Wiktionary. Petri Krohn 12:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much time people spend on april fools jokes, but it's the season... 12.104.183.126 23:06, 27 March 2006

Why not peer-reviewed?

So why isn't Heim theory peer-reviewed, and why is it not mainstream science? Is it crackpottery? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.3.14.172 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Heim may have been a crackpot, but I think the evidence is that he refused to submit his results to reputable journals. As whether the theorem itself is psycho-ceramic, your guess is as good as mine. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no guess as to why Heim did not submit most of his work for peer review (nor, for that matter, why his current followers generally appear not to have done so: conference proceedings aren't peer review, and aerospace engineers aren't precisely "peers" when it comes to theoretical physics any more than I'd be a "peer" when it comes to airplane design). But from what I've seen of Heim Theory, I'm reasonably prepared to label as "crackpot" in my own mind: there are just too many problems and warning signs that cropped up as I went to investigate it in even a little more depth than its basic claims. And I'm not the only one: here's a comment by Prof. Sean Carroll of the University of Chicago on the subject:

"Just so nobody gets too excited — this paper is complete nonsense, not worth spending a minute’s time on. If I find the energy I might post on it, but this is no better than the other hundred crackpot preprints I get in the mail every year."

I suspect that if papers on Heim Theory were submitted for peer review in the top particle physics journals, the reaction would be much the same.--Steuard 15:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that Heim theory has been outcast from mainstream science precisely because of its amazing "predictions" of particle masses. You shouldn't be able to simply calculate particle masses from whatever "first principles" Heim theory has without any real experimental data from the real world.Rotiro 07:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any real progress on verifying the theory? So far all I've seen are comments made by people who are by no means experts in the field of physics or mathematics. These people freely admit that they have no idea if the math or physics are right, and they only say that it seems "fishy". I remember that in january, when it came out, that even the military said that they would "look into it". Three months later, and complete silence. All I want to see is someone who truly understands what the theory is saying, if anything, and just say outright if it has any merit. Anyway, has anyone seen any expert comment on the thoery?