Talk:Heim theory/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

POV flag

User:Hdeasy removed the flag I added, which I just restored. Hdeasy, you wrote in your edit line the soliton use of metron has nothing to do with Heim's much earlier use of this term. Maybe so, but my point was actually this: in absence of evidence to the contrary, I don't believe that "metron" is a soliton as that term is used in the theory of solitons! Admittedly, this is a much abused term and Belinsky and Verdaguer admit that they are using gravitational soliton simply to suggest that these solutions have been obtained using a solution generaing method (Belinksy and Zakharov) which was inspired by the inverse-scattering transform for the KdV equation. OTH, it seems that some gravitational solitons might exhibit features which most physicists would expect, such as collision of "soliton waves" resulting in a nonlinear interaction followed by reconstitution of the original waves, but with a phase shift.

If you haven't studied this book, you should certainly do so before writing more about metrons or gravitational solitons:

• Belinsky, V.; and Verdaguer, E. (2001). Gravitational solitons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80586-4. 

In addition, my other objections to the article stand. As written, it fails to adequately stress the fact that mainstream physics regards with Heim theory with suspicion, for some good reasons. ---CH 20:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream science does NOT view Heim Theory with suspicion. That is an inaccurate remark and reminiscent of a recent lecture I attended on consciousness - a theologian kept saying "Neuroscientists believe" - until a neuroscientist in the audience objected that in 30 years in the field he had met all shades of opinion in that regard. The lecturer then admitted he had only read some vocal defenders of one particular theory. This is even truer of Heim, as he was essentially unknown (to a modern audience) prior to the New Scientist article - the resonance in the wake of that has been largely positive and constructive. The image of destructive criticism implied by your 'suspicion'is the false one. Hence your POV flag is an ugly construct that may give the wrong impression to a neutral reader.

On the Metron, Heim's use in the 1950's predated its use by Hasselmann et al. as gravitational soliton or Star Trek's use. The soliton refeernce is just as bogus as the Star Trek one. It seems that Hesselman knew of Heim and tried his own form of TOE, [1] rather inconguously recycling Heim's term, maybe thinking that he had disappeared from the scence for good. Tough - his theory wasn't quite dead yet! Was it concidence that this other metron theory also sought to predict the masses of hte particles, coupling constants etc.? --hughey 14:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The test of any kind of theory is always "has it been published in peer-reviewed journals". If so, they should be referenced in the article. I don't see any such refs (no, conf procs don't count). If indeed the resonance in the wake of that has been largely positive and constructive then there should be no great problems finding refs. If there are no refs, its fringe, and needs to be very clearly labelled as such. I agree with Mainstream science does NOT view Heim Theory with suspicion but only because, as far as can be told, mainstream science ignores it. William M. Connolley 14:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

OK, there is *one* paper (Zeitschrift für Naturforschung. Teil A, Band 32A Heft 1-7, 1977 Jan.-Juli, pg. 233-243). Thats nowhere near enough. Any more? William M. Connolley 14:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for showing me where I might have been mistaken.

If anything on this page violates the NPOV principle, and in a big way, it is the "neutrality flag" itself. To quote: "...in fact seems to be regarded..." Either something is a fact, or "seems". Also: "not even mentioned in the recent book by Belinsky and Verdaguer." Oh, golly, not even there? Also: "It seems to consist largely of a theoretically unmotivated Ansatz for a "mass formula"." This is hardly so; actually the theory is concerned with an extension of GR to interactions other than gravity, and the "mass formula" is a by-product of Heim's approach to quantizing the spacetime. It is quite well "theoretically motivated".

While I agree that there should be a flag to indicate that the theory is novel and controversial, the current wording of the flag is blatantly not NPOV, and totally unacceptable. Heim's theory represents an original approach, but it is a legitimate theory with a rigorous mathematical formulation, made by a legitimate and recognized physicist. It makes experimentally verifiable predictions, meets the scientific criteria of falsifiability, and while future analysis may disprove it, it should not be regarded as a crank theory. It is no less scientific than LQG, and more so than other hypotheses regarded as legitimate, such as the MOND ad-hoc kludge.

Freederick 16:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said Frederick! In fact I believe it is a scandal for Wikipedia that so many garish and ugly flags spoil the first impression on viewing the article. Thus it is high time to reduce this sad display to one discrete flag. If nothing is done soon I will proceed to rationalise this shoddy display of ignorance.--84.167.24.137 17:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I see no NPOV problem either (however I agree with the cleanup problem) --Serenity-Fr 00:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, as various editors make changes, the POV may acquire new justifications, unfortunately, but one justification for it in the current version is that the article describes Heim theory as a TOE. But as I explained very carefully, Heim theory appears to consist of an unmotivated Ansatz for a mass formula, not a fundamental theory of physics built upon fundamental physical principles. Certainly very few physicists would describe it as a TOE. There are other justifications, but this suffices. If Heim theory fans want to replace "TOE" by reformulating what I just said in their own words, I will take a look and consider removing the flag.

Someone claimed that Heim theory is mainstream. This is pretty silly since one need only consult an abstract service to see how few citations there are in "mainstream" journals. This or another poster wanted to concoct a conspiracy theory charging Hesselmann with stealing the word metron. I'll just say this made me laugh :-/

A formatting issue: everyone, please do sign your comments but also please avoid inserting comments 'inside' previous comments. It would be awkward for me to try to figure who said what above because either some comments were not signed, or a later commentator inserted comments in between paragraphs written and signed by someone else! TIA --CH 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

So, CH, you appear to be a bit forgetful, to put it mildly, as you repeatedly drag up this metron thing. Your former citation of volumes on the soliton connection made ME laugh. My answer thereto showed that you were abysmally ignorant of Heim Theory (no Ansatz – though he has many Ansatzes within the theory). And what is meant by an “unmotivated Ansatz”? He was a recognised physicist who for decades worked hard on his theory, which is an eminently logical extension of General Relativity. Drawing again the analogy with Newton – I think that if he were around today and had published nothing about his year of wonders, you would with equal justification have hounded him. Indeed there were those in Newton’s day who dismissed him as an occult dabbler. It is not the place for Wikipedia to become the bloodhound of forces of conservatism in upholding the current paradigm. If there is sufficient evidence that the theory is recognised as having great potential, then its description as a candidate TOE is justified. The AIAA prize was one such indication. The successful programming of his mass formula in DESY was another. So please go away and do your homework (Heim-werk) about the extenuating circumstances that explain the absence of the usual ‘mainstream’ references – his handicap, eccentric secrecy, difficulty of notation, mistakes made in choice of publishers etc. All of that together implies that this is indeed a supremely interesting candidate for TOE. This year will see some journal articles on the theory – that will bring it a tad closer to the ‘mainstream’. This discussion reminds me of last year before the AIAA prize – consult the archived discussions where your predecessors as devil’s advocate doubted that this august body would award the prize – but they were wrong. It was the first major step on publicising the theory since Heim’s death. So, again, do your homework.--hughey 18:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Can everyone please try to indent and sign their comments? I am finding this hard to follow at a glance. In the edit lines, please use */ POV flag */ since this helps me to quickly see in which section a new comment has been added. I tried to add some indents above; if you think I accidently misattributed somethign you wrote, please fix the indentation appropriately or add your signature. Thanks, it will help a lot! And this page is getting rather long--- how about archiving some of the earlier discussion?

OK, there have been many responses since I last dropped by a few days ago. My time is limited but I'll try to make a few brief responses in order.

1. User:Freederick, there are two issues here: the dubious claim that Heim theory is mainstream and the dubious characterization of Hasselmann's metron solution as a soliton (and possibly even as a "solution"). I advocate an WP:NPOV characterization of all theories, including general relativity and better known attempts at quantizing gravitation. However, even a cursory examination of the literature shows that the mainstream view is that at present there is no successful quantum theory of gravitation. Your phrases legitimate theory, rigorous mathematical formulation, legitimate and recognized physicist are all questionable and I do question them. Instead of yelling at me you should produce citations in journals a skeptic like myself might find respectable. Please note that as WMC said, one paper from decades ago does not make a "theory" in any sense "mainstream".
2. User:84.167.24.137, I don't understand what you are proposing, but please try to remain calm.
3. User:hughey, your phrase eminently logical extension of General Relativity is questionable and I do question it. Certainly the existing article does not make this case to someone like myself who is familiar with mainstream gtr! You complain I want to make WP the bloodhound of forces of conservatism. I don't think it is inappropriate to demand that an encyclopedia be extremely cautious in characterizing speculative claims, especially controversial claims such as those made by proponents of Heim theory. I am not objecting to providing external links to pro-Heim websites at the end of the article, where interested readers can read incautious endorsements. As for the AIAA prize, this is indeed a curious incident, but here I'll just point out what should be obvious: the membership of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics may not in fact be qualified to comment on matters concerning theoretical physics. What do the professional physics societies say? I can't find anything from the [www.aps.org American Physical Society] but I did find an from the Bad Astronomy blog where someone makes the same point I just did about AIAA.

OK, let's all stay calm and resolve this on the discussion page. If we can agree to characterize Heim theory as non-mainstream I will accede to letting stand something like some find Heim's ideas intriguing. Would that be acceptable to the Heim theory fans here?---CH 00:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well now, CH, you seem to think that you have a monopoly on the right to question the scheme of things. But what you appear incapable of grasping is that Heim WAS a mainstream physicist in the 1950's. The recognized physicists

• Pascual Jordan
• Werner Heisenberg
• Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker
• Hans-Peter Dürr

recognized Heim as a genius and accepted him as a colleague. To describe the theory of somebody with this pedigree as 'speculative' is not an objective assessment. An encyclopedia should indeed be eclectic and include aspects of reality which might be valid although not conforming to some hidebound conception of what constitutes the scheme of things. As I've pointed out time and again, there are very good reasons for thinking that Heim Theory is a major challenge to String Theory. And don't be so quick to dismiss the AIAA. Of course there are competent physicists in their ranks, capable of judging on aspects of theoretical physics. Your pompous tone may change later this year when a few papers get published in 'real' physics journals. However, the indications are that you will never concede an inch, even when Droscher is stepping up to receive his Nobel Prize :-).

Finally, don't refer to ' fans' of Heim Theory, unless you want me to refer to you as a fan or lacky of String theory.--hughey 14:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There are good reasons why mainstream physicists today don't pay any attention to this theory—whether some physicists considered Heim a colleague is irrelevant to whether his theory is still mainstream. -- SCZenz 16:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hughey, my understanding is the Heim published a single paper on "Heim theory" and then more or less went into seclusion. If true, this is hardly a strong record of publication in the mainstream research literature. Do you have a citation to published or otherwise verifiable and dated comments by Jordan, Heisenberg, or von Weizsäcker on the merits of Heim theory? (I happen not to be familiar with Dürr's contributions to physics.) In any case, whatever they may have said (perhaps they were speaking positively about Heim's promise pre-"Heim theory"?), arguing from authority is never very convincing to mainstream scientists, even if you can verify your claims about their alleged good opinion at some point in time of Heim's alleged "genius". For one thing, many contemporary physicists seem to have felt that the persons you mention exhibited questionable judgement late in life. Also, in some cases one can accept someone like Thomas Gold as a colleague (to name an analogy you should find flattering, on behalf of Heim), while strongly disagreeing with some of his more outlandish proposals. Finally, please remember that this article is not just about Heim's own proposals, but about those who have attempted to decipher and/or further develop his ideas. As for string theory, you must be confusing me with someone else, since I have never issued strong public statements in favor of string theory! As for the AIAA, I didn't claim that they have no members who have any competence in physics, I just pointed out (rather reasonably, I should think) that physics is not their organizational thing and that this award may represent an abberration; certainly I think it will prove embarrassing. And do you really expect Drosher to be awarded the Nobel Prize any time soon, or was that just a rhetorical flourish? ---CH 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) Okay, CH, old boy, maybe Heim did only publish that one paper in a mainstream physics journal, but you again miss the point – Newton also went for years without publishing any mainstream science papers so that he was dismissed by shallow (I,e, prematurely jumping to conclusions) commentators like yourself as an occult dabbler. Then came the Principia etc. and it was apparent that he had been working on Mainstream stuff all along. In the same way, the mainstream Heim theory papers are just beginning to appear – already the AIAA ones are mainstream, just not in physics proper – but that too will change later this year, as Droscher & co. are working on a review paper on the pure physics. As for the AIAA being embarrassed by the paper – quite the contrary – this point was expressly mentioned in the New Scientist article – see also the point about peer review: [2] 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 of most physicists at the theory that supposedly underpins it, Pavlos Mikellides, an aerospace engineer at the Arizona State University in Tempe who reviewed the winning paper, stands by the committee's choice. "Even though such features have been explored before, this particular approach is quite unique," he says. <snip>

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.”

Dürr was Heisenberg’s successor at the Max Planck Institute. Maybe you heard of Planck and Heisenberg? As for references about their estimate of Heim – it --hughey 07:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)was mentioned e.g. in Stern in 1956 or 57: I have a copy of the article somewhere and will get the exact reference if you are that interested. Figaro also mentioned it in an article in the 1960’s. Those scientists never refuted the magazine reports and there is no reason to doubt Von Ludwiger’s account of these things in his obituary[3] --hughey 16:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hughey, please remain civil in this discussion. Can you cite a verifiable source for your claim that the US military has begun to cast its eyes over the hyperdrive concept? "Hyperdrive" seems to be applied to all kinds of things, including science-fiction, so you should refer to "Häuser-Dröscher hyperdrive proposal. Now, it wouldn't surprise me if someone associated with the U. S. military expressed interest in whatever this "hyperdrive" is, but you should avoid making unverifiable claims, at least without mentioning that you can't verify them. However, a more immediately relevant point is that not every member of the U. S. military is well qualified to evaluate outlandish claims regarding alleged "new physics", and in fact it is well known that some members of this rather large organization have been involved in crackpot "science" in the past. Lastly, I didn't claim the AIAA has expressed embarrassment. I said I think this incident will prove embarrassing.

Hughey, I think this discussion is marching in circles, and I'd like to close it now. OK? ---CH 23:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

CH, the source for the US military interest in Heim is the New Scientist article as well as interviews given by e.g. Millis, head of the Breakthrough Propulion group at NASA. Maybe the quote wasn't clear above as inverted commas were missing before it. Corrected now so that it may be made known unto you. Latest - PRAVDA, (truth) had now reported on the propulsion angle as well: [4] . And yes, let's close the issue as I just keep repeating the answers to your points, but it doesn't get through to you. Maybe you should do some memory training before engaging in such discussions. --hughey 07:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Heim Theory Actually Postdiction -- Math Issues?

I've just came to this subject from the New Scientist article, and have a few thoughts that may help.

1)There's been two recent scandals related to scientific findings, one in Korea, and one in Europe, so in my humble opinion this Wiki should proceed with caution. Heim makes extraordinary claims, and the proof should correspondingly be extraordinary.

2) Actually the Heim Theory is post-dicting particle properties. Theoretical predictions would entail undiscovered novel particles, or new undiscovered processes. That being said, any theory that can "verifiably" compute the masses of the known particle set from 4 universal constants is worthy of further study.

3) There are some issues with the math here however:

3a) On the math, units analysis is necessary. I.e. HappyCamper 13:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC) on Gravatition does not include units in the explanation. The equal sign is as significant for units as it is for numbers, therefore if the evaluation of the left term results in a distance unit(m), then the right term must also result in a distance unit(m). Lacking units makes it very hard to verify the equations, and that leaves you open to inconsistent results such as m = m² or m = kg.

3b) The full domain of the left part of the integral is to + 0.25, giving a real result. The result is only imaginary in the left term if x > 0.25.

3c) Analysis of this side of the equation gives the result: evaluates to , whereas the integral on the right side of the equation using the upper limit b and lower limit a evaluates to

From a cursory glance at the results, the left side will not equal the right side of the integral. Provided that the evaluations are correct, in a dimensional (units) sense, the left term could not equal the right term due to the fact that the natural logarithms on the right will mess up the units, regardless of the unit used. So if the Wiki article is to be technical in nature, these kinds of issues must be resolved. As I haven't read the paper yet other that what is in Wiki and a glance at some of the pages in the Heim Theory site, I can't honestly say if these kind of issues abound.

This reminds me of Dr. Podkletnov who discovered that a spinning superconducting disk reduced the force of gravity above it (curved space less?) I'm at a university library, and have access to the journals in physics. Doing an online search of the IOP doesn't find Podkletnov. I did find the 1991 Physical Review D paper from Dr. Ning Li, though: Effects of a gravitomagnetic field on pure superconductors. It's been highly misrepresented througout the Internet, in my honest opininion.

Some useful sites for math/physics questions are:

Mathworld

World of Physics

NIST Reference on SI Units

Al, Happy Cat Technologies

--129.82.30.155 06:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Only have a minute to throw some cold water on that negative spin.

Not only post-diction as also predicts mass of neutrinos - which was done in 1980s,

is still in limits and when better experiments to measure neutrino mass, will be a prediction.

As for Podkletnov - this has also been answered already: he used a relatively weak magnet. To see any effect with the Heim-Lorentz force you need 20 Tesla, which is why the US air force is considering using the Z-machine which can achieve more than this flux. But no other setup on Eath can - even accelerators usually have at most 15 T.

And as for units being inconsistent - this is not normally the case on heim-theory.com - though as they are not budgeted for the work, it is in the spare time of the physicists involved and they acknowledgethat some mistakes may be present - e.g. Dr. Anton Mueller of hte HT group is checking over the 1982 and 1989 mass formulae as the JAVA implememntation http://www.daimi.au.dk/~spony/HeimMassFormula/ was based on these web pages - E Heims mass formula

and F Heims mass formula.

Note that the JAVA effort came out of our discussion on Physorg - see

this to se that not all physicists are sour old women with closed minds. --hughey 12:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I added indents and links for readability. Quick comment to both commentators: you are referring to cranky claims by Eugene Podkletnov and questionable claims that the U. S. government has secretly worked on this stuff as fact. The latter could be true but you should avoid referring to it as fact unless you can cite a U. S. government document or reputable newstory (please recall that even the BBC and various sometimes reputable science newsmagazines have gotten their facts wrong in this area, so even reputatable news outlets should be questioned in case of outlandish claims). ---CH 00:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)