Talk:Heim theory/Archive0

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.

To Do

Some good external references are absolutely necessary.
Should the relevant parts from Burkhard Heim moved here or would a re-write be better?
12-dimensional? Wasn't it 6?

See the new introductory paragraph, I've explained it here.HappyCamper 16:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Folks, if you managed to find your way through the Heim books, it should be a minor effort in comparison, to put some more facts here.

Pjacobi 16:39, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Actually, for me, I'm finding it very difficult to obtain a copy for my own use. Could you recommend where I can find a copy? HappyCamper 16:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some ISBN are shown in de.wiki, and the books seem to be available in some of german online bookshops (try the first one). --Serenity-Fr 11:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have access to all 4 of those books now...(but unfortunately I cannot read German!) --HappyCamper 12:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
About that Higless Theory link - one could make it a re-direct perhaps, but that would imply it's the only Higgless theory - this is certainly true as regards serious rivals to String Theory.
I have 2 of the books but understanding German is not always very helpful. I just got the transcript of the Heim Tapes from IvL - in German - they are much more readable, as promised. Once I get through that (only on page 2 of 67 now) I may have a clearer picture - may even be able to reccomend an English translation.

--hughey 12:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Splitup details

@Hdeasy: The splitup between the two articles Burkhard Heim and Heim-Theory would work best, if this article Heim-Theory would concentrate on the theory content, so to say the hard facts and the biography article Burkhard Heim on the personal side, Heim's handicap, working style, etc.

In this reasoning I'd prefer to remove especially:

Those modern physicists who find fault with such a paucity of publications would do well to recall that the modern pressure in academe to publish several papers per year or lose tenure was not present 50 years ago. Also, Heim could afford to operate outside the university milleau and thus was immune to this pressure which often results in premature publication. Einstein went through a long period of 'incubation' before producing his revolutionary relativity theory. Heim's incubation period was somewhat longer (ten times), but then if his theory was all the more revolutionary perhaps the longer the incubation the better.

I don't do it now, to not disturb your editing and to wait for your opinion.

Pjacobi 22:05, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC) Yes - why not move that section to the main Burkhard Heim page? Could you do that? I just answered you on 'E' at the talk page there, by the way.--hughey 11:41, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay - I am working on a major re-write of this theory section - the point about being too complex is taken. The updated version should give a better overview of the theory and have some of the biographical details removed. --hughey 14:37, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The recent updates by HappyCamper et al. have made the article much more readable and removed overly technical phraseology. Certainly if one looks at some maths pages with convoluted formulae and abstrusely abstract ideas, this Heim-Theory page is innocuous in the extreme. Thus I think it's more than enough to have the POV warning.--hughey 09:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV dispute warning

Since this article continues to be developed as an eventual replacement for the discussion of physics in the Burkhard Heim article, it seems reasonable that the POV dispute label from that article be copied here. (Once the physics material is removed from there, I assume that the label there should be removed as well: I don't think anyone disputes the details of Heim's life story, just the validity of his theories.) For an explanation of the POV dispute in question, I refer readers to the extensive discussion at Talk:Burkhard Heim.--Steuard 21:28, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article is that biased at the moment, but it is starting to creep in. However, I think the primary reason why the evolution of the Heim-Theory-like pages has generally been biased is due to the lack of equations and a thorough presentation of the logic underneath the theory. HappyCamper 00:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find it is perhaps time to reconsider this disputed label, especially as the paper by Droescher and Haeuser on aerospace applications of Heim-Theory, published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics ( AIAA ) in 2005 (see Heim talk page) will be awarded the prize for best paper of the year on July 13th by the Nuclear and Future Flight Propulsion Technical Committee of the AIAA. As this was a refereed paper and the AIAA is a recognised scholarly society, it would seem that the Heim-Theory is gaining more credence. Note that the previous winner of the prize was Dr. Robert Frisbee of JPL - announcement here [1] and paper here [2] to show the standard of this award. --hughey 14:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh and as for a 'lack of equations and a thorough presentation of the logic underneath the theory', surely this would exacerbate the 'too technical' stamp. Equations are there a-plenty should the need arise, as well as descriptions of the logic, again if the 'too technical' thing is relaxed. --hughey 15:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the credentials of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics on Quantum Field Theory aren't that stellar. It's a not uncommon move in fringe science, to gather support from outsiders. E.g. Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko tries to get support from statisticans for his speculations in history, which have zero support from historians. --Pjacobi 19:22, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

I don't know this Fomenko, but if he is only trying, then he is not comparable, as Droescher and Haeuser have successfully convinced the referees of the AIAA (from universities and industry), and impressed them so much that they have bestowed a prize on them. One reason for this may be that Droescher could answer any mathematical objections of the referees - in May he will present a rigorous derivation of the Eigen-value equations behind the mass formula, to be made available on the Heim-theory page. Note also that the program for the July conference has these authors down for a talk on "a Pulsed Magnet Experiment to Measure the Space Propulsion Heim- Lorentz Force". Thus a good reason for publishing with an aerospace scholarly society may be that experimental evidence is more easily presented in that context. Certainly it will be interesting to see if they succeed where Heim himself could not go, due to the lack of adnvanced magnetic technology in those pre-cyclotron days. It will be amusing to see such proof - then the discussions here will become moot. --hughey 11:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two quick remarks about publishing off-topic in refereed journals. There are several refereed journals devoted to GPS, the Global Positioning System. The referees are competent engineers; none-the-less, one finds that about 1 in 30 papers or so is some crank physics paper ... one finds all kinds of crank goodies ... papers that disprove special relativity, papers that prove the speed of light is infinite, etc. These are mostly based on falacious reasoning about the global space-time reference frame that GPS provides. They are often dense and impenetrable, filled with arcane math. A bit of mental gymnastics and puzzle-solving is needed to find where the author has gone wrong. So getting published in a refereed journal is not sufficient to prove correctness. linas 03:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

As to the mass equation ... any equation that gave particle masses, even if it was pulled out of thin air, would be very valuable. It does not need to be derived from first principles or anything like that. Just simply stating a formula that is accurate to 6-7 decimal places (as claimed) and has no (or few) free parameters would be a fantastic achievement. I'd suggest that the Heim supporters publish this equation first, and then worry about how to derive it later. If its really that accurate, it will win supporters, who will then willingly comb over the rest of the material. linas 03:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

A few things here. First, Heim is not in the same league as these 'crank physicists'. He had a long pedigree and was recognised as a genius in the 1950s. I just got a reprint of a Stern article from 1954 and this opinion is plainly stated. Then on the mass formula - of course it is highly significant, and the Heim-theory group has published it - look in their web site: there are two 'instantiations' of it - the 1982 and the 1989 ones. Since it is a nested formula however, it is not so easy to follow - but the HT group made an effort to be as succinct as possible, giving the amazing importance of the formula. Then they also include (in German only at the moment) the mathematical derivation of the mass formula. Finally, Droescher has promised for MAY 2005 (i.e. soon!!!) a rigorous mathemtical derivation of one of the main aspects of the formula derivation - i.e. the Eigen-value equations: the terms in the mass formula depend on the multiple Eigen-values for each particle obtained from these relations. So: stay tuned. Finally, on 'infinite light speed' - the case is not so simple: Von Flandern's arguments are not based on abstruse and dense maths, but on clear physical reasoning: gravitational aberration is a real effect - the gravity effect of an eclipse of the sun by the moon comes some second before optical coincidence of the disks: also, Von Flandern's point that by insisting on angular momentum conservation as a constraint, General relativity essentially forces c to be its normal value - but it needs the 'retarded' potential, which anticipates the body's future position. Anyway, rest assured - Heim finds a speed for gravitational waves of 1.1 C as found by various experiments, and since it is an extension of Einstein's theory it normally agrees on the limiting velocity C: only in the case of a 'warp' drive where a sub-space splits off from normal 4-d spacetime can this subspace bubble go faster than c as it is no nonlger part of the normal spactime continuum. That's all covered in Droescher & Haueser's propulsion papers. --hughey 07:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Meanings" of extra dimensions

A section has just been added to the article discussing the significance of the extra dimensions necessary in Heim Theory, which is obviously a good thing. However, that section seems focused on downplaying the "meanings" assigned to those extra dimensions, which I believe is a mistake. Note, for instance, the following quote from the "Goals of the Research Group" page [3] at http://www.heim-theory.com/:

"The two additional dimensions are not - like in Kalzua-Klein theories - curled up in small areas, but they are principally verifiable domains of values of the world. But they are not measurable by physical instruments and have an informational character, since they describe qualitative aspects (meanings) of material organisations."

This quote seems to clearly state that the reason that these extra dimensions are not measurable is their "informational character" (they aren't measureable "since they describe... [meanings] of material organizations"). And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, I have seen no other explanation from Heim Theory for why those extra dimensions would not be observable (not that I accept this one, mind you).

Similar statements were made by von Ludwiger in the withdrawn paper, "The Physics of Burkhard Heim and its Applications to Space Propulsion", that was discussed at Talk:Burkhard Heim/Archive1:

"The 5th and 6th dimension, although imaginary like the time-dimension, have to be something different, because more than one single time dimension leads to unphysical results (Cole 1980). According to Heim, the two higher dimensions are associated with organizational properties. They will be called “trans-coordinates“, to distinguish them from the four dimensions with which we are all familiar. They are denoted by x5 and x6. x5 is a coordinate designating the degree of organization of a system..."

Again, the position of Heim Theory seems to be that these extra dimensions are intrinsically related to information or organization somehow, and that this is the reason that they are "something different" from ordinary time dimensions. So I believe that the article should take those claims seriously, even if that leads to some embarrassment in the eyes of mainstream science. (Also, even if the new "misnomers" section is only intended to refer to dimensions above six where the above quotes do not apply, I expect that Heim Theory relies on similar arguments about the "informational" character of those additional dimensions to explain why they too are not observed.)

Finally, I would point out that these "spiritual" ideas seem to be very closely associated with Heim's theories in his successors' minds. That same "Goals of the Research Group" webpage discusses Heim's work with logic, and says that

"Only in this way it was possible to formalise biological and psychological processes (like consciousness) in a 6-dimensional manifold, and therefore also non-physical events".

So it appears that a central goal of Heim Theory is the "formali[zation of] biological and psychological processes (like consciousness) in a 6-dimensional manifold". Again, this seems to be at odds with the insistence of the new "misnomers" section that the "spiritual" labels for the extra dimensions should not be taken seriously. On the contrary, http://www.heim-theory.com/ appears to take them very seriously indeed.--Steuard 19:09, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome to modify the "misnomer" section so it better addresses the concerns you listed :-) HappyCamper 21:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know, I know. : ) But when it comes to this particular topic, I've thus far maintained an almost unbroken policy of not editing the articles directly, for what may be selfish reasons. In particular, I'm a young scientist, and I'm awfully hesitant to put my name on any version of an article whose "science" I disagree with as strongly as this unless that version of the article contains something awfully close to what I'd consider a fully scientific (or perhaps more politely, "mainstream") point of view. In the case of the article on "Heim Theory" (or Heim himself), I think I'd want to rewrite or at least thoroughly rewrite the whole thing, and I just haven't had the time. I'll keep looking for an opportunity, but my real science work has to take precedence.

There's also an issue of POV: I pride myself on objectivity and an open mind (that's what drove me to try to give Heim's work a "fair hearing" here, rather than dismissing it out of hand as most scientists have), but I don't know if any version of this article that I felt did the subject justice would be considered acceptible by Heim's supporters. (At the very least, it would take a lot of effort to write an article that we'd all consider to be NPOV.) I know that I have not seen any appreciable fraction of what Heim and his followers have produced (in part because it's in German and relies on some homemade notation), but what little I have seen has convinced me that there would be little use in investigating the theory further. It is my firm scientific opinion that "Heim Theory" does not describe the real world, and I rather suspect that if I were to investigate it in full detail, I would find that it was not self-consistent as a theory of physics in any sense. My initial involvement with Heim Theory on Wikipedia was to suggest that it be deleted under the "No original research" policy (as I outlined on Talk:Burkhard Heim/Archive1), and if the choice were mine alone I would still opt for that resolution. But that does make writing an article with no perceived bias somewhat difficult.--Steuard 22:16, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it's best to leave it at that. You're always welcome to join in with editing though :-) HappyCamper 03:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the "spiritual" 5th and 6th dimensions in Heim's theory are analagous to the conformal boundary at spacial infinity in the holographic principle, which conjectures that the universe can be represented as a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on its boundaries. The connection between the holographic principle and a conformal boundary being drawn from a rigorous realization of the holographic principle as the AdS/CFT correspondence by Juan Maldacena.

Hello everybody

After a long time reading stuff about Heim, I have decided to contribute to the article. As you can see, I have added a new section called "Matter and forces" (the first name I thought) when I will try to explain how matter and interactions arises in Heim Theory. I think that the Dröscher and Häuser papers are very interesting, and all the information about hermetries and gravito-photons should be added to the article (the http://www.cle.de/hpcc links seem to be broken now).

I have also found an interesting biography of Heim, and a couple of links in German:

http://www.worlditc.org/f_06_protosimplex_heim_a_biography.htm http://info.uibk.ac.at/c/cb/cb26/heim/ http://www.datadiwan.de/netzwerk/index.htm?../heim/he_000d_.htm

(I don't know if those links have been posted in another talk page).

--Pezezin 18:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

datadiwan.de is of course a site of disputed reputation, to say the least... --Pjacobi 19:29, 2005 May 3 (UTC)

Check out the Burkhard Heim page for a list of all the links which have already been discussed on its talk page. If you like, you're welcome to sort through those links. Some of them are probably more suitable for the biographical oriented Burkhard Heim, while the others might be more suitable for the theoretical oriented Heim theory. Also, if you decide to search for other articles on Heim, typically the more "academic" ones are much harder to dig up; the "new age" stuff seems to predominate. Nevertheless, they do exist!

If we add details on hermetries, an absolute must is an explanation for how the groupings arise. For example, how did Heim specifically derive the set components of H5? Also, please feel free to add any relevant content. Maybe even add a section on hermetries and gravito-photons too. HappyCamper 20:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

An explanation for the tensor elements?

I found an interesting site http://www.rodiehr.de/ --> There is a link to a page which appears to explain what the tensor elements mean. Can someone verify this and determine if it is noteworthy to incorporate some of these ideas into the article? The link is found here [9], just scroll down the page. HappyCamper 03:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A request for translation

(originally posted on Marcika by HappyCamper)

I am a contributor to the page Heim theory, and would like to determine whether the material from this website [10] would be useful for the article. If you scroll down to the middle of the page, there is a 6 by 6 square with lots of colours in it. The few paragraphs after that seem to be describing what the colours are supposed to mean. In your spare time, could you consider translating those passages, and placing your translation on Talk:Heim theory? Your efforts would be greatly appreciated! --HappyCamper 01:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Here it goes:

The tensor matrix of 2nd order T_ik has the following structure:

The components labled with 0 describe virtual energy densities. The nine components T11 to T33 on the upper left describe the three-dimensional R3 space that we know. The 16 components T11 to T44 result in the four-dimensional Einsteinian space-time R4. The components T55 to T66 on the lower right are called "transmatrix" by Heim. They are completely outside the space-time R4. T45, T46, T54 and T64 connect the R4 space to the six-dimensional space R6 T11 to T66.

All six dimensions turned out to be physical ones, and Heim could only calculate the values for all elementary particles to all decimal places in these six dimensions. Dr. H.D. Schulz has entered the Heim formulas into the computer at DESY (German Electron Synchrotron, Hamburg) and has calculated all 300 particles know today. With the large accelerators one can measure the physical data of the particles. All of them agree with the theoretical values to the last decimal. This is a "world sensation of the largest order" (E. Senkowski). [end of quote]

Marcika 01:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much - your translation will be quite useful for the article! HappyCamper 02:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This reasoning has one major flaw: Since the often mentioned calculations at DESY, improvements and corrections have been made to the mass measurements of elementary particles. So, the theoretical predictions could not be both correct then and now. --Pjacobi 11:45, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe you could provide a list of the most current, verifyable, authoritative and established list of fundamental particles and their masses? Or perhaps a link? It would be a great addition to the article! --HappyCamper 18:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

That's an easy question. The Particle Data Group gives yearly summaries of the currently available measurements, start here and you will be drenched in data ;-) --Pjacobi 21:25, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Comparisons

Are the "theoretical values" with some error bar for higher order corrections or the like?

Otherwise, taken at face value, they are already clearly falsified, e.g. electron mass 27 standard deviations off.

Pjacobi 11:59, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

It's going to take a few iterations of edits before all that material can be added. Feel free to help :) I just put the table there just as a first attempt. Feel free to modify it! HappyCamper 12:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

May I ask how you calculated that the theoretical electron mass is 27 standard deviations off? I'd like to learn so I can do that for the other particles too. HappyCamper 15:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Assumming that 0.00000015 is the stddev, it's as easy as (0.51100343 - 0.51099907)/0.00000015, try

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=%280.51100343++-+0.51099907%29%2F0.00000015&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

Pjacobi 15:42, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Ah, I see why these values are considered "incorrect" - in order for the comparison to be valid, we need to provide errors on the theoretical values. Currently as the data is written, it is saying that the theoretical value is exact (with zero variance) - as a result, the theoretical and experimental values are hardly coincident. Well, to get the errors, we'll probably need to redo Heim's calculations. That's going to take some time :) HappyCamper 17:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was my initial remark. We need the error bars for the theoretical values.

Also note that there are already 2004 numbers at PDG. The new stddev for the electron mass is down to 0.00000004.

Pjacobi 17:26, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Wow, that's amazing! Well, in any case, I'm still motivated to perform the calculations. Even if it were 10000 standard deviations away, I'd still do it - I've learned so many new things just by working on this article, and all of it has been wonderful! Those calculations will simply further that. Do you have a copy of Heim's 4 volumes? HappyCamper 17:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

For myself, I've decided to wait and see. I have enough mainstream physics to absorb, filling my gaps. --Pjacobi 17:52, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I brought up a similar point at Talk:Burkhard Heim some time ago (the discussion is now archived at Talk:Burkhard Heim/Archive1; search for the word "uncertainties"). If we assume that the significant figures on the Heim-predicted particle masses are at all justified, then Heim theory is ruled out by experimental data. But serious scientists don't rely on significant figures: they always report estimated uncertainties for their theoretical predictions. The Heim theory folks apparently do not. That may not mean that the theory itself isn't good science, but it certainly doesn't inspire confidence.--Steuard 20:20, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted, that comparison with experimental data for the neutrino masses can actually be done. It is true (as displayed in the article) that we currently know only the upper limits for the individual masses (mainly from astrophysical considerations) but neutrino oscillation experiments give us good estimates on the mass squared differences. For an overview of the topic see the arXive at http://xxx.lanl.gov and look up hep-ph/0504026 by R.N.Mohapatra et al. The short of it is that for three neutrinos you get two independent mass differences, e.g., |m1²-m2²| and |m1²-m3²|. If you compare Heims prediction with the experimental results you'll see that they differ by at least 5 standard deviations. Again here an error on the theory would be very good. 128.214.56.241 09:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Heim's theoretical mass calculations use four parameters. The least precise of these is G, which the Heim theory page states is only known to a precision of up to 0.001, i.e., just 3 digits. One can take 0.001 as an estimate for Heim's mass uncertainty, or conversely, just look at the first three digits of his estimate when comparing it to another electron mass estimate. And Heim's value is just an estimate; even though Heim's calculation is theoretical, it uses parameters that have uncertainties.

In terms of the 3 digits of precision, the comparison of Heim's estimate to PDG's estimate of electron mass is exact; one makes the comparison to the precision of the least, not the most, precise quantity.

If the uncertainty approach is taken in comparing Heim's theoretical value to PDG's measured value, it is reasonable to expect that the estimate with the larger uncertainty, Heim's, should contain the PDG's estimate within one or two sigma of Heim's uncertainty. Thus, Heim's estimate of 0.51100343 +/- 0.001 should contain PDG's estimate, which it does. Dividing the difference between the two estimates by Heim's uncertainty, rather than PDG's, show's agreement of his theoretical calculation to PDG's within 0.0044 of his sigma. 128.244.234.238 01:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Table

As we can see, a Wikipedian Smoddy has come by and made a nice table. To help resolve the POV dispute on this page, what other columns do we wish to see in the comparison table? I personally would like to put p and t tests on it as well, for starters. HappyCamper 16:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Forget columns, how about rows? I'd like to see rows included for Heim theory's predicted neutral electron (presumably compared to the Particle Data Group's lower bound on unknown neutral lepton masses of ~40GeV), and for that matter rows for a sampling of the other particles that Heim theory predicts as well. It would also be interesting to state Heim's predicted value for the fine structure constant from the 1982 Mass Formula page; comparing it to the experimental value gives a 20 standard deviation discrepancy much as for the mass data. (For that matter, it's also interesting to compare the numerical results stated on that page to the numerical result obtained by actually evaluating the stated equation. You'd think they would be the same, but they aren't.)--Steuard 20:20, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually that's a good idea. Maybe you can add those? I'll probably try the lepton calculations. HappyCamper 20:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK neutralino-like WIMPs could be at rather arbitrary masses? Anyway, it would be indirect influences by creating new channels of reactions, that would most likely exclude the "neutral electron", but Heim-Theory so far doesn't predict any cross sections at all, if I am not mistaken. --Pjacobi 20:48, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I think Heim wanted to do that but passed away before he could. HappyCamper 21:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we discussed the error bars on the Heim theory estimates some time ago: Ideally they should be given. Again, as previously discussed the different mass values for different input values of G imply a sensitivity to this parameter - though we also agreed that the relation was not likely to be linear and that the values were more sensitive to G than to other input. Unfortunatly the Heim Theory group didn't see the estimation of rigorous error bars as their highest priority - they may have a point and it will be interesting to see the new Eigen-value derivations which Droescher should produce later this month in a mathematically rigorous fashion. In the meantime one can still (I might so this if I have time) just take the ball park estimate of subtracting the mass values for different measurements of G - as the G variation gives an estimate of experimantal uncertainty one may reasonably take the resulting mass difference as a measure of error -though it might still be only one Sigma - thus the full error bars might be 3 times as wide. --hughey 08:35, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

From a quick look at the relevant PDG reviews, the most significant non-detection of the "neutral electron" would be a search done in 2000 at the CERN OPAL detector, see: http://opal.web.cern.ch/Opal/pubs/paper/info/pr306.html

Pjacobi 19:21, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Actually, the use of error bars on theoretical calculations is a 'recent' development (i.e. since the 1960s or 1970s); at the time, it was apostacy, even. It wouldn't surprise me if the bulk of the Heim theory work were older and didn't have such. --moof 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I've gathered, the first statement of the theory's particle mass predictions came in 1977 (see article); they were evaluated on computers in 1982 and updated somehow in 1989. The "Selected Results" source document linked in the article makes reference to several calculations done between 2000 and 2003. All of this occurred well into the era in which presenting theoretical uncertainties for calculations like this was expected.--Steuard 20:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Coming back to the neutral lepton or electron, I found at [11] some indicaton that the heavy neutral lepton searches assume just one decay path, and there are others conceivable - after all, we know that 3 light neutral leptons exist:

"The known neutral leptons are the v,, v~, and v, neutrinos associated with the e, /A and r charged leptons respectively. The obvious and important experimental question is; Do other neutral leptons exist? There is no comprehensive answer to this question, the significance of an experimental search depends upon the models used for the production and decay of the neutral lepton as well as on the method and energy."

So the game is still very much open and this remains a prediction of hte theory.--hughey 16:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Gravitation

I managed to re-solve Heim's DE in the "gravitation" section. I've figured out everything except for some integration constant in his notes. The solution is difficult to interpret because the function has a bunch of infinities.

It turns out that the result is related to:

$\int \frac{1}{1 \pm \sqrt{1 - 4x}} dx + C = \int \frac{l+1}{2l(l-1)} dl.$

I haven't figured out how Heim decided to take either the positive or negative root. Furthermore, from his paper, it seems that x can range from 0 to infinity, but the result here is only real if x is from 0 to 0.25. There are all sorts of other things hidden in these equations. Some help would be nice :) HappyCamper 13:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

What happened with the papers?

A few months ago, it was stated that the papers by Dröscher and Häuser about field propulsion will be awarded am AIAA prize, and that they will soon publish another paper with the derivation of the eigenvalue equations of the mass formula.

But the months have passed and I haven't seen anything about the prize nor the paper. Does anybody know something?

The prize will be awarded at the 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit on the 13th of July, 2005. See [12] and click on "Theorie und Raumfahrt" for a letter they received. As for those eigenvalue equations, I don't know much about them, but I suspect that their publications will be pushed back. --HappyCamper 5 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Someone needs to work out whether Heim Theory is a proper noun or not. Most other theories are not capitalised. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now, the page is at "Heim theory" and both seem amicable. I am not sure whether there are established conventions for "Heim theory" or "Heim Theory" yet. It is unclear to me whether the German usage of the terminology warrants a capitalization in English. --HappyCamper 12:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanations of the theory

I don't understand many things in the theory.. about the part "further technical details" :

What is a matrix of a non-linear function ? Is it a derivate ?
What is the link between C and the modeled universe ?
What are the role of the 64 state function ?
There is not 6 extra dimension in the full theory but 8, isn't it ? (8+4=12 dim)

I tried to read papers from heimtheory.com but I didn't understand many things. What is required to read this ? Is it necessary to fully understand General Relativity for that ?--81.57.3.212 11:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's make it very clear from the onset - I am not an expert on the theory, and nor do I know everything that is going on in the theory. Much of it I don't understand. However, I think to appreciate the theory, I think you would need a very solid background in quantum mechanics and relativity - a lot of Heim's ideas draw heavily from these fields. The best resource available right now are the books that Heim got published - but it is quite a difficult reading, and all of it is in German. I have copies of these, and when I get the chance, I will add references to the article. The theory seems to be controversial, so if you go into these readings, it is extremely important that you read very carefully and filter out what is fact, from what is fiction.

The paragraph about C was an attempt to explain what is going on, but it isn't particularly rigorous at all. I think I might remove it actually. In Heim's books, C does not show up; the emphasis is on T. From what I gather, the idea is that T has a certain structure which gives rise to a set of eigenvectors which represent the coordinate system in the basis x1, x2, x3, ... - In the original theory by Heim, 6 dimensions were used. Subsequent modifications by Droescher increased this to 8, and finally to 12, I believe. These extra dimensions are just mathematical constructs which allow additional theories of physics to fall out - but I am not sure how this actually happens. --HappyCamper 19:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just on the dimensional issue (I'll try to address ?--81.57.3.212's other points later. THe limits on dimensions comes from Heim's Dimension Law. If p is the number of real dimensions, and n is the limit on extra dimensions that may be added in the full theory, the law is: n = 1 + sqrt(1 + p(p - 2)(p - 1)) To get an integer, non-zero number of dimensions, you need p = 4, n = 6, or p = 6, n = 12. I just confirmed there were no solutions for p < 11 (p = 10 corresponds to 27.851443164 dimensions). I wrote a noddy program to show that space dim P = 57 and total dim n = 420 was also a solution. Since then I had 2 other (only) solutions scanning p up to 10,000,000: (p = 999801, n = 999700016) and (p = 3431486, n = 1874180936). But there are other restrictions limiting the number in Heim - apart from the purely practical ease of 12 compared to 420 or millions of dimensions.--hughey 12:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting news...

Hey, it looks like the USAF wants to test Heim's theories and build and "hyperdrive". There is also an article in Slashdot. Should we mention it in this article? --Pezezin 23:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, add it in if you like :-) --HappyCamper 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a article in "The Scotsman" (slashdot references the same article) about some university professor who says NASA or USAF contacted him is a worthy citation. Might be more credible if the referece was from one of the many house publications of those agencies, or even the Houston Daily Shopper. When I hear about money flowing I'll believe it. That the contributer could only find this as affermation, and offered it, speaks of desperation.

Warp drive from a big magnet? Hummm, get an MRI, visit Vega. At the center of our planet is a nuclear core that generates the magnetic field, surely a super intense process, but I don't recall any observations of chunks of core material being warped out on a regular basis.

Reading through this stuff I see nothing from any actual scientist, at most one in traning, and feel the Wiki editors MUST step in and reduce the whole to a brief description that notes that it is not verifiable, accepted or even, as far as I can read here, being seriously investigated by any qualified physical scientific organization. With a link to a blog site for fans and flamers. At least until there can be found some real organization doing paid for work utilizing the "Theory".

This should be a site for information, not a blog. -- PMN

I ran this by my crank-detection physics professional friends, who said that they believe the theory is most likely wrong, far from demonstrably right, but not crank material. It appears to be done in a manner consistent with known physics observations and be formulated in a manner which encourages further test and analysis, unlike typical crank theory. It is most likely not correct, based on consensus, but it doesn't appear to fall into the category It's not right. It's not even wrong.. Georgewilliamherbert 08:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"At the center of our planet is a nuclear core that generates the magnetic field, surely a super intense process" .. really? How do you figure that? The value is less than 0.00005 Tesla. 128.244.81.147 02:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this particular "scientist in training" (but published scientist nonetheless) is pretty firmly convinced that Heim theory is neither an accurate description of nature nor a well-defined theory of physics. If you'd like to make the changes you just suggested, I won't stop you, but I'm guessing that the Heim supporters here will object. I've been trying to be a bit less actively hostile myself, and with the recent bit of publicity I suspect that a moderately more thorough discussion might be worthwhile (if it made comparisons to mainstream science clear). But a rewrite of at least the introduction along the lines you suggest might be a good thing.--Steuard 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

So - no real scientists working on it, eh? What an ignorant comment. Droscher is a theoretical physicist in the Austrian Patent office and Prof. Hauser is a very prolific scientist - see that hppc link to his documents and you will see how much he's published on Magnetohydrodynamics, new computing techniques etc. And for years he was head of a department at ESTEC - but then the ignorant comentator who appears not to have read the New Scientist article probably doesn't know what this is. Look down through the history of discussion here before raking over such old hat. The theory has evinced quite a positive reaction amongst many physicists - see e.g. the forum discussion at [13] to see that some have even programmed up the mass formula in JAVA, independently of the Fortran implementation, with almost as much accuracy in particle mass prediction. The head of the NASA Breakthrough Propulsion effort was impressed by the potential of the theory but would like to see more detail on the derivation of the mass formula before pumping moeny into a Z-machine test [14]. Finally look at the open letter from the Heim-theory group [15] . From the latter we see that a " We are willing, however, to give some clarifications. concerning fundamental problems of chapter D such as the conversion of Christoffel symbols to a tensor because of a polymetric statement or the derivation of the eigenvalue problem. That chapter is only presented in German at the moment. An English language version is forthcoming after time for a revision.

A talking book (CD) is in preparation which plays back Heim’s voice during a series of lectures and discussions on his theory. The possibility of an English version is being discussed at present. A sample of his voice will also be presented on our web-site.

Finally, a reviewed paper is now being prepared which gives an introduction to Heim’s Theory and the extension to eight dimensions, necessary for the realization of the new space propulsion method." --hughey 17:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

entelechy and aeon

I see no reason why Heim wanted to have so different names for those two dimensions (entelechy and aeon). Perhaps they are like X and Y in the real world, aren't they ? I mean, S² is perhaps totally isotropic. Do you have any opinion about this ? --Serenity-Fr 16:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, mathematically speaking, you could call the coordinates anything - I guess Heim just liked those two names in particular. I don't think those coordinates are interpreted as the sort of "spatial" coordinates we are familiar with though. --HappyCamper 16:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this page too far in favour of Heim?

I think that it's good that wikipedia has a page on Heim Theory, i've learned a lot from reading this page, but in my opinion (as a final year mathematics/theoretical physics student at cambridge) we need to make it quite clear that it isn't an "accepted" theory. For example, i think the top paragraph (entitled "Heim theory") should say that (a) Heim is dead and (b) since he worked alone, nobody who is alive today actually fully understands his theory, and so it isn't really a theory at all. It's bits and pieces of waffle with some numerical agreements. The implication here is that it could be deliberately fraudulant. personally i think that Heim theory will go the same way as cold "fusion" did, but of course i keep an open mind.

The theory just seems too good to be true, and in the present "desperate" environment (physicists have been trying, and failing, to unify the 4 forces for nearly forty years) there's a lot of temptation to believe a theory because it's telling you what you want to hear, rather than because it's likely to be genuine. In fact, if i was going to try to design a "fake" theory of quantum graviy, it would probably be quite a lot like this; make it so complicated and confusing that proper physicists would have to make a very serious investment of time to show that it was wrong, but on the other hand make sure it produces a complex formula to "predict" particle masses. "deriving" a formula particle masses once you know what they are is not difficult; for example the proton mass, which is given to 11 digits contains about 36 bits of information. You could arrange a formula to output this result if that formula involves about 36 binary choices, which you make deliberately to produce the desired outcome, then dress it all up in some spurious resoning (preferably poorly translated from another language!).

for example, consider the following "formula" for the proton mass;

$m_{p} = e^{-(12+e)} + \left( 10 \left( \pi - \sqrt 2 /10 + \left( 1/4 \right)^2 \right) \right)^2 + \left( 3e/100 \right)^\frac{1}{2} - \left( \frac{4}{9} \right) ^ 8 = 938.2795924$

which agrees with heim's theoretical prediction of 938.2795924 MeV/c^2, to 10 significant figures. if i can get agreement that good in half an hour's worth of messing around with numbers, think how much mischeif heim could have got up to in 30 years? maybe he went mad and thought that if his theory gave the right numbers, then it must be correct, and so tinkered with formulae until it did.

I think that wikipedia could take some flak if heim theory is rejected as fraudulant and our page didn't make clear that this was a possibility. i think we need to cover ourselves a little bit better on this one!

As is probably all too apparent on this talk page and on Talk:Burkhard Heim (especially Talk:Burkhard Heim/Archive1, I've been making that point for rather a long time now. (There used to be a POV-dispute label on the article, but that seems to have been moved to refer only to a couple of sections for some reason.) As it stands, the article gives almost no indication that Heim theory has essentially no acceptance in the physics community; that should be a key point in the introduction.

The article lists only one "inconsistency with current physical theory"; I've mentioned quite a few in these Talk pages over time (such as the multiple timelike dimensions, the claim that we don't see the extra dimensions only because they represent "meanings" rather than for some physical reason--hardly just a "misnomer"!, the use of "1 meter^2" as a fundamental physical constant... the list is pretty long). For that matter, practically all of the Heim theory mass predictions are given to enormous precision and disagree with experiment by many standard deviations: either the Heim theory folks have never heard of "theoretical uncertainties" (or even "significant figures") or the theory has already been disproven by experiment. (The section on "comparisons" here says more about uncertainties than anything on heim-theory.com; it's odd to think that Heim fans on Wikipedia are better physicists than the folks actually working on the theory. But the section also neglects to mention the possibility that the mass predictions have been intentionally or unintentionally hand-tuned to agree with the experimental values.)

I have held off on making these changes myself for three reasons. First, given all that I've seen, I personally believe that Heim theory is entirely wrong with practically no redeeming qualities; that wouldn't bode well for making neutral edits. Second, I really, really don't have time to do the massive editing and rewriting that would be required. And third, silly though it may sound, I would honestly be uncomfortable attaching my name to anything less than a full rewrite of the article, for fear that someone looking in haste might think I was endorsing a section that I simply hadn't managed to fix yet.--Steuard 05:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this synopsis. Heim did not work alone. Others worked with him vigorously and he was acknowledged as a brilliant physicist in his own right quite young. I believe translation and examination of his works will show that his basic theory that all properties in the universe are quantitized will be proven correct given time. I don't consider myself a "fan", but this theory is quite important and deserves more study from a partical physics perspective. What does Heim theory say about Higgs for instance?Ggb667 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Forget the Higgs, what does Heim theory say about the top quark? The answer, as far as I can tell, is nothing: Heim theory hardly recognizes quarks at all. (I've seen some claim that one can recognize some sign of three constituent bits in the baryons, but in general Heim theory doesn't seem to be much like QCD.) In fact, that's another question for the folks out there who have read Heim's work: what does it have to say about the three generations of quarks and leptons? Does it make predictions for the masses of particles composed of, say, charm or bottom quarks? (As for the Higgs, I don't get the impression that it's necessary for the generation of mass in Heim theory, and I don't recall seeing anything that looked like it in the lengthy tables on the official website.)--Steuard 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There is some very misleading stuff in this article, for example the probability that he could get the masses right by chance. I'd be impressed if he made the theory without already knowing the information that was to be predicted, but I don't think that's the case. There are reasons this theory isn't taken seriously: it's because the Standard Model of particle physics has much more compelling evidence for it, even though it doesn't predict masses. -- SCZenz 23:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

May I make a kind request that someone be WP:BOLD and try to improve the article then? :-) :-) --HappyCamper 03:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's nice that Heim theory predicts some things, but what does it not predict (or not clearly predict, now); where is it seen as incomplete. Where is it seen as inconsistent with standard models. What types or specific predictions does it make which are testable. Is there any evidence that it's incompatible with observations in particular areas.

Fundamentally, what I would like to see (and it may be too much to do in Wikipedia, but somewhere) is an article by a reasonable skeptic who can place it into context with other theories and the standard model of physics. Is it simply a weird formulation that happens to agree or largely agree with existing known physics? Is it something very different, whose agreement is uncertain in key important areas? I know enough about standard physics to for example be concerned if Heim theory as currently stated doesn't much address quarks, but is it that they don't account for it at all, or that they're well hidden in a way different than the standard model?

Defining the discrepancies will help the rest of us understand and contextualize it, and also help clarify what sorts of things that Heim supporters should be or are doing to try and test its predictions versus the standard model... Georgewilliamherbert 03:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Heim theory does address quarks - it sees them as projections of a 6-dimensional flux system, which is a unified process and therefore may not be separated into individual constituents - explaining the absence of free quarks. The first hermetry, H1, is just R3∪I2 and corresponds to gluons and the strong force. So there is plenty about QCD structures in the theory. And it is one of the triumphs of the theory that the Higgs mechanism is not needed to derive the masses. Mass arises as a result of the 'protosimplex' proceeses, which make up the 6-D flux agregates. Funny, though, how hard it is to accept the absence of Higgs - some of the Physorg debaters want to see it predicted in Heim's mass spectrum, despite it being 'unemployed' in the theory. --hughey 18:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewriting

After a long time learning about Heim Theory and collecting ideas, I think i'm gonna rewrite the entire article. I want to reorder it, add more information and clarifications, and express all the issues the theory currently has. So if nobody opposes, in the next few days I will do it. --Pezezin 14:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, go right ahead. :-) --HappyCamper 01:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

New broken link

The last link of Propulsion physics is now broken :

Droscher, W and Hauser, J, "Heim Quantum Theory for Space Propulsion Physics," Log No 021, STAIF, American Institute of Physics, 2005 (pdf)

I wonder why Droscher's laboratory has suppressed (moved?) all pages about Heim's theory. If someone can find the a new link, it would be great.

These pages were removed after the University of Innsbruck had been warned that Droscher, Hauser, and their "laboratory", the IGW (Institut fuer Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft) were using a University of Innsbruck affiliation without authorization. The IGW is a private institute and not a part of the University of Innsbruck.

Please sign your comments! ---CH 21:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Glossary

Many people, even in the scientific community, have expressed confusion over the terminology used in Heim Theory. There's a glossary I just came across that might help: http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/documents/HeimTheoryGlossary.pdf --User:naasking 13:55, 1 Frebruary 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives