Talk:Heim theory/Archive 2

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.

Contents 1 Podkletnov claims 2 Str or gtr? 3 Propose cleanup 4 Heim-Lorentz force? 5 Neutral electron 6 Implementations 7 Amount of NPOVity 8 News of interest 9 Split up: Space travel 10 Disputed removed 11 Re-classification Request 12 NPOV on predictions 13 Are the findings by this experiment related to Heim theory? 13.1 London moment 14 Why not peer-reviewed? 15 Any Progress on Verification? 16 Hermetries, Protosimplexes, etc 17 NPOV WARNING 18 Category changes 19 Suggestions for Pro / Contra section 19.1 Arguments contra HT 19.1.1 Comments 19.2 Arguments pro HT 19.2.1 Comments 20 Implementations of Heim's mass formula 21 Principles -> Predictions

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

To avoid possible confusion: I

1. agree with Steuard concerning the scientific status of Heim theory,
2. strongly disagree with MillKa's statement that the current article is in good shape,
3. 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.
4. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Heim-Lorentz force?

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

News of interest

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

As far as I am aware a "theory" is "a proposed model, explanation or description of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation." May I stress the words "*proposed* model". Heim theory satisfys all of these chriteria. The fact that not everyone thinks that it is the difinative answer to everything has nothing to do with it being a theory or not.

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)

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

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)

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

"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)

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 theory itself is psycho-ceramic, your guess is as good as mine. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Just to respond to that comment by Prof. Sean Carroll, I would just like to point out another thing that he said:

"Is this paper for real? Beats me. This type of stuff isn’t really my field, and the math is beyond my understanding, as is the physics. It looks fishy, and my instincts tell me it’s bunk."

He also says that he's going to the Astronomy conference or something, so i'd put my money on him being an astronomer. Not exactly a reliable source for credible opinions on anything like heim theory.

I don't think you've paid quite enough attention to who wrote what on that page. The quote you've given was by the owner of the "Bad Astronomy" blog, Phil Plait, who is in fact an astronomer. It is not by Sean Carroll, who contributed only in the comments (as "Sean"). But even so, I would find it surprising if anyone were to claim that an astronomer like Phil Plait is a less reliable source for credible opinions on Heim theory than, say, a bunch of aerospace engineers. (At least astronomers deal regularly with the physics that Heim claims to explain.) And yet Heim theory supporters seem very excited about this AIAA prize for some reason.

Sean Carroll is a cosmologist, with close connections to the University of Chicago's general relativity and string theory groups (he has coauthored papers with people in both). He has written a well-received textbook on GR and regularly teaches classes like graduate particle physics. Heim theory is very much trying to be in his field.--Steuard 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the link to the web page of Prof. Sean Carroll. His interests include "a variety of topics in theoretical physics, especially including cosmology, field theory, and gravitation" so he is as good reviewer of Heim theory as you can find. Friendly Neighbour 18:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this not peer revewed? According to the official Heim Theory website (http://www.heim-theory.com/), run and maintained by a small group of german scientists who are working on Heim Theory, the reason very little has reached mainstreem science is because only one of Heims papers was ever translated into English. And of cource (as it says in the wikipedia artical on Heim) he was involved in a terrable accident when he was young. I guess it must be very hard to write much when you have no hands to wright with and almost no eyesight to see what you have writen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreenDragoness (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 April 2006.

This is ridiculous. Translating the articles to English would take only a few weeks for any German physicist working in the field. The alledged (and strangely anonymous) group working on the theory had many years to publish anything (five since Heim's death). If they were employed by any mainstream university or research institution they would have been already fired for lack of scientific progress (measured in number of peer-reviewed published papers). Actually, theoretical physicists usually publish several papers a year (they do not need time to set-up an experiment and process the resulting data). Friendly Neighbour 06:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! Here we go again - endless repetition of the same old queries. There should be a FAQ on Heim Theory. As has been said often before, Heim was no crank, was known as a whizz kid to Heisenberg, Jourdan, Von Weizacker et al. The reason about scarcity of publications have also been often cited. "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. --hughey 16:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC) ". And in other forums, the reasons for lack of peer: (1) Heim was a reclusive genius, similar to Newton in many ways, where the latter kept his Principia secret for decades, during which he was dismissed as an occult alchemical dabbler until his hand was forced and he finally published. (2) Heim had independent financial support and didn't have to publish or be damned to retain tenure. (3) In the 1950s the same mania about rushing into print had not entered the repetoire of thought police like our friendly coomentators above. (4) Heim, ever the perfectionist, wanted to complete his theory before publishing, even if it took 50 years. The list goes on. But the poor man is dead and doesn't have to justify himself anymore. Similarly he can't defend himself from calumny.--hughey 19:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Still, one published paper is strangely low output for five years' work of two theoretical physicists (and this is only since Heim died). I look forward to the main body of Heim theory being published in peer-reviewed journals. I do hope you are right and there will be next papers on the theory. And, by the way, you are wrong. I'm not affiliated to the thought police. Actually, I'm surprised that asking why they published so little in five years (I never asked about Heim himself, which would be obvious to you if you actually read the five sentences I wrote above) makes me some kind of enemy of science progress. If you want to make this theory a mainstream one, you cannot start with personal attacks against anyone who takes some interest in it, can you? Friendly Neighbour 20:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It might be low if they were working full time on this - but they are not: Hauser had some funding from his local government to work on the winning AIAA presentation, but otherwise his time is heavily given over to other projects - see Jochem Häuser (also the following list should act as a slap in the face to the ignorant accusations of 'crank'):

"Dröscher, W., Häuser, J. Magnet Experiment to Measuring Space Propulsion Heim-Lorentz Force a4,letter (pdf, 1.7 MB) Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, Leopold - Franzens Universität Innsbruck, Austria Faculty Karl-Scharfenberg, University of Applied Sciences, Salzgitter, Germany 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit,Tucson,Arizona, 10-13 July,2005

Dröscher, W., Häuser, J. Heim Quantum Theory: Notation, Glossary and Mathematical Definitions (pdf, 270kB)

Dröscher, W., Häuser, J. Heim Quantum Theory for Space Propulsion Physics (letter, pdf, 1.3 MB) Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, Leopold - Franzens Universität Innsbruck, Austria Faculty Karl-Scharfenberg, University of Applied Sciences, Salzgitter, Germany CP746, STAIF 2005

Ludewig, T., Häuser, J., Gollnick, T., Dai, W., Paap, H., A Java Based High Performance Solver for Hierachical Parallel Computer Architectures,

HPC Consultant, Barbing, Germany, University of Applied Sciences Wolfenbüttel, Salzgiiter, Gemany, G Hypersonic Technology Göttingen, Germany, Department of Transportation, University of Applied Sciences and Department of High Performance Computing - Center of Logistics and Expert Systems GmbH, Salzgitter, Germany, 5th European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, 8 - 11 November 2004, Colgone, Germany

Dröscher, W., Häuser, J. Guidelines For a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim's Quantum Theory (a4, letter (PDF 0.5 MB) Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, Leopold - Franzens Universität Innsbruck, Austria Department of Transportation, University of Applied Sciences and Department of High Performance Computing - Center of Logistics and Expert Systems GmbH, Salzgitter, Germany AIAA Paper 2004-3700

Häuser, J., Ludewig, T., Gollnick, T., Paap, H.-G. A Pure Java Multi-Physics Solver using Complex Geometries (3.7 MB) Talk at IAC Rome, Italy, 2. February 2004 Department of Transportation, University of Applied Sciences and Department of High Performance Computing - Center of Logistics and Expert Systems GmbH, Salzgitter, Germany HPC Consultant, Barbing, Germany

Ludewig, T., Häuser, J., Gollnick, T., Paap, H.-G. JUST GRID: A Pure Java HPCC Grid Architecture for Multi-Physics Solvers using Complex Geometries (1.2 MB) Paper presented at 42nd AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, 5-8 January 2004 Department of Transportation, University of Applied Sciences and Department of High Performance Computing - Center of Logistics and Expert Systems GmbH, Salzgitter, Germany HPC Consultant, Barbing, Germany AIAA Paper 2004-1091

Ludewig, T., Häuser, J., Gollnick, T., Paap, H.-G. JUST GRID: A Pure Java HPCC Grid Architecture for Multi-Physics Solvers using Complex Geometries (1.5 MB) Talk at 42nd AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, 5-8 January 2004 Department of Transportation, University of Applied Sciences and Department of High Performance Computing - Center of Logistics and Expert Systems GmbH, Salzgitter, Germany HPC Consultant, Barbing, Germany

Dröscher, W., Häuser, J. Future Space Propulsion based on Heim's Field Theorya4 letter (1.3 MB) Talk at AIAA Space Propulsion Conference, von Braun Center, Huntsville Alabama(3.1 MB) Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, Leopold - Franzens Universität Innsbruck, Austria Department of Transportation, University of Applied Sciences and Department of High Performance Computing - Center of Logistics and Expert Systems GmbH, Salzgitter, Germany AIAA Paper 2003-4990

Dröscher, W., Häuser, J. Physical Principles of Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Heim's Field Theory Institut für Grenzgebiete der Wissenschaft, Leopold - Franzens Universität Innsbruck, Austria Department of Transportation, University of Applied Sciences and Department of High Performance Computing - Center of Logistics and Expert Systems GmbH, Salzgitter, Germany AIAA Paper 2002-4094

Xia, Y., Häuser, J., Patel, M.K., Cross, M. Feature-Oriented Grid Topology Design for Aerospace Configurations (1.3 MB) Department of High Performance Computing - Center of Logistics and Expert Systems Salzgitter, Deutschland Centre for Numerical Modelling and Process Analysis - School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences - The University of Greenwich, London, UK

Häuser, J. , Eiseman, P.R., Cheng. Z. , Paap, H.-G. From CAD to Simulation Run - Automatic Grid Generation Interfacing (4.5 MB) Paper presented at Gamm Conference, Augsburg, March 2002

Häuser, J., Ludewig, T., Gollnick, T., Williams, Roy D. Javagrid: An Innovative Software for HPCC A Paper for Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Swansea 2001

Ginsberg,M., Häuser, J., Moreira, J.E.,Morgan R., Parsons, J.C., Wielenga, T.J. Panel Session: future directions and challenges for Java implementations of numeric-intensive industrial applications published in: Advances in Engineering Software, Elsevier, 31,2000, p.743-751

Häuser,J., Ludewig, T., Williams, Roy D., Winkelmann, R., Gollnick, T., Brunett, S., Muylaert, J. A Test Suite for High Performance Parallel Java (2.0 MB) published in: Advances in Engineering Software, Elsevier,31, 2000, p.687-696

Häuser,J., Ludewig, T., Williams, Roy D., Winkelmann, R., Gollnick, T., Brunett, S., Muylaert, J. A Test Suite for High Performance Parallel Java paper presented at 5th National Symposium on Large-Scale Analysis, Design and Intelligent Synthesis Environments Williamsburg, VA, October 12th to 15th, 1999

Häuser,J., Ludewig, T., Williams, Roy D., Winkelmann, R., Gollnick, T., Brunett, S., Muylaert, J. NASA Panel Java Soundbytes paper presented at 5th National Symposium on Large-Scale Analysis, Design and Intelligent Synthesis Environments Williamsburg, VA, October 12th to 15th, 1999

Häuser, J., Muylaert, J., Spel, M., Walpot, L., Xia, Y, A General Grid Generation Strategy for Complex Aerospace Geometries, paper presented at the 8th International Meshing Roundtable South Lake Tahoe, USA October 10.-13., 1999.

Häuser, J., Ludewig, Th., Gollnick, T., Winkelmann, R., Williams, R., D., Muylaert, J., Spel, M., A Pure Java Parallel Flow Solver, published in: Proceedings of the 37th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA 99-0549 Reno, NV, USA, January 11.-14., 1999.

Häuser, J., Xia, Y., Wong, H., Muylaert, J., Grid Generation for the X-38 Crew Transfer Vehicle with Speedbrake Modeling, presented at Deutsche Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress DGLR-Jahrestagung, Bremen, October 5.-8., 1998 .

Häuser, J., Xia, Y., Eiseman, P.R., Cheng, Z.-M., Topology Database Construction for Automatic Generation of Aircraft and Spacecraft, Jahrbuch 1998 (II), DGLR, October, 1997, GW ISBN 0070-408

Häuser, J., Xia, Y., Spel, M., Application of 3D Clamp Techniques in Grid Generation for Complex Geometries, In: Proceeding of the 15th IMACS World Congress on Scientific Computation, Modelling and Applied Mathematics, Vol. II: Numerical Mathematics, Berlin, August 24.-29., 1997, p.167-172, ISBN 3-89685-552-2

Häuser, J., Xia, Y., Muylaert, J., Spel, M., Structured Surface Definition and Grid Generation for Complex Aerospace Configurations, In: Proceeding of the 13th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference - Open Forum, June 29 - July 2, 1997, Part 2, p.836-837, ISBN 1-56347-233-3

Häuser J. , Williams R. D., and Winkelmann R., A Tangled Web Strategy for Numerical and Parallel Scalability in Aerospace Simulation, Proceedings of the CFD `97 conference, University of Victoria, BC, Canada, May 25.-27., 1997

Spel M., Steijl R., Muylaert J., Häuser J., Testing and numerical rebuilding of HALIS in high enthalpy conditions, 21st International Symposium on Shock Waves, Great Keppel Island, Australia, July 2.-25., 1997

W.C. Thacker, D. Eppel, J. Häuser Advective Transport via Error Minimisation: Enforcing Constrains of Non-Negativity and Conservation published in: Appl. Math. Modelling, 1996 Vol 10 December

Häuser, J., Xia, Y., Muylaert, J., Spel, M., Aerodynamic Simulation for the Halis Configuration Using Object-Oriented Grid Generation, DGLR-Jahrbuch II, GW, 1996, p.735-744, ISSN 0070-408

Häuser, J., Xia, Y., Spel, M., Paap, H.-G., Eiseman, P.R., Cheng, Z.-M., Grid Generation for Microaerodynamics Simulations of the Cassini-Huygens Space Probe, Numerical Grid Generation in Computational Field Simulations, 1996, p.107-116, ISBN 0-9651627-0

Reymond, J.-D., Häuser, J., Xia, Y., Grid Generation for 3D Turbine Configurations, Numerical Grid Generation in Computational Field Simulations, 1996, p451-457, ISBN 0-9651627-0

Häuser, J., Xia, Y., Muylaert, J., Paap, H.-G., Euler and N-S Grid Generation for Halis Configuration with Body Flap, Numerical Grid Generation in Computational Field Simulations 1996, p.887-901, ISBN 0-9651627-0

Williams R. D., Häuser J. and Winkelmann R., Hypersonic Flow Around the Halis Orbiter, Annual Report, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA, 1996

Williams R. D., Häuser J. and Winkelmann R., Efficient Convergence Acceleration for Parallel CFD Codes, Proceedings of the Parallel CFD `96 conference, Capri, Italy, July, 1996

Williams R. D., Häuser J. and Winkelmann R., Paap H. G., Spel M. and Muylaert J., CFD Simulations for the Huygens-Cassini Probe, Annual Report, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA, 1995, p.56-57

Häuser J., Williams R. D. , Paap H. G., Spel M., Muylaert J. and Winkelmann R., A Newton-GMRES Method for the Parallel Navier-Stokes Equations, Proceedings of the Parallel CFD `95 conference, Pasadena, California, July, 1995 --hughey 17:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Highly impressive but the list creates a question. Why even the best proponents of the theory contribute so little time to it? If you believed you have the theory of everything, wouldn't you work full time on it? For example for the simple reason to actually get the Nobel prize... For me it looks like even Häuser did not completely believe the theory is right. BTW, who said except you used the word "crank" on this page? I didn't. Friendly Neighbour 18:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Any Progress on Verification?

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? 24.128.22.71 20:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Hugh Deasy is a professional physisct is the author of the original wiki article. The theory correctly predicts particle masses. What more do you want? Here is the theory in twenty five words or so from a comment found on the PhsOrg forum Heim theory thread "It's not a lattice being imposed on space-time. The lattice is space time. The hypervolumes" within the lattice are nothing. The connecting edges are everything. The only reason that you even have to define the "shape" is to get the winding orders and connectivity of the nodes correct. Its essentially a discrete graph theory of the nature of space time. Personally I love it, as it makes more sense to me than most of modern physics. Then again, I'm a computer scientist. All in all, I think Heim theory is essentially loop quantum gravity with some smart starting points. Since those starting points lead to very accurate predictions of particle masses, the starting points and metron concept may be close to correct. I'm eager to find out what the mass of the neutron[ino] is. Response: You have got it! Since it's the same reality out there, Heim theory and LQG would have to be isomorphic. --Will314159 09:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hermetries, Protosimplexes, etc

Could someone who knows something about this theory put some information on the page about specifics of it. For instance, on the Protosimplex website, there's a nice description about the origin and structure of particles (which looks... surprisingly similar to LQG's description. It makes me wonder if perhaps they predict the same things as to the structure of particles and that Heim theory provides a reason for the model). Also according to the page, Heim theory predicts that quarks cannot be isolated -Luke D 03:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (incorrect date, sorry)

read the ongoing discussion at the Phsyorg site. the link is given at the external sites section--Will314159 12:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You probably mean this forum.physorg.com thread (47 pages long!) Friendly Neighbour 13:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean for me though, I just mean that information like that would be useful to make for a more complete presentation on the theory. -Luke D 03:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

the similarites to LQG arise because both theories are background dependent. they both arise from a direct quantization of space time albeit at different stages. Thus matter arises out of spacetime in both theories. This is entirely different from String/Brane theory where matter is a vibration of the string/branes and is an OTHER from spacetime. That's why I think that parts of Heim Theory and LQG will one day be shown to be isomorphic or the same theory in different guises.--Will314159 15:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a wealth of popular material on LQG by the founders, Smolin and on Abhay Ashtekar's home page. I added this link on the wiki page http://cgpg.gravity.psu.edu/people/Ashtekar/articles.html I've been slogging through it and pinpointing the similarities between the two theories. And the special edition of the Scientific American-- Atoms of Space and Time is a real eye opener. http://www.sciam.com/special/toc.cfm?issueid=40&sc=rt_nav_list --Will314159 16:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV WARNING

Removed it b/c it was not first discussed on this talk page. I believe it was place by "friendly guy." attempted to communicate with him on his talk page. At the outset of HT article, it is clearly stated that it is NON-MAINSTREAM science. That should be enough.--Will314159 11:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying that you "tried" to communicate with me? You asked some questions and I responded on my talk page, the very same page where you asked. Should I understand that you could not find it later (as suggested by your misrepresentstion of my Wikipedia name)? Friendly Neighbour 13:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Freindly Neighbour. Forgot your name. But we can all agree that this is the proper place to discuss making changes to the Heim Theory. The Talk Pages of Heim theory. Have at it.--Will314159 15:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You should have used the History tab which is at the top of every Wikipedia page. This is a graeat way to see who changed what. Friendly Neighbour 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I capitlized the non-mainstream to mollify critics and provide further warning.--Will314159 15:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is how the introductory paragraph of the article now stands "Heim theory is a term used to describe a NON-MAINSTREAM proposed 'theory of everything', based on the assumptions used by Heim on his work in propulsion and mass calculations. Neither most of his original work nor theories based on his work have been peer reviewed. Burkhard Heim attempted to resolve incompatibilities between quantum theory and general relativity."--Will314159 16:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am failry new to Wikipedia but not so new that i don't remember that there used to be a warning, that it was talked to death, then it was removed by consensus. Am I wrong in believing that it is the better part of discretion to talk about stuff on the article talk or discussion page before acting lone ranger? Somebody set me straight if I am wrong on this topic. Am I right that a person shouldn't have to hunt around in the history tab to see what has happened and contact that person and see what gives (which I did anyway)? Any friendly or neighborly information and guidance would be deeply appreciated.--Will314159 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree with Will314159 - Friendly Neighbour has displayed some ignorance of the history of this article and the associated discussions. Then he proceeds to brow-beat Will314159 about a lack of knowledge on the use of Wikipedia history option! FN, please cast a glance at the lengthy discussion and history that led to removal of that NPOV tag, before ploughing in here like a bull in a china shop. --hughey 06:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My intention wasn't offending Will314159. He is a newbie and could not find my Wikipedia name (as admitted here) which was easily available through the article history. As concerns this article history, it's true I did not backtrace it to the begining of time. Mea culpa. However, I simply restored the freshly deleted NPOV warning. The user who deleted it (24.128.22.71 - probably Will314159 himself before he created his present account) gave as the reason of the deletion "Remove POV - last I checked, theory means "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena" (answers.com). No one's saying its not a theory, just not widely accepted". He did not say the NPOV itself offended him, he complained only at the misuse of the theory definition. I fully agreed with his statement. Therefore, I simply re-phrased the NPOV warning to avoid the theory controversy. I still believe Heim theory is not experimantally confirmed (as opposed to explaining pre-existing experimental dataset - I explained the importance of the difference on my Talk page). However I do not intend to restore the NPOV warning, if this is (as I see now) the prevailing opinion. Have a nice day. Your Friendly Neighbour 08:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"probably Will314159 himself" NOT ME folks. I'm too friendly and neighbo[u]rly to change stuff on this article without consultation on the talk page and following proper [N]ettiquette.--Will314159 12:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That explains a lot. Seems I was wrong about your identity. You did not know that the NPOV warning I re-inserted had been deleted four hours earlier, did you? Not that it is important any more... Friendly Neighbour 13:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, "acting lone ranger" is in many cases precisely the accepted spirit of Wikipedia's "Be Bold" guideline. That doesn't mean it's okay to ignore previously established consensus or to brush aside others' concerns, of course, but in general good faith changes to an article are encouraged, with no need to ask permission first. In this case, I don't think there's a clear consensus on how the article should make readers aware of Heim theory's complete lack of acceptance among scientists in related fields. To my mind, a nice big warning label at the top feels like a minimum, given the strongly Heim-accepting content of the body of the article.--Steuard 16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first line of the first paragraph already states that HT is a NON-MAINSTREAM proposed theory. The third line reports its lack of peer review. But maybe we could express the scientific status of HT even more clear. I think the NPOV tag is the wrong instrument to classify a theory as being mainstream / non-mainstream / correct / wrong / whatever (see my posts above). Instead, a general NPOV means the article as a whole has not been written with a neutral point of view. Since no one is neutral (expcept me of course .. just kidding), we have to go through the article section by section, paragraph by paragraph, and discuss how it can be improved. - Back to warning the innocent reader .. what about a preface paragraph like this:

Caution: Heim Theory, a proposed Theory of Everything, is a controversial topic. It is a non mainstream theory, because it is neither known, nor peer reviewed, nor accepted by most physicists. Wikipedia readers interested in mainstream theories should consult LQG, ST, BT, ... For details why HT is a controversial topic, see the section Pro/Contra HT at the end of this article and check the Talk page of this article.

After that follows the current article minus whats already stated in that preface. Near the end of the article should follow a section Pro/Contra, with maybe 5 arguments contra and 5 pro HT. Each tribe should pick their sharpest (s)words for that .. ;-P

I will add a new section for suggestions at the end of this talk page.

What do you think about the suggested preface ? MillKa 22:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

let's leave it like it is. Why reward bad behavior?--Will314159 15:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)--Will314159 15:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at all this energy and intellect wasted becasue someone decided to change a page w/o talking about it first. That's what a "Talk" page is for. You have a wide open encyclopedia where anybody and everybody can make an edit or a revert. If everybody acts at random anonymously w/o communicating we're back to the law of the JUNGLE- endless edits back and forth- edit and revert wars. I'm just restating the obvious as I were talking to some little kids. It shouldn't even be necessary, should it? Take Care!--Will314159 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Category changes

I deleted the categories 'Faster-than-light travel' and 'Warp drive theory'. I think i've read every available paper about HT during the last 3 months.

I found nowhere a claim that HT allows travelling faster than light. Instead, the maximum speed mentioned was 0.55 c. Thats pretty fast, but you wont get a ticket from Albert .. ;-P If someone feels the urge to re-add that category, i would like to see some evidence before.

I found no claim that HT warps spacetime (e.g. like the [Alcubierre_drive]). If someone feels the urge to re-add that category, i would like to see some evidence before. MillKa 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Guidelines for a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim's Quantum Theory claims faster-than-light travel. Restoring category. -- Petri Krohn 02:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for Pro / Contra section

Two sections above i suggested a new section Pro / Contra. To avoid cluttering up that section i added this section for suggestions. Please add your numbered and signed suggestions under the appropriate header. Thanks. MillKa 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments contra HT

1. embraced by New Agers 2. pisses off string theorists 3. has not had verifiable postdiction as opposed to prediction experimental results.4 has extra dimensions beside the usual four 5. uses non-mainstream math 6 esoteric, inaccessible German literature, nonpeer reviewed (but I still like it)--Will314159 15:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of the following issues were discussed at Talk:Burkhard_Heim/Archive1:

1. Multiple timelike dimensions (one Heim theory paper said that though they look like time dimensions, they "have to be something different, because more than one single time dimension leads to unphysical results"... but no suggestions of how they could be anything other than time dimensions were mentioned. Heim's extra dimensions have negative metric signature, which is essentially the definition of "timelike" in relativity).
2. Extra dimensions, but no physical reason that they would not be observed (the only reason I've seen presented by Heim theory folks is that they "are not measurable by physical instruments and have an informational character, since they describe qualitative aspects (meanings) of material organisations." But unless this "mysticism" is an intrinsic part of the theory (and probably even then), there would have to be some mathematical reason in Heim theory for the extra dimensions to be unobserved. However, Heim theory folks seem to explicitly deny known ways of accomplishing this such as Kaluza-Klein compactification.)
3. Prediction of unobserved particles (particularly the "neutral electron", whose mass is many orders of magnitude less than the current experimental lower bound, but possibly also the fourth and fifth neutrino species).
4. Fine structure constant prediction falls 20 standard deviations outside experimental error bars (evidence against the theory), and the numerical result claimed by Heim theory materials actually differs substantially from the actual result of Heim theory's own equation (evidence about credibility of those working on the theory).
5. Particle mass predictions fall outside experimental error bars (in every case that I recall checking, comparison of the Heim theory mass prediction to the current best experimental data shows that Heim's prediction is ruled out at a level of several standard deviations). Note that this includes the neutrino mass predictions: the observed mass differences between neutrino species are 0.000079 eV and 0.0031 eV, but mass differences between neutrinos in Heim theory are all at least 5 keV.
6. Lack of explicit contact with countless observations matching the quark model (Heim theory apparently says nothing about quarks, but quark properties like masses and couplings have been measured in detail in various experiments. Can Heim theory even in principle explain the observed top quark mass, for example?)
7. Complete absence of theoretical error estimates apart from choice of significant figures (no Heim theory predictions that I've seen are accompanied by estimates of uncertainty at all). (This isn't evidence against the theory directly, but is evidence about the training and professionalism of those working on it.)
8. Claims such as the following in Heim theory papers: "the spontaneous order that has been observed in the universe is opposite to the laws of thermodynamics, predicting the increase of disorder or greater entropy (Strogatz 2003). Everywhere highly evolved structures can be seen, which is an enigma for the science of today." (The notion that spontaneous order in the universe is "an enigma" for modern science is simply false; all sorts of fascinating work studying and modelling such processes is being done all the time. Again, all this may say less about the theory itself than about the scientific understanding of those currently working on it.)
9. Use of the exact area "1 meter^2" as a fundamental physical constant (not just as a convenient normalization factor: physical predictions of Heim theory such as the "initial size of the universe" change if you use a different value like "2 meter^2" instead. I have seen no explanation from Heim theory workers of why the arbitrary human unit of "meters" would show up in a fundamental theory this way).
10. Incorrect origin of hadron masses. Whatever the true "theory of everything", experiment dictates that it must coincide with the standard model in quantum field theory for processes of known particle physics. The standard model cannot explain the values of coupling constants or of the quark and lepton masses, but with those as "inputs" it can predict the masses of hadrons (particles composed of quarks). In particular, numerical work in Lattice QCD can predict hadron masses to within a few percent (including at least one prediction later confirmed by experiment). In most cases, a very significant fraction of the hadron's mass comes from virtual particles coming from the details of QCD (e.g. very little of the proton or neutron masses comes from the three basic up and down quarks themselves). However, basic 6D Heim Theory claims to predict hadron masses in a theory that does not include QCD at all! This seems like a fundamental inconsistency with experimentally verified physics. [Added later: Steuard 16:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)]

That's not everything, but it's a start (and there are several issues there that would individually make most physicists in the field dismiss the theory immediately).--Steuard 21:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Unlike dark energy (74% of the Unverse mass acording to the most recent commological data including WMAP results) which could be accounted by one of the additional Heim forces, dark matter (22% of Universe mass) cannot be properly explained with the theory. To explain phenomena like galaxy rotation, galaxy group rotation and the large scale distribution of galaxies (these are three distinct problems), one needs some heavy weakly-interacting unknown particles (WIMPs). I do not think Heim theory, unlike supersymmetry, has any good candidates. The neutral electron is not heavy enough, by far. The apparent lack of heavy stable undiscovered particles in Heim theory is IMHO a bigger problem than the light non-existent particle prediction because we have to find particles comprising most of the missing 22% of Universe while all known baryonic matter is just 4% of the Universe mass. Friendly Neighbour 07:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

In spite of Steuard's continuing objectrion against identifying the kinship of HT and LQG, some of the main objections to LQG also apply to HT. See Talk:Loop_quantum_gravity/Archive_3#Objections_to_the_theory Take Care! --Will314159 13:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge points of similarity between Heim Theory and LQG: some of the general ideas involved do seem to be parallel. So if there are difficulties (or successes) associated with those points of similarity, then of course they should apply to both theories. My objection is simply to treating the two theories as comparably trustworthy or valid (or as if they are related in any fundamental sense beyond a few shared features). LQG isn't perfect, but it doesn't suffer from any of the major flaws that I've listed for Heim Theory above. The objections to LQG are generally not as serious (or so I believe; some more extreme LQG opponents think it has fatal weaknesses).--Steuard 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Arguments pro HT

1. HT mass formula derives, calculates and explains particle masses and lifetimes only from universal constants. No other current theory does that. MillKa 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
2. HT unifies GR and QM, extended HT additionally unifies electromagnetism, strong and weak force. MillKa 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
3. There are no known contradictions to experiments or other theories. (neutral electron ? - see above) MillKa 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
4. HT explains 'Dark energy' (expansion of the universe). MillKa 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
5. HT Prediction for the masses of neutrinos. Physicists have recently confirmed that neutrinos have mass. This is a major finding of the US-based Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search (Minos) experiment. The news release of this is found in the "News Items" section. This is a CONFIRMED prediction as opposed to a postdiction! n'est ce pas????? --Will314159 14:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Regarding those neutrino mass results, see my addition to my point 5 above. Heim theory is by no means the first or only physical theory to posit non-zero neutrino mass, and its specific predictions of the mass differences appear to be off by six orders of magnitude. Thus, this prediction is a significant failure of Heim theory, not a success. Also, does Heim theory provide any explanation for why the additional two neutrino species it predicts are not observed? For that matter, are its neutrino mass eigenstates different from its neutrino flavor eigenstates?--Steuard 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Implementations of Heim's mass formula

User:Pjacobi from the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience deleted the link to the Physorg Forum, because "a web forum isn't a link of encyclopedic quality". Are there any Wikipedia rules about what links are allowed ?

I re-added the forum link, because

1. it is the only place where the original Fortran implementation of Heim and DESY is available
2. it is the only place where all the recent implementations are available (sourceforge only has a subset

If Pjacobi or someone else still considers the forum link as being below encyclopedic quality, i would like to read an explanation.

As a WP newbie i feel tempted to ask, whether i shall continue to discuss changes here on the talk page, or whether i should follow the example of some users and switch to drive-by editing ?

(Sorry, today im not exactly in the mood for smilies and lame jokes)

MillKa 00:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Milka. I too saw that the change had been made from the history tab. After the joust with Friendly Neighbour, I was too give out to jump on this one too. Folks, let us use the talk page, otherwise Wikipedia just turns into a free-for-all. A giant food fight among kindergarten kids. It's like the concept of mutual deterrence. We all have the power of edits and reverts. Somewhere in there, mutual respect of each other's power has to enter. We have to shape the article by consensus. Take Care!--Will314159 14:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

But we do. Note the number of edits in last week here (45 counting this one in) and in the article page (17). All changes in the article page are minor edits. Even the NPOV warning episode was not a proper revert war: every one made only one change. I see only order and good mannes here comparing to most frequently edited Wikipedia pages. My biggest edit since then was this one. We can discuss it if you want. Except for correcting bad English, like the following phrase saying that Heim's theory of everything was ("based on the assumptions used by Heim on his work in propulsion and mass calculations"), I deleted the two given sources of the theory of everything as they were IMHO ridiculous (take note: I don't say "not true" but "not fitting in this sentence"). I made the first mention of Heim a link to his article (it was the second) and added two people who contributed a lot to the theory. I made no opinionated edits (which does not mean that the article does not need some). OK, let's discuss.

Let's start with the deleted and restored forrum link. All forum link are below Wikipedia quality by definition, that is according to its rules. This is what Wikipedia:Reliable sources guildline article says about sources like Internet forums: "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.".

There are more things which should be changed to make the article balanced but I do not plan to introduce any non-concensus changes without discussing them first here. I may do a little more minor non-controversial copyediting from time to time. I hope you do not consider this "drive-by editing" :-) Friendly Neighbour 15:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Friendly Neighbour, you still haven't properly apologized and acknowldged what you did. I really wish you would so we could move on and get past it instead of continually rehashing it. In law, it's called stare decisis. Latin for respecting prior precedent. A court does not charge in like a "bull in a china shop" and change things around. First, it researches what has been decided in the past, prior decisions. You didn't do that. It wasn't even in the archives. It was in plain sight on the talk page. Second, other justices (that's the rest of us on the talk page) are consulted. We never got to that stage. Being a newbie I made the mistake of being courteous and contacting you instead of just deleting your drive-by-edit warning immediately. Sticking that warning up was not a minor link or spelling change. It was a big deal and caused some emotional distress- rehashing a matter already settled. As far as the Physorg forum- please lighten up. I put the original link and Milka cleaned it up. Heim theory at this stage is being powered by volunteers and the people at the forum have implemented all these programming language implementation of the mass theory and a lot of good things are happening. If the aim of the encyclopedia is to spread knowledge, that aim is served by keeping the link. Granted, since the volunteers have ported some of the code over to the sourceforge, the forum has partially become redundant, but it is only a partial redundancy. Have a nice day and Take Care!--Will314159 15:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the proper form of apology you require? I am ready to satisfy you. I already wrote on this talk page: "As concerns this article history, it's true I did not backtrace it to the begining of time. Mea culpa.". What else do you need? However, you still have not noticed that it was not me who distressed the "justices" who seem to congregate here. See the following sequence (I hope I need not explain that the time arrow goes upwards here):

# 06:21, 28 April 2006 Friendly Neighbour (Restoring a rephrased POV warning. This theory at present has no empirical confirmation and many physicists doubt its fundamentals.)
# 02:30, 28 April 2006 24.128.22.71 (Remove POV - last I checked, theory means "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena" (answers.com). No one's saying its not a theory, just not widely accepted)
# 05:06, 27 April 2006 Hillman (+ POV-flag, once again, sigh...)

It was Hillman who inserted the distressing warning, I restored it after taking into account 24.128.22.71's remarks about the meanng of theory. Why do you keep making me an Atilla the Hun of this article???

Second, according to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles: "First, there's control of the article. Some contributors feel very possessive about articles they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders.". In my honest opinion, this is the situation here.

Third, the consensus you seem to see here is composed of yourself, Hdeasy and maybe Millka. The counter-consensus bulls-in-the-shop seem to consist of me, Steuard and Pjacobi. Well, I'm not so sure I see the same consensus which you see.

Fourth, Millka asked whether "someone else still considers the forum link as being below encyclopedic quality" and I responded because I do. What Wikipedia:Etiquette rules have I broken this time? Please feel free to keep beating me up with the consensus stick for my crimes.

--Your drive-by bull-in-the-shop a.k.a. Friendly Neighbour 16:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Principles -> Predictions

I copyedited the "Principles" section of the article, changing the name to "Predictions of the theory" as it is evidently about verifable predictions of the theory. I make the main success of Heim theory (non-zero neutrino masses) more visible. I hope Will314159 will not find a fault in these changes. This is exactly the kind of changes (compromises!) that do not need asking about in advance. See Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Of course, feel free to improve (or even revert) my contributions. Cheerio. Friendly Neighbour 18:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

cleaned up the grammar of the predictions section.--Will314159 01:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I added some possible (and actively sought after) ways all existing HT variants could be falsified, like the discovery of the hypothetical Higgs boson (HT has no need for it as it explains the origin of particle mass in a Higgsless way) or any particles postulated by supersymmetry (any known version of HT does not include supersymmetry). If you think I'm wrong, please revert my edit showing the source of the HT prediction of those particles. Thank you. Friendly Neighbour 12:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, HT can accommodate Higgs Field Theory, Friendly Neighbour (herinafter "FN" a.k.a. B.I.C.S. :-) ). If you recall Higgs Theory does not address gravitational mass but inertial mass. Particles plowing through the viscous Higgs field slow down and manifest inertial mass. Slow down with all these changes until you understand more HT. Admittedly you are not a deep student of HT nor an afficiando with knowledge of its fine points. Take Care!--Will314159 14:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

A verifiable source, please? I searched the internet before making my edit. Even here on Wikipedia, Higgsless model stub article cited by me above (you did not read mine editt again, did you?) says "Proponents of Heim theory claim that inertia arises in their theory naturally as a result of the metron interactions, without need of a Higgs boson, hence the term Higgsless model.". Have you seen this? If so, why haven't you corrected it? Friendly Neighbour 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The website you seem to accept (www.heim-theory.com) says This formula yields all known and some unknown masses of elementary particles and resonances on account of the knowledge about the internal dynamics of geometrical structures, without introducing of Higgs-bosons or perturbation calculations. So, are you an expert on HT or not? Friendly Neighbour 14:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the direct to the Higgsless model. My doctorate is in law, not Physics. I would yield to Dr. Deasy and others w/o further info while I look for the cites, but from what I have read is that HT can accommodate Higgs Theory so the falsification discussion is not accurate or in any case disputed. I will find thecite for you. Some people believe that GR itself establishes the Equivalence principle but there still must be mechanisms at the quantum level. I for one don't see how either in LQG or in HT oscillations in scpacetime fabric (metron lattice or spin foam) are going to give rise to inertia. In your cite to the Heim theory site, again you must take care to distinguish and not confuse gravitational mass and inertial mass!!!!!!!! Take Care!--Will314159 14:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And what about the www.heim-theory.com page claiming there are no Higgs bosons in HT? They are the highest authorities of the theory, aren't they? And if HT can accomodate Higgs, what is its mass according to the Heim formula? Higgs boson is seen nowhere in the available Heim group files. Friendly Neighbour 14:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And since when Higgs mechanism creates gravitational mass? It creates inertia, see for example here: A Higgs boson is the particle that carries the inertia. In Heim theory, The unperturbed lattice represents empty vacuum. Local deformations of the lattice indicate the presence of something other than empty space. If the deformation is of the right form and complexity it acquires the property of mass and inertia. Therefore there is no need for Higgs in HT, is there? By the way, my Ph.D. is in physics although apllied, not theoretical. Cheerio. Friendly Neighbour 15:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, if the Higgs mechanism didn't create gravitational mass as well as inertial mass, the (quite well-tested) equivalence principle wouldn't work (and I assure you, someone would have noticed by now). The couplings to the Higgs that give rise to mass do imply that the resulting massive particles carry energy density, and energy density always couples to gravity whatever its source. As for a Higgs in Heim theory, that would seem to undermine the whole program: if particles in Heim theory have both intrinsic mass and Higgs-induced mass, then the current predicted masses are just lower bounds, not actual predictions.--Steuard 21:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Where did my edit go. A quick google search reveals from a post by Dr. Deasy on PhysOrg forum. I will leave further elaboration and discussion with FN a.ka. B.I.C.S. to him " Higgs Boson in Heim -Droscher theory. But now Droscher, with Hauser, has found some indication that it might me present after all. Its mass was calculated using two different methods with essentially the same result. So this preliminary work indicates that its mass should be about twice the Z0 boson. A gravitophoton pair should be present in the corresponding Feynman diagram. This preliminary mass range involved is thus 182.7 +- 0.6 GeV." Take Care!--Will314159 15:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Dr. Deasy has already seen the Higgsless model article. He actually edited it four times, so far without claiming it's untrue :-) Friendly Neighbour 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I made the Higgs HT problem sentence less POV. However, I cannot use your citation. The main author of a Wikipedia article claiming in an internet forum that Droscher and Hauser have some unpublished results is not an encyclopedia worthy source. Sorry. It goes againt the WP rules (Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Let us wait for the results being published or at least announced by their authors themselves. Friendly Neighbour 15:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There's HT and there's HT w/ the Droscher-Hausher Extensions. The Extented Theory is in a dynamic stage of development. That's why I think it's better to talk about substantive changes here before just barging right in. It just saves time later. Take Care!--Will314159 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats' exactly why I wrote about "all existing versions". I just added a sentence that no HT version with Higgs has been published. Which means that one can be published but hasn't been, yet. Wikipedia articles need to be properly sourced. Hints on unpublished results are not enough. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Friendly Neighbour 16:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The comment about the Extensions was directed at the Heim-Theory site you referred to. I understand now the basis of my unease about your falsity-higgs concept. There is no basis in the Standard Model for computing or arriving at mass outside of Higgs Theory. HT can calculate mass without Higgs Theory so it is a "Higgless theory" for the purpose of computing mass. So you falsely assume that the existence of a Higgs boson falsifies HT. That is a logical error. FYI, LQG theory also can compute masses, albeit rather cumberously. the discovery of the higgs boson is not going to falsify LQG either. Take Care!--Will314159 16:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

But still no version of HT with a Higgs boson has been published, has it? This is what my most recent edits of the section say. This is a simple question that should have only one answer: Does HT predict the existence of the Higgs boson or not?. If the answer is "maybe it does, maybe it doesn't" then HT is not a falsifable theory, ergo no science. Friendly Neighbour 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Having discovered NT's LOGICAL error, I will now proceed to clean it up. Take Care!--Will314159 16:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't. No version of HT of which at least some fragmentary results were actually published seem to predict Higgs bosons. The "official" web site of the theory says it does not have Higgs bosons. Which of the particles of predicted masses is the Higgs? If you cannot answer this, please do not vandalize my edits. Thank you. Friendly Neighbour 16:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

NT, it's very simple. HT is a Higgless Theory. What does HiggLESS mean? That doesn't mean it doesn't have the boson. If you deny the recent Droscher work-fine. Just pretend Heim is neutral whether the boson exists or not. It means it doesn't NEED the boson to account for mass creation mechanism and to compute mass as does the standard model. Discovery of the boson does not falsify HT. You have simply fallen into a logical trap.--Will314159 17:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Discovery of unpredicted particles must be a big problem for a "theory of everything". I have not seen any version of the Heim mass formula which predicts the Higgs. And your recent edit contained such illogical phrases as "there is no published theoretical inconsistancy between Heim theory and the existence of Higgs boson". What is a "published theoretical inconsistency"??? However, in the spirit of compromise, I re-phrased the Higgs fragment to "Also it is not certain whether Heim theory can accomodate the possible discovery of Higgs boson, the last undiscovered particle of the Standard Model. Heim theory uses a Higgsless mass creation mechanism and explains particle masses without the need of a Higgs boson but possibly such a particle can be included in a future version of the theory.". Is it OK with you? Remember, that Higgs may be never discovered and it may be better to HT to actually predict the lack of Higgs! Friendly Neighbour 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Job FN. Take Care!--Will314159 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said before, Marcoscopically, Embedded in GR is the equivalence principle namely that gravitational mass equals inertial mass. But at the quantum level, IMHO there are different mechanisms for inertial and gravitational mass. I for one am rooting for the Higgs boson to make its appearance. Camera, lights, action--Will314159 01:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

All in All Friendly Neighbour is not a bad sort even taking into account his unusual spelling of neighbour and colour. That is one of the challenges and rewards of Wikipedia, that it is an international enterprise. I wish him luck in his quest for Administratorship and think he would make a good one. For an interesting theory, noted by Milka, that combines both a Higgsless mechanism and a quasi Higgs to account for mass (a soliton theory) their metron is not the Heim metron see http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/institut/mitarbeiterhasselmannklaus/index/metron-model.html

" In the Standard Model, the symmetry-breaking Higgs mechanism is invoked to generate the fermion masses and the masses of the charged and neutral weak-interaction bosons. We shall not resort to the Higgs mechanism to explain the fermion masses, but attribute these simply to the mode-trapping mechanism, which we assume produces a non-SU(2)-symmetrical particle state. However, an interaction analagous to the Higgs mechanism in the Standard Model is needed to explain the boson masses in the metron model, since the lepton-boson interactions alone yield either zero boson mass, for the diagonal bosons, or a small mass of the order of the lepton mass, for the non-diagonal bosons. In the following we therefore consider a simple interaction which generates boson masses in a manner similar to the Higgs mechanism. "

Take Care!--Will314159 13:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the eternal color/colour question. Both spellings can be used in Wikipedia. I checked it. And it was not me who introduced colour to the article. In fact, I changed the "invisible" link spelling to color to make the link go to the page about colors, not banners ;-) Wikipedia rules explicitely forbid changing colour into color and the other way: Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. And the colour spelling in the article is not by accident. Apparently the QCD journals prefer colour to color. See here for discussion. It seems my WP name is QCD compatible ;-) Friendly Neighbour 15:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)