Talk:Burkhard Heim/Archive 1Modified

This is the abbreviated version of the first archived talk page located at Talk:Burkhard Heim/Archive1Modified. This page, however is significantly edited - hence if the necessity arises to refer to the first archived talk pages, Talk:Burkhard Heim/Archive1 should be used as the authoritative resource. This is because that page in particular, has not been edited; everything has been preserved the way it was written. This modified version of the old talk page is intended to be used as a quick, general reference for content and information, and not a reference for the thought processes and discussion which occured on the original this page. The intention is that the effort placed in its editing could result in some material which could be incorporated into the existing Burkhard Heim article. The edits have been done in what is felt to be good faith. Guidelines used were from Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages.

Concerns about image in article

Illobrand Von Ludwiger said we could use the image on p. 51 of the 1st Telepolis print edition, as he took it himself at Spitzingsee in 1985 and already gave permission for it to be reproduced. -- hughey 08:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV Concerns about initial article

This article at present appears to be as much about the theory as well as its author. However, it seems strongly biased. A claim that someone had "succeeded" in devising a unified field theory that correctly predicts particle masses would be extraodinarily controversial. I feel that most physicists would be skeptical of a theory that claimed to predict the masses of protons and neutrons without consideration of the nuclear forces or quarks. In consideration of this, cleanup is needed to balance out the POV.

What is the size of the community working on Heim's ideas? I have never heard of him or of his mass prediction theory before. I have concerns this article may be contrary to Wikipedia's "No original research" policy. Let us avoid debating the merits of the theory (as Wikipedia is not the forum to do this) and focus on whether it should be included in Wikipedia by deciding whether the article constitues "original research" or not.

One guideline summarized from that page states:

• If a viewpoint is held by a limited minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia - regardless if it is true or not; whether it is verifyable it or not.

I see no evidence that Heim has received significant attention from the scientific community. If this increases in the future, great! Until that point, I feel Heim's theory should not belong on Wikipedia. Steuard 19:46, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

"Burkhard Heim" generates 15,000 google hits. Although a lot of his theories are embedded in the article, my position is that you cannot really seperate a scientist from his or her theories. I think the article needs cleanup more than anything else. Lifefeed 20:04, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I'm hesitant use Google as the final arbiter of broad relevance. Only 211 results are returned if you limit the Google search for Heim to results in English only. Heim has more hits if searched within German only. Maybe the article would be a better candidate for the German edition of Wikipedia at this point instead? My reason for suggesting that Heim might not be notable enough was based on my own moderate expertise in this field: I feel that the high energy physics community is not even aware of Heim - but if he has a reasonably large following among non-experts, then I might agree Heim belongs here. Indeed, the article should emphasize this. It should also avoid saying that he discovered the, or even a "theory of everything". Heim's work has not been verified that we can say either of these hold. Steuard 19:18, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that there are aspects of the theory that raise suspicions of kookery: I've read somewhere about claims which imply it can explain the nature of consciousness. Mikkalai 20:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Take note though: Wikipedia inclusion decisions are made primarily on the basis of overall notability. Heim seems reasonably notable among German speakers according to Google. Assuming that those naive results are right, he probably deserves to be mentioned here. However, if he's generally considered to be a "crackpot" the article should make that clear. Steuard 21:27, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion over the value of Heim's paper and books

Heim was known to English speaking world in the 1950s - Werner von Braun, then prominent in the US space program, contacted Heim on the status of his theory. Although Heim adamant in avoiding contact with the scientific community, he did publish in a recognised physics journal:

In the Max Planck Institue for elementary particles (Munich) publication "Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung":

• Heim; B; Vorschlag eines Weges zur einheitlichen Beschreibung der Elementarteilchen; Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung; 32a; 1977; 233 - 243; Artikel;

There is also a two-volumed book "Elementarstrukturen der Materie" (elementary structures of matter) which gives the theory, in German.

• Heim; Burkhard; Elementarstrukturen der Materie; Einheitliche strukturelle Quantenfeldtheorie der Materie und Gravitation; Band 1; Resch Verlag; Innsbruck; 1989; 89: 2. erweiterte; x + 309; ISBN 3853820085;
• Heim; Burkhard; Elementarstrukturen der Materie; Einheitliche strukturelle Quantenfeldtheorie der Materie und Gravitation; Band 2; Resch Verlag; Innsbruck; 1984; 96: 2; xii + 385; ISBN 3853820360;
• Heim; Burkhard; Droescher, Walter; "Einfuehrung in Burkhard Heim: Elementarstrukturen der Materie; Mit Begriffs und Formelregister"; Resch Verlag; Innsbruck; 1985; 96: 2 verbessert; 149; ISBN 3853820387;

As for the theory omitting the strong force and quarks: this is not entirely true. Baryons are treated as elementary particles; they are interpreted as complex processes with interactions. These interactions result in "condensations" or "thickenings" which affect scattering experiments to give the impression of quarks. Heim theory uses this mechanism to explain why quarks are never seen in isolation - they are viewed as resulting from internal processess of the Baryons. The fundamental element of Heim theory is the Metron, of dimension h*h, which makes it smaller than strings. Hence, there is room for much internal structure in relatively large particles such as the baryons.

As considerable mathematical knowledge is needed to understand the theory, the community working on Heim theory is small. At the moment there is a Catch 22 - to get more physicists involved, more publicity is needed. But without their involvement, it is hard to attain publicity. Heim exacerbated this problem by waiting too long before sharing any of his results and avoided the accepted channels of publication. He worked closely with prominent theorists such as Pascual Jordan, but they have all passed on; the new generation of physicists now know essentially nothing about Heim. His special notation and methods in his theory discourage many physicists from evaluating his theory. Hence, another catch 22! More recognition for the theory will be attained only when more physicists work on it, but none will work on it until it is recognised.

As an observation, there are seemingly comparable cases of scientists sealing themselves from the world. For example, think of Newton's Year of Miracles - in isolation due to plague, he occupied his time by inventing calculus, discovering the chromatic composition of light, and conceived the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. --hughey 15:19, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks like the first paper that you mentioned above was in fact Heim's only published journal article! I searched the SPIRES database of high energy physics publications to search for author Burkhard Heim. SPIRES indicates that no high energy physics paper has ever cited Heim's article. Thus, if there was a "very positive response" to his article, it does not appear to have come from the physics community.

I appreciate your clarifications regarding my comments about the nuclear forces being apparently absent.

How does the theory reconcile with the Standard Model? It has been verified to very high precision over the past twenty or thirty years.

I have strong opinions that any "theory of everything" must reduce to the Standard Model somehow, or be ruled out by experimental data.

For example, is there anything in Heim's theory that looks like SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)? What about the top quark? Also, how does the predicted neutral partner of the electron with possibly the same mass in Heim's theory fit in with what we know already in physics?? These are all valid questions. These will need to be resolved, and if they cannot be resolved, I believe the theory of Heim is unfortunately, doomed. I think it is apt to quote one of Fermi's comments regarding Einstein's unification attempts (warning: I haven't been able to verify this): "Beautiful theory, wrong universe."--Steuard 22:07, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Why is Heim's theory is difficult to follow?

Familarization with Heim's theory is difficult because:

• it is an extension of Einstein's theory to the micro realm;
• it uses modified Riemann geometries;
• it uses a differencing method in place of calculus.

Heim did try to take into account recent developments in physics. However, he:

• used special notations he invented himself;
• wrote a writeup that covers ~2000 pages;
• did not speak English;
• could not privately fund the fees required to translate his specialist work.

All these factors contributed to the difficulty for him to print in technical journals.

Heim was also

• blind
• nearly deaf
• without hands

These contributed to his reasons for not inteacting in the typical way with the scientific community. Instead, he concentrated on devising results, and felt this limited the loss of time over discussions about specific methods and mathematical inadequacies. The Heim theory group have since discovered these and are now in the process of correcting them.

The main result so far confirmed by the DESY calculations, is the solution of his mass equations. They allow particle masses to be calculated without a Higgs mechanism. What is missing in this description is a selection rule for the lifetimes of excited particle states. Heim only indicated the theoretically possible masses. The second large step (which has not been taken yet) is the full description of particle interactions. This is perhaps where the analogies to the Standard Model with its symmetry groups will become apparent. My opinion is that there is still much work to do - I feel that theoreticians should realise that Heim Theory completed the geometrisation step begun by Einstein. Improving the interface with quantum theory is currently being investigated by Heim's colaborator Walter Droescher. hughey 11:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

At [1] it states that the existence of neutral electrons has not been ruled out by CERN physicists.

They would be difficult to detect due to a low scattering cross section, although they might still be found in cosmic rays.

From [2] I quote: "For further empirical tests Heim investigated proton-electron interaction in H-atoms. On this occasion a relation for the finestructure constant ± could be derived, in which a correction must be performed, which is required by the existence of R3-celles due to metrons, and which yields the numerical value: 1/± = 137,03603953 ... The theory predicts a new particle o+ (omicron), whose mass is about 1540 MeV/c². One of the resonances of the omicron is located at 2317.4 MeV/c², which is exactly the value for the particle DSJ*(2317), which recently was detected by the Barbar Collaboration experiment at SLAC (2003)."

Of the 14 particles for which Heim theory gives lifetimes, 12 are within the limits of experimental error. --192.171.3.126 11:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to minimize my discussing this theory at length on Wikipedia as I feel this is not the proper forum for such things. However, I will comment with reference to "neutral electrons" that searches for such things have been carried out [3]. The current lower bound on the mass of an unknown neutral lepton is about 40 GeV at 95% confidence. Based on that, it sounds like a hypothetical neutral lepton with a mass five orders of magnitude lower (0.5 MeV) is ruled out with great confidence. I'm sure that perhaps with couplings to other matter such a particle could still be possible, but my understanding is that the current limits don't require very strong assumptions at all. Unless Heim's theory specifically predicts truly unexpected couplings for that particle, or can be modified so that the particle is not predicted to exist, I think it's existence is ruled out. Steuard 17:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

FYI, in [4] the site [5] is listed as a reference. --hughey 11:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The neutral electron, has a slightly lower mass than the normal charged electron due to the missing field mass. It does not contradict QED because QED applies only to charged particles.

Dr. Dehm, a particle physicist at CERN, had suggested an experiment approximately 20 years ago in order to prove that such a particle with very small interaction cross-section existed. At that time there was an essay (exact reference soon, hopefully) in ApJ, where astrophysicists had found a neutral particle during investigation of particle beams from areas with strong magnetic fields. As the discovered particle was not diverted by interstellar magnetic fields, it had to be neutral. But the well-known neutral particles have too short a lifespan to be able to reach detectors on earth. Hence, the astrophysicists assumed at that time that there had to be a neutral particle with small mass and essentially infinitely long life span. On this basis, a neutral electron's existence cannot be absolutely excluded! Dr. Dehm wanted to suggest an appropriate experiment with CERN. That would have been only possible however, if Heim theory had been recognized in principle by the mainstream scientific community. As we know, this was not the case.

Walter Droescher further developed Heim theory in 8 dimensions, and showed that the internal fine structure of the particles could be interpreted as quarks and gluons. This theory is identical to the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) of the Standard Model. Heim's theory gives all possible particles (including neutrinos with finite masses), and lifetimes based on geometrodynamically arguments. Droeschers extended theory describes in addition to this, the interactions and interaction constants. Hence, the strong and the electroweak forces are only present in Heim-Droescher theory. How one arrives at a neutral electron, is a result of the mass formula with its geometrically driven quantum numbers. (answer from Heim-Theory member) --195.93.60.11 17:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is the claim that the existence of a neutral electron based only on that hypothesis proposed by those astrophysics?

How could the neutral electron evade current detection? The experimental lower bound for neutral lepton masses is around 40 GeV. How would the experiment that established this lower bound be different than that of Dr. Dehm's idea? Regardless of this, I think that if the astrophysical arguments you mentioned had continued to be taken seriously, the search would have been carried out on that basis alone, whether or not Heim's theory is accepted. Steuard 21:13, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I feel that we are focusing too much on the neutral electron. What about the other predictions by Heim, such as the fine structure constant? With only G, h and c as input parameters, I feel this indicates that it's on the right track. hughey 11:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requesting other points of view

So far, I only see one reason why Heim's theories are not accepted: "publishing with an obscure publishing house, resulting in errors in the presentation". I don't believe this is the only reason - some of the criticisms we have discussed should be added to this article to help with this point I brought up. WpZurp 16:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We should also clarify what exactly is this "obscure publishing house" - Who is the publisher, and what else did they publish? Can anyone confirm or deny the merits of the publisher? WpZurp 17:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Has anyone independently confirmed the apparent "seven decimal places of accuracy" for the particular Heim theory predictions? If so, would this not be a strong confirmation of his theories? Otherwise, I'd like to point out that we should avoid spiralling into a similar situation that happened with cold fusion and fraud with superconductors here. WpZurp 17:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I decided to be bold - I believe my recent modifications have given Heim's work a more credible, scientific feel because of the balance I've introduced. I gladly accept correction from those more knowledgeable than me. WpZurp 17:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One reason why Heim fell into obscurity was his handicap - he was blind, near deaf, and without hands; he was cut off from university life. Disability allowance made him independent financially, so he didn't have to work out of a university. The publisher in question is "Resch Verlag" of Austria. It is associated occasionally with somewhat new-age type publications. Heim, like Newton, was interested in mystic stuff. Heim unfortunately remained loyal to Resch, instead of seeking a proper science publisher. For example, Hawking gave as his reason for not going through Heim's opus its non-science publisher. Are these not reasons enough why Heim was not widely recognized, apart from the difficult notation and maths/physics of the full derivations? 195.93.60.11 22:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Update on Google searching...If you search for "Burkhard Heim" together with at least one of "physics OR proton OR electron OR physikers OR weltbild OR Heimsche OR space OR theory", you get under 700 results. A search with 15,000 hits for Heim is probably counting a lot of unrelated pages. I'm a bit skeptical of the notability of Heim, considering the low number of hits. Searching "German Hawking" with "Heim" gives no results.

I also found Protosimplex. It seems to have quite a bit of information offered in English. It seems to be written by a Heim supporter. I think the site could help balancing out the POV of this article. Some quotes:

• "Heim could write an evening-filling detective story about his experiences with criticism, fraud, theft, tried kidnapping on his own person, suspicious evaluation by small and large intriguers." [6] (section "Support, envy, and ignorance")
• "Heim extracts himself from adjustments of arms industry by turning for a while to paraphysical research... On one hand Burkhard Heim succeeds thereby in installing an image to be a kind of crank which discredits him in intended way to the management. On the other hand he made in this time experiences, which convinced him of the existence of rare paranormal phenomena." (same page and section)
• "Also among his teachers there wasn't anybody who supported Heim." (same page and section)
• A venture into evolutionary biology: Heim somehow analyzed the timing of the appearance of "ingenious" features in different species and concluded that "probabilities during mutation were controlled somehow in such a way that ingenious results developed with priority." (same page, previous section)
• "A spirit-like process or "body" in not-material space G4 (x9... x12) is acting as a producer of an idea. The idea is generated by a projection into the space of ideas I2 (x7, x8). [7]

For me, these things don't inspire a lot of confidence for his theory - it is difficult to imagine someone claiming stunning new results in two very different fields. The association with "paranormal phenomena", "ideas", "spirit" in a theory of physics is also more than enough to justify great skepticism. It also sounds like Heim's teachers did not accept his work (and they were presumably among the scientists most likely to give him a fair hearing). Taking these into consideration, they do not help alleviate my concerns about the validity of Heim's purely physical theories. I suspect that most scientists would agree with me on this point. Steuard 23:38, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for these points. I'll add these to the article. WpZurp 00:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rebuttal to the points given above

Focusing too much on the "mystic" side of Heim will not help with the understanding Heim's theory. This is because doing so will not result in an analysis of the mathematics and physics behind his theories. Yes, Heim was involved with such things, and yes, it invites skepticism, but it should not be used as a basis to reject his theory. At the moment, his prediction about the masses of particles is still significant.

Some other points we might want to add to the article:

• Apparently, he could learn a language in a few hours (but not English, amusingly - he had something against it)
• He had a perfectly edetic acoustic memory - he could recall equations 30 years after his wife had read them to him, verbatim, but only if they were read aloud - not if he read them with his poor residual eyesight.

I will make an analogy to John Nash of the film "beautiful mind" - the latter produced Nobel Prize winning theories despite seeing non-existent entities and believing in paranoid conspiracies. Rejecting Nash's mathematical and economic theories on the basis of his reoccuring phychosis would be wrong. Finding apparent faults in Heim not related to his theory does not help in answering whether his theory that he produced is valid or not. I feel that it would be an incorrect way of justifying not going through the effort required to actually understand Heim's theory.

What is your opinion of this quote from the Heim theory site?

"In the beginning of the 1950s, Heim discovered the existence of a smallest area (the square of the Plancks length) as a natural constant, which requires calculations with area differences (called metrons) instead of the differential calculus in microscopic domains. Here we use selector calculus, which Heim employs exclusively in his books, only when its use is indispensable and maintain the general tensor calculus otherwise. For comparison with the work of Heim, in the introduction we discuss briefly the state of the art in the domains of elementary particles and in structure theory. Heim begins by adapting Einsteins field equations to the microscopic domain, where they become eigenvalue equations. The Ricci tensor in the microscopic domain corresponds to a scalar influence of a non-linear operator Cp on mixed variant tensor components of 3 rd degree ϕ p kl (corresponding to the Christoffel-symbols Γ p kl in the macroscopic domain). In the microscopic domain the phenomenological part will become a scalar product of a vector consisting of the eigen values λ p(k,l) with mixed variant tensorial field-functions. These terms are energy densities proportional: ..." 195.93.60.11 10:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)]]

So far my experience with Heim is twofold:

1. He's an amazing genius neglected by a the scientific community, (but seems to be too much of a conspiracy theory);
2. He's a crank that has pushed out a lot of dense material, some veering into mysticism, and would take years to understand.

I have not read anything to convince me thoroughly that the effort and time required to understand Heim's theory in its entirety would not be close to wasted effort. Ideally, if Heim's work has merit, then both points should be discounted.

Where is the peer reviewed results of Heim's work? What are some solid results that the larger segments of the scientific community have found merit in? Has this "smallest area" discovery been accepted by physicists? Do you have a reference that is not from the sites given so far? I learned so far that Heim just did not release his work to the criticism of other scientists. The term "unconventional" masks Heim's lack of discipline other scientists have to face with every publication. I thought anything with Heim's supposed merit would have been investigated a long time ago. Where are third-party confirmations of Heim's claims from reputable sources? Or was the scientific community apparently so biased that he had to deal with "new age" publishers? Heim worked in the late 20th century with all advantages of centuries of scientific skepticism. Why did this apparently not help his theory? WpZurp 16:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To respond to some comments above (primarily those responding to me earlier):

(These are Steuard's points - I (Hughey) append my answers/comments prefixed with a (Hughey :) symbol and signed):

Good idea. I'll respond to your comments point by point in the same way. Steuard 19:51, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

• My first concern about the theory was its "neutral electron" prediction. I consider resolving this most important. That apparent experimental refutation of Heim's theory has not been effectively countered here.

(Hughey :) The main counterargument was that this particle cannot be utterly ruled out; the successful mass predicitons are of greater interest and cannot be negated by focusing on the neutral electron. The accurate prediction of particle masses is not negated by one incorrect prediction. Although the neutral electron has not been detected in the CERN/Etc. experiments, I am still not convinced that a very low mass lepton with infinite lifespan would have been found by the experiments described. As a comparison, the neutrino mass prediction made 20 years ago is still consistent with experiment (0.00381 ev, 0.00537 Mev, 0.010752 Mev) compared to current upper limit of (< 0.05 ev, < 0.17 Mev, < 18.2 Mev). More accurate experiments may vindicate these predicted values. A mistake in the neutral electron calculation is not a refutation of Heim theory as a whole, and may be corrected later. hughey 10:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd like an adequate explantion for why the experiments would have failed in the case of detecting neutral electrons. It seems that Heim's theory in its current form makes an experimental prediction which seems to have been disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. If someone modifies Heim's theory to remove this discrepancy, or presents a concrete mechanism by which the particle has avoided experimental notice, great! Until then the theory has to be ruled out. Many theories have had partial agreement with experiment and still ended up being wrong. There was an earlier quote somewhere which said that "...the theory predicts a new particle o+ (omicron), whose mass is about 1540 MeV/c²." This is cause for skepticism - in the "selected results" document it lists the mass of this "o+" as about 1234.6MeV/c². This value is hardly close to 1540 MeV!

(Hughey :) One of the professors (out of at least 5) working on Heim theory and its extensions has commented to me in an e-mail on some aspects of our discussion. He pointed out that

1. There is still some uncertainty in the selection rules for particles in the mass spectrum of Heim theory; the neutral electron may still turn out to be forbidden in the theory.
2. The more important questions in Heim theory concern whether the condensor functions φ are tensor components and;
3. whether the so-called "eigenvalue equations" actually are eigenvalue equations.

Heim's theory has all the ingredients for a TOE, as required by Einstein in his April 1950 SciAm paper. "50 years before Rovelli's book on quantum gravity, Heim introduced the concept of a quantized space, treating spacetime as a quantized field. In addition, he introduced a polymetric in a higher dimensional space, using this concept for the unification of physical interactions. In that sense, he accomplished the geometrization of physics, something Einstein tried to achieve by making his metric tensor unsymmetric." In that sense, I think it is justified to mention Heim in Wikipedia. See [8] for some English publications by Haeuser & Droescher on Heim. These two authors will be publishing a paper describing an 8-dimensional space with a total of three gravitational interactions, and predicting a repulsive gravitational force. This article was highly controversial among the reviewers, so that Heim theory is not yet to be seen as a mainstream physical theory. However, the potential benefits from the theory if it is right (achievement of a TOE, and revolutionary space propulsion methods) are so great that I think this justifies additional serious research. hughey 11:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for the standard model gauge group issue - where to find a description of the 8-dimensional extended theory of Heim where SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) appears? Steuard 19:51, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

(Hughey ) Look in [9] - "Droescher, W., Haeuser, J. Physical Principles of Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Heim's Field Theory" for an indication of the relation with SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) and the Standard Model. That is:

Vk in which the physical interaction takes place. (12)

The hermetry forms can also be represented by the components of the metric tensor of the corresponding subspace Vk. The superscripts,

ranging from 0 to 3, in the Ç quantities refer to the respective coordinate groups.

H5=(Çi m(0), Çi m(1), Çi m(2)) photons (13)

It is reasoned that hermetry forms H10 and H11 are similar to the graviton field H12, since they are both caused by transcoordinates, and thus will have a small coupling constant. The important point is that in Heim's theory there are transformation operators, S1 or S2 (not to be confused with space S2), that, when applied to one hermetry form can transform it into another one. Mathematically, these operators transform the respective coordinate from a non Euclidean to a Euclidean one. For instance, S2 applied to hermetry form H11 will transform electromagnetic radiation into gravito-photons.

H1=H1 (I2, T1) gluons
H2=H2 (I2, T1, R3) color charges
H3=H3 (I2, S2, T1, R3) W+_ bosons
H4=H4 (I2, S2, R3) Z0 boson
H5=H5 (I2, S2, T1) photons
H6=H6 (I2, T1)
H7=H7 (S2, T1)

weak charge
H8=H8 (S2, R3)

neutral field (particle) with mass
H9=H9 (S2, T1, R3)

field (particle) with electric charge and mass
H10=H10 (I2) probability field
H11=H11 (I2, S2) gravito-photon
H12=H12 (S2) graviton.
H1=(Çi m(0),Çi m(3)) gluons
H2=(Çi m(0),Çi m(2),Çi m(3)) color charges
H3=(Çi m(0),Çi m(1),Çi m(2),Çi m(3)) W+_ bosons
H8=(Çi m(1),Çi m(3))

neutral field (particle) with mass
H10=(Çi m(0)) probability field
H11=(Çi m(0) ,Çi m(1)) gravito-photon
H12=(Çi m(1)) graviton.
H4=(Çi m(0) ,Çi m(1) ,Çi m(3)) Z0 boson
H6=H6(Çi m(0) ,Çi m(2))
H7=H7(Çi m(1) ,Çi m(2))

weak charge
H9=(Çi m(1) ,Çi m(2) ,Çi m(3))
field (particle) with electric charge and mass

hughey 13:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Comments on Heim's "mystic" side would be relevant to an article about him, but it is my impression that aspects of this mysticism are actively incorporated into the current version of Heim's physical theory.

(Hughey :) As I understand it, the mystic aspects of Heim's theory are more a matter of interpretation than hard mathematical result, and as such can be left out of the hard physical arguments--hughey 10:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See my reply below.--Steuard

• I agree that the success of the theory should be its ultimate test, but understanding its derivation is a part of that.

(Hughey :) Hence, why more physicists have to work through the theory and see if it is air-tight. hughey 10:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I don't know what sites about Heim are most respected...

(Hughey :) Look at the abstract, mass formulae and other sections are already in English at [10]. That site contains much more hard physics than [11] hughey 10:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those sections of [12] certainly contain more equations than [13], but I'm not sure that the former contains more physics. The documents don't very much about where the equations come from, and the real physics of a theory is in the "whys", not in anything else. I felt like the protosimplex site tried harder to explain how the theory worked, even if it didn't get as far as presenting its quantitative results. Steuard 20:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Here are a few comments after looking at Heim-theory.com in a bit more depth:

• The [14] "Goals" page at says that the two additional dimensions of Heim's theory "are not measurable by physical instruments and have an informational character, since they describe qualitative aspects (meanings) of material organisations." That seems to say that Heim's "mysticism" is directly connected to his physics.

(Hughey :) This is mentioned as a goal, the mystic side is nowhere to be seen in the hard equations of the other sections. hughey 10:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But this "mystical" explanation is presented here as the reason that the two additional dimensions "are not measurable by physical instruments". In the context of the page, this claim was made in contrast to the Kaluza-Klein mechanism, that is a likely reason that string theory's extra dimensions have not been seen in experiments. The discrepancy between the observed four dimensions and Heim theory's six dimensions has to be explained somehow, and this is the only explanation that I've found. It doesn't seem to be mentioned in the more equation-heavy documents. Steuard 20:21, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

• The [15] "Remarks" page points out that "Heim's books contain some vagueness - beside the correct results". That may be understandable under the circumstances, but you can't expect a scientific theory to be taken seriously by the community until that vagueness is eliminated.
• The "1982 Mass Formula" page includes a formula for Heim's calculation of the fine structure constant along with the numerical result for its inverse. The formula is not explained, but it is apparently exact, as it is simply an algebraic combination of integers and pi. The numerical result stated there (137.0360085) differs from the current experimental value by just under 10^(-5), but the current experimental uncertainty is under 5*10^(-7). That's a difference of a 20 standard deviations, which corresponds to an essentially zero probability of agreement.

(Hughey :) The formulae used involving expressions of Pi are apparently approximations, as the 1992 version gave a better approximation than the 1982 formula. There is probably yet another approximation (taking more terms in an expansion?) that would get even closer to the measured value. Has the Standard model produced such a compact formula for this fundamental constant? --hughey 10:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The 1992 formula isn't given, nor is it made clear in what sense that formula is "better" (besides giving better agreement with the known answer). It's entirely possible that you're right and these are just successively better approximations to something, but I haven't found any place where the site actually says that. Also, I don't see any sign of a "small parameter" in the formula that would define a series expansion of some sort: there's no indication of what the "something" being approximated would be. As for the standard model, this constant is a parameter of that theory, not a testable result of it. (That's one reason that we're looking for something "deeper". I'll readily acknowledge that string theory is very far from making any sort of prediction here.) But in the end, making a prediction is the make or break moment for a theory: experimental predictions are the way that theories put themselves on the line, to live or die by their success. There aren't prizes for coming close.--Steuard 21:10, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

• I calculated the result of the formula myself using Mathematica, and found 1/alpha of 137.049188, which differs from the stated result by 0.013. That suggests to me that Heim-theory made a serious error in evaluating the formula - I invite others to evaluate the formula there themselves to confirm this result; it's on pages 3-4 of the PDF.

(Hughey :) The 1982 formula used by you here is not the one used to derive the value 137.0360085 - the latter is clearly stated to be from the 1992 improved approximation, which is not given on the Heim-theory web site, as far as I can see.--hughey 10:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Very true. But the older 1982 result ostensibly obtained from the given equation is 137.03596147, which is very close to the 1992 result but even farther from the actual solution to the equation. Steuard 21:10, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

• The [16] "Selected results" page includes a graph on p. 12 showing how the Heim-predicted masses change for different input values of the gravitational coupling G. The current best value of G is 6.6742+/-0.0010 *10^-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, an uncertainty of 0.015%. The graph says that the Heim Theory group uses a value of G = 6.6733082 with the same units, which has three more digits of precision than seem at all justified. More generally, I don't see how Heim theory's mass predictions could possibly agree with experiment to as many as seven decimal places (as claimed on the "Abstract" page) if its predictions depend on G as shown in this graph. The uncertainty in G should limit the theoretical mass values to a similar precision, I think.

(Hughey :) The mass depends on c, h and G - as the errors in c and h are miniscule compared to that in G they are not mentioned. If the masses depend on G in a non-linear way with other terms depending on c and h or constants like Pi, then an error in mass prediction will not scale directly with G. It might even be rather insensitive thereto. hughey 10:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The uncertainty in h is much smaller, so I would expect the uncertainty in G to dominate the result. As for c, is it not now defined as an exact number? More importantly, the graph that I mentioned shows how some of the mass predictions change for various values of G, and the changes are substantial. Steuard 21:10, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

• In my experience, serious physicists always list theoretical uncertainties with their predicted values. The "Selected results" page lists a great many numerical predictions, but never comments on theoretical uncertainty at all!

(Hughey :) The graphs in 'Selected Results' have error bars on the measured quantities. The fact that the calculated values are within the upper and lower boundary limits shows that their errors are not great. Also, by looking at the spread of mass values in these graphs for estimates using different values of G, one can relate differences in G to effective errors in the masses.--hughey 10:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the graphs show experimental error bars, but neither the graphs nor the tables of predicted data list theoretical uncertainties. It's very dangerous to suggest that theoretical uncertainty can be deduced from the degree of agreement with experiment. The spread of theoretical predictions on that graph gives an estimate of the theoretical uncertainty. That uncertainty seems to be much greater than the "seven decimal place agreement" that Heim's supporters claim. Steuard 21:10, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

That's not an exhaustive commentary on the material at Heim-theory, At the very least, I am convinced that Heim's work would need a great deal of polishing and improvement before it could hope to be taken seriously as a theory of physics. Until that point, the Wikipedia article should make its current state clear. Steuard 00:33, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

More on Heim

Heim at one time worked with Pascual Jordan [17] However, after this phase of involvement with the scientific community he withdrew from public life for such a long time that Jordan and the others who knew him simply died away. He is no longer known to the top physicists of today.

Is this not opposite of what was said by Max Planck? "A controversial theory will only be accepted when the old guard has died away."

As for peer-reviewed work - there are 2 problems here

1. Heim was not fighting for tenure, so he was under no pressure to publish.
2. If he really was a "super-Einstein" he was simply peerless:

For a peer to review a paper by Heim, thousands of pages of theory would have to be worked through. Is there a journal prepared to do such a thing? The encouraging thing is, those physicists who have worked their way through the theory have not found it wanting, apart from discovering some errors that they are now correcting, and in any case didn't affect the mass calculations.

We have to remember that Heim was not a normal able bodied, ambitious academic. He did put his theory to some physicists, but only those he knew personally. This group had shrunk to a small circle through death as time progressed. The Heim-theory web site has enough background to be of interest to some physicists - those behind it have also gone to the effort of converting as much as possible from selector calculus to a more "normal" form. There is also the additional step of translating the work to English. The Heim-theory group thought appropriate to publish on the web, as the theory is no longer original.

On the question of why more physicists haven't investigated Heim yet, or why his merit had not been evaluated a long time ago, recall that that String Theory was out in the wilderness for many years - 30, 40 or 50 depending on what you consider the origins. The string people then were convinced of its merit, but couldn't get more than a tiny group to look at it. This sounds a little bit like Heim? --hughey 18:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm still skeptical, but I should mention that Einstein's work deserves respect because it has undergone the kind of unrelenting attack that Heim's work has yet to undergo. WpZurp 19:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How to achieve NPOV in the current article?

I would guess that the number of people out there who firmly believe that Heim was on the right track numbers in the dozens or perhaps the hundreds, and it sounds like the number of professional scientists who feel that way is roughly six. A fully NPOV article should probably give some sense of those proportions, and be balanced accordingly.--Steuard 17:41, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

In the Heim-theory site, 8 physicists belong to the group; 5 are professors. At least one other professor and maybe two state elsewhere that they are deeply intersted in Heim theory but are not associated with the Heim-theory group. Add people like me, with a degree in physics and post-grad in astrophysics and we are maybe talking of up to 100 interested?

My attitude is that Heim was not a trickster since he worked with for example, Jordan and Heisenberg. If his theory appeared to predict masses with the stated accuracy then it is certainly woth looking into.

As an aside, Droescher's 8-d version of the theory has what looks like "quintessence" in it, which might be another predictive aspect. The current (Jan 2005) print issue of the popular on-line German magazine Telepolos [18] has an article on Heim, his theory and space propulsion - this has aroused some interest in Germany, so maybe amongst those now increasingly accessing [www.Heim-theory.com] after being directed there by the magazine article are some interested physicists too. hughey 09:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Splitup and Miscellaneous

Burkhard Heim should be a standard biography article and Heim-Theory should give a brief overview of the theory and its criticism. As a reminder, encyclopedic style should value facts over summary labels, especially if these are disputed.

Some facts about early Heim should be researched and included like:

• Formal education
• Involvement in explosives research Pjacobi 12:24, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Von Ludwiger's 'Nachruf' in [19] has some info which might help us. Maybe we should reference the Telepolis magazine which had the article about space travel and SETI? Should Heim-theory be expanded it should cover the work currently underway by Haeuser and Droescher - see the Pubications section on [www.cle.de/hpcc] (e.g. first on the list, "Guidelines for a Space Propulsion..." hughey 08:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can we clarify some more points?

• There are papers on "metron theory" which doesn't mention Heim, by K Hasselmann MPI Meteorolgy Hamburg. What's the connection?
• Do you consider the von Ludwiger paper [20] a valid representation of the theory?
• Heim seems to supporters in the "ufologists camp" [21], as well as in esotoric/alternative medicine circles [22], [23]. How much does this reflect his own POV?

Pjacobi 11:34, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

• On "metron theory" by Hasselmann - from [24] in this case "metron" comes from "metric soliton" solutions to Einstein's vacuum gravitational equations, which is not related to the quantum of area in Heim's theory. Just a coincidence.
• Yes, in the same way as Haeuser and Droescher's presentations to the AIAA are valid scientifically...
  1. The associated paper will be published in a peer reviewed American Institute of Physics journal this year
  2. Von Ludwiger's presentation to the First European Workshop on Field Propulsion, January 20-22, 2001 is at the University of Sussex
  3. But it is, perhaps unfortunately, published on a site normally used for discussions of aerial anomalies.
  4. Look also at [25] for the workshop website (Von Ludwiger's talk is listed next to ones by such luminaries such as Hal Puthoff in the Agenda [26]) and the associated NASA site [27] to see that this is indeed a recognised field of research.
• Heim had an interest in 'anomalies', which unfortunately had the effect of drawing all sorts of irrelevant comments from esoteric 'fans' who knew nothing of the physics. Von Ludwiger and Droescher are exceptions to the unknowing esoteric fan syndrome, as they too are standard physicists with an interest in 'anomalies'. By the same Newton/alchemy token, as long as Heim's work is mathematically and physically impeccable, it behoves us to set aside their other interests whilst discussing Heim-theory. --hughey 10:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Would you agree then, that Heim would not have agreed to everything which is now connected to his name on [28], [29], [30]?

As an aside, Hal Puthoff is the director of the Institue of Advanced Studies in Austin, Texas. Look at [31], [32], or [33] for a description of his academic record. As for the extra dimensions in Heim theory, again they come out of the equations and all the rest is interpretation - just as in String theory, where the extra dimensions have to be interpreted somehow. Even if x5 and x6 do not have the meaning assigned to them by Heim (organisational or ordering influence), one could imagine other plausible scenarios.

On E

• Regarding [34] - can you comment on equatations 40 and 42? At first sight, they look like "nice" formulas, only containing small natural number, e and π - but only until you realize that E stands for 1 meter. What's special about the meter, and what is its justification for its use? Pjacobi 22:19, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Section 3 on "Cosmology" begins by stating a relationship between the "cosmic diameter" (undefined) and the "metronic area" which holds for all time even as those values change. That equation includes the constant area "E := 1 m^2" raised to the power 7/3 to make the dimensions match up. The process of taking a limit simply cannot introduce a dimensionful parameter - solving the original equation for D gives answers with units shows that the original equation must have contained some parameter with units. Steuard 19:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

That 1m² doesn't look like fine-tuning to get the mass rights. But perhaps the complete section in the paper should be reworded: At this stage, neither the initial universe size nor the time quantum can be fixed, we have to introduce an arbitrary scale factor E of dimension L². Of course, this would null the result that the initial universe size is coincidentally about 1m as this is an input, not an output of the theory. Pjacobi 13:39, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Von L's answer is that E is necessary, in order to balance dimensions. It is purely a function of the system of units in use. Thus in the paper you quote the 1 metre value comes from the fact that Heim operated in the mks - system. If he had used the cgs system , then E would have the dimension 1 cm. There is no secret behind the choice of dimension.

In the paper talk "Future Space Propulsion based on Heim's Field Theory" at AIAA Space Propulsion Conference, von Braun Center, Huntsville Alabama, on the publications section of [35], Haueser & Droescher have E in their eq. 26 and state it as follows: "...e and E being the basis of the natural logarithm and a unit surface, respectively." That seems to be it, pure and simple - E is just a unit surface area, so that if you had an equation for pressure involving Force/E, then as long as the force is simply that through E, then you get pressure where E is 1.0. hughey 11:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In a talk which among other things, shows how to achieve FTL space travel, non-reaction space drive and gives a modification of Newton's law to give gravitative attraction, a little unexplained "E" probably wouldn't receive much attention. Pjacobi 11:56, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

If you use different values of E (which is of course not 1.0, but 1.0m² in the paper), you will get different values for the initial universe size and the time quantum respectively, when putting these values in eq. 40 and eq. 42. For example, E=1 cm² and E=1 lightyear² gives you two different numbers... Pjacobi 11:56, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Maybe this suffices as an explanation?

First my translation to English: The unit area E enters in Heim's theory in a projection process of the spatially distributed Gravitational potential on a surface area. Heim examines the elementary gravitational field, which proceeds from a smallest inertial mass mo = m(ro) as source of the field. From the computation of the distance-dependent mass m = m(r) come two 'reality barriers' and/or distance extrema : R_ = s and R+ = R. In addition, there exists a gravitation border for the attractive gravitational field x² = s R = e A R with A = 3 G mo/(16 c²) = Pi/2 L where mo may be replaced by: mo = Eo/c² = C h/(L c³) (where G = gravitational constant, L = compton-Wavelength, C = speed of light, x = h²/(Gm³), e = 2.71..., n = number of Metrons, * = power).

With the elementary surface (Metron) t = h G/c³ is defined a maximum volume for the elementary Gravitational potenzial: 2 x² L = e R t With the projective lattice selector C = (b t*(1/2));n , the volume 2 x² L can be projected into a Meridian plane of the gravitative level surface of mo, where b is a projection factor .

Let F be a unit area, which is limited after a projection of all spatial potential surfaces of the field structure in the level R2 by a contour: 2 x² L = b n F t*(1/2)

For the projection factor b the following applies : b² = so/F*(1/2) with so = 1 [ m ]

For a spherical surface area: F = pi so² = pi E with E = so² = 1 [ m² ], the surface of the unit circle. The projection factor is thus b = so*(1/2)/F*(1/4) = Pi*(1/4).

Everything else is in the text. I hope these hints suffice - best regards, I von L.

The original German version is (check my translation:)

Ich gebe nochmals die Herleitung der Einheitsfläche E = so² = 1 [m²] an: Die Einheitsfläche E kommt bei Heim durch einen Projektionsprozess des räumlich verteilten Gravitationspotenzials auf eine Niveaufläche zustande. Heim untersucht das elementare Gravitationsfeld, welches von einer kleinsten Trägheitsmasse mo = m(ro) als Feldquelle ausgeht. Aus der Berechnung der entfernungsabhängigen Masse m = m(r) ergeben sich zwei Realitätsschranken bzw. Distanzextrema R_= s und R+ = R. Ausserdem existiert eine Gravitationsgrenze für das attrektive Gravitationsfeld x² = s R = e A R mit A = 3 G mo/(16 c²)= Pi/2 L worin mo ersetzt werden kann durch: mo = Eo/c² = c h/(L c³) (G = Gravitationskonstante, L = Compton-Wellenlänge, c = Lichtgeschwindigkeit, x = h²/(Gm³), e = 2,71..., n = Anzahl Metronen, * = Potenz).

Mit der Elementarfläche (Metron) t = h G/c³ wird ein maximales Volumen für das elementare Gravitationspotenzial definiert: 2 x² L = e R t Mit dem projektiven Gitterselektor C = (b t*(1/2));n kann das Volumen 2 x² L in eine Meridianebene der gravitativen Niveauflächen von mo projiziert werden, wenn b ein Projektionsfaktor bedeutet. F sei eine Einheitsfläche, die nach einer Projektion aller räumlichen Potenzialflächen der Feldstruktur in der Ebene R2 von einer Höhenlinie begrenzt wird: 2 x² L = b n F t*(1/2)

Für den Projektionsfaktor b gilt: b² = so/F*(1/2) mit so = 1 [m] Bei einer sphärischen Niveaufläche ist F = Pi so² = Pi E mit E = so² = 1 [m²], die Fläche des Einheitskreises. Der Projektionsfaktor ist somit b = so*(1/2)/F*(1/4) = Pi*(-1/4).

Alles weitere ist dann wie im Text. Vielleicht reichen diese Hinweise aus. Herzliche Grüsse

I.v.Ludwiger

--hughey 12:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Take eq. 42, which should calculate the chronon δ from the metron τ. Contracting all numerical constants, this formula gives the following simple form for the chronon measured in length units:

δ c = 1.2154 τ^5/6 / E^1/3

Using the metron size of 6.15*10^-70 mentioned in the paper, we get the following chronon sizes in length units:

E=1 m²

δ c = 2.5632*10^-58 m

E=1 cm²

δ c = 5.5223*10^-57 m

E=1 lightyear²

δ c = 5.7302*10-69 m

What is the explanation for this? Pjacobi 13:12, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Von Ludwiger has now had some time to assess the impact on eq. (42). He has re-done the calculation and determined the value again using [cm] instead of [m]. He says you forgot to divide the result by the cubed root of E, which in the case of [cm] gives 21.544 (10000**1/3). Dividing the [cm] value by this factor, one obtains exactly the [m] value. IvL thought it superfluous to check that as well, as he had re-checked his [cm] value several times. So he is sure that this is your error and hopes that future challenges to the theory will be properly checked against Heim's books before being put forward as possible errors. --hughey 12:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Heim Theory group seems to have enough to do to iron out inconsistencies in that presentation, let alone try to explain for us the issues about "E". I suspect that the answer is that b, t, E and maybe even the coefficient of eq. (42) may vary independently with change of system of units, thus allowing τ to vary just enough to balance variations in E and/or the coefficient and so hold δ c constant. But without a deeper insight into vol. 2 of Heim's magnum opus, it is impossible to confirm this. --hughey 10:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BTW, The full expression for the Chronon, combining eqs. 35 and 35a of Element-vol-2 is: δ = (3 e / 4 π ^1/4 2 ^1/3 c)τ ^5/6 / E^1/3 = (1.2154/c) τ^5/6 / E^1/3 which is just eq. (42) op.cit. hughey 08:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We all agree that the dimensions balance out on the two sides of the equation. Our objection was to the choice of E's physical value, the choice that E = 1 m² = 10⁴ cm² = 10⁶mm². If instead we had chosen a different physical value, such as E = 1 mm² (rather than just writing the same physical value in different units), then the "smallest time interval" δ suddenly gets a hundred times bigger!

By an appropriate choice of E, I can make that "smallest time interval" anything I want. So in what sense is it "smallest"? If the physical value of E is arbitrary (not just its numerical value, which as you point out is dependent on units) then whatever quantity subsumed it would become equally arbitrary. And if the value of E is not arbitrary but intrinsically determined by the theory, I find it hard to believe that the answer would turn out to be exactly 1 m² Steuard 17:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you're welcome to insist that changes to E must be accompanied by changes to D and tau that keep the ratios D/sqrt(E) and tau/E constant. But that elevates the physical value of E to a fundamental parameter of the theory: you're stuck having to explain why E has the singularly convenient value "1 m^2" when using MKS units.--Steuard 21:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Multiple time dimensions?

I. von Ludwiger's goes through Heim's theory in more mathematical detail than the websites previously mentioned here. In his paper he describes

• The "5th and 6th dimensions" in Heim's theory seen analogous to the equations of general relativity; like extra time coordinates. In relativity, a negative sign in the metric is the definition of a "timelike" dimension. Heim's theory apparently has three of them. What evidence do we have today that supports this? In addition, papers have been published which have demonstrated that a theory with more than 1 time coordinate leads to unphysical results. Would it not mean that the prescence of 3 time coordinates in Heim's theory renders it an unphysical theory?

Heim theory is based on Einstein's General Relativity and quantum theory, which are not 'unphysical'. And most of the new particles predicted by the early theory are excluded by their more recently estimated short lifetimes. No such exclusion has been prefered for the non-existence of super-symmetric particles predicted by string theory. hughey 08:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Those extra dimensions "come out of the equations and all the rest is interpretation - just as in String theory, where the extra dimensions have to be interpreted somehow." The basis of that interpretation has to be the implications of the equations themselves. Where is this justified in Heim's theory?
• I don't think Heim's supporters can say the mass formula gives precise results until they provide theoretical uncertainties for their predicted masses. It's possible that the situation is that the numbers match, but the theoretical results could have an extremely large uncertainty! Steuard 19:50, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

The mass formula and probabilities

To suggest that the results of the mass formula give a numerical match that is a coincidence is probably unfounded. Taking 'Selected Results' on [36], the delta-m/m values for 16 particles, the mean relative error is less than 10^-4. Hence the probability of getting a mass to 4 decimal place accuracy is 1 in 10000. Thus for all 16 values to be coincidental we have a probability of 1 in (10000)**16 = 1/10**64. hughey 10:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's precisely this "astronomically minuscule probability" that makes me doubt the Heim-theory group's claims. The uncertainties are not stated, but the dependence of those masses on the value of G can be estimated by looking at the graph of various Heim-based predictions for different G's. The spread of those values is substantial, even for values of G that differ only by one standard deviation of current experimental uncertainty. I agree that Heim-theory's many digits of agreement with the observed masses is too close to be a coincidence, but it also seems that the agreement is too close to be experimentally justified. Steuard 20:42, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Several different groups have estimated the masses and come to the same low-probability ball park. Amongst these are the group at DESY in the 1980's who had no connection with the current Heim-theory group. The values being sensitive to different values of G are true, but the variations resulting from different G estimates all remain comfortably within the p < 10**-64 domain. Certainly, it would be nice to see proper error bars on these plots, and presumably these will eventually be produced, once more researchers get on the job of slogging through the calculations. hughey 08:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One explanation for multiple groups getting similar results could be that some or all of the "hand tuning" involved was in Heim's original equations, or in the methodology tht he introduced. My impression about the DESY group, for instance, was that they simply agreed to use their computer resources to solve the equations that Heim sent them.

For particle lifetimes - there are established techniques for measuring the mass of a particle even if it does not last long enough to be seen directly. Heim's neutral electron seems to be ruled out by their work regardless of its lifetime. There are ways to accomodate massive neutral electrons, however, in supersymmetric theories. Steuard 15:50, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

On the presence of errors in the books - Von L and others in the Heim Theory group have often pointed out that of the 2 volumes of Heim's Magnum Opus, vol. 1 was written without being cross checked while vol 2 was checked more thoroughly. The result, is that vol 1 is in need of correction in several places whilst vol. 2, (which contains the mass equation derivation) is essentially error-free.

Tidbits from Heim's life

Some biographical tidbits from heim-theory.com:

• In school he booby-trapped some doors with a chemical explosive of his own devising. He wasn't punished for this as the teachers couldn't believe that a 12 year old could have managed that.
• When he was 17, he presented a plan to Heisenberg , for the ignition of tritium by a shaped-charge of explosives. Heisenberg was impressed by the knowledge of the young man, but couldn't believe that the chemical ignition of the nuclear fusion was viable (10 years later this procedure was shown to work and became known as the ' clean ignition of the H-bomb' ). That was the first example of him being ahead of his time - just as well for the allies!
• In the war as an 18 yr old conscript, a German ministry heard of his plans for a super-bomb and a lab was put at his disposal - that was where a colleague caused the explosion that blew off his hands and badly injured eyes and ears.
• In his blindness, he developed an auditory edetic memory that allowed him to learn Italian and Spanish both in 8 days, but took all of 14 days to learn Turkish. In 1957 Von Ludwiger became his friend after being falsely arrested for purloining a recording of a Heim lecture. Over the years, he was impressed by how Heim could recall authors that he himself had forgotten, or repeat verbatim formulae read to him 20 years before by his wife.
• After reading Quicksilver by Neal Stephenson I note more parallels between Heim and Newton - the latter actualy waited 20 years before going into print with the results of his year of wonders, and due to staring at the sun was nearly blind for a long time - like Heim!
• In the magazines 'Stern', 'Bunte', 'Quick' and in many other newspapers, as well as on the main German TV station ARD, interviews and reports were published about Heim's new physics.
• American and Russian scientists of that time trusted in the fact that a physicist, formerly at the Max-Planck Institute for astrophysics in Goettingen under Carl Friedrich Von Weizsaecker, was not stupid (you seem to be superior to them - wow!). Werner Von Braun inquired of Heim as to whether he would soon perfect a method of propulsion for a moon shot - but Heim had to admit that for this it was a bit premature: However, in the last 2 years papers presented at propulsion workshops on both sides of the Atlantic imply that the time might be ripe to try out some of those ideas.

Everything seemed to be going well in his scientific career up to then. I think Von Weisacker, Heisenberg, Jordan etc. were convinced that the young Heim was a prodigy, so there was reason to hope that his work on a unified field theory and field drives for space travel would soon come to fruition. However, this is when he shut himself away to work obsessively on the TOE, trusting no-one but a small circle of friends and colleagues who over a period of 40 years simply died off, so that when he finally had the mass formula there was a new generation of scientists who never heard of him and couldn't believe that this guy, coming seemingly out of nowhere, could have come up with the unified field theory. Now does that sound like the sort of person who would slip in wobbly into his mass formula? The time of his schoolboy pranks was long since past. Thus I would say there were more than adequate grounds for giving the theory the benefit of the doubt until it's checked out properly. --hughey 09:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Going ahead

Let's try this? Put more stuff about Heim Theory into Wikipedia - it needs a lot of clarifications, some formulas, tables etc. For a start, the different dimensionalities (6, 8, 12, other?) should be clarified. The more biographically related material should go to Burkhard Heim. We also need some things which speak against the theory. Pjacobi 13:59, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to include all significant positions on an issue when writing about it here. Steuard 16:09, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Updates, Thermodynamics

The article by Droescher and Haeuser has been published February 2005 and the reference is: ISBN 0-7354-0230-2 One Volume, Print; 1495 pages; 8.5 X 11 inches, single column; Hardcover; $320.00 CD-ROM VERSION (sold separately): ISBN 0-7354-0231-0; $145.00 Details in [37] and the contents of the volume with reference to the Heim article in [38]. See also complete text in http://www.cle.de/hpcc/publications/documents/heim_staif2005-letter.pdf . The paper's title is "Heim Quantum Theory for Space Propulsion Physics". hughey 16:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article by Haeuser and Droescher (see above) has now won a prize for the best paper received in 2004 by the AIAA Nuclear and Future Flight Technical Committee !! This prize of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics will be presented to Prof. Haeuser on the 13th of July 2005 on the occasion of the Joint Propulsion Conference in Tucson. Other news from the Heim-Theory group: Prof. Droescher has completed some mathematically rigorous derivations of some of the Heim-theory results and this will soon be added to the web-site. So: 2005 looks ever more like the year of Heim :-).--hughey 11:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[39] SPIRES generally don't count papers in conference proceedings as "published". This paper already starts sounding highly dubious at the top of the second page:

"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 first question that comes to my mind is why the Heim theory authors chose to cite a book for general audiences about synchrony and spontaneous order as their reference on thermodynamics. Much more significant is that these statements are in the paper in the first place: there's no thermodynamic "enigma" about the presence of "highly evolved" structures at all. A great many processes are known to produce locally increasing order (even though disorder increases in the universe as a whole), and they all work using known physics, with no extra "information-carrying" or "entropy-resisting" dimensions required. Steuard 19:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Complexity theory still is by and large a mystery to the science of today - despite sterling efforts by the Santa Fe institute, Gell-Man etc., complex systems like the brain/mind are still a mystery wrapped in an enigma - yes, cognitive scientists have made a fist of pointing out various modules - but the ineraction and bacground dependence of the associated brain states are still too nightmarish for the current models. Whatever: I actually agree that that negative entropy reference was out of place in the Heim paper - I squirmed when I saw it. But maybe that was just a sop to one of the waffling 'philosophical' interpretation of the theory. It has nothing to do with the actual maths. hughey