Talk:Heim theory

Archives
Antiquity – Feb 2006 Feb 2006 – May 2006 Jun 2006 – February 2008

discussion on physforum.com

This might be interesting:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=0

IOOI (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

See-also?

In see also, this para should be elsewhere:

A similar (though opposite ... [snip] ... see ESA report at [17] and paper at [18])

It is a very interesting clause, but gravitomagnetism should have the main part of the paragraph, and a subclause "possibly confirmed by ..." could be added near some early mention of gravito-photons. The article Eugene Podkletnov could possibly also profit from some subclause. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Gravito-photons and gravitomagnetism

Now there's something I don't fully understand. The article, in the section Heim's predictions for a quantum gravity force talks about photons being influenced by a strong magnetic field and then provide an artificial gravity force. Then it gives a link to a ESA, saying it gives evidence of artificial gravity. However, when reading this page (and also the articles by Tajmar himself given below), I only see stuff about gravitomagnetism, which has nothing to do with photons or magnetic fields whatsoever. Is someone mixing things up, or has it been badly explained? MuDavid 13:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of article

Could anyone explain why the article is POV-tagged? The article may have other issues, but why is it still tagged POV since after 1½ years. I could find no reason why it is POV-tagged at all in this talk page, except a general displeasure with the Heim Theory itself; I think it is a good habit to add a Neutrality or NPOV section in this page in order to explain why it was tagged at all in 2007-Oct. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of O.R. in 'Predictions' section

The only known reference(s) to the 'Big Bang' theory in Heim Theory is to state that it DID NOT occur. Thus, I have deleted the following sentence:
"Only at the Big Bang were energies large enough to form neutral electrons, which then remained as 'fossils' of the Big Bang, to act as Dark Matter."
If a viable reference exists for the deleted sentence, please include it if the line is restored.
Makuabob (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Falsification by higgs boson???

This quotation is not correct:

Empirical confirmation of supersymmetry (for example detecting the hypothetical Lightest Supersymmetric Particle or any other particle predicted by the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) would falsify all existing versions of Heim theory, which are mutually exclusive with supersymmetry. Also, it is not certain whether Heim theory would be able to accommodate the existence of the Higgs boson, the only undiscovered particle expected in the Standard Model, and one which has not been predicted by the published versions of the Heim mass formula. Heim theory is said to be a Higgs-less theory as it is not dependent on the Higgs mechanism for the concept of mass. The ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to discover the Higgs boson in the next several years, if it exists.

See the current work of Jochem Hauser.

On Jochem Hauser under entry August 2009 you find that statement:

Note: Page 6, Table 3 mentions the Higgs field. New considerations lead to the conclusion that six Higgs and six anti-Higgs fields should exist, represented by the group O(2,q) where q denotes quarternions.

Hauser means page 6 of his paper AIAA 2009-5069

Because of this a correction in the article I suggest:

Empirical confirmation of supersymmetry (for example detecting the hypothetical Lightest Supersymmetric Particle or any other particle predicted by the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) would only falsify those existing versions of Heim theory, which are mutually exclusive with supersymmetry. Extended Heim theory confirmes the possibility for Higgs- and Anti-Higgs-fields. The ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to discover the Higgs boson in the next several years, if it exists.

(KlausLange (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Now I searched for more information about this and found that:

Page 7: "Hermetry form 16 is reserved for the Higgs particle that should exist, whose mass was calculated at 182.7±0.7 GeV"

Source: LauncherSymPaper2007-0-42

This looks as an exactly predicition of higgs boson mass. So, however, EHT is not a higgsless theory at all.

(KlausLange (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Looks like the LHC has found a new particle at 125–127 GeV/c2, that might be probably the Higgs-particle everyone is searching for. That's 56 GeV fewer than Hermetry form 16 proposes. Does this mean, that even the EHT is wrong? 84.58.210.183 (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it means that even the EHT is wrong: a Higgs at 182.7 GeV would be in the most strongly excluded mass range based on LHC data (see, e.g., the second to last graph on this ATLAS page). But then, the last time I looked, every actual numerical prediction of Heim theory disagreed with experiment by many standard deviations (to say nothing about all the extra leptons that it predicts that haven't been seen), and that hasn't stopped folks from believing it either. Wikipedia policy makes it very difficult to write an accurate article for fringe ideas like Heim theory that have just enough presence in the literature to be "notable" but not enough for anyone to have taken the time to authoritatively refute. (What journal is going to publish a detailed refutation of a theory that everyone active in the field immediately recognizes is wrong?) --Steuard (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Peer-Reviewed or not Peer-Reviewed?

At the top of the page the article has the following statement : "Most of their original work and the subsequent theories based on it have not been peer reviewed." - which is true is every theory, but almost never mentioned in the case of other theories. In this case, the specific mention appears to be trying to imply to the average person who is not going to read the full article that the theory itself has been less peer-reviewed than other or even that it has never had a peer-reviewed publication. People miss the fine details and often only read the top synopsis. The statement is later contradicted in part by the section titled Further Reading and the References, which list peer-reviewed publication. Unfortunately, since this article is for the average reader who is going to not read everything in detail, they'll likely miss that contradiction of the implication that is being presented in the top of the page and just assume that the theory hasn't been peer-reviewed at all. Someone should fix the synopsis at the top of the page to better reflect the situation, whatever it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.231.147.56 (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is about to undergo a major revision and I need everyone's participation..--Novus Orator 06:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that Heim theory is not considered to be a serious theory in the theoretical physics community, and that has to be somehow mentioned in the lead. You can't see this from only reading articles about Heim theory. You need to be knowlegable about theoretical physics and see that the theory is a non-starter. The theory does not receive critical reviews because physicists won't bother doing that. Count Iblis (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Not being considered a serious theory in the theoretical physics could be placed in the lead. I am all for somehow describing this theory as a non-starter, or outside the mainstream. The only way to do it, however, would have to be without reliable sources. Hence, your proposal below - to make this article an exception - within the community. Although, I have initial misgivings for doing this, how do you think the physics community here would respond? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting...Is the reason that Heim theory is not considered viable by the theoritical Physicist community because it proposes new concepts and challenges current theories? I find it odd that such a well-documented theory is ignored by the mainstream community. Anywho, I need your assistance in improving this article (Feel free to do that improvement to the lead) and it would be great if you could tell other similarly-focused editors to help, that would really be great. I think this is a good low-profile article to make a colloboration amongst Physics editors.--Novus Orator 02:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the theory is not really well documented. See the section below. Also, the papers we are using in the introduction reflect only the content of the papers themselves - not how widely accepted these are. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There should not be references in the lede which should be a summary of the article rather than an introduction to it. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, could you elaborate? A summary, rather than an introduction. I don't understand what you mean. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, just see WP:LEAD and you will see that information in the lead should be sourced just like everything else. Review WP:V for more info as well.--Novus Orator 04:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Is Heim theory within the current consensus of the scientific mainstream?

An objective way of assessing whether a subject is accepted as part of the scientific mainstream is to examine citations to it and its proponents in citation databases like Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. These databases record how many times the topic or person is referred to in scholarly publications that are peer reviewed. A subject that is accepted as part of the mainstream is likely to have many thousands of citations, one that is not accepted very few. Heim theory provides an archetypal example of this principle. A search for author:"B Heim" in Google Scholar gives, to my finding, one hit with 8 citations. In contrast, a search for physicists like "PAM Dirac" or "R P Feynman" produces tens of thousands of citations. Lest this be thought to set the bar too high, consider a lesser-known but established theory in solid-state physics the RKKY interaction, a theory produced by the four eponymous authors. A search for the citations of these four gives several thousands of citations. With a total of 8 citations (and even if a few more can be found) Heim theory just does not rate. It is clear that, whatever its merits or demerits, Heim theory is outside the current consensus of the scientific mainstream. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC).

I agree, but the problem here is that it is so far out of the mainstream that you can't cite any articles that point this out. Then your argument becomes, strictly speaking, OR. Also quite a few arguments in the article are OR for this reason. That's why invoking WP:IAR is the best approach for this article. But this requires the agreement of all the editors. Count Iblis (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The claim that reporting numbers held in the science citation databases constitutes WP:original research is unjustified. These databases (given the provisos in WP:Prof which are not relevant here) have been used in almost all of the hundreds of AfD debates in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators and are held to be reliable sources par excellence. Links to their use can be found in WP:Prof, h index etc. There is no need for WP:IAR in this case. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

Correction, it requires the approval of nearly all editors. It certainly requires overwhelming support, but a single nay vote does not consensus break. Fell Gleaming^talk 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe I understand that you consider Heim theory to be fringe. The reality that the editors and myself are trying to point out is that this theory is so non-mainstream that you cannot cite your sources properly when you are criticizing it. Therefore, your work is WP:OR, and not technically following Wikipedia policy. Since this article is specifically dealing with a subject that happens to have a lot of research in it that is abstruse enough to have little amount of critical coverage (due to the training needed), I think your best course would be to look for similar theories and then add a general (referenced) proviso against theories of this class (highly technical minority work that few physicists have the time or skills to review) and then you would be following policy. As it is, we will revert your work until it is WP:V.--Novus Orator 04:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, that's exactly the situation WP:FRINGE#Unwarranted promotion of fringe theories is supposed to deal with. If a theory is so far out that no reliable] criticism can be found, we need either to include unreliable criticism, or we cannot include the marginally reliable support. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the point Arthur! You are correct. I think this statement about the paucity of citations in search databases can at least have a link that goes to a search for Heim theory in Google Scholar, so I will add that and double check the proviso for clarity and accuracy.--Novus Orator 04:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

I'm not a physicist by any means, but the way I read it, Gerhard Bruhn's quoted criticism has nothing to do with it's stated introduction ("Physicist Gerhard Bruhn has criticized Heim theory for having a flat M metric.") and neither has anything to do with the quoted rebuttal (as far as I, a non-physicist, can tell). Above, Novus Orator mentions that the article will soon be undergoing a "major revision." May I request that this section be put on the to-do list for that revision, if it is not there already? Thanks. YardsGreen (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are perfectly right of course. I have commented out the quote. --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Emerging?

The first sentence of the article currently says that "Heim theory is an emerging physics theory, ... ". I see two problems with this. First, this claim is not supported in the text of the article. The edit summary of this edit [1] says that the next sentence and the last sentence of the article contain "Evidence of its continued application"; on looking at them, they show only that a few people use it. That does not show that it is emerging, but only that it is not dead. The second problem is that calling Heim theory "emerging" seems to contain a prediction about the future, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Cardamon (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I will cut emerging from the text--Novus Orator 04:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Template

The template that was reverted is (in my opinion) very helpful as it puts Heim theory in context with other similar theories that have tried (or attempted) to expand on the current physics model. These theories are by their very nature not accepted in mainstream physics, otherwise they would be the current model...--Novus Orator 04:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am curious what the other editors think of this. I posted it in one of my sandboxes so you can see what what the template would look . Again, as I said above, I think the purpose of this template is to chronicle unorthodox theories that go beyond mainstream physics, so I stand with including it in the article. Any comments?--Novus Orator 13:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

These unorthodox theories do not go beyond mainstream physics. They go outside mainstream physics and have never played any part in it. The wording is misleading. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC).

Well, if you like, they attempt to "build on existing theories". They do rely extensively on the currently accepted theory; they just add new concepts and dimensions to the current model...--Novus Orator 08:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Wormhole travel as envisioned by Les Bossinas for NASA.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Wormhole travel as envisioned by Les Bossinas for NASA.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

External links

There are far far too many external links, can someone trim this a lot to make it more concise? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

true; there are too many-we could put some as refs and clear some out.--Gravitophoton (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)