View Single Post
May29-08, 04:36 PM
P: 1

please look here, before you make such a statement about Heim:
And by the way. His religious beliefs have nothing to do with the A Matrix problem, which John solved!

from wikipedia:

According to a 2006 posting to the "PhysicsOrgForum" by John Reed [10], the apparent success of the Heim theory predicting particle masses may be illusory. Reed argued that Heim's original work, published only in German, has been very difficult to follow, and the masses are derived from Heim's "Matrix A." Reed translated the original German work to find out how Heim's Matrix A was derived, and discovered that the data in Matrix A used "EMPERICAL DATA OF GROUND STATES"-- in other words, experimental values of particle masses were inserted into the theory by hand. Therefore he argues there should be no surprise in simply recovering the experimental data used as an input assumption. Reed goes on to remark that this should not be taken as deliberate fudging by Heim, since Heim himself did not intend this data to be used to predict the elementary particle masses in the first place. Reed commented "Heim was after the excited states, and for this he needed good estimates of the ground states. He used experimental mass values for this." Nevertheless, since the excited states calculated were in fact "useless" (according to Reed), it was unclear whether any other predictions of the Heim theory remain. [11]

In a later posting in August 2007, however, Reed, received the updated 1989 mass formula code from the Heim Theory group, and on the basis of this, withdrew the assertion that both the 1989 and 1982 code almost certainly used quantum numbers based on the A matrix.

“ When I first looked into the 1982 version, the A matrix was present in the equations and a suggestion given for its values. Only in reading Heim's books did I learn the source of the values. Heim said that he had to fix the values to obtain correct ground state masses. I assumed that in the following work this hadn't changed. Apparently that assumption is incorrect. It looks like Heim made further progress and found a way to derive masses without the A matrix, so the A matrix should no longer be part of the discussion.” [12].

On September 4th, Reed reported on results obtained by the updated 1989 formula:

“ I've completed my programming of Heim's unpublished 1989 equations to derive the extra quantum numbers (n, m, p, sigma) that I thought were coming from the A matrix. I can now say for certain that the A matrix is not involved with this new version. In addition, I can derive particle masses with only the quantum numbers k, Q, P, kappa and charge without the A matrix. This is what I had hoped to be able to do. These results agree with Anton Mueller's results.

I'm able to get accurate masses for the 17 test particles I have tried this program on. The worst mass comparisons with experimental data are the neutron, 939.11 vs 939.56 experimental and the eta, 548.64 vs 547.3 experimental. All the others are closer, sometimes agreeing to 6 digits.” [13]