Did Heim Theory Use Empirical Data for Mass Calculations?

[John Reed]

I've been looking at Heim theory for some time now. I got copies of
Heim's books and finally have reached an understanding of how it works.
To briefly explain what this involves, there is a mysterous matrix Heim
called "A" in Heim's equation that is involved in all the mass
calculations, but nobody knew where it came from. I finally found this
in Heim's books and translated it. Heim said exactly where it comes
from, and this explains why the mass values are so accurate. The whole
thing is rigged. I don't think Heim did this intentionally, but those
who came after him didn't understand what he had done and assumed that
the particle masses were being computed from first principles when in
fact they had been put into the complicated equations in a hard to
understand manner.

Here's a posting I made yesterday to the PhysicsOrgForum Heim group:

"Yes, I found that part of Heim's book, and translated it for myself.
Heim does explain where the A matrix came from, and what a surprise!
Heim says "One investigates each matrix value using the interpretation
(101b), the EMPERICAL DATA OF GROUND STATES" (masses). "Then one can
heuristically reduce the A(i,m) and A(6,6) to limiting values of pi, e
and xi". In other words, the ground state masses were put into the A
matrix. No wonder we have such wonderful agreement with the observed
data. The masses were already put into the equations, and then we turn
around and recompute them. If I hadn't worked so long on this it would
be worth a good laugh. When I worked through how the A matrix was being
used to compute masses, I thought it was more than chance that 12 of the
A matrix components are being used to compute 12 ground state masses.

Heim was after the excited states, and for this he needed good estimates
of the ground states. He used experimental mass values for this. Since
the excited state masses computed with the theory are worthless, I'm
afraid that Heim theory has reached the end of the line for me."

John Reed

 

[jal]

If I hadn't worked so long on this it would
be worth a good laugh.

If you had NOT... then it would have been a good laugh.
Thanks for doing what I could not.
jal

 

[serg271]

John Reed wrote:

> "Yes, I found that part of Heim's book, and translated it for myself.
> Heim does explain where the A matrix came from, and what a surprise!
> Heim says "One investigates each matrix value using the interpretation
> (101b), the EMPERICAL DATA OF GROUND STATES" (masses). "Then one can
> heuristically reduce the A(i,m) and A(6,6) to limiting values of pi, e
> and xi". In other words, the ground state masses were put into the A
> matrix. No wonder we have such wonderful agreement with the observed
> data. The masses were already put into the equations, and then we turn
> around and recompute them. If I hadn't worked so long on this it would
> be worth a good laugh. When I worked through how the A matrix was being
> used to compute masses, I thought it was more than chance that 12 of the
> A matrix components are being used to compute 12 ground state masses.
>
> Heim was after the excited states, and for this he needed good estimates
> of the ground states. He used experimental mass values for this. Since
> the excited state masses computed with the theory are worthless, I'm
> afraid that Heim theory has reached the end of the line for me."
>
> John Reed[/color]

This information should be inserted into wikipedia. There is no
explanation how masses derived in the wiki article for now.

[Moderator's note: Why not do it yourself? -P.H.]

 

[serg271]

John Reed wrote:

> "Yes, I found that part of Heim's book, and translated it for myself.
> Heim does explain where the A matrix came from, and what a surprise!
> Heim says "One investigates each matrix value using the interpretation
> (101b), the EMPERICAL DATA OF GROUND STATES" (masses). "Then one can
> heuristically reduce the A(i,m) and A(6,6) to limiting values of pi, e
> and xi". In other words, the ground state masses were put into the A
> matrix. No wonder we have such wonderful agreement with the observed
> data. The masses were already put into the equations, and then we turn
> around and recompute them. If I hadn't worked so long on this it would
> be worth a good laugh. When I worked through how the A matrix was being
> used to compute masses, I thought it was more than chance that 12 of the
> A matrix components are being used to compute 12 ground state masses.
>
> Heim was after the excited states, and for this he needed good estimates
> of the ground states. He used experimental mass values for this. Since
> the excited state masses computed with the theory are worthless, I'm
> afraid that Heim theory has reached the end of the line for me."
>
> John Reed[/color]

This information should be inserted into wikipedia. There is no
explanation how masses derived in the wiki article for now.

[Moderator's note: Why not do it yourself? -P.H.]

 

[Freederick]

You are claiming that Heim, in essence, typed in empirical data for particle masses. Note , however, that Heim theory predicts not only masses that were known at the time of publication, but also masses for neutrinos. This prediction is still pending verification. These posited neutrino masses cannot have been obtained from "empirical data" as you claim; at the time of publication (1980) neutrinos were believed to be massless, yet Heim's calculations showed otherwise. This inconsistency raises doubt about the accuracy of your findings.


As for inserting this "information" into Wikipedia: Please note that Wikipedia policy does not allow including original research in articles, and Usenet postings are not regarded as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliable_sources" for article contents.