Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Heim Theory.

  1. Jul 29, 2005 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not endorsing Heim theory, which is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

    But, I am interested in what anyone has to say about it.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 30, 2005 #2
    I would like to state that there is a correlation to the Ambjorn/Loll QDT formulation.

    Having only just seen this via your link, I am going to give it a lot of my time, although the main transcripts are not in English, I am amazed at what I have seen, based on something I am working on re:Lollet al , I believe this to be very..very interesting, thanks for the link and finding such a gem.
  4. Jul 30, 2005 #3
    "H11 predicts quintessence, a weak gravitational-like repulsive FORCE that would cause the expansion of the universe."

    If a force were responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe, then this acceleration would be with respect to a background of absolute space. And the galaxies would be moving with respect to space so that their mass would increase as they are accelerated near the speed of like. This contradicts the notion that space itself is expandning and the galaxies are not moving much with respect to space.
  5. Jul 30, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    I'm not endorsing it either. It is totally new to me. the "human interest" story in the background---touching and dramatic---is remarkable in itself.
    Here is a quote from your Wiki link. (which has the controversial warning)

    "The basic theory was developed in near isolation from the scientific community. Heim's handicap led him to prefer this isolation as the effort of communication in a university environment was too much of a strain for a handless, essentially deaf and blind physicist. Heim himself only had one publication in a peer reviewed journal, and this only at the insistence of his friends, as he himself did not see the need for publication until his theory was complete, even if that should take up to 50 years to be realised. A small group of physicists who learned of Heim's work and studied it in sufficient detail to recognise its potential is now trying to bring it to the attention of the scientific community, by publishing and copy-editing Heim's work and by checking and expanding the relevant calculations. Recently a series of presentaions of Heim theory were made by Haeuser, Droescher and Von Ludwiger. A paper based on the former was published in a peer-reviewed American Institute of Physics journal in 2005 (see table of contents in [4] and abstract of paper in [5]). This article has won a prize for the best paper received in 2004 by the AIAA Nuclear and Future Flight Technical Committee. Von Ludwiger's presentation was to the First European Workshop on Field Propulsion, January 20-22, 2001 at the University of Sussex (see list of talks [6]). Droescher was able to extend Heim's 6-dimensional theory, which had been sufficient for derivation of the mass formula, to an 8-dimensional theory which included particle interactions, thus re-producing the structures seen in the standard model."

    I have to say that AT LEAST HEIM THEORY MAKES PREDICTIONS which would allow to test it. at least in the current version it predicts a particle which has not been observed. to be falsifiable like that is already going one better than a lot of what passes for scientific theory these days :smile:
  6. Jul 31, 2005 #5
    In the light of recent experimental evidence that suggests that the gravitational potential gets WEAKER at small distances, this could be interesting...
  7. Jul 31, 2005 #6
    uh oh...

    ...god forbid that a physicist attempt to provide a frame work for perception and experience :biggrin:

    so are Heims extra dimensions compactified also ???
  8. Jul 31, 2005 #7
    Someone posted about this a week or two ago in the theory development subforum, here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=81824 . It interested me as well, but I don't have the technical ability to make much of it, so I'm also interested in what all of you have to say about it.
  9. Aug 1, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Wikipedia has been classing it in the crackpot category, and it may belong there. I'm interested that it isn't as well known as I would have suspected.
  10. Aug 1, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

  11. Aug 2, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The crankpot categorization is in a different crackpot science page.
  12. Mar 6, 2006 #11
    I also came across the wikipedia article, and that's all I know about this theory. Surely it's always good to be skeptical about this kind of things, and it's good that they put the warning tag, but one can't help being intrigued by the positive (shall I say enthusiastic?) tone of the author.

    At least it brought this question to my mind: how likely would it be to build up a crank theory out of nonsense that would be able to describe correctly so many phenomena? (assuming that it actually does, which certainly I can't judge myself).

    One would think that it should be a remarkable achievement being able to get correct results out of incorrect principles. Probably even more difficult than getting the right thing, isn't it so?

    And since the last post here is about 1 year ago, I wonder if anyone knows if there have been any news on this theory.

    Last edited: Mar 6, 2006
  13. Mar 11, 2006 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Heim Theory.
  1. Heim theory (Replies: 1)

  2. Heim- Dröscher Theory (Replies: 0)

  3. Heim Theory (Replies: 1)