Exploring Heim Theory: A Discussion

[ohwilleke]

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.

 

[Spin_Network]

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.

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.

 

[Mike2]

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.

"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.

 

[marcus]

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

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 realized. 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

 

[Kalimaa23]

In the light of recent experimental evidence that suggests that the gravitational potential gets WEAKER at small distances, this could be interesting...

 

[galactus]

The method of extending Heim Theory to higher dimensions results in a theory which describes the physical world in terms of an increasing number of dimensions. These extra dimensions (which are auxillary to length, width, height, and time) are often liberally associated with notions such as "consciousness", "spirit", "thought", and the vedic sciences. This is probably due to Heim's interest later in his life to provide a framework for such perceptions and experiences.

uh oh...

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

so are Heims extra dimensions compactified also ?

 

[εllipse]

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.

 

[ohwilleke]

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.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Wikipedia has been classing it in the crackpot category[/qote]

Did you see the careful account of the history of that warning? It did not imply "crank" but rather unbalanced (pro) presentation. And it orgininally was placed on an earlier iteration of the discussion. When the new discussion was posted the warning was just copied. There are certainly some unsound things being asserted their, but it does look worth investigation. 'Course, I think Tony Smith's Voudou Phsics is worth investigation too.

 

[ohwilleke]

The crankpot categorization is in a different crackpot science page.

 

[Gerinski]

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.

Thanks

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here are a couple of more recent threads.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105915
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106059