Talk:Heim theory/Archive 2

message: Regarding Podkletnov theory - NASA BPP program mentions it and all repeated attempts to verify it showed ZERO results:
"A privately funded replication of the Podkletnov configuration was completed by Hathaway, Cleveland and Bao, and the results published in 2003.This work "found no evidence of a gravity-like force to the limits of the apparatus sensitivity," where the sensitivity was "50 times better than that available to Podkletnov." (Hathaway, Cleveland, and Bao, "Gravity modification experiment using a rotating superconducting disk and radio frequency fields", Physica C, 385 (2003), pp. 488-500.) 
(unsigned comment by 70.49.117.35)
:Hi, 70.49.117.35, if you create a user account (which increases your privacy, if that is a concern), you can sign your posts using ~~~~.  Anyway, go ahead and add the link to the main article.  ---CH 01:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Podkletnov claims 

message: Austin anon 70.112.33.29 changed For sufficiently large and unbound systems, special relativity proposes that energy and mass are interchangeable to For sufficiently large and unbound systems,  general relativity proposes that energy and mass are interchangeable, which is less correct.  I reverted this.---CH 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Str or gtr?

message: Any news about confirmation of Heim-Lorentz force, if any?
DarkFighter 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No news is expected for a few years, as for the experiment they need the Z machine, which can produce magnetic fields strong enough. This will take time, as one also has to adapt the Z-machine to the Hauser-Droscher set-up, which will involve building a high speed rotating ring atop the magnet etc.  Millis, head of the Breakthrough Propulsion scheme of NASA, though very positive on the idea, would still like to see Hauser & Droscher's journal articles or a proof of the mass formula in standard notation  . That would give it the edge over other simlar proposals seeking funding in the propulsion area. --hughey 15:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Heim-Lorentz force?

message: Will314159 added a link to a forum with several implementations of the Mass Formula in Java, C, C# and Mathematica.
I added a link to the Java applet version from that forum, cause the Java applet runs directly in the web browser.
It should be noted, that these various implementations are still under development, discussion and investigation. There might still be bugs in the code. Differences in the results may come from typos, selected data types and differences in the runtime libraries of the various implementations.
MillKa 13:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementations

message: Gravitational effects in rotating superconductor rings:
 
This is recent, and from reliable sourses.
DarkFighter 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  News of interest 

message: Has there been any real progress on verifying the theory? So far all I've seen are comments made by people who are by no means experts in the field of physics or mathematics. These people freely admit that they have no idea if the math or physics are right, and they only say that it seems "fishy". I remember that in january, when it came out, that even the military said that they would "look into it". Three months later, and complete silence. All I want to see is someone who truly understands what the theory is saying, if anything, and just say outright if it has any merit. Anyway, has anyone seen any expert comment on the thoery? 24.128.22.71 20:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Any Progress on Verification?

message: Could someone who knows something about this theory put some information on the page about specifics of it.  For instance, on the Protosimplex website, there's a nice description about the origin and structure of particles (which looks... surprisingly similar to LQG's description.  It makes me wonder if perhaps they predict the same things as to the structure of particles and that Heim theory provides a reason for the model).  Also according to the page, Heim theory predicts that quarks cannot be isolated -Luke D 03:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably mean this forum.physorg.com thread (47 pages long!) Friendly Neighbour 13:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mean for me though, I just mean that information like that would be useful to make for a more complete presentation on the theory. -Luke D 03:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hermetries, Protosimplexes, etc 

message: I deleted the categories 'Faster-than-light travel' and 'Warp drive theory'. 
I think i've read every available paper about HT during the last 3 months.
I found nowhere a claim that HT allows travelling faster than light. Instead, the maximum speed mentioned was 0.55 c. Thats pretty fast, but you wont get a ticket from Albert .. ;-P
If someone feels the urge to re-add that category, i would like to see some evidence before.
I found no claim that HT warps spacetime (e.g. like the [Alcubierre_drive]).
If someone feels the urge to re-add that category, i would like to see some evidence before.
MillKa 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guidelines for a Space Propulsion Device Based on Heim's Quantum Theory claims faster-than-light travel. Restoring category. -- Petri Krohn 02:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category changes 

message: Two sections above i suggested a new section Pro / Contra. To avoid cluttering up that section i added this section for suggestions. Please add your numbered and signed suggestions under the appropriate header. Thanks. MillKa 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge points of similarity between Heim Theory and LQG: some of the general ideas involved do seem to be parallel.  So if there are difficulties (or successes) associated with those points of similarity, then of course they should apply to both theories.  My objection is simply to treating the two theories as comparably trustworthy or valid (or as if they are related in any fundamental sense beyond a few shared features).  LQG isn't perfect, but it doesn't suffer from any of the major flaws that I've listed for Heim Theory above.  The objections to LQG are generally not as serious (or so I believe; some more extreme LQG opponents think it has fatal weaknesses).--Steuard 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding those neutrino mass results, see my addition to my point 5 above.  Heim theory is by no means the first or only physical theory to posit non-zero neutrino mass, and its specific predictions of the mass differences appear to be off by six orders of magnitude.  Thus, this prediction is a significant failure of Heim theory, not a success.  Also, does Heim theory provide any explanation for why the additional two neutrino species it predicts are not observed?  For that matter, are its neutrino mass eigenstates different from its neutrino flavor eigenstates?--Steuard 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Pro / Contra section 

message: 1. embraced by New Agers
2. pisses off string theorists
3. has not had verifiable postdiction as opposed to prediction experimental results.4 has extra dimensions beside the usual four 5. uses non-mainstream math 6 esoteric, inaccessible German  literature, nonpeer reviewed   (but I still like it)--Will314159 15:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge points of similarity between Heim Theory and LQG: some of the general ideas involved do seem to be parallel.  So if there are difficulties (or successes) associated with those points of similarity, then of course they should apply to both theories.  My objection is simply to treating the two theories as comparably trustworthy or valid (or as if they are related in any fundamental sense beyond a few shared features).  LQG isn't perfect, but it doesn't suffer from any of the major flaws that I've listed for Heim Theory above.  The objections to LQG are generally not as serious (or so I believe; some more extreme LQG opponents think it has fatal weaknesses).--Steuard 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments contra HT 

message: In spite of Steuard's continuing objectrion against identifying the kinship of HT and LQG, some of the main objections to LQG also apply to HT. See Talk:Loop_quantum_gravity/Archive_3#Objections_to_the_theory  Take Care! --Will314159 13:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge points of similarity between Heim Theory and LQG: some of the general ideas involved do seem to be parallel.  So if there are difficulties (or successes) associated with those points of similarity, then of course they should apply to both theories.  My objection is simply to treating the two theories as comparably trustworthy or valid (or as if they are related in any fundamental sense beyond a few shared features).  LQG isn't perfect, but it doesn't suffer from any of the major flaws that I've listed for Heim Theory above.  The objections to LQG are generally not as serious (or so I believe; some more extreme LQG opponents think it has fatal weaknesses).--Steuard 04:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: #HT mass formula derives, calculates and explains particle masses and lifetimes only from universal constants. No other current theory does that. MillKa 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding those neutrino mass results, see my addition to my point 5 above.  Heim theory is by no means the first or only physical theory to posit non-zero neutrino mass, and its specific predictions of the mass differences appear to be off by six orders of magnitude.  Thus, this prediction is a significant failure of Heim theory, not a success.  Also, does Heim theory provide any explanation for why the additional two neutrino species it predicts are not observed?  For that matter, are its neutrino mass eigenstates different from its neutrino flavor eigenstates?--Steuard 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments pro HT 

message: :Regarding those neutrino mass results, see my addition to my point 5 above.  Heim theory is by no means the first or only physical theory to posit non-zero neutrino mass, and its specific predictions of the mass differences appear to be off by six orders of magnitude.  Thus, this prediction is a significant failure of Heim theory, not a success.  Also, does Heim theory provide any explanation for why the additional two neutrino species it predicts are not observed?  For that matter, are its neutrino mass eigenstates different from its neutrino flavor eigenstates?--Steuard 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I copyedited the "Principles" section of the article, changing the name to "Predictions of the theory" as it is evidently about verifable predictions of the theory. I make the main success of Heim theory (non-zero neutrino masses) more visible. I hope Will314159 will not find a fault in these changes. This is exactly the kind of changes (compromises!) that do not need asking about in advance. See Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Of course, feel free to improve (or even revert) my contributions. Cheerio. Friendly Neighbour 18:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cleaned up the grammar of the predictions section.--Will314159 01:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some possible (and actively sought after) ways all existing HT variants could be falsified, like the discovery of the hypothetical Higgs boson (HT has no need for it as it explains the origin of particle mass in a Higgsless way) or any particles postulated by supersymmetry (any known version of HT does not include supersymmetry). If you think I'm wrong, please revert my edit showing the source of the HT prediction of those particles. Thank you.  Friendly Neighbour 12:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: A verifiable source, please? I searched the internet before making my edit. Even here on Wikipedia, Higgsless model stub article cited by me above (you did not read mine editt again, did you?) says "Proponents of Heim theory claim that inertia arises in their theory naturally as a result of the metron interactions, without need of a Higgs boson, hence the term Higgsless model.". Have you seen this? If so, why haven't you corrected it? Friendly Neighbour 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The website you seem to accept (www.heim-theory.com) says This formula yields all known and some unknown masses of elementary particles and resonances on account of the knowledge about the internal dynamics of geometrical structures, without introducing of Higgs-bosons or perturbation calculations. So, are you an expert on HT or not? Friendly Neighbour 14:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And what about the www.heim-theory.com page claiming there are no Higgs bosons in HT? They are the highest authorities of the theory, aren't they? And if HT can accomodate Higgs, what is its mass according to the Heim formula? Higgs boson is seen nowhere in the available Heim group files. Friendly Neighbour 14:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And since when Higgs mechanism creates gravitational mass? It creates inertia, see for example here: A Higgs boson is the particle that carries the inertia. In Heim theory, The unperturbed lattice represents empty vacuum. Local deformations of the lattice indicate the presence of something other than empty space. If the deformation is of the right form and complexity it acquires the property of mass and inertia. Therefore there is no need for Higgs in HT, is there? By the way, my Ph.D. is in physics although apllied, not theoretical. Cheerio. Friendly Neighbour 15:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, if the Higgs mechanism didn't create gravitational mass as well as inertial mass, the (quite well-tested) equivalence principle wouldn't work (and I assure you, someone would have noticed by now).  The couplings to the Higgs that give rise to mass do imply that the resulting massive particles carry energy density, and energy density always couples to gravity whatever its source.  As for a Higgs in Heim theory, that would seem to undermine the whole program: if particles in Heim theory have both intrinsic mass and Higgs-induced mass, then the current predicted masses are just lower bounds, not actual predictions.--Steuard 21:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, Dr. Deasy has already seen the Higgsless model article. He actually edited it four times, so far without claiming it's untrue :-) Friendly Neighbour 15:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I made the Higgs HT problem sentence less POV. However, I cannot use your citation. The main author of a Wikipedia article claiming in an internet forum that Droscher and Hauser have some unpublished results is not an encyclopedia worthy source. Sorry. It goes againt the WP  rules (Wikipedia:Reliable sources). Let us wait for the results being published or at least announced by their authors themselves. Friendly Neighbour 15:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thats' exactly why I wrote about "all existing versions". I just added a sentence that no HT version with Higgs has been published. Which means that one can be published but hasn't been, yet. Wikipedia articles need to be properly sourced. Hints on unpublished results are not enough. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Friendly Neighbour 16:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But still no version of HT with a Higgs boson has been published, has it? This is what my most recent edits of the section say. This is a simple question that should have only one answer: Does HT predict the existence of the Higgs boson or not?. If the answer is "maybe it does, maybe it doesn't" then HT is not a falsifable theory, ergo no science. Friendly Neighbour 16:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, you haven't. No version of HT of which at least some fragmentary results were actually published seem to predict Higgs bosons. The "official" web site of the theory says it does not have Higgs bosons. Which of the particles of predicted masses is the Higgs? If you cannot answer this, please do not vandalize my edits. Thank you. Friendly Neighbour 16:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Discovery of unpredicted particles must be a big problem for a "theory of everything". I have not seen any version of the Heim mass formula which predicts the Higgs. And your recent edit contained such illogical phrases as "there is no published theoretical inconsistancy between Heim theory and the existence of Higgs boson". What is a "published theoretical inconsistency"??? However, in the spirit of compromise, I re-phrased the Higgs fragment to "Also it is not certain whether Heim theory can accomodate the possible discovery of Higgs boson, the last undiscovered particle of the Standard Model. Heim theory uses a Higgsless mass creation mechanism and explains particle masses without the need of a Higgs boson but possibly such a particle can be included in a future version of the theory.". Is it OK with you? Remember, that Higgs may be never discovered and it may be better to HT to actually predict the lack of Higgs! Friendly Neighbour 17:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "   In the Standard Model, the symmetry-breaking Higgs mechanism is invoked to generate the fermion masses and the masses of the charged and neutral weak-interaction bosons. We shall not resort to the Higgs mechanism to explain the fermion masses, but attribute these simply to the mode-trapping mechanism, which we assume produces a non-SU(2)-symmetrical particle state. However, an interaction analagous to the Higgs mechanism in the Standard Model is needed to explain the boson masses in the metron model, since the lepton-boson interactions alone yield either zero boson mass, for the diagonal bosons, or a small mass of the order of the lepton mass, for the non-diagonal bosons. In the following we therefore consider a simple interaction which generates boson masses in a manner similar to the Higgs mechanism. "
Take Care!--Will314159 13:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the eternal color/colour question. Both spellings can be used in Wikipedia. I checked it. And it was not me who introduced colour to the article. In fact, I changed the "invisible" link spelling to color to make the link go to the  page about colors, not banners ;-) Wikipedia rules explicitely forbid changing colour into color and the other way: Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. And the colour spelling in the article is not by accident. Apparently the QCD journals prefer colour to color. See here for discussion. It seems my WP name is QCD compatible ;-) Friendly Neighbour 15:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Principles -> Predictions