Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Heim Theory

  1. #1 Heim Theory 
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,215
    Is anyone here familiar with Heim Theory on a deeper level ? I'm honestly not sure what to make of it - I'd like to just dismiss it as a crackpot theory, but somehow it just doesn't fit in with the usual crank nonsense.
    Just wondering what other people's opinions on this are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Is anyone here familiar with Heim Theory on a deeper level ? I'm honestly not sure what to make of it - I'd like to just dismiss it as a crackpot theory, but somehow it just doesn't fit in with the usual crank nonsense.
    Just wondering what other people's opinions on this are.
    It is a bi hard to find details, at least without brushing up on my German. Forschungskreis Heimsche Theorie - Inhalt
    The site also offers some information in English, but the important stuff has not yet been translated.

    My impression is that this is a serious attempt to formulate a theory that would include both gravity and quantum theory. Whether or not it can even come close to doing that is another question entirely. It is also my impression that the popularizations are more than a bit distorted.

    I think it will take a specialist, and there appear to be very such, to conduct an intelligent discussion of this topic. But I am quite sure that one can find many quacks to advocate any new theory (vociferously) from a position of ignorance. I doubt that any good would come of this in a public forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,215
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    It is a bi hard to find details, at least without brushing up on my German. Forschungskreis Heimsche Theorie - Inhalt
    The site also offers some information in English, but the important stuff has not yet been translated.
    Yes, I have read through these ( I grew up in a multi-lingual environment, and speak fluent German as a result ), but to be honest it is extremely hard to judge because he actually came up with his own formalism which he calls 'selector calculus'. I have tried to follow his derivations, but I freely admit that most of it is way over my head. This guy was either a genius, or some kind of brilliant mad man.
    Interestingly he did derive a mass formula for the elementary particles from his theory, and the numbers obtained are remarkably close to experimentally measured values. The question now is if his model is just some very elaborate numerology, or whether there actually is something to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    181
    There is a long thread about this on physforum.com. Someone called John Reed spent a lot of time translating his work and working through his equations. He was initially impressed but then realised that it only worked for the particles that Heim knew about. It appears to be incredibly complicated "curve fitting". It sounds like Heim was genuine and didn't realise that he was just adjusting formulae to "make it work".
    Quote Originally Posted by jreed
    I think I have some idea of what Heim did now. There is much talk in his book about "empirical data". He took the particle mass data and cooked up his equations to make them correct. It certainly was a lot of work for him, but I don't think it has much to do with physics. I'm sorry to say I wasted a lot of time on this but I hope I can save someone else some work.
    PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Yes, I have read through these ( I grew up in a multi-lingual environment, and speak fluent German as a result ), but to be honest it is extremely hard to judge because he actually came up with his own formalism which he calls 'selector calculus'. I have tried to follow his derivations, but I freely admit that most of it is way over my head. This guy was either a genius, or some kind of brilliant mad man.
    Interestingly he did derive a mass formula for the elementary particles from his theory, and the numbers obtained are remarkably close to experimentally measured values. The question now is if his model is just some very elaborate numerology, or whether there actually is something to it.
    Unfortunately it appears that the derivation of the theory is unavailable even in German -- item D in the list does not produce any document. It is that derivation that ought to provide the basis, if any, for the calculations.

    This lack is curious. And a bit suspicious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There is a long thread about this on physforum.com. Someone called John Reed spent a lot of time translating his work and working through his equations. He was initially impressed but then realised that it only worked for the particles that Heim knew about. It appears to be incredibly complicated "curve fitting". It sounds like Heim was genuine and didn't realise that he was just adjusting formulae to "make it work".

    PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums -> Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
    I can find at least one reference that indicates the Reed changed his opinion, and no longer takes the position that the masses of the elementary particles were included in the theory as inputs via "Matrix A".

    Rise and fall of the Heim theory

    I seems to be rather difficult to get a straight story on Heim theory.

    I would also discount the references to AIAA papers. AIAA publishes some good things, and some very questionable things. The fact that they accepted some paper on speculative propulsion based on Heim theory does not mean much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,215
    I seems to be rather difficult to get a straight story on Heim theory.
    Yes, indeed, that's the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    503
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Yes, indeed, that's the problem.
    In that case I think that there is no other reasonable course than to wait until there is some cogent explanation of the theory published. If there is anything to the theory then there will be expositions and evaluations of it published in reputable journals. At the very least someone will re-publish Heim's original papers in more accessible venues -- since it seem difficult to find it even in the original German.


    If that does not happen then it is highly likely that there is no substance worthy of further consideration. Scientists will ignore an idea that has the potential to produce something. They cannot afford to do that if for no other reason than that someone else will pick it up and garner the credit for developing it further and perhaps making a major discovery. There are simply too many competing physicists out there for a good idea to lie fallow for long.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •