Re: Heim theory
- From: james.moughan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 10 Jan 2006 19:46:31 -0800
Classix wrote:
> Daniel Boese wrote:
> > Since it's been posted on Slashdot, I'm sure a lot of folk here are now
> > familiar with the topic. For those who aren't: it seems that a fellow,
> > Burkhard Heim, who lost his hands, sight, and hearing in an explosion,
> > went into the Theory of Everything business, and managed to come up
> > with two thousand pages - and, most impressively, a set of formulae
> > which can derive the masses of elementary particles from naught but
> > their quantum numbers and four constants (Planck's, Gravitational, and
> > vacuum permeability and permissitivity). He also predicts, besides the
> > usual ones, a few extra forces - one that corresponds to
> > inflation/quintessence, and one that's carried by "gravitophotons."
>
> Not only that, but his theory can apparently predict the mean lifetimes
> of various particles, as well as their masses.
>
> > (Oh, and while I'm here, just for the record, here's something that can
> > be called the "Boese Conjecture": Heim's mass formula depends on the
> > constant G, which is known to a relatively poor degree of accuracy, to
> > generate mass numbers which are known via experiment to a rather high
> > degree. I propose that a value for G can be determined by seeing which
> > value, used in Heim's formula, generates results that most closely
> > correspond to experimental values, and that this value for G will be
> > verified experimentally. And if I'm wrong - hey, it's just a theory.)
>
> Appearently, the theoretical masses obtained from Heim's formula have
> relative errors that are a hundred times smaller than G experimentally
> has. Either this is good luck, and the error in G can be divided by a
> hundred, or there is some non-linearity at work, or this is all
> academic because the theory is bullshit.
Hmm, that's a good point. Unfortunately there seem to be only a
handful of people who understand the theory well enough to know which
is the case.
>
> The Heim theory seems a lot nicer than String theory, in that it makes
> more postdictions (mass, mean lifetime, new forces) than ST does
> (spin-2 graviton).
>
> However, until it can make a verified prediction (ie if these
> gravitophotons are observed), it is just maths, just as ST is just
> maths right now in spite of all the hype.
>
If a few people outside the Heim Theory group could follow and verify
the maths then it would be something. We were promised a derivation of
the mass equation earlier this year, no such luck. So far as anyone
independent seems to know the whole theory might be jabberwocky.
However, the people involved don't sound like crackpots; they're quick
to stress that it's just a theory, needs experimental verification, and
they're going all out to get it. It's mildly hopeful.
>
>
> --
> http://cherenkov-radiation.blogspot.com/
.
- References:
- Heim theory
- From: Daniel Boese
- Re: Heim theory
- From: Classix
- Heim theory
- Prev by Date: Re: Books based on movies based on books - new and improved
- Next by Date: Re: Trilogies that ended with a letdown
- Previous by thread: Re: Heim theory
- Next by thread: Re: Heim theory
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
