Revision as of 22:53, 15 September 2010 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,425 editsm Signing comment by 119.231.147.56 - ""← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:52, 18 September 2010 edit undoTerra Novus (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers2,821 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{talkheader}} | {{talkheader}} | ||
{{controversial}} | {{controversial}} | ||
{{Revision}} | |||
{{physics|class=start|importance=low}} | {{physics|class=start|importance=low}} | ||
{{oldafdfull|date=27 September 2006|page=Heim theory|result='''keep'''}} | {{oldafdfull|date=27 September 2006|page=Heim theory|result='''keep'''}} |
Revision as of 06:52, 18 September 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heim theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
]
Physics Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 September 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on May 24, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Archives |
---|
discussion on physforum.com
This might be interesting:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=0
IOOI (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
See-also?
In see also, this para should be elsewhere:
- A similar (though opposite ... ... see ESA report at and paper at )
It is a very interesting clause, but gravitomagnetism should have the main part of the paragraph, and a subclause "possibly confirmed by ..." could be added near some early mention of gravito-photons. The article Eugene Podkletnov could possibly also profit from some subclause. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Gravito-photons and gravitomagnetism
Now there's something I don't fully understand. The article, in the section Heim's predictions for a quantum gravity force talks about photons being influenced by a strong magnetic field and then provide an artificial gravity force. Then it gives a link to a ESA, saying it gives evidence of artificial gravity. However, when reading this page (and also the articles by Tajmar himself given below), I only see stuff about gravitomagnetism, which has nothing to do with photons or magnetic fields whatsoever. Is someone mixing things up, or has it been badly explained? MuDavid 13:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality of article
Could anyone explain why the article is POV-tagged? The article may have other issues, but why is it still tagged POV since after 1½ years. I could find no reason why it is POV-tagged at all in this talk page, except a general displeasure with the Heim Theory itself; I think it is a good habit to add a Neutrality or NPOV section in this page in order to explain why it was tagged at all in 2007-Oct. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Removal of O.R. in 'Predictions' section
The only known reference(s) to the 'Big Bang' theory in Heim Theory is to state that it DID NOT occur. Thus, I have deleted the following sentence:
"Only at the Big Bang were energies large enough to form neutral electrons, which then remained as 'fossils' of the Big Bang, to act as Dark Matter."
If a viable reference exists for the deleted sentence, please include it if the line is restored.
Makuabob (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Falsification by higgs boson???
This quotation is not correct:
Empirical confirmation of supersymmetry (for example detecting the hypothetical Lightest Supersymmetric Particle or any other particle predicted by the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) would falsify all existing versions of Heim theory, which are mutually exclusive with supersymmetry. Also, it is not certain whether Heim theory would be able to accommodate the existence of the Higgs boson, the only undiscovered particle expected in the Standard Model, and one which has not been predicted by the published versions of the Heim mass formula. Heim theory is said to be a Higgs-less theory as it is not dependent on the Higgs mechanism for the concept of mass. The ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to discover the Higgs boson in the next several years, if it exists.
See the current work of Jochem Hauser.
On Jochem Hauser under entry August 2009 you find that statement:
Note: Page 6, Table 3 mentions the Higgs field. New considerations lead to the conclusion that six Higgs and six anti-Higgs fields should exist, represented by the group O(2,q) where q denotes quarternions.
Hauser means page 6 of his paper AIAA 2009-5069
Because of this a correction in the article I suggest:
Empirical confirmation of supersymmetry (for example detecting the hypothetical Lightest Supersymmetric Particle or any other particle predicted by the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model) would only falsify those existing versions of Heim theory, which are mutually exclusive with supersymmetry. Extended Heim theory confirmes the possibility for Higgs- and Anti-Higgs-fields. The ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider are likely to discover the Higgs boson in the next several years, if it exists.
(KlausLange (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC))
Now I searched for more information about this and found that:
Page 7: "Hermetry form 16 is reserved for the Higgs particle that should exist, whose mass was calculated at 182.7±0.7 GeV"
Source: LauncherSymPaper2007-0-42
This looks as an exactly predicition of higgs boson mass. So, however, EHT is not a higgsless theory at all.
(KlausLange (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC))
Peer-Reviewed or not Peer-Reviewed?
At the top of the page the article has the following statement : "Most of their original work and the subsequent theories based on it have not been peer reviewed." - which is true is every theory, but almost never mentioned in the case of other theories. In this case, the specific mention appears to be trying to imply to the average person who is not going to read the full article that the theory itself has been less peer-reviewed than other or even that it has never had a peer-reviewed publication. People miss the fine details and often only read the top synopsis. The statement is later contradicted in part by the section titled Further Reading and the References, which list peer-reviewed publication. Unfortunately, since this article is for the average reader who is going to not read everything in detail, they'll likely miss that contradiction of the implication that is being presented in the top of the page and just assume that the theory hasn't been peer-reviewed at all. Someone should fix the synopsis at the top of the page to better reflect the situation, whatever it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.231.147.56 (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Categories: