Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Heim theory - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Byrgenwulf (talk | contribs) at 20:11, 29 September 2006 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:11, 29 September 2006 by Byrgenwulf (talk | contribs) (comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Heim theory

I am reluctant to nominate a page for deletion that has had so much work put into it. The work here has, as far as I can tell, never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal (one of the criteria for inclusion for physical theories in general on wikipedia) and the entirety of the links supporting assertions made in the article appear to be to private companies. Even though the article sometimes takes great pains to announce its non-mainstream status (i.e., satisfies WP:NPOV), for the reasons above it violates WP:OR and thus I believe should be deleted. Sdedeo (tips) 05:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

    • I am puzzled Sdedo, on 27 September you nominat Heim for deletion but announce on your discussion page that you tire of WP and are taking a sabbatical. Would it not have been better to not have taken this action while you are on Vacation? Have a beer on me. Will314159 23:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that Heim being a "reclusive paranoic" has anything to do with his theory not being published or accepted by the scientific community. Just ask Grigori Perelman :). Count Iblis 21:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ask Newton - after a bit of optics he concentrated on alchemy and was dismissed as a lunatic - worse that Perelman - until Leibnitz threated to scoop him and he got the skids on to write the Principia. Ever hear of hte eccentric professor?--172.181.159.226 05:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Misplaced Pages takes official credits (published - good, being professor - even better) too much and this leaves out the specie of "mad scientists" who do not fit well with academic cookie cutter. (No, this is not a support for the Time Cube guy :-). Pavel Vozenilek 17:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This is 130.232.139.48 (talk · contribs)'s first and only edit. Also, the article which got the AIAA recognition has been thoroughly fisked — see Phil Plait's take at Bad Astronomy, where the cosmologist Sean Carroll of Caltech weighed in, calling the paper "not worth spending a minute's time on no better than the other hundred crackpot preprints I get in the mail every year". Anville 02:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it should not be deleted: The reason it should not be deleted is that it is an account of a non-mainstream but real theory which probably has as much ultimate credence as string theory. In fact, probably more, as there are some predictions it makes that can be tested. This accords it the status of a theory far more than does inclusion in a peer-reviewed journal. The account given here is probably the best lay introduction available at the moment. Even if it does turn out to be utter bunk, it has plenty of adherents and exists as an intellectual movement. ---193.132.159.169 (talk · contribs) (MCI EMEA in Europe)
Comment: According to this article, Heim theory not only can be tested, but has been! For example, its predictions of the proton, neutron and electron masses are wrong by about 100 standard deviations. That's impressively far from correct! According to Chebysheff's inequality, a prediction that's 100 standard deviations off has at least a 99.99% chance of being wrong. So, we can be pretty sure that Heim theory is "utter bunk". But as you note, it may still deserve an article, just because a bunch of people believe it. There are, after all, articles on the flat earth theory and phlogiston - why not a similar one on Heim theory? John Baez 05:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
In an ideal world, I would agree with you entirely. However, our world falls short of the ideal in many ways — one being the difference between the number of living phlogistophiles and the number of Heim theory admirers. On abstract, philosophical grounds, I can see an argument for keeping this article around, but as a practical matter, I can only see the interests of truth being served by allowing the article to die. (Gosh, aren't I melodramatic today?) It's easy to tell the way the "consensus" decision will turn, though, so I might as well go away now. Anville 15:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the New Scientist article is more than enough verifiability for me. This theory exists and it has been discussed in mainstream scientific press. It may be that some of the assertions in the article constitute OR, but the article does not do so in its entirety. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite - the theory has by now acquired enough media coverage to be a worthy encyclopedic topic. Which does not mean it's actually real science (Heim's work never properly published, written in obscure notation by a recluse; Heim's followers publish mostly in nonpeer-reviewed conference papers; article results are taken from webpages and discussion fora; etc. etc.). The article should be rewritten to make it more obvious that this is not a real physical theory at least until it is published and peer reviewed. Friendly Neighbour 11:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not delete - as noted, it is a worthy encyclopedic topic and deserves an article even if it were pure fantasy. If someone feels the need to rewrite it, that should be discussed at the article, and not through the deletion process. Whateley23 12:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it hasn't been peer reviewed, but the first I heard of this theory was in New Scientist, and they weren't just crapping on it. This isn't the author using WP to publish OR, it's the presentation of a theory which is generating discussion in the scientific world, and deserves an article. --Mnemeson 13:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This theory is very old and the reference in New Scientist proves that is not a OR. The article can be rewritten but it is valid IMHO.
  • Strong Delete The theory is, indeed, old (so what?), and yes, it has appeared in New Scientist, alongside perpetual motion machines, tinfoil hat manufacturers, and other bollocks. But it isn't peer-reviewed (being paranoid isn't an excuse), and it is grossly irresponsible for an encyclopaedia to in any way endorse this nonsense by including it. It definitely fails the policy on reliable sources, if nothing else, because most information on the theory comes from untrustworthy primary sources, and New Scientist has proven itself to be thoroughly unreliable as far as its quality standards are concerned. But ultimately, it should be deleted because it is thoroughly discredited pseudoscientific twaddle. Byrgenwulf 01:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong language - maybe you are violating the Misplaced Pages guidelines on courtesy - --192.171.3.126 13:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
And if it really is "thoroughly discredited pseudoscientific twaddle" then it shouldn't be too hard to document this claim in the article, should it? --Michael C. Price 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Explaining that (and why) it is nonsense isn't the problem. The problem is keeping the article in a state which accurately portrays just how discredited the theory is: in an ideal world, it could be kept, but we all know how much maintenance and "looking after" these sorts of articles need. It could be lovely to have articles on all the different "theories" like this, and good solid sections explaining why they are no longer (or have never been) seriously pursued. But unfortunately, the policies in place here make it very difficult to carry articles like this without them being turned into platforms for promotion, as is well known. Byrgenwulf 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I second what Byrgenwulf just said. The only "discussion" which Heim "theory" is "generating in the scientific world" involves how bad the pop-science magazines are. It provokes mournful sighs and shaking heads, and comments much resembling, "Was there ever a day when the media had standards?" None of these constitute a scientific response to the supposed theory itself, which only makes sense because the theory has vanishingly little content to which one can respond. It's Velikovsky for particle physics. I have lately come to the morose conclusion that NPOV for such subjects is impossible to achieve within the constraints placed upon Wikipedian editors; the next best thing is to toast this dreck in the napalm bath it deserves. Anville 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm undecided so far. For systematic reasons, I'd like to have separate (short) articles on far-off theories and their inventors, but experience has shown that the theory-articles have a tendency of uncontrolled growth by feeding from fans. The really worst case is, when the topic starts metastasizing, and adding an according to Heim theory in in article on real physics. Which unfortunately seems to be the case . OK, most of the links result from Template:Theories of gravitation, which hopefully gets deleted soon. --Pjacobi 14:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is a well known pseudoscientific theory which must be mentioned in any comprehensive encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages has articles about almost any subject ranging from Santa Claus to Superstring theory. Count Iblis 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Many crackpot theories get some coverage and this one seems to have had a marginal amount. If it is kept, the crackpotty nature of it needs to get more coverage in the article per WP:NPOV's undue weight and pseudoscience sections and the OR needs to be removed. I hope that the people above saying "keep" are willing to put the time and effort in to do this. JoshuaZ 14:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All other things being equal, I would agree with those who have said that Heim theory is notable as a fringe theory with a small but devoted following and whose originator has past connections with Nazi science. However, all other things are not equal. Currently, due to persistent POV-pushing by Heim theory fans, who are unable to accept that their pet "theory" is not taken seriously in mainstream physics (or even regarded as a recognizable theory of fundamental physics at all), this article requires constant intervention by the small number of trained physicists, who are thereby prevented from doing more useful work at Misplaced Pages, like adding new good content. That is, the Misplaced Pages community is not able to maintain this article in NPOV state at an acceptable cost to the community. That is why it should be deleted. If policies are put in place making it easier to curb POV-pushing in controversial articles, it can be reconstituted at a later date. ---CH 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
One should first address these issues by placing POV tags and also OR tags. If these are reverted without properly changing the article then one should ask for mediation. Count Iblis 15:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you volunteering to do that yourself for this article over the next year, say? If not, I don't think your comment takes account of that bit about "at an acceptable cost to the Misplaced Pages community". I rather feel that many well-intentioned Wikpedians who do not participate in WikiProject Physics are volunteering those of us who do for more of the time consuming work many of us are sick of, because it keeps us from creating new good content. I'd be much more impressed if they volunteered themselves. See what I mean? (No offense intended; I and others have just grown very frustrated by the failure of the wider community to acknowledge how much work we have done already in trying to follow ludicrously cumbersome Misplaced Pages procedures which arose years ago when this wiki was but a wee thing.)---CH 05:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This issue should have been raised first at the physics project page where we could have discussed new strategies on how to deal with this article. I'll get more involved with this article. My opinion is that this is a notable crackpot theory that must have a place on wikipedia. Because it's notable there are quite some vocal supporters. They come here to write about their theory because there is no better place for them to present their flawed ideas, i.e. in peer reviewed journals (although I would have though that journals like Physics Essays were created to get such theories published to appease the crackpots). There are only a few such notable crackpot theories, so I don't think this poses such a big problem for us. Count Iblis 13:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is a very important theory. Look at the extensive discussion archives to see that this was tabled for deletion before the AIAA prize last year, New Scientist article etc. that signalled a renewal of interest. Thus it seems absurd to again suggest it should be deleted, so soon after it obtains a measure of recognition, where the charge had been that this was an unknown theory with no awards to its credit. And there have been peer reviewed papers on this, and more are forthcoming. As if Heim was some upstart crank. In the 1950s he was perceived as one of the top physicists. Von Braun was interested in the propulsion aspects, and in March 2006 Tajmar's breakthrough experiment, almost certain soon to be replicated at Berkeley and elsewhere, generated for the first time ever an artificial gravity field, the strength of which has been quantitatively calculated using Heim-Droscher theory. So the prejudice of the 'pure' physics community, that real advances can't come from the impure field of space propulsion studies, has been again shown to be just that – a prejudice – since Tajmar et al seem to have the first proof of quantum gravity, of which Heim Theory is an important form. So the idea that it is mere POV that retains the article is seen to be the POV of those who have shown bitterly negative thoughts w.r.t. the theory, as the involvement with the Tajmar breakthrough alone would be cause for retention - see discussion for other reasons to think that htis might be an important piece of physics. Its mass formula is not a work of fantasy but a careful piece of work from first principles that seems to succeed where other 'theories of everything' have failed in predicting particle masses. --hughey 20:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Hdeasy probably should have mentioned that he publishes on this theory, which is regarded in physics as a fringe theory, and he has been the most ardent POV-pushing editor of the Misplaced Pages article. He mentions Tajmar; this work is also regarded with suspicion. If I had a penny for every time I've seen someone say "about to be replicated at Berkeley, CERN, whatever"... ---CH 05:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Atricle makes clear in the first sentance that this is a non mainstream theory, so there is no risk of misleading the reader. It is the process of therotical physics that there will be many compeating theories, thats the way science happens. We will get a better understanding of the history of science if we document all sides not just the victor. --Salix alba (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It is clear from the content that this is not a mainstream theory. New data are being generated that will potentially confirm or refute Heim Theory. It is in the public interest to keep this entry in Misplaced Pages until confirmed or refuted.Dgietzen 23:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Welcome to Misplaced Pages Dgietzen (talk · contribs). --Pjacobi 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The data contains merit if only to offer options of consideration or research. It seems reasonable to simply note that some of the ideas in this article are considered controversial. comment added by 23:47, 28 September 2006 Lefted (Talk | contribs)
Comment Welcome to Misplaced Pages Lefted (talk · contribs). --Pjacobi 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep 1. mass forumla 2 thereotical explanation of Tajmar effect 3. practical promist of FLT 4 quantization of spacetime 5 quantum theory of gravity Best Wishes.Will314159 23:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep How many theories creating matter from space itself we have? --Ivica
Comment Welcome to Misplaced Pages 83.131.67.69 (talk · contribs). --Pjacobi 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep The theory is notable. --Michael C. Price 09:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The theory seems to be notable enough and has sufficient enough merit to warrant its own article. I notice that a lot of the criticisms stem from NPOV issues. We should aim to bring neutrality to the article, deleting it isn't the answer and is not fair on those who genuinely want to contribute to the subject.--Auger Martel 15:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Categories: