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 20:52, 3 October 2006 (→[]: + another debunking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:52, 3 October 2006 by Byrgenwulf (talk | contribs) (→[]: + another debunking)(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 nominate 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 (talk · contribs) 23:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC) EDIT. Apparently User Sdedo has bid farewell to WP not b/c of Heim but in a tizzy about Lorentz Invariance in Loop Quantum Gravity "I have left the wikipedia project. I wish everyone luck. Here is the final version of some remarks I made on science and wikipedia:". My question is " Can Anybody just nominate ANY article for deletion for any reason or no reason as a parting whim?" Cheers. Will314159 (talk · contribs) 10:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I happen to be one of the two persons which are responsible for Sdedeo's departure. It's a pity as he was a good contributor. However, I do not feel guilty. I never attacked him personally and moreover the more LQG papers I looked into, the more I felt he was wrong about the rather obscure problemm we discussed. I simply believe Sdedeo had a bad day. I sincerly hope he will return soon to Misplaced Pages. I do not believe his Wikibreak changes anything in the procedure which he started. Friendly Neighbour 12:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Just want to make clear that it's not FN's fault at all -- see my talk page. I will say that the ill-informed keep votes here are depressing; some good faith votes seem to be based on a single New Scientist reference. It's unfortunate to say this, since I grew up with NS and it's a main reason I became a scientist, but if we claim to be an encyclopedia, as opposed to a link farm, we need to examine sources critically. Plenty of excellent, knowledgable scientists have weighed in on the ridiculousness of Heim theory's claims. It's disappointing that nobody wants to listen to them. Sdedeo (tips) 20:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Many excellent scientists have also weighed in on the tremendous promise of Heim's theory. It is even more disappointing that they do not get more of a hearing. Never mind. Those who recognoise its potential appear to have saved the article - the keeps appear to outnumber the deletes. --192.171.3.126 07:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC) (the esoc.esa.int anon near Darmstadt)
  • Sdedeo. Glad u r sticking around to participate in what you started. Notability is more relevant for WP than alleged ridiculousness. In fact ridiculousness may be notable. Cheers. Will314159 (talk · contribs) 12:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment / Question: Hi, Sdedeo. I am extremely interested in critical articles/papers/texts analyzing HT. I am aware of Sean Carroll's short statement which is quoted a few lines below. I also noted John Baez's statement in his reply below. I am 200% sure that their judgement is based on careful examination of HT. Unfortunately, i havent been able so far to find any detailed analysis/critic of HT by Baez, Carroll, or anybody else. Since HT is 30+ years old, i expect that several documents exist, that explain why HT must be wrong. Please could you give me just some (3-5 maybe) links to those Plenty you mention ? I admit its annoying, but i prefer to be convinced instead of just believing. Thanks. MillKa 06:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There are none; that "many excellent scientists" have "weighed in" on the "tremendous promise" of HT is, of course, a fabrication. I never said there were "plenty" of articles describing how ridiculous HT is. I said it had been ignored by the scientific community and that not one peer-reviewed paper had been published on the topic. You are not going to find a serious scientist spending more than a minute on this silly thing; that two have (Phil and Sean) is surprising, but I suggest if you are looking for an education that you read up. Sdedeo (tips) 19:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's another one. The author, Gerhard Bruhn, demonstrates that the modern extension of Heim theory is incompatible with the sort of spacetime metric necessary in GR, since Hauser and Droescher's efforts seem to inevitably give rise to a manifold that is exclusively flat: which simply does not work in light of what we know about the world. The same chap has some things to say about "Einstein-Cartan-Evans theory", too, and his website is a trove of similar writings. Good on him — someone needs to do that sort of work! Byrgenwulf 20:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I WANTED to edit the WikiNews "Hyperspace drive" paper gains interest, AIAA award Article. The article mentions in a box that WP has an article on HT. I wanted to add that such article was nominated for deletion. But alas editing WikiNews involves registration. Too much trouble to do that on a Monday. Wiskis for the Editors and Beers for the Horses. Will314159 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 2 October 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 (talk · contribs) 05:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC) (AOL proxy)
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)
Ditto, I can confirm that cranks often cite in a highly misleading fashion this bizarre episode. As for New Scientist, just see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/EmDrive. ---CH 07:17, 1 October 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)
Comment: If you took the trouble to read the article carefully, you would have noticed that all these predicted masses are wrong by about the same percentage in the same direction (Heim's predictions are consistently about 95-100 SD's too massive). This is easily explained by having the incorrect value of gravitational constant G as a starting point; the calculations have been made based on the currently known value of G, which is quite approximate. They are internally consistent, though. Freederick 03:22, 2 October 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)
Nice of you to concede defeat. On the point about accuracy of the masses, this laughable point has been made by others on the article's talk page. I.e. it predicts the masses from first principles and gets to within great accutacy. This is more than any other prospective 'theory of everything' has done. Yet, though these other theories produces more inaccurate values using input data which Heim theory does not need, we do not strike off the Standard Model etc. So it is not a question of whether the predictions get exactly inside error bars, but of its accuracy relative to those other theories. --hughey 16:20, 2 October 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)
As I feared, many voters seem to be ignoring a point I tried to make: these are not the only issues. The phenomenon in which the physics knowledgeable community is being driven out of Misplaced Pages by such endless and time consuming cruft control actions as this is, I maintain, a more serious problem, so much so that the wider Misplaced Pages community should at least consider sacrificing principle for the sake of expediency, at least until such time as much more efficient mechanisms are in place. ---CH 07:17, 1 October 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)
Addendum. The number of virgin acccounts and one-trick-pony accounts which appeared in this discussion makes me hesitate. The article will be really difficult to maintain against this flood. I change my vote to Weak Keep but Rewrite. Friendly Neighbour 09:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment on Addendum. I have a very hi regard for Friendly N. But his misgivings of the involvement of the new people is premature. Let's give ourselves the time to see what they do! I myself became involved in WP b/c of a deletion and stayed around and have enjoyed it immensely. It is a very worthwhile product, used by many people, free, and of surprisingly EXCELLENT quality (including HT article). Best Wishes. {{user|Will314159|| 23:38, 30 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. ---AlexBrainer (talk · contribs) 13:41, 27 September 2006
  • 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 (talk · contribs) 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)
I rather doubt that. I created a "critique" section for Modern Galilian Relativity, that only required minimal maintenance, right up until that article's ill-advised deletion. Deletion is the lazy response, but it isn't the answer. --Michael C. Price 20:24, 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)
Why do you claim that “originator has past connections with Nazi science”? AFAIK, Heim's only “connection” is that he was of age (19yo) to be drafted during WWII, was drafted, worked in an explosives lab, and lost both hands in a lab accident. See the Misplaced Pages bio page at Burkhard Heim for details. That hardly makes him a Nazi. Most Germans of his age were drafted, and worked for the war effort. His theories were developed long after the war, in democratic Germany, and have nothing whatsoever to do with “Nazi” science. Your off-the-wall accusation is a prime case of Godwin's Law, only serving to create an emotional climate for deletion. And this from a scientist. Freederick 14:57, 3 October 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)
Hi, Iblis, you are not wrong about Physics Essays, but you'll have to ask the proponents of "Heim theory" (you've got some right here on this page, such as Hugh Deasy in the next vote) why they have not published there. FYI, I and others who came here from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Physics have often discussed what to do about this article, and this has been going on for about as long as WP Physics has existed, and if you look at the history, this article was a problem "from antiquity" (in Misplaced Pages, that means before Jan 2005 or so). Be this as it may, I am glad that you have agreed to take the article under your wing, and although I don't think you realize that you have let yourself in for, I consider you honor bound to follow through on your promise to help ensure that it respects WP:NPOV. Good luck, you'll need it! You may soon understand from my own experience just what I meant above by "at an acceptable cost to the Misplaced Pages community".---CH 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how cranky Physics Essays were, but they seem to be history anyway. The journal webpage announces a forthcoming June 2005 (sic!) issue. Science Citation Index Expanded stopped indexing it wth the December 2002 issue. So maybe really Misplaced Pages is now the only outlet for physical ideas not fit for peer-review. Sigh. Friendly Neighbour 08:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
CH, l'll do my best! Also, we have to consider that wikipedia is evolving. The rules that every editor has to stick to are not set in stone. If the current procedures usually yield bad articles when the topic is some pseudoscientific subject, then that is an incentive to modify the procedures. If we just delete such bad articles then such modifications will not made and wikipedia will be unable to produce good articles on pseudoscientific topics.
OK, I'd be happy indeed if you can prove me wrong. Maybe should keep track of how much time you spend on this article over the next year? ---CH 04:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Friendly Neighbour, I think that Physics Essays does still exist. :) Count Iblis 13:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Possibly but the fact that someone intends to submit a manuscript to the journal is definitely not a proof of its solvency. Friendly Neighbour 13:37, 2 October 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 (talk · contribs) 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)
Ditto, for CEREALX59 (talk · contribs) ---CH 07:17, 1 October 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 (talk · contribs) 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)
  • Delete the theory isn't notable by any standard I can see, and it is easy to include it on the pages of the author. Having a separate page looks a lot like POV-forking to me and this page is riddled enough with inaccuracies to be better recategorized under the biography of the man. --ScienceApologist 22:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment See discussion page on B. Heim in the days when the theory was incorporated - we went through a long process to separate the man and his work - absurd to reverse the process. --hughey 09:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It isn't wikipedia's job to decide whether this theory is true, credible or even a theory. It exists. People know about it, people need information about it, therefore it should have an encyclopedia entry. Rewrite the entry to make its uncertain status more clear if you wish, but don't delete it. --shrink_laureate (talk · contribs) 00:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As mentioned before, Heim Theory has made very accurate predictions with the mass formula and offers an explanation of the Tajmar effect. Also, the recent discovery of artificial gravitational forces from em fields may give this theory more support. Also, the fact that a theory is not mainstream is not highly relevant. Just as an example, at one point in our history, mainstream science said that the Sun orbited the Earth. --User:djrosenau 00:48 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Welcome to Misplaced Pages djrosenau (talk · contribs). --Friendly Neighbour 06:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a high-quality article; I used this article as a starting point to do my own research on the theory. Removing this article would be a disservice to the Internet community. I feel dismayed that people feel that we should remove articles that are not mainstream. When someone says the theory is "not notable by any standard", who are they to tell me if something is notable? I personally feel that the predictions of particle masses are substantially more than anything string theory has given us, for example. If Copernicus existed in the 21st century, would his theory page on Misplaced Pages be listed for deletion because it was outside the mainstream thinking, and "riddled with inaccuracies"? Digizen 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Besides what has been said already...: Heim theory cannot be accepted science at the moment since the publications haven't been translated from German into English yet. It is not a coincidence that the Tajmar experiments that fulfill a prediction of Heim theory were done in Austria. Heim theory is certainly in its very early stages, and its acceptance (if it happens) would take years, but that doesn't make it bad science. At any rate, it isn't worse than String theory! String theory only has more followers and more publications, but no testable predictions, no established body of theory, nothing. So before Heim theory goes, String theory should (and we know it won't because it has so many believers). Heim theory will only receive the full scrutiny it deserves once it is available in English. It is just too early to tell.Denial 12:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The point is not whether the theory itself has merit; possibly or even probably it doesn't. But one of the glories of Misplaced Pages is that it is a place where one can find information about an extremely broad range of things. (And often high quality information at that.) This article makes it clear in the lead that the theory is not mainstream and has not been published in peer reviews journals, so it's not like it tries to mislead the reader. The theory itself exists, is being discussed (googling "Heim theory" gets you about 20,000 hits), and many a reader may come to Misplaced Pages looking for information about it. To delete this article would make Misplaced Pages a poorer source for information. Dianelos 16:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please Keep. There has been a sufficient amount of recent work in this area to justify a stay of execution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.192.200.2 (talk • contribs) (geoloc. near Barcelona)
  • Strong Keep. This is incredible, we are in XXI century and people yet now are interested to delete the ideas of some others. What is an encyclopedia?, a collection of ideas or the description of “real” world. We have the opportunity to create the new Alexandria Bibliotheque, please don’t burn it again. If some one are not interested in the theory, don’t worry, don’t read it, may be some other can extract an interesting idea for the “mainstream” theories. Best regards. Vilvi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.123.10.81 (talk • contribs) (geoloc. near Tampico, Mexico)
  • Keep. It's a well-known (within certain circles) pseudo-theory. Just because the theory is/may be wrong doesn't mean it can't be documented in a history-of-science sense. We document, for example, geocentrism or the luminiferous aether, don't we?--67.101.67.122 01:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (geoloc near Houston, TX)
  • General comment: I hesitate to mention this, but after mulling it over for a few days, I wish to add a plea to the closing admin (probably unneccessary, but I want to try to make sure) to make a special effort to check for possible sockpuppetry while tallying the votes in this AfD. Several of the registered user accounts are single use accounts, or very nearly. Please note that while slightly refactoring to disambig votes &c. I uncovered a possibly legitimate "keep" vote from an anon who didn't wikisign, so that his comment appeared to run into the next vote, from another anon.---CH 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment : CH probably should have mentioned that he has been one of the most ardent opponents of the Misplaced Pages article. See the discussion archives. Whatever motivations cause such passionate opposition may have other causes than pure 'decency'. Note that some fans of string theory may feel threatened by Heim. I only mention this as CH added a similar comment on me and I was not about to turn the other cheek :-). --hughey 10:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • General Comment. I have a B.S. in Physics from a fairly prominent university. Bryce Dewitt taught there for a few year as well as other prominent physiscts. No, no Einsteins, Feynmans, but I did meet Dirac once. I made A's in my Physics and math courses. Can I follow Heim equations all the way? No. I can't follow Loop Quantum Gravity all the way either. But I get the big picture. They're both background independent (I often get this part reversed) implementations of quantized spacetime. they both result in what i would call "artifice" matter. That is matter arising as an oscillation of spacetime and they both lead to a mass formula. LQG has a very strong following and is well published is rigourous mathematically and peer reviewed. HT is none of those things, obscure, but predates LQG and has an Achilles heel of no quarks although it accounts for some shadow quark behavior. Extended HT is very interesting as it predicts faster than light travel. I am not putting the mathematical development, the participation, or the peer review of HT on a par with LQG- just pointing out core similarities. Some critics such as Friendly Neighbour while skeptical have contributed greatly to improving the article. Others use epithets such as "crank" and so forth and are destructive and non-constructive. Best Wishes Will314159 (talk · contribs) 10:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Byrgenwulf, a minor crank theory which does not merit an article of its own and certainly isn't worth wasting time over as noted by CH's comments. Misplaced Pages isn't a soapbox. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable pseudoscience. I agree that the closing admin needs to be vigilant in rooting out sockpuppets. dryguy 18:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I find offense in this talk about sockpuppets. There are a significant majority of comments signed by legit users; many, like myself, have been involved in the topic for months or more; I have not noticed any comments from you in the discussion. Are you a sockpuppet? Freederick 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: As far as i understand, the three relevant WP rules for this AfD nomination are found here: WP:SR
  • WP:V aka Verifiability / Publication in a peer-reviewed journal
  • WP:OR aka No original research
  • WP:NPOV aka Neutral point of view
On WP:V and WP:OR:
User:Sdedeo claims that Heim Theory (HT) has never been published in a peer reviewed journal. This claim is wrong.
Heim published his Theory in 1977 on pages 233-243 of Vol 32a of the 'Zeitschrift für Naturforschung' (= Journal of Nature Science) under the title 'Vorschlag eines Weges einer einheitlichen Beschreibung der Elementarteilchen' (= Suggestion of a way of a unified description of elementary particles). Unfortunately, that journals online archive only reaches back to 1997, so this article is not available online.
At that time (1977), the 'Zeitschrift für Naturforschung' was the journal of the Max_Planck_Society (kindly check the WP article for the relevance of that research organization).
Heim wrote his article on initiative and persuasion of Hans-Peter_Dürr (kindly check the WP article for the relevance of Dürr and his knowledge about physics in general and elementary particles, gravitation and quantum physics in particular).
I would agree that more than one peer-reviewed publication would have been nice, but Heim was notoriously known of his reluctance to publish and always preferred to investigate matter(s) even further.
On WP:NPOV:
I am glad that Sdedeo agrees that the HT article already tries to be NPOV, right from its very first sentence. If some Wikipedians think the article needs more improvement, lets discuss it, section by section - instead of nuking the whole article out of WP. I already made several suggestions for improvment on the articles TalkPage.
Some general thoughts::
Every now and then, some popular science journal writes about HT or other theories (e.g. LQG). The latest journal publication i know of was the New Scientist article in February 2006 (i am aware that some consider New Scientists reputation as debatable - nevertheless many people read it). I think many readers of such articles, most of them interested laymen, turn to WP to check for the current state of affairs and further information to form their own decision and judgement about those theories. In my humble opinion, its our duty as WP editors to provide this information as NPOV as possible and let them decide what they want to believe and think.
Articles about scientific theories should clearly explain, where the theory is in sync with mainstream science and experimental results, and where it deviates. They should explain what a theory claims and what it doesnt claim (e.g. HT does not claim existence of neutral electrons - check the archived talk pages for my post showing that this wrong claim results from translation errors).
If the HT article is deleted, WP throws away the opportunity to inform the reader that HT is not mainstream physics and to explain why.
MillKa 02:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The article is a well-thought out and informative article on a topic which has drawn interest and media coverage. Even if the theory eventually turns out to be wrong, it deserves an entry in Misplaced Pages. No, it has not been peer-reviewed: but the page makes it clear. There have been scientific publications, and an award by a reputable agency. There are bona-fide physicists involved. The theory makes falsifiable predictions, which makes it science, regardless of the outcome. The outcome is not yet known; but that makes it no different from String Theory, or other current fads in physics. The page is not written by a crank pushing his own idee fixe, but by an informed and concerned group of editors. There is considerable interest in the topic, and it belongs in an encyclopedia. I have taken part in the discussion on the talk page and have seen the page evolve in a heated exchange of views. This attempt at deletion, coming after so many people have put so much work in a legitimate topic, goes against all that Misplaced Pages stands for; it is a thinly disguised attempt at censorship. Freederick 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • General Comment. When the New Scientist article came out in January 2006, it referred to the Misplaced Pages article on Heim-Theory. Also, in Wikinews, when Heim made the top headline, where did they point? Right, this article sitting on death row. There will be one or two peer reviewed articles from Droscher and maybe others next year that may cause similar media interest. It would be ludicrous if the WP source of info on Heim had suffered capital punishment at that stage.--hughey 14:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's very heartening to see this great interest in Physics both by HT pro and con. Initially, HT occupied the field of quantized space time alone. It is an old theory. I believe it predates quarks. In HT, matter arises as ocillations in the metron lattice of quantized space-time. But now LQG has a similar concept, but at a more fundamental sub-quark level. See Preons. Barkeep: Wiskis for the Editors and Beer for the Horses. Will314159 (talk · contribs) 16:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
I already voted above.
The article already mentioned the first publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal in 1977, but didnt give details where to find that publication. Since WP:V (Verifiability) requires these details, i just added them to the article (in section Heim_theory#Further_reading).
I assume we can all agree that there are quite different opinions whether Heim Theory is true or false. Therefore i would like to remind that WP:V states that The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth..
As far as i understood Karl_Popper, absolute truth only exists in mathematics - in nature sciences the next best thing is current state of knowledge, which in science history has been a (sometimes pretty fast, but not superluminal) moving target ..
Yes, i am aware of the 100 StdDevs error of the HT mass formula. However i cant exclude, that reverse engineering might find a biggest blunder ..
MillKa 16:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The StdDev objection is bunk. Standard Deviation is a criterion for random statistical error; the discrepancy in mass formula result is systematic: all the results are off by the same percentage in the same direction. Thus if you were to change the value of, say, the gravitational constant G slightly, you would get “on-the-spot” results. The catch? The value of G is only known to about 0.001 accuracy, so its anybody's guess what exactly should be plugged in. Therefore the “100 SD” argument against Heim Theory is invalid, unless the discrepancies were different for different masses, which is not the case. Freederick 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
@Milka. What is Truth? The only reason that it can be said of Math is because it is a giant Tautology and a shell game. Will314159 (talk · contribs) 17:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: It's hard for me to understand why the article should be deleted. Everybody at least a bit open minded should be able to see the difference between nonesense and Heim's work. Even if somebody is not willing to accept the theory, somebody else might - and for theses other people the information present in Misplaced Pages might be valuable. Also there is quite a lot of material available, just not in english right now (what hopefully changes over time), so just because there are little english information available, doesn't make the whole theory wrong or nonesense. And how should any theory get accepted if these kind of discussions mislead potential interested people in thinking this theory is (non-science or whatever ever words have been found for it). After all it's theoretical physics and nobody is able to judge something like Heims theory by a quick glance over it. So please keep the article as it would be a shame to have all the work of the article's authors be destroyed. --Mvuori 17:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Mvuori (talk · contribs)! --Pjacobi 17:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: people are quick to call "pseudoscience", but I haven't seen a detailed discussion of objections to HT, anywhere. Those of you who vote delete, please provide a link to one. It is kind of frustrating that outside of long threads on physics forums (which I frankly don't understand) and Slashdot (which isn't informative), everything available on the subject on the web is in German. How are any of us to make an informed decision?
21:02, 2 October 2006 139.18.193.36 (Talk) ID's by Will314159 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I am a school student doing a major project on Heim theory and the wikipedia page has provided countless help in my endeavours. It is quite absurb that anyone could find a reason to delete a site which has been so much use to the public and will still provide useful information in the future. "
by 21:53, 2 October 2006) 202.77.82.55 (Talk) " ID by Will314159 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Warning to closing admin: this vote appears to duplicate (possibly unintentionally) a previous vote by same user above; look for "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." And Will314159, you can wikisign your comments/votes in AfDs simply by typing four tildes ~~~~. HTH ---CH 03:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Note to closing admin and CH: If you check the history, you will see that User:Will314159 just added the IP adresses to the two anonymous votes above starting with 'People are quick ..' and 'I am a school student ..'. MillKa 05:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT. I went to the history page. Put the IP's of the people that didn't sign and then put ID'd by Will314159. Isn't that pretty clear. ID is short for Identifed. Sorry. I thought it was clear as glass but maybe it was as clear as mud. Not to worry CH. I would think with an overwhelming lopsided vote such as this- not to worry. Best Wishes and Take Care. Wikis for Everybody --Will 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories: