Heim Theory - Criticism

Criticism

Physicist Gerhard Bruhn has criticized Heim theory for having a flat M metric.

Heim theorists responded with a rebuttal.

...spacetime is assumed to be a differentiable 4-dimensional manifold, M4, as long as quantum effects are not considered. This manifold comprises a collection of points where each point is specified by a set of four real numbers and has the same local topology as R4, i.e., it is locally but not globally (as you wrongly assume) like R4. This is why we refer to this spacetime sometimes as R4, but from the physics context its meaning is always clear...A different question is the embedding of 4D spacetime in an Euclidean space. In GR there exist 10 independent components of the metric tensor, and thus a R10 would be needed. Your example is for embedding a 2D manifold that is, a surface of a sphere, in R3. But this is not relevant for the construction of the poly-metric tensor.-Hauser and Dröscher's Rebuttal on www.hpccspace.de

According to a 2006 posting to the "PhysicsOrgForum" by John Reed, the apparent success of the Heim theory predicting particle masses may be illusory. Nevertheless, since the excited states calculated were in fact "useless" (according to Reed), it was unclear whether any other predictions of the Heim theory remain.

In a later posting in August 2007, Reed received the updated 1989 mass formula code from the Heim theory group, and on the basis of this, withdrew the assertion that both the 1989 and 1982 code almost certainly used quantum numbers based on the A matrix.

“When I first looked into the 1982 version, the A matrix was present in the equations and a suggestion given for its values. Only in reading Heim's books did I learn the source of the values. Heim said that he had to fix the values to obtain correct ground state masses. I assumed that in the following work this hadn't changed. Apparently that assumption is incorrect. It looks like Heim made further progress and found a way to derive masses without the A matrix, so the A matrix should no longer be part of the discussion.”.

On September 4, Reed reported on results obtained by the updated 1989 formula:

"I've completed my programming of Heim's unpublished 1989 equations to derive the extra quantum numbers (n, m, p, sigma) that I thought were coming from the A matrix. I can now say for certain that the A matrix is not involved with this new version. In addition, I can derive particle masses with only the quantum numbers k, Q, P, kappa and charge without the A matrix. This is what I had hoped to be able to do. These results agree with Anton Mueller's results. I'm able to get accurate masses for the 17 test particles I have tried this program on. The worst mass comparisons with experimental data are the neutron, 939.11 vs 939.56 experimental and the eta, 548.64 vs 547.3 experimental. All the others are closer, sometimes agreeing to 6 digits.”

There exists a preliminary version of this derivation available on-line. This version still may contain some errors, and the authors, the Heim Theory Group, are in the process of checking and amending it.

More recently, Reed has said:

"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.”