You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
A Frog Gun?
Cool!
You both obviously have opinions about the veracity of the theory
avoiding the points of debate by resorting to personal comment
Ah, if only I could be so certain about things
"... the theory itself seems to me to be a work of towering genius. Alone of all the theories of fundamental particles, not only does HQT predict their masses, but gets them correct to 7 places of decimals! "
There's enough stuff out there for either of you to read up on what are the predictions of HQT and what may or may not be verified by experiment. Believe any or none of it as you will.
failing to respond to reasonable questions, hand waving and unable to quote sources.
I deleted the long and detailed response I originally wrote to you as I realised that I was bored and that you clearly have made your mind up anyway.
My opinion of the authors of the theory remains, irrespective of the success or failure of the theory itself. I don't care if you think they are deluded fools.
Further, I don't wish to enter into any more debate with you regarding this matter as it is pointless.
No doubt you will want to have the last word.
You both obviously have opinions about the veracity of the theory.
Ah, if only I could be so certain about things.
There's enough stuff out there for either of you to read up on what are the predictions of HQT and what may or may not be verified by experiment. Believe any or none of it as you will. Time and experimentation will provide the requisite answers.
We here certainly won't.
General Relativity wasn't peer reviewed..........until it was peer reviewed.
Meanwhile, light still bent round the Sun and Mercury had an orbital precession.
And there are people I meet every day who WILL NOT believe that relativity is a real effect despite using things like GPS sets (that have to be corrected for relativistic time dilation).
On a philosophical note, it's generally accepted (due to the influence of Popper et al) that physical theories cannot be proved, only disproved. There's a wealth of supporting evidence for the Standard Model of particle physics, yet we know that in its current form it is wrong or, at best, incomplete because it gets some things wrong. And that's enough. If gravito-photons were shown definitively not to exist, well, the HQT "fanatics" would have to go away and stop bothering the sane people. But what if they are real.........?
A better description of the quantum world than is currently popular would have to be radical and "new" (although HQT has been 50 years in gestation).
It seems to me, from the lofty position of complete non-involvement, that the most ferocious opposition to the mere thought of it comes from those with something to lose (like big research budgets).
Precise results based on what though? If the math includes a bunch of "constants" or inputs based on things other then what they claim, then it is possible to make the answers come out to be whatever you want them to, including the experimentally derived answers that we already knew. If these other inputs are hidden in math that nobody can understand, then it could just be a hoax. A better test is does it predict anything that was not already known.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not a "believer" of HQT. That's because I have the merest hint of an idea of what it's about; but then again, I'm keeping my mind open to evidence as good scientists ought.
The arguments against HQT are merely dogmatic. I mean, is it likely that a fundamental theory of everything would be understandable by everybody?
What Droescher has done by raising the issue of a space-propulsion application is raise the interest level so that enough people will become sufficiently proficient in Selector Calculus that the theory can pass peer review to the satisfaction of "the scientific community", whoever they are. But peer reviewed or not, the theory has predictions.
Meanwhile, it seems incredible to me that a fake formula from a bogus theory that artificially predicts (say) the mass of the proton in terms of the fundamental constants of nature would also just happen to get the masses of the Electron, Muon, Tau also bang on, would predict the existence of the Omicron particle and its 1st resonance (verified in Oct 2003) and predict the Sommerfeld Fine Structure constant. These results are necessary preliminary predictions of a successful theory. To say they are false would be calling these people frauds without, it seems, having an inkling of the work. Perhaps you could elucidate your opposition to the theory?
I did some work on the Vigier theory in the 1970's. This theory was a well meant attempt at a relativistic description of particle physics. It was a genuine theory that hardly anyone, including me, understood. It passed on because it predicted nothing useful and failed to explain known phenomena.
The gravito-photon is predicted by no theory other than HQT and a comparatively easy experiment to show its existence and effects (either positively or negatively) would be decisive and make discussions like these redundant. It should be done because the ramifications of success would be world shaking.
It's not completely correct to say that "nobody" understands how to do the math. It's just that there are only a few people who can do it, Walter Droescher being the most prominent.
The mass formula exists, whether people want to accept it or not, and it gives the precisely correct numerical results.
Physical theories have worth only by their utility:-Do they give the right answers in specific circumstances? That's why spacecraft navigation is done using un-modified Newtonian Dynamics as the underpinning theory. It's useful and gives the "right" answers in a non-relativistic scenario.
Whether I personally "believe" in 8-dimensional hyper-spaces will make no difference to the results of any experiments (probably); but I confess to being on the edge of my seat just waiting!
It's probably just a cheap experiment that can be done without much overhead.
I don't know if you meant this to be a good thing or a bad thing.
Whether or not Heim Quantum Theory as extended by Walter Droescher turns out to be a good description of a GUT, the theory itself seems to me to be a work of towering genius. Alone of all the theories of fundamental particles, not only does HQT predict their masses, but gets them correct to 7 places of decimals! Droescher's (et-al) extension of HQT into 8 dimensions (these extra dimensions are mathematical dimensions, not "real" metric dimensions) predicts the existence of a coupling between the EM field and the Gravitational field, mediated by the "gravito-photon".
A cheap test proving their existence would turn particle physics on its head and would alter the direction of multi-billion dollar collider projects. Surely this is worthwhile investigating, even if no space propulsion came of it.
Heim had to invent an entire new mathematics to describe his ideas, so it's not surprising that there are few people who can work on HQT, let alone pass judgement upon its validity. It's like pygmies criticising giants for being able to see further!!!
The only thing we should be concerned with is: "Does it produce the right answers?" So far, the answer is "Yes"
Pages: 1