Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heim theory

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. W.marsh 19:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heim theory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. I do not believe his Wikibreak changes anything in the procedure which he started. Friendly Neighbour 12:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. User:Will314159 12:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Reply to Sdedeo: Now im confused, maybe because my native tongue is german, not english. The 'tremendous promise of HT' statement which you qualify as fabrication came from that 'anon esoc.esa guy'. But my question didnt refer to his statement, but your statement above: 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. Well, i want. I always thought 'plenty' means something like 'more than enough' and so i was asking you for some substantial arguments instead of just soundbytes. Unfortunately im not as mentally gifted as those serious scientists you mentioned, who need just one minute to evaluate quite complex theories. I am way slower. So if you know of some substantial arguments, i would love to read or listen to them. Having only the option to believe authorities is somehow intellectually unsatisfying, instead i prefer to torture my brain cells till they give up (dont worry, that wont take that long .. ;-P). Then i can still turn to those brighter than me. But first i want to try on my own, because there is a difference between learning by heart and understanding: Back in school when i first heard about special relativity, i quickly absorbed the formulas. Then my physics teacher showed me a few crackpot proofs denying relativity and i realized that i 'knew' they were wrong but i failed to spot where exactly their error was. It took me a while to learn that 'why-level'. MillKa 12:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- was referring there to comments on this page from scientists. I doubt you'd get much out of "disproving" Heim theory for yourself, as as far as I can tell it's just riddled with inconsistencies and nonsensical statements. Sdedeo (tips) 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
COMMENT. Bruhn is knocking down a straw man. CLASSICAL GR (general relativity) simply stated has two principles. 1) matter curves spacetime and 2)matter takes its instructions on how to move from curved spacetime. Implicit in those principles is that "empty" spacetime is FLAT because there is not matter there to curve it. But in quantized spactime such as in HT AND LQG artifice matter exists in 1) HT as excitations in the metron lattice and in 2)LQG as preons (very small building blocks) constituted of braids of spacetime able to survive quantum fluctuations. Bruhn is using classical methods to misconsture quantum mechanical concepts. Not the first time the strange world of QM has confounded. Best Wishes. User:Will314159 02:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Byrgenwulf. Thanks a lot for providing an argument that contains statements to check. While i try to wrap my head around it, what do you think of Will14159's comment above ? Did Bruhn fall into a overcrowded trap ? MillKa 11:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. The problem isn't that the manifold is flat in the absence of matter. The problem is that their manifold would appear be flat in the presence of matter, as well (which means that they can't account for how GPS works). Vague appeals to "quantum fluctuations" and so forth don't help: more is needed. And the blunder that Hauser and Droescher make in calling a spacetime with imaginary dimensions "R^n" is also rather worrying, questions of metrics and manifolds and things aside...it doesn't bode well for the rigour and accuracy of the rest of their work (because at any time, they may appear to be talking about one thing, but meaning another: how do we tell?). Bruhn was being charitable when he started working with a spacetime with Minkowskian signature, because the letter of what the Heim theory people wrote says that their spacetime's signature is positive definite, which doesn't cut it. Byrgenwulf 14:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Byrgenwulf. I went to your GPS and got global positioning system. went to disambiguation page and didn't see anything that looked right. Did your really mean that? Cheers User:Will314159 18:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Byrgenwulf. Bruhn is essentially just splitting hairs over notation. He objects to the use of symbols like R4 to refer to Minkowski space, while Hauser and Droscher just say it's clear in context what they mean. It's somewhat disingenuous of Bruhn, as he would do better to attack the idea of hermetry forms and show where Heim-Droscher went wrong in applying a sort of Kaluza-Klein reasoning to get the forces out of the subspaces. I.e. to be meaningful as an objection he should go to the meat of the theory and not footle round with nicities of notation. Which is all beside the point. Just as many scientists have given the thumbs up here as against. Sdedeo in his or her last comment again commits the crime that Milka had objected against - i.e. "as as far as I can tell it's just riddled with inconsistencies and nonsensical statements" - without being more specific or inspiring confidence that Sdedeo has looked intot he matter in any detail. Any more than Jordan, Von Weizacher & co. did, for example. So as I say - all beside the point - the consensus here is clearly to keep the article. So let's just wait for the Bot to do its job and remove that unsightly deletion notice.--hughey 08:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bruhn's criticism isn't just about the notation. It is that Heim theory is not relativistic, whatever its proponents might say. A globally Minkowskian spacetime may work for SR, but it contradicts what we know about gravity. And even if Hauser and Droescher say that their version of "R^4" just means Minkowski space, and we live in "R^4", then the theory still does not live up to GR. To Will: yes, I was referring to the global positioning system. A theory formulated in a globally Minkowskian space would predict that GPS co-ordinates would be out by a little bit, because the corrections the software makes to deal with spacetime curvature from gravity etc. would be unnecessary. But whether or not Heim theory is true is not important here, according to Wikipedia policy. Byrgenwulf 10:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. User:Will314159 17:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Heim theory never appeared in a journal because Heim was reclusive paranoic. Pavel Vozenilek 09:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ditto, I can confirm that cranks often cite in a highly misleading fashion this bizarre episode. As for New Scientist, just see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EmDrive. ---CH 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Let's try to keep this as civil as possible, please. ---CH 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia by such endless and time consuming cruft control actions as this is, I maintain, a more serious problem, so much so that the wider Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Strong language - maybe you are violating the Wikipedia guidelines on courtesy - --192.171.3.126 (talk · contribs) 13:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 talk 20:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 [1]. OK, most of the links result from Template:Theories of gravitation, which hopefully gets deleted soon. --Pjacobi 14:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a well known pseudoscientific theory which must be mentioned in any comprehensive encyclopedia. Wikipedia has articles about almost any subject ranging from Santa Claus to Superstring theory. Count Iblis 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia, like adding new good content. That is, the Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia procedures which arose years ago when this wiki was but a wee thing.)---CH 05:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi, Iblis, you are not wrong about Physics Essays, but you'll have to ask the proponents of "Heim theory" [sic] (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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia community".---CH 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia is now the only outlet for physical ideas not fit for peer-review. Sigh. Friendly Neighbour 08:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Friendly Neighbour, I think that Physics Essays does still exist. :) Count Iblis 13:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi, CH. Would you please explain what you are trying to say by '.. whose originator (Heim) has past connections with Nazi science ..' ? What were those connenctions ? What exactly are you referring to by the term 'Nazi science' ?
Do you claim that Heim was member of the Nazi Party ? Heim was born in 1925. The last free election in Germany before WW2 was in 1933, Heim was 8 years old then. When Heim reached the Age_of_majority in 1946, WW2 was already over.
When you refer to Nazi science, are you referring to Deutsche_Physik (an antisemitic and nationalistic group of idiots with degrees in physics, nevertheless denying relativity theory and quantum physics, trying to 'delete' Einstein and others from the history of science just because of their ancestry and religion) ? Thanks to the efforts of Carl_Friedrich_von_Weizsäcker and others, this group lost their influence in 1940. Heim was 15 years old then. By the way, the very same Weizsäcker later was Heim's teacher in Göttingen.
Or do you refer to the fact that Heim was contacted by Werner_Von_Braun (Rocket scientist of german ancestry, since 1937 member of Nazi Party, since 1940 member of SS, (ab)using prisoners from the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp as 'slave workers' in the production of the V-2_rocket; nevertheless later playing an quite important role in the NASA) ? Yes, i know that von Braun didnt exactly begged for joining the Nazi party, but others faced with a similar moral dilemma either left Germany or picked research topics which were less relevant for war ..
Or do you confuse him somehow with Pascual_Jordan, a physicist who was, to put it politely, blind enough to support that cranky 'Deutsche Physik', but nevertheless smart enough to find out a few things that are part of todays mainstream physics and mathematics ?
Could you please explain, maybe using Jordan as an example, why and how those completely unspecified, unsourced and unproven allegations of political and moral failure of Heim are of any relevance to Heim Theory and this nomination for deletion of the article about it ?
Looking forward to your answer .. - MillKa 10:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MillKa, you seem to be objecting that you consider that my comment above was OT, but your response was to ask me a very long question which I suspect most here would consider far more OT than my own comment! (And would probably be answered by reviewing Burkhard Heim.) In addition, asking me a long and complicated question (which I only just noticed) in an AfD which seems about to close doesn't seem likely to guarantee a thoughtful response, so if you really want a response, I suggest that you cut and paste this exchange to your own user talk page. ---CH 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia until confirmed or refuted.Dgietzen 23:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Welcome to Wikipedia Dgietzen (talk · contribs). --Pjacobi 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia Lefted (talk · contribs). --Pjacobi 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, for CEREALX59 (talk · contribs) ---CH 07:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Strong Keep How many theories creating matter from space itself we have? --Ivica
Comment Welcome to Wikipedia 83.131.67.69 (talk · contribs). --Pjacobi 08:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia djrosenau (talk · contribs). --Friendly Neighbour 06:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia be listed for deletion because it was outside the mainstream thinking, and "riddled with inaccuracies"? Digizen 05:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia looking for information about it. To delete this article would make Wikipedia a poorer source for information. Dianelos 16:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Comment : CH probably should have mentioned that he has been one of the most ardent opponents of the Wikipedia 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)[reply]
FYI, Hughey, I am neutral regarding string theory; it is easy to check that I have had very little to say in public about it (and not much more in private). You are probably correct that I should have clearly stated in my comment that I have interacted with you here on previous occasions. For the record, I believe that my edit history amply establishes that I have always acted in good faith in the Wikipedia (and elsewhere). ---CH 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia stands for; it is a thinly disguised attempt at censorship. Freederick 02:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Comment. When the New Scientist article came out in January 2006, it referred to the Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Reply to Freederick: I fear the StdDev objection is valid. Adjusting G would severly disturb the general Feng Shui of the Universe (or even the Multiverse - or is it Multiverses ?) ;-P
However, as you correctly point out, the errors look quite systematic. The interesting question is whether it is possible to apply a corresponding systematic modification to the mass formula so that it delivers better or even exact results. Then the even more interesting next question would be: Whats the physical meaning of that nifty math trick ? I have severe problems to understand why so many physicists consider that question as completely unworthy to investigate. Since a correct HT-type mass formula would drastically lower the number of universal constants, even the most stringent stringists should be interested, cause it might help them to fight the recent Not_even_wrong debate by Lee_Smolin and Peter_Woit.
Which is by the way a major reason why in my humble opinion the HT article should stay: Unsolved problems should be attacked from all sides, instead of just the familiar or promising looking ones. MillKa 12:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Mvuori (talk · contribs)! --Pjacobi 17:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 · contribs) ID's by Will314159 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • 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 · contribs) " ID by Will314159 (talk · contribs) 03:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
OK, this was confusing and I was duly confused. On an AfD very light refactoring for readability (or in this case, to wiksign voters who didn't know how or forgot to sign their votes) is generally held to be acceptable, so it might not be neccessary to sign refactoring which is clearly well-intentioned, but next time, Will, you might try "{{user|202.77.82.55}} (signature added after the fact by ~~~~)". Note to closing admin: my concern about several user accounts noted by PJacobi and myself above stands. Several of these are new accounts with only edit (their "keep" vote in this AfD) on record, which tends to raise suspicions of sockpuppetry.---CH 15:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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(talk) 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MO for this is to simply label them {{Unsigned|202.77.82.55}}, which turns into this: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.77.82.55 (talk • contribs) ~ trialsanderrors 09:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering how you did that exposition triananderros <nowiki>{{Unsigned|202.77.82.55}}</nowiki>. Learned about another device. Thanks. Best Wishes. User:Will314159 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider wikisigning anons as {{user|202.77.82.55}} and so on, especially in an AfD where concerns about possible multiple voting have been mentioned, because this makes it easier to conveniently check contribs. ----CH 03:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am not a physicist. I am a mathematician and I have no opinion whether this theory corresponds to the physical reality or not. But regardless of that this is a theory and as such it deserves its article in Wikipedia. By the way, reading these comments, I am happy that I am not a phycycist - qualifications such as pseudoscience make me really angry. In mathematics we also have alternative theories - even theories that deny almost everything you know about the mathematics (Intuitionism, Constructivism). But we don't use the words science and pseudoscience, instead we are talking about classical mathematics and non-classical mathematics. --Zinoviev 16:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas still exist which can only be termed pseudomathematics. Crank schemes for squaring the circle spring to mind; I could provide many more examples. Before Andrew Wiles, we had a deluge of purported Fermat proofs. Heim theory is, according to what mainstream scientific judgment has been said, the equivalent of these pseudomathematical notions. The overbearing weight of evidence indicates that this "theory" does not and indeed cannot correspond to physical reality. That's not the question. Per Wikipedia policies and community practice, articles on "theories" which completely diverge from physical reality can still exist, if those "theories" and the articles written on them satisfy certain requirements. Arguably, Heim theory does (it has attracted a certain amount of media attention); arguably, it does not, or at least the current article should be abandoned (to satisfy WP:V, WP:NOR and other policies). Anville 18:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky, you. We have to test our theories on the boring real world. Friendly Neighbour 19:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heims theory seems to be distinctly different from the Crank's which appear in mathematics. Mathematical cranks generally make obvious errors in their working, exploit tricks, like dividing 0 by 0, or do a lot of handwaving, missing out important details in their theories. Heim from what I can tell has not committed these sins, unstead he developed his own mathematical framework, worked very hard developing the theory. Heim seems to have more the character of Adrian Wiles who worked for years before publishing that that of the cranks who tend to do a mimimum of work spending all their time rating about their theory. Maths Grad student are frequently set the task of finding flaws in crank's theories, yet for heim we have post-grads busilly translating his work. I'm not sure how to describe Heim, excentric/recluse, but chrank he is not. --Salix alba (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er... Andrew Wiles? If so, the comparison is laughablle. First, Wiles is no crank and no-one has ever suggested that he is a crank. (Except maybe James S. Harris and Archimedes Plutonium, but their opinion may be safely discounted!) Second, Wiles was already acknowledged as a leader in his field well before his work on FLT. Third, he was teaching and attending to various departmental duties (at one of the most prestigious math departments in the world, be it noted) just like other faculty members. Even spending regular blocks of time working hard by oneself in the attic is rather normative for research mathematicians. What is highly unusual about Wiles's labors is that he told very few colleagues what he was doing for many years, and of course the epochal nature of his results. (OT: I continue to be surprised that no-one seems to challenge the "secrecy" which is part of the Wiles legend; I recall hearing highly credible rumors in 1990 that he was working on FLT and making remarkable progress.)---CH 04:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I just wrote 200 words and lost it when I hit a key by mistake. So I will make only two comments. Some of the contributors to this discussion have adopted a snide, put-down tone when discussing the arguments/thinking of other contributors. This is not consistent with the principles and ideals that have led to the creation of Wikipedia. As/if this continues, we risk having the Wikipedia form overwhelmed by pointless debates among individuals stroking their egos or private agendas. Generally, in this discusion, one finds this snide voice predominationg among those proposing deletion. Second, discussions of Heim theory would profit if a first-class theorist familiar with general relativity, German, English, perhaps a student in Germany when Heim was still fairly active in the 1960s took an interest. Sounds like Julian Barbour, Oxfordshire, who also consorts with LQG theorists such as Smolin. Now is he ready, willing, interested, or even a companion among the quick in having his imagination tweaked by a stray concept?

Oh, and since anonymity seems to promote human nastiness, my name is Hal Porter... for what it's worth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halporter (talk • contribs) .

Comment Welcome to Wikipedia Dgietzen (talk · contribs). --Friendly Neighbour 05:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How very welcoming of the friendly one - now be a fine friendly fellow and admit ignominious defeat on the part of the dark side of the force, and kindly remove the deathstar deletion notice - the 5 day period is long since over and Darth Vader has failed to rally his deleters here in sufficient numbers :-). --hughey 07:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you adressing me? If so, what kind of defeat am I supposed to admit? I actually voted to keep Heim theory which is not too difficult to check. Do you mean we decided to delete it??? Friendly Neighbour 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opps - sorry... I just assumed you were against. Now, looking back I see you have a 'keep but rewrite'. mea culpa! --hughey 08:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You just assumed I voted against? That is exactly why a scientist should check his/her facts wherever possible :-) But of course, I accept the apology. Friendly Neighbour 10:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly may be skeptical of HT but he has made extremely fruitful and critical edits to the article. He has a first rate mind and it is a privilige for WP ians to have him as an Editor. Take Care. User:Will314159 12:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I might try to clarify something: I think FN's point was that several voters here appear to have no other edits (or virtually none) to their credit, which given the highly partisan tone of some of the comments here raises the question of sockpuppets being used to try to affect the outcome of this AfD. This would of course be very greatly frowned upon. These newborn voters include:
I have some qualms about a few of the others who almost seem to be socks created just to vote in various AfDs. I also did a spot check of some anon votes, and am glad to say that I found no clear pattern suggesting that someone was multiply voting as an anon. But I remain concerned about the above noted votes. So, it seems, do several other users. ---CH 03:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT. New WP'ians might not be familiar with the term Sockpuppet. An even worse insult is meat sockpuppet. To see illustration of sockpuppet go to youtube.com and do a search for lonelygir15. She has several video clips where she puts her puppet on her hand and talks to it. I would recommend to CH, that adage of jurisprudence: Editors are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Best Wishes. Will314159 16:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and rewrite. Wikipedia is NOT a scientific magazine. We're not bound to cover only scientifically accurate things, but notable things, and Heim theory certainly is notable. ☢ Ҡi∊ff⌇↯ 01:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I came to this article because I saw mention of it elsewhere and decided to look it up on wiki. This article told me almost everything I could have wanted to know. While the article is guilty of minor NPOV violations (It certainly needs a criticism section), the fact is that it's an example of Wikipedia doing what it's designed to do - providing fairly accurate about something, even if that something is a load of crap.Fdgfds 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another general comment: this page makes utterly chaotic reading, in part because many commentators randomly inserted comments somewhere after a bulleted item, which means that earlier comments appear further down and suddenly become almost impossible to undertand because it is no longer clear what they were referring to in the above. I would like to see a a thoroughly revised AfD process, but there seems no chance of that. Barring this, I would like to see revised guidelines for the format of AfD pages, but there seems little chance of even this. It's really absurd that some of us had to do to try to clarify who said what above by wikisigning would-be voters after the fact, calling attention to single use accounts which were very possibly created only to vote in this AfD, etc. I'd like to see automatic wikisigning of comments in talk pages, or at least AfD pages, but again there seems little chance of this happening.---CH 04:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Am intrigued by the "church of science" aspect of the deletion proponents. They seem to be arguing that this theory should not be documented as it is crackpot science and heresy. Whether it is crackpot or not it is obviously something that has a significant history and has sustained the interest and research of a number of people and is thus worthy of documentation in an encyclopedia. Oska 11:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep and add pseudoscience category LHOON 13:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether this theory is a correct description of physical reality or not, it needs to be documented. If you don't document failed theories, you can't learn from them. Wittyname 17:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page documents a theory that, correct or otherwise, may be of interest to users of wikipedia. Joshuag 19:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heim_theory&oldid=1137905386"