Talk:Metron

Ansatz =/= theory

Reader, beware! Person or persons have made uncritical references to Heim theory in several articles and have also added uncritical stubs such as this article. As I stated in POV flag, few physicists would characterize Heim theory as a TOE (or even a genuine theory). OTH, some have been intrigued by Heim's mass formulae, which seem to represent an unmotivated Ansatz, not a fundamental theory. An analogy might help: Bohr's "planetary hypothesis" in the very early days of quantum theory, which was an Ansatz not grounded in any theory and didn't even make sense, but did ultimately lead to a fundamental theory of physics via Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac, von Neumann, etc. So an umotivated Ansatz can have value, it just is not a theory. However, in the case of Heim's Ansatz, it has been questioned whether his Ansatz really does give the claimed impressive numerical results. ---CH 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi CH. Funny coincidence, the HT folks used exactly the same analogy when they compare LQG and HT in their AAIA 2004 paper (see page 21, section 4.2, right column).

I hope both groups look over the fence every now and then while they search for missing puzzle pieces, cause ive been thaught that creating a TOE requires to join forces (pun intended) .. ;-)

About the mass formula: Its fascinating and it seems to be unique. After messing around with it for quite a while, im pretty sure that it is not just an extremely clever obfuscated table of measured values (and after 30 years of programming i think i know two or three things about input and output variables). Since it hits so close, i wonder why. The only other explaination that looks logical to me, is that its author must have gained some (mathematical) insight in the inner workings. The interpretation is a different issue, it wouldnt be the first time in Physics, that the formula comes first and the true understanding afterwards. MillKa 23:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Ansatz" is bullcrap. Of course, I had to look it up to see what it means. Bohr's supposition was that angular momentum was quantized, de Broglie gave it a meaning by his wave model. HT is a quantization of the metric. It is no different from LQG but the quantization ocurrs at a diffrent place. What is amazing is that both yeild matter out of spacetime. They are both background dependent theories. The metron is a generalization of the planck length to two dimensional space. I don't have any heartburn with it. The heart of HT is not the mass formula but the derivation of the quantum numbers that go into the mass formula.--Will314159 17:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Metron =/= soliton

In another article related to Heim theory, someone claimed that metrons are soliton solutions to the EFE. But I doubt they are solitions at all, and they are not mentioned in the recent book by Belinsky and Verdaguer, Gravitational solitons. See my comment in Talk:Heim theory. ---CH 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How often must I repeat this? Heim was the first to use this term in the 1950's, decades before it was coopted or stolen by others. Read the article and former talk pages on Heim before trotting out this old hat.--hughey 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Heim Theory

I don't think this article has enough content to merit itself. It should be merged into Heim Theory. Aaronw 01:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree --Serenity-Fr 22:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and the analogy to branes is stretched. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Support having all three (inc. Selector calculus) covered in one article seems a good plan to me. --Salix alba (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Metorn is the basic unit in HT and i think it makes more sence to merge this article in the main theory.

I disagree with the merge. There is solid theory for a an atom of space and time. April 2006 Scientific American Special Issue, A Matter of Time, has Lee Smolin LQG Article Atoms of Space and Time http://www.sciam.com/special/toc.cfm?issueid=40&sc=rt_nav_list--Will314159 17:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

POV Warning

By consensus the main Heim theory Article doesn not have this horrendeous warning. I can't see any warning that this one paragraph article should have it. threfore it should be removed, and the words non-mainstream in italics put up. for conformities sake.--Will314159 23:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Category

the category should be PROTO just like mother article not FRINGE --Will314159 18:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)