# M theory+Heim theory=? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 17, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m-theory-heim-theory/344896 "2006-02-17T01:56:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m-theory-heim-theory/344896/1 "2006-02-17T01:56:00Z")
Can M theory ( the latest version of supergravity/supersymmetry/superstrings, apparently unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) be combined with the competing Theory of Everything called Heim Theory? [http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/summary/summary.htm](http://www.engon.de/protosimplex/summary/summary.htm) If so, would the end product give insight into things each theory alone dosen’t? ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m-theory-heim-theory/344896/2 "2006-02-17T02:58:43Z")
I’ll answer that question only if you promise you won’t publish my answer in a refereed physics journal. I want my Nobel Prize. No way I’m letting you publish first. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m-theory-heim-theory/344896/3 "2006-02-17T03:26:54Z")
From [New Scientist](http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.html) > [@](#): > > So is this all fanciful nonsense, or a revolution in the making? The majority of physicists have never heard of Heim theory, and most of those contacted by New Scientist said they couldn’t make sense of Dröscher and Häuser’s description of the theory behind their proposed experiment. Following Heim theory is hard work even without Dröscher’s extension, says Markus Pössel, a theoretical physicist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam, Germany. Several years ago, while an undergraduate at the University of Hamburg, he took a careful look at Heim theory. He says he finds it “largely incomprehensible”, and difficult to tie in with today’s physics. “What is needed is a step-by-step introduction, beginning at modern physical concepts,” he says. M Theory is often described as 21st century mathematics that accidentally fell into the 20th century. Trying to mix an incomprehensible and probably incomplete or even nonsensical theory and an immensely difficult set of advanced mathematical equations which give 10[sup]500[/sup] potential answers none of which have been solved is likely to take a long, long, long, long while. ---
**Author:** ![Sequent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Sequent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sequent)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m-theory-heim-theory/344896/4 "2006-02-17T05:30:27Z")
> [@Wendell Wagner](#): > > I’ll answer that question only if you promise you won’t publish my answer in a refereed physics journal. I want my Nobel Prize. No way I’m letting you publish first. I promise. What’s the answer? ---
**Author:** ![Electronic\_Chaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Electronic\_Chaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Electronic_Chaos)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m-theory-heim-theory/344896/5 "2006-02-17T08:18:43Z")
> [@Sequent](#): > > I promise. What’s the answer? Forty-two. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m-theory-heim-theory/344896/6 "2006-02-17T11:29:48Z")
I really don’t know enough about either to comment with authority, but String/M Theory writer and researcher Brian Greene readily admits that alternatives to String/M Theory might well be describing similar stuff in a different but equally valid way. In particular, the quantum loop gravity of Penrose et al. which, as I understand it, uses \*real \* and _imaginary_ spacetime instead of “extra dimensions”, is described in both of Greene’s books as not necessarily being mutually exclusive to his own field. Perhaps this Heim stuff is similar. ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m-theory-heim-theory/344896/7 "2006-02-17T19:02:25Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I really don’t know enough about either to comment with authority, but String/M Theory writer and researcher Brian Greene readily admits that alternatives to String/M Theory might well be describing similar stuff in a different but equally valid way. In particular, the quantum loop gravity of Penrose et al. which, as I understand it, uses \*real \* and _imaginary_ spacetime instead of “extra dimensions”, is described in both of Greene’s books as not necessarily being mutually exclusive to his own field. Perhaps this Heim stuff is similar. First, nitpick: “loop quantum gravity”, not “quantum loop gravity”. Second, string theories and M-theory also use complex spacetimes. For instance, the “extra” six dimensions in some string theories come in a three-complex-dimensional algebraic variety. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/m-theory-heim-theory/344896/8 "2006-02-17T20:10:06Z")
Advocates of Heim Theory say part of the problem lies in Heim having been so handicapped (handless, blind and deaf I think) by the end of his life that he was unable to properly review what was published for accuracy (critical when obscure mathematical notations are being transcribed by the clerk at the publisher I am guessing). As a result those who are interested in Heim theory are now supposedly embarked on a quest to go through all of it and try and sort it back into some sort of shape. Add to it that all of it is in German so anyone who doesn’t read German and wants to work on it has to cope with translation issues. Heim himself supposedly refused to publish anything for peer review because he thought it was a waste of time until he had his theory nailed down. I read one paper did get published for peer review at the insistence of his friends but I have no idea how that all turned out. Note I am mentioning all of the above not to detract or support Heim theory but just to relay what adherents say are some of the obstacles to understanding this theory. Looking at some of the theory myself it whoosed right over my head immediately so I certainly have no way of calling it one way or another. Also, if it matters, I think the extra dimensions in Heim Theory do not actually indicate there are extra dimensions (byond 3 space and 1 time) but are considered by Heim Theory as not much more than a convenient mathematical label. The example I read likened it to physicists assigning colors to quarks. It is just a notation…no one is suggesting quarks actually are colored red, green or blue.