Space Forum / Space Flight / May 2006

Well who knows since they dont quote their theoretical values with any
error. Given this I can only assume they are claiming the theoretical
error is so small when quoting to however many significant digits they
use the error is zero. In this case the quoted error is not compatible
with the current world average from the PDG group at Berkeley.

If they quote an error and it the measured value falls within one or 2
standard deviations of this then that is a different matter.

If it was weakly interacting to the extent it would not have interacted
with a particle detector then it would have been seen by now by virtue
of one of many analyses searching for "missing energy" in the detector.

Apparently OPAL searched for this type of effect and didnt find it
(according to wikipedia). I found the paper here:

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?AUTHOR=&TITLE=Photonic+events+w
ith+Missing+Energy&C=&REPORT-NUM=&AFFILIATION=&cn=&k=&cc=&eprint=&eprint=&topcit
=&url=&J=&*=&ps=&DATE=&*=2000&FORMAT=WWW&SEQUENCE=

I suspect there will be other analyses that have been done that rely on
missing energy would also be sensitive to production of such a
particle.

Really the onus is on the heim-theorists to tell people specifically
how to search for a neutral electron type particle and to explain why
it wouldnt have been seen already in analyses done, given it has such a
low mass (0.5 MeV).

Yes, the Higgs boson has not been observed. Neither has supersymmetry.
But they do have reasons why we would not have seen them to date in the
theories and they can be tested soon so we can rule them out or
incorpate them into current theories. In the case of the Higgs the
theory assumes the mass is sufficiently lareg we could not have seen it
with the "low" energy experiments we have used so far. But the heim
neutral electron has a very low mass, which is why lots of people are
saying it would have already been seen.

The key points (to my mind) for heim-theory is really it must make
specific predictions that can be tested, it must be consistent with all
experiments performed to date (which means they need to calculate
errors on the predicted masses so we can see the precision they can
calculate them).

Also why dont they show the quark masses in their table? I needs to
have all the particles we know about, because if the calculation fails
for even one particle then the theory does not work as it is.

The measured value is from the PDG group and is usually constructed
from all available measurements to date (but not always).

This is is also interesting and relevant:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/tomr/browse_thread/thread/778978e5ab4b719b/edd9
edc64301e511?lnk=st&q=heim+theory&rnum=11#edd9edc64301e511

Forgive my lack of familiarity with the neutral electron prediction,
but does it mean that Heim's theory predicts a particle with the same
mass as the electron, but having no charge?

Hmm, but where would such a particle reside? Certainly not going to be
orbiting the nucleus, if it has no charge. Nor would it have a strong
force interaction to trap it in the nucleus.

Perhaps the neutral electron prediction is just some 'trivial solution'
which is just a manifestation of something else, as you say.

Interesting -- how would one even look for a neutral electron? A
neutrino-style detector?

Could the e0 actually be the neutrino? After all, neutrinos are
neutral, and have been found  to have slight mass. Could the neutrino
be the "neutral electron"?

Does Heim's theory predict the existence of a separate neutrino
particle, distinct from the neutral electron?