posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 05:21 PM
Prof Krauss may be right, but one ought not dismiss the theory entirely simply because there is no quantum field theory in it (yet)---which appears
to be true.
Background: quantum field theories are the "second quantization" of QM, which significantly extended the structure of the Heisenberg et al quantum
theory (first quantization). The canonical example of QFT is QED---fully quantum theory of photons and charged leptons like electrons.
Expecting a new gravity plus dark matter/energy theory (which is what the Heim theory really is) to come fully endowed with QFT structure or more
(i.e. string theory, "third quantization") as the true fundamental theory may be too high a requirement.
For example, consider lasers. The true theory of lasers, fully quantized quantum optics---considering photons with creation+annihilation operators
and the full multitudes of states---is now known and experimentally verified, but computations with it are very difficult for practical purposes.
For many practical purposes, the rate equations or rate equations with the next practical approximation to quantum optics, are more useful and easy:
such a physical theory is what Einstein developed back in maybe 1905-1915, long before the full quantum optics was developed, e.g. 1950's-1960's.
A primary feature is that they include the electric field as a physically real classical field not quantum state, as a true, and difficult QFT.
Even more, to design an electric motor you do not need QED, you need Maxwellian electrodynamics combined with macrcoscopic facts about electromagnetic
behavior of materials.
The Heim theory and variants appear at first glance to be significant extensions of general relativity with new structure for additional forces, which
include the magic new fields.
There is precedent, namely the known combination of Einsteinian general relativity and the Maxwell equations, which can be derived from various
theories such as Kaluza-Klein.
There is NO QFT there, and of course physicists wanted to add it, but have found it very difficult except in flat space-time where you get now the
Yang-Mills theories and the bulk of modern particle physics development.
Just because the Einstein-Maxwell equations---i.e. electromagnetism in fully curved spacetime---do not incorporate QFT effects doesn't mean they are
useful and "wrong" even though they are obviously not everything as they don't incorporate full quantum effects.
(Note that they do predict an interaction between gravitation and E&M---not just gravity on light waves as we all know, but E&M can bend spacetime
through the stress energy tensor just like matter. Problem is that the coupling constant is extremely extremely small.)
The bulk of modern development on incorporating new forces, i.e. weak force and strong force (now "color force" as force between quarks) of course
went in the QFT direction, and dropped off gravity because it was too difficult.
Note, there is NO "classical theory" of weak and strong interactions. Why? Because it would be pointless, as the physical properties of weak and
strong forces---short range interactions---REQUIRE quantum effects for useful physical prediction.
But suppose there were some new macroscopic classical field or two. Shocking yes, but that's what the Heim theory effectively predicts. In that
case the classical unification of such fields with electromagnetism and gravity (a la Einstein plus Maxwell) would still be VERY USEFUL (if they are
experimentally accessible!) even if the theory isn't fully quantized.
Therefore my entire point: dismissing a theory because it isn't a fully quantized field theory is premature.
It would be quite a "shock to the system" to find that classical physics wasn't complete in 1915 (Einstein GR), but I don't see any other
possibility if it were really true that ETs can come here by FTL (in flat space) spacecraft.
The dark matter and dark energy anomalies are not going away, and the Pioneer anomaly ought also to be suggestive.