[Junior]

Do you have an explanation for your one-word reply, or do you simply dismiss any scientific musings out of hand?

[M203M4]

The selection rules for Heim theory haven't been worked out yet (or at least remain unpublished). Unless forbidden by these, Heim theory calls for the existence of neutral electrons, not yet observed (the relevant parameter space has been well explored - if neutral electrons were present, we should have seen a few by now).

It could turn out that all transitions involving the neutral electron are forbidden - so there would be no inconsistency of Heim theory with reality, at least for this (significant) issue. I believe there are several groups working on this problem - for example, a group at the Perimeter Institute (Waterloo, Canada) led by Lee Smolin; though, more of their efforts are geared towards developing quantum loop gravity (especially work on spin foam).

[canuck_conservative]

I still believe Einstein's theory of relativity.

From Dan Cooper's referred article (post #34):

"There is nothing wrong with Einstein's theory of relativity. If the energy of an object is much smaller than 1019 proton masses or if the distance between two objects is smaller than millions of light-years, Einstein's equations are still valid," he says. [scientists who claim speed of light is frequency-dependent]

**BTW, their claims are still unproven**



I like to dream too, but let's be realistic when it comes to science. Until somebody conclusively proves that Einstein's upper limit (speed of light) is wrong, I'll trust The Theory of Relativity.