Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

I see two aspects of the topic of meditation/consciousness/spirituality:

1. A theoretical physicist using meditation as a tool for inspiration
   
2. The role of consciousness in the universe
   

My intuition likes two fundamental forces in the universe much better than four.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Checking my notes I see I was mistaken to say four forces in the standard model. It should be three - correct? The electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force.

I also see in my notes from Haramein that he feels that there is no need for both the strong and weak forces. I was thinking it was only the strong.

Anyway, he believes that the fundamental forces are gravity and electromagnetism, and that the feedback between the two is what drives the universe, if I understand him correctly.

Originally posted by Bobathon
The Standard Model works.

Here is some information from openquestions.com about problems with the standard model:

Open questions

It should be stressed that the standard model is an exceptionally successful theory. Despite experiments performed by an army of physicists using powerful accelerators for the last 30 years, no contradictions to predictions of the standard model. Problems with the theory are not incorrect predictions. Instead the problems are of several different types:

1. Phenomena which the theory makes no prediction about, such as neutrino mass.
2. Numerical quantities which are not predicted by the theory but have to be included as experimental givens, such as the mass of each particle and the strengths of the forces.
3. Known circumstances which seem extremely implausible, in lieu of any explanation by the theory, such as the factor of 1014 disparity between the characteristic strengths of the weak and strong nuclear forces (the "hierarchy problem").
4. Pheonomena which the theory simply doesn't deal with at all, such as gravity

We can summarise briefly the main problems here. Most of them will be discussed in more detail on other pages.

Electroweak symmetry breaking

The symmetry between the electromagnetic and weak forces is broken. For instance, the masses of particles in each doublet are different. There is also a large difference between the strength of the two forces at distances larger than the size of a nucleon. One possible way of explaining these facts lies in the "Higgs mechanism", which involves one or more scalar (spin 0) bosons. This is only one possible mechanism, but experimental evidence for the Higgs boson is still lacking.

Another problem is the lack of explanation for certain parameters in the theory, such as the "electroweak mixing angle" which describes how the two forces combine.

Lack of unification of the strong and electroweak forces

After the success in unifying the electromangetic and weak forces, it seemed plausible that the strong force could be unified in the same way. This would be done by the discovery of a larger symmetry group which contains both U(1)xSU(2) (of the electroweak force) and SU(3) (of the strong force). This larger group would be provide the symmetry operations which provide a Yang-Mills gauge theory of the fully unified forces.

In addition to being a plausible thing to expect, such a theory would resolve various puzzles. The hierarchy problem is one of these. Another is how to account for the otherwise seemingly arbitrary fact that the electron has exactly the same (but opposite) electrical charge as the proton.

Unfortunately, no group which makes exactly the right predictions has been discovered. In addition, certain predictions of any such "grand unified theory" have failed to be verfied, such as proton decay.

Too many free parameters in the theory

The theory does not accont for the experimentally measured masses of any elementary particles or the strengths of any fundamental forces. These have had to be included in the theory "by hand".

No explanation for quark confinement

Experiments indicate that the strong force between quarks does not decrease with distance and may in fact increase without limit. The result of this is "quark confinement", which explains why free quarks have never been observed. It has, however, been impossible to demonstrate this behavior of the strong force from the equations of QCD.

Failure of the theory to incorporate gravity

Not only has it been impossible to unify gravity with the other three forces in a Yang-Mills type theory, but in fact any kind of quantum theory of gravity has been impossible to achieve. All attempts to produce a consistent quantized theory of gravity have failed due to infinities occurring in the calculations of the hoped-for theory.

CP symmetry and the strong force

The fact that the weak force violates CP symmetry is well established, but as far as can be determined experimentally, the strong force does not. This is surprising, since theoretical considerations indicate that at least a small violation should exist. One proposed solution is that the magnitude of the small violation might be the average value of a global field. The source of this field would be a new particle called the "axion". The particle would exist if there is an additional global symmetry (called the "Peccei-Quinn symmetry") which is spontaneously broken. By a general principle ("Goldstone's theorem") there should exist a boson (the axion) to explain this symmetry breaking.

No explanation for neutrino mass

The simplest form of the Higgs mechanism for electroweak symmetry breaking provides masses for all the elementary fermions except the neutrino. Various experimental results now strongly indicate that neutrinos have mass, so some more elaborate sort of Higgs mechanism seems called for. It is also possible that right-handed neutrinos could also result -- though they would be extremely hard to observe, since gravity is the only force they would feel.

No explanation for exactly three families of leptons and quarks

Various lines of evidence have established that there are only three "generations" of leptons and quarks. However, there is no general principle which implies that there should be more than one generation. Muons, for instance, in all respects except for their mass, behave exactly like electrons. From the table of elementary particles, one might suspect the existence of some symmetry having a particle triplet consisting of electron, muon, and tau (for example). But no there is no theoretical basis for such a symmetry, and no experimental evidence of its existence.

The problems with the standard model can be summarized as follows:

* There is no explanation for the three families of quarks and leptons.
* The possibility is open that quarks and leptons have substructure and aren't really elementary.
* Neutrinos appear to have some small mass, but the model treats them as massless.

* The symmetry between the electromagnetic and the weak force is a broken symmetry.
* The strong nuclear force is not unified with the electroweak force.
* Hierarchy problem
* Relationship of quark/lepton charges
* There are many arbitrary features of the theory, such as the list of elementary particles, the symmetries of the theory, and the ratios of strengths of different forces and masses of different particles.
* Quark confinement problem
* The gravitational force is not included.

There does not seem to be any reasonable way to include gravity in the standard model, because a viable quantum field theory of gravity is lacking. Treating gravity as a field in the standard model requires the existence of the graviton as the quantum of the field. The graviton should be a massless spin 2 boson. But naively treating the field equations of general relativity by the rules of quantum mechanics encounters problems of infinities - the theory is not renormalizable.

However, even leaving out gravity, the standard model theory of both the electroweak and strong forces is incomplete.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Bobathon
The Standard Model works.

Here is some information from openquestions.com about problems with the standard model:

Open questions

It should be stressed that the standard model is an exceptionally successful theory. Despite experiments performed by an army of physicists using powerful accelerators for the last 30 years, no contradictions to predictions of the standard model...

I wouldn't disagree with anything in that article.

As I said, for many many reasons, scientists are working on attempts to go beyond the standard model using experiments, but none have worked so far. The model has dealt perfectly well with everything anyone has thrown at it.

There are loads of theories that go beyond the standard model. Plenty.

Rule number 1 for a theory that goes beyond the standard model is this:
None of the successes of the standard model (or any other experimental result) should be contradicted by the new theory.

That would surely be the most obvious thing in the world. No? I mean, who would take a successful though incomplete theory and want to replace it by one that clearly does nothing and gets everything wrong? Some kind of moron?

(The fact that the smiley guy that profits from it makes outlandish claims for it doesn't change anything. Nor does the fact that ignorant people who seem to like it and aren't willing or able to think for themselves are nevertheless prepared to defend it like dumbass guard dogs. It's pathetic.)

Originally posted by Bobathon
(The fact that the smiley guy that profits from it makes outlandish claims for it doesn't change anything. Nor does the fact that ignorant people who seem to like it and aren't willing or able to think for themselves are nevertheless prepared to defend it like dumbass guard dogs. It's pathetic.)

Ignorant people?

Dumbass guard dogs?

And you? How would you describe yourself?

Originally posted by Bobathon
Rule number 1 for a theory that goes beyond the standard model is this:
None of the successes of the standard model (or any other experimental result) should be contradicted by the new theory.

I agree in general though I'd phrase it slightly differently.

Whatever model replaces the standard model must do a better job overall of explaining things than the standard model. The difference is that if the alternative model explains say, 7 more things than the standard model, but one less, for a net gain of explaining 6 more things, it might be a better model even if it loses one of the things explained by the standard model. But Haramein's model doesn't seem to explain ANY laboratory results better than the standard model, in fact it fails miserably to explain observations.

This strategy of pointing out the gaps in the standard model is common among those who have alternative models, and yes the gaps are valid observations. But there may be hundreds of competing models to the standard model, of which Haramein's is only one (if you can stretch a point to call it a model). Various electric universe proponents use a similar line of reasoning that

1. The standard model has gaps, therefore
2. We should accept alternate theory "X" , and,
3. Ignore the fact that theory "X" has many more and much larger gaps than the standard model

That argument can be applied to hundreds of alternate models so that argument really does nothing to favor Haramein's model over any other model.

So even if one is convinced they shouldn't believe the standard model because of the gaps, they still have to choose which of the many alternate models to believe instead, and how can such a choice be logically made? The way I'll choose which alternative model to believe is by the criteria I gave above, when the alternative model explains more observations and experiments better than the current standard model. People that use their intuition to choose a model are doomed to fail because the observations we make in the world of quantum mechanics are not intuitive (nor is there any reason they should be intuitive since they occur on a scale smaller than we can perceive without help from devices).

So far every alternative model I've seen has more and larger gaps than the standard model (Haramein's is almost ALL gaps, though I can't argue with the equations he copied out of the physics textbook). But I'm not married to the standard model and when I find or see one that explains things better, I'll have no reluctance to switching to the better model, except that convincing me the alternative model is better will be challenging since we do have so much evidence favoring the standard model.

And it's nice to have a few gaps in the model, it gives physicists something to figure out

From "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

. . . Does all of that make the concerns about the Schwarzschild Proton invalid? Absolutely not! They are well founded in the context of the standard model, and if one has little understanding of unification issues, which seems to be the case according to the gentleman's own admission (from Bob-a-thon's post, "I also don't know how to unify the laws of physics!" 1:36 AM, February 23, 2010.

Thereafter, why would the gentleman presume to have the expertise to comment on a unification approach? Simply because it sounds outrageous? Atoms as black holes! How ridiculous!!! It must be wrong!

How does Bobathon know a theory is wrong if he has no ideas of his own?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'd phrase it slightly differently... Whatever model replaces the standard model must do a better job overall of explaining things than the standard model. The difference is that if the alternative model explains say, 7 more things than the standard model, but one less, for a net gain of explaining 6 more things, it might be a better model even if it loses one of the things explained by the standard model.

Yes... I was oversimplifying a bit. (Though not enough to do the intended job.)

The key thing for me is honesty. Any model, however powerful and revolutionary and insightful, will have its limits. The job of science is to improve on these models so that they better reflect the real world, and to be honest about their limits. In fact to be honest about everything about them.

Because things are questioned so intensely, anyone who is not honest is very easily spotted. And subsequently ignored. Which is the only reasonable way to deal with dishonesty. Even if Haramein did undestand any physics, he'd need to sort his ethics out massively if he's ever to be taken seriously. Neither of these prospects seem remotely feasible.

The synthesis of science and spirituality would be a great thing. Haramein, however, not only ignores and dismisses science and replaces it with invented pap, he also passes it off dishonestly as 'science' to gullible people in order to win fame and sell his brand. He's not only a million miles from being a decent scientist, he's also profiting from abusing the trust of those who want to see him as spiritual.

Not that any of this bothers people like Mary. Woof woof.

reply to post by Mary Rose

"Only a fool knows everything.

A wise man knows how little he knows."

-unknown

reply to post by Arbitrageur


And how does your comment answer my question?

reply to post by Mary Rose
Since when were you playing the answering questions game?

From "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

Here's Bobathon:

The Schwarzschild Proton' is a paper written by Nassim Haramein, proposing a model of the proton based on what he calls 'the Schwarzschild condition'.

Here's Nassim:

Bob-a-thon" seems to think that we made this phrase up, when, in fact, the Schwarzschild condition is commonly used terminology in relativistic physics papers and is hardly my own invention. To question our use of the term clearly shows the gentleman's lack of familiarity with the subject. The following are two examples, selected more or less at random, from the current literature of the use of the term "Schwarzschild condition". First we have:

Yuan-xing and Liu Liao, A comparison of the entropies of collapsing stars and black holes, Chinese Astronomy and Astrophysics Volume 6, Issue 2, June 1982, Pages 157-163. See: http://(link tracking not allowed)/dhWRPl
From their Abstract:

"We considered three modes of black hole formation: (I) a black hole kernel first forms at the centre of a collapsing star and as the outer matter falls, the kernel grows until the whole star becomes a black hole; (II) all the layers of a collapsing simultaneously satisfy the Schwarzschild condition; (III) the outermost layer first satisfies the Schwarzschild condition." [emphasis added]

As a second example, see:

Csaba Balazs and Istvan Szapudi, Naturalness of the Vacuum Energy in Holographic Theories. See: arxiv.org... , February 2008.
From their page 2:

"More precisely, a system that saturates the holographic bound also satisfies the Schwarzschild condition, i.e. its maximal mass is the half of its radius in Planck units." [emphasis added]

reply to post by Mary Rose
A few hundred hits for "Schwarzschild condition" on Google(.co.uk). The top two of which are people making fun of Haramein for using the term. The next four are Haramein.

You're a funny thing, Mary Rose. Keep going.

Originally posted by Bobathon
You're a funny thing, Mary Rose. Keep going.

Excuse me. I'm not a "thing."

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

Here's Bobathon:

. . . I might betray my views here and there, but this is always incidental. I'm exploring this material not with belief or opinion or conjecture, but using established laws of physics only - in fact I'm going out of my way to really try to make his model fit with reality.

Here's Nassim:

Since we have yet to reach a stage of "established laws" in our search for knowledge, much of physics is indeed still based on beliefs, opinion and conjecture. Certainly Bob-a-thon's previous posts here and on multiple websites and YouTube channels (some of which banned him because of his offensive language) show copious amounts of just that.

Here in these comments the great dogma of physics rears its head once more, and as throughout the decades, is qualified as the "established laws of physics." I ask the reader, what are those? Many of the previously established laws of physics were shown to be less than established universally and many of the "laws of physics" we use today are encountering serious difficulties. How could new science ever occur if only established concepts were ever considered? In even a cursory glance at physics today, it is obvious that the "laws of physics" are hardly established at all.

To illustrate how rapidly things can change, there is a recent report that neutrinos have mass! For years it has been assumed that the neutrino was massless. . . .

Originally posted by Mary Rose
And how does your comment answer my question?

That means it's wiser to admit that you don't "know how to unify the laws of physics", than to make up a theory that disagrees with observation and then claim you do.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


My question was how does Bobathon know Haramein's theory is wrong?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
From "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto":

In most papers, mass is simply assumed to "be there", almost as an axiom, yet its origin and mechanisms are still being actively investigated. If you look into this matter you will find much debate and speculation surrounding the Higgs mechanism and other theories on the nature of mass.

Mass from the Vacuum?

My paper on the Schwarzschild proton seeks to derive mass from the vacuum energies already included in quantum theories. While this short paper and the previous publications coauthored with Dr. Rauscher and Dr. Hyson offers solutions to the origin of mass and charge, it produces a simple and elegant unification of gravity to the quantum world. Of course, there are many questions to be answered, but at least the model points in new and interesting directions and attempts to find an actual source for the energies introduced in previous models only on theoretical grounds. There are issues that we are working on to make it more comprehensive. However I am confident that I have been able to answer most of your significant questions with at least a mechanism to explain the apparent anomaly relative to what is currently known.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
My question was how does Bobathon know Haramein's theory is wrong?

He's already explained that at least ten times.

Why would you think explaining it an eleventh time will help if you ignored the explanation the first ten times?

Remember this from bobathon?

* Mass of an actual proton: 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram
* Mass of Schwarzschild proton: 885 million metric tonnes

These aren't particularly close.

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?
He doesn't.

Haramein's response to this claim, basically agrees with it.

So, even Haramein agrees his theory disagrees with observation. That should be enough to prove it's wrong, but bobathon went into many other examples besides this one.