Nassim Haramein solves Einstein's dream of a unified field theory?

Originally posted by beebs
Haramein's reasoning is clearly described by himself in his long talks.

You noticed that, too? His talks are exceedingly long, especially given how little substance they contain.

His particular angle on the problem stems from his philosophical presuppositions.

No amount of philosophy can fix a theory that it wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Now, I will concede that Rauscher's math is probably wrong in the specific sense of the mass of his proton.

...and in many other aspects as well, such as beta decay of the neutron, scattering of electrons on protons and proton structure in general which was studied in great detail...

However, it is hardly surprising that he got such a high mass for such a small particle - given that he has estimated the amount of ZPE within the radius which perhaps fulfills the SC for the BH - and furthermore that that discrete system is rotating at the speed of light (in his model).

It is astonishing that you don't see a completely circular nature of that argument. He comes up with an arbitrary number for energy density of the vacuum, such that a sphere the radius of the proton weighs enough to become a black hole. As simple as that. Then you call it "an estimate".

I don't care anymore whether Rauscher's math is correct at predicting the observable mass of the proton. Do you know why I don't care?

I don't care about why you don't care. Since you departed from rational thought, why should I? Even admitting that math is cr@p, and the mass is ludicrously wrong, you still stick with the stupid theory.

Originally posted by beebs

 

I don't care anymore whether Rauscher's math is correct at predicting the observable mass of the proton

That's not Rauscher's math. Whatever inadvisable diversions she's got herself into recently, Rauscher is a scientifically and numerically literate fruitloop, not a comically incompetent one.

No, you can be quite sure that was Haramein.

What experiments prove that the mass of the proton is 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What experiments prove that the mass of the proton is 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram?

Mary,

you complimented yourself on being a "good researcher" more times than I care to count. Now, to ask a question like that instead of making a modicum of effort with Google, Wikipedia or your local library, speaks volumes.

Charge to mass ratio were measured a long time ago by measuring deflection in the magnetic field, see
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Mary,

you complimented yourself on being a "good researcher" more times than I care to count. Now, to ask a question like that instead of making a modicum of effort with Google, Wikipedia or your local library, speaks volumes.

Not really.

Why should I waste my time looking for information that you have declared yourself an expert in, and have based your ridicule of Haramein on?

I've begun my search by asking you.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Charge to mass ratio were measured a long time ago by measuring deflection in the magnetic field, see
en.wikipedia.org...

Is this all of it?

No other proof?

reply to post by Mary Rose


WSM, or the Wave Structure of Matter, is an excellent [and relatively new] alternative theory to the current jumbled thinking on matter.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To my fellow scientist: don't try to explain that this s**** doesn't work to ones who don't want to hear... I tried multiples times with "lhc and the end of the world" so many times... It just don't work... Let them believe what they want, they aren't changing their mind, just waiting for you to make a mistake and reverse your words and take your post as they wish. If you wanna keep going, good luck ^^'



BTW: some time ago I saw a presentation of this guy, I'm a college math student, so my knowledge is physics its just... "normal", and I was waiting to someone to clear the things. Thanks, you did a great job =D




(Excuse my english)

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Charge to mass ratio were measured a long time ago by measuring deflection in the magnetic field, see
en.wikipedia.org...

Is this all of it? No other proof?

Do you find any fault with this experiment? Please explain.
Mass-spectrometry is a pretty precise way of measuring the mass of charged particles.

And feel free to check out many others.

pra.aps.org...

We determine the cyclotron frequency ratio of H2+ and D+, applying the two-pulse Ramsey-excitation technique in the Penning-trap mass spectrometer SMILETRAP. The final result, based on probing more than 100 000 ions, is a frequency ratio of 0.999 231 659 33(17). Using a value of the D+ mass recently measured by the Seattle group, we obtain so far the most precise experimental H2+ mass value of 2.015 101 497 16(34) u. From this value a proton mass value of 1.007 276 466 95(18) u (0.18 ppb relative uncertainty) could be derived, in good agreement with the value of 1.007 276 466 89(14) u published by Van Dyck et al. [R. S. Van Dyck, Jr., D. L. Farnham, S. L. Zafonte, and P. B. Schwinberg, in Trapped Charged Particles and Fundamental Physics, edited by D. E. Dubin and D. Schneider, AIP Conf. Proc. No. 457 (AIP, Woodbury, NY, 1999)].

This is also pretty useful:
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Charge to mass ratio were measured a long time ago by measuring deflection in the magnetic field, see
en.wikipedia.org...

Is this all of it?

No other proof?

Only mathematicians have proof. Science is based on theories with supporting evidence.

And what do you mean "is this all of it"? Of course not, and if you were an actual researcher you would follow the references or even, god forbid, go and get a physics text book and read that.

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
And what do you mean "is this all of it"?

Critics of Haramein's theory on this thread have based their criticism on their superior knowledge of the "laws of physics" and have repeatedly referred to Haramein's theory as contrary to what has been "observed."

This is the first time on this thread as I recall that I have challenged these critics on their proof of what has been observed according to them.

That's what I mean.

reply to post by Mary Rose


What exactly have you "challenged"? What specifically are you disputing?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Do you find any fault with this experiment? Please explain.

No. I'm trying to get more specific about what has already been observed.

Thanks for the links.

I'm also interested in how the particle vs. wave debate fits in to the debate on Haramein's theory.

reply to post by john_bmth


I'm disputing the idea that Haramein's theory is crap because it allegedly doesn't agree with established science. There has been much discussion on this thread about the math of Haramein's theory because the mass of the "actual" proton is way out of line with the mass of the Schwarzschild proton.

I'm questioning what we actually do know about the actual proton. How do we know we know?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Do you find any fault with this experiment? Please explain.

I'm also interested in how the particle vs. wave debate fits in to the debate on Haramein's theory.

..and so you should be. Although you'll find Haramein has fallen into the same trap most post-Planck scientists have. That Planck was responsible, in part, for diverting attention from the truth by forcing theory to fit the observed is at the very least, an outrage, that he was part of an ongoing misconception is perhaps unforgivable. Schrodinger realized this 90 years ago when he said [of quantum theory] he wanted 'nothing to do with it'.

We are at a cusp. And very soon now it will be generally recognized our understanding of quantum dynamics and, oddly, evolution is at total odds with what is actually observable & true. I put it to you, quite emphatically, that it has been these two greatest failures in our history that will become self-evident in the near future. Of this I am absolutely sure, and can predict with absolute surety.

Originally posted by chocise
Although you'll find Haramein has fallen into the same trap most post-Planck scientists have. That Planck was responsible, in part, for diverting attention from the truth by forcing theory to fit the observed is at the very least, an outrage, that he was part of an ongoing misconception is perhaps unforgivable. Schrodinger realized this 90 years ago when he said [of quantum theory] he wanted 'nothing to do with it'.

Very interesting.

Theory should match observation, though – should it not?

What should Planck have done differently?

Originally posted by chocise

WSM, or the Wave Structure of Matter, is an excellent [and relatively new] alternative theory to the current jumbled thinking on matter.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I haven’t read this thread yet.

Are you saying that Haramein has been so far unaware of WSM theory?

I confess I will have to read Haramein more thoroughly... a casual glance inferred he was barking up the same tree. I'll have to consider him in more depth & get back to you. CIAO.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Do you find any fault with this experiment? Please explain.

No. I'm trying to get more specific about what has already been observed.
Thanks for the links.

So Mary, do you understand how they measure the mass of the proton?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I'm also interested in how the particle vs. wave debate fits in to the debate on Haramein's theory.

I think it's great that Mary is asking about how the mass of the proton is known to be what it is. That is a great question. I wish you luck with your investigations, Mary.

Regarding the particle/wave debate, please note that Haramein has declared the whole of quantum physics as "bunk", despite the fact that virtually the whole of the technological developments of the last 80 years have relied entirely on quantum physics.

Originally posted by chocise
you'll find Haramein has fallen into the same trap most post-Planck scientists have. That Planck was responsible, in part, for diverting attention from the truth by forcing theory to fit the observed is at the very least, an outrage, that he was part of an ongoing misconception is perhaps unforgivable.

Erm, things have moved on a little since Planck 'forced theory to fit the observed' my friend. What exactly are you accusing scientists of that you know better about, and why?

Also Haramein has, as I said, denied it all anyway, so if you're a quantum physics denier, you might get on.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I'm also interested in how the particle vs. wave debate fits in to the debate on Haramein's theory.

I think it's great that Mary is asking about how the mass of the proton is known to be what it is. That is a great question. I wish you luck with your investigations, Mary.

Bobathon, I agree, and Mary, I hope you find the answers you seek.

Regarding the particle/wave debate, please note that Haramein has declared the whole of quantum physics as "bunk", despite the fact that virtually the whole of the technological developments of the last 80 years have relied entirely on quantum physics.

I'd like to add something to this comment. The model of quantum mechanics is one of the best models ever because it makes so many accurate predictions. However it's a model:

faculty.wwu.edu...

* Models of Science are useful maps which approximate Nature.
* The Laws of Physics are mathematical Models that reflect the underlying order found in Nature.
* Models in Science are not equivalent to, identical with, or a one-to-one match with the aspects of Nature they describe.
* There is always some limited range over which a Model is a useful predictor of Nature.
* The fundamental criteria for the acceptance or rejection of a Model is determined by how close the Model predicts the outcome of measurements and observations.
* Models of Science are not unique. There may be two or more Models which describe the same observations equally well.
* Preference between competing Models is judged by:
a. Size of the error. The smaller the size of the error between actual measurements and predictions, the more accurate the Model. A good Model will be able to predict the uncertainty within its predictions.

b. Range of Application. The larger the range over which a Model faithfully reflects Nature, the more universal the Model. If the range is big enough we might even call the Model a Law of Physics.

c. Simplicity. A subjective and practical property that makes a Model easier to both understand and manipulate. In Keats words, "Truth is beauty, and beauty is truth."

Example 1: Mechanics, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics
Newton's Laws of Motion faithfully reflect the motion of a body as long as the speed of the body is small compared to the speed of light. When the speed of the body approaches the speed of light, Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicts results closer to the actual values measured than Newton's Laws of Motion predict. The Theory of Relativity is itself only a better approximation; it has a bigger but still limited range over which it can be applied.

Both Relativity Theory and Newton's Laws give inaccurate predictions when trying to explain the behavior of matter on the atomic scale. In this range, a model call Quantum Mechanics has proven to make more accurate predictions. None of the well-established Models represent the Absolute Truth about Nature, but they are very close likenesses of the Nature under certain conditions.

Quantum mechanics is only a model and it only has a limited range, though disingenuous farces like "What the Bleep do We Know" try to imply that quantum mechanics applies to larger objects in addition to subatomic objects. We can do the double slit experiment on photons, electrons, and other tiny things and see the dual particle/wave nature of quantum mechanics in the experiment. But what happens when you try to fire a human through the double slit?

If you've seen an experiment where a wave-like behavior is observed when a large object like a human is fired through the double slit, please cite the experiment, because I'd like to see it.

The nuances of how these three models of quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics versus relativity overlap with each other can be described both verbally and mathematically, but it's no more appropriate to try to say quantum mechanics is a good model at all scales than to say that Newtonian mechanics works well at the speed of light. This to me is the sin that the "What the Bleep do we Know" movie committed and it's given many people some twisted ideas about the scale of applicability for the quantum mechanical model.

I have a high confidence in predictions made by the quantum mechanical model, because, it has proven capable of making accurate predictions. I'm not as confident it's the true representation of nature. Maybe if we develop a theory of everything that explains more than our current models we can have more confidence about that. However what we can all agree on, are the observations we make. (At least I thought that was true before I read some opinions int his thread). And if anyone wants to sell me on a better model, I'm willing to be persuaded if it explains the observations we make better than current models.

However Haramein's model doesn't even come close to explaining current observations. I may agree with Haramein about one thing, that there may be a better model than what mainstream science currently offers.

But to be a better model, it must explain more observations better than the models we currently have. (So that rules out Haramein's model).