Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Haramein mentioned accelerators in his talk, I believe, in reference to his feeling that we shouldn't keep trying to find the smallest particle

We are not looking for the "smallest particle". Who said we were? Haramein did? At the energies available to us so far, there are a few particles that behave like point-like objects. We in fact don't anticipate (yet) that they have complex structure, so we aren't really looking for it.

we can always keep dividing to infinity

Maybe, maybe not. Why should we toss experimental observation of of the window?

we should, instead, learn what the dynamic is.

What dynamic? You meant "dynamics"? That's too broad a term to be useful here without qualification, and of course Haramain loves doing just that.

I'm wondering whether this view of his might have something to do with your hostility - whether you are objective or not - in view of your personal professional life using accelerators.

I don't consider your, beebs or the guitar dude who threw insults at me, as my personal enemies. If by hostility you mean lack of tolerance towards relying on faith more than experimental fact, disregard of scientific method and passing a judgment on theory "A" vs theory "B" without being able to comprehend either, well, yes, that's me.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Wow. Honestly... You only retort to threats against your personal status.

Again, you DO NOT EXPLAIN your superior knowledge of the concepts discussed.

What is YOUR understanding of color charges, and HOW is Haramein's understanding flawed?!

I am all ears. EXPLAIN our ignorance. Do you think we would still be posting if we didn't think YOU were the one that is wrong and misunderstanding the discussion?

All you do, is rhetorically ask us loaded questions if we 'get it' - because you obviously think you KNOW we don't get it. Why must you resort to calling anything associated with Haramein 'crap' and 'nonsense' EVERY time you post?

We already know you don't agree, we just wonder HOW/WHY?

For someone to claim to work with particle accelerators is a big claim on ATS. If you will not take this discussion seriously(which is extremely sad because of the insight you might have), either leave - or I will ask the moderators to verify your credentials.

Perhaps I should anyways, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Some points you have not addressed:

1. Zero Point Energy, or Vacuum Energy, or Quantum Vacuum Density Fluctuations...

2. The EMPIRICAL EQUIVALENCE between ZP wave function cymatics and 'point-like' objects seen in particle accelerator experiments...

3. I'm not sure you have ever stated what your presuppositions are in this discussion... maybe you think you are 'free' from having presuppositions...

4. I don't believe you have addressed, in any significance, any of the other sources and materials I have posted to further bolster the argument towards Harameins theory and its validity. Highly unethical, and unscientific.

5. How Harameins quote:

In the chromodynamics theory of elementary particle physics, the charged particles are quarks and their fractional charge is called the “color” quantum number.

Is not supported by the information I posted to support his statement in contrary to your own 'debunking' attempt.

Did you even try to understand what Haramein wrote, that the fractional ELECTRIC charge is the QCD color charge?

Yes I did!:

At least I try.

Please explain your rhetoricalness...

From a source I posted:

When quarks were first proposed they seemed a very strange idea because no one had seen particles with electric charges that were a fraction of a proton charge. Now we understand this is because quarks, and gluons too, are confined -- this means they are only found inside color-neutral hadrons.

And:

Color charge has analogies with the notion of electric charge of particles, but because of the mathematical complications of QCD, there are many technical differences.

And:

Color charge is the 3-valued hidden quantum number carried by quarks, antiquarks and gluons. Color charge has a 3 valuedness that we associate with the group . Color charge is hidden in the sense that only singlets of that are neutral occur in nature (at least macroscopically and at low temperatures). The strongly interacting color-neutral particles composed of quarks, antiquarks and gluons that occur in nature are called hadrons. (The word color in this context is purely colloquial and has no relation to the color that we see with our eyes in everyday life.)

Color charge has two aspects: (a) as a quantum number that labels states of quarks, antiquarks and gluons: hadrons are in the singlet of as a global symmetry group and (b) as the source of the strong color force acting between quarks associated with as a local gauge group. Each of these is analogous to aspects of electric charge: (a) as a quantum number that counts the amount of electric charge in a state: neutral atoms have zero electric charge under as a global symmetry group, (b) as the source of electromagnetic forces associated with as a local gauge group acting between electrically charged particles .

O.W. Greenberg introduced the aspect of color charge as a quantum number in 1964 (Greenberg 1964). Y. Nambu, (Nambu 1966) and M.-Y. Han and Y. Nambu (Han and Nambu 1965) introduced the aspect of color charge as the source of the force between quarks in 1965 associated with the local gauge group .

Perhaps you can help EXPLAIN what you are getting at here:

Did you read Haramein's quote on lepton number and correlate it with the Wiki?

This quote?:

The lepton number for an electron in its lowest quantum state in the geometry of the gravitational force of a black hole can act as a ground state in the dynamics of the Freidman universe derived from the Schwarzschild lattice universe

Actually, part of the reason I put in bold what I did on my PWNAGE post had to do with the information that regarded that leptons are not subject to the strong force.

Why is that relevant? Because I'm sure that was where Haramein was going in the context of his paper. Remember, he is trying to explain the strong force as gravity instead of a mysterious strong force...

reply to post by buddhasystem

What dynamic? You meant "dynamics"? That's too broad a term to be useful here without qualification, and of course Haramain loves doing just that.

The dynamic of the way the system is set up... AKA a pattern. Or a rule of thumb.

Like for instance: We keep getting 'particles' and 'antiparticles'. Opposing pairs. Colors and anticolors.

Matter and antimatter.

See the pattern?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
We are not looking for the "smallest particle". Who said we were?

I'm not a scientist, but I thought that the physics community was looking for the "God particle"?

. . . relying on faith more than experimental fact . . .

No one is relying on faith.

Haramein has proposed a unified theory. This is not something you're going to observe in a lab first and then propose a theory for it, is it?

It's just a theory. It proposes that the "strong force" is wrong. It proposes an alternative to it. No one is going to do brain surgery in a different way based on faith in his theory.

Some method will have to be found to verify the theory one way or the other.

. . . disregard of scientific method . . .

Are there iron-clad rules for how a hypothesis should be formed? Because if there are, I suggest the rules should be changed.

. . . passing a judgment on theory "A" vs theory "B" without being able to comprehend either, well, yes, that's me.

What we're trying to do on this thread is have a civil discussion of theories.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
We are not looking for the "smallest particle". Who said we were?

I'm not a scientist, but I thought that the physics community was looking for the "God particle"?

I hate the phrase "God particle". It doesn't say anything about the particle, really. Besides, what the search for Higgs field have to do with the "smallest"? Actually, nothing.

It proposes that the "strong force" is wrong. It proposes an alternative to it.

That's not the worst. Haramein refers to a more common definition of strong force in some of his articles (because his method of writing, it looks like, is plagiarizing bits of available papers and gluing them together with his own intermissions, most typically nonsensical). Then, he proceeds to propose that that's not how it works. In plain terms, there is zero consistency there.

And the "alternative" is itself inconsistent with observable data. I mean really, do you see that or so you not?

What we're trying to do on this thread is have a civil discussion of theories.

That would be nice, except some of the interlocutors elect to use words like @$$hole in their argumentation, which hardly qualifies as "civil".

[edit on 29-6-2010 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

What dynamic? You meant "dynamics"? That's too broad a term to be useful here without qualification, and of course Haramain loves doing just that.

The dynamic of the way the system is set up... AKA a pattern. Or a rule of thumb.

First, "dynamic" is related to the Greek word for "power", not for for "pattern". Of course it sounds cool so ignorami love to toss it into their spaghetti argument. You can also use "transcendental", it bears same significance here, which is none.

Like for instance: We keep getting 'particles' and 'antiparticles'.

Who does keep "getting particles and antiparticles"? Do you mean the fact that matter exist alongside with antimatter in the Universe? It's not "dynamic".

reply to post by buddhasystem

1 : a branch of mechanics that deals with forces and their relation primarily to the motion but sometimes also to the equilibrium of bodies
2 : a pattern or process of change, growth, or activity

an underlying cause of change or growth

The forces and motions that characterize a system: The dynamics of ocean waves are complex.

functioning as singular) the branch of mechanics concerned with the forces that change or produce the motions of bodies

those forces that produce change in any field or system

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I mean really, do you see that or so you not?

What?

Guess you mean "do you not?"

I certainly don't see things your way. No, I do not. Does that make me ignorant, in your opinion?

That would be nice, except some of the interlocutors elect to use words like @$$hole in their argumentation, which hardly qualifies as "civil".

The thread was quite unfriendly before that happened.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

1 : a branch of mechanics that deals with forces and their relation primarily to the motion but sometimes also to the equilibrium of bodies
2 : a pattern or process of change, growth, or activity

Note that pattern here applies to change, growth and activity. What do particle spectra do with "growth" or "activity"? Nothing. Again, this word is completely out of place.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I mean really, do you see that or so you not?

What?

Guess you mean "do you not?"

Yes, sorry for the typo.

I certainly don't see things your way. No, I do not. Does that make me ignorant, in your opinion?

Here's the deal: you don't see that Haramein's "proton=black hole" thingy does not bear out in data on strong interaction. That makes you ignorant in the particular branch of physics, not in general. I, for one, am ignorant in the discipline of brain surgery, and God knows I would NOT allow a charlatan with a hammer and chisel to try his new theory on me or anyone else. It's just common sense, and unfortunately for some, they ignore it.

That would be nice, except some of the interlocutors elect to use words like @$$hole in their argumentation, which hardly qualifies as "civil".

The thread was quite unfriendly before that happened.

I'm sorry but lack of warm fuzzy feelings does not excuse this behavior (or maybe it does for you).

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Here's the deal: you don't see that Haramein's "proton=black hole" thingy does not bear out in data on strong interaction.

Please comment on the abstract in the following post, since AlienScientist thinks this theory is similar to Haramein’s, and the author of the theory is a qualified physicist (as far as I know):

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests IU theoretical physicist's wormhole research."

Here is the abstract for the paper that AlienScientist said is similar to Haramein's theory:

"Radial motion into an Einstein–Rosen bridge"
Nikodem J. Popławski

We consider the radial geodesic motion of a massive particle into a black hole in isotropic coordinates, which represents the exterior region of an Einstein–Rosen bridge (wormhole). The particle enters the interior region, which is regular and physically equivalent to the asymptotically flat exterior of a white hole, and the particle's proper time extends to infinity. Since the radial motion into a wormhole after passing the event horizon is physically different from the motion into a Schwarzschild black hole, Einstein–Rosen and Schwarzschild black holes are different, physical realizations of general relativity. Yet for distant observers, both solutions are indistinguishable. We show that timelike geodesics in the field of a wormhole are complete because the expansion scalar in the Raychaudhuri equation has a discontinuity at the horizon, and because the Einstein–Rosen bridge is represented by the Kruskal diagram with Rindler's elliptic identification of the two antipodal future event horizons. These results suggest that observed astrophysical black holes may be Einstein–Rosen bridges, each with a new universe inside that formed simultaneously with the black hole. Accordingly, our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing inside another universe.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm sorry but lack of warm fuzzy feelings does not excuse this behavior (or maybe it does for you).

As I have previously pointed out, your name-calling of Haramein has been offensive to me as well, as I feel that my posting about him shows my respect for him, and your ridicule feels indirectly aimed at me.

I feel that criticism of Haramein’s work should be done in a way that is not nasty and confrontational.

I agree that name-calling is against forum rules.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Note that pattern here applies to change, growth and activity. What do particle spectra do with "growth" or "activity"? Nothing. Again, this word is completely out of place.

Oh come now... So Haramein's usage of the term 'dynamics' does not apply to universal physical patterns and growth and activity of those 'dynamics'?

You are just arguing for arguing's sake, now. Highly presumptuous of you to decide semantical meanings in this largely irrelevant context.

If you think his word-choice doesn't express his idea sufficiently, what word would you have us use for this discussion instead?

Here's the deal: you don't see that Haramein's "proton=black hole" thingy does not bear out in data on strong interaction.

Can you please elaborate on how you know this? And what you mean by it?

What specific data on strong interaction?

Originally posted by beebs

Here's the deal: you don't see that Haramein's "proton=black hole" thingy does not bear out in data on strong interaction.

Can you please elaborate on how you know this? And what you mean by it?

What specific data on strong interaction?

All of it. I already referred to hard scattering twice. Basically, verifiable structure of the proton (or nucleus) is not compatible with that supposition. Then there is the nucleus and no, it does not consist of black holes.

reply to post by Mary Rose


I'll comment on this when I have time. If there is any meat in there, it will require serious reading.

reply to post by buddhasystem

All of it. I already referred to hard scattering twice. Basically, verifiable structure of the proton (or nucleus) is not compatible with that supposition. Then there is the nucleus and no, it does not consist of black holes.

Please provide a reference to support your argument. We haven't the slightest idea about how black holes with radius 1.32 fm would react when smashed together at particle accelerator speeds.

Hard scattering is fine and dandy. But WHAT exactly is scattering and colliding...

How exactly is the 'strong force' keeping the nucleus together...

Zero Point Energy is proven. It exists within the confines of a proton's(or wave function) radius. Calculate how much ZP exists within the volume of a sphere with radius 1.32 fm.

---

And here we are:
Bang goes the Theory: How physicists lost touch with reality

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Please comment on the abstract in the following post, since AlienScientist thinks this theory is similar to Haramein’s, and the author of the theory is a qualified physicist (as far as I know):

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is the abstract for the paper that AlienScientist said is similar to Haramein's theory:
"Radial motion into an Einstein–Rosen bridge"Nikodem J. Popławski

our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing inside another universe.

I already did comment on it but I will again. Saying our universe "may be the interior of a black hole existing inside another universe" is not the same thing as saying a proton is a black hole like Haramein's paper.

I can also say "There may be leprechauns in my garden eating my lettuce" and I have as much proof for that "may be" as Poplawski has for his "may be". We can hypothesize any fictitious entity we wish and say that it "may be" so. But such hypotheses have little value until there's any experimental or observational evidence to support them.

I haven't seen what's been eating the lettuce in my garden, but if I had to guess, my guess would be rabbits, not leprechauns. Call me crazy if you will for making assumptions without proof, it just seems more logical.

Likewise, I don't know if we are inside a giant black hole or not, but I'm guessing we're not. Call me crazy if you will for making assumptions without proof, it just seems more logical.

Fortunately in the case of my garden I can set up a video camera to learn the truth. And unfortunately there is no such observation that can be setup that I'm aware of to affirm or reject what Poplawski says "may be" true. He doesn't even say it is true.

And we are still waiting to see if any qualified scientist independently replicates the same mathematical constructs as Poplawski to come to the same conclusions about what "may be possible". Even if they find that yes it "may be possible" but the odds are one in a googolplex, which is almost zero, it would still be a meaningless assertion with such a low probability.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

All of it. I already referred to hard scattering twice. Basically, verifiable structure of the proton (or nucleus) is not compatible with that supposition. Then there is the nucleus and no, it does not consist of black holes.

Please provide a reference to support your argument.

en.wikipedia.org...

...and everything else you'd care to google.

We haven't the slightest idea about how black holes with radius 1.32 fm would react when smashed together at particle accelerator speeds.

Oh boy... Where do we start? Let's start with that: the proton is not a billiard ball with 1.32fm radius. It has discernible structure. We detect point-like objects inside it. The radius 1.32fm is irrelevant in the context of hard scattering, i.e. at high energies. So it's about time you stopped having a hangup on that number.

Hard scattering is fine and dandy. But WHAT exactly is scattering and colliding...

How exactly is the 'strong force' keeping the nucleus together...

Because its net effect is attraction among the nucleons.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

These results suggest that observed astrophysical black holes may be Einstein–Rosen bridges, each with a new universe inside that formed simultaneously with the black hole.

How did Einstein-Rosen bridges get proven?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

These results suggest that observed astrophysical black holes may be Einstein–Rosen bridges, each with a new universe inside that formed simultaneously with the black hole.

How did Einstein-Rosen bridges get proven?

I wasn't aware they have been proven.

Wormhole ("Einstein-Rosen Bridge" redirects here)

There is no observational evidence for wormholes, but on a theoretical level there are valid solutions to the equations of the theory of general relativity which contain wormholes.

The Einstein-Rosen bridge was discovered by Albert Einstein and his colleague Nathan Rosen, who first published the result in 1935. However, in 1962 John A. Wheeler and Robert W. Fuller published a paper showing that this type of wormhole is unstable, and that it will pinch off too quickly for light (or any particle moving slower than light) that falls in from one exterior region to make it to the other exterior region.

So while we don't have observational evidence for an Einstein-Rosen bridge, theory predicts it would be unstable.

Theory also predicts micro black holes (Doesn't Haramein predict those?) to be unstable which is why even if the LHC creates a micro black hole, we won't see this happen:

The CERN black hole

Such a micro black hole wouldn't even last 1 second, much less the 38 seconds shown in that animation. After watching that animation, I think maybe it's good that some things like micro black holes, are unstable.

Thank goodness!

reply to post by Arbitrageur

can also say "There may be leprechauns in my garden eating my lettuce" and I have as much proof for that "may be" as Poplawski has for his "may be". We can hypothesize any fictitious entity we wish and say that it "may be" so. But such hypotheses have little value until there's any experimental or observational evidence to support them.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

Straw man fallacy