Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

In accordance with what you posted, color charge is not the same as fractional electric charge.

Ok prof. ... Show me where in what I posted please...

OK, I'll try the fourth time. What you posted says:

a) quark carry electric charge, which happens to be fractional. They can in fact interact with electrons, muons etc by having that charge.
b) they are also carriers of color charge. They interact with other quarks via strong force because of that.
c) "a" is not equivalent to "b".

I carry Euros in my left pocket and US dollars in the right one. When I fly into JFK and go to a Brooklyn deli to buy a bagel, they won't accept Euros. I, however, am still in possession of this currency. When I'm in Europe (as I will be in a few days), they won't accept USD.

I just can't dumb it down any further, sorry. OK, I'll try: you try to redeem beer bottles at a store that does not sell beer, in New York State. By law, they are not obliged to accept such bottles and they won't. You'll need to go to the store where you bought the beer to get it done.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by beebs
His main point was that a proton, nor a black hole . . .

Is this "not"?

Well I think he was saying that nothing, even a black hole, could ever travel the speed of light if it had a non-zero rest mass. Otherwise it would be infinity.

So photons have to have a zero rest mass.

So neither a proton nor a black hole could do it - which is what haramein suggests.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

In accordance with what you posted, color charge is not the same as fractional electric charge.

Ok prof. ... Show me where in what I posted please...

OK, I'll try the fourth time. What you posted says:

a) quark carry electric charge, which happens to be fractional. They can in fact interact with electrons, muons etc by having that charge.
b) they are also carriers of color charge. They interact with other quarks via strong force because of that.
c) "a" is not equivalent to "b".

I carry Euros in my left pocket and US dollars in the right one. When I fly into JFK and go to a Brooklyn deli to buy a bagel, they won't accept Euros. I, however, am still in possession of this currency. When I'm in Europe (as I will be in a few days), they won't accept USD.

I just can't dumb it down any further, sorry. OK, I'll try: you try to redeem beer bottles at a store that does not sell beer, in New York State. By law, they are not obliged to accept such bottles and they won't. You'll need to go to the store where you bought the beer to get it done.

Ok I get what you are saying. But I still think you are nitpicking his sentence to an extreme degree. You have blown up his statement to be blasphemy, when it isn't - or is barely.

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

1/3 is red
1/3 is blue
1/3 is green

But finally, yes I do get your point, however arbitrary and trivial it may be for the future of physics on this one statement by a theoretical physicist.

----

Lets MOVE on!

What's next?

BTW, here is the context of the 'controversial' statement:

Very energetic processes cohere the vacuum and create real physical effects. The question is if one can enhance this coherence and utilize it to optimize macroscopically observable “energy shifted” states. It is clear that the vacuum plays a role in physically realized states. The question then becomes, can we enhance the role of the vacuum
to form interesting and utilizable processes in materials with coherent excitations that would be observed as apparent ambient superconducting states [21]. Let us briefly give another example of the role of the vacuum in physical theory, for example in chromoelectrodynamics theory, where we represent the properties of the vacuum as a form of soliton called an instanton which is a time-dependent entity rather than space-dependent like a soliton. We treat the relationship between quantum electrodynamics, QED and quantum chromodynamics in separate papers [4,43-45]. In the chromodynamics theory of elementary particle physics, the charged particles are quarks and their fractional charge is called the “color” quantum number. The field quanta by which the quarks interact are called gluons. Instantons arise out of the solutions that describe the forces in the chromodynamic field. They are properties of the vacuum. Since the vacuum is defined as “zero energy” they are essentially “pseudo-particles”. But instantons have a real physical effect; in their presence the gluons “feel” forces arising from the non-empty vacuum [4,44,45]. Solitons are coherent in space and instantons are coherent in time. In work in progress, we address the strong force and color force as consequences of a quantum gravity where a torque term and Coriolis effects are incorporated in the Hamiltonian of a nonlinear Schrödinger equation.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by beebs]

Originally posted by beebs
So neither a proton nor a black hole could do it - which is what haramein suggests.

Oh!

Please do me a favor and edit your post to read, "His main point was that neither a proton nor a black hole..."

reply to post by Mary Rose

Please do me a favor and edit your post to read, "His main point was that neither a proton nor a black hole..."

Got it. Sorry, I don't think we have always been able to edit that far back in time...

I thought we only had ten or twenty minutes.

What else did you want me to correct about Reich and Orgone? I was conflabulated and flambustered about the whole thing

Originally posted by beebs
What else did you want me to correct about Reich and Orgone? I was conflabulated and flambustered about the whole thing

I don't think that one is fixable because something crazy happened with the "Reply" button with that one.

I think.

I'm confused, too.

Originally posted by beebs
Arbitrageur and I discussed this quite a bit earlier in the thread.

His main point was that neither a proton, nor a black hole, can travel at the speed of light due to relativistic equations that suggest mass would be infinite at that speed.

I propose it wouldn't be infinite, but the mass of the known universe(which could be infinite, I guess)...

I'm encouraged to see that you at least remember my arguments even if you don't agree with them.

I'm not sure what you're basing your proposal on, but I've never seen any empirical evidence suggest that the mass won't be infinite at c. If you have any evidence like that, please post it. (Obviously that request excludes Haramein's work which isn't empirical).

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"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 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?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I wasn't aware they have been proven.

How does a qualified physicist get away with using an unproven phenomenon in a theory?

Is Einstein's unproven stuff okay because it's Einstein?

Or is Popławski not to be taken seriously because he's using an unproven phenomenon?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm curious. Anyone familiar with Anthony Garrett Lisi, his work regarding a unified theory, and how it compares to Haramein's?

Geometry is All: An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything by A. Garrett Lisi

Is this an accurate portrayal?

Isn’t Garrett Lisi’s work similar to Haramein’s in the use of geometry?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm curious. Anyone familiar with Anthony Garrett Lisi, his work regarding a unified theory, and how it compares to Haramein's?

Geometry is All: An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything by A. Garrett Lisi

Is this an accurate portrayal?

Isn’t Garrett Lisi’s work similar to Haramein’s in the use of geometry?

Haramein uses the word "proton" and other physicists use the word "proton" But after reading Haramein's proton paper, I can't assume that seeing the same word means they are talking about the same thing, it appears they aren't. Haramein may be referring to some kind of micro black hole when that's not what anybody else means when they say "proton".

Likewise, seeing the same word in a paper by Lisi doesn't necessarily mean that Lisi is attributing the same things to it as Haramein. For example, Lisi predicted 22 new particles, did Haramein also do this?

Regarding the portrayal of Lisi's work, I don't find it that inaccurate unless you consider it an exaggeration to say Lisi hasn't convinced everyone yet. In fact I think very few are convinced. Also, I'm not sure there's anything exceptionally simple about E8 which took 120 years to solve.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
How does a qualified physicist get away with using an unproven phenomenon in a theory?

If you find out the answer to that, please let me know because I'd like to know myself! Well I understand how they can get away with it for up to 5 years like Einstein did, or maybe a decade.

I don't know if you missed my rant about string theory earlier but there's no empirical proof for any of that, yet, at least not that I have seen, and that's been going on for about 40 years. And even if it's all true I'm not sure how useful it is if it has a googol solutions and predicts everything.

I guess that's why they have "standard model" physics which is stuff that as far as I know does have empirical evidence to support it, and then "theoretical physics" which in some cases doesn't have empirical evidence to support it. Physicsforums.com has a special forum called "beyond the standard model" for topics like string theory. That's where I asked about Poplawski's paper. They do prefer it to be peer-reviewed and well-researched as their forum Rules state:

All threads in this forum are intended for discussion of the scientific content of well-researched models of physics beyond the Standard Model that have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

Is Einstein's unproven stuff okay because it's Einstein?

Or is Popławski not to be taken seriously because he's using an unproven phenomenon?

It depends on what you mean by OK. I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion about how likely an unproven concept is likely to be proven, but until it's proven, it's unproven. We've continued to test Einstein's ideas for decades and I have no doubt at some point we'll find some of them need some tweaking like Newton's theories did. I'm sure even Einstein would agree with this.

One particularly entertaining (to me) example of an Einstein idea that's in doubt is the "cosmological constant". Einstein called it his biggest mistake but now some people are wondering if it wasn't a mistake after all and are considering if it should be resurrected from the idea graveyard, to explain some empirical evidence we stumbled across that we can't seem to explain.

Regarding Poplawski, there are scientists with full credentials, like PhDs, who get their papers peer reviewed, yet sometimes their work isn't accepted by the rest of the scientific community. I think his paper is still too new to see how much acceptance it will get, but my prediction is that it probably won't gain wide acceptance. Then again, I didn't think the "many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics would gain mainstream recognition like the Copenhagen interpretation, so I guess I'm not so good at predicting what the mainstream will accept or reject. The mainstream has embraced what seem to me like some pretty wild ideas. The good news in that for you should be that mainstream scientists are not as closed-minded as you seem to think.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
How does a qualified physicist get away with using an unproven phenomenon in a theory?

Oh and I got a kick out of this too. It's a theoretical physicist critiquing the work of another theoretical physicist:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by micpsi
It's a shame when professors become like Middle Age clerics debating how many angels can sit on a pin's head. You can never disprove what they say, nor can they ever prove what they say, so that they can get away with pretending that they are saying meaningful things that can be checked.

Originally posted by micpsi

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
reply to post by micpsi

 

Just because you don't understand something does not make it not true.

But I do understand it because I have three degrees in theoretical physics, including a Ph.D., have collaborated with a Nobel Prize winner in physics, have 57 research papers published in peer-reviewed journals and four published books on superstrings, quarks and other topics in theoretical physics. It is because I do understand Hugh Everett III's "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics that made me make the above statement.

Now what makes you believe in parallel universes?

At some point this makes me go back and read the definition of science that I was taught, and the definition of science that the US supreme court has adopted (in considering cases like creation science versus evolution being taught in public schools). It seems like somewhere along the way, a few branches of science have gotten pretty far off the beaten path of using empirical evidence to support their research.

And I can't help but like micpsi since he apparently has no more fondness of the "many worlds" interpretation than I do. It certainly doesn't seem preferable over the Copenhagen interpretation according to Occam's razor.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Isn’t Garrett Lisi’s work similar to Haramein’s in the use of geometry?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Haramein uses the word "proton" and other physicists use the word "proton" But after reading Haramein's proton paper, I can't assume that seeing the same word means they are talking about the same thing, it appears they aren't. Haramein may be referring to some kind of micro black hole when that's not what anybody else means when they say "proton".

Likewise, seeing the same word in a paper by Lisi doesn't necessarily mean that Lisi is attributing the same things to it as Haramein. For example, Lisi predicted 22 new particles, did Haramein also do this?

Are you answering my question about geometry?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Regarding the portrayal of Lisi's work, I don't find it that inaccurate unless you consider it an exaggeration to say Lisi hasn't convinced everyone yet. In fact I think very few are convinced.

What do you mean "unless I consider it an exaggeration . . . "?

What is inaccurate about it?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Also, I'm not sure there's anything exceptionally simple about E8 . . .

I interpreted it as a joke.

I've noticed physicists do silly things like making up the word "gluon."

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I guess that's why they have "standard model" physics which is stuff that as far as I know does have empirical evidence to support it . . .

Parts of it could turn out to be wrong, though, correct?

Things in the standard model that we think we've proven could turn out to be in need of revision because new information comes along that changes the original interpretation made by the scientific community?

In other words, some things we think we know but we don't.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The good news in that for you should be that mainstream scientists are not as closed-minded as you seem to think.

What I think is that ridicule of a theory by the mainstream (like you) doesn't make a theory wrong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've alluded to this before but I don't think I've gotten feedback on it yet. Do members agree that the scientific community is under pressure to conform to the belief structure that is handed to them by others with an agenda of their own?





[edit on 7/1/2010 by Mary Rose]

Originally posted by Mary Rose

What I think is that ridicule of a theory by the mainstream (like you) doesn't make a theory wrong.

You should make a distinction between "a theory" and "a scientific theory". A scientific theory is not just a theory, but it is a theory that has observational data backing it up. I guess this is mainly the issue in this thread. Nassim is making us believe he is practicing science, which he isn't. At most he is philosophizing.

So the reason his theories are ridiculed is because he claims they are scientific while they are disproved by observations. Anyone can make up as many theories they wish, and you won't be ridiculed as long as yo do not call it science and it is not in direct contradiction with observations.

Originally posted by -PLB-
. . . direct contradiction with observations.

In my opinion, this is not settled.

[edit on 7/1/2010 by Mary Rose]

Originally posted by beebs
Ok I get what you are saying.

-- sigh of relief --

But I still think you are nitpicking his sentence to an extreme degree.

I'm totally not!

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

1/3 is red
1/3 is blue
1/3 is green

Wrong. Color charge is not "split". It can take values of RBG, that's all.

BTW, here is the context of the 'controversial' statement:

...snip...In work in progress, we address the strong force and color force as consequences of a quantum gravity where a torque term and Coriolis effects are incorporated in the Hamiltonian of a nonlinear Schrödinger equation.

Well just look at this... They address "Strong force" and "Color force" as well! So not only Haramein confused electric charge with color charge, he doesn't know that these two forces are same thing!

It's just as bizarre as Rauscher talking about "Nuclear decay force" as one of fundamental forces of nature (which is it's not). Well, birds of feather, I guess...

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I guess that's why they have "standard model" physics which is stuff that as far as I know does have empirical evidence to support it . . .

Parts of it could turn out to be wrong, though, correct?

I have little doubt that parts of the standard model are "wrong" but you have to qualify "wrong".

When Einstein showed how Newton was "wrong", he also had to explain how Newton's theories managed to be so consistent with observations. It turns out that was pretty easy by just saying Newton is right when objects are moving much slower than the speed of light. As it turns out, before the advent of particle accelerators, most things scientists looked at weren't traveling close to the speed of light, so that explains why his math seemed to work so well. Newton was only "wrong" at relativistic velocities. So was Newton really "wrong"?

Whoever comes up with a better model than the current standard model is going to confront similar issues. There is a substantial body of observational evidence that has to be explained by any new theory and it's going to be hard to throw all that out just like it was hard to throw all Newton's ideas out. In fact, we can still use Newton's math for non-relativistic approximations.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What I think is that ridicule of a theory by the mainstream (like you) doesn't make a theory wrong.

What does make a theory wrong? How do you know when it's wrong?

I never claimed Haramein's theory was wrong because I ridiculed it. I claimed it's wrong because protons don't travel at the speed of light, among other problems with the paper.

Originally posted by -PLB-
So the reason his theories are ridiculed is because he claims they are scientific while they are disproved by observations.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In my opinion, this is not settled.

What's not settled about it? Is there evidence that massive objects can travel at the speed of light?

Originally posted by -PLB-
Anyone can make up as many theories they wish, and you won't be ridiculed as long as yo do not call it science and it is not in direct contradiction with observations.

Yes but when it's a paper on physics coming from a physicist like Poplawski's peer-reviewed paper, isn't there an implication that it's "science"?

With some of the more far-out ideas picked up by mainstream science like the many worlds interpretation, it is more difficult than it used to be to draw a line and say "here's where the science ends and the pseudoscience begins".

What is still possible however, is to distinguish between what's proven and what's not proven, and what has been falsified.

Originally posted by beebs
How do we reconcile the fact that we can see at the speed of light? Especially if we aren't traveling at the speed of light.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you are going to ask questions like that there is absolutely no point in having any discussion with you.

Originally posted by beebs
That 'photon' that hits our eye, is also a wave due to the WPD.

Would it be accurate to say that the physics dispute on this thread centers around what the scientific community has proven about the speed of light?