Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

Here is an article appearing at MIT's technologyreview.com that the physorg.com article is evidently based on:

Could All Particles Be Mini Black Holes?

The idea that all particles are mini black holes has major implications for both particle physics and astrophysics, say scientists.

kfc 05/14/2009

Could it really be possible that all particles are mini-black holes? That's the tantalising suggestion from Donald Coyne from UC Santa Cruz (now deceased) and D C Cheng from the Almaden Research Center near San Jose.

Black holes are regions of space in which gravity is so strong that nothing, not even light, can escape.

The trouble with gravity is that on anything other than an astrophysical scale, it is so weak that it can safely be ignored. However, many physicists have assumed that on the tiniest scale, the Planck scale, gravity regains its strength.

In recent years some evidence to support this contention has emerged from string theory where gravity plays a stronger role in higher dimensional space. It's only in our four dimensional space that gravity appears so weak.

Since these dimensions become important only on the Planck scale, it's at that level that gravity re-asserts itself. And if that's the case, then mini-black holes become a possibility.

Coyne and Cheng ask what properties black holes might have on that scale and it turns out that they may be far more varied than anyone imagined. The quantisation of space on this level means that mini-black holes could turn up at all kinds of energy levels. They predict the existence of huge numbers of black hole particles at different energy level. So common are these black holes that the authors suggest that:

"All particles may be varying forms of stabilized black holes"

That's an ambitious claim that'll need plenty of experimental backing. The authors say this may come from the LHC, which could begin to probe the energies at which these kinds of black holes will be produced.

The authors end with the caution that it would be wrong to think of the LHC as a "black hole factory"; not because it won't produce black holes (it almost certainly will), but because, if they are right, every other particle accelerator in history would have been producing black holes as well.

In fact, if this thinking is correct, there's a very real sense in which we are made from black holes. Curious!

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0905.1667: A Scenario for Strong Gravity in Particle Physics: An Alternative Mechanism for Black Holes to Appear at Accelerator Experiments

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
An article by Lisa Zyga dated May 18, 2009 that appears on physorg.com: "Is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?"

Here is the paper by D.G. Coyne and D.C. Cheng mentioned at the end of the article: "A Scenario for Strong Gravity in Particle Physics: An alternative mechanism for black holes to appear at accelerator experiments."

Perhaps some information in this paper could shed some light on Haramein's rationale.

It's an interesting paper with some highly speculative elements with no foundation in experimental data. In any case, it has nothing to do with Haramein's rationale (or lack thereof). They still talk about evaporation and sure as hell don't consider COMPOSITE objects as protons, to be candidate BH.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
They still talk about evaporation and sure as hell don't consider COMPOSITE objects as protons, to be candidate BH.

Ah, good one. I'll add that to the list of ways in which this paper differs from Haramein's. Any more, anyone?

1. it's physics
2. the black holes don't have stupid masses or stupid forces
3. it doesn't ignore general relativity
4. it doesn't deny quantum mechanics
5. it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics
6. it doesn't use a graph of a load of astronomical objects to assert that a proton should weigh millions of tons for it to fit in
7. it's honest
8. it relates directly to other studies and to past and current experiments
9. it uses words to mean what they mean, instead of to sound cool
10. it's not bullsh*t
11. it's written by scientists who know what the word research means
12. it's not written in order to be used as a piece of self-promotion by an institution selling a brand by trying to impress the scientifically illiterate
13. the author would be happy to answer any technical questions (rather than just make derogatory comments and give you loads of irrelevant material), especially if you felt you'd found a problem in the paper.
14. they don't consider composite objects such as protons to be black holes

Originally posted by Mary Rose
An article by Lisa Zyga dated May 18, 2009 that appears on physorg.com: "Is Everything Made of Mini Black Holes?"

Mary, you realize this contradicts the claim that you and Haramein have been making that formally educated physicists can't think outside the box. Obviously this shows that they can. So thanks for debunking that claim by Haramein and I hope now you'll stop repeating it since you've proven it's false.

However, they say clearly the idea is highly speculative and there's no evidence for it. They proposed using the LHC to investigate. This is all any scientist can say regarding any speculative theory, that if there's no observational evidence to support it it's highly speculative.

This is not the first proposal of tiny black holes. Brian Greene proposed a subatomic particle was a black hole but his proposal was the electron as black hole.

That proposal and some of the problems it entails is covered here:

Black Hole Electron

I have a different speculative proposal, that there is a black hole in my wallet. I submit that I have more observational evidence to support my theory than any of these other mini-black hole theories because I can prove money keeps vanishing from my wallet.

But in all seriousness the Wiki explains that there are no proposed experiments capable of testing the theory:

No proposed experiment would be capable of probing r to values as low as rs or rq, both of which are smaller than the Planck length. Super-extremal black holes are generally believed to be unstable.

And of course there's the belief that small black holes are likely to be unstable and we've never seen a stable black hole smaller than 3.8 solar masses.

At least the article you cited mentions testing in the LHC to look for evidence, as I've said many times already, that's what it's going to take to convince anyone that these ideas are anything but speculative: Experiment, observation, evidence.

And thanks again for disproving Haramein's notion that formally trained scientists can't think outside the box.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by buddhasystem
They still talk about evaporation and sure as hell don't consider COMPOSITE objects as protons, to be candidate BH.

Ah, good one. I'll add that to the list of ways in which this paper differs from Haramein's. Any more, anyone?

2. the black holes don't have stupid masses or stupid forces

That's a good list.

I said in an earlier post I'm not confident about which theory is right, but I'm confident a theory that disagrees with observational evidence is wrong.

In the simplest terms, that's what differentiates this proposal from Haramein's proposal.

The proposed black holes would not wildly contradict observational evidence, as you suggest with your item 2. This is how I can be confident Haramein's theory is wrong, but not be confident an alternate theory, which doesn't wildly contradict observational evidence, is wrong.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And thanks again for disproving Haramein's notion that formally trained scientists can't think outside the box.

Haramein has not stated that. I have stated that the university/mainstream system is stifling to independent scientific thinking. Things such as not being allowed to graduate if you don't go along to get along, and problems such as who gets grant money and who doesn't are limiting scientific progress.

What Haramein has stated is that he thinks certain explanations given by mainstream scientists are a cop out. That quantum physicists don't care about causation, but he does. Things like that.

reply to post by Mary Rose
In that case thanks for disproving your own notion, though I'm pretty sure Haramein alluded to the same thing in one of his videos but I'm not going to take the time to look through them to find it.

I don't think it's that quantum physicists don't care, but in some cases they don't know, that's not the same as not caring. And making up stupid numbers that don't agree with observation doesn't help.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In that case thanks for disproving your own notion, though I'm pretty sure Haramein alluded to the same thing in one of his videos but I'm not going to take the time to look through them to find it.

It is an exaggeration to claim that my notion has been disproved. You're jumping to a conclusion.

In general, my notion is true.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't think it's that quantum physicists don't care, but in some cases they don't know, that's not the same as not caring.

Caring or not caring is not the point. The point is that there are unknowns in physics that have been brushed over and Haramein insists on pursuing them.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And making up stupid numbers that don't agree with observation doesn't help.

It's possible that you just don't understand the details behind the numbers.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
It's possible that you just don't understand the details behind the numbers.

Haramein himself has already confirmed his numbers fail to match observation by 38-39 orders of magnitude. He hasn't even accounted for one of those orders of magnitude with Dr Ha's paper.

So I don't see why you still claim it has anything to do with my understanding when Haramein himself confirmed the discrepancy and still hasn't explained it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Haramein himself has already confirmed his numbers fail to match observation by 38-39 orders of magnitude.

Although I cannot retort with math proving you wrong, I'm not convinced about the number discrepancy you allege.

I'm working on fact-gathering.

Meanwhile, I would be interested in comments about the MIT article.

Or have you already ridiculed it? I confess I've only scanned the thread since the MIT article.

Have you proven that it shows no support for Haramein's rationale, or that the scientists involved don't know what they're talking about?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Haramein himself has already confirmed his numbers fail to match observation by 38-39 orders of magnitude.

Although I cannot retort with math proving you wrong, I'm not convinced about the number discrepancy you allege.

I'm working on fact-gathering.

The facts (as far as the crazy mass of the Haramein proton is concerned) are presented in Haramein's paper -- did you read it at all? Arb repeated that number it seems like a hundred times over in this thread. I'm convinced you have NO INTEREST IN FACT-GATHERING. Even if they come from Haramein himself. I told you about the observed structure of the proton, and you rejected this fact as well.

reply to post by buddhasystem

I'm very well aware of the posts about the math in Haramein's papers. But you guys are not gods of the math in a physics theory that challenges assumptions in mainstream physics. I have other sources of information to consider.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I'm very well aware of the posts about the math in Haramein's papers. But you guys are not gods of the math in a physics theory that challenges assumptions in mainstream physics. I have other sources of information to consider.

It doesn't take a God of Math to look at the number and realize it's multiple orders of magnitude off. OK, you haven't answered -- did you read the paper? The number is there for all to see (I think, it's been a while).

The assumption that I weigh a lot less than Mount Everest is not some "mainstream physics", it's basic sanity as opposed to self delusion.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I believe you're not looking at all the relevant facts.

Don't you think you're repeating yourself ad nauseam at this point?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I believe you're not looking at all the relevant facts.
Don't you think you're repeating yourself ad nauseam at this point?

What are the relevant facts? I gave you multiple evidence that Haramein doesn't square with observations, in this Universe we live in. What more relevant do you want?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Facts that theoretical physicists utilize to try to explain the universe we live in.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Facts that theoretical physicists utilize to try to explain the universe we live in.

Well Mary, guess what, theoretical physicists do not utilize a different set of facts from what is used by experimentalists, chemists, engineers, doctors and in general sane people around the world. Facts are what we observe.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
What are the relevant facts? I gave you multiple evidence that Haramein doesn't square with observations, in this Universe we live in.

Haramein says it himself, Mary posted it but she's apparently selectively not remembering things that contradicts her beliefs:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto"

Here's Nassim:

. . . Although the current mainstream value given for the mass of the proton is 1.672621637(83)x10-24 gm (or 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram) what the gentleman fails to mention is discussed below. . . .

~10-24 gm plus an energy potential of 38 or 39 orders of magnitude produces ~1014 gm. All my paper does is point out that this just happens to be the mass necessary to define the Schwarzschild condition of a proton entity.

there it is in Nassim's own words, his estimated 10^14 gm disagrees with observation by 38-39 orders of magnitude, we ain't makin' this stuff up.

Then he admits it's a "large figure" Even if you divide it by Dr Ha's factor of 2 it's still 38 orders of magnitude larger than observation by Haramein's own calculations:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
What about this section of "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto"?

While our initial calculation of the mass of the Schwarzschild proton indeed gives a large figure....

I am planning on addressing the mass issue directly in an upcoming paper...

Promises, promises. No theoretical physicist would publish a figure that disagrees so much with observation without explaining why we don't measure that large a mass right in the paper, but the reason he doesn't explain it is because he CAN'T.

Mary, your research is a prime example of "confirmation bias" meaning you don't have a neutral point of view but reject evidence which you don't like. Believers in the paranormal like ESP have demonstrated an exceptional ability to disregard information which contradicts their viewpoint:

One study showed how selective memory can maintain belief in extrasensory perception (ESP).[31] Believers and disbelievers were each shown descriptions of ESP experiments. Half of each group were told that the experimental results supported the existence of ESP, while the others were told they did not. In a subsequent test, subjects recalled the material accurately, apart from believers who had read the non-supportive evidence. This group remembered significantly less information and some of them incorrectly remembered the results as supporting ESP.

So I have to wonder if selective memory is why you can't seem to remember that Haramein's own words say his results disagree with observation. This post is another reminder, to jog your memory.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur


But in all seriousness the Wiki explains that there are no proposed experiments capable of testing the theory:

No proposed experiment would be capable of probing r to values as low as rs or rq, both of which are smaller than the Planck length. Super-extremal black holes are generally believed to be unstable.

And of course there's the belief that small black holes are likely to be unstable and we've never seen a stable black hole smaller than 3.8 solar masses.

At least the article you cited mentions testing in the LHC to look for evidence, as I've said many times already, that's what it's going to take to convince anyone that these ideas are anything but speculative: Experiment, observation, evidence.

And thanks again for disproving Haramein's notion that formally trained scientists can't think outside the box.

As my first post to ATS, I just wanted to shine some light on this:

www.popsci.com...

no black holes were formed as of yet...

none.

not one single one

Originally posted by FequalsForce
no black holes were formed as of yet...

none.

not one single one

Hi and welcome to ATS!

Thanks for posting that! It's not looking good for string theorists so far, however I've read that some string theorists have claimed that even if they had a collider a trillion times more powerful than the LHC it might not be powerful enough to prove their theories.

Or to put it another way, there may be hundreds of millions of possible solutions to string theory (actually it might be more like a googol depending on who you ask), and this result just rules out a few million possible solutions. There are some notable comments in that article:

Physicists working at the Large Hadron Collider report that after a series of tests, they have not seen any mini black holes, to the chagrin of string theorists and the relief of disaster theorists.

Researchers working on the Compact Muon Solenoid team have been crunching numbers to test a form of string theory that calls for the creation and instant evaporation of miniature black holes. They report that the telltale signs of these black holes are disappointingly absent, however....

This doesn’t disprove string theory — it just proves that mini black holes can’t be produced at energies between 3.5 and 4.5 trillion electron volts. But they could still theoretically be produced at higher energies, so when the LHC fully fires up in 2013, string theorists will be holding their breath.

So the points to note:
-As you said, no black holes
-If they are created they're expected to evaporate instantly
-We'll get another try in 2013 when the LHC "fully fires up in 2013" (That's odd, somehow I got the idea they had already fully fired up, I guess not?)

Thanks for adding this article to the discussion!

This also reminds me I wanted to add some Stephen Hawking observations about black holes, part of this echoes what Bobathon said about the temperature and radiation of small black holes:

www.generationterrorists.com...

Black Holes Ain't So Black

... the lower the mass of the black hole, the higher its temperature. So as the black hole loses mass, its temperature and rate of emission increase, so it loses mass more quickly...

One can therefore say that the observations of the gamma ray background do not provide any positive evidence for primordial black holes, but they do tell us that on average there cannot be more than 300 in every cubic light-year in the universe. This limit means that primordial black holes could make up at most one millionth of the matter in the universe.

So in other words, we don't know how many black holes there are exactly, but we can measure radiation and from these measurements we can put a maximum of 300 primordial black holes in every cubic light year.

Just to give you some idea how big a cubic light year is, it takes about 5 and a half hours for sunlight to reach Pluto. One edge of the cubic light year cube would be defined if this light continued for a whole year.