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

reply to post by Arbitrageur


May I ask you a question please as I think you may be someone who can answer this?

I was looking through the article debunking the guy's theory, and in particular the energy required to - can't remember the details but it was something to do with splitting off protons?

Anyway, what was mentioned was multiplying by c squared, which I assume is the speed of light as in e=mc2.

Can you explain (in simple terms please as I am NOT a physicist) why these things are multiplied by the speed of light squared? Where, or why, does this come into it?

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

May I ask you a question please as I think you may be someone who can answer this?

I was looking through the article debunking the guy's theory, and in particular the energy required to - can't remember the details but it was something to do with splitting off protons?

Anyway, what was mentioned was multiplying by c squared, which I assume is the speed of light as in e=mc2.

Can you explain (in simple terms please as I am NOT a physicist) why these things are multiplied by the speed of light squared? Where, or why, does this come into it?

edit on 4/12/2010 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

I'm not sure this was directed to me, but I'll give it a shot. I think maybe the splitting off of protons thing you asked about is the energy needed to overcome the strong nuclear force force of a proton by shooting something like another baryon at it. So you're talking about energy. And energy of a moving object is a funny thing. Energy increases with the square of velocity. If your nuclear bb, say a lead hadron like used at the LHC, doubles in speed, it quadruples in energy. If it triples in speed, energy increases by a factor of 9. The relationship is not linear, but geometric. So the square gets used in the derivation of the equation.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Energy increases with the square of velocity. So the square gets used in the derivation of the equation.

I understand that much, but what I don't understand is if there's a fundamentally understood physical reason why c is the constant that's squared, and not some other velocity, besides the fact that c happens to be the velocity that matches up with empirical observation?

reply to post by PuterMan
I've wondered the same thing.

When we measure atomic weights, we can measure how much weight is in separate hydrogen atoms, and how much weight is in a helium atom. (And to keep it on topic, we don't get the numbers Nassim Haramein proposes, and I really mean mass but I'm referring to weight since you're a non-physicist). If we measure the energy released when 2 hydrogen atoms form a helium atom, it correlates to the E=mc^2 formula so we can determine how much mass was lost and how much energy was released.

My favorite statistics about e=mc^2 relate to how the sun keeps us alive with the energy it releases:

nineplanets.org...

Each second about 700,000,000 tons of hydrogen are converted to about 695,000,000 tons of helium and 5,000,000 tons (=3.86e33 ergs) of energy in the form of gamma rays.

So the sun is losing about 5,000,000 tons of mass per second, and converting that into about 386 billion billion megaWatts of energy. The constant that correlates those two figures, happens to be the velocity of light squared.

I don't know why it's that number and not some other number, just like I don't know why the gravitational constant is what it measures out to and not some other number. But I know that when we make measurements, those are the constants we measure.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
I like this concept, however I fear just like string theory, all the pieces of the master jigsaw puzzle can be made to fit together... but the issue is the picture is all messed up.

Then why do you like it? I thought you were more discriminating than that? I can't find anything to like about something so deeply flawed and fictitious.

You are right it is deeply flawed and fictitious, I like it because it is a beautiful piece of math that describes something that is in visualization is very aesthetic.

I like ideas that have complexity built from simplicity, this part of the theory is I believe the truth, I do believe in a single unifying field. Though I suggest that this field is space-time itself and the most fundamental levels of our reality dissolve to a point of complete chaos where simple randomness gives rise to the order we see at our level of reality.

So in essence the mood of the paper is in sync with what nature is about, however it's completely the wrong picture.



Korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
You are right it is deeply flawed and fictitious

Thanks for the reply, I was hoping you were a thorough enough researcher to recognize that!

I still have hopes the unified field theory might be elegant but I can't say the same thing about the Theory of Everything. Like Predator said, I suspect if that is even possible, it will be a formidable work which is perhaps not as elegant as we might prefer.

I was watching an old quantum mechanics presentation by Richard Feynmen a few weeks ago. In his colorful style he reminded the viewers that the universe is not so accommodating as to conform to our expectations. I don't recall his exact words but he said something like "The universe really doesn't care what you or I want it to be like". So true, especially in the non-intuitive field of quantum mechanics he worked in.

Haramein has a novel approach to making the universe conform to his expectations....just don't measure anything. That way you don't have any measurements to disprove the theory

Here's a few more discrepancies between the Haramein fantasy world, and the real world, for anyone interested:

azureworld.blogspot.com...

Radiation

* From a single actual proton: none
* From a single Schwarzschild proton: 455 million Watts (enough to supply electricity to 60,000 US homes)...

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?...He doesn't.
=================
Stability of interaction between protons

* Between actual protons in a stable nucleus: indefinitely
* Between co-orbiting Schwarzschild protons: the orbit would decay within a few trillionths of a trillionth of a second....

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?...He doesn't.
=================
What happens when you look inside a proton?

* in an actual proton: we see point-like constituents (quarks), and a measurable distribution of charge. Things don't disappear.
* in a Schwarzschild proton: there is an event horizon of 1.32fm radius, and nothing that crosses this horizon can re-emerge. There is no way of looking inside....

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?...He doesn't.
=================
I already mentioned the mass earlier:

* Mass of an actual proton: 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram
* Mass of Schwarzschild proton: 885 million metric tonnes...
How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?...He doesn't.

I'm sorry but no matter how beautiful the math is, (and I'm not even sure that's true in the case of the proton paper), it can't justify departures from reality that big.

Haha, the guy had a physics peer review in a computer conference!!!

I find it interesting - that it seems to be "de rigour here" - for anyone who disagrees with an idea, to attack the person who posted it, rather than debunk the information they posted.

I see that as a sign of weakness.

For example the intimation is that Einsteins special relativty theory underwent a rigorous peer review process before it was published by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.

That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness.

But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error. Why did no one catch the obvious error?

It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review.

Both of the young editors, Planck and Wien, won Nobel Prizes themselves. They had made the editorial decision for "Annalen der Physik" that since Einstein had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer reviewed.

It could be that Planck and Wien felt that publishing anything written by Einstein would enhance the popularity and circulation of the journal. But using the usual peer review process would slow down publication of the exciting new Einstein papers until the next year. Or it could be that Planck and Wien were so overawed by the genius of Einstein that they felt Einstein had no "peers." For whatever reason, the journal editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist Einstein, simply "broke the required rules" for publishing new theories in the "peer reviewed" physics journal.

It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists. But not so.

**Perhaps someone could direct me to the library collection that holds the peer review comments of the scientific peers of Einstein who peer reviewed his Special relativity paper - I'd very much like to read them!**.

Ohh - maybe Einstein just passed his papers out at a "computer" conerence - ha ha ha..

**A link to the peer review comments anyone?**

Cheers

Originally posted by ianmoone1
I find it interesting - that it seems to be "de rigour here" - for anyone who disagrees with an idea, to attack the person who posted it, rather than debunk the information they posted.

I find lots of posts in this thread debunking the claims in his paper so I'm not buying your claim we are attacking the person and not his work, we are in fact attacking both his technical claims and his claim of peer review. He invited the latter by making a false claim of peer review, when all he did was present the physics paper at a conference where the people reading it were not physicists but simply participants at a computer conference.

If you were arguing that Einstein made a false claim his paper was peer reviewed when it wasn't, and since Einstein did that, it it's ok for Haramein to also do that, the Einstein peer review argument might be on topic, but that's not the argument you're making so it seems off topic to me.

It's also very ironic that you complain about people not focusing on the content of his work, and then make posts yourself that have almost nothing at all to do with Haramein's work. You need not scroll up any further than my recent post to find some aspects of his work we can discuss.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by ianmoone1
I find it interesting - that it seems to be "de rigour here" - for anyone who disagrees with an idea, to attack the person who posted it, rather than debunk the information they posted.

I find lots of posts in this thread debunking the claims in his paper so I'm not buying your claim we are attacking the person and not his work, we are in fact attacking both his technical claims and his claim of peer review. He invited the latter by making a false claim of peer review, when all he did was present the physics paper at a conference where the people reading it were not physicists but simply participants at a computer conference.

If you were arguing that Einstein made a false claim his paper was peer reviewed when it wasn't, and since Einstein did that, it it's ok for Haramein to also do that, the Einstein peer review argument might be on topic, but that's not the argument you're making so it seems off topic to me.

It's also very ironic that you complain about people not focusing on the content of his work, and then make posts yourself that have almost nothing at all to do with Haramein's work. You need not scroll up any further than my recent post to find some aspects of his work we can discuss.

edit on 4-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo

I hear you - but maybe the irony was lost on you afterall - just as I claimed..

1. No one has been able to "prove" that Einsteins special realtivity paper was peer reviwed.
(Just as no one has been able to prove that Harrameins wasn't).

2. The "debunking" of Harrameins paper uses Einstens non peer reviewed Special Relativity, as its basis to proclaim Harrameins non Peer Reviwed Numbers/ mathematics flawed!.

The irony was in using Einsteins non peer reviwed and obvously wrong numbered, scientific methododology based physics, to try to debunk Harrameins apparently non peer reviewed Paper.

I said that was inherrently dangerous as an argument (he said / she said), reasoning.

It appears the irony was lost on you perhaps, using rubbery figures to defend rubbery figuires.

I used a few numbers myself in the thread I referenced including Einsteins own 21 equationn set for the solution to the Mitchellson Morley light speed experiment that gave us his much vaunted but non peer reviwed and obviously flawed "Special Realivity theorem".

I also showed the obvious Math error that Einstein made - alog with the paradoxical outcome that ocurs when you start with a flase premise.

I showed where he went wrong in hispostulations in that he never allowed for a space ether orbiting at the same relative velocity as the earth rotation about it's own axis.

So far here - I'm the oNLY one whos gone to any great legt to disprove Einstein or show any validity for Harrameins work.

It seems to me that poularity or opinions are all that counts -actual phtysics or mathematics holds no sway - its more important what people thing - and be damned the figures.

So physics should be based just on popularity of an opinion - and not on solid science or mathematics.

Who'd have thought that a popularity poll was all that was required to find the grand unification theorem!.

So far I can definitely say that I'm "underwhelmed" by the depth of scientific thought process displayed here in this thread.

Were I Einstein or Harramein - would I bother to try to explain anything or debate anything in this forum?

I could - using the rationale used here to date in this thread - equally label Einstein a Fraud as I Could Harramein using the same parameters & logic.

I find it all somewhat Ironic as i suspect that either Einstein or Harramein themselves might.

Cheers.

Originally posted by Zules
Hello everyone,

I just got a posting from Facebook that Nassim Haramein's paper "The Schwarchild Proton" has just passed peer review and is being published in the American Journal of Physics. The paper proves that every point in space is a black hole/white hole, that contains an infinite amount of energy. The next level tech will hook into the very fabric of reality itself. Here is the paper from his website. I imagine new developments will roll out shortly. We live in interesting times.

theresonanceproject.org...

Z

It is not being published in the American Journal of Physics, it is a 'conference proceedings' which in this case is not significantly peer reviewed. The correct place for this research is Physical Review D, but it surely would be rejected.

The problem is that doesn't make much sense, because it doesn't seem able to describe most of the known properties of properties of protons that were known by the mid 1930's, like nuclear reactions and the structure of the nuclei. Let's start at the beginning: why are protons really not at all like big negated electrons?

He describes some gravitation arising from (magic?) virtual vacuum fluctuations made real. OK---now why doesn't that apply to electrons?

Originally posted by ianmoone1
I find it interesting - that it seems to be "de rigour here" - for anyone who disagrees with an idea, to attack the person who posted it, rather than debunk the information they posted.

I see that as a sign of weakness.

For example the intimation is that Einsteins special relativty theory underwent a rigorous peer review process before it was published by the prestigious physics journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In 1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik" published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric problem.

That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed physicists had reviewed that paper and established its reality and correctness.

But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein published several other avant-garde theoretical papers, including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which contained the math error. Why did no one catch the obvious error?

It was simply because chief editor, Max Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm Wien, had made the fateful decision not to send Einstein's Relativity paper out for the usual in-depth peer review. That Relativity paper, along with Einstein's other papers, were published without any scientific review.

Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921. Wilhelm Wien won the Nobel prize in physics in 1911. Max Planck won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1918.

The papers on the photoelectric effect and special relativity were published in 1905.

reply to post by mbkennel


Your timeline is correct. When Einstein produced the papers during his annum miabilis in 1905, he submitted them to the German physics Journal, Annalen der Physik. The notion of peer review had not yet come to Europe and Einstein didn't come to the US until 1933.
In any event, I thought the topic of this thread was Haramein and his ideas, not Einstein's. Haramein's theories are not in direct conflict with Special Relativity. They are an attempt to substitute gravity for the strong nuclear force. So Einstein is irrelevant to the discussion. Instead, we should be looking at the work of Hideki Yukawa. Hans Bethe, and Robert Marshak, paricularly with reference to their work with muons and mesons and their prediction of the pion, which was discovered in 1947. Let's see an intelligent discussion of quantum chromodynamics, which is relevant to the topic, and not relativity, which is not.

BUT...dont forget, although not finished, the UFT is STILL engineerable.

Ahh... One of the best topics at the frontier of physics is discussing the relevancy of Haramein's ideas. Brings out some interesting ad hominem and appeal-to-authority...

4 forces:

Strong & Weak 'nuclear' forces

EM & Gravity


Weak has been folded into EM, in Electro-weak theory.

Haramein is folding Strong into Gravity.


So, Electro-weak and Gravity-strong

Radiation and Condensation

+ and -


Whether Haramein is correct about the amount of Zero Point Energy/Vacuum density inside the radius of a 'proton', that is a crucial point.

It seems to me, that the most simple dynamic to reconcile these two fundamental forces(which IMO is what we are looking at in future UF theories) is exactly what Haramein/Rodin suppose.

Vortex fluid dynamics in toroid geometry, like a smoke or bubble ring. A constant feedback loop, just like what J.A. Wheeler talked about.


Haters gonna hate...

Originally posted by beebs



Whether Haramein is correct about the amount of Zero Point Energy/Vacuum density inside the radius of a 'proton', that is a crucial point.

How can he conceivably be correct "about the amount of Zero Point Energy/Vacuum density inside the radius of a 'proton' when he doesn't even know what the radius of a proton is?