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

reply to post by Arbitrageur
Good point, Arbitrageur.

Not only is the strong force not powerful enough of an attraction to bind two protons against the Coulomb repulsion, it's not even powerful enough to bind two neutrons when there is no repulsion at all.

The nuclear force is known to be almost entirely independent of whether the particles involved are neutrons or protons (Pauli exclusion aside). The strong force between two protons is in fact a repulsive force.

I'd forgotten that.

reply to post by buddhasystem
Protons with anti-parallel spins don't experience attraction by the strong interaction - if it did, the nonexistence of a bound dineutron would violate isospin symmetry.

reply to post by Mary Rose
Haramein's model is so far from reality. It's just so, so, so wrong. It doesn't matter what your approach is or what your perspective is. This is not a matter of opinion. There is no approach or perspective other than persistent and wilful ignorance that can sustain anyone in clinging to it. I'm still hoping you'll grasp this at some point.

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Haramein's model is so far from reality. It's just so, so, so wrong. It doesn't matter what your approach is or what your perspective is. This is not a matter of opinion. There is no approach or perspective other than persistent and wilful ignorance that can sustain anyone in clinging to it. I'm still hoping you'll grasp this at some point.

I'm glad you see the point I was trying to make with the two neutrons.

As you suggested in your earlier post, it's more complicated than the overly simplified explanations given by micpsi and even the expert from CERN, to calculate the exact strong nuclear binding force for two neutrons (or two protons, or a deuteron), so if we were trying to arrive at a precise figure for the binding energy that is close to observation, we'd need to delve into these details.

However as you correctly pointed out, Haramein's theory disagrees with observation by so many orders of magnitude that the nuances of calculating the exact binding energy become completely irrelevant if our objective is to accept or reject the Haramein model. It would be like debating what fraction of a trillionth of a gram the proton mass is, when Haramein's model puts it at 885 billion kg.

It is clear the Haremein model is rejected by observation, and not just by one type of observation, but by several types of observations.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Zules
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.

That's what it says on his website but how is getting published in a "conference proceedings" demonstrating any peer review? It's not. He wrote a paper, submitted it to the conference, and it was published in the conference proceedings.

That claim is even more deceptive than his earlier claim of his paper being reviewed by "peers" when the "peers" that read it were computer geeks and not physicists.

Also, the paper is not about a unified field theory.

This thread belongs in the gray area, it's false claims and lies (I'm accusing Haramein, not the OP who is just repeating the lies that have been told about the peer review).

Zules, where did you get the idea the proton paper has anything to do with a unified field theory? I haven't even seen Haramein claim that, did I miss it?

Never thought I'd see the day where I actually agree with you on something.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Never thought I'd see the day where I actually agree with you on something.

Hey even Haramein's "buddy" Marko Rodin doesn't agree with him. Haramein says he solved the dark matter paradox with his theory, but Rodin says he solved it differently, with the number 9.

But neither one is pushing electric universe so I guess this is a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

I'm glad we can finally agree on something!

Originally posted by Bobathon
The diproton doesn't exist in nature, because in this simplest configuration of two protons, the electrostatic force pushing them apart is stronger than the strong force pulling them together.

Listening to AlienScientist's video again I notice that he describes Haramein's theory as two contiguous Schwarzschild protons orbiting each other at the speed of light.

Do you agree with his description of the theory? (Putting aside whether these exist in nature - just treating them as hypothetical.)

And would the word "contiguous" apply to the diproton as well?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Hey even Haramein's "buddy" Marko Rodin doesn't agree with him. Haramein says he solved the dark matter paradox with his theory, but Rodin says he solved it differently, with the number 9.

Are you saying the two agree on a phenomenon but only disagree in their approach to presenting their theory or are you saying they each have a different hypothesis?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Bobathon
The diproton doesn't exist in nature, because in this simplest configuration of two protons, the electrostatic force pushing them apart is stronger than the strong force pulling them together.

Listening to AlienScientist's video again I notice that he describes Haramein's theory as two contiguous Schwarzschild protons orbiting each other at the speed of light.

Do you agree with his description of the theory? (Putting aside whether these exist in nature - just treating them as hypothetical.)

Isn't that sort of what my old screenshot says?



The real diproton isn't contiguous for long, we can't keep the 2 protons together, partly due to the Pauli exclusion principle, and other factors related to the strong nuclear binding energy. A diproton was created and the 2 contiguous protons were so anxious to get away from each other, it didn't even last a billionth of a second:

en.wikipedia.org...

Diprotons are not stable...

The new experiment showed that the two protons were initially ejected together before decaying into separate protons much less than a billionth of a second later.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Listening to AlienScientist's video again I notice that he describes Haramein's theory as two contiguous Schwarzschild protons orbiting each other at the speed of light.

Do you agree with his description of the theory? (Putting aside whether these exist in nature - just treating them as hypothetical.)

Yes. At very close to the speed of light. Haramein's paper says how close.

And would the word "contiguous" apply to the diproton as well?

Contiguous means 'just touching', and it's only a useful word for modeling things as fixed shapes. Neither protons nor black holes have fixed shapes. But if we can interpret the word as meaning they get as close as possible, then the answer to your question is yes.

reply to post by Bobathon


Are you saying that were it you describing the two Schwarzschild protons of Haramein's theory, you would not have used the word "contiguous"? Is there a more accurate way to word it?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

Are you saying that were it you describing the two Schwarzschild protons of Haramein's theory, you would not have used the word "contiguous"? Is there a more accurate way to word it?

Haramein is modelling the proton physically as a black hole, and then modelling the black hole geometrically as a sphere with a definite radius. Spheres with a definite radius can be contiguous.

For real protons or black holes (or any sort of remotely realistic model of them) the word is entirely inappropriate. But for the geometric model that he's using, contiguous is an appropriate word.

reply to post by Bobathon


What is a realistic model of real protons and real black holes?

reply to post by Mary Rose
Sorry I have to use the exnews tags but I don't know another way to get a light background to display this image:

We were probably all shown this "billiard-ball" type representation of the 2 protons and 2 neutrons in a Helium atom but like our other visualization of the electron circling the nucleus like the Earth circles the sun, the mental images we have are not realistic;

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fdd41abf1985.png[/atsimg]

en.wikipedia.org...

A figurative depiction of the helium-4 atom. In the nucleus, the two protons are shown in red and neutrons blue. This depiction shows the particles as separate, whereas in an actual helium atom, the protons are superimposed in space and most likely found at the very center of the nucleus, and the same is true of the two neutrons. Thus all four particles are most likely found in exactly the same space. Classical images of separate particles thus fail to model known charge distributions in very small nuclei

That's a more realistic description for real protons.

A more realistic description for a stable black hole is something at least 3 times as massive as the sun. Nobody has ever observed a stable atomic sized black hole to my knowledge.

NASA Scientists Identify Smallest Known Black Hole

Astronomers may never find the universe’s lightest black hole, but in results announced on March 31, they have come close. Nikolai Shaposhnikov and Lev Titarchuk, who work at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., have identified the smallest known black hole in the universe. This black hole would weigh the same as 3.8 of our Suns if it could be put on a giant scale.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Did this question get overlooked?

reply to post by Mary Rose
It took me a bit to find Rodin's exact, ridiculous words. I was just about to post this:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Are you saying the two agree on a phenomenon but only disagree in their approach to presenting their theory or are you saying they each have a different hypothesis?

The "dark matter" paradox is a mainstream observation. Rodin says

markorodin.com...

The number nine is the missing particle in the universe known as Dark Matter.

I'm not sure how you can even call that a hypothesis. What the heck does that even mean?

Regarding Haramein's hypothesis, if the mass of a proton was actually 885 billion kg instead of 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram, then we would have the opposite problem of "dark matter".

The question mainstream scientists ask now is "what is holding clusters of galaxies together?" as there doesn't appear to be enough matter to agree with observation.

If Haramein's model was correct, we'd have too much mass and we'd be wondering "what's keeping everything apart", such as my question about why I don't weigh more than mount Everest, and why my legs bones aren't crushed by my huge weight as would be the case if Haramein's model was correct.

So it's pretty easy to disprove Haramein's model by just getting on a scale.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

A figurative depiction . . . This depiction shows the particles as separate, whereas in an actual helium atom, the protons are superimposed in space and most likely found at the very center of the nucleus . . . Thus all four particles are most likely found in exactly the same space. Classical images of separate particles thus fail to model known charge distributions in very small nuclei

That's a more realistic description for real protons.

Not clearly defined I think you would agree.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
A more realistic description for a stable black hole is something at least 3 times as massive as the sun. Nobody has ever observed a stable atomic sized black hole to my knowledge.

So, the mini-black hole is purely theoretical.

Is there a way to test Haramein's theory without using equipment to try to observe?

For example, could technology to pull energy from the vacuum - based on his theory - serve as any kind of verification?

I believe the term “the Schwarzschild condition” is important for this thread. The first sentence of the Abstract of Haramein’s proton paper is “We review our model of a proton that obeys the Schwarzschild condition.”

By reading the Wikipedia article on Schwarzschild, I see that there are the terms “Schwarzschild solution,” which is also called “the Schwarzschild vacuum;” and that there are the Schwarzschild coordinates, metric, and radius.

Trying to get the definition by advanced google search to pull up relativistic physics papers isn’t working because the .pdf’s for the papers are by subscription.

Does anyone have access to a definition of the term?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What I had in mind is that each person could be solving the same paradox with a different approach but it wouldn't mean that they disagree on what it is they are describing.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Maybe if we were talking about other people with other solutions, but if you're still referring to Haramein, then we've completely failed to get through to you regarding the fact that because his stuff disagrees with observation, it's wrong.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
By reading the Wikipedia article on Schwarzschild, I see that there are the terms “Schwarzschild solution,” which is also called “the Schwarzschild vacuum;” and that there are the Schwarzschild coordinates, metric, and radius.

Yes as I said, Schwarzchild radius is the term I've seen used most commonly.

Does anyone have access to a definition of the term?

You were trying to argue it's a commonly used expression. If that's true you should have no trouble finding a definition for it. The fact that you haven't is in a way evidence against the point you were arguing about it being such a common expression. Of course the fact that one of two examples you provided to show how "commonly" it's used came from a 30 year old journal in China was more evidence against the point you were trying to make, instead of for it. If it was that common you wouldn't have to go back 30 years to an old Chinese journal to find an example.

I can give you my guess, that it means "black hole" but let me know if you find a better definition.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . we've completely failed to get through to you regarding the fact that because his stuff disagrees with observation, it's wrong.

Hmmmm.

Interesting choice of words: "get through to you."

You represent a group that knows it all, do you?

No chance that you could be wrong in your conclusion?

Perhaps the observation you refer to has problems/limitations? Or perhaps a different interpretation?