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

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Do you know what the radius of a proton is?

Proton shrinks in size

Quite an extraordinary thing, epistemologically and phenomenologically, to know what the radius of a proton is.

The important thing is that we have the idea of calculating the density of space time within a discrete level of organization of space time. We shouldn't argue about the radius of a proton, but whether there is ZPE inside of that radius. That is what is important.

This is more a philosophical discussion than a reductionist discussion.

BTW, because of ZPE, there is no such thing as a 'Vacuum'.

----

Some background info on Nassim's ideas:

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

Do you know what the radius of a proton is?

Proton shrinks in size

Quite an extraordinary thing, epistemologically and phenomenologically, to know what the radius of a proton is.

The important thing is that we have the idea of calculating the density of space time within a discrete level of organization of space time. We shouldn't argue about the radius of a proton, but whether there is ZPE inside of that radius. That is what is important.

This is more a philosophical discussion than a reductionist discussion.

BTW, because of ZPE, there is no such thing as a 'Vacuum'.

----

Some background info on Nassim's ideas:

I know, from having actually done various scattering experiments in grad school, that it is most certainly not the 1.37 fm Halamein claims it is. And whether I know the radius is irrelevant to the validity if Halamein's theory.

Originally posted by beebs
Do you know what the radius of a proton is?

Proton shrinks in size

I don't, but that article you cited, isn't it about the July 5th 2010 result showing a charge radius of 0.84184  fm versus the previously accepted value of 0.8768 fm?

So where did Haramein get 1.32 fm from?

More importantly, since you're interested in what's inside the proton, we've done experiments to determine that and found it's composed of 2 up quarks and a down quark.

If the proton were a black hole as Haramein suggests, then we shouldn't be able to see inside of the black hole to tell what's in there, right?

Haramein has never explained this contradiction in his theory, has he?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


reply to post by 4nsicphd


Of course I have to concede that 1.32 fm is not the correct charge radius.

Even with the smaller ~0.877 fm , we can still explore Haramein's idea of ZP/TS density within a discrete level of organization.

As for quarks... well I would maintain that as precision observational technology gets better and better, we will continue to find 'particles within particles' until we are blue in the face. This is a necessary condition of the fractal universe we find ourselves immersed in.

I think, however, it is better to characterize this as 'subharmonic wavefunctions' than 'subatomic particles' or 'quarks'.

Originally posted by beebs
As for quarks... well I would maintain that as precision observational technology gets better and better, we will continue to find 'particles within particles' until we are blue in the face. This is a necessary condition of the fractal universe we find ourselves immersed in.

This is apparently either:

1. a claim that we can observe things inside the event horizon of a black hole, if you believe Haramein's theory is correct, or else
2. it's an admission that the proton can't be a black hole since we can make these observations, in which case you're concluding that Haramein's theory is wrong, or
3. Something else? How can these observations be explained unless you reject Haramein's theory?

Apparently you've rejected his claims about the proton radius? If so, that's a step.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


In the context of his paper, he uses 1.32 fm to fulfill his scaling law - because every other body fulfills the schwarzschild conditions, the proton is the only one that doesn't. So he says:

The linear progression of scale of organized matter in our universe from macro to micro, and their apparent
coherent relationships, supports the structured vacuum hypothesis leading us to the description of its interaction and constraints on an event horizon topological spacetime manifold. Through black hole interactions with their
surrounding plasma media, vacuum state polarization occurs and produces observable manifestations such as self coherent collective behaviors [4, 7, 16, 23].

If we consider the atomic resolution in our scaling law we find that it is the only one that does not obey the
Schwarzschild condition. However, within the context of a polarizable vacuum where the quantum vacuum energy density is typically given as...[see source, doesn't copy well]
scaling law paper

He derives the 1.32 fm to fulfill the scaling law and the shwarzschild conditions.

Read at least the abstract here, it doesn't let me copy and paste:

schwarzschild proton paper


An older paper with 1.32 fm charge radius mentioned(just stumbled upon it through google, i don't have access to springer)

If Haramein's physics correlates in many ways better than the agreed upon charge radius, then perhaps the agreed upon charge radius is wrong. I am curious if you know more about how these are measured?

If, however, a theory such as Haramein's can be more comprehensive, we must re-evaluate the current paradigm.

ETA:

Modern direct measurements are based on the scattering of electrons by nuclei.[7][8] There is most interest in knowing the charge radii of protons and deuterons, as these can be compared with the spectrum of atomic hydrogen/deuterium: the finite size of the nucleus causes a shift in the electronic energy levels which shows up as a change in the frequency of the spectral lines.[3] Such comparisons are a test of quantum electrodynamics (QED). Since 2002, the proton and deuteron charge radii have been independently refined parameters in the CODATA set of recommended values for physical constants, that is both scattering data and spectroscopic data are used to determine the recommended values.[9]
The 2006 CODATA recommended values are:

However:

The problem of defining a radius for the atomic nucleus is similar to the problem of atomic radius, in that neither atoms nor their nuclei have definite boundaries. However, the nucleus can be modelled as a sphere of positive charge for the interpretation of electron scattering experiments: because there is no definite boundary to the nucleus, the electrons "see" a range of cross-sections, for which a mean can be taken. The qualification of "rms" (for "root mean square") arises because it is the nuclear cross-section, proportional to the square of the radius, which is determining for electron scattering.

For deuterons and higher nuclei, it is conventional to distinguish between the scattering charge radius, rd (obtained from scattering data), and the bound-state charge radius, Rd, which includes the Darwin–Foldy term to account for the behaviour of the anomalous magnetic moment in an electromagnetic field[1][2] and which is appropriate for treating spectroscopic data.[3]

wiki

Originally posted by beebs


As for quarks... well I would maintain that as precision observational technology gets better and better, we will continue to find 'particles within particles' until we are blue in the face. This is a necessary condition of the fractal universe we find ourselves immersed in.

I think, however, it is better to characterize this as 'subharmonic wavefunctions' than 'subatomic particles' or 'quarks'.

edit on 5-12-2010 by beebs because: (no reason given)

OK, we can do that if you will give us the Q distributions and Wigner distributions for these subharmonic wavefunctions, which is a term usually used with regard to photons and QED and not QCD.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Well no, I can't. I am not into the math side of things(as you no doubt have surmised...)

I would love it if you could.

I am interested in theoretical physics, and philosophy and history of science.

But I assume that 'quarks' have probability curves and are vibratory structures which make up the 'proton'.

I view the proton as a stable harmonic structure, condensed energy.

If 'quarks' make up a harmonic structure of energy, then they are stable 'pieces' of that harmonic structure, and that is why I used the term 'subharmonic'.

I am opposed in principle to viewing 'matter' as anything besides a wavelike medium, or fluid space-time.

Those are my presuppositions.

What are yours? I would love to hear more about your experience, and please educate me.

Arbitrageur and I have gone through pages of discussion in the past on this particular issue, and I have learned plenty from [him? sorry...].

I am sure I can learn from you as well.

Try to learn from me also...

reply to post by beebs

If you are "not into the math side of things" we can have no meaningful discourse. Math is the language of physics. Except, of course, for those people who can't handle the required rigor, and who think, "Wow, people will think I'm really smart because every once in a while I can say stuff like "fractal", "paradigm shift", "subharmonic waveform" and so forth. It is an "argument from ignorance" by saying "No, I can't support my statement because
I was too lazy to ever learn the language that people use in discussing the subject. But I must be right, anyway." Yeah, Okay.

I was asked to clear up a few things (and I read Haramein's previous paper) so I thought I'd stop by and give some explanations.

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.

Okay... first of all, "American Journal of Physics" is a publication for physics teachers and folks interested in physics. This is VERY different than a journal by physicists and for physicists. A journal for teachers is kind of a low hurdle and almost anyone can get in there (some of their other papers were interesting but often directed to teaching.)

Second, that's not a peer review (he may think it is, but it's not.) It's an "editorial review."

So what's the difference? "Peer review" is where they give the paper to a panel of experts in that particular field (in my case, it was handed over to people with PhDs in epidemiology because the paper was epidemiology) and it's kinda like they slather you in bacon grease and toss you to a pack of starving wolves. They ripped up our statistical analysis and wanted even more stats, demanded additional citations, waved us to some papers we hadn't heard of (very obscure ones) and presented some alternative theories that we had to address in our rewrite.

"Editorial review" is basically a group of readers who read the journal (or the other people submitting papers for that particular issue) and they nitpick the grammar and so forth. I've had an editorial review process on a paper I submitted that was published in a book on gaming studies. Someone snarked about the quote I had which opened the paper and I had to explain where it was from. Someone else found a misplaced period.

That journal does "editorial reviews", and in fact it says so very explicitly on their website. He wasn't peer reviewed. The fact that he apparently doesn't KNOW the difference is very telling.

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.

Unlikely. I handed the paper to my husband (a mathematician) and he had some snorts and giggles -- the equations are simply textbook equations from lower level college textbooks. They're correct -- but this isn't groundbreaking stuff.

In reviewing scientific papers (one thing you have to learn in grad school), the FIRST thing you do is flip to the back and look at the references.

1) If he's refuting Einstein or improving on Einstein, he absolutely has to cite Einstein and the foundational paper plus at least a review of what's been done on the topic since then.
2) Wikipedia is not a source that's acceptable. EVER (information on there changes, so your supporting evidence may have gone "bye bye".)
3) You only cite published papers. Citing works by yourself that aren't in print is beyond lame.
4) Citing yourself is really lame in most circumstances. Yes, even if it's your theory (like Elfreda Chatman's "Small Worlds" theory (famous information science document, very famous scholar (now dead) -- in her papers after the first one which address social networks, she cites her first paper but does not continually cite herself.)
5) News stories aren't scientific papers. You cite news stories if you're talking about historical information. You do NOT cite NASA press releases as references in making scholarly points (unless your article is about NASA press releases.)
6) People are working on this type of problem all the time. I don't see ANY references (other than press releases) that are recent (work of the past 10 years.)
7) He's citing freshman and sophomore college textbooks as sources.

Evaluating papers is kind of like "CSI: Science". What the evidence shows
1) He actually doesn't know how to write journal papers. This means he's never had one accepted to or published by a scientific journal. It also means that he hasn't ever gone to grad school (in the sciences.)
2) He doesn't know what's a good source for information and what's a bad source. This is critical. Good theories don't come from lame information sources.
3) He's either lazy (didn't search for other papers on the topic) or a fraud. If you're going to cite yourself, cite your published works. And you can't use the "communications with someone" format as support for your point when the someone is you (he does this on the first page of the paper I read.)
4) This has about the same impact in the scientific community as citing your little brother's opinion.
5) He didn't get the full facts. NASA press releases have sources -- but those are based on reports and many of those are available for the asking. The reports will also mention previous research which has been published, so a scientist will comb through those to get background and supporting points.
6) He's apparently not aware of the other research in a number of areas that relate to his topic. This is *FATAL FAIL.*
7) Did he ever get beyond sophomore level physics? If "no" then he doesn't even have the background that Einstein had.

So, no, no scientist will give him much consideration. He's showed that he hasn't read enough to really understand the background of the problem he's pretending he can answer. I did have a look at the award he claims he won and found a "Conference proceedings" which lists all the sessions and papers delivered there. His paper isn't listed, nor is his session. Now, it could have been a "last minute" thing, but two other things seem to be happening: he could have entered at the last minute (a bit unlikely but it happens) and they gave him a room and an announcement.

But the conference itself seems to be attended by around 50 people. I've given papers at several conferences that small, and mine was one of the best (because I was in Toastmasters, I was a division champion speaker, and I *really* know how to give a speech when I get wound up. This does NOT mean that mine was the most academically excellent paper.)

So... the Science Detective notes that there's a lot of unprofessional things happening that point to his having very little knowledge of the subject.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

Of course I have to concede that 1.32 fm is not the correct charge radius.

Even with the smaller ~0.877 fm , we can still explore Haramein's idea of ZP/TS density within a discrete level of organization.

Such as the inability to explain basic properties of nuclear reactions known since the 1930's and of course pions & the whole zoo of hadrons observed since the 1960's.

As for quarks... well I would maintain that as precision observational technology gets better and better, we will continue to find 'particles within particles' until we are blue in the face. This is a necessary condition of the fractal universe we find ourselves immersed in.

No it's not.

reply to post by Byrd


You know, I use my physics PhD in the field of forensic science and the fact that the guy can't even spell Schwartzschild is what we in forensics would call a "clue".

Originally posted by Byrd
I was asked to clear up a few things (and I read Haramein's previous paper) so I thought I'd stop by and give some explanations.

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.

Okay... first of all, "American Journal of Physics" is a publication for physics teachers and folks interested in physics. This is VERY different than a journal by physicists and for physicists. A journal for teachers is kind of a low hurdle and almost anyone can get in there (some of their other papers were interesting but often directed to teaching.)

No, the American Journal of Physics is refereed & edited far better than this. Typical subject matter is explaining unintuitive or unusual properties of standard physics.

He's not getting published in APJ either. It's a non-refereed conference proceeding.

reply to post by 4nsicphd

If you are "not into the math side of things" we can have no meaningful discourse. Math is the language of physics. Except, of course, for those people who can't handle the required rigor, and who think, "Wow, people will think I'm really smart because every once in a while I can say stuff like "fractal", "paradigm shift", "subharmonic waveform" and so forth. It is an "argument from ignorance" by saying "No, I can't support my statement because
I was too lazy to ever learn the language that people use in discussing the subject. But I must be right, anyway." Yeah, Okay.

And thats why people shy away from dogmas and organized group think in science.

"If you can't speak the required language, you cannot understand what we are talking about, and therefore are not welcome in the discussion."

Very profound consequences with that attitude.

But yeah, you know me, I just say those 'buzzwords' to get people to think I'm smart.

Since you are well versed in physics, can you answer these questions for me(or point out their fallicious presuppositions):

1. Nature abhors a vacuum. Demonstrations of vacuum density/ZPE/uncertainty show there is no such thing as a vacuum. What is 'space' in its most generic term, if there is no 'separation' or 'vacuum' between 'things' or 'particles' etc.?

2. Matter is made of space-time. Therefore, nothing exists 'inside' or 'on top of' or 'in' space-time. There is levels of organization of space-time. If an atom is space-time, what is a molecule? If a molecule is space-time, what are humans? If humans are space-time, what is the earth? etc.

3. How do gravitational waves propagate? What are the properties of space-time which allow this?

4. What is gravity? Is it emergent or a priori?

5. How does a homing pigeon find its way home? random?

6. How/Why does experienced 'space' and 'matter' exhibit self-similarity and recursive geometry?

7. What existed before the 'big bang'? What 'banged'? From whence came motion?

8. Is it possible that we(everything) are traveling at the speed of light already, and we just cannot tell?

9. Why is the universe's expansion accelerating?

10. What is 'dark energy'?

11. What is 'anti-matter'? If 'anti-matter' exists, does it compromise space-time as we know it?

12. What is inside a black hole? Is it possible for an observer in space-time to ever know?

13. Do you think a type of quantum gravity will end up replacing the mysterious 'strong force'?

14. Where do we go once we have unified SF with QG, and the WF with EM?

I could go on... but please indulge me.

I am sure you think I am an annoying idiot, but I am genuinely desperate to find a 'real' physicist who can actually satisfy me with clear and logical answers to questions like these.

Deny my ignorance by displaying your knowledge.

Otherwise, I will continue to spread my madness among inquisitive and ambitious open minds.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


Deny ignorance. Attacking a person based on spelling is rude and absurd anyways.

Karl Schwarzschild

ETA:

Is that a 'clue' about your depth of investigation into Haramein's work?

reply to post by mbkennel

No it's not.

Well its one thing to argue whether the universe is a fractal system or not... which I would be happy to discuss with you.

But it is another to deny the necessary conditions of fractal systems in general.

Infinite recursion is one of these necessary conditions.

Originally posted by mbkennel_javascript:gvid()
He's not getting published in APJ either. It's a non-refereed conference proceeding.

So the conference proceeding is being published by AIP, but not by APJ? Is that correct? And the AIP does no review?

I made a claim early in the thread to the effect that the conference proceedings weren't peer reviewed, but I asked Byrd to take a look since I wasn't 100% sure and was hoping Byrd could either verify my claim, or tell me if I was wrong.

So, if the paper just got editorial review, then Haramein could say his peer review claim has something to do with semantics, but if it got no review at all, then he can't even make that claim, it's just a plain lie to say it was peer reviewed.

reply to post by Byrd


Thanks Byrd for taking a look! I appreciate it. Well he does have a scan of the conference award on his website so I was giving him the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a forgery, but it wasn't any more impressive to me than if he had attended a conference on flower arranging and had the attendees of that conference sign it. I certainly wouldn't call those attendees at a computer conference, "peers" when it comes to reviewing a physics paper.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
reply to post by Byrd

 

You know, I use my physics PhD in the field of forensic science and the fact that the guy can't even spell Schwartzschild is what we in forensics would call a "clue".

I've learned a lot from you and appreciate your contribution to this thread, you know far more than I do about the topic.

However this is the first thing you've said I haven't been able to confirm... Is this a typo too?

www.scribd.com...

Über das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes

nach der EiNSTEiNschen Theorie.
V0n K. SCHWARZSCHILD.

I'm sure the other spelling is used in places too but isn't this the guy the black hole feature was named after?

reply to post by beebs

Well no, I can't. I am not into the math side of things(as you no doubt have surmised...)

In 100 years or so there should be a more intuitive understanding of physics.
The quantum world is not often observed in macro experience so that makes it non intuitive.
There does seem to be some type of non proliferation built into the Einstein mission.
In the proton radius example it appears prerequisite that we calculate the energy and frequency, and perhaps even spin to get a fundamental understanding?

I was going to join in but it looks like you're all broadly agreeing anyway, at least about Haramein, so I guess I don't need to. I thought I'd say hello anyway.

It's tempting to dive into Beeb's list of questions :-)
Maybe if there were less than 20 of them. Not that I know any magic easy answers, but these things are always fun.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So the conference prceeding is being published "BY" APJ, but not "IN" APJ? Is that correct?

I made a claim early in the thread to the effect that the conference proceedings weren't peer reviewed, but I asked Byrd to take a look since I wasn't 100% sure and was hoping Byrd could either verify my claim, or tell me if I was wrong.

So, if the paper just got editorial review, then Haramein could say his peer review claim has something to do with semantics, but if it got no review at all, then he can't even make that claim, it's just a plain lie to say it was peer reviewed.

The conference proceedings are published by AIP, which is an umbrella organisation for several physics-related bodies. They publish a whole load of conference proceedings, as is. They have editorial control, but no other input so far as I am aware.

Unfortunately it seems that it's technically correct to refer to it as 'peer-reviewed' by virtue of the fact that it was chosen by 'peers' at the conference at which it was presented, regardless of whether they had any expertise in or familiarity with the subject of the paper.

The Journal is - like all peer-reviewed scientific journals - another matter entirely. All articles are subject to severe, in-depth scrutiny, and any paper like Haramein's would stand out like a fat kid with two donuts in an Olympic 100m final line-up.

So it's not a plain lie, but flaunting his 'peer review' as though it vindicates his claim to be a revolutionary physicist - and encouraging all his fans to do likewise - is abusing the system somewhat.

reply to post by beebs
While these are good questions it sounds like they would be the topic for another thread since they don't relate that closely to the OP.

I can address one statement you made without using math though, since I think it's sort of on topic:

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

I am opposed in principle to viewing 'matter' as anything besides a wavelike medium, or fluid space-time.

Those are my presuppositions.

Nature doesn't really care what you're opposed to. remember this post?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

With only a little research, and not much math, you can find out that whether matter behaves like a wave or a particle depends on how we observe it.

I would like it if it would behave one way or the other, but nature doesn't care what I want or expect any more than it cares what you think.

It reveals itself when we make measurements or experiments:

THE WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY OF NATURE

What does it mean to say that an object, such as an electron or a baseball, exhibits a wave-particle duality? Waves and particles seem so different. In fact, the wave and particle characteristics of any object are complementary, in the sense that the wave and the particle characteristics are never exhibited at the same time. An object may behave like a wave or like a particle, but never both simultaneously.

Which aspect of its nature an object displays depends on the experiment that is performed

That's what we have to deal with, the real world observations.

And the reason I said this is sort of on-topic, is that Haramein and his paper seem to have a huge gap with reality by not making or addressing real world observations and measurements. I've cited several examples already.