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

reply to post by Bobathon


Staying on topic would be helpful.

The point has been made that the conference in question is a legitimate conference for physicists.

And the fact remains that you as an enthusiastic critic of Haramein will not step up to the plate and engage in an honest debate with him by addressing his lengthy response to you in "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto." You keep trying to turn back the clock to your first round of criticism. It's round two. Where's your response?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

The point has been made that the conference in question is a legitimate conference for physicists.

I never said it wasn't. It has a physics section. Dubois has done some stuff that's basically physics. All I said was that no physicists were involved in the honest selection of his paper.

And the fact remains that you as an enthusiastic critic of Haramein will not step up to the plate and engage in an honest debate with him by addressing his lengthy response to you in "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto." You keep trying to turn back the clock to your first round of criticism. It's round two. Where's your response?

I gave you it. Four times. If I wrote that before Haramein's "lengthy response", how come I was discussing it and linked to it three times in the text. Was I employing anticipatory systems?

It's like talking to a brick.

Let me know if you'd like me to say anything more than five times and I'll write some code to keep posting it to you for however long it takes you to realise that I've said it.

'How can we change' indeed.

Originally posted by Bobathon
I gave you it. Four times. If I wrote that before Haramein's "lengthy response", how come I was discussing it and linked to it three times in the text.

Yes I noticed you have several links to "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto" so you have addressed the manifesto numerous times.

But you haven't solved all the "unsolved problems in physics" Haramein copied from Wikipedia in the manifesto, so you didn't address EVERYTHING!

Mary, is that what you're talking about? Bob didn't solve all those unsolved problems but neither did Nassim!

Or if that's not what you're referring to, maybe you can be specific about what you think isn't addressed from the manifesto?

Okay; I see it now. This is where you rebut his rebuttal:

Haramein discusses the problem of the mass of the proton on this page, about half way down. He starts off by suggesting that I made a basic error in confusing mass and weight, which is untrue – weighing gases to establish their mass is fairly sensible. He then talks about how the source of mass is still a mystery in the standard model, and somehow ends up on the quantization of spacetime... all of which has absolutely no bearing whatever on the very simple and straightforward fact that if something has a mass of nearly a billion tonnes, it ought to be heavy.

He then tells us that "in the final copy of The Schwarzschild Proton we calculate the mass dilation resulting from a proton rotating near relativistic speeds and find that at a velocity of 10^-39 slower than C, the proton exhibits the mass of a Schwarzschild entity."

Mass dilation is a consequence of special relativity that makes objects moving close to the speed of light appear more massive than they would be at rest. I doubt that this will help him explain why they appear so light to us.

This new idea would imply that we'd experience these Schwarzschild protons as 10^39 times heavier in a bound state than as a free proton! A bound state of two protons (and/or neutrons, one would assume – deuterium, for example) would have a mass of 10^39 times heavier than a single proton.

Needless to say, none of this is remotely like what is observed in the real world. He really hasn't thought it through very well.


(He then goes on to say fabulous things like "On the cosmological level, this highly turbulent structure of horizons where velocities approach c may be the source of matter creation through sheering of the spacetime manifold itself at the quantum level which predicts a continuous matter creation model at black hole horizons..." and links to a whole load of string theory papers. All meaningless in this context, and seemingly irrelevant to anything that Haramein has ever suggested. The blatant discrepancy between his theory and the real world remains. Still, if the desired effect is "whoa, hit me with that far-out #, you like totally pwned that status quo dude, man", then I give it top marks and a gold star.)


Haramein returns to discuss this discrepancy in this document, about 40% of the way down, first by claiming that the Standard Model fudges the mass of the proton by renormalisation. I want to say a quick few words about this complex idea, at the risk of giving you something of a caricature of what's actually involved...

Renormalisation is an aspect of the mathematical treatment of quantum field theories that can either be used very well or rather badly. When used well, the results it predicts are either independent of the finite cut (the "fudge" as Haramein calls it) or if not, the effects of the physics above and below the cut are treated seperately and combined in the final analysis, and a physical rationale for the value of the cut is predicted by the theory itself. This is now such a well-understood process, it can't really be described as a fudge. The prime example is the entire standard model, which has driven forwards the last four decades of highly successful particle physics research, and in particular renormalised QED, the most accurate theory that mankind has ever produced.

When it's used 'badly', the results are highly dependent on the cut, and the user imposes some "correct" scale on the theory from outside, and then asserts that the results of the calculation have some actual measurable physical significance. That surely is a fudge. (I find it unconvincing, though I'm hardly an expert.) I'm not aware of any observations that have ever been made that validates this kind of use of the theory. I'm thinking in particular of the fetish for ascribing values to the energy of the vacuum. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Nassim Haramein, the man who denounces the fudgelessly renormalised Standard Model, makes prominent use of one of these fudged renormalisation results at the start of his Schwarzschild Proton paper by quoting a vacuum energy density as if it has a physical significance.

More irony.

It's true that the standard model doesn't predict the mass of the proton – at least not without first knowing the masses of quarks. It's true that it bases its predictions on a renormalisation process that some see (or let's be honest, some saw several decades ago) as controversial. But does any of this excuse Haramein's theory from the requirement that it should make some sense and relate to the real world? Sorry, but no.

The thing about the measured mass of the proton is that it's always equal to the measured mass of the proton. It's an exceptionally precisely known and unerringly consistent value, and whether or not the standard model predicts it, all theories of physics have to use it. The whole point of science is that it is attempting to reflect nature. As Carl Sagan puts it, "Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised."

We're still left with the fact that Haramein's theory offers no results that are supported by experiment (aside from those that would follow from the original assumptions anyway), and a whole bunch of conclusions that are inconsistent with the facts by many, many orders of magnitude.



2. The discrepancy of the force between protons

There is another enormous difference between the measured force between two protons and the 'stupidly big' figure in his paper.

Haramein says, "It matters little how 'stupidly big' something is. What matters is if the numbers derived are logical, plausible, consistent with the theory involved, and point to at least useful and/or, ideally, testable results." True words indeed! The numbers Haramein gives in his Schwarzschild Proton paper aren't remotely plausible. Furthermore they can be very easily 'tested', i.e. compared directly to the real world, without using any fancy physics at all, as I will illustrate.

He addresses the discrepancy here, about 90% of the way down. He points out that he has already explained it in his paper using the centrifugal force, and he berates me for not having read it. As it happens, I did read it (the paper is only a few pages long, after all). I didn't bother to discuss it because it doesn't change anything.

In the Newtonian classical mechanics that Haramein has employed, in a rotating reference frame, gravity has an inverse square dependence on separation, whereas centrifugal forces follow an inverse cube dependence. (The only assumption needed for this is that any external angular impulse must be negligible in comparison to the angular momentum of the system, which will certainly be true here.) This means that at some definite separation they will balance – as Haramein correctly points out – but for any displacement from that definite separation there will be a net restoring force. The system is forced back to equilibrium. This is why gravitational orbits are stable.

What does this mean for the Schwarzschild Proton? The forces are balanced at 2.64fm separation; if they were pulled even to 2.65fm apart, the restoring force would already be 0.37% of the full gravitational force, which is 2.83 x 10^45 dynes. Which is stupidly big. By which I mean big enough to make it utterly impossible – it's already many many orders of magnitude greater than any force we could hope to create or observe on Earth.

Looking at it in terms of energy gives us a better way of comparing the numbers directly with the real world.

We can calculate the amount of energy required to separate two protons. For a classical circular orbit, it's half the magnitude of the gravitational potential energy (the rest is provided by the kinetic energy of the orbiting body). In this case, the answer is 1.98 x 10^28 Joules (try it yourself).

This is an astronomical figure, and it would be stupid to suggest this was the amount of energy to split a single nucleus – it's more than half of the amount of energy it would take to remove the Moon from its orbit around the Earth.

Compare this to Haramein's assertion that the "balance between the centrifugal force and the centripetal force is extremely fragile and any disturbing entity would easily knock it out of equilibrium." The work of a brilliant thinker of our time, or utter idiotic nonsense? Go figure.

For the actual, measured, maximum value for the energy required to separate two protons, consider the nucleus with the highest proton separation energy, Helium-4. Subtract the mass of this nucleus from the combined masses of a proton and a tritium nucleus, and multiply by c². The maximum energy required to remove a proton is 3.2 x 10^-12 Joules. For most nuclei, the figure is much lower than this.

Once again, Haramein is around 40 orders of magnitude from reality as a result of using gravity instead of the strong force. Have I used any dodgy physics theories here? These are fairly straightforward observations.


3. Other things that are fundamentally flawed or straightforwardly wrong

I raised many other fundamental issues with his theories, for example his claim that there is an event horizon around a proton (a region from which no light or particles can emerge, especially if this event horizon is somehow immune to rapid decay as protons clearly are). This is contradicted by the fact that we can clearly observe the proton's internal structure. Haramein hasn't responded to this at all.

There's so much in his response that there's no way I could try to deal with it all. There's actually lots of quotes from and links to quite good physics that have been mixed in there that I wouldn't argue with... but very little if any of them are relevant to any of the claims that he's been making. (And in the majority of cases they really don't imply the kind of things that he tries to make them imply. He even includes a quote "the effects of gravity can safely be ignored on a small scale, such as the atomic one" from an article that was supposedly providing a rationale for his black hole obsession. Wake up, research dudes! Get with the cherry-pickin' program!)

All in all, despite the magnitude of the work that has gone into this by Haramein and his staff, I don't believe that he's provided one reasonable argument that contradicts any of the flaws in his physics that I've highlighted in my earlier posts.

I'd like to know if you think otherwise.

As I said earlier, if you can find any single point in Haramein's response that convinces you that any of my criticisms of his physics are unfounded – then I'd really love to know what it is, and why you find it convincing. It would be great if we could keep it to the physics. I know it won't happen, but it would be great if it did. Let's face it, it doesn't matter how upset his groupies get, it's the dodgy physics and Haramein's utterly disproportionate claims for his research that are in question here.

If anything interesting comes up from the physics discussion in the comments or by email, I'll include it in my post, and I'll gladly amend the blog if I've said anything incorrect.

Haramein and his fans may be glad to know that I don't intend to write about him any more. And I'll stay anonymous, so they can continue to mythologise me to their hearts' content.

"It's like talking to a brick" means Haramein needs to respond to the above?

Bobathon,

I take it you are a professor of physics?

Do you have a unified theory of your own? Or any original thoughts on unsolved physics problems? Or a philosophy on what is likely the best approach to finding a unified theory?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Bobathon,

I take it you are a professor of physics?

You do? That's odd.

Do you have a unified theory of your own? Or any original thoughts on unsolved physics problems? Or a philosophy on what is likely the best approach to finding a unified theory?

Yes, definitely, my theory is that the only paradigm we can rely on in the future is one where people will stop relying on boring old observations of nature, stop using any kind of boring old logic, stop wasting their time learning the boring old details of the subject they theorize about, and just make it all up! Build a brand to elicit a cult following, go overboard on self-promotion, use whatever underhand techniques possible to discredit all forms of criticism, and sell it all over the internet where there's no need to justify anything. This will make the world a better place. Yay!

Top tip: if you're ever presented with overwhelming evidence against the prejudices that you hold, but you can't be bothered to look at it or think about it for yourself, it's always good to just change the subject and start trying to make inferences so that you can go 'a-ha!' in a childish way. Never fails.

reply to post by Mary Rose
Sorry, I'm being flippant.

"It's like talking to a brick" means Haramein needs to respond to the above?

No, I was referring to the fact that I've been repeatedly telling you that I'd responded to him since the very first post on the 'delegates program' thread.

To be honest, I'm in no rush to hear Haramein's response to the above. It's not a debate, it's a plain criticism. I can see quite clearly that he's clueless, so I don't see any point in debating with him. Of course I will if he wants to. And he can respond if he wants to. If he has anything meaningful to say, I'd be very interested, but I'd be amazed if he's suddenly developed the ability to understand physics, or to make a point that makes sense.

His response wasn't written to me at all. It's a piece of PR to satisfy his followers because my blog had upset a number of them.

All I want is for people who follow him, or are tempted to follow him, to think through the ideas properly for themselves. I want them to get a sense of the strength of the argument for saying that his attempts at science are simply disreputable and false, and to listen to his side just as carefully, and to make up their minds.

Basically, I just want to be able to criticise someone for talking garbage and abusing people's trust. That's got to be allowed, no?

reply to post by Bobathon


I did not carefully scroll through your post on the other thread and failed to see that you had responded to Haramein's response. When I asked for clarification about Haramein's response to your response, your friend A chimed in and sent me on a "wild-goose chase." Then, on the other thread, I challenged you to respond to Haramein's response, and you said "no thanks." So perhaps you can understand why I might not have understood.

reply to post by Bobathon


Are you a high school teacher?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

 

Then, on the other thread, I challenged you to respond to Haramein's response, and you said "no thanks." So perhaps you can understand why I might not have understood.

Not really, because your challenge came straight after you directly quoting me saying that I'd already done it and even giving a link to the post! Quote first, read later? Never mind anyway.

Are you a high school teacher?

This isn't facebook. And I don't think the question of whether anyone fits into anyone else's idea of an expert or an authority figure is a helpful one.

I've never tried to convince anyone of anything by saying "this is true because such and such an expert says so," and I've never asked anyone what their authority or claim to fame is. I prefer to keep all that out of it.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Mary Rose

 

Then, on the other thread, I challenged you to respond to Haramein's response, and you said "no thanks." So perhaps you can understand why I might not have understood.

Not really, because your challenge came straight after you directly quoting me saying that I'd already done it and even giving a link to the post! Quote first, read later? Never mind anyway.

Quote first, read later?

You can't see my point of view.

But - never mind!!!

This isn't facebook. And I don't think the question of whether anyone fits into anyone else's idea of an expert or an authority figure is a helpful one.

I've never tried to convince anyone of anything by saying "this is true because such and such an expert says so," and I've never asked anyone what their authority or claim to fame is. I prefer to keep all that out of it.

The reason I asked is that you have attacked a theoretical physicist with an air of great authority and I wondered where that authority came from.

And I'm still curious about your original, creative ideas about physics.

I have a question...

Supposedly he has no formal training, yet he wants to be an acclaimed physisist. Why doesn't he just get himself a university degree to fix that problem? It shouldn't be hard for an expert to pass entrance exams into a university.

reply to post by fedeykin


I personally really like the fact that he is self-taught. I think that it is a huge plus. He is self-directed and an original thinker. It isn't that he's "making things up." I think he has studied the information that is taught in universities and has evaluated it independently.

reply to post by fedeykin
Your question is a good one. But I don't see it happening for several reasons.

Nassim said that he's not real good in math. To get a PhD in physics, takes many years of really hard work, and a lot of it is math, so you have to be good at math in this field, it's not optional.

Nassim has put so much effort into knocking the mainstream educational system, it would be quite a turnaround for him to become part of it, where he'd have to repeat all the so-called "lies" his professors teach in order to pass his exams.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Nassim said that he's not real good in math.

I have a question about the use of math to prove things in physics.

How does one prove that one is using the correct math type to apply to any given theory?

Or am I wrong to say there are different types of math that could be used?

reply to post by Mary Rose
I think this 1 minute video answers that.

Step 1 is the idea.
Step 2 is the math.
Step 3 is how you tell if the idea and the math are right or not, through observation:



For example if you have a theory about the proton, that affects its mass, step 3 would be to actually measure the mass of the proton to see if observation supports the theory.

Originally posted by Mary RoseThe reason I asked is that you have attacked a theoretical physicist with an air of great authority and I wondered where that authority came from.

No I haven't. I haven't used any arguments from authority, I've used reasoning, all of which can be investigated personally by anyone and debated in any forum.

And he's not a theoretical physicist. And (stating the obvious again) that's not a statement about his lack of qualifications or university affiliation or support from the scientific community. I don't care about that, and never have. It's because what he does isn't physics.

You might notice that the only people who

think he has studied the information that is taught in universities and has evaluated it independently

are people who haven't been anywhere near a university physics course. It's like (to use the example I gave on my blog) someone who makes Chinesey sounding noises, and people who've never been anywhere near China all saying he's speaking Chinese, in his own way. He's just not. It's just noises.

Anyone who has studied the subject can see that you're only saying what you'd like to think.

It's tiring trying to deal with people who can't tell the difference between what they'd like to think and what they actually think.

I have a question about the use of math to prove things in physics.

How does one prove that one is using the correct math type to apply to any given theory?

Or am I wrong to say there are different types of math that could be used?

That's a very good question. I'm not sure how to answer it to someone who doesn't understand any physics or any maths.

Let's just say yes, you're wrong to say that. For example: Heisenberg and Schrodinger came up with wildly different mathematical systems to describe quantum theory in the 1920s, both of which worked perfectly well. They fought like dogs over who was right. Eventually Dirac showed there was a much more sophisticated mathematical framework that encompassed both of them.

Dirac later came up with an even more sophisticated one that included all that and Einstein's relativity too... and in the '40s, Feynman and friends came up with an even better one (QED) that included the whole of Dirac's mathematics and more besides.

The proof of the pudding is in whether or not the model described by the mathematics reflects nature. If it disagrees with what is observed when we actually look at the thing it's describing, then it's wrong. End of story.

If several models work equally well, it's a matter of preference, and most sensible people would pick the simplest and most elegant.

The question "do you need mathematics?" is the same as asking "do you need to be able to follow the logic of this person's ideas?" That's all the mathematics is used for.

Of course you do!

Sorry. It'd be great if you didn't. Apart from a few freaks, physicists would all gladly drop the need to learn so much maths, and to teach so much maths to anyone they want to explain anything to. It would make life so much easier. They're not nutters, you know. They want to understand things as straightforwardly as possible, and they want others to understand it too.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Step 1 is the idea.
Step 2 is the math.

I understand about the final step observation.

But my question is: Is there more than one math or approach that can prove the same theory mathematically?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
But my question is: Is there more than one math or approach that can prove the same theory mathematically?

Bob's answer is excellent. Two people may think they are using different math to arrive at the same answer, but when you dissect their math in a larger framework you may find they are like two sides of the same coin.

There are multiple ways to solve the same math problem, but if done correctly, they all arrive at the same answer:

Developing flexibility in mathematical problem solving

To solve math problems accurately and efficiently, students need to develop flexibility—they need to learn multiple strategies, and how to choose among them in tackling a particular problem.....
students benefit from comparing and contrasting multiple solution methods. Cognitive science research supports the value of using comparison and contrast to promote general learning: identifying similarities and differences in multiple examples has proven to be a critical and fundamental pathway to flexible, transferable knowledge.

If they don't arrive at the same answer, one of the two methods has probably made an erroneous assumption at some point, which will likely be revealed by a failure of the result to match observations.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Developing flexibility in mathematical problem solving

The above is about teaching math.

For a theoretical physicist with an idea that needs testing mathematically, I guess the physicist doesn't prove that the math proof is correct or not correct, the physicist just offers the math proof - which I presume can take different forms - and then the actual proof lies in observation in the real world.

Are there examples of new maths being invented by theoretical physicists?