Originally posted by beebs
Haramein has done a damn good job.
A fitting quote from Einstein:
I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those lawlike connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it. Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics.
plato.stanford.edu...
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's ironic you would say Haramein has done a good job and then point to a quote from Einstein that contradicts that assessment. Look at how much Einstein is talking about mathematics in that quote, and by his own admission Haramein is weak in math. Haramein is also weak in other subjects, like junior high school geometry and basic physics.
Haramein's proton paper has protons traveling at the speed of light which is a mathematical impossibility according to Einstein's work, and confirmed by experimental observations at particle accelerators. So I don't see how anybody can take him seriously unless they too lack an understanding of mathematics, basic physics, and observational experience.
And remember what made Einstein famous. It wasn't that he jotted down a bunch of math formulas and published a paper. It was that his work predicted a result that could be measured in the real world, and in 1919 it was, during a solar eclipse.
I don't see anything connecting Haramein's work with the real world like that. And I don't expect that I will, aside from the occasional formula he copies from a high school physics textbook when he's not citing his own previous ramblings as references.
Originally posted by beebs
How does the particle accelerator experiments discredit Harameins theory, specifically?
The LHC and other particle accelerators constantly confirm the velocity-mass relationship established by Einstein, they can double the energy of the proton, but the speed doesn't double, it only goes a tiny bit faster and most of the extra energy goes into increased mass of the proton. That's why you see 99.9997828% of the speed of light. We can build bigger particle accelerators but all we can do is add more 9s to the 99.999% of the speed of light because it would take infinite energy to give the proton infinite mass. This is not some fantasy scientists dreamed up on a piece of paper, it is factual observations made at the LHC and predecessors which confirm how that a proton traveling at the speed of light will have infinite mass. Yet that's apparently no problem for Haramein, in his paper "The Schwarzchild Proton", he sets the velocity of two protons orbiting each other at the speed of light without batting an eye:
We aren't even sure if the whole universe has infinite mass, but if it does, then one proton traveling at the speed of light would have the mass of the entire universe. But Haramein has two protons traveling around each other at the speed of light each of which would have an infinite mass so together these two protons have at least double the mass of the known universe. How do you reconcile that with the tons of observational data on what happens to the mass of a proton at the LHC when we give it more energy?
Originally posted by beebs
How do we reconcile the fact that we can see at the speed of light? Especially if we aren't traveling at the speed of light.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Originally posted by beebs
How do we reconcile the fact that we can see at the speed of light? Especially if we aren't traveling at the speed of light.
Photons reach our eyes at the speed of light while we are standing still.
A baseball catcher can catch a baseball thrown to him at 80 miles an hour while he's standing (or crouching) still.
So your question is like asking how the baseball catcher can catch the baseball?
If you are going to ask questions like that there is absolutely no point in having any discussion with you.
Originally posted by beebs
So from our human frame of reference, we can see at the speed of light. Yet we are wholly made up of protons that can never reach the speed of light.
What if it actually isn't two 'protons' we are witnessing. Could it be two focus points of aetheric charges opposing each other across the diameter of the inside of the torus? The event horizon of a black hole...
We know that electrons are quantum, not classical. 'Electron' is just a convenient term for the quantum probabilities in a 'cloud' around the center, which we call a 'nucleus'.
Also, the way we measure electrons is highly anomalous. What if they are just magnetic moments or a detectable quantum or level of an aether coming out from the center of a torus shaped density fluctuation in the aether?
If both Harameins theory and regular mainstream mechanics(which is not much different nowadays) can both account for most physical evidence
Originally posted by beebs
Ok, nice analogy.
Thats it though? You have no other thoughts on the matter?
That was the least important part of my post...
I am sorry you feel I am not worthy.
You still have not addressed what your background presuppositions are for this debate.
Which models/theories are you basing your speculation on?
Originally posted by beebs
How does the particle accelerator experiments discredit Harameins theory, specifically?
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The evidence that an object with a rest mass (like a proton) can't travel at the speed of light is so overwhelming that you can't have two right answers to that question. The evidence supports one answer, so far...it can't. If you have any experimental evidence to the contrary please post it.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
I don't see any contradiction in this. JFK was not traveling with a speed of bullet when he was hit with one.
What if it actually isn't two 'protons' we are witnessing. Could it be two focus points of aetheric charges opposing each other across the diameter of the inside of the torus? The event horizon of a black hole...
Sounds like a bunch quazi-scientific sounding cr@p to me.
We know that electrons are quantum, not classical. 'Electron' is just a convenient term for the quantum probabilities in a 'cloud' around the center, which we call a 'nucleus'.
There are plenty of cases when electrons aren't bound to a nucleus, and where they exhibit fairly classical properties.
Also, the way we measure electrons is highly anomalous. What if they are just magnetic moments or a detectable quantum or level of an aether coming out from the center of a torus shaped density fluctuation in the aether?
"Magnetic moments"? What the heck is this supposed to mean.
If both Harameins theory and regular mainstream mechanics(which is not much different nowadays) can both account for most physical evidence
Haramein's "theory" can't explain much at all. Proton is a composite object. So is neutron. Neutron can decay into a proton. I'm not sure Haramein even knows any of these facts.
Here is the equation proven by the particle accelerators:
I borrowed that from here www.physicsforums.com... because ATS won't allow typing in equations like physicsforums does.
m0 is the rest mass of the proton, and m is the mass of the photon which is increased by accelerating it in the particle accelerator. v is the velocity of the proton. You can see that when you make v=c like Haramein's paper does, the bottom term becomes zero, and when you divide by zero you get infinity meaning the proton would have infinite mass.
So here are some more questions:
-Do you have a different equation for relativistic mass?
-If so does your equation show that objects with a rest mass can travel at the speed of light and if so is there any experimental evidence for this?
-Do you have any doubts that particle accelerators have actually increased the velocity of protons and measured the relativistic effects stated in that equation?
All your energy and enthusiasm is a great thing, I admire it. It's my sincere hope that you can steer it in a meaningful and productive direction.
But I'll reiterate that if your goal is to avoid responding to the fallacy of Haramein's proton paper calculation that protons are traveling at the speed of light and instead obfuscate the discussion by going off on tangents with no basis in reality, then I don't see that being a very productive discussion from my perspective.
So my desire to discuss reality instead of fantasy has nothing to do with your being worthy or not, it's because if Haramein and 100 other pseudoscientists all make up some equations in la-la land, I don't have any reason to believe any of them until they can provide some experimental evidence to prove they really mean something.
To be honest I probably wouldn't believe some of the crazy ideas in relativity and some of the seriously whacked out equations in quantum physics without real world evidence to back them up. So that's where the rubber meets the road...can an idea be proven with experiments or observations in the real world, or not? If not, then it doesn't have much use in science, though it might have some use in another field, like religion. But this isn't the religion forum.
The theory of relativity is a beautiful example of the basic character of the modern development of theory. That is to say, the hypotheses from which one starts become ever more abstract and more remote from experience. But in return one comes closer to the preeminent goal of science, that of encompassing a maximum of empirical contents through logical deduction with a minimum of hypotheses or axioms. The intellectual path from the axioms to the empirical contents or to the testable consequences becomes, thereby, ever longer and more subtle. The theoretician is forced, ever more, to allow himself to be directed by purely mathematical, formal points of view in the search for theories, because the physical experience of the experimenter is not capable of leading us up to the regions of the highest abstraction. Tentative deduction takes the place of the predominantly inductive methods appropriate to the youthful state of science. Such a theoretical structure must be quite thoroughly elaborated in order for it to lead to consequences that can be compared with experience. It is certainly the case that here, as well, the empirical fact is the all-powerful judge. But its judgment can be handed down only on the basis of great and difficult intellectual effort that first bridges the wide space between the axioms and the testable consequences. The theorist must accomplish this Herculean task with the clear understanding that this effort may only be destined to prepare the way for a death sentence for his theory. One should not reproach the theorist who undertakes such a task by calling him a fantast; instead, one must allow him his fantasizing, since for him there is no other way to his goal whatsoever. Indeed, it is no planless fantasizing, but rather a search for the logically simplest possibilities and their consequences. (Einstein 1954, 238–239; my translation)
Originally posted by beebs
Your analogy with JFK is exactly like Arbitrageur's... but they both lack the universal context of motion.
You do not think it is interesting that our eyes, which are supposedly made of non-speed-of-light particles, can perceive the speed of light?
Yes, there are cases of electrons without nuclei. Those cases are also like in the double slit experiment, which shows that electrons are subject to the WPD(Wave Particle Duality) - which indicates that the 'particle' is not only a 'particle' but a WAVE.
This is highly anomalous...
I am not. I have stated my presuppositions - which are absolutely essential in theoretical physics.
Originally posted by beebs
You seem to be conflating photon/proton
It is regarding massive particles (like protons), however it was referenced there to show that a photon can't have a rest mass. because if so it would have an infinite mass at the speed of light, which is basically the same argument I'm making that a proton would have infinite mass at the speed of light.
The equation you quoted from the physics forum is regarding photons, but I think its also used for other particles?
Einstein mentioned E=mc^2 so there's an equivalence between matter and light. And we do give off infrared light.
Again, though, I must reiterate my earlier point: What if we are already light?
So what he calls a proton with infinite mass is really just a black hole with infinite mass?
Haramein suggests that the proton would have infinite mass, because it is not a 'particulate' proton, but the light/energy equivalent of a black hole at the center of the 'atom'....
This is because you discuss a proton with infinite mass with no more thought than I might say "I just walked my dog". You fail to realize the implications and the silliness of your statement, and the same is true with Haramein. Think about this, an infinite mass has infinite gravity so you'd be sucked into the gravitational field of a proton with infinite mass. The fact that you can type here means you haven't been and disproves your idea.
I have yet to see the fallacy in Haramein's theory - which is why I am discussing this so in depth with you.
If what you mean is that your presuppositions are based on a bunch of made up fantasies and my presuppositions are based on repeatable scientific observations and experiments, then, yes I agree.
I think Haramein and myself have different presuppositions in theoretical physics, which you do not share.
{sarcasm}I've already solved the theory of everything...there's a giant flying spaghetti monster pulling invisible strings interconnected to everything in the universe...so far nobody has proven me wrong.{/sarcasm}
You call my speculations fantasy.. but I'm pretty sure they are reality.
That's what I've been trying to say. So why not come back to reality instead of living in a world of fantasy? Reality is plenty strange.
Reality is sometimes stranger than fiction.
Can you disprove my flying spaghetti monster theory?
Please point out where my presuppositions are fantasy.
Of course the speculation in theoretical physics is not demonstrable to you.
to constitute a convincing potential test of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of scientific theory according to the Popperian criterion in this sense.
All of theoretically falsifiable prediction specific to the string theory are currently untestable in practice so far. One such unique prediction is string harmonics: at sufficiently high energies—probably near the quantum gravity scale—the string-like nature of particles would become obvious. There should be heavier copies of all particles corresponding to higher vibrational states of the string. But it is not clear how high these energies are. In the most likely case, they would be 10^15 times higher than those accessible in the newest particle accelerator, the LHC, making this prediction impossible to test with any particle accelerator in the foreseeable future.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So what he calls a proton with infinite mass is really just a black hole with infinite mass?
Haramein suggests that the proton would have infinite mass, because it is not a 'particulate' proton, but the light/energy equivalent of a black hole at the center of the 'atom'....
If what you mean is that your presuppositions are based on a bunch of made up fantasies and my presuppositions are based on repeatable scientific observations and experiments, then, yes I agree.
You have it backwards, the burden of proof is up to me to prove my flying spaghetti monster theory of everything, you or any other scientist or pseudoscientist to demonstrate that your or their ideas can make predictions and or explain observations in the real world.
It is clear from these results that the “strong force” may be accounted for by a
gravitational attraction between two Schwarzschild protons. In the standard model the
strong force is typically given as 38 to 39 orders of magnitude stronger than the
gravitational force however, the origin of the energy necessary to produce such a force
is not given. Remarkably, a Schwarzschild condition proton as a mass
approximately 38 orders of magnitude higher than the standard proton mass, producing a gravitational effect strong enough to confine both the protons and the quarks. Our approach, therefore, offers the source of the binding
energy as spacetime curvature resulting from a slight interaction of the
proton with the vacuum fluctuations and offers a unification from cosmological objects
to atomic nuclei. Therefore, we write a scaling law [1] to verify that the Schwarzschild
proton falls appropriately within the mass distribution of organized matter in the
universe.
So what he calls a proton with infinite mass is really just a black hole with infinite mass?
Originally posted by beebs
Haramein suggests that the proton would have infinite mass, because it is not a 'particulate' proton, but the light/energy equivalent of a black hole at the center of the 'atom'....
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
If you have to ask me... then I have to wonder if you really understand Haramein's theory, and have been antagonizing me ignorantly.
Expanding = outside of torus, EM or hawking radiation
Also I don't see how hawking radiation or any of the other forces you mention balance out the infinite gravitational force in the singularity?
Originally posted by beebs
I digress, again
You got my hopes up talking about the schwarzchild radius that you might actually answer my question about what the schwarzchild radius is for Haramein's proton with infinite mass.
Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
Infinity is relative. If the universe is infinite, then our particular frame of reference is all that matters.
So everything, from our limited frame of reference, looks finite. But in reality, it is infinite.
I'm not sure, just an idea.
And to my knowledge, yes the Schwarzschild conditions have to be met in order for a black hole to be formed.
The mass has to be at a certain critical point within a diameter in order for it to be considered a black hole. Or something like that.
Wiki says that the Schwarzschild conditions do not take into account rotation, or angular momentum. It is apparently only for a 'static' black hole.
That is another point that Haramein brings up in his paper.
It is generally believed that all black holes will eventually be similar to a stationary black hole and, by the no hair theorem, that stationary black holes can be completely described by three (and only three) quantities:
* mass M,
* angular momentum J,
* electric charge Q.
This is because anything happening inside the black hole horizon cannot affect events outside it.