Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 1
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+12 more 
posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   
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


edit on 16-12-2010 by Gazrok because: Added question mark, as the title is a bit misleading, otherwise, would have to move thread (as it's a statement without it)




posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
This is great news. Unfortunately reading through the idea of everything and how it works is still boggling my mind as I do not have a background at all in any of the said topic, however I am intrigued in learning what types of technology can become of this research. I mean things that can be plugged directly into the fabric of reality to lets say absorb power or to function might only be interesting to thing that they could be used in a reverse order to create something of an illusion on a grander scale, if thats what this implies. Tapping into the "fabric of reality" wouldnt that mean that if used in reverse someone / something could create something in a realistic way that was created by a computer? or are we talking on a smaller scale now?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
finally! i've been waiting for news on nassim for ages. now all he needs to do is marry his principles of universal geometry with marko rodin's work on vortex math and we can declare MISSION ACCOMPLISHED on unified field theory. mind you, i'm not a physicist or expert of any kind, however, i've checked out lectures by both of these fellows and the similarities in the things they describe are huge.
edit on 3-12-2010 by lokiliesmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

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?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Zules
 


Nice find S&F


Hopefuilly we can continue to move this field forward...



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Zules
 


His version of peer review is to have the the participants at the conference read it. The AIP conference where the paper was submitted is on a computer question. If anyone at the conference is, in fact, conversant with high energy particle physics, I imagine they are blowing cola out their noses from laughter. Why? Because the Stefan-Holtzman-Schwartzschild-Hawking radiation power law says that the power emitted is equal to h-bar*c^6 divided by 15260*pi*G^2*M^2. And a proton black hole the mass that he claims would be about 140 billion degrees Celsius, about as hot as a supernova.
He is really, really confused about the radius of a proton. He claims it is 1.32fm. That, in fact, is the Compton wavelength of a proton.
He also has his fairy tale protons orbitting each other endlessly. Won't work. Rotating black holes emit gravity waves causing a decrease in orbital radius according to the equation delta r/delta t equals 64/5*G^3/c^5*(m1m2)(m1+m2/r^3. www.eftaylor.com... When the event horizons of the orbiting pair touch, the 2 black holes merge into 1.
Oh, and his calculated binding force of his 2 protons is, he says, 7.57 x 10^47 dynes. That is 700 trillion trillion times the weight of Mt. Everest exerts on the earth. The guy also fails utterly to explain how, if the binding force is so extremely high, a deep inelastic collision experiment will have an electron, which is one of the lightest particle, knock a proton out of a nucleus.
Conclusion: the guy is a quack trying to delude people with no scientific training into buying into his quackery and paying to hear him speak.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Good find..been following him for a while.

Of course he will be dismissed by the 'real' scientific community because he has no formal training(read: spoon fed the accepted paradigm and taught not to eat anywhere else..lest you won't get published]

And he has long hair.

Peace



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur



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?


He is claiming that his theory substitutes gravity for the strong nuclear force. The electric force has already been unfied with the magnetic force into the electromagnetic force, which now is being unified with the weak force, into the "electroweak" force. Gravity has always been the rogue
edit on 3-12-2010 by 4nsicphd because: quotes in wrong place



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I agree.

Although the majority of physicists would love to find the UFT, if there was a thought that someone had discovered it, it would not be going to computer techies before the high end physists.

People would be dying to get their name on it, or even just to review it before it went to publication.

The mathematics involved in the TOE are beyond our understanding at this point, as for our best theory, M-theory, they do not even have an understanding of the basics.

I heard if we stay at the level of mathematics we are at now that it would take over 400 years to figure out the equations.

When and if the TOE is discovered it will be the biggest paradigm shift in all sciences that we would not be hearing about it at a little conference, we are talking about the biggest discovery in physics.

Pred...



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by predator0187
The mathematics involved in the TOE are beyond our understanding at this point, as for our best theory, M-theory, they do not even have an understanding of the basics.

I heard if we stay at the level of mathematics we are at now that it would take over 400 years to figure out the equations.
Lisi claims to have a unified field theory/TOE based on E8 which took 120 years to solve according to this:

Is mathematical pattern the theory of everything?

His theory isn't accepted but at least the guy has had formal training unlike Haramein.


Originally posted by 4nsicphd
He also has his fairy tale protons orbitting each other endlessly. Won't work. Rotating black holes emit gravity waves causing a decrease in orbital radius according to the equation delta r/delta t equals 64/5*G^3/c^5*(m1m2)(m1+m2/r^3. www.eftaylor.com... When the event horizons of the orbiting pair touch, the 2 black holes merge into 1.
But doesn't he claim the protons are traveling at the speed of light? How does that affect the equation? That's the part of his theory that it seems to me that even non-physicists should understand, whether protons can travel at the speed of light or not, and how we know about this from particle accelerator work accelerating protons to relativistic velocities.

At the speed of light, they'd have infinite momentum, right? That's what follows from Haramein's argument, unless he also rewrote relativity, which I haven't seen.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
As attractive as Nassim's far-out ideas and theories of physics are, I think that maybe he is trying to hard to link the spiritual with the physical. We just aren't ready for that kind of physics yet


I'd advise anyone who is accepting his theory without looking into it, to read this article written by a physics teacher about Haramein and his physics. Then look at Haramein's response, as well as the following response by the teacher again.

azureworld.blogspot.com...



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
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.

I advocate Loop quantum gravity as the most likely candidate for the TOE, this schwarzschild proton is in fact attempting to describe the same unifying field but using different measurement tools.

And I also have to agree with whom ever said that the white elephant in the room on this paper is the fact that the resulting proton would radiate at such a luminosity it's just not in line with what we experience.

This is one of the issues with theoretical physics, you can make the math work in very clever equations... and it may be elegant or in most cases very forced but still be made to add up. The issue is they are clearly wrong.

I once saw a really amazing mathematical proof that the thermo reaction when sodium hits water is impossible, in fact it should have the opposite effect and turn the water to ice. Now obviously we know this is not the case since this experiment can be tested easily and the results recorded.... Yet the math actually stood up on paper.

My point being until we as a civilization have the power to test these fundamental reality questions we are literally just taking shots in the dark.



Korg

edit on 4-12-2010 by Korg Trinity because: add more.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

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.


Originally posted by Monts
As attractive as Nassim's far-out ideas and theories of physics are, I think that maybe he is trying to hard to link the spiritual with the physical. We just aren't ready for that kind of physics yet
Thanks for the blog link.

It's been a while since I read his blog. He's added something in March since the last time I looked there probably in February:

The Physics of the Schwarzschild Proton


* Mass of an actual proton: 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram
* Mass of Schwarzschild proton: 885 million metric tonnes

These aren't particularly close.

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?
He doesn't.

This is measurable and has nothing to do with spirituality. The blog goes on to list other "discrepancies" (is discrepancy even the right word for something that far off?), but the bottom line is, real physicists measure things, Haramein doesn't.

Therefore, which mass is more likely to be correct, the one that has been measured hundreds of times, or the one that has never been measured at all?

I don't see what spirituality has to do with the mass of a proton.
edit on 4-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by predator0187





Originally posted by 4nsicphd
He also has his fairy tale protons orbitting each other endlessly. Won't work. Rotating black holes emit gravity waves causing a decrease in orbital radius according to the equation delta r/delta t equals 64/5*G^3/c^5*(m1m2)(m1+m2/r^3. www.eftaylor.com... When the event horizons of the orbiting pair touch, the 2 black holes merge into 1.
But doesn't he claim the protons are traveling at the speed of light? How does that affect the equation? That's the part of his theory that it seems to me that even non-physicists should understand, whether protons can travel at the speed of light or not, and how we know about this from particle accelerator work accelerating protons to relativistic velocities.

At the speed of light, they'd have infinite momentum, right? That's what follows from Haramein's argument, unless he also rewrote relativity, which I haven't seen.


No, he is trying to unite the fields of the forces using relativity but that train left the station without him. And no, a proton can not travel at the speed of light, particularly since he posits a mass of 855 tons for each. If you look at the equation above, you will see that velocity of the body is not a term. The orbital decay varies with the masses of the objects and the radius of the orbit. By the way, the term "relativistic velocity" is used to mean a velocity at which the Lorenz transformation equations become overridingly important, not necessarily c.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Whoa..!! *POP*

My skull just erupted with my reading this thread... Me thinks I'll venture to the emergency room and collect my thoughts back up from being spun anti spinward while attempting to comprehend these posts
.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heyyo_yoyo
Whoa..!! *POP*

My skull just erupted with my reading this thread... Me thinks I'll venture to the emergency room and collect my thoughts back up from being spun anti spinward while attempting to comprehend these posts
.


If it will make you feel any better, you can ignore everything Haramein says about spin. Subatomic particles don't really "spin." It is a fictitious concept created in 1925, by Kronig, Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit to explain the dififference between mass and total measured momentum. Elementary particles have an intrinsic angular momentum that is simple to conceptualize as a spin about its axis using Noerther's Theorem. Of course, some particles are considered to be "point" particles, so it really makes no sense to talk about an axis.
To discuss spin any more would necessarily involve a discussion of some pretty frightening mathematics developed by Paul Dirac in the late 20's, involving the "reduced Planck's constant", called h-bar. So, let's just leave it at saying that you shouldn't get dizzy about particle spin.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by predator0187


Originally posted by 4nsicphd
He also has his fairy tale protons orbitting each other endlessly.
But doesn't he claim the protons are traveling at the speed of light?


No, he is trying to unite the fields of the forces using relativity but that train left the station without him.
Thanks for the reply, responses from someone as knowledgeable as you are greatly appreciated!


Slightly off-topic, any idea how predator's name got in that reply? Predator didn't say what was attributed to him, I said that, and it's attributing your response to me. I just had a strange post like that myself pop up in another thread when all I did was use the reply-to function, so I think there's a bug with the site but I wanted to ask if you manually inserted predator0187 in there somehow? If so, why, if not, I don't know how it could get there except for a site bug?
edit on 4-12-2010 by Arbitrageur because: fix typo



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I think what happened was pred quoted me in a reply, and then I replied back,and then when you quoted me in a reply, it still had Pred's name in there. You have to be careful when quoting, and then deleting some of the quote for a reply, to delete the unnecessary intermediaries.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I have some snake oil that will smooth out his unbelievable theory.
It's only $19.95 for a 2 ml container, but wait, if you order now, I'll include another
2 ml for the price of shipping and handling.
Shipping and handling only $40.00
edit on 4-12-2010 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
If everyone considers him a quack, and put down the award he won at the University of Liege. Why has his paper passed peer review and been published by the American Institute of Physics?

scitation.aip.org...






top topics



 
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join