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

Originally posted by beebs
After all, it is plainly obvious to highly advanced humans such as ourselves that such a dynamic CAN NOT similarly operate at smaller scales.

binomialtheorem beat me to it:

Originally posted by binomialtheorem
And besides, if you could bring it upon yourself to believe that a proton weighs 885 million tons, then tell me why Nasseim fails to mention the hawking radiation that is supposed to come out from these mini black holes?

Is it because the hawking radiation would cause them to maybe, just maybe, radiate out until there is no more proton?

Hawking radiation is one reason why small black holes are expected to be extremely unstable and would disappear quickly.

The smaller the mass of a black hole, the less stable it will be, so yes there is reason enough to think that black holes on a supermassive scale are stable whereas black holes on an atomic scale would be extremely unstable and therefore CAN NOT operate on a smaller scale as you apparently sarcastically suggested but this in fact appears to be the case.

Scientists identify smallest known black hole

With a mass only about 3.8 times greater than our Sun and a diameter of only 15 miles, the black hole lies very close to the minimum size predicted for black holes that originate from dying stars. "This black hole is really pushing the limits. For many years astronomers have wanted to know the smallest possible size of a black hole, and this little guy is a big step toward answering that question," says lead author Nikolai Shaposhnikov of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

Right now that's the limit of our observational evidence for stable black holes, about 3.8 solar masses though slightly smaller may be possible also. If you've got observational evidence for smaller black holes, please post it.

This doesn't preclude smaller UNSTABLE black holes, but the atomic matter in question, the proton, is pretty stable. And as we have pointed out repeatedly, if the proton was a black hole, we wouldn't be able to observe its inner structure, which we can do, so observational evidence contradicts the proton being a black hole.

The point I'm making with my questions is I think a crucial one.

It seems to me that Beebs and Mary Rose both make assertions using words, and they either don't know the meaning of them, or they are unable to give a consistent explanation of the meaning of them.

I would suggest that this implies that they are not saying anything meaningful at all. At least to those of us who are interested in assertions that mean something in relation to what we can perceive about the world around us. If we are perceiving them as not saying anything at all, then that would explain why we dismiss what they say.

Not being interested in something that doesn't mean anything in relation to what we can perceive about the world around us is a personal choice. It's the only one that makes any sense to me. Especially when it comes to physics, which is the topic under discussion, and is about precisely that! But even generally. Why be interested in meaningless things?

That could be the cause of the difference between us.

If I'm wrong, then perhaps Beebs or Mary Rose will provide consistent meanings for the words that they use, and we'll be able to start to figure each other out. I'm very open to that. The last thing I want to do is to put anyone down if they're saying something meaningful.

So... mass. Beebs, you used the word. What does it mean?

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Do you not understand yet that I do not DENY your experimental observations?
I am merely coming at this whole thing with the opposite set of presuppositions than you are.
You are reductionist, classical, objective reality isolated independently from observer.
I am holistic, quantum, interdependent reality which is not independent from observer.

Wait a second, I don't care about "holistic and independent", we can discuss that later. I was simply trying to understand what you said, because I'm not alone here being totally confused. I asked very specific questions about your exposition and requested a modicum of explanation. Instead, you shower me with "presuppositions", "reductionist" and all that other cr@p. Surely that's not a way to conduct a discourse. If you went as far as to present a model (which you did), please follow through and answer the very simple and concise questions I put to you. Either you made this up as you went and kept your fingers crossed, or your whole post is a jest, or you really suffer from some cognitive dissonance. I just don't know.

reply to post by Bobathon


What does 885 million tons mean to me? To me that means that apparently some guy named Haramein has come up with that for the weight of a proton charge when it is next to a black hole.

My question about weight vs. mass is still up in the air... I'm pretty sure tons is weight like pounds, not mass like kg.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I strongly recommend everyone here familiarize themselves with the concept of empirical equivalence... I have said it before but it just doesn't seem to get through.

Things will not appear differently when we have a new theory to describe what they are. Just because one theory says atoms are black holes does not mean that everything will come crashing down. It is just a new way of looking at what we have been looking at, to more comprehensively explain how nature functions.

The experimental physicist has to remember that they are CHANGING the natural state of every system they touch. Obviously, if Haramein's dynamic is correct, the black holes in the atoms are NOT evaporating away, as they are in a stable state.

Is there a similarity between nuclear radiation, and black hole radiation? A good question to ask...

A shortcoming of the foregoing analysis is the use of the mean field approximation. However, all calculations of particle emission utilize this approximation, and the microcanonical approach is clearly preferable to the thermodynamical approach in the semiclassical quantization processes described above. It is free of the inconsistencies present in the thermodynamical approach, and its predictions seem to be more physically reasonable, e.g. a finite black hole decay rate through out the life of the black hole. The use of a fixed energy basis for the Hilbert space of the theory 10 instead of the usual thermal state implies that black holes are particle states. In our interpretation of black holes as quantum objects the associated quantum degeneracy of states obtained from the inverse of the tunneling probability points to the identification of black holes with the excitation modes of p-branes. For a four-dimensional black hole the above picture leads to very small, undetectable, departures from the usual Hawking picture. However, if extra dimensions exist, and the fundamental scale of quantum gravity is as low as 1 TeV, microscopic black holes with a mass of a few TeV’s might be produced in modern accelerators. In this case the microcanonical description then becomes a necessary tool to describe their evaporation, and there is no need for the thermodynamical concept of entropy for microcscopic black holes. Microcanonical descriptionof (micro)blackholes

Remember, a microscopic black hole produced in an accelerator will have already demolished the stable functional atomic system. We are concerned with what the atom is actually like BEFORE we smash it in particle accelerators.

Originally posted by beebs
What does 885 million tons mean to me? To me that means that apparently some guy named Haramein has come up with that for the weight of a proton charge when it is next to a black hole.

proton charge?

My question about weight vs. mass is still up in the air... I'm pretty sure tons is weight like pounds, not mass like kg.

Since we live on Earth, non-physicists do tend to muddy the difference because, well, on the Earth's surface, there is some degree of equivalence. This is why we have odd units like kg or kilogram units for mass as you said, and kgf or kilogram force units for force, what you called weight.

Likewise in imperial there's the pound unit of force (or weight) versus the pound-mass unit of mass.

The difference between mass and weight becomes quite apparent say on the moon where astronauts had the same mass but a lower weight. But since most of us don't get to spend much time on the moon, we do have a tendency to use Earth's surface as a reference since that's where we live, but your point they are different is a valid one.

However even if you convert the force of 885 million tons at the Earth's surface to mass units so we can talk about mass specifically, it's still a pretty big mass, right? So that bug mass would exert a big gravitational force, right? You already said it would so I know you agree with that much.

So now you take another equal mass and place it next to that one, and instead of pulling on each other, you think their pulling forces cancel each other out somehow? What gives you the idea that would happen? Why would the forces cancel out, and why wouldn't both those large masses pull on each other?

I think of the Earth and the moon, they are pulling on each other. We can see the result of the larger Earth's pulling force in the orbit of the moon, and we can see the effect of the smaller moon's pulling force in the tides, so I'm not seeing these forces cancel each other out, but rather when there are two masses in proximity like the Earth and the moon, I see evidence that both of them are pulling on each other. If we put 2 smaller massive objects together wouldn't gravity affect them similarly so they both pull on each other?

Here's how I learned to calculate the force for non relativistic objects like a couple of bowling balls:

www.dboccio.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c626b53e21a.png[/atsimg]
Is this right? Do you agree with this? Does Haramein?

Is there another method of calculation that results in the cancellation of forces you refer to when you have more than one mass instead of just one?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So now you take another equal mass and place it next to that one, and instead of pulling on each other, you think their pulling forces cancel each other out somehow? What gives you the idea that would happen? Why would the forces cancel out, and why wouldn't both those large masses pull on each other?

Yes yes you are right through and through.

The problem we are having is that you think that once we accept Haramein's model somehow reality will change.

Their pulling forces will still act on each other in the same manner as they do now.

Their masses would be relative. Do you see what I mean?


ETA:

proton charge?

Well in this context I guess yeah, since protons are more like inertial force lines in a magnetized torus.

Originally posted by beebs
Obviously, if Haramein's dynamic is correct, the black holes in the atoms are NOT evaporating away, as they are in a stable state.

Is there a similarity between nuclear radiation, and black hole radiation? A good question to ask...

predictions seem to be more physically reasonable, e.g. a finite black hole decay rate through out the life of the black hole.

I'm not exactly following your train of thought here.

First, you say "Obviously, if Haramein's dynamic is correct, the black holes in the atoms are NOT evaporating away, as they are in a stable state." I follow you that far, because protons are stable.

Then you post an article about unstable micro black holes. Is there supposed to be some link between the instability described in that article, and the stability you referenced in Haramein's model?

Nuclear radiation and Hawking radiation do have one thing in common, we might observe changes in the mass of the entity emitting the radiation in either case (unless there's an external energy source stimulating the radiation), so both exhibit a degree of instability.

Again, how do either of these relate to the stability of the proton we observe which you pointed out? Sorry I'm just not following you at all with your referencing the stability of the proton compared to the instability of micro black holes and the instability of nuclear radiation. Thanks for explaining.

reply to post by Bobathon


Mass is an inherent property of matter or energy due to its inertia.

I posted a definition, and then asked you for further qualification as to what we shall call tons in this discussion.

Instead, you have posited that I am clueless and irrelevant.

How you can say such things in the face of the most obvious dynamic in nature is beyond me.

All we have to do is 'grow' you out of the current system. I was hoping you guys would understand where the future of physics is going to be, but you are too entrenched in your belief systems to provide any room for progress.

You guys see polarized(magnetic) vortexes and torus's as New Age crap, while clearly the most up to date theoretical physics is pointing in that direction.

I have repeatedly mentioned other resources to further your comprehension of this idea, and you deflect and ignore.

I am helpless against this.

For the record: Haramein's ideas MUST be viewed in a proper context, and not as a 'crazy lone gunman'. Since this context is outside of normal science and has been suppressed, you will not be familiar with it and it will sound alien to you.

Tesla, Keely and Pond, Searl, Kepler and Fludd - alchemy in general, Podkletnov, Reich, Pauli and Jung, etc. etc.

Modern experimental physics has not taken these people's work and ideas into consideration to the extent that it should have.

Originally posted by beebs
Their masses would be relative. Do you see what I mean?

No, I don't see what you mean about the relative part. Please elaborate...relative to what?

In the bowling ball example I gave, and in a simplified proton model the masses of the 2 attracting objects relative to each other are equal, because they have the same mass, right?

So, if I have one proton, it's exhibiting an enormous gravitational force. I think you are in agreement up to this point that this is what Haramein's model suggests.

Now we add a 2nd proton. It will also be exhibiting an enormous gravitational force, right?

Relative to each other, the masses are equal, and therefore so are the gravitational forces. If we substitute protons for the bowling balls in the math example, there's nothing else to compare what it's relative to in the 2 body example, all we have is the two bodies.

In the case of the 2 bowling balls we do the math without worrying about what else the balls are relative to like smaller marbles or larger stars.

In the case of the 2 protons we can do the math in a similar fashion right?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Instability in the paper is referring to black holes created experimentally in accelerators - not natural.

Schwarzschild protons would be naturally stable because normal protons are stable.

Originally posted by beebs
Instability in the paper is referring to black holes created experimentally in accelerators - not natural.

Schwarzschild protons would be naturally stable because normal protons are stable.

OK in that case, if you are saying that experimentally produced micro black holes are unstable, and that paper you quoted stated an alternate method of determining the instability, exactly why did you cite that paper?

I guess I missed the point?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Okay, but we do not just have 2. We have a whole system - this is the main difference between classical reductionism and quantum interdependence and complementarity.

I know for the simple maths, it is nice to isolate the situation.

That is not real, however.

What I am saying, is that if every proton has an inherent mass of 1 unit, that unit could be 1.7e-27 kg or it could be 1.7e27 kg. (Currently, we see it as 1.7e-27 kg)

How are we supposed to tell the difference, when one would appear the same as the other? (or would they)

In other words, how do we prove that 1.7e-27 kg is inherently 1.7e-27 kg, and it is not just another instance of our human arbitrariness applied to nature?

Since everything is based around these fundamental assumptions, it is really quite a paradox.

How do we tell?

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Instability in the paper is referring to black holes created experimentally in accelerators - not natural.

Schwarzschild protons would be naturally stable because normal protons are stable.

You didn't answer any of my questions from the previous page, and anyhow I don trust that I will really get any good answers.

Here is an old paper on electron-proton scattering. It's almost 40 years old, and even then there were observations and arguments for internal structure of the proton and various estimates of same. You can't measure internal structure of the black hole by definition.

And guess what, protons are routinely created in accelerators (but you didn't know that). And there is no difference between those and the protons which make up a significant part of your brain.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Thats my bad, I had not read your and binomials post well enough. I thought you were saying micro-black holes were not plausible.

You are correct in your confusion.

There is still a distinction to be maintained, however, between unstable micro black holes created in an accelerator, and Haramein's idea of a supposedly black hole proton, which would have to be stable because it is the same proton as we have now.

reply to post by buddhasystem


You were asking me about specific particle physics which is your expertise. Is it not?

I know you have done experiments, taken observations, etc.

They are valid. I am not debating these things, such as whether a proton has internal structure.

These are not up for debate.

But how to interpret the observations IS up for debate.. Which is why I described my presuppositions, and how you are apparently interpreting the observations.

Opposite ends of the spectrum.

reply to post by buddhasystem

You can't measure internal structure of the black hole by definition.

And guess what, protons are routinely created in accelerators (but you didn't know that). And there is no difference between those and the protons which make up a significant part of your brain

Says who, you?

What if HR shows the internal structure?

This kind of over determinism is not scientific. We do not yet know whether there is internal structure, or if we can measure it.

Oh really?! Protons are created in accelerators? Come on down off your high horse...

But there is a difference between protons in particle accelerators, and protons in our brain.

There isn't for you, because you believe in such a thing as isolation and reductionism.

But for me, I believe in interdependence and complementarity, and the Gestalt idea that the functional whole is more than the parts combined.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Okay, but we do not just have 2. We have a whole system - this is the main difference between classical reductionism and quantum interdependence and complementarity.

I know for the simple maths, it is nice to isolate the situation.

That is not real, however.

I agree with this in principle and in reality that is why calculating a trip to the moon isn't reducible to 2 body system. There are at least 4 major bodies involved in the calculation, the spacecraft, the earth, the moon, and the sun. All 3 bodies (besides the spacecraft) are massive enough and close enough to have significant effects on the spacecraft trajectory. So this supports your argument that this example of a real world event cannot be reduced to something as simple as a 2 body system.

Now similarly, if you prefer to evaluate the attractive forces present in a helium-4 nucleus, then feel free to explain it in that context. We don't have to be reductionist and simplify it if you don't want to. But if you want to evaluate a real molecule then please explain how you calculate the forces between protons in the Helium nucleus in the context of Haramein's model.

What I am saying, is that if every proton has an inherent mass of 1 unit, that unit could be 1.7e-27 kg or it could be 1.7e27 kg. (Currently, we see it as 1.7e-27 kg)

How are we supposed to tell the difference, when one would appear the same as the other? (or would they)

This relates to the question bobathon asked you.

Originally posted by Bobathon
So... mass. Beebs, you used the word. What does it mean?

What is your definition of mass? How do you measure it? Once you define it, in a mathematical formula, the way physicists do, and then apply measurements using specific units, it's not such a matter of debate as repeatable experiments confirm consistent results.

If you have some other formula or method of determining mass (or if Haramein does) then that method would need to be explained so we can evaluate it. So to repeat Bobaton's question, how do you define mass?

Originally posted by beebs
What if HR shows the internal structure?

I'm talking about processes that have nothing to do with Hawking, it's scattering of electrons and protons off other protons.

Oh really?! Protons are created in accelerators? Come on down off your high horse...

So I was right and you don't know basic physics facts. No surprise here.

But there is a difference between protons in particle accelerators, and protons in our brain.

What is the difference?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Well I have repeated that twice now, or at least the generally accepted way to define mass.

m=f/a

But then what is force? It is defined in part by mass (which is defined in part by force (which is defined in part by mass (which is defined in part by force (which is defined in part by mass etc. ))))

They cannot be isolated, because they are interdependent and complimentary. Force cannot exist without mass, mass cannot exist without force.

Weight is gravitational force on mass.

Is all of that correct?