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

reply to post by buddhasystem


No.

I hate the math, by the way.

But I'm absolutely blown away by trying to imagine how the universe works - trying to picture it in my mind's eye.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

No.
I hate the math, by the way.
But I'm absolutely blown away by trying to imagine how the universe works - trying to picture it in my mind's eye.

Mary, then I really don't see how you can judge Haramein's "postulates", or any sort of "theories" and "proclamations". If Haramein draws a few pretty triangles for you and says "I found the way the Universe works", I'm sorry that's cheap thrills.

Would you argue that a particular technique in neurosurgery is better than the other? Would you start a thread on that? Oh wait, would you support an article published in a Long Island newspaper, where the author says that neurosurgeons became an indoctrinated, ossified bunch, and the best way to conduct neurosurgery is actually with a sledgehammer and a cheasel, and occasionally a power drill from Home Depot?

reply to post by buddhasystem


I'm not planning on judging them.

I'm researching them.

And, I'm hoping that some additional members with physics expertise will join this thread.

Additionally, math isn't everything.

I can read. And I can think. And I have an intuition.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I'm not planning on judging them.

I'm researching them.

And, I'm hoping that some additional members with physics expertise will join this thread.

Additionally, math isn't everything.

I can read. And I can think. And I have an intuition.

After reading the entire thread I think the real question here is do you understand what he is saying?
You've said you don't know the physics and you don't know the math.
Without that understanding how can you tell if he is right or wrong?

reply to post by Pauligirl


By continuing to research and learn. Follow the questions and answers to get more leads to more questions and answers.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Just to correct you here: Haramein postulates a force that is more than 77* orders of magnitude stronger than their mutual gravitational attraction (see my point (b) above). This is one of the most obvious errors in his theory.

*The value that his theory gives (which he explicitly gives in his paper) is 7.49 x 10^47 dynes. The value of the gravitational attraction between two real protons is given by F=Gmm/r^2, and comes out at 2.68 x 10^-30 dynes using the separation Haramein suggests. The ratio is 77.4 orders of magnitude.

I found the 7.49 x 10^47 dynes in his paper.

He doesn't talk about the value of the gravitational attraction between two real protons, does he?

I'm watching a video of an interview of a different scientist right now - and I've come across this before in stuff I've read or shows I've listened to - and from what I can gather, scientists do not understand gravity.

If scientists do not understand gravity, I say the "standard model" is a misnomer.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Pauligirl

 

By continuing to research and learn. Follow the questions and answers to get more leads to more questions and answers.

Seriously, without being able to UNDERSTAND the papers in question, your claim of "research" rings painfully hollow.

reply to post by buddhasystem


It's a work in progress.

What difference does it make to you?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
And, I'm hoping that some additional members with physics expertise will join this thread.

Arb and Bob are two bright fellows who have already showered you with plethora of insight, and who in my professional opinion have enough expertise to be arbiters. Not sure why you elected to eschew this valuable source of advice.

Additionally, math isn't everything.

Agreed, but as physics theory goes, it must be in place to begin with. If somebody makes a claim that they found an inconsistency in the translation of an ancient Chinese poem, they better be fluent in that dialect they are talking about. And you are not.

I can read. And I can think. And I have an intuition.

This isn't enough. Physicists are the people who send people to the Moon, or drop bombs on Hiroshima, or cure cancer by means of radiation, or provide you with the miracle known as the computer. We just do a lot of tremendously interesting stuff. And reading skills are somewhere on the bottom of the skill stack.

reply to post by buddhasystem


What are you trying to accomplish on this thread?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

What are you trying to accomplish on this thread?

Mary, what does this missive have to do with the thread of discussion you and I have been having in the past hour?

reply to post by buddhasystem


It has to do with thread posts being understood for what they really are.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I found the 7.49 x 10^47 dynes in his paper.

He doesn't talk about the value of the gravitational attraction between two real protons, does he?

He sort of does. You can piece it together from bits of stuff in there:

In the abstract he says

gravitation is thought to be ~10^-38 to 10^-40 weaker than the strong force.

When he says thought to be, he's referring to real protons, rather than his Schwarzschild ones.

Later, in his equation (14), he gives the Coulomb repulsion of two protons as

F = 33N or 3.3x10^6 dynes

We know that the Coulomb repulsion and the strong force are quite similar between two protons. The reason we know this is because two protons will not quite bind together (the coulomb repulsion wins), but two protons and one neutron will bind together to make Helium-3 (the strong force wins).

If you put these three things together, you could get a very rough gravitational attraction between real protons of 10^-34 to 10^-32 dynes, just from what's in his paper. That value is in fact 79 to 81 orders of magnitude lower than his stupidly big force of 7.49x10^47 dynes.

I'll stick with the 77.4 I gave earlier - that was a proper calculation using real physics. But it's interesting that even Haramein's own paper can be used to show how stupidly big his result is.

Don't know if you followed any of that. I hope so.

By the way, I hate using dynes. Gaussian units should have gone extinct in the 1960s.

buddhasystem, when did folks in your line of work last use dynes?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

It has to do with thread posts being understood for what they really are.

Ah, so I was not clear enough in my post where I made a reference to the Chinese poetry?

reply to post by Bobathon


Bob, I will go an a limb here but I will say that Mary didn't do a single freshman level problem in physics. Ergo, Matthew (7:6).

reply to post by buddhasystem


You haven't been reading all the posts, have you?

reply to post by buddhasystem
Fair enough. But she asked a straight question, and I answered it honestly and patiently, and I'm still idealistic enough to think that could be a positive thing to do.

If she doesn't understand it and doesn't want to take me at my word, she always has the option of asking someone who can understand it and who she trusts.

Who knows.

Originally posted by Bobathon
buddhasystem, when did folks in your line of work last use dynes?

I don't recall dynes. We did those as a demonstration of principle a couple of times.

By the time your brain starts melting down, you know you are probably using natural units

In mechanics, I did the most in metric units, actually. I forget what Jackson used in his book, it's been a while.

Originally posted by Bobathon
. . . in reality the strong force is not powerful enough to overcome the electrostatic force between two protons.

Please explain the significance of the above as it fits in to the argument about the comparison of the mass of the two types of proton and your alleged Haramein math errors in general.

What, if anything, are you saying about the strong force of the standard model?

Why did you link to the Wikipedia article on "Diproton," which the article says is a hypothetical type of helium nucleus consisting of two protons and no neutrons?