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

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

Jackson used Gaussian. I hated it.

Natural units rule.

In fact Haramein should've used Planck units. If he had, his paper would have looked even sillier than it already does: he's replacing the mass of the proton with its reciprocal (divided by pi).

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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?

The diproton doesn't exist in nature, because in this simplest configuration of two protons, the electrostatic force pushing them apart is stronger than the strong force pulling them together.

Where it fits in: from Haramein's paper, in his equation (14) he gives the electrostatic force (or Coulomb repulsion) as 3.3 x 10^6 dynes, and his postulated alternative to the strong force as 7.49x10^47 dynes.

As you can see, if you understand these numbers, his alternative to the strong force pulling them together is 227,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger than the electrostatic force pushing them apart.

You see the problem?

Originally posted by Bobathon
Where it fits in: from Haramein's paper, in his equation (14) he gives the electrostatic force (or Coulomb repulsion) as 3.3 x 10^6 dynes, and his postulated alternative to the strong force as 7.49x10^47 dynes.

So, in essence, you're saying that the strong force of Haramein's paper is the same as the strong force of a diproton, which is hypothetical and doesn't exist in nature?

And in essence, you're saying that the strong force in the standard model is not as Haramein represents it in his paper?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Bobathon
Where it fits in: from Haramein's paper, in his equation (14) he gives the electrostatic force (or Coulomb repulsion) as 3.3 x 10^6 dynes, and his postulated alternative to the strong force as 7.49x10^47 dynes.

So, in essence, you're saying that the strong force of Haramein's paper is the same as the strong force of a diproton, which is hypothetical and doesn't exist in nature?

And in essence, you're saying that the strong force in the standard model is not as Haramein represents it in his paper?

No, that's not what I was saying.

I'm saying that the strong force of Haramein's paper is 227,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger than it would need to be to hold a diproton together. But diprotons don't hold together. Therefore the strong force of Haramein's paper is wrong.

Not only wrong, but wrong to such a fantastical degree that the numbers describing how wrong it is take up nearly a whole line of text.

Originally posted by Bobathon
Therefore the strong force of Haramein's paper is wrong.

To be clear, "the strong force" in the above is Haramein's postulate for a replacement for the strong force of the standard model, and you're basing this, at least in part, on the information you provided about the Diproton?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Bobathon
Therefore the strong force of Haramein's paper is wrong.

To be clear, "the strong force" in the above is Haramein's postulate for a replacement for the strong force of the standard model, and you're basing this, at least in part, on the information you provided about the Diproton?

Yes. I was using the expression you used.

The diproton isn't something invented by the Standard Model, it's a clear, unambiguous observational fact that they do not exist because they do not hold together.

I've used the diproton as an example of how ridiculous it is, because it's the simplest example. Haramein's paper is about the forces between two protons. A diproton is two protons. If you want to know what two protons do in the real world, that's what you'd look at.

I can't think of an example that's more simple, clear and directly relevant.

Originally posted by Bobathon
The diproton isn't something invented by the Standard Model, it's a clear, unambiguous observational fact that they do not exist because they do not hold together.

So because the diproton doesn't exist, two Schwarzschild protons don't exist?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Bobathon
The diproton isn't something invented by the Standard Model, it's a clear, unambiguous observational fact that they do not exist because they do not hold together.

So because the diproton doesn't exist, two Schwarzschild protons don't exist?

No they don't.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Bobathon
The diproton isn't something invented by the Standard Model, it's a clear, unambiguous observational fact that they do not exist because they do not hold together.

So because the diproton doesn't exist, two Schwarzschild protons don't exist?

The list of observational evidence which contradicts the Schwarzschild proton is long, that's just one item on the list.

But if Haramein was right about the attractive force between two protons, they should be so attracted to each other we wouldn't be able to keep them apart and diprotons or the He2 isotope would be plentiful instead of nonexistent.

In this post, I asked about the issue that a source for the strong force is not specified in the standard model.

The response I got, was "I don't know what a source for the strong force actually means, to be honest. What does a 'source' mean?"

I see a fundamentally different approach illustrated here. My interest in Haramein's work relates to his quest to understand the origin of things, and the criticism that has come from other members seems to relate to not even relating to the question from the get-go. Like it's not important.

If you're not interested in the origin of mass, you're not going to be interested in a theory that derives mass from vacuum energies (as well as unifying gravity to the quantum world).

Different people have different perspectives.

People who have researched suppressed technologies know that the universe that Haramein describes is true: The vacuum is full of energy. Space is not empty; it's full.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In this post, I asked about the issue that a source for the strong force is not specified in the standard model.

The response I got, was "I don't know what a source for the strong force actually means, to be honest. What does a 'source' mean?"

So one person tells you they don't know the source for the strong force but can make good predictions with their model, in spite of not knowing the source.

Another person tells you they do know the source of the strong force, but they can't make good predictions with their model which contradicts observational evidence.

How do you choose which to believe? If a model contradicts observational evidence, I don't see how we can not reject it? That doesn't mean the other model which fits observational evidence is perfect, it may just be the best model we have for now.

And by the way, even if gravity was the source for the strong nuclear force, then if you ask what is the source for gravity, are you any better off than when you didn't know the source of the strong nuclear force?

Can anyone really explain why gravity emanates from massive bodies? I can't. I can make all kinds of observations, and calculations, and talk about it warping space-time, etc. but I don't fully understand the "source".

So gravity not only doesn't explain observations as the strong nuclear force, but we don't really understand the source of gravity either, so you're still stuck with "I don't know what a source for the strong force actually means, to be honest. What does a 'source' mean?" even if you say substitute "gravity" for strong nuclear force. And then you're saddled with a wrong theory which doesn't match observation, on top of the "I don't know" answer.

reply to post by Mary Rose
To put it more simply:

I can't say with 100% confidence which model is right. Science is by definition falsifiable and more observations could be made in the future which will refine or change the models we have today.

But I CAN say with confidence which models are wrong: The models that don't match observation and evidence.

That's the key to science and to reject that concept is to reject science.

Originally posted by Bobathon

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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?

The diproton doesn't exist in nature, because in this simplest configuration of two protons, the electrostatic force pushing them apart is stronger than the strong force pulling them together.

Where it fits in: from Haramein's paper, in his equation (14) he gives the electrostatic force (or Coulomb repulsion) as 3.3 x 10^6 dynes, and his postulated alternative to the strong force as 7.49x10^47 dynes.

As you can see, if you understand these numbers, his alternative to the strong force pulling them together is 227,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger than the electrostatic force pushing them apart.

You see the problem?

This is incorrect. The diproton is unstable not because the Coulomb force is stronger than the strong force (it is not) but because the magnitude of the strong force between two nucleons depends on the direction of their spins, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle requires the two protons to have anti-parallel spins, for which spin state the spin-spin interaction results in a strong force that is too weak to bind the two protons together.

reply to post by micpsi
Bobathon's point was that the strong nuclear force is not nearly as strong as Haramein's model shows it to be and by saying it is not that strong, it sounds like you are agreeing with bobathon on that point.

We are still trying to agree on the definition of a kilogram here so the Pauli exclusion principle is a little advanced for this group but you have a point. However your point doesn't support Haramein's theory.

Originally posted by micpsi

This is incorrect. The diproton is unstable not because the Coulomb force is stronger than the strong force (it is not) but because the magnitude of the strong force between two nucleons depends on the direction of their spins, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle requires the two protons to have anti-parallel spins, for which spin state the spin-spin interaction results in a strong force that is too weak to bind the two protons together.

It's not incorrect. There are two forces at work here: the Coulomb is one. It doesn't matter one iota what is going on in detail - the fact is the attractive force present between two protons is not able to overcome the Coulomb replusion.

The Pauli exclusion principle is an aspect of the quantum theory that is generally used to describe these interactions. It's not something that sits outside of them and decrees what can and can't happen - it's integral to them as quantum interactions.

If the strong force was just a tiny amount stronger, it would be capable of binding two protons. I already made this point earlier by giving the example of Helium-3, in which two protons (with anti-parallel spins) and one neutron are bound by the strong force.

Besides, Haramein doesn't believe in quantum theory, so it'd be silly if anyone used that in support of his ideas.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In this post, I asked about the issue that a source for the strong force is not specified in the standard model.

The response I got, was "I don't know what a source for the strong force actually means, to be honest. What does a 'source' mean?"

I see a fundamentally different approach illustrated here. My interest in Haramein's work relates to his quest to understand the origin of things, and the criticism that has come from other members seems to relate to not even relating to the question from the get-go. Like it's not important.

If you're not interested in the origin of mass, you're not going to be interested in a theory that derives mass from vacuum energies (as well as unifying gravity to the quantum world).

Different people have different perspectives.

Mary, that's not what's going on.
For some questions the only appropriate response is to attempt to clarify and examine the question carefully.

For example: if I asked someone "what's further North than the North Pole", you'd understand if their response is to step back and encourage me to look at the question more deeply, and discuss the meaning of North. It's not a matter of not relating to the question. Some questions objectively don't mean anything unless they're examined in more detail.

In this post, in answer to this very question from you, I gave one suggestion as to what one might mean by a "source for the strong force."

You can't accuse me of not dealing with your questions head on, Mary.

If you believe you have a "different perspective" on the meaning of the expression "source for the strong force" that you'd like to explore in this thread, I'll gladly participate in that discussion, but you'll have to say precisely what you mean by it.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
If you're not interested in the origin of mass, you're not going to be interested in a theory that derives mass from vacuum energies (as well as unifying gravity to the quantum world).

Three very basic points:
1. Of course I'm interested in the origin of mass.
2. Haramein's theory does not derive mass from vacuum energies.
3. Haramein's theory does not unify gravity to the quantum world.
These are utterly absurd claims for what Haramein has done.

Originally posted by micpsi
This is incorrect. The diproton is unstable not because the Coulomb force is stronger than the strong force (it is not) but because the magnitude of the strong force between two nucleons depends on the direction of their spins, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle requires the two protons to have anti-parallel spins, for which spin state the spin-spin interaction results in a strong force that is too weak to bind the two protons together.

Do you have a source, a reference or a calculation that would support the latter point? I think it's incorrect. Protons with anti-parallel spins still experience attraction by the strong interaction, if memory serves me well. Consider deutron, the sister particle.

Besides, what's "too weak"? Compared to Coulomb? Yes, repulsion at this range is a potent force. I mean look, your statement contains a gap in logic.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Consider the dineutron which also has problems binding because of the Pauli Exclusion Principle:

Dineutron

CERN Ask an Expert Service responded : "The deuteron (one proton plus one neutron) has angular momentum (spin) of one unit. The proton and neutron are in a state of zero orbital angular momentum with their spins (of 1/2) aligned. If we replaced the proton by another neutron, we would have two identical fermions (neutrons) in exactly the same state. This is not allowed by the 'Pauli exclusion principle'." > Question: Since proton and neutron form stable deuteron, Why dont 2 > neutrons bind with the strong nuclear force ?

Did one of your cohorts write that?