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

page: 28
33
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Now Mary, you claim to be a researcher, but have you read Bobathon's blog? If you're really a good researcher and you want to look at both sides it's a good source to read.


Is this a lecture from you?

I can take care of my own research needs quite adequately, thanks.




posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

"At the center of electricity is magnetism" -- bull


someone needs to do some researching...haha



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal

Originally posted by buddhasystem

"At the center of electricity is magnetism" -- bull


someone needs to do some researching...haha

Yup...haha
And it ain't buddhasystem...haha

Here's the difference as I see it:
buddhasystem done Jackson on electrodynamics.
metalshredmetal done jacksheet on electrodynamics.


Sorry to descend into facetiousness, but I've stopped hoping metalshredmetal will say anything sensible now, so what the hell. May as well enjoy the futility of it all.
...haha



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
mmm, you do know that modern physicists know that "classical" mechanics is pretty incorrect when it comes to things like quantum electrodynamics right? do you know that the only way to observe the origin of electricity is with a quantum approach? you may be able to observe the behavior of electricity with classical mechanics, but you will never be able to observe the origin of electricity or the MAGNETIC properties that go along with it, without quantum mechanics. this is very beginner stuff for a quantum mechanics subject, the entire subject of quantum electrodynamics is based on the similarities and interactions between electricity and magnetism.

so, how is electricity not a function of magnetism?
edit on 1/31/11 by metalshredmetal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
but you will never be able to observe the origin of electricity or the MAGNETIC properties that go along with it, without quantum mechanics.


Maxwell's equations do not contain any notion of quanta, but they do describe a plethora of phenomena with outstanding precision, both the electric and magnetic components of the field. Your statement is wrong.


the entire subject of quantum electrodynamics is based on the similarities and interactions between electricity and magnetism.


You have no idea what quantum electrodynamics is.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
mmm, you do know that modern physicists know that "classical" mechanics is pretty incorrect when it comes to things like quantum electrodynamics right?
Of course. But QED is not understandable without a thorough grasp of classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics. I hope you're not going to pretend that you understand QED.


do you know that the only way to observe the origin of electricity is with a quantum approach?
Several ways in which electricity originate were discovered centuries before any quantum approach, so that's silly. Unless you mean "origin" in some unusual sense, in which case would you please define it.


the entire subject of quantum electrodynamics is based on the similarities and interactions between electricity and magnetism.

so, how is electricity not a function of magnetism?
They're part of a unified electromagnetic theory. That doesn't mean that if you look "at the center of electricity" you'll find "magnetism".

A good perspective shows head and tail to be two sides of the same coin. But that's different to saying that if you look at the centre of a head, you'll find a tail. That would be a funny thing to say.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Is this a lecture from you?

I can take care of my own research needs quite adequately, thanks.
So, a question and a suggestion on a potentially good source for your research is a lecture? This reminded me of your other post on research:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
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.
So, isn't part of doing research to make a determination which theories seem more likely to be correct?

You have some good physics knowledge in this thread already. But if you want the opinion of another physicist, here are some posts from physicsforums:
www.physicsforums.com...
www.physicsforums.com...
www.physicsforums.com...
www.physicsforums.com...

I don't have permission to repost the text here, so I just posted the links, but the physicist comments there don't differ much from here except that maybe they are a little more blunt. And I expect if you got 100 more physicists to opine, you'd get 100 more of the same comments. But why am I doubtful you'd be any more persuaded with 100 more opinions?


Additionally, math isn't everything.
I agree, it doesn't help much when reading Shakespeare, or with plenty of other activities, but we can't understand and communicate much physics accurately without it.


I can read. And I can think. And I have an intuition.
Intuition can actually be a handicap when it comes to some aspects of physics which are non-intuitive. Even wave-particle duality is non-intuitive. How can something be both a wave and a particle? It's not intuitive. So another suggestion is to rely on your intuition for some things where it will serve you well, but don't rely on it too much where subatomic or quantum physics is concerned where it won't serve you well.

Even I need a lecture on this once in a while, because sometimes I don't like the fact that some physics isn't as intuitive as I'd like it to be. And here's the lecture I listen to to try to convince me to ignore my intuition and accept reality:

You don't like it? Go somewhere else! by Richard Feynman


"If you don't like it, go somewhere else...to another universe, where the rules are simpler"

Of course physically I'm kind of stuck in this universe, so I try to accept it.

But I actually see some people doing what Feynman suggests, they don't like it and they go somewhere else, mentally, if not physically, to another universe: one that makes more sense to them, one that satisfies some needs they have, and their intuition. I'm tempted to do this myself sometimes, so it's something we all have to deal with. But going mentally to another universe that disagrees with observation doesn't change the nature of the real universe we're in physically.

If you find out how to get to one of those parallel universes where the rules are simpler and more intuitive, let me know, I may want to go there too!



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
I so love that clip



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
And I can't help feeling that his expression at 0:09 sums up Mary's attitude very well. She occasionally opens up and explores which is really nice, but mostly... 0.09. It's a shame, I think.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
And I can't help feeling that his expression at 0:09 sums up Mary's attitude very well. She occasionally opens up and explores which is really nice, but mostly... 0.09.
It's not just Mary. Sometimes I don't want to accept it either, especially when it doesn't match my intuition. It's hard to disconnect intuition.

But until I can figure out how to get to the other place he's talking about where the rules are more pleasing to my intuition, I don't know what else to do but accept what our observations tell us, even if it's counter-intuitive.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Some of the things from my notes of AlienScientist's video I like to ponder:

  • The mass of the entire universe exists within the mass of every proton.
  • There is entanglement of all protons.
  • Think of every proton as connected to every other proton in the universe.
  • The strong force is actually quantum gravity at work.
  • The entire mass of the universe is inside every single atom.





posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Right there at 0:37 there is already a blatant lie. Haramein does not predict measured values for the nucleons. For example, he can't correctly predict the scattering cross section in ANY energy range. I would also like to hear how he views beta decay of the neutron into a proton, electron and an anti-neutrino. Scratch that, I don't want to hear any more bullcr@p, because he doesn't have the answer to this anyhow.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Right there at 0:37 there is already a blatant lie. Haramein does not predict measured values for the nucleons. For example, he can't correctly predict the scattering cross section in ANY energy range. I would also like to hear how he views beta decay of the neutron into a proton, electron and an anti-neutrino.


Maybe some relevant info or a clue to relevant info is in this passage of "The Schwarzschild Proton"
[typed manually because it could not be copied and pasted]:



Falla and Landsburg, [^15] based on previous work of Bahcall and Frautschi, [^16] calculated the minimum fundamental size and mass of a system collapsing during black hole formation. Bahcall and Frautschi utilized the strong force interaction time of 10^-23 seconds and established a minimum "hadron barrier" limit to black hole size of 10^-13 cm with a mass of 10^15 gm. Falla and Landsburg derived an alternative approach to the minimum mass problem. By utilizing Balbinot and Barletta, [^17] (who considered a back reaction from Hawking radiation in the spacetime background bringing the evaporation process to an end) Falla and Landsburg, based on the black-hole surface gravitational acceleration, calculated a mass for a minimum black hole of 7x10^13 gm. Both results fall very close to our nucleon at 8.85x10^14 gm for one Fermi and may provide a mechanism for the stability of the Schwarzschild proton entity interacting with the vacuum and a possible creation process.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
To metalshredmetal: You have a lot of things mixed up, you claim that at the center of electricity you find magnetism, and that electricity is a function of magnetism, when in fact classically magnetism is a function of electricity (


A magnetic field is a field of force produced by moving electric charges, by electric fields that vary in time, and by the 'intrinsic' magnetic field of elementary particles associated with the spin of the particle.
)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


The paper of Bahcall et al, plainly contradicts Haramein's assumption that he can still use the formula for the Schwarzschild radius. They talk about high hadron densities as being capable of modifying energy density conditions such as classical GR is no longer applicable. Our friend Nassim isn't literate in physics enough to read the equations in the paper he quotes.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Some of the things from my notes of AlienScientist's video I like to ponder:

  • The entire mass of the universe is inside every single atom.
How can a part of something contain the entire mass of a larger whole of which it's only a part?

This is like saying my car weighs 2000 pounds and each tire weighs 50 pounds. But the entire weight of the car is in each tire. So each tire weighs 2000 pounds. but the car has 4 of them so 4x2000 is 8000 pounds.

Wait a minute, my car weighs 2000 pounds, how can it also weigh 8000 pounds, which is it? And how much does the tire weigh?

The same example can be used for atoms in the universe but I chose the car example because we don't relate that well to atomic masses.

Isn't it extremely obvious this concept is a non-starter? Why would he even say that, and why would you even ponder it for a nanosecond when it doesn't even make any sense?



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arbitrageur, your car analogy is ridiculous, and has nothing to do whatsoever with the idea that there is A Universe in a Single Atom.

Haramein's idea obviously hinges upon this philosophical presupposition (remember those?) that the universe is just an infinite scale of self-similar 'dots'.

Fractals are a very important concept for any further discussion about Haramein's ideas. Whether he is a genius or a fraud, you must recognize his theory in proper context - which would mean understanding philosophical positions of his (and others). These presuppositions might be different than your own.

Fractals reconcile finite and infinite systems, and also reconcile the classical 'problem' of the cut between the subject and the object.

---

The paper being discussed in this thread is a great resource also for philosophy of science, in addition to all of the other context I have recommended in previous posts. Similar ideas are discussed by Karakostas.
edit on 5-2-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Fractals are a very important concept for any further discussion about Haramein's ideas.


That is entirely irrelevant with regards to Arb's critique and various other deficiencies in Haramein's reasoning!

Yes we may be living in a Universe which is nested in another Universe which is quadrillion times heavier than our. And/or, every quark can be a Universe onto itself. That's beside the point altogether though, because Haramein tries (in vain, I must add) to describe OUR Universe with its very real protons possessing very real properties -- which poor Nassim can't get right.

It's like you want to get some money from your bank account but discover it's somehow empty. You speak to the teller and they tell you that's due to fractal nature of money. Bullcr@p.



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



That is entirely irrelevant with regards to Arb's critique and various other deficiencies in Haramein's reasoning!


No it isn't. Haramein's reasoning is clearly described by himself in his long talks. His particular angle on the problem stems from his philosophical presuppositions. Now, I will concede that Rauscher's math is probably wrong in the specific sense of the mass of his proton. However, it is hardly surprising that he got such a high mass for such a small particle - given that he has estimated the amount of ZPE within the radius which perhaps fulfills the SC for the BH - and furthermore that that discrete system is rotating at the speed of light (in his model).


Yes we may be living in a Universe which is nested in another Universe which is quadrillion times heavier than our. And/or, every quark can be a Universe onto itself. That's beside the point altogether though, because Haramein tries (in vain, I must add) to describe OUR Universe with its very real protons possessing very real properties -- which poor Nassim can't get right.


Poor Nassim. You are clearly not understanding correctly the implications of a fractal system. Remember Haramein's dots? I don't care anymore whether Rauscher's math is correct at predicting the observable mass of the proton. Do you know why I don't care?


It's like you want to get some money from your bank account but discover it's somehow empty. You speak to the teller and they tell you that's due to fractal nature of money. Bullcr@p.


Its because you say ridiculous things like that. Money, out of all the examples you could have made, is the least natural thing in this world. But I do suspect there are fractal elements in the banking system, you just haven't recognized them in a correct analogy.

I don't care about your 'expert' opinion anymore because you don't(or won't) understand any other concepts or presuppositions which could make this discussion fruitful. You have stuck your head in the sand to prove there is one grain there, while you neglect to see the beach, and the ocean, and the whole interconnected web of nature which exists functionally outside of experimental probing. This probing hinges on the classical presupposition that there is an achievable isolation and a cut between the subject and the object.

This separation is an illusion.





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join