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

reply to post by Bobathon


If Haramein is really going to evolve along the lines of a quantum wave theory then as you say it is going to take a lot of "paradigm shifting". One such paradigm shift that might help is conceptualizing quantum waves as a superposition.

I can remember reading in "The Tau of Physics" back in the 70's about Bell's Theorem and the "Many worlds" implication that every observation might cause the creation of a different universe. It doesn't make much sense unless you resolve the problem by understanding that kind of multiverse as a superposition.

Lots of examples of interpretation as a superposition. I remember back in elementary school trying to do a book report on "through the looking glass and what Alice found there" by Lewis Carol. So many possible interpretations that unless you share the same reasoning as the teacher who is going to grade the report, your interpretation may sound like nonsense. No one agrees on what the chess board symbolizes. The Beatles sang about the mysterious train and god forbid we talk about the Walrus and the Carpenter in Parochial school etc.

The same kind of things happen here on the ATS threads. You may have a single thread with 10 participants that appears to read differently for each contributor. Reading back through the posting historys each observation you make about a former post may change the meaning of their current post or even the entire thread. That may be why the ATS policy requires a period of participation before building threads of your own.

Maybe it is similar to the stabilization process of the Milsat atomic clocks?

74.6.238.254...://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=newly+turned-on+Rb+atom ic+clock&d=4602542941671659&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=e0740ed8,d525a27f&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=ZnZ.fZgHeSy67ydHs.npRw--

After a similar stabilization process here on ATS I saw thread authors having separate conversations with three or more correspondents each reading from a different paradigm. If you were to capture the text that was actually being read differently at each of the three readers monitors it would Grep the same! So there is another example of superposition where a shared environment can yield markedly different results depending on the readers subjective state.

An image springs to mind of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Maybe the possibility matrix is similar, where a one to many relationship lets you decide which "child holds the rose".

www.renaissance-spell.com...


Then of course there is the even simpler example of the invention of the printing press causing the earth to become a sphere and travel around the sun. Before the "cut and paste" proof that books provided many farmers might simply look out over their pond and say its flat so the rest of the Earth must be flat else somebody on the edge might fall off. Of course to a sea mariner that used moon cycles to keep track of dates, the curved shadow of the Earth on the moon appearing opposite the setting sun would have been a dead give away even thousands of years earlier but who needed to argue. The mathematics that calculated planetary position for navigational purposes worked fine even with a flat earth as long as the planets reversed their motions periodically in epicycles.

So before the advent of the printing press in the mid 1400's the shape of the entire planet along with its motion around the sun was a superposition with some people believing the Earth was flat and others who needed to know believing it was round. A similar situation is occurring today with quantum mechanics, its currently need to know and most people don't.

Originally posted by Violater1
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)

Lol. That's a nice one.
Satan's name and appearance will turn anybody's stomach.
But satan has the ability to deceive the unwary using any means, even circular math.
Why would any physicist stop by to peer review a paper that claims the mass of s proton to
be 885 million tons. How absurd can one get?

Why would any physicist stop by to peer review a paper that claims the mass of s proton to
be 885 million tons. How absurd can one get?

How absurd to believe that slpitting an atom could release enough energy to destroy the earth!.

Nicola tesla claimed he could split the earth like an apple and we all know what a crank he was.

Yup yup yup.

Cheers

Originally posted by ianmoone1

Why would any physicist stop by to peer review a paper that claims the mass of s proton to
be 885 million tons. How absurd can one get?

How absurd to believe that slpitting an atom could release enough energy to destroy the earth!.

Nicola tesla claimed he could split the earth like an apple and we all know what a crank he was.

Yup yup yup.

Cheers

N ikola Tesla like Einstein was a quirky genius, most would term crank.
Just wondering if nikola tesla claimed that in the context of his allegedly
designed and built free energy flying machine.

The following quote, taken from a document by Haramein entitled "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto," which was written in response to criticism from "Dr. Bob-a-thon," addresses the issue of the conference in question being about computers and not physics:

The CASYS '09 conference . . . where the Schwarzschild Proton was an invited paper. . . . the CASYS conferences are not about computers . . . but are about computing anticipatory systems, in other words, strategies to compute anticipatory systems as defined by the director and founder of the conference. . . . This applies significantly to physics, and the conference is well attended by international physicists, physics teams and physics Nobel laureates alike.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Jair Minoro Abe the conference is well attended by international physicists, physics teams and physics Nobel laureates alike.

Name one of thee physicists and Nobel Laureates, Haramein, just one. I looked at the committee listings and saw a lot of network and software gurus but not a single Nobel winner in Physics.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


I read ". . . the conference is well attended . . . " to mean the CASYS conference, in general - not specifically the one in '09.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The following quote, taken from a document by Haramein entitled "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto," which was written in response to criticism from "Dr. Bob-a-thon," addresses the issue of the conference in question being about computers and not physics:

The CASYS '09 conference . . . where the Schwarzschild Proton was an invited paper. . . . the CASYS conferences are not about computers . . . but are about computing anticipatory systems, in other words, strategies to compute anticipatory systems as defined by the director and founder of the conference. . . . This applies significantly to physics, and the conference is well attended by international physicists, physics teams and physics Nobel laureates alike.

From the CASYS '09 site, here is the definition of a computing anticipatory system:

a computing anticipatory system is a system that computes its current states in taking into account its past and present states but also its potential future states.

What does Haramein's paper even have to do with computing the state of anything? Absolutely nothing.

It's extremely odd.

And no, of course there were no Nobel physicists there. And I can be pretty confident that there were no physicists at all involved in the review of Haramein's paper.

If you can identify a single physicist on the committee that selected Haramein's paper, please give me their name and I will write to them myself and ask them what in heaven they were thinking. For a group of artificial intelligence and computer systems professionals it's excusable that they could be swayed by Haramein's confident presentation. For a physicist it would be inexcusable. It's nothing to do with it being different or new, it's because it's bull#.

oops, I got censored

Originally posted by Mary Rose

. . . . the CASYS conferences are not about computers . . . but are about computing anticipatory systems . . .

There is a .pdf online entitled "Introduction to Computing Anticipatory Systems" by Daniel M. DUBOIS, Centre for Hyperincursion and Anticipation in Ordered Systems, CHAOS asbl, Institute of Mathematics, University of Liège.

The conclusion:

5. Conclusion
This paper shows some remarkable properties of a simple anticipatory system given by hyperincursive discrete harmonic oscillators. The position or the velocity of a particle in a harmonic potential is a function of the velocity or the position of this particle at a later future time step. The same hyperincursive system gives the dynamics of the discrete harmonic oscillator in plotting v(t+Ät) as a function of x(t+Ät) and its time inverse in plotting v(t) as a function of x(t+Ät) in the phase space. With small intervals of time, the continuous harmonic oscillator is obtained. For the interval of time tending to zero, the discrete hyperincursive harmonic oscillators tend to the classical differential equation, where the anticipatory hyperincursive property disappears.

reply to post by Mary Rose
What's your point? That's a set of differential equations for computing the evolution of the state of a system of oscillators that depend on the future states available to it. That fits the definition I quoted perfectly.

Haramein's silly ideas have nothing to do with anticipatory systems. I'd love to know what wheedling got him into that conference.

Mary, what's happened to the virtue of honesty, of admitting when you don't actually know what you're talking about instead of just carrying on digging yourself into a ridiculous hole. It's a sorry sight.

reply to post by Bobathon


I am not a scientist - professional or amateur - and have never posted a scientific opinion. I am a researcher and post things that are relevant to threads on scientific subjects.

My point is that there is documentation available written by the person Haramein references in his "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto," Daniel M. Dubois, for readers of the thread who may be interested in reading it.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Bobathon

 

I am not a scientist - professional or amateur - and have never posted a scientific opinion. I am a researcher and post things that are relevant to threads on scientific subjects.

My point is that there is documentation available written by the person Haramein references in his "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto," Daniel M. Dubois, for readers of the thread who may be interested in reading it.

Haramein doesn't reference a paper written by Dubois. He references (as footnote 3 in his own paper) a paper written by himself that appeared in a Computing Journal edited by Dubois. There is a huge difference.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


My intention was to post information about "computing anticipatory systems" - which Haramein writes about in his defense of the criticism leveled at him that the conference in question has nothing to do with physics and is for "computer geeks."

Originally posted by Mary Rose

 

My intention was to post information about "computing anticipatory systems" - which Haramein writes about in his defense of the criticism leveled at him that the conference in question has nothing to do with physics and is for "computer geeks."

Just to clarify, my criticism is that his paper is an appallingly incompetent attempt at physics, and so could not have been honestly selected by anyone who understood physics (at least not anything relevant to protons).

There doesn't appear to be anyone able or willing to offer any evidence to the contrary. I've surely asked for it in enough places. I suggest that this is because none of those wishing to express support for Haramein in fact understand any physics – not even the baby physics in his paper – and that Haramein relies entirely on his ability to incite prejudice against actual science in order to get people to speak out against those who criticise his science.

(Having a prejudice against something, as you know, means coming to a judgement of it – usually one of dismissal and rejection – without sufficient understanding, for no other reason than plain superficial dislike.)

Seems like stating the blindingly obvious, but that seems to be what is called for.

reply to post by Bobathon


Your argument is invalid because you refuse to refute the science in "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto."

reply to post by Mary Rose
Yawn.

Here it is again, for the fourth time.

reply to post by Bobathon


For the fourth time?

Where do you address the specific information in "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto"?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The following quote, taken from a document by Haramein entitled "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto," which was written in response to criticism from "Dr. Bob-a-thon," addresses the issue of the conference in question being about computers and not physics:

The CASYS '09 conference . . . where the Schwarzschild Proton was an invited paper. . . . . . . This applies significantly to physics, and the conference is well attended by international physicists, physics teams and physics Nobel laureates alike.

I sent an inquiry to [email protected] asking for information about physics Nobel laureates who have attended CASYS conferences.

I received a reply with the information that Haramein presented his papers on Spinors at CASYS '07, and one of the participants in the audience was Nobel Prize for Physics winner in 1973, Brian D. Josephson. Here is a link to the web page showing Josephson presenting at the conference: LINK. Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on Josephson: LINK.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Haramein presented his papers on Spinors at CASYS '07, and one of the participants in the audience was Nobel Prize for Physics winner in 1973, Brian D. Josephson. Here is a link to the web page showing Josephson presenting at the conference: LINK. Here is a link to the Wikipedia article on Josephson: LINK.

Prof Josephson isn't known for being particularly discerning in his choice of company. But never mind any of that – he's a Real Physicist! (At least he was 40 years ago)

So you're saying that several years ago, Haramein spoke at a conference where a Real Physicist might possibly even have been in the room?

Whoa, surely that means Josephson was involved in selecting Haramein's 2009 paper in 2007 via some kind of anticipatory system... This changes everything...