|
Original Message
|
Hello, GLPers. I wrote this counter-refutation for a few friends of mine, in the interest of the Method, and figured I may as well post it on this forum for those of you interested in some very recent break-throughs in the field of physics. The original work in question, the Schwarzchild Proton model, theorized by Nassim Haramein and Dr. Elizabeth Rauscher collaboratively, is currently in the peer review/publication process.
This theory, thus far, appears to have unified Einstein's theories of relativity with accepted quantum mechanics by way of a theory of quantum gravity replacing the strong nuclear force, an addition of torque intrinsic in the vacuum to account for sustained angular momentum, and vacuum discretion, dispelling the magical, mystical, unobservable "dark matter" and "dark energy", hypothesized by the Standard Model.
The original paper is found at the link at the bottom.
This is very dense material, full of discipline-specific jargon, but if you can get past the wall of text, I am certain you will learn some very pertinent information regarding this strange reality that we live in. I highly encourage you to look into the theory yourself, if you are so inclined, and welcome relevant, conflicting opinions. This subject matter cannot possibly be underscrutized, as we are dealing with The Big Question, here.
For the record, I am 22 years old college drop-out, born and raised in Alabama.
Ron Paul, ya'll.
Enjoy.
Key: SM - Standard Model
Bold: Bob's section headlines
This is a counter-refutation to a ham-handed attack on the work of Nassim Haramein and Elizabeth Rauscher in the field of quantum physics, specifically their model of singularity and the nature of the vacuum, written hopefully to be decipherable by the lay-individual. I normally don't do this sort of thing, but the original writer, Bob, was so inflammatory, so disrespectful, and so wrong I could hardly resist.
Meant to be read side-by-side with:What's so Misleading About Nassim Haramein? by Bob [link to azureworld.blogspot.com]
I will be contacting Bob with the following information-- I do so hope he will publicly reply.Your concepts of relativity, by the way, are spot on. Unfortunately, we're playing chess instead of checkers here, Bob.
1./a.'The Hype and the Schwartzchild Proton' and 'The force between protons' refuted
When viewing the proton from the SM frame of reference, the mass and nature of the Schwartzchild model of the proton seems outlandish, almost absurdly disproportionate. However,
"This isn't the only example – There are many others. He also tells us that every atom of our body contains protons which have a mass of 885 million tonnes each. That ought to raise a few (very heavy) eyebrows too." --Bob
The above quotation hedges around Haramein's/Rauscher's model of the proton, skewing it, in fact; what we call a "red herring", were it intentional. It's a misconception I had for weeks as well, so I can certainly sympathize.
In Haramein's and Rauscher's documentation[1], the mass of the proton extrapolated in their unification theory is not able to be isolated from the "other" protons, or what we classically view as all of the "individual" protons in reality relative to "each" other, to obtain objective data concerning the nature of the system.
These seemingly astronomical figures of mass are a result of the ultimate entanglement of all protons, which can be more accurately thought of as a single entity, all interconnected and "sharing" a fractalized mass, or one fractal set of information; a frame of reference from which you are unable to extract meaningful data from the mass of a "single" proton. When attempting to measure an "isolated" proton as Bob insists upon doing, however, you obtain a figure of 10^-24gm/proton volume, which necessitated, in the SM's eyes, the alleged "strong nuclear force" at the proton level--a hypothetical force lacking causality. More on that later.
Seeing as how Bob is so disgusted by hyperbole of any sort, I'll go ahead and point out a spot of his own misleading exageration here: "How can this be the force holding protons together? You can separate protons from a nucleus by tapping them with a tiny electron in a small accelerator."-Bob
The force that Bob is skeptical of is the force of gravity in the atomic nucleus.
Here, Bob is referring to a nuclear fission reaction, by which fermionic wave-functions (Bob would call them "masses") are accelerated very near the speed of light, and the electrons are set on a trajectory to slam into a magnetically suspended group of protons while moving at ~c. The "tininess" of the electron in the "small" accelerator has precisely zero relevance to the forces unleashed when the Coulomb resistance factor in an atomic nucleus is overcome. We'll review for Bob's sake: Mass x Acceleration=Force. In this case, the acceleration is ~c. With any measurable mass at all, this is a staggering amount of force relative to anything of Newtonian scale that we experience on a daily basis. Let us speak no further of "tiny" electrons in a little accelerator, Bob. We're talking nuclear fission, gamma radiation, and neutrons dissociating from a nucleus.
b. 'Introducing the theory to the world: He's literally mathematically proved it!'
"Is he blind enough to actually believe he's proved something, or is he deliberately misleading? I don't know.
...you'll find him explaining why it's important that he can prove that we're all one with the universe (and the vacuum energy). "Not one in an esoteric way that's not really palpable, that's not really able to be understood, but one with everything in an actual physical and mathematical way that I can write an equation and tell you why."
Of course he can't write any such equation – it's completely false." -Bob, quoting/responding to Haramein, Haramein italicized.
I'm afraid you haven't done your research, Bob. You are right in one regard, however; Nassim did not write any such equation.
Casimir did, half a century before him. Your ad hominem whining later in this section also has a semblence of truth about it-- without observable experimentation to prove energy exists intrinsically in the vacuum, then we're just theoretically beating off, aren't we?
Let's discuss the Casimir experiment, Bob.
Reproduced in laboratories across the world and initially theorized by Hendrik Casimir and Dirk Polder in 1948, the Casimir effect (later re-koined the Dynamic Casimir effect, but lets discuss static for simplicity) was demonstrated when Hendrik Casimir insisted that if energy is intrinsically fundamental to the vacuum, then we should be able to measure it. The experiment is as follows: Casimir suspends two steel plates mere microns apart, isolating short photonic wavelengths (ultraviolet and higher) from long photonic wavelengths (sub-infrared). The resulting imbalance of forces outside of the plates relative to inside creates a micro-gradient in vacuum, causing the plates to move together precisely as predicted by Casimir and Polder, as the force outside of the plate is greater, and compresses the system relative to the lesser force inside the micro gradient of the system. In light of this confirmation, Bob, we have unequivocably demonstrated (in one of several routes possible) that the vacuum has discretion, is in fact, "there", and is not empty void, as you insist. Even the SM'ers theorize a "quantum foam" for goodness' sakes, Bob.
2./a. 'Misunderstanding Basic Physics'
Here, in only your second section, Bob, we begin to see a truly unfortunate snowballing effect of misunderstanding, and alot of the above refutation deals directly with your further insistances.
"Why would something need to contract anyway? If space itself expands, then there just is more space. Why would anything need to contract to make room for it? Seven years later, he's still milking the same story, and still misusing the same piece of 8th grade physics. The point is that he's using this law despite it being completely irrelevant. He uses it to 'prove' that "obviously something is contracting". This becomes a big theme in many of his other ideas. There's nothing 'obvious' about it – unless your version of obvious is feeling like "yeah, looks obvious to me, and you look like you're convinced so I'll go with it." It's terrible misinformation. I think people deserve better than this." -Bob
It's your nomenclature that gives you away, Bob. Keeping in mind our above discussion of the Casimir effect, we see clearly that "if space expands, then there is [absolutely not just] more space.", that there is, in fact, additional discretion. Structure. Geometry. Energy intrinsic in that expanding space. Furthermore, the vacuum is not merely expanding, it is in fact observably accelerating.You seem not to recognize that for a system to accelerate there must be an energetic input. From whence is this energy coming from, Bob? You seem quick to accuse Haramein, Rauscher, and, whether you knew it or not, Casimir and Polder, also indirectly Thorne, Wheeler, and Misner, fathers of modern gravity theory, of fraud. Does this seemingly invisible energy input come from the immeasurable, unobservable, magical, mystical "dark energy" and "dark matter" invented by the SM'ers, loosely based off of Einstein's Cosmological Constant? Was there anyone else amongst the titans of theoretical physics that you wanted to take a shot at?
Your and my definitions of the scientific method seem to be at odds, Bob.
"Of course not everybody knows or cares about Newton's laws of motion – but remember this man claims to be a world-leading physicist. (Indeed, in this clip he gloats about how his "first law of physics" insight stopped all the other physicists in the room in their tracks... I can't help feeling that if they had "blank look on their faces" it might not have been for the reason he's suggesting.) --Bob
I will concede that Haramein did indeed mispeak in the referenced lecture, but not in the manner which Bob insists. Listen again to what you oh-so-slyly took out of context with a not-so-subtle misquotation: Nassim is clearly heard to say, "some of the first laws of physics". Glad I could clear it up.
b.'Why the night sky is black', Bob's misconceptions, and red herrings
"First off, a mass can't exceed an escape velocity. That's like saying there's more corn in your barn than the national speed limit – it doesn't make sense. I think he's trying to say that there is so much mass in the Universe that the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light. Perhaps it just came out mangled. -Bob
You're right, Bob. He does in fact, confirmed by later clarification in a more recent lecture, that he is referencing the mass of the universe being too great for light to escape it. It's Haramein's second language, and he's speaking in front of a live audience. Your grace here is appreciated.
"Secondly, he's describing a closed universe, which all observations in the last ten years seem to suggest is nothing like the one we live in. Thirdly, even if we do live in a closed universe, that doesn't mean light bounces around stars and comes back to you at all – it means that everything ultimately falls together in a big crunch at the end of time. (Kind of a re-union with the light, I suppose... but nothing like he makes it sound.) And fourthly, a closed universe isn't a black hole. (Unless you stretch your definition of black hole by a very long way.)" -Bob
No, Bob, he is not describing a closed universe. He is describing precisely the opposite: open systems, with the universe being one of infinite gradients in the iteration of reality.
Yes, Bob, the universe does behave in a manner congruent to the Schwartzchild solution for Einstein's field equations as a relationship of mass to frequency. The solution predicts singularity. Singularity is a black hole, but we're not discussing the "black hole" of the SM, where no coherent information can possibly escape the gravitational field. That model of a black hole has been debunked by observation-- Quasars and Blazars -- both black hole systems emitting coherent information at their magnetic poles, with streams originating inside the ergosphere of the system. So the term "black hole", koined by Wheeler in an era of lesser understanding, is somewhat obsolete, isn't it? Maybe white/black (w)hole is more accurate considering the torroidal-feedback, cyclical, energetically recycling fields of emissed coherency observed around every such system to date. In such case, we're not describing the universe as a "black hole" or a closed system, but rather a feedback, torroidally shaped gradient that light does not escape from, but outside of which is the radiative side of the gradient, and very likely additional (ad infinitum) gradients upwards, just as the Planck's length is not likely to be the "smallest possible" unit on the opposite end of the observable gradient spectrum. The universe is the largest gradient that we interact with, but even the SM predicts a multiverse, or larger gradients in which our observable universe is embedded. The photon on the other hand (planck's length) is the smallest we interact with, but how silly to think that reality creates structure and discretion only down to an arbitrary gradient. I.e., reality makes things this small, and then decides to quit. We'll discuss this more while we dismantle your Phi section, Bob.
c.'Peer Review'
This section of your document, Bob, consists of little more than ad hominem, directionless attacks on Haramein and Rauscher, in which you give no examples, no quotations, and leaves something (anything, really) to be desired. I think that sums it up.
d. 'Atoms as mini white wholes / black holes'
"Skip to 7:30 in the same video. "Some of the largest, most comprehensive unification theories that are trying to be worked out now – and are incorrect because they're missing the fractal component – by Stephen Hawking, for instance, describe all subatomic particles as mini black holes. And the Hadron Collider that's being built in Geneva that I mentioned earlier is being built to search for these mini white whole/black holes for subatomic particles." -Bob quoting Haramein, Haramein italicized
The above Haramein quotation is a misspeak on Haramein's part, which is rectified in later, more mature/developed live presentations. This theory didn't just sh*t itself out one day, of course--as in all science, there is trial and error. Also, Nassim's eccentricity and the fact that English is his second language both lend themselves to being made fun of, for sure. What he meant (and later clarifies in a newer lecture) is that the white/black (w)holes will be incidentally observable as the particles collide, rather than that being the specific purpose of the machine.
Ya got him there red-handed, Bob.
But, since you brought up the subject of observable evidence in the Large Hadron Collider, let's go ahead and extrapolate that data where you failed to.
The fact that these relatively small singularities observably evaporate lends credence to and reinforces the above stated expansion/contraction model of the vacuum, Whereas the SM (specifically Bob's hero, Stephen Hawking, with his "Hawking Radiation" hypothesis involving incoherent information escaping the SM definition of a "black hole", which was later disproven) described the black hole as impossible for coherent information to escape. Now they've observed and understand what quasars and blazars are, and they're all slapping their foreheads, scrambling for a new model. Both are white/black (w)holes with coherent information escaping at the magnetic poles, so that one's up in the air for SMers. Nassim's and Elizabeth's model on the other hand, once again, predicts the phenomenon not only with blazars and quasars, but every gradient of the vacuum iteration, down to the sub-atomic level. The emissions at the magnetic poles in all gradients of the vacuum which occurr due to intrinsic torque in the geometry of spacetime, whether the entire universe or a single atom, are eventually drawn back towards the singularity in a compressive manner at the relative equatorial region of the gradient, making a double-torroidal system. Double torroids are ubiquitous throughout observable nature.
e.'Biological cells are white/black (w)holes, too'
"The cell biology - the biological resolution of a cell - actually obeys the Schwarzschild Condition of a black hole, because it generates so much energy. 10^11 is a huge number." -Haramein
"First of all, let's be clear, a frequency of 10^11 Hertz isn't huge – it's tiny. A single photon of light – the tiniest amount of light that it's possible to have – has a frequency of over a thousand times more than this. And a single photon of light doesn't generate a lot of energy. But that's an aside." -Bob
First of all, Bob, Haramein is not describing the cell wall/membrane as being boundary conditions for a black/white (w)hole. He is describing the microtubules, in fact -orders of magnitude smaller- as obeying the Scwartzchild condition in their 10^11 Hertz oscillations. Yes, Bob, a single photon of light has a frequency over a thousand times greater, and no, a photon of light does not generate a lot of energy. A photon of light is bosonic, Bob. It has no mass, so no, even at those hard-to-fathom frequencies, a photon does not carry much energy. A microtubule, on the other hand, is fermionic. It is massive, and when something of the scale of a microtubule oscillates with 10^11 Hz, the radius/frequency of the system exceeds the condition to conform to the Schwartzchild radius. Thus indeed, The microtubules making up a cell wall/membrane do behave individually as black/white (w)holes. Another attempted red herring?
"Haramein uses the term event horizon all over the place. He uses it to mean the membrane of a cell in this video. Which makes no sense, because we can see inside a cell." -Bob
Again, there are two aspects of each gradient of the vacuum: a radiative, expansive side, and a gravitational, compressive side. We see a cell because the ergosphere of the singularity at the center of each microtubule in a cell is the radiative side, and any given distance outside of the ergosphere of the singularity, the radiative, expansive capacity is greater than the gravitational, compressive capacity.
3./a. 'Quantum Mechanics and the strong nuclear force'
"I hope to do a separate post about this at some point. I'll put a link here when I've done it. Because this little bundle of schoolboy errors is the basis of his attempt to unify gravity with the strong force, which has been reported by some sources on the internet as if it's cutting-edge research. It's not." -Bob
I won't hold my breath.
When SM'ers looked at the atomic nucleus and saw like-charged particles overcoming a seemingly insurmountable coulomb resistance and orbitting around one another very closely using the SM of the proton, they thought, My god. Gravity cannot be the force holding these particles together. It must be some other force. And so the "strong nuclear force" was invented. It was named so because the force needed to overcome the coulomb resistance factor in an atomic nucleus needed to be....really...strong. :-/
This applied at the atomic nucleus gradient, and the force had no causality, nothing in reality to make it exist. SM'ers observed something that they could not explain, and so invented an explanation. Zero causality, Bob.
What you're describing as "not cutting edge research", I can only assume you mean in terms of how recent the subject was broached. What you are dismissively describing is the mechanism of Quantum Gravity, Bob. It is the widely declared holy grail of particle physics, with everyone from Einstein, to Planck, Misner, Scwartzchild, Witten, Thorne, Wheeler, not to mention half the physics grad students slaving over a hot mini-collider in their department's basement, searching for it to no avail for the last century.
Also, interestingly, at the quark level of the iteration (below protons) another force had to be hypothesized in the SM to overcome the coulomb force at this gradient. They couldn't call it the "strong strong" force, so they named it the "color force", a force holding quarks together. It was calculated that this "color force" had to be an infinitely strong force in order for quarks to maintain coherency -- again an example of infinitely large quantities cropping up in institutionalized physics for which they have no response, nor even a strategy to approach an explanation.
In light of an infinitely energetic vacuum and the Nassim Rauscher collaboration, however, they are not only expected, but fundamental.
"I'll explain why I'm saying this at another time. In the meantime, don't take my word for it – check it out yourself. Investigate." -Bob
Hopefully I've saved you the trouble, and explained what you've failed to say at this time, Bob.
And swallow a dram of your own medicine, for ****'s sake:
"...(I)nvestigate." -Bob
[1] [link to theresonanceproject.org]
|
