Nassim Haramein, Sexy Physics and adventures beyond...

Nassim is well worth listening to. I just started a couple of days ago. His Egyptology and comments on the Knights Templar caught my attention. His speaking style reminded me of Serendipity in 'Dogma'. It appears that the Ark of the Covenant is really Egyptian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mXs8E30mTw&feature=related

[5:46:37 AM] Tonyblue: Ok the critique from that guy is sound
[5:47:10 AM] Tonyblue: As I have also said many times Nassim''s 'Black Hole proton' is bogus
[5:47:46 AM] Tonyblue: Where Nassim is ok, is in presenting the Black hole physics as multiD
[5:47:54 AM] Tonyblue: This the critic cant see
[5:48:44 AM] Tonyblue: But the scientific argument 'against' Nassim all stand up BUT they are 3D
[5:49:03 AM] Tonyblue: The crux is the nature of the vacuum
[5:49:24 AM] Tonyblue: If the vacuum is 3D space then all this hyperphysics falls apart
[5:50:11 AM] Tonyblue: But if the string theory is correct, then the 'curled up' dimensions can be opened theoretically and release the ZPE
[5:50:48 AM] Tonyblue: Nassim talks about the Black Holes multi D, say string terms and the other bloke sees it in 3D terms
[5:51:54 AM] Tonyblue: I did not go into details, but the rotational dynamics also relate to multiD AND 3D
[5:52:56 AM] Tonyblue: There is new physics in Nassim's ideas, BUT they are not addressed properly by him.
[5:53:22 AM] Tonyblue: He seeks mainstream acceptance and his proton paper just does not cut it.
[5:53:56 AM] Xeia: it's hard to explain the metaphysical world with hard core mainstream science
[5:54:15 AM] Xeia: i think he does a more than ok job just for trying
[5:54:22 AM]Tonyblue: Yes this is at the core and Nassim is seeking 'attention' see and he is a flamboyant character
[5:54:31 AM] Tonyblue: the skeptics dont like that
[5:55:13 AM] Tonyblue: Yes I do like him as a populariser
[5:55:15 AM] Xeia: it's the same thing when ppl come ask me a question and i go all meta with them then they go like wtf?
[5:55:33 AM] Tonyblue: But he simply went too far, claiming Einstein and quantum mechanics are wrong
[5:55:47 AM] Xeia: i believe he said incomplete...not wrong
[5:56:13 AM] Tonyblue: Well I read the skeptic, he said wrong, I dont recall
[5:56:35 AM] Xeia: he added the "twist" remember?
[5:56:45 AM] Tonyblue: no
[5:56:55 AM] Xeia: lol
[5:57:33 AM] Tonyblue: This critic picked up certain basic physics flaws, I also saw in Nassim's presentations, but did not comment on
[5:57:49 AM] Tonyblue: As I sort of saw what he meant
[5:58:09 AM] Tonyblue: But the skeptics dont see this see. They are purely dogmatic here
[5:58:33 AM] Tonyblue: So there is little point arguing this
[5:58:49 AM] Xeia: i know you see it because you see multiD
[5:59:03 AM] Tonyblue: Only of the space dimensions extend, will the Nassim ideas be seen to mean something physical
[5:59:40 AM] Xeia: that guy goes nuts thinking "how can a black hole fit into a tiny cell!!???!!"
[5:59:42 AM] Xeia: hahahaha
[5:59:57 AM] Tonyblue: This skeptic is a mainstream scientist following the status quo
[6:00:09 AM] Xeia: not only a cell, but in higher D the same dynamics work on the entire human body as a whole
[6:00:23 AM] Tonyblue: Yes because he looks at it as a inertia in 3D
[6:00:27 AM] Xeia: everyliving organism for that matter
[6:00:34 AM] Tonyblue: The weight of it
[6:00:36 AM] Xeia: Drunvalo also explained it
[6:00:51 AM] Tonyblue: Small size can be big mass
[6:01:07 AM] Tonyblue: Yes but again all this is higherD
[6:01:10 AM] Tonyblue: Like the earth
[6:01:16 AM] Tonyblue: As a golfball
[6:01:24 AM] Xeia: exactly
[6:01:24 AM] Tonyblue: Hollow Earth BS etc
[6:01:53 AM] Tonyblue: You could not convince this skeptic, that it is Information AS MASS
[6:01:55 AM] Xeia: like my grandma used to say...one talks about potatoes the other one about sweet potatoes
[6:02:04 AM] Tonyblue: O perhaps one could lol I dont know
[6:02:06 AM] Xeia: https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=450154146461
[6:02:21 AM] Xeia: yeah well...
[6:02:51 AM] Xeia: at least he tried...not everyone is comfy with so much adoration for nassim
[6:03:00 AM] Tonyblue: lol
[6:03:04 AM] Xeia: haha
[6:03:19 AM] Tonyblue: Gotta go now its 6am
[6:03:32 AM] Xeia: to sleep?
[6:03:34 AM] Xeia: ok
[6:03:45 AM] Tonyblue: Yes I have been up all night, posting on JT's thread
] Xeia: omg
[6:03:56 AM] Xeia: yeah get some rest
[6:04:04 AM] Tonyblue: PTB agenda I also put on heaven
[6:04:14 AM] Xeia: i am reading the book of Job
[6:04:23 AM] Tonyblue: But it is linked to thr Hidden Hand on New World page 1
[6:04:28 AM] Tonyblue: Ah yes
[6:04:38 AM] Tonyblue: Good post on Gospel of Thomas
[6:04:44 AM] Xeia: yes i love it
[6:04:52 AM] Tonyblue: As an intro
[6:42:52 AM] Rok: why are u reading the book of job?
[6:43:34 AM] Xeia: among other things.....
[6:43:38 AM] Xeia: i am also doing other things at the same time
[6:43:59 AM] Xeia: why? amm...i stumbled upon it while looking for another post on heaven
[6:44:06 AM] Xeia: and i found it interesting
[6:44:51 AM] Rok: mhm
[9:17:26 AM] Ishtara Raven: My computer has a virus, got a friend here working on it for me, so I have limited internet for a few days on my phone
[11:55:22 AM] Tonyblue: http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&fid=&lastp=1&id=C17555C0-95C0-4D2B-BFE3-1A43BF484EE4
[11:55:51 AM] Tonyblue: Bob's physics is sound
[11:56:29 AM] Tonyblue: Actually this explains Nassims 'NONRESPONSE' to my letter to him
[11:56:40 AM] Tonyblue: Also on this weblink
[11:57:24 AM] Tonyblue: Seems he wanted me to give him academic 'credentials'
[11:57:52 AM] Tonyblue: Well I think like Nassim, but dont throw out established physics like Einstein and Bohr
[11:58:45 AM] Tonyblue: His 'one and only' published paper is pure bogus, as I said 2 years ago
[11:59:08 AM] Tonyblue: This paper on the Schwarzschild proton is dissected on this link

I looked at the critique AND Nassim's reply to it. I am in agreement with Bob, but accept the validity of Nassim's higherD Black Hole physics, but without his 'Schwarzschild proton'.

In particular, Nassim should calculate the Schwarzschild Proton the other way around.

Instead of using the proton's size; he should use the proton's subatomic mass. Then he would have easily seen the 'error of his ways'.

I do it for him here:

The actual Schwarzschild proton in hyperspace uses the m_c =m_Planck.Alpha⁹~10^-28 kg in the Schwarzschild stasis (nonrotating and uncharged Black Holes) metric to give the supersmall (and physically unrealistic) sub-Planck-Length of:

R_proton=2Gm_c/c² ~ 2.5x10^-55 meters.

Then, as the smallest physically meaningful 'quantum displacement' is the 'Planck-Length-Oscillation' as √(Alpha).L_Planck ~ 2x10^-36 meters; no Schwarzschild Proton can physically exist, neither in 3D nor in string-membrane space of 12 dimensions.


http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&fid=&lastp=1&id=C17555C0-95C0-4D2B-BFE3-1A43BF484EE4

Orgasm During Childbirth

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/schwarzchild-proton.html
 
The Physics of the Schwarzschild Proton
 
'The Schwarzschild Proton' is a paper written by Nassim Haramein, proposing a model of the proton based on what he calls 'the Schwarzschild condition'.

I've discussed Haramein's methods more broadly here (starting with a look at the award he displays for this paper), but here I'm focusing on the physics in this paper. It's fairly basic, so I'm hoping to be able to present this in a way that makes at least some sense to at least some of Haramein's non-physicist audience who are interested in his ideas.
 
[Edit 4th Dec, updated 1st Jan: Anyone curious about Haramein's recent appearance in some obscure 'peer-reviewed' conference proceedings, please see this note: http://bit.ly/harameinAIP. Feel free to ask questions in the comments.]

There's a lot of stuff here. You won't need all of it to get the gist – have a browse.

I'm exploring this material not with belief or opinion or conjecture, but using well-established laws of physics only – in fact I'm going out of my way to really try to make his model fit with reality.

There are six main conclusions in his paper. I'll look at each of these in turn in the light of his model.

Before I look at any of the conclusions, though, let's look first at the premise and see if we can make it work.


[size=18'The Schwarzschild Condition'[/size]

The main idea of this paper is that a proton may be considered as a black hole, and that two of these orbiting each other at the speed of light under gravitation alone provides a model for a nucleus.

His ultimate aim is to dispense with the need for the strong force altogether, and replace it with an interaction based on gravity, thereby unifying quantum theory with general relativity. This paper is intended to be a significant first step along this path.

So Haramein introduces us to the Schwarzschild proton. This is a black hole with a mass of 8.85 x 10^14 gm. In plain English, this is 885 million metric tonnes.

This reason this mass is chosen is that it's the mass that a black hole would need to have in order for it to have the same radius as a proton. Haramein takes the radius of a proton to be 1.32fm. (This is in fact the Compton wavelength of a proton, not its radius, at least not by any measure that I'm aware of, but it's good enough for now.)

The paper begins with the suggestion that a real proton may be considered to be one of these. To see if this is workable, let's compare his model with with what we already know about protons.


Mass

• Mass of an actual proton: 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram
  
• Mass of Schwarzschild proton: 885 million metric tonnes
  

These aren't particularly close.

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?
He doesn't.

What could we do to deal with this problem? We could propose that all these millions of tonnes are only experienced gravitationally when you get very close, let's say at the nuclear scales. And otherwise, we experience the usual tiny mass of a single hydrogen atom. What would generate this effect? Who cares. It's only a model, let's run with it anyway.


Radiation

• From a single actual proton: none
  
• From a single Schwarzschild proton: 455 million Watts (enough to supply electricity to 60,000 US homes)
  

These are a little different, too.

Why would one Schwarzschild proton radiate so much? Because the application of quantum mechanics to the severely distorted spacetime in the vicinity of the event horizon of such a tiny black hole gives rise to a correspondingly huge amount of pair-production. This takes the form of a thermal radiation of particles known as Hawking radiation, which thousands of websites will happily explain to you. The 455 million Watts comes from the power equation – here it is, straight from Wikipedia:

If we use M = 8.85 x 10^11 kg (the other values are standard physical constants) this gives 4.55 x 10^8 W.

The laws of thermodynamics imply that proton-sized black hole would have a temperature of 139 billion degrees Celsius (thousands of times hotter than the core of a star, and not far off the core temperature at the height of a supernova).

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?
He doesn't.

What could we do to deal with this problem? Well, we could deny that Hawking radiation is real. It has never been directly observed. If it doesn't occur, then some of our most solid laws of physics would be violated in quite profound ways. Still, what the hell, let's violate them. It's only a model.


Stability of interaction between protons

• Between actual protons in a stable nucleus: indefinitely
  
• Between co-orbiting Schwarzschild protons: the orbit would decay within a few trillionths of a trillionth of a second.
  

Why? Because the theory of General Relativity tells us that any two black holes orbiting each other must lose orbital energy by emitting gravitational waves and fall in towards each other, merging into a single black hole at the moment that their event horizons touch.

The approach speed is given by the following equation:


Source Gravitational Radiation, Burtschinger & Taylor. This equation applies to black holes at a sensible distance apart (not contiguous ones), but what it tells us is that even if they orbited ten times further apart, they would still approach each other at about 60km/s (yes, kilometres per second). This is a fast approach for objects that are already ten thousand times closer than the size of an atom. And the closer they get, the faster they approach. (In Haramein's model, the event horizons are already touching.)

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?
He doesn't.

What could we do to deal with this problem? Actually, this is a very serious problem, because it's a direct result from our best theory of gravity, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which is the only theory we have that predicts and describes black holes. If we deny this theory as well, then what is a black hole? There won't be any such thing. We are supposed to be doing serious physics, and talking about black holes and gravity. Surely we can't get out of this one?

Maybe we could pretend they worked it all out wrong. Or maybe we could pretend that it's a quantum gravity effect, in the same way that electron orbitals are stable because, it's like, you know, quantum.


What happens when you look inside a proton?

• in an actual proton: we see point-like constituents (quarks), and a measurable distribution of charge. Things don't disappear.
  
• in a Schwarzschild proton: there is an event horizon of 1.32fm radius, and nothing that crosses this horizon can re-emerge. There is no way of looking inside.
  

This also follows directly from General Relativity. This messes up our proposed way out of the mass problem, because if the full mass of the black hole is experienced at short distances, then any electron or other particle used to probe inside a proton would simply vanish, making the mass black hole grow slightly. This follows from the definition of the Schwarzschild radius, which is what Haramein has used. It's a space-time horizon. Beyond this horizon, all possible measures of time are directed spatially in, and only in. Out ceases to exist, except in the past.

Yet many particle experiments, in particular all those that have involved deep inelastic scattering, make it clear that we can probe inside a proton.

How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality?
He doesn't.

What could we do to deal with this problem? I've no idea. I'll have a think, but this is starting to get a bit silly.


What this means for the Schwarzschild proton model

The premise of this model – that 'the proton may be considered as a Schwarzschild entity' – is pushing credibility to the point of ridiculousness. And this is before we even look at whether any of his conclusions mean anything.

In order to look at the conclusions, we've got to somehow force ourselves to ignore the discrepancies above, and pretend that somehow it could be a reasonable model.

What follows will illustrate why, even if we can allow ourselves to adopt this model, every one of Haramein's conclusions are meaningless anyway.



Haramein's six conclusions

Haramein models the proton as a black hole, as described above. The primary conclusions are:

1. The proportion of vacuum energy that would be required is similar to the ratio of the strengths of the strong and gravitational forces

2. Considering the nuclear force as a gravitational attraction is compatible with both nucleon and quark confinement

3. The orbital speed of two neighbouring protons turns out to be the speed of light

4. The time period for such an orbit turns out to be the same as the characteristic timescale of nuclear emissions involving the strong force

5. There is evidence for a scaling law between mass and radius, and this model of the proton places it much more convincingly in agreement with this

6. A value for the magnetic moment of the proton can be derived which turns out to be close to the measured anomalous magnetic moment of the proton

I'll take them one at a time – and I'll warn you in advance, it's a big mess, so this could take a while.


1. The proportion of vacuum energy that would be required to make a Schwarzschild proton is similar to the ratio of the strengths of the strong and gravitational forces (page 1, 1st & 2nd sentences)

He doesn't elaborate on this, it's just mentioned in passing.

Haramein chooses a value for the vacuum energy apparently at random from a whole host of available theoretical figures. This 'vacuum energy' has never been measured – and there are no convincing theoretical or experimental reasons to believe that it is even a true physical quantity. But who knows.

There is a brief calculation of this proportion, and the result is 1.78 x 10^-41, corresponding to very nearly 41 orders of magnitude.

He states correctly that the ratio of the gravitational to the strong force as "typically given as 38 or 39 orders of magnitude", so this ratio is at least 100 times lower than the value he calculated using the vacuum energy. And that's using Haramein's numbers.

So you couldn't call it strikingly similar.

(Unless you write one of them in percentage form, and the other not, as he did in the paper!)

Actually, between you and me, I think Haramein missed a trick here. Rather than just mention this in passing, he could have used it to suggest that the strong force is the interaction between the entire vacuum energy within the volume of each of the two protons, but with this energy taking the form of a gravitational dipole with a separation of the Planck length at the core of each proton. Then he wouldn't have needed any of the black hole stuff at all, and his argument wouldn't have been circular. That might have been interesting. It's still just random bollocks, but it's a radical idea involving mysterious vacuum stuff, he could have justified it with some really cool (Newtonian) equations, and it would have sounded good. Nassim, if you're reading, there's an idea for you!

Instead, all he's done here is to find two numbers that look similar (though they aren't) and note it without explanation, as if some significance should be obvious (which it isn't). So let's move on.


2. Considering the nuclear force as a gravitational attraction is compatible with both nucleon and quark confinement ](page 1, 3rd sentence)

Quark confinement is an enormously complex subject dealing with the fact that quarks cannot exist outside of hadrons, which has nothing to do with, and is in no way compatible with, Haramein's model. He doesn't talk about quarks at all in this paper, so I'm going to write that one off as just a careless comment made by mistake. One I'm sure even he would admit.
 
[Edit: nope, he didn't admit it. "Au contraire, my dear Bob-a-thon ... It is quite relevant to mention that we have a possible means to explain the color force, which is more than one can say for the standard models." he tells us in his response, before proceeding to paint an extremely odd image of quarks as these freaky little animals invented out of thin air by physicists to enable them to sweep all their problems under the carpet without anyone noticing... it's quite cute...]

By nucleon confinement, he must mean the strength of the force that binds a proton or a neutron in a nucleus.

What he's saying (and he makes this more explicit on page 5) is that he has discovered that two Schwarzschild protons would be bound together by gravity alone with a force that bears a spooky resemblance to the strong force. The implication is that this model of the proton "offers the source of the binding energy as spacetime curvature". In other words, the strong force might be considered to be gravitational in nature, suggesting that this approach may lead to a way to dispense with the idea of a strong force altogether. This would unify the large and small scales in a significant way, and lead to a simpler and more integrated view of reality.

But let's look at what he's actually done.

First, a little history. In the late 17th Century, Newton realised that what caused planets to orbit the sun was no more than the familiar force of gravity. It wasn't long before he'd worked out the equation for gravitation, and proved definitively that it implied that any two objects in empty space would be bound in a stable gravitational orbit. The moon would orbit the Earth indefinitely; the Earth would orbit the Sun indefinitely; and so on.

In short, set in motion any two objects at any distance apart in empty space, and they will orbit each other for ever (so long as they're not set on a collision course). This is one of the most basic results of Newtonian gravity.

What has Haramein discovered? He has 'discovered' (using 17th century equations) that two Schwarzschild protons placed at 2.64fm apart and set in motion will be held together gravitationally in orbit.

But we've known for well over 300 years that gravity will bind ANY two objects in an orbit.

He's claiming that this is one of his significant conclusions of his model, and as a reason to justify the fact that protons can be modelled as black holes. Does this sound like a reasonable claim to you?


Now, what about the size of the force that Haramein has calculated. Will we find that it is spookily similar to the strong force that binds protons in the nucleus?

The gravitational binding force between two Schwarzschild protons is 7.49 x 10^47 dynes (page 3). This is in fact what you get if you stick any pair of equal mass black holes into Newton's gravitation equation – the result is the same no matter how big or small the black hole is. (It would be a silly thing to do, as Newton's laws don't apply to such extreme situations. But Haramein did it anyway.)
In old units, this is 7.57 x 10^47 dynes. (Haramein has made some elementary rounding errors that have given him 7.49 instead of 7.57, but we can let this pass.)

To put this number in perspective, this force is:

• 700 trillion trillion times the weight of mount Everest (= 10^21 dynes)
  
• 500 thousand trillion times the weight of another planet Earth if you put it 'on top' of our one (= 1.5 x 10^30 dynes)
  
• 90 billion trillion times the impact force of a 6 mile diameter asteroid hitting the Earth at 10 miles per second! (The one that wiped out the dinosaurs was this size. It had a mass of 10 trillion tonnes, and was slowed from 10 miles per second after penetrating a distance of about 15km into the crust. v²=2as, F=ma, every action has... you know the deal, you do the math. Then multiply by 90 billion trillion!)
  

I'm not joking. It really is a stupidly big number.

Haramein is suggesting – without, it seems, any awareness of how stupid this is – that this is the force of attraction between two protons within a single atom.

We can use an electron, one of the lightest particles known, to knock a proton out of a nucleus. We can even do it with a single photon of light. We don't need to throw 6-mile diameter asteroids at atoms to split them.

This result alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Schwarzschild proton is one of the worst thought-out models of the proton that it is possible to come up with.


3. The orbital speed of two neighbouring protons turns out to be the speed of light (page 3)

An object in orbit very close to a black hole will have a very fast orbit. For a small object at a distance of 1.5R_s (meaning one and a half times the Schwarzschild radius), the speed of the orbit is c, the speed of light. This is a result of general relativity, known as the photon sphere.

For larger objects with significant gravitational fields of their own, the problem becomes fiendishly complex. (As mentioned in the "stability of interaction" section above, energy loss through gravitational radiation guarantees that there is no stable close orbit anyway.)
 
Haramein's protons are both black holes, orbiting at 2R_s, which is further than the photon sphere. A correct calculation would give a lower speed, perhaps not far from two thirds of the speed of light. Haramein has used special relativity (which is only valid in the absence of strong gravitational fields), and got an incorrect result.

Even if he had calculated correctly, the result doesn't tell us anything new – this would apply to anything orbiting any black hole. So nothing to write home about, just some more inappropriate use of physics equations.


4. The time period for such an orbit turns out to be the same as the characteristic timescale of nuclear emissions involving the strong force (page 1)

What is the timescale of nuclear emissions involving the strong force? It's roughly how long it takes for a strong interaction to occur, and it's determined by the shortest time possible to traverse a strongly interacting particle.

In other words, to get the timescale of the strong force, take the size of a proton and divide it by the speed of light.

(To be a little more subtle, the reason why the timescales involved will be as short as possible in the case of the strong force is that the strong force coupling constant is approximately 1, which is – and I'm simplifying things a little, but the principle is true – as high as possible.)

Haramein has chosen to operate at the size of a proton. He has also chosen to operate close to the event horizon of a black hole, which means that any relevant speeds must be close to the speed of light. So, again, there is no result here.


...
 
That's as far as I've got for now. I'm doing this a bit at a time, because doing it properly is time-consuming. But you probably get the idea.
 
[Edit, 8th June: The scaling law just makes my heart sink when I look at it, it's such a confused mush. I'm still putting it off. :)
 
Meanwhile, please see the latest post here. Clear examples of Haramein (a) being clueless about all aspects of physics, and (b) making absurd claims for his insights into physics, including some truly outrageous claims about the Schwarzschild Proton ]

Do let me know if you think I've got anything wrong so far.


Conclusion

I'm not trying to suggest that Haramein made some mistakes with his model and should go away and make some corrections.

Haramein claims to be doing serious science. He claims to have unified the forces of nature, and to have created a unified field theory. He claims to be able to point out where all 'the other physicists' are going wrong. He claims, moreover, that his paper, The Schwarzschild Proton, has won serious academic acclaim. All of these are patently false.

The only sensible conclusion from looking at this example of his work is that he is utterly incompetent as a physicist – even with the help of his hired academics, whose "advice and careful reading of the manuscript" didn't reveal any of the myriad of nonsensical implications that a little exploration should have found.

He knows that taking on the air of authority of a research physicist will give weight to his outlandish ideas, many of which are in the language of physics. And he knows that this will bring him followers and cash. Indeed it does.
 
 
 
[Edit 22nd July: Response to this article by Nassim Haramein...]
 
Response from Nassim Haramein
 
Nassim Haramein's Resonance Project has published a detailed response to this article. To find out more and to read his response for yourself, please see here. Thank you.
 
 

Return to Main post
Quick link to this post: http://bit.ly/schproton[/size]
Thursday, July 22, 2010

A look at Nassim's response to 'Bobathon'
 
[/size]

Contents:

Introduction
The nature of Nassim's response
The physics in Nassim's response
1. The discrepancy of the mass of the proton
2. The discrepancy of the force between protons
3. All the other things
An apology

 
 
Introduction
 
There's been a lot of talk about Nassim Haramein's physics on this blog over the past few months. I'm intending to wrap up the saga with this little post. Wish me luck.

There are six previous posts: an introduction, the original article questioning his legitimacy as a scientist, observations of his approach to mathematics, a detailed look at his current flagship physics paper, a collection of extracts from grossly misleading presentations, and a more personal article about why I started writing all this in the first place. Number seven seems like a good place to end.
 
I've focused throughout on Haramein's physics. Why physics? Because he claims to be doing serious science, and his institution claims to be revolutionising our physical understanding of the world. If his physics is as awful as I'm saying it is, then that is a very serious bit of misselling.
 
If fancy physics isn't your cup of tea, there's no shortage of blatant examples of misunderstanding of basic physics that you might get more sense out of. I'd encourage anyone to sit down with their cup of tea and investigate these things further.
 
If you don't mind a bit of physics with your cupcakes and you're interested in his Schwarzschild Proton theory (that the strong force is actually a gravitational interaction between black holes), then you might be interested to know that if you ask a few simple questions of it, his theory falls completely apart.
 
Or does it...?
 
 
 
Nassim's response
 
In this video, Haramein presents his killer reasoning against those who claim to disprove his theories of the universe:
 

 
Ok, ok, sorry. I'm not taking this seriously enough...
 
That's not really Haramein. (Although...) No. You're right. It isn't.
 
Let's start again.
 
 
Nassim's response – take 2
 
Haramein has now taken on some of the claims that I've made, and has devoted part of his website to responding at length to the criticisms that I've raised.
 
I'm happy to spotlight his response here in order to encourage debate. I'm also happy to host any kind of critical debate here, provided it's not offensive and empty. (In contrast, Haramein doesn't encourage debate or provide links to any criticisms about his work, and any kind of critical comment on his blog, no matter how reasonable, will not pass moderation.)
 
Haramein's response has come as a great source of delight to those who really want to see me getting a good kicking for speaking out against this inspiring and creative new thinker of our time. There do seem to be many such people. Happy days for them!
 
Nassim's response to my original article is called "Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon",
and his response to my criticisms of his Schwarzschild Proton paper is called "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto".
 
So, what to make of all this. To summarise, his rhetoric is great! The bits of physics he's thrown in look really impressive! If the aim is to wow the fans and seal their contempt for me, he's done an excellent job.
 
But has he actually addressed the criticisms that I've raised? Surely, somewhere in all that work, he must have? Help me out here if you think I'm missing something, but I really don't think he has. I'll illustrate some of the ways he's misused physics in his defence later on.
 
If you disagree – if you can find any single point in there that convinces you that any of my criticisms of his physics aren't completely valid – then I'd really love to hear from you. It would be great if we could keep it to the physics. I know it won't happen, but it would be great if it did.
 
Meanwhile, as you can see for yourself, he has had fun doing what he does best – inventing things to entertain his fans, and telling them what they want to hear. He presents this new, conveniently fictionalised version of me to his followers as "an important study for anyone who is interested in my work."
 
I'm apparently to be seen as someone who "proclaims himself and his institution the beholder of the truth and the only truth as if the standard model was complete and a done deal." I'm also a "reactionary defending the status quo", indulging in "personal attacks, character assassinations and name-calling."
 
I haven't mentioned the standard model, so I don't know where that came from. I'd never proclaim it as a done deal, and neither would any physicist.
Which one of us has an institution with an ideology to defend against legitimate questions? I don't have one.
Which of us is engaging in immature name-calling? Here's a clue: in Haramein's first response, he twists my silly pseudonym into a derogatory term that he's sourced from that well-respected reference work Urban Dictionary, and uses it as the title of his article. Someone should have pointed out that that's kinda puerile :-)
 
Irony aside, I'm curious as to what name-calling he might be referring to on my part. I can sympathise if he doesn't like the words fraud or fake or pseudoscientist. I did present an extensive exposition of the discrepancies between the claims he makes for his work and the pitiable content of it, however, so they were very natural terms to use. Inescapable, even. Not names.
 
As for character attacks, I can't prevent him from feeling attacked if he's attached to his ideas. That's fairly standard among pseudoscientists. The thing is, I don't think I've even mentioned his character, except to point out that his integrity is called into question by the claims that he makes.
 
And I don't even like Status Quo.
 
But he's right to complain that I don't give him the respect that he feels entitled to. He makes it known that he is deeply offended, which is fair enough. My aim was always to discuss his ideas for what they are, not for what he thinks they are, so his sense of entitlement never really entered into it. It's just one of those things – if you spout nonsense in public instead of doing science, sooner or later people will start saying "hang on, but that's nonsense" rather than treating you as a scientist.
 
He also makes it very clear that I'm a mediocre mind and that he is a brilliant thinker – in fact he repeatedly compares himself to Einstein. If he has such a high view of himself, it's odd that he should be so upset by the unimaginative challenges of some obscure mediocre blogger. But there we are.
 
What we do agree on is that one of us must be very closed-minded and deeply attached to his own view of the world.
 
I do rather like my view of the world, I admit. I've worked quite hard for it. But I also love the fact that people and situations can, and very often do, challenge it and open my mind to greater things. It's just that I resist changing it when presented with nonsense that conflicts with straightforward observations of nature. I've given his approach a lot of consideration – but it is what it is.
 
I think I've thought through his ideas quite thoroughly though, if you'll excuse the tongue-twister. Far more than I really ought to have; and certainly far more than I intend to in the future.
 
 
 
Ok, ok, enough already, show me the physics
 
If you're fed up of all these arguments going around in circles, you're not the only one. Let's cut to the chase.
 
My criticisms rest on the fact that he claims to be doing serious science and revolutionising physics, but his physics theories are nothing more than naive, misleading, and blatantly incorrect ideas. If this is true (and it still is), then all the rhetoric in the world won't save him from being called a fraud.
 
Let's take the two most straightforward and significant criticisms of the Schwarzschild Proton.
 
1. His theory gives the mass of the proton as 885 million tonnes when it's straightforward to measure that it's 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram.
 
2. His theory predicts a force between the protons in a nucleus of 7.49 x 10^47 dynes, which is also many many orders of magnitude larger than what is measured.
 
These particular conclusions of his theory are all so unambiguously and blatantly wrong, and by such an enormous amount, that I did for a while believe that he wouldn't seriously attempt to defend them. But he has.
 
 
1 The discrepancy of the mass of the proton
 
Haramein discusses the problem of the mass of the proton on this page, about half way down. He starts off by suggesting that I made a basic error in confusing mass and weight, which is untrue – weighing gases to establish their mass is fairly sensible. He then talks about how the source of mass is still a mystery in the standard model, and somehow ends up on the quantization of spacetime... all of which has absolutely no bearing whatever on the very simple and straightforward fact that if something has a mass of nearly a billion tonnes, it ought to be heavy.
 
He then tells us that "in the final copy of The Schwarzschild Proton we calculate the mass dilation resulting from a proton rotating near relativistic speeds and find that at a velocity of 10^-39 slower than C, the proton exhibits the mass of a Schwarzschild entity."
 
Mass dilation is a consequence of special relativity that makes objects moving close to the speed of light appear more massive than they would be at rest. I doubt that this will help him explain why they appear so light to us.
 
This new idea would imply that we'd experience these Schwarzschild protons as 10^39 times heavier in a bound state than as a free proton! A bound state of two protons (and/or neutrons, one would assume – deuterium, for example) would have a mass of 10^39 times heavier than a single proton.
 
Needless to say, none of this is remotely like what is observed in the real world. He really hasn't thought it through very well.
 
 
(He then goes on to say fabulous things like "On the cosmological level, this highly turbulent structure of horizons where velocities approach c may be the source of matter creation through sheering of the spacetime manifold itself at the quantum level which predicts a continuous matter creation model at black hole horizons..." and links to a whole load of string theory papers. All meaningless in this context, and seemingly irrelevant to anything that Haramein has ever suggested. The blatant discrepancy between his theory and the real world remains. Still, if the desired effect is "whoa, hit me with that far-out XXXX, you like totally pwned that status quo dude, man", then I give it top marks and a gold star.)
 
 
Haramein returns to discuss this discrepancy in this document, about 40% of the way down, first by claiming that the Standard Model fudges the mass of the proton by renormalisation. I want to say a quick few words about this complex idea, at the risk of giving you something of a caricature of what's actually involved...
 
Renormalisation is an aspect of the mathematical treatment of quantum field theories that can either be used very well or rather badly. When used well, the results it predicts are either independent of the finite cut (the "fudge" as Haramein calls it) or if not, the effects of the physics above and below the cut are treated seperately and combined in the final analysis, and a physical rationale for the value of the cut is predicted by the theory itself. This is now such a well-understood process, it can't really be described as a fudge. The prime example is the entire standard model, which has driven forwards the last four decades of highly successful particle physics research, and in particular renormalised QED, the most accurate theory that mankind has ever produced.
 
When it's used 'badly', the results are highly dependent on the cut, and the user imposes some "correct" scale on the theory from outside, and then asserts that the results of the calculation have some actual measurable physical significance. That surely is a fudge. (I find it unconvincing, though I'm hardly an expert.) I'm not aware of any observations that have ever been made that validates this kind of use of the theory. I'm thinking in particular of the fetish for ascribing values to the energy of the vacuum. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Nassim Haramein, the man who denounces the fudgelessly renormalised Standard Model, makes prominent use of one of these fudged renormalisation results at the start of his Schwarzschild Proton paper by quoting a vacuum energy density as if it has a physical significance.
 
More irony.
 
It's true that the standard model doesn't predict the mass of the proton – at least not without first knowing the masses of quarks. It's true that it bases its predictions on a renormalisation process that some see (or let's be honest, some saw several decades ago) as controversial. But does any of this excuse Haramein's theory from the requirement that it should make some sense and relate to the real world? Sorry, but no.
 
The thing about the measured mass of the proton is that it's always equal to the measured mass of the proton. It's an exceptionally precisely known and unerringly consistent value, and whether or not the standard model predicts it, all theories of physics have to use it. The whole point of science is that it is attempting to reflect nature. As Carl Sagan puts it, "Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised."
 
We're still left with the fact that Haramein's theory offers no results that are supported by experiment (aside from those that would follow from the original assumptions anyway), and a whole bunch of conclusions that are inconsistent with the facts by many, many orders of magnitude.
 
 
 
2. The discrepancy of the force between protons
 
There is another enormous difference between the measured force between two protons and the 'stupidly big' figure in his paper.
 
Haramein says, "It matters little how 'stupidly big' something is. What matters is if the numbers derived are logical, plausible, consistent with the theory involved, and point to at least useful and/or, ideally, testable results." True words indeed! The numbers Haramein gives in his Schwarzschild Proton paper aren't remotely plausible. Furthermore they can be very easily 'tested', i.e. compared directly to the real world, without using any fancy physics at all, as I will illustrate.
 
He addresses the discrepancy here, about 90% of the way down. He points out that he has already explained it in his paper using the centrifugal force, and he berates me for not having read it. As it happens, I did read it (the paper is only a few pages long, after all). I didn't bother to discuss it because it doesn't change anything.
 
In the Newtonian classical mechanics that Haramein has employed, in a rotating reference frame, gravity has an inverse square dependence on separation, whereas centrifugal forces follow an inverse cube dependence. (The only assumption needed for this is that any external angular impulse must be negligible in comparison to the angular momentum of the system, which will certainly be true here.) This means that at some definite separation they will balance – as Haramein correctly points out – but for any displacement from that definite separation there will be a net restoring force. The system is forced back to equilibrium. This is why gravitational orbits are stable.
 
What does this mean for the Schwarzschild Proton? The forces are balanced at 2.64fm separation; if they were pulled even to 2.65fm apart, the restoring force would already be 0.37% of the full gravitational force, which is 2.83 x 10^45 dynes. Which is stupidly big. By which I mean big enough to make it utterly impossible – it's already many many orders of magnitude greater than any force we could hope to create or observe on Earth.
Looking at it in terms of energy gives us a better way of comparing the numbers directly with the real world.
We can calculate the amount of energy required to separate two protons. For a classical circular orbit, it's half the magnitude of the gravitational potential energy (the rest is provided by the kinetic energy of the orbiting body). In this case, the answer is 1.98 x 10^28 Joules (try it yourself).
This is an astronomical figure, and it would be stupid to suggest this was the amount of energy to split a single nucleus – it's more than half of the amount of energy it would take to remove the Moon from its orbit around the Earth.
Compare this to Haramein's assertion that the "balance between the centrifugal force and the centripetal force is extremely fragile and any disturbing entity would easily knock it out of equilibrium." The work of a brilliant thinker of our time, or utter idiotic nonsense? Go figure.
For the actual, measured, maximum value for the energy required to separate two protons, consider the nucleus with the highest proton separation energy, Helium-4. Subtract the mass of this nucleus from the combined masses of a proton and a tritium nucleus, and multiply by c². The maximum energy required to remove a proton is 3.2 x 10^-12 Joules. For most nuclei, the figure is much lower than this.
 
Once again, Haramein is around 40 orders of magnitude from reality as a result of using gravity instead of the strong force. Have I used any dodgy physics theories here? These are fairly straightforward observations.
 
3. Other things that are fundamentally flawed or straightforwardly wrong

I raised many other fundamental issues with his theories, for example his claim that there is an event horizon around a proton (a region from which no light or particles can emerge, especially if this event horizon is somehow immune to rapid decay as protons clearly are). This is contradicted by the fact that we can clearly observe the proton's internal structure. Haramein hasn't responded to this at all.
There's so much in his response that there's no way I could try to deal with it all. There's actually lots of quotes from and links to quite good physics that have been mixed in there that I wouldn't argue with... but very little if any of them are relevant to any of the claims that he's been making. (And in the majority of cases they really don't imply the kind of things that he tries to make them imply. He even includes a quote "the effects of gravity can safely be ignored on a small scale, such as the atomic one" from an article that was supposedly providing a rationale for his black hole obsession. Wake up, research dudes! Get with the cherry-pickin' program!)
All in all, despite the magnitude of the work that has gone into this by Haramein and his staff, I don't believe that he's provided one reasonable argument that contradicts any of the flaws in his physics that I've highlighted in my earlier posts.
I'd like to know if you think otherwise.
As I said earlier, if you can find any single point in Haramein's response that convinces you that any of my criticisms of his physics are unfounded – then I'd really love to know what it is, and why you find it convincing. It would be great if we could keep it to the physics. I know it won't happen, but it would be great if it did. Let's face it, it doesn't matter how upset his groupies get, it's the dodgy physics and Haramein's utterly disproportionate claims for his research that are in question here.
If anything interesting comes up from the physics discussion in the comments or by email, I'll include it in my post, and I'll gladly amend the blog if I've said anything incorrect.
Haramein and his fans may be glad to know that I don't intend to write about him any more. And I'll stay anonymous, so they can continue to mythologise me to their hearts' content.
 
An apology to Mr Haramein

Before I finish, though, I do – in all seriousness – want to apologise for one thing that I have said. Not because I'm worried about legal consequences or anything like that, but because I think I've been unfair.
I did use the word "manipulative", and also words such as "lying" or "deceitful", to describe Haramein's approach to presenting physics. Not very often, but even once is too much. These words clearly imply that he is deliberately setting out to mislead, and I can't possibly know that. While I think the term "misleading" is entirely appropriate, I will accept his objection that it is unfair of me to assume any such thing about his motivations.
It's perfectly plausible that Haramein does have such an inflated sense of his work that he believes that he's doing serious science research, leading a revolution in physics, answering age-old mysteries about the pyramids, solving crop-circles, receiving and interpreting communications from aliens that fly in and out of volcanos and sunspots, proving that there are complex tetrahedral geometries in everything in the universe that generate paranormal phenomena, finding the secret connections that link them all with hidden subtexts within the Bible, and so on and so on; and perhaps he truly believes that he's on the verge of transforming the world into a haven of free energy and understanding and that any minute now the scientific community will wake up to his truth and recognise his contribution. He may well also believe that he didn't invent the fictionalised version of me that he presented. Who knows what he believes.
It's plausible, though I admit to finding it difficult to understand. How is it possible for a view like that, however sweet and innocent an ideal it might come from, to survive contact with the real world for so many years? Perhaps this could be admirable in some way.
Maybe it's understandable if you set out early in life with a drive to communicate some view of the world that feels good and gives people what they want to hear; and if you then find yourself with thousands of fans who admire you for it and allow you to make a living from it and see you as their hope and their light, then I guess you could be forgiven for mistaking it all for reality. I'm sure there are plenty of precedents.
What's hard to believe is that it could be possible to maintain these kinds of delusions without some conscious act of sustained wilful ignorance as to what's actually out there, especially if he's involved in actually trying to carry out research. But perhaps he is somehow capable of this in all innocence. So I'll let it go.
For this reason I've agreed to remove all instances of the offending words from the main body of my blog, and this disclaimer can be seen as a retraction of any use of these words elsewhere by me. He may well be a really lovely character, as I said in my original post nearly six months ago. My criticism, as I keep saying, concerns the content of his science, and the disparity between this and the claims that he makes for it. Not his intentions in doing so.
Misleading it certainly is. He succeeds in pulling the wool over so many of his followers' eyes, whether he intends to or not. His impressive ability to sustain this level of ignorance for so many years will never qualify as a reasonable excuse for making a living by misleading people into seeing him as an authority.
Luckily for us, we can continue to discuss his incompetence as a scientist and to question his integrity without resorting to any assumptions about what in the name of arse is going on inside his head.
I do hope that settles the matter to Mr Haramein's satisfaction.

http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/nassims-response-to-bobathon.html

shiloh wrote:http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/schwarzchild-proton.html
 
The Physics of the Schwarzschild Proton
 
'The Schwarzschild Proton' is a paper written by Nassim Haramein, proposing a model of the proton based on what he calls 'the Schwarzschild condition'.

I've discussed Haramein's methods more broadly here (starting with a look at the award he displays for this paper), but here I'm focusing on the physics in this paper. It's fairly basic, so I'm hoping to be able to present this in a way that makes at least some sense to at least some of Haramein's non-physicist audience who are interested in his ideas.
 
[Edit 4th Dec, updated 1st Jan: Anyone curious about Haramein's recent appearance in some obscure 'peer-reviewed' conference proceedings, please see this note: http://bit.ly/harameinAIP. Feel free to ask questions in the comments.]
...

[5:46:37 AM] Tonyblue: Ok the critique from that guy is sound
[5:47:10 AM] Tonyblue: As I have also said many times Nassim''s 'Black Hole proton' is bogus
[5:47:46 AM] Tonyblue: Where Nassim is ok, is in presenting the Black hole physics as multiD
[5:47:54 AM] Tonyblue: This the critic cant see
[5:48:44 AM] Tonyblue: But the scientific argument 'against' Nassim all stand up BUT they are 3D
[5:49:03 AM] Tonyblue: The crux is the nature of the vacuum
[5:49:24 AM] Tonyblue: If the vacuum is 3D space then all this hyperphysics falls apart
[5:50:11 AM] Tonyblue: But if the string theory is correct, then the 'curled up' dimensions can be opened theoretically and release the ZPE
[5:50:48 AM] Tonyblue: Nassim talks about the Black Holes multi D, say string terms and the other bloke sees it in 3D terms
[5:51:54 AM] Tonyblue: I did not go into details, but the rotational dynamics also relate to multiD AND 3D
[5:52:56 AM] Tonyblue: There is new physics in Nassim's ideas, BUT they are not addressed properly by him.
[5:53:22 AM] Tonyblue: He seeks mainstream acceptance and his proton paper just does not cut it.
[5:53:56 AM] Xeia: it's hard to explain the metaphysical world with hard core mainstream science
[5:54:15 AM] Xeia: i think he does a more than ok job just for trying
[5:54:22 AM]Tonyblue: Yes this is at the core and Nassim is seeking 'attention' see and he is a flamboyant character
[5:54:31 AM] Tonyblue: the skeptics dont like that
[5:55:13 AM] Tonyblue: Yes I do like him as a populariser
[5:55:15 AM] Xeia: it's the same thing when ppl come ask me a question and i go all meta with them then they go like wtf?
[5:55:33 AM] Tonyblue: But he simply went too far, claiming Einstein and quantum mechanics are wrong
[5:55:47 AM] Xeia: i believe he said incomplete...not wrong
[5:56:13 AM] Tonyblue: Well I read the skeptic, he said wrong, I dont recall
[5:56:35 AM] Xeia: he added the "twist" remember?
[5:56:45 AM] Tonyblue: no
[5:56:55 AM] Xeia: lol
[5:57:33 AM] Tonyblue: This critic picked up certain basic physics flaws, I also saw in Nassim's presentations, but did not comment on
[5:57:49 AM] Tonyblue: As I sort of saw what he meant
[5:58:09 AM] Tonyblue: But the skeptics dont see this see. They are purely dogmatic here
[5:58:33 AM] Tonyblue: So there is little point arguing this
[5:58:49 AM] Xeia: i know you see it because you see multiD
[5:59:03 AM] Tonyblue: Only of the space dimensions extend, will the Nassim ideas be seen to mean something physical
[5:59:40 AM] Xeia: that guy goes nuts thinking "how can a black hole fit into a tiny cell!!???!!"
[5:59:42 AM] Xeia: hahahaha
[5:59:57 AM] Tonyblue: This skeptic is a mainstream scientist following the status quo
[6:00:09 AM] Xeia: not only a cell, but in higher D the same dynamics work on the entire human body as a whole
[6:00:23 AM] Tonyblue: Yes because he looks at it as a inertia in 3D
[6:00:27 AM] Xeia: everyliving organism for that matter
[6:00:34 AM] Tonyblue: The weight of it
[6:00:36 AM] Xeia: Drunvalo also explained it
[6:00:51 AM] Tonyblue: Small size can be big mass
[6:01:07 AM] Tonyblue: Yes but again all this is higherD
[6:01:10 AM] Tonyblue: Like the earth
[6:01:16 AM] Tonyblue: As a golfball
[6:01:24 AM] Xeia: exactly
[6:01:24 AM] Tonyblue: Hollow Earth BS etc
[6:01:53 AM] Tonyblue: You could not convince this skeptic, that it is Information AS MASS
[6:01:55 AM] Xeia: like my grandma used to say...one talks about potatoes the other one about sweet potatoes
[6:02:04 AM] Tonyblue: O perhaps one could lol I dont know
[6:02:06 AM] Xeia: https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=450154146461
[6:02:21 AM] Xeia: yeah well...
[6:02:51 AM] Xeia: at least he tried...not everyone is comfy with so much adoration for nassim
[6:03:00 AM] Tonyblue: lol
[6:03:04 AM] Xeia: haha
[6:03:19 AM] Tonyblue: Gotta go now its 6am
[6:03:32 AM] Xeia: to sleep?
[6:03:34 AM] Xeia: ok
[6:03:45 AM] Tonyblue: Yes I have been up all night, posting on JT's thread
] Xeia: omg
[6:03:56 AM] Xeia: yeah get some rest
[6:04:04 AM] Tonyblue: PTB agenda I also put on heaven
[6:04:14 AM] Xeia: i am reading the book of Job
[6:04:23 AM] Tonyblue: But it is linked to thr Hidden Hand on New World page 1
[6:04:28 AM] Tonyblue: Ah yes
[6:04:38 AM] Tonyblue: Good post on Gospel of Thomas
[6:04:44 AM] Xeia: yes i love it
[6:04:52 AM] Tonyblue: As an intro
[6:42:52 AM] Rok: why are u reading the book of job?
[6:43:34 AM] Xeia: among other things.....
[6:43:38 AM] Xeia: i am also doing other things at the same time
[6:43:59 AM] Xeia: why? amm...i stumbled upon it while looking for another post on heaven
[6:44:06 AM] Xeia: and i found it interesting
[6:44:51 AM] Rok: mhm
[9:17:26 AM] Ishtara Raven: My computer has a virus, got a friend here working on it for me, so I have limited internet for a few days on my phone
[11:55:22 AM] Tonyblue: http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&fid=&lastp=1&id=C17555C0-95C0-4D2B-BFE3-1A43BF484EE4
[11:55:51 AM] Tonyblue: Bob's physics is sound
[11:56:29 AM] Tonyblue: Actually this explains Nassims 'NONRESPONSE' to my letter to him
[11:56:40 AM] Tonyblue: Also on this weblink
[11:57:24 AM] Tonyblue: Seems he wanted me to give him academic 'credentials'
[11:57:52 AM] Tonyblue: Well I think like Nassim, but dont throw out established physics like Einstein and Bohr
[11:58:45 AM] Tonyblue: His 'one and only' published paper is pure bogus, as I said 2 years ago
[11:59:08 AM] Tonyblue: This paper on the Schwarzschild proton is dissected on this link

I looked at the critique AND Nassim's reply to it. I am in agreement with Bob, but accept the validity of Nassim's higherD Black Hole physics, but without his 'Schwarzschild proton'.

In particular, Nassim should calculate the Schwarzschild Proton the other way around.

Instead of using the proton's size; he should use the proton's subatomic mass. Then he would have easily seen the 'error of his ways'.

I do it for him here:

The actual Schwarzschild proton in hyperspace uses the m_c =m_Planck.Alpha⁹~10^-28 kg in the Schwarzschild stasis (nonrotating and uncharged Black Holes) metric to give the supersmall (and physically unrealistic) sub-Planck-Length of:

R_proton=2Gm_c/c² ~ 2.5x10^-55 meters.

Then, as the smallest physically meaningful 'quantum displacement' is the 'Planck-Length-Oscillation' as √(Alpha).L_Planck ~ 2x10^-36 meters; no Schwarzschild Proton can physically exist, neither in 3D nor in string-membrane space of 12 dimensions.


http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&fid=&lastp=1&id=C17555C0-95C0-4D2B-BFE3-1A43BF484EE4

SUSANakaTHE13THBRIDGE - Posted 3 Hours Ago
 
long time ago, you emailed Haramein some important stuff
was this what it was about ???

Nassim Haramein has calculated a geometric solution for the gravitational field. In his latest paper "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass" he describes gravity in a classical algebraic way by calculating the density of the space both within and on the outside of the event horizon of a proton. 

The seemingly "empty" vacuum of space is actually a nearly infinitely dense super-fluid medium made of tiny tiny tiny little frothing bubbles of energy. Sometimes called the "quantum foam", each of these miniscule vibrations represents a spherical wave form, or quanta, that is the diameter of the smallest possible measurable distance, the Planck length. Haramein calls these tiny spherical information bits Planck spherical units or PSUs. The PSUs on the interior of the proton's event horizon pack together in a perfectly space-filling overlapping 3D Flower of Life structure with each sphere's center being connected by a tetrahedral geometry lattice. The PSUs within the proton volume holographically project on the proton surface event horizon as "flat" equatorial circles in a flower of life tiling pattern. 

In this image, the first equation describes the ratio between the proton surface area and the surface Planck circles showing that the number of equatorial circles on the Proton surface equals 10↑40 (10 to the 40 or 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Planck length diameter circles)

The second equation shows the number of Planck spherical units contained within the proton, which is 10↑60. In the third equation, the external surface horizon is divided by the internal volume and then multiplied by the Planck mass to give the total value of the proton mass. With a simple classical geometric calculation, Haramein obtains the mass of the proton according to the standard model, as measured from the outside, in the laboratory: 10↑-24 gm.

Haramein then calculates the external Planck circles divided by the internal Planck spheres to obtain the gravitational mass of the proton, which equals 10↑14 which is the exact amount of mass needed for the proton to obey what is called the the Schwarzschild condition of a black hole. 

Protons are quantum scale black holes.

Gravity is a ratio of volume to surface area.

More info.: http://resonance.is/explore/quantum-gravity-and-the-holographic-mass-trailer-and-press-release/

The Resonance Project • The Resonance Project - Página Oficial Hispana • The Resonance Project - Traduction Française • Phys.org • Science • Physics-astronomy • Cosmos • Cosmometry • Physics Today •Thrive • ScienceAlert • ScienceAlert 中文

 

On first look, he fudged his numbers to obtain the codata proton mass Susan. 'The surface area of a proton and any subatomic 'particle' depends on the radius or 'size' of that particle. On the other hand, the Planck units are well defined as conglomerations of basic fundamental constants. And so using the 'correct' Planck-Volume and Planck-Mass, one can indeed calculate a correct Planck-Density. as r_P=M_P/L_P³ multiplied by a geometric factor, say 4p/3 for 3D or 2p² for 4D space.

I will calculate the proper value in this reply and publish them for you or anyone interested to peruse shortly.

From the insert below, you can see, that the radius/size of a proton is NOT fixed as some definitive value as Nassim seems to believe. And as both the Surface Area and the Volume of any particle or matter agglomeration are defined as function of its Radius, Nassim's calculations are at best approximations for any proton, which is better described as a 'waved particle' or wavicle in a form of quantum geometrical flux. Diagrams in the insert illustrate this further.

This then defines r_proton=1.3888...fm* = 1.38657...fm (Unit System International) and in the error interval of the Friar-Sick measurement as 1.394±0.016 fm in (1.378 - 1.410 fm) to 0.5%.

The 2010 CODATA recommended value for the protonic charge radius is: proton: R_p = 0.8775(51)*10^-15 m

Nevertheless a 'mean or average' value for the size of a proton can be used to calculate the values Nassim Haramein is proposing in his latest 'quasi scientific' endeavour of his 'Holographic Proton'.

From the treatise below' we use a particular averaged mean value for the protonic radius as 1.39x10^-15 meters and restrict our calculations to 3 significant figures to minimise any more serious deviation from this empirical and ubiquitously confirmed measurement.

My calculations can so be multiplied by a factor of 0.88/1.39=0.63 and 0.46 and 0.25 to align with the Haramein numbers for the 'unhaloed' proton he uses (in brackets).

Nassim uses the proton size WITHOUT the halo in its so termed 'charge radius' and in his holographic proton, the omission of its halo could be said to omit about half of the 'effective interaction' of the proton as a discretized collection of Planck-Areas and Volumes; which also are inferred by him to 'Overlap' in the 'Flower of Life' geometry. Nassim so describes a rather smaller or shrunk proton in his proposals.
In the calculus below, I am using the 'haloed proton' as described in the accompanying article from renowned researchers in the field of particle physics. Therefore my calculations actually 'improve' on the haramein model of the 'holographic proton', as it renders the proton bigger with a halo, then without one.

The volume of a spherical 3D-proton then becomes: 4p/3x(1.39x10^-15 m)³=1.12x10^-44 m³ and for a Surface Area of: 4p.(1.39x10^-15 m)²=2.43x10^-29 m²

The volume of a spherical proton as ellipsoidal 4D (Riemann) hyperspace then becomes:
2p²x(1.39x10^-15 m)³=5.30x10^-44 m³
and for a Surface Area of: 6p².(1.39x10^-15 m)²= 1.14x10^-28 m²

The corresponding Planck-Volumes and Planck-Areas are:

V_P=4p/3x√{Gh/2pc³}³=1.75x10^-104 m³  with A_P=4px√{Gh/2pc³}²=3.26x10^-69 m²
and  V_P=2p²√{Gh/2pc³}³=8.24x10^-104 m³  with A_P=6p²√{Gh/2pc³}²=1.53x10^-68 m²  respectively and for a L_P=1.61x10^-35 m (Codata values).

Nassims ratios so calculate in Codata values:

η=A_proton/A_P={2.43x10^-29}/{3.26x10^-69}=7.45x10³⁹ (3.43x10³⁹) ~ 10⁴⁰

and R=V_proton/V_P={1.12x10^-44}/{1.75x10^-104}=6.40x10⁵⁹ (1.6x10⁵⁹) ~ 10⁶⁰
for both the 3D case and for the 4D case, as the volume multipliers cancel themselves out.

Both of those codata recalculated values so indeed are approximated by Nassim's ratios η=10⁴⁰ and R=10⁶⁰, but any competent college student would have derived those same numbers on a 'back of the envelope' calculation.

Now the Planck-Mass is particularly defined by fundamental constants and as the formula: m_P=√{hc/2pG}=2.18x10^-8 kg.
The actual Planck-density is: ρ_P=m_P/L_P³=√(hc/2πG)(2πc³/Gh)³=]=2πc⁵/hG²=5.17x10⁹⁶ kg/m³ using a 'cubic volume' for the Planck Length.
It is because of this huge density and compared to the actual matter density in the universe (including the 'dark energy') of 3H_o²/8pG~8.8x10^-27 kg/m³; that a 96+27=123 order of magnitude  discrepancy exists between the quantum physics of the vacuum and the matter containing universe.

Nassim's Proton mass calculation then is:

 2η.m_P/R = 2(7.45x10³⁹)x{2.18x10^-8kg}/6.40x10⁵⁹=5.08x10^-28 kg and deviating from the Codata proton mass not by some miniscule amount,

but by {(16.7-5.08)x10^-28/1.67x10^-27}=0.70 and so by 30%.

The informed observer, then can see, why Nassim did not use actual Codata values for his density-radius formulations, but PRESUMED those to be in some manner exact or 'fluid' as 10⁴⁰ and 10⁶⁰ respectively.
One can easily manipulate those 'approximated' numbers to then calculate a precise codata value. And so my first 'suspicion proves correct Susan.
Nassim used the Codata value of the proton's mass to then simply and unjustifiably IMPLY, that the numbers 10⁴⁰ and 10⁶⁰ would 'self adjust' to yield the Codata value for its mass. This kind of approach is scientifically dishonest at best and a blatant agenda to support his nabs related quasi science at its misdemeanour.

Here is an example of what he did:
Write:  2η.m_P/R = 1.6714213x10^-27 kg  for 2η/R={1.6714213x10^-27 kg /2.18x10^-8kg }=7.667...[some arbitrary decimal point aligned to the Planck Mass as defined]...x10^-20.

Then the requirement for the equation to hold becomes: 2η/R=7.667......x10^-20.
This condition IS in fact satisfied, should:  η/R=3.83x10^-20 OR R/η=2.61x10¹⁹ ~ 10⁶⁰/10⁴⁰=10²⁰

I am afraid no one will be able to actually 'find' an exact calculation of this 'Haramein Equation' and why for instance he introduced an 'unnecessary factor of 2' to adjust the proton mass as validated by experiment to his Planck scale parameters and parameters which are correct from an elementary physics perspective. One could infer that as Nassim takes the Planck-Length as a Diameter L_P=D=2l_P (say), that his discrete Planck-Area count 4pl_P² = pL_P² in some manner only beknown to him introduces the factor of 2 (it should be 4 in the detail just stated).

Generally, it can be ascertained, that Nassim likes to use the references of validated scientific research, such as can be read in his paper's introduction, mentioning the Schwarzschild metric and the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy and Black Hole Bounds and parameters. Following the introduction and utility of the well established physical principles, he however often deviates into his particular ideas of what the universe should be like; often denouncing those principles as 'wrong' or incomplete and notwithstanding the verified models he espoused in his introduction. 


Perhaps there is a particular evolvement of nabs science on the island of Hawaii.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-connected-universe-theory-offers-alternative-explanation-of-gravity-and-mass-revealing-potential-new-source-of-energy-206531571.html

'Contributions' from naïve and gullible nabsers would certainly help well meaning, but underinformed quasi scientific model builders to propagate their somewhat nebulous purposes and agendas.

Nassim Haramein  

From RationalWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Style over substance Pseudoscience

Popular pseudosciences

Alternative medicine Astrology Creation science Homeopathy Supernatural Ufology Woo

Random examples

ADE-651 Crockus Face on Mars Natural vision correction Nazism Neurolinguistic programming

Resources

Pseudoscience portal List of pseudosciences v - t - e

Nassim Haramein is a Swiss physics crank, one of the many who claim to have a Unified Field Theory he calls the Haramein-Rauscher Metric,^[1] in collaboration with real-but-somewhat-cranky physicist Elizabeth Rauscher. He claims this as a new solution to Einstein's Field Equations that incorporates torque and Coriolis effects.
Despite his claims, he's virtually unknown to mainstream physics, and the only people who take him seriously are the kind of people who listen to Coast to Coast AM.^[2] For a taste of his claims, assorted clips from his talks can be found on YouTube. Many of his papers can be downloaded from his website (he doesn't even get his stuff onto arXiv).
He is the founder of The Resonance Project, a website and foundation concerned with his Unified Physics, and the Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics. Despite the impressive names of those organizations, his article keeps getting deleted from Wikipedia on notability grounds.^[3]

Contents  [hide]  1 Haramein-Rauscher Metric 2 Schwarzschild proton 3 Cinematic outreach 3.1 Thrive 3.2 The Black Whole 4 See also 5 External links 6 Footnotes

Haramein-Rauscher Metric

Haramein claims his theory explains the origin of spin, which he defines as a "spacetime torque." He claims that his amendment to Einstein’s field equations, incorporating torque and Coriolis effects in "'plasma dynamics'"^[4] interacting with a "polarized geometric structured vacuum", produces a unified field theory. Further, he and Dr. Rauscher have developed a "Scaling Law for Organized Matter"^[5], which characterizes all matter from subatomic to galactic and universal size as various sized black holes. His unified field theory and the fractals associated with this "Scaling Law" are integral to his concept of a "Holofractographic Universe". There's also something in there that uses the real field of cymatics^[wp] to support his idea of "resonance".
In a least one lecture he claims to decode crop circles.^[6] Topics discussed in his 4 DVD set in addition to his unified field theory include "The Arc of the Covenant, Knights Templar, Emmanuel's Tomb, Kabbalah, Tree of Life Decoded".^[7]

Schwarzschild proton

Haramein proposed "the Schwarzschild proton" - a theoretical model of the proton where two black holes "orbit" one another. It may sound impressive, but it's almost entirely inconsistent with experimental observation. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of quantum mechanics knows that classical "orbits" do not apply at the scales mentioned in his paper. The paper was subsequently hidden from public view after being debunked as pseudoscience by internet blogs equally as reputable as Haramein, and is now available for download from his website.

Now that his Schwarzschild Proton paper has been debunked, he claims on his website to have published a new paper, "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass" in the Physical Review and Research International Journal, at ScienceDomain International. This is in fact not a scientific journal at all, but an "open peer reviewed" website where anyone can pay a fee and have their "research" "peer-reviewed" and then "published" onto the website.


Cinematic outreach

Thrive
Haramein was featured prominently in the conspiracy theory movie Thrive, where he discusses the fundamental shape of the fabric of space, as well as potential extraterrestrial involvement with Earth throughout history.


The Black Whole
He is featured in the self-directed Gaiam film The Black Whole, a 2011 documentary-type movie starring Haramein and his "vacuum is the key to everything" claims. In the movie, he addresses the little he understands of quantum mechanics, the phi ratio, tetrahedrons, symmetries in the structure of the vacuum, and, of course, black holes, which, according to Haramein, are everywhere and everything; we are constantly appearing and disappearing at the speed of light, so, half of the time, we are vacuum, made of "blocks" of 64 tetrahedrons, arranged in such a way that a mini-black hole is created right at the centre of each "block", thus proving that we all have four sides.^{[citation needed]}

See also

• Sacred Geometry
  
• What the Bleep Do We Know?
  

External links

• The Resonance Project homepage.
  
• Semi-layman's Version of some of Nassim Haramein's theories.
  
• Nassim Haramein on Coast to Coast radio show.
  
• Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream science!: A JREF forum thread investigating claims that his ideas were accepted by the mainstream.
  
• [1] Schwarzschild Proton debunked
  
• [2] ScienceDomain.org Article of Haramein's supposed groundbreaking new paper
  
• [3] Message where he claims to have published a paper in a journal (which is in fact a website where anyone can publish anything for a fee)
  

Footnotes

1. ↑ http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/torque_paper.pdf
   
2. ↑ And yes, he has been on Coast to Coast several times.
   
3. ↑ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein (2nd nomination)." Wikipedia. 2012 May 16. Deletion logs for the article.
   
4. ↑ N. Haramein, E. A. Rauscher, Collective Coherent Oscillation Plasma Modes In Surrounding Media of Black Holes and Vacuum Structure - Quantum Processes with Considerations of Spacetime Torque and Coriolis Forces (PDF), R. L. Amoroso, B. Lehnert & J-P Vigier (eds.) Beyond The Standard Model: Searching For Unity In Physics, 279-331. © 2005 The Noetic Press, ISSN# 1528-3739.
   
5. ↑ N. Haramein, M. Hyson, E. A. Rauscher, Proceedings of The Unified Theories Conference (2008), Budapest, Hungary, Scale Unification: A Universal Scaling Law for Organized Matter, in Cs Varga, I. Dienes & R.L. Amoroso (eds.)
   
6. ↑ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6151699791256390335 at 2:13:00
   
7. ↑ http://theresonanceproject.org/products.html
   
   

PS.: You can download Nassim's paper from "Science Domain International" {see comment in red above) on the holographic proton here:
http://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1367405491-Haramein342013PRRI3363.pdf

The mathematical calculations and derivations represent basic algebra and are mathematically correct, but are often simply a recircular argumentation of the parameters used.

shilohaplace

Large proton halo sparks devilish row

◦23 September 2010 by Kate McAlpine
◦Magazine issue 2779. New Scientist




IN CHRISTIAN art, a halo symbolises holiness. In particle physics, a ring of positive charge around the proton has become the focus of a devilish row.
The dispute concerns an attempt to square a recent suggestion that the radius of the proton is smaller than we thought with the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), which has successfully explained quantum phenomena since the 1940s.

A proton's radius cannot be measured directly, but has to be deduced by measuring the energies of different electron "shells" in a hydrogen atom. Through QED, these energies combine with a model of how the proton's charge is distributed to give the proton's radius.

The smaller value for the proton radius came from measurements of an exotic form of hydrogen that contains a heavy type of electron known as a muon. This was expected merely to add precision to previous measurements based on ordinary hydrogen. Instead, the muonic measurements suggested a radius that was a whopping 4 per cent smaller (New Scientist, 10 July, p 10). That could signify a problem either with the muonic measurement or with QED, neither of which seems particularly likely.


Now Alvaro De Rújula of the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, has another solution: changing our model of how the proton's positive charge is distributed.

About 75 per cent of this charge is concentrated in a central core, the edge of which is considered the edge of the proton proper. Although the other quarter of the proton's charge lies outside this (see diagram), the charge distribution in the "halo" is still key to finding the proton radius. So De Rújula decided to explore whether varying the charge distribution in the halo could bring the old and new calculations for the proton's radius into agreement - and remove the conflict with QED.

He found that it can, if the halo band extends 4.7 times as far as previously thought. He concludes that this is the proton's true structure
(Physics Letters B, DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.08.074).

The proposal has been contentious since De Rújula first posted it to the arxiv preprint server on 23 August. Chief among the sceptics are Gerald A. Millerand Ian Cloët of the University of Washington in Seattle, who posted a rebuttal just two days later. "De Rújula's explanation is simply off the wall," says Miller. "It is as if the amount of water in a thimble were spread out into the volume of a swimming pool".

This is an exaggeration, counters De Rújula, "unless the thimble covers a whale's face".

Miller concedes that a thimble and a pint glass is a fairer analogy. Even so, he and Cloët have calculated that a proton with a charge that extends as far as De Rújula suggests is not compatible with experiments looking at the extent to which electrons are deflected towards protons at different distances De Rújula says the matter could be resolved with new electron-proton collision experiments or fresh analysis of existing data. He is convinced that, somehow, "QED will be vindicated".

Commentary by Tonyblue:


The above information relates to the Unification template of the wavequarkian Proton Structure as described below in the technical critique of the proton charge halo.

The mechanistic quark-gluon model of the Standard Model, in which gluon 'springs' join and couple to billard ball like quarks has been untenable in unification physics for decades, but this has not been 'shared' with the populus of the scientific aware readership, such as the science programs on mainstream television.

The proton is a wave-particular dyad aka a wavicle, which is consciousness coupled to its environment via its internal Coulombic charge distribution of the mesonic Inner Ring of negative -1 electrocharge and its kernelled core of +2 positive electrocharge.

The wavefunction of the proton so quantum entangles with its surroundings under Coulombic electrocharge interaction defined in the electroweak gauge unification of the protonic quantum geometry.

Additionally, the magnetocharge coupling from the higher dimensional string couplings allow the lower dimensional electromagnetic interactions through and by agency of the mass-inertia manifestation, to realise this space-inherent waveprotonic consciousness in the measured realism of a matter based realism of experiences.

The 2010 Rujula paper is here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3861v3.pdf and is being challenged by a 2010 Cloët -Miller paper as to its theoretical and experimental feasibility, found here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.4345v3.pdf.

In particular Miller and Cloët claim, that the protonic halo will attain its say mean boundary value at < p_proton>³= 2.71±0.13 fm³ for r_proton~1.394 fm (1.37-1.41 fm) and as experimentally measured by Friar and Sick via electron-proton scattering phenomena.


This value is confirmed as the protonic radius in Quantum Relativity; being precisely half of the Classical Electrodynamic Electron Radius:

R_electron=ke²/m_ec² = R_compton.alpha = h.alpha/2πm_ec=(2π/360)r_wormhole.10¹⁰ by the magnetic permeability finestructure of Maxwell's Constant in:

μ_o=1/ε_oc² = (8π/360)(Ne*/R_e) for Magnetocharge counter Ne*=2700e*/c³ = l_planck2700√(alpha)/[ec] from the Grand Unification of the Planck Length Oscillation (as a Minimum Displacement Parameter) in the String Epoch BEFORE the so called Quantum Big Bang (in Stoney Units) of:
e/c²=l_planck√alpha and mapping electrocharge e in lower dimensional spacetime from the higher dimensional spacetime in:






onto the Planck-Length Oscillation in the higher dimensional spacetime, say 3D ↔ 12D.

This also defines a finestructure of Planck's Constant in: h=2πE_psr_wormhole/c=2πr_wormhole/e*c=1/e*f_wormhole for E_ps = 1/e* = 1/hf_ps = 2πr_wormhole/hc

R_electron=2.7777..fm* or recalibrated via [m=0.9983318783m*; s=0.9990230094s; kg=0.99626135kg*; C=0.997296076C*] to 2.773144.. fm (SI) for an electrodynamic electron mass of

m_e=h.alpha/2πc R_electron= 9.29053x10^-31 kg* = 9.255793..x10^-31kg (SI) differing from the CODATA value of m_e=h.alpha/2πc r_electron= 9.29053x10^-31 kg by (9.255793..-9.1093826)/9.1093826=0.01607.

Increasing the classical electron mass by 1.6% so reduces the classical electron radius by this amount (2.817940..fm to 2.77314.. fm) and as the classical electron radius of QED is twice the classical proton radius in the wavequarkian oscillation potential; the latter is reduced by 2x1.6%=3.2% and in tune with the muon-heavy hydrogen measurements pointing to the diminishing protonic core radius.


This then defines r_proton=1.3888...fm* = 1.38657...fm (Unit System International) and in the error interval of the Friar-Sick measurement as 1.394±0.016 fm in (1.378 - 1.410 fm) to 0.5%.


Subsequently; the 'sensational' measurement of a proton radius too small by about 4% confirms and substantiates the Classical Electron definition as postulated by Quantum Relativity and with an Effective Classical Electron mass m_e= 9.29053x10^-31kg rendered Relativistic as m_eeffective= 9.29053x10^-31kg in a relativistic inertia increase of m_eeffetive/m_e= 1/√(1-[v/c]²) and so for an effective electron base speed

v_eeffective=√( 1-[m_e/m_effective]²)=√0.0314=0.177..c through an electric potential of (m_eeffetive-m_e )c² /e=8.20 keV*.



The Solution to the 'misbehaviour' of the classical QED proton is found in the quarkian quantum geometry.

As can be ascertained from the below excerpt of the brane physics in Quantum Relativity and the following verification of Gerald Miller's experiments on the charge distribution in Neutrons; the proton's udu quark content is determined not in a mechanistic springy gluon model, but by the concentric kernel-ring structure of those wavequarkian constituents of the nucleons.

Then the udu waveproton is directionally symmetric about a magnetoaxis, which determines the wavefunctions for the overall proton to reattain spherical symmetry, albeit in a template pertaining to a so labeled Higgsian inertia induction (HBRMI=Higgs Bosonic RestMass Induction).

This HBRMI envelops all inertia carriers as a universal mass induction blueprint, which became however manifest at the Goldstone Boson time marker for the electroweak unification at TEW=3.4x10¹⁵ Kelvin, so 1/365 seconds following the time instanton at 3.33x10^-31seconds and at the Higgsian Vacuum Expectation value of so H=298 GeV, being the mass summation of the lower wavequarkian selfstates for the kernel-ring wavequarkian coupling eigenstates:

H=(W⁺+W^-+Z^o+lower order terms) and with diquark summations:

W=Σm_ij=(mOR-IR+mIR-K+mK=u+mKIR=u*=d+mKOR=d*=s+muu=U+mud=b + mus=m+mdd=D)

=Lepton-MesonRingVPE+Ring-KernelVPE+BaseQuark/Up+Pion/Down
+Kaon/Strange+JPsi/Charm+Upsilon/Beauty+Epsilon/Magic+Omicron/Dainty

=(14.11+46.10+150.56+491.73+1606.04+5245.50+17132.33+55956.00)MeV*=80.642 GeV*=80.481 GeV (SI)

Z=½mds=t=Kappa/Truth=½(182.758)GeV*=91.38 GeV*=91.20 GeV (SI)
H=½mss=S=½(596.907)GeV*=298.45 GeV*=297.86 GeV (SI)
H=2W+Z+(δ=mIR-K)=(160.96+91.38+46.10)GeV*=298.44 GeV*

The Singlet is the Charm; the Doublet is the Beauty+Magic and the Triplet becomes the Dainty+Truth+Super quarkwavian groundstates centred on the Charm, the Beauty/Bottom and the Truth/Top.

The udu wavequark proton so finestructures a (+2/3+[+2/3-1]+2/3=+1) Coulombic charge distribution about a centralised protonic oscillation axis orthogonal to the colour-gluon charge aligning magnetoaxis as shown in the following scan.

The Rujula result then simply indicates the 'oscillatory' potential of the kernel-hugging Mesonic Ring as the 25% component of the 'Kerneled' Downquark at the centre.

The Mesonic Ring or KIR so defines an energy barrier at a scale of about 0.001 fm (10-18 meters) and where the inner proton exhibits its negative electric charge as the summation of 3(-1/3)=-1 partial electron charges.

The Mesonic Inner Ring so mirrors the overall +2e Kernel charge of the proton across this boundary of -e Ring charge as the 'Halo of the Proton'.

This has the same effect as one quasielectron charge of -e/3 so encompassing as the Down Quark net charge the +4e/3 doubled net charge for two Up Quarks and results in a 25%-75% net positice electric charge distribution for the proton with the 25% being located outside the wavequarkian boundary of the Mesonic Ring and the 75% inside this divide.


{Quasiparticular Electrons, Bart van Wees in 1987/University of Delft; Xiao Gang-Wen in 1989/MIT; Vladimir Goldman 1992/Stoney Brook leading to the Physics Nobelprize 1998 for Robert B. Laughlin (U.S.), Horst L. Störmer (Germany), and Daniel C. Tsui (U.S.), “for their discovery of a new form of quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations.”}.

This is also observed for the neutron's dud central symmetry about the magnetoaxis by Gerald Millier in his linked paper following.





This linked http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2409v3.pdf paper is by Gerald A. Miller, a renown physicist from Washington University and is descriptive as to research of how the quark charges are distributed within the nucleons.

The paper was published in November 2007 and led to a reformulation of the original model by Enrico Fermi as to the internal charge distribution of the neutron in terms of its down-up-down quark constituents.

Fermi's model became standard in the particle physics community and envisaged a neutron containing a central positive core and a negatively charged 'skin'.
This is like a negatively charged pion cloud surrounding a protonic core within the neutron; albeit rendering the neutron overall as electrically neutral.
The interacting neutron physics is well understood to require a negatively charged 'envelope' to accomodate the spectras of nuclear physics.

Miller found that the neutron's central core is negatively charged, as is its long-range 'envelope', with the positive charge 'sandwiched' in between. This discovery so induces a reinterpretation of the Fermi model for the neutron.

Miller's neutron does however support the quantum geometry of Quantum Relativity with its substitution of the down-quark as a partition of a up-quark kernel surrounded by a Mesonic Inner Ring (MIR); the latter carrying integral negative charge for the d-quark's core+ring=+2/3-1=-1/3 overall fractional charge content.

As described previously, the Higgs Inertia Induction occurs at the MIR at so 2.76x10^-18 meters or at an energy level of 71 GeV. This is about one thousandth of the nuclear interaction distance of 3 fermi.
As the trisected Higgs template is the same size as the Higgs Boson template and coincides with the classical electron radius and also the interaction scale of the strange quarks and the charged weakons (as the Leptonic Outer Ring or LOR); the actual interaction scale for the individual quarks should be about a third of this template in about 1 fermi.

The innermost kernel is neutrinoic-gluonic, that is it is uncharged with a lower boundary of the MIR and an upper boundary of the LOR.
So Quantum Relativity also predicts that the innermost region of the nucleon will be uncharged and closely 'hugged' by a negative charge distribution at the MIR.
The MIR allows oscillation to the LOR, which in matter is also negatively charged as the down-strange oscillation.

The up-quark charges so always sum to a +2 charge for any up-dow-strange configuration whatsoever, as both the down-quark and the strange-quark carry a up-quark partitioning within their rings.

So there must be a positive quark charge flux between the MIR and the LOR and this is interpreted as a longrange positive pion flux by Miller in terms of the proton with its single down quark or unitary MIR.

In terms of quantum geometry one can say, that the MIR curves inwards in a concave topological surface charge distribution and that the LOR curves outwards in convexity.

So the neutron will also carry a negatively convex charge distribution as its 'skin', being the second down quark in its oscillatory potential of transforming into a strange quark in its radioactive beta decay pattern.

The positive pion flux of the concave proton so becomes interpreted as a negative pion flux for the neutron in the transversion of the MIR scale to the LOR scale.

Another experimental result of Miller's research was the dominance of the central up-quark charge distribution over the central down-quark.

If one ignores the quarkian substructure, then one might expect similar behaviour; but knowing that the elementary quark differentiation is between unitary rings and fractional kernels; one would propose a dominance of the up-quark in the center and a dominance of the down-quark at the perimeter due to the quantum geometric alignments along say a magnetoaxis which changes the nucleon's sphericity into say a catenoidal surface topology.

Miller found a up-down ratio of 1.75:1=7/4~5/3, which indicates that the trisected ring charges in terms of gluonic colourcharges add to the kerneled colourcharge as a fractional 5/3 colourcharge near the center of a nucleon, where the colour interaction is enhanced by the attraction of Coulomb charges between oppositely charged kernel and rings.

Further away from the centre, the 'virtual' pion-flux intervenes and the maximum attraction of the MIR scale is diminished in the approaching LOR scale and the ring quarks dominate in their leptonness.
This also allows the diquark structure of colour charges to dominate the electromagnetic interaction in its strongness.

The work of Gerald Miller so has shown pertinent evidence for the quantum geometry as theorized in Quantum Relativity.

Tonyblue


This is a previously shared essay analysis on subatomic physics news from shiloh and fills in some gaps in the Higgs Quantum Geometry.

In Lakech in Allisiam