Friday, March 26, 2010

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: 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.

'The Schwarzschild Condition'

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 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.

  • 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 1.5Rs (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 2Rs, 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.


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:


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 305 of 305   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Jonathan Shock - if you can be objective, does the fact English is foreign to me, and the fact I misused exponential for quadratic (btw quadratic is still closer to exponential than to linear) justify Bob's inability to understand how the force of gravity diminishes with distance and logically, increases with proximity?

As for Tesla, sure he did not invent microprocessors, but he invented logic elements, of which microprocessors are made. I mean what we have today is the evolution of what Tesla invented without conforming to the mainstream and not the product of theoretical nonsense sciences. Imagine where would we be today if he didn't invent AC systems, electricity would still be a commodity, and actually some of his inventions have yet to reach the mainstream, just a couple of years back Intel demonstrated powering a lightbulb wirelessly, and everybody was like "WOW" - well, Tesla did that like a 100 years ago. On the other hand, how many inventions did Einstein invent - oh, yes, I forgot it was ZERO.

Jonathan Shock said...

Bob is quite rightly trying to go through these arguments in as much detail as possible. In a scientific argument we have to go through each step and make sure we are on the right path. I'm sure that he would agree that an inverse square law means that a force gets larger as you get closer to its source, but he was pointing out that there was something more fundamental that we all have to agree on first before we can get onto that - ie. inverse square versus exponential.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about square is closer to exponential than to linear. In particular exp(0) is 1, whereas 0^2 and 0^1 are both 0. If you look at large values too, the square will always be closer to the linear than the exponential. Anyway, this is an aside - gravity has an inverse square law and not exponential.

Again, the comment about Tesla did not correspond to his importance or how prolific he was - just that he didn't invent most of what we see today. A more correct statement might be "Tesla's inventions have impacted almost everything we use today". If you want to be scientific, then the details are all important.

Bob said...

JC, in the two points you were trying to make (regarding gravity and regarding radiation), if the forces were exponential rather than quadratic it would make a huge difference. The points I made in my post rely on them being quadratic, not exponential. And they are quadratic.

It isn't a matter of language, it's a matter of not understanding the basics. And I'd like to be clear - I am not calling you an idiot for not understanding the basics of physics. Everyone has many areas that they do not understand. But if you deny that you don't understand the basics of physics, and continue to insist that you know better than other people, then that is as idiotic as it's possible to be. It really is.

Einstein has had far more influence on our understanding of the world than Tesla ever had. That is not an opinion. If you want to know why, you can find out why. If you want to pretend otherwise, you can pretend otherwise.

If you'd never looked inside a car, would you go to your local car mechanic, with his years of training and experience, and reel off a load of opinions about how he's doing it all wrong?

Of course you wouldn't. Unless you were insane. So why do it to physicists?

Anonymous said...

So in the scientific community, when you encounter a 5% error instead of correcting it on the fly you disagree at 100%?

Even thou he is right that quadratic is not exponential, which one is the "larger" mistake here - me, confusing terminology in a foreign language or him, claiming the force of gravity doesn't increase with proximity? In my case there is the use of a wrong term, in his case, he denies a well-known fact, of which my misrepresentation changes absolutely nothing. Sure, I am well aware of the scientific solidarity, but can you really call 95% white BLACK, just because it has 5% black in it?

There were three major factors, which made the industrial revolution possible, the first was coal, the second was oil and the third was Tesla. And sure, if it wasn't for him, probably someone else would have discovered AC power systems, the radio, gas discharge lamps and all that, but it is an INDISPUTABLE fact the very backbone of technology as we know it today came not from mainstream science, but from one, who denied and ridiculed it.

Bob said...

I didn't claim that gravity doesn't increase with proximity.

You were saying gravity is exponential, and using that to argue that Haramein's force between protons isn't unreasonable. That is not 5% wrong, it is 100% wrong.

Jonathan Shock said...

"...claiming the force of gravity doesn't increase with proximity?"

can you point out where this claim was made?

Anonymous said...

Bob - Tesla had physics theories that are just as complete in terms of describing the universe, the only thing Tesla didn't have is a media behemoth behind him, I don't think there is a point to go into all the nasty details of Einstein's life and work most scientists are well aware of but none seems to like to speak of. Fame has very little to do with accomplishment and everything to do with decoration, you can watch some MTV, about 15 minutes should make you understand my statement.

The fact is both Tesla and Einstein had their views of the universe, the views of Tesla manifested into numerous fundamental inventions, the views of Einstein manifested into more theoretical science which at some point simply failed upon reaching the quantum domain. This is about science, it is not a popularity contest. And sure, I know in science talking against Einstein is a blasphemy comparable to denying god in church'

A quote from previous posts:
""I am sure you are also aware gravity decays in a quadratic rate, and vice versa - increases exponential at smaller scales." - I've never seen any evidence or reasonable suggestion that gravity increases exponentially at scales around the size of the proton, and I doubt you have either. But feel free to provide a reference."

Vice versa implied the opposite is also true, if you weren't such a donkey you could easily have deduced I am making an involuntary mistake, since it is illogical for a function to increase in a different rate than it decreases.

Is nitpicking to an extent to derail the conversation from its overall direction also customary to the scientific community? The fact of matter is the force of gravity does increase with proximity, a fact around which Bob maneuvered in avoidance for so many posts already, and with the force of gravity increasing and the two particles orbiting each other at luminal speed it isn't such a stretch to realize how their mass could be significantly bigger than trillionths of trillionths of a gram...

Bob said...

Still 100% wrong, every paragraph.

I'd say why, but you're neither willing nor able to hear, and I've got stuff to do. I refer you to my earlier question about the car mechanic.

Anonymous said...

Really, you have better things to do than nitpicking and sounding like a broken record? You don't say... For a busy guy you are pretty rapid blogger...

So I guess you are supposed the be the car mechanic who knows it all, and I am the clueless female driver. Well, OK, my car's brand is "quantum entanglement" - care to explain how my car works? What is that you say? You CAN'T? What a shame...

Now go ahead and call every paragraph 100% wrong, I bet my punctuation in between the paragraphs is wrong as well.

Believe it or not, but I understand how cars work, and dare I say I conceptually understand everything I've seen working throughout my life and the fact I do not conform to your nomenclature doesn't change this even a bit, but your responses shows your conceptual understanding is crippled and you only understand what you were told in the way you were told. There is nothing wrong with this, with the exception it makes you a product, but in the world of today, aren't we all...

Bob said...

Whatever you say, JC.

Anonymous said...

Oh, and there is one more thing, I am not sure if you are aware, but the senior acting physicist in Haramein's team is not himself but an old woman, named Elizabeth Rauscher, and as a autodidact myself I could easily understand Haramein coming up with theories which fail to conform to academic nomenclature, but Elizabeth Rauscher appears to be quite a credible physicist. She received many awards for her performance in various fields of physics - you may take a look here and see what I mean:

So, considering her involvement in Haramein's papers, do you claim to have the upper hand on a world renowned physicist? And if so, what are your credentials to support your arguments? Can you really stand up to a recognized scientist of such caliber outside of your blog, on the playground of academia?

I am not trolling, I really would like to know, since her involvement in Haramein's work is what got my interest. I'd like to see your credentials so I can see you for something more than a mainstream anti-contrarian with wikipedia on his bookmark ribbon... I've seen plenty of those already...

Bob said...

Well done, you've found the only physicist in the world who agrees with Haramein and has sufficient qualifications to know better.

Firstly, I've never seen her trying to put forward any of the idiotic arguments that Haramein makes, or saying anything explicitly that contradicts anything I've said in this blog. Tell me if you find anything.

Secondly, whose payroll is she on? The Resonance Project. I wouldn't recommend hers as a suitable independent opinion in the question of whether the Resonance Project is a fraudulent and self-serving institution.

As for the regard in which she is held by physicists and academic institutions for her more recent work (let's say the last 20 years), if you investigate a little you'll find it's pretty shaky. To say the least.

I refer you to Goldacre's first law of bullshit dynamics: "There is no imaginable proposition so absurd that you cannot find at least one person, somewhere in the world, with a PhD or professional post, who is happy to endorse it."

For that reason and others I've already gone into in detail in other comments, I don't respond to requests about who I am. The articles on Haramein present reasoning, and they are not about me. If the reasoning were false, it would have been exposed by now, using specific reasoning and evidence relating to the real observable universe that physics is supposed to describe, by people who know what they're talking about.

As I said before, if you'd like to focus on something you think is incorrect in my critique and present your reasoning for that (or, better still, find someone who knows what they're talking about and get them to do it) please be my guest.

d.. said...

Credentials do not support arguments. Argumentation supports arguments. That's what this dsicussion is abou, although many don't really get it.
I've seen plenty of those too.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is a case of argumentation, but in order to be able to determine the value of argumentation one has to know the weights of arguments, because let's face it, everyone can provide arguments, but it is the level of expertise which gives weight to arguments, and the level of expertise is determined by credentials and public recognition.

I've taken a quick look on other Haramein related discussions taking place at Bob's blog comment space, and I noticed he puts tremendous efforts explaining physics to cooks who claim MIT tried to recreate the ark of the covenant and some other utter nonsense, but the point is such people can hardly grasp any of it, obviously the motivation of Bob is to drawn people in academic arguments which supposedly demonstrate his state of superiority, Bob likes to be revered and agreed with. Bob stated my arguments are wrong without even providing counter arguments why, nitpicking about details while refusing to even grasp the underlying idea.

It is very easy to claim to be right from the standpoint of agreeing with the established majority in criticizing people that try to innovate. Did Bob contribute with the creation of anything new to this world? It doesn't appear so, Bob only takes what others did and labeled as right to manufacture arguments against what others did and doesn't conform to the mainstream.
I for one think bad of critics, IMO one cannot afford to criticize anything before he is able to do better, for example you are not in the position to criticize a musician if you are not proven to be a better musician.

Bob claims this is not about him, but about Haramein, but it doesn't take a PhD in psychology to tell from a mile away it is all about Bob, people like that find a very easy way to appear to be RIGHT by attacking ideas which do not conform to the mainstream with ideas from the mainstream without actually having contributed to the mainstream or to anything at all. It is very easy to take what the majority agrees with and oppose it to views which do not conform to the majority, borrowing credibility not from your knowledge and skills but from the majority, this almost makes it look like the majority is with Bob while the truth is Bob is with the majority.

It doesn't take anything but conformity to agree with the majority, and it takes a lot to be innovative, sometimes to the extent it doesn't really matter whether it is right or wrong, what matters is whether you just borrow the established to brag about how smart you are or you actually do something new and innovative. Value is determined by availability, and there are millions like Bob, and only a few like Haramein, which do not mind the ridicule or being the underdogs, in attempts to come up with something new. Bob is the type which will never push anything on his own in attempts to be innovative if it is not met with approval and instead is being ridiculed, Bob is not creative, Bob craves attention and approval and will never push out something new, all he does will always conform to what is already established.

J. C.

Bob said...

Some people put a lot of work into keeping me informed of their fantasies about my motivations and my character. I guess I should be flattered, but it's not really what this comment thread is for.

If you're dreaming about me and want to tell me what you think it means, just try to keep it in. We barely know each other.

If you have any reason to dispute any of the content or substance of what I've said, let me know, and we can talk about it.

Ben Q said...

Hi Bob.

I managed to get about 3/4 of the way down the page of this excellent blog before my eyes began to dry out. I wanted to thank you.

I came to this (I gather quite a few have) after watching some of Nassim Haramein's video stuff. I was confused but drawn in by his patter and charm. I have no more than a rudimentary understanding of physics concepts through reading the New Scientist. Enough to get taken in by a hippy.

I'm SO glad I found your de-bunkarization. I was already geared up to start quoting random pseudo-science at friends and family, thinking I had an intuitive sense of cosmic phenomena and how everything is the same. Ooops.

I really like the way you write. It is very clear and extremely patient. I admire the way you have managed your intelligent discourse with some excruciating people. It lends an hilarious edge to an otherwise thankless task.

Also the few times when you have cracked and chucked in "bullshit" and "bollocks" were like a sigh of relief to me as a reader, as I almost felt like screaming at the screen myself.

THANK YOU again; people like you are some kind of cosmic blessing from fractal fairyland, perhaps an inevitable consequence of the harmonious spheres of unity or something. Sorry, I'm losing it; I've been reading for too long. I'm glad my search for wisdom dragged me through Haramein to Bob; clearly intelligence and science are dependent on unbiased factual information dispensed without agenda or promotion.

Great work, deeply appreciated.

Anonymous said...

This is amazing. I run in some alt-health community circles here in Chicago, and an "emissary" of Haramein's came to town a few years ago. There was some discussion about the validity of these claims that quickly devolved into a flame war. The people who fancied themselves open minded seemed to feel super threatened at those of us who see discernment as a virtue - called us dismissive, cynical, and made insinuations that the reason we didn't want to pay $30 to attend the presentation was that we were not sufficiently spiritually advanced enough to see the beauty of the world all around us.

I revel in the beauty of the world on a near-constant basis. And I am super grateful to you, Dr Bob, for putting this all together. I'm also in awe of your patience and your willingness to suffer some of the wise fools on this board. I'll raise a glass to you next time I have one in hand.

FractalWoman said...

Hey guys. I have some great news. I know you are going to just "love this". I recently was given the opportunity to review Haramein's latest paper related to the Schwarzschild Proton. In this work, he addresses all of the issues that Bob presents in this blog and then some. For all of you out that that want nothing more than for Haramein to fail (or to be out right wrong), I think you will have to wait a bit longer for that. IMHO, this is a great next step forward from his previous paper. I actually believe that this blog was instrumental in affecting the format and content of this new paper (which is not currently available for distribution). I look forward to seeing how Bob addresses this latest paper when it is finally released to the public. Love you guys. Hope to hear from you soon.

Bob said...

Thanks for the heads up FractalWoman. I don't have as much time on my hands for this kind of stuff as I did, so I doubt I'll do any more in-depth analyses, but I'll look forward to seeing what he's got in store for us now.

Just to be clear - I'm not one of those who "want nothing more than for Haramein to fail or to be outright wrong." If he's decided to be honest for once and present something that is not misleading self-promoting fakery, if he's actually bothered to try to understand the things he's talking about, and has stopped making a living by pretending to be an authority on physics and pulling the wool over his followers' eyes, then I can promise that I will be honest and congratulate him sincerely.

If the guy has changed his ways and I can take some of the credit for it, that's not something I'd pass up now, is it :-) That'd be a fine thing.

Given that everything he's come up with so far has been such utter bollocks, I won't be holding my breath.

FractalWoman said...

I think the main thing I hate the most about this blog is the way in which you (and others) seem compelled to attack the "person" instead of the "paper" or information. In the real scientific community, there would be none of that. That said, I'm not really much interested in what you have to say on this subject anymore so no worries about not having time for round two. Lucky for me, my boss hired a theoretical physicist (with a PhD and everything) to be my new partner in crime at work so I think I have got this one covered.

Bob said...

Lori, what you don't get in a 'real scientific community' is people who continually defend an idea that disagrees wildly with observable reality at every turn. You just don't find people like that in science. If you did, they'd be out on their ear very quickly - and with very good reason.

If a scientist was found to be making money from ideas that clearly disagree wildly with observable reality, and selling them as valid scientific views, they would be stripped of their professional qualifications and hauled up before the courts.

This is of course why Haramein is not in a 'real scientific community'.

I've given very clear reasoning for many many things that are false and misleading about the paper and the information. I've given example after example of him presenting empty claims, getting virtually everything he tries to present in scientific terms hopelessly wrong. I've been specific, detailed, as clear as I can, and used many examples.

Given that there are many many ways of very easily showing his conclusions to be entirely false, and given there appears to be not one single example of him coming up with anything falsifiable that is consistent with reality, and given the outlandish claims that he makes for his work, I think the conclusion that his work is bollocks and that he is not doing honest research seems pretty inescapable.

You might disagree, of course, but if you don't give any reasons to dispute anything specific that I've said about the content of Haramein's work then I'm not sure what your point is, aside from vacuous moralising.

Good luck with your new partner in crime though, that sounds like fun. I'd be interested to hear what he/she has to say about the viable physics content of Haramein's ideas, and why.

Anonymous said...

If you have one pen, and you have another pen... you have one pen, and another pen. True, you have a total of two pens, but 'pen' is just a word to describe the object, and though you have two of that object, neither of those objects is the same. Even if they are identical in composition, physical makeup etc. they are not actually the same particles, are they? They each have their own particles. Each 'pen' is a physical object of its own. You can't have two of them, it's not possible. Because only one of each of them exist. - O.Monk

FractalWoman said...


I was doing a little research into the origins of Planck's constant and I came across something strange. According to the definition:

h = 6.626 x 10^-34 Joules second

This first thing that I find strange about this is that Planck's constant is suppose to be fundamental and yet there is a 1 second parameter encoded into it. This seems arbitrary and implies that it is not a fundamental constant.

Next, we have the energy equation:

E (Joules) = h (Joules sec) * v (oscillations/sec)

In the above formulation, seconds cancel.

Looking at just the units of the above we get:

Joules = Joules * oscillation , only this cannot be true since Joules is not equal to Joules * oscillations.

So I did a bit of sleuthing and discovered that the SI units of frequency (Hz) is given the value of 1/sec not oscillations/sec. This balances the above equation but makes absolutely no sense. Frequency equals oscillations/sec, it does not equal 1/sec which is an arbitrary and meaningless unit and is unlike any of the other SI units.

Can you explain?

When you rearrange the above energy equation (leaving in the very important oscillations parameter), you get;

E/oscillations = 6.626 x 10 ^ -34 Joules (because sec cancels out).

NOW we have something meaningful. What this is saying is that the amount of energy per oscillation of an EM wave is equal to:

6.626 x 10 ^ -34 Joules = new_h

In other words, new_h is the energy of one oscillation of an EM wave regardless of frequency. The above (h = Joules Sec) only tells us how much energy is in a "collection of oscillations" which we refer to as photons.

Using new_h, we can now find the fundamental mass (mo) of one oscillation of EM wave using:

e = mc^2 or m = e/c^2.

mo (mass of one oscillation)
= 7.3 x 10 ^ -51 Kg

From there we can calculate the number of oscillations (quantum masses or mo(s)) in an electron which comes out to ~10^21 (oscillations_ which is very close to the zitterbewegung frequency of the electron. Interesting? I'd say so. When you apply this to a proton, you get the inverse of the magnetic moment of ~10^-26.

With this new interpretation of Planck's constant (soon to be called FractalWoman's constant), we can finally make sense of the quantum world without having to invoke the strange world of uncertainties and probabilities.

This "mistake" has steered us away from the true importance of oscillations as the fundamental units of organized matter IMHO.

Peace, FractalWoman

Bob said...

The language of Nature is like any other language, FractalWoman. You always have a choice as to whether to learn and listen, or just ignore the fluent speakers and make it up.

You seem dead set on the second course. Do you also do that when visiting abroad? I think it fair to say that most people would consider that the course of an idiot.

It's very amusing, anyway. I hope you meant it as a joke.

If any of your questions are genuine, please say which and I'll try to help.

FractalWoman said...


Actually, I ran it by my new physics friend at work (the one I told you about who has a PhD in atomic physics, and he agrees with it in logic and in principle.

Now, I am not saying it is right or wrong necessarily. What I am saying is that it makes sense, "to me" in the universe that I live in. The one that I have been observing my entire life.

Hey, maybe that's it: we live in different universes!

That said; I have a meeting tomorrow with a nuclear astrophysicist from the university where I work at(who did his undergrad in particle physics)and we are going to discuss "these matters" in detail. Should be fun. Hey, maybe I will record the discussion and put it up on my website!!! THAT would be cool.

I am serious. Dead serious.

FractalWoman said...

Also, I'm not sure why you have the need to be so patronizing in your messages. In the field of psychology, that would be perceived as a sign of insecurity. Are you insecure about something Bob?

FractalWoman said...

One more thing. I am learning. I am learning ALOT. I'm just not learning what YOU want me to learn. I am taking the direction that the universe wants me to take. It is leading me. I am not doing any of this. No one wants to understand the universe more than me. That is why she has been so kind to give me this information. You can't possibly understand because you have not learned to think for yourself. I am certain that I am on the right track now. You can think what you want.

Jonathan Shock said...

Hi Fractal woman, let me see if I can answer your questions. I can understand where the confusion comes from and I hope that I can clear it up.

The first point is about the units of Planck's constant. The point is that this constant is in units of energy times time. We can chose the units of energy and time to be whatever we want. One convenient set of units is Joules times seconds, but that is an arbitrary choice, and any result that comes from a calculation with this will not depend on what units you use.

I can highly recommend listening to a series of lectures by Nima Arkani Hamed, one of the most impressive theoretical physicists of the modern era. The lectures include a good discussion of units and understanding dimensional and dimensionless quantities:

The second point in your discussion is when you talk about frequencies and write them in units of oscillations per second. Indeed you're quite right that the unit of frequency is simply "per second". The confusion comes about when you try to equate what frequency is to what the units of frequency are. Frequency is indeed the number of oscillations per second, but its units (that is, the dimensional quantity which is needed so that when you change from seconds to hours, or meters to inches you keep track of how your value changes) are indeed just "per second". oscillations are not a dimensional quantity and thus they are not part of the units and, when you do dimensional analysis, "oscillations" shouldn't be there.

The further confusion stems from the above. I hope that this helps. I really would recommend listening to Nima's lectures. I am a postdoctoral researcher in theoretical physics and I learnt a lot from them, though he is clear enough to be able to explain the basic ideas to just about anyone.

FractalWoman said...

Jonathan. Thanks for the polite kind repsonse. Oscillations are dimensionless and should be kept in the equation.

E = joules * sec * cycle * 1/sec

I am not taking away the dimensionless 1/sec, just adding the one that is missing, the unit of oscillation. It is my contention that it was a HUGE mistake leaving cycle out of the SI units. I have a whole team of physicists backing this up. I will keep you posted..

Thanks again. This surely would have come up in my meeting today and now I know how to address it.

Jonathan Shock said...

Hi again Fractal woman. The point about units is that they are dimensionful quantities. The number of oscillations is not a dimensionful quantity. The reason we use units is so that we can convert from one measurement system (meters per second) to another (inches per week) without problem. Dimensionless quantities on the other hand don't change as you alter your unit of measurement. An oscillation is an oscillation, whatever sort of ruler or stopwatch you use. SI units are all dimensionful, by their very definition, so oscillations should certainly not be in there. Thus when you are doing dimensional analysis as you are doing, cycles should not be in the equation.

FractalWoman said...

OK, I get what you are saying. I guess what I am saying (or thinking) is that oscillation is not dimensionless as I said earlier, but exists in the zeroth dimension. We can currently only deal with 1,2,3... dimensions. We are ignoring the zeroth dimension in the same manner that we ignored the number zero on the number line way back in history. We are also ignoring fractional dimension but that is another story. Oscillation happens in the zeroth dimension, and as we know, anything to the power of zero is one, which is why they can get away with using 1/sec instead of cycles/sec and still get some meaningful information out of it. I know this is hard to understand because it is a paradigm shift in thinking. Luckily, I have found a some real physicists that understand these issues. Peace.

Anonymous said...

Mrs. Fractal Woman, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

FractalWoman said...

Ok mr anonymous, you just blew it. I just realized that I am in the wrong blog. See you in the funny papers. FractelWoman

Bob, please take me off your blog.

Bob said...

I haven't been rude to you, FractalWoman. I honestly thought - and hoped - you were joking, because what you said was so naïve and full of basic misunderstandings, and at the same time you were making the most ridiculous and arrogant claims for your new 'h' as a paradigm shift that could revolutionise physics, not to mention naming it after yourself.

I see you were serious, and I see you are demanding your ideas be treated with respect rather than ridicule.

Good luck with that.

I actually love to hear new ideas - even if they're clearly wrong. They can be good springboards for discussion. I love any genuine discussion regarding physics.

But outright lies about having teams of physicists backing you up are not appreciated.

And it just seems so foolish. It's not as if nobody will notice.

Anonymous said...

Started reading this at around 11 pm. It is now 3:20 am. (lol)

After all these points being made, the only thing I ask is where are your sources coming from, Bob? That is the one question in play that you haven't given an answer to yet.

I'm not discrediting anything that you've said either, I think this whole topic is extremely interesting. And I think that on many levels people are on the right track here. But from a purely scientific view, most of the metaphysical claims really do hold no "truth" in regards to physical evidence to back up the ridiculous claims.

I don't disregard them simply because of the fact that Science is in a constant state of becoming. The goal of science is to study the nature of physical reality and be able to test its truth in terms of our physical world. But who knows, maybe there are other realities out there beyond human comprehension, beyond the physical world. This is where it starts to get New Age-ish, and is generally where I tend to draw the line. But to get back on point, Science could always discover these things. It has the potential. I realize that you could never call them truths, because they are far from it; but they are nice ideas.

I wouldn't dismiss all the information simply because it doesn't completely align with the current scientific model. Who knows what we could discover.

Anonymous said...

I actually have no idea what I'm talking about though. Literally.

Bob said...

Where are my sources for what?

My source for the fact that protons don't weigh 885 million tonnes is the observation that they don't weigh a 885 million tonnes.

My source for the fact that they are not black holes with an event horizon (which is a gravitational field that no light or any other particles can escape from) is the thousands of experiments that have used light and other particles to look inside them.

My source for the fact that the attractive force between protons is not 90 billion trillion times the impact force of a 6 mile diameter asteroid hitting the Earth at 10 miles per second (which comes straight from Haramein's theory, as I explained above along with tips on how to calculate this force of impact for the purpose of comparison) is that protons can easily be separated from nuclei. In fact, the attractive force no two protons isn't even strong enough to hold two protons together. These are facts that are very easy to check.

And so on.

I'm not dismissing anything because it doesn't align with the current model. I'm trying to explain why it doesn't align with anything observable in the universe. Physics isn't about comparing new ideas with current ones - that would just lead to stagnation. It's about comparing the implications of ideas with the observation of reality. If they conflict in absurd ways, it's the ideas that are wrong. If someone keeps defending them, they're a nutter. If they keep making money by selling these ideas, then they are something much slimier and unpleasant than that.

Are there other realities out there beyond human comprehension? Who knows. It should be fairly clear that I'm not trying to say that there's nothing beyond what we know. All I'm saying is that people claiming to have scientific theory shouldn't talk guff, and that if they pretend to be doing science when they're not then they shouldn't expect to be treated with respect.

I appreciate your concerns about keeping an open mind in general though. I gave a more full answer to the comment by Mari here which I think is relevant. It's a fascinating topic to reflect on.

FractalWoman said...

OK, I'm back.

I read Bob's response to my email and so I feel I have to clarify a few things. First of all, I will admit that I was being a bit cocky by naming this new constant after my fictional character FractalWoman. Clearly, it should be named after the woman that discovered this new energy constant, namely, Juliana Mortenson. You see, I wasn't making this up as Bob suggested. This was from a paper that was sent to me by a close friend. Here is a link to the paper:

I presented this work here to see how Bob would attack me if he thought it was my idea. It was not my idea although I really wish it was. This is however, the "smoking gun" I have been looking for my entire life. Juliana presented this work at the SPIE conference in San Diego this August (some of my work was presented there as well, look it up if you don't believe me).

Also, when I said there was a whole team backing up these ideas, I wasn't kidding. I was taking about Juliana's team; and they are real (and they are spectacular!!!). Not only that, but they have invited me to present a paper at next year's SPIE conference where I will present a paper called, The Nature of Light and The Mandelbrot set. You see, this new way of thinking about light makes light scale invariant which allows me to connect my fractal cosmology with their scale invariant light theory.

I am so hyped about this I can't sleep at night. Nothing you say can spoil this for me!!!

Bob said...

I didn't attack you because I thought it was your idea, my lovely. I attacked the content of what you said because it was nonsense, and because it displayed a whole bunch of high school misunderstandings of basic concepts.

If you now tell me it's a direct quote from someone else, why would that change the fact that it's nonsense?

"rest mass of light is readily determined: m= 7.372 X 10^−51 kg / oscillation"

This is an entirely arbitrary quantity, Lori. It's the rest mass of a particle which happens to have a de Broglie wavelength of one light-second (300,000km). What's special about a light second? Nothing I'm aware of.

6.626 x 10^-34 joules is an arbitrary amount of energy. It's the energy of a single photon that happens to have a frequency of one oscillation per second. What's special about a frequency of one oscillation per second? Nothing I'm aware of.

A second is a very nice, convenient, human-derived unit of time. I believe it was based loosely on the beat of a heart, just as a metre is based loosely on the length of a stride.

The units of Planck's constant are not based on anything like that. They are fundamental units of action. If we want to describe them in terms of friendly, human-centred units, we call them joule seconds. But in absolute terms, Planck's constant is very simple: the value of Planck's constant is one Planck unit of action.

If that doesn't fit with your ideas of a common-sense unit, it's because your ideas of a common-sense unit are - with some good reason - human-centred. If you want to study the universe, I think it's reasonable to do it on the universe's terms, not our own.

Please pass on my regards to Ms Mortenson. I don't mean to be rude, but her physics is... let's say "a bit wrong". If she's run her ideas by any competent physicists, I'm sure she'll already have been informed of her mistakes. If not, and if she's interested, perhaps you could ask her to reconsider her ideas in this light.

Bob said...

My apologies - if we're going to follow conventional Planck units, I should have said that the Planck's constant, h = 6.626 x 10^-34 J s, is not one Planck unit of action, but 2π.

The reduced Planck's constant, ħ = 1.055 x 10^-34 J s, is one Planck unit of action.

You get the idea though, I hope.

FractalWoman said...

Yes, but you came to this conclusion using the same "wrong thinking" that Juliana describes in her paper.

The problem is that the "quantum of action" units (joule*sec) has an arbitrary one second measure time encoded into it.

(Note that the term second in measure time is different than the second in the unit of joules (kg*m^2/s^2)which just shows the relationship between matter, space and time. Therefore, I will use (s) to mean relative time and (sec) to mean measure or absolute time. Relative time and absolute time should not cancel. I just wanted to be clear on that before I continue.

So I am going to start from scratch with this line of thinking, using the language of high school math (so you can understand ;-)

Let a = 6.262 x 10^-34 (unitless constant a)

Let h = a * joules * sec (planks action constant)

Then, E (joules) = h (joules*sec) v(cycles/sec)

sec cancels (because they both refer to measure time)

E (joules) = a * joules * cycles, where cycle is the unit of oscillation/frequency

If we want to look at just one cycle, we end up with:

E/cycle = a * joules, which I interpret this way:

The energy of one cycle of light equals "a" joules (kg*m^2/s^2).

Using this, we calculate the mass of one light-cycle (not light-second) to be 7.372 x 10^-51 kg. The reason we are able to come to this conclusion is because I left the term "cycle" in the units of the equation and solved for E/cycle (Ecy). It is convention to leave it out and/or replace frequency with 1/sec but there is no good reason to leave unit "cycle" out of the units of the equation (AND out of the SI units for that matter). However, by leaving it in, we are able to solve for the energy of one oscillation of light, something that you won't allow me to do because of some convention that I wasn't invited to (that was a funny in case you didn't get it).

Bob said...

Ok, consider an x-ray photon with wavelength 0.1nm that reaches us from a quasar ten billion light years away.

How many oscillations does that photon have? Around 10^36. If each oscillation has a mass of what you say, then you're saying this photon has a mass of 7.4 x 10^-15 kg, which is over four trillion times the mass of a proton.

What, exactly, are you saying has this mass? Can you point to any measurable physical implications of it?

If you want the "energy of one oscillation of light" in joules, you want to be looking for something in joules / cycle, not joules * cycles.

It can be a confusing business, multiplying and dividing. But they do mean different things. If you confuse a man-hour with a man/hour, you could get yourself into some serious trouble...

Jonathan Shock said...

Fractal woman, if you're so confident that you've found a fatal flaw in the last century of logic, then make a prediction based on your new found insight. That's the way science works. Find an experiment which does not fit with the current theory and show how it does fit with your theory. Give me some numbers...

FractalWoman said...

X-radiation (composed of X-rays) is a form of electromagnetic radiation. X-rays have a wavelength in the range of 0.01 to 10 nanometers, corresponding to frequencies in the range 30 petahertz to 30 exahertz (3×1016 Hz to 3×1019 Hz)

"How many oscillations does that photon have?" Over time you mean? Did you just admit that a photon is a bunch of oscillations over an arbitrary time of 1 second?

Yes, over one second, the detector would absorbs the amount of energy that you described above (although you got the number of oscillations wrong, but I will forgive that).

The way I read "E = a * cycles" is as follows; energy is equal to the constant times the number of cycles being measured. It is the energy "of" the cycles. E/cycles = a reads, Energy per cycle equals a joules. I am not confused about anything.

And Jonathan, I can and will make a prediction that will demonstrate the potential truth of this way of thinking.

Knowing the mass of the electron Me, I can calculate the number of oscillations in the electron to be ~10^21 oscillations which is freakishly close to the value of the mysterious Zitterbewegung. I think this phenomenon has been misinterpreted and that there are actually 10^21 simultaneous oscillations going on in the electron giving it it's mass.

In wikipedia they talk about an unexpected oscillation term that turns up in their equations. Notice that they didn't call it an unexpected frequency term so there is no reason to give it the units Hz, however, since they left out the language for oscillation in the si units, they has no other choice but to give this Zitterbewegung phenomenon the units of Hz even thought it's units should actually be cycles, ie. simultaneous cycles per particle.

Bob said...


"Did you just admit that a photon is a bunch of oscillations over an arbitrary time of 1 second?" - er, no.

I say one thing, and you paraphrase from some strange voice in your head. That's not a conversation.

"The way I read "E = a * cycles" is as follows; energy is equal to the constant times the number of cycles being measured. It is the energy "of" the cycles. E/cycles = a reads, Energy per cycle equals a joules. I am not confused about anything."

Hmm. Let me give you a similar sentence.

A is a quantity of fruit. The units are apples. The numerical value is 5. 


A = 5 * apples.


Watch carefully as I apply your logic:

The way I read "A = 5 * apples" is as follows; the quantity of fruit is equal to 5 times the number of apples being measured. It is the quantity "of" the apples. A/apples = 5 reads, The quantity of fruit per apple equals 5 apples. I am not confused about anything.

If you interpret that as the quantity of apples as being equal to 5 times the number of apples, then you sound pretty confused to me.

Look, if you want to find the energy of one cycle, then we need and equation which has the NUMBER of cycles in it, and we need to set that number to 1.

Note please: the NUMBER of cycles.

Not the WORD cycles. You daft ninny.

You have equations involving E (energy), v (frequency), h (Planck's constant), a (the number of joule seconds in Planck's constant)

Does the NUMBER of cycles appear anywhere in any of your equations?

No, it does not.

Here's an equation involving the number, n, of cycles:

n (cycles) = v (cycles /sec ) * t (sec)

If you set n = 1, you can find things out about one cycle. Because n is the number of cycles.


FractalWoman said...

"You daft ninny"????

Bob, I am going to specifically ask you to stop with these kinds of comments. Regardless of what you think of me, it is totally unprofessional and no one really likes it actually.

Bob, there are various ways of looking at an equation. You can look at the NUMBERS, you can look at the DIMENSIONALITY, or you can look at the UNITS. When I talk about "leaving cycles in the equation" I am talking about when you do unit analysis. I don't have a problem with the NUMBERS. The NUMBERS work and nothing is wrong in that realm which is why the experiments match the equation.

What I am saying though is that when you do UNIT analysis, and you leave the word cycle in the language of the equation (because units in a sense tell the story of the equation), then I am able to tell a different story than the story I am being told.

So, even though the NUMBERS work, and yes, cycle then becomes the number one (you daft ninny;-), the interpretation is wrong. In other words, we are telling the wrong story.

Bob said...

Let me make one thing clear: if you claim to be revolutionising physics with your new ways of thinking, which can so easily be shown to be blatantly incorrect, and you're still defending them and demanding to be treated with respect, then you're a daft ninny, and should expect to be treated as such.

It doesn't matter whether you dimensional analysis, or unit analysis, or numerical analysis, or logical or physical analysis. The only way you can tell the story you are telling is by getting it all entirely wrong.

I can see this isn't going to convince you - you prefer to believe that you know better than the global physics community of the last hundred years rather than simply re-examine your faulty high-school reasoning. Have it your way.

FractalWoman said...

Now, when you look at the units of joules (kg*m^2/s^2) to see what story it can tell us. First of all, m^2/s^2 is really v^2 , and in the case of light c^2, and so the units of joules is really just telling us that e=mc^2.

I happen to know that m^2/s^2 are the units of dose/absorption or Gy. So the units of absorption are embedded in the units of joule. No surprise there.

Imagine two light waves heading toward a detector. One is a gamma wave, one is a radio wave. The front of each wave coincides, (they are neck and neck) both travelling at the exact same speed. They will hit the detector at the same time, but the gamma wave/cycle will get fully absorbed much faster than the radio wave/cycle. Therefore, more gamma rays per unit time will get absorbed than radio waves.

There is no need for each individual wave to have different energies. Each wave does however have different absorption rates and this is what we are measuring and misinterrpreting.

Bob said...

Ok, please take your silliness somewhere else now. You really are claiming that whatever vague interpretation your silly head comes up with is better than those of people who actually bother to study, work with and experience these things. You actually are an idiot.

Anonymous said...

I am very happy because I realised this Fractal Woman is an imbecile ten comments ago. Good for me!

Bob said...

Indeed. I like to allow people an opportunity to try to think clearly about the things they're coming out with before writing them off. Some people do have the flexibility of mind and self-reflective capacity to get off their tramlines if an idea is debated clearly, so it's worth giving people a chance.

I might be a bit too confrontational for some, though. If you tell some people straight out that they're wrong, their defensiveness shoots up so much that it stops them thinking. Letting people be blatantly wrong without saying so is probably a task for a more patient person than me.

It was fun though. I was particularly happy with my application of FractalWoman logic to apples. I've made a note to re-read that in future if I ever need cheering up :)

If that kind of patent absurdity fails to convince her that there's something very very wrong with her thinking, then there's not much that can be done for the poor lass...

FractalWoman said...

Bob said...


Anonymous said...

Very clever Fracty! I'm amazed with this recent perspicacity of yours, too bad you didn't show it before, when you were trying reason instead. Stick to the insult, that surely fits you better.
All the best,

FractalWoman said...

How could we have been to terribly wrong for so many years? Hmm, let me see...

Well, there is precidence for that, in that Galileo was persecuted for discovering that the current dogma (earth centered or fixed earth model) was completely and totally wrong. Don't forget there was alot of scientific evidence in support of that terribly flawed theory at the time. Since history does tend to repeat itself, then the odds are in my favor that we got it terribly wrong this time too, which is why I am suspicious of and therefore question every aspect of the current model.

Here is where I think we went wrong: for the sake of our experiments, we were forced to fix the space-time parameters (meter,sec) because this what we have to do in order to make measurements. However, since we "fixed" space-time parameters to accommodate the experiments, we had no choice but to interpret the energy of light as variable. This incorrect interpretation of the variable energy of light is identical to the "sun goes around the earth" misinterpretation that happened in Galileo's time.

You see, we are getting it wrong in exactly the same say way that we did in Galileo's time.

When you fix the sun (fix the light parameters) and move the earth (variable space-time parameters) then you get a better and more accurate picture of what is actually going on. Isn't that what we are suppose to be doing here?

The main reason I like this theory is that, in this model, light and energy (and the relationship between them) become scale invariant, and therefore, we should be able to model different systems at different scales, using similar relationships (and equations). This is where my fractal cosmology comes in and points to the validity of Nassim's Schwartzschild Proton theory not to mention his scaling laws.

Which brings us back to why we are here in the first place. I think this work supports Nassims work and therefore, we should continue to talk about it.

Bob said...

But it doesn't bother you that it's wrong.

It would bother me. If I were proposing a theory.

I'd also want it not to be fabricated vague bullshit. That would also be something I'd care about.

FractalWoman said...

Well, once my experiments prove it is right, then you will have to eat some crow. In the mean time, you can enjoy your blissful ignorance.

Bob said...

You mean you also have a real theory? One that has specific and testable implications for observable reality? One that makes specific measurable predictions? One you can actually run experiments to check?

I see now that you want to keep your real theory a secret, and that you're throwing your detractors off-guard by posting vague waffly meaningless gibberish. That's probably very sensible.

Good luck.

Anonymous said...

Actually I think their is an alternative to both sides of the larger debate that I have maid Nassim well aware of and he chooses to ignore it. So I invite you to consider this.

Bob said...

No thanks

Anonymous said...

How comes that everyone on this forum who are in complete agreement with all the Nassim "work" is not a physicist not even a mathematician??? Guys you really do not know what non-sense Nassim spoke of, do you? So, why you are so convinced he is telling the truth? It sound like fanatic religion to me, a modern one but still a religion. You like what he says because is interesting is simply "another point of view. Actually all he said does not stand a chance to experiments, therefore believing him or someone else who states for instance "the Earth is flat standing on the back of 4 pink elephants" is the same thing. The fact you do not know math or physics is not a motive to believe anything that one could said about it. Wake up guys! If you really want to test if someone like Nassim or whatever says is truth, simply go to school! Physics and math are serious and hard things, trust me...and the nature is not what someone might think of!

Bob said...

Exactly. If you can get people to believe that whatever they 'resonate' with must be true, then you can convince them of anything. Some people just love the idea that the laws of the universe revolve around their innermost feelings.

It's difficult to imagine anything more self-centred and arrogant, if you think about it. Unfortunately, these people's innermost feelings tell them not to think about it like that, so they don't notice.

They don't realise how ridiculous they appear to the rest of us. It's no wonder they get so defensive. Bless their infantile little souls :-)

Alec said...

It's obvious that professional physicists and mathematicians are one and all closed-minded, involved in a global conspiracy (against Tesla and me), unimaginative, uncreative, funded by big business/the military, stupid, utterly protective of the status quo, wrong, cliquey, geeky, arrogant, scared of being exposed, blindly following the mathematics, fraudulent and, above all, incapable of understanding or appreciating my revolutionary ideas in quantum mechanics, general relativity, plasma dynamics, fundamental particle physics and cosmology. Oh - and my theory of everything that I was able to create because I am not burdened by all that brainwashing that masquerades as physics education; and which corrects all those silly mistakes that Einstein and Hawkins (sic) made...

tungueswag said...

I'm assuming thats ^ irony right there...i've followed this 'debate' with amusement, and admiration for your staying power bob! Time to take a break perhaps, before it becomes too personal.
Came across this paper, I wonder if you've seen it? Seems fairly uncontroversial (to a layman like me), I'd be interested in your thoughts on the science involved, as it doesn't mention astral projection, past lives or alien DNA.

Bob said...

Yes, I've seen it. It's written by Rauscher, who actually is (was) a physicist, and it looks fairly reasonable - at least in comparison with anything of Haramein's. It's a purely theoretical approach to spacetime, and it's an attempt to introduce Coriolis forces into the structure of general relativity by making them part of spacetime itself.

It won't impress many astrophysicists or cosmologists, because it's incompatible with the massive suite of observations that support the Big Bang theory, and because it posits a non-isotropic universe, which is not what we see. As a piece of mathematical physics, though, it's curious enough.

I don't know what any of it has to do with Haramein, apart from him having hired Rauscher to put it in his name. Why she's agreed to that is anyone's guess. She's not worked in academic science or been published in a scientific journal for decades; he's an opportunist with a lucrative enterprise and a load of money, and needs someone with the appearance of authority and an impressive CV to make his name look good.

Haramein clearly owns the right to use the diagrams and some of the words in his talks. One day he might acquire the ability to make actual sentences out of them too.

I've never seen any indication that he understands the first thing of what Rauscher is talking about in this paper. (His "layman's" explanation of it is a bit of a joke - and you can be fairly sure he didn't write that by himself either.)

Hope that helps.

tungueswag said...

Thanks for the reply. I just came across your earlier analysis of this, i'm grateful you've taken the time to debunk his pseudoscience - it does seem cynical rather than misinformed.

New Agers are dangerously close to Creationists in some ways. Rauscher seems to have fallen under the influence - scientific training doesn't always protect against charismatics it would seem!

tungueswag said...

Found these afflictions in a list of phobias -

Gurgephobia - fear of the abyss, particularly the ocean floor or outer space

Apeirophobia - fear of infinity

Must say i'm susceptible myself - those CGI flythroughs of the Galaxy are terrifying!

FractalWoman said...

Watch me (FractalWoman) asking Sir Roger Penrose a question about the complex plane and the Mandelbrot Set. I have to say it was quite a favourable response to my question. Look about 1:17:00 into the lecture (toward the end).

The image I gave him was actually a copy of my paper (which I bound into a hard cover book) called "Close to the Edge, Event Horizons, Black Holes and the Mandelbrot Set". A few weeks later, he sent me an email thanking me for the book.

It was quite a thrill to have had such a close encounter with one of the greatest theoretical physicist of all time. I was so flustered I hardly could concentrate on how he was responding to my question. Thank god Perimeter Institute publishes their lectures so I could hear his kind words at my leisure.


Bob said...

Very nice. He's a good guy. So what did you learn from him?

FractalWoman said...

I was actually hoping that he would learn something from me, and I think maybe he did. I at least got him to look at the Mandelbrot Set in a different manner than he may have before. And you are right, he is a really good guy. I especially wanted him to look as the section I wrote about black hole entropy since he is an expert in all things entropy. He didn't give me any feedback on that though. Still, it was a big break to even have given him the book and to have him acknowledge it. It inspired me to find a publication for my work and I think I may have finally found it. I don't want to jinx it but I will let you know if I am successful. Peace. FractalWoman.

Bob said...

You went to a talk by one of the world's greatest physicists, and he inspired you to sit there thinking "this guy would really like my book" and "he could learn something from me" instead of learning anything. Sweet :)

philatkin said...

Can I re-kickstart this argument by pointing out that 2 is a quite reasonable exponent?

Best read I've had over Christmas, brilliant, keep on debunking!!

Bob said...

Thanks philatkin

You can indeed.... don't know what you mean about the 2 though...

Anonymous said...

I came accross this "Fractalwoman" character on some other forum (I can't remember the name of the forum now) and she was really pain in the butt with her nonsence, but guys had a lot of patience with her and politely shut her up in the end. I see she is doing the same thing on your blog Bob, just to let you know if you are not aware of this character.
So, it has been about a year when I heard about Nassim and I still could not find how he became "physicist"? He mentioned some mentors in his videos and that he was studying on his own, meaning he only has a high school?
I have seen lots of mumbling in favor of Haramein, but noone has yet disproved any of the math analysis by Bob, correct?
I have seen the latest "discovery" by Haramein and that is some stones confirming that aliens visited ancient people - more garbage and fakery on an alreday big landfill of ancient aliens "proofs".
I still have not seen Haramein discussing Elisabeth's ideas (presenting those as his ideas) with a crediable physicist in public - am I wrong on this one? He preaches it to general public and lots of guys in colorfull Hawaian shirts, but he keeps running away from physicists who would not mmind to put his theory to the test a little bit.

Bob said...

Absolutely - he stays well away from discussing his ideas with anyone who is knowledgeable and prepared to challenge them in any kind of way. That's not something I've ever seen, and don't ever expect to see.

It's far, far easier to win over a few supporters by ridiculing all professional scientists instead. He ends up respected only by those with the deepest and daftest of anti-science prejudices. Nobody capable of questioning his scientific claims would want to be caught within a mile of him.

That leaves him stuck in his own self-perpetuating disinformation bubble.

It's a shame, but I guess he has no choice - he's wedded to his silly theories, and a well-protected disinformation bubble is the only place they'll ever be remotely safe.

D said...


I can not thank you enough for this blog. I'm currently an undergraduate studying chemistry. Besides those at uni. a majority, if not practically all my peers are not interested in science. This is all fine.

However, in my day to day life outside of university I a constantly confronted by people who know so little about science and the natural world. I'm dumb-founded by it. But then again, it's fine that some people dont hold science as greatly in their minds as i do.

I do often meet art students and sometimes New Age spiritualists. These people discuss such outlandish ideas with me, that at times i just retreat at fear of being branded as a "Know it all", or accused of trying to appear more intelligent than them

I was referred to Nassim Haramein by a New Age spiritualist, who in my opinion, is bordering severe mental delusion and disorder. Sadly there are people who believe this person and many others out there

All that aside, i want to thank you once again for providing such thorough discussion. Your rational thinking is skill that sadly evades a majority of those among us in society. Your thought process is one i rarely encounter.

Anonymous said...

Dear Bob,

I have spent last two days reading all your blog and all the posts. I met with Mr. Haramein`s lectures few years ago on you-tube. I was able to get his DVDs for free so I decided to give it a go and check them out. It was refreshing in form as he does have ability to speak in easy way and not boring so I actually I did enjoyed his lectures. Then I checked his web and I started to asking myself , ok guy thinks he is brilliant so why he sells his work to others ? and this prices ! would it not his brilliance gave him a good place at some reputable University ? and would it not some Academic want to have him in his team to work with the ideas ? would it not be there at least one University department wanting to give him scholarship to help him ? It seemed bizarre for me so I started digging little deeper into. I found this big argument going on on wiki connected with his person. I read all discussions page explaining why it was recommended his page should be removed. It actually surprised me because normally you do have on Wiki pages of people who were pioneers in the ideas in many fields of course with information that their ideas are just that so why such a big deal about him then ? if his ideas are so important and new ? I started to check the facts connected with discussions on wiki and I did found that he actually never published anything and all links directing to his works or papers were only from his website, that was good enough for me to just dont bother anymore with him. Few years later I am here , his web have not really change that much , he still did not publish anything , people still buying his work just for bigger $$. I am very greatfull for all the time you spent answering peoples questions and accusations towards your person. I thank you very much for your analysis of his paper and pointing out all the mistakes. I am very surprised that some people here calling themselves scientists but seems to not understand one simple thing : if you created your ideas on wrong basics from the beginning, everything what comes out of it is wrong too ;) it is simple logic for sake`s And I know you try to explain it to people but they seem to not see it ;) None of the NH followers who came here tried even pick up the discussion about the flows you pointed out in your analysis and that is really sad . Thank you Bob very much , and I hope Steven Hawking will never have to see mr NH theories of black holes ...
Greetings from Poland

Bob said...

Thanks Anna :-)

Paul L said...

Anyone coming here looking for comment on this lunatic might like to visit the following page, where various wikipedia types are discussing why they voted to delet his wikipedia page. The short of it: he isn't a "notable person" and most references to him are on his own website. There are some beautifully cutting remarks made about his "work" from people trying to maintain wikipedia's reputation against the damage it might sustain having him represented on its pages.

The page is here:

Anonymous said...

Bob, Bob, Bob.. what have you got yourself into?! What frightens me more than this Haramein phoney and his ilk are the thousands of physics PhDs around the globe who seem to have just as scant an idea of what they are talking about as him, but know the jargon well enough to be convincing to others with the same half-knowledge.. It's enough to cause a man to lose faith in the laws themselves :(

Bob said...

Well there's a vague, sweeping, disparaging claim. Who are these "thousands of physics PhDs"? Would you care to back that up with anything? At least give a few examples so that you're remark doesn't look like baseless prejudice...

If you want to know whether to have "faith" in any formulations of physical laws, find out whether those laws have enabled people to create, explore, build and design physical things that people can rely on. If they haven't, then they're not laws, they're speculations at best (and pretentiousness or fraud at worst). If they have, then surely it would be a bit silly to doubt that there's any truth in them.

Physics is very practical. Establishing whether or not a law is reliable is not complicated.

Anonymous said...

This is really useful for people like me who have no physics background, but who know how to read and have a layperson's interest in cosmology and particle physics, and aren't interested in being swindled :)

godisnowhere said...

I know this topic is not about Crop Circles, but I had to weigh in. I know the military has scalar directed energy (*cough 9/11 *cough*) and that.....Brookhaven.....may be involved. The only thing that has me think it might be 'out-of-this-world', is that they are putting a lot of physics and math and predicting future events in the crop, and the interwoven parts of the crop can't be explained .........also, if it is the military and they 'want' us to believe in aliens, then it would be on the news at least once a week. The fact that the main stream corrupt news is NOT even mentioning them, just as a side note, is the most interesting point of the thing the 'crop art' is telling us, is to open the EARTH's HEART CHAKRA, which is the 4th chakra. I know you don't want to hear any of this Bob.......but the 4th chakra represents the fourth dimension, or TIME. The heart represents time, it keeps the time of our lives. Beat, beat, tick, tock. We can STOP time now. Doctors can remove a heart, stop it, and put a new one in. We are gods, fractally. If we can open the 4th chakra (heart/time) then we'd see more awesomeness..........and then maybe, we will be able to live to 200 years as in the biblical stories.

HAhahaha.......what a strange tangent this is.

I don't know anything about the math/physics/whatever, but I did learn the word Tetragrammaton from NH. I learned a lot about the Pyramids that I didn't know. I'll take everything with a grain of salt and a skeptical eye, but I do like his presentations. I won't send money.........I've learned that lesson the hard way.

The one thing I HAVE learned in this lifetime, is that human beings come down here to be more OPEN in each lifetime. THe more OPEN your eyes, the more light you get in and the more you see. The more OPEN your HEART is...........continue the metaphor as you will.

Carry on and carry each other.

godisnowhere said...

WOOT WOOT.... Perimeter Institute !!!! Jacob Barnett is there now. Is Jacob the ladder? Like ladders, like spirals, like DNA like gyres.......... You're not gonna like this Bob.

Anonymous said...


Bob said...

I don't get the obsession with credentials. If someone gave you proof from on high that they were a big cheese on the academic hierarchy, would that mean they could tell you what to think? Hopefully not.

I want people to investigate, think for themselves, explore, find out about nature and the universe, learn how to ask deep questions and challenge the content of the things that people claim. Arguing from authority would be a very poor way to go. Nobody here is asking you to believe.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a scientist but i did find this recent article... I don't understand how the "Mini-black holes" are different from the black holes Haramein describes.

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous.

I don't see anything in common between the mini black holes in that article and what Haramein describes.

Apart from the words "mini" and "black" and "hole".

I could make a very very very long list of differences, if you like. Here are a few of the bigger differences:

1. The black holes in the article come from theories of extra dimensions. Haramein's theories don't have extra dimensions.

2. The article describes the proton as being made of quarks, and not a black hole. Haramein describes a proton as being a black hole. (If a proton were already a black hole, why would you build a large collider to make black holes?)

3. The theory described in the article (by physicsts Lisa Randall and Raman Sundrum) is based on Einstein's general theory of relativity. Haramein's model uses Newton's theory, which is entirely inappropriate for a black hole. It uses Newton's theory because Haramein has no understanding of general relativity, although he likes to throw some of the words into his papers.

4. The theory described in the article uses quantum mechanics, which is the only theory that has ever been used successfully for particle physics. Haramein's theory is classical, which is entirely inappropriate for a proton. It's classical because Haramein has no understanding of quantum theory, although he likes to throw some of the words into his papers.

5. The black holes in the article "evaporate into the far, far colder space around them almost infinitely fast. Their expected lifetime is around one octillionth of a nanosecond - so that they pop out of existence again almost as soon as they are created." Haramein's black holes last for ever.

6. Most importantly, the black holes theorised by Randall and Sundrum are being looked for at the Large Hadron Collider, because Randall and Sundrum actually have a theory about what they might be like. They have predictions that can be tested, and they work alongside people who actually work with protons, and who will test the things they suggest. Haramein doesn't have a theory at all. He tells stories (stories are different to theories), and he sells ideas to people who don't understand physics. He makes money out of people who don't check anything he tells them. And his followers think he has a theory because lies to them.

I hope that helps you to start seeing some of the differences. They really couldn't be more different!

Please ask if anything I've said is unclear, or if you feel I've been unfair at all. I also encourage you to write to Lisa Randall, Raman Sundrum, Cigdem Issever, Pete Wilton, or anyone else who has any working understanding of this theory and ask them for their opinion of Haramein and his claims.

All the best.

Brian said...

I don't feel like there has been enough gratitude expressed to you for your remarkable (and inspiring) patience as you respond to science vs manifesto. I am awed to see that you're still at it 3 years later. Thank you very much for your continued pursuit in making the truth clear and open. Even if the people you're responding to can't see it, some of us can. I particularly appreciate all of the links you've provided and I'm eager to dig into them more. Accessible (and real) science is my favorite thing.

Bob said...

Thanks Brian :)

gabriel said...

Hi Bob, I attempted to post before but it looks like it got lost.

Just wanted to mention one thing that irked me about Haramein's original paper (besides all the previously mentioned nonsense, ha).

In addition to the instability due to gravitational radiation, as you mentioned in your original analysis, the dual orbiting "Schwarzschild proton" system should emit a huge amount of radiation due to accelerating charges (accelerating charged objects emit radiation according to classical electrodynamics, etc). Based on the non-relativistic Larmor formula and inputs of his acceleration and mass, one would seem to obtain a radiative power of about 8.5*10^30 erg/s per proton. Yes I know, this is a terribly crude formula to use for objects at this scale, but Nassim seems to do the same thing throughout the paper, and I'm only ballparking so why not? Also, using the relativistic version would cause this number to be even greater, as it scales with gamma^6. This means the so-called "stable" proton he suggests would radiate, from classical electrodynamics only, a power equivalent to about 1/500th the total power of the sun (or more).

The obvious solution to this issue would be to somehow try to suggest that quantization of energy prevents this, as it does in preventing the radiation of a stable Hydrogen atom, however the energy scales in this case preclude an obvious solution of this type.

Anyhoo, thanks for actually taking on this nonsense with a thoughtful analysis. I know a lot of folks say you're wasting your time, but I know way too many otherwise smart people with a passing interest in physics who think Haramein is the real deal, and I lose a bit of faith in humanity and the world every time he gets brought up in conversation.

Carry on.

Bob said...

Hi Gabriel,

That's a good point about the radiation of an accelerating charge! You're right that quantisation doesn't offer a way out, because the particle's angular momentum is 39 orders of magnitude larger than Planck's constant.

However, all may not be as it seems...

If a non-accelerating particle in free space doesn't radiate (which it doesn't), does a particle in gravitational free-fall (or orbit) radiate? If the equivalence principle is true, then it doesn't.

If a particle accelerated at a rate a in zero gravitational field radiates (which it does), does a stationary particle in a gravitational field equal to a radiate? If the equivalence principle is true, then it does. But where does that energy come from?

The equivalence principle is essential for general relativity, which we know is an astonishingly precise and reliable theory. But conservation of energy is even more essential. So what gives?

There are still some apparently simple topics in physics that remain stubbornly mysterious... this is one of my favourites :)

(Not the kind of mysterious that is an excuse for Haramein-scale bullfart incompetence, of course!)

gabriel said...

Nicely put. I had it in the back of my mind that if special-relativistic effects should cause an increase in the radiation compared to classically, then GR effects would increase it further, although I see now that this may not be the case.

I suppose I would hazard a guess that the reference frame of the observer would make the difference between whether radiation is observed or not. The first case you mention (no radiation) would be the case if the observer was co-orbiting with the charges, while the second (radiation) would occur if the observer were not co-orbiting, like in a "rest" lab frame. Do you think so?

Regardless, radiation is either observed or not. I should think that Haramein's supporters could test this via experiment (sounds easy enough to do, no?), or come up with another experiment of any kind as a test of his "theories", perhaps it would lend some credence to his claims. Anyways, back to work for me.

Bob said...

Yes, that's one possible resolution, though not an uncontested one.

Haramein's supporters would ask their intuitions which one resonates, and then go with that. Or if two people presented a case for each one, the person they like most must be the right one. It's a cute little world where they live :)

Anonymous said...

Dear Bob and everyone following and commenting on this thread,

I use to work with Nassim in his lab here on Kauai so I can shed some light from an insiders perspective. I need to be careful not to disclose anything confidential. I am posting this Anonymously in hopes that he will not be able to figure out which of the MANY former disillusioned employees I am. What I can say is that I was a lead engineer, not just some assistant or follower. I had access to everything and worked on his most secret pet projects not even disclosed to the other engineers. The first thing that troubled me was that he was attempting to replicate proprietary inventions that had been disclosed to him by 3rd parties without their permission. We had no right to reproduce other people's trade-secrets that had been shared in confidence. The more I looked around the lab and got involved in his "holy grail" invention the more I realized he and his claim to fame invention that he worked on for 10 years is a grandiose fabrication of epic proportions. This became obvious when I realized his epic invention was nothing more than a bundle of enormous heat and energy in a ball of dazzling geometry. It looked impressive but it violated a fundamental law of fluid dynamics and electricity literally at every corner of its design. It seemed so obvious to me that I wondered how he could not see the fundamental flaw in his creation 10 years in the making prior to my arrival. I decided not to disclose this discovery because I had learned how easily and unabashedly he takes credit for other people's discoveries. I also didn't want to give him the keys to the Kingdom he so egotistically seeks to fulfill his God complex. I quit instead and never looked back. He has fooled himself and his followers with his Messiah complex. He's not intentionally misleading people. He truly believes he's the smartest person on the planet and that he has been chosen to save it. What I can tell you in conclusion is there is nothing in his lab that functions in any meaningful way that is an original invention by him or his followers in his lab.

Bob said...

Hi Anonymous. Thanks for your post.

It fits with all the other testimonies that I've heard from ex co-workers of Haramein. Two in particular have sent me detailed but personal and confidential emails of what they went through and what they saw, and they don't make for inspiring reading. It makes me realise what a sad, messed-up kind of legal system we have where people don't feel safe to speak out in person against this kind of fraud.

My opinion is that 'not intentionally misleading people' can't possibly wash as an excuse - it essentially amounts to being negligent and wilfully blind to the thoughts of every one of the thousands of easily-contactable people with skills in physics or engineering who would give (and in hundreds of cases have given) him honest and informative advice.

The world has been very clearly telling Haramein that he's getting it all wrong for many years now, and explaining why. If you had a habit of beating people up in bars, you wouldn't get away with saying that you thought it was all in a friendly spirit and that you'd never heard a cry of pain that you could take seriously. That kind of depth of wilful delusion wouldn't make you innocent, no matter how many other people liked you and your stories.

Still, the vast majority of people who have a stirring of interest when they first come across Haramein's ideas can look and will easily find out what the rest of the world thinks of him, and will think twice before jumping into his bubble and forking out to feed his self-publicity machine. And hopefully most of the rest will be contented inside his bubble and will stay away from children and keep their silliness to themselves. That would be good enough for me.

Thanks again for your insights into Haramein's delusions and incompetence. Despite how exasperating it is, there's something sweetly comical about his continued flailings against reality :)

Anonymous said...

I m just going to put this out there..... Perhaps the 2 Proton Black holes are in fact facing outward ..... and we are seeing the event happening, or happened, which would make it a rather big mess on the inside... Empathy says try looking at it from the other sides point of view..... exactly we are the event of the already established Proton Super Black hole.. The End of what has come through what we can not see by looking into a black hole, but instead looking around and seeing its creation. Think about it, if The All mighty Proton black holes swallow light then perhaps we should not be able to see stars at night and NE masses during the day. for I already can see whats coming in.... My theory is we are looking at the result conclusion. Not the Question. Think outside the Square/circle and triangle you will see everything. Now answer me this. Are the Proton Black Holes Front or back, up or down? These beautiful Proton Black Holes are what have been grown to do, come together and create the energy we have . They merge together as one but have an magnetic charge as they pass through each other hence Super than will emerge and become 2 again... Just look and see with both eyes or if you only have 1 eye i'm sure your pupil will a just to it. If your blind then you are insight inwardly a module that no one but the blind cannot see. I call this common sense. Albert.E did say that if you looked as far into the sky as possible you would be looking at the back of your own head. Thank you

Micheal Eris said...

Thank you. I knew my friends were being stupid

Micheal Eris said...

Seriously thank you for posting this for people like me that actually try to verify things there friends get into due to new age buzz words and crap

Elliott Martinson said...

If schwarzchild protons have the mass he claims they do, and everything is made of protons, does this not completely FUCK UP his "scaling law" since every mass must be written with the correction related to "schwarzchild" protons? Therefore driving up the mass of every single other object on the graph with nearly infinitely higher masses, considering the number of protons in each of these objects? Where is this addressed? Protons only weigh this incredibly large amount when it's convenient for him, but otherwise they weigh the standard amount when calculating masses of everything else that has protons as constituents? Plus correlation does not imply causation, which is a serious dagger in his "scaling law" which doesn't make sense anyway. If a proton has the mass of the entire observable universe, and their radii are INCREDIBLY different? Why do they fall on completely different parts of the line?

chesterthoughts said...

I'm a PhD student in physics who actually agrees with a lot of Nassim's ideas.

Bob said...

Hello Chesterthoughts. From your blog.

"The whole point of the paper is to say that all objects which can be approximated as pointlike objects are actually black holes. While this sounds outlandish, it actually is quite smart." - Protons are not pointlike objects. They cannot be approximated as pointlike objects if you're looking at forces on the nuclear scale.

"The whole point of a black hole is that no information can leave." - Deep inelastic scattering has been performed successfully for decades now, and gives us information from within the proton's radius.

"Nassim is including the energy from the vacuum as well. We already know that dark energy represents most of the energy of the universe, so why is this surprising?" - the dark energy density of the cosmos is measurable, and it's around 5.2 proton masses per cubic metre. You're saying we should expect this to make every proton weigh 885 million tonnes?

I could go on, there are dozens more of these.

Sorry, but you're not very convincing. Physicists don't write blog posts peppered with errors that are quite so absurd. I don't doubt that you've read some books on physics, but you don't appear to have understood the basics of what you're trying to discuss.

Anonymous said...

You obviously never did DMT I wish physicists would smoke that and then try to figure out the universe. Everything is a black hole everything is one. No point in arguing once you have actually visualized it.

Anonymous said...

Also just an observation not a judgement a lot of hatred oozing from you not the smartest look putting others down for not being as all knowing as you. Not enlightened at all. Does it even matter after all its all infinity baby we are all reflections of one.

Bob said...

That's neither an observation nor a judgement, my friend, it's a thing you made up. Never mind. It's all infinity baby.

I'm happy for you that you've visualised the universe and don't need to know anything any more. Mr Haramein's theories are going to suit you just fine.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 305 of 305   Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

If it says 'Newest' above right of the comment box, click this to update to the most recent comments.