shiloh shiloh Posts: 756 Join date: 2011-03-16 Age: 57 Location: Akbar Ra Post n°29 Re: Nassim Haramein, Sexy Physics and adventures beyond... shiloh on Thu Aug 21, 2014 3:51 am http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/schwarzchild-proton.html The Physics of the Schwarzschild Proton 'The Schwarzschild Proton' is a paper written by Nassim Haramein, proposing a model of the proton based on what he calls 'the Schwarzschild condition'. I've discussed Haramein's methods more broadly here (starting with a look at the award he displays for this paper), but here I'm focusing on the physics in this paper. It's fairly basic, so I'm hoping to be able to present this in a way that makes at least some sense to at least some of Haramein's non-physicist audience who are interested in his ideas. [Edit 4th Dec, updated 1st Jan: Anyone curious about Haramein's recent appearance in some obscure 'peer-reviewed' conference proceedings, please see this note: http://bit.ly/harameinAIP. Feel free to ask questions in the comments.] There's a lot of stuff here. You won't need all of it to get the gist – have a browse. I'm exploring this material not with belief or opinion or conjecture, but using well-established laws of physics only – in fact I'm going out of my way to really try to make his model fit with reality. There are six main conclusions in his paper. I'll look at each of these in turn in the light of his model. Before I look at any of the conclusions, though, let's look first at the premise and see if we can make it work. '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 1.32 fm. (This is in fact the Compton wavelength of a proton, not its radius, at least not by any measure that I'm aware of, but it's good enough for now.) The paper begins with the suggestion that a real proton may be considered to be one of these. To see if this is workable, let's compare his model with with what we already know about protons. Mass Mass of an actual proton: 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram Mass of Schwarzschild proton: 885 million metric tonnes These aren't particularly close. How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality? He doesn't. What could we do to deal with this problem? We could propose that all these millions of tonnes are only experienced gravitationally when you get very close, let's say at the nuclear scales. And otherwise, we experience the usual tiny mass of a single hydrogen atom. What would generate this effect? Who cares. It's only a model, let's run with it anyway. Radiation From a single actual proton: none From a single Schwarzschild proton: 455 million Watts (enough to supply electricity to 60,000 US homes) These are a little different, too. Why would one Schwarzschild proton radiate so much? Because the application of quantum mechanics to the severely distorted spacetime in the vicinity of the event horizon of such a tiny black hole gives rise to a correspondingly huge amount of pair-production. This takes the form of a thermal radiation of particles known as Hawking radiation, which thousands of websites will happily explain to you. The 455 million Watts comes from the power equation – here it is, straight from Wikipedia: If we use M = 8.85 x 10^{11} kg (the other values are standard physical constants) this gives 4.55 x 10^{8} W. The laws of thermodynamics imply that proton-sized black hole would have a temperature of 139 billion degrees Celsius (thousands of times hotter than the core of a star, and not far off the core temperature at the height of a supernova). How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality? He doesn't. What could we do to deal with this problem? Well, we could deny that Hawking radiation is real. It has never been directly observed. If it doesn't occur, then some of our most solid laws of physics would be violated in quite profound ways. Still, what the hell, let's violate them. It's only a model. Stability of interaction between protons Between actual protons in a stable nucleus: indefinitely Between co-orbiting Schwarzschild protons: the orbit would decay within a few trillionths of a trillionth of a second. Why? Because the theory of General Relativity tells us that any two black holes orbiting each other must lose orbital energy by emitting gravitational waves and fall in towards each other, merging into a single black hole at the moment that their event horizons touch. The approach speed is given by the following equation: Source Gravitational Radiation, Burtschinger & Taylor. This equation applies to black holes at a sensible distance apart (not contiguous ones), but what it tells us is that even if they orbited ten times further apart, they would still approach each other at about 60km/s (yes, kilometres per second). This is a fast approach for objects that are already ten thousand times closer than the size of an atom. And the closer they get, the faster they approach. (In Haramein's model, the event horizons are already touching.) How does Haramein deal with this discrepancy from reality? He doesn't. What could we do to deal with this problem? Actually, this is a very serious problem, because it's a direct result from our best theory of gravity, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which is the only theory we have that predicts and describes black holes. If we deny this theory as well, then what is a black hole? There won't be any such thing. We are supposed to be doing serious physics, and talking about black holes and gravity. Surely we can't get out of this one? Maybe we could pretend they worked it all out wrong. Or maybe we could pretend that it's a quantum gravity effect, in the same way that electron orbitals are stable because, it's like, you know, quantum. What happens when you look inside a proton? in an actual proton: we see point-like constituents (quarks), and a measurable distribution of charge. Things don't disappear. in a Schwarzschild proton: there is an event horizon of 1.32 fm 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[sup-41[/sup], 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[sup47[/sup] 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[sup21[/sup] dynes) 500 thousand trillion times the weight of another planet Earth if you put it 'on top' of our one (= 1.5 x 10^{30} dynes) 90 billion trillion times the impact force of a 6 mile diameter asteroid hitting the Earth at 10 miles per second! (The one that wiped out the dinosaurs was this size. It had a mass of 10 trillion tonnes, and was slowed from 10 miles per second after penetrating a distance of about 15km into the crust. v²=2as, F=ma, every action has... you know the deal, you do the math. Then multiply by 90 billion trillion!) I'm not joking. It really is a stupidly big number. Haramein is suggesting – without, it seems, any awareness of how stupid this is – that this is the force of attraction between two protons within a single atom. We can use an electron, one of the lightest particles known, to knock a proton out of a nucleus. We can even do it with a single photon of light. We don't need to throw 6-mile diameter asteroids at atoms to split them. This result alone should be enough to convince anyone that the Schwarzschild proton is one of the worst thought-out models of the proton that it is possible to come up with. 3. The orbital speed of two neighbouring protons turns out to be the speed of light (page 3) An object in orbit very close to a black hole will have a very fast orbit. For a small object at a distance of 1.5R_{s} (meaning one and a half times the Schwarzschild radius), the speed of the orbit is c, the speed of light. This is a result of general relativity, known as the photon sphere. For larger objects with significant gravitational fields of their own, the problem becomes fiendishly complex. (As mentioned in the "stability of interaction" section above, energy loss through gravitational radiation guarantees that there is no stable close orbit anyway.) Haramein's protons are both black holes, orbiting at 2R_{s}, which is further than the photon sphere. A correct calculation would give a lower speed, perhaps not far from two thirds of the speed of light. Haramein has used special relativity (which is only valid in the absence of strong gravitational fields), and got an incorrect result. Even if he had calculated correctly, the result doesn't tell us anything new – this would apply to anything orbiting any black hole. So nothing to write home about, just some more inappropriate use of physics equations. 4. The time period for such an orbit turns out to be the same as the characteristic timescale of nuclear emissions involving the strong force (page 1) What is the timescale of nuclear emissions involving the strong force? It's roughly how long it takes for a strong interaction to occur, and it's determined by the shortest time possible to traverse a strongly interacting particle. In other words, to get the timescale of the strong force, take the size of a proton and divide it by the speed of light. (To be a little more subtle, the reason why the timescales involved will be as short as possible in the case of the strong force is that the strong force coupling constant is approximately 1, which is – and I'm simplifying things a little, but the principle is true – as high as possible.) Haramein has chosen to operate at the size of a proton. He has also chosen to operate close to the event horizon of a black hole, which means that any relevant speeds must be close to the speed of light. So, again, there is no result here. ... That's as far as I've got for now. I'm doing this a bit at a time, because doing it properly is time-consuming. But you probably get the idea. [Edit, 8th June: The scaling law just makes my heart sink when I look at it, it's such a confused mush. I'm still putting it off. Meanwhile, please see the latest post here. Clear examples of Haramein (a) being clueless about all aspects of physics, and (b) making absurd claims for his insights into physics, including some truly outrageous claims about the Schwarzschild Proton ] Do let me know if you think I've got anything wrong so far. Conclusion I'm not trying to suggest that Haramein made some mistakes with his model and should go away and make some corrections. Haramein claims to be doing serious science. He claims to have unified the forces of nature, and to have created a unified field theory. He claims to be able to point out where all 'the other physicists' are going wrong. He claims, moreover, that his paper, The Schwarzschild Proton, has won serious academic acclaim. All of these are patently false. The only sensible conclusion from looking at this example of his work is that he is utterly incompetent as a physicist – even with the help of his hired academics, whose "advice and careful reading of the manuscript" didn't reveal any of the myriad of nonsensical implications that a little exploration should have found. He knows that taking on the air of authority of a research physicist will give weight to his outlandish ideas, many of which are in the language of physics. And he knows that this will bring him followers and cash. Indeed it does. [Edit 22nd July: Response to this article by Nassim Haramein...] Response from Nassim Haramein Nassim Haramein's Resonance Project has published a detailed response to this article. To find out more and to read his response for yourself, please see here. Thank you. Return to Main post Quick link to this post: http://bit.ly/schproton Thursday, July 22, 2010 A look at Nassim's response to 'Bobathon' Contents: Introduction The nature of Nassim's response The physics in Nassim's response 1. The discrepancy of the mass of the proton 2. The discrepancy of the force between protons 3. All the other things An apology Introduction There's been a lot of talk about Nassim Haramein's physics on this blog over the past few months. I'm intending to wrap up the saga with this little post. Wish me luck. There are six previous posts: an introduction, the original article questioning his legitimacy as a scientist, observations of his approach to mathematics, a detailed look at his current flagship physics paper, a collection of extracts from grossly misleading presentations, and a more personal article about why I started writing all this in the first place. Number seven seems like a good place to end. I've focused throughout on Haramein's physics. Why physics? Because he claims to be doing serious science, and his institution claims to be revolutionising our physical understanding of the world. If his physics is as awful as I'm saying it is, then that is a very serious bit of misselling. If fancy physics isn't your cup of tea, there's no shortage of blatant examples of misunderstanding of basic physics that you might get more sense out of. I'd encourage anyone to sit down with their cup of tea and investigate these things further. If you don't mind a bit of physics with your cupcakes and you're interested in his Schwarzschild Proton theory (that the strong force is actually a gravitational interaction between black holes), then you might be interested to know that if you ask a few simple questions of it, his theory falls completely apart. Or does it...? Nassim's response In this video, Haramein presents his killer reasoning against those who claim to disprove his theories of the universe: Ok, ok, sorry. I'm not taking this seriously enough... That's not really Haramein. (Although...) No. You're right. It isn't. Let's start again. Nassim's response – take 2 Haramein has now taken on some of the claims that I've made, and has devoted part of his website to responding at length to the criticisms that I've raised. I'm happy to spotlight his response here in order to encourage debate. I'm also happy to host any kind of critical debate here, provided it's not offensive and empty. (In contrast, Haramein doesn't encourage debate or provide links to any criticisms about his work, and any kind of critical comment on his blog, no matter how reasonable, will not pass moderation.) Haramein's response has come as a great source of delight to those who really want to see me getting a good kicking for speaking out against this inspiring and creative new thinker of our time. There do seem to be many such people. Happy days for them! Nassim's response to my original article is called "Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon", and his response to my criticisms of his Schwarzschild Proton paper is called "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto". So, what to make of all this. To summarise, his rhetoric is great! The bits of physics he's thrown in look really impressive! If the aim is to wow the fans and seal their contempt for me, he's done an excellent job. But has he actually addressed the criticisms that I've raised? Surely, somewhere in all that work, he must have? Help me out here if you think I'm missing something, but I really don't think he has. I'll illustrate some of the ways he's misused physics in his defence later on. If you disagree – if you can find any single point in there that convinces you that any of my criticisms of his physics aren't completely valid – then I'd really love to hear from you. It would be great if we could keep it to the physics. I know it won't happen, but it would be great if it did. Meanwhile, as you can see for yourself, he has had fun doing what he does best – inventing things to entertain his fans, and telling them what they want to hear. He presents this new, conveniently fictionalised version of me to his followers as "an important study for anyone who is interested in my work." I'm apparently to be seen as someone who "proclaims himself and his institution the beholder of the truth and the only truth as if the standard model was complete and a done deal." I'm also a "reactionary defending the status quo", indulging in "personal attacks, character assassinations and name-calling." I haven't mentioned the standard model, so I don't know where that came from. I'd never proclaim it as a done deal, and neither would any physicist. Which one of us has an institution with an ideology to defend against legitimate questions? I don't have one. Which of us is engaging in immature name-calling? Here's a clue: in Haramein's first response, he twists my silly pseudonym into a derogatory term that he's sourced from that well-respected reference work Urban Dictionary, and uses it as the title of his article. Someone should have pointed out that that's kinda puerile Irony aside, I'm curious as to what name-calling he might be referring to on my part. I can sympathise if he doesn't like the words fraud or fake or pseudoscientist. I did present an extensive exposition of the discrepancies between the claims he makes for his work and the pitiable content of it, however, so they were very natural terms to use. Inescapable, even. Not names. As for character attacks, I can't prevent him from feeling attacked if he's attached to his ideas. That's fairly standard among pseudoscientists. The thing is, I don't think I've even mentioned his character, except to point out that his integrity is called into question by the claims that he makes. And I don't even like Status Quo. But he's right to complain that I don't give him the respect that he feels entitled to. He makes it known that he is deeply offended, which is fair enough. My aim was always to discuss his ideas for what they are, not for what he thinks they are, so his sense of entitlement never really entered into it. It's just one of those things – if you spout nonsense in public instead of doing science, sooner or later people will start saying "hang on, but that's nonsense" rather than treating you as a scientist. He also makes it very clear that I'm a mediocre mind and that he is a brilliant thinker – in fact he repeatedly compares himself to Einstein. If he has such a high view of himself, it's odd that he should be so upset by the unimaginative challenges of some obscure mediocre blogger. But there we are. What we do agree on is that one of us must be very closed-minded and deeply attached to his own view of the world. I do rather like my view of the world, I admit. I've worked quite hard for it. But I also love the fact that people and situations can, and very often do, challenge it and open my mind to greater things. It's just that I resist changing it when presented with nonsense that conflicts with straightforward observations of nature. I've given his approach a lot of consideration – but it is what it is. I think I've thought through his ideas quite thoroughly though, if you'll excuse the tongue-twister. Far more than I really ought to have; and certainly far more than I intend to in the future. Ok, ok, enough already, show me the physics If you're fed up of all these arguments going around in circles, you're not the only one. Let's cut to the chase. My criticisms rest on the fact that he claims to be doing serious science and revolutionising physics, but his physics theories are nothing more than naive, misleading, and blatantly incorrect ideas. If this is true (and it still is), then all the rhetoric in the world won't save him from being called a fraud. Let's take the two most straightforward and significant criticisms of the Schwarzschild Proton. 1. His theory gives the mass of the proton as 885 million tonnes when it's straightforward to measure that it's 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram. 2. His theory predicts a force between the protons in a nucleus of 7.49 x 10^{47} dynes, which is also many many orders of magnitude larger than what is measured. These particular conclusions of his theory are all so unambiguously and blatantly wrong, and by such an enormous amount, that I did for a while believe that he wouldn't seriously attempt to defend them. But he has. 1 The discrepancy of the mass of the proton Haramein discusses the problem of the mass of the proton on this page, about half way down. He starts off by suggesting that I made a basic error in confusing mass and weight, which is untrue – weighing gases to establish their mass is fairly sensible. He then talks about how the source of mass is still a mystery in the standard model, and somehow ends up on the quantization of spacetime... all of which has absolutely no bearing whatever on the very simple and straightforward fact that if something has a mass of nearly a billion tonnes, it ought to be heavy. He then tells us that "in the final copy of The Schwarzschild Proton we calculate the mass dilation resulting from a proton rotating near relativistic speeds and find that at a velocity of 10^-39 slower than C, the proton exhibits the mass of a Schwarzschild entity." Mass dilation is a consequence of special relativity that makes objects moving close to the speed of light appear more massive than they would be at rest. I doubt that this will help him explain why they appear so light to us. This new idea would imply that we'd experience these Schwarzschild protons as 10^39 times heavier in a bound state than as a free proton! A bound state of two protons (and/or neutrons, one would assume – deuterium, for example) would have a mass of 10^39 times heavier than a single proton. Needless to say, none of this is remotely like what is observed in the real world. He really hasn't thought it through very well. (He then goes on to say fabulous things like "On the cosmological level, this highly turbulent structure of horizons where velocities approach c may be the source of matter creation through sheering of the spacetime manifold itself at the quantum level which predicts a continuous matter creation model at black hole horizons..." and links to a whole load of string theory papers. All meaningless in this context, and seemingly irrelevant to anything that Haramein has ever suggested. The blatant discrepancy between his theory and the real world remains. Still, if the desired effect is "whoa, hit me with that far-out XXXX, you like totally pwned that status quo dude, man", then I give it top marks and a gold star.) Haramein returns to discuss this discrepancy in this document, about 40% of the way down, first by claiming that the Standard Model fudges the mass of the proton by renormalisation. I want to say a quick few words about this complex idea, at the risk of giving you something of a caricature of what's actually involved... Renormalisation is an aspect of the mathematical treatment of quantum field theories that can either be used very well or rather badly. When used well, the results it predicts are either independent of the finite cut (the "fudge" as Haramein calls it) or if not, the effects of the physics above and below the cut are treated seperately and combined in the final analysis, and a physical rationale for the value of the cut is predicted by the theory itself. This is now such a well-understood process, it can't really be described as a fudge. The prime example is the entire standard model, which has driven forwards the last four decades of highly successful particle physics research, and in particular renormalised QED, the most accurate theory that mankind has ever produced. When it's used 'badly', the results are highly dependent on the cut, and the user imposes some "correct" scale on the theory from outside, and then asserts that the results of the calculation have some actual measurable physical significance. That surely is a fudge. (I find it unconvincing, though I'm hardly an expert.) I'm not aware of any observations that have ever been made that validates this kind of use of the theory. I'm thinking in particular of the fetish for ascribing values to the energy of the vacuum. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Nassim Haramein, the man who denounces the fudgelessly renormalised Standard Model, makes prominent use of one of these fudged renormalisation results at the start of his Schwarzschild Proton paper by quoting a vacuum energy density as if it has a physical significance. More irony. It's true that the standard model doesn't predict the mass of the proton – at least not without first knowing the masses of quarks. It's true that it bases its predictions on a renormalisation process that some see (or let's be honest, some saw several decades ago) as controversial. But does any of this excuse Haramein's theory from the requirement that it should make some sense and relate to the real world? Sorry, but no. The thing about the measured mass of the proton is that it's always equal to the measured mass of the proton. It's an exceptionally precisely known and unerringly consistent value, and whether or not the standard model predicts it, all theories of physics have to use it. The whole point of science is that it is attempting to reflect nature. As Carl Sagan puts it, "Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised." We're still left with the fact that Haramein's theory offers no results that are supported by experiment (aside from those that would follow from the original assumptions anyway), and a whole bunch of conclusions that are inconsistent with the facts by many, many orders of magnitude. 2. The discrepancy of the force between protons There is another enormous difference between the measured force between two protons and the 'stupidly big' figure in his paper. Haramein says, "It matters little how 'stupidly big' something is. What matters is if the numbers derived are logical, plausible, consistent with the theory involved, and point to at least useful and/or, ideally, testable results." True words indeed! The numbers Haramein gives in his Schwarzschild Proton paper aren't remotely plausible. Furthermore they can be very easily 'tested', i.e. compared directly to the real world, without using any fancy physics at all, as I will illustrate. He addresses the discrepancy here, about 90% of the way down. He points out that he has already explained it in his paper using the centrifugal force, and he berates me for not having read it. As it happens, I did read it (the paper is only a few pages long, after all). I didn't bother to discuss it because it doesn't change anything. In the Newtonian classical mechanics that Haramein has employed, in a rotating reference frame, gravity has an inverse square dependence on separation, whereas centrifugal forces follow an inverse cube dependence. (The only assumption needed for this is that any external angular impulse must be negligible in comparison to the angular momentum of the system, which will certainly be true here.) This means that at some definite separation they will balance – as Haramein correctly points out – but for any displacement from that definite separation there will be a net restoring force. The system is forced back to equilibrium. This is why gravitational orbits are stable. What does this mean for the Schwarzschild Proton? The forces are balanced at 2.64fm separation; if they were pulled even to 2.65 fm apart, the restoring force would already be 0.37% of the full gravitational force, which is 2.83 x 10^{45} dynes. Which is stupidly big. By which I mean big enough to make it utterly impossible – it's already many many orders of magnitude greater than any force we could hope to create or observe on Earth. Looking at it in terms of energy gives us a better way of comparing the numbers directly with the real world. We can calculate the amount of energy required to separate two protons. For a classical circular orbit, it's half the magnitude of the gravitational potential energy (the rest is provided by the kinetic energy of the orbiting body). In this case, the answer is 1.98 x 10^{28} Joules (try it yourself). This is an astronomical figure, and it would be stupid to suggest this was the amount of energy to split a single nucleus – it's more than half of the amount of energy it would take to remove the Moon from its orbit around the Earth. Compare this to Haramein's assertion that the "balance between the centrifugal force and the centripetal force is extremely fragile and any disturbing entity would easily knock it out of equilibrium." The work of a brilliant thinker of our time, or utter idiotic nonsense? Go figure. For the actual, measured, maximum value for the energy required to separate two protons, consider the nucleus with the highest proton separation energy, Helium-4. Subtract the mass of this nucleus from the combined masses of a proton and a tritium nucleus, and multiply by c². The maximum energy required to remove a proton is 3.2 x 10^{-12} Joules. For most nuclei, the figure is much lower than this. Once again, Haramein is around 40 orders of magnitude from reality as a result of using gravity instead of the strong force. Have I used any dodgy physics theories here? These are fairly straightforward observations. 3. Other things that are fundamentally flawed or straightforwardly wrong I raised many other fundamental issues with his theories, for example his claim that there is an event horizon around a proton (a region from which no light or particles can emerge, especially if this event horizon is somehow immune to rapid decay as protons clearly are). This is contradicted by the fact that we can clearly observe the proton's internal structure. Haramein hasn't responded to this at all. There's so much in his response that there's no way I could try to deal with it all. There's actually lots of quotes from and links to quite good physics that have been mixed in there that I wouldn't argue with... but very little if any of them are relevant to any of the claims that he's been making. (And in the majority of cases they really don't imply the kind of things that he tries to make them imply. He even includes a quote "the effects of gravity can safely be ignored on a small scale, such as the atomic one" from an article that was supposedly providing a rationale for his black hole obsession. Wake up, research dudes! Get with the cherry-pickin' program!) All in all, despite the magnitude of the work that has gone into this by Haramein and his staff, I don't believe that he's provided one reasonable argument that contradicts any of the flaws in his physics that I've highlighted in my earlier posts. I'd like to know if you think otherwise. As I said earlier, if you can find any single point in Haramein's response that convinces you that any of my criticisms of his physics are unfounded – then I'd really love to know what it is, and why you find it convincing. It would be great if we could keep it to the physics. I know it won't happen, but it would be great if it did. Let's face it, it doesn't matter how upset his groupies get, it's the dodgy physics and Haramein's utterly disproportionate claims for his research that are in question here. If anything interesting comes up from the physics discussion in the comments or by email, I'll include it in my post, and I'll gladly amend the blog if I've said anything incorrect. Haramein and his fans may be glad to know that I don't intend to write about him any more. And I'll stay anonymous, so they can continue to mythologise me to their hearts' content. An apology to Mr Haramein Before I finish, though, I do – in all seriousness – want to apologise for one thing that I have said. Not because I'm worried about legal consequences or anything like that, but because I think I've been unfair. I did use the word "manipulative", and also words such as "lying" or "deceitful", to describe Haramein's approach to presenting physics. Not very often, but even once is too much. These words clearly imply that he is deliberately setting out to mislead, and I can't possibly know that. While I think the term "misleading" is entirely appropriate, I will accept his objection that it is unfair of me to assume any such thing about his motivations. It's perfectly plausible that Haramein does have such an inflated sense of his work that he believes that he's doing serious science research, leading a revolution in physics, answering age-old mysteries about the pyramids, solving crop-circles, receiving and interpreting communications from aliens that fly in and out of volcanos and sunspots, proving that there are complex tetrahedral geometries in everything in the universe that generate paranormal phenomena, finding the secret connections that link them all with hidden subtexts within the Bible, and so on and so on; and perhaps he truly believes that he's on the verge of transforming the world into a haven of free energy and understanding and that any minute now the scientific community will wake up to his truth and recognise his contribution. He may well also believe that he didn't invent the fictionalised version of me that he presented. Who knows what he believes. It's plausible, though I admit to finding it difficult to understand. How is it possible for a view like that, however sweet and innocent an ideal it might come from, to survive contact with the real world for so many years? Perhaps this could be admirable in some way. Maybe it's understandable if you set out early in life with a drive to communicate some view of the world that feels good and gives people what they want to hear; and if you then find yourself with thousands of fans who admire you for it and allow you to make a living from it and see you as their hope and their light, then I guess you could be forgiven for mistaking it all for reality. I'm sure there are plenty of precedents. What's hard to believe is that it could be possible to maintain these kinds of delusions without some conscious act of sustained wilful ignorance as to what's actually out there, especially if he's involved in actually trying to carry out research. But perhaps he is somehow capable of this in all innocence. So I'll let it go. For this reason I've agreed to remove all instances of the offending words from the main body of my blog, and this disclaimer can be seen as a retraction of any use of these words elsewhere by me. He may well be a really lovely character, as I said in my original post nearly six months ago. My criticism, as I keep saying, concerns the content of his science, and the disparity between this and the claims that he makes for it. Not his intentions in doing so. Misleading it certainly is. He succeeds in pulling the wool over so many of his followers' eyes, whether he intends to or not. His impressive ability to sustain this level of ignorance for so many years will never qualify as a reasonable excuse for making a living by misleading people into seeing him as an authority. Luckily for us, we can continue to discuss his incompetence as a scientist and to question his integrity without resorting to any assumptions about what in the name of arse is going on inside his head. I do hope that settles the matter to Mr Haramein's satisfaction. http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/07/nassims-response-to-bobathon.html

shiloh shiloh Posts: 756 Join date: 2011-03-16 Age: 57 Location: Akbar Ra Post n°30 Re: Nassim Haramein, Sexy Physics and adventures beyond... shiloh on Thu Aug 21, 2014 4:12 am shiloh wrote: http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/schwarzchild-proton.html The Physics of the Schwarzschild Proton 'The Schwarzschild Proton' is a paper written by Nassim Haramein, proposing a model of the proton based on what he calls 'the Schwarzschild condition'. I've discussed Haramein's methods more broadly here (starting with a look at the award he displays for this paper), but here I'm focusing on the physics in this paper. It's fairly basic, so I'm hoping to be able to present this in a way that makes at least some sense to at least some of Haramein's non-physicist audience who are interested in his ideas. [Edit 4th Dec, updated 1st Jan: Anyone curious about Haramein's recent appearance in some obscure 'peer-reviewed' conference proceedings, please see this note: http://bit.ly/harameinAIP. Feel free to ask questions in the comments.] ... [5:46:37 AM - Saturday, January 14th, 2012] Tonyblue: Ok the critique from that guy is sound [5:47:10 AM] Tonyblue: As I have also said many times Nassim''s 'Black Hole proton' is bogus [5:47:46 AM] Tonyblue: Where Nassim is ok, is in presenting the Black hole physics as multiD [5:47:54 AM] Tonyblue: This the critic cant see [5:48:44 AM] Tonyblue: But the scientific argument 'against' Nassim all stand up BUT they are 3D [5:49:03 AM] Tonyblue: The crux is the nature of the vacuum [5:49:24 AM] Tonyblue: If the vacuum is 3D space then all this hyperphysics falls apart [5:50:11 AM] Tonyblue: But if the string theory is correct, then the 'curled up' dimensions can be opened theoretically and release the ZPE [5:50:48 AM] Tonyblue: Nassim talks about the Black Holes multi D, say string terms and the other bloke sees it in 3D terms [5:51:54 AM] Tonyblue: I did not go into details, but the rotational dynamics also relate to multiD AND 3D [5:52:56 AM] Tonyblue: There is new physics in Nassim's ideas, BUT they are not addressed properly by him. [5:53:22 AM] Tonyblue: He seeks mainstream acceptance and his proton paper just does not cut it. [5:53:56 AM] Xeia: it's hard to explain the metaphysical world with hard core mainstream science [5:54:15 AM] Xeia: i think he does a more than ok job just for trying [5:54:22 AM]Tonyblue: Yes this is at the core and Nassim is seeking 'attention' see and he is a flamboyant character [5:54:31 AM] Tonyblue: the skeptics dont like that [5:55:13 AM] Tonyblue: Yes I do like him as a populariser [5:55:15 AM] Xeia: it's the same thing when ppl come ask me a question and i go all meta with them then they go like wtf? [5:55:33 AM] Tonyblue: But he simply went too far, claiming Einstein and quantum mechanics are wrong [5:55:47 AM] Xeia: i believe he said incomplete...not wrong [5:56:13 AM] Tonyblue: Well I read the skeptic, he said wrong, I dont recall [5:56:35 AM] Xeia: he added the "twist" remember? [5:56:45 AM] Tonyblue: no [5:56:55 AM] Xeia: lol [5:57:33 AM] Tonyblue: This critic picked up certain basic physics flaws, I also saw in Nassim's presentations, but did not comment on [5:57:49 AM] Tonyblue: As I sort of saw what he meant [5:58:09 AM] Tonyblue: But the skeptics dont see this see. They are purely dogmatic here [5:58:33 AM] Tonyblue: So there is little point arguing this [5:58:49 AM] Xeia: i know you see it because you see multiD [5:59:03 AM] Tonyblue: Only of the space dimensions extend, will the Nassim ideas be seen to mean something physical [5:59:40 AM] Xeia: that guy goes nuts thinking "how can a black hole fit into a tiny cell!!???!!" [5:59:42 AM] Xeia: hahahaha [5:59:57 AM] Tonyblue: This skeptic is a mainstream scientist following the status quo [6:00:09 AM] Xeia: not only a cell, but in higher D the same dynamics work on the entire human body as a whole [6:00:23 AM] Tonyblue: Yes because he looks at it as a inertia in 3D [6:00:27 AM] Xeia: everyliving organism for that matter [6:00:34 AM] Tonyblue: The weight of it [6:00:36 AM] Xeia: Drunvalo also explained it [6:00:51 AM] Tonyblue: Small size can be big mass [6:01:07 AM] Tonyblue: Yes but again all this is higherD [6:01:10 AM] Tonyblue: Like the earth [6:01:16 AM] Tonyblue: As a golfball [6:01:24 AM] Xeia: exactly [6:01:24 AM] Tonyblue: Hollow Earth BS etc [6:01:53 AM] Tonyblue: You could not convince this skeptic, that it is Information AS MASS [6:01:55 AM] Xeia: like my grandma used to say...one talks about potatoes the other one about sweet potatoes [6:02:04 AM] Tonyblue: O perhaps one could lol I dont know [6:02:06 AM] Xeia: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=450154146461 View: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=450154146461 [6:02:21 AM] Xeia: yeah well... [6:02:51 AM] Xeia: at least he tried...not everyone is comfy with so much adoration for nassim [6:03:00 AM] Tonyblue: lol [6:03:04 AM] Xeia: haha [6:03:19 AM] Tonyblue: Gotta go now its 6am [6:03:32 AM] Xeia: to sleep? [6:03:34 AM] Xeia: ok [6:03:45 AM] Tonyblue: Yes I have been up all night, posting on JT's thread ] Xeia: omg [6:03:56 AM] Xeia: yeah get some rest [6:04:04 AM] Tonyblue: PTB agenda I also put on heaven [6:04:14 AM] Xeia: i am reading the book of Job [6:04:23 AM] Tonyblue: But it is linked to thr Hidden Hand on New World page 1 [6:04:28 AM] Tonyblue: Ah yes [6:04:38 AM] Tonyblue: Good post on Gospel of Thomas [6:04:44 AM] Xeia: yes i love it [6:04:52 AM] Tonyblue: As an intro [6:42:52 AM] Rok: why are u reading the book of job? [6:43:34 AM] Xeia: among other things..... [6:43:38 AM] Xeia: i am also doing other things at the same time [6:43:59 AM] Xeia: why? amm...i stumbled upon it while looking for another post on heaven [6:44:06 AM] Xeia: and i found it interesting [6:44:51 AM] Rok: mhm [9:17:26 AM] Ishtara Raven: My computer has a virus, got a friend here working on it for me, so I have limited internet for a few days on my phone [11:55:22 AM] Tonyblue: http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&fid=&lastp=1&id=C17555C0-95C0-4D2B-BFE3-1A43BF484EE4 [11:55:51 AM] Tonyblue: Bob's physics is sound [11:56:29 AM] Tonyblue: Actually this explains Nassims 'NONRESPONSE' to my letter to him [11:56:40 AM] Tonyblue: Also on this weblink [11:57:24 AM] Tonyblue: Seems he wanted me to give him academic 'credentials' [11:57:52 AM] Tonyblue: Well I think like Nassim, but dont throw out established physics like Einstein and Bohr [11:58:45 AM] Tonyblue: His 'one and only' published paper is pure bogus, as I said 2 years ago [11:59:08 AM] Tonyblue: This paper on the Schwarzschild proton is dissected on this link I looked at the critique AND Nassim's reply to it. I am in agreement with Bob, but accept the validity of Nassim's higherD Black Hole physics, but without his 'Schwarzschild proton'. In particular, Nassim should calculate the Schwarzschild Proton the other way around. Instead of using the proton's size; he should use the proton's subatomic mass. Then he would have easily seen the 'error of his ways'. I do it for him here: The actual Schwarzschild proton in hyperspace uses the m_{c} =m_{Planck}.Alpha^{9}~10^{-28} kg in the Schwarzschild stasis (nonrotating and uncharged Black Holes) metric to give the supersmall (and physically unrealistic) sub-Planck-Length of: R_{proton}=2Gm_{c}/c^{2} ~ 2.5x10^{-55} meters. Then, as the smallest physically meaningful 'quantum displacement' is the 'Planck-Length-Oscillation' as √(Alpha).L_{Planck} ~ 2x10^{-36} meters; no Schwarzschild Proton can physically exist, neither in 3D nor in string-membrane space of 12 dimensions. http://www.thuban.spruz.com/forums/?page=post&fid=&lastp=1&id=C17555C0-95C0-4D2B-BFE3-1A43BF484EE4 SUSANakaTHE13THBRIDGE - Posted 3 Hours Ago long time ago, you emailed Haramein some important stuff was this what it was about ??? Nassim Haramein has calculated a geometric solution for the gravitational field. In his latest paper "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass" he describes gravity in a classical algebraic way by calculating the density of the space both within and on the outside of the event horizon of a proton. The seemingly "empty" vacuum of space is actually a nearly infinitely dense super-fluid medium made of tiny tiny tiny little frothing bubbles of energy. Sometimes called the "quantum foam", each of these miniscule vibrations represents a spherical wave form, or quanta, that is the diameter of the smallest possible measurable distance, the Planck length. Haramein calls these tiny spherical information bits Planck spherical units or PSUs. The PSUs on the interior of the proton's event horizon pack together in a perfectly space-filling overlapping 3D Flower of Life structure with each sphere's center being connected by a tetrahedral geometry lattice. The PSUs within the proton volume holographically project on the proton surface event horizon as "flat" equatorial circles in a flower of life tiling pattern. In this image, the first equation describes the ratio between the proton surface area and the surface Planck circles showing that the number of equatorial circles on the Proton surface equals 10^{40} (10 to the 40 or 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Planck length diameter circles) The second equation shows the number of Planck spherical units contained within the proton, which is 10↑60. In the third equation, the external surface horizon is divided by the internal volume and then multiplied by the Planck mass to give the total value of the proton mass. With a simple classical geometric calculation, Haramein obtains the mass of the proton according to the standard model, as measured from the outside, in the laboratory: 10^{-24} gm. Haramein then calculates the external Planck circles divided by the internal Planck spheres to obtain the gravitational mass of the proton, which equals 10^{14} which is the exact amount of mass needed for the proton to obey what is called the the Schwarzschild condition of a black hole. Protons are quantum scale black holes. Gravity is a ratio of volume to surface area. More info.: http://resonance.is/explore/quantum-gravity-and-the-holographic-mass-trailer-and-press-release/ The Resonance Project • The Resonance Project - Página Oficial Hispana • The Resonance Project - Traduction Française • Phys.org • Science • Physics-astronomy • Cosmos • Cosmometry • Physics Today •Thrive • ScienceAlert • ScienceAlert 中文 On first look, he fudged his numbers to obtain the codata proton mass Susan. 'The surface area of a proton and any subatomic 'particle' depends on the radius or 'size' of that particle. On the other hand, the Planck units are well defined as conglomerations of basic fundamental constants. And so using the 'correct' Planck-Volume and Planck-Mass, one can indeed calculate a correct Planck-Density. as r_{P}=M_{P}/L_{P}^{3} multiplied by a geometric factor, say 4p/3 for 3D or 2p^{2} for 4D space. I will calculate the proper value in this reply and publish them for you or anyone interested to peruse shortly. From the insert below, you can see, that the radius/size of a proton is NOT fixed as some definitive value as Nassim seems to believe. And as both the Surface Area and the Volume of any particle or matter agglomeration are defined as function of its Radius, Nassim's calculations are at best approximations for any proton, which is better described as a 'waved particle' or wavicle in a form of quantum geometrical flux. Diagrams in the insert illustrate this further. This then defines r_{proton}=1.3888...fm* = 1.38657...fm (Unit System International) and in the error interval of the Friar-Sick measurement as 1.394±0.016 fm in (1.378 - 1.410 fm) to 0.5%. The 2010 CODATA recommended value for the protonic charge radius is: proton: R_{p} = 0.8775(51)*10^{-15} m Nevertheless a 'mean or average' value for the size of a proton can be used to calculate the values Nassim Haramein is proposing in his latest 'quasi scientific' endeavour of his 'Holographic Proton'. From the treatise below' we use a particular averaged mean value for the protonic radius as 1.39x10^{-15} meters and restrict our calculations to 3 significant figures to minimise any more serious deviation from this empirical and ubiquitously confirmed measurement. My calculations can so be multiplied by a factor of 0.88/1.39=0.63 and 0.46 and 0.25 to align with the Haramein numbers for the 'unhaloed' proton he uses (in brackets). Nassim uses the proton size WITHOUT the halo in its so termed 'charge radius' and in his holographic proton, the omission of its halo could be said to omit about half of the 'effective interaction' of the proton as a discretized collection of Planck-Areas and Volumes; which also are inferred by him to 'Overlap' in the 'Flower of Life' geometry. Nassim so describes a rather smaller or shrunk proton in his proposals. In the calculus below, I am using the 'haloed proton' as described in the accompanying article from renowned researchers in the field of particle physics. Therefore my calculations actually 'improve' on the haramein model of the 'holographic proton', as it renders the proton bigger with a halo, then without one. The volume of a spherical 3D-proton then becomes: 4p/3x(1.39x10^{-15} m)^{3}=1.12x10^{-44} m^{3} and for a Surface Area of: 4p.(1.39x10^{-15} m)^{2}=2.43x10^{-29} m^{2} The volume of a spherical proton as ellipsoidal 4D (Riemann) hyperspace then becomes: 2p^{2}x(1.39x10^{-15} m)^{3}=5.30x10^{-44} m^{3} and for a Surface Area of: 6p^{2}.(1.39x10^{-15} m)^{2}= 1.14x10^{-28} m^{2} The corresponding Planck-Volumes and Planck-Areas are: V_{P}=4p/3x√{Gh/2pc^{3}}^{3}=1.75x10^{-104} m^{3} with A_{P}=4px√{Gh/2pc^{3}}^{2}=3.26x10^{-69} m^{2} and V_{P}=2p^{2}√{Gh/2pc^{3}}^{3}=8.24x10^{-104} m^{3} with A_{P}=6p^{2}√{Gh/2pc^{3}}^{2}=1.53x10^{-68} m^{2} respectively and for a L_{P}=1.61x10^{-35} m (Codata values). Nassims ratios so calculate in Codata values: η=A_{proton}/A_{P}={2.43x10^{-29}}/{3.26x10^{-69}}=7.45x10^{39} (3.43x10^{39}) ~ 10^{40} and R=V_{proton}/V_{P}={1.12x10^{-44}}/{1.75x10^{-104}}=6.40x10^{59} (1.6x10^{59}) ~ 10^{60} for both the 3D case and for the 4D case, as the volume multipliers cancel themselves out. Both of those codata recalculated values so indeed are approximated by Nassim's ratios η=10^{40} and R=10^{60}, but any competent college student would have derived those same numbers on a 'back of the envelope' calculation. Now the Planck-Mass is particularly defined by fundamental constants and as the formula: m_{P}=√{hc/2pG}=2.18x10^{-8} kg. The actual Planck-density is: ρ_{P}=m_{P}/L_{P}^{3}=√(hc/2πG)(2πc^{3}/Gh)^{3}=]=2πc^{5}/hG^{2}=5.17x10^{96} kg/m^{3} using a 'cubic volume' for the Planck Length. It is because of this huge density and compared to the actual matter density in the universe (including the 'dark energy') of 3H_{o}^{2}/8pG~8.8x10^{-27} kg/m^{3}; that a 96+27=123 order of magnitude discrepancy exists between the quantum physics of the vacuum and the matter containing universe. Nassim's Proton mass calculation then is: 2η.m_{P}/R = 2(7.45x10^{39})x{2.18x10^{-8}kg}/6.40x10^{59}=5.08x10^{-28} kg and deviating from the Codata proton mass not by some miniscule amount, but by {(16.7-5.08)x10^{-28}/1.67x10^{-27}}=0.70 and so by 30%. The informed observer, then can see, why Nassim did not use actual Codata values for his density-radius formulations, but PRESUMED those to be in some manner exact or 'fluid' as 10^{40} and 10^{60} respectively. One can easily manipulate those 'approximated' numbers to then calculate a precise codata value. And so my first 'suspicion proves correct Susan. Nassim used the Codata value of the proton's mass to then simply and unjustifiably IMPLY, that the numbers 10^{40} and 10^{60} would 'self adjust' to yield the Codata value for its mass. This kind of approach is scientifically dishonest at best and a blatant agenda to support his nabs related quasi science at its misdemeanour. Here is an example of what he did: Write: 2η.m_{P}/R = 1.6714213x10^{-27} kg for 2η/R={1.6714213x10^{-27} kg /2.18x10^{-8}kg }=7.667...[some arbitrary decimal point aligned to the Planck Mass as defined]...x10^{-20}. Then the requirement for the equation to hold becomes: 2η/R=7.667......x10^{-20}. This condition IS in fact satisfied, should: η/R=3.83x10^{-20} OR R/η=2.61x10^{19} ~ 10^{60}/10^{40}=10^{20} I am afraid no one will be able to actually 'find' an exact calculation of this 'Haramein Equation' and why for instance he introduced an 'unnecessary factor of 2' to adjust the proton mass as validated by experiment to his Planck scale parameters and parameters which are correct from an elementary physics perspective. One could infer that as Nassim takes the Planck-Length as a Diameter L_{P}=D=2l_{P }(say), that his discrete Planck-Area count 4pl_{P}^{2} = pL_{P}^{2} in some manner only beknown to him introduces the factor of 2 (it should be 4 in the detail just stated). Generally, it can be ascertained, that Nassim likes to use the references of validated scientific research, such as can be read in his paper's introduction, mentioning the Schwarzschild metric and the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy and Black Hole Bounds and parameters. Following the introduction and utility of the well established physical principles, he however often deviates into his particular ideas of what the universe should be like; often denouncing those principles as 'wrong' or incomplete and notwithstanding the verified models he espoused in his introduction. Perhaps there is a particular evolvement of nabs science on the island of Hawaii. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...potential-new-source-of-energy-206531571.html 'Contributions' from naïve and gullible nabsers would certainly help well meaning, but underinformed quasi scientific model builders to propagate their somewhat nebulous purposes and agendas. Nassim Haramein From RationalWiki Jump to: navigation, search Style over substance Pseudoscience Popular pseudosciences Alternative medicine Astrology Creation science Homeopathy Supernatural Ufology Woo Random examples ADE-651 Crockus Face on Mars Natural vision correction Nazism Neurolinguistic programming Resources Pseudoscience portal List of pseudosciences v - t - e Nassim Haramein is a Swiss physics crank, one of the many who claim to have a Unified Field Theory he calls the Haramein-Rauscher Metric,^{[1]} in collaboration with real-but-somewhat-cranky physicist Elizabeth Rauscher. He claims this as a new solution to Einstein's Field Equations that incorporates torque and Coriolis effects. Despite his claims, he's virtually unknown to mainstream physics, and the only people who take him seriously are the kind of people who listen to Coast to Coast AM.^{[2]} For a taste of his claims, assorted clips from his talks can be found on YouTube. Many of his papers can be downloaded from his website (he doesn't even get his stuff onto arXiv). He is the founder of The Resonance Project, a website and foundation concerned with his Unified Physics, and the Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics. Despite the impressive names of those organizations, his article keeps getting deleted from Wikipedia on notability grounds.^{[3]} Contents [hide] 1 Haramein-Rauscher Metric 2 Schwarzschild proton 3 Cinematic outreach 3.1 Thrive 3.2 The Black Whole 4 See also 5 External links 6 Footnotes Haramein-Rauscher Metric Haramein claims his theory explains the origin of spin, which he defines as a "spacetime torque." He claims that his amendment to Einstein’s field equations, incorporating torque and Coriolis effects in "'plasma dynamics'"^{[4]} interacting with a "polarized geometric structured vacuum", produces a unified field theory. Further, he and Dr. Rauscher have developed a "Scaling Law for Organized Matter"^{[5]}, which characterizes all matter from subatomic to galactic and universal size as various sized black holes. His unified field theory and the fractals associated with this "Scaling Law" are integral to his concept of a "Holofractographic Universe". There's also something in there that uses the real field of cymatics^{[wp]} to support his idea of "resonance". In a least one lecture he claims to decode crop circles.^{[6]} Topics discussed in his 4 DVD set in addition to his unified field theory include "The Arc of the Covenant, Knights Templar, Emmanuel's Tomb, Kabbalah, Tree of Life Decoded".^{[7]} Schwarzschild proton Haramein proposed "the Schwarzschild proton" - a theoretical model of the proton where two black holes "orbit" one another. It may sound impressive, but it's almost entirely inconsistent with experimental observation. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of quantum mechanics knows that classical "orbits" do not apply at the scales mentioned in his paper. The paper was subsequently hidden from public view after being debunked as pseudoscience by internet blogs equally as reputable as Haramein, and is now available for download from his website. Now that his Schwarzschild Proton paper has been debunked, he claims on his website to have published a new paper, "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass" in the Physical Review and Research International Journal, at ScienceDomain International. This is in fact not a scientific journal at all, but an "open peer reviewed" website where anyone can pay a fee and have their "research" "peer-reviewed" and then "published" onto the website. Cinematic outreach Thrive Haramein was featured prominently in the conspiracy theory movie Thrive, where he discusses the fundamental shape of the fabric of space, as well as potential extraterrestrial involvement with Earth throughout history. The Black Whole He is featured in the self-directed Gaiam film The Black Whole, a 2011 documentary-type movie starring Haramein and his "vacuum is the key to everything" claims. In the movie, he addresses the little he understands of quantum mechanics, the phi ratio, tetrahedrons, symmetries in the structure of the vacuum, and, of course, black holes, which, according to Haramein, are everywhere and everything; we are constantly appearing and disappearing at the speed of light, so, half of the time, we are vacuum, made of "blocks" of 64 tetrahedrons, arranged in such a way that a mini-black hole is created right at the centre of each "block", thus proving that we all have four sides.^{[citation needed]} See also Sacred Geometry What the Bleep Do We Know? External links The Resonance Project homepage. Semi-layman's Version of some of Nassim Haramein's theories. Nassim Haramein on Coast to Coast radio show. Nassim Haramein's unified theory enters mainstream science!: A JREF forum thread investigating claims that his ideas were accepted by the mainstream. [1] Schwarzschild Proton debunked [2] ScienceDomain.org Article of Haramein's supposed groundbreaking new paper [3] Message where he claims to have published a paper in a journal (which is in fact a website where anyone can publish anything for a fee) Footnotes ↑ http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/torque_paper.pdf ↑ And yes, he has been on Coast to Coast several times. ↑ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassim Haramein (2nd nomination)." Wikipedia. 2012 May 16. Deletion logs for the article. ↑ N. Haramein, E. A. Rauscher, Collective Coherent Oscillation Plasma Modes In Surrounding Media of Black Holes and Vacuum Structure - Quantum Processes with Considerations of Spacetime Torque and Coriolis Forces (PDF), R. L. Amoroso, B. Lehnert & J-P Vigier (eds.) Beyond The Standard Model: Searching For Unity In Physics, 279-331. © 2005 The Noetic Press, ISSN# 1528-3739. ↑ N. Haramein, M. Hyson, E. A. Rauscher, Proceedings of The Unified Theories Conference (2008), Budapest, Hungary, Scale Unification: A Universal Scaling Law for Organized Matter, in Cs Varga, I. Dienes & R.L. Amoroso (eds.) ↑ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6151699791256390335 at 2:13:00 ↑ http://theresonanceproject.org/products.html PS.: You can download Nassim's paper from "Science Domain International" {see comment in red above) on the holographic proton here: http://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1367405491-Haramein342013PRRI3363.pdf The mathematical calculations and derivations represent basic algebra and are mathematically correct, but are often simply a recircular argumentation of the parameters used. shilohaplace

Posted Jan 3rd 2011 Dear Dr. Bermanseder, I am Mr. Haramein's assistant at The Resonance Project Foundation. We have received your email and we are grateful that you are starting to utilize the Haramein-Rauscher Solution in your approach to cosmogenesis. Your paper includes commentaries from Dr. Hans Schatten, can you indicate to us where these commentaries were published so that we may cite them. Dr. Rauscher and Mr. Haramein are studying your results and would love to comment further. Thank you for letting us know about your work. Sincerely, Stephanie Vendrell Office Manager The Resonance Project Foundation A 501(c)3 Public Charity www.theresonanceproject.org To donate or order DVDs, please go to www.theresonanceproject.org To join our mailing list, please email info@theresonanceproject.org Connect with us on Tribe, MySpace, Gaia, TakingITGlobal and LinkedIn. Support us at no cost to you when you designate us as your beneficiary charity and buy items through www.eScrip.com, sell items through eBay Giving Works (http://givingworks.ebay.com), get tipped through a Tipjoy button on your blog or website (www.tipjoy.com), or donate a car through www.v-dac.com. Join our monthly public conference call with Nassim Haramein. The next call is scheduled for Thursday, February 26th at 3 PM Hawaii Standard Time (6pm PST/ 9pm EST). Please call (808) 325-0070 or send an email to info@theresonanceproject.org to sign up. *************************************************** This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. Tony Bermanseder wrote: The Rotational Dynamics in Haramein-Rauscher Metrics and the Monopolic Current This commentary shall be in the form of a particular address of this excerpted Haramein-Rauscher paper in extending the theoretical foundation for that model so indicated. Firstly the electromagnetic coupling of the Black Hole (equivalent) to the gravitational field is shown to directly derive from a mass-independent metric background, which introduces the property of inertia as a 'natural monopolic' superconductive currentflow. And secondly, this 'monopolic electricity' is then described as a consequence of particular Planck-String couplings preceeding the birth of the thermodynamic and classically relativistic cosmogenesis in its unified selfstate of unbroken supersymmetry. It shall be shown, that any mass M is quantised in a Monopole mass m_{M}=m_{P}√Alpha in its Schwarzschild radius and where the characterising monopolic Schwarzschild radius represents the minimum metric displacement scale as the Oscillation of the Planck-Length in the form 2L_{P}√Alpha ~L_{P}/5.85~3.4x10^{-36} meters. Reference: { Full paper: http://theresonanceproject.org/pdf/plasma_paper.pdf} R. L. Amoroso, B. Lehnert & J-P Vigier (eds.) Beyond The Standard Model: Searching For Unity In Physics, 279-331. © 2005 The Noetic Press, Printed in the United States of America.© 2005 The Noetic Press, Printed in the United States of America. (eds.) Beyond The Standard Model: Searching For Unity In Physics, 279-331. COLLECTIVE COHERENT OSCILLATION PLASMA MODES IN SURROUNDING MEDIA OF BLACK HOLES AND VACUUM STRUCTURE - QUANTUM PROCESSES WITH CONSIDERATIONS OF SPACETIME TORQUE AND CORIOLIS FORCES Haramein¶ and E.A. Rauscher§ ¶The Resonance Project Foundation, haramein@theresonanceproject.org Tecnic Research Laboratory, 3500 S. Tomahawk Rd., Bldg. 188, Apache Junction, AZ 85219 USA Abstract. The main forces driving black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, quasars, and supernovae dynamics have certain commonality to the mechanisms of less tumultuous systems such as galaxies, stellar and planetary dynamics. They involve gravity, electromagnetic, and single and collective particle processes. We examine the collective coherent structures of plasma and their interactions with the vacuum. In this paper we present a balance equation and, in particular, the balance between extremely collapsing gravitational systems and their surrounding energetic plasma media. Of particular interest is the dynamics of the plasma media, the structure of the vacuum, and the coupling of electromagnetic and gravitational forces with the inclusion of torque and Coriolis phenomena as described by the Haramein-Rauscher solution to Einstein's field equations. The exotic nature of complex black holes involves not only the black hole itself but the surrounding plasma media. The main forces involved are intense gravitational collapsing forces, powerful electromagnetic fields, charge, and spin angular momentum. We find soliton or magneto-acoustic plasma solutions to the relativistic Vlasov equations solved in the vicinity of black hole ergospheres. Collective phonon or plasmon states of plasma fields are given. We utilize the Hamiltonian formalism to describe the collective states of matter and the dynamic processes within plasma allowing us to deduce a possible polarized vacuum structure and a unified physics. I. INTRODUCTION In this paper we present a generalized model of the balance between the gravitational and electromagnetic fields near or at the ergosphere of a black hole. A. Einstein, [1] J. A. Wheeler [2] and many other researchers have attempted to reduce both gravitation and electromagnetism concepts to the principles of geometry. As is well known, the geometrization of gravity has met with great success, while the latter endeavor for electromagnetism has met with many difficulties. In the case of a black hole, the charge of the heavier ions, by charge separation will be closer to the ergosphere than the negative ions or electrons. Electric field polarization will occur by its emission from the rotating body or system. Magnetism will arise in the vacuum induced by polarization by the rotation of a gravitational body such as a pulsar or black hole. This model and the general interaction between electromagnetism and gravity is basic and involves the details of many-body physics and the structure of the vacuum. The vacuum is a potential source of electrons, positrons as well as other particles when activated by a polarizing energy source [3]. Our new and unique approach of developing the relativistic Vlasov equation, formulated and solved in the vicinity of black holes does, indeed, describe the electromagnetic phenomena of a dense plasma under a strong gravitational field. In the extreme gravitational conditions in a black hole, photons are trapped by being strongly bent by the gravitational field described by the curvature of space. Interaction between the media outside and the inside of a black hole can occur due to vacuum state polarization i.e. the properties of the vacuum, angular momentum of the black hole (Kerr metric) and charged (Kerr-Newman metric) as well as magnetic field coupling through plasma vacuum state polarization. (1) B proportional {e/c^{3}}gxω where e is the charge on the electron, c is the velocity of light, g is the local gravitational acceleration, and ω is the angular velocity of rotation of the body or black hole. The (cross product) term (gxω) is analogous to a gravitational gyroscopic term. If v_{esc} is the escape velocity of an electron on the event horizon of a black hole then v_{esc}~c. The highly bent space of a black hole generates a higher magnetic and charge field often observed near a pulsar. In a black hole, gravity is so strong that space is so sharply curved that the gas of the interstellar media is compressed and becomes dense, and like any hot gas, emits radiation in the form of radio waves, visible light, and x -rays. This electromagnetic field effect across the event horizon acting through the effects of vacuum state polarization correlates external and internal effects and hence may resolve the information paradox so that information going into a black hole is conserved with charge, angular momentum and information is transformed by the black hole. Black holes act as an electric generator power source of quasars which emit the light of an entire galaxy. Of course, the black hole stores energy from the gravitational field and, as R. Penrose suggested, also stores a great deal of energy in its rotation. As further collapse occurs, more energy is generated to power the quasar [3]. The plasma dynamics in the external region generates electric field gradients and hence current flow and induces intense magnetic fields across the ergosphere. The event horizon is stretched and acts as a conducting sphere with a resistivity, for example, having an impedance of 377 Ohm. Magnetic lines of force pass across the sphere, exciting its surface with eddy currents producing drag on the sphere. The lines of force do not cross the horizon but wrap around it and, for a rotating system, they eventually pinch off as loops. Astrophysical effects on the black holes occur through the effects of their excited states of the dense plasma on the vacuum. For 377 Ohm , an electric field of 377 volts would be needed to drive one ampere of current across a square surface area on the event horizon. This value is chosen, for the sake of this picture, analogous to the Earth's fields. It is of interest to note that the magnetohydrodynamics and Coriolis forces of the plasma's collective behaviors in this picture are similar to the process of sunspot formation and coronal ejection on our sun. Thereafter, close examination of black holes ergospheres structures may reveal regions of high magnetic flux and x -ray emissions resembling the sunspot activity found on our local star. Of course, the motion of the magnetic field by the dynamic processes near a black hole generates an electric field which can give us a quantitative method to describe the energy transfer mechanisms. In the case of a rapidly rotating magnetized black hole, the electric field generated near the event horizon can produce enormous voltage differences between the poles of the spinning body and its equatorial region. As much as 10^{20} volts may be generated through field lines stretched at the event horizon, resulting in the system acting as an enormous battery. The magnetic field lines carry current which are driven by the voltage difference to distant parts of a quasar, which are linked by the magnetic field lines and the vacuum state polarization in its environment, producing a gigantic direct current circuit. Positive charges flow up the field lines from the equatorial regions of the surface and are balanced by the current from the polar field lines to the equatorial lines. The complex properties of the energized plasma feeds the jets of ionized gases that have been observed emerging from the nuclei of quasars, supernovae and galaxies, stretching out many light years into space. The plasma can act as if it is frozen around magnetic field lines, where the electrons undergo gyroscopic spin. As the lines of magnetic force thread through the ergosphere, energy is deposited in the intervening plasma, accelerating it outward against the strong magnetic field. This process is balanced by the pull of gravity in the vacuum of the black hole's event horizon. Hence a balance is maintained at certain phases of collapse stability, where energy balance occurs. The processes of plasma magneto-electrodynamics with a large magnetic field in the strong gravitational field of a black hole act as a generator/magnetic motor. The generated Coriolis forces in the plasma media occur due to the rotational acceleration as well as the gravitational field of the black hole. As we demonstrated in detail, the angular momentum properties result from the torque term in Einstein's stress-energy tensor [4]. The resulting acceleration produces electromagnetic biases in the electron-positron states in the vacuum producing the polarization of the vacuum which we demonstrate here and in reference [5]. This requires that we include the magnetic field in the Vlasov equation [6]. It is the strong magnetic field case that gives us the dynamo generator dynamics displayed by galactic and supernovae black holes. Shockwave and bow wave phenomena can occur because of violent plasma eruptions in a strong magnetic field and bow wave phenomena can occur when the black hole is associated with a second astrophysical body in which the two exchange magnetic lines of flux and plasma fields [7]. We and others have described elsewhere the manner in which the strong force and the gravitational forces can become balanced through the formalism of the relationship of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and quantum electrodynamics (QED). The strong and electroweak forces are related through the quark model. This model utilizes the existence of mini Planck unit black holes [8]. Thus we can describe the form of the dynamics of the plasma energy tensor by treating its effect through the Coriolis forces. These accelerative driving forces activate the plasma dynamics and, hence the effect of the vacuum is manifest through the effect of the torque term in the stress-energy tensor. This is the manner in which the stress-energy tensor is modified which we detailed in references [3,4]. Hence the torque term in the stress-energy tensor actually yields the more detailed and accurate Einstein-Vlasov model because plasma can be utilized in this approach [9,10]. Media Surrounding Black Holes These turbulent perturbations often diffuse and propagate transverse to the magnetic lines of force. Many higher order terms and a number of coupling constants are not directly amenable to an analytic approach and require computer simulations. Under such variable gravitational and electromagnetic conditions, patterns can emerge under cyclical interactions but also large dynamical unpredictable instabilities will occur. Our wave equations must accommodate these two cases. Some of the more detailed analytic approaches can be found in reference [5]. We describe examples of black hole plasma systems for stellar, and supernovae phenomena. In this paper, we express in detail the balance equations between the gravitational collapsing system and the surrounding plasma. Balance systems act in a thermo-plasma-gravitationally coupled systems that obey unique structures in space, some of which we present in this volume. We can treat the electromagnetic field in terms of spherical harmonics as an approximation. We have solved Einstein's field-curvature equation with a centrifugal term that arises out of the torque term in the stress-energy tensor term, and source term and demonstrate a possible balance equation at the event horizon [3,4]. The high magnetic field of neutron stars of about 10^{14} Gauss, and possibly the black holes also act to direct and repel the plasma against accretion at the event horizon surface. We find soliton or magneto-acoustic plasma states as solutions to the relativistic Vlasov plasma equations solved in the vicinity of a black hole ergosphere. ....... Commentary by Hans Schatten: The following derivations lead to an extended proof for the Haramein-Rauscher equation (1) from the above and through those formulations indicate the relevance of the Haramein-Rauscher cosmology coupled to a simplified string formalism as boundary- and initial conditions in a de Sitter cosmology encompassing the classical Minkowski-Friedmann spacetimes holographically and fractally in the Schwarzschild metrics and as advocated by Haramein-Rauscher. The magnetic field intensity B is classically described in the Biot-Savart Law: B=μ_{o}qv/4πr^{2}=μ_{o}i/4πr=μ_{o}qω/4πr=μ_{o}Nef/2r for a charge count q=Ne; angular velocity ω=v/r=2πf; current i=dq/dt and the current element i.dl=dq.(dl/dt)=vdq. The Maxwell constant then can be written as an (approximating) finestructure: μ_{o}ε_{o} =1/c^{2}=(120π/c)(1/120πc) to crystallise the 'free space impedance' Z_{o}=√(μ_{o}/ε_{o})=120π~377 Ohm (Ω). This vacuum resistance Z_{o} so defines a 'Unified Action Law' in a coupling of the electric permittivity component (ε_{o}) of inertial mass and the magnetic permeability component (μ_{o}) of gravitational mass in the Equivalence Principle of General Relativity. A unified selfstate of the preinertial (string- or brane) cosmology so is obtained from the finestructures for the electric- and gravitational interactions coupling a so defined electropolic mass to magnetopolic mass respectively. The Planck-Mass is given from Unity 1=2πGm_{P}^{2}/hc and the Planck-Charge derives from Alpha=2πke^{2}/hc and where k=1/4πε_{o} in the electromagnetic finestructure describing the probability interaction between matter and light (as about 1/137). The important aspect of alpha relates to the inertia coupling of Planck-Charge to Planck-Mass as all inertial masses are associated with Coulombic charges as inertial electropoles; whilst the stringed form of the Planck-Mass remains massless as gravitational mass. It is the acceleration of electropoles coupled to inertial mass, which produces electromagnetic radiation (EMR); whilst the analogy of accelerating magnetopoles coupled to gravitational mass and emitting electromagnetic monopolic radiation (EMMR) remains hitherto undefined in the standard models of both cosmology and particle physics. But the coupling between electropoles and magnetopoles occurs as dimensional intersection, say between a flat Minkowskian spacetime in 4D and a curved de Sitter spacetime in 5D (and which becomes topologically extended in 6-dimensional Calabi-Yau tori and 7-dimensional Joyce manifolds in M-Theory). The formal coupling results in the 'bounce' of the Planck-Length in the pre-Big Bang scenario, and which manifests in the de Broglie inflaton-instanton. The Planck-Length L_{P}=√(hG/2πc^{3}) 'oscillates' in its Planck-Energy m_{P}=h/λ_{P}c=h/2πcL_{P} to give √Alpha).L_{P}=e/c^{2} in the coupling of 'Stoney units' suppressing Planck's constant 'h' to the 'Planck units' suppressing charge quantum 'e'. Subsequently, the Planck-Length is 'displaced' in a factor of about 11.7=1/√Alpha=√(h/60π)/e and using the Maxwellian finestructures and the unity condition kG=1 for a dimensionless string coupling G_{o}=4πε_{o}, describing the 'Action Law' for the Vacuum Impedance as Action=Charge^{2}, say via dimensional analysis: Z_{o}=√([Js^{2}/C^{2}m]/[C^{2}/Jm])=[Js]/[C^{2}]=[Action/Charge^{2}] in Ohms [Ω=V/I=Js/C^{2}] and proportional to [h/e^{2}] as the 'higher dimensional source' for the manifesting superconductivity of the lower dimensions in the Quantum Hall Effect (~e^{2}/h), the conductance quantum (2e^{2}/h) and the Josephson frequencies (~2e/h) in Ohms [Ω]. This derivation so indicates an electromagnetic cosmology based on string parameters as preceding the introduction of inertial mass (in the quantum Big Bang) and defines an intrinsic curvature within the higher dimensional (de Sitter) universe based on gravitational mass equivalents and their superconductive monopolic current flows. A massless, but monopolically electromagnetic de Sitter universe would exhibit intrinsic curvature in gravitational mass equivalence in its property of closure under an encompassing static Schwarzschild metric and a Gravitational String-Constant G_{o}=1/k=1/30c (as given in the Maxwellian finestructures in the string space). In other words, the Big Bang manifested inertial parameters and the matter content for a subsequent cosmoevolution in the transformation of gravitational 'curvature energy', here called gravita as precursor for inertia into inertial mass seedlings; both however describable in Black Hole physics and the Schwarzschild metrics. The Gravitational Finestructure so derives in replacing the Planck-Mass m_{P} by a protonucleonic mass: m_{c}=√(hc/2πG_{o}).f(alpha)= f(Alpha).m_{P} and where f(Alpha)=Alpha^{9}. The Gravitational finestructure, here named Omega, is further described in a fivefolded supersymmetry of the string hierarchies, the latter as indicated in the Haramein-Rausch paper following below in excerpt. This pentagonal supersymmetry can be expressed in a number of ways, say in a one-to-one mapping of the Alpha finestructure constant as invariant X from the Euler Identity: X+Y=XY= -1=i^{2}=exp(iπ). One can write a Unification Polynomial: (1-X)(X)(1+X)(2+X)=1 or X^{4}+2X^{3}-X^{2}-2X+1=0 to find the coupling ratios: f(S)¦f(E)¦f(W)¦f(G)=#¦#^{3}¦#^{18}¦#^{54} from the proportionality #¦#^{3}¦{[(#^{3})^{2}]}^{3}¦({[(#^{3})^{2}]}^{3})^{3}=Cuberoot(Alpha):Alpha:Cuberoot(Omega):Omega. The Unification polynomial then sets the ratios in the inversion properties under modular duality: (1)[Strong short]¦(X)[Electromagnetic long]¦(X^{2})[Weak short]¦(X^{3})[Gravitational long] as 1¦X¦X^{2}¦X^{3} = (1-X)¦(X)¦(1+X)¦(2+X). Unity 1 maps as (1-X) transforming as f(S) in the equality (1-X)=X^{2}; X maps as invariant of f(E) in the equality (X)=(X); X^{2} maps as (1+X) transforming as f(W) in the equality (1+X)=1/X; and X^{3} maps as (2+X) transforming as f(G) in the equality (2+X)=1/X^{2}=1/(1-X). The mathematical pentagonal supersymmetry from the above then indicates the physicalised T-duality of M-theory in the principle of mirror-symmetry and which manifests in the reflection properties of the heterotic string classes HO(32) and HE(64), described further in the following. Defining f(S)=#=1/f(G) and f(E)=#^{2}.f(S) then describes a symmetry breaking between the 'strong S' f(S) interaction and the 'electromagnetic E' f(E) interaction under the unification couplings. This couples under modular duality to f(S).f(G)=1=#^{55} in a factor #^{-53}=f(S)/f(G)={f(S)}^{2} of the 'broken' symmetry between the longrange- and the shortrange interactions. SEWG=1=Strong-Electromagnetic-Weak-Gravitational as the unified supersymmetric identity then decouples in the manifestation of string-classes in the de Broglie 'matter wave' epoch termed inflation and preceding the Big Bang, the latter manifesting at Weyl-Time as a string-transformed Planck-Time as the heterotic HE(64) class. As SEWG indicates the Planck-String (class I, which is both openended and closed), the first transformation becomes the suppression of the nuclear interactions sEwG and describing the selfdual monopole (stringclass IIB, which is loop-closed in Dirichlet brane attachement across dimensions say Kaluza-Klein R^{5} to Minkowski R^{4} or Membrane-Space R^{11} to String Space R^{10}). The monopole class so 'unifies' E with G via the gravitational finestructure assuming not a Weylian fermionic nucleon, but the bosonic monopole from the kG_{o}=1 initial-boundary condition Gm_{M}^{2}=ke^{2} for m_{M}=ke=30[ec]=m_{P}√Alpha. The Planck-Monopole coupling so becomes m_{P}/m_{M}=m_{P}/30[ec]=1/√Alpha with f(S)=f(E)/#^{2} modulating f(G)=#^{2}/f(E)=1/# ↔ f(G){f(S)/f(G)}=# in the symmetry breaking f(S)/f(G)=1/#^{53} between short (nuclear asymptotic) and long (inverse square). The shortrange coupling becomes f(S)/f(W)=#/#^{18}=1/#^{17}=Cuberoot(Alpha)/Alpha^{6} and the longrange coupling is Alpha/Omega=1/Alpha^{17}=#^{3}/#^{54}=1/#^{51}=1/(#^{17})^{3}. The strong nuclear interaction coupling parameter so becomes about 0.2 as the cuberoot of alpha and as measured in the standard model of particle physics. The monopole quasimass [ec] describes a monopolic sourcecurrent ef, manifesting for a displacement λ=c/f. This is of course the GUT unification energy of the Dirac Monopole at precisely [c^{3}] eV or 2.7x10^{16} GeV and the upper limit for the Cosmic Ray spectra as the physical manifestation for the string classes: {I, IIB, HO(32), IIA and HE(64) in order of modular duality transmutation}. The transformation of the Monopole string into the XL-Boson string decouples Gravity from sEwG in sEw.G in the heterotic superstring class HO(32). As this heterotic class is modular dual to the other heterotic class HE(64), it is here, that the protonucleon mass is defined in the modular duality of the heterosis in: Omega=Alpha^{18}=2πG_{o}m_{c}^{2}/hc=(m_{c}/m_{P})^{2}. The HO(32) string bifurcates into a quarkian X-part and a leptonic L-part, so rendering the bosonic scalar spin as fermionic halfspin in the continuation of the 'breaking' of the supersymmetry of the Planckian unification. Its heterosis with the Weyl-string then decouples the strong interaction at Weyl-Time for a Weyl-Mass m_{W}, meaning at the timeinstanton of the end of inflation or the Big Bang in sEw.G becoming s.Ew.G. The X-Boson then transforms into a fermionic protonucleon triquark-component (of energy ~ 10^{-27} kg or 560 MeV) and the L-Boson transforms into the protomuon (of energy about 111 MeV). The last 'electroweak' decoupling then occurs at the Fermi-Expectation Energy about 1/365 seconds after the Big Bang at a temperature of about 3.4x10^{15} K and at a 'Higgs Boson' energy of about 298 GeV. A Bosonic decoupling preceeded the electroweak decoupling about 2 nanoseconds into the cosmogenesis at the Weyl-temperature of so T_{Weyl}=T_{max}=E_{Weyl}/k=1.4x10^{20} K as the maximum Black Hole temperature maximised in the Hawking MT modulus and the Hawking-Gibbons formulation: M_{critical}T_{min}=½M_{Planck}T_{Planck}=(hc/2πG_{o})(c^{2}/2k)=hc^{3}/4πkG_{o} for T_{min}=1.4x10^{-29} K and Boltzmann constant k. The XL-Boson mass is given in the quark-component: m_{X}=#^{3}m_{W}/[ec]=Alpha.m_{W}/m_{P}=#^{3}{m_{W}/m_{P}}~1.9x10^{15} GeV; and the lepton-component: m_{L}=Omega.[ec]/#^{2}=#^{52}[ec/m_{W}] ~ 111 MeV. The Haramein-Rauscher model is then fully realised in the reformulation of the rotational dynamics associated with the monopolic naturally superconductive currentflow and the fractalisation of the static Schwarzschild solution. All inertial objects are massless as 'Strominger branes' or extremal boundary Black Hole equivalents and as such obey the static and basic Schwarzschild metric as gravita template for inertia. Once inertialised, the Newmann-Kerr solutions described by Haramein and Rauscher become applicable. This also crystallises the Sarkar Black Hole boundary as the 100Mpc limit (R_{Sarkar}=(M_{o}/M_{critical}.R_{Hubble})=0.028.R_{Hubble}~237 Million lightyears) for the cosmological principle, describing large scale homogeneity and isotropy, in the supercluster scale as the direct 'descendants' of Daughter Black Holes from the Universal Mother Black Hole describing the Hubble Horizon as the de Sitter envelope for the Friedmann cosmology (see linked website references on de Sitter cosmology) for the oscillatory universe bounded in the Hubble nodes as a standing waveform. The Biot-Savart Law: B=μ_{o}qv/4πr^{2}=μ_{o}i/4πr=μ_{o}Nef/2r=μ_{o}Neω/4πr for angular velocity ω=v/r transforms into B=constant(e/c^{3})gxω in using a_{centripetal}=v^{2}/r=rω^{2} for g=GM/r^{2}=(2GM/c^{2})(c^{2}/2r^{2})=(R_{S}c^{2}/2R^{2}) for a Schwarzschild solution R_{S}=2GM/c^{2}. B=constant(eω/rc)(v/c)^{2}=μ_{o}Neω/4πr yields constant=μ_{o}Nc/4π=(120πN/4π)=30N with e=m_{M}/30c for 30N(eω/c^{3})(GM/R^{2})=30N(m_{M}/30c)ω(2GM/c^{2})/(2cR^{2})=NmM(ω/2c^{2}R)(R_{S}/R)= {M}ω/2c^{2}R. Subsequently, B=Mw/2c^{2}R = Nm_{M}(R_{S}/R){ω/2c^{2}R} to give a manifesting mass M finestructured in M=Nm_{M}(R_{S}/R) for N=2n in the superconductive 'Cooper-Pairings' for a charge count q=Ne=2ne. But any mass M has a Schwarzschild radius R_{S} for N=(M/m_{M}){R/R_{S}}=(M/m_{M}){Rc^{2}/2GM}={Rc^{2}/2Gm_{M}}={R/R_{M}} for a monopolic Schwarzschild radius R_{M}=2Gm_{M}/c^{2}=2G(30ec)/c^{2}=60ec/30c^{3}=2e/c^{2}=2L_{P}√Alpha=2OL_{P}. Any mass M is quantised in the Monopole mass m_{M}=m_{P}√Alpha in its Schwarzschild (Haramein-Rauscher) metric and where the characterising monopolic Schwarzschild radius represents the minimum metric displacement scale as the Oscillation of the Planck-Length in the form 2L_{P}√Alpha~L_{P}/5.85. This relates directly to the manifestation of the magnetopole in the lower dimensions, say in Minkowski spacetime in the coupling of inertia to Coulombic charges, that is the electropole and resulting in the creation of the mass-associated electromagnetic fields bounded in the c-invariance. From the Planck-Length Oscillation or 'L_{P}-bounce': OL_{P}=L_{P}√Alpha=e/c^{2} in the higher (collapsed or enfolded) string dimensions, the electropole e=OL_{P}.c^{2} maps the magnetopole e*=2R_{e}.c^{2} as 'inverse source energy' E_{Weyl}=hf_{Weyl} and as function of the classical electron radius R_{e} =ke^{2}/m_{e}c^{2}=R_{Compton}.Alpha= R_{Bohr1}.Alpha^{2}=Alpha^{3}/4πR_{Rydberg}= 10^{10}{2πR_{W}/360}={e*/2e}.OL_{P}. The resulting reflection-mirror space of the M-Membrane space (in 11D) so manifests the 'higher D' magnetocharge 'e*' AS INERTIAL MASS in the monopolic current [ec], that is the electropolic Coulomb charge 'e'. This M-space becomes then mathematically formulated in the gauge symmetry of the algebraic Lie group E_{8} and which generates the inertial parameters of the classical Big Bang in the Weylian limits and as the final Planck-String transformation. The stringparametric Biot-Savart law then relates the angular momentum of any inertial object of mass M with angular velocity ω in selfinducing a magnetic flux intensity given by B=Mω/2Rc^{2} and where the magnetic flux relates inversely to a displacement R from the center of rotation and as a leading term approximation for applicable perturbation series. The following excerpt from the referenced Haramein-Rauscher paper relates the inherent pentagonal supersymmetry in the cosmogenesis to the definition of the Euler identity in its finestructure X+Y=XY=-1, and a resulting quadratic with roots the Golden Mean and the Golden Ratio of the ancient omniscience of harmonics, inclusive of the five Platonic solids mapping the five superstring classes. Foundations and applications of superstring theory are also indicated in the below and serve as reference for the above. Hans Schatten for omniphysics@cosmosdawn.net at http://www.cosmosdawn.net/forum ..... ....... The relationship between the Lindquist and Wheeler Schwarzschild sphere and the vertices of the Battaner and Florido regular geometric structure of superclusters can be compared. For N vertices, each vertex can be equidistant from its nearest neighbor only when N= 5, 8, 16, 24, 120, or 600 [94]. The case where N=8 yields the simplest arrangement. In this lattice, N=5, 16, and 600 correspond to a tetrahedron, N= 8 to a cube, N=24 to an octahedron, and N= 120 to a dodecahedron. Correspondence is made in terms of the ratio of the distance from a face to a corner of a cell of some volume of a regular polyhedron to a sphere. One of us (Rauscher) [25] treated the whole Universe as expanding under a Schwarzschild condition. We found that consistence between Einstein's field equations with big bang cosmologies can be obtained but requires the introduction of an additional term in the stress-energy tensor. We can associate this term with the torque term in Einstein's field equations in the Haramein-Rauscher model [3]. One of us (Haramein), has put forward the need to include spin and torque to modify the simplistic Schwarzschild metrical zones of Lindquist and Wheeler although their model is very useful in our considerations even if it is clearly a limited case. The motivation of the Lindquist and Wheeler model is that the cell method in gravitational theory contains a new dynamic feature which expresses the equation of motion of a mass at the center of a cell as a dynamic condition on the boundary of the cell. The boundary condition defines a constraint on the space which comprises simple geometric forms. The whole of the dynamics of this model are expressed in terms of the expansion and subsequent contraction of the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's field equation. Their analogy is to that of a crystal lattice and by defining cells in terms of a Schwarzschild solutions in a curved space, in a simple Friedman metric of uniform curvature which corresponds to a polyhedron in Euclidian space. They derive a boundary condition on the Schwarzschild potentials which do not go to zero at a finite radius and hence avoids the discontinuity of matching the normal derivative of the gravitational potentials which would occur in the Schwarzschild solution alone. In the lattice Universe, mass is concentrated into N centers (or vertices) which could correspond to the galactic cluster centers in the Battener and Florido analysis [87,88]. In each cell, a Schwarzschild black hole is located at the center of its own cell. In their figure 3, six cone shapes define their boundary conditions in a lattice Universe and correspond to the vertices of an octahedron. Therefore, a parallel can be made between the work of Lindquist and Wheeler, Battener and Florido and our model which predicts a polarized structured vacuum. Hence, Lindquist and Wheeler's approach using the Schwarzschild cell solution without spin or charge gives a good first-order approximation. We use the Kerr-Newman with spin and charge and incorporate the torque and Coriolis forces in the Haramein-Rauscher solution to quantize the vacuum into cells. We consider the topological structures of the current string theory and our approach to the unified theory of the four forces and structured vacuum [3]. Although superstring theories have their critics, due to the fact that those theories contain a number of "free" parameters, there has been great interest in these theories by the physics community. Superstring theory has been related to the standard model. Some string theories contain gravity and others do not. One of the major features of superstring theory is to treat particles as tiny loops rather than as point particles so as to avoid the problem of singularities. The string theory approach has some topological similarities to that of Lindquist and Wheeler's work, which is an effort to avoid singularities. In the string theory, particles are treated as vibrations of a membrane (Brane M as a surface), which is swept out by the vibrating string occurring in eight dimensional space. These eight dimensions comprise eight of the ten dimensional standard model in which two of the dimensions are the string surface itself. This vibrational space carries the symmetry of the Lie group E_{8} [95]. Superstring theory represents both bosonic and fermionic particle states. The usual string theories occupy a 26-dimensional spacetime, representing bosonic particle states. A quantum state of identical bosonic particles is symmetric under the exchange of any two particles. A quantum state of identical fermionic particles is antisymmetric under the exchange of any two particles to include the photon and gravitation. Then we have 64=8x8 dimensional states in some superstring theories. The closed string theory is called a type II string theory, which has the doubly fermionic states included, for a total of 128=8x8x2 fermionic states [96]. In addition to the type II, there are two heterotic superstring theories which involve closed strings. Out of the 26-L bosonic coordinates of the bosonic factor, only ten are matched to R-bosonic coordinates of the superstring factor, hence this theory effectively exists in ten-dimensional spacetime. Heterotic strings come in two versions, that is E_{8}xE_{8} and the SO_{32}. The Ramond vacuum is included and E_{8} is the highest dimensional exceptional group. The E_{8}xE_{8} superstring theory is derived from the compilation of M-theory. One of the most promising superstring theories that unifies the four forces is the E_{8}xE_{8} reflection space. This is possible only because reflection embedding provides for an embedding of A_{4} in E_{8} [97]. In our paper reference [3] we present the symmetry group relationship between A_{4} and the 24 element octahedral group. This procedure operates along the lines of the relationship between the SO_{32} heterotic string theory which also utilizes the E_{8}xE_{8 }formalism. However, we believe our approach to gravitation and strong interactions, which considers the inclusion of torque and Coriolis effects will result in a simplification and a more fundamental formalism with fewer free parameters. In general, the Lie algebra A_{n} associated with a reflection space C_{n} has a compact Lie group SU_{n+1} . S.P. Sirag attempts to develop a unified field theory in terms of U_{1}xSU_{2}xSU_{3}xSU_{4} , where he identifies the SU_{4 }group with the tensor gravitational field [98]. Note that gravity is missing from the SU_{5} theory. The SO(32) , or SO_{32} , is the group generated by 32-by-32 matrices that are orthogonal. For the strong force, gluons are described by a four dimensional SU_{3} Yang-Mills theory. The full set of standard model gauge bosons is described by the Yang-Mills theory with the gauge group SU_{3}xSU_{2}xU_{1}. Alternatively, for the U_{5}=SU_{2}xSU_{3} Yang-Mills theory, the gauge group that emerges as U_{3}xU_{2}=SU_{2}xSU_{3}xU_{1}xU_{1} where U_{1}xU_{1} is the topology of the torus. Note that the A_{4} group of the tetrahedron is the label for a complex Lie algebra whose compact Lie group is SU_{5} which comprised the first unification, GUT theory. The standard force bosons are derived from the group SU_{3}xSU_{2}xU_{1} in the group algebra. In the heterotic E_{8}xE_{8} superstring theory, six of the nine spatial dimensions are curled up into a small sixdimensional compact space, which is termed the Calabi-Yau space. All Calabi Yau spaces have both discrete and continuous parameters which determine the details of the four-dimensional theory that arises upon compactification. For all Calabi-Yau spaces, the minimal amount of supersymmetry survives the compactification and the resulting four-dimensional theory is supersymmetric. The compactification also allows one to break the original gauge symmetry E_{8}xE_{8} down to E_{6}xE_{8}. The group E_{6} contains U_{1}xSU_{2}xSU_{3} as a subgroup to that standard model gauge group. An alternative to the 6-dimensional space compactification of the heterotic string is an alternative 6-dimensional space where one can simply use a six-torus T^{6} group space. The T^{6} space, however, has singularities that arise at the fixed points of certain identifications, but orbitals constructed from tori are much easier to analyze than the general Calabi-Yau spaces. For the following Lie group S=U_{2}xT^{6} where U_{2} is a four dimensional spacetime called the conformally compactified Minkowski space and T^{6} =U_{1}xU_{1}xU_{1}xU_{1}xU_{1}xU_{1} , or a 3-torus. We regard SU_{2} as a spherical three space, S^{3}, as the usual space of cosmology. For a 7-torusT^{7} which incorporates U_{1} from the U_{2} space also includes time. The T^{7} tori space corresponds to the 7-reflection space E^{7} because T^{7} = R^{7}/L where R^{7} is the real part of the E^{7} which also contains the complex reflection space C^{7} , and L is the root of E^{7}. This means that all parts of the lattice are identified as a single point: the identity element of T^{7} and every other point of T^{4} is a copy of L . The T^{4} group can be identified with two double tori. We have identified the double torus structure as fundamental to a metric of spacetime which appropriately accounts for the source of spin/angular momentum. Many striking examples of this dynamic structure are observed at the cosmological scale such as galactic halos, black hole ergosphere and supernovae. The S^{4} group is associated with the 24 element octahedral group C{Obar} which can be written in terms of C{Obar}=U_{2}xU_{2}(bar)xU_{4} or T^{8} group [3]. Both C{O} and C{Obar} relate to the T^{4} double torus group of four copies of U_{1} where T_{n} is the direct product of n copies of U_{1} , which comprises the n-torus, which is always an Abelian group. The T^{n} group refers to the structure of spacetime. We have related this spacetime structure to the torque term in Einstein's field equations [3]. Hence, the torus topology can be considered fundamental to the structure of spacetime and also the tenets in the superstring theory. Hull utilized string theory in a "T-fold-background" with local n-torus fabrication and T-duality transition functions in O{n,n;Z} in an enlarged space with T^{2n} fabrication geometry [99]. For a geometric background, the local choice of T^{n} fit together to give a spacetime which is a T^{n} fiber bundle. Thus this string theory approach involves diffeomorphisms and gauge transformations as well as duality transformations. The T-duality is associated with mirror symmetry [100]. In some cases, the compactifications with duality are equivalent to asymmetric orbits. The full transition functions for the torus bundles, which are considered in Hull's approach, are in GL{n,Z}xU_{1}^{n}, where U_{1} acts as a translation on a circle fiber. String theory compactification of dimensions on the T ^{n} has O{n,n;Z} symmetry. In the geometric GL{n,Z} subgroup that acts through T^{n} diffeomorphisms, can be lifted to a higher dimensional theory which is compactified on a T^{n} fiber bundled over a circle. A T-duality on any circle gives a twisted reduction on a T^{2} fiber bundled over a circle in GL{2,Z} which is representative of a dual torus. These mirror, or duality symmetries are related to space with Calabi-Yau fibrations in space with torus fibrations [99]. The topology of T-folds, and their doubled formulations, is then seen as a geometric background in which there is a global polarization. The polarization can be characterized in terms of a product on the T^{2n} fibers. Local product structures satisfy integrability thus eliminating the problems of singularities. A product structure defines a splitting into eigenspaces of R with eigenvalues ±1 and for a torus T^{2n}. This extends to a splitting as the periodic torus coordinates into two T^{n} eigenspaces, if the product structure is integral, or R is an element of GL(2n,Z ) , so that it acts on the coordinates while preserving the periodicities. A product structure and pseudo-Hermitian O{n,n} invariant metric are together preserved by the subgroup GL(n.R) subset O{n,n} and for the transformations acting on the torus and is preserved by GL(2n,Z) subset O(n,n;Z) [3,5,20,47]. The fundamental structures activated in the vacuum by polarized coherent resonant states of matter also act as part of the process that creates these vacuum properties. To paraphrase John A. Wheeler, "Spacetime is not just a passive arena for doing physics, it is the physics" [2]. The torquing of spacetime is an active part of the structure of the stress-energy tensor and hence is a fundamental force coupling to produce the observable universe of matter and energy. CONCLUDING REMARKS We have a vast new set of tools to comprehend the processes of astrophysical and cosmological phenomena, atomic and collective matter states. For example some of the collective state phenomena we have considered are accelerator "fireballs," Bose-Einstein condensates, Fermi electron states, MHD and BCS descriptions, all of which obey soliton dynamic solutions. Theoretical and experimental findings and relativistic formulations, quantum theory, electromagnetic interactions can well be described in terms of topological structures and group theory. The fundamental base of our approach is to consider that the topological structure of a torquing spacetime, and its Coriolis gyroscopic dynamics, has critical aspects of unification theory. We pursue this point further in references [39,101,102] when we consider atomic, nuclear, and quantum physics in a nonlinear space. When a torque and Coriolis term is considered for the formation of spin/angular momentum we find that the dual torus topology occupies a fundamental role in both astrophysics and quantum particle physics. The Haramein-Rauscher approach takes spin and rotation properties as fundamental to the structure of the spacetime manifold. We have identified the properties of the structure of the vacuum itself from fundamental coherent polarized states of matter in the facility of astrophysical black hole event horizons. That is to say, we have demonstrated that the properties of matter in superclusters, galaxies, supernovae and their vicinities, for example, could exist in resonant states, only if the vacuum is structured. These considerations may also be utilized to explain the effects that are currently attributed to dark matter and dark energy. In the words of Nobel laureate C. N. Yang, of the Yang-Mills equation "Einstein's general relativity theory, though profoundly beautiful, is likely to be amended... that the amendment may not disturb the usual test is easy to imagine, since the usual tests do not relate to spin... somehow (the amendment) entangles spin and rotation" [103]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors express their sincere appreciation to William Van Bise, Marina Nogues, Michael Coyle, Michael Hyson, Jeremy Broner, and for the opportunity to work with the Resonance Project Foundation and its team [104]. Support for some aspects of earlier projects came from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. REFERENCES [1] A.Einstein, Relativity, the Special and General Theory (Crown Publishers, Inc., New York 1961) [2] J.A. Wheeler, Geometrodynamics (Academic Press, New York and London 1962) and private communication with E.A. Rauscher, 1974-1982, on expanding on Einstein's theory. [3] N. Haramein and E.A. Rauscher, "The Origin of Spin: A Consideration of Torque and Coriolis Forces in Einstein's Field Equations and Grand Unification Theory," in Beyond the Standard Model: Searching for Unity in Physics, R.L. Amoroso. B. Lehnert & J-P Vigier (eds.) Oakland: The Noetic Press. (see this volume pp. 153-168) Physics, R.L. Amoroso. B. Lehnert & J-P Vigier (eds.) Oakland: The Noetic Press. (see this volume pp. 153-168) [4] N. Haramein and E.A. Rauscher, "The Quest for the Higgs Boson and its Planck Black Hole Production at the CERN Large Hadron Collider," Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. S8002 (2003). [5] E.A. Rauscher, "Electron Interactions and Quantum Plasma Physics," J. Plasma Physics 2, 517 (1968) and additional research (1992 and 2000). [6] E.A. Rauscher, "Dynamic Plasma Excitation Modes of Propagation in the Ionosphere," US, PA Press, 13, 295 (Wisconsin, 2004). [7] Ya. B. Zeldovich and Yu. P. Rayzer, Physics of Shock Waves and High Temperature Hydrodynamic Phenomena (Academic Press, New York 1967). [8] N. Haramein and E.A. Rauscher, "Strong and Gravitational Forces in Black Hole Physics," in progress. [9] T. Feder, "Astronomers Envision Linking Data Archives," Physics Today 55, 20 (2002). [10] S. Ichimaru, Basic Principles of Plasma Physics: A Statistical Approach (W.A. Benjamin, Inc. Advanced Book Program, Massachusetts, London, Sydney, Tokyo, 1973). [11] A.A. Vlasov, "Theory of Vibrations Properties of Electron Gas and its Application," JETF 8, 291 (1938) and Moscow (1945). [12] L.D. Landau, JETF 16, 574 (1946). [13] H. Andreasson, "The Einstein-A.A. Vlasov System / Kinetic Theory," Living Rev. Relativity 5, 7 (2002), http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2002-7, ISSN1433-8351. [14] D.E. McCumber, Rev Mod. Phys. 38, 491 (1966). [15] D. Bohm and D. Pines, "A Collective Description of Electron Interactions. I. Magnetic Interactions," Phys. Rev. 82, 625 (1951) and private communication between D. Bohm and E.A. Rauscher (1977-1982). [16] S. Ichac, Am. Phys. 20, 78 (1962). [17] D. Ter Haar, Introduction to the Physics of Many Body Systems (Interscience Publications on Physics and Astronomy, No. 5, New York 1958). [18] J. Bardeen and D. Pines, "Electron-Phonon Interaction in Metals," Phys. Rev. 99, 1140 (1955). [19] R.W. Lindquist and J.A. Wheeler, "Dynamics of a Lattice by the Schwarzschild-Cell Method," Rev. of Mod. Phys. 29, 432 (1957). [20] N. Haramein and E.A. Rauscher, "The Dynamic Crystal Lattice Group Theoretical Vacuum Structure in the Unified Field," in progress. 21] J. Bardeen, L.N. Cooper, and J.R. Schrieffer, "Theory of Superconductivity," Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957). [22] L. Cooper, "Bound Electron Pairs in a Degenerate Fermi Gas," Phys. Rev. 104, 1189 (1956). [23] J. Bardeen, Handbook of Phys. 15, 274 (1956). [24] J.R. Schrieffer, The Many Body Problem (Wiley & Sons, New York 1959). [25] E.A. Rauscher, "On the Evolution of a Schwarzschild Universe," Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report (LBL-4353 1975), and Cosmology and Quantum Theory, edited by R.L. Amoroso, Oakland: The Noetic Report (LBL-4353 1975), The Noetic Press (2007). [26] E.A. Rauscher, "The Fundamentals of Fusion," University of California Engineer, 20 (1960). [27] A.C. Scott, F.Y.F. Chu, and D.W. McLaughin, Proc. IEEE 61, 1443 (1973). [28] A.C. Scott, "The Birth of a Paradigm," in Nonlinear Electromagnetics, edited by P.L.E. Uslenghi, 35 (Academic Press, New York 1980). [29] H. Washimi and T. Taniuti, "Propagation of Ion-Acoustic Solitary Waves of Small Amplitude," Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 996 (2001). [30] L.C. Lee and J.R. Kan, "Nonlinear Ion-acoustic Waves and Solitons in a Magnetized Plasma," Phys. of Fluids 24, 430 (1981). [31] P.K. Shakla and M.Y. Yu, "Exact Solitary Ion-acoustic Waves in a Magnetoplasma," J. Math Phys, 19, 2506 (1978). [32] R.L. Sagdeev and A.A. Galeev, Non-Linear Plasma Theory (Benjamin, New York 1969). [33] B. Sutherland, Beautiful Models: 70 Years of Exactly Solved Quantum Many-Body Problems (World Scientific, River Edge, New Jersey 2004). [34] S. S. Schweber, Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory (Harper & Row, New York 1961). [35] S.W. Hawking, "Particle Creation by Black Holes," Comm. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975). [36] J.D. Hartle and S.W. Hawking, "Path Integral Derivation of Black-Hole Radiance," Phys. Rev. D 13, 2188 (1976). [37] S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis, Large Scale Structure of Space Time (Cambridge University Press, London 1974). [38] E.A. Rauscher, Electromagnetic Phenomena in Complex Geometries and Nonlinear, Non-Hertzian Waves (Tesla Book Co., California, 1983), to be republished by The Noetic Press, California (2007). [39] E.A. Rauscher, "Conceptual Charges in New Reality Models from Discoveries in Physics: Complexification of the Schrödinger Wave Equation," ICF Press, New York, Korea 1407 (1981). [40] T.H. Boyer, "Quantum Zero-Point Energy and Long Range Forces," Annals of Phys. 56, 474 (1970). [41] H.B.G. Casimir, "On the Attraction Between Two Perfectly Conducting Plates," Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetenschap. 5, 793 (1948). [42] E.A. Rauscher, "Electromagnetic Phenomena in Complex Minkowski Spaces," Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 28, 351(1983). [43] F. Wilczek, "Scaling Mount Planck," Phys. Today, 55, 10 (2002). [44] N. Haramein and E.A. Rauscher, "A Consideration of Torsion and Coriolis Effects in Einstein's Field Equations," Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. S10.016 (2003). [45] N. Haramein, "A Scaling Law for Organized Matter in the Universe," Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. AB006, (2001). [46] E.P. Wigner and F. Seitz, "On the Constitution of Metallic Sodium," Phys. Rev. 43, 804 (1933) on the theory of solids and private communication between E.P. Wigner and E.A. Rauscher (1981-1986). [47] N. Haramein and E.A. Rauscher, "Lattice Structure and the Kerr-Newman Cell Method," (in progress). [48] R.Z. Sagdeev and A.A. Galeev, Nonlinear Plasma Theory (Benjamin, New York 1969). [49] E.A. Rauscher, "Closed Cosmological Solutions to Einstein's Field Equations," Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 3, 661 (1972). [50] E.A. Rauscher, "A Unifying Theory of Fundamental Processes," Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report (UCRL-20808 June 1971) and Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 13, 1643 (1968). [51] C.L. Grabbe, "Generation of Broadband Electrostatic Waves in Earth's Magnetotail," Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3614 (2000). [52] R.C. Davidson, Methods in Nonlinear Plasma Theory (Academic Press, New York 1972). [53] M. Polanyi, "A New Thermodynamic Consequence of the Quantum Hypothesis," Verhandl. Deut. Physik. Ges.15, 156 (1913). [54] W. Nernst, Nachr. d. Kgl. Ges. d. Wissensch. Gittingen, Math. Phys. KL. (1906) and republished, The New Heat Theorem: Its foundations in theory and experiment (Dover Pub. Inc., 1969). [55] P. Uttley, "Active Galactic Nuclei as Scaled-Up Galactic Black Holes," Nature 444, 730 (2006). [56] C. Ramon and E.A. Rauscher, "Superluminal Transformations in Complex Minkowski Spaces," Found. of Phys. 10, 661 (1980). [57] E.A. Rauscher, "Solitary Waves, Coherent Non-dispersive Waves in Complex Minkowski Spaces," Bull. Am.Phys. Soc. 27, 35 (1982). [58] E.A. Rauscher, "The Minkowski Metric for a Multidimensional Geometry," Lett. Nuovo Cimento 7, 361(1973). [59] R. Penrose, "Gravitational Collapse and Space-Time Singularities," Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 57 (1965). [60] K.S. Thorne and C.M. Will, "Theoretical Framework for Testing Relativistic Gravity," Astrophys. J., 163, 595 (1971). [61] B.S. DeWitt, "Dynamical Theory in Curved Spaces. I. A Review of the Classical and Quantum Action Principles," Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 377 (1957) and private communication with E.A. Rauscher (1967). [62] J.B. Kogut and M.A. Stephanor, "The Phases of Quantum Chromo-dynamics: From Confinement to Extreme Environments," (Cambridge University Press, New York 2004). [63] H. Nastase, "The RHIC fireball as a Dual Black Hole," http://xxx.lanl.gov, arXiv Archive, hep-th/0501068, v.2 (Brown University, Brown HET 1439 February 16, 2005). [64] K.Tuchin, "On Black Hole Horizon Fluctuations," Nucl. Phys. B 553, 333 (1999). [65] D. Kharzeev, Y.V. Kovchegov, and K. Tuchin, "Nuclear Modification Factor in D+Au Collisions: Onset of Suppression in the Color Glass Condensate," Phys. Lett. B 599, 23 (2004). [66] D. Kharzeev and K. Tuchin, "From Color Glass Condensate to Quark Gluon Plasma through the Event Horizon," Nucl. Phys. A 753 316 (2005). [67] G. Chapline, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, edited by T.D. Black, M.M. Nieto, H.S. Scully, and M. Sinclair, 255 (World Scientific, Singapore 1992). [68] D. Kharzeev, E. Levin, K. Tuchin, "QCD in Curved Space-Time: A Conformal Bag Model," Phys. Rev. D 70, 4005 (2005). [69] R.B. Laughlin, "Emergent Relativity," Int. J. Mod. Phys., A 18, 831 (2003). [70] K. Fossheim, A. Sudboe, Superconductivity: Physics and Applications (Wiley, New York 2004). [71] G. Chapline, "Quantum Phase Transitions and the Failure of Classical General Relativity," Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 18, 3587 (2003). [72] E.A. Rauscher, "Application of Soliton Physics to Plasma - MHD and Superconductivity - BCS: Theoretical Implications for Primary Energy," Requested report Primary Energy Technologies of Los Angeles (PSRL-3107 Tecnic Research Laboratory, November, 1982). [73] D.L. Dexter and R.S. Knox, Excitations (Wiley, New York 1965). [74] V. D. Hunt, Superconductivity Sourcebook (John Wiley and Sons, New York, Toronto, Singapore 1989). [75] E.A. Rauscher, "Quantized plasmas," Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc. 15, 1639, (1970). [76] E.F. Gross, Nuovo Cimento Suppl. 3, 672 (1956). [77] Ji, H. S., et al., "Hydrodynamic Turbulence Cannot Transport Angular Momentum Effectively in Astrophysical Disks," Nature 444, 343-346 (November 16, 2006). [78] Spence, E. J. et al., "Observation of a Turbulence-Induced Large Scale Magnetic Field," arXivhysics/0511029 V2 (December 5, 2005). [79] Alboussiere, T., et al., "MHD Turbulence in a Rotating Spherical Couette Flow of Sodium with an Imposed Dipolar Magnetic Field," GTP Workshop on Modeling MHD Turbulence: Applications to Planetary and Stellar Dynamos, at: NCAR (Boulder, CO. 27-30 June, 2006).[80] H. Stocker, "Collective Flow Signals the Quark-gluon Plasma," Nuclear Physics A 750, 121 (2005). [81] Z. Foder and S.D. Katz, JHEP 0203-014 (2002) and JHEP 0404-050 (2004). [82] G.A. Thomas, "An Electron Hole liquid," Sci. Amer. 28 (June 1976). [83] Dressler, D. Lynden-Bell, D. Burstein, R.L. Davis, S.M. Faber, R. Terlevich, and G. Wagner, Ap. J., 313, 42 (1987). [84] T. Lauer, et al. "The Masses of Nuclear Black Holes in Luminous Elliptical Galaxies and Implications for the Space Density of the Most Massive Black Holes," arXiv Archive, astro-ph/0606739, v.1 (June 29, 2006). [85] K.I. Strecker, et al., "Formation and Propagation of Matter-wave Soliton Trains," Nature 417, 150 (2002). [86] L. Khaykovich, et al., "Formation of a Matter-Wave Bright Soliton," Science 296, 1290 (2002). [87] E. Battaner, "The Fractal Octahedron Network of Large Scale Structure," arXiv Archive, astro-ph/9801276 (January 28, 1998). [88] E. Battaner and E. Florido, "Egg-Carton Universe," arXiv Archive, astro-ph/9802009 (February 2, 1998). [89] N. Haramein, presentation at the Unified Theories conference (Budapest, Hungary 2006) in R.L. Amoroso, I. Dienes, & Cs. Varga (eds.) Unified Theories, Oakland: The Noetic Press, www.theresonanceproject.org/research/scientific.htm. [90] JPL, "Cassini Images Bizarre Hexagon on Saturn," www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-034 (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2007). [91] Eric Weisstein (Wenzel Jamnitzer in 1568), Kepler (Harmonice Mundi in 1619), http://mathworld.wolfram.com/StellaOctangula.html (Wolfram MathWorld 2007). [92] R.B. Tully, R. Scaramella, G. Vettalani, and G. Zamorani, Ap. J. 388, 9 (1992). [93] H.P. Robertson, "Relativistic Cosmology," Rev. Mod. Phys. 5, 62 (1933). [94] H.M.S. Coxeter, Regular Polytopes (Methun and Co., Ltd., London 1948). [95] M.B. Green and D.J. Gross, eds., Workshop on Unified String Theories: 29 July-16 August 1985, Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara (World Scientific, Singapore 1986). [96] B. Zwiebach, String Theory (Cambridge University Press, UK 2004). [97] M.J. Duff, "Recent Results in Extra Dimensions," in The Physics in Higher Dimensions, edited by T. Piran and S. Weinberg (World Scientific, Singapore 1986) and Nucl. Phys. B235, 610 (1990). [98] S. P. Sirag, "The Cosmology of Consciousness: A Group Theory Approach," Presentation, University of California, Berkeley, Dwinelle Hall, (Preprint and private communication September 28, 1987). [99] G.M. Hall, "A Geometry for Non-Geometric String Backgrounds," arXiv Archive, hep-th/0406102, v.3 (July 14, 2005). [100] Strominger, S.T. Yau, and E. Zaslow, Nucl. Phys. B 479, 243 (1996) and "Mirror Symmetry is T-Duality," arXiv Archive, hep-th/9606040 (June 14, 1996). [101] N. Haramein and E.A. Rauscher, "Nonlinear Quantum Theory Under the Influence of Torque and Coriolis Forces," (in progress). [102] N. Haramein and E.A. Rauscher, "The Balance Equation in a Haramein-Rauscher Metrical Space," (in progress). [103] Stanford University, NASA, "The Gravity Probe B Story," http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/story_of_gpb/gpb_story.pdf (Stanford, CA 2007). [104] www.theresonanceproject.org Posted Jan 3rd 2011 Dear Mr. Bermanseder, Thank you very much for attaching this information. Again, we do ask for your understanding and patience in terms of a more detailed reply, as Mr. Haramein is currently under deadline for some important projects. Best Regards, Stephanie Vendrell The Resonance Project Original Message: ----------------- From: Tony Bermanseder pacificap@hotmail.com Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:18:12 +1100 To: stephanie@theresonanceproject.org Subject: RE: To Dr. Haramein - Confirmations Dear Stephanie! Please find attached the pdf format of my critique on the Haramein-Rauscher plasma paper. pacificap@hotmail.com or omniphysics@cosmosdawn.net Posted Jan 3rd 2011 "good work, is good work ~ this work is beyond good" Love - Susan Posted Jan 3rd 2011 SusanLove; yes look at this excerpt from the above. You see the X is Phi; so this is not made explicitly stated in the technical critique. So this formalism actually shows HOW the PHI is connected to the Alpha of the physicists; the strings of higher D and the birth of the universe. What depicts what you were posting and presenting on the skype channel. So the technical lingo also represents your metaphysics - as the mainstream (albeit revolutionary there) science of material reductionisms. Tonyblue This pentagonal supersymmetry can be expressed in a number of ways, say in a one-to-one mapping of the Alpha finestructure constant as invariant X from the Euler Identity: X+Y=XY= -1=i^{2}=exp(iπ). One can write a Unification Polynomial: (1-X)(X)(1+X)(2+X)=1 or X^{4}+2X^{3}-X^{2}-2X+1=0 to find the coupling ratios: f(S)¦f(E)¦f(W)¦f(G)=#¦#^{3}¦#^{18}¦#^{54} from the proportionality #¦#^{3}¦{[(#^{3})^{2}]}^{3}¦({[(#^{3})^{2}]}^{3})^{3}=Cuberoot(Alpha):Alpha:Cuberoot(Omega):Omega. The Unification polynomial then sets the ratios in the inversion properties under modular duality: (1)[Strong short]¦(X)[Electromagnetic long]¦(X^{2})[Weak short]¦(X^{3})[Gravitational long] as 1¦X¦X^{2}¦X^{3} = (1-X)¦(X)¦(1+X)¦(2+X). Unity 1 maps as (1-X) transforming as f(S) in the equality (1-X)=X^{2}; X maps as invariant of f(E) in the equality (X)=(X); X^{2} maps as (1+X) transforming as f(W) in the equality (1+X)=1/X; and X^{3} maps as (2+X) transforming as f(G) in the equality (2+X)=1/X^{2}=1/(1-X). The mathematical pentagonal supersymmetry from the above then indicates the physicalised T-duality of M-theory in the principle of mirror-symmetry and which manifests in the reflection properties of the heterotic string classes HO(32) and HE(64), described further in the following. Defining f(S)=#=1/f(G) and f(E)=#^{2}.f(S) then describes a symmetry breaking between the 'strong S' f(S) interaction and the 'electromagnetic E' f(E) interaction under the unification couplings. This couples under modular duality to f(S).f(G)=1=#^{55} in a factor #^{-53}=f(S)/f(G)={f(S)}^{2} of the 'broken' symmetry between the longrange- and the shortrange interactions. SEWG=1=Strong-Electromagnetic-Weak-Gravitational as the unified supersymmetric identity then decouples in the manifestation of string-classes in the de Broglie 'matter wave' epoch termed inflation and preceding the Big Bang, the latter manifesting at Weyl-Time as a string-transformed Planck-Time as the heterotic HE(64) class. Post last edited Nov 26th 2012 Posted Aug 6th 2011 Interview with Nassim Haramein from Radio Serenidad on Vimeo. SUSANakaTHE13THBRIDGE - Posted 3 Hours Ago long time ago, you emailed Haramein some important stuff was this what it was about ??? Nassim Haramein has calculated a geometric solution for the gravitational field. In his latest paper "Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass" he describes gravity in a classical algebraic way by calculating the density of the space both within and on the outside of the event horizon of a proton. The seemingly "empty" vacuum of space is actually a nearly infinitely dense super-fluid medium made of tiny tiny tiny little frothing bubbles of energy. Sometimes called the "quantum foam", each of these miniscule vibrations represents a spherical wave form, or quanta, that is the diameter of the smallest possible measurable distance, the Planck length. Haramein calls these tiny spherical information bits Planck spherical units or PSUs. The PSUs on the interior of the proton's event horizon pack together in a perfectly space-filling overlapping 3D Flower of Life structure with each sphere's center being connected by a tetrahedral geometry lattice. The PSUs within the proton volume holographically project on the proton surface event horizon as "flat" equatorial circles in a flower of life tiling pattern. In this image, the first equation describes the ratio between the proton surface area and the surface Planck circles showing that the number of equatorial circles on the Proton surface equals 10↑40 (10 to the 40 or 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Planck length diameter circles) The second equation shows the number of Planck spherical units contained within the proton, which is 10↑60. In the third equation, the external surface horizon is divided by the internal volume and then multiplied by the Planck mass to give the total value of the proton mass. With a simple classical geometric calculation, Haramein obtains the mass of the proton according to the standard model, as measured from the outside, in the laboratory: 10↑-24 gm. Haramein then calculates the external Planck circles divided by the internal Planck spheres to obtain the gravitational mass of the proton, which equals 10↑14 which is the exact amount of mass needed for the proton to obey what is called the the Schwarzschild condition of a black hole. Protons are quantum scale black holes. Gravity is a ratio of volume to surface area. More info.: http://resonance.is/explore/quantum-gravity-and-the-holographic-mass-trailer-and-press-release/ The Resonance Project • The Resonance Project - Página Oficial Hispana • The Resonance Project - Traduction Française • Phys.org • Science • Physics-astronomy • Cosmos • Cosmometry • Physics Today •Thrive • ScienceAlert • ScienceAlert 中文 On first look, he fudged his numbers to obtain the codata proton mass Susan. 'The surface area of a proton and any subatomic 'particle' depends on the radius or 'size' of that particle. On the other hand, the Planck units are well defined as conglomerations of basic fundamental constants. And so using the 'correct' Planck-Volume and Planck-Mass, one can indeed calculate a correct Planck-Density. as r_{P}=M_{P}/L_{P}^{3} multiplied by a geometric factor, say 4p/3 for 3D or 2p^{2} for 4D space. I will calculate the proper value in this reply and publish them for you or anyone interested to peruse shortly. From the insert below, you can see, that the radius/size of a proton is NOT fixed as some definitive value as Nassim seems to believe. And as both the Surface Area and the Volume of any particle or matter agglomeration are defined as function of its Radius, Nassim's calculations are at best approximations for any proton, which is better described as a 'waved particle' or wavicle in a form of quantum geometrical flux. Diagrams in the insert illustrate this further. This then defines r_{proton}=1.3888...fm* = 1.38657...fm (Unit System International) and in the error interval of the Friar-Sick measurement as 1.394±0.016 fm in (1.378 - 1.410 fm) to 0.5%. The 2010 CODATA recommended value for the protonic charge radius is: proton: R_{p} = 0.8775(51)*10^{-15} m Nevertheless a 'mean or average' value for the size of a proton can be used to calculate the values Nassim Haramein is proposing in his latest 'quasi scientific' endeavour of his 'Holographic Proton'. From the treatise below' we use a particular averaged mean value for the protonic radius as 1.39x10^{-15} meters and restrict our calculations to 3 significant figures to minimise any more serious deviation from this empirical and ubiquitously confirmed measurement. My calculations can so be multiplied by a factor of 0.88/1.39=0.63 and 0.46 and 0.25 to align with the Haramein numbers for the 'unhaloed' proton he uses (in brackets). Nassim uses the proton size WITHOUT the halo in its so termed 'charge radius' and in his holographic proton, the omission of its halo could be said to omit about half of the 'effective interaction' of the proton as a discretized collection of Planck-Areas and Volumes; which also are inferred by him to 'Overlap' in the 'Flower of Life' geometry. Nassim so describes a rather smaller or shrunk proton in his proposals. In the calculus below, I am using the 'haloed proton' as described in the accompanying article from renowned researchers in the field of particle physics. Therefore my calculations actually 'improve' on the haramein model of the 'holographic proton', as it renders the proton bigger with a halo, then without one. The volume of a spherical 3D-proton then becomes: 4p/3x(1.39x10^{-15} m)^{3}=1.12x10^{-44} m^{3} and for a Surface Area of: 4p.(1.39x10^{-15} m)^{2}=2.43x10^{-29} m^{2} The volume of a spherical proton as ellipsoidal 4D (Riemann) hyperspace then becomes: 2p^{2}x(1.39x10^{-15} m)^{3}=5.30x10^{-44} m^{3} and for a Surface Area of: 6p^{2}.(1.39x10^{-15} m)^{2}= 1.14x10^{-28} m^{2} The corresponding Planck-Volumes and Planck-Areas are: V_{P}=4p/3x√{Gh/2pc^{3}}^{3}=1.75x10^{-104} m^{3} with A_{P}=4px√{Gh/2pc^{3}}^{2}=3.26x10^{-69} m^{2} and V_{P}=2p^{2}√{Gh/2pc^{3}}^{3}=8.24x10^{-104} m^{3} with A_{P}=6p^{2}√{Gh/2pc^{3}}^{2}=1.53x10^{-68} m^{2} respectively and for a L_{P}=1.61x10^{-35} m (Codata values). Nassims ratios so calculate in Codata values: η=A_{proton}/A_{P}={2.43x10^{-29}}/{3.26x10^{-69}}=7.45x10^{39} (3.43x10^{39}) ~ 10^{40} and R=V_{proton}/V_{P}={1.12x10^{-44}}/{1.75x10^{-104}}=6.40x10^{59} (1.6x10^{59}) ~ 10^{60} for both the 3D case and for the 4D case, as the volume multipliers cancel themselves out. Both of those codata recalculated values so indeed are approximated by Nassim's ratios η=10^{40} and R=10^{60}, but any competent college student would have derived those same numbers on a 'back of the envelope' calculation. Now the Planck-Mass is particularly defined by fundamental constants and as the formula: m_{P}=√{hc/2pG}=2.18x10^{-8} kg. The actual Planck-density is: ρ_{P}=m_{P}/L_{P}^{3}=√(hc/2πG)(2πc^{3}/Gh)^{3}=]=2πc^{5}/hG^{2}=5.17x10^{96} kg/m^{3} using a 'cubic volume' for the Planck Length. It is because of this huge density and compared to the actual matter density in the universe (including the 'dark energy') of 3H_{o}^{2}/8pG~8.8x10^{-27} kg/m^{3}; that a 96+27=123 order of magnitude discrepancy exists between the quantum physics of the vacuum and the matter containing universe. Nassim's Proton mass calculation then is: 2η.m_{P}/R = 2(7.45x10^{39})x{2.18x10^{-8}kg}/6.40x10^{59}=5.08x10^{-28} kg and deviating from the Codata proton mass not by some miniscule amount, but by {(16.7-5.08)x10^{-28}/1.67x10^{-27}}=0.70 and so by 30%. The informed observer, then can see, why Nassim did not use actual Codata values for his density-radius formulations, but PRESUMED those to be in some manner exact or 'fluid' as 10^{40} and 10^{60} respectively. One can easily manipulate those 'approximated' numbers to then calculate a precise codata value. And so my first 'suspicion proves correct Susan. Nassim used the Codata value of the proton's mass to then simply and unjustifiably IMPLY, that the numbers 10^{40} and 10^{60} would 'self adjust' to yield the Codata value for its mass. This kind of approach is scientifically dishonest at best and a blatant agenda to support his nabs related quasi science at its misdemeanour. Here is an example of what he did: Write: 2η.m_{P}/R = 1.6714213x10^{-27} kg for 2η/R={1.6714213x10^{-27} kg /2.18x10^{-8}kg }=7.667...[some arbitrary decimal point aligned to the Planck Mass as defined]...x10^{-20}. Then the requirement for the equation to hold becomes: 2η/R=7.667......x10^{-20}. This condition IS in fact satisfied, should: η/R=3.83x10^{-20} OR R/η=2.61x10^{19} ~ 10^{60}/10^{40}=10^{20} I am afraid no one will be able to actually 'find' an exact calculation of this 'Haramein Equation' and why for instance he introduced an 'unnecessary factor of 2' to adjust the proton mass as validated by experiment to his Planck scale parameters and parameters which are correct from an elementary physics perspective. One could infer that as Nassim takes the Planck-Length as a Diameter L_{P}=D=2l_{P }(say), that his discrete Planck-Area count 4pl_{P}^{2} = pL_{P}^{2} in some manner only beknown to him introduces the factor of 2 (it should be 4 in the detail just stated). Generally, it can be ascertained, that Nassim likes to use the references of validated scientific research, such as can be read in his paper's introduction, mentioning the Schwarzschild metric and the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy and Black Hole Bounds and parameters. Following the introduction and utility of the well established physical principles, he however often deviates into his particular ideas of what the universe should be like; often denouncing those principles as 'wrong' or incomplete and notwithstanding the verified models he espoused in his introduction. Perhaps there is a particular evolvement of nabs science on the island of Hawaii. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...potential-new-source-of-energy-206531571.html 'Contributions' from naïve and gullible nabsers would certainly help well meaning, but underinformed quasi scientific model builders to propagate their somewhat nebulous purposes and agendas.

Large proton halo sparks devilish row ◦23 September 2010 by Kate McAlpine ◦Magazine issue 2779. New Scientist IN CHRISTIAN art, a halo symbolises holiness. In particle physics, a ring of positive charge around the proton has become the focus of a devilish row. The dispute concerns an attempt to square a recent suggestion that the radius of the proton is smaller than we thought with the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), which has successfully explained quantum phenomena since the 1940s. A proton's radius cannot be measured directly, but has to be deduced by measuring the energies of different electron "shells" in a hydrogen atom. Through QED, these energies combine with a model of how the proton's charge is distributed to give the proton's radius. The smaller value for the proton radius came from measurements of an exotic form of hydrogen that contains a heavy type of electron known as a muon. This was expected merely to add precision to previous measurements based on ordinary hydrogen. Instead, the muonic measurements suggested a radius that was a whopping 4 per cent smaller (New Scientist, 10 July, p 10). That could signify a problem either with the muonic measurement or with QED, neither of which seems particularly likely. Now Alvaro De Rújula of the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain, has another solution: changing our model of how the proton's positive charge is distributed. About 75 per cent of this charge is concentrated in a central core, the edge of which is considered the edge of the proton proper. Although the other quarter of the proton's charge lies outside this (see diagram), the charge distribution in the "halo" is still key to finding the proton radius. So De Rújula decided to explore whether varying the charge distribution in the halo could bring the old and new calculations for the proton's radius into agreement - and remove the conflict with QED. He found that it can, if the halo band extends 4.7 times as far as previously thought. He concludes that this is the proton's true structure (Physics Letters B, DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2010.08.074). The proposal has been contentious since De Rújula first posted it to the arxiv preprint server on 23 August. Chief among the sceptics are Gerald A. Millerand Ian Cloët of the University of Washington in Seattle, who posted a rebuttal just two days later. "De Rújula's explanation is simply off the wall," says Miller. "It is as if the amount of water in a thimble were spread out into the volume of a swimming pool". This is an exaggeration, counters De Rújula, "unless the thimble covers a whale's face". Miller concedes that a thimble and a pint glass is a fairer analogy. Even so, he and Cloët have calculated that a proton with a charge that extends as far as De Rújula suggests is not compatible with experiments looking at the extent to which electrons are deflected towards protons at different distances De Rújula says the matter could be resolved with new electron-proton collision experiments or fresh analysis of existing data. He is convinced that, somehow, "QED will be vindicated". Commentary by Tonyblue: The above information relates to the Unification template of the wavequarkian Proton Structure as described below in the technical critique of the proton charge halo. The mechanistic quark-gluon model of the Standard Model, in which gluon 'springs' join and couple to billard ball like quarks has been untenable in unification physics for decades, but this has not been 'shared' with the populus of the scientific aware readership, such as the science programs on mainstream television. The proton is a wave-particular dyad aka a wavicle, which is consciousness coupled to its environment via its internal Coulombic charge distribution of the mesonic Inner Ring of negative -1 electrocharge and its kernelled core of +2 positive electrocharge. The wavefunction of the proton so quantum entangles with its surroundings under Coulombic electrocharge interaction defined in the electroweak gauge unification of the protonic quantum geometry. Additionally, the magnetocharge coupling from the higher dimensional string couplings allow the lower dimensional electromagnetic interactions through and by agency of the mass-inertia manifestation, to realise this space-inherent waveprotonic consciousness in the measured realism of a matter based realism of experiences. The 2010 Rujula paper is here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.3861v3.pdf and is being challenged by a 2010 Cloët -Miller paper as to its theoretical and experimental feasibility, found here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1008/1008.4345v3.pdf. In particular Miller and Cloët claim, that the protonic halo will attain its say mean boundary value at < p_{proton}>^{3}= 2.71±0.13 fm^{3} for r_{proton}~1.394 fm (1.37-1.41 fm) and as experimentally measured by Friar and Sick via electron-proton scattering phenomena. This value is confirmed as the protonic radius in Quantum Relativity; being precisely half of the Classical Electrodynamic Electron Radius: R_{electron}=ke^{2}/m_{e}c^{2} = R_{compton}.alpha = h.alpha/2πm_{e}c=(2π/360)r_{wormhole}.10^{10} by the magnetic permeability finestructure of Maxwell's Constant in: μ_{o}=1/ε_{o}c^{2} = (8π/360)(Ne*/R_{e}) for Magnetocharge counter Ne*=2700e*/c^{3} = l_{planck}2700√(alpha)/[ec] from the Grand Unification of the Planck Length Oscillation (as a Minimum Displacement Parameter) in the String Epoch BEFORE the so called Quantum Big Bang (in Stoney Units) of: e/c^{2}=l_{planck}√alpha and mapping electrocharge e in lower dimensional spacetime from the higher dimensional spacetime in: Electron-DiameterxEnergy/Mass (or c^{2}) = 2R_{e}.c^{2}= e* ↔ e = l_{planck}√alpha.c^{2} = Planck-Length-OscillationxEnergy/Mass (or c^{2}) onto the Planck-Length Oscillation in the higher dimensional spacetime, say 3D ↔ 12D. This also defines a finestructure of Planck's Constant in: h=2πE_{ps}r_{wormhole}/c=2πr_{wormhole}/e*c=1/e*f_{wormhole} for E_{ps} = 1/e* = 1/hf_{ps} = 2πr_{wormhole}/hc R_{electron}=2.7777..fm* or recalibrated via [m=0.9983318783m*; s=0.9990230094s; kg=0.99626135kg*; C=0.997296076C*] to 2.773144.. fm (SI) for an electrodynamic electron mass of m_{e}=h.alpha/2πc R_{electron}= 9.29053x10^{-31} kg* = 9.255793..x10^{-31}kg (SI) differing from the CODATA value of m_{e}=h.alpha/2πc r_{electron}= 9.29053x10^{-31} kg by (9.255793..-9.1093826)/9.1093826=0.01607. Increasing the classical electron mass by 1.6% so reduces the classical electron radius by this amount (2.817940..fm to 2.77314.. fm) and as the classical electron radius of QED is twice the classical proton radius in the wavequarkian oscillation potential; the latter is reduced by 2x1.6%=3.2% and in tune with the muon-heavy hydrogen measurements pointing to the diminishing protonic core radius. This then defines r_{proton}=1.3888...fm* = 1.38657...fm (Unit System International) and in the error interval of the Friar-Sick measurement as 1.394±0.016 fm in (1.378 - 1.410 fm) to 0.5%. Subsequently; the 'sensational' measurement of a proton radius too small by about 4% confirms and substantiates the Classical Electron definition as postulated by Quantum Relativity and with an Effective Classical Electron mass m_{e}= 9.29053x10^{-31}kg rendered Relativistic as m_{eeffective}= 9.29053x10^{-31}kg in a relativistic inertia increase of m_{eeffetive}/m_{e}= 1/√(1-[v/c]^{2}) and so for an effective electron base speed v_{eeffective}=√( 1-[m_{e}/m_{effective}]^{2})=√0.0314=0.177..c through an electric potential of (m_{eeffetive}-m_{e} )c^{2} /e=8.20 keV*. The Solution to the 'misbehaviour' of the classical QED proton is found in the quarkian quantum geometry. As can be ascertained from the below excerpt of the brane physics in Quantum Relativity and the following verification of Gerald Miller's experiments on the charge distribution in Neutrons; the proton's udu quark content is determined not in a mechanistic springy gluon model, but by the concentric kernel-ring structure of those wavequarkian constituents of the nucleons. Then the udu waveproton is directionally symmetric about a magnetoaxis, which determines the wavefunctions for the overall proton to reattain spherical symmetry, albeit in a template pertaining to a so labeled Higgsian inertia induction (HBRMI=Higgs Bosonic RestMass Induction). This HBRMI envelops all inertia carriers as a universal mass induction blueprint, which became however manifest at the Goldstone Boson time marker for the electroweak unification at TEW=3.4x10^{15} Kelvin, so 1/365 seconds following the time instanton at 3.33x10^{-31}seconds and at the Higgsian Vacuum Expectation value of so H=298 GeV, being the mass summation of the lower wavequarkian selfstates for the kernel-ring wavequarkian coupling eigenstates: H=(W^{+}+W^{-}+Z^{o}+lower order terms) and with diquark summations: W=Σm_{ij}=(mOR-IR+mIR-K+mK=u+mKIR=u*=d+mKOR=d*=s+muu=U+mud=b + mus=m+mdd=D) =Lepton-MesonRingVPE+Ring-KernelVPE+BaseQuark/Up+Pion/Down +Kaon/Strange+JPsi/Charm+Upsilon/Beauty+Epsilon/Magic+Omicron/Dainty =(14.11+46.10+150.56+491.73+1606.04+5245.50+17132.33+55956.00)MeV*=80.642 GeV*=80.481 GeV (SI) Z=½mds=t=Kappa/Truth=½(182.758)GeV*=91.38 GeV*=91.20 GeV (SI) H=½mss=S=½(596.907)GeV*=298.45 GeV*=297.86 GeV (SI) H=2W+Z+(δ=mIR-K)=(160.96+91.38+46.10)GeV=298.44 GeV The Singlet is the Charm; the Doublet is the Beauty+Magic and the Triplet becomes the Dainty+Truth+Super quarkwavian groundstates centred on the Charm, the Beauty/Bottom and the Truth/Top. The udu wavequark proton so finestructures a (+2/3+[+2/3-1]+2/3=+1) Coulombic charge distribution about a centralised protonic oscillation axis orthogonal to the colour-gluon charge aligning magnetoaxis as shown in the following scan. The Rujula result then simply indicates the 'oscillatory' potential of the kernel-hugging Mesonic Ring as the 25% component of the 'Kerneled' Downquark at the centre. The Mesonic Ring or KIR so defines an energy barrier at a scale of about 0.001 fm (10-18 meters) and where the inner proton exhibits its negative electric charge as the summation of 3(-1/3)=-1 partial electron charges. The Mesonic Inner Ring so mirrors the overall +2e Kernel charge of the proton across this boundary of -e Ring charge as the 'Halo of the Proton'. This has the same effect as one quasielectron charge of -e/3 so encompassing as the Down Quark net charge the +4e/3 doubled net charge for two Up Quarks and results in a 25%-75% net positice electric charge distribution for the proton with the 25% being located outside the wavequarkian boundary of the Mesonic Ring and the 75% inside this divide. {Quasiparticular Electrons, Bart van Wees in 1987/University of Delft; Xiao Gang-Wen in 1989/MIT; Vladimir Goldman 1992/Stoney Brook leading to the Physics Nobelprize 1998 for Robert B. Laughlin (U.S.), Horst L. Störmer (Germany), and Daniel C. Tsui (U.S.), “for their discovery of a new form of quantum fluid with fractionally charged excitations.”}. This is also observed for the neutron's dud central symmetry about the magnetoaxis by Gerald Millier in his linked paper following. This linked http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2409v3.pdf paper is by Gerald A. Miller, a renown physicist from Washington University and is descriptive as to research of how the quark charges are distributed within the nucleons. The paper was published in November 2007 and led to a reformulation of the original model by Enrico Fermi as to the internal charge distribution of the neutron in terms of its down-up-down quark constituents. Fermi's model became standard in the particle physics community and envisaged a neutron containing a central positive core and a negatively charged 'skin'. This is like a negatively charged pion cloud surrounding a protonic core within the neutron; albeit rendering the neutron overall as electrically neutral. The interacting neutron physics is well understood to require a negatively charged 'envelope' to accomodate the spectras of nuclear physics. Miller found that the neutron's central core is negatively charged, as is its long-range 'envelope', with the positive charge 'sandwiched' in between. This discovery so induces a reinterpretation of the Fermi model for the neutron. Miller's neutron does however support the quantum geometry of Quantum Relativity with its substitution of the down-quark as a partition of a up-quark kernel surrounded by a Mesonic Inner Ring (MIR); the latter carrying integral negative charge for the d-quark's core+ring=+2/3-1=-1/3 overall fractional charge content. As described previously, the Higgs Inertia Induction occurs at the MIR at so 2.76x10^{-18} meters or at an energy level of 71 GeV. This is about one thousandth of the nuclear interaction distance of 3 fermi. As the trisected Higgs template is the same size as the Higgs Boson template and coincides with the classical electron radius and also the interaction scale of the strange quarks and the charged weakons (as the Leptonic Outer Ring or LOR); the actual interaction scale for the individual quarks should be about a third of this template in about 1 fermi. The innermost kernel is neutrinoic-gluonic, that is it is uncharged with a lower boundary of the MIR and an upper boundary of the LOR. So Quantum Relativity also predicts that the innermost region of the nucleon will be uncharged and closely 'hugged' by a negative charge distribution at the MIR. The MIR allows oscillation to the LOR, which in matter is also negatively charged as the down-strange oscillation. The up-quark charges so always sum to a +2 charge for any up-dow-strange configuration whatsoever, as both the down-quark and the strange-quark carry a up-quark partitioning within their rings. So there must be a positive quark charge flux between the MIR and the LOR and this is interpreted as a longrange positive pion flux by Miller in terms of the proton with its single down quark or unitary MIR. In terms of quantum geometry one can say, that the MIR curves inwards in a concave topological surface charge distribution and that the LOR curves outwards in convexity. So the neutron will also carry a negatively convex charge distribution as its 'skin', being the second down quark in its oscillatory potential of transforming into a strange quark in its radioactive beta decay pattern. The positive pion flux of the concave proton so becomes interpreted as a negative pion flux for the neutron in the transversion of the MIR scale to the LOR scale. Another experimental result of Miller's research was the dominance of the central up-quark charge distribution over the central down-quark. If one ignores the quarkian substructure, then one might expect similar behaviour; but knowing that the elementary quark differentiation is between unitary rings and fractional kernels; one would propose a dominance of the up-quark in the center and a dominance of the down-quark at the perimeter due to the quantum geometric alignments along say a magnetoaxis which changes the nucleon's sphericity into say a catenoidal surface topology. Miller found a up-down ratio of 1.75:1=7/4~5/3, which indicates that the trisected ring charges in terms of gluonic colourcharges add to the kerneled colourcharge as a fractional 5/3 colourcharge near the center of a nucleon, where the colour interaction is enhanced by the attraction of Coulomb charges between oppositely charged kernel and rings. Further away from the centre, the 'virtual' pion-flux intervenes and the maximum attraction of the MIR scale is diminished in the approaching LOR scale and the ring quarks dominate in their leptonness. This also allows the diquark structure of colour charges to dominate the electromagnetic interaction in its strongness. The work of Gerald Miller so has shown pertinent evidence for the quantum geometry as theorized in Quantum Relativity. Tonyblue This is a previously shared essay analysis on subatomic physics news from shiloh and fills in some gaps in the Higgs Quantum Geometry. In Lakech in Allisiam shiloh • 33 minutes ago A detailed extension of the Haramein critique from Bob-A-Thon http://www.cosmosdawn.net/foru... shiloh • 35 minutes ago http://www.themistsofavalon.ne... https://disqus.com/by/disqus_FJ7AL25ovk/?utm_campaign=eb8f86ea-d5c0-11e4-9a45-002590f3062a&utm_content=btn&utm_source=note https://disqus.com/home/discussion/disinfo/nassim_haramein_fraud_or_sage/#comment-1933993321 https://disqus.com/home/discussion/disinfo/nassim_haramein_fraud_or_sage/#comment-1933995577

My Posts Posts: 1114 Jorgelito - Posted Aug 21st Re Proton Halo Shiloh, is a proton halo something like a people halo? You can't see it all the time but you know it's there (if you don't look too closely). I wonder if everything has a halo? Post last edited Aug 21st