- Education and Science
Nassim-Haramein's Hollow Fractalgraphic Universe and Quantum Magic
Recently a friend made this comment prompting a conversation about Nassim Haramein:
“For the mathematically gifted that might be interested in reviewing and commenting on this recent paper by Nassim Haramein ... “
The Electron and the Holographic Mass Solution
Nassim Haramein & Amira K. F.Val Baker
I take exception to being placed in a category of mathematically gifted.
No offense to those who are, but math has no relevance in explaining any of the nonsense that Hairabrain spills all over the internet.
Nine year old Nassim began to understand the relationships between the macro and micro worlds and from that developed his holofractagraphic Universe ideas for a Grand Unified Theory of everything,
The holofractographic universe hypothesis says that the universe is a 3D holographic fractal going infinitely both ways. Our observable universe is the inside of a big black hole, which is itself inside a big white hole. He originally relied heavily on Karl Schwartschild’s solution to the Einstein field equations and combined classical physics and Quantum Mechanics (QM).
The claims that Einstein's field equations predict black holes is clearly not so as attested to by Karl Schwarzschild himself, in Mr. Schwarzschild's paper entitled “On the Gravitational Field of A Mass Point According to Einstein's Theory,” and confirmed by Leonard Abrams' paper “Black Holes: The Legacy of Error.” Mr. Crothers has adequately covered this in multiple papers. So for those interested in the mathemagics, there is no better source than The Taz’s papers on VIXRA.
However, we can solve this conceptually without any math whatsoever. When Hairamein builds on Quantum Magic’s point particles, and quantum vacuum energy he inevitably makes nonsensical statements like this:
“The standard mass of the electron is therefore generally calculated from the definition of the Rydberg constant for an atom with nucleus of infinite mass…”
What need have we for math? Clearly an atom with an infinite mass is impossible, yet Hairabrain claims the equation that predicts this is magnitudes less precise than his own holographic derivation. We can raise the level of precision all that we want and all we end up is more precise nonsense! If mass is an amount of matter, an infinite amount of matter in any one atom would leave no room for any other atom to exist. The Holofractograhic universe would be made of one infinite block of matter with no motion possible.
Clearly, Nassim clings to the undefined or unscientifically defined terms of QM: mass and energy. Useless terms for purposes of understanding anything!
There's lots more to discuss, but founding a GUT on holography is doomed from the start.
In science in general, and physics in particular we are only interested in objects and their phenomena.
What is a holographic image? HINT: It ain't no object! The material exists, the image is a phenomena requiring the material and a "light field."
What I read was that his equations are magnitudes more precise, but saying the same thing. AND the same thing is bunk! So holofractographic U must be magnitudes more bunk!
Math doesn't really have much difficulty describing or measuring. It just can't explain anything.
F=ma describes an apple falling very well, thank you. What the physical mechanism (s) involved is not / are not even addressed.
Newton understood this full well:
“It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro’ a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it.” – Newton.
Listen to Rational Scientist David Robison:
Mass is one of the two favorite strategic terms of the Religion of Modern Physics, the other one being "energy," which are never defined consistently. This allows the proponent to play loose and fast with these key terms in order to convince the jury with "evidence" without having to provide a rational hypothesis or theory which can possibly explain that evidence.
Like all measurable quantities in mathematical physics, mass is a term that relates a bare minimum of two objects. An object cannot "have" mass all on its own, the only intrinsic quality of an object is shape, and I argue this because it's the only definition for the strategic term "object" which can be used consistently throughout a scientific dissertation.
In fact, they ALWAYS implicitly make use of this definition. Where would their "explanations" be without all of their illustrations and descriptions of behavior like, "warp," "bend," "expand," "stretch," "vibrate," "excitation," etc.?
The whole thing is founded on the fallacy of reification. They ALWAYS treat abstract mathematical concepts as if they are objects with shape, when in fact there are NO objects in Modern Physics.
In the famous example I'm sure you've seen many times, Einstein's "warped spacetime" is used to "explain" gravity with General Relativity. It's illustrated with the gravity well, a round bowl-like formation around the Sun as the "fabric of spacetime" which "warps" due to the presence of the Sun's "mass." The Earth then is conceived to roll along this "curved spacetime" object like a coin along a wishing well. Yet the illustration is not meant to be taken literally. There isn't actually a giant bowl out there around the Sun.
But if that's not the shape of the object, and you take away the warped spacetime gravity well, then what is pushing on the Earth to keep it in orbit? Their explanation relies on claiming that someTHING is "pushing" on the Earth, yet when you take away the object, there goes your explanation. It's no longer possible to conceive of the meaning of "push" since there's no physical context, i.e., an object pushing another one. What keeps the Earth in orbit? They have no object capable of mediating gravitational attraction between the Earth and Sun.
All of their "explanations" do this. Under the Standard Model, all elementary particles have no size or shape. Yet they illustrate them as little beads of matter. Well, clearly those have shape. So again we can't take any of the illustrations literally. They're figurative illustrations of abstract mathematical concepts which have no physical meaning whatsoever. But these illustrations give the impression that there's some kind of physical explanation there when there's not. It's all smoke and mirrors.
There's no object called "mass." What they do, oftentimes, is measure the resistance of an object to motion, and then calculate mass as a magnitude. The number is a relation between the resistance of the object measured and the resistance of the object representing the base unit, which is the kilogram. "This has ten times more resistance than this kilogram object." 10 kg. Or "it presses into the scale ten times harder than the kilogram." 10 kg.
What ends up happening then is they start treating "mass" as if it's some kind of "thing" "contained" in an object. It's a classic example of reification, treating a relational concept like mass as if it's an object, or something which can be "possessed" by an object. But what exactly does the kilogram "possess?" What is it holding onto?
They do this all over place especially in the Standard Model. All the elementary particles have "mass," "charge," "spin," etc. They're supposed to be inherent qualities of shapeless math abstractions somehow, that way they can "explain" the different behaviors of the different "particles" without having to physically justify them with a theory.
A favorite expression of General Relativity is to say "spacetime ITSELF warps." Again, they're just trying to pass off this irrational idea as if it's somehow a property of the object ITSELF, and that's why we can't visualize it.
In the paper he talks about black holes. Black holes also rely on this notion of "warped spacetime" and are thus abstract mathematical concepts which no physical meaning. They also have a "singularity," which, depending on who you ask, is basically the same thing as a zero dimensional particle. It's two irrational notions morphed into one.
A "black hole" cannot be conceived to have any kind of physical surface, much less a surface area.
"This confirmed the long suspected assumption that black holes have the maximum entropy for a given mass and size"
Sometimes they say the "singularity" is 0D, other times they say it's just a really dense ball of atoms. Clarifying these crucial issues is not important in the religion of mathematical physics. So what exactly does "size" refer to? The size of the dense ball of atoms? The radius of the "event horizon" which is just some more warped spacetime stuff?
"defines the holographic bit of information as the oscillating Planck spherical unit"
A holographic bit of information? Are these people on crack haha? A "bit of information" isn't an object, it has no shape or boundary. It has no surface, no size.
"PSU = 4/3*pi*r^3"
So, the equation for the volume of a sphere with the radius being half the Planck length. Volume isn't an object. A cube and a pyramid can have the same measured volume but they have different shapes. The "volume of a sphere" isn't an object, a spherical object is an object. They're result for volume is just a number with units which relates how many base units can fit inside the object. And they have yet to tell us what the relevant objects are.
"These PSUs, or Planck voxels, tile along the area of a spherical surface horizon, producing a holographic relationship with the interior information mass-energy density."
Tile along? What's tiling what? I can lay tiles. I lay tiles (objects) on a floor (object). Not sure of the physical meaning of laying abstract math concepts onto an abstract math concept.
Anyways, continuing on to the electron...
First they need to define what they mean by "mass."
For example, physicists claim that a "top quark" is about as "heavy" as an atom of gold...which itself contains "top quarks."
What can that possibly mean?
Even if we take an electron to be a bead of matter, a particle, and not a 0D abstraction, then what does it mean for it to "have mass?" What is it holding onto? How does this relate to its behavior? If this is a measure of "how much" gravitational attraction it experiences, or "how much" it resists motion, then we're talking about a measured magnitude which necessarily relates the electron to other objects. It's not an intrinsic quality, and if they're saying it is, then they have no physical explanation for how this "mass" generates gravitational attraction or resistance to motion.
Under the Rope Hypothesis*, an electron shell is a ball of yarn comprised of gazillions of threads originating in the ropes converging on an atom. For a single Hydrogen atom one thread from each rope breaks off, wraps around the atom, and then departs along another rope. That's the E shell. The other thread from each rope penetrates to the center to form the proton dandelion, also comprised of gazillions of threads. I'll include a simplified illustration of a cross section of a Hydrogen atom for clarity here.
The E shell doesn't have mass. At most you could say "mass" refers to the count of Hydrogen atoms in an object, which is effectively what they're expressing in Newton's Law of Gravitation with the M1 x M2 term, only it's in kg units rather than a straight count. Multiplying the number of atoms, as in M1 and M2, will return the number of interconnecting ropes between two objects (expressed in kg^2), which is directly proportional to gravitational strength because gravity is the aggregate tension on all of the effective ropes binding two objects.
The E shell doesn't have a "count of Hydrogen atoms" because it's part of a Hydrogen atom, it's a subatomic object. So no mass.
The mathematicians use "mass" as a measured magnitude because it's useful for calculating gravitational strength as well as inertial resistance to motion. The two are related because the product of the count of Hydrogen atoms in two objects, i.e., the number of interconnecting ropes, will be directly proportional to the aggregate tension between two objects (gravity) as well as the aggregate tension between an object and the rest of the matter in the Universe not aligned with our chosen system (inertial resistance to motion, also known as Mach's Principle).
What the mathematicians calculate, with grav mass and inertial mass, are related because both have to do with the number of atoms in an object. I'm attracted to the Earth because I'm connected to it, I resist being pushed because I'm connected to all the other atoms in the Universe. If I "gain weight" I have more atoms, more rope connections, and thus more gravity and inertial resistance.
If you take away all the other objects, and are left with a single H atom, you can't even illustrate it because it's supposed to be a convergence of ropes from all other H atoms. No converging ropes, no atom. But ignoring that for a moment, the lonely H atom doesn't experience gravity and it has no inertial resistance to motion because these phenomena necessarily require a bare minimum of two objects, i.e., two H atoms. The lonely H atom has no way of generating gravity or resistance to motion. It can't even be conceived to move because there's nothing else for it to move in relation to.
So in what sense can an electron have mass? They're calculations don't mean anything until they can illustrate the objects of their hypothesis, at least in simplified form, and define "mass" such that it can be used consistently.
Otherwise it's just more meaningless math mumbo jumbo.
*Rope Hypothesis: See Bill Gaede's Rope Hypothesis