Jump to content

NLC-Banner.thumb.jpg.acb5ba835b9e8bf0718b90539633017d.jpg

A conversation between friends


Recommended Posts

I have had a long standing conversation with a close friend, mostly based around the existance/birth of our universe. He recently sent me an idea by a guy called Nassim Haramein.

I cannot do the mathematical stuff but it is the idea that we can derive the mass of the universe from calculating the volume and surface of a proton, using the Planck Oscillation Number.

No need for Dark matter or energy and the quote is it calculates ‘The density of the vacuum on a universal scale’.

Can’t work out if it is just internet nonsense or there is something in it.

Marv

Edited by Marvin Jenkins
Hit send half way through typing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Marvin Jenkins changed the title to A conversation between friends
16 minutes ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

we can derive the mass of the universe from calculating the volume and surface of a proton

You can't tell how big the ocean is by measuring one drop of water. I generally don't trust science on this level. Much of it is just things they make up........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Rallemikken said:

You can't tell how big the ocean is by measuring one drop of water. I generally don't trust science on this level. Much of it is just things they make up........

I am not sure what to think but I am sure if you had a standard for a drop of water it would be possible to work out the volume of an ocean. I am sure I have seen quotes for the water volume of the Jezero Crater on Mars, plus the amount of water that flowed over that huge falls on Mars

I wanted to know if this sort of ‘science’ which seems to to have some following whatever that means has a base in science. The guy Nassim seems to have an understanding of physics beyond me (which isn’t hard).

Just want to know if this is a genuine line of thought using mathematics or some  internet based self styled hero. I have no idea, and the equations baffle me.

Any ideas anyone, especially those that can try to explain how it ‘might work’

Marv

Edited by Marvin Jenkins
Spell check. Jezero was changed to Jezebel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, andrew s said:

It's certainly not main stream as the link @vlaiv shows.  The key is he has no publications in serious peer reviewed journals. 

Regards Andrew 

That was also my own concern. My friend said “He has written papers that have all been peer reviewed” which seems to mean in this day and age lots of likes on YouTube.

Marv

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never know, a hundred years from now he maybe proved right. 
what I would like to know is whether the mathematics stands up to scrutiny?

Mathematics being the language of science I would like to know if what he is saying stands up as a mathematical model?

Marv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

You never know, a hundred years from now he maybe proved right. 
what I would like to know is whether the mathematics stands up to scrutiny?

Mathematics being the language of science I would like to know if what he is saying stands up as a mathematical model?

Marv

I'm not so concerned about mathematics side of things - but rather does it have experimental backing.

You can make all sorts of consistent mathematical models, question is - are they describing reality and how to check that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have doubts about the concept of 'the volume of a proton' even being a sensible idea.  Given the scale you are working on is very very much quantum it's likely that the act of measuring it would impart energy into the system which would affect the result.  I'd also imagine that the shape of it is defined by a wave function so the exact shape and therefore volume would be determined by the energy level of the proton or its constituents.

I always get skeptical about things which involve single quantum particles.  You can't do anything with a single quantum particle as you need at least one other particle to interact with it to 'observe' it.  I strongly suspect that even if the maths allowed for a single proton to exist, it would be a mathematical artifact rather than a real thing since without being able to observe the single proton you can't prove it exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there has been a lot of published work on the experimental measurement of the proton radius, because two different ways of doing the measurements came up with two slightly different values. 

So I think it makes sense that a proton has a volume, and surface area, but can't see how knowing this helps determine the size of the universe.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, iantaylor2uk said:

I think there has been a lot of published work on the experimental measurement of the proton radius, because two different ways of doing the measurements came up with two slightly different values. 

So I think it makes sense that a proton has a volume, and surface area, but can't see how knowing this helps determine the size of the universe.

I'm not really sure proton has a volume and surface area as such.

When we talk about radius of a proton we talk about charge radius, to quote from wiki:

Quote

The problem of defining a radius for an atomic nucleus (proton) is similar to the problem of atomic radius, in that neither atoms nor their nuclei have definite boundaries. However, the nucleus can be modeled as a sphere of positive charge for the interpretation of electron scattering experiments: because there is no definite boundary to the nucleus, the electrons "see" a range of cross-sections, for which a mean can be taken. The qualification of "rms" (for "root mean square") arises because it is the nuclear cross-section, proportional to the square of the radius, which is determining for electron scattering.

At best we can say that proton is a "fuzz ball" of volume without clearly defined boundary and in that case surface does not really have sensible meaning.

Maybe this video on proton structure can explain it better why there are fundamental problems with assigning volume and surface:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are particles which as far as we know are point-like, such as the electron. For composite particles, like the proton, they are not point-like, so by definition they have a volume. The value may depend on how exactly you define volume. From a mathematical point of view, if something has a volume then it must also have a surface area. Again the value depends on your definition and how it is measured. I think most people would agree that Britain's coastline has a certain length, but may not realise that its value increases as the size of the measuring stick decreases.

Edited by iantaylor2uk
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, iantaylor2uk said:

From a mathematical point of view, if something has a volume then it must also have a surface area.

Not quite so :D

Fractal sets are known for the fact that they have "volume" but don't have "surface" (well defined one) -  or rather that "surface" is infinite in size.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A fractal's "size" (perimeter, area, volume) may continually increase with decreasing measuring unit, and yet still coverge to a finite limit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_snowflake#Limit_of_perimeter

 

And you don't even need to consider fractals to get counter-intuitive dimensional properties:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel's_horn

 

Though I don't think either is applicable to the proton volume. I think that is just a subjective call as to where you draw a boundary, informed by the charge density profiles coming from scattering experiments.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

You never know, a hundred years from now he maybe proved right. 
what I would like to know is whether the mathematics stands up to scrutiny?

Mathematics being the language of science I would like to know if what he is saying stands up as a mathematical model?

Marv

I doubt anyone on here would put in the effort to know one way or another.

One simple question would be why a proton?  Such particles only form late in the process as the temperature of the Universe cools so given they did not exist initially why should they be singled out for this miracle.

Regards Andrew 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, andrew s said:

One simple question would be why a proton?  Such particles only form late in the process as the temperature of the Universe cools so given they did not exist initially why should they be singled out for this miracle.

Yes indeed, why? And why not a neutron or a positive pion or any of a whole zoo full of composite particles?

Even though an electron appears to have no substructure, it still has a meaningful radius --- the so-called classical radius. It has another meaningful radius too: the Bohr radius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

This is what my friend sent me

I really can't follow the math in there as it makes no sense to me. Take any combination of written numbers and try to get 0.265.

By the way - that was the old value, new refined value is in fact 0.2589±0.0057

In fact - try to match any of written numbers to one of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model#Parameters

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gfamily said:

The area of the Koch snowflake converges to a finite value, but the limit of the perimeter is infinite.

Ah, apologies, I meant to link to the whole article rather than the perimeter section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did some digging and this is what I've found:

Original paper:

https://www.torustech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Resolving_the_Vacuum_Catastrophe.pdf

Published with Scientific Research Publishing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

which is itself:

Quote

Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is a predatory[1][2] academic publisher of open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies that are considered to be of questionable quality.[3][4][5] As of December 2014, it offered 244 English-language open-access journals in the areas of science, technology, business, economy, and medicine.[6]

It is also worth reading wiki article on predatory publishing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not read the whole paper, just glanced over it, but here are few interesting points :D.

image.png.b95ed68dd9eea8a88d21df81461187bb.png

Value replaced without giving any explanation as to why - except for simple statement - Value is this, instead of one given in previous equation.

image.png.25846ab57c513830988500152577de89.png

Since some values are approximations - well, that allows us to choose different but similar number and provides us with justification of completely unrelated conclusion.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Vlaiv I must admit that I had/have my misgivings about this man’s work. The problem I had/have is that I cannot follow any of the subject matter, it is way beyond me.
Furthermore, my friend who is a good guy thinks Mr Nassim is a genius even though he clearly doesn’t understand a word the guy is saying.

It seems that the power of YouTube can be a very powerful influencing power. My friend was adamant Mr Nassim had been published and peer reviewed and I had to explain to him what that actually meant. Having a website and lots of likes is not science. I was then sent a link to a YouTube video of the man with instructions to watch it to learn the truth!

Thank you again for all your investigations, at least I now know what I am dealing with.👍

Marvin

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, vlaiv said:

 

Published with Scientific Research Publishing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

which is itself:

It is also worth reading wiki article on predatory publishing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_publishing

Having given a talk at a joint BAA/AAVSO meeting I often get invited to publish in such journals.  I am sure I could concoct some plausible theory for the fun if it. However I am sure super sleuth @vlaiv would call me out.

Regards Andrew 

Edited by andrew s
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.