The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto

“Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing” - Thomas Henry Huxley

As mentioned in the few first paragraphs of the general reply to the gentleman, I would like to take a moment to thank my critics for giving me the opportunity to reply in a constructive, professional way to questions about my work. To elucidate our approach, we offer a response to one of the more vocal, yet suspiciously anonymous critics, “Bob-a-thon”. In this anonymity, there is no knowledge of our critic’s accreditations and publications and as such, it is easy for him to portray himself as the arbiter of truth and the authority representing true science. Furthermore, the Bob-a-thon in many of his posts reaches levels of frustration, wanting to get his physics questions answered while asking the general public to answer them instead of asking the questions directly to the physicists in the group who may be able to give an appropriate answer. This is a typical tactic used to discredit. Unfortunately, the form of much of “Bob-a-thon’s” discourse is replete with ad hominum attacks which question our integrity, intelligence and motives, among other things. While perhaps emotionally cathartic for the writer, this style detracts from the seriousness of the issues being discussed. Those yet to be familiar with actual debates in physics might be persuaded by his attacks and appeals to authority. We find the following quote a fair description of ” Bob-a-thon’s” style:

“Anyone with an axe to grind is compelled to make his arguments as outrageous and incendiary as possible.” - President Barack Hussein Obama, May 2010.

Clearly, when a professor is teaching the standard model day in and day out, utilizing very famous reference books and teaching students that these are, in a sense, immutable facts, to have someone come along with something that contradicts everything that you have been taught and are teaching every day is extremely upsetting, and for good reasons. After all, these established laws of physics have been there for decades, in some cases, and have been worked on by thousands of well-known physicists. So how could a virtual unknown come up with something that is completely contrary to what has been thought to be correct? A professor or an individual in this position may be inclined to go on a crusade to put an end to such calamity and save the uninitiated by redirecting them towards the obvious established truth. This seems to be a fairly easy task since much of what is said by this obviously “delusional” individual fails to agree with the “known facts” of physics. But wait; what if these new ideas were correct, or, at the very least, contained some truth? A professor might understand well what works in the standard model, but perhaps has yet to understand the details of what does not work and its implications. Indeed, why should he study what fails to work in the standard model?

Students are taught first what works, which takes care of most of their studies in physics until higher education, where at the Ph.D. level the student is asked to produce novel work. Typically at that level most candidates are encouraged to choose problems that have a chance to be resolved within their lifetime, and consequently, very few Ph.D. candidates address any of the most fundamental issues in physics, such as the source of mass, or even the source of charge.

Certainly one hardly expects a Ph.D. thesis to solve the unification problem. These tasks are usually left to the veteran physicists and mathematicians who, in some cases, have been thinking about these issues for decades. These guys are quite different than the average physicist who teaches the standard model in colleges and universities every day and who believes the standard view to be fairly complete. That is why throughout the years, so many Ph.D. physicists I encountered knew nothing about the “vacuum catastrophe” nor the enormous vacuum energy density or even the bare mass and bare charge of the electron (which we will discuss later on). That is why, as well, even at the age of 47, when I show up and present in unification conferences, whether private or open to the scientific community, I am usually the youngest of the bunch.

The CASYS ’09 conference was such an occasion, where the Schwarzschild Proton was an invited paper. And by the way, the CASYS conferences are not about computers, as alleged in the gentleman’s critiques, but are about computing anticipatory systems, in other words, strategies to compute anticipatory systems as defined by the director and founder of the conference. From the CASYS website:

“After Daniel M. Dubois, a computing anticipatory system is a system that computes its current states in taking into account its past and present states but also its potential future states. Daniel M. Dubois introduced the following concepts of Strong and Weak Anticipation:

Strong anticipation refers to an anticipation of events built by or embedded in a system.

Weak anticipation refers to an anticipation of events predicted or forecasted from a model of a system.

(For more information read: Daniel M. Dubois, Introduction to Computing Anticipatory Systems, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, Publ. by CHAOS, vol. 2, pp. 3-14, 1998. ISSN 1373-5411 ISBN 2-9600179-2-7.)

This applies significantly to physics, and the conference is well attended by international physicists, physics teams and physics Nobel laureates alike.

I have participated in many unification conferences throughout the years, from private ones at Georgia Tech and the University of Nebraska at Omaha (1999), to The Unified Theories Conference in Budapest, Hungary (2008), and others. I have even founded my own group, with the help of the Resonance Project Foundation, called Uni-Phi. This small private group incorporated very accomplished physicists and mathematicians that met on the previous grounds of RPF in 2008. Here is an unfinished website that marked the event http://theresonanceproject.org/uni. Note once again in the picture that I’m the only one without grey hairs, although the Bob-a-thon may give me a few . The whole conference was filmed, and I hope one day to have the time and resources to upload video of some of the most crucial moments of the discussions and presentations, as there were many.

So why would I be invited to these conferences and asked to present, or why would these highly accomplished professionals come to my conference? It is hardly because I know nothing about physics and have nothing to contribute in that field, as is alleged in many of the gentleman’s posts, and these letters of support make that perfectly clear http://theresonanceproject.org/testimonials. The reason why I’m invited to these conferences and asked to present, and, yes, in this case won an award, is because having been an autodidact all of my life, I’ve been able to spend over 20 years studying exactly what I needed to study in physics in order to address some of the fundamental issues at the root of the physical world and, yes, as well, at the root of consciousness and spiritual component of existence. I was free from having to gain credits or tenure, and I avoided spending an enormous amount of time learning fields of investigations that were unrelated to my intent. Most importantly, I had no one telling me how I should think and where I should bring my efforts to bear. In that way, I was able to move much faster than the average physicist who has gone through the typical educational system with all of the duties and responsibilities, and eventually, teaching schedules and so on.

Does all of that make the concerns about the Schwarzschild Proton invalid? Absolutely not! They are well founded in the context of the standard model, and if one has little understanding of unification issues, which seems to be the case according to the gentleman’s own admission (from Bob-a-thon’s post, “I also don’t know how to unify the laws of physics!” 1:36 AM, February 23, 2010.

Thereafter, why would the gentleman presume to have the expertise to comment on a unification approach? Simply because it sounds outrageous? Atoms as black holes! How ridiculous!!! It must be wrong!

Yet the same emotion seems not to be applied to competing theories that have had a much longer time to be developed with, in some cases, thousands of contributions, such as string theory. In some 30 years of development, string theory has yet to give us even one testable prediction. There are so many free parameters that one can find ~10⁵⁰⁰ ways to compactify extra dimensions and so on. Read carefully these humorous articles; they hold kernels of truth: http://bit.ly/bQO1fH and http://abstrusegoose.com/137. Yet thousands upon thousands of physicists work on string theory, and millions upon millions of dollars are spent every year.

My paper on the Schwarzschild proton seeks to produce unification in a classical, simple and elegant way by deriving mass from vacuum fluctuations already present in the standard model. While this short paper proposes solutions to the origin of mass and other topics, it is part of a work in progress and is yet to be complete (a status shared with ALL current physical theories). This is why it is clearly stated point blank on our website right under the “proudly displayed” award, “Much more work must be done to complete the picture, yet this simple paper is already producing remarkable results!“

There are issues that we are working on to make it more comprehensive, but I will attempt to answer all of the issues that are raised in the gentleman’s post. It is expecting too much, however, that a single paper picked out of a work in progress be critiqued because it has yet to give all the answers. Clearly, there are many other papers and theories as a whole which meet this criterion, such as the Higgs mechanism. However, that doesn’t seem to have stopped the current mainstream allocation of funds and support to have poured an extremely large amount of resources in these investigations.

We all know about how the scientist creates a hypothesis and then tests the ideas through experiments and their replications showing the validity of the results. This is what science is all about and works wonderfully in many areas. However, on the fringes of our knowledge, where we are seeking an overall understanding, the issues become much less cut and dry. In fact, there is an exciting constant ferment in science, where cherished ideas must be changed and where new conceptions can overturn accepted thinking rapidly. This is especially true of advanced theoretical physics.

Many have the impression, fostered through textbooks, teachers and popular presentations on science and physics, that many of the major issues of physics are already solved. It is sometimes said that scientists have discovered “established laws” that are sacrosanct, and based on this, we can confidently judge the work of others based on its correspondence (or lack thereof) with these so-called “established” laws. This is far from the situation.

At the base of scientific thinking are ideas that may all change in an instant. For one famous example, consider the advent of the Wright brothers and the airplane.

In 1900 there was only one serious, properly funded aviation R&D program in the world… To the vast majority of other scientists, and in all popular journals and newspapers, the issue was settled. A heavier-than-air flying machine was physically impossible. It was an absurdity, a gross violation of the laws of nature. This had been proved mathematically with “unassailable logic” by leading experts in physics, writing in distinguished journals and magazines.

Reference: F. Kelly, The Wright Brothers: A Biography Authorized by Orville Wright, (Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1943), p. 116, describing Simon Newcomb. From an article by Rothwell, J., The Wright Brothers and Cold Fusion, Infinite Energy, 1999. 2(9): p. 37. http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf. For more information on cold fusion, please read http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100321182909.htm

So if it wasn’t for a few individuals who held to their logic and their own alternative scientific conclusions instead of going along with the mainstream views and the leading “experts in physics of the time,” to this day we would not have flying machines and many other technologies that make up our modern society.

Of course, those who hold various views have good reasons to hold to them, based on their success in experiments or other experience, and will only change these views when they are strongly challenged. After all, if something works, then, at least for the domain in which it has been applied, we may have discovered a portion of the truth and a “law” to describe it.

However there are often reasons to question the basis of even the most successful theories. One obvious situation is where an existing theory somewhat works, yet offers too little mechanism or pattern to be satisfying to our sense of order, or where a simpler explanation may suffice for something formerly considered much more complex, such as the complexity and the lack of physical meaning of string theory.

Historically, consider the Copernican revolution. Copernicus, using a heliocentric cosmology and circular planetary orbits was able to replace the much more complex geocentric Ptolemaic system including various epicycles. In fact, while a simpler and more realistic model, the early Copernican results were less accurate than those many epicycles could then produce. This lack of accuracy was used to show the “falsity” of the theory until the use of elliptical orbits and other advances improved the accuracy and made the Ptolemaic system far too complex. Despite critics and an early lack of accuracy, the Copernican description of the solar system was better than Ptolemy’s. So remember, accuracy is only one criterion of correctness of a theory.

Another case in point is quantum theory. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the universe at the smallest scales is random, and there are limits to measurement implied by the Heisenberg “uncertainty” principle and other considerations which leave us without a mechanism to explain what is happening.

For centuries we have sought simple models to aid our comprehension of the universe. Some concepts like mass, inertia, energy, charge, spin, atom, particle, coupled with basic mechanics offered a classical view of the universe. According to the current approach to the quantum world classical concepts break down when atoms and particles interact, and we must account for both their wave aspects and their particle nature.

With the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics abandoned the quest for mechanisms in favor of descriptive theories which predict results while leaving questions of how or why something happens completely open. They further argue that it is in principle beyond possibility to have any mechanism consistent with observations and largely gave up looking.

Still, it would be more satisfying intellectually if there were mechanisms with which to guide our explorations, never mind that humanity would gain a deeper understanding of the probable source of the physical world. Certainly Einstein thought so. In his paper describing the photoelectric effect, Einstein established the foundations of QM. As is well known, Einstein always felt QM less than complete, perhaps wrong, and felt there was some deterministic basis to what we observe. Arthur Eddington, David Bohm (using a hidden variable theory), John Wheeler (Geometrodynamics), and Wheeler and Richard Feynman (advanced and retarded wave theory), Paul Dirac and many other giants of physics also sought mechanisms to account for what is observed.

We are left with theories describing what happens while leaving how it happens or what something like gravity “really” is as open questions. Even Newton, when asked what gravity was, replied: “Hypothesis non fingo” (I make no hypothesis). After hundreds of years, we are still looking for a more complete understanding.

In particular, we at the Resonance Project are seeking the origin and nature of the characteristics we observe such as spin, mass, inertia, charge, energy, entropy and the like, which are generally thought of as “givens” in other theories and about which little more can be said. Examples abound:

Why is the hydrogen atom the size it is?
Why is the proton the size it is?
Why do the gravitational constant, G and many other measured constants have the values we observe?

Answers to many of these questions are still complete mysteries.

Our lack of basic understanding in so many areas has motivated us and others to explore widely for solutions, beyond the standard model or relativity to see what we can find. Clearly there are more and more issues with the current paradigm that will some day change the basis of physics profoundly. The “established laws” of physics are changing, perhaps into something radically different than what is commonly accepted as “known”.

Sometimes this search leads scientists to apparently outlandish concepts, attempting to solve the current impasse. For example, Niels Bohr, in commenting on Wolfgang Pauli’s work said: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.“

We feel there is a pattern to our universe, one which will be ultimately understood. We are far from the only ones who think that a major revision of physics is needed. For example:

“In many fields there are certain things in vogue at a given time. Nearly everything published in high energy physics, for example, is bunk… – it’s a whole castle of cards. Yet you are on safe ground if you write a paper according to the currently accepted style. You will be published, especially if you make some curves and graphs and make it appear that you did some calculations. The fact that it is all a house of cards with very little reality to begin with somehow gets ignored.” – Dr. Lynn Trainor, professor of Physics at the University of Toronto, in Pensee, May 1972, vol 2 No. 2, p44.

In the following paragraphs, we will address the scientific issues in question and trust that “Bob-a-thon”, among others, may learn not only more about our reasoning, but as well perhaps how such debates should be conducted.

(Note: for the next sections, “Bob-a-thon” quotes are in blue)

The Schwarzschild Condition

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’.

“Bob-a-thon” seems to think that we made this phrase up, when, in fact, the Schwarzschild condition is commonly used terminology in relativistic physics papers and is hardly my own invention. To question our use of the term clearly shows the gentleman’s lack of familiarity with the subject. The following are two examples, selected more or less at random, from the current literature of the use of the term “Schwarzschild condition”. First we have:

Yuan-xing and Liu Liao, A comparison of the entropies of collapsing stars and black holes, Chinese Astronomy and Astrophysics Volume 6, Issue 2, June 1982, Pages 157-163. See: http://bit.ly/dhWRPl
From their Abstract:

“We considered three modes of black hole formation: (I) a black hole kernel first forms at the centre of a collapsing star and as the outer matter falls, the kernel grows until the whole star becomes a black hole; (II) all the layers of a collapsing simultaneously satisfy the Schwarzschild condition; (III) the outermost layer first satisfies the Schwarzschild condition.”

As a second example, see:

Csaba Balazs and Istvan Szapudi, Naturalness of the Vacuum Energy in Holographic Theories. See: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0603/0603133v1.pdf , February 2008.
From their page 2:

“More precisely, a system that saturates the holographic bound also satisfies the Schwarzschild condition, i.e. its maximal mass is the half of its radius in Planck units.”

The “Established Laws of Physics”?

I’ve discussed Haramein’s methods more broadly in the main (starting with a look at the award he proudly 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-academic audience who are interested in his theories.

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

I might betray my views here and there, but this is always incidental. I’m exploring this material not with belief or opinion or conjecture, but using established laws of physics only – in fact I’m going out of my way to really try to make his model fit with reality.

Since we have yet to reach a stage of “established laws” in our search for knowledge, much of physics is indeed still based on beliefs, opinion and conjecture. Certainly Bob-a-thon’s previous posts here and on multiple websites and YouTube channels (some of which banned him because of his offensive language) show copious amounts of just that.

Here in these comments the great dogma of physics rears its head once more, and as throughout the decades, is qualified as the “established laws of physics.” I ask the reader, what are those? Many of the previously established laws of physics were shown to be less than established universally and many of the “laws of physics” we use today are encountering serious difficulties. How could new science ever occur if only established concepts were ever considered? In even a cursory glance at physics today, it is obvious that the “laws of physics” are hardly established at all.

To illustrate how rapidly things can change, there is a recent report that neutrinos have mass! For years it has been assumed that the neutrino was massless. Here is part of the report. Should this result be confirmed and accepted, the implications for the standard model and all of physics are profound.

“The new finding is important because in the theories now used to explain the behavior of fundamental particles, called the Standard Model, neutrinos have no mass. But if they have no mass, they cannot oscillate between muon and tau forms. The fact that they do oscillate indicates that they have mass and that the fundamentals of the Standard Model need some reworking, at the very least.”
See: http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-neutrino-20100601,0,1778648.story

Already this result is being used as a way to explain “dark matter”, since there are thought to be many neutrinos. Yet, “dark matter” is also an issue in controversy. For example see:

Ker Than, Renegade Astronomers: ‘Dark Matter’ Is Bunk, Space.com, Tuesday, October 30, 2007. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305996,00.html

“Two Canadian astronomers think there is a good reason dark matter, a mysterious substance thought to make up the bulk of matter in the universe, has never been directly detected: It doesn’t exist.”

So the standard model can change quickly with new evidence. Similar controversy can be found regarding many topics. The Schwarzschild Proton paper is an exploration of some of these issues. It seems to be a common perception that most problems in physics are somehow already “solved” and that a paper and its conclusions can be judged based on how close it is to a mythical “standard model” and other appeals to authority.

Many issues in physics are still open and up for debate. These debates continue after centuries of inquiry by thousands, and, by now, possibly millions of physicists. Therefore, before we go on, I suggest you browse the following link on the problems of physics yet to be solved. I assure you that this is a fairly superficial list as there are many complexities to each one of these issues that would make this list much, much longer (I am clear that Wikipedia is hardly an appropriate reference for these serious allegations, however, for convenience and for ease of use, I will be using this document throughout this reply).

Please note that the first link on this long list is the vacuum catastrophe. In order to become fully versed on the issues I raise, I would like to stress how crucial it is that one read all of these; click on all the links, follow every following link that you do not understand fully, and study all of these issues in detail with all their subtleties before commenting further.

As a fellow “seeker of the truth,” please read all of this material with the same critical eye which has been applied to the Schwarzschild Proton, and if you do this with complete honesty and humility, you might find the Schwarzschild Proton to be a reasonable exploration and certainly within the bounds of a probable unification theory.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

You might think, “that will take me months or even years,” and if you do it properly and read all the different approaches and references, it will. But consider that I have spent some 20 years studying these issues. Nevertheless here I have short listed some of the most critical ones for our purpose.

-Quantum gravity, cosmology, and general relativity

• Vacuum catastrophe
• Quantum gravity
• Black holes, black hole information paradox, and black hole radiation
• Extra dimensions
• Cosmic inflation
• Multiple universes
• The cosmic censorship hypothesis and the chronology protection conjecture
• Arrow of time
• Locality

-High energy physics

• Higgs mechanism
• Hierarchy problem
• Island of stability
• Koide formula
• Magnetic monopoles
• Proton decay and unification
• Supersymmetry
• Generations of matter

-Nuclear physics

• Quantum chromodynamics
• Nuclei and Nuclear astrophysics
• Fundamental symmetries and Neutrinos

-Other problems

• Quantum mechanics in the correspondence limit (sometimes called Quantum chaos)
• Physical information
• Theory of everything

- Cosmology and astronomy

• Cosmological constant problem
• Baryon asymmetry
• Dark energy
• Dark flow
• Dark matter
• Entropy (arrow of time)
• Shape of the Universe

-Particle physics

• Electroweak symmetry breaking
• Neutrino mass
• Inertial mass/gravitational mass ratio of elementary particles
• Proton spin crisis
• Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) in the non-perturbative regime
• Strong CP problem and axions
• List of particles/Hypothetical particles

-Astronomy and astrophysics

• Accretion disc jets
• Coronal heating problem
• Observational anomalies
• Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray

-Condensed matter physics

• Amorphous solids
• Cryogenic electron emission
• Sonoluminescence
• Turbulence

As you see I was not able to remove many entries from the list to make your task a little easier. I am sorry about that.

The Higgs Mechanism for Mass

To pick one example, despite various explanations given in textbooks, publications, or in the media, the actual source and nature of mass and gravity are still open questions. Current experiments at CERN using the LHC are, in part, an attempt to confirm one theory of mass involving the Higgs field, thought to impart mass to particles. The Higgs particle, key to this view, is, at the moment, theoretical, and has encountered many difficulties. Read carefully these two links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem#The_Higgs_Mass
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_particle

In most papers, mass is simply assumed to “be there”, almost as an axiom, yet its origin and mechanisms are still being actively investigated. If you look into this matter you will find much debate and speculation surrounding the Higgs mechanism and other theories on the nature of mass.

Mass from the Vacuum?

My paper on the Schwarzschild proton seeks to derive mass from the vacuum energies already included in quantum theories. While this short paper and the previous publications coauthored with Dr. Rauscher and Dr. Hyson offers solutions to the origin of mass and charge, it produces a simple and elegant unification of gravity to the quantum world. Of course, there are many questions to be answered, but at least the model points in new and interesting directions and attempts to find an actual source for the energies introduced in previous models only on theoretical grounds. There are issues that we are working on to make it more comprehensive. However I am confident that I have been able to answer most of your significant questions with at least a mechanism to explain the apparent anomaly relative to what is currently known.

To go on with our discussion, we next find in the comment:

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.

The 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.

The ‘Schwarzschild proton’ is a black hole with a mass of 8.85 x 10^14 gm. In plain English, this is 885 million metric tonnes.

The 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 Schwarzschild radius as a proton – hence the name.

Haramein takes the radius of a proton to be 1.32fm.

(This is in fact the Compton wavelength of a proton, not its radius, at least not by any measure that I’m aware of, but it’s good enough for now.)

We will now consider these issues, more or less in the order presented above.

The Proton Radius

Although this may be surprising to most people that assume our physics to be so accurate and complete, especially with the use of all these fancy billion dollar experiments to scatter particles and learn about them, that the actual radius of the proton is still the source of much debate and is considered to be unknown at this point. We found large variations of the estimates of the proton radius size, for instance this calculation from the General Science Journal gives a value of 1.11 x 10-15 m (10-13 cm): http://www.wbabin.net/physics/yue.pdf

According to the average density of the neutron, we can calculate the radius of the proton: Rp = (Mp/Mn)^(1/3) x Rn = 1.112772961016 x 10^-15 m

Then from the Hypertextbook site, most give a value of 1: http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/YelenaMeskina.shtml

And then again there is the charge radius given as 0.865 fm. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989PhDT……..66M

From this other site http://bit.ly/ciLUAm we find the value to be 0.895 fm:

We study the world data on elastic electron-proton scattering in order to determine the proton charge rms-radius. After accounting for the Coulomb distortion and using a parameterization that allows to deal properly with the higher moments we find a radius of 0.895±0.018 fm, which is significantly larger than the radii used in the past.

It’s important to note that all these variations occur because of other fairly complex schemes of approximations of the data, and as a result the proton radius is certainly poorly established at this time. We used the Compton wavelength as a first order approximation to see if the concept had any merit whatsoever. We modified it in various ways using the proton charge radius and other approximations and found our results to remain consistent. In fact, some values produced better approximations to the measured values of the proton. For instance, many papers used the Compton wavelength as the diameter instead of the radius of the proton. If we were to use that value in our Schwarzschild proton approach, most of our results would be quite similar but some of the fits would be much closer.

For instance, halving our radius modifies our anomalous magnetic moment result from 3.17 x 10^-26 J/T to 1.58 x 10^-26 J/T which is a much closer value to the measured value of 1.40 x 10^-26 J/T. Therefore, our proton radius value is actually a worst case scenario utilized as a first order approximation, knowing fair well that a full tensor analysis is necessary. We thought (Dr. Hyson, Dr. Rauscher and I) that this would be adequate for now.

Next we find:

The paper begins with the suggestion that a real proton may be considered to be such an entity. To see if this is workable, let’s compare his model 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?

The Mass of the Proton

Actually, it might be important for “Bob-a-thon” to have read the rest of the paper before drawing the above conclusions. Although the gentleman states at the top of his argument that this is a simple paper, it is clear from the above discussion that his apparent lack of understanding may be my fault. I used oversimplified statements in the paper assuming that physicists could fill in the blanks and would already know about the issues related to the vacuum density and the cosmological constant, among others – please read carefully:

S.E. Rugh and H. Zinkernagely,
“The Quantum Vacuum and the Cosmological Constant Problem”
at: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000398/00/cosconstant.pdf

In any case, perhaps the fundamental concepts I wished to convey with the Schwarzschild proton approach were missed. So let me restate it as clearly and simply as possible.

Although the current mainstream value given for the mass of the proton is 1.672621637(83)x10^-24 gm (or 1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram) what the gentleman fails to mention is discussed below.

Coulomb repulsion between protons is very large

The electrostatic repulsion of two protons confined to within a nucleon radius (as they are when in an atomic nucleus) is very large.

Atomic Stability and the “Strong” Force

In fact, a force of at least 38 to 39 orders of magnitude stronger than their mutual gravitational attraction is postulated to counter this repulsion. Something like this is required for the nuclei of atoms to be stable. The postulated force is called the “strong” force and is fully accepted in the “standard model”. It is sometimes estimated to be as much as 38 to 41 orders larger than the gravitational attraction. Here is a reference to the typically lowest value of 10³⁸ orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, but note very specifically these disclaimers just above the table.

Both magnitude (“relative strength”) and “range”, as given in the table, are meaningful only within a rather complex theoretical framework. It should also be noted that the table below lists properties of a conceptual scheme that is still the subject of ongoing research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction#Overview

Here again in an academic site the relative strength is given as 10³⁹ orders of magnitude.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/couple.html

However, these other typical academic websites give a value of relative strength of 10⁴¹ orders of magnitude.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/FundamentalForces.html
http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/forces.html

It is crucial to note that these wide variations occur because the standard model here becomes very fuzzy. It fails to specify a source for such a force and the current schemes for its mechanisms are extremely tentative. In fact, there is no analytical solution to LQCD, no mathematical proof that the current standard model scheme, which includes gluons and the color force, is anywhere correct. It is often described as the most difficult and obscure force to calculate. This is why you find these sinuous statements on the Wiki QCD page:

Since the force between color charges does not decrease with distance, it is believed that quarks and gluons can never be liberated from hadrons. This aspect of the theory is verified within lattice QCD computations, but is not mathematically proven. One of the Millennium Prize Problems announced by the Clay Mathematics Institute requires a claimant to produce such a proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics#History

And then again in the list of unsolved problems in physics on Wikipedia we find:

Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) in the non-perturbative regime

The equations of QCD remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing atomic nuclei, and only mainly numerical approaches seem to begin to give answers at this limit. How does QCD give rise to the physics of nuclei and nuclear constituents?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics#High_energy_physics.2FParticle_physics_2

I will address some of these issues below.

A Source for the “Strong” Force?

Therefore, all the Schwarzschild proton concept really does (although the implications of such a change is profound) is establish a source for the mass-energy necessary to produce such a constraining force. Thus, in order to account for the strongest force in the Universe, 38 or 39 orders of magnitude of energy/mass (or some new kind of eccentric new physics capable of generating such a force) must be considered in relationship to the proton entity for proper accounting of the energy necessary to generate such a force.

Consequently, ~10^-24 gm plus an energy potential of 38 or 39 orders of magnitude produces ~10¹⁴ gm. All my paper does is point out that this just happens to be the mass necessary to define the Schwarzschild condition of a proton entity. Coincidence? Maybe, but I think otherwise. Another way to look at it is that 10^-39% of the vacuum fluctuations available within a proton volume must be contributing to mass or at least to spacetime curvature. There is nothing circular about the argument. As a side note, these numbers are related to the hypothesis of one of the most cherished physicists in the short history of our modern physics, Paul Dirac (I will explain this if you do not understand what I mean in the lower portion of this reply).

Evidence for the “Strong” force is missing

After a century of investigation and detection, zero evidence, zilch, has been given for that force, which now has been transformed to a force that gets INFINITELY stronger at a distance in order to accommodate the confinement of quarks. Its name has been changed to the “Color” force, and the older “Strong” force is now called the “residual color force.” All that has been postulated as the mechanism of such a force is some miraculous virtual particle called a gluon that somehow mediates it as in Quantum Chromodynamics or QCD.

You may think that it’s acceptable to just throw in an infinite force or at least the strongest force in the universe with zero source for it, and you may teach this every day to your students. But I assure you, others have noticed this issue. Read carefully under the Nuclear physics section in the List of unsolved problems in physics in Wiki at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#Nuclear_physics

Nuclei and Nuclear astrophysics

What is the nature of the nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons into stable nuclei and rare isotopes? What is the origin of simple patterns in complex nuclei? What is the nature of neutron stars and dense nuclear matter? What is the origin of the elements in the cosmos? What are the nuclear reactions that drive stars and stellar explosions?

Quantum chromodynamics

What are the phases of strongly interacting matter, and what roles do they play in the cosmos? What is the internal landscape of the nucleons? What does QCD predict for the properties of strongly interacting matter? What governs the transition of quarks and gluons into pions and nucleons? What is the role of gluons and gluon self-interactions in nucleons and nuclei? What determines the key features of QCD, and what is their relation to the nature of gravity and spacetime?

In the following section, read carefully the entry on Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) in the non-perturbative regime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#High_energy_physics.2FParticle_physics_2

Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) in the non-perturbative regime

The equations of QCD remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing atomic nuclei, and only mainly numerical approaches seem to begin to give answers at this limit. How does QCD give rise to the physics of nuclei and nuclear constituents?

And in the following section, read carefully the entry on Quantum Gravity at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#Quantum_gravity.2C_cosmology.2C_and_general_relativity

Quantum gravity

How can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent quantum field theory? Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete? Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small or very large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

Quarks and “Color” Force

Generally, it is thought that the quarks are bound by an infinite confining “color force” which gets stronger at a distance. Thereafter, it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate them. As already mentioned, the “strong” force is now a residual color force. If quarks are always bound, then the force to confine them must be potentially infinite. And this is, again, part of the standard model. This definition from Wikipedia reflects clearly the difficulties in giving a true source, a complete mechanism and value to the force.

Confinement, which means that the force between quarks does not diminish as they are separated. Because of this, it would take an infinite amount of energy to separate two quarks; they are forever bound into hadrons such as the proton and the neutron. Although analytically unproven, confinement is widely believed to be true because it explains the consistent failure of free quark searches, and it is easy to demonstrate in lattice QCD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics

I do not remember any of the criteria for the scientific method to include “widely believed to be true.”

Now, what does an INFINITELY strong confining force remind you of ??? But there I go again, leaving things to the gentleman’s imagination.

The Standard Model specifies the mass of an atom to be infinite

On the subject of infinities, the standard model itself (the currently “established laws of physics”) actually predicts the mass of the atom to be infinite, but then it is “renormalized” to agree with experiments.

Bare Mass & Bare Charge

One of the best examples of this is the so-called bare mass or bare field in quantum field theory. This issue has been so buried that many physicists are completely ignorant of it, and the issue fails to even appear as an entry in Wikipedia as very little literature can be found on it.

However, the problem is extremely significant because even the standard model fails to predict the masses of atoms to be that which have been “measured” in experimental studies. In fact, when the standard model does an analysis of an electron entity, it finds that this entity must have infinite mass and infinite charge – indeed.

The approach of the standard model has been to ignore these results and use a renormalization term typically denoted as Z^-1 to make the theory agree with experimental studies http://universe-review.ca/R15-12-QFT.htm#Green. There we find:

“It can be shown that the “bare field” can be expressed in terms of c_k‘s similar to the case of the free field, but these coefficients are now modified by an additional term related to the structure of the source. As a result the norm (length) of the eigenvectors are no longer equal to 1. To recover this definition, they have to be “renormalized” by the renormalization constant Z, which has the values ; it is equal to 1 for free field, 0 for a point source, and depends on the structure of the source in general. The renormalized field, mass, and energy are and E_n^R = Z^-1E_n^o respectively. The physical mass m_R is the experimentally observed mass, m_o is an unspecified parameter (called “bare mass”) which together with Z^-1 determine a value in agreement with experiment. Since Z^-1 is infinite for a point source, m_o has to be slightly more or slightly less infinite to yield a finite value for m_R. This technique of replacing the ignorance in detailed structure of the source by measurement is the more general definition of renormalization,” although it is now more often referred to as the method to cancel the infinities in quantum field theory.

This is an enormous fudge factor! Here’s a quote from physicist Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics (1979) from his book “Dreams of a Final Theory” about the bare electron infinite mass:

” depends on the bare mass and bare charge of the electron, the mass and charge that appear in the equations of the theory before we start worrying about photon emissions and reabsorptions. But free electrons as well as electrons in atoms are always emitting and reabsorbing photons that affect the electron’s mass and electric charge, and so the bare mass and charge are not the same as the measured electron mass and charge that are listed in tables of elementary particles. In fact, in order to account for the observed values (which of course are finite) of the mass and charge of the electron, the bare mass and charge must themselves be infinite. The total energy of the atom is thus the sum of two terms, both infinite: the bare energy that is infinite because it depends on the infinite bare mass and charge, and the energy shift … that is infinite because it receives contributions from virtual photons of unlimited energy.”

The above quote can be found in the following article:

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008-02/msg01081.html

Where the conclusions from the gentleman writing the article are quite telling:

“…a bare electron charge and mass is infinite.. something not even Wilson Renormalization Group can get rid of. So I just wonder what is the source of the bare electron infinite charge and mass. What do you think? Initially I think it’s something akin to a black hole singularity but in reality it may involve more exotic physics.”

The standard model predicts the total energy of the electron mass and charge and thus the total energy of the atom to be infinite.

So let me see;

-Mass of an actual proton (far field measurement):
1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram

-Mass predicted by the Standard model for the atom:
infinite amount of metric tonnes

To quote the gentleman “These aren’t particularly close.”

How does the Standard Model deal with this discrepancy?
It renormalizes using a fudge factor.

Mass and mass balancing for the Schwarzschild proton

In our approach, we used the vacuum energy density given by the standard view which can be calculated by stacking little Planck volumes in a cubic centimeter of space. Take a Planck radius (~1.616 x 10^-33 cm) and cube it, you will get ~4.22 x 10^-99 cm³. Now divide a cm³ by that number so you can get how many Planck volumes there are in a cm³ and you will get ~2.37 x 10⁹⁸. Then multiply it by the Planck mass ~2.18 x 10^-5 gm and you will obtain a density of ~5.166 x 10⁹³gm per cm³. This is commonly given as well as an approximation 10⁹⁴gm/cm³ of 10⁹³ grams per cubic centimeter as given by the standard model. In our papers, we explore how this vacuum energy may be organized to express mass and protons. You could think of the density of the vacuum as the pixilation or the information density of space. It’s important to note here that the vacuum has been proven to have physical effects in laboratory (Casimir effect http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-casimir-effec) and that the cosmological constant (the acceleration of the expansion of our Universe) has been associated with the vacuum fluctuations.

…zero-point energy has measurable effects. In the laboratory, it may be detected as the Casimir effect… An outstanding requirement imposed on a potential Theory of Everything is that the energy of the vacuum state must explain the physically observed cosmological constant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state#The_energy_of_the_vacuum_state

While our initial calculation of the mass of the Schwarzschild proton indeed gives a large figure, we go on to suggest that this mass/energy is already present in the standard model in terms of confinement (although yet to be accounted for by the standard model) so that what we ordinarily measure as mass (involving measurements made far away from the highly curved region of spacetime near a Schwarzschild proton) is far less than we would measure in regions of high curvature.

Mass may depend on the position of the observer. Similar concepts are being explored by others as well. One promising approach is by:

Yuan K. Ha, A New Theorem for Black Holes, March 2007.
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0703130v1,

From the abstract:

“A new theorem for black holes is established. The mass of a black hole depends on where the observer is. The horizon mass theorem states that for all black holes: neutral, charged or rotating, the horizon mass is always twice the irreducible mass observed at infinity.”

Dr. Ha has shown that mass is dependent on the location of observer, and that the mass one measures is less when you are far away. So, for example, a Schwarzschild proton will have a larger mass when measured close to its horizon.

I am planning on addressing the mass issue directly in an upcoming paper, showing that the solution to the Schwarzschild proton, which was only a first order approximation, should be addressed in a Haramein-Rauscher metric, where torque and Coriolis effects are accounted for and the mechanism for the vacuum interaction with the event horizon is the result of a structured and polarized vacuum, as initially described in our earlier papers.

Turbulence at the event horizon

These effects may show that the distortion of the metrical space at the surface of the event horizon of the black hole structure produces turbulence and high curvature that may be beyond detection using simple long-range mass spectrometers or scattering experiments, which miss the highly curved structure near and at the horizon.

Black Holes can have hair

In this case of high turbulence near the horizon, the black hole has “hairs” or external characteristics due to Coriolis effects on the structure of spacetime. Others have come to similar conclusions from completely different approaches. See, for example:

Sidney Coleman, John Preskill, Frank Wilczek (a Nobelist in physics), Quantum Hair on Black Holes, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9201059v1, Jan 1992

Abstract: “A black hole may carry quantum numbers that are not associated with massless gauge fields, contrary to the spirit of the “no-hair” theorems. We describe in detail two different types of black hole hair that decay exponentially at long range. The first type is associated with discrete gauge charge and the screening is due to the Higgs mechanism. The second type is associated with color magnetic charge, and the screening is due to color confinement. In both cases, we perform semi-classical calculations of the effect of the hair on local observables outside the horizon, and on black hole thermodynamics.”

Or also see:

Finn Larsen & Frank Wilczek, Classical Hair in String Theory I: General Formulation, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9604134v2, Apr 1996.

Abstract: “We discuss why classical hair is desirable for the description of black holes, and show that it arises generically in a wide class of field theories involving extra dimensions. We develop the canonical formalism for theories with the matter content that arises in string theory. General covariance and duality are used to determine the form of surface terms. We derive an effective theory (reduced Hamiltonian) for the hair in terms of horizon variables . Solution of the constraints expresses these variables in terms of hair accessible to an observer at infinity. We exhibit some general properties of the resulting theory, including a formal identification of the temperature and entropy. The Cveti-Youm dyon is described in some detail, as an important example.”

And also see:

Finn Larsen & Frank Wilczek, Classical Hair in String Theory II: Explicit Calculations, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9609084v1, Sep 1996.

Abstract: “After emphasizing the importance of obtaining a space-time understanding of black hole entropy, we further elaborate our program to identify the degrees of freedom of black holes with classical space-time degrees of freedom. The Cveti-Youm dyonic black holes are discussed in some detail as an example. In this example hair degrees of freedom transforming as an effective string can be identified explicitly.”

Elementary Particles as Black Holes

The concept that elementary particles may be black holes has quite a history that is ongoing. One example, below is a reference to the work of Holzhey and Wilczek. Another example is the work of Coyne and Cheng. See, for example:

Everything Around Us Could Be Made of Black Holes, http://news.softpedia.com/news/Everything-Around-Us-Could-Be-Made-of-Black-Holes-111885.shtml

“That is to say, in the four dimensions that we live in – length, height, depth and time – the effects of gravity can safely be ignored on a small scale, such as the atomic one, as its influence on the results of tests carried out at this magnification level is considered to be negligible. But, as far as the theory goes, in higher-dimensional space, the small scale may be more heavily influenced by this force. As a direct result, the two researchers proposed, tiny black holes could exist at all energy levels of the Planck scale, and on such a wide scale, that they argued that, “All particles may be varying forms of stabilized black holes.”

Even String Theory now agrees with this premise…

Our concept of elementary particles as black holes is now being validated even by the most advanced string theories. One of the latest results of string theory is the conclusion that black holes and elementary particles are two sides of the same coin.

“BLACK holes and elementary particles are two sides of the same coin, according to physicists in the US. In fact, black holes may turn into elementary particles, and vice versa.
This bizarre connection between massive black holes and tiny elementary particles such as quarks and electrons is the latest result of string theory, a speculative idea which views all elementary particles as minuscule loops of string-like matter. Whether one of these strings behaves like a quark or an electron or any other elementary particle depends entirely on how it is vibrating.”

This is a summary of work by Brian Greene, David Morrison and Andrew Strominger, all well known string theorists. See: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Stings+and+webs:+tying+black+holes+to+elementary+particles+in+string+…-a017288663

“Thus, at the quantum level, black holes and elementary particles represent simply two different aspects of the same physical objects.”

Earlier results from, for example, Holzhey & Wilczek also explore the possibility that elementary particles like the proton could, in fact, be black holes. See: C.F.E. Holzhey & F. Wilczek, Black Holes as Elementary Particles, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9202014v1, Feb 1992.

Abstract: It is argued that the qualitative features of black holes, regarded as quantum mechanical objects, depend both on the parameters of the hole and on the microscopic theory in which it is embedded. A thermal description is inadequate for extremal holes. In particular, extreme holes of the charged dilaton family can have zero entropy but non-zero, and even formally infinite, temperature. The existence of a tendency to radiate at the extreme, which threatens to overthrow any attempt to identify the entropy as available internal states and also to expose a naked singularity, is at first sight quite disturbing. However by analyzing the perturbations around the extreme holes we show that these holes are protected by mass gaps, or alternatively potential barriers, which remove them from thermal contact with the external world. We suggest that the behavior of these extreme dilaton black holes, which from the point of view of traditional black hole theory seems quite bizarre, can reasonably be interpreted as the holes doing their best to behave like normal elementary particles. The holes behave qualitatively as extended objects.”

A Note on Frank Wilczek
Frank Wilczek is known, among other things, for the discovery of asymptotic freedom, the development of quantum chromodynamics, the invention of axions, and the discovery and exploitation of new forms of quantum statistics (anyons). Wilczek was 21 years old and a graduate student at Princeton University when he and David Gross defined the properties of gluons. In October 2004 Wilczek shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Gross and H. David Politzer for this work. As a foremost expert on QCD, quark confinement and the like, he has written papers on black holes as elementary particles and as having “hair”. Wilczek has explored widely and written similar criticisms of the state of theoretical physics as I do here. I wonder how Wilczek would feel if you called him “deluded.”

So Elementary particles may be black holes… according to current physics…

Whatever the gentleman may think, the Schwarzschild proton approach is in good company. On the other hand, according to the gentleman’s current writings, we would have to conclude that these Nobel laureates and other researchers are just… ahem… stringing people along…?

The above papers suggest one of the ways that I am planning on explaining the reason why the current so-called rest mass of the proton is so far off the Schwarzschild condition and far from the apparent trend of all other organized matter in our Universe which the scaling law, included in our paper, demonstrates.

As a side note, I believe it is worthy to mention earlier attempts at describing mass, including Geometrodynamics and the geons of the famous physicist John Archibald Wheeler, who collaborated with Einstein on unified field theory and coined the term “black hole.” To cover all of this history is too much for this short note, but here is a quick calculation.

In John A. Wheeler, Geometrodynamics, Academic Press, New York, 1962, on pages 25 to 27, we find a discussion of the structure of GEON’s, which were entities made purely of gravity and electromagnetic force. This was part of Wheeler’s concept of having “mass without mass”.

Basically, a geon is an entity made of energy where the self-interactions would bend spacetime into a closed curve. Such a body would have the properties of mass even though made only of energy. Wheeler worked mostly on large geons, about the diameter of the sun or larger. To our current knowledge, Wheeler did little exploration of geons as elementary particles. He did explore mini-black holes at the Planck scale and actually discussed many of these ideas with my coauthor, Dr. Rauscher, in the early 1970s.

In his discussion, he gives an equation for the change in radius for a geon for each added gram of mass. His equation 46, page 26 is derived from the expression for the Schwarzschild radius, namely:

If we calculate the radius of a geon equal in mass to the Schwarzschild proton of 8.89×10¹⁴gr, we obtain:

0.742×10^-28cm/gr multiplied by 8.89×10¹⁴gr = 6.6×10^-13cm, which is remarkably close to the diameter of a proton. So, here we see that even Wheeler’s early concept of geons yields results close to our conclusions for the Schwarzschild proton. This suggests that there can be an elementary particle, defined by the curvature of space, that would exhibit “mass without mass”. Yet again, the concept is vindicated by the calculation of the mass of a similar geon. Suffice it to say that there is a quite extensive literature in which this idea is explored.

Mass through relativistic dilation

Another issue occurs when considering an object with relativistic velocities. The issue has to do with mass dilation. In the final copy of The Schwarzschild Proton (yet to be available on the net yet as it is in the publishing process, and which I would have been happy to share with “Bob-a-thon” if he would have contacted me directly with his inquiries) we calculated that the mass dilation resulting from a proton starting with the standard measured mass, when rotating at relativistic speeds, will increase its mass. We found that at a velocity of just 10^-39 slower than c, the rotating proton would exhibit the mass of a Schwarzschild entity of 10¹⁴ grams.

Protons outside of nuclei are different

When a proton is knocked out of a nucleus its behavior is very much altered and our resulting measurements may be wrong. Other physicists have made this observation. The poorly understood EMC effect, for example, shows that nucleons when in a nucleus affect one another, and e.g., the proton radius is estimated to be larger when in a nucleus than outside it. There are also changes in the magnetic field. So again, there is the issue that the properties of protons we measure may change or be different in differing environments. Perhaps then, the proton mass we measure could differ depending on where and how we measure it. See:

http://www.jlab.org/Hall-C/talks/01_25_07/daniel.pdf
http://www.jlab.org/~johna/proposal/proposal/node4.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l15j24gg2209n888/
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/04/27/protons-not-as-strange-as-expected/

The expressed mass issue again…

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.

…and the Vacuum Catastrophe

We can turn the issue mentioned just above right around.

Consider that the vacuum energy contained within the volume of a proton is some 10⁵⁵ grams (approximately the estimated mass of the observable universe). This comes from energetic vacuum fluctuations typically calculated as 10⁹³ grams per cubic centimeter. As we’ve seen above, one of the issues in the standard view is to understand how we can account for this energy in the vacuum in relationship to the cosmological constant, but what has yet to be appropriately understood and described by the standard model is why this enormously large energy fails to affect the measured values of the proton or other particles.

If the gentleman thinks that’s hardly a problem, please think again: read carefully on the “vacuum catastrophe” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum catastrophe . Generally this issue is dealt with by assuming that the vacuum energy modes cancel out, and consequently, we only see effects from organized energetic modes in the vacuum energy described as vacuum polarization.

It just takes a little…

Thereafter, one way to look at our paper is to say that the effects of vacuum fluctuation are observed; they happen to be the source of all of the material world and its dynamics at different scales. In our paper we show that only a tiny amount of the available vacuum energy (10^-39%) need be polarized in order to produce a Schwarzschild proton entity. Therefore, our model at least seeks an actual source for the energy of the “color” or “strong” force rather than including a totally theoretical source-free infinite color force to confine the quarks and balance Coulomb repulsion of the protons in the nucleus.

Hawking Radiation and the Schwarzschild Proton

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:

Balance through gathering mass – suck and push

Hawking radiation is not the only mechanism occurring – some gobbling

Complex plasma

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.

Once again the gentleman jumps to conclusions thinking he has all the facts. If he would have acted in a professional manner he could have contacted us directly to obtain a final copy of the Schwarzschild Proton paper (the one available on the net clearly states it is a draft).

So what does Haramein do to deal with the Hawking radiation or the Hawking evaporation problem of a Schwarzschild proton entity? First, here is what the gentleman proposes:

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.

Models in Physics

Sure, it certainly happens commonly when elaborating a model that deals with the complexity of all of physics, that one accepts, at least provisionally, contradictions to what is thought to be well known. Sometimes you’ve got to go with the model to see where it leads, but that’s different from what I did in this case.

What is the minimum Black Hole Size?

In the final copy of the Schwarzschild Proton I included very important references to previous work done by highly respected investigation teams attempting to elucidate “what is the minimum size of a black hole”. If the gentleman thinks that’s a solved problem, read carefully:

Black holes, black hole information paradox, and black hole radiation under:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#Quantum_gravity.2C_cosmology.2C_and_general_relativity

A complete description of Hawking radiation and other processes at the horizon of a black hole is one of the toughest problems found in physics and is related to the entropy of a system and its information content. Below we briefly discuss this work and summarize their conclusions, and compare their results to the Schwarzschild Proton concept. You will note that others have come to similar conclusions from quite different premises. The convergence of these solutions adds weight to our conclusions.

Below we cover several approaches to the minimum black hole issue and compare the results to the Schwarzschild proton. We find the close correspondence among these methods to be exciting. When different methods point to the same answer, the meaning could be profound.

The Hadron Barrier approach…
…Result: ~10^-13cm to ~10¹⁵grams

Some of the most successful attempts in dealing with the minimum black hole size are associated with the work of J. N. Bahcall and S. Frautschi. See:

-J. N. Bahcall, S. Frautschi, “The Hadron Barrier in Cosmology and Gravitational Collapse“, Astrophysical Journal 170, 1971. and

-D. F. Falla, P. W. Landsberg, “A Black-Hole Minimum Mass“, Il Nuovo Cimento 106B:6, 1991.

which are referenced in the final copy of the Schwarzschild Proton paper.

Remarkably, when Bahcall and Frautschi attempted to calculate the minimum fundamental size and mass of a system collapsing during black hole formation utilizing the strong force interaction time of 10^-23 seconds (predicted by the Schwarzschild Proton as well) and established a minimum “hadron barrier” limit to black hole size, the result turned out to be ~10^-13 cm with a mass of ~10¹⁵gm.

Have we seen this before? Indeed, this is a very close approximation to the Schwarzschild proton size and mass. Coincidence? Hardly.

The “Switching off Hawking Radiation” approach…
Result: ~10¹⁴ grams

Later on, Falla and Landsburg derived an alternative approach to the minimum mass problem. By utilizing Balbinot and Barletta

R. Balbinot & A. Barletta, “Switching off black hole evaporation?,” Class. Quantum Grav 5, Lll, 1988

they considered that a back reaction from Hawking radiation with the spacetime background could bring the evaporation process to an end. Falla and Landsburg, utilizing the black-hole surface gravitational acceleration, calculated the minimum mass for a black hole to be ~10¹⁴ gm.

Both results fall very close to our nucleon at 8.85×10¹⁴gm for one Fermi and provides a mechanism for the stability of the Schwarzschild proton entity and a continuous creation process for organized matter.

See also the work of G. Denardo and E. Spallucci with a similar title “Switching off the black-hole evaporation,” Il Nuovo Cimento B, V 44, Number 2, April, 1978

Summary: “We study energetics both in a classical and in a quantum framework, in the solution of Einstein equations for unified gravitational and electromagnetic field. We find that with certain values of the parameters of the metric the black hole stops evaporating and settles down to a stable configuration. Possible extensions to hadron physics are also considered.”

Therefore, there is evidence that a hadron barrier exists for Hawking radiation, and I cannot emphasize enough how important these findings are as they came through completely different approaches to produce similar results.

Another approach that offers stability of nuclear particle-sized black holes comes from considering reflections near the horizon limiting Hawking radiation. This approach was taken by Funkhouser. See:

Scott Funkhouser, Thermodynamic reflection of particles by Schwarzschild black holes :

Abstract: The change in the entropy caused by the quasi-static absorption of a particle of energy ε by a Schwarzschild black hole (ScBH) is approximately ε/T−s, where T is the Hawking temperature of the black hole and s is the entropy of the particle. A violation of the generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics would occur if ε/T−s<0, and it is plausible that particles approaching the event horizon of a ScBH may be reflected thermodynamically in some instances. The reflection probability is obtained from the standard relationship between the number of microscopic complexions and entropy. If (ε/T)>>0 and if s is negligible then the new probability function is consistent with an independent expression, following from a detailed treatment of quantum particles in a Schwarzschild metric, giving the probability for an event horizon to reflect an incident particle. The manifestation of wave-like behaviors in the new probability function intimates perhaps a fundamental physical unity.

“What is the minimum size black hole that can accrete a particle?” approach: Result: Surprise! 10¹¹ to 10¹⁴ grams!

Another approach to the minimum black hole size appears in other research by Scott Funkhouser. His work relates to the limits on Hawking radiation, thermodynamics, the holographic principle, and the cosmological constant. This is such an important result that we include the entire abstract. See:

Scott Funkhouser, The minimum mass of a black hole that is capable of accreting a particle

Abstract: “If a black hole should absorb a fundamental particle then the number of bits registered by the black hole must increase by at least one. It follows that the minimum mass of a Schwarzschild black hole that is capable of absorbing a massive particle is inversely proportional to the mass of the particle. That stipulation is identical to the limit obtained by applying Landauer’s Principle to the accretion of a particle with the temperature of the black hole given by its effective Hawking radiation temperature. The minimum Schwarzschild mass necessary for the accretion of nucleons is of the order 10^9kg. Since the minimum mass necessary for accreting electrons is roughly three orders of magnitude larger than the minimum mass necessary for the accretion of protons, it is conceivable that certain black holes could accumulate electrical charge.”

Interestingly, Funkhouser also concludes that the minimum size of a black hole capable of accreting a particle is about 10¹¹gr (which is large enough to accrete a nucleon, such as a proton) and must be larger still, about 10¹⁴gr – in order to accrete an electron.

So yet again, we see another analysis from a different point of view has come to the same minimum mass for a black hole which approximates the size of our Schwarzschild proton. The references above suggest several mechanisms by which such nucleon-sized black holes may achieve stability in the face of Hawking radiation.

The Minimum Black Hole Size and the Holographic Principle

One of the important conjectures guiding research into the entropy and information content of systems like black holes is called the “holographic principle”. Basically, it states that the entropy, or information content of a black hole is proportional to the surface area of the event horizon. This implies that, for example, since the universe as a whole meets the Schwarzschild condition, that the total information (entropy) of the universe is proportional to the area of the sphere enclosing it and contains some 10¹²⁰ “bits” of information.

Since the surface of a sphere goes up as the square of the radius whereas the volume goes up as the cube of the radius, there is much less area than volume to the universe. Therefore, according to the holographic principle, only a few of the possible states in the universal volume can exist. This suggests that the universe exists in a state space that is only “sparsely” populated.

One consequence of this is that the minimum quantization size of spacetime must be larger than, for example, the Planck length. This minimum quantization length is what Funkhouser refers to above as the “holographic length”.

Interestingly, Funkhouser concludes that the holographic length is about the diameter of a nucleon, and that the fundamental volume derived from this will have the mass of a black hole of 10¹¹ to 10¹⁴ grams! Which, again, just happens to be the calculated size for the Schwarzchild Proton. Q.E.D.

For more details, see the abstract below, and other interesting papers of Dr. Funkhouser. Some of the cosmological consequences of this exploration are given in the abstract below.

Scott Funkhouser, A fundamental scale of mass for black holes from the cosmological constant

Abstract: The existence of a positive cosmological constant leads naturally to two fundamental scales of length, being the De Sitter horizon and the radius of the cell associated with a holographic degree of freedom. Associated with each of those scales of length are a macroscopic gravitational mass and a microscopic quantum mechanical mass. Three of those four fundamental masses have been discussed in the literature, and this present work identifies the physical significance of the remaining mass, being the gravitational mass associated with the holographic length. That mass, which is of the order 10^12kg and inversely proportional to the sixth root of the cosmological constant, represents the mass of the black hole whose evaporation time is equal to the fundamental cosmic time, which is of the order the current age of the universe. It also represents the minimum mass of a black hole that is capable of accreting a particle whose Compton wavelength is equal to the fundamental holographic length, which is of the order the Compton wavelength of the nucleon.

For other works by Funkhouser, See:

http://cosmicholography.com
http://en.scientificcommons.org/scott_funkhouser
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1013338/files/0701289.pdf
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2116/1155.abstract

So it is clear that others are investigating similar areas with similar questions. In fact, one of the major conclusions is that the behavior at the horizon of a black hole, especially at quantum scales, can affect Hawking radiation, and stop the evaporation, giving black hole elementary particles, such as the Schwarzschild proton, stability.

Next in his comments, “Bob-a-thon” suggests that two black hole protons would have decaying orbits which would lose energy through gravitational wave radiation and therefore, their lifetimes would be quite short. We addressed some of this with the papers noted above. We now address some other aspects of the stability of orbiting Schwarzschild protons.

“Bob-a-thon” comments as follows:

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, kilometers 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.

We have addressed some of the above points in our discussion of the hadron barrier and the minimum black hole size that can accrete. Obviously there is a lot going on with black holes, and it is far from established that your simplistic scenario is at all complete or realistic.

For instance, in our case both the hadron barrier which is generated by vacuum fluctuations and reflective waves in the surrounding media may cancel the Hawking radiation at the quantum level.

Another suggestion included in the paper is that protons are spinning rapidly, near the speed of light, c, and, for the case of two protons orbiting, we find that centrifugal forces exactly cancel the gravitational attraction of two Schwarzschild protons.

We suggest that the “color force” and “strong force” of QCD may be given an actual source energy (since QCD and the standard model fail to provide any source) and further, this force may be derived from the available vacuum energies expressed as gravity. We feel our description therefore is more realistic.

Certainly we know there are other phenomena involved than Hawking radiation. There are concerns with the black hole information paradox, with the proper way to formulate the entropy of black holes, whether they have “hair” and many other issues.

An earlier paper (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“, R. L. Amoroso, B. Lehnert, J-P Vigier (eds.) Beyond The Standard Model: Searching For Unity In Physics, The Noetic Press, 279-331, 2005) shows that there are complex interactions of black holes with their surroundings capable of causing expansion or contraction. It is probable that black holes maintain a feedback with their environment and exist in a dynamic balance among these processes.

The main point is that there are other things going on besides pure Hawking radiation, and there is the possibility that Hawking radiation can be reduced or eliminated at quantum scales and thereby allow the existence of a stable, proton-sized black hole.

As to your gravitational wave formula for orbital decay between two black holes, it appears that, here again, there is a lot more going on than you seem to know. You cite an equation from Wikipedia.

Should you look more deeply into the matter, there are a number of mysteries about the merger of even astrological scale black holes. The behavior of supermassive black holes is also mysterious and yet to be fully understood. And, as we will see below, there are questions about the orbital stability of even supermassive black holes.

Merging Supermassive Black Hole Binaries

The recent discovery of a binary system of two supermassive black holes gives the opportunity of examining the stability of their orbits in the light of theories suggesting that gravitational radiation should shed orbital energy and lead to a rapid merger of a binary pair. This is thought to be especially rapid during the “last parsec” region. Interestingly, we find some difficulties with these models when they are applied to an actual system. See:

Todd A. Boroson & Tod R. Lauer, “A Candidate Sub-Parsec Supermassive Binary Black Hole System with Two Sets of Broad Lines“

From the Abstract: “We interpret this object as a binary system of two black holes, having masses of 10^7.3 and 10^8.9 solar masses separated by ~ 0.1 parsec with an orbital period of ~ 100 years.”

Instead of a rapid merging of the black holes, even at a close range of 0.1 parsecs, they estimate a decay time of between 300 billion (without projection corrections) and 7 billion years.

“For fixed black hole masses, the decay time of the binary due to gravitational radiation, tD ~ V^ −8 , and is thus extremely sensitive to the assumed projection factors. For no projection corrections, tD ~ 3 x 10^11 years, while tD ~ 7 x 10^9 years under the model above.”

They then comment that:

This timescale is interesting, as it implies that the binary has evolved past the “final parsec” scale at which decay due to energy exchange with stars becomes inefficient, but where gravitational radiation decay remains too weak to carry the evolution further.

Theoretical studies of the effects of gas dynamical friction indicate that the timescale for that process to cause the orbit to decay is even much longer for such massive black holes though this is an area of ongoing study.

Taking the equation mentioned in the comment above, and applying it to this binary system, we obtained an estimate of an orbital decay rate of 0.54 cm/sec. At this rate, these two massive black holes will merge in about 18 billion years, a time longer than the accepted age of the universe. So, real black holes even of massive scale merge slowly. Boroson and Lauer are puzzled by the time taken for orbital decay, even for the last 0.1 parsec of separation.

“The authors calculate that red and blue have reached what might be an awkward stage in their inward spiral. They’re now too close for basic orbital decay to act efficiently, and not yet close enough together to start producing enough gravity waves to cause the orbit to decay rapidly. That suggests that we have at least a billion years to observe the system before the two objects slam into each other. Hopefully, we’ll manage to improve the sensitivity of gravity detectors a bit during that time.” See: John Timmer, Two supermassive black holes spiraling towards collision

We see, again, the actual situation is more complex than the above comment suggests. Further, since the gentleman’s critique seems to have missed it in my paper, we include a section where we calculate the centrifugal forces that may contribute to the rapid weakening of the attractive force at the horizon of such a Schwarzschild proton system. From the paper itself:

What happens when you look inside a proton?

-in an actual proton: we see point-like constituents (quarks), and a measurable distribution of charge. Things don’t disappear.

-in a Schwarzschild proton: there is an event horizon of 1.32fm radius, and nothing that crosses this horizon can re-emerge. There is no way of looking inside.

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

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

(New Agers should note that this ‘deep’ doesn’t mean profound and mysterious and cosmic, it just means you magnify your proton a lot so that you can look a long way inside. Though I like it when French physics journals call it diffusion profondement inelastique.)

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.

Well, when one ignores the complexities involved, and fails to realize that our understanding of black holes and their horizons at the fine edge of physics is still being explored and is nowhere close to complete, and that some of the greatest and most respected physicists are becoming aware that these dynamics may be related to particles in the quantum world, then one can make blanket conclusions as the gentleman has attempted. However, there is sufficient knowledge to understand that we have yet to completely describe what happens at and near a horizon. The landscape of a nucleon is poorly understood and many assumptions are made to interpret results from experiment. This is why in the list of unsolved problems in physics under Nuclear physics, the entry Quantum chromodynamics specifies:

What are the phases of strongly interacting matter, and what roles do they play in the cosmos? What is the internal landscape of the nucleons? What does QCD predict for the properties of strongly interacting matter? What governs the transition of quarks and gluons into pions and nucleons? What is the role of gluons and gluon self-interactions in nucleons and nuclei? What determines the key features of QCD, and what is their relation to the nature of gravity and spacetime?

These issues are, as well, related:

Proton spin crisis

As initially measured by the European Muon Collaboration, the three main (“valence”) quarks of the proton account for about 12% of its total spin. Can the gluons that bind the quarks together, as well as the “sea” of quark pairs that are continually being created and annihilating, properly account for the rest of it?

Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) in the non-perturbative regime

The equations of QCD remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing atomic nuclei, and only mainly numerical approaches seem to begin to give answers at this limit. How does QCD give rise to the physics of nuclei and nuclear constituents?

Black holes may have “hair” – effects that reach through and beyond the horizon creating measurable effects. Perhaps all the information in black holes is preserved, as would be expected if conservation laws are to remain valid.

We are investigating effects such as those caused by torque and Coriolis forces at the horizon that may significantly change our view of entropy, and may perhaps allow us to explain other subatomic particles using an approach similar to our current paper.

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, all of Haramein’s conclusions are meaningless, primarily because his basic argument simply goes around in a circle.

* * *

The six main 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.

There is a brief calculation of this proportion, using a value for the vacuum energy chosen without any explanation, and the result is 1.78 x 10^-41, corresponding to very nearly 41 orders of magnitude.

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

(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.

After much searching of the available literature, we found it difficult to find figures that were even as close as a factor of 100 for estimates of the relationship of strong force and gravity; in fact, it is difficult to find a clear statement of just how strong the strong force or the color force are at various radii.

Given the current wide variations of these figures in the existing literature, it is just silly to suggest there is something out of line with our figures or that this somehow changes the validity of our conclusions. These are estimates, and they seem to be as accurate as other similar estimates in the relevant literature.

Landau even admitted to the crudity of the estimates of the strong force in his Nobel presentation about “his trick” for finding cut-off points in a renormalization process. But what is striking in the gentleman’s statement above is this:

He cites from my paper: 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)

And then makes this comment: He doesn’t elaborate on this, it’s just mentioned in passing.

Indeed, once again I assumed I was working with a little bit more sophisticated crowd, which is my error. I oversimplified the paper first, because I was rushed to deadline, and second, because I was trying to keep it short due to publication constraints. As well, I wanted everybody to be able to understand it. Another reason I didn’t mention anything there and just made an allusion to it is because the work associated with that statement is considered controversial, although it came from some of the most respected physicists in history, namely Paul Dirac and Arthur Eddington. What I’m referring to here is the famous Large Numbers Hypothesis or LNH. Read carefully: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_large_numbers_hypothesis.

I can’t stress enough how crucial this body of work is, and one can see why I couldn’t include it in such a short paper. However, some physicists knew what I was talking about and chastised me, calling my paper fancy numerology because of this allusion. There is nothing more ridiculous than such allegations. Universal scaling is extremely valid, and there is much evidence that it is prominent, from our cosmology to our subatomic relations. While writing the Schwarzschild Proton paper, I must have gotten stopped tens of times in my calculations when the result was either a ratio or a result in the region of 10³⁸ to 10⁴⁰ or 10^-38 to 10^-40 orders of magnitudes. It is so prominent between relationships of the microworld to the macroworld that any good scientist would take notice and attempt to understand the pattern. Something here is profound, and I am amazed that some have the gall to discard offhand such a body of work from some of the most prominent physicists in history.

Let me give you a quick example (note here that the exponent may vary due to both the example being given in an exponential approximation and because many of the values given in the literature vary widely):

Start with the size of the proton ~10^-13cm and add 40 orders of magnitude (or multiply ~10-¹³cm by 10⁴⁰) – you get ~10²⁷cm, the radius of the universe (estimates vary from ~10²⁷cm to ~10²⁸cm). Now calculate the Schwarzschild condition of an object with a radius of ~5 x 10²⁷cm (M= c²R_s / 2G) and the result is ~10⁵⁵gm (~10⁵²kg), which is the typical mass given for the universe (and, yes, Bob-a-thon – the universe does obey the Schwarzschild condition). Now ~10⁵⁵gm is the amount of vacuum fluctuations in a proton volume which just happens to be ~10^-39 cm3. Yet if we take ~10^-39% of the fluctuations we obtain ~8.8 x 10¹⁴gm or ~10¹⁵gm which is the approximate mass of the Schwarzschild Proton. Now ~10¹⁵gm is 39 orders of magnitude larger than the standard proton at ~10^-24gm which is, of course, the difference in strength between gravitation and the so-called strong force. If we now calculate the velocity a standard proton mass of ~10^-24 gm must be rotated to undergo a relativistic mass dilatation that would increase this standard proton rest mass to equal the Schwarzschild Proton mass of ~10¹⁵gm, we obtain a velocity just ~10^-39 slower than c.

I find it remarkable that these sorts of relationships go on and on. Obviously there is something there that has to do with scaling and, more specifically, scaling black holes. Although Paul Dirac used different relationships with the same ratios, these sorts of correspondences indicated to him very clearly that there are very specific scale relationships between the macro and the micro world that should be studied and understood. In my case, in the context of a scaled black hole unification hypothesis, which is specific to my research, these relationships are extremely significant.

As far as the gentleman’s suggestion:

“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…”

I would like to congratulate the gentleman for having some creative thoughts. In one way, what he mentions there is what the Schwarzschild Proton does, though not explicitly. Removing the relationship of the Schwarzschild condition to the vacuum structure might appeal to you so as to avoid rocking the boat too much, and coming up with some exotic physics to make it all work may seem appealing to the typical approach found, for instance, in extradimensional theories. However, my goal here was not to confuse the issue of unification further but to show that there is a classical, or at least a semi classical, approach that’s simple and elegant, which could produce new avenues in unification theory. Indeed, physics and science in general is not about perpetuating “tricks,” although sadly that has been a serious portion of the modus operandi in the past few decades.

Obviously, any new approach encounters difficulties and these difficulties have to be overcome. However, with all the material above, and keeping in mind the benefits of such an approach, I believe that some of the difficulties the Schwarzschild proton is encountering are minimal relative to the difficulties competing unification theories (such as string) are attempting to surmount after decades of work with millions of dollars in resources and thousands of physicists working on them.

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.

Au contraire, my dear “Bob-a-thon”, the color force was invented to explain the confinement of quarks, and we have specified a reasonable source for this force. 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, which fail to even address these issues.

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

Yes, of course that is what we meant.

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.

Yes, indeed, you have almost grasped one of our major points here.

We note that there are only two forces in the standard model that are unidirectional – one is gravity and the other is the color/strong force. Perhaps this is telling us something… like that the color/strong force and gravity are related? Again, we are seeking a source and energy that can account for the color/strong force. It is a glaring problem in physics that the color/strong force is without a visible source of energy from which it is derived, other than the equations that say it must be that strong, so it is, and that obviously “solves” the problem.

To solve a problem by defining it away and then pretending it is so is a form of “analgesic solution” – one which removes the pain of our failure to comprehend while leaving its cause. Current physics is replete with such inventions, and they include the color/strong force, dark matter and dark energy.

We are working diligently to find solutions to help with this problem, and are always open to solutions from colleagues outside our group. You may find it more productive both for your internal well being and for a true pursuit of the truth to contribute positive suggestions that may help elucidate some of these issues as indeed you, for an instant, allowed yourself to do above, but then dismissed your own idea as bollocks within the next sentence. Why so much fear of a new idea? If it is bollocks, in time it will show itself to be, but if it is correct, eventually data from the natural world or experiment will support your idea.

Physics is about describing the physical world. We feel more realism is needed than a mathematical expression made to fit in order to account for forces. The Schwarzschild proton paper outlines our approach and is a simple and straightforward solution to unification, although combined with the complexity of the distortion of spacetime near and at horizon, can be quite complex to describe fully.

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 modeled as black holes. Does this sound like a reasonable claim to you?

After all the other debunking of our work you have attempted, it is hardly a surprise that you have deliberately missed the point of our discussion of orbiting protons. That is, we calculated the gravitational attraction and showed that it is almost exactly balanced by the Coulomb and centrifugal forces involved. Of course gravitating objects will orbit, that is obvious.

What we have shown is that the orbits of the two protons are stable. After all, you are the one that suggested that the two Schwarzschild protons would have orbits that would decay and merge. We suggest they can orbit in a stable way.

This also brings up an issue that goes back to at least the time of Bohr.

Why are atoms stable?

Electrons orbiting the nucleus have a constantly changing acceleration. Accelerated electrons should emit photons continuously. Yet atoms are stable. So the standard model invented quantized orbits and defined a set of orbits that conveniently fail to emit photons like they should.

This is necessary unless there is a source of energy to keep the atoms working. We are beginning to show how the vacuum can supply this needed energy. What has the standard model to offer besides more ad hoc inventions of processes that are included just so the model will work at all?

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

The gravitational binding force between two Schwarzschild protons is 7.49 x 10^47 dynes (page 3). This is in fact what you get if you stick any pair of equal mass black holes into Newton’s gravitation equation – the result is the same no matter how big or small the black hole is. (It would be a silly thing to do, as Newton’s laws don’t apply to such extreme situations. But Haramein did it anyway.)

-In old units, this is 7.57 x 10^47 dynes. (Haramein has made some elementary rounding errors that have given him 7.49 instead of 7.57, but we can let this pass.)

To put this number in perspective, this force is:

-700 trillion trillion times the weight of mount Everest (= 10^21 dynes)

-500 thousand trillion times the weight of another planet Earth if you put it ‘on top’ of our one (= 1.5 x 10^30 dynes)

-90 billion trillion times the impact force of a 6 mile diameter asteroid hitting the Earth at 10 miles per second! (The one that wiped out the dinosaurs was this size. It had a mass of 10 trillion tonnes, and was slowed from 10 miles per second after penetrating a distance of about 15km into the crust. v2=2as, F=ma, every action has… you know the deal, you do the math. 90 billion trillion of those. Sounds like a number a child would make up.)

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.

Again the gentleman seems to want to have things any way he wishes, as long as it makes points for his argument. He seems to think that our gravitational attraction figures are “stupidly big” (whatever that means) while still allowing the standard model to insert an infinite force that magically gets stronger at a distance and with no source for it. Now let me make this perfectly clear. According to the current scheme, if I wanted to put two point masses large enough on either side of a hadron to pull the quarks apart, which is where the color or residual strong force is said to originate, then the mass/energy of such point masses would have to be infinitely massive or carry an infinite amount of energy to do the job. Hmm… let me see… hey! that sounds like a black hole!!! Oh never mind I just had a crazy idea. So let me calculate! Hmm… let me see…

“To put this number in perspective, this force is:”

-1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (well to infinity) the weight of Mount Everest (= infinite dynes)

-1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (well to infinity) times the weight of another planet Earth if you put it ‘on top’ of our one (= infinite dynes)

-1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (well to infinity) times the impact force of a 6 mile diameter asteroid hitting the Earth at 10 miles per second!… An infinity of those. Sounds like a number a child would make up.

We can point out that, by the gentleman’s own argument, if gravitation at this range is “stupidly big” then exactly how much more “stupidly big” is infinity? Following your style of exposition, would you conclude that the standard model of color/strong force is infinitely more stupid than our proposals?

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. That is part of science (from the Sanskrit root meaning “lover of truth“).

Apparently any stupidity in the standard model is excused in the gentleman’s thinking, perhaps just because it is the “standard model”? Yet anything different or new is to be attacked by any means. What has your approach to do with science or truth?

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.

There you go again, ignoring the premises already included in the paper explaining that most of the forces involved are balanced out leaving just enough remaining at the proton level (an estimated 10-20 Newtons) so that this is all the force required to knock a proton from the nucleus. In other words, think of it as a little orbiting system spinning near the speed of light. Its balance between the centrifugal force and the centripetal force is extremely fragile and any disturbing entity would easily knock it out of equilibrium. Of course this is a simplistic first approximation, and as mentioned above, there’s much more complexity involved. It demands a little bit of imagination and a willingness to examine the model with new perspectives to see if this can work. Again, the benefits are well worth it and the difficulties are nowhere close to the ones encountered by alternative unification theories.

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.

I’m sorry you feel that way. Others think otherwise, like the ones who gave me an award.

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. If it’s at a distance of 1.5 Rs (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.

Haramein’s protons are both black holes, orbiting at 2Rs, which is further than the photon sphere. A correct calculation would give a lower speed, perhaps not far from two thirds of the speed of light. Haramein has used special relativity (which is only valid in the absence of strong gravitational fields), and got an incorrect result.

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

Actually, we used semi-classical calculations to derive this velocity. So your conclusions about our use of relativity are just wrong. We actually found that if one spins a proton just 10^-39 less than the speed of light, mass dilation effects would increase the ordinary rest mass of a proton to the proposed mass of a Schwarzschild proton. Furthermore, even supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies spin almost at the speed of light. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080115-st-massive-black-hole.html Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that something as small as a proton could do the same.

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.

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

Yes, you got it exactly right. The difference between the standard model and the Schwarzschild proton model is that the standard model has absolutely zero explanation as to where the mechanisms come from to produce both the force and the interaction time, where the Schwarzschild proton model gives very clear fundamental mechanical reasons for its existence. I believe that to have some value. You may say it is pure coincidence, but at this point we’ve got quite an amazing collection of coincidences and again, the value of exploring this territory yields great benefits to unification and, in my opinion, should not be overlooked.

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.

He is clearly either a massively deluded or a massively manipulative man.

In order for me to be “massively” anything, the gentleman would indeed have to define the source of mass since he seems to think he is the competent physicist. I am appalled at the lack of professionalism. I have spent my entire life thinking about and working on these fundamental issues because there are answers worth considering, which ultimately could change the way we view our world, our universe, and our reality in general. Anyone that knows me knows that I work extremely hard with the best intentions to serve humanity and with complete dedication to service. This gentleman’s attitude represents exactly what has been plaguing humanity for thousands of years. These are the ones who thought the Wright brothers were deceiving people for monetary gain and were insane to think that an object heavier than air could ever lift off the ground, the people who thought Einstein was completely delusional to think that spacetime could curve, the ones who thought that Copernicus and Galileo should be burned at the stake for having the audacity to think the earth was not the center of the universe. Keep in mind that all of these ignorant perspectives were eventually overturned, and that being skeptical is nowhere close to this demeaning attitude. The one who is deceiving is the one who is working completely out of anonymity, conveniently portraying himself as the authority of science, the holder of truth, and as having the capacity to make judgments on a body of work that, clearly, as shown above, has yet to even be defined appropriately by the standard model itself.

In order to make an accurate judgment of any body of work, and certainly when attempting to judge someone’s life work, one must take extreme precaution to have studied the issue carefully and go beyond just rambling and regurgitating what is already known, as this may and will change. Anyone is welcome to think what they wish of my model, but for all the critical personal statements, calumnies, and character assassinations the gentleman has propagated about me without any personal knowledge of who I am and what I’m about, from any professional colleague, I would demand a public apology. However, since the gentleman has not conducted himself as a professional, this may be beyond his capacity.

What I will provide in response to the general tone of these criticisms is the assurance, based on my own personal integrity, which I stand on using my own name in public and on the testimony of respected and trusted colleagues in the scientific community, that I am hardly out to “manipulate” anyone. Anyone suggesting that I do this simply for monetary benefit misses the point completely and obviously has no clue about who I am and what I stand for. A majority of my life’s history and work is underlined by continuous financial struggles because I have chosen to honor my inner knowing instead of selling out to the status quo in order to appeal to large institutions. I will not be forced to think along their predetermined lines. There have been moments, even very recently, in which I could have taken the easy path and sacrificed my integrity for financial gain by associating with organizations whose agendas are less than humanitarian. It takes an enormous amount of courage and dedication to choose the path I have taken, and I take great offense to these allegations. I will not apologize for thinking outside the box, and I will continue to strive for what I believe is a worthy avenue towards a deeper truth and a better world.

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.”
- Albert Einstein

“Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence.”
- Albert Einstein

 

Nassim Haramein
Research Director
The Resonance Project