Dr. Michael Hyson Comments on N. Haramein's The Schwarzschild Proton
Dr. Michael T. Hyson, Ph.D. January 13, 2010 5pm HST (GMT -10)
Comments on the Video of Mr. Brown about
Nassim Haramein's recent paper: The Schwarzschild Proton
See the Mr. Brown's video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEMk3-FFTLY
Aloha,
Mr. Brown is correct in what he states, while at the same time, is missing part of the point. Obviously, if all the mass of the Schwarzschild proton were expressed as ordinary mass, he is correct.
The idea missed, and which could be made more explicit, is that we are still far from understanding what "mass" really is.
Haramein's paper suggests that most of the "mass" of the Schwarzschild proton is expressed as something else, for example, the gravitational attraction may be "used up" balancing the centrifugal forces of two protons orbiting each other at the speed of light. As well, some of the "mass" gravitational attraction is "used up" by providing the force which confines quarks in the proton, and some more used to counter the Coulomb repulsion of the protons which have the same charge.
Furthermore, the paper presently on the internet was only a draft paper. The final paper, which is currently being prepared for publication, includes a calculation that shows, interestingly, that if we take the standard rest mass of a proton, and rotate it just 10^-39 less than the speed of light, then the Lorentz mass dilation effect increases the mass to 10^14 grams. Again, perhaps only a small portion of this is "seen" experimentally.
The idea is that we are failing to measure the "excess" mass by experiment - perhaps since most of it is behind an event horizon, and may prevent our observation of it?
Clearly, Mr. Brown would be correct if all the vacuum energy required to form a proton-sized black hole were expressed as measurable mass. By standard models, he IS correct, his calculations are accurate.
However, in his video Mr. Brown fails to mention that Haramein uses the Planck's density of the vacuum as a basis for specifying the increased mass of the proton and shows that the density of the vacuum must be considered in our models.
Another way to look at it is:
Given a total vacuum energy density of 10^93 g/cm^3, the total vacuum energy in the volume of a proton is 10^55 grams, which is the accepted figure for the mass of the whole universe.
IF you accept the 10^93 figure, then, it follows that the total mass energy available for the proton is 10^55 grams, which is much MUCH larger than our 10^14 gram figure. So, how do we account for the fact that this 10^55 grams which is potentially available has yet to be seen in experiments either?
Does it just happen that this 10^55 gram mass is the value given by the standard model for the universe as a whole? This figure supports Haramein's view that the vacuum is a medium that entangles all matter. This could account for the apparent harmonic relationship of the mass of the universe and the mass of the proton.
Furthermore, the Schwarzschild proton paper shows that using such a condition on the proton dynamics produced the correct value for the interaction time of the strong force, its gamma emission frequency, and a close approximation for magnetic moment of the proton.
Importantly, the Schwarzschild proton lines up almost perfectly on the scale of organized matter from universal size to the Planck distance. This could hardly be discounted as coincidental. The Schwarzschild proton would appear to be part of the physics of our world, since these fundamental values come out correctly.
In general, it is thought that forces in the vacuum mostly cancel to zero, and this is supposed to explain why we fail to measure it in ordinary experience. Therefore, only if some of the energy of the vacuum is aligned, spinning or polarized in similar directions is it "seen" as mass or energy. Only 10^-39 percent of the vacuum energy available in the proton need be polarized to make it a small black hole, and ultimately, only 10^-25 Kg is "seen" as measurable mass.
This is indeed a puzzle.
Haramein's first approximation of an answer is to show that centrifugal forces and the energy needed for quark confinement may cancel most of the effective mass.
Another major point is that the standard model includes the strong force, but has yet to explain where all this energy comes from - it is just assumed.
In the video, Mr. Brown overlooks that the posited increase of mass of the proton of 10^38 orders of magnitude matches the ratio of strength of the strong force relative to the gravitational force, where gravity is thought to be 10^38 times less powerful than the strong force.
Therefore, the problem is more basic than Haramein's increasing the "mass" of the proton by 38 orders of magnitude. Rather, note that the standard model throws in a force 10^38 times stronger than gravity without any explanation for where the energy comes from which could produce such a monster.
At least in Haramein's model, the needed energy results from vacuum fluctuations interacting at the quantum level producing gravitational curvature. In Haramein's approach, the energy is derived from a miniscule portion of the available vacuum energy, while the standard model fails to account for the energy of the strong force at all..
So, Mr. Brown is correct as far as he goes, yet I would emphasize that the paper is addressing the fundamental nature of mass, which again, the standard theory more or less overlooks (or uses the theoretical idea of a "Higgs Field") to account for mass. It is anticipated by the main stream physics that a Higgs particle may be found by the Large Hadron Collider. We shall see.
At the moment, the origin of mass is still a major puzzle for all the theories.
Of course this Schwarzschild proton model affects all other masses, both micro and macroscopic. Obviously, the macroscopic model, as Mr. Brown points out, would be affected by an increase in mass of the proton.
Mr. Brown is correct in making this assertion but it should be noted that the current standard model for the macroscopic mass of the universe seems to have misplaced some 96-98 % of the mass necessary to support the observed dynamics of galaxies and super-clusters. The standard model addresses this issue by inventing, once again, a whole new species of physical effects (as they did with the strong force at the quantum level) by adding "dark matter" to make things work.
So obviously there is a problem with the mass dynamics at the macro level and the Schwarzschild proton may be an appropriate way to address it. Where I differ with Mr. Brown is on the question of whether mass discrepancies and other issues are enough to shoot down the model? I feel the model is useful and should be explored thoroughly.
Haramein's paper is a first attempt to address the origins of mass, strong force and charge, issues the standard model has yet to fully address. I look forward to future developments and the insights it may produce.
Mahalo,
Michael T. Hyson, Ph.D.
Puna, Hawai'I
posted by Michael Hyson @ 6:41 PM
