Friday, June 5, 2009

Nassim Haramein

We've talked in previous blogs about fractals, sacred geometry, water and its connection to life and inspiration, and how the "zero" and the "ten" in my way of visualizing the dimensions are really two complimentary ways of looking at the same thing: perceiving the underlying perfectly balanced symmetry state that our universe or any other springs from. One thing I've remarked upon before is that the "zero", as a point, represents the push towards the infinitely small, and the "ten" represents the push towards the infinitely large, but both are part of the same continuum (and are represented as such in the graphic created for this project - the zero and ten are on a line, and the other dimensions are "outside" of that line). Within my way of visualizing the dimensions, then, the zero and ten are of indeterminate size, and the other dimensions represent ways of slicing up infinity to get to more specific subsets of reality, including a universe such as our own.

A number of people have remarked to me that physicist Nassim Haramein has a Unified Field Theory which seems to connect in some interesting ways to the ideas I've been talking about. If you're in a hurry, start listening to the video below at about 7:45, because pretty well everything up to that point is preamble. At 7:45 he begins to talk about there being much more to our reality than what we see around us, and that he (like me) had an intuition about this at the age of seven which he became fascinated with.

By the end of this first clip, you can see him starting to describe the same way of visualizing spatial dimensions which I talk about in my original animation, and as I've remarked previously in entries like We Start With a Point, A Point Within the Omniverse, and Aren't There Really 11 Dimensions?, this is known as the point-line-plane postulate. In the following video, you'll see that he says the first and second dimension don't really exist, and then he says by that logic the third dimension doesn't exist, since it's made out of things that don't exist!

To solve this quandary, he goes back to the zero that we start from, the point of indeterminate size, and posits that the fractal nature of our reality tells us that everything is constructed from points, each point recursively/infinitely embedded within all other points, and therefore all points are connected to each other. He tells us that his theories are now being peer-reviewed at several American universities.

He points out that this idea may seem similar to the theory of the big bang, which says our universe sprang from a "dot" the size of Planck's length. But in Nassim's theory, all "dots" contain the potential for a universe, because they are all connected together. In the following video he shows clips from a couple of movies: the opening sequence of "Contact", and the ending of "Men in Black", both of which give us graphic ways of visualizing a universe that is embedded in other universes. I've remarked elsewhere that the "universe embedded in a rose in an abandoned parking lot" idea from Stephen King's Dark Tower series is another interesting fictional portrayal of this recursive/fractal idea.

The universe is infinite. How do you fit infinity within a finite space? Fractals. In the above video he shows how this could possibly be imagined through infinite recursion, watch the video and you'll see what I mean. Or check out the following two animations from the wikipedia article on fractals: the object at the left is known as a Sierpinski Triangle, and to the right is a Koch Snowflake.

If you were to imagine drawing a circle on a piece of paper, then fitting either of these shapes within that circle, you would see a very similar idea to what he's talking about here. Although both of these animations only show the first ten steps or less, in both cases the process we are seeing could be repeated forever, as each new step proceeds down to a smaller scale than the one before. In the following video he continues this idea:

.. and here's how he sums it up (I've edited him a bit here):

"Although I can place an infinite amount of triangles in a circle, I will never exceed the first boundary I made for myself. Never. I just showed you how infinity fits in a so-called finite space: because you can divide to infinity within a circle!

"What does that mean? Let me give an example for physics: we build faster and faster accelerators that cost billions of dollars, to get smaller and smaller. If we were to understand this principle of fractals, we would see very quickly that you can always keep dividing: so we would give up the search for some fundamental particle that's going to end the search. And we would start to understand that what we need to discover is the dynamic of the division, the dynamic of the quantization... rather than continuing to see how much further we can keep going down into infinity."
If you've followed him this far, you will now start to hear him say things about our connectedness, and our interface with reality that very strongly connects to the things I talk about regularly with my project. Here's one thing I want to make absolutely clear: Nassim is not promoting a worldview that comes from ten spatial dimensions, but he is promoting a very similar concept to what I portray as being the tenth dimension: an infinite "set of all possible states" that contains all possible expressions of matter and energy, all enfolded together into an underlying whole, a zero which is "full rather than empty" as Gevin Giorbran explained so well in Everything Forever. When you read blog entries like The Invariant Set, Imagining the Omniverse Addendum, Google and the Group Mind, Dreaming of Electric Sheep, and Why Do We Need More than 3 Dimensions?, you'll see fractals discussed from various approaches. The thing that we should all be clear about here is that fractals are often defined as having "non-integer" dimensions: and as you'll see if you read the wikipedia article on Hausdorff Dimensions, that Sierpinski fractal (which we looked at above) has a dimensionality of approximately 1.585. By the time we are imagining reality coming from ten dimensions but when those dimensions can contain any number of "fractional" dimensions, it really does seem like my description of the ten dimensions allows for us to include an infinite number of vectors within that set: as Nassim says, this is another way of thinking about how an infinite set could be contained within a so-called finite space.

The word "multiverse" has come to have multiple definitions. When someone uses that word, are they talking about the set of parallel universe outcomes for our own universe as described by Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation, or are they talking about the ten to the power of 500 universes with different initial conditions from our own universe which are predicted by string theory? Often, the definition of this word depends upon who you are talking to. Because my way of visualizing the dimensions provides a way to enfold and relate both of those concepts into a hierarchy, I have come to prefer to use the omniverse as the word that combines all of those possible states into one.

If you'd like to hear more from Nassim Haramein, please go to this youtube channel, iiisis2, where all forty-five videos that make up the presentation we're looking at here are posted.

Enjoy the journey!

Rob Bryanton

Next: Augmented Reality - 10thdim Music Videos

Eric said...

Very informational site, thanks for sharing.

My name is Eric Knouse, I'm a meditation instructor with The Practice and recently graduated from the Nassim Haramein Delegate Program as a Certified Resonance Project Delegate. I have some information I would like to share with you and your viewers about the Nassim Haramein Resonance Project.

Take Care,

Eric

Bob said...

Potentially interesting ideas - but what mathematician or physicist would ever say that the third dimension is built up from a finite number of two-dimensional planes? Or that the finite three-dimensional cluster of chalk particles on a blackboard is a zero-dimensional point? It's a symbol. Nassim is making straw men and then laughing at them; all he's dismissing is his own misunderstanding of what is meant by dimensions.

People have been saying Nassim's theories are 'in the process of being peer-reviewed' for the last ten years. Think about what this means. If I've entered a race over and over for ten years, and the best I can say after all this time is "I've entered a race", is that good?

It all seems a bit empty to me, I'm afraid.

Anonymous said...

"Bob" You do not understand anything else what Nassim Haramein have told about that's why you are "afraid" of your comments. you should think much intellectually about your existence as human being in this space time realm first. Please don't make any comment on what you can't understand.

Take Care!

Bob said...

I agree that we should keep our minds open; and I think it's important to be able to recognise when something is wrong (such as your remark on my turn of phrase). Open-mindedness doesn't mean accepting what you're told or whatever you happen to like.

I also agree that we shouldn't comment on what we don't understand. If you understand sufficiently to see clearly that something is wrong, then I think it's right to say so.

I don't think it's right that Haramein sells himself as a leading research physicist - it's clear to me that this is false.

I don't need you to agree, though. I know what I'm saying might not be popular.

Peace.

Anonymous said...

"Bob" it's not about any war.It's sure my word was to rude to you. I may agree with You that Nassim Haramein is not an University certified scientist or there may be so many error in his work. But I don't agree that he is selling "himself as a leading research physicist". He only expressed his view and opinion through his lecture to us to think about those ideas and work on them.

There are so many different solutions for any problem. His view is like one of them.

You told about dimension. yes it is a Idealized view to understand it easily. Practically those things doesn't exist as a dot or a line or a 2D plane in our physical world. That exist is 3D point and then we can't go or view further higher dimension of space in reality. But U know that in theory by making idealized condition we can create more higher dimension for as in Tensor concept.

Do you think we normal people relay understand other lower or higher dimensions of space in our physical world? we are bound at a certain scale of reality. only those who can cross it can realize them.This is too hard to do for us.

There is no glory to criticize some one's new idea or view unless you prove analytically and experimentally that He is wrong. He is not imposing His idea upon you.

If you can relay explain those events and facts and anomalies what he have told us You are very much welcome!

It's about to search the reality not to be popular.

Bob said...

Haramein does promote himself as a leading physicist. He introduces himself - and has other people introduce him - as exactly that. The Resonance Project website is full of claims for him and his research. He has always argued that his research is serious, scientific, ground-breaking, and that 'the other physicists don't realise' the things he has realised.

Yes, his view is one of many. But being equally open to all views isn't open-mindedness. Nothing closes us off more to reality than being unwilling to discern the truth from the masses of opinions that are out there.

You're right that there's no glory in criticising. But if someone is making so many claims with so little understanding, and talking so much nonsense, and lots of people appear to believe him, I think it would be wrong if nobody said anything.

You mentioned higher dimensions - I don't really know what you were saying. Haramein is talking here only about 0, 1, 2, 3 dimensions, and so was I. Given that he doesn't understand these, it would be sad to think that other people would look to him for answers on higher dimensions. Or on anything of value.

You might like listening to what he says, but doesn't it concern you if it's clear to lots of people that he doesn't know what he's talking about? Do you think the entire scientific community (who dismiss all his 'scientific' ideas) are all idiots? All of them? Really?

There are great speakers out there on the Cosmos - Neil Tyson, Brian Cox, Philip Plait, Michio Kaku... and of course the late Carl Sagan - who know can communicate well, who are entertaining, who have real depth of understanding, and who speak the truth. I think these are things worth valuing, far, far above the sparkly nonsense Haramein has to offer.

ben said...

oh My GOD!!

your arguing and bitching proves how small we really are..

NONE of you know anything beyond what YOU know, so stop comparing and bickering.. jeez!!

I watched all (all) of nassim's video thing and found him to be extremely clever and positive, full of humour and insight.. which is MORE of what the world needs.

I am stunned to read such petty, scrappy bitching about all the things NONE of you can change.

who cares what title nassim has or gives himself???? who cares at all?? what matters is the intent behind his words and efforts to communicate..

why cant you people stop acting like jerks and just be supportive of each other???????

the criticising and complaining and comparing and bitching MAKES ME SICK!!!! GAH!

ben said...

I mean come on!! "sparkly nonsense"?? grow the fuck up "bob" you just come across SOO petty and jealous and critical..... what contributions have YOU made?

Bob said...

Hi Ben

Ok, well it's a little unclear, but I'll start by assuming you're saying that without any irony...

I guess we disagree, that's all. Some people, I guess yourself included, feel that everyone should be able to say what they like and be respected for it. I like the thought, but what about people who mislead? What about people who manipulate? What about people who knowingly sell falsehoods to those who trust them? Do I have to respect them too?

As I said above, Haramein passes himself off as a leading physicist, and it's a lie. He presents falsehood after falsehood in his talks, and asserts that he has conducted serious research behind them, and that's also untrue. He claims to have won prestigious awards from academic bodies, also not true. He claims to have a unified field theory, but I don't believe he even knows what one is, never mind found a solution to one - I've never seen him use the language of field theory or show any understanding of fields in physics. Again, it's just untrue.

As you say, he's clever and positive and humorous, so what's not to like? But I don't think that what the world needs is charisma and pleasantries and outlandish claims. We certainly don't need his misuse of language and deceit. I prefer a world where honesty and integrity are what is valued.

And I prefer a world where someone who is able to recognise a fraud is prepared to stand up and say so.

If the fact that you like him and/or like the sound of is ideas matters more to you than whether or not there's any truth in what he says, then of course you won't want to investigate his ideas any further. You can just take them as he feeds them to you, and enjoy the show.

If you think I'm only saying this because I'm being a jerk, or because I want to complain, or because I'm petty and jealous or because I'm closed-minded and can't think outside the box or any other prejudice you might have towards me, then obviously you don't need to take any notice.

But if I have extremely good reasons to believe that someone is a fraud, then I'm certainly not going to let you feel you have the right to tell me not to say anything.

If you're interested, check out bit[dot]ly/haramein, and related pages.

It would, as you say, be petty if I made such claims without serious evidence to back it up. You'll find plenty of reasons for me claiming that he's a fraud there, in detail, as clear as I'm capable of writing, and open to the public. And unlike Haramein, if you don't agree with my reasoning, you're very welcome to comment on it, and I'll respond as best I can.

Have fun! Or if you choose to turn a blind eye and hold fast to your opinions and your prejudices instead, then fair enough. After all, all this 'complaining' makes you sick, so it's not as if you'll even read this. :-)

Anonymous said...

MMMMhhhhh.........Haramein received an award ( after pier reviewing )at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS'09 for “The Schwarzschild Proton,” furthermore, it has recently been observed by a VLA telescope that black holes do exist in the near presence of stars, confirming Haramein's postulates, at least as far as discrediting Quantum Mechanics theories. Plus Haramein backs up all of his postulates with formulas, even though sometimes these formulas need slight tweaking.
Have you got the numbers, facts and formulas necessary to discredit Haramein's work, sir, or are you just posting from "pseudoscientits" hearsay? At the present moment, the evidence strongly points out that this man is onto something quite important.

Bob said...

Haramein received an award, yes. And he's paraded it as if it's an academic accolade. Please have a look at it more carefully, and look at where it's come from. I think you'll find it hard to disagree with the following:

(a) the paper was not presented by the university, but by the organisers of a small computing conference held in a management school associated with the university

(b) there is no 'peer-reviewing' involved - it was simply awarded by the other participants on the conference, who he has chosen to refer to as peers

(c) the other participants at this computing conference were very unlikely to have much of a clue about anything to do with quantum physics, black holes or protons

(d) even if they did - the award is for "best paper in the field of Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation” at a small computing conference. There isn't likely to be much competition.

This helps explain how such an abominable paper could have been awarded anything at all. It also shows that he has no qualms about misleading people into believing he is something that he is not.

In answer to your question, I do have facts and formulae (and indeed a few fairly straightforward arguments is all it takes) that show this paper to be junk. Not misguided, not a paper with some errors, certainly not formulae that need slight tweaking, but absolute schoolboy junk.

You can see my arguments at bit [dot] ly/schproton. Let me know if there's anything you disagree with.

I'm not sure what you're saying about black holes. I can see no reason why any observations of them would discredit quantum mechanics, and certainly no reason to say that that would have anything to do with Haramein, who has (like all charlatans) been careful not to make any definite testable predictions about anything.

It sounds very much to me like you haven't a clue what you're talking about, but it's never easy to tell - I could be wrong, and I don't mean to offend. Please let me know where you got that idea from, and explain your reasoning as to how it relates to Haramein.

Anonymous said...

Haha, hello again BOB...It seems that my search for the truth is going to involve you more that I thought!

Did you spend all of your time writing out your comments from scratch here, or just copy and paste them from your other page?

Zoe

Bob said...

Hi Zoe :)

Noooo, I spend much more time reading and listening and learning and thinking... I guess the comments just add up after a while. (Can only hope the learning does too). I don't do copies.

Have fun Zoe. Here's something interesting for you: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread636625/pg1

Anonymous said...

I've kind of side-tracked from the heavy maths of physics a bit now with lucid dreaming and other stuff. It all links together in the end though because they r all just little parts of the whole puzzle.
I'm reading a Stephen Hawking book - Interesting stuff. Been looking into Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff stuff too. You might have already seen some of this:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/personal.html

There's loads of great info here...the stuff about microtubles in the brain and consciousness is good :-)

Eckhart Tolle stuff has been good too, although I'm not sure you would like him. :-)

Happy learning

Zoe

Happy learning.

Anonymous said...

Bob...Your pg "fraud or sage" is not putting messages up.
You prob already know but just thought I'd mention it.
Spent ages writing comment and lost it, lol.
Never mind...I might try some other time.
All the best,
Zoe

Divine Sign said...

Bob:

Maybe you would like this.

It is a 5 part video series. Like the info about the pyramids, here is something a tad more contempory. It also speaks to the "opinions" of Nassim. The builders of the pyramids and the cathedrals were not physicists, but they had knowledge that we cannot duplicate today. To me, you sound as though you are someone who WANTS to believe, but that something is holding you back. Saints, philosophers, etc, all without university accolades are brilliant. Don't be afraid to go with your heart. It is much more trustworthy than your mind.

Divine Sign said...

Bob:

Maybe you would like this.

It is a 5 part video series. Like the info about the pyramids, here is something a tad more contempory. It also speaks to the "opinions" of Nassim. The builders of the pyramids and the cathedrals were not physicists, but they had knowledge that we cannot duplicate today. To me, you sound as though you are someone who WANTS to believe, but that something is holding you back. Saints, philosophers, etc, all without university accolades are brilliant. Don't be afraid to go with your heart. It is much more trustworthy than your mind.

Bob said...

Thanks Divine Sign, I like that. I love the symbolic depths and magnificence of great cathedrals, and the people being interviewed in the film seem to be genuine, intelligent, aware. There are some beautiful images and concepts in the film.

I'm not sure what makes you believe I don't follow my heart. My issue with people like Haramein is that they're talking about things they don't understand and pretending to be something they're not, especially when they try to wade into science or mathematics. I think it's the duty of those of us with a deep enough appreciation of science to expose those who have so little respect for their audiences that they would fake science to impress other people. Haramein does it exceptionally badly.

I have a great deal of respect for the truly sacred and those who want to communicate it with integrity; I don't have respect for the pretentious and the dishonest.

I didn't see anything pretentious or dishonest in the film; but the cheesy New Age commentary is a little unfortunate and got a little too close to pretentious silliness for my taste at times. I think it deserves better than that. Aside from that, it's a fine film.

TheBrandoTip said...

Hey Bob... I dont agree with everything you've said.. but you and I are entitled to our opinions... I dont think he OVER sells himself as a respected scientist and PHD... I think his only real, community officiated accolade, was a reward for his paper which he mentions all the time.

But seriously... If someone can understand point-line-plane postulate, Im pretty sure it is safe to assume that they are NOT bein fooled into a halo effect by Nassim.

In fact.. it is pretty arrogant to make the claims you are making, because unless you are a PHD or are further qualified on the topic than Nassim is... why would you be an authority to be able to challenge his "facts".. to say Nassim doesnt understand what a dimension is the same as saying you know better than he does.. but where are your qualifications?