Quantum gravity and Schwarzschild proton

In this article I don’t just talk about gra­vi­ty, I talk about quan­tum gra­vi­ty. What ? The grail of phy­si­cists ? That’s right ! But what’s the connec­tion bet­ween quan­tum gra­vi­ty and Schwarzschild pro­ton, you ask ? And first of all, what is the rela­tion­ship bet­ween a pro­ton and Karl Schwarzschild, the first phy­si­cist to have sol­ved Einstein’s field equa­tions ? That’s a lot of ques­tions all at once… Let’s start at the beginning !


What is gravity ?

Einstein’s field equa­tions des­cribe gra­vi­ty by the cur­va­ture of space-time. It is as if the mass of an object was applied to a sta­tic flat sur­face, like a very hea­vy ball ben­ding the sur­face of a tram­po­line. From this point of view, « gra­vi­ty would not be an inter­nal force of an object, but the way this force, applied to an object, modi­fies the struc­ture of space-time » [1]. However, Einstein’s equa­tions say nothing about the source of gra­vi­ty. And, accor­ding to Nassim Haramein, they can’t do that because they don’t real­ly take into account the rota­tion of the objects.

gravity-and-discrete-valuesThat’s why he chan­ged Einstein’s equa­tions. He rein­cor­po­ra­ted the gyro­sco­pic effects [2] that were pre­vious­ly arti­fi­cial­ly sup­pres­sed to sim­pli­fy cal­cu­la­tions. In doing so, he also inclu­ded torque [3] and Coriolis effects [4]. Then, he applied the lat­ter to the sys­tem direct­ly from space-time, which is for­med, at the quan­tum level, of units of infor­ma­tion cal­led Planck spheres (PSU) [5].

In other words, he des­cribes the very source of gra­vi­ty – the ori­gin of the cur­va­ture of space-time – as the coor­di­na­ted rota­tion of the Planck spheres that make it up. In this model, space-time has a fun­da­men­tal vor­tex (spin), which spreads in a den­si­ty gra­dient from the smal­lest to the lar­gest scales. This cas­cade of whirl­pools explains the rota­tion of all objects in the universe.


Towards quantum gravity

In this model, the uni­fi­ca­tion of the four inter­ac­tions iden­ti­fied in phy­sics also becomes pos­sible. At the macro­sco­pic level these are the gra­vi­ta­tio­nal and elec­tro­ma­gne­tic inter­ac­tions. And on a micro­sco­pic level, these are :

  •  the strong inter­ac­tion, that gene­rates the cohe­sion of pro­tons in the nucleus.
  •  the weak inter­ac­tion, that gene­rates the radio­ac­tive decay of sub­ato­mic par­ticles, relea­sing ener­gy in the form of various radiations.

The main dif­fi­cul­ty in fin­ding a theo­ry uni­fying these four inter­ac­tions is that, unlike the other inter­ac­tions, the gra­vi­ta­tio­nal inter­ac­tion can­not be expres­sed as dis­crete values. That is, as a set contai­ning a finite num­ber of values bet­ween any two values. On the contra­ry of a conti­nuous set which can take an infi­nite num­ber of values bet­ween any two values. This is the case of the space-time conti­nuum of Einstein’s gene­ral relativity.

Nassim Haramein’s stroke of genius is to use Planck spheres as infor­ma­tion units. This allows him to express gra­vi­ty with dis­crete values, and thus make pos­sible the uni­fi­ca­tion of the four interactions.


May the gravity be with us…

In fact, he shows that the strong inter­ac­tion is sim­ply gra­vi­ty acting at the quan­tum level, as I will detail it in the rest of this article. So that in the end, he only uni­fies gra­vi­ty and electromagnetism.


« (…) I could even reduce these two forces into one : the gra­vi­ta­tio­nal force. Because if nothing is drawn to the cen­ter, there is no radia­tion. If the­re’s no force pul­ling towards the cen­ter, the­re’s no orbit. If the­re’s no orbit, the­re’s no radia­tion. So, the fun­da­men­tal force is the force that attracts towards the cen­ter, the force that col­lapses towards the infi­nite, towards the sin­gu­la­ri­ty. And the conse­quence of this force is the elec­tro­ma­gne­tic field which is just a tiny part of what exists, which we call rea­li­ty, because we see it radiate and we think it exists. » [6]


Expres­sed with dis­crete values, gra­vi­ty can apply to all scales. And what else can be found, from the infi­ni­te­ly small to the infi­ni­te­ly large, accor­ding to the theo­ry of the connec­ted uni­verse ? Black holes !  (see the article on the frac­tal and holo­gra­phic uni­verse on this subject).

So now the ques­tion is :


Discrete values + black hole =?

holographic-principle-and-flower-of-lifeNot only ONE sphere [7], but a mul­ti­tude of Planck Spheres (PSU), which contain infor­ma­tion. The equa­to­rial sur­faces [8] of these spheres line the sur­face of the black hole accor­ding to the flo­wer of life pat­tern (hence the main illus­tra­tion in this article). There are 1060 PSU inside a pro­ton and 1040 on its sur­face, which cor­res­ponds to the event hori­zon of a proton-black hole.

Finally, Nassim Haramein consi­ders gra­vi­ty as a ratio bet­ween the amount of infor­ma­tion contai­ned in the volume of a black hole and the amount of infor­ma­tion expres­sed on its sur­face. Using this simple geo­me­tric ratio, he can cal­cu­late the gra­vi­ta­tio­nal field of any object in the uni­verse, from the smal­lest to the lar­gest black hole, inclu­ding the proton.


And may the vacuum be with the proton !

Applied at the cos­mo­lo­gi­cal level, the holo­gra­phic solu­tion gives the same result as the clas­si­cal solu­tion (Schwarzschild solu­tion) for the mass of black holes. However, applied at the quan­tum level, the result is consi­de­ra­bly dif­ferent from what is mea­su­red in labo­ra­to­ry for the mass of the pro­ton. Indeed, the holo­gra­phic mass of the pro­ton is 1014 g while the mass of the stan­dard pro­ton is 10-24 g.

The holo­gra­phic mass actual­ly means that the pro­ton is a black hole. That’s why we can call it the Schwarzschild pro­ton, because of the name of the German phy­si­cist who des­cri­bed the first theo­re­ti­cal black hole.

How can the dif­fe­rence bet­ween the two values be explai­ned ? Well, unlike stan­dard mass, holo­gra­phic mass takes into account the vacuum ener­gy contai­ned in the pro­ton : 1055 g, the equi­va­lent to the mass of the uni­verse. Since this mass esta­blishes the fact that the uni­verse is a black hole, it neces­sa­ri­ly esta­blishes the fact that the pro­ton is also a black hole.



Furthermore, it means that the holo­gra­phic mass of all the pro­tons in the uni­verse is contai­ned in a Schwarzschild pro­ton. Thus, the infor­ma­tion of all the pro­tons in the uni­verse is contai­ned in each pro­ton. So, it proves mathe­ma­ti­cal­ly that the uni­verse is holographic.


But then, what’s the real mass of a proton ?

However, both pro­ton mass values are cor­rect. How is that pos­sible ? Because there is an inverse ratio of infor­ma­tion bet­ween the stan­dard mass and the holo­gra­phic mass. These ratios cor­res­pond to two points of view, two dif­ferent frames of refe­rence.

For the stan­dard pro­ton, the frame of refe­rence is the obser­ver, which is equi­va­lent to consi­de­ring the pro­ton sepa­rate from other pro­tons. Whereas in the case of the Schwarzschild pro­ton, the frame of refe­rence is the uni­verse, which is equi­va­lent to consi­de­ring the pro­ton in rela­tion to all the other pro­tons in the universe.

So, in the first case, we only consi­der infor­ma­tion present on the sur­face of the pro­ton. Whereas in the second case, we also take into consi­de­ra­tion the infor­ma­tion in its volume.





Strong force = quantum gravity

That’s it : strong force = quan­tum gravity !

gravitational-force-between-two-protonsThe dif­fe­rence in values bet­ween the holo­gra­phic mass (1014g) and the stan­dard mass of the pro­ton (10-24g) is about 39 orders of magni­tude. It’s consi­de­ra­bly large. As large as the value of the strong force, which is equal to 1039 if gra­vi­ty is 1. What does that mean ? That the strong force does not exist as such : it is sim­ply gra­vi­ty expres­sed at the quan­tum level.


« The confi­ne­ment force that pro­tons expe­rience in the nucleus of an atom (the so-called strong force, or strong inter­ac­tion) is equi­va­lent to the ener­gy of the gra­vi­ta­tio­nal force that two pro­tons would expe­rience if they were mini black holes attrac­ting each other. » [9]


The importance of the frame of reference 

So, let’s sum­ma­rize. What does Nassim Haramein final­ly teach us ? That some­times we say the same thing but dif­fe­rent­ly because our frames of refe­rence are not the same ! His point of view is simi­lar to that of the French phi­lo­so­pher Michel Bitbol. Indeed, the phy­si­cist illus­trates how approa­ching phy­sics in terms of rela­tion­ships rather than intrin­sic pro­per­ties makes phy­sics mea­ning­ful again (see the article Reality and quan­tum phy­sics).


Illustration n°1

observer-standard-protonuniverse-schwarzschild-protonFirst, Nassim Haramein does not consi­der the mass of the pro­ton as an intrin­sic pro­per­ty. Rather, he consi­ders the pro­ton in rela­tion to a frame of refe­rence, that of the obser­ver for the stan­dard pro­ton and that of the uni­verse for the black hole pro­ton. This can also be expres­sed as fol­lows : the mass of the pro­ton and the frame of refe­rence appear depen­dent­ly.


Illustration n°2

Secondly, gra­vi­ty, rela­ted to this mass, is itself explai­ned by a rela­tion­ship. In this case a rela­tion­ship bet­ween the infor­ma­tion in the volume of a black hole and that expres­sed on its sur­face. Our unders­tan­ding of quan­tum gra­vi­ty depends on this rela­tio­nal perspective.


Illustration n°3

Thirdly, the values of the cos­mo­lo­gi­cal constant (10-29 g/cm3) and the quan­tum vacuum ener­gy den­si­ty (1093 g/cm3) are both cor­rect, although they are sepa­ra­ted by 120 orders of magni­tude [10]. Indeed, Nassim Haramein shows that it is enough to extend the ener­gy of the vacuum present in the volume of a pro­ton black hole to the radius of the uni­verse for the ener­gy den­si­ty of the vacuum of the uni­verse to cor­res­pond exact­ly to the cos­mo­lo­gi­cal constant. Again, these values are dif­ferent only because each is rela­ted to a par­ti­cu­lar frame of refe­rence : the quan­tum scale for ener­gy den­si­ty of the vacuum and the cos­mo­lo­gi­cal scale for the cos­mo­lo­gi­cal constant.


« It is no lon­ger neces­sa­ry to choose whe­ther Einstein’s cos­mo­lo­gi­cal constant is cor­rect or whe­ther Planck vacuum den­si­ty is valid, because they are both cor­rect and represent the evo­lu­tion of the uni­verse and all of its crea­tion. » [11]


The proton radius

Thanks to this new vision of things and the use of the smal­lest pos­sible units – Planck spheres – Nassim Haramein cal­cu­lates the pro­ton radius very pre­ci­se­ly. So pre­ci­se­ly that this value is to date the clo­sest theo­re­ti­cal pre­dic­tion to what is mea­su­red in labo­ra­to­ry. Moreover, the mea­su­re­ment of the radius of charge RMS of the pro­ton was vali­da­ted by the CODATA value (Data Committee for Science and Technology which recom­mends a list of values of the fun­da­men­tal phy­si­cal constants) adjus­ted in 2018.

Moreover, this solu­tion pre­dicts the whole table of che­mi­cal ele­ments where the stan­dard model only pre­dicts the hydro­gen atom and then becomes less and less accurate.

I now invite you to dis­co­ver what Nassim Haramein’s theo­ry also has to say about bio­lo­gy and of course about conscious­ness.



Key points


  • The source of gra­vi­ty lies in the coor­di­na­ted rota­tion of the Planck spheres that form space-time at the quan­tum level.

  • Used as units of infor­ma­tion, Planck spheres allow gra­vi­ty to be expres­sed at the quan­tum level, with dis­crete values.

  • Gravity is a ratio bet­ween the amount of infor­ma­tion contai­ned in the volume of black holes, present at all scales of the uni­verse, and the amount of infor­ma­tion expres­sed on their surface.

  • The value of the pro­ton mass, the dif­fe­rence in value bet­ween the cos­mo­lo­gi­cal constant and the ener­gy den­si­ty of the vacuum, and ulti­mat­ly quan­tum gra­vi­ty, can only be appre­hen­ded in rela­tion to a given frame of reference.




Notes and references

[1] HARAMEIN Nassim, L’Univers déco­dé ou la théo­rie de l’unification, Québec : Editions Louise Courteau, 2012, p.57, free translation

[2] A gyro­scope is a device that exploits the prin­ciple of conser­va­tion of angu­lar momen­tum in phy­sics (or gyro­sco­pic effect). This fun­da­men­tal law of mecha­nics is that in the absence of torque applied to a rota­ting solid, the solid retains its inva­riable axis of rota­tion. When a torque is applied to the unit, it causes pre­ces­sion (a gra­dual change in the orien­ta­tion of the axis of rota­tion). (source : WIKIPEDIA)

[3] The moment of a force in rela­tion to a given point is a phy­si­cal vec­tor quan­ti­ty reflec­ting the abi­li­ty of this force to make a mecha­ni­cal sys­tem rotate around this point. In the case of rota­tion, the kine­tic moment plays a role simi­lar to that of the amount of motion for a trans­la­tion. (source : WIKIPEDIA)

[4] The Coriolis force is a fic­ti­tious force acting per­pen­di­cu­lar­ly to the direc­tion of move­ment of a moving body in a frame of refe­rence that is itself in uni­form rota­tion, as seen by an obser­ver sha­ring the same frame of refe­rence. (source : WIKIPEDIA)

[5] Planck dis­tance (1.616 x 10-33 cm) is the smal­lest limit that defines our rela­tion­ship to the Universe. A Planck sphere is the smal­lest « ener­gy packet », the smal­lest signi­fi­cant elec­tro­ma­gne­tic vibra­tion.
[6] HARAMEIN Nassim, quo­ted by Resonance Science Foundation
[7] Actually, a black hole is not quite a sphere but a double torus.
[8] The equa­to­rial sur­face is the flat sur­face obtai­ned when per­fect­ly cut­ting a sphere in half.
[9] HARAMEIN Nassim, quo­ted by Resonance Science Foundation, op.cit.
[10] For a detai­led expla­na­tion, you can read the sec­tion on quan­tum field theo­ry.
[11] HARAMEIN Nassim, quo­ted by Resonance Science Foundation, op.cit.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be publi­shed. Required fields are mar­ked *


Follow me

©2018–2020 My quan­tum life All rights reserved