>> Is there a scientific
solution that can unite all
areas of science so they may be
understood holistically rather
than as separate
compartmentalized forces?
In this series, Nassim Haramein
offers a fundamental model
to unify all forces so
we as humanity can unlock
the mysteries of
our reality here
on Earth and within
the universe at large.
But first, some context.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
>> NASSIM HARAMEIN: Modern
physics has a fragmented view
of our universe.
It thinks of our
universe as a set
of equation, a set
of understanding that
describes the big stuff
and a whole different set
of understanding that
describe the small stuff.
Yet the universe is one thing.
And the small stuff
makes up the big stuff.
So there must be a unified
understanding of physics
out there.
In ancient knowledge,
in ancient civilization,
in ancient wisdom, there
was that unified view.
It was usually in most of
these civilizations gathered
around one simple
principle, a principle that
said that, at the
base of creation,
there is a fundamental energy.
They called it chi.
They called it prana.
The Egyptian called it ka.
And it was the source
of all creation.
It was at the base of all
the physics we observe
and the forces.
Nothing could happen
without that energy.
The problem there
is that we started
to divide all the
science into pieces,
smaller and smaller
pieces so that scientists
could have a very high focus on
one little piece of the puzzle.
And what happens when we do
that is we lose the global view.
We lose the holistic
view of the system.
We lose the
connection between all
of the pieces of the puzzle.
We don't necessarily
understand how cosmology
affects biology, how
quantum theory affects
awareness or consciousness.
So everything becomes
discontinuous.
We've lost the ability to have
a unified view of the mechanics
of our universe, never mind a
unified view of our existence
in it or even of our
relationship with each other.
We can do something over here.
And it's not affecting
anything over there
because they're
not related, when
we see, in fact, in natural
system that everything
seems to be interrelated
and interconnected.
So in order to unify
physics, we must find what
is the point of unification.
And that's where
ancient civilization had
this link between the two, had
this fundamental understanding
of unification of
the forces of nature.
And it came from
this fundamental view
that spacetime is an energy
that connects everything.
Think of space as being
full instead of empty.
And think of the stuff
in space as being
part of this fullness
of space, not something
separate but
something that emerge
from this energy in space.
In modern physics, we have all
these principles, these forces,
for instance-- gravity,
electromagnetism,
the strong force,
the weak force.
But at the base
of modern physics,
there is nothing that explains
where these forces come from.
For instance, we have
no physics to describe
the origin of even the Big Bang,
the emergence of our universe,
the emergence of
spacetime, never
mind what is the structure
of spacetime made of.
To me, this was a big
hole in our understanding.
It's like we wrote
modern physics in mid-air
without a foundation,
without knowing
what's producing all this.
And when we try to
solve quantum equations
for the field at the very, very
fine level of the structure
of space, we found that there
was almost infinite amount
of energy there.
And we called it
vacuum fluctuations.
So it's a little deceiving.
Because when you think
vacuum, you're thinking empty.
You're not thinking full.
>> What science
has found is that,
when we look at the vacuum
at the very fine level
of the quantum state, the vacuum
is fluctuating with an almost
infinite amount of energy, a
significantly large number--
10 to the 93 grams
per centimeter cubed.
The vacuum density, better
known as the Planck density
at the quantum
scale, is enormous.
10 to the 93 grams
per centimeter cubed
is more than if we take all
the stars in the universe,
all the galaxies combined
and compress them down
to 1 centimeter cubed.
Imagine how energetic
that would be.
>> NASSIM: Well, that's
still 30 orders or 39 orders
of magnitude less dense than
the density of the energy
of the electromagnetic
fluctuation at the state
of the vacuum in
the quantum world.
Well, imagine if I looked at
all of the frequencies, all
of the wavelength of all
the electromagnetic field
in the space, in the
field between us.
And I tried to analyze,
where does it stop?
How short can the
wavelength get, right?
Well, when I add all this
up in quantum field theory,
I get almost an infinite
amount of energy fluctuation
in the space.
You could think of that
energy as a fundamental source
of creation.
In certain words, in
certain tradition,
it could be called god.
It has all the same attributes.
If you ask someone, what
would you describe god as?
Typically, they'll say,
omniscient, omnipotent.
It's everywhere.
It knows everything.
It's the creating power
of everything, right.
If this energy is
there and it's truly
the source of the
material world,
then it could be
described as the god
force or the energy
that creates all
of the world, all of creation.
The only difference, and this
is an important distinction,
is that the fluctuation,
the energy of this energy
is actually the result of
all things in the universe
interacting with each other.
It's not coming
from somewhere else.
It is the source of everything
interacting with each other
from infinitely big
to infinitely small.
It's a continuum of interaction.
The whole thing is one thing.
There is not matter
here and space here.
There is this fundamental energy
in various dynamics of it,
producing the
effects that we see
as gravity, as matter,
as electromagnetism,
as electricity, and so on.
And so now we start
to get a unified view
of this fundamental concept.
When we analyze a
system in physics,
we tend to assume
that this system is
isolated from all other
systems in the universe.
And so it creates this view
that is very artificial
relative to the universe.
Because, for instance,
in the universe,
we see a lot of evidence
of the contrary.
We see a lot of evidence of
the universe producing order.
>> Look at a human
being for example.
They're between 30
to 40 trillion cells,
all functioning
together perfectly.
They divided the rate
of 2.5 million cells
per second with 37,000 billion,
billion chemical reactions
every second managing
the entire body's system.
>> NASSIM: Highly organized
thermodynamic carnal engine,
you burn that almost
100 degree Fahrenheit,
24/7 for all of your life,
expanding energy in a very
coherent way.
Any variation of those
variables, any variation
of your temperature of the
chemistry of your body and all,
and you're having a
really bad day, right.
So there's a lot of
evidence of order.
Look at biology around the
planet, the interrelationship
of all the species and all this
very complex, highly ordered
systems.
So it's not isolated.
This system is not isolated.
When I calculate the
energy or efficiency
of a turbine in a
hydroelectric dam,
I calculate the
gravitational potential
of the water in
the lake above it.
And I calculate the water going
down into the turbine and then
the entropy of the
turbine transferring
that gravitational
potential into electricity.
And then I assume this
to be a closed system.
And I say, oh, I have missed
one part of the equation.
And if I open the box, I take
the system out of isolation.
And I open the box.
I realize that the water
continues to go down the river.
And because the sun is shining
and the Earth is spinning,
the water is being evaporated.
And then it's raining
down or snowing down.
And it's flowing
back into my lake.
And now I realize there
is a continuous energy
exchange where I am only
looking, if I only look
at the turbine, at my little
device in that grader dynamics
of the flow of creation.
>> Another way to understand
the interrelationship of highly
ordered systems is to
examine the concept of ether.
>> NASSIM: Typically, when
we talk about ether in modern
physics, people are referring
to this ancient concept
of an ether that
has fluid dynamics.
And it's used by Newton
to describe gravity
and, eventually,
James Clerk Maxwell
to describe the electromagnetic
field, the Maxwell's equations.
That was discarded by
the Michelson and Morley
experiments.
And that has no
validity anymore.
There is a problem in this
way this experiment was done.
That is an interferometer
with the precision that
was able to achieve
at the time would not
be able to detect an ether
that is occurring at the Planck
scale, where we describe this
vacuum fluctuation occurring.
This is a scale that's billions
and billions and billions
of times smaller than an atom.
>> The concept suggests
that, if there is ether,
the drag of this ether should
be measurable as the Earth moves
through it.
Think of frame dragging.
Frame dragging is an effect
on space time, predicted
by Einstein's general
theory of relativity,
that is due to non-static,
stationary distributions
of mass energy.
A stationary field is one
that is in a steady state.
But the masses
causing that field
may be non-static or
rotating, for instance.
>> NASSIM: But imagine that,
if the drags of these frames is
very, very fine
near the surface,
it would be very
difficult to detect.
Now, do we know that the frames
are dragging, as in spacetime
dragging behind the planet?
We do.
We measured it now.
But we didn't measure it
with an interferometer
on the surface of the planet,
like Michelson and Morley.
We measured it
with a laser being
emitted from the surface of the
planet to a satellite in orbit
so that there would be enough
distance that we could measure
the frame dragging.
And because the
ether was removed
and spacetime was introduced
and then spacetime
predicted frame dragging and
we measured the frame dragging
but the frame
dragging measurements
was never reunified with
the concept of the ether.
So people in physics, when
they talk about ether,
they think of this
thing that is ancient
and that we don't use
anymore in physics.
But, in fact, we both
have vacuum fluctuation
at the quantum level
in physics that
act very much like an ether.
And we have measured the frame
dragging of spacetime, which
would be the drag of the ether.
So, just to be
clear, frame dragging
that has been measured
in space time,
frame dragging of
spacetime, may be actually
the drag of the ether
that we are measuring.
So people talk about space.
They talk about matter
in the space, right.
And then they talk about ether.
And they might even
talk about gravity
being the curvature of space.
I believe, from what we
found, that, actually,
all these things are
the same thing, right.
When we look at matter,
what are we looking at?
Well, we're looking at
99.999999999 percent space,
right?
So space and matter
is not very different.
There is only 0.000001 of a
percent difference than when we
look at what makes up
matter really closely,
the stuff that's not the space.
All we see is
electrostatic fields
or electromagnetic
fields interacting.
So, really, it's just all
space with electrostatic field
interacting.
And if the space is
not empty, then that
means that it's
all ether and that
the electromagnetic or
electrostatic field that we
see as matter is just a function
of the dynamics of that ether
and that gravity is the function
of that ether and so on.
Now, it's more
appropriate to describe it
as quantum fluctuations.
So we can change
the terminology.
But we're talking about
fluctuations at the quantum
scales in the space that is
the source of everything.
And it's really hard to
wrap your head around it
because we have a
tendency to isolate space
from matter, from
mass, from gravity,
from electromagnetic field.
We have all these little boxes.
But what we're finding is
that all these box and we have
solved these equations now.
I'm about to publish a whole
new set of equation that
are an expansion from earlier
equations that I wrote
that solves all this, gives
the correct value for masses,
for charge, for gravity,
for all the things
we see in the universe,
including galaxies, clusters,
stars, universes,
and temperatures.
And so it's unified.
We have solved this.
And we're about to publish it.
But, as well, the
center part has
been solved, showing that
there is no differences
between these things.
You cannot get
mass without space.
And you can't get space
curving without mass.
And you can't get mass and space
without electromagnetic fields
and that they're all connected
through this dynamic structure
of the quantum
vacuum fluctuations.
So to understand
some of the intricacy
that we're developed in the
beginning of quantum physics
and the misconception
that emerged
as a result of the lost
of this fundamental energy
in the space, this ether,
one of the best example
is the Copenhagen interpretation
of the double-slit experiment.
>> The Copenhagen interpretation
was first posed by physicist
Niels Bohr in 1920.
It says that a quantum
particle doesn't
exist in one state
or another but in all
of its possible states at once.
It's only when we
observe its state
that a quantum particle
is essentially forced
to choose one probability.
And that's the state
that we observe.
Since it may be forced into
different observable states
each time, this explains
why a quantum particle
behaves erratically.
>> NASSIM: So we were shooting
particles at the slit.
And we got one result
on the backboard
where the particles
were being recorded.
And we put two slits.
And we got a different
result. All of a sudden,
instead of particles,
it appeared like waves.
And then we tried to
put an instrument there
to try to figure out
what was happening
with the particles that
was making those result.
And then we got a third result.
And so, all of a sudden,
there was confusion.
And because it was thought
that, all of a sudden,
we don't know if a particle
can be a particle or a wave.
And when they're
measured, it changes them.
And so it was like all
this seems so unusual.
And, certainly, with the lost
of the concept of the ether,
it was not easy to explain.
Well, there is another
way to interpret
the double-slit experiment.
The fact that if you shoot
one particle at the slit,
it makes little dots on the
backboard as if it's particle.
And then if you put two slits,
it makes wave interaction
on the backboard as if there
was a wave all of a sudden,
is most likely
because, when you move
a particle in a field
that acts like a fluid,
you're making waves.
So, of course, the
particles that appears
to be a particle and a wave.
This is thought to
be a theory that
was developed by a great French
physicist Louis de Broglie
that worked with Bohm as well
that Bohm brought forward
as well later on.
And de Broglie
said, well, this can
be described in fluid dynamics.
And it was called the
pilot-wave theory.
And so it was not
until, actually,
recently that was
realized, that if you
put little beads of silicone
on a surface of silicone fluid
and you shoot those beads
at the slit and put one slit
and then you put two slit,
you'll get all the same result.
Just like a boat
on the ocean makes
wave when you have
two slits, the wave
goes through the second slit
and interact with the waves
of the first slit.
And it creates
interference pattern.
So, all of a sudden, instead
of all this quantum woo-woo,
you can explain the
double-slit experiment
with simple fluid dynamics of a
fundamental ether in the space.
And the part in which,
when you make measurements,
it changes it is
because anything
that's in that vacuum
fluctuation field
will make waves as well.
So when you put something
there to make the measurement,
you're making
waves in the field.
So these waves
interact or interfere
with the waves of the particle.
And now you get a third
result. And so this all
can be explained-- including
quantum tunneling and all
the effects we see that led to
the Copenhagen interpretation
can be explained with pilot-wave
theory and the concept
that space is not
empty and it's full.
Now, for some people that
are into consciousness study,
trying to understand
awareness and all this,
which uses the
double-slit experiment
and the Copenhagen
interpretation
to prove that consciousness
has an impact on matter,
that might seem discouraging
that all of a sudden,
oh, this was the
bad interpretation.
And, actually, it's just
because it's a fluid.
Well, actually, it leads
to a better understanding
on how consciousness or
awareness can influence
the field because it shows
that the field is influenced
by everything
influencing everything.
It's not consciousness
influencing
the particle or the particle
influencing consciousness.
It's all influencing.
All you have is this
fundamental field.
And when it moves, it changes
things, it modifies things.
And it produces forces.
And it produces masses.
And it does all this stuff.
And I just want to make clear
that I'm not just talking
about philosophically here.
These equations
have been solved.
We can show this in experiment.
We can see show that, now
with this new view when
we reintroduce
the ether in terms
of quantum fluctuation
in the vacuum
and we solve this equation,
now we start to describe,
we start to find the foundation,
the foundation of mass,
the foundation of gravity, the
foundation of electromagnetism,
and so on.
Another example on how
physics get fragmented
and then the pieces get lost
and not put back together--
this is really important.
It's at the foundation
of our understanding
of quantum theory.
And it's now at the leading
edge of our understanding
of relativity.
And that is black
body radiation.
Quantum theory started
when, actually, Max Planck
was trying to understand
the filament of a light bulb
a little better so we could
make better light bulb.
And he was using
classical theory
at the time to try to describe
the temperature or the heat
or the radiation that comes off
the filament of a light bulb.
And these earlier equations
said that the light bulb
should emit an infinite
amount of radiation
in the ultraviolet spectrum.
Now, this was deemed the
ultraviolet catastrophe.
And so it was a big problem.
Max Planck went at it
and tried to solve it.
And the only thing
you could come up with
was adding this
weird fudge factor
in the equation that
basically quantized
the electromagnetic field or
the radiation of a black body.
>> All objects with the
temperature above absolute zero
emit energy in the form of
electromagnetic radiation.
A black body is a
theoretical or model body,
which absorbs all radiation
falling on it, reflecting
or transmitting none.
It is a hypothetical
object, which
is a perfect absorber and a
perfect emitter of radiation
over all wavelengths.
>> NASSIM: He found that, if
he added this little quantity,
which eventually became
the Planck's constant,
it would quantized the radiation
or the heat coming off this
black body and give the correct
answer for the emission spectra
of a light bulb.
And so he said--
he published it.
He thought it was atrocious.
He said it, hopefully,
there'll be a better solution
found because it was not
instinctively correct, right.
It didn't seem right
because it basically
said that radiation comes
off in little packets that
was quantized.
Eventually, Einstein
used this concept
to describe the
photoelectric effect where
he said these little quantities
he called photons are knocking
electrons out of
semiconductors and creating
the electric effect
that we measure.
And this is actually what
Einstein got the Nobel Prize
on.
This whole part of
physics in quantum theory
developed independently.
Then the part in
which Einstein was
writing the equation
for gravity, which
is called general
relativity, in that part
of the equation, something
emerged that was similar
but that was found so far
removed from the black body
radiation of quantum
theory that it was never
associated with it.
And that is that, when you solve
the Einstein field equations
at the cosmological
level, you find
that spacetime can make
objects that are now
called black holes, which is
very similar to a box, that
would absorb all the light.
A black hole is a region of
space in which the density is
so high, the energy density
is so high that light cannot
emerge from it.
It just falls in.
And so all light incident
on a black hole is absorbed.
Just like a black body, a black
hole is a perfect black body.
The thing is, when a
black hole absorbs,
it radiates a little
bit of heat as well.
So it is like a black
body in quantum theory.
And so the black
holes were never
confirmed until the
early '90s, right.
Einstein didn't believe
they could exist.
Although his equation
predicted them,
they were not called black
holes until John Wheeler coined
them black holes,
which is much later.
So, basically,
these two concepts
were never put together.
But think about it.
If science was not fragmented,
eventually these two
phenomenons would be put
together and realize,
wow, maybe the quantum world is
related to black hole physics.
Maybe subatomic particles
are mini black holes.
And this is why the
constant we use, which
is Planck's constants,
which is based on black body
radiation, maybe this is why it
acts that way is because those
are mini black holes.
And all of a sudden,
you would start
to get a sense that there
is a common relationship
between the subatomic world
and the cosmological world
that has to do with
black hole physics.
So this last example
is a very clear example
of how fragmented physics can
lead to fragmented thoughts
about our universe and divisions
between the small and the big.
But what is the
common thread there?
The common thread is that maybe,
when we look at black holes,
when we look at
subatomic particles,
when we look at the dynamics of
the world from the very small
to the very big,
we're just looking
at the dynamics of a
spinning fluid of space,
that we're just looking
at the ether dynamics
from very small to very big
acting in different ways
but all from the same source,
all from the same perspective.
>> What we call a black hole
according to Nassim Haramein is
simply the center of the
vortex of a tornado of ether.
>> NASSIM: And depending
on the size of the vortex,
that center singularity at the
center of that vortex is either
big and we sit in cosmology
or it's really small
because it's a really
small vortex and we see it
as a subatomic particle.
But it's all ether spinning.
And this is the part that we
have to understand better.
And, as we do,
then we can develop
technology that will completely
transform our energy,
resources on our planet,
our capacity to survive,
some of these
larger difficulties
that we are experiencing
today with our environment,
with our population, and
with our understanding
of each other of
the world around us
and the universe as a whole.
So, in this series, we are
going to examine all these.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
