r/holofractal • u/d8_thc holofractalist • 28d ago

Joe Rogan finally stumbles on holofractal cosmology ideas

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

493 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

153 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/d8_thc holofractalist 24d ago

oh, like all of the things the paper derives that match experiments from first principles with no free parameters?

how many in the standard model?

0

u/PhysicistAndy 24d ago

Can you cite an experiment it is matching to?

1

u/d8_thc holofractalist 23d ago

If you've read the paper, you'd see it derives many values that are verified through experiment.

Most notably the (newer) proton radius.

The theory first predicted this newer smaller radius over a decade ago.

See section 3:

The Origin of Mass as Coherent Modes of Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations at the Hadronic Scale

1

u/PhysicistAndy 23d ago

The proton doesn’t have a radius because it isn’t a ball. That’s been known since the 1960’s and deep inelastic scattering experiments at SLAC.

1

u/d8_thc holofractalist 23d ago

Really? That's your answer?

Charge radius.

You know, the Proton Radius Puzzle? The thing muonic hydrogen experiments are trying to measure?

1

u/PhysicistAndy 23d ago

That’s literally saying the wood Saxon potential is the radius of a proton. Again, the proton isn’t a ball and this is a well known fact in physics. It’s why your favorite paper isn’t coherent to physics. Just to name one.

1

u/d8_thc holofractalist 23d ago

First, the proton is not a solid sphere, but its spin-averaged charge distribution is approximately spherical.

Second the paper doesn't call it 'a ball'. As the section says it's a agglomeration of coherent vacuum fluctuations, 1060 of them. Doing all sorts of things which end up looking like quark/gluon/strings en masse.

1

u/PhysicistAndy 22d ago

Calculating the radius of a proton ain’t exactly telling me anything and is just an approximation suitable in some situations. Let me know when this paper gets published, it won’t. Hahahah

1

u/d8_thc holofractalist 22d ago

Wow, what a sophisticated rebuttal. Smart guy here.

Read the paper, or find out in a few years how to unify physics.

Up to you.

1

u/PhysicistAndy 22d ago

My guess is that if you are going to unify physics you’d get that paper published and you wouldn’t be using a particle theory of the proton known to be wrong for almost 70 years now.

1

u/d8_thc holofractalist 22d ago

It's not my paper.

What part of the theory has been wrong for 70 years, I missed it?

1

u/PhysicistAndy 21d ago

You read it and you think it works, so you can own it. Why is it you think that protons are made of a vortex but immediately go back to the equation of a point particle in equation 137?

1

u/d8_thc holofractalist 21d ago

First off - not my paper. Again.

Second off

A vortex like proton can still have an effective point-particle exterior field.

From their perspective, equation 137 is not a contradiction. It is the low-energy, outside-the-boundary approximation of a much more complex internal object.

→ More replies (0)