The Science of a Unified Universe | Nassim Haramein

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 Harmein 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. Modern physics has a fragmented view of our Universe. It thinks of our Universe as a set of equations, a set of understanding that describes the big stuff, and a whole different set of understanding that describes 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. 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 Egyptians 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 start 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 space-time is a 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 emerged 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 force 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 space-time, never mind what is the structure of space-time 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 one centimeter cubed. Imagine how energetic that would be. 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 then can the wavelength get? 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, right? 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's 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 the 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. There are between 30 to 40 trillion cells all functioning together perfectly. They divide at the rate of 2.5 million cells per second with 37,000 billion billion chemical reactions every second managing the entire body's system. Highly organized, thermodynamic, you know, carnal engine. You burn at almost 100 degree Fahrenheit 24-7, you know, 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. The 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, you know, 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, 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's a continuous energy exchange where I am only looking, if I only look at the turbine, at my little device in that greater dynamics of the flow of creation. Another way to understand the interrelationship of highly ordered systems is to examine the concept of ether. 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, Maxwell's equation, that was discarded by the Michelson and Marley 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, you know, we described 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. But imagine that if the drags of these frames is very, very, very fine near the surface, it would be very difficult to detect. Now, do we know that the frames are dragging, as in space time 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 Marley. We measured it with a laser, you know, 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 space time was introduced, and then space time 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 space time, 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 space time, 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 99.9999999% space, right? So space and matter is not very different. There is only 0.00001% difference, and when we look at what makes up matter really closely, the stuff that's not the space always sees 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 at all these boxes, and we have solved these equations now. I'm about to publish a whole new set of equations that are expansion from earlier equations that I wrote that solves all this, gives the correct values 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 intricacies that were developed in the beginning of quantum physics and the misconception that emerged as a result of the loss of this fundamental energy in the space, this ether, one of the best examples 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. 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 results. And then we got a third result. And so, you know, all of a sudden, it 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, you know, it was like, all this seems so unusual. And certainly, with the loss of the concept of the ether, it was not easy to explain. Well, you know, there's 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 if you put two slits, it makes wave interaction on the backboard as if it was a wave all of a sudden. It's 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 appear to be a particle and a wave. This is thought to be a theory that was developed by a great French physicist, Louis de Beuglier, that worked with Bohm as well, that Bohm brought forward as well later on. And de Beuglier said, well, you know, this can be described in fluid dynamics. And it was called the pilot wave theory. And so, it was not until actually recently that it 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 slits, 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 interacts 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 a measurement, 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. 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 these 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 experiments. We can 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 gets 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 he 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 a 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. He found that if he added this little quantity, which eventually became the Planck's constant, it would quantize 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 published it. He thought it was atrocious. He said, 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, right? It 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 than 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 Einstein field equations at the cosmological level, you find that space-time 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. 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 phenomena would be put together and realized, 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 constant, 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 Harmein, is simply the center of the vortex of a tornado of ether. And depending on the size of the vortex, that center singularity at the center of that vortex is either big, and we see it 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.