Talk:Nassim Haramein

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

The blogs that debunked this guy[edit]

1. Whoever wrote this called them "equally reputable" -- is that what they meant to say? 2. How about some links to those blogs? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that some links got lost during all the revisions. Sample:
And half of the external links are badly formed.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be nice if there existed papers that did a good job of addressing some of Haramein's claims, but blogs seem to be the best we have. I'll pop on to my university's database to make sure I can't find anything, but it seems unlikely, seeing as Haramein hasn't had his work published in any mainstream peer-reviewed journals. - Grant (talk) 17:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

A new "documentary"[edit]

Crowd-funded, of course: --ZooGuard (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Serious Science[edit]

Nassim Haramein's solution to the proton radius puzzle and the derivation of the equation:

Indented line

MpRp=4LM (Algebraic Form)

is a major contribution to science. His theory is being taken seriously by many scientists and engineers.

I am an electrical engineer that designs in integrated circuits processes. I not only do the design (analog), I have also created the process recipes and design rules that designers use to create the circuits that power the information age.

I have to know quantum mechanics, at a minimum, solid state electronics. I have studied Richard Feynman's work for decades and have taken Richard's advice on how to keep up with physics - by looking and listening for ANY information on the unsolved physics problems.

So, I am ONE among many who regard Nassim Haramein's work as being a valuable addition to the work of Einstein and Planck.

Here is a simple near proof, all one has to do is follow the derivation behind the equation:

Why does this simple equation work for the solution to the proton radius puzzle:

MpRp=4LM ???

Mp=Mass of proton Rp=Radius of proton L=Planck Length M=Planck Mass

Mp=1.67262177774e-27 kg L=1.61619926e-33 cm M=2.1765113e-8 kg

Calculated Rp=*(1.61619926e-33)*(2.1765113e-8)%2F(1.67262177774e-27)%3D

Calculated Rp=0.84123643e-13 cm

The muonic hydrogen proton charge radius measurements of 2010 and 2013 approach this simply calculated value.

This is what Richard Feynman was looking for - a source of the mass of matter and it should be in fundamental units, Planck units, and that is what MpRp=4LM is.


(Nassim has solved this problem and resolved many of the unknown physics problems. See

  1. science #physics #feynman #nassimharamein #bozon

PhxMarker (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

/r/holofractals is mad[edit]

They also question whether science requires things like "equations", and presumably hypothesis testing as well. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 18:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps stop reading reddit? Hipocrite (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
+1 - David Gerard (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Article misinformation and notable omissions[edit]

The article refers to a paper written by Nassim Haramein, Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass, that was submitted for peer review in the journal Physical Review and Research International, part of Science Domain International, which the author claims will publish anything for simply providing a fee, discrediting their process of peer review. In fact, Science magazine performed a 'sting' operation on open access journals and Science Domain International was whitelisted as having an authentic peer review process, rejecting the fake science paper that was submitted by the magazine to another of SDI's journals, British Journal of Pharmaceutical Research:

You can download a PDF of the peer review results of Haramein's Quantum Gravity and the Holographic Mass here:

As the article was written to dismiss his work as pseudoscience, it failed to mention that Haramein's predictions about the charge radius of the proton were confirmed by other scientists only a month after he copyrighted this paper.

'Shortly after Haramein’s submission of his paper to the Library of Congress, on January 25th 2013 a new muonic measurement of the proton was made which agreed with Haramein’s prediction extremely well (within 0.000366 x 10-13cm of the measured value), as the prediction is inside one standard deviation of the experiment, or loosely speaking within the margin of error of the experiment. Therefore, Haramein’s value, extrapolated from precise theoretical tenets, may be the exact value and experiments are now approaching the resolution necessary to arrive to it.'

In summary, this article shows how misinformation and an obviously biased approach contribute to limiting scientific progress, as the above information clearly shows there is validity to Haramein's work. He has been wrongly maligned by sections of the scientific community and only now is starting to be taken seriously. This article is invalid and should be amended to give an accurate picture of the truth. — Unsigned, by: Marcus Hoffman / talk / contribs

A paper! of sorts[edit]

Someone added this as evidence Haramein was taken seriously by physics now:

Research by Haramein and biophysicist William Brown was published in the 2019 Volume 17, No 7 edition of the Journal of NeuroQuantology, an interdisciplinary journal of neuroscience and quantum physics. The paper, titled "Unified Physics and the Entanglement Nexus of Awareness," proposes a deeper understanding of the correlation between internal processes of the neurobiological system, which ostensibly generate the subjective qualia of experiential awareness, and the external environment which is comprised of objective phenomena.

The "journal" appears to be weird nonsense, located somewhere below the actual bottom of the barrel. Are there any Haramein publications of similar note that might be worth listing? - David Gerard (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

...appears to be a pseudojournal, or at the very least has published quite a bit of pseudoscientific material. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I replaced the Physics Essays reference with ResearchGate, which has been backed by The New York Times, NPR, Reuters, among others, as a reputable source "for a common purpose of advancing scientific research." Jahub (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Your edits keep getting reverted because you are making the contentious claim that we need to include a link to his paper seemingly just because he wrote it. It doesn't give us any more meaning as to whether his claims are valid and why there seems to be very little in the way of support for his theory or work. Hence it'll be reverted so make your case here - instead of on the article itself. Acei9 03:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Haramein's claims, the Holographic Mass solution was published in 2013 predicting a smaller proton radius in Science Domain journal. Although Science Domain was debated at that time, since then it was shown to be a reliable journal (ref: ).
The Holographic Mass solution was later used to give a good result for universe mass (ref: ) and the electron mass (ref: ). And in 2019, the smaller proton radius predicted by the Holographic Mass solution has again been confirmed by a measurement using standard electron spectroscopy (ref: ), confirming the previous muonic measurements.
As for Physics Essays as a source itself, it is reputable and peer-reviewed, but is not an ordinary "research" journal. The point is to provide a forum for authors to speculate about plausible notions or ways to "formulate" physical problems that are not driven directly by necessity, the most straightforward current developments, etc. The "essays" part also indicates that articles may be word-based philosophical studies, of a very general sort, about physical issue. This comes from a comment:!topic/sci.physics.research/9SL259m49_A
Also, here is a short list of University publishing in Physics Essays:
• University of Oxford, ref:
• The Ohio State University ref:
• Norwegian University of Life Sciences, ref:
I am aiming to improve this page with more up-to-date research, and am hopeful that you and the other editors will agree with my position about the validity of Haramein's claims and Physics Essays as a reputable source. Please respond to this string, to confirm whether this can be added again to the page without flagging or removing it. Thanks. Jahub (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As follow-up to Cosmikdebris's removal of the Wharton Business Radio source on the Nassim Haramein page, I'd like to get a better idea of why this was removed. I see that previous sources were removed due to their position as a scientific source, but in the case of Wharton Business Radio, it's hard to see why this would be dismissed. Also, the text that this Wharton source was backing didn't include any claims, but simply what his research background included. Please advise. Thanks. Jahub (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The statement you added to the article is not backed up by the source specified. Just because Mr. Haramein provided a biography to Wharton Business Radio, that does not mean that the statement is factual or accurate. Cosmikdebris (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
During the Wharton radio show itself, Haramein discusses his research and background, backing the text I had included. Jahub (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Can you give me 5 or so examples of scientific sources that you/RationalWiki do consider reputable, Cosmikdebris? I ask, since Physics Essays, ResearchGate, Scirp, etc were not deemed reputable here. Thanks. Jahub (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The edit I reverted had nothing to do with the credibility of various scientific journals. I did not object to the statement added as much as I objected to the removal of the sentence

Despite his claims, Haramein's work is ignored by mainstream physicists.

This edit appears to me to be whitewashing the article and fundamentally changing its tone, and thus I deleted it. 23:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)