All language subtitles for S01E01 - Science of a Unified Universe

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]