Original subtitles

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]