top of page

Black Whole by Nassim Haramein

📝 The PLANCK'S DISTANCE --- the distance it takes a photon to go across itself; smallest wavelength; billions of times smaller than an atom; (supposed to be the smallest thing in the universe)

Dimension 0 • (no dimension)

Dimension 1 — (no dimension) 

Dimension 2 ⃞ (plane. no volume)

Dimension 3 ❒ (this is the one you exist in)

"I thought if the dot doesn't exist, the line doesn't exist, the plane doesn't exit, you don't have existence. Eventually I found out many other people found the same problem when they were young when they were taught these axioms. One of them was a famous geometrist, Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983). It turns out that these fundamental axioms about geometry is some of what most of our math and physics is based on."

"Our physics and advanced physics, Einstein field equations, quantum theory, all this is based on flat space. If this fundamental concept is not correct, then most likely what we're going to end up with when we run all these physics and all these mathematics to understand our world is going to be a little weak. It's not going to be quite correct. Certainly I didn't understand this, I was age 10, but I wanted to find a new solution. I thought the way to solve the dimensional problem is to reverse the axiom completely and say "the only thing that exist is the dot."

"Within the dot is infinite amount of division, infinite amount of information, and the dots are arranged differently and that makes up our whole world. I opened my eyes and looked at all the people in the bus. I thought, wow, they're all made out of dots. I could see the infinite dots of their existence. I got really excited. Then I realized through other experiences that, wait a minute... if infinite division, if is it that we get finite structure? How is it that we get finite boundary?"


Haramein didn't know it at the time, but he was grappling with one of the biggest chasms in current physics. Einstein's theory of general relativity coves the cosmic scales and the relationship between gravity, time, and space. It predicts continuum to an infinite point of singularity, or a black hole.

Quantum theory covers the smallest units in the universe and predicts finite and linear boundaries. The two theories are at odds. But Haramein believes both viewpoints are interconnected, because everything big is made up of something small.

"In general, we could define our society in two ways. We've got people that have a tendency to be very spiritual and tend to think in terms of infinities, infinite potential, and all this stuff. On the other hand, we have scientific people that tend to think in finite systems, closed systems that have very defined boundaries. And the two don't necessarily agree. I think that, at this point, this has to come together. In a very simple way I'm going to show you geometrically that infinities and finite system are actually complementary."

"If we take the boundary of a circle and define that as our finite space, that circle could be a sphere. And if we divide that circle so that an equilateral triangle is formed. Now the universe is polarized --- everything in the universe seems to spin. Spin produce polarity. So we would have a reverse triangle at the same time. As soon as we do this we've created a new boundary condition at the next fractal level down, the next iteration down."

"Now notice that these new boundaries all are centered around a very specific center. That is, each of the boundaries defines a very specific structure in space-time, a very specific coordinate in space-time. So each of the boundaries could be defined as a very specific set of information. Now I can continue to do this and create new boundaries again and at this point, you can imagine if I give this to my computer, I could zoom in, bring it back up, continue to divide the space, and it could do this to infinity. However, I wold never ever, ever, ever, exceed that fist boundary I've produced for myself. "

"Here, I have embedded infinite amount of divisions, infinite amount of information, within the confine of a finite space. In very simple terms here, I've shown to you that infinities and finite structures are complimentary. Within the confines of what appears to be a finite space can be embedded infinite amount of information. If this is true, this simple concept could change all of our concept of physics, including concepts of our relationship to the universe."

"Why is that true? Think of yourself as made of cells that are made out of atoms, about 100 trillion cells in your body and billions of atoms per cells. Imagine all these cells and these atoms can be further divided into subatomic particles that can be divided into sub-subatomic particles and so on towards infinity. That wold mean that you actually, even in your physical body, have a function of infinity. That is, you have infinite nature. Within the confine of what you call the physical world. You don't need to even have a spiritual concept. It's actually what you're made if this is true."

This complementary fractal condition could change the fundamentals of physics. Quantum theorists adhere to a concept called the God Particle. If we look hard enough, they believe, will discover the smallest division that the universe create. Here's another way to approach it.

"At first when we had our first microscopes, when we saw cells we thought, oh my god they are so small. They got to be the smallest thing the universe does. Then we found that those cells were made out of atoms. Then we thought those got to be the God Particle. Then we found that those atoms have nuclei in the middle, protons, neutrons. Those are teeny weeny particles compared to the size of the atom. We thought the universe says okay, that's small enough I'm not going to anything smaller.

"However, then we found quarks and so on. At his point, we're building accelerators that are enormous, an extraordinary device that accelerates particles at faster and faster rates to get smaller and smaller particles, thinking every time that we're going to find the fundamental particle that can no longer divided. However, every time some physicist somewhere writes a new equation saying, oh, maybe there's another energy level, da, da, da, da, and then next thing you know we, we're building a larger accelerator trying to find it. Now we're looking for things that are billions of times smaller than an atom. But based on this concept that we've just learned about you can always get a smaller and smaller particle if you can get larger and larger accelerator. What is this really telling us about the universe?

"I think that a more worthy exploration wold be to stop looking for a fundamental particle and start looking for a fundamental pattern of division. If we could find the pattern in which the universe divides, then we would have the key to creation. That could be really useful.

"My sponsor dragged me to different physics conferences. I wasn't so excited because I already had a bunch of run-ins with the mainstream scientific community. Eventually I got into this private conference at Georgia Tech, and we were discussing very advanced physics, strings theory, there was equations everywhere and so on. I was kind of irritating people a little bit because I kept asking fundamental questions.

"The only book I brought was this book, "Gravitation." It is the Bible of relativistic equations. It's written by giants of physics, Wheeler, Thorne, and Mesner. It has all the equations and it's pretty thick. It has all you need to know about gravity. At one point I stopped the conference. I said, wait a minute, I got to understand something. I opened "Gravitation" to page 719 and said, If I understand well, this is our current model of the universe.

It looks like a ballon that's being inflated that has pennies glued to it. Pennies are representative of galaxies. As the ballon inflates, the pennies move away from each other, representing the expansion of our universe.

"They are all looking at me and, yes this is the current model. These are fundamental principles. What I want to know... and I've looked in many many physics books, I read all these equations, worked out all this stuff. What I'm not understanding, you gentlemen might be able to point this equation to me, I haven't found anywhere where it explains --- who is this guy?

'The whole room became really quiet. I remember one of the student was drinking coffee, and he kind of coughed a little bit when I said that. He maybe thought I'd say the word God in the physics department.

"Look at it this way. When the ballon expands, the guy's lungs contract. So for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction --- some of the first laws of physics. In our current model, the universe is expanding but nothing is contracting to make it expand. So how is it that the ballon can expand if you're not compressing air into it.

It was curtail moment for me. It had come from earlier experiences when I was young where I realized that there's an external world. But to my experience, there's an internal world as well.

"And I thought maybe the boundary conditions of the division of the universe are the result of the relationship between the outside world and inside world and that the two are like colliding wave, like standing wave that produce boundaries. I was thinking, if I were to point at something that connect all things, what would it be?

If you wanted to find something that connects all things, WHAT WOULD THAT BE?

"If I choose one thing that connotes everything, what would that be? I came to conclude the only thing, that's everywhere that connects all things, is space. Space is everywhere: between galaxies, between stars, between plants, between cells, between atoms. Even the atomic structure is made out of 99.99999% space.


”So the reality we live in is mostly space. Everything you see, all the material world that you think is so solid, is actually mostly space. What you're experiencing as your rarity --- what you call the material world --- is actually .0000001% of what's there. Yet, we spend most of our time paying attention to that part and forget to look at the space. For me, earlier on, it was crucial that maybe it's the space we should be looking at. Maybe we should pay attention to the 99.9999999%. Maybe objects don't define the space but space define the objects.

"Well, if that was true and if the vacuum in the space was connecting all things, since all things radiate in the space, if the space is the source of all things then that space could not be empty. What we call the vacuum, what we call so-called empty space, could not be empty. It had to be full. And it had to be infinitely full --- very very dense.

Does current quantum field theory account for this density? Haramein turned again to the book of "Gravitation," where he was surprised to find supporting evidence. Quote: present-day quantum field theory "gets rid by a renormalization process" of an energy density in the vacuum that would formally be infinite if not removed by this renormalization.

"In current quantum field theory, it is necessary to have a very very high density level in order for us to be able to run our equation and account for everything that's going on at the atomic level. That was a confirmation point for what I was already thinking about that the vacuum is not empty and that space is a fluctuation that may be the source of our reality. But what is renormalization?

Well, there is two kinds of infinities in physics. There's an infinitely small number. In general, a theory that comes up with an infinitely small number, the number can be discarded. It's not very important because it's a very very small number.

There's another thing that creeps up in physics and when it does, it's called nasty infinities that is an infinitely large number. When equation gives you an infinitely large number. When an equation gives you an infinitely large number, you cannot say I'm going to ignore that. So what's usually done is that the number is renormalized. Usually what's used is a fundamental constant to cut the number.

In this case, what was used was Planck's distance. The Planck's distance is supposedly the smallest thing the universe does. You can think of it in a really simple term as the time or the distance it takes a photon to go across itself. It's the smallest wavelength the universe is supposed to be able to do. Do I think that the Planck's distance is the smallest thing the universe does? No.

I think that the Planck's distance is a boundary condition that is a fundamental boundary in relationship to our experience. But I think that there's further structure below the Planck's distance. In any case using the Planck's distance, which is 1.616 multiplied by 10 to the minus 33 is extremely small, billions of times smaller than an atom.

Plank's Distance = 1.616 x 10-33 cm (Phi Ratio = 1.618)

They renormalized the vacuum. What they did is they took a centimeter cube of space and said, how many of these Planck's distances can we squeeze into a centimeter cube of space? And if we do that, we'll have a finite number for the density of the vacuum. Basically, how much fluctuation of Planck's distances is there in a centimeter cube of space? So they stacked little Planck's distances full into a centimeter cube of space. Each one has a very specific mass, 10-5 grams. And they added it all up to get a fundamental density. The result is 10 to the 93 grams per centimeter cubed.

Renormalized Vacuum Density 1093 gm / cm3

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 per cm3

That is an enormous number. To give you an idea how dense that is, imagine you took all of the stars in the universe. There are billions of galaxies, billions of stars in them. Some of the stars are much larger than our sun, and we took them all and squish them all into a cm3 of space, you still wouldn't have the energy density of the vacuum. The universe is approximately 10 to the 55 grams per centimeter cubed.

Observable universe 1055 gm / cm3

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 per cm3

10 to the 55 grams per centimeter cubed is still some 39 orders of magnitude smaller than the density of the vacuum. So to think of empty space as empty is incorrect. Space is full, full of these fluctuations. It's full of this energy density that is actually, according to what I found, the source of all of reality. The negative space is what produces our material world. Based on this I started to think about it in terms of division of this vacuum density. I started to think about reality not as object in the space, but asdivision of the space. I started to think maybe we could start to find patterns in the division of the space.

Elizabeth Raucher and I published a paper. This paper described a scaling law. The scaling law is simple. On one side, we have energy density (Hertz). On the other, we have a radius. We started to plot all of the objects we see in the universe. We started with the universe itself. We ran the equations and took the data that's available to approximate the radius of our universe, and we approximated its energy levels, and we plotted the first data point.

When you look at our universe, its size, and the amount of material in it, you find that actually our universe obeys the condition of black hole. Our universe is too dense for light to actually escape it. If we were to shine a laser in our universe right now, it would get bent a little bit by our local star (our sun). Then it would get to another star and get bent a little bit more by the gravitational field, and get to another star and get bent. 31.03

bottom of page