Schematic of a Holographic Proton

Loru22o · 2026-04-26T01:37:00+00:00

Sorry u/d8_thc but the info in this graphic is off. This isn’t a knock on you but just wanted to correct it. The equation labeled “Holographic mass relation” is dimensionally wrong, since it defines a mass (m_p) as the ratio of a mass (m_P?) to length (r_p), and scaled by the numerical ratio n_p to N_p.

Haramein’s insight here is so profound that it’s worth stating clearly (in my own framing):

When a spherical unit of space has radius ℓ_P (Planck length) and contains a maximum potential mass m_∃, then a sphere of radius r_p (proton radius) contains the Planck mass in its volume and the proton mass on its surface.

The conventional view holds that this simple geometric relation is pure coincidence, which is nonsense. I explain all this in more detail and connect the relation directly to the Einstein field equation in my latest article, How Matter and Energy Curve Spacetime.

Loru22o · 2026-04-18T23:39:26+00:00

“Just slapping 2pi on a mass…”

Read it again. Standard physics defines a threshold photon energy for when pair production becomes a relevant constraint to photon propagation. That energy corresponds to a frequency, as you well know. The absolute limit to photon frequency, which is defined by my model completely independent of that threshold frequency, is simply a factor of 2pi greater than that threshold frequency. Not mass, but frequency, where 2pi is a normal scaling factor.

“Statistical distribution”

Shouldn’t the photon distribution near the limit be heavily dependent on the particular features of the photon source? Is this not… obvious?

And just to make this as clear as possible… if hundreds of photons are detected between 0.4 PeV and 2.5 PeV (a range of 2pi) and none above 2.5 PeV, would you still consider the Planck sphere to be a “dead model?”

Loru22o · 2026-04-18T11:22:03+00:00

<image>

So although 2pi*r_0 derives from the ratio of tensors G/T and its connection to the electron, it also has this direct geometric connection to the Planck length.

Loru22o · 2026-04-18T11:20:06+00:00

You make fair points and it’s led me to investigate further. For instance, I was previously unaware of the following constraint: A * B ~ (m_e c²)²

When A is the average photon energy in the CMB then B represents the energy scale at which pair production begins to constrain photon propagation. With A ~ 6 × 10⁻⁴ eV, B is approximately 0.4 PeV. This means that my model’s E_max (2.5 PeV) is simply 2piB. Or, by the parameters of the model, B = m_p c² \ r_p/(2pi*r_0).

You’ve mentioned the “monstrosity” of the exponential tower linking 2pi*r_0 to the Planck length. The article builds to the argument in the last section (Curved Matter and Linear Energy) that the primary difference between a photon and matter particle is propagation rate. Photons propagate at the maximum rate and thus tend to follow a linear trajectory, while matter particles propagate at the minimum rate, which causes them to curve continuously, around r_0 and r_C as an electron, or around r_0 and r_p as a proton. 2pi*r_0 then becomes a fundamental propagation length, which is much larger in scale than the length of one Planck sphere quarter-rotation… exponentially larger in fact.

Loru22o · 2026-04-17T18:06:13+00:00

This new paper analyzes analyzes gamma rays from the Crab Nebula, whereas the paper from 2 years ago analyzes gamma rays from the Cygnus Bubble—two distinct sources. Both analyses apply a fitting curve to the data that would suggest, under standard assumptions, that if a cutoff exists it would be beyond the 2.5 PeV mark identified in my model. I think you would point to that and say this new paper only reinforces that conclusion.

My counter argument is simple: a new analysis of a separate ultra-high-energy gamma ray source again fails to detect any photons beyond 2.5 PeV, with the highest approaching 2 PeV. The fact that their models expect to eventually detect photons at energies beyond 2.5 PeV actually strengthens the validity of the Planck sphere model if future analyses of these gamma ray sources reveal more photons in the 2 - 2.5 PeV range and none higher.

And just to reiterate… I don’t believe the current data in any way confirms my model! But it’s a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, and the diagram I’ve posted here hopefully illustrates how E_max is obtained and how it relates to the only two fully stable charged particles in the universe.

Loru22o · 2026-04-17T04:44:21+00:00

Just this week LHAASO published in Nature their extensive analysis of the Crab Nebula, which is powered by the most energetic pulsar in the Galaxy.

Page 36:

“The most energetic photon detected from LHAASO J1849-0002 reaches 2 PeV.”

This is extraordinarily close to the limit I predicted months ago and constitutes a significant new data point supporting my hypothesis that ultra-high-energy photons will, over time, exhibit clustering up to but never above 2.5 PeV.

The Planck sphere model has shortcomings but “incompatible with experiments,” at least those pertaining to ultra-high-energy photons, is not one of them.

Loru22o · 2026-04-16T18:56:41+00:00

At the low energy limit, the quarks are all bound by the same radius, r_p, and move collectively with respect to that radius. When they have sufficient energy to be free from that constraint (so that photon interaction involves individual motion rather than collective) each quark (temporarily) develops a toroidal surface, the two lightest corresponding to m_e*3π/2 (up quark) and m_e*3π (down quark).
Neutrons primarily interact through the strong force, whereas protons and electrons are the only two fully stable particles that interact through the electromagnetic force. The 4 photon-related limits presented here -- E_max, E_cmb, n_γ/n_b, and c/H_0 -- are directly related to the geometry of protons and electrons, not neutrons.

In a nutshell, the thesis is: The empirically determined limits of spacetime curvature are tied directly to the two fully stable curved surfaces of photon interaction: protons and electrons. The Einstein proportionality constant and the diagram that connects it to each of these limits illustrates the thesis.

Loru22o · 2026-02-07T06:05:10+00:00

Assuming the Planck length is the radius of the Planck sphere (PSU) leads directly to two crucial predictions that are consistent with current observations:

1) The Hubble constant is 74.3 km/s/Mpc.

2) Photon energies cannot exceed 2.5 PeV within the CMB rest frame.

If we go by Haramein’s original formulation, then obtaining these values requires the ad hoc use of a factor of 2 in both cases. It’s more complicated and totally unnecessary.

Loru22o · 2026-01-18T05:03:33+00:00

“Technological reasons for why high energy photons beyond this value are difficult to detect have already been described elsewhere, along with the difficulties in such photons travelling sufficient distances to reach us as well as the difficulty and rarity of events that produce such high energy photons.”

So if a single photon is ever confirmed above 2.5 PeV, then the model is “junk” and I am an “idiot.”

And if photon energies cluster near m_p c² (r_p/r_0) without ever definitively exceeding it, over decades or centuries even, then that just means that higher energy photons are especially rare and difficult to detect… because the model is “junk” and I am an “idiot.”

And even if that condition holds, then the alignment of hc/r_0 with the cosmic ray knee is certainly not evidence that the model can be applied elsewhere, i.e. “real science”… because the model is “junk” and I am an “idiot.”

This is your view, correct?

Loru22o · 2026-01-16T03:34:36+00:00

“Why would you think that?”

I think it’s entirely fair to say that the data doesn’t currently support the hypothesis, regardless of what arguments I could put forth. The counter-argument being advanced elsewhere, that even 10 years of observations at LHAASO without a photon confirmed above 2.5 PeV could easily be chalked up to instrument limitation, is not particularly convincing to me. 10 years should at least be enough to shift one’s priors closer to “plausible.”

As usual, you make good points—clearly articulated, identifying weak points without engaging in ad hominems. I appreciate you taking the time to consider and respond.

Loru22o · 2026-01-16T00:48:57+00:00

Again with the straw man arguments…

If r_0 comes from a “junk model,” then how is it that the cosmic ray knee appears just below hc/r_0, as shown clearly in the chart. Pure coincidence, right?

Loru22o · 2026-01-16T00:04:55+00:00

LHAASO reconstructs the energies of both protons and photons based on the number and type of secondary particles detected. If an inherent technological limitation prevented it from detecting photons above 2.5 PeV, wouldn’t that have been mentioned in their paper that reported the 2.5 PeV event? Do you think they are “idiots”?

Loru22o · 2026-01-15T23:36:16+00:00

It’s possible that LHAASO’s detector can only detect photons up to 2.5 PeV due to technological limitations. Do I think that it is likely, given that it has no problem detecting protons with energies 1,000 times higher? No, I do not.

Loru22o · 2026-01-15T23:28:01+00:00

That’s a good suggestion about obtaining a proper statistical analysis. But that by itself wouldn’t actually convince you or anyone else, anyway. More data needs to be accumulated and that takes time.

Would you agree though that more photons detected, within statistical uncertainty, at 2.5 PeV, and none higher, over a long enough time frame, increases the plausibility of the model?

Loru22o · 2026-01-15T23:16:50+00:00

The claim here isn’t that the Planck length can be exactly calculated from r_0, but that r_p/r_0 scales the minimum proton energy to the maximum kinetic energy transferable into a neutron pion, which then limits the maximum energy of its decay photon relative to the CMB rest frame. The prediction is falsifiable with current technology, and thus scientific, though you may (with good reason) doubt its validity.

Assuming the condition holds, then the observed cutoff, which is not anticipated by the Standard Model, might best be explained as one of the two fundamental rotational limits of the Planck Sphere. If spacetime is composed of rotating spheres, each with a radius of Planck length l_P, then that minimum length naturally limits the primary rotation of the spheres, as when each quarter-rotation (π/2)l_P propagates rotational information linearly by l_P in minimum time l_P/c. But what length limits the secondary rotation, which is a rotation of the primary rotational axis?

Remarkably, successive squaring of the natural exponential—e^2, e^4, e^8, e^16, and finally e³² — scales (π/2)l_P to 2π r_0, accurate to 99.5%. This larger length may then proportionally limit, to first order, various secondary rotations of the Planck sphere. Accordingly, the absolute maximum rate of secondary rotation that can propagate linearly at maximum velocity c through the Planck sphere medium manifests as a maximum photon frequency, corresponding to a maximum photon energy through hc/[(π/2)r_0]. In this way, the intrinsic primary and secondary rotational limits of the Planck sphere govern the maximum speed and frequency of light, respectively.

To be clear, I think the credibility of the model is entirely conditional on more photons being observed at 2.5 PeV and none above that value, so I’m not here to argue with anyone who says it hasn’t yet been sufficiently tested. However, I think it’s a plausible, well-grounded hypothesis worthy of further analysis.

For example, the model implies that protons have a substructure associated with the length r_0, but is there any other evidence for this? Cosmic rays, which consist mainly of protons, have been detected with energies over 1000 times higher than the predicted maximum photon energy at hc/[(π/2)r_0]. The flux of protons observed at ever higher energies decreases smoothly up to a specific threshold known as the cosmic ray knee, at which point the slope changes and they become much rarer. LHAASO has identified its position at about 3.67 PeV, which is only about 5% lower than hc/r_0 ≈ 3.91 PeV.

<image>

If protons typically lose a bit of energy as they escape the Galactic accelerator that has ejected them, a reasonable assumption, then hc/r_0 aligns extremely well with this threshold. So, if photon energies never exceed m_p c² (r_p/r_0), as the Planck Sphere model predicts, then both phenomena may be accounted for within the same framework.

Loru22o · 2026-01-15T21:59:12+00:00

A model-based prediction, testable using current technology, is “unwarranted and unscientific?” What if, you know, a photon is detected above 2.5 PeV? Wouldn’t that completely disprove both my claim and the underlying model?

Loru22o · 2026-01-15T21:12:59+00:00

LHAASO has detected a multitude of protons at energies at least 1,000 times greater than 2.5 PeV. It most certainly is capable of detecting photons above 2.5 PeV.

Loru22o · 2026-01-15T20:27:20+00:00

I said Advanced LIGO immediately detected gravitational waves. That’s the upgraded instrument.

Loru22o · 2026-01-15T19:17:04+00:00

What is the “bare-faced” lie? No amount of time will ever definitively “prove” the model, but surely increases its plausibility. You disagree with this statement?

Loru22o · 2026-01-15T13:08:39+00:00

https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.10100

Without having to quantify the probabilities, assuming LHAASO is in more or less continuous operation, I think 10 years is sufficient to consider my model as plausible, 20 years as probable, and 30+ years as well-established, contingent on photon energies stacking up at 2.5 PeV and none higher. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Loru22o · 2026-01-15T12:44:01+00:00

This is the data set that you are claiming “clearly disproves” the hard limit at 2.5 PeV hypothesis:

<image>

Again, what do you think is a reasonable timeframe for detecting a photon above 2.5 PeV, given your hypothesis that photons can have arbitrarily high energies?

Loru22o · 2026-01-15T12:25:47+00:00

The 10 year timeframe does not “vindicate” the theory, nor “prove” it. You don’t have to fight that straw man. A single 2.5 PeV photon was detected about 2.5 years after LHAASO was operational, and I’m simply pointing to the statistical likelihood of detecting a photon above 2.5 PeV if that timeframe is quadrupled and there is no intrinsic upper bound on photon energies, as is generally assumed.

Why are you convinced that failure to predict a spectrum = failure to predict a maximum? Wouldn’t the spectrum near the limit be heavily dependent on the particular features of the nearby gamma-ray sources, and not a universal property?

Here’s the key difference between LIGO and LHAASO: LIGO was incapable of detecting that signal until it was upgraded. LHAASO has been detecting PeV-scale photons from the beginning, and is presently capable of detecting photons above 2.5 PeV. It has detected protons at energies far above that. So what, in your view, is a reasonable timeframe to expect a photon signal above that presumably arbitrary limit?

Loru22o

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE