The term "Scale Invariant Unification" very clearly refers to a very complex topic, even though it is an easy concept to understand. Although it has been in the realm of a philosophic concept for a very long time, transformation into the the reality of words and math that reflect it, is a complex process the application requiring peer review and adjustment on the part of the entire scientific community.
Here is a link to an abstract for the Nassim Haramein, Olivier Alirol "Scale Invariant Unification" paper - more precisely entitled "Scale Invariant Unification of Forces, Fields & Particles in a Quantum Vacuum Plasma" which reads as something more complex to understand. However, basically we can under stand it more simply as meaning the work addresses relationships between and among variables that apply in the same ways at all scales from the smallest to the largest. Because of consistency at all scales, of course we know that the largest consists of the smallest in fractal, scalar, and holistic ways and so informs us about processes that may not be observable, when investigated, at the smallest scales - or the largest, or some place in between. A theoretical understanding is that as long as we are able to understand predictable basic well-defined relational processes among the variables of a process at some observable scale, then we can understand them as predictable processes at all scales.
The abstract about the paper under peer review, soon to be published, is a short understandable read. And whether or not one fully understands the physics, the abstract conveys the epic nature of the issue being addressed to both scientists and non-scientists. The published paper will include the mathematical proofs which will result in calculations of increased accuracy. And it may do away with the need for at least some of the named but undefined unknown variables currently being used as placeholders to "normalize" equations - which is nothing more than assigning a name to what we can not account for or identify that is missing in our understanding (and the mathematical equation!) but appears to have some amount of observable influence on processes because of relationships among the many variables of a process, suggesting variables which we may not have identified correctly in relationship to one another.
Scale Invariant Processes
Because of the concept of scale invariant unification we can understand the processes we observe on a large scale in the universe, as the same processes that are not measurable at the quantum scale of sub sub sub atomic particles, and those unknown and undefinable at any scale. For example consider stars of many varieties popping into and out of existence. Because of their large scale and volume, even at a distance our current technology can reveal to us some of the processes during their various stages of energetic transformation, based on variables like mass, composition, pressure, temperature, spin, fluid dynamics which are demonstrably true of the relational behavior of energy and matter at any scale.
For example closest to us we observe the Sun, our own white dwarf star, which provides observable information about the processes of energy/matter transformations, on larger and smaller scales. For that reason the measurable observable variable relationships evident in our sun, can be applied to energy transformations we observe at huge distances in a variety of stars, where only part of the processes we are able to measure in our own star, are observable in the distant stars. For example energy transformations include shock waves (acoustic waves/gravitational waves) that radiate with force in all directions from an event at any scale of size. Those waves carry and spew elements and sub atomic particles into "the vacuum" of space which are referred to as "dust" and forcefully interact with energy fluctuations in the vacuum, creating stable matter in regions of space, like elements of a variety of sizes, including large scale molecular combinations of elements, the combinations being dependent on the limiting amount of elements and the magnitude of the processes that created those waves.
We know that an accumulation of visible dust in a region of space can coalesce into a cloud, the area of which we can describe with volumetric coordinates. We know that within those clouds of "dust", stars and solar systems are in the process of being born. We know about a variety of transformations of different types of stars. We know about the types of elements and particles they spew out, and the types of stars they transform into. We know that no one lives long enough to observe any one star from the time it "pops" into existence until it "pops" out of existence. However we can observe and understand on a much smaller scale, many of the processes we know of, like in our sun, which provides information we need to better understand long-term large processes at huge distances from our point of observation of them. Similarly, it also informs us of information we need to understand the immeasurable smaller processes also at huge distances from us in their smaller sizes from our point of observation. If is seems a somewhat fractal concept that is because a holographic universe is somewhat fractal, and holistic in nature.
The same processes that occur at all scales with different combinations of sub sub sub atomic particles, combining into stable and unstable particles and elements, are relationally the same processes that result in energy popping into and out of particles and energy of any volume whether they do not last long enough to measure at the Quantum scale of unmeasurable visibility and speed, or are visible galactic processes that are detectable in some ways though immeasurable in length of time. However, they are the same repetitive relational processes of energy to matter, matter to energy, associated with combining of particles, creation of stable particles, and accumulation of stable particles within regions of high energy, heat and pressure (like a cloud of dust on a large scale from the transformation of a star). That we can observe the processes in the field that is the vacuum, at a universal scale where visible matter and volume is large and processes of an entire system seem slow moving, informs us of the processes that occur at the quantum scale, so small and fast they are unobservable. So too scale invariant unification is about observable and/or measurable small scale processes that provide insight into processes at the universal scale so large and slow they are unobservable. But it is only the entire process that is slow relative to the quantum scale, because all processes of all objects consist of an accumulation of highly energetic quantum scale very small, very fast highly energetic building blocks.
The universal scale of entirely quantum scale energetic processes and accumulated particles. at any volume of size and mass, can be envisioned as a fractal linear connection between the quantum scale and the universal scale. Consider observable measurable scales between the two theoretically smallest and largest scales. We see that everything larger consists of the same quantum processes and and combinations in larger quantities of the same building blocks. Consider the proton, a combination of sub atomic particles that is universally stable matter. The larger an object the more protons are coalesced in a larger variety of ways into matter, as the scale of what we observe increases in size, and distance between any two points of different scales we compare. For example consider that all the components and combinations of processes of a proton in one's own body are present in all the protons that are part of our earth, and of all the protons in the nearest solar system to us in our own galaxy, and of all the protons in the universe, actually.
Consider a process like observable movement in the frequency of an oscillation. We define and understand an oscillation in relationship to time (and other variables). And we understand time in relationship to the movement that is the frequency of an oscillation (and other variables associated with that movement). We see the process mirrored at any other scale as well, where some part of the process is observable at any other scale - large, small, and in between. The relationship of the variables involved is an understood process, also true at undefined and unobserved scales of any size. Because of the relationship ratios as constants that we do understand, the processes we can not observe from our point of observation, as relatively too small and too fast, or relatively too large and too slow moving, are the same relationship processes involved when we may be able to observe or measure only one of the variables of a process. Since we know the relationships of variables involved in processes, regardless of the scale at which the process occurs, we only need to know the value of one of them on large or small unobservable scales to inform us of how to determine the others as described by scale invariant unification relationships.
Oscillation a Time Problem and Energetic Space
An application for example? How about a recent article: "Physicists Say This Is The Smallest Unit of Time That Could Exist" by Zeeshan Ali, 12 February 2022.
We
might not have observed and defined the theoretical "smallest unit of
time" however the relational ratio of variables by which that unit of
time can be understood is definable and does not require a measure.
The relationships of variables that define the smallest unit of time when
true at observable scales, large, small, and in between, of course hold
true at undefined and unobserved scales of any size also. So in this case the process of oscillation, in relationship to time, does not require us
to define or observe/measure the limit of time the paper suggests. Scale invariant unification does not necessarily
superimpose a limit on the frequency of oscillations defined in terms of
time, simply because we may want to think in terms of volumetric limits of movement when we
imagine smallest and largest movements.
It would be more accurate for the
title of the article to say "measurable time" or "observable time"
instead of only "time", given that the article says although "Live Science reports
that our technology isn’t yet nearly sensitive enough to find out for
sure — a team of physicists from Penn State has now theorized the
absolute maximum amount of time that a universal oscillation could
take." So it really is not about the smallest unit of measurable or observable movement in terms of time, but instead an immeasurable range with a theoretical possible maximum associated with the amount of distance of movement a smallest frequency oscillation covers. That, in turn, tells us the smallest measure of time it requires for the oscillation to cover that distance. Notice that time is only a relationship between movement and distance of movement. Without movement there is no distance, and thus no measure of time. The fluctuations of the smallest oscillating waves of energy/mass mass/energy transformations are movement, of course.
Time does not exist at equilibrium where there is absolutely no movement and as a result absolutely no dimension of change in distance. We can understand theoretical equilibrium to be eternal/infinite. Eternal and infinite describe timeless equilibrium. The concept of endless distance is included, and the concept of limitless unbounded space is included. However, at equilibrium without movement there is no time, since time is only a descriptor of measure that can be used when there is change in position between two coordinates in space, which we define as distance When there is no time because there is no movement, and no change in distance, we have boundless timeless space without end at equilibrium that is infinite and eternal - though it may only last as long as a measure that could be faster than the speed of light. That is a discussion for another time!
The field of vacuum fluctuations (i.e. "space" once known by the misnomer of "empty space") is hugely energetic because of oscillations that are occurring from energy/mass transformations where sub sub sub unstable particles fleetingly pop into and out of existence. They may not be measurable except for the disruptions we identify as fluctuations throughout space within immeasurably small volumes of space we understand theoretically. We can envision Planck space and time as a "boundary" where particles are not observable but the energy of them having popped into existence and popped back out of existence is noted as fluctuations that are the wave movements (oscillations) from that process in the small amount of volume in which the unstable particles and energy exist. The vacuum of space is full of these energetic fluctuations, as oscillations/waves from the spinning energy briefly merging into unstable particles and popping back into energy when the merging doe not create a stable particle. And of course stability is relative, ordinarily in comparison to the other similar processes in a specified area that is being observed.
Understand that the concept of stability and size is based on how long particles exist before they totally transform into energy. The more coalescing of sub, sub, sub atomic particles in a volume of cohesive energetic activity associated with particle activity, the more stable and long lasting that potential energy is, in the form of those particles. For example a volume of space with stable matter could be any size from our Planck size measure to galactic family size. It seems common sense that large combinations of particles will remain as stable matter for longer amounts of time.
We know from observing particles (like at CERN), that particles collide and create different more complex particles based on the pressure and velocity of whatever energetic processes created the accompanying "waves" (i.e. shock waves/acoustic waves/gravitational waves) that radiate. That also happens in space (be it a large volume or a small volume of space) as a result of the forces radiating from the processes of larger stable mass going through energetic transformations - transformations like neutron stars forming, black holes merging, a molecule of water becoming two atoms of oxygen and four atoms of hydrogen. The forces from events of huge objects create stable elements and matter of varying sizes. The energy produced results in shock waves (e.g. acoustic waves/gravitational waves) traveling in rippling waves through large regions of space in all directions, and that creates large sized "dust" in space, as they travel through already existent regions of dust in space. The dust is stable matter, relative to the building block particles. We can think of that dust as the elements on the periodic table which are literally created from energetic processes of stars. And sometimes the dust is planetary size, depending on the force of the waves and the composition of the regions of space they move through. All elements have some measurable amount of stability compared to the particles that are their building blocks.
The dust clouds are what we recognize at a distance as "star nurseries", which are actually solar system and galaxy nurseries as well. What is being created depends on the events that created the composition of the dust clouds - for example, among other variables, like the limiting ratios of elements present, temperature, pressure, and the energetic processes in the mix of all particles and matter of all sizes in the observable region.
There is a link in the oscillation article, above ("Physicists Say This Is The Smallest Unit of Time That Could Exist"), to the abstract of the 2020 research cited in the article, which is the published research entitled: "Physical Implications of a Fundamental Period of Time". It starts: "If time is
described by a fundamental process rather than a coordinate, it
interacts with any physical system that evolves in time".
First
let me say that I thought the published research was well-written. However I have a problem with the first sentence in the
abstract, actually, which is an example of cognitive dissonance about how "time" is
understood and described, in general, not only in this article. To add more clarity and precision, "time interacts"? No. Yes, to time as a way to describe energetic movement (of energy and/or mass) of fundamental process, for example motion of any volume of energy or mass - think spin, or movement from one locational coordinate to another in a theoretical grid used for purposes of measure. That process is movement, and
time is how we understand and discuss the process of movement. In
actuality the movement of anything from point A to point B, relates time
to distance of the movement, including the one blip of an oscillation
frequency which is the subject of the article about the theoretical smallest measure of time.
Force, velocity, and other variables are part of our understanding of the fundamental processes of movement of matter and energy. However it is not about time "interacting" with a physical system, because time does not interact. It has no substance. It is not energy, it is not mass, it is not a measure of volume, or pressure Time and distance are related because of movement. Time and movement are related to distance of movement. where time is used to describe movement (e.g. velocity, rate of speed) from one coordinate to another. Time is only a descriptor - only a descriptor. The point being, unless it is known there is movement, at least between point A and point be, there is no time, since time is only used to describe and discuss amounts and types of movement, or if one prefers change in location of anything, which of course is movement.
I can agree that time
is foundational to understanding and describing all fundamental
processes in the universe, although time can not "interact" with anything,
but instead is used as a relational measure that describes movement of all types of
variables associated with fundamental processes of mass energy/energy mass transformations. Consider the astounding numbers of those always occurring in our bodies From our point of observation and personal experience of the soul inhabiting the body as its temple, we intrinsically know the body, as a whole, consists of the same basic building blocks as all matter, and that high power energy transformation from matter to energy and energy to matter, pop into and out of both throughout the body at varying rates of speed associated with a multitude of simultaneous varying processes. But our immediate sense of time is associated with the relationship of earth, moon, and sun, and is diurnal Astrologically, time is understandable on a larger scale according to the relationships of movement among the objects in our solar system. Our understanding of time based on motion on a larger scale becomes astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.
Common Sense
Because of reality as I seem to have always experienced and known it, scale invariant unification is a term that describes a "common sense" understanding. New information that best describes actuality for anyone is experienced in that way - as common sense. However, the actual describing of that common sense concept about scale invariant unification, in words, and with supportive mathematics describing relationships among variables, is a big deal - epic from my point of view.
Haramein's "Scale Invariant Unification" publication and his previous publications describe reality honestly in common sense words that anyone can understand, and with common sense mathematical relationships that have not been been complicated by place holding normalizing. Scale invariant unification is mathematical common sense, as well. In the published paper will be substantiating mathematical proofs of concepts which are needed for reproducibility by others in the field to scrutinously work at rigorously disproving by applying the scientific method of
questioning and testing and revising as much as necessary for accuracy
and clarity to test their own results. People have already been applying Haramein's contributions for over a decade and have drawn the same conclusions he has with a myriad of their own substantiating experiments. The scale invariant unification paper draws his decades of work altogether in a creative honest
approach to the substantial work he has contributed that reflects a more common sense, and yes simply elegant, understanding of reality.
Haramein often speaks of the incomplete work of scientists in the field who inspired him to follow up on the clues and cues they left for those who would come later. He and Alirol have creatively and holistically applied modern research capabilities and technology, starting at the boundaries where earlier scientists could take their research no further, experimentally. They have investigated those stopping points which eventually lead to understanding how to move forward from where others left off, to present a larger picture of more precise understanding - which has turned into scalar invariant unification. That is non-trivial!
