From Black Holes to Consciousness: Nassim Haramein on a Connected Universe and Humanity’s Boundless Potential
- MARWEA Account
- 11 hours ago
- 27 min read
Everything is connected. That line can sound like a cliché—until it’s said by someone who has devoted more than 30 years to studying the fundamental nature of the universe. Nassim Haramein— a theoretical physicist, visionary, and founder of the International Space Federation—offers a perspective that links quantum physics, gravity, and consciousness.
When I was thinking about whom to invite to Talks 21, Nassim was an obvious choice. His work on a unified field theory suggests reality is fractal and holographic—and that the proton could be the key to understanding the entire universe. We talked about humanity’s future, the “limitless” energy of the zero-point field, the possibility of travelling across galaxies, and why we are all part of a single whole.
Key takeaways from the conversation
Why humanity is at an inflexion point today
Karel:
Hi everyone. Welcome to the Talks 21 podcast. My guest today is Nassim Haramein. Nassim Haramein is a theoretical physicist, visionary, and the founder of the International Space Federation.
For more than 30 years, he has explored the fundamental nature of the universe, the relationship between quantum physics and gravity, and the role of consciousness in the structure of reality. His unified field theory posits that reality is fractal and holographic, suggesting that everything in the universe is deeply interconnected through space itself. His work offers a bold, interdisciplinary approach that deepens our scientific understanding and opens new frontiers in energy, technology, and cosmology.
Dear Nassim, thank you so much for joining Talks 21. I’m excited to talk about the universe.
Nassim:
Thank you for inviting me. This is a remarkable place. Thanks again for the invitation.
Karel:
We live in a beautiful environment. Our Earth is beautiful. But I see what’s happening—we’re approaching what I call a “social singularity.” Things are changing: in sociology, on our planet, and in theoretical physics.
Nassim:
We're reaching a breakpoint in our evolution, and we now have to pass through a critical moment. Everything is changing in science, yet in fundamental physics, there’s been a stagnation for almost a hundred years. A breakthrough is close—and that’s very exciting.
Karel:
It really is—a breakthrough in physics, science, and sociology—across many domains. At the end of the 19th century, theoretical physicists were optimistic that a unified theory was just around the corner—that only a few points remained—and it looked almost done. Then Einstein came along—game changer. Then, quantum theory pushed our understanding to a completely different level of existence.
Nassim:
Exactly. And it all repeated—say, in the early 1990s, there was a feeling that we basically had everything we needed and were close to grasping the fundamentals of the universe. A certain arrogance crept in: no need for new theories, and unification wasn’t a popular research area. I often heard, “Why unify quantum mechanics with general relativity? Each works in its own domain, and that’s enough.”
My answer was always the same: “If you haven’t noticed, big things are made of small things. There must be a way to connect the two.” General relativity describes the large; quantum mechanics the minor—yet they don’t agree. There must be some continuous link between them.
Karel:
And today we can say that quantum effects operate at large scales as well.
Nassim:
Yes. Over the years, with better instruments and new theories, we’ve found that quantum effects at cosmological scales are essential and cannot be ignored. In my view—and based on my work—you also can’t overlook cosmological effects or general relativity at the quantum scale. And that second path—applying general relativity at the quantum level—is less known and less popular.
There are people like Roger Penrose who insist we should modify quantum mechanics rather than try to quantise gravity. That’s his path. However, few attempt it—perhaps apart from Einstein and Rosen in 1935, who wanted to “geometrise” quantum mechanics, i.e., apply the geometry of spacetime, as in general relativity, to the quantum level.
Why is a proton a small black hole
Karel:
You’ve made progress here. So what can we expect? Are we again a step closer to a unified theory?
Nassim:
I think so. Definitely, in my view, we’re almost there—at least according to the work I’m doing. I didn’t invent something brand new; I rearranged what was already there. One-line conclusion: the atomic nucleus is a small black hole, a small singularity. That’s why it’s so energetic and stable—it’s a property of spacetime itself. Einstein and Rosen attempted this in 1935, but they lacked the tools we have today. They lacked one key piece—data.
Yukawa had published his work, but it wasn’t well understood, and there were no measurements of the nuclear force, the so-called colour force, at the atomic level. That’s precisely the piece of information Einstein and Rosen were missing when they tried to show that a proton—the atomic nucleus—is a small black hole. Their work led to the development of the mathematics of wormholes. They showed that spacetime can “wrap” into a wormhole tube that has small black holes at its ends—the mouths of the tube. They associated these with protons and tried to create a theory where particles correspond to those ends.
But when they computed parameters for the proton—plugging in its mass—they got a radius of about 10⁻⁵² meters. That’s far smaller than the Planck length, the smallest meaningful “unit” of spacetime when you combine the fundamental constants. So it didn’t make sense to them. And no one spotted the issue. I was the first to really notice that the radius they obtained is related to the real proton radius precisely by the constant alpha-G. Not approximately—exactly.
And alpha-G is the constant that links the strong nuclear force with gravity. It expresses how weak gravity is compared to the strong nuclear force that holds atomic nuclei together.
Karel:
That information wasn’t available then. It emerged later, but no one noticed that ratio.
Nassim:
No one went back to say, “Wow, they actually discovered the ratio between the strong nuclear and gravitational forces.” If Einstein had seen it, he would have figured it out. But they didn’t have the information.
Once you realise this, you invert the equation. Instead of asking how small the proton’s radius would need to be to be a black hole, you ask: How much energy must be within the measured proton size for it to be a black hole? And that energy precisely matches the energy required to produce the strong nuclear force.
At that point, everything clicks. You realise the nuclear force—the strong force we tap in nuclear fission and nuclear energy, which we “extract” from atoms—is in fact the force of the tiny black hole we call a proton.
Karel:
That’s absolutely fascinating. So is this a breakthrough in physics?
Nassim:
Yes—because you’re suddenly applying Einstein’s field equations at the atomic scale and getting the right results. It all ties together. There’s another key point: when you reach that result, you realise the ratio between the strong and gravitational forces isn’t the only one at play—the same ratio appears between the Planck scale and the proton. The Planck scale is linked to the proton. Then you ask: Where does the energy come from that makes the proton a black hole? You have the energy that creates the strong force and curves spacetime—but what’s the source?
When you reach the Planck scale, you find that it provides a certain amount of energy, which brings you to something known since the dawn of quantum mechanics. Max Planck discovered that an oscillator has enormous energy even at zero Kelvin. That’s the zero-point energy. At the Planck scale, it “renormalises.” I call it the Planck plasma—and it’s tied to the very structure of spacetime. General relativity tells us that spacetime curves and thus produces forces. But it doesn’t tell us what spacetime is.
The usual analogy is that of a bowling ball on a trampoline: a large ball warps the surface, and a small ball orbits around it. I don’t like that analogy much. A better one is a bathtub with a rubber duck. Pull the plug, and a vortex forms. The duck gets caught in the flow and orbits the drain; it’s “attracted.” General relativity describes the curvature of the water’s surface that explains the motion. But in reality, the water that looks like a smooth curved surface is made of molecules—hydrogen and oxygen. The collective behaviour of those molecules creates the appearance of curvature.
So it is with curved spacetime. Why does it curve? Because space itself has a dynamics—a kind of fluid dynamics—which is precisely the zero-point energy producing quantum vacuum fluctuations. Space is full of electromagnetic fluctuations—chaotic, omnipresent—. Still, in certain regions, they self-organise (much like when you pull a drain) and then curve spacetime, producing the particles we observe. They make the material world.
In truth, there isn’t a “material world” as such. There is a space that, at specific densities and orderings, appears as matter.
Where the universe’s “limitless” energy comes from
Karel:
That’s amazing. So even at zero Kelvin, there’s a huge energetic potential to explore.
Nassim:
Exactly. When Max Planck found this—he essentially wrote the first equations of quantum mechanics—he was trying to solve the classical physics problem of black-body radiation: basically, how a light-bulb filament behaves, which frequencies it emits at different temperatures. As it heats, the spectrum shifts to blue and ultraviolet—meaning the frequency increases. However, the then-current equations indicated that at around 5,000 K, the body should emit an infinite amount of ultraviolet radiation, which laboratory experiments obviously didn’t show.
Planck tried to fix the equation and didn’t know how, so he inserted a constant—today’s Planck constant, h (later ħ). He described a small oscillator. Bear in mind that around 1900, the very existence of atoms was just being confirmed; they were thought of as small oscillators. In school, quantum mechanics is often explained as a spring with a weight—that’s not ideal. Better to picture something spinning. Mathematically equivalent, but more appropriate for the universe, which has rotating oscillators rather than springs.
Planck described that once he added his constant, the oscillator absorbed and emitted energy in packets of the electromagnetic field. Radiation from a body isn’t continuous but broken into quanta—hence “quantum.” Einstein later called these quanta photons and won the Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect.
Planck himself wasn’t happy with his equation. It felt wrong. He wanted to tweak it so that at least absorption was classical and only emission occurred in quanta. In 1912, he wrote a generalisation achieving the same result as his original law, except the absorbed energy was continuous, not quantised—an attempt to return to classical behaviour.
But when he dug deeper and computed the internal energy of a small oscillator, a stubborn term appeared—roughly “one and a half ħ.” Odd. The equation states that even at zero Kelvin, when the oscillator should be frozen and motionless, it still has an infinite number of oscillations internally. Strange. Einstein and Stern studied it, but most efforts tried to delete that term rather than recognise we’d bumped into the source of existence itself—zero-point energy.
Instead of accepting that the oscillator has a continuous energy source, they claimed all modes of the zero-point oscillations cancel out. There are infinitely many, so together they sum to zero. You just set the equation to zero and "done." However, if you do it correctly, the oscillator becomes a magical object: it oscillates without an energy source. If you accounted for its self-interaction, it would drain and stop in a fraction of a second—just as after the big bang, everything would disappear in a billionth of a second. No one addressed that.
Without getting too technical, this makes the equation commutative when it must remain non-commutative. Commutative means order doesn’t matter; non-commutative means it does. That’s why the oscillator must have an energy source.
To avoid getting lost in details… I showed one problem with zero-point energy is this: If there is so much energy in space, why doesn’t it curve spacetime? Even if you prevent it from going to infinity by cutting it off at the Planck scale, you still get about 10⁹³ grams per cubic centimetre—~10¹¹³ joules per cubic centimetre. That’s wild. Such energy should curve space into a single point.
And what we showed is: it actually does.
Karel:
And that leads to the theory of a holographic, connected universe?
Nassim:
Yes. That means you must consider… Wheeler tried to think through what zero-point energy does. He showed you can’t treat the zero-point equation and general relativity separately; you must ask what all that energy does to spacetime. When you do, you find spacetime is granular because the energy curves it into tiny bubbles. That’s quantum foam—Planck-scale bubbles.
In other words, spacetime’s structure fluctuates thanks to these Planck-scale bubbles. I then calculated the residual energy at the proton level. There’s an enormous gap between the Planck scale and the proton scale—about 20 orders of magnitude. And if you take… Sorry for giving you the whole history.
Karel:
Not at all. It’s excellent—and essential. It gives a clear picture of what’s going on. It may feel not very easy, but it’s crucial because we’re talking about real breakthroughs in physics.
Nassim:
And about understanding reality itself. So when you look at that difference—about 20 orders of magnitude, right?
Karel:
Between the Planck scale and the proton scale.
Nassim:
The difference is enormous. If I enlarged the Planck scale to the size of a grain of sand, the proton would span the distance to Alpha Centauri—approximately 40 billion kilometres in diameter. Imagine how many “grains of sand” fit in a proton that large. Those “grains” are unbelievably small.
We decided to compute it correctly, not just assume the oscillation modes cancel. Why would they? Treat the proton as a cavity. How many of those tiny “bubbles” are inside? How many modes? They stop at the proton’s size and extend down to the Planck scale.
Then you can use correlation functions to determine how many modes add constructively to produce measurable energy, and how many cancel. When you do the math, the result is stunning—you get precisely the proton’s mass.
Karel:
That’s absolutely fascinating. It’s a direct confirmation of the theory. You couldn’t just “luck into” such a result.
Nassim:
It’s impossible to dismiss. And it’s exact. Shockingly exact. Now you can demonstrate that the energy we refer to as mass actually originates from zero-point energy. Because the proton is that mass, and all atoms are made of protonic mass.
The same can be done for the electron. I haven’t published that yet, but it’s analogous. The material world is actually just a dynamic function of zero-point energy.
Karel:
Made of those tiny bubbles—10²⁰ of them in a single proton.
Nassim:
Exactly. And you now see a very different picture. Objects aren’t separate; they’re flows in this dynamics. It’s all discrete. Discreteness is a property of spacetime itself—it curves so tightly it “pinches” into bubbles. The two theories are no longer separate.
Apply Einstein’s field equations to the proton this way, and the oscillator no longer lacks an energy source—it continually draws from the zero-point field. Then compute the proton’s Hawking radiation—the emission from such a tiny black hole of proton size. Because the internal energy is far larger than what we usually measure for the proton, it is the zero-point energy. Most of the “mass” we measure is what we call the strong nuclear force. That’s why it’s equivalent to alpha-G. You’re really measuring the black hole’s “force”—just as we infer astrophysical black holes by their effects on nearby objects.
When you compute that Hawking radiation, something interesting happens. Hawking found that quantum vacuum pairs appear at the event horizon; most annihilate, but if one falls in and one escapes, radiation is emitted. If the proton is a tiny black hole, the computation should match reality. And it yields exactly the proton’s rest mass—the one we measure from the outside.
So you get two results: one from the internal mode count and one from emission, and they match. The oscillator doesn’t lose energy; it receives it at the same rate it emits it. That’s why the proton is extraordinarily stable. Observationally, we’ve never seen a proton decay. Theories allow it on timescales trillions of times the age of the universe.
Our calculations imply the proton is effectively stable indefinitely—continually replenished by the zero-point field, which it emits cycles back into the vacuum. This feedback produces fractal effects. Once a system has input, holographic principles emerge—and a new picture of reality assembles.
Karel:
Our space is composed of a vast number of discrete bubbles. And there’s a timescale by which these bubbles interact and transform—connected to the Planck time constant.
Nassim:
Yes. It ties to Planck’s constant. Ultimately, h turned out to be tied to 2π—the circumference of a circle—leading to ħ (h-bar), the quantum of angular momentum.
Hence, conservation of angular momentum. Imagine all those tiny “Planck bubbles” partially aligning—that produces a particle’s spin. Particles align and pass spin to larger objects… all the way up to macroscopic scales.
There’s even an experiment supporting this—the Einstein-de Haas effect. You put a metal rod inside a coil. Switch on the current: nothing should happen because the rod is centred. Yet the rod starts to rotate. That’s because electron spins align—billions of them, much smaller than the rod, but their total angular momentum transfers to the rod and spins it up.
A good example of this principle is transmitting across scales.
Karel:
So we move from the smallest scale to the largest, step by step. In that sense, we are like atoms of one being—then comes Earth and higher levels. And so on endlessly. Eventually, we can imagine a cosmos of cosmoses, and so forth.
Nassim:
Exactly. You can imagine fractal universes continuing infinitely upward—and, likewise, infinitely inward. The Planck scale is just one level setting the speed of light. There are also sub-Planckian sizes—hyper- or trans-Planckian.
Because we now understand the scaling in our equations, we can predict what that sub-Planck scale is—and what the speed of light is at that sub-Planck level.
Karel:
And the scaling works on the macro level too. So we can talk about “wormholes of universes” this way.
Nassim:
That’s what Einstein and Rosen imagined—a structure of black holes and wormholes appearing both in the infinitely large and the infinitely small.
Karel:
This is important. Many people describe parallel universes as an infinite or vast number of parallel universes. But this is different. It's much more integrated.
Nassim:
It’s concentric, not parallel. In the universe, nothing is truly parallel—there’s always curvature. Minkowski space is a generalisation, an approximation: “I’ll consider only the objects I look at and assume the rest is flat.” But then you remove everything else in the universe. How accurate can that be?
Karel:
It can be an interesting intellectual construct. But it mirrors what we’ve done in physics—assuming an observer can look at something isolated from everything else. This shows it isn’t so. That’s another very interesting point.
Nassim:
It leads to confusion, even with dogmas that every physicist repeats. Like “no perpetual motion,” “you can’t get more out than you put in,” and so on. Everyone repeats it—students, physicists, and everyone else. If you say otherwise, the reaction is, “You don’t understand physics; you believe in perpetual motion.”
But ask a top physicist to show you something that isn’t perpetual—and they can’t. Everything is made of protons—and those seem eternal. Stars keep spinning. When a star explodes, it doesn’t vanish; you see the core— a black hole or pulsar—with immense energy. The star didn’t stop existing; it transformed.
The notion that energy “runs down” comes from entropy—a concept not rigorously defined in physics. The principle is valid, but only locally. Globally, conservation holds. How to explain…
Karel:
If you do nothing, things tend to fall apart—unless you put energy in. That’s true at the macro scale. It’s assumed to be true everywhere.
Nassim:
But look to nature and ask: where does the source of low entropy—order, creation —come from? If entropy pushes everything to disorder, what brings order?
In the universe, gravity does. Gravity pulls and binds, forming ordered structures from which disorder radiates. Gravity formed our Sun. The Sun radiates—and we benefit as low entropy. We convert that into higher entropy, and the result is biology and everything we see.
Earth absorbs the Sun’s heat. But if Earth absorbed all of it, it would have burned long ago. It must radiate back into space exactly as much heat as it receives. What we actually get isn’t heat, but low entropy—order. See?
Then ask: if the Sun acquired that order and radiates it to us, where did it get it? From the galaxy. The galaxy from a cluster; the cluster from a supercluster… eventually back to the big bang. Then, where did the big bang get it?
That returns you to the Planck scale. The big bang began from one of those tiny Planck-level points—that’s the energy source sustaining everything. Not only at a single instant of explosion, but it's continuous. Energy is constantly flowing to sustain all. The big bang was the result of a previous “bang,” and that of one before… It’s an endless sequence.
So there’s a continuous energy source keeping everything going—flowing from the Planck scale up and back down in unceasing feedback.
When you write these equations, you find a direct feedback between the electromagnetic field—what radiates outward—and the gravitational field—what returns inward. It’s essentially fluid dynamics with two flows. When the Planck scale flows outward, we call it electromagnetism. Inward, we call it gravity.
Why the universe is a hologram—and how everything is connected
Karel:
Fantastic. Essentially, the original proton—or rather, that tiny Planck-level excitation—triggered the Big Bang, and our universe emerged. And you say we live in a holographic universe—meaning each tiny proton stores information about the whole.
Nassim:
Yes. If you calculate how much zero-point energy is inside the proton’s cavity—total fluctuation, not just the constructive modes accounting for the proton’s mass—you get precisely the critical density of the universe.
You get not only the total mass of all protons in the universe, expressed as energy, but also precisely the contributions of dark matter and dark energy—everything. In this framework, dark matter and dark energy are explained; they’re no longer a mystery.
Then it all falls into place. We were ignoring the zero-point contribution in the universe. That’s why “96% is missing.” Include it, and everything balances.
Most striking: by studying a small proton—of which you have more in your body than there are stars in the universe—you can recover key cosmological parameters: mass, temperature, size. All from a single proton.
Karel:
It’s a repeating pattern—universes within universes—the smallest and largest linked in a circle, at least as a metaphor.
Nassim:
The ouroboros—exactly. So many ancient civilisations spoke of this. I had the honour to meet the Dalai Lama in Dharamshala. We talked, and you should have seen his eyes light up when I explained it. He said, “But we have this in our Buddhist tradition too.”
Our group was supposed to have only twenty minutes. He turned to his lamas and said something—I didn’t understand and feared I’d said something wrong. But he asked them to cancel his other meetings. We ended up talking for almost four hours. It was amazing.
Yes, you’ll find this principle across many ancient traditions—the idea that the small and the large are connected; everything interlinked. That’s how the world we know emerges.
Karel:
From there, of course, we can ask about the purpose of our being. What do these insights mean? But before that, there are crucial physical consequences. You spoke about gravity control—how should it work?
Nassim:
Because it gives you a new view of gravity, when we applied these equations—and that’s what our paper, now under peer review, is about—we found that if you take Einstein’s field equations, solve the metric, and plug in the data, you get precisely the colour force (inside the proton) as measured experimentally.
You can then show that this force at the Planck scale corresponds to the Planck force; it manifests as the colour force, then as the residual strong nuclear force (binding protons in nuclei), and finally—through a sequence of phase transitions described by the Yukawa potential—reduces to the gravitational force.
In other words: gravity as we experience it today—extremely weak—originates in the Planck force. All fundamental forces have their root in the Planck field—and that field is electromagnetic. This means there’s a direct engineering path to producing troops.
If you can generate a sufficiently strong electromagnetic field with the correct ordering, you can “align” the otherwise chaotic Planck scale, as nature does in a proton or atom. In a lab, you could, in a sense, create a “big atom” or a “small star.” That lets you control gravity—i.e., curve spacetime.
How close are we to controlling gravity
Karel:
By systematically curving regions of space, you can overcome or modify gravity, perhaps even affect an object’s mass.
Nassim:
Yes. You can create an artificial local gravitational bubble. And once you can do that, you essentially have a spacecraft drive—a kind of warp propulsion.
Karel:
What we see in sci-fi is actually getting closer to reality.
Nassim:
Yes, it’s coming. And if you look at sci-fi historically, it’s always been ahead.
Karel:
That’s another mystery—how information spreads. But that’s another topic.
Nassim:
It is, but true nonetheless. Phones, refrigerators, submarines, AI—they appeared in sci-fi before we built them. Warp drives will come too.
Karel:
With gravity control, we gain two significant capabilities. First, manipulation of objects. Second, space travel—potentially beyond light speed.
Nassim:
That would be a later step. Even partial control lets you reach Jupiter in minutes. That alone is astounding—weekend trip around Jupiter, back to work Monday. I think we’ll live to see it—it’s really close.
People may find it crazy. But imagine living in the Wright brothers’ town two weeks before their first flight. They were known as bicycle makers, suddenly claiming they would build a machine that flies. Incomprehensible then—yet it happened.
They flew despite hundreds of “scientific” articles proving that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. The brothers didn’t know that, so they built a plane.
Karel:
It’s wild. A similar situation now—people often miss the obvious. Why should birds fly and not us? And yet papers claimed it was impossible.
Nassim:
Even years after the first flight, European papers still claimed flight was impossible—a hoax.
It’s the same now. Everything around us is, in a sense, eternal—yet we insist nothing can be infinite. Like claiming nothing heavier than air can fly while a bird passes overhead.
Society is in the same position as before the first flight. The idea that we can curve spacetime and do without rockets carrying millions of tons of fuel sounds as unbelievable now as a wooden machine with a heavy engine flying sounded then.
Karel:
We should add: there’s actually no “thrust” in the usual sense. So where does acceleration come from?
Nassim:
From controlling spacetime. You curve it and create a vortex around the craft. You can shift it by controlling the spin of the electromagnetic field. Move the singularity a bit “up,” the vortex narrows in front and widens behind. The craft “falls” into the narrower region, like water down a drain.
Karel:
Great. What would be the theoretical speed?
Nassim:
In theory, you could ramp to light speed in seconds—even less than a second. But we first need massive advances in materials so everything doesn’t fly apart. So we’ll stay sub-light for now. Say ~21% of c. That would take you from New York to here in seconds. Plenty. No jet lag—already incredible.
If we go further, there’s another common misunderstanding. Take Lorentz invariance—special relativity and time dilation…
Karel:
I wanted to ask about time and ageing.
Nassim:
Special relativity states that mass tends to infinity at the speed of light, correct? But that’s only in “flat” space—it ignores gravity because that’s how SR was written. Einstein built it for flat space, and later came general relativity. Physicists tend to keep the two theories separate, though they’re connected.
Saying mass goes to infinity at c is the wrong answer. Properly, at the speed of light, everything “collapses” to the Planck scale—the smallest unit of spacetime. You become the vacuum itself.
Because the vacuum is holographic, reformation is possible. I’m not claiming I’ve fully solved how reformation on the other side works—we’re still working on it. For now, I’m content with a small fraction of c.
Karel:
You can get arbitrarily close to the Planck scale—meaning you slow down, then accelerate again toward light speed.
Nassim:
You then essentially “travel” through Planck-scale wormholes. You get where you want and emerge on the other side—arrived. In theory, you could cross the galaxy in a billionth of a second.
I’ve calculated how long it would take to cross the entire universe. The result… 10⁻²³ seconds. That’s the refresh rate of the universe itself. It’s also the time a proton needs to complete one rotation at light speed. Incredible. Truly remarkable. I was amazed when the calculation came out.
Karel:
Is there a theoretical reason for that?
Nassim:
Yes. It naturally emerges from the equations. I was tackling: if the Planck scale underlies everything else, what underlies the Planck scale? You arrive at what I call the sub- or trans-Planck scale—an infinite recursion—Planck within Planck.
I computed it because we now know the scaling factors—they arise directly from my equations—and the factor remains the same, or so I assume. For the Planck scale to have its mass, energy, radius, and all parameters, it must take the value I calculated—otherwise the model falls apart. I’m confident it’s correct.
Then I computed the speed at that level: ~10⁴⁰ times faster than light. Incredible. That sets the relationship between the proton and the universe, making the proton and the Planck scale sort of central pivots.
Then I asked: if the “mouth” of a wormhole is at the Planck level, information can’t be Planckian—it must be sub-Planckian. So I computed what happens if the sub-Planck scale sends one bit of information through the Planck scale across the universe, through all protons to the other side. The result matched exactly the proton’s one-rotation time.
Like gears within gears, see how it meshes?
Karel:
So a proton’s single rotation is the moment when the entire universe “refreshes,” updates?
Nassim:
Yes—at the universal level. The universe “refreshes” every time a proton completes one rotation around its axis. That’s how everything operates as a connected whole—everything “knows” where everything else is and is linked. Complete interconnection. Remarkable.
The philosophical implications of the new physics
Karel:
So modern physics—the truly new physics—demonstrates the interconnectedness of our existence?
Nassim:
Yes, with more and more evidence. It also clarifies quantum entanglement—we see particles can remain connected at any distance.
Karel:
For me, entanglement was a blatant violation of the old physics—completely incompatible with the previous framework.
Nassim:
When Einstein wrote about it, he somewhat mocked quantum mechanics—trying to show, “This can’t be, so QM is flawed.” Then we learned to measure it. In a sense, he was right—pointing to a mistake. What we observe isn’t explained by quantum mechanics alone but by microscopic wormholes—general relativity. He was right that QM didn’t explain it correctly.
Fascinatingly, he wrote about entanglement just months after the wormhole paper for protons/particles—but never connected the two.
Karel:
So he was actually very close.
Nassim:
They were very close. Today, it’s being tied together, still primarily as a hypothesis—ER = EPR.
ER refers to Einstein–Rosen’s wormholes for particles. EPR is Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s paper on entanglement. Combine them and you get ER = EPR.
Some of the world’s best physicists have worked on this—Maldacena, Susskind, and others. A formal bridge is still missing, but my equations naturally lead there.
Karel:
We’re experiencing a singularity in physics. Our Earth and society are going through a singularity, too. Hopefully, we’ll be conscious enough not to destroy the very things we’re discovering.
Nassim:
I think this touches consciousness itself—but that’s a whole other conversation.
Karel:
That would be amazing. I’d love to invite you again to talk about consciousness. But for now, what does this mean for you? What are the consequences for our thinking and our lives? Where should we aim? Just in a few sentences before we return to it next time.
Thank you for this deep explanation. I hope—and believe—it was as enriching for our viewers as it was for me. It’s amazing. We’re reaching the very edge of our knowledge. The question now is: What does it mean for our lives? How do we use this knowledge? How do we ensure we don’t destroy ourselves but leverage it well?
Nassim:
Humanity must be prepared for this knowledge. Any knowledge can be used in different ways, but right now we have a unique opportunity. We’re on the threshold of both a social and a physical singularity—an inflexion point—and I believe our world can truly blossom because of it.
Karel:
That’s exactly what I speak about in my talks. We have a chance to flourish in ways we can’t yet imagine.
Nassim:
Exactly. And most people on Earth share this vision and walk the same path. Now institutions need to join. We're slowly getting there.
It used to be frightening for institutions. Much of this was known but, for various reasons, not acceptable. Some reasons were understandable—during the world wars, discoveries like zero-point energy emerged; handing such power to certain people then would have been unwise.
Karel:
I think Hitler led various research programs then.
Nassim:
Yes—precisely in this area. It’s good that research didn’t progress further than that. In Tesla’s era, many inventors worked, but information was tightly controlled—hidden rather than shared. Today, that’s changing.
As these insights come together, our view of ourselves and the universe changes. I’m working on a paper about how zero-point energy operates in the body—from water structure through carbon to microtubules—and how what we call consciousness may arise from it. We aren’t separate from the field; we are part of it, made of protons and particles.
That profoundly changes perception: we’re not a random byproduct of the universe but part of its evolution. We have a role—the field shapes us and we shape the field. You realise everything you do affects the whole. You’re not separate; you are part of the whole. That naturally leads to more care. You think twice before hurting someone with words or actions.
These physical discoveries have deep philosophical and social meaning. They show that harmony is possible. One of the most significant sources of conflict—the sense of scarcity of resources and energy—can fade. We’re close to a practically unlimited energy source.
Today, billions of dollars flow into projects like nuclear fusion tokamaks that have yet to produce a single watt for the grid. Yet history has seen inventors who managed to “tickle” the fundamental field and coax energy out. If we open that path, wars lose their fuel. With near-infinite energy and gravity-based drives, you can travel the galaxy and obtain resources anywhere—no reason to fight over them.
How human unity could reshape our future
Karel:
Material things will start to lose importance because they aren’t the actual value we should strive for.
Nassim:
Exactly. The value is creativity—what you can make with matter. That’s fascinating and remarkable.
Karel:
This brings challenges, too. If we suddenly had unlimited energy, some people might decline. It’s essential to ensure people keep the drive to grow, step out of comfort, develop, and not slip into apathy or addictions.
Nassim:
This is interesting in light of COVID. Sure, some people got lazy—most didn’t. Maybe the first weeks, but then many said, “I’ve always wanted to do this and never had time. Now I do.” They began creating. Without daily stress, they changed habits and grew. I saw many personal transformations.
It was a terrible situation, but it had positives. Flowers started growing on empty highways. We saw how quickly Earth can recover when we change our behaviour.
We can make that permanent—change how we handle energy and transport. Once we understand gravity and energy, much pollution and its issues fade.
Science must open up. Censorship must end. Everyone should be able to bring an idea and engage in a thoughtful debate with an adult. New ideas aren’t to be feared. What works endures; what doesn’t fades. We're finally heading there.
Karel:
So society is ready. We still face hate and negativity, which can be a problem. But hopefully, the healing process enabled by access to energy, connection, and such travel can gradually erase hatred among people.
Nassim:
Yes, most people bear trauma—often generational from wars and other events. That’s why compassion matters. When we look at what people do and why, we must remember it never arises from nothing. No child is born a killer—children are pure. Traumatic experiences can change a person. So empathy is needed—to ask what led someone there and how we can help them return. Show beauty instead of leaving them trapped in problems.
Karel:
Today, we can show people how beautiful physics is—and that everything is interconnected—directly opposed to the idea that we live as isolated units.
Nassim:
Yes—counter to “I’m here, you’re there, and you’re the bad guy.”
With such energy capacity and gravity control, we could do things that today seem miraculous—turn deserts green, desalinate water, ensure drinking water for everyone, and care for every person.
Then we’d truly be one human race—not separated, but united. Cultural differences would be seen as a richness that enriches us.
Karel:
That’s wonderful. True wealth lies in creativity—what we bring when we connect with respect across cultures. That’s how we can grow further. Mutual support opens doors to entirely new, unexpected levels of creativity.
Nassim:
And new ideas, new concepts, and everything that comes with them… Because at the end of the day, we’re one species on one planet—our home—which feeds and cares for us. We must come together.
The new physics points to that unity. It inspires people to stop clinging to differences and start recognising our common ground and bonds.
Karel:
One thing we should focus on is people’s fear. We must ease it, because hatred and evil stem from fear. Physics today shows we no longer need to fear for our future. In the material world, we’ll have enough. Let’s think instead about what makes us happy. We’re so glad when we create and discover new things—and that’s now open to everyone.
Nassim:
Ultimately, our highest goal should be understanding ourselves and the universe.
What exploration of the universe might look like next
Karel:
For me, the greatest goal is to understand the universe, society, and what happens in it—and to keep going deeper and deeper in understanding creation and our universe, as well as ourselves.
Nassim:
I can’t imagine any other reason for life to exist than for the universe to learn about itself through us.
Karel:
Through us—and that’s why we undergo severe trials. In the past, we had to experience the worst disasters to learn about ourselves. Our consciousness descends into the deepest darkness to understand the highest levels of awareness.
Nassim:
Exactly—you can’t learn to walk without falling a few times. Falling is part of the path. Without contrast, there’s nothing to strive for. It would be boring. If you could instantly have everything you wished for, you’d be condemned to eternal boredom.
Karel:
Yet we’re reaching a point where we can create almost anything. After all the problems of the past—and even though some remain—we’ve come incredibly far. I believe once we cross the social singularity, we will be nearly able to create anything.
It’s important not to forget and to appreciate it. Not to let beauty become mundane. The world is full of wonders—we tend to get used to them and take them for granted, and they lose their magic. We need to look at them again and again, as if for the first time, and remember their depth and beauty.
Nassim:
The good news is that if we master gravitational and warp propulsion, a vast expanse of space for exploration opens up. So much we’ll be able to see and admire. The universe’s beauty is astounding—and I’m sure we’ll meet other civilisations. There’s no reason we should be alone. There may be fascinating beings out there we’ll want to contact. The possibilities are endless—we’ll never run out of things to explore.
Look at development from above—consciousness expands with mobility. Early humans couldn’t go far. Then came agriculture, domestication, horseback riding, carts, cars, planes… each step took us further. The next step is clear—beyond our planet.
We must realise planetary systems aren’t stable forever. They don’t remain perfect. Sooner or later, a comet, a strong solar flare, or another event can strip a planet of its atmosphere—and that’s the end. We must be able to move elsewhere. Rockets won’t cut it. They get us only short distances. Even the Moon or Mars—nearby—are huge problems with missiles. To Mars, we’d have to launch thousands of rockets every two years when the window opens. That would overload the atmosphere and harm the ionosphere and ozone layer.
The only way is to learn to use gravity. Just as Maxwell and Faraday showed us how to work with the electromagnetic field—the birth of whole new technologies—the next step is understanding how to use gravity, not only electromagnetism. The equations show a direct link between them.
Karel:
Let's hope—and do everything we can—to ensure the next chapter of our evolution unfolds on a galactic level. Then we can explore universes within universes, perhaps reaching the scale of our entire universe—and beyond.
Nassim:
Yes, that will be absolutely extraordinary. We still have to surpass the speed of light—that will probably come later—but simply travelling across the Solar System would be amazing.
Karel:
It’s amazing. And we already have the physics for it. It’s no longer magic; it’s part of how we now understand the structure of physics itself.
Nassim:
Exactly. It’s part of how we understand physics. Just a slight adjustment to what already existed—and suddenly the key appears.
People ask: “How will it work? Not everyone will have a spaceship in their backyard.” Of course not. But instead of boarding a plane, you’ll board a craft with a pilot and go to Jupiter or Mars—for a vacation. A holiday with a view of space—that’s the dream.
At the same time, such technology lets us handle threats. If a meteor or comet approaches Earth, with gravity control, we can manage it. Without it, it’s a huge problem. And we have limited time to achieve this. Currently, we stand at a crucial and critical juncture in human evolution.
Karel:
Thank you very much for this wonderful, amazing, and enriching conversation. You could also direct viewers to where they can find more information.
Nassim:
Yes, you can find us at spacefed.com—that’s the official website of the International Space Federation. We’re preparing a new portal where people can get involved, connect with us, and be part of the community.
I’m also working on public-facing materials that will be available soon, and I’m very excited about that. There are many ways to get involved and support our research, because governments or any other groups don't fund us.
You can join the discussion, and if you’re a scientist, you can help us write physics papers—we welcome every helping hand. So don’t hesitate to connect with us spacefed.com.
Karel:
Thank you for the interview.
Nassim:
Thank you as well. I’d love to do it again sometime.
Comments