Question: So on the net (one forum) I stumbled upon [this](http://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1367405491-Haramein342013PRRI3363.pdf), and article by Nassim Haramein. Now, I researched this guy a bit, and I couldn't find any peer reviewed article (other than this in 'Physical Review & Research International', which tbh I've never heard of before).

What he's saying is:

> 
> We find an exact quantized expression of the Schwarzschild solution to
>  Einstein’s field equations utilizing spherical Planck units in a
>  generalized holographic approach.
> 
> 
> 

I went a bit through the 'article', and the whole 'derivation' is kinda... lacking? All he did was make an assumption (replaced surface area Planck unit with his 'spherical Planck unit'), and made series of 'derivations' comparing to the actual data (he used Cygnus X-1 as a reference, but I saw no uncertainties in his data, which was a bit odd).

So is this another 'crackpot' who 'invented' (or better yet simplified) a pretty complex existing theory? I am currently studying the correspondence principle (Kerr/CFT to be precise), and this is rather complicated area with some complicated math behind it (topology, symmetries, etc.), so when I stumbled on this, my inner crackpot meter went kinda on, since I've seen these kind of 'discoveries' before (usually ppl who found a working perpetuum mobile :D).

I'm asking, because I know there are physicists here who are experts in the field of general relativity and the holographic principles, so they are more qualified to say if this is nonsense or not.

I think it kinda is...

Answer: 
One thing he mentions is space torque. This feature is not included in general relativity. However space torque exists in the form of van der Waals or Casimir stress, both theoretically and experimentally. One measurement is

> 
> Somers, D.A.T., Garrett, J.L., Palm, K.J. et al. Measurement of the Casimir torque. Nature 564, 386–389 (2018). <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0777-8>
> 
> 
>
Nassim Haramein may be an outsider in the physics community, but his paper is worth a serious look. Some of his definitions are a bit lacking, nevertheless, the results from his paper are quite thought provoking. It is worth noting his calculations, derived from simple geometric and algebraic methods, have accurately predicted the proton radius months before the most recent experimental measurement had been made public, in the journal "Nature".

The comment posted by dingo\_d refers to a review of the original manuscript, after which two revised copies were submitted. The final revision was deemed acceptable for publication.