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>
> 
> 
>
I read this paper and looked into 'Physical Review and Research International' as well. You may have never heard of it before because it has only existed for 2 years, providing a high level peer review process internationally. I even noticed referees from Cambridge, UC Berkeley, University of Melbourne, which are some of the top schools in the world. The journal also publicized the peer review correspondences to include Haramein's responses to each referee. Have you read these answers? They may provide a better understanding to the paper as a whole. It seems as though the simplicity appeared to you as shocking and therefore negating the profound implications entirely. I encourage you take a closer look.

<http://www.sciencedomain.org/review-history.php?iid=224&id=4&aid=1298>