RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

A Trap posed by Nature to Humankind

Written by Otto E. Rossler   
Monday, 08 February 2016 22:18
A Trap posed by Nature to Humankind

Otto E. Rossler
Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 18, 72076 Tübingen, Germany


A return to the pre-1911 Einstein shows that nature has since produced a trap for humankind in a surreal fashion. Five overlooked implications of Einstein’s early work are highlighted. They change the self-understanding of physics as well as the attitude of the public towards science. Most importantly, a “CERN blunder” becomes palpable. The latter is outlined in the hope that its further continuation can be suspended.
(February 9, 2016)


A celebrated current super experiment is highlighted and shown to represent a short-term survival error for humankind and the planet.

A five-tiered Trap is set-up by Nature for Humankind – Black Hole Creation

Black holes possess five radically new properties. Specifically:
(1) They are never finished in finite outer time
(2) They hence cannot show Hawking evaporation
(3) They are necessarily uncharged (i.e., one of their three “hairs” – charge – has been clipped)
(4) Electrons are bound to be larger than twice their own Schwarzschild radius
(5) Black holes grow exponentially inside matter
The list turns black holes into the most violent enemy of humankind. The five points possess several mutually independent causes. One can therefore speak of a “conspiracy of nature against humankind” having been detected.

Five-tiered Proof of Danger

Point (1) – never-finishedness – follows from the standard theory of black holes. It got overlooked by the scientific community ever since the first paper on black holes, written by Oppenheimer and Snyder, appeared in 1939. Specifically, the famous quite short proper in-falling time valid for an astronaut descending from an outer orbit onto the surface (“horizon”) of a stellar black hole, of about two days’ duration, stands in stark contrast to the infinite in-falling-time observed by the outside waiting crew members. Nevertheless this fact does not mean as everyone still thinks, that the short in-falling time were “observationally stretched” for the outside world by an infinite factor.
Rather, a logical blunder is involved in this accepted conclusion. This follows from the “trampoline argument”: How many days will it take for the astronaut to return to her outside waiting crew if the in-fall is magically turned around by a trampoline installed on the horizon? This time-reversal argument was obviously never pondered: Does she return after another two days? This is what the standard interpretation takes for granted implicitly.
The truth is that she re-arrives with a delay of “twice infinitely many days.” This is because time is infinitely strongly slowed down on the horizon in this “gravitational twins paradox.” No one can contest this conclusion – it simply was never seen. This Oppenheimer-Snyder blunder (as it can be called) has far-reaching implications. Even Interstellar – the blockbuster science-fiction movie supervised by Kip Thorne – fell victim to this blunder with the depicted fast return of the protagonist from the mouth of a wormhole (the surface of a black hole).

Point (2) – non-evaporation – follows directly from Point (1). The twin particle in a quantum fluctuation considered by Hawking can no longer disappear behind the horizon in the maximally short finite time interval assumed by Hawking (nor in any finite outside time). This Hawking misunderstanding is a direct implication of the Oppenheimer-Snyder blunder of point (1).
“Tunneling” – which is sometimes adduced in connection with Hawking radiation – also offers no way out. This is because the discovery of c-global rules out any tunneling across unlimited distances. All of this follows from the return to the global speed of light c in the vacuum of the pre-1911 Einstein (see for a proof of c-global).

Point (3) – unchargedness – also follows from c-global. Rest mass and charge are known to possess a fixed universal ratio for electrons. But the rest mass of an in-falling particle approaches zero near the horizon because the total mass-energy (kinetic energy plus rest mass) of an in-falling particle is necessarily conserved by Birkhoff’s theorem. (Note hereby that due to c-global the falling distance down to the horizon is as infinite as the watched in-falling time is.) This third overlooked fact is as important as Points (1) and (2) are.

Point (4) – non-classical size enlargement of electrons – follows from the unchargedness of black holes of the previous point. Note that if electrons were as small as their own Schwarzschild radius, they would be uncharged by virtue of Point (3).

Point (5) – exponential growth inside devourable matter – is a familiar empirical feature shown by large black holes in the universe (Sagittarius A* at the center of the Milky Way galaxy is on diet at present).

Coming to Grips with c-global

Never before did there exist a similar “collusion of coincidences” in the history of science and the world. Einstein is still “good for miracles.” He never believed in (finished) black holes. And he remained reluctant for years to accept the Big Bang (now ruled out for good by the re-discovery of c-global).
How come that no one saw the above 5 points before? It is because the Tübingen group stumbled across a new formal implication of the Schwarzschild metric 8 years ago: the fact that c-global is a formally allowed feature of that metric. This observation then enabled an additional final conclusion to be seen in the equivalence principle: an optically masked gravitational-redshift proportional size increase so that c remains a global constant (as formally implicit in the equivalence principle anyhow). Many consequences follow from this return to the still maximally strong, less than 32 years old Einstein.

Why speak of a Trap?

The retrieved miracle of c-global has 5 novel implications. So far, we only saw that the scientific community has committed a big blunder ever since 1939 by not spotting the 5 points presented above (the first 3 of which follow directly from c-global). It of course goes without saying that overlooked facts occur easily in science. To witness, the scientific community is currently busy trying to do the most expensive experiments of history: (a) on gravitational waves (a prediction at variance with c-global that was retracted by Einstein himself); (b) on “cold dark matter” (ruled out by the absence of cosmic expansion implicit in c-global); and (c) on the so-called “cosmic” background radiation which now comes from rather close-by, namely the cold halo of the Milky Way galaxy (presently already considered responsible for a sizeable part of it). All three experiments are a big waste of money in the wake of c-global but are totally innocuous otherwise.
However, there is a fourth mega experiment going on right now: the attempt to produce ultraslow miniature black holes down on earth in the LHC. This prestigious experiment near Geneva has become counter-advisable due to the absence of Hawking radiation implicit in c-global. This experiment’s success has now become, # 1, more likely in the wake of Point (4) above; and is, # 2, by definition undetectable by the installed hardware of CERN owing to Points (2) and (3); and the so much looked-forward-to product of the experiment (miniature black holes) is, # 3, endowed now with the characteristic feature of all black holes of Point (5): exponential growth inside eatable matter – in the present case: earth’s matter.

The Point

Alamogordo amounted to a similar risk taken before. But in 1945, wartime was reigning in which logic is known to come second. The contemporaneous risk estimate was, according to differing accounts, either one percent or one tenth of that value. Moreover, neither all life nor the planet as a whole was put in jeopardy – “only” all higher life forms including the human species in case the atmosphere would be drawn into the chain reaction.
This time around, by contrast, the risk cannot be shown to range below ten percent. This is because the enlarged size of electrons – Point (4) above – implies that spacetime itself must be “bored open” in the very small by an unknown factor. String theory or one of its competitors is therefore indirectly supported (“proven true”) by c-global. Given the ladder of 6 further factors of ten up to the Planck mass being eligible in the absence of any better knowledge, the CERN experiment has a chance of more than ten percent to already cover the threshold for black-hole formation. If so black holes are formed but remain undetectable at first. CERN would then be blessed with its most prestigious hope being fulfilled: successful production of black holes on earth.


The “1-over-6 success” predicted in the wake of c-global amounts to a belated triumph if becoming manifest. The at first invisibly growing miniature black holes will become detectable only after a symptom-free interval of the order of a decade. Note that exponential growth rates have the characteristic feature of varying not too much in their intrinsic delay before flaring up. This is an appalling prospect. Will Einstein be our savior after his original c-global of pre-1911 times could be retrieved so that at least further attempts at black-hole production at still higher energies can be avoided on rational grounds?
Why speak of a “trap” here rather than of a “tragedy”? The phrase is chosen because the early warnings in the scientific literature got shunned in an irrational fashion – compare the timely publication titled “A rational and moral and spiritual dilemma.” For eight years by now, CERN could not afford to renew its originally well-done scientific safety report “LSAG” of early 2008. The most plausible explanation for this strange behavior shown by an international organization of 3.500 scientists may or may not have to do with the fact that any update could not possibly have left unquoted c-global with its implied new properties of black holes.
If this carelessness appears astounding, it must be kept in mind that the 5 predictions described above are “intrinsically absurd” for any traditionally educated physicist – were it not for the genius of Einstein standing behind c-global from 1905 up until mid-1911. But Einstein has long passed away and there are no teaching chairs for general relativity left in the German-speaking countries dominating CERN.
The revival of c-global in Einstein’s theory was first presented in an invited public talk in English at the Berlin Biennale on January 28, 2008. It owes its existence to a new implication of general relativity, spotted in the Schwarzschild metric in mid-2007. No one was so far able to offer a counter-proof to c-global. c-global got retrieved since also in the underlying “mother theory” of the equivalence principle itself as mentioned. More and more high-ranking supporters are making themselves felt cautiously as time progresses.
To conclude, my most concrete hope is that the younger generation will enthusiastically embark on programming the “Einstein Rocketship Simulator” ERS which will at long last make the superhuman equivalence principle of 1907 palpable to the mind of most every young person. It is such a beautiful both naive and exhilarating challenge to commonsense. As Einstein himself admitted in his founding paper of 1907, it is only “to some extent accessible to theoretical treatment.” Alone the pictorial understanding of chaotic motions in three-dimensional phase space comes close. While algebraic calculations can lead astray due to their intrinsic railway-like nature, analog computers (including their digital emulations) are safer because when using them you cannot lie to yourself without noticing it in the salad of symbols. A 77 years long delay for an overlooked logical blunder detectable by a child in retrospect (Oppenheimer and Snyder’s oversight) represents big enough an argument in favor of a change in attitude. The single remaining world-wide physics curriculum nowadays reveals a strange bias towards a loss of common sense. Hopefully, it is not too late to return to the simplicity of thought of an optimistic young man in a patent office.


I thank Susan J. Feingold, Dieter Fröhlich, Andreas Greiner, Oswald Berthold and Tobias Winkler for discussions. For J.O.R. your social media marketing partner
Email This Page


THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.