Blog

Apr 30, 2012

Einstein’s Miracle

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Einstein realized in the last decade of his life that only a world government can overcome war and hatred on the planet. And he believed he had acquired the right to demand this acutely – in view of the nuclear winter being a real threat in the wake of his own contributions to physics.

His main discovery, however, is the “twin clocks paradox,” overlooked by even his greatest competitor. It describes, not just a physical discovery but much more. The travelled twin got transported along the time axis at a different (reduced) rate. So he will be standing younger-in-age beside his twin brother upon return. This is an ontological change which no one else would have dared consider possible: Interfering with the inexorable fist that pushes us all forward along the time axis!

This is Einstein’s deepest discovery. He topped it only once: when he discovered, two years later in 1907, that clocks “downstairs” are rate-reduced, too. The “second twins paradox” in effect.

The word “paradox” is a misnomer: “Miracle” is the correct word. Imagine staying the hands of time! So everybody sees that what you worked is a miracle (a Western Shaman presenting a tangible feat – a Grimms’ brothers’ fairy tale brought to life – a Jewish miracle revived: “the Lord can be seen”).

Why do I point you to Einstein, the sorcerer? It is because we’d better listen to him. Presently, the whole planet denies his legacy as once before. Deliberately to overlook his second twins paradox amounts to consciously risking the planet for the second time in a row.

The ontologically slowed clocks (downstairs) are not just slower-ticking: they also are proportionally mass-reduced, size increased and charge-reduced. This corollary to Einstein’s 1907 result, called Telemach (since T, L, M, Ch are involved), stays uncontested.

Unfortunately – or rather fortunately –, a famous nuclear experiment turns out to be planet-threatening in time I hope. Technically speaking the second twins paradox implies that CERN’s presently attempted to be produced artificial black holes, # 1) cannot be detected at CERN, # 2) are more likely to arise, #3) will, owing to quantum mechanics, electromagnetism and chaos theory, eat the planet inside-out in a few years’ time so that only a 1.8 cm black residue remains.

So dangerous is Einstein still, 57 years after his passing away? This time around, he is imploring us again while taking off his glasses and smiling into the camera: “please, dear children, do not continue a nuclear experiment that you cannot monitor while ontological implications stand on the list.”

The safety conference,rejected by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011, is number 1 on Einstein’s agenda:

The nuclear experiment must be stopped immediately!

The nascent world government is openly asking for this today: This is “Einstein’s miracle.”

114

Comments — comments are now closed.

  • PassingByAgain on May 13, 2012 2:42 am

    (if you don’t believe me, look at the other tables and pictures in the GM paper: all of them are either on top of a page, above the text, or in a page without text. That is the default choice of LaTeX, and most authors don’t bother forcing the program to put the floating objects in some specific place)

  • PassingByAgain on May 13, 2012 2:43 am

    earlier comments here http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/einsteins-miracle/comment-page-2

  • Peter Conant on May 13, 2012 5:43 am

    Other than Otto Rossler, has anyone come up with a plausible physical mechanism for black holes generated by cosmic ray collisions to be uncharged? If these black holes are charged, they would be stopped (by the Earth, Sun, white dwarfs, neutron stars, etc.) quickly after formation.

    So really this whole thing hinges on whether black holes can be charged.

    Also — would magnetic screening of cosmic rays on neutron stars really stor them from hitting, or just deflect them to polar collisions?

  • PassingByAgain on May 13, 2012 6:14 am

    Conant: of course there is no special reason why the black holes should be neutral (and stable), but it makes sense to investigate the worst-case scenario even if it is theoretically unfounded. As to the magnetic screening, the problem is not the deflection of the protons, but the fact that the magnetic field causes the protons to lose part of their energy, up to the point where they might not be energetic enough to produce black holes (see appendix G of the GM paper).

    Tottoli: have you now understood that the relevant quantity is the number of black holes absorbed by the neutron star over its lifespan (and not the number per million years)?

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 13, 2012 11:46 am

    Dear PassingByAgain

    Thanks for your first comment on page 3, it leads me to the idea that you could help me to find some additional misleading points in GM.
    To you comment on page 2:
    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/einsteins-miracle/comment-page-2#comment-107736
    You can tell me what you want but I do not agree with your statement: “Nobody who is even vaguely used to reading such papers would doubt that the table is in section 8.1.1.” Even because of the misleading title of table 3. (And please do not tell I would not know how to read publications, because you do not know me.)
    However, your point with LaTeX is true but anyway a publication — especially such an important one — should be made carefully enough, so far that most of the readers can understand it quickly and may not get a wrong opinion. This is important because such a risk assessment should be suitable for an open discussion between various people and one does not know, who anymore could have an important idea regarding it.

    I would say, that it would generally not matter whether we would have a table with the numbers of MBH on neutron stars per million years or per entire lifespan of the NS. I agree that the most important point would be “per lifespan”, but the lifetime varies. (You know that I know, so please stop trying to convince naive readers that I would not understand anything.)
    If we talk about NS, naturally the only important parameters in order to find out, whether there is a proof of safety regarding neutral, stable, slow MBH, possibly produced at the LHC are as follows: the lifespan of the NS, the exact type of ‘neutron‘ star and its core, the number of trapped MBH per time scale, the size of the MBH (or else its smaller and stable remnant), the space between the particles of the NS and the time of accretion.
    If one does not know the accretion rate then it does also matter whether the MBH is trapped at the beginning or at the end of lifespan of the NS.

    But again: just one (not the most) important point in my long comment on page 1 here is that the title of table 3 is “Summary of black hole production rates, per million years, induced by proton cosmic rays impinging on a R = 10 km neutron star” and does not mention “million years of FCE” nor “binaries” in any way.
    LSAG handles single neutron stars resp. generally “neutron stars” and GM (8.1 and elsewhere) too. Therefore where is a table with a correct title or an argument with some real numbers on single neutron stars (which is the main issue) and (if you still think that table 3 is mostly for the binary section) then why does the title not mention “per million years of FCE”?
    The ‘trick‘ would be, just to make the publication (and all tables) as easy understandable and as less misleading as possible, which does not seem to be the case here.

    Also I would say that naive readers do not think about LaTeX.
    It would not be so difficult to put the tables in the right section (instead of above the title of the section resp. instead of at the end of the solitary section), with the real final (corrected) numbers, for example for MBH per real million years for single NS, MBH per lifespan of NS, MBH per million years FCE (for binaries) or whatever. But I already know you will very probably see it different again.

    Thanks to Mr. Conant for the question concerning the neutrality of MBH. Dear PassingByAgain Naturally I agree that it makes sense to investigate the worst-case scenario but I do not agree with your argument that “of course there is no special reason why the black holes should be neutral (and stable)”, because there is not only the paper of Prof. Rössler regarding it. Charge can be seen as “information” too and we do not know whether any information can come out from the black hole. Hawking radiation is not anymore on the public safety page of CERN and there is a reason for it. Not only Prof. Rössler says something against Hawking Radiation.

    You mention the worst case scenario but you did not yet answer my argument, that GM should have considered all possible particles, rays and all thinkable sorts of exotic particles, mostly cosmic rays which would give the smallest numbers of MBH trapped on a (single or else binary) neutron star.

    Thanks for discussion. Best regards, Niccolò

  • PassingByAgain on May 13, 2012 1:24 pm

    Tottoli, this discussion is going nowhere. To start with, table 3 IS
    in section 8.1.1, and if you still think otherwise, perhaps you have a
    problem with English language (“shown here in table 3″), not just with
    scientific papers. Anyway, this obsession of yours with the captions
    of the tables is just petty. True, the authors could have written
    “uncorrected” in the captions, but so what? Once again, the meaning of
    the numbers in the tables is clear to anybody who can read the
    text. BTW, why did you have to repeat the calculation to realize that
    the numbers did not include the correction for magnetic screening?
    Couldn’t you just read it in page 46?

    Besides, what would a “naive reader” do with the information that a
    neutron star in a binary system absorbs a given number of black holes
    per million year? The relevant message of section 8 is that, if micro
    black holes were: 1) existing; 2) lighter than 14 TeV; 3) neutral; 4)
    stable; and 5) able to accrete at a rate dangerous to Earth, a typical
    neutron star in a binary system would be destroyed by them, even if
    the cosmic rays contained only 10% of protons. Again, this information
    is clearly written and fully explained in the paper, and it is
    accessible to anybody who bothers to read the text instead of just
    looking at the pictures. And remember, this is a paper published in a
    specialist journal, aimed at actual physicists. If you and your “naive
    readers” get confused by the “tricky” tables — or are unable to
    understand eq.(8.1), to make another example — well, that is just your
    problem.

    As to the LSAG report, it’s a different matter. That report is much
    shorter, much less technical and addressed to a wider public. The
    issue of micro black holes is just one among several that are
    considered, and the bounds from white dwarfs and neutron stars are
    discussed (without numbers) in just two paragraphs in page 8. I don’t
    know why the LSAG authors did not specify that the bounds refer to
    neutron stars in binary systems. Probably they thought that the “naive
    reader” would not care about the subtlety, and the expert one would be
    able to read (and understand) the details in the GM paper.

  • Otto E. Rossler on May 13, 2012 1:39 pm

    Dear Mr. Conant:

    Thank you for your question regarding the chargedness of black holes which is as maximally important as you point out.

    To the best of my knowledge, the most high-ranking colleague of mine who shares in this result is Professor Richard J. Cook of the Airforce Academy in Colorado Springs. He wrote to me that he fully supports the Ch of my Telemach result (while he himself had independently arrived at T,L,M).

    My Telemach paper in the African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science gives the relvant references. I hope Professor Cook forgives me for pulling him into this discussion here which I consider to be sufficiently scientific in content.

    This is a highlight in the public discussion of the LHC experiment. I hope your question will be followed by further questions by others in the same, purely objective spirit.

    Sincerely yours,
    Otto E. Rössler

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 13, 2012 4:57 pm

    Dear PassingByAgain

    Agreed with your first sentence. I do not like to talk in circles nor to make you angry. The contrary: it was great to have such an intelligent and strong discussion partner like you over three pages, starting from here (thanks to all, to the moderation and to all readers):
    http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/einsteins-miracle/comment-page-1#comment-107513

    But to answer your question: I have made the two examples of calculations (see link above), to show some real (corrected) numbers per real million years on single neutron stars, as to prove that the title of table 3 is incorrect. It was also to highlight the statement of GM, that the numbers of MBH on neutron stars “are too small to allow sufficient rate for all cases, and specially those at the highest black hole masses.” (GM, page 85).

    Can I ask you three very final questions, in the hope to get a very honest answer?
    1.) Do you agree that there is no proof of the type of these high energetic cosmic ‘ray‘ particles, possibly leading to MBH?
    2.) Would you find it a good idea, to make calculations specially for the hypothetic particles which would produce the smallest number of MBH on single neutron stars or binaries?
    3.) What is your motivation to be on the side of CERN?

    Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Niccolò
    ——-
    But then to the comment of Prof. Rössler again…

  • PassingByAgain on May 14, 2012 3:08 am

    Tottoli: I am not an astrophysicist and what I know about cosmic rays I read it on this (and a few other) paper(s). To obtain the bounds from neutron stars, GM assume that the high-energy cosmic rays contain at least 10% of protons, and they quote several sources (refs.[67]-[73]) to argue that this is a conservative assumption. Do you have a problem with any of those sources? Anyway, note that the authors are ready to admit — both in section 8.1.1 and in the conclusions — that “a greater dominance of heavy elements reduces the range of such bonds”. I don’t see what would be the point of repeating the calculation for other “particles which would produce the smallest number of MBH”. You already know that this would result in weaker bounds. But if there are at least 10% protons in the cosmic rays — as seems likely — the bounds from neutron stars in binary systems are safe, otherwise they are not.

    As to your third (silly) question, isn’t the answer obvious? I hate humankind, and I want it to be swallowed by a black hole. Or, in alternative, CERN has kidnapped my family and threatens to annihilate them with antimatter if I don’t comply.

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 14, 2012 4:52 am

    Dear PassingByAgain
    Hahaha — oh no, your last paragraph was hopefully not straight but I should not laugh, because the discussed theme could have a sad outcome… but it does not answer my silly question (please forgive me).

    However the last sentence in your first paragraph is exactly the point — and very honest!
    I do not have a “problem” that GM gives these references.
    The problem is, that not ALL of these references (even the ones which handle high energetic cosmic rays in LSAG) are completely honest. I explain:

    Completely honest regarding the kind of these high energetic cosmic rays is only to make assumptions and (looking at the texts) this is not the case in all these references, but in some it is (believe me, I have seen it or please take a look yourself).
    I know that there are assumptions (and some “signs”) for the composition of high and even ultra-high energy cosmic rays or particles but it is so that the real composition is not KNOWN, therefore they have tables with hypothetical 100% proton or/and 100% hypothetical iron fluxes.

    (At the LHC we know we have protons or lead ions.)

    As it is important to consider the worst case, one could say 100% iron is somehow thought for the worst case — but the worst case would be different, therefore my 2nd question.

    Because the type of these rays or particles (possibly producing MBH) is not known for sure and only secondary “events” have been measured, one (or GM) would have to make calculations specially for the (at least) specific particles or most preferable even for exotic particles — if possible — which would produce the smallest numbers of MBH on neutron stars. The very best would be calculations for a hypothetical 100% flux, as they have made for protons or/and iron just for example in table 2.

    Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Niccolò
    ——-

  • PassingByAgain on May 14, 2012 6:27 am

    Tottoli: true, I didn’t really answer your third question. That’s because it IS silly and it does not deserve an answer. In science we do not “take sides” for this or that group. In science we assess the validity of an argument, which can be correct or incorrect, sufficiently or insufficiently motivated, and so on. I don’t need to “take sides” to see that Rossler’s “Telemach” is gibberish, as I don’t need to “take sides” to see that the GM paper contains — to the best of my understanding — sound physics.

    For the rest, I haven’t read all of the references [67]-[73], but if your judgment about their “honesty” is based on the position of the tables and the wording of the captions, I am not particularly worried about it. And I still fail to understand (but please, don’t bother explaining it) your insistence on the fact that GM should repeat their calculation of the neutron-star bounds with 100% iron (or whatever else) flux. Indeed, “100% iron flux” falls into the category “less-than-10% proton flux”, which is already discussed in the paper. In that case, which the authors consider “unlikely”, the bounds from neutron stars are no longer valid. Note however that — as you can read in page 40 — the bounds from white dwarfs remain valid even in the case of a 100% iron flux.

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 14, 2012 11:23 am

    Dear PassingByAgain

    Hypothetical 100% iron would not give the smallest number of MBH.
    But no problem if you do not understand my last paragraph. It‘s ok, because I have told all what I had on my mind.
    I think we should stop now in order to let others tell their arguments (as Mr. Conant or Prof. Rössler above).
    Let‘s just hope that there is no risk, otherwise we will see us somewhere over the rainbow…

    Many thanks. Keep to be critical and selfcritical. Peace! Niccolò
    ——-

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 14, 2012 11:34 am

    BTW: If you really not understand: The composition of CR is not known. For example hypothetical 100% lead or gold would give less MBH than iron. Ok?

  • Niccolò Tottoli on May 14, 2012 11:36 am

    (I mean the composition of the high energy cosmic rays or particles!)
    Thank you, Niccolò
    ——-