by Otto E. Rössler, Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
Abstract: An unfamiliar result in special relativity is presented: non-conservation of rest mass. It implies as a corollary a resolution of the Ehrenfest paradox. The new result is inherited by general relativity. It changes the properties of black holes. (June 21, 2012)
Rest mass is conserved in special relativity in the absence of acceleration. Under this condition, the well-known relativistic increase of total mass with speed is entirely due to the momentum part of the total-mass formula, so rest mass stays invariant as is well known. However, the presence of acceleration changes the picture. Two cases in point are the constant-acceleration rocketship of Einstein’s equivalence principle of 1907, and the rotating disk of Einstein’s friend Ehrenfest 5 years later.
First the Einstein rocket:
If light emitted from a point close to the tip of the constantly accelerating rocketship arrives with its finite speed at the bottom, it is blueshifted there because the bottom has in the meantime picked up a constant upwards speed. This at first sight absurd implication of special relativity was spotted by Einstein in 1907 in a famous mental tour de force. The arriving photons possessed their higher frequency from the beginning. Since they were at equilibrium with the local masses at their point of origin (think of positronium-annihilation generated photons being used), all masses at their height of origin are increased by the pertinent blueshift factor with respect to the same masses residing at the bottom. The converse argument holds true in the other direction for the redshift of photons from the bottom arriving at the tip, and for the correspondingly lower relative rest mass of all stationary particles at the bottom.
Second the Ehrenfest disk:
If light emitted from a more peripheral point of the constantly rotating disk arrives at the motionless center, it is redshifted by the transverse Doppler-shift factor discovered by Einstein in 1905. Much as in the previous case, the emitted photons are locally inter-transformable with solid rest mass. The implied local decrease in rest mass entails a proportional size increase via the Bohr radius formula of quantum mechanics (the parallel size change went unmentioned in the preceding case). But this is not the end of the story: Simultaneously, Lorentz contraction holds true at the light-emitting point on the rotating disk. The two local size change factors – that of the transverse Doppler shift and that of Lorentz contraction – happen to be each other’s inverses. Since they thus cancel out (the ratio is unity), the rotating disk remains perfectly flat. This prediction, deduced from special relativity with acceleration included, solves the Ehrenfest paradox.
To conclude:
Rest mass is not conserved in “special relativity with acceleration included.” Rest mass decreases more downstairs (or outwards, respectively) in proportion to the so-called gravitational (or rotational, respectively) redshift factor. This proposed new result in special relativity is bound to carry over to general relativity. Indeed the gravitational-redshift proportional reduction of rest mass has been described in general relativity by Richard J. Cook (in his 2009 arXiv paper “Gravitational space dilation”). The non-constancy of rest mass despite the fact that it appears locally un-changed has a tangible consequence: it affects the properties of black holes. The implications are incisive enough to let a currently running attempt at producing black holes on earth appear contraindicated from the point of view of planetary survival. This fact makes it desirable to find a flaw in the above chain of reasoning. (For J.O.R.)
“Higgs” is alive, “Schwarzschild” is dead.
The LHC is not a monster, the people there are smart.
A more serious subject — I think — could be a Higgs mechanism out-of-control scenario from a chaos theoretic point of view. Who does understand the Higgs mechanism in its full range of possible effects?
I am afraid that you could even become an element in your own proposed risk chain if you further act like Don Quijote.
Smartness cannot reside in refusing to respond to a proof of danger, dear Bernd, or can it?
The Higgs mechanism is ingenious. I deeply admire this man. if anyone can help, it is he.
There is no proof of danger, oly a proof of your incompetence, dogmatism and megalomania.
You are just like your crackpot friend El Naschie.
Dear Otto,
These smart people think in terms of the standard model — not in your terms. Why should they adopt them?
Operating according to the standard model could mean to argue like:
If there is something like a rest-mass non-conservation or mass increase out-of-control scenario then it must have something to do with the Higgs-mechanism.
Bernd
Dear Bernd:
A scientific proof based on assumptions shared by everyone is valid until someone is able to dismantlie it.
Proving that it is incompatible with accepted other knowledge is tantamount to saying that it is new — that is, confirming it.
The young scientists on this blog give the impression of having forgotten this fact.
Take care,
Otto
P.S. I deeply admire Higgs. He made no mistakes.
The stupid Rössler-dogma again: because it is contradicted already by proven and accepted knowledge it HAS TO BE CORRECT.
Thats not science, that is more a immunization strategy of a crackpot.
Otto simply neglects that new science, like for example Einsteins, is most of the time not replacing the “old science” but extending it…The old science is then a special case of the new, more generalized view (like the Newtonian law of gravity in the context of GR).
The fact could not be forgotten because it never really existed, crackpot!
Assume Aliens would write into crop a message including a short mathematical prove that the LHC is dangerous.
Even you would ignore it.
You are not helping your friend here by imaging a hypothetical, so far not existing rigorous mathematical proof of danger…of course if there would be something liike that it would not be ignored…that is the advantage of precise and rigorous mathematics.
On the other hand Rössler has nothing like that, so your hypothetical case is irrelevant being a kind of the well-known crackpot strategy known as “galileo-gambit”.
By the way, stop kidding Otto, dear “Bernd”..
Sorry LSD, nobody is talking with you here. The post was addressed at Otto.
Dear Bernd:
No one ever succeeded in proving Telemach wrong.
Can you try to do it?
Thank you,
Otto
Roessler: many succeeded in proving ‘Telemach’ wrong. You just didn’t accept it. That’s a difference. So I am now allowed to oficcially call you a liar, am I not?
Sir Peter Howell: If you don’t give the evidence supporting your claim, you stand here as a man who delibetately says untrue things. So, please, be so kind as to substabtiate. No one will be more grateful than the person you address so harshly.
Dear Otto,
You say that Telemach relevance is given by black hole considerations.
You also think the Higgs-mechanism is relevant and possibly even acting in your black hole. Consequently, with this assumption Higgs should be ultimatively responsible for the mass of a black hole. Have you checked if the Higgs-mechanism is affected by strong space-time curvatures? If not, I guess your theory is valid as many others showing the opposite result but not considering the Higgs mechanism.
Bernd
Dear Bernd:
Thank you for thinking so positively!
My knowledge about the Higgs mechanism is constrained by my having read Professor Matt Strassler’s blog which is absolutely outstanding but does not make me a specialist. Nevertheless I think I can reply – or try to.
The Higgs field – the essential universally constant new object – is everywhere constant. (Nothing else in the universe is.) At first sight, nothing speaks in favor of its being dependent on local properties like a high space-time curvature. Einstein’s postulated principle of general covariance means that LOCALLY the Higgs field is always the same. How it can manage to be globally constant at the same time is a question that the specialists – presumably – cannot answer as of yet. Modern particle physics does without space-time curvature as you know.
So the question you posed is maximally important. And you kindly allude to the fact that I showed that rest mass decreases with gravitational redshift. This could be interpreted as the Higgs field going down there — as you suggest. If so there is a direct connection between Telemach and Higgs.
To venture a guess, I would predict that the astounding universal constancy of the Higgs field manages to go unscathed by the two relativities. This will most certainly constrain the field’s properties,although no one has any idea as of yet in what way this occurs. General relativity lives off the postulate of general covariance. Otherwis, black holes would cease to exist. On the other hand, there is plenty of (indirect) evidence for their existence in astronomy. The “quasar scaling law” of 2008 therefore needs to be taken seriously at present – and with it the black hole danger caused by a certain beautiful experiment as a side effect.
Thank you very much,
Otto
Dear Otto,
It’s my pleasure.
A little speculation could help here:
Global field strengths should scale with powers of the light velocity as the interaction velocity. In your example metric this would imply a constant field strenght in your radial variable.
Would be happy if you could make progress in any direction.
Bernd
Roessler (and anyone els interested): here is one of many examples where your ‘theory’ has been proven wrong:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/05/big-bang-gone-gravitational.….front-cern
Now you will say again that this is not the case, so let me ask you: who is the judge on what’s right or wrong?
Otto can not be the judge as he is a fanatical follower of the Rössler-Dogma.
Dear Sir Peter: 239 items named are unfortunately not a single counterargument — unless you can point out which anonymous comment you think has the quality of a counter-argument that you could have formulated yourself.
Roessler: all of them. If you are too dumb to follow an argument for more than 2 sentences, how can you ever understand anything?
But I know that this is just another of your moves to avoid a scientific discurs — similar to El– Naschie by the way.
Einstein was right about the shortcomings of Quantum Mechanics and so treehfore String Theory is also the incorrect approach. As an alternative to Quantum Theory there is a new theory that describes and explains the mysteries of physical reality. While not disrespecting the value of Quantum Mechanics as a tool to explain the role of quanta in our universe. This theory states that there is also a classical explanation for the paradoxes such as EPR and the Wave-Particle Duality. The Theory is called the Theory of Super Relativity. This theory is a philosophical attempt to reconnect the physical universe to realism and deterministic concepts. It explains the mysterious.
To which of the 239 entries he is quoting is our esteemed professor of psychiatry directing the readers of this blog so we can all be enlightened by the sudden existence of a counter-proof?
There seems to be more than one such theory already, dear Dr. Nayeli. Eventually, one of them (or a combination) will become standard wisdom. Thank you very much for your kind remark.