It is such a pleasure to be in this friendly conversation. We both love the topics, and we know others might catch the virus and even turn to our father figure (who is two years my junior) to join in.

I am embarrassed that you go so far as to believe me that the danger may already have reached one percent owing to last year’s collision regime at CERN. Which I still hope not to be the case as of yet. It is this year’s activities that might bring up the cumulative luminosity to a value implying 8 percent (but all of this is way too horrible to really contemplate, of course). The scientific safety conference called for 3 years ago should no longer be skirted by a CERN that wants to stick to its good name of Internet-creation fame.

The second part of your kind letter deals with cosmology, one of the most beautiful fields of enquiry in history, and we share in the enthusiasm there. (My short paper is on Leibniz-online, 2010, I am going to look it up.)

The paper is much too short to show the depth of the Hubble-Zwicky-Chandrasekhar idea of dynamical friction in its full splendor. That, when the “particles” involved are not a gas in the repulsion mode as any gas n earth is in — but in the attraction mode -, then the famous equipartition of kinetic energies of the Maxwell distribution is no longer valid. So that a new (second) statistical mechanics is really needed in the footsteps of Clausius and Boltzmann. This is the main idea. Even the Pioneer anomaly would be solved (reflecting dynamical friction in an asteroid belt). But the main thing is Chandra’s discovery of why globular clusters survived, and why (by implication) cosmic rays and photons likewise suffer a distance-proportional energy decrease in a cluster of randomly moving galaxies and superclusters. With no “13.7 billion years” any more, and no extragalactic origin of the microwave background any more. And with no cyclic universe any more, and with no worrying about Casimir any more, and with presumably an infinite fractal cosmos lying behind it all (an allowed solution of the Einstein eqution). But most of all — your question -, with the Perlmutter effect (the bent in the Hubble line at very large distances) implicit, too. The observed linearity before the bent, over so many orders of magnitude, would reflect the Fournier-Mandelbrot finding of an empirically fractal cosmos. But at very large distances, with the biggest gaps and the largest clusters (equally large island sub-universes as the one we are living in), the gap structure would cause the linearity to end. This is a predictable implication of the Hubble-Zwicky-Chandrasekhar cosmos. In the (at Leibniz quoted) paper in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals of 2007, we showed this (semi) quantitatively in a still clumsy form, not yet knowing about Chandra and his forerunners, solely based on an idea that had occurred to Dieter Fröhlich and me in our dialog conducted over many years in our Tubingen chaos course.

This is “naive science” — virgin science — where the subsequent standards and dogmatisms do not apply yet. One of the most important eternal ingredients of the scientific endeavor is to succeed in breaking out of current dogmatism by capturing a new glance. As you seem to have a natural bent for, too. Einstein later almost lost it, after having forced his ideas into the iron shirt of a differential geometry that strangely lacked stretching-squeezing as an equal-rights ingredient besides curvature. But he managed to break out at least one more time, when inventing the suspicion of nonlocal correlations, which he abhorred but was the only one in history to invent. So the old lion was not asleep (just like Newton in his own time).

Everett, to whom Einstein wrote a letter when he was 12, was triggered by Einstein to come up with a causal explanation of quantum mechanics, which is always being misunderstood as a many-worlds interpretation. It is not an interpretation, it is a full-fledged empirically falsifiable theory. And it is not about many worlds but many observer-specific cuts through a single world. As such it can explain quantum mechanics causally. For some reason, this fact escaped almost everyone’s attention up until now. Along with the grave consequences that such an endo-physics (physics from within, David Finkelstein’s technical term) entails. But we should not expand our conversation too widely.

The reason we are in this amiable dialog is that CERN refuses communication and so do all involved nobel prize winners on the planet. This even though the proofs that would have to be refuted lie on the table for 3 years. They each accept the fact known to them that CERN consciously decided not to quote those proofs or try to dismantle them, but to openly pretend to the whole world it had never received them or seen them in the literature. Which is the likely reason also for their refusal to update their already by then outdated safety report of 2008. For they would then at least have to shed a word why they do not believe in the truth of those proofs.

This sounds as if I were adamant to get recognition for something. This is the opposite of my intentions. I just want to be falsified. I never sought recognition with anything (I survived my autism therapy being withheld from the victims for 4 decades). It is only because this falsification for once is vital for the whole planet in view of the fact of what happens if I am right. Which I desperately hope NOT to be as you know. But as you are aware this is science — completely unpredictable where it leads you to. It is the same inscrutable story that each of us in his own course of life encounters every minute: that we are at the mercy of a — hopefully (Descartes gave a proof for that) — benevolent and even personal fate-giving instance, once called the “lightning thrower” by Heraclitus.

Take care,
Otto E. Rossler

That’s an incredible story– I’d love to read more! About the collider– I had a thought about how it would look if it was shut off, I realise that even under a credence/Bayesian argument I found myself personally believing that I don’t think the odds are high enough– as your paper mentions, the theory breaks a bunch of other established theories, for different areas of Physics, making it hard to believe that it wouldn’t disagree with empirical data, or if those or other theories could be fixed/switched and keep all the usual “rules” of a good theory. Not to say that the following is what swings my view (it isn’t).. but five years is a long time and allows people plenty of time to get the jitters; and, I expect plenty of other things will happen– a cosmic damned if you do damned if you don’t hanging over the head of a decision-maker may (or may not) do a disproportionate amount of harm. I think based on that, the odds could for me be required to be above 1 in a 100, because such a story may get big and feed off itself. If there is the 2012 theory based on absolutely nothing, then I dread to think what would happen for something based on – in their possible words – a community’s negative decision based on impenetrable esoteric high Science. But I’m pleased to say that the odds are less than 1 in a 100 for me; though I wouldn’t say by how much– the trouble is I don’t want to sway your decision, in either direction, as I’m quite young and inexperienced, quite apart from not having the skills or relations with a Physics community for any mandate!

… Though I love the ideas you’re putting across here. Seeing as I spent some time on the Fermi Paradox, I thought about this “old universe” idea for quite a long time. I don’t see the fractal cosmology idea, but I’m guessing the idea is that our observable universe could be similar to a globular cluster above a primordial (quark-gluon plasma?) sphere in a “hyperverse”, with all other lower phenomena knocking about. I wouldn’t know if it could have angular momentum for the fractal part, but even if it didn’t it’s still a very neat idea. Well at least I *think* I understood what you meant, and before the fractal part, to me “evaporation” suggests a centre of a finite cyclical universe, with everything gravitationally bound– no multiverse, no first cause. Although you would still have the zero-point energy (from the Casimir Effect?) so not completely finite afaict. Fascinating though!

…I saw it as one of three ways. Either that we are in an era long after this central globule/sphere of primordial matter evaporated away, with the evaporated mass/energy having gone up and come down again some number of times, looking more and more stable each time. Or alternatively it only goes up once (and may not all evaporate away), and there are shells of different density, as drag causes the regions to condense. Or, it goes up once and we are likely to have been formed on the way down, in an inner(-ish) shell, that is protected from the mass/energy that is still coming from the top of the well. This has the advantages of there being a thin time period where galaxies can be formed, allowing low neutrino detection (if that is a problem) due to fewer having the time to be produced elsewhere, and if so making our position unprivelaged.

Am I getting close? I’m also wondering how the acceleration of expansion is explained, unless it is only present in the CMBR data, which is instead explained by something else. But if not is it because the density of the extra-galactic medium is larger 13 billion years ago, ie more drag on the path that the photon mostly takes?

Finally I have a question– how many observable universes might have burned up before our time along this cycle, or in the universe? If the expected time we are at is a split probability (of eg both an upward trajectory and a downward) then that’s fine too… Haha- and so in summary yes I would like to know the name of your paper,
Take care,
Ed Cole

The discussion becomes even more interesting. You will have to tell me more about the theory of credences and why you mentioned it — I see no connection yet. This direct introduction is always the greatest privilege — so please forgive me that I did not check it out yet.

The benevolence theory I described in a paper titled “Delectatio in felicitate alterius…” in a conference paper on the web, but again it is better if you challenge me. I see something else from your interesting life-boat relevant text, which also might interest Hawking (if we can win him over to participate in our discussion, the world is saved). I have a proof, even published, that the big bang-based time constraint (that so little time is available) that you refer to in your reply about the probability for biological intelligences to arise in ordinary chemistry in galaxies, is not binding. May I? It is because I “know” Hubble was right and Zwicky was right in the same year 1928, only Eddington was wrong. “Dynamical friction” is the magic word (opened up to me by Ramis Movassagh). Chandrasekhar proved it all in 1943; he only for some reason forgot to make the bisociation in his paper. His 45 formulae not only comprise the case when a heavy star in a globular cluster that got heavily accelerated by a triple encounter in the cluster’s core gets braked in its journey through the cluster before getting lost through evaporation (for otherwise the clisters could not be the oldest persistent structures visible in the cosmos). They also reveal — so meticulous he always was — that (virtually) the same braking coefficient applies for an equally fast-moving moonlet that got analogously accelerated in a triple encounter. Or for a very fast asteroid. (The last two in violation of Maxwell’s distribution which Chandra still believed in under attractive conditions (which is misleading). Or for a very fast cosmic ray particle, or for a photon, with the randomly moving galaxies and clusters having the same braking effect as the randomly moving stars had he cluster. So the big bang has evaporated; much as Hubble had aways hoped it would (which fact allegedly cost him his more than deserved Nobel). My long paper on this is in print for two years. A short one I can name to you. But, of course, no one likes such stuff. Even Mandelbrot would get rehabilitated with his postulated fractal infinite cosmological solution to the Einstein equation resolving Kepler’s paradox.

And there are these beautiful collateral theories (if you allow me to get carried away a little longer): the CBR in particular sporting the word “cosmic” in its title — cosmic background radiation. Without expansion, it becomes much more interesting (the most recent measurements show a direct fusioning with portions of the Milky way’s “dust” of matching temperature). Here the fact that nobelist Charles Guillaume had described the CBR in 1896 would become center stage again (Andre Assiz first alerted me to him). And nobelist Riccardo Giacconi would no longer have to hide his conclusions from the public (that he discovered ultra-distant quasars with redshifts of the order of 30 in his X-ray data) which he knows are anathema to the “theoreticians” whom he despises but does not tell why. Because (my hunch) Alfvén’s fate teaches that nobelists have to be very careful with speaking their heart. But to return: Dynamical friction (re-discovered by Landau and Lynden-Bell) is really a big upcoming topic in fundamental physics. CERN could greatly contribute if they did not falsely think people who criticize them in a single point for lack of caution and prudence and honesty were their enemies rather than their only real friends on earth.

Forgive me that I perhaps veered away too far. It is so much fun to try and have a consistent picture and be allowed to chat about it. But the excuse we have for speaking so openly is the hope to thereby save the whole planet — an unusually defensible reason for dealing with the most beautiful questions of our time.

Now I wonder whether you will reply again.
Take care,
Otto E. Rossler

One final thought on the theory– with my limited experience of particle physics, is BH-creation event-rate likely to be too low to be found in cosmic ray data? Ie in the form of a drop in event frequency just below ~10 TeV, due to missing particle mass/energy?

I think that’s the last I have, but if your theory turns out to continue to cause you problems, and you really wanted to deal with/marginalise the sort of cursory pangs of belief that we all have, then you might want to know about so-called “credence”- sort of a probabalistic way of dealing with personal belief. I think this was used in the first 40 pages of Nick Bostrom’s Anthropic Bias, free online, though I could be wrong. However it perhaps has its dangers– it’s quite an extreme approach, and should probably really only be used if you are scaling up to use a more extreme approach to eliminate natural cognitive biases– ie only really necessary to know about in extreme circumstances. But a line-of-argument based on reasoning from credences (& about physical laws & different theories) could be used to appeal to the LHC community.
Kind Regards,
Ed Cole

I find your remarks very sensible and broadminded: As belonging to the level of the “big picture” that only people like Hawking still entertain in physics. You are thinking of many life forms and many civilizations, in the spirit of Teilhard’s who saw a single evolutionary tendency at work in the footsteps of Boltzmann’s first arrow, as a second arrow carried by the first on its back. All of this is correct in my view. A new twist was recently found on the basis of Chandrasekhar’s discovery of a further second arrow based on dynamical friction. The two are still un-united. And cosmology acquires a new face.

But — to try to keep the broad view a little longer — while it is true that many evolutions must exist in a Darwinian way at many places in the cosmos, including nuclear-chemical evolutions on neutron stars à la Robert Forward, the place of humans might still be unique, perhaps, in the whole universe. This would give us even more responsibility. The counter-thesis is that there exists a kind of little apes (monkeys) named Weißbüscheläffchen in German who act altruistically much like humans without visible return. If humans just are more intelligent versions on a similar branch of evolution, human society is non-unique. This is what most specialists would believe today. But I am of a different opinion.

My ideas I tested on Gregory Bateson 36 years ago, who was a very kind man. So he confirmed my ideas. But this very act of kindness is what distinguishes humans in the universe if I am right. Because as young children, they actively acquired (invented) the suspicion of benevolence on the part of the mother or father being shown to them. I can explain the mechanism, and how smile-blindness predictably leads to autism, and that this autism can be healed by acoustic smiling, which is very hard to learn for the mother.

This sounds like a totally different topic, but it is not. If true, it makes us (the little blue planet) much more precious than most earthlings imagine. The “galactic export” of this feature is possible — on earth itself, where as Leo Szilard hoped it would be possible to recruit higher biological intelligences than human into the childish (in the good sense) invention of benevolence-cum-personhood. But while this would take only a few years or decades, this first step of galactic export on our own planet would also be doomed by CERN.

Here I better stop for today because you might not want to reply to such musings. I just wanted to thank you, and to excuse myself for my taking humans so immensely more important than most people I know.
Take care,
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rossler

Probably showing my gross non-understanding here, but if it’s the quarks colliding that matters, then at the extreme of that line of thought, it would be good to know whether the universe would have ever condensed under standard cosmologies, which I’m guessing you may know about. Alternatively whether population III stars would have produced anything like this– I don’t know much about that era. Though to be honest I don’t know what would happen to these black holes as space expands under the usual theories.

Another more interesting thought I had; but a long read: if a professional Physicist were convinced of ETIs, then one would expect to see this BH phenomenon in most places where there could have been ETIs. The collider could cause a few slow BHs to escape the planet and hit the host star before the planet itself is captured, depending of course on the velocities, probabilities, etc. If such a professional had a hunch that life was “everywhere” — what you might call a “secret hunch of a counter-argument” — as perhaps Hawking does too, then they could think this would be enough to disprove the theory.

However I wish to try to attack that– I think that life may well be “everywhere”, but that LHC-creating intelligent life would be unlikely to be *anywhere*, anywhere in our galaxy at least. The “‘Rare Earth’ hypothesis” book by Ward & Brownlee (see wikipedia) goes into some detail about hitches for life, mainly on the pre-conditions. Notable problems (not just uncertainties) are in galactic habitable zones, goldilocks zones, water/land mass levels, acquiring a moon, meteor collisions, runaway climate change, solar system destabilisation. The hypothesis measures probabilities for the things that more or less *definitely* have to be present to get life that far. The crux is that if the conditions are bad enough from a calculation, then such a “secret hunch of a counter-argument” fails to work.

I have my own version of this equation where the most uncertain *problems* for life are assumed to let life alone fine (like slowing down of processes to get to intelligence for example– such as slower cycles of eg day/night, ocean currents(?), extinction events(?); or, natural runaway climate change, or orbital instability of the planet, or collisions between galaxies such as one that supposedly happened to the MW, or, 20th-century-equivalent cultural non-build and follow-on extinction possibilities.) And like Ward & Brownlee’s, my calculation focuses on the conditions that seem to be crucial. Yet my calc still comes out at N=180 or N=3600 for the galaxy. I won’t go into the details, but after these and other more uncertain event probabilities are added to the calc and viewed from cradle to grave, it then looks as though we’re the only ones.

The *conditions* approach usually has you down at “no conditions, no advanced life whatsoever.” So for addressing the point I first made on this, about defeating a further “secret hunch of a counter-argument”, then lower N is better. And the point of all that is that almost everything else only makes the numbers lower- there are more problems than enablers. And if what I’ve indicated is that the conditions aren’t there particularly, then the way that life gets to that intelligence doesn’t really matter. With the conditions being so rare, it’s of course beside the point as to whether or not the ETI would choose to build an LHC or not, because both producer and non-producer are extremely rare or non-existent. Counter-argument debunked hopefully, but I don’t really care much for ETIs, so what I’ve said can be treated however…

…The way I see the LHC though is that the experimentalists are going to be out of a job after its done– they should be delaying as long as they can as it is! I would suggest another “leak” of superconducting fluid… But what is clear is that in all ways they would do well to entertain the idea of finding some other post or type of work, IMO in fact shut it down and do so right away. GR, particle, quantum, dark energy, dark flow, and so on– not only are all the avenues to final theories not gone down before the last ever possible round of falsification by experimentation, but this paper makes it clear that they are not individually understood well enough.

Aspiring particle physicists need to be wary about themselves– (I had another one of my thoughts(!)) that there is a potential for idealism to surround the particle. Firstly this would be due to the way we view objects, of which the particle is the seminal one– we don’t envisage imagined light coming from that imagined object making it look real, it just is. Furthermore, I think it might have something to do with the particle people wanting to view a particle as an island in the universe; much the same way that a galaxy is an island in an expanding universe. That island nature also has a good feeling (in my mind at least) in that the extent these particles carry around with them (in the mind anyway) scales up to the everyday, feels sort of very well-defined. In the same way you got the feeling that charge conservation would’ve been dogma in those circles. I suppose it’s worth pointing out that in history idealisms are crushed all the time. But I certainly think they need to take this seriously one more time.
Kind Regards,
Ed Cole

Thank you for your innovative thougts. I agree with everything you say, except with the probabilities. The latter (that two cosmic rays meet in outer space head-on with near-zero sum combined linear momentum) are exceedingly low. Therefore — unfortunately — the survival of other celestial bodies is no “life insurance” for earthlings against CERN.

Nuclear-chemical life forms on neutran stars (Robert Forward’s great insight) might add that neutron stars are immune to homemade miniature black holes generated in their crust, because of the superfluidity of their cores (which were confirmed recently). The latter implies frictionlessness — so that black holes cannot grow inside these most interesting celestial bodies (only in the crust, locally, and then sink into the superfluid core where they go asleep). But this is a different topic.

There are other beautiful topics here. Just in case you have interest, I add here a paper that only got finished today, as an appendix. Perhaps you can find the decisive counterargument (which would make me very happy)?

Take care,
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rossler

Appendix:

“Einstein’s Equivalence Principle Has Three Further Implications Besides Affecting Time: T-L-M-Ch Theorem”

Otto E. Rossler 

Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle A, 72076 Tubingen, F.R.G.

Abstract

    General relativity is notoriously difficult to interpret. A “return to the mothers” is proposed to better understand the gothic-R theorem of the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity. It is shown that the new finding is already implicit in Einstein’s equivalence principle of 1907 and hence in special relativity (with acceleration). The TeLeMaCh theorem, named onomatopoetically after Telemachus, is bound to transform metrology if correct.    

                                                    (March 1st, 2011)

1. Introduction

    Recently it was shown that the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity admits at least one further canonical observable, the so-called gothic-R distance [1]. In terms of this distance, the speed of light c is globally constant. Is this result only a new mathematically allowed physical interpretation, or does it have deeper “ontological” significance?

    A convenient way to find out is to pass over to an even more fundamental level of description. The “equivalence principle” between kinematic and gravitational acceleration, which still belongs to special relativity, is the oldest and in a sense most powerful element of general relativity since everything grew out of this “happiest thought of my life” as Einstein used to call it.
 

    A famous “ontological” implication of the equivalence principle is the slower ticking rate of clocks at the rear end of a long constantly accelerating train or rocketship. It was deduced by Einstein in a chain of heuristic mental steps. The latter involved light-pulse emitting clocks and light-pulse detecting devices in a pictured scenario comprising long hollow cylinders releasable into free fall sporting hooks and vertical slits in their sides to allow one to put in clocks and sensors at different height levels before or after release into free fall, cf. [2].     
 

    More than a half-century later, Wolfgang Rindler [3] succeeded in graphically retrieving all pertinent results of Einstein’s in the famous Rindler metric. The latter describes a long collection of simultaneously ignited infinitesimally short rocketships, or rather hollow rocket-rings, that stay together spontaneously owing to a careful choice of their systematically differing constant accelerations. The most concise description of the resulting 2-D space-time diagram, with its “scrollable” simultaneity axes that all pass through one point, can be found in Wald’s 1984 otherwise algebra-oriented book “General Relativity” [4, p. 151]. For an independent re-discovery,  see John S. Bell’s intriguing paper [5].

2. The Secret Power of the Equivalence Principle

    Clocks at the end of a long constantly accelerating rocketship in outer space do have elongated ticking intervals when their light pulses arrive at the rocket’s tip because the latter has in the meantime acquired a well-defined positive velocity compared to the point of origin of the light pulses, as Einstein found out in 1907. The resulting special-relativistic redshift at first sight appears to be a mere observational effect: “in reality” the clocks in question ought to tick at their normal rate (but they don’t).

    We do know how it is with Einstein’s deceptively simple gedanken experiments: He has a knack for following them up to a breaking point where something “impossible” occurs. Remember his previous observation of an apparent clock slowdown of a constant-speed departing twin clock which then while with constant speed returning has an equally accelerated pulse rate, in his seminal founding paper of special relativity of 1905 (two years before the equivalence principle was discovered): When the twin clock with its elongated-appearing ticking intervals is turned around and comes back with its apparent ticking rate equally enhanced, one would have bet that the net effect must be zero when the two clocks are re-united as physical twins. However, to everyone’s surprise a net effect (a manifest age difference) remains — the “ontological mehrwert” of Einstein’s.

    Here with the constantly accelerating rocket, the same thing occurs: A clock that is carefully lowered from the tip to the slower-appearing rear-end of the accelerating long rocketship will, after having been hauled back up again, fail to be as old as its stationary twin at the tip [6, p.18]. This proves that the clocks “downstairs” indeed are ontologically slower-ticking there — whereby the philosophical term “ontological” is utterly unfamiliar in non-Einsteinian physics.

3. Three Added Implications of the Equivalence Principle

    Everything that has been said so far is well known. If the clocks are genuinely slower-ticking downstairs rather than just looking slower from above: how about the existence of further ontological implications at the rear end of the rocketship? This suspicion is justified as it turns out. Einstein first found out as described that

        T-tail = T-tip times (z+1),                                                              (1)

where z+1 is the local gravitational redshift factor that applies in the Rindler metric.

    With Einstein’s result put into this simple form, one is immediately led to expect a spatial corollary: If all temporal wavelengths T are increased, the very same thing is bound to hold true for the spatial wavelengths L of the same light waves:

        L-tail = L-tip times (z+1),                                                            (2)

 
and by implication for all local lengths since everything appears normal locally as mentioned. Formally, this conclusion follows from the constancy of the speed of light c since L/T = c implies L = cT for light waves. If T is locally counterfactually increased by Eq.(1) as we saw, L must be equally increased in Eq.(2) if c is constant.
 

    Although this is correct and we are here still in the realm of special relativity with its absolutely constant c despite the presence of acceleration, the conclusion just drawn is possibly premature since c is believed to be non-constant in general relativity (“only locally constant”). Therefore it is “safer” to first proceed to M and then from there back to L.

    M, the mass of a particle that is locally at rest, is necessarily reduced by the very factor by which T is increased,

        M-tail = M-tip divided by (z+1).                                                    (3)

This follows from the fact that all locally normal-appearing photons do by Eq.(1) have a proportionally decreased frequency f and hence have a proportionally reduced energy (by Planck’s law E = h f). Thus they have equally much less mass-energy by Einstein’s E = mc-squared. If all locally generated photons have so much less mass at the rocketship’s tail in a counterfactual way, necessarily all other masses — by virtue of their being locally intertransformable into photons (like positronium) — are reduced by the same factor. Hence Eq.(3) holds true. 

    From the M of Eq.(3), the L of Eq.(2) can now be retrieved — via the Bohr radius formula of quantum mechanics. Note that if all masses are proportionally reduced, both that of the electron in the denominator of the formula and that of the proton (assumed to be infinite in the formula), the size of the hydrogen atom is proportionally increased, and with it is the size of all other atoms and of space itself. The resulting change of length L is the content of Eq.(2) above.

    We have with Eqs.(1–3) arrived at the following abbreviated new law valid in the  equivalence principle: “T-L-M.” Einstein’s old finding of T has acquired two corollaries of equal standing, L and M for short. What about the third candidate, Ch for charge?

    If mass is counterfactually reduced and if charge stands in a fixed ratio to mass locally, as holds true for a certain type of particle at least (the electron), then charge is bound to be counterfactually reduced in proportion. This follows from the fact that two local “511 keV” photons still suffice to produce a positronium atom consisting of a locally normal-appearing electron and a locally normal-appearing positron. Since both these particles have a reduced mass content by Eq.(3), they must also have a proportionally reduced charge content if all laws of nature remain intact locally. This condition is guaranteed by Einstein’s principle of “general covariance” which states that the laws of nature are the same in every locally free-falling inertial system; for a freshly released free-falling particle like our positronium atom is still locally at rest. Therefore, indeed charge is reduced in proportion to the stationary mass. That is,

        Ch-tail = Ch-tip divided by (z+1).                                                 (4)

    The obtained “completed gravitational redshift law of Einstein” comprises 4 individual equations of equal importance. The new law can be condensed into four letters, T,L,M,Ch. Since the very same consonants pertain to a famous personality of mythological history, Ulysses’s son Telemach (or Telemachus), the result can be called the “Telemach theorem.“
 

    Note that the gravitational redshift (z+1) on the surface of a neutron star is of order of magnitude 2. And the gravitational redshift on the surface (“horizon” in Rindler’s terminology) of a black hole is infinite. By virtue of Telemach, objects on the surface of a neutron star must be visibly enlarged in the vertical direction by a factor of about two [7], which may be measurable. At the same time, the distance toward and from the horizon of a black hole becomes infinite (as the corresponding light travel time is well-known to be [6, p. 20]). Obviously no known physical phenomenon contradicts the new result which can be tested empirically.      
 

4. Discussion

    Two points need to be discussed. First: Is the 4-letter result derived in the equivalence principle robust enough to carry over to the Schwarzschild metric and from there on to all of general relativity?  Second: Is the result acceptable in principle from the point of view of modern physics and especially the science of metrology?

    The first point is easy to answer. All arguments used above carry over to the Schwarzschild metric. The L of Eq.(2) is nothing but the “poor man’s version” of the gothic-R theorem of the Schwarzschild metric [1]. Conversely, the Schwarzschild metric would have a hard time if the “gothic-R” did not fit the “L” of the more basic theory of the equivalence principle.

    Before coming to the testable second point announced, a brief digression into the literature is on line. As noted in ref. [1], similar propositions (sub-vectors of T,L,M,Ch as it were) are not unfamiliar. An analog of L was quite often conjectured to hold true in general relativity. For example, an engineer of the Global Positioning System who in distrust of Einstein had built-in a special switch in case Einstein’s predictions were to prove true, later wrote a paper [8] to come to grips with his surprise; in one formula (his Eq.9 for the “local rest mass energy”) he comes close to Eq.(3) above. More recently, George W. Cox wrote an autodidactic paper arriving in the present terminology at T, L and M [9]; he also is the first scientist to explicitly support Ch (personal communication 2010).  And professor Richard J. Cook arrived very elegantly at T,L,M (including the symbols) in general relativity [10], but invoked a variation in the gravitational constant G leaving Ch untouched. Ch is the real crux of the present return to the roots of Einstein’s theory. A discussion with members of the Albert-Einstein Institute in early 2009 made it clear that validity of the Gausss-Stokes theorem of electrostatics [4, p. 432] is put at stake by any change in Ch. So is the Reissner-Nordström metric which no general relativist would easily sacrifice. But this is not all. A change in L alone is bad enough already because it seems to imply invalidity of the famous Kerr metric and certain cosmological solutions of the Einstein equation. So the above theory, while implicit in the equivalence principle and the Schwarzschild metric, the heart of general relativity, is by no means an easy-to-absorb implication of general relativity. This fact may explain some of the resistance the gothic-R theorem encountered when first proposed.
 

    The second point is even more important because it makes the connection to measurement. Just as Newton’s universal second (the Ur-second so to speak) was toppled by Einstein’s revolutionary finding of the gravity-dependent “local” second T of Eq.(1), so the famous Ur-meter adhered-to up until now is toppled by the gravity-dependent local meter L of Eq.(2). The same holds true for the Ur-kilogram M which by Eq.(3) now has become different on the moon (much as its once taken-for-granted universal weight had been dethroned by Newton’s law). And the “Ur-charge” Ch of an electron ceases to be universally valid by Eq.(4). The whole to be measured-out cosmos acquires a new face if Einstein’s happiest thought (Eq.1) is correctly elaborated in Eqs.(2–4). 

    In return for this drawback (if it is one), unexpectedly four quantized physical variables arise: (i) “Kilogram times Second” (Leibniz’s later famous “action”), (ii) “Kilogram times Meter” (“cession” [11]), (iii) “Coulomb times Second” and (iv) “Coulomb times Meter” [12]. The explanation of (ii) is that time and space (Second and Meter) scale in strict parallelism (by Eqs.1,2). The explanation of (iii) and (iv) is that rest mass and charge (Kilogram and Coulomb) scale in strict parallelism (by Eqs.3,4). The quantization laws (iii) and (iv) have no names yet (pulsion?, gression?); they come in several particle-type specific varieties [12]. Many experiments testing them can be devised with possible foreign technological applications.       

 
    To conclude, a minor revolution in physics was tentatively proposed. The skepticism shown by members of the profession including some of its most prestigious experimentalists can be hoped to be overcome with Eqs.(2–4) demonstrated above. Previous efforts to bar the gothic R theorem from the scientific literature belonged to a time of global restauration (now overcome by Stéphane Hessel and his friendly followers). Only the unprecedented determination of the old guard to go ahead with a proven-unsafe experiment while refusing the safety conference called-for, may prove hard to understand in retrospect. On the other hand, Telemach’s youthful and surprising character still lets it appear possible — and worth hoping for — that all of the above is “absolute nonsense” (as a colleague who since changed his mind had once called the gothic-R theorem). Einstein in the dusk of his life came to doubt everything he had done; the atomic bomb was the obvious reason. Now his results could for once have the opposite effect since the big experiment mentioned can still be stopped in view of the above 3 corollaries to Einstein’s T which taken together totally upset the safety equation of the LHC unless shown otherwise. Is there anyone who does not feel that Einstein should be given this chance to save the earth with his happiest thought?

For J.O.R.

References

[1] O.E. Rossler, Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: gothic-R theorem demonstrated in  Schwarzschild metric (2007; 2009). On:
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf
(Remark: Bernhard Umlauf kindly showed that Eq.9 of ref. [1] contains a calculational error: “the numerator of the fraction under the natural logarithm must read r_0^(1/2)+(r_0-2m)^(1/2) and the denominator analogously must read r_i^(1/2)+(r_i-2m)^(1/2).” This correction has no effect on the text of ref. [1].)     

[2] A. Pais, “Subtle is the Lord …,” Oxford: Oxford University Press 1982, pp. 180–181.

[3] W. Rindler, Counterexample to the Lenz-Schiff argument, Am. J. Phys. 36, 540–544 (1968).
 

[4] R.M. Wald, “General Relativity,” Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1984.

[5] J.S. Bell, How to teach special relativity, Progress in Scientific Culture 1, (2) 1976. Reprinted in: J.S. Bell, “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics,” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1984), pp. 67–80.
 

[6] V.P. Frolov and I.D. Novikov, “Black Hole Physics: Basic Concepts and New Developments,” Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998.

[7] H. Kuypers, Atoms in the gravitational field: Hints at a change of mass and size (in German). PhD dissertation, submitted September 2005 to the university of Tubingen, faculty for chemistry and pharmacy.

 
[8] R.R. Hatch, Modified Lorentz ether theory, Infinite Energy 39, 14–23 (2001).

 
[9] G.W. Cox, The complete theory of quantum gravity (2009). On:
http://lhc-concern.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/quantumfieldtheory31.pdf
 

[10] R.J. Cook, Gravitational space dilation (2009). On:  http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.2811v1.pdf

[11] O.E. Rossler and C. Giannetti, Cession, twin of action (La cesión: hermana gemela de la acción).
In: “Arte en la era electronica” (ed. by C. Giannetti), Barcelona: Associación de Cultura Temporánia L’Angelot, and Goethe-Institut Barcelona 1997, p.124.

[12] O.E. Rossler and D. Fröhlich, The weight of the Ur-Kilogram (2010). On:
http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2010/12/11/p1890

————

I had a thought– that cosmic rays could occasionally collide symmetrically in the interstellar medium etc., and then reach a body at 11km/s, ie, analgous to a particle accelerator. Has anyone thought of this? If so I would’ve thought that an indicator would obvious, ie: a) inexplicable galaxy evolution, b) stars disappearing from time to time, and c) there would have been some likelihood of our (non-Earth non-Sun) bodies and extrasolar planets becoming black holes. Is it the energy of each of the colliding particles that makes a collision symmetric, or their relative speeds? If the latter then many more (lower energy relativistic ie >~GeV) cosmic rays are suitable for symmetric collision, so I would have thought that such collisions would happen quite a lot in a galaxy. The cosmic ray abundance is going to be higher near us rather than the ISM apparantly, due to the Sun, but the BH has the “advantage” of a larger target and shorter travel time.

Once created, a 11 km/s BH does 150,000 lyr in the solar system lifetime, and 1000 lyr in 30 million years (the MW is 100 klyr diameter & 1000 lyr thick.) The Sun goes round the MW center at +/- ~50 km/s relative to most stars (260 km/s); then, the solar system’s ecliptic is at 60° to the galactic plane and you have 35 km/s for Venus round the Sun, down to 5km/s for Neptune– though the “missing mass signature” in the galaxy would be more instructive I would think. Anyway these give some degree of slack for the BH colliding at 11 km/s, though a collision with a body may still be unlikely. It reminds me of METI.
Regards,
Ed Cole