Jun 4, 2012

Einstein-Rossler Theorem: Black Holes are uncharged and therefore maximally Dangerous

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics…en-refuted

Mr. Ben Rattray has enabled the planet to learn about the huge danger incurred by the currently running – and till the end of 2012 three times more black holes-spouting – LHC experiment. This despite the fact that CERN’s detectors cannot detect their most anticipated products and the fact that they grow exponentially inside earth once one of them gets stuck inside. In that case, only a few years separate us from earth being a 2-cm black hole.

Please, ask around whether anyone can name a physicist who contradicts the published proof (Telemach theorem: ). This physicist is automatically the most important living physicist today. Finding him and learning about the strength of his argument is the only aim of the present appeal to every citizen of the world. To help in dismantling the danger before it has risen by a factor of three.

Thank you. He or she who can contradict me most is my best friend. And yours. Let us search for this human being.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — as a friend & fellow Particle Physics Advisory Board member — may I ask for the benefit of reason, if one can name a physicist who contradicts the published proof in G&M that the safety assurance therein on the hypothesis that if MBH did not evaporate like your theorem suggests, that the experiments are still safe — based on observational evidence as we have discussed at length on Lifeboat previously regarding WD & NS.

    If you wish to name yourself as the scientist sought for above in this regard, I suggest that you yet again clarify to the passing reader what frailties you see in the assurances.

    As regards your petitioning link — here is a concluding letter to a similar petition of some years ago, one of serveral I exchanged with European Parliament. Perhaps if it were redirected to a prominent member of the CERN Council you might get somewhere — though I’d question whether you have a concrete scientific argument to back concerns.…7859/l.jpgletter from European Parliament

  2. Thank you for your genuine drive to help, dear Tom. And for pointing to previous attempts to get the planet to falsify the presented proof of danger. Always in vain so far.

    You express your own belief — or hope — that the “indirect” safety arguments adduced by CERN members 4 years ago may hold water. This is a very honorable hope. So even though it is only directed at “secondary evidence.” Sometimes this is the best one can get.

    But regarding Neutron Stars, my quantum argument, adduced in my early 2008 paper “A rational and moral and spiritual dilemma” published in July the same year, is still undisproved — and quite often corroborated since: Quantum mechanical superfluidity interferes with the growth of miniature black holes inside the superfluid cores of neutron stars. So their survival represents no indirect safety argument — unfortunately. The two authors G&M by the way knew about this before publishing their work.

    As to White Dwarfs, the second issue, you correctly pointed out in the past that if the assumptions made by Giddings and Mangano are scientifically correct, they made a very good job.

    Unfortunately, they made a quantitative assumption that is based on pure belief: a specific minimum diameter for the assumed black holes that is pure speculation. Ask them for details. They will tell you — as quoted by them — that their estimates are based on specific string-theoretic assumptions that were never claimed by any physicist to be backed either by empirical eviddence or by a proof based on accepted physical assumptions.

    So it is nice that they delivered an exercise in string theory. We can still congratulate them to that. But to continue selling it as a safety argument today is impossible. The fact that they never upgraded their paper could be construed as their still standing by the paper. However, I do not think so. For in that case they would have waived their right to be called scientists.

    I am afraid the status of scientists at CERN is the same as that of German university professors: Being bound by law to obey their political superiors. In CERN — which is under German rule — the political constraints may be even more stringent.

    So I deeply sympathize with Giddings and Mangano that they do not come up with an update for 4 years. They obviously do not have permission to do so. Just as the CERN young scientits did not get permission to talk to me. But “scientists” they can no longer be called in such a role maintained by now for 4 years. The same holds true for the other once brave defenders of CERN’s who are no longer allowed to open their mouths on its behalf — including several Nobel prioze winners. Only military obedience prevents them from returning to the community of scientists — despite their once well-deserved prizes.

    Forgive me for venting my anger: But in the face of danger to forgo the duty to dispell the danger is a breach of the Hippocratic oath. Mere scientists are not bound by this oath. But honor comes close. Right?

  3. Tom Kerwick says:

    “pointing to previous attempts to get the planet to falsify the presented proof of danger”

    Actually the presented concerns with the above petition I refer to did not involve Telemach of which I was hardly aware at the time but of more scientific work… two arxiv published science papers from 2008 — the first by M.D. Maia & E.M.Monte “On the Stability of Black Holes at the LHC” and the other R. Plaga “On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders” and was coupled with a critique on the econometrics of the research. There’s more than Telemach out there.

  4. rpenner says:

    7) How is anything infinitely far away dangerous?
    8) What is the definition of the word theorem?
    9) How does the geography of Mercator projection differ from the geography of a globe?
    10) How do the physics of Rindler coordinates differ from the physics of special relativity?

    Name links to new forum thread.

  5. Mwit says:

    I think a touch of perspective might help us all sleep at night.

    As is well known as particles accelerate to speeds near the speed of light they become much more difficult to accelerate the nearer they get. However, you can still add energy and this energy takes the form of mass and here we are calculating the possible fates of macroscopic black holes for fear that they may not deteriorate leading to the destruction of Earth.

    However, particles of much higher energies bombard the Earth on a regular basis reaching around 1021 eV. These particles are nothing new and are common events. They’re simply not regular and concentrated enough to make use of in a scientific way so we create our own accelerators. The point I want to make, however, is that if the black holes produced from high energy collisions had any chance of eating up our backyards we would never have had time to evolve in the first place.


  6. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Mwit:
    Except for the last word added, you are absolutely right. The reason the safety guarantee you see is — unfortunately — nonexistent is that the indeed to be expected natural mini-black holes generated by cosmicrays on the surface of our planet are innocuous — if it is true that black holes are necessarily uncharged as the Telemach theorem proves.
    For then these “natural cousins” to the artificial ones tried to be produced at CERN pass right through the earth to disappear in the vast spaces of the universe.
    This argument is, by the way, an argument supported by CERN.
    Nevertheless thank you very much for your having entered the debate afresh. You are a model citizen of our planet.

  7. Tom Kerwick says:

    Mwit — thanks for joining in the discussion. In this case I can somewhat endorse Otto’s remarks to you. You paraphrase the CERN public relations message, which is quite different to the LSAG science/engineering report where the real debate was/is.

    Regarding the potential of micro black hole formation — those produced by cosmic ray collisions with the Earth are quite different in that they would never get trapped in the Earth (travelling too fast) whereas a portion of those produced at the LHC — if created — could get trapped in the Earth to grow. The safety assurance lies in the evolution of white dwarfs and neutron stars — not of the Earth — as those naturally produced ‘cousins’, as Otto refers to them, would pass through us like a hot knife through butter.

  8. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Yes, thank you, Tom. Let me add that this argument of CERN’s presupposes validity of my Telemach theorem — which they blatantly ignore otherwise by their continuing the experiment. For this theorem implies also that their detectors are blind to this most dangerous product of history, black holes.