Oct 12, 2012

The Telemach Theorem impacts on the Anticipated Black Hole Formation at CERN

Posted by in categories: ethics, existential risks, particle physics


The Telemach theorem rests on Einstein’s 1907 work on the essence of gravity. It retains its grip on the most derived equations found in later years. The famous clock slowdown in gravity (of our own clocks down here compared to the clocks in the high-flying GPS-satellites) acquires three corollaries under the impact of quantum mechanics. Hence equally unnoticeable to us, all local lengths are expanded downstairs by the very same factor. And all local masses are decreased by the very same factor. And, owing to the constant ratios between mass and charge valid for the different particle classes, all charges are reduced by the very same factor down here. Thus, Time and Length and Mass and Charge are affected equally strongly. The result is easy to remember by recalling the name of Ulysses’ son: Telemach(us). Unfortunately, the theorem totally upsets the properties of black holes. The latter suddenly arise much more easily than hoped for in a famous ongoing experiment designed to produce them here on earth – and they simultaneously turn out to be invisible to CERN’s detectors. And once a specimen happens to be slow enough to stay inside earth, it eventually will settle down to grow due to a self-enhancing capturing effect exerted on quarks and leptons. While at first the pace of growth is ridiculously slow, problem is that this is an exponential process like compound interest. Every gain remains minute for quite a while but suddenly, there is this famous “knee” in the curve after but a few years’ time. Subsequently, earth is a 2-cm black hole that keeps the moon on its course by virtue of its unmitigated gravity. Up until now, no physicist was able to invalidate the theorem. The Cologne Administrative Court therefore gave the advice to hold a “safety conference” before continuing. This was on January 27, 2011. The greatest leap forward in the attempted production rate of black holes takes place these very days.



Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Marc van Lohuizen says:

    Why are particle accelerators that cause high speed collisions more dangerous than the far higher speed and energy collisions of cosmic rays with the upper atmosphere? The latter go on across the globe 24/7 and have been dong so since Earth’s formation. What makes the collisions that occur within particle accelerators more of a threat than all of the constant, frequent, and higher energy collisions that occur in nature? I’ve always missed that point.

  2. Dear non-anonymous Mr. van Lohuizen:
    You speak from the heart of many ppeople. Tom Kerwick on Lifeboat is a specialist. The difference lies in the speed. If Telemach is right, so that the mini black holes generated in either case are uncharged, the natural cousins you mention pass right through earth leaving no harm. CERN therefore built up a big strategy in 2008 to take recourse to astrophysics — neutron stars and white dwarfs. They, too, survive like earth from the fast minimonsters. Why? This is a quite complicated theory. It will figure prominently on the “safety conference” that will occur any day. Maybe Tom wants to reply in more detail?

  3. Marc van Lohuizen says:

    Dear Mr. Rössler:

    Yes, I’d like to hear from Tom; i’d like to read the explanation the theory provides, as well as the experimental evidence for said theory.

    That said, in lieu of a conspiracy to destroy our planet, I’d be hard pressed to understand why virtually all mainstream physicists consider these particle accelerators to be safe ways to learn about the universe and test their theories.

    And then there’s Hawking radiation, and the notion that these ultra-tiny black holes wouldn’t almost spontaneously decay. I was under the impression that that phenomenon was firmly established and would negate the threat of these black holes being generated in human experiments.

    There’s also a case to be made that we should risk the existential threat to gather the experimental data to learn more about the universe and verify or falsify our physical theories. Obviously it would be… inconvenient (and arguably ironic) … if an experiment destroyed life on Earth, but it would be more tragic if we shut down any attempts at gaining a deeper understanding of high energy particle physics and possibly falsify one of the several theories that attempt to quantize gravity. Should we give up on such efforts? If we did, it seems it would be out of fear arising from uncertainty and that’d mean our species just might not deserve to survive.

    I mean, it’s possible that Big Bang cosmology is wrong. In fact, I suspect it _is_ wrong based on the obviously fractal structure of the universe at pretty much every scale (despite efforts, no evidence of its fundamental “smoothness” at large “enough” scales have yet to be demonstrated), and the unending inconsistencies of pseudo-magical and unverified ideas like “dark energy”, “dark matter”, and “inflation” — which might make sense on paper but are: (1) inconsistent with the evidence; (2) forced attempts to fit the universe into an a priori model; and (3) all without any theoretical explanation let alone verification or means of falsification.

    So Big Bang cosmology might be all wrong (and again, I think it very well might be). But in case it isn’t, high energy particle accelerator experiments are our best and only chance to replicate early conditions in the universe, to verify or falsify current theories, and should be safe given that the universe would have once been in a hot bed of high energy and high speed particle collisions and yet somehow continued to exist.

  4. Dear Mr. van Lohuizen:

    Every word you say finds my complete agreement. I would say everywhere the same things – if I had not a few tiny bits of hard evidence on two items in your kind and thoughtful response, only one of which is relevant for CERN. So I first mention the second — l’art pour l’art — argument because it shows how much our minds work in parallel if I am not mistaken.

    The fractality of the universe which you correctly adduce is not the only reason for taking the big bang into question. Hubbble himself had another very powerful reason (which cost him his more than deserved nobelization): “dynamical friction.” It means that light and other fast particles traversing the cosmos get “braked at a distance” by the cauldron of galaxies traversed. The subsequently famous astronomer Fritz Zwicky had conceived of the idea and published it the same year Hubble had published his data. Hubble always took this very seriously — under the name “tired light” theory which makes everyone laugh nowadays.

    It is not very well known that the famous Chandrasekhar 14 years later wrote a big paper in which he mathematically proved the correctness of dynamical friction. The paper’s title, in the Astronomical Journal, starts out with these very two words: Dynamical Friction.

    It is very interesting historically why no one took this up — and whether Chandra and Zwicky ever met. Chandra strangely did not quote Zwicky and did not even mention cosmology — dealing only with the friction-at-a-distance suffered by fast stars being ejected from the center of a globular star cluster. But in a footnote he acknowledges the (quantitative) applicability of his theory also to fast-flying low-mass particles, if so with a somewhat reduced “coefficient of dynamical friction.”

    It is a strange light that is thrown on science in retrospect by the collective negligence of this result over so many decades. So your attempted excuse for CERN by letting it legitimately reproduce previous natural conditions from the “early” era of the cosmos is, unfortunately, too lenient in my eyes.

    Which brings us to the decisive first argument of yours – Hawking, etc. It is absolutely fitting, too. If Hawking is right, I am wrong and the experiment is safe. No one believes that Hawking were not right, but no one is ready to check the – for a long time offered and for the better part of a year lawfully published – proof given that this safety guarantee is inexistent despite the hundreds of learned papers devoted to it.

    So I only ask you to give me the benefit of the doubt that my thinking is exactly the same – very conspicuous and self-critical – that I see at work in your above message. The only reason for my own strange behavior is that I have a PROOF in my hands and lying on the table that shows that this experiment needs to be re-assessed in terms of its safety before it can be rationally allowed to continue.

    So you have to distinguish between two identities of mine — the maximally cautious and tolerant and skeptical one that you presented us with above (the scientific ideal for millennia) and a hysterically screaming science that clamors for the benefit of the doubt that – allegedly – is owed to every hard result and for once to an acutely safety-relevant one.

    You won’t believe me, so everyone who passes by this website will bet, but this is how I feel. Thank you very much for your contribution.

  5. Marc van Lohuizen says:

    I’m a skeptic in the classical sense — suspending judgement on all things in the absence of certainty — and I pride myself on that.

    So I might beieve you. But what is the proof of which you speak?

    Incidentally, I hadn’t heard of “dynamical friction” before, but Wikipedia has an interesting article on the subject. Very informative.

    I also researched it further and found that there is scant to nonexistent evidence of Hawking radiation. All of the evidence we do have is effectively circumstantial. So, my apologies for seeming to assert that it was a definitively observed phenomenon.

    *IF* Big Bang cosmology is flawed (and I’ve said I believe it is), then it is indeed very possible that our high energy particle acclerator experiments may be creating conditions that potentially have *never* existed in the universe naturally. And yes, obviously that should be taken very seriously and might be existentially dangerous. But we must also be willing, I think, to take such risks anyway, shouldn’t we? Fortune favours the bold, after all… I mean, unless boldness kills us instead. I’d still go bold though.

  6. Thank you, dear Mr. van Lohuizen:
    I agree.
    The article you sent is — unfortunately — still totally oblivious of the cosmological connection.
    The paper I have to mention to you with trepidation is my “Telemach” paper:
    Boldness and recklessness are disjoint, we agree on.
    Whether this paper suffices to act a little bit as an excuse for the caution I am preaching I would very much like to learn from you.
    Sincerely yours,
    Otto E. Rossler

  7. Tom Kerwick says:

    Mr. van Lohuizen, further reading material on the subject here -

    You may interpret from reading these that I am not quite as concerned as Otto though am critical of the safety report which has some flawed assurances. In any case — I hope it helps you to understand the difference between collisions that occur within particle accelerators and those which occur in nature. The difference is the potential for gravity capture of the products of collisions. The assurances based on astrophysical observations are not within safety standards by any stretch of the imagination.

    About the safety conference Otto mentioned, please direct questions to occasional Lifeboater Mag. Markus Goritschnig at LHC Kritik who is leading up this. I have not heard much about such conference in recent months. — Tom.

  8. F.Davies says:

    I have to say that I find myself aligned with Mr. Van Lohuizen, but then I’ve sat in a lecture hall listening to Dr. Hawking lecture on mini-black holes when he was in Seattle a couple decades back.

    My personal opinion is that even if such a mini-black hole was stable, it’s momentum would carry it through matter like a bullet. Remember, the earth is not stationary! When the particle is created it would have the same direction and velocity as the earth spinning and flying through space around the sun, and so it continue on that vector, effected by earth’s mass and the sun’s mass.

    Consider just that it would be going (very approximately) a thousand miles an hour just from being on earth’s surface, and as the earth continued to rotate such a heavy particle would seem to have the momentum to overcome earth’s gravitational field and fly off in to space at a thousand miles and hour. (Add earths orbital speed on this and again with such mass therefore such momentum, such a particle would likely escape the solar system as well.)

    If by some strange fate or chance it headed toward the center of the earth, again, it has no reason to stop there, and would zip out the other side and again into space.

    But this is all far fetched, and I can only hope that fear does not halt science. The particles created are short lived and as mentioned are nothing compared to what mother nature creates already.

    By the way, if Dr. Hawking is correct, we should start to see some mini-black holes (from the early universe) explode …any millennium now …if we are lucky.

  9. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Mr. Davies:
    Thank you very much for your interesting consistent picture painted.
    Everything you say is correct under the assumptions you made. I would only add that one or two slight changes in your assumptions are more realistic as far as I can tell but I would of course love to be corrected.
    Let me focus on the speed of the minimonsters (in case they are being created): Most will have a fairly high speed — about the one you assumed. But every ten days or so, according to an early estimate from CERN, one will be slow enough not leave earth (if initially headed towards its interior as we may assume as the simplest pertinent possibility). Then it will circle on an elliptical orbit inside earth at less than the Kepler speed of 11 km/sec, unimpeded initially for many rounds. This alone is the scenario that I was concerned with and find disquieting.
    But I should not continue explaining why I do so before having recieved your kind response to this single point.
    Thank you very much,
    Sincerely yours,
    Otto E. Rossler