Dec 25, 2013

The Happiest Thought of Einstein’s Life is even Happier (A Christmas Carol)

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

The Happiest Thought of Einstein’s Life is even Happier (A Christmas Carol)

Otto E. Rossler, Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tübingen, Germany


Einstein’s happiest thought as he always said – weightlessness in free fall and hence usefulness of an imaginary rocketship for understanding gravity – has further implications if you look at it with the full attention of a child. Beside clock rate, size and mass and charge are miraculously transformed along, as every PET san confirms.

(December 24, 2013)

You are alone in outer space in a long-long rocketship with its neverstopping noiseless engine. A beamer at the bottom sends a steady laser beam up to you at the tip. The light then arrives at you with a longer spacing in between its wave crests. For while it travelled up at its constant speed, the tip along with you picked up speed relative to the emission point. So the wave crests reach you with a longer spacing.

This is the famous fairy-like tale of the “gravitational redshift” envisioned by Einstein which every child learns about in school. And the GPS satellites in the sky confirm it every day – that our terrestrial clocks, ultimately based on the counting of light’s wave crests, tick slower down here. Twinkle, twinkle little star – you twinkle different where we are.

The wave crests generated down here where we are are wider-spaced, not only in time but also in space. For light of a longer temporal wavelength also has a proportionally elongated spatial wavelength. Hence we are also taller down here than the people in the space station are, and broader. Since the emporal and the spatial spacings are increased in parallel, the ratio space over time – the speed of light – is a global and not just a local constant.

Not so for the adults. They claim that the spatial wavelengths are not increased. This is something you have to believe us, they say, because we are the grownups. Yet on one special day of the year, the children are taken seriously when they are asking the “why?”-question. And, lo and behold, the adults start stuttering. Einstein fell silent on the topic of gravity for more than three years when seeing no way to rescue the global constancy of the speed of light c – because Schwinger’s quantum electrodynamics still lay in the distant future. Schwinger says implicitly that the slowed-down clocks have a so much lower mass owing to the interconvertibility of light and particles. This makes all objects as much larger downstairs as their clocks tick are slower. Hence the adults are wrong for once and Einstein’s sadness about the smudge fallen on his happiest thought was unnecessary since the smudge is gone. Every PET scan proves this to the eye because it works on sea level as well as in the Himalayas, with the more energetic photons high up and with the less energetic photons (and equivalent positron masses) below. All trained adults will confirm this to you. Therefore, you better not listen to them when they add: “But since we learned that c is no longer global, we cannot but remain loyal to that teaching.”

Why did I tell you the heart-warming story of the global c to date? It is because the adults need help from the children for once. The speed of light suddenly is no longer different on earth and in the satellite that you see glare in the evening sun. So everything has become simple again. Only Momo’s people in the gray suits have learned to live with the smudge on the shining constancy of the speed of light c discovered by the youthful Einstein. To them, a return to the original happiness of his most important thought appears blocked forever.

Light – Akhenaton’s light – is a revelation still, with its universal speed added to its shining majesty after more than three millennia by the young Einstein. That speed is given to each individual person as a private possession. This mysterious present now stands there anew in its undiminished glory. The happiest thought of a single person turns out to have been so unimaginably happy that even the discoverer was too modest to believe so during his lifetime. Now, on this Christmas day, we got the full mystery back.

For J.O.R.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Bjørn Fossmoen says:

    What do you think ?
    Geophyicist Arnaud Chulliat has same view.

    L. Riofrio who has worked with NASA believes a black hole is in Earth’s core.

    Scientist L. Riofrio thinks she knows: a black hole may be inside stars including the sun. Riofrio thinks a black hole has breached our planet’s core and may be about to release literal hell on Earth.

    Riofrio describes the field as a plume of magnetism emanating from Earth’s super-hot core. She says it wraps itself around the Earth in a complicated matrix of shimmering energy.

    The field also interacts with the sun and may even be influenced to a degree by shifting ocean currents.

    Shifting magnetic field driven by black hole?

    Dark heart

    But the core contains a secret terror—a physical force that simultaneously grants the planet life and yet, ironically, dooms it in the end. Some poets call the massive gravitic-magnetic generating force a dark heart.

    Yet this same dark heart drives galaxies and guides exploding star stuff onto the pathway towards the building blocks of life.

    The ultimate price of life is death and the Earth is no different—a very dark heart may have taken refuge inside the world.

    According to the evidence, Riofrio says, the inner heart of Earth—its spinning core—is probably surrounded by a hurricane of charged atomic particles whipped in a whirlwind around a black hole singularity.

    Because the black hole is rotating within the center of the core, the particles create a massive electrical field. According to this scenario, the geomagnetic field would have its dipolar positive charge located at the Antarctic, which it does.

    Black hole may be driving massive Earth changes.

    Disturbing changes

    From time to time the polarity would flip: north would become south and positive negative as the black hole changed speed and direction and the magnetic field followed suit.

    As the geomagnetic field changes, disturbing changes occurring in the Earth’s core have been observed. “Surprisingly Rapid Changes In Earth’s Core Discovered” The emerging data may tend to support the black hole argument.

    Ringing like a bell

    A more frightening scenario is the black hole may not be stationary.

    Although a singularity could sit dead center inside the Earth’s spinning, molten core, others have suggested that a small black hole might bounce back and forth beneath the mantle like the clapper of a bell.

    As the hole approached the surface it would be attracted back to the center of the planet, fall inward, build up speed, and slip right through the core to the other side of the Earth.

    The “ringing” process could be repeated for thousands, even millions, of years until enough matter had been swallowed by the hole to destroy the Earth.

    When the hole began the process of swallowing the Earth most of the planet would be gone within a matter of hours.

    End of the world: black hole swallowing Earth.

    Death of Earth

    Life itself may depend on a black hole deep beneath our feet creating a magnetic force field that protects everything from the killing radiation of the sun. But the trade off to that is the ultimate death of Earth, swallowed by a black hole with an insatiable appetite.

    When the dark heart beating in the center of the world is done with appetizers it will go for the main meal. No one knows when that could happen. It may not be for another million years.

    Or it may, indeed, be the day after tomorrow…

  2. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for these speculations by a humanistically tuned mind.
    The mystery of the private c can stimulate other mystic thoughts, I realize. Einstein’s discovery really is big enough to verge on mysticism, but it is plain bread-and-butter science in spite of its subconscious connotations. The bomb has demonstrated this to the eye. Physics is a bloody business.

  3. rachel says:

    This is proberly a stupid question otto but could the lhc be responisble for all the bad weather every1 is getting if its stupid please tell me so ty

  4. rachel says:

    Or am I just thinking too much into things

  5. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Rachel, this is good news for one — the weather is as (hyper-) chaotic as ever.

  6. rachel says:

    So that’s a no then lol

  7. Otto E. Rossler says:


  8. rachel says:

    Sorry confused is that a no 2 the waether or a yes to the weather forgive me its been a long week

  9. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The weather is innocent, dear Rachel.

  10. rachel says:

    I just think with the weather in the us and england there’s sumthing not rite what do you think am I going mad otto lol am I letting this get to me to much

  11. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The weather is just chaotic, dera Rachel.

  12. rachel says:

    I think this lhc fear is geting the best of me thinking day and night about it ino u said it less that 5 percent but I eat sleep n thinking about mbh and the worlds end I hate this

  13. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I hate it too.
    But something in the low percentage rate should never burden one too much as long as one cannot do anything about it.
    This is one of the reasons prayers were invented.
    What I do not understand is only that no one on the planet requests an update of CERN’s safety report of 2008.
    Even if the danger I see can be refuted (as I still hope), there remains the necessity to show to the world that there is no disconcern regarding the safety issue as such.
    I made a big mistake pointing to the danger I see; I should rather have pointed to the lack of interest in safety in genera at CERN. Someone neutral could ask the press office of CERN.
    Any journalist, for example, any one. Any mother, for example.

  14. rachel says:

    I’ve read that they are restarting it in 2015 and u stated quiet clearly that the reboot at higher energy is your main worry but dear otto I dnt see cern ever listerning to u or anyone because they think there rite that its safe there’s a good chance it is safe and nuffin bad will come out of it but there’s a 5 percent chance something will go wrong does the percent go up with let’s say 14 tev what would it be then in your view u c like you I think the 14tev is quit and highe unknown energy there’s a very gd chance mbh still can’t b made at them energys but still dnt take the chance till u prove that if they do get created its safe I feel for you as your efforts 2 get a safty review are pushed aside if I could help you I would do so without question

  15. rachel says:

    What do you think

  16. henry says:

    Otto can I ask you a serious question if I may now I see you have said its 5% or even less and see people worried about what you have claimed now I ask you this if your claim are so dier as you keep on sayin why does no1 do anything about this I mean ino your main worry is 2015 when it starts back up but why doesn’t any1 else say anything about ur worries you seem 2 be the only one I’m not saying I don’t beleave that what you say is false but I also haven’t seen any facts the lhc as been running so far and we all seem 2 still be ok why worrie people so much when the odds of anythin bad is less than 5 percent or even less as you stated on another post

  17. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you both for your constructive criticism.
    There IS a good excuse for the huge number of CERN scientists to behave as they do, which I perfectly understand but cannot support as much as I would like to do:
    They look at what I say (and published last year in 9 learned papers of a more general scope) and say to themselves and each other:
    “This is too big results; such results do not usually come about without a major flaw — not to say without being total crab. So we have reserved us the right to ignore those results since verification or falsification up to a new global consensus will take years. This time we do not have. So all we can rationally do — no matter how reluctantly — is to ignore these results and do our best that the media do not learn about their existence and potential correctness.”
    I think everyone can understand this attitude. It is called “common sense.“
    The only problem is that betting on common sense is risky in its own right. It has a probability of being no more than 95 percent correct. So if I say the planet is jeopardized by the experiment with 5 percent, my colleagues are justfied in saying:
    “Okay, it is ‘5 percent, squared.’ This low risk of not much more than one part in a thousand we can take on our conscience by calling it “equal to zero” since otherwise, no one could ever do an experiment in the first place.”
    This is what happens.
    It is all perfectly rational, like in a Greek tragedy: says the one party. Don’t listen to that party is the best advice I can give you, being that party.
    [Others might say that “almost zero times infinity” is not the same thing as “almost zero times a finite number”. But this is not what I say here. We have no choice but be complacent.]

  18. henry says:

    i was watchin a youtube clip of you yesterday and you stated there quiet clearly u think they have already created a mbh so the people are rite when they say why are you still going on about it when you already think the earth is lost

  19. henry says:

    so my question to you is do you beleave they have already created a blackhole and that we are all as a planet in alot of trouble in the next few years

  20. Otto E. Rossler says:

    No. Only if they created very many mBHs is there a chance that one was slow enough to stay inside earth.
    Everything would be fine if CERN’s detectors were not blind to the mBHs. So the probability of 5 percent (or 0.05-squared if you wish) still stands.

  21. henry says:

    you see you never answer my quiestion do you beleave there is already a mbh in the planet

  22. henry says:

    and im sorry if you think im being rude i dont mean to be just want a stright yes or no

  23. henry says:

    i understand what your saying but u need to understand that theres people out there who dont understand and need to no theses things

  24. henry says:

    ? No replie otto did I offend u if so I’m sorry

  25. henry says:


  26. henry says:

    I don’t understand it was a simple question yet u choose 2 ignore me otto

  27. tom says:

    Hi otto is the 5% sumthing should let worrie me a lot or is it still pritty low that I can relax a little and stop leting all of this ruin my everyday goabouts than you kind regards tom

  28. tom says:

    Also please could you tell me how you come up with the 5 percent would be very helpful as I’m wrighting a paper on this 4 uni and would love your input

  29. tom says:

    You would be helping me out a lot if I gave u my email would u be able to email me a few thoughts on this matter

  30. Samantha Atkins says:

    this is getting stupid mr rossler stated that the chances are 5% which is small odds but the danger is still there none the less my only problem is how you came up with all of this ive read all your papers and they all made sense till i came to you last few and then i got very lost and confused

  31. Otto E. Rossler says:

    5 percent is what cannot be ruled out, not proved. Risk estimates are always like this.
    The risk landscape changes back to normal as soon as the factor “30000” in the title of one of my last papers has been taken care of by CERN.

  32. jamie says:

    Is your main worry when they start this thing back up next feb

  33. jamie says:

    ive seen all your work and read most of these post and i guess altho 5% is priity low odds and not really to much to worry about its still 5% your main worry is when they fire it back up and my worry is that even then i dont think cern will care about what your saying because even you said yourself they think what you have said is a long shot theroy and not worth there time

  34. amy green says:

    Hi I just wanted to know otto should I be worried about me and my children not seeing next year I’m a little sceared at all of this please can you help me understand is there a good chance me and my family will not see next year please replie

  35. amy green says:

    Please could you just tell me what to think as I’m really afraid

  36. amy green says:

    This place is as bad as cern they never reply too any of my emails aswell

  37. henry says:

    Otto is just as bad as them babe he moans that they don’t listn to him but then he ignores people on here that ask simple questions

  38. mark.e.edwards says:

    Up until a year ago I worked for c.e.r.n and with 99% I can tell you that everything is safe don’t worry about this and mr roessler is not responding to you for a reason he can’t

  39. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Jamie:
    I do not ask CERN t wory about what I say. I am absolutely happy when they update their Safety Report of 2008 in light of all new evidence accrued in the meantime. They need not be fair to me. They only need to behave rationally or, what is the same thing, responsibly.
    I sympathize with Mark. I would probably be as fond of CERN as you are. Note that it is not aggression on my part if I ask CERN to listen to someone who genuinely loves what they stand for. I am only a ship’s boy. They are the captains.

  40. mark.e.edwards says:

    I trust in what we are doing you have people thinking they will not see next year and u and me no that’s a false statement

  41. mark.e.edwards says:

    So I sympathize with u mr roessler and I am sorry I missread and ino you have not made them claims about the year but otto can’t you see what you are doing to people here and around the planet

  42. amy green says:

    I’m sooo afraid no1 will answer me I want to see my kids grow up and otto your basically telling me there not and its upseting me I’m so sceared I’m having trouble sleeping and when I’m awake all I do Is think about this why are you ignoring me otto

  43. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Mark:
    I am guilty of reminding CERN that it is their duty to give a safety report after 6 years before continuing. This is a chance to prove that there is no danger.
    I apologize to you and Amy that so far, this necessary piece of information is denied to the population of our planet — not by me, by CERN.
    They refuse to let me give a talk there, even though CERN’s Young Scientists invited me in 2009. They never respond. This is their right to do, of course, as far as I am concerned. I may have made them angry — I do apologize that I tried everything I could to wake them up, probably sometimes in a way they found offensive — because of the courts that either responded (in one case) or had a hard time hiding before the public. But the administration of CERN’s being angry with me gives them no reason to refuse assuring the world of their own honesty by producing a safety report.
    It is not the first time that a blind hen finds a corn. To bet that everyone will understand that not replying to a mathematically presented result which is unpalatable, by invoking general principles like “so important results are rare and far between and hence can be neglected,” is objectively strange. Especially so if it is not only one scientist who sees a sizable risk.
    Even more strange is the fact that all political institutions of the world stand behind them. Including the professional media and the world courts. They all seem to agree that the unlikely is impossible.
    I urge you not to be afraid, dear Amy. Have the courage to demand an answer from CERN. I am too weak to accomplish this. This even though I am the most ardent supporter of the good side of their technically beautiful efforts. There never were more beautiful experiments: the Higgs is a gem. Please, be so kind and do believe me that I am on your side, dear CERNians. We have the same wonderful aims. It is not my fault that I found new results whose impact needs to be discussed. Each of you would behave identically if you were in my place.

  44. amy green says:

    I just want 2 c me kids grow up and you said in a years time they wnt in a email u sent me that’s why I’m affraid

  45. mark.e.edwards says:

    If that’s what he’s been telling you then that to me is 100 percent out of order and I’m upset for u and him

  46. mark.e.edwards says:

    Otto what do you tell your kids and your granchildren do you tell them that they will die if cern carrys on you are still going on about this but you think its to late already so why still go on about this to people and try your hardest to scear them

  47. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I did not send such an Email and never spoke of one year.
    5 percent and an unknown small number of years is what remains to be contradicted to by CERN. It goes without saying that both numbers are floating numbers. Ten years and one percent is just as possible as three years and ten percent. What needs to be contradicted by CERN — or any scientist with a personal face — is that the new results on black holes published by the Tubingen group for years in a row do radically change the safety analysis last offered by CERN 6 years ago. This behavior is irresponsible — do you not agree, my dear friends?

  48. mark.e.edwards says:

    Otto I agree with what u just said but I got angry when I hear people saying we only have 1 year left or 2 years left I mean ur main worrie is when it starts back in 2015 am I rite

  49. mark.e.edwards says:

    I mean no1 knows if a mbh could even be created and if they could then its highly likely that it will b at higher power that what they have already reached so when u say they need 2 listen to you befor they restart it back up a agree that they should look at what you say and update the safety report but on the other hand there could b no problem with the 1 they already have and you could be rong 5 percent is such small odds

  50. martin says:

    I’ve been readin this for a few days now and I find it amazingly funny they way people are carring on so I’ve got a few things I want to say first off mr rossler as never said anything about 1 year second never as he said that cern will destroy the earth he just said with 5 percent proberbillity there’s a chance they could create mbh that after 5 or 10 or even 20 years could come back to hurt this beautiful place we call home yes a agree with most of the world that what he speakes of is pritty much a big load of crap but cern should at least take the time to look and listn to the man and mark yes they prob even at 14 tev mite still not be another power to create them if they can at all that is but give the guy credit he is just trying to do sumthing that he beleaves in how ever much every1 mite think its all false he deserves just like evey human on this planet deserves to be heard dear mr otto rossler don’t give up sir if its what you beleave in however many people tell your your mad crazy wrong u do what you think is rite

  51. Otto E. Rossler says:

    aye aye, Martin

  52. martin says:

    Sorry aye what’s that mean lol

  53. martin says:

    And if I may could I ask you sumthing please now if what you say is true and a mbh does get created what would the signs b to let us no and also otto how long would we have left after the first ill signs showed us there is a mbh in the planet ino it prob wnt happen being 5 percent and all but iperfeticly speaking thankyou dear sir

  54. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The probability of 5 percent is only something that cannot beexcluded, it is far from certain.
    The exponential growth inside earth which I described in 2008 is bound to take years, almost all of which is symptom-free. When the first symptoms appear it won’t take very long until the atmosphere is poisoned (one possibility) so that the end would be not be observable by the ihabitants. But we should not worry about this: We all still hope that someone can find an argument why the danger in fact is non-existent. For example, because no mini-black-holes can be produced at CERN in principle. This would be very nice.
    Also it is to my great frustration that we have to discuss all this now — only to get CERN re-consider its decision not to renew its safety report before resuming collisions. If they promise to renew it, I promise I would no longer talk about the dangers that might already have been accrued. This as you correctly see is counterproductive.
    Cannot anyone convince CERN to return to the logical custom of offering a full-fledged safety report before doing a never before done upgrade?

  55. martin says:

    Sorry what do you mean only sumthing that can’t be xcluded please xsplain to sum1 who is really not a scientist in any form I’m just fond of pysics

  56. martin says:

    Sorry if I bother you ino your a busy man

  57. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The scientific result that the speed of light c is, after all, a global constant in nature totally changes the properties of black holes.
    Such a result cannot be ignoored by responsible scientist trying to produce black holes.

  58. martin says:

    So its more than 5 percent then or do you me up 2 5 percent can’t be excluded thankyou for responding

  59. martin says:

    Just too be clear I’m not against you or cern I’m just a guy who loves and wants to learn about this all

  60. rachel says:

    Hi otto when I asked cuz I was upset cuz I have kids and natruly worrie you said that the danger is less than 5 % or even less what is it lol. Hope you are doing ok

  61. martin says:

    Yeah rachel I seen that too but like he said well I think he means is that its up 2 5 percent that can’t be excluded out

  62. stan samule costing says:

    Hi everyone what does this mean that there is more than five percent or it could be lower but the odds of five percent can not be ruled out is that what you men ottoo this is all so confuseing

  63. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dangers that cannot be ruled out cannot be indicated in precise numbers. Common sense is needed.
    The point is that black holes possess radically new properties accordin to a new (6-year-old) result.
    In such a situation one should think twice about pulling such a pet into one’s living room.
    Why not try to disprove the new result before doing so?
    Why do you — my friends here — not initiate a petition to CERN? You have much more power than I have.
    There are legitimate agencies like the NSA whose duty it is to prevent exactly such an informational accident. Maybe they can help?

  64. stan samule costing says:

    So why do you say 5 percent mr rossler

  65. martin says:

    So why tell us the danger is below 5 percent and also guys he is rite we should all go knocking on cerns doors get them 2 listn I don’t care if the danger is 1 or 5 percent it needs 2 be looked at

  66. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you, Martin.
    Stan: It is the best order-of-magnitude guess I can muster. Anyone deriving a better guess from the same facts is encouraged to do so. But it really does not matter — does it? — as long as the “zero,” ordered by CERN to be uttered by each of its employees, cannot be upheld because black holes have new properties that need to be taken into account. Right?

  67. martin says:


  68. martin says:

    But what I’m saying s otto if you beleave ur result is rite the why 5 percent you should think its an 100 percent surly or am I just 2 thick to understan lol

  69. martin says:

    And your also saying there a 95 percent maby more chance that nuffin bad or dangrous will come out of this but otto I’m on ur side here now I see that no matter how small the dangers may be there still there and sumthing so big no matter how small the odds are should never b allowed to carry on 14 tev is a pritty big jump from the 8 tev already reached I’m gonna do my best to get answers from cern

  70. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for that, dear Martin.

  71. martin says:

    Anything to help friend

  72. nelly says:

    Hi all just want too say really why are u all going on like this I mean really is 5 or less percent really worth you all going on about the end of the world mr otto you no yourself that 5 percent is pritty slim odds. But I’m all for what you are doing dear mr rossler I think that even though it is low percent range its still not fair for them not to listen to what you have to say

  73. jamie says:

    Rossler argues that he is able to conclude, based on his reinterpretation of the ¨
    Schwarzschild metric, that Black Holes do not emit Hawking radiation and willous danger: instead of decaying by radiation, they would exist eternally and would
    have sufficient time to gradually devour their environmentIn what follows, we will sketch and analyze his argument. We will see that
    his argument concerns only the General Theory of Relativity (GRT), and
    makes no logical connection to LHC physics;
    • the argument is not valid;
    • the argument is not self-consistent
    The counterarguments presented here are independent from those discussed in the
    recent report by Giddings and Mangano, arXiv:0806.3381[hep-ph]. The
    present text should thus be seen as complementary to that reportWith respect to the optical metric, this mathematical fact is uncontested. Yet, it is
    claimed by Rossler to be a new insight, though it has been well known to experts ¨
    for a long time. It is a standard tool in the sense of an auxiliary construction, e.g.
    in the theory of gravitational lensing. In essence, Rosslers add-on is to promote ¨
    this formal fact to a new physical principle and to say: The optical distance is in
    fact equal to the real geometrical distance.
    1 He motivates this principle with the
    claim that the speed of light when defined with respect to the optical distance has
    the same value c everywhere, and relates it to a superficially similar claim made
    by Max Abraham in a dispute with Einstein in 1912, which however was based oN different assumptions and has become obsolete.2
    In this “optical geometry”, bodies
    near the black hole horizon become arbitrarily large and the black hole itself cannot
    be understood any longer as a localizable object of finite extension.

    If we take all this seriously for a moment, we face immediately the following quesTIONS

    How can something that is infinitely far away (and also something that is
    infinitely large) be created in a finite amount of time, and have an effect on
    us? Should Rossler not conclude in the same way that Black Holes cannot ¨
    be created in the first place? But what about astronomical data showing
    signatures of black holes, e.g. in the center of our galaxy?

    2. The energies of the cosmic rays that constantly bombard our atmosphere are
    (after transformation into the center-of-mass system) many orders oftude higher than the energies that can be reached with the LHC. However we
    have no hints that they produce Black Holes – why not? A possible answercould be that on the earth we are not in the center-of-mass system of the
    cosmic radiation. A Black Hole produced by cosmic rays would traverse the
    earth at high speed, and would thus have no time to cause any damage. This
    requires however the Black Hole to be a localizable object in space, from
    which we can be more or less far away. However in Rossler’s interpretation ¨
    this is exactly not the case, since the Black Hole is always infinitely far away
    from us. Therefore, the answer that is meaningful in the framework of the
    usual interpretation no longer makes sense in Rossler’s interpretation

    It is well known and uncontested that the optical metric is a structural ingredient of
    GRT, with the meaning of an auxiliary construction, which has proved especially
    successful when computing the trajectories of light rays in space. In the same
    way, it can even be employed for the effective calculation of some properties ofthe movement of massive bodies (e.g. the computation of the centrifugal force).
    However it is unequivocally wrong and meaningless to claim, as Rossler does, that ¨
    it would be the only geometrical framework that governs every physical process.For example, it would lead to predictions for the planetary orbits that are badly
    wrong. Rossler’s arguments thus rest on a generalization of optical geometry that ¨
    is not only unfounded but demonstrably wrong. Therefore, it may not be surprising
    that beyond his ad-hoc assertion, he is unable to construct a reproducible, logical
    connection between optical geometry and Hawking radiation. Moreover, such a
    connection would have to conform to fundamental principles of GRT, such as the
    invariance of physical laws under any choice of local coordinates: the prediction
    that a black hole radiates does not depend on any particular notion of spatial distancee in the space-time geometry determined by the Schwarzschild solution.
    Moreover, and as was shown above, Rossler’s arguments are not even selfconsistent. Domenico Giulini
    Hermann Nicolai

  74. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I am grateful to “Jamie” for repeating the old arguments by “F.H.” and before him non-anonymously by my colleague Hermann Nicolai, brought up against the “gothic-R theorem” of 2008. They are all disproved on the Internet for almost 6 years. The long discussions with “F.H.” was especially fruitful. It would be wonderful if the big blog “” which contains them could be revived after it got shut down 3 years ago shortly after I had suggested to CERN to arrange for that in case they cannot muster a counterproof.
    In the meantime, about a dozen papers have been published which demonstrated mathematically using the equivalence principle that the speed of light c in the vacuum is a global constant of nature. This fact, until disproved, implies that black holes have radically new properties (includuing invisiblity to CERN’s detectors). To go on trying to produce them on earth is a major risk no matter whether any other argument of mine is correct or not.
    This fine text from the German Max-Planck Institute for Gravitation Physics which now reaches the readers of this blog fails to give a reason why continuing an experiment should make sense without prior scientific discussion of a safety-relevant new result – or more important if you so wish – of any new result found in physics since 3 years before the collisions started which are now planned to be upgraded 6 years after the last safety report of CERN.
    “Why defend an austrich policy in the face of never before realized physical conditions?” This is the moral question that CERN and the Einstein Institute of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft face. I am very curious to learn about their defense on this public blog which is of great interest to the NSA whose now public existence gives everyone a ray of hope in this context.

  75. jamie says:

    I was waiting to see what u had to say on the matter I’ve also emaild cern a few time I think that they see the risk as low just as you say five percent they say 2 pecent chane of even having the power to create mbh crazy I’m not majorly worried being 5 percent danger but I think we have sum crazy crazy decisons to make to better how way of life altho with 5 percent risk of danger is 2 much it may be small odds but if u look at what could happen then its big risk

  76. jamie says:

    Am I wrong for understanding why cern beleaves there no danger otto

  77. Otto E. Rossler says:

    CERN certainly does not think the danger is 5 percent dear Jamie!
    Unfortunately, they do not say why. And why no one is allowed to do the safety conference which was offered to them, and even once kindly requested by a court.
    This is all taboo topics for the media and the international democratic institutions. A unique historical phenomenon.

  78. jamie says:

    No I said you say 5 percent or lower but cer thinks there’s only a 2 percent chance of even creating mbh on the website but now all of a sudden there saying they doubt they can be created at all maby its because of your constant pressure on them who knows but if you say there’s 5 percent or lower danger then untill cern comes out and says why its not then people have every reason to beleave ur 5 percent danger do you understan were I’m coming from now

  79. jamie says:

    Then u have mr hawking who said that the chances the lhc as anoth power 2 create 1 is less than 1 percent but none of them talk about the danger if when they start it back up they do create 1

  80. lisa bentley says:

    I would like to start off by saying thanks a lot to you all my daugter is 15 years of age and somehow she’s been reading everything that’s been wrote on here and she came to me and said she should take her own life befor the lhc or cern or whatever you call it starts back up what am I ment to tell her that’s my daughter and I have to her say that to me I’ve never been more angry that you are puting stuff like this up for kids to see how dare you tell peopel men girl kids that there going to die if this thing starts back up I’m going to put up a complaint about the lot of you she really thinks she will not see her teens out hope you all are happy with what you have done to a little girl what am I ment to tell her

  81. nelly says:

    Dear lisa let me be the first to say how sorry I am

  82. jamie says:

    Otto I don’t understand why people keep blaming you or even me lisa that is bad but she should noo that the odds are priitty low and to talk like that is just crazy I’m sorry that you have to c that from her and if anything ottto as said she as taken the wrong way but please do not blame us here we are just have a conerstation on the mattr none of us are saying anything about people dieing

  83. lisa bentley says:

    Who’s post blog is this and why is he or she indicateing to people that they are going to die in 5 years time. What do you gain out of this do you get joy out of upseting people I want answers

  84. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Lisa:
    Thank you for worrying enough out of caring to demand a safety report from CERN after 6 years.
    I cannot understand why no one asks them to do zheir duty. Maybe they can dispell the so far justified fears!

  85. lisa bentley says:

    So ur saying that what u said is true we r all going to die soon and that’s why my daughter as so much fear

  86. lisa bentley says:

    And you justify puting faer in my daught that bad she talks like this if u say the odds are only 5 percent or below then why do you tell people there’s not long left why would you do this

  87. Otto E. Rossler says:

    no no no: Only if CERN is unable to produce a new safety report after 6 years dispelling the danger is there a chance in the low-percentage range of this catastrophe being preprogrammed or getting preprogrammed in the next step, as you know. And as I said I find it unfair that CERN’s announcement to continue with almost doubled energies makes it necessary that one mother on the planet calls for a response on the part of CERN in the name of all mothers. Okay?

  88. lisa bentley says:

    heres my point sir u say its in the low percent range therefor theres a high chance it could never happen so please otto stop publicly saying it making people and kids av fear of no future go to cern make them lisen to you thats all i ask of you please whats the low percent anyways becuz ive seen you say 5 but then say below 5 or lower

  89. Otto E. Rossler says:

    No one would remain in an airplane if told before takeoff that it is going to crash with a 5-percent probability, dear Lisa — right? Do you know someone to whom CERN or the media would listen?

  90. lisa bentley says:

    i dint even no what this was till yesterday ok 5% is still low proberbillity right and i think that even you see the danger as pritty low

  91. lisa bentley says:

    but i understand what your saying and all im saying is take it up with cern they seem to think theres no risk and you are way outa your leauge with this pridiction so sort it with them not people who fear this not what your saying but just the SLIM chance that it could happen in the future

  92. mike says:

    Don’t let it worrie you hun the chances of this happerning are low otto just wants the safty report updated he’s doing nottthing rong tell your daughter not to worry aswell please

  93. Tom Kerwick says:

    Otto — it’s been a while — I guess these thoughts/fears you have are cyclical. You seem to disregard the comments above attributed to Domenico Giulini Hermann Nicolai which demonstrate how your notions are not valid and not even self consistent.

    You may have forgotten — I also wrote a number of papers (on astronomical phenomenology as a safety assurance) which directly reference your claims Otto, including a follow-on discussion with the LSAG — where we concluded 0% risk. 0%, Otto. Not 5%. Not anything like it. You seem content to discount and dismiss anything which compromises your fears. Perhaps you need to take a step back and get some perspective.

    ps — it seems the majority of comments on this thread — jamie, lisa bently, mike, nelly, rachel… are all from the same source Lisa if genuine, you have my sympathies.

  94. lisa bentley says:

    I’m sorry if this is hard to understan like I said my daughter is 15 years of age I did not know that she had been commenting on all of this I guess that’s what fear does to you I will be having a word with up but just to let you all know once again how upseting this all is to her and tom I am genuine and I am a mum to a 15 year old girl who as so much fear that I av fear for her

  95. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Everything is okay. It is the first time that someone really to be taken seriously — because “only” 15 years old when one still is a serious human being — also commented and comments. I wish no one to be worried. But everyone should have the right to get “unworried” — right?
    I very highly value your own efforts, dear Tom. Can you understand that counterarguments from one source no less isolated than I also am as a source are no substitute for a 6-years-overdue official safety report from the makers of the most revolutionary experiment of history?