I am old and have not many years left. My most recent physics results are c-global and cryodynamics. Both are minor results that nonetheless upset cosmology and energy technology.

I see no way how to get them the recognition they deserve. Especially not since one of them endows black holes with properties that render the most prestigious experiment of history unsafe.

I implored CERN to renew their Safety Report before doubling their collision-energy world records — to no avail. My results require this for 7 years as CERN knows, but their Safety Report goes un-updated for equally long.

My friends John A. Wheeler and John S. Bell would help me if they could. Now only a renowned journalist can.

Do you, dear reader, know one?

c-global means that the speed of light in the vacuum, c, can no longer be added-on to other speeds like a global expansion speed.

Hence three historical events have the same structure:

• The “phlogiston” theory of fire got superseded by Lavoisier’s discovery of oxygen
• The “miasma” theory of infection got superseded by Semmelweis’ discovery of asepsis
• The “big-bang” theory of the cosmos got superseded by the discovery of c-global

A collateral consequence of c-global is the fact that the deliberate attempt to produce black holes down on earth, scheduled to re-start at doubled energies in two months’ time, cannot be allowed without a prior disproof of c-global. Otherwise the re-start becomes a crime.

I thank Stephen Hawking for his recent public acknowledgment of the danger.

A revolutionary Finding waits for the final Clinch: c-global

Otto E. Rossler

Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tubingen, Germany

Abstract: The global nature of the speed of light in the vacuum, c, was reluctantly given up by Einstein in December of 1907. A revival of the status c had enjoyed during the previous 2 ½ years, from mid-1905 to late-1907, is in the literature for several years by now. The consequences of c-global for cosmology and black-hole theory are far-reaching. Since black holes are an acute concern to date because there exists an attempt to produce them down on earth, the question of whether a global-c transform of the Einstein field equations can be found represents a vital issue — only days before an experiment that is based on the assumed absence of the new result is about to be ignited. (December 22, 2014, February 6, 2015)

Imagine: Einstein’s c were not just a local constant of nature everywhere, as one reluctantly believes it to be since late 1907, but rather a global constant. Then this return to the original 1905–1907 view would revolutionize physics. For example, cosmic expansion — whose speed by definition is added to the local c — would cease to be a physical option. Second, quantum mechanics would cease to generate problems in its unification with general relativity (or rather vice versa). Thirdly, black holes would be stable and hence show their voraciousness at any — even the smallest — size.

But is the speed of light c not a global constant anyhow in general relativity? While every layman and most every physicist does believe so, this status got actually lost by c in late 1907. To witness, it suffices to have a look at the famous “Shapiro time delay”: Light from a distant satellite is characterized, when grazing the sun on its way towards earth, by an increased travelling time compared to the sun’s absence along the light path [1]. This empirically verified famous implication of Einstein’s equation is canonically believed to reflect a locally masked reduction of the speed of light c in the vicinity of the sun [1]. But with c being a global constant, automatically an increased depth of the space-time funnel present around the sun is the real reason for the delay [2].

Is this unfamiliar proposal the physically correct one?

There are two pieces of evidence in favor of this being so, each individually sufficient. First, the famous “Schwarzschild solution” of the Einstein field equations was shown to possess a global–c transform [3]; hence the global constancy of c exists mathematically. Second, the famous “equivalence principle” between ordinary kinematic acceleration and gravitational acceleration, postulated by Einstein in late 1907, happens to be based solely on special relativity with its well-known global c. The equivalence principle was recently proved to actually non–imply a reduction of c more downstairs in the constantly accelerating extended long Einstein rocketship [4]. A third piece of evidence exists by implication: a global–c transform of the full Einstein field equations – despite the fact that this transform still waits to be written down explicitly.

But why not rather wait with giving c-global a broad visibility in the scientific community, given the embarrassing cosmological consequence which it entails as mentioned? It is c-global’s other big implication (regarding black holes) which justifies and necessitates the visibility. Why?

It is because black holes have a chance to get produced down on earth starting next month [5] .

The official safety report of the experiment [6] is already seven years old. Only an absolutely non-ignorable global–c transform of the full Einstein field equation can apparently force the almost 7 years old LSAG “safety report of the most prestigious experiment of history to be renewed in time. “In time” means: before the re-start at twice world-record energies scheduled for next month [5]. The reward to the scientific journal which accepts this brief note for publication will lie in the emergence-in-time of the existing if not yet made-explicit “global–c Einstein equation.” This task is a superhuman one indeed because finding the transform requires a unique strength of mind (or else serendipity) so that the world likely will have to wait for decades. Therefore, the manpower – the many alerted readers – of this Big Blog is needed as a planetary resource in the face of the rapidly closing time window.

In view of CERN’s open refusal to update its 7 years old Safety Report before the re-start at doubled world-record energies, one cannot be more grateful to Stephen Hawking for his timely warning [7]. There never was a stronger reason to admire this unique person and personality.

I thank Bill Seaman for having alerted me to Stephen Hawking’s latest coup. For J.O.R.

References

[1] I.I. Shapiro, Fourth test of general relativity. Physical Review Letters 13, 789–791 (1964).
[2] A half-3-pseudosphere replaces the Flamm paraboloid: https://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/03/ccc-constant-c-catastrophe
[3] O.E. Rossler, Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: Gothic-R theorem demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric. Fractal Spacetime and Noncommutative Geometry in Quantum and High Energy Physics 2, 1–14 (2012). Preprint on: http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/chaos.pdf
[4] O.E. Rossler, Equivalence principle implies gravitational-redshift proportional space dilation and hence global constancy of c. European Scientific Journal 10(9), 112–117 (2014).
[5] CERN: see http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/5537/20150101/cern-larg…h-2015.htm
[6] Official LHC Safety Report, latest edition: http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf (note the date 2008)
[7] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJdc3hkcCUc#t=31

http://yournewswire.com/cern-to-attempt-big-bang-in-march-st…s-warning/

Everyone can witness it in the scientifically well-researched blockbuster movie “Interstellar”: The protagonist had to travel fairly deep down to the vicinity of the surface of a giant black hole while feeling absolutely normal there. But there he realizes that when he is to come back home soon, decades will have passed by out there owing to his momentarily heavily slowed clocks and aging. Hence he is younger now than his own daughter whom he had so reluctantly left behind. This is the ingenious part of the script. The rest of the movie becomes inconsistent, the viewer realizes: The crew next goes down much deeper to reach the horizon and travel through the wormhole (and so a second time on the way back), but this time around the matching infinitely fast aging rate in the outside world is swept under the rug for the sake of the narrative having a happy end.

My point is that near the horizon itself, the slowdown becomes infinite. Hence “infinity plus infinity equals zero” is the axiom presupposed in the movie’s second part. Therefore we can dismiss that part as crab? Please, do not do so: this part describes exactly what modern physics is teaching. That is, the movie’s inconsistent second part is the current textbook knowledge: a belief in the presence of “equal rights” between the two time scales, the one outside and the one downstairs in gravity. This is the canonical teaching in physics for 75 years – ever since 1939 when J. Robert Oppenheimer unwittingly laid the ground to this logical error in his ingenious paper, written jointly with Hartland Snyder, in which the physical existence of stellar black holes was first predicted. It is highly technical (http://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.56.455 ).

Following 1939, only the “Russian school” avoided the mentioned error by speaking of “frozen stars” rather than of “stellar black holes.” Eventually, however, peer pressure from the West caused this view to fall into oblivion following the end of the cold war. The once correctly recognized “freezing of time near a black hole” was forgotten by the profession. Interstellar now brought it to the whole world.

The mentioned emotional scene (a father suffering in his heart because the imperceptible slowing-down of time that holds true for him near a mega black hole implies that his beloved young daughter will no longer be a child on his impending return) is now an eye-opener for the whole planet.

But does physics – the most difficult and most highly esteemed science on earth – really teach that the freezing of time is a mere observational effect without real-life consequences? This, Sir, is the modern gospel. The fact that, in reality, nothing ever reaches the horizon in finite outer time or else comes up from it is denied by the physics community. Now, however, the mentioned scene in the movie makes it clear to everyone endowed with a heart that the two time scales are indeed interlocked.

Does this mean that the perhaps most highly regarded profession on earth cannot think? The answer is: yes, but so only for a particular kind of reasoning. Direct – non-algorithmic – thinking has no niche left to it. Oppenheimer got blessed with the wisdom of hindsight when he said “physics has met sin” but here he hit on a perhaps even more fateful case.

Shall the scientific community go on trying to produce black holes down on earth – now that the profession has learnt from a blockbuster movie that it had believed in falsity regarding black holes for 75 years?

I plead that an almost 7 years old proposal for a “safety conference” ( http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/petitiontocern.pdf ) be heeded at long last – before the LHC experiment, designed to build black holes down on earth, gets re-started at twice world record energies with a multiplied chance at producing black holes in a few weeks’ time from today.

There is a good chance for a renewal of the more than six years old safety report at last after Interstellar has translated Oppenheimer’s ingenious insights into a theatrical scene that is intuitive to the eye and the heart of every viewer. After this superhuman feat accomplished by the movie-makers, every person on earth is obliged to them. I reckon it was Kip Thorne who is responsible for the miracle of a clear-sighted grief that revealed the existential dimension of gravity’s temporal effects. How does it feel, dear reader, to jointly with Kip be more intelligent than a whole profession and become a benefactor of humankind if you continue to believe in yourself? I can tell you: it feels awful since most everybody hates you – so as if belief in authority was worth dying-for even if it costs the planet. But then just look in the eyes of the young girl in the movie and you know better. This is the miracle worked by Interstellar: your own honesty towards yourself makes all the difference of the world. Even the best-educated group of people on earth is bound to concede your point if you stick to it: “Infinity plus infinity is infinity, not zero.” The correction changes the face of terrestrial black holes as well.

Imagine there existed a proof that the most reluctantly accepted feature of Einstein’s gravitation theory – that c is no longer a global but only a local constant – was unnecessary: Would that not be wonderful?

The proof was greeted with planet-wide neglect: c-global exists in the Schwarzschild metric of general relativity since 2008 and so in the more fundamental equivalence principle since 2012. It hence also holds true for the full Einstein equation – only the pertinent transform has yet be written down to enable direct unification with quantum mechanics: a holy grail.

Hence most everyone is bound to be working on this in physics? The answer is no given the embarrassment of riches that is implicit. This professional modesty is a sympathetic human trait when you look at it in a detached mood. However, the result in question has also an applied side to it. In light of the latter, a prestigious collective activity has ceased to be safe.

Such collisions of interest do usually sort themselves out spontaneously with time. Here, bad luck for once wills that the unsafe collective activity – the re-ignition of a Nobel-decorated experiment at twice its former world-record energy – has been scheduled to start in only ten weeks’ time.

Since many thousand scientists are involved, it is difficult to launch the requisite public debate within the few weeks that are left: This is an ocean-liner, not a boat. And: should the public be involved in the learned discussion about the difference between a globally constant speed of light c and a merely everywhere locally constant speed c ? I must be kidding!

But there is one point every child can ask and understand: “Does there exist a public Safety Report for the experiment in question (the “LHC” experiment at CERN)?” The answer is: “yes but”: Such an official report exists (LSAG) but it stems from early 2008 – before the safety-relevant new result was published.

This fact is known to the scientific community and to the media, but is being treated as a taboo topic. Europe – with Germany in the leading role payment-wise – thrives on the world-wide public credit granted: “They would not go ahead if they were not convinced it is safe.”

In the case of the Eniwetak catastrophe, a timely Safety Report would have been the rescue. This time around, the risk is infinitely higher due to the black-hole danger implicit in c-global.

We obviously need a public arbitration process in order to save time. There is one world-renowned public hero who has a vested interest in the LHC experiment getting started at twice world-record energy on schedule: Stephen Hawking.

I offer the world a public debate with my famous younger colleague as a substitute for the lacking safety report – to enable the experiment to proceed on time if he wins the debate.

I predict that Stephen Hawking will accept the offer as a bet because he is a sportsman. And because his courage spares CERN the trouble of having to renew its safety report in the short time span left before the scheduled start. A positive response will be a Christmas present to all.

CERN bets the planet on the early Einstein having been wrong. Let me explain.

After having founded special relativity in mid-1905, the early Einstein held fast to the speed of light c being a global constant of nature for another 2 ½ years. Only in December of 1907 did Einstein switch to the view that c was only an everywhere locally, but not globally, valid constant of nature.

In 2008, results proving that the early Einstein of 1905 was right started to appear in the scientific literature. For example, quantum electrodynamics combined with the equivalence principle (Schwinger) shows this. Up until now, no counterproof is in the literature.

In light of this renaissance of the early Einstein, a previously noncontroversial policy of the famous CERN consortium turns out to be problematical: their refusal to update the outdated Safety Report of mid-2008. Demanding this update has become a priority issue for everyone who learns about its lack.

The return after a century to the global constancy of c of the early Einstein implies that man-made black holes – which CERN tries to produce in its soon to be re-started particle collider – are different: They are undetectable to CERN’s detectors. This fact renders the experiment strictly speaking unscientific. Most important, however: if but one specimen of the invisible hoped-for objects is slow enough not to fly away into outer space, it is going to grow exponentially inside earth to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole after a silent period of a few years in accordance with the laws of exponential growth.

As long as CERN is unable to publicly contradict this scenario in an update of its famous 6 years old Safety Report, they cannot re-start the Large Hadron Collider on logical grounds.

It all boils down to the question: “Who of the two Einsteins – the early one or the 2 ½ years older one – was right?”

(For J.O.R.)