Otto E. Rossler, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tubingen, F.R.G.

Resumé

There are new developments in gravitation theory beginning in 2005. They have changed the previously accepted scientific picture of black holes. On the basis of these results, a currently running experiment, designed to produce artificial black holes of very low velocity, has ceased to be innocuous. The experimentally hoped-for “mini black holes,” (1) become more likely to arise, (2) do not evaporate, (3) are undetectable by the machine, (4) will in part get stuck inside earth and (5) will grow there exponentially so as to shrink the earth to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time. Hence a re-appraisal of the experiment is necessary before it can be allowed to go on. Please, rule so, dear Council.

(July 30, 2011)

A previously overlooked new fact in gravitation theory is the reason for my turning to you. It looks simple enough: the rest mass-energy of a particle decreases with increasing gravity. To witness, on a neutron star on which gravity is so high that clocks tick almost twice as slow, every particle has only half the outside rest mass without this fact being locally detectable. This mass-change result, implicit in a dissertation of a co-worker submitted in 2005, represents the main content of a 2007 paper accepted for publication by the journal Chaos, Solitons and Fractals [1]. The same result was independently derived two years later by Richard J. Cook of the Air Force Academy [2]. It finally was obtained on the highest level of technical sophistication by a specialist who wants to remain anonymous while insisting that all credit go to the late Arthur Komar [3]. A maximally simple derivation finally is the “Telemach theorem” [4].

Many predictions pertinent to particle collisions are overthrown as a consequence of the mass-change result. Designing new tailor-made experiments will take several years. All of this is nothing but ordinary scientific progress, taking its due time to be tested and become mainstream wisdom.

By a twist of fate, the new result happens to possess more than just academic interest. A machine that was designed to produce miniature black holes — the Large Hadron Collider of CERN — suddenly becomes the most dangerous endeavor of humankind. As familiar from similar examples in the past, the scientific community is sluggish in recognizing the significance of the situation.

Science sometimes transcends its usual boundaries by spilling over into everyday life and politics. This happens to be the case here. An experiment thought to be purely academic (except for some theoretically unexplored features of quark-gluon plasmas drawn attention to by my colleague Walter Wagner) acquires a menacing character because the most hoped-for experimental outcome suddenly possesses radically new features: black holes.

“Black holes” were so named by John Wheeler in 1968 [5] who had inherited his impishness from his mentor, Einstein. Three years later, Johnny (as his friends sometimes called him) joked that “a black hole has no hair” (in apparent allusion to a Berlin pop song from the 1920s, “Say is it true that the frog at the butt has no hair?”) — “except for three.” The remaining three hairs were: mass, angular momentum and charge [6]. Only three years later, Stephen Hawking [7] described a fourth hair brought-in by quantum mechanics (Hawking evaporation). The latter property would – he argued – drain away mass-energy, slowly emaciating every black hole until it would eventually explode (“evaporate”) on having grown maximally small – as small as the tiny black holes hoped-for at CERN.

Now, almost 4 decades later, two of the remaining four hairs prove to be clipped (charge and evaporation). This fundamentally altered situation logically requires a re-evaluation of the safety equation of the LHC experiment, since the most looked-forward-to fruits of the experiment (mini black holes [8]) have become undetectable by detectors designed on the basis of the overhauled theory. This situation represents a drawback for a lovingly set-up world-class experiment which also is the most expensive of history. Some resistance shown by the scientific community is predictably preprogrammed.

This new situation would not represent a sufficient reason to bother the world’s Security Council – were it not for the fact that the experiment has become unsafe. The undetectable miniature black holes hoped to be generated at a rate of one per second [8] will now do new things which, unfortunately, are not innocuous.

To evaluate the totally changed situation, a “scientific safety conference” was proposed in 2008, with Prince Charles who is widely esteemed for his “green thumb” as the chair. The whole issue was approached in a hope-inspired light tone [9].

But the harsh logic of real-life constraints struck. Would a public safety assessment not cause unnecessary delays and, what is more, drain away valuable public confidence? One member state of CERN’s – Austria — even announced to leave CERN, to reluctantly return after closed-door admonitions.

It goes without saying that the most awesome experiment of history — with its thousands of physicists, the cream of creams, and with all influential governments of the globe participating either as members or as accredited observers who have to contribute too — cannot easily change course. Should it really do so only because a new chapter of future textbook results has been opened up?

Any safety assessment is a double-edged endeavor. What it achieves in terms of added rationality, it jeopardizes in terms of lost planning security. So it is no wonder that there has been little enthusiasm to comply with such a request. Pascal’s logic – a very big risk deserves absolute priority – is predictably hard to enforce in the reality of a tight-budget multinational endeavor.

Does this mean that everything is in perfect order? From the point of view of bureaucracy, the answer is yes, from the point of view of safety, the answer is no. For the risk that our earth will be eaten inside out by the first sufficiently slow artificial mini black hole (anticipated to be produced in a matter of ten days [8]) can be estimated to be roughly 1:6 — a “Russian roulette” — with the added feature of the remaining time for the planet being of the order of 5 years [10]. The low estimate for the remaining time stems from the fact that an independent physical theory – chaos theory – conspires predicting that every resident miniature black hole will be turned into an exponentially growing “miniquasar” [10]. Thirdly, the final safety argument offered by CERN to the world before the new results were brought to its knowledge in early 2008 – the continued existence of neutron stars in the sky – was evaporated by another independent physical theory, quantum mechanics [11]. Thus, three totally disjoint sciences (relativity, chaos and quantum) conspire by each refusing to give the all-clear signal to be expected from at least one of them on the basis of common sense: A “trap” put to humankind by nature as it were.

After the experiment inadvertently got shrunk in half energy-wise, following an early technical accident in September 2008, the probability of earth’s being transformed into a 2-cm mini-quasar got cut in half too – from 16 to 8 percent. This still dreadful level will be reached once the experiment has attained its maximum luminosity or cumulative number of collisions.

Currently, CERN has reached one ninth of the originally planned luminosity while scheduling to reach one third by the end of the next three months [12]. If the already incurred risk thus is 0.8 percent (8÷9 = 0.8), this means that more than a quarter of the danger of 8 percent to be reckoned with will be realized by the end of October 2011. It goes without saying that every single day that the experiment is halted earlier for re-evaluation purposes is worthwhile. The single eventually lethal collision event could happen on the last day before the conference starts.

Nothing more is being asked than to have a second look. A court in Germany — the “Cologne Administrative Court” – before whom CERN was standing as a defendant on January 27, 2011 – concluded its ruling after stating that it could not override an earlier ruling by the German supreme court, on the following sentence which for some reason went unreported in the media:
THE COURT EXPRESSES THAT IT SHOULD BE POSSIBLE TO LET THE VARIOUS SAFETY ASPECTS, WHICH ALSO WERE THE SUBJECT OF THE TWO SAFETY REPORTS FROM THE YEARS 2003 AND 2008, BE DISCUSSED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF A “SAFETY CONFERENCE” [13].

I am aware that I have no right to contact you owing to my being an ordinary person only. But I stand here representing the whole scientific community and every citizen and country of the planet when I say: Please, dear Highest Delegates of Planet Earth, do endorse the request made by the Cologne Administrative Court by declaring: LET US HAVE A SECOND LOOK IMMEDIATELY.

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, http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf (second paper there). Revised version: http://ww.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf

[2] R.J. Cook, “Gravitational space dilation”, 2009, http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.2811

[3] A. Komar, “Covariant conservation laws in general relativity.” Phys. Rev. 113, 934–936 (1959), http://iopscience.iop.org/0264-9381/23/24/L01/pdf/cqg6_24_l01.pdf

[4] O.E. Rossler, “Einstein’s equivalence principle has three further implications besides affecting time: T-L-M-Ch Theorem,” 2011,
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/einsteins-equivale…t-l-m-.pdf

[5] J.A. Wheeler , “Our universe, the known and the unknowns.” The American Scholar 37, No.2, 248 (1968).

[6] J.A. Wheeler 1971, quoted in: K.S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps, New York: W.W. Norton 1994, p. 275.

[7] S.W. Hawking, “Black hole explosions.” Nature 245, 30–31 (1974).

[8] B. Giddings and S. Thomas, “High energy colliders as black hole factories: The end of short distance physics.” Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 65. 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.056010 (2002).

[9] O.E. Rossler, “A petition to CERN,” April 2008,
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/PetitiontoCERN.pdf

[10] O.E. Rossler, “Abraham solution to Schwarzschild metric implies that CERN miniblack holes pose a planetary risk.” In: Vernetzte Wissenschaften – Crosslinks in Natural and DSocial Sciences (P.J. Plath and E.C. Haas, eds.), Berlin: Logos Verlag 2009 (July), pp. 263–270 (submitted September 2007), http://ww.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf (first paper there).

[11] O.E. Rossler, “A rational and moral and spiritual dilemma.” In: Personal and Spiritual Development in the World of Cultural Diversity (G.E. Lasker and K. Hiwaki, eds.), Vol. 5, Tecumseh: The International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics 2008 (July), pp. 61–66,
http://ww.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf

[12] A. Rydd and M. Ferro-Luzzi, “Experiment’s desiderata,” slide No. 8, http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=1&sess…fId=144632

[13] Original German ending of the Cologne Administrative Court’s ruling: “Das Gericht gibt seiner Meinung Ausdruck, dass es möglich sein sollte, die unterschiedlichen Sicherheitsaspekte, die auch Gegenstand der beiden Sicherheitsberichte aus den Jahren 2003 und 2008 waren, im Rahmen einer ‘Sicherheitskonferenz‘ diskutieren zu lassen“,
http://www.juris.de/jportal/portal/page/homerl.psml?cmsuri=/…A110100233

… but am I allowed to offer to the highest board of the planet to answer to its questions?

… if he singlehandedly breaks the world-wide press curfew surrounding the fact that CERN continues with a potentially earth-jeopardizing experiment despite the official request by a court last January to first allow for a scientific safety conference.

The story of “Our Last Hour” (Sir Martin Rees) has a latest twist. Since CERN cannot muster a single scientific argument or a single renowned scientist to defend its use of force against scientific evidence, it recruited a gang of anonymous science kids to defend its cause by pretending to ask a scientific question which, if taken seriously, would have destroyed the scientific reputation of their only planet-widely visible adversary.

The Telemach theorem, which pits Einstein against CERN, was to be discredited, not by scientific argument but by luring its proponent into taking a pseudoscientific question disguised as a genuine concern seriously: If the size ratio between two fingers says something about the ratio between two little guys, what is the ratio between one finger and one guy?

The media cannot understand, of course, but every citizen on the planet will. Science has lost its credit by visibly misleading the planet – unless CERN apologizes immediately for its onslaught on everyone’s life. The two fingers become a world-wide symbol.

From: Otto E. Rossler
To: “[email protected]“
Cc: “[email protected]” ; “[email protected]“
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 2:52 PM
Subject: shortest-term survival

Dear Mr. Secretary, dear UN Security Council:

Did you pay attention to this public appeal made to you?

Public Appeal to the Executive President of the Security Council, Dr. Guido Westerwelle

In deep respect,

Sincerely yours,

Otto E. Rossler, Austrian chaos researcher, University of Tubingen, Germany

Why does CERN continue refusing the scientific safety conference demanded by a Cologne court last January? Insiders say it is Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation – a 38 years old hypothesis – was disproved 4 years ago by the gothic-R theorem of general relativity, followed in 2010 by the simpler Telemach theorem of the equivalence principle, and independently by the 2009 paper “Gravitational space dilation” by professor Richard J. Cook of the U.S. Air Force Academy.

CERN’s only defense consists in not quoting those findings known to it since early 2008 and in never updating its already fraudulent safety report of late 2008 – a reproach it accepts ever since.

The UN Security Council has been asked to enforce the logically necessary scientific safety conference before CERN may or may not continue with its according to current knowledge earth-jeopardizing nuclear experiment.

I am waiting for the Security Council’s decision and so does the whole of humankind.

Pascal claimed: When the size of a potential punishment is infinite, any finite advantage gained by taking the risk is stupid.

CERN does not dispute that the so far un-disproved Telemach theorem predicts that its currently running LHC experiment will shrink the planet to 2 cm in perhaps five years’ time with a finite probability (8 percent?).

But CERN refuses since January 27, 2011 the “scientific safety conference” requested by a court to disprove the danger if possible, and continues instead.

Pascal would say that this behavior is incompatible with reason. Is there any citizen on the planet not being an employee of CERN who agrees with the logic of CERN? For example, a member of the UN Security Council?

For J.O.R.

Science requires trust and doggedness, not reproduction. I got introduced to it by Lennartz, Bertalanffy, Weizsäcker, K. Lorenz, Rosen, Winfree, Yamaguti, E. Lorenz, Wheeler, Birman.

1) BIOGENESIS: Life as a self-improving fire (in parallel with Stu Kauffman); as an Erdös growing automaton (in parallel with Joel Cohen); as a Teilhard-Prigogine attractor

2) WELL-STIRREDNESS: Liquid finite automata

3) NP-COMPLETENESS: Traveling-salesman-with-alarm-clocks problem; Gödel as a limit; spatial Darwinism; positional adaptation (unlike metabolic adaptation) is predictable; brain equation

4) HUMANUM: Smile-laughter indistinguishability in a single species; Pongo goneotrophicus; invention of the suspicion of benevolence by the human toddler; epigenetic personogenesis (a function change in the mathematical sense of Bob Rosen); jump to Point Omega; acoustic smile therapy of primary autism; “galactic export” of personhood to other bonding species endowed with mirror competence (including artificial brains)

5) CHAOS: New attractors; chaotic hierarchy; nowhere differentiability on a Cantor set; superfat attractors; transfinite invertibility (Anaxagoras) confirmed; out of gratitude to Anaxagoras, his adopted hometown Lampsacus was later declared “hometown of all persons on the Internet” (1994)

6) PLANCK’S CONSTANT: A first explanation of h offered (based on the Sackur-Tetrode action in conjunction with classical indistinguishability); fever test in the spirit of von Neumann; message sending to another Everett world (with Peter Weibel); cession twin of action

7) EINSTEIN’S CONSTANT: A first explanation of a universally constant c offered (based on Sackur-Tetrode and finite observer diameter); microscopically exact assignment conditions testable

8) NONLOCALITY EXPLAINED: Einstein completion of quantum mechanics made falsifiable; combined ground-satellite Bell experiment to test whether more than one quantum world exists (similarly Feingold, Penrose, Zeilinger)

9) CRYODYNAMICS: Zwicky’s and Chandrasekhar’s “dynamical friction” re-discovered; the new science of cryodynamics as applicable to a gas of mutually attractive Newtonian/Einsteinian particles of different mass classes; sister science to thermodynamics; no Maxwellian velocity distribution; ectropic behavior; Boltzmann’s “hypothesis of molecular chaos” confirmed; connection to Poincaré homoclinicity; new open frontier

(Predicted negative implications: no big bang; no primordial synthesis; no inflation; no accelerated expansion; no dark energy; no distant origin of background radiation in confirmation of Guillaume-Assis; no nonbaryonic dark matter; no multiple universes; no modified gravity

Predicted positive implications: Giacconi’s ultra-distant quasars confirmed; fractal Fournier-Mandelbrot universe; new explanation for Pioneer anomaly; new machines in sight)

10) BLACK HOLES REVISITED: Telemach (T-L-M-Ch) theorem; black holes are non-charged; are eternally unfinished; a Reeb foliation of space-time forms around rotating black hole; in a merger of two [pre-] black holes, the larger one recycles every particle of the smaller one by ejecting it into the outer universe (analog to Ralph Abraham’s blue-sky catastrophe); topology inversion near horizon (Abramovicz) confirmed; quasars acting as charge generators; microscopic mini-quasars existing; exponential quasar growth inside matter; small black holes cannot grow inside superfluid core of neutron star; electrons can no longer be maximally small since they then would be black holes and hence non-charged (first empirical evidence of string theory); LHC danger

APOLOGY: I am not a detached observer. But I hope that the above chronological listing shows that my latest findings are not necessarily less cogent. In particular, point 10 means that the artificial black holes hoped to be produced at CERN are,

i) more likely to form,

ii) undetectable at first,

iii) growing exponentially inside earth,

iv) devoid of astronomical safety assurance.

Therefore, I implore the planet to at long last install the scientific safety conference necessary to deal with the black hole danger incurred by CERN.

I thank Dieter Fröhlich, Bill Seaman, Christophe Letellier and Andreas Scheider. (For J.O.R.)

The safety page of CERN — http://press.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html – is 3 years old. Everything written there is outdated. The scientists quoted by name and word therefore are at risk to lose their face. For their statements which are taken to represent their best reasoned opinion are misleading in case any new safety-relevant results have surfaced in the meantime.

Therefore I ask the scientists, quoted verbatim by CERN as its supporters, to update their reasoned opinions. Specifically, I dare ask the following 8 persons to update:

1) Dear Nobel Laureate Vitaly Ginzburg:

Do you still uphold your 2008 public statement that you think that any concern

“that LHC particle collisions at high energies can lead to dangerous black holes is rubbish. Such rumors were spread by unqualified people seeking sensation or publicity”?

I dare mention a recent scientific paper of mine in this context:

http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/einsteins-equivale…t-l-m-.pdf

If you allow I would love to talk to you in person since I admire your work and spirit.

2) Dear Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow:

Do you still uphold your 2008 statement that

“the risks involved in the operation of the LHC […] are merely hypothetical and speculative and contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis”

inspite of new findings that have accrued in the meantime?

3) Dear Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek:

Please, allow me to ask you the same question as Dr. Glashow, since you signed the same text.

4) Dear deeply respected Professor Stephen Hawking:

Do you still uphold your 2008 statement

“The LHC is absolutely safe”?

In particular, would you declare that Hawking radiation – the best and possibly only survival guarantee for the planet – has not been ruled out or made less likely by the Telemach theorem, quoted under point 1 above?

5) Dear Professor Penrose, dear Sir, dear Roger:

Do you still stick to the expression that

“I certainly have no worries at all about the purported possibility of LHC producing microscopic black holes capable of eating up the Earth. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for such wild speculations”?

I trust that you know my results obtained over the last three years which the original report does not reflect?

Specifically: would you agree that new evidence needs to be taken into account?

6) Dear Lord Martin Rees:

Do you still say

“There is no risk in LHC collisions, and the LSAG report is excellent”
from the basis of current developments?

7) Dear Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft:

Do you still uphold your three years old public conclusion

“We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced at the LHC”?

If so, please state why you are sure that the Telemach theorem, which proves non-evaporation and non-chargedness of black holes, is false. (In our E-mail correspondence for which I thank you, you dropped out when I asked you this question.)

8) Dear Professor Hermann Nicolai of the Albert-Einstein-Institute:

Are you still upholding, after having seen the new Telemach paper which as you know profited from a discussion we had in 2009, your three years old opinion that
“Rossler’s argument is not valid: the argument is not self-consistent”?

Coda:

I was emboldened toward bringing up these questions by the Administrative Court of Cologne’s official appeal to the German minister of science to convene a “scientific safety conference.”

Since time is running out as the “luminosity” (the danger-determining parameter) is being increased every day at CERN, I ask the 8 distinguished scientists to give their public answers as soon as possible.

Otto E. Rossler, Chaos researcher, university of Tubingen

Lease, give a statement to the effect that the planet’s short-term survival is NOT threatened by CERN’s currently running LHC experiment. There is un-disproved scientific evidence that to the contrary. Thank you.

Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen, Germany