Otto E. Rossler | Seven New Features of Black Holes Impart an Uncanny Risk on the LHC

Seven New Features of Black Holes Impart an Uncanny Risk on the LHC

Otto E. Rossler

Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tubingen, F.R.G.

Abstract

     The most recent chapter in the fascinating story of black holes is offered. Johnny Wheeler’s witty profundity in the footsteps of his mentor Einstein still shines through. The “no-hair theorem“ is clipped from 3 to 2 surviving “hairs“ (mass and angular momentum remain, charge goes). And an unbelievable oversight of the scientific community maintained for 7 decades is exposed: an infinite slow-down of infalling astronaut clocks so that horizons become effectively unreachable. The other five new features are: nonevaporation; threshold reduction; exclusive risk to earth; quantum protection of neutron stars; and exponential growth inside matter. An attempt at falsifying this 7-link chain in at least one element is encouraged as a precondition for the Large Hadron Collider’s planned second start.

Black holes carry a funny name – John Wheeler had thought about the latter for half a year while dropping every other activity. Later on he added the witty “no hair theorem“ to further boost their popularity (after a pop song from Einstein’s Berlin time “Say – is it real‘ true – that the frog at the ass has no hair?“ – I apologize). There exist many sci-fi stories and even crime novels about black holes. Seven new features are to be offered in the following which taken together could give one the impression of conspiring against humankind. Fortunately, however, disproving a single one will suffice to break the chain and with it the dangerous spell.

First chain link: “Unapproachability in finite time“
     The fact that light takes an infinite time to reach the horizon (the surface) of a black hole, and equally long back up, is well known: “infinite radar distance“ [1]. Astronauts take twice as long to plunge down and bounce up again (if a hard trampoline is assumed suspended on the horizon that miraculously does no harm despite the imparted infinite acceleration). This infinite delay is in principle acknowledged in the literature [2,3]. Amazingly, it nevertheless got suppressed somehow from physicists‘ consciousness. The obvious reason for that is Oppenheimer and Snyder’s famous finding that the proper infalling (as well as rebouncing) time is finite and quite short: From the surface of a collapsing star it makes up only about one day [4]. However, the same proper infalling-plus-rebouncing time of two days bridges an infinite time span on the clock of anyone wating on the departure-and-arrival level.. This fact is trivial to demonstrate
(astronauts cannot overtake light). It follows that an infinite slowdown of the astronaut’s clock is responsible for the infinite difference between the travel time of two days and the infinite waiting time outside. This fact – that we here ss an extremal case of Einstein’s famous twin-clocks paradox – got overlooked by the scientific community for 7 decades [4]. Note that an infinitely slowed-down clock allows any infinite distance to be bridged in finite proper time. Thus, the finite link between horizon and outside world traditionally assumed in the wake of the Oppenheimer-Snyder result unfortunately ceases to be physical.

Second chain link: “Unchargedness“
     Charge was one of the three hairs still found left on the horizon’s bald pate by name-giver John Archibald Wheeler. The traditional belief that charge eaten by a black hole continues to make itself felt in the outside world is supported by a famous theorem from electrostatics (Gauss-Stokes) [6]. The theorem proves a constant overall density of field lines on a closed outer surface surrounding an inside charge – no matter what happens internally (including the possibility that the charge gets eaten by a likewise contained black-hole). What thereby got overlooked is a new fact: The field lines become weakened by redshift. Otherwise – if charge were not proportionally reduced relative to the outside world by the local redshift factor –, the principle of local mass-charge equivalence in positronium annihilation and creation would cease to hold true in a redshifted region in violation of general covariance. Any stationary mass is decreased
downstairs in a gravitational field in proportion to the local redshift factor [7] (cf. [6], p. 137). Hence charge, too, approaches zero at the horizon [8].

Third chain link: “Nonevaporation“
     Hawking’s beautiful evaporation prediction for black holes [9] presupposes a finished horizon and finite escape times – in violation of point # 1 above. Hence Hawking evaporation becomes unphysical. Alternatively speaking, Hawking radiation persists but is infinitely delayed and infinitely weakened [8,10].

Fourth chain link: “Threshold reduction“
     14 trillion electron volt (14 TeV), the collision energy of two protons in the Large Hadron Collider, does not suffice for black-hole formation according to classic calculations. String theory reduces the threshold dramatically [11]. Yet so far, no strings nor loops have ever been observed empirically (with the possible exception of an anomaly in positronium decay [12] which could be interpreted as a finite electron diameter). This situation changes with point # 2 above: The new “unchargedness“ entails that electrons cease to be potential point particles – as could be assumed up until now. For if they were point masses, they would have to be black holes and hence uncharged. Therefore, strings or loops must exist already. In consequence, the mini-black holes predicted to arise in the LHC experiment on the basis of string theory [11] become dramatically more likely [8].

Fifth chain link: “Exclusive risk to earth“
     Only earthlings can produce “almost zero-momentum miniblack holes.“ This is because nature’s own analogous products – generated by ultra-fast cosmic-ray protons colliding with stationary protons on the surface of celestial bodies – invariably possess near-luminal speeds owing to momentum conservation. Taking into account their unchargedness (point # 2), the ultrafast natural cousins have no chance to get stuck inside the earth [13]. Only the slowest human-made cousins can get trapped inside earth. All other celestial bodies are exempt from the same danger (for the special case of neutron stars, see the next point).

Sixth chain link: “Quantum protection of neutron stars“
     If only human-made ultra-slow mini-black holes pose a threat to earth by getting stuck, their natural-borne ultra-fast cousins should still get stuck in neutron stars owing to the latter’s ultra-high density. Neutron stars should therefore no longer exist apart from the most recently born in contradistinction to empirical reality, if miniblack holes exist and pose a threat. This is CERN’s strongest safety argument. But, alas, neutron stars happen to be protected by quantum mechanics: Their well-known superfluidity prevents any friction from being exerted on a fast uncharged miniparticle entering – so that it will not get stuck but passes through innocuously. This quantum prediction [13] can be tested (falsified) empirically on superfluid helium in the lab [14]. The experiment can only be done at CERN since the latter harbors the largest amounts of superfluid helium world-wide. If ever an unknown aspect of a major experiment could be
pre-tested in a safe pre-experiment, this is a case in point.

Seventh chain link: “Exponential growth inside matter“
     This is a result from chaos theory. Black holes in quasars and microquasars accrue matter exponentially as is well known (cf. [15]). They do so by forming a chaotic Kleiner attractor (see [16–18] for this notion in phase space). More specifically, a quasar represents a “rotation-symmetric Kleiner attractor“ implemented in real space [19]. The two celestial examples known up until now (quasars and microquasars) differ in size by a factor of one billion: one billion stellar masses vs. a single one (in a microquasar). Apart from this nine orders of magnitude difference in size, both objects look virtually identical [15]. No other comparably broad scaling phenomenon between spatially implemented attractors exists in nature. Imagine two beetles that differ, not by a factor of one hundred (as a stag beetle and a mite do) but by ten million times more! Therefore, it appears certain that the observed mass-proportional downscaling does not stop
at one stellar mass but continues down the line – with the implied pico, nano, etc. versions yet to be discovered empirically. Even a miniblack hole residing inside terrestrial matter can be expected to already form a “maximally miniaturized quasar“ – a sub-nano version of that famous electrico-gravitational engine that still waits better understamding even in its largest form. If this prediction appears implausible given the feeble strength of gravity near a miniblack hole, it is noteworthy that an extremal “boost of attraction“ occurs at this lowest level: As soon as the first charged quark begins spiraling-in, the attractive force exerted by the miniblack hole on a nearby oppositely charged quark goes up by more than 30 orders of magnitude. Thus gravity gets nonlinearly entangled with electromagnetism even on this lowest level [19]. The quantum mechanics of this “subnano engine“ represents a worthy challenge to theoretical
chemistry. If the attractor-forming principle is indeed that strong – which cannot be ruled out at the time being –, the ensuing exponential growth inside earth could endanger the planet within a matter of years [19].

This finishes the proposed 7-link chain of new results on black holes. Falsification of a single link suffices to break the spell and remove the threat to our planet. So far, no one in the scientific community has succeeded in achieving this goal by coming up with a counterproof. Nevertheless most everyone seems to regard the scientific safety conference, proposed more than a year ago for this purpose [20] as unnecessary.

Ordinarily one can rely on the common sense of many independently thinking individuals. This is why CERN could charge ahead last time. But it is a risky bet to make if a whole planet is taken hostage thereby. Historical experience teaches that relying on common belief rather than falsification is a potential survival error. What if the next generation is prevented from finding out about an error deliberately left unchecked by the previous one? Science magazine was the only scientific periodical on the planet that tried to get the story last time around – before the miraculously ill-fated 2008 LHC launch. This is why Science is offered the present imperfect manuscript. Maybe the editorial (to be attached) can already expose the decisive error hidden in one or the other of the 7 points? Note that the 7 chain links represent typical “undergraduate tasks“ that as such should be easy to disprove.
For J.O.R.

References

[1] Foster, J. and Nightingale, J.D., A Short Course in General Relativity, 3rd edn. New York:
Springer-Verlag 2006, p. 130.

[2] Novikov, I., Black Holes and the Universe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1990. Quote
(p. 24): “Radio waves will travel infinitely far to the gravitational radius [horizon] and will never
return to the observer who sent them.“

[3] Thorne, K.S., Black Holes and Time Warps – Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy.. New York: W.W.
Norton 1994. Quote (p. 294): “When an infinite amount of external time has passed, the
[infalling] particle has experienced only a finite and very small amount of time.“

[4] Rossler, O.E., Overlooked twin paradox in Oppenheimer-Snyder theory – greatest oversight and
risk of history. (Submitted to Nature.)
Text included in: www.nature.com/news/2009/090508/full/news.2009.459.html
Original 1-page manuscript on: www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/overlooked.pdf

[5] Oppenheimer, J.R. and Snyder, H., On continued gravitational contraction. Phys. Rev. 56, 455-459
(1939).

[6] Wald, G., General Relativity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1984, p. 89, 433.

[7] Israel, W., Gedanken experiments in black hole thermodynamics. In: Black Holes: Theory and
Observation. Springer Lecture Notes in Physics 514, 339-363 (1998). Quote (p. 355): “The
gravitational … redshift factor … recalibrates locally measured mass and work to energies available
to an observer at infinity.“

[8] Rossler, O.E., Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: “Â-theorem“ demonstrated
in Schwarzschild metric (revised version).
Since January 2009 on: www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf

[9] Hawking, W.S., Black hole explosions. Nature 248, 30-31 (1973).

[10] Rossler, O.E., Gebhardt, H. and Fröhlich, D., Lack of Hawking radiation in the Rindler metric.
(Submitted to Z. Naturforsch. a)

[11] Dimopoulos, S. and Landsberg, G., Black hole production at the LHC. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87,
161602 (2001).

[12] Westbrook, C.I., Kidley, D.W., Gitley, S., Conti, R. and Rich, A., New precision measurements
of positronium decay reveal discrepancy with theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1328-1331 (1987).

[13] Rossler, O.E., 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, p. 61-
66. Tecumseh, Ontario, Canada: The International Institute for Advanced Studies in Systems
Research and Cybernetics (IIAS) 2008.
Since May 2008 also on: www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf

[14] Rolf Landua, CERN (personal communication July 4, 2008).

[15] Begelman, M. and Rees, M., Gravity’s Fatal Attraction. New York: Scientific American Library
1996, Chapters 6 and 9.

[16] Kleiner, N., The deterministic chaos in experiment (in German). In: Komplexität und
Selbstorganisation (H. Krapp and T. Wägenbaur, eds.), p. 259. Munich: Fink 1997.

[17] Kleiner, N., Fischer, S. and Fröhlich, D., A new type of chaotic attractor. Z. Naturforsch. 53 a,
265-266 (1998).

[18] Fischer, S., Weiler, A., Fröhlich, D. and Rossler, O.E., Kleiner attractor in a piecewise-linear C1
system. Z. Naturforsch. 54 a, 268-269 (1999).

[19] Rossler, O.E., Abraham-solution to Schwarzschild metric implies that CERN miniblack holes
pose a planetary risk. In: Vernetzte Wissenschaften – Crosslinks in Natural and Social Sciences
(P.J. Plath and E.C. Hass, eds.), Berlin: Logos Verlag 2009; pp. 263-270.
Since early 2008 also on (as first of two papers, the second being first version of ref. [8]):
www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf

[20] Rossler, O.E., A Petition to CERN. www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/PetitiontoCERN.pdf