Prof Rossler's letter to Dr Landua - English translation

For English speakers like myself, who missed the earlier relevant posts..

After an enquiry of mine to Prof Rossler about his visit to CERN, it was helpfully suggested by Otto to check over any (auto)translation I could get from Otto’s blog below.

This is a translations of the blog http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/2010/01/16/p1468 which is the letter from Prof Rossler to Dr Landua.

My thanks to Otto for his assistance.

——
January 11, 2010

Dear Dr. Landua:

Thank you for your willingness to receive me for an official conversation in the name of CERN on coming Thursday, January 14. This is particularly fair on your part as I had publicly reproached you for having disavowed before a public audience a safety-relevant result obtained by you and me (the experimental decidability of my proposed frictionlessness of superfluid neutron stars toward fast uncharged particles, through investigating the differential cross section of neutrinos passing through superfluid helium and liquid helium in an experiment only possible at CERN).

Your and my way of thinking are very different, but from this often the best friendships arise.

Basically, I have but a single result to present to you as I already tried to do on July 4, 2008. Let me put it this way: Global conservation of angular momentum – also across the boundaries of inertial systems. Hence also between “upstaris“ and “downstairs“ in a gravitational field.
A horizontally rotating frictionless spoked wheel that has been carefully lowered in a gravitational field is known to rotate more slowly downstairs. But after being carefully hauled-up again it predictably sports the former angular momentum. Hence angular momentum has been conserved all the time (and could have been exchanged across the height difference). Therefore downstairs the law “L = m times omega times r-squared = const” (angular momentum equals mass times rotation frequency times radius-squared) must still have held true. Hence, since omega (the rotation rate) was reduced downstairs, m and/or r must have been changed, too, to keep L constant. Actually, mass m went down in proportion to omega while the radius r went up by the same factor (as can be derived from the Bohr radius formula of quantum mechanics in an independent manner).

This change in all radii r in a gravitational field [being masked in the transverse direction much like Lorentz contraction] is a revolutionary finding in general relativity. It is already implicit in a publication by former president of the Canadian Physical Society Paul Marmet of 1997, as I learned from Theodor Haensch. It is confirmed and explained by my Gothic-R theorem of the Schwarzschild metric.

Very briefly: You are familiar with the expression for the speed of light further down in a gravitational field. The value valid very far outside (dr/dt = c) gets more and more reduced toward the horizon, dr/dt –> 0. Nevertheless everywhere dR/d(tau) = c, where R is the locally valid so-called radial distance and tau the local proper time, as is well known. Both these observables “float” in the external coordinate system. However, there exist two further meaningful speeds of light that do not float: d(Gothic R)/dt = c and dr/d(capital Tau) = c. Hence one can force c to remain constant, not only locally (as holds true with R and tau) but globally: see the last two equations. Hereby either the external time t is given an [almost] ontological status or so is the external distance r. Yet only one of these two cases (the former) conforms meaningfully to reality, as shown in my paper on the Gothic-R theorem.

The surprising differential-geometric consequence: a finite spherical surface area can enclose an infinite volume (“antifractal”). This new situation – that there exists an infinite volume of space around a black hole as you come closer – is just the converse to the well-known case of a “fractal” (where an infinite surface area surrounds a finite volume).

The new “gothic” change of radius as a function of height has physical consequences. The distances valid from the outside, toward and from the horizon, become infinite in accord with the light travel time. The horizon becomes “truly” (and not just for light) infinitely far removed. It is for this reason also never completely finished in outside time. And of course, nothing can get in or escape from it in finite outside time – as falsely presupposed in the derivation of Hawking radiation. Moreover, the quantum cells in the vicinity of the horizon do retain their time-reversal symmetric behavior, also for pairs of virtual particles arising out of nothing and vanishing together. This, too, is in contradistinction to what has been assumed in the derivation of Hawking radiation – so that the latter ceases to exist. (There is also no Unruh radiation since the latter violates the principle of general covariance [since a freshly falling and a coincident stationary observer allegedly make differing measurements].)

With the obtained nonevaporation result for black holes, the first and paramount security argument of CERN’s has evaporated.

The second equally incisive physical implication of the Gothic-R theorem is an asymptotic loss of rest mass of any in-falling body (m –> 0 as r –> Schwarzschild radius) while according to Birkhoff’s theorem, the total mass of the in-falling body must be conserved. This result [conversion of rest mass into kinetic energy] was recently described independently by George W. Cox. Since locally, the principle of general covariance holds true, close to the horizon not only the particle’s rest mass approaches zero as we saw, but so also does its charge [since the two are locally interconvertible in positronium annihilation]. Therefore, black holes (including almost-black holes which I first described in 1998) are necessarily uncharged.

The new unchargedness is equally revolutionary as the new lack of radiation. Along with chargedness falls CERN’s second major security argument: That mini-black holes were (in large fraction) “sticky” and hence like alpha particles would immediately get braked inside matter. As a consequence, only ultra-slow – that is, artificial – mini-black holes can possibly get stuck in the earth since being uncharged they are almost frictionless.

At the same time, the new unchargedness of black holes paradoxically increases the probability of mini-black holes being formed at CERN. For charged leptons can no longer be maximally small (as small as predicted by the Schwarzschild radius formula), for they would be uncharged in this case. Therefore string theory or a related theory are already empirically confirmed. We talked about this fact on July 4, 2008.

The factor by which the probability of black hole production at CERN is pushed up by this confirmation of string theory cannot be estimated reliably. All values in between a Schwarzschild radius of 10 to the minus 35 meters (Planck’s length) on the one hand and 10 to the minus 18 meters (the empirically unexcludable maximum value) on the other, are conceivable. This is 17 orders of magnitude over which there is empirical uncertainty.

The classic Planck radius (of 10 to the minus 35 meters) belongs to a Planck mass of 10 to the minus 5 grams or 10 to the 18 proton masses. It remains unattainable for technical civilizations. But if the Planck radius were larger by 17 orders of magnitude (at 10 to the minus 18 meters), then 10 to the 17 times fewer proton masses – that is, 10 – would be sufficient to generate a mini-black hole. This is not the case empirically; even the 1.800 proton masses (1.8 TeV) of the American RHIC have apparently been insufficient. Therefore there still remain almost 15 orders of magnitude waiting to be covered empirically if a mini-black hole is to be produced with certainty.

In the absence of further information, the aimed-for edge of collision energy of the LHC experiment over that of the RHIC of a factor of 8 (about one order of magnitude) would create a black hole with a probability of 1:15 [since 15 orders of magnitude have an equal chance each]. With the added bonus from string theory due to the new lack of charge, the probability gets pushep up once more by a factor of 2 perhaps. With this, the LHC of CERN adopts the probability of a Russian roulette – about 1:6 – to produce a slow miniblack hole to get stuck inside the earth, or else millions of them with a single stucker, as we discussed at the mentioned fourth of July.

The final “rearguard action” argument of CERN’s – that at least the ultra-dense neutron stars should be put in jeopardy by the natural analogues in contrast with empirical fact, was already solved by us in our last conversation (as mentioned: the superfluidity experiment at CERN).

Hence nature appears to give CERN a decent handshake as far as the goal of producing artificial black holes is concerned.

This favorable prospect has a dark corollary: the further fate of the with probability 1:6 generated ultraslow mini-black holes inside earth. Whereas so far, only relativity and quantum mechanics were at stake, here the third basic physical science, nonlinear dynamics or chaos theory, comes into play for the first time. There seem to be no specialists left at CERN. When addressing the problem of the further fate of a mini-black hole captured inside earth, the question of its growth rate inside earth is decisive. Is it nonlinear? The famous giant natural black holes inside quasars do grow exponentially in the presence of a constant food supply. These objects represent highly interesting nonlinear machines. The new property of charge-annihilation by the central black hole lets many properties of these magnetogravitational dynamos become transparent for the first time. They necessarily come in all sizes. In my paper sent to CERN two months before discussed with you last time (and published the same month) this issue is already addressed. The temporal estimate “50 months” until the end of the terrestrial eating binge, given there, remains extraordinarily rough.

I come to the closing pledge for our scientific dialogue to be continued face to face in a few days: All I am asking from my esteemed colleagues at CERN for years is the grace of giving me the “benefit of the doubt.” Please, do refute my arguments attesting to a grave danger BEFORE you act.

The since April 2008 publicly demanded scientific safety conference ("PetitiontoCERN") has been procrastinated up until now. Instead you have in the meantime – actually, during the last 4 weeks – already realized 4 percent of the planned total increase in energy of one order of magnitude with an attendant “Ground Zero” risk of 1:6. This amounts – unless you have a compelling argument up your sleeve which I beg to reveal to me in our coming conversation – already to 0.6 percent Armageddon risk, put up with by CERN and yourself. Why?

I herewith politely urge CERN to refrain from running the experiment at more than 1.8 TeV until my chain of proofs which attests to a sizable danger has been punctured for good. And to apologize for the premature action taken last month.

Conversely, I for my part apologize for any harsh words I may have uttered in my zest to avoid disaster at the last moment. Science is friendship. Please, prove me wrong and continue thereafter!

Cordially yours,

Otto E. Rössler
(translated from the German on 09.02.10)
——