Otto E. Rossler | Dear Young Scientists on the Planet - Only You Can Help

I am offering an instant Ph’D thesis that needs to be finished in 7 days’ time. The goal is to show that I have been wrong with my LHC warning. The world will celebrate your work more than a Nobel prize.

The question to be solved is: Which alternative way to read the famous Pound-Rebka experiment of 1960 is correct? (Light that had traveled up 22.5 meters in a tower on the Harvard campus was found to be reduced in its frequency compared to the ground by the very amount Einstein had predicted in 1907.) Now the two questions:

(1) Did the photons already start
out reduced downstairs?
(2) Or did they lose their energy
on the way up?

Both readings exist in the literature (Pound and Rebka favored the second). But only one reading can be correct. On the ground, the photons were demonstrably normal (unreduced in their frequency). But this is possibly owed to the fact that all clocks downstairs are slowed by the very factor in question, so that the lower frequency at emission could not be registered locally.

This is actually my result. If I am right, also the meter sticks downstairs are enlarged by the same factor, and so is space itself down there (a possibility first entertained by Boscovich in 1755). If so, the whole surrounding space close to a black hole - where photon wavelength becomes infinite - is infinitely enlarged itself. The well known infinite light travel time, down toward a black hole’s horizon or up from it, would then be a direct consequence of the infinite distance.

This kind of behavior is not as absurd as meets the eye. Newton ’s “pseudosphere” likewise combines a finite outer circumference with an infinite travelling distance to and from the middle (it looks like an infinitely long trumpet if embedded in 3-space).

This way of reading general relativity is implicit in Birkhoff’s theorem and is amply confirmed empirically by the G.P.S. It has the consequence that many accepted properties of black holes are false. In particular, there is no “Hawking radiation” and no “chargedness” of black holes anymore.

So far, the consensus in the scientific establishment is unshakable: Such an important finding is inconceivable after almost a century of research. There actually is no official response so far (except for the word “absolute nonsense” uttered by Jon Ellis). The only hint – posted by Hermann Nicolai – is that the usual scale transformations near black holes (Eddington-Finkelstein and Kruskal-Szekeres), which involve an infinite scale change, teach otherwise. This is correct. But unfortunately, a change of scale leaves the physics unchanged. Therefore as much as I hope for it, I cannot see a counterproof anywhere. This is why I need your help. The counterproof must be in by March 30.

What is necessary is to prove for the first time (or unearth an existing proof if there is one) that the mentioned numerical transformations represent physical reality. So that it is not true (as I say) that space is imperceptibly enlarged at the feet of a Harvard tower, and infinitely enlarged near a black hole.

This assignment is vital. For only if it works is the tantalizing 7.2 Tera electron Volts particle collisions experiment - planned to be conducted on March 30, 2010 at CERN, Switzerland - safe. A 1-to-12 probability of shrinking the earth to 2 cm in a few years’ time is the uncontested alternative.

I encourage you to put your papers on the blog www.achtphasen.net .

Prof. Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen , Germany . For J.O.R. (March 23, 2010)