Otto E. Rossler
Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tubingen, Germany
A bird’s eye view is presented on the most recent scientific scandal or thriller, respectively. It contains all the elements of a blockbuster movie: A still young Einstein, a maverick outlaw astronomer who made many important discoveries, a chance to save the world by pure thinking, a matter-of-fact Nobel Prize, a whole establishment brimming with suppressed rage, and a big twinkling smile in one eye. Maybe this paper is too attractive to ethically warrant distribution?
(August 3, 2015)
You can observe it every day: The nonsense of the Big Bang and the nonsense of Evaporating Black Holes: two dogmas reigning for 9 and 4 decades, respectively. It amounts to an incredible waste of talent and time on the part of the young generation – in case I am right with my reproach that this represents an ideology-borne lack of collective sharpness. But what about the added epitheton “lethal” of the title?
The LHC at Geneva neatly bundles both modern superstitions (BB and EBH). The monolithic dogmatism of the CERN experiment offers the best illustration, with its many billions of dollars invested into unprecedented symmetric particle collisions as they have never occurred anywhere else in the cosmos. The extreme energy densities produced are earnestly hoped to generate ultra-slow micro black holes down on earth.
Only that the hoped-for success will be undetectable – until it is too late. “Too late” refers to a few years’ time. This is because in the absence of Hawking’s evaporation hypothesis, the black holes generated can only grow once it is inside our earth. And they will do so exponentially – with a suddenly arising end phase.
This looks like an interesting Sci-Fi scenario: two big blunders and the justly entailed punishment. But such things – convergences of bad luck – do not happen in reality, do they?
This is what everybody thinks at CERN where they do the experiment in a group of ten thousand active scientists as mentioned. Common sense guarantees that two blunders are unlike to come together. This is a reassuring thought. And does not the money-controlled modern “consensus system” in science guarantee the absence of major mistakes? And finally: do we not have to live with a minimal atomic risk anyhow so a second is in principle acceptable?
Thus, most likely, the two mentioned alleged findings of cryodynamics and c-global are both figments of the imagination – like those of many other crackpots. Especially older crackpots can be very insisting.
Yes, but in old age you also have more female hormones and hence can be more benevolent, and you also have less to lose. So maybe a few words of an attempted rebuttal of your nightmare alluded to above would be justified?
I do not request that much from CERN. I only point to the fact that the most expensive peace-time experiment of history has just doubled its cosmic-record localized energy density on a single celestial body in the universe, 8 weeks ago on earth. And this is being done without a prior update of the experiment’s official Safety Report LSAG of 2008. But science has gone on.
This reveals that the experimenters are afraid of the truth. It is nothing but this tiny bit of information open to the public which proves that something sinister is going on here.
Of course, this may all be an accidental blunder. No one is obliged to respond to scientific crackpottery – which the alleged return to the less than 32 years old Einstein (c-global) and the return to the 31 years old Fritz Zwicky (cryodynamics) does most likely represents. The fact that the also implied new energy bonanza finds little support at Brussels and Beijing points in the same direction.
This argument sounds plausible. But why then the non-renewal of the official safety report? This is the only sound fact the public has on hand. Can crackpottery become so annoying that one rather renounces of the centuries old good practice of honest experimenting than to openly display an updated Safety Report? The latter would just have had to skirt the most spectacular safety-relevant result published in the scientific literature in the meantime. But the latter behavior (non-quotation) would be manifest fraud. So indeed a manifest reason exists which left non-updating as the more convenient strategy in the hope that the media do not jump on the publicly displayed dishonesty.
Dear public: I apologize that it is great fun indeed to return to Einstein’s sweatshop and then to add within it one little logical step which he could not possibly make in the absence of quantum mechanics. So one can understand why he was unable to remain true to his own decisive c-global of 1905 after having tried hard for 3 ½ years. This announcement made here could send a wave of scientific excitement through the young generation.
If this return implies that the purely observationally inferred Big Bang is a mirage: why not get excited even more about this outlook? As a young scientist, you do have not much to lose by embarking on a risky but potentially revolutionary endeavor. Some risk-prone thesis advisor should still prove open to your enthusiasm.
This sounds fair enough. But now, the field has become infested by the heat-laden alleged “dangerousness” of the biggest peace-time experiment of history with its ten thousand coworkers. Does this not mean that you cannot possibly embark on such a field any more, unless you do so with the professional detachment of a historian of science?
This may well be true. But then you are young. If you sense that there exists a strong tendency not to let you grab a maximally hot subject: Why not just press ahead even more? The fact that you thereby could become the literal savior of a planet should not be too discouraging in itself.
And there is an additional bonus: the whole thing is a game anyhow because the risk that your work may help avert is only in the low-percentage range if real. So you would be a reluctant savior anyhow. Does this mixed recipe for success not sound maximally attractive?
If I were 50 years younger, as you are, I would probably hesitate, too. I mean such a big piece of mental food is almost too appealing to be for real. Imagine that when this is not a mental mirage, a Nobel Prize will be unavoidable for the global-c transform of the full Einstein equation. This transform already exists, but so only for a special case, the vertical Schwarzschild solution, in the 2008 preprint “Abraham-like return to constant c.” (Footnote: The full 3-D global-c Schwarzschild solution was found by Georg Slotta in his subsequent 2008 paper “Entfernungen in der Schwarzschild Metrik” – Distances in the Schwarzschild metric –, published on http://achtphasen.com a year before the achtphasen got removed from the web with all texts.)
The alternative is to jump on cryodynamics and embark on improving plasma theory and start to devise an interactive control method, based on cryodynamics for the ITER reactor of continuous hot fusion in Southern France.
There are other beautiful hot topics in science. I mention only the Zeilinger-Bell connection, and the about to be born elephant Szilamandee. But the present one is the most appealing perhaps. All it takes is a fearless spirit – for taking-on the establishment? No for the contrary: They do need your help. They wait for you to save them by being the first to successfully show that Zwicky was indeed a crackpot (as many believe but cryodynamics disproves), and that “Hawking radiation” and “firewalls” and “singularities” are no-nonsense topics as the whole scientific community believes in defiance of c-global. And don’t get confused by Wikipedia saying misleading things about c-global (c-global is not part of the reigning paradigm although this is claimed there).
Universal belief sometimes needs a refreshing when it has become too stale. Embarking on cryodynamics or on c-global is bound to make you famous also if you can save the establishment from its being haunted by these two notions. Why not look at it from this cooperative point of view? The fact that I predict that the tactic will eventually bring you back – back to proving c-global and improving cryodynamics – is just a private bet I make with myself.
This was a taxing journey like a wild-water ride: Returning to the young Einstein was the hottest part. Then came a return to Fritz Zwicky: the whole world is ready to laugh along with him (look at his always laughing face). Much money is at stake here, too. And finally, there was this pulp-magazines-like offer made to the reader to save the world from a fatal mistake no one in the establishment believes-in enough to even try and defuse it. And if this still sounds too serious-minded to you: there remains the reassuring fact that the danger alluded to lies only in the low-percentage range. So if you embark on c-global, this is only about as important as preventing a war would be, although no less sweet.
Or maybe the whole proposal is a farce that you can only enter as a game? Even in that case I would encourage you to get engaged. What could speak against giving your best, respected young reader?
Did anyone ever encounter a more attractive story? Now at the end you can ask yourself whether this is perhaps nothing but a hoax. Please, do me the favor and try and find out!