Feb 10, 2011

New Implication of Einstein’s Happiest Thought Is Last Hope for Planet

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Einstein saw that clocks located “more downstairs” in an accelerating rocket predictably tick slower. This was his “happiest thought” as he often said.

However,as everything looks normal on the lower floor, the normal-appearing photons generated there do actually have less mass-energy. So do all local masses there by general covariance, and hence also all associated charges down there.

The last two implications were overlooked for a century. “This cannot be,” more than 30 renowned scientists declared, to let a prestigious experiment with which they have ties appear innocuous.

This would make for an ideal script to movie makers and for a bonanza to metrologists. But why the political undertones above? Because, like the bomb, this new crumb from Einstein’s table has a potentially unbounded impact. Only if it gets appreciated within a few days time, all human beings — including the Egyptians — can breathe freely again.

This appreciation is vital for the planet — before the LHC machine at CERN will be re-ignited within a matter of days. No one at CERN disputes that the finding radically alters the safety equation. They only claim that the result is “absolute nonsense” and not even worth being discussed publicly.

CERN says “zero risk” of the planet getting shrunk to 2 cm in perhaps five years time — I say “8 percent risk” if the machine continues. This clearly deserves a mediating conference — as a judge strongly advised CERN on January 27, 2011 at a court hearing in Cologne, Germany (13 K 5693/08).

To insist on clarification about the “ultimate slow bomb at CERN” is a logical necessity. Is any couple in love or any parent NOT joining me in demanding the public safety conference before it is too late?

Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher, University of Tubingen, Germany (For J.O.R.)


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Samantha Atkins says:

    Not only is this unsubstantiated alarmist writing, there is not even a link to anything that may begin to substantiate it. Why is this here?

  2. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Dr. Atkins: Sorry I forgot to point to my other blog here where the connection to the substantial literature is a bit more visible. I apologize to you and everyone if my alarmist tone turns out to be unjustified as I still hope it can be shown to be — by disproving my Telemach theorem, for example. Do you know someone who could be of help?

  3. Richard Kane says:

    Einstein’s theory relate to only one of dangers of the Hadron Collider. Since micro black holes might be overwhelmed when consuming heavy objects. The helium coolant in the collider might be a very friendly place for them to grow. If they continue on straight ahead at collider speed like some supporters assert it isn’t going at the speed of light so hitting the sun could turn the sun into a black hole, even if like collider supporters assert only a Neutron start could stop a normal micro hole, traveling at the speed of light. Whatever the odds of this causing a disaster, constantly doing dangerous research in situations where the entire earth is the laboratory will likely rather than possibly lead to doom. New dangeous experiments are being proposed every day,…known.html

    If the world survives it will because we managed to have enough time to learned to honor caution the way we now honor ecology. When the US was founded it honored taming the wilderness, not preserving it. Even if we luck out a second time, Otto Rossler, your help in teaching the world caution is greatly needed.

    The first time we lucked out was when soldiers at the first atom bomb project were taking bets whether it would destroy the earth or not. A more lengthy version of this letter is at your earlier post.

    Richard Kane

  4. Otto E. Rossler says:



    COLOGNE, February 22 — As the world’s largest atom smasher prepares to
    restart after a two-month break, a German court has called for the
    German Government to convene a conference on the collider’s potential

    After an intensive three-hour court hearing in Cologne, the Presiding
    Judge, Hans-Martin Niemeier, declared, “The Court has expressed its
    opinion that it should be possible to discuss the various safety aspects
    that have been the subject of the two safety reports from 2003 and 2008,
    within the framework of a safety conference.”

    The hearing featured a debate between Germany’s leading critic of the
    LHC, Prof. Otto E. Rössler, and two scientists representing CERN, Dr.
    Voss and Dr. Ringwald. CERN contended that it had proven that the
    Geneva-based Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is completely safe. Critics of
    the collider, on the other hand, pointed to flaws and contradictions in
    CERN’s safety arguments for the possible production of black holes and
    exotic new forms of matter.

    The Cologne Court’s pronouncement is a remarkable turn of events for the
    international campaign to stop the LHC. An earlier case filed in Hawaii
    had been dismissed by American courts on a legal technicality, and a
    previous request for an injunction against the LHC was turned down last
    year by Germany’s highest court. The Cologne Court’s statement is the
    first time a court has called for specific measures to be taken to
    investigate the collider’s safety.

    The Court did not, however, agree to the plaintiff’s request to restrict
    the operation of the LHC. The Court argued that the plaintiff, Gabriele
    Schröter, a German citizen residing in Switzerland, had presented
    dangers which were still only theoretical.

    The plaintiff’s attorney, Olaf Möhring, responded that, “This reasoning
    is not convincing at all since, in this very case, the safety reports
    themselves also rely on mere theories.”

    Möhring further pointed out that CERN’s main argument comparing the
    LHC’s experimental conditions with naturally occurring cosmic ray
    collisions was deeply flawed. He noted that, “Differences between the
    two are so obvious that even a layman could detect them,” and called for
    the Court to enforce the “precautionary principle”. Möhring stated
    that they are planning on appealing the Court’s legal ruling.

    Nevertheless, the plaintiffs were encouraged by the Court’s
    recommendations. Möhring said that, “The Court has given a strong new
    signal that cannot be ignored by the German Government or even CERN.”

    # # #

    For more information, contact:

    Olaf Möhring
    Gilliand & Collegen Rechtsanwälte
    Heinz-Nixdorf-Straße 20
    D-41179 Mönchengladbach, Germany
    Tel: +49 2161 57329–00
    Fax: +49 2161 57329–01
    E-mail: [email protected]