Jan 4, 2012

I Dreamed of Dying Last Night – Time Stood Still – Then the Dream-Giving Instance Let It Run Again

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Allow me to repeat a recent text:

Thank you, dear AnthonyL, for referring to my friend John Wheeler’s incredible impishness when he dared propose the name “black hole.” It took decades to become accepted in France (it long since is). They are being considered as something highly desirable by CERN who do their best to produce them even though their instruments have been proven to be blind to them when fresh.

But I do not want to skirt your important question: Einstein discovered and mentioned in his 1907 paper that c is not constant in an accelerating rocketship, and 5 years later replied to his concerned mentor Max Abraham that he would not respond to the latter’s enticement to repair this inconsistency if possible.

It is a miracle that Einstein was able to work around this weak point in his superhuman effort to make his general theory of relativity congeal. The latter – in the Schwarzschild solution – is so perfect it even formally contains the global constancy of c, as I showed in my 2007 paper on the gothic-R theorem.

The “Telemach” paper on Lifeboat, which conforms in 75 percent with results given independently in “Gravitational space dilation” by Richard J. Cook, contains an accessible proof. The latter returns to the seminal context of Einstein’s 1907 paper. Einstein had correctly seen that if you look down from the tip of his inexhaustible rocketship to the bottom, you not only see the local clocks tick lazily from above. but the reddened light is visibly crawling transversally in addition. All of this holding true even though, locally, everything is unchanged down there.

This fact – that c is visibly reduced from above – explains in the (unfortunately false) standard view why light emerging from the surface of a black hole takes an infinite amunt of time to cover the seemingly short way up. So c is crawling to a standstill much as in certain famous quantum media in the laboratory? The profession is convinced that this is the explanation and ready to bet the survival of the planet on this – false – conviction.

The solution given by Telemach is that space is proportionally expanded more downstairs in Einstein’s rocketship (or on the surface of a neutron star or on a black hole). But so in a way which is invisible in the transversal direction from above!

I struggled since 1998 with the problem. The enlightenment came when I saw that an analogous problem is well known in special relativity as it is already taught in high school: the familiar Lorentz contraction. Every object that is in fast motion is shortened in the longitudinal direction in special relativity. But locally – if you ride along – you do not notice the change: you still are your old self, in all three directions of space. But objectively you are objectively shortened for the by-standing observer as we saw so that you appear flattened (laterally unchanged) even though if you are shorter and isotropic, you ought to be shortened transversally too according to common sense.

It is the same thing in the rocketship – or on a neutron star where the factor is about two or on the black hole’s horizon where the factor is infinite. Although space is homogeneously expanded there according to Telemach (so that light takes twice as long in the transverse direction on a neutron star), this is NOT because the speed of light is halved there. What is changed is — besides the increase in all lengths – the projection! The observed crawling leaves the locally everywhere isotropic size change intact so that c is globally constant even in the transverse direction – only appearing to crawl.

I wonder if my readers can understand this. What is a tested observation so far is only that no one who invested many man years into pursuing the finest crannies of general relativity can force himself or herself into starting all over anew on so basic a level. They simply are bound to hate me (and my friends). I totally sympathize with them, and so should you.

I understand why they never gave me an occasion to explain this to them in a way they could follow: The thick “accent” which I have – outdated by more than a hundred years – when putting my findings into words is totally repugnant to them. Nevertheless if I and Richard J. Cook and some others are right, this has vital consequences for theoretical physics and for Hawking’s beautiful theorem (which he can then no longer uphold). Everything about black holes is changed, physically speaking. Imagine: an infinitely large volume of space enveloping a tiny black hole! One has to dig into this constant-c theory very deeply – which takes much time (unless you know what a “generic 3-pseudosphere” is – which only the highest boss of the Albert-Einstein Institute acknowledged knowing, my esteemed colleague Gerhard Huiskens, to immediately fall into dead silence).

The connection to our topic is that the people at CERN in a psychologically understandable way do not want and cannot afford – financially – to wait that long. So they need to trigger their bomb as long as the money is still flowing. Everyone automatically sympathizes with this fact.

Only the poor victims of Fukushima and their saintly Emperor and his equally saintly wife would not – if they were allowed to know.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. AnthonyL says:

    Professor, this item looks like a sincere effort to lay out some of your thinking on this point, but with all due respect, would it be possible for you to clarify what you have said here by summarizing it in terms which could be quoted by a journalist, and accessible to the common reader?

  2. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Can you help me make a draft? You could publish it here and we could jointly improve upon it.

  3. AnthonyL says:

    Dear Professor Rossler, I hesitate to impinge on your time but surely the first person to write a draft should be your knowledgeable self, who originated the specialist text above. Why not follow Einstein and explain it in terms which even a mere journalist can understand? Clearly your writing is up to the task, it is merely a matter of using everyday language, like the scriptwriters of NOVA or Hollywood, to explain deep mysteries of science and Nature.

    I have noticed that despite having only a computerized voice Stephen Hawking has made a practice of this trick for some time, in fact, has achieved two best sellers explaining cosmology to all comers.

    You might achieve your objective by following his lead and writing a book which would become a best seller. Is that too optimistic? I do not think so.

    Whatever you write I can certainly fix if there is anything to fix.

  4. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you — attempto — I shall try.

  5. Anthony L says:

    I don’t mean of course correcting your physics. I mean that my qualification is my ignorance, the license of every truthful journalist, to ask you to explain things which a physicist would already know in what you write.