Jun 21, 2012

Rest-mass Nonconservation in Special Relativity’s Equivalence principle and Ehrenfest Disk (Minipaper)

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

by Otto E. Rössler, Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tübingen, Germany

Abstract: An unfamiliar result in special relativity is presented: non-conservation of rest mass. It implies as a corollary a resolution of the Ehrenfest paradox. The new result is inherited by general relativity. It changes the properties of black holes. (June 21, 2012)

Rest mass is conserved in special relativity in the absence of acceleration. Under this condition, the well-known relativistic increase of total mass with speed is entirely due to the momentum part of the total-mass formula, so rest mass stays invariant as is well known. However, the presence of acceleration changes the picture. Two cases in point are the constant-acceleration rocketship of Einstein’s equivalence principle of 1907, and the rotating disk of Einstein’s friend Ehrenfest 5 years later.

First the Einstein rocket:

If light emitted from a point close to the tip of the constantly accelerating rocketship arrives with its finite speed at the bottom, it is blueshifted there because the bottom has in the meantime picked up a constant upwards speed. This at first sight absurd implication of special relativity was spotted by Einstein in 1907 in a famous mental tour de force. The arriving photons possessed their higher frequency from the beginning. Since they were at equilibrium with the local masses at their point of origin (think of positronium-annihilation generated photons being used), all masses at their height of origin are increased by the pertinent blueshift factor with respect to the same masses residing at the bottom. The converse argument holds true in the other direction for the redshift of photons from the bottom arriving at the tip, and for the correspondingly lower relative rest mass of all stationary particles at the bottom.

Second the Ehrenfest disk:

If light emitted from a more peripheral point of the constantly rotating disk arrives at the motionless center, it is redshifted by the transverse Doppler-shift factor discovered by Einstein in 1905. Much as in the previous case, the emitted photons are locally inter-transformable with solid rest mass. The implied local decrease in rest mass entails a proportional size increase via the Bohr radius formula of quantum mechanics (the parallel size change went unmentioned in the preceding case). But this is not the end of the story: Simultaneously, Lorentz contraction holds true at the light-emitting point on the rotating disk. The two local size change factors – that of the transverse Doppler shift and that of Lorentz contraction – happen to be each other’s inverses. Since they thus cancel out (the ratio is unity), the rotating disk remains perfectly flat. This prediction, deduced from special relativity with acceleration included, solves the Ehrenfest paradox.

To conclude:

Rest mass is not conserved in “special relativity with acceleration included.” Rest mass decreases more downstairs (or outwards, respectively) in proportion to the so-called gravitational (or rotational, respectively) redshift factor. This proposed new result in special relativity is bound to carry over to general relativity. Indeed the gravitational-redshift proportional reduction of rest mass has been described in general relativity by Richard J. Cook (in his 2009 arXiv paper “Gravitational space dilation”). The non-constancy of rest mass despite the fact that it appears locally un-changed has a tangible consequence: it affects the properties of black holes. The implications are incisive enough to let a currently running attempt at producing black holes on earth appear contraindicated from the point of view of planetary survival. This fact makes it desirable to find a flaw in the above chain of reasoning. (For J.O.R.)


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. TRMG says:

    Rössler in another thread referring to this blog post: “P.S. I cordially invite TRGM to find the hoped-for flaw in my maximally primitive (special-relativistic) “Minipaper”[…]”

    Thank you, but it’s becoming tedious to explain this over and over again. It’s always the same confusion of energy and mass (right there in the paragraph about the “Einstein rocket”), and I pointed it out often enough. But instead of admitting the obvious, you “cordially invite” me to find exactly the same flaw in your latest spiel. I don’t see the point. If you were willing to address this (or any other) problem with your reasoning, you could have done so the last time around.

  2. This anonymous defender of CERN’s is unable to think geometrically — but a very good calculator. I asked him oftentimes to enter a real dialogue. He always refused.
    Nevertheless he is the best and most courageous anonymous physicist around. I renew my offer of a genuine dialogue to him. His anonymity I promised to keep.

  3. TRMG says:

    I still don’t see the point in repeating myself. Changing the modes of communication will not make your repetitive demonstrations of ignorance any more interesting.

    Why don’t you just answer here on the blog? Again, here is one flaw in the above argument: the redshift of photon energy/frequency does not imply that rest mass is redshifted too. You have no argument to support that alleged implication, although I realize that you tried to fake one by inserting the meaningless phrase “Since they were at equilibrium…” Are you still under the illusion that no one will be able to call such bluffs, or are you too incompetent to even notice when you did not understand what you are talking about?

  4. eq says:

    @TRMG: What about the “already redshifted” photon dwonstairs? :)

  5. eq says:

    “Why don’t you just answer here on the blog? ”

    Because Otto desires nothing more than a *public* and transparent discussion. :D

  6. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Correction: Ehrenfest published his first paper on the subject in 1909 already, so the phrase “5 years later” should read “2 years later.”

  7. eq says:

    Brilliant answer :D

  8. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The only thing novelty can elicit in physics today would appear to be laughter. If it is not to remain the laughter of the Boötians, some real physicist may feel tempted to add a remark here, too.

  9. TRMG says:

    And the only thing flawed logic will elicit is criticism pointing out the flaws in your logic. Stop your whiny complaints and deal with it.

  10. TRMG says:

    And also, huh?

    “the laughter of the Boötians”

  11. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I never gave a more easy to falsify result — if it is false. No one ready to try?

  12. TRMG says:

    Oh, now I get it.


    Since the German name is Böotien (not Boötien), google didn’t return anything meaningful.

  13. eq says:

    There is no novelty, Rössler. You are mistaken if you think that your every time you have not understood something your “new result” wopuld be really new. It is more likely to be nonsense.

    The flaws were pointed out again and again for years now. They are there, everyone can see them and it does not matter if you accept it or not.

  14. TRMG says:

    “I never gave a more easy to falsify result — if it is false.”

    Probably true, but the problem is not only that the result is false, but that you didn’t derive it correctly. You have to adhere to correct rules of inference when establishing your propositions, otherwise they will not be considered “theorems,” regardless of their truth or falsity.

    Starting with a (true) claim about energy, then jumping to an unrelated and false claim about “all masses,” and mumbling something about “equilibrium” in between is not considered a valid argument in science.

  15. eq says:

    For what? :D

    Rössler, you are not really considering your diffuse nonsense above being a piece of rationality or scientific reasoning?

  16. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Added in proof to Minipaper:

    Ehrenfest’s original publication is [1]. The first description in the literature of the anti-Lorentz factor appears to be [2], quoted in [3].


    [1] P. Ehrenfest, Gleichförmige Rotation starrer Körper und Relativitätstheorie, Z. Phys. 10, 918 (1909); available in English translation at: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Uniform_Rotation_of_Rigid_Bodi…Relativity

    [2] W. Greiner, Theoretical Physics, Vol. 1 out of 13: “Classical Mechanics I, Kinematics and Dynamics of Point Particles, Relativity” (in German), 7th edition. Verlag Harri Deutsch, Frankfurt am Main 2003, p. 374.

    [3] H. Kuypers, Atome im Schwerefeld nach der de Broglie-Schrödinger-Theorie – Heuristische Hinweise auf eine Massen- und Größenänderung (Atoms in the field of gravity according to the de Broglie-Schrödinger theory – Heuristic Hints at a Change in Mass and Size). Doctoral Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Chemistry and Pharmacy of the Eberhard-Karls-University of Tübingen 2005, p. 5.

  17. TRMG says:

    From the “solution” to the Ehrenfest paradox:

    “The implied local decrease in rest mass entails a proportional size increase via the Bohr radius formula of quantum mechanics.”

    This argument completely fails because a decrease in rest mass was not implied, but pulled out of thin air. Rössler, do you think that an “implication” is something that requires logical stringency or is it sufficient to mumble sciency-sounding mantras like “Since they are in equilibrium…”? How exactly does that mantra transform photon energy into rest mass?

  18. eq says:

    It is already flawed here:

    “The arriving photons possessed their higher frequency from the beginning”

  19. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear TRGM: I did mention positronium creation and annihilation, in the local rest frame. There is no pronlem here as far as I can see.

  20. TRMG says:

    The problem is that nothing about mentioning “positronium creation and annihilation,” or mumbling “equilibrium” IMPLIES a decrease of rest mass. An implication is not the same as arranging unrelated statements in successive order. It requires adherence to some rules of inference.

  21. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for the fast response. So you understand the point but not the connection to our context.
    I try: The photons generated locally (from the positronium) are to be those whose gravitational redshift — or blueshift — is at stake.

  22. TRMG says:

    There still is no implication here. You didn’t even mention “rest mass” this time. Please, try again.

  23. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I assumed that the locally at rest positronium is giving rise to the emitted photon that is redshifted or blueshifted dependent on the location (more up or more down) of the positronium.

  24. TRMG says:

    Yes, I perfectly understood that the first time. The positronium at rest decays and emits some photons. The photons’ energy is redshifted (w.r.t. an upper observer). Now where is the implication about the positronium’s rest mass?

  25. hdc says:

    Otto thinks the photons downstairs have unlimited different energies at the same time, ONTOLOGICALLY!!!

  26. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear TRMG: Thank you for asking. If the photons more down the stairs are lower in energy content down there, and have the same energy content as positronium has, down there, what is the energy content of the positronium, down there?

  27. hdc says:


  28. eq says:

    Thta is a circular and unfounded argument, Otto,if you think about it more carefully.…what hae you done in all the last years? too occupied with the writing of characterless anti-science/anti-scientist propaganda and hate speeches?

  29. PassingByAgain says:

    Rossler: you are as usual confusing mass and energy, and you systematically neglect to specify which observer measures the quantities you are referring to. You write:

    “If the photons more down the stairs are lower in energy content down there, and have the same energy content as positronium has, down there, what is the energy content of the positronium, down there”

    The energy of the downstairs photons *as measured by an observer upstairs* is smaller than the energy of the downstairs photons as measured by an observer downstairs. At the same time, the total energy of the downstairs positronium *as measured by an observer upstairs* is the sum of the positronium mass and of a negative potential energy due to the fact that the downstairs positronium sits lower in the gravitational field than the observer upstairs. Indeed, the total energy of the downstairs positronium measured by the observer upstairs is the same as the energy of the downstairs photons measured by the observer upstairs, but this does NOT imply that the mass of the downstairs positronium measured by the observer upstairs is any different from the mass of the downstairs positronium measured by the observer downstairs. Both observers agree that the total energy of the positronium is the same as the energy of the photons, i.e. that the total energy downstairs is conserved in the transition from positronium to photons. However, each observer measures a different value of the total energy downstairs. For the observer downstairs the total energy downstairs is equal to the mass of the positronium, while for the observer upstairs the total energy downstairs is smaller than the mass of the positronium, because the whole system downstairs sits lower in the gravitational field than the observer upstairs.

  30. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for coming closer. I expect TRGM to understand my point more fully.
    Do you have a counterargument to the new Ehrenfest result?

  31. PassingByAgain says:

    This is not an answer! Have you actually read anything of what I’ve written above? What’s really going on here is that you do not understand even high-school-level physics. Leave Ehrenfest alone, and provide a demonstration of your claim that the positronium rest mass changes with height.

  32. eq says:

    if Passingby failed to grasp your argument you should point out exactly where he is wrong in his text above..

    “Thank you for coming closer” is not an answer, it is almost offending. It seems you have not understood or read a single word from the text above.

  33. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear PassingBy: Thank you for your sentence (quote) “provide a demonstration of your claim that the positronium rest mass changes with height”.

    I demonstrated that the photons emitted by the positronium in its decay are redshifted. Tell me, please, why this should NOT mean that the positronium itself, which was transformed into the photons in question, is equally mass reduced.

    Thank you.

  34. eq says:

    Circular reasoning again. you are trapped, otto. Perhaps you should start to THINK instead of repeating the same sentence again and again. It is quite obvious that you have never thought about it because you were too busy with your hate texts against CERN, scientists and science itself.

  35. eq says:

    And again you have not read passingbys text.

  36. TRMG says:

    “Dear TRMG: Thank you for asking. If the photons more down the stairs are lower in energy content down there, and have the same energy content as positronium has, down there, what is the energy content of the positronium, down there?”

    *For any fixed stationary observer* the energy content is the same as that of the photons since energy is conserved. Now where is the implication for rest mass?

    PassingByAgain explains your fallacy in much more detail. You should refer to his comment above.

    As for this:

    “I demonstrated that the photons emitted by the positronium in its decay are redshifted. Tell me, please, why this should NOT mean that the positronium itself, which was transformed into the photons in question, is equally mass reduced.”

    What kind of answer do you expect?

    I demonstrated that the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 all divide 60 (suppose I did). Tell me, please, why this should NOT mean that 7 and all succeeding numbers divide 60, too?

    Well, some of them just don’t. That’s why. The number seven does not care about what you proved for any of its predecessors any more than rest mass cares about what is true for energy.

  37. Otto E. Rossler says:

    That is the evasive TRGM — a great disappointment for every reader.

  38. eq says:

    Fortunately every reader can see easily that he is in fact not evasive.

    On the other hand, you are avoiding an answer to Passing by. You cannnot think that repeating the same sentence again would be a sufficient argument or answer. The person who is clearly showing evasive behavior is you, Otto.

  39. eq says:

    “*For any fixed stationary observer* the energy content is the same as that of the photons since energy is conserved. Now where is the implication for rest mass?

    PassingByAgain explains your fallacy in much more detail. You should refer to his comment above.”

    Nothing evasive there. Otto tries to hide his own evasive behavior behind obviously wrong statements or lies like above

  40. eq says:

    Are you strong enough, to discuss passingbys text in detail, Otto? Sentence after sentence?

    Are you strong enough to point our exactly his error, if there?

    Come on! :d

  41. TRMG says:

    What exactly did I evade? I answered your question to the point. And I posed one question for you which you failed to answer so far.

    Always referring back to your premises, which are undisputed, is not helpful if it was argued that these premises do not IMPLY your assertion.

  42. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you, TRMG, for your words (quote): “Always referring back to your premises, which are undisputed, is not helpful if it was argued that these premises do not IMPLY your assertion.”

    Please, be so kind as to explain this to me — I did not understand. Can you say it more comprehensibly to me where the NONSEQUITUR that you assert lies?

  43. eq says:

    Its proen now. Otto E Rössler can not read.

  44. TRMG says:

    “Can you say it more comprehensibly to me where the NONSEQUITUR that you assert lies?”

    No, I can’t. I have no idea how to do that. Where does the non-sequitur lie in my “proof” that 7 divides 60? Obviously it must be somewhere between my premises that “1,2,3,4,5,6 divide 60″ and my fake conclusion that “7 divides 60″ too. I cannot tell you more exactly where it lies because a non-sequitur is the absence of something, namely logical stringency, which does not really have a location. You just jump to a conclusion, which is unjustified and that’s it. The energy redshift of photons does not imply that mass is equally reduced. There really is nothing more to say about that.

  45. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Quote: “The energy redshift of photons does not imply that mass is equally reduced.”

    Of course not — unless you have first agreed to the fact that the redshifted photon in question had just locally emerged from — and thereby annihilated — a given locally-at-rest mass (the positronium atom in question).

    To the best of my knowledge this had been the premise which you had left uncontradicted.

    So your claim of a nonsequitur is unfounded in my humble opinion. But thank you for trying.

  46. eq says:

    Probably Otto has not understood the term redshift…

  47. eq says:

    Where is the photon redshifted, Otto?

  48. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Please, allow TRGM to reply. He may still have something up his sleeve.

  49. eq says:

    otto, it is still your turn to show the logical stringency of your “implication”…so far you repeat the same non-sequitur again and again wihtout even showing the slightest hint of thinking. ..

    perhaps you should demonstrate your example positronium with a clear and well defined calculation.. and do not forget to differentiate between the observers. :D

  50. TRMG says:

    “To the best of my knowledge this had been the premise which you had left uncontradicted. ”

    That doesn’t change anything. Even if I add to my list the premise that “10 divides 60,” I still may not conclude that “7 divides 60.” No matter how many true statements I add, I will never reach a point where it is IMPLIED that 7 divied 60. A false statement cannot be implied by any number true statements.

    “So your claim of a nonsequitur is unfounded in my humble opinion. But thank you for trying.”

    I claim that a reduction of rest mass w.r.t. the upper observer does not follow from all the premises you stated so far. This is based on the proof that rest mass is an invariant, which shows that your assertion is wrong and thus cannot be implied by whatever true statements you list.

  51. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for your concise claim (quote): “I claim that a reduction of rest mass w.r.t. the upper observer does not follow from all the premises you stated so far. This is based on the proof that rest mass is an invariant”

    That is very clear indeed: You say you assume that the textbook-opinion that “rest mass is an invariant” is correct and that you deduce from that that I must be wrong.

    This is a very clear statement. Instead of looking at what is placed before your eyes, what you do is compare it with an authoritative book. In this way, it is impossible to argue with you.

    In the future it will be sufficient if you give book titles and chapter numbers. But thank you for having tried.

  52. eq says:

    Otto, you have nothing placed before his eyes which would imply the proof of invariatn mass to be wrong. Absolutely nothing.
    YOU have toi show the “old proof being wrong with a logical chain of arguments, starting with the same assumptions.

    Again you have not written a single line containing a logical and stringent argument. For example, demonstrate your positronium example in a calculattion.

  53. eq says:

    Ah, again: where is the photon redhifted? :D

  54. eq says:

    The Rössler-Dogma: If Rössler is not in agreement with the textbooks, the textbooks must be wrong as Otto considers himself as a kind of new Einstein who can not fail per definitionem.

    The fact that Otto is not in agreement with the books proves them wrong.

    Yes Otto, that is quite dogmatic and it is really a waste of time to discuss further with a dogmatist and impostor like you.

  55. eq says:

    Instead of looking at what is placed before your eyes, what you do is compare it with an authoritative book.

    Have you really read your own sentence?

    If TRMG comapres it with a textbook, if he quotes it, how can it be that he has not looked at it before? :D In fact, passingbyagain and TRMG have already shown in detail in this thread where your problems lie. They have not only compared it to a textbook. You prefer to ignore this or to hide behind a wall of nonsensical phrases.

    The point is that even by referring to acceptet and proven theorems he has already given a complte argument which you have to adress. Instead of looking at what he placed before your eyes (or passingbyagain before) you just state that he must be wrong because he was referring to the textbook despite the fact that you have not shown a single piece of logical stringent reasoning why the textbook should be wrong..

    Poor Otto. Asnwer to passingby, read his posting, learn about relativity and show your arguments in a formal way. (e.g. on your beloved positronium)

  56. TRMG says:

    “That is very clear indeed: You say you assume that the textbook-opinion that “rest mass is an invariant” is correct and that you deduce from that that I must be wrong.

    This is a very clear statement. Instead of looking at what is placed before your eyes, what you do is compare it with an authoritative book. In this way, it is impossible to argue with you. ”

    No, I’m not talking about textbook opinions. I’m talking about proofs. It is true that the invariance of a particle’s mass is probably proven in many textbooks. (Although I’m not aware of any book that actually bothers to prove it explicitly.) But since they clearly derive their assertions from quite easily identifiable rules of inference, I don’t have to rely on any authority to believe it. I can reconstruct the proof by myself. This is what these books place in front of my eyes. On the other hand you present nothing even remotely familiar to a proof. You just arrange a number of statements that are irrelevant to your assertion. Your reasoning basically is that “what I just demonstrated for the positronium’s energy must also be true for its mass.” But that’s not an argument. In fact it is hard to imagine something more of a non-sequitur.

    It is, by the way, an overstatement to call the invariance of rest mass a “proven theorem.” I think it is much more difficult to prove that 7 does not divide 60 from the Peano axioms. (At least for me it would be.) This should give you a perspective against what you are trying to argue here.

    “In the future it will be sufficient if you give book titles and chapter numbers.”

    Well you didn’t even care to look at the proofs that were reproduced here on this blog. It is unlikely that this would change if you knew where to find them in a particular book. Does that mean you are not interested in proofs if they contradict your non-sequiturs? That does indeed simplify matters.

  57. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dogmatic neophobia confirmed in so many sentences.

    But the blush shown is charming.

    This is the best science on the planet to date — without name and even more ideological than diamat ever was.

  58. hdc says:

    Dogmatic Rössler prefers to answer nonsense on personal level instead of adressing the presented arguments (e.g. passingbyagain yesterday).

    The core of his answers is in the end, that he can not be wrong and “old” science has to be wrong because it contradicts his “results” (despite the fact that this results are unfounded examples for non-sequitur arguments and poor reasoning).

    Every argument plasced against otto must be of course pure ideology as it is entirely impossible that otto is wrong and has simply not understood the “old” science which is still correct.

    So, Otto, if you are strong enough, adress the given counterarguments or shut up. declaring your opponents to be ideological dogmatist can not replace a careful counterargument against their arguments…and by the way, simply repeating the same sentences and statements which were countered by these arguments is not an argument at all.

    So, start to present an logical stringent argument against the criticism. So far you have failed completely.

  59. hdc says:

    So few sentences in Otto E Rössler answers confirm again and again his incompetence to formulate appropriate counterarguments.

  60. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Sweet: the paid kids are unable to follow a simple special-relativistic argument and hide their inability behind many words: diamat.

    Really no one able to give a counterargument to my above paper? I mean it would be worth the effort given the existential consequences that it entails. Right?

  61. Peter Howell says:

    The Germans have a nice word for people like Forssler (I learned it many years ago): “Wichtigtuer”!

  62. hdc says:

    The counterarguments are the sentences you are strangely avoid to address, Rössler.

    So far there was no asnwer to passingbyagain, for example. not a single line from you.

  63. hdc says:

    Peter: He is more a hochstapler than a wichtigtuer.

  64. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Simplicity reigns, dear CERN psychiatrist Howell.

  65. Bernd says:

    Mal sehen, wie gut ihr euch mit der deutschen Sprache auskennt, ihr Wichtigtuer.
    Das beschiebene Verhalten würde möglicherweise unbekannte Nichtlinearitäten nach sich ziehen.
    Wenn wir von Translationen zu Rotationen übergehen (Translation als Spezialfall der Rotation mit grossem Radius und kleinem Winkel), wäre dann zumindest der (Quanten) Drehimpuls erhalten bei veränderlicher Winkelgeschwindigkeit?


  66. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Bernd is my first ally since he gives my high-school level results the benefit of the doubt. If anyone can prove me wrong, it is him.

  67. hdc says:

    Otto, you are still ignoring the counterarguments already given in this thread. A stringent argument from your side is still missing.

    Do you really think, no one would realize this? :D

  68. Bernd says:

    Danke für die Ehre. Jetzt sind sie wohl etwas eifersüchtig.

    Noch ein kleiner Zusatz zu der Fage von vorhin: der Unterschied zwischen ruhenden und mitbewegten Beobachtern wäre vielleicht interessant.


  69. hdc says:

    Generell wäre es ja mal interessant, würde der kleine Otto mal streng benennen, welcher Beobachter was misst etc. Genau das wird ja permanent gefordert…aber er windet sich ja wie ein Aal.

    Diese Verwirrung über Begriffe wie Masse und Energie, das Vermengen von Beobachtern und so weiter sind ja der Kern seiner “Resultate”.

  70. hdc is right: He ought to care reading the above text beginning with the word rest mass.

    Yes, dear anonymous Bernd. I have no doubt that the core of general relativity will reappear in this inductive fashion, yet without the ingrained false additions made since time immemorial. (Like glossing over alleged non-singularities.)

    Richard J. Cook will be helpful to follow up. I for one prefer the high-school level that is still not fully explored. Wolfgang Rindler traveled this road for many decades. He is still a stimulating sparring partner. The horizon — his coinage — is being totally misunderstood by the whole, much too homogeneous, community: a very unhealthy situation.

  71. Bernd says:

    Dear well-known,

    ich bezweifle, ob diese Herren helfen könnten. Ich behaupte, kein Mensch kann zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt das vollständige Verständnis zu diesen paradoxen Themen haben. Die “Community” verhält sich wie ein Vogelschwarm, da erwarte ich nicht allzu viel. Hab auch keine Lust mich hier auf diese typischen Sado-Maso Spielchen einzulassen.


  72. You have my sympathy. Thanks anyway.

  73. Bernd says:

    Too much sympathy to stop now.
    What about irreducible, unbreakable, and countable natural mass quanta manifest in stable elemental particles?
    These entities can not –by definition- loose rest mass, and the sum of them is the invariant “bulk” rest mass.


  74. Thank you, dear Bernd.

    In my Telemach paper ( http://www.scribd.com/doc/82752272/Rossler-s-Telemach-paper ) I dealt with this — I believe.

    Locally, all features indeed remain untouched by virtue of the principle of general covariance.

    Yet if approaching a black hole, the rest mass of a particle goes to zero because the total mass-energy of the infalling particle (including its momentum mass) remains constant.

    Otherwise, the gravity of the same particle (assume many of them spaced regularly on a sphere to be infalling simultaneously) would not remain invariant relative to the outside world, as it is known to do.

    However, maybe you can find a mistake here?

  75. Bernd says:

    Dear Otto,

    reading http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf I found the following:
    d gR = |d rho| |d R| is familiar to me from a different context.
    |d rho| is in your paper the postulated new local size change. In the context familiar to me I would call it an interface condition for spaces with different curvature, maybe one hyperbolic, the other elliptic. In your context I would guess d rho to be the one from the hyperbolic relativistic case, and d R from the spherically symmetric Schwarzschild metric.
    Could you please check?

    Now, the interface condition (it is really harmless and violates nothing, in your case probably the invariant gothic distance) provides for a special angular dynamics that is at least interesting for me. In literature, it appears to me that is hard to find works dealing with a kind of heterogeneous mixing or aligning of spaces with different curvature. So this topic is rather exotic.

    If proper, I’ll send you more background information.
    Can you see my email address?



  76. Dear Bernd:

    Thank you for your being with your soul engaged in understanding. I believe I can guess what you mean and am interested in more, of course. (I can read an E-mail with numerals.)

    There is one specialist whom I admire who was able to generalize the gothic-R solution to 3 dimensions explicitly. His new solution involves the “Lambertsche W-Funktion” of which I had never heard before. It is in Eq.(17) of http://www.achtphasen.net/miniblackhole/Ich/Schwarzschild.pdf

    I believe this is the first explicit solution embedded in the full “generic 3-pseudosphere,” as I call the Schwarzschild metric in differential-geometric terms. But I admit to being only a beginning swimmer in such waters.



  77. Visitor says:

    Please,Otto,translate the conclusions of the user ICH to the world here that no one will miss his opinion about your claims made in the gothic R bullshit. ;)

    In fact he has disproved all your claims connected to the gothic R and presented here, for example the change of physics with the selection of certain frames of reference.… And in fact by stating again something about the “3D-generalization” of the gothic R yu admit in public you had never understood the disproof of the R by the user ICH.

    Thanks again. ;)

  78. Visitor says:

    To be more precise,Otto:To speak about a generalization implies that the original “theorem” would have been correct. This is again a nice try to change the meaning of some document into support to your case when it in fact clearly destroys your argument. Another example of your usual strategy.

    In fact the user ICH stated clearly (section 3 “Falsch” — in english: ” WRONG”) your paper being wrong. He said clearly that your “solution” is not longer the Schwarzschildmetric and so on. (Interestingly the published version of your “R” in the journal of your crackpot-friend ElNaschie is according to ICHs review still wrong — but this scientific misbehavior of your friends and yourself is another topic)

    ICH also stated already in his paper what the anothner user stated here in this cmment section above. If Rössler finds something deviating from accepted knowledge the knowledge has to be wrong because it seems tobe non-thinkable for him to be wrong — the Rössler-Dogma:
    “Nun, man muss Rössler zugute halten, dass ihm irgendwie auffällt, dass da was
    nicht stimmen kann. Wie kann er andere Voraussagen machen als die ART, wenn
    er doch nichts geändert hat? Die Auflösung dieses Rätsels ist für Gourmets:
    >Hence the above “change in semantics” is more than a mere change of words
    for once: it has tangible physical consequences. Since this cannot be the case by
    very definition, some previously accepted physical facts are bound to have been
    in error!<
    Da haben wir’s: weil seine Aussagen offensichtlich widersprüchlich sind, muss
    es so sein, dass — nein, nicht etwa dass er da was missverstanden oder sich anderweitig
    vertan hätte — die Schulphysik falsch ist.”

    The next section is named “Richtig” — “Correct“and here the user ICH does not “generalize” the gothoic R,he corrects it.For example, he already points out in the beginning of te section that Rösslers basic assumption was wrong (but he still holds them to be true as can be seen in his postings here on the blog and elsewhere) In the end he comes to the equation with the (non-defined“W-function and states:

    ““Hier haben wir nun konstante Koordinatenlichtgeschwindigkeit für radiale Lichtstrahlen,
    zum Preis einer nicht ordentlich berechenbaren Funktion W. Der Koordinatenabstand
    ℜ zum Ereignishorizont ist nun unendlich, das ist aber ohne
    physikalische Bedeutung. Man muss hinzufügen, dass wir es hier immer noch
    mit der Schwarzschildmetrik zu tun haben, nur in anderen Koordinaten. Alle
    Abstandsdefinitionen bleiben zwangsweise dieselben wie in der ursprünglichen
    Version. Wäre es anders, hätten wir hier etwas falsch gemacht. (Was, nebenbei
    gesagt, nicht ausgeschlossen werden kann).””

    The point is that he says,as Nicolai and many others before, that this formulation has no physical meaning, the choice of coordinates does not change the physics (Otto says the opposite as can be seen in his posting and comments above). Fruthermore the W-function has some problems…and so on.

    In the end we see that Rössler tries to change the meaning of the text into support fr his claims when the opposite is true.

  79. Bernd says:

    Dear Otto,

    Many thanks, I just have to smile:

    “Man müsste die direkte Bedeutung der Koordinaten , als Winkel aufgeben und z.B. vereinbaren, dass der Vollkreis nicht 360◦ enthält, sondern einen anderen, von ℜ abhängigen Wert. Nur: warum sollte man so etwas tun? Wer braucht schon konstante Koordinatenlichtgeschwindigkeit? Bleiben wir lieber bei der traditionellen Darstellung. ”

    “Ich” arrives near to the special angular dynamics interesting for me. There are many works related to chaos theory that refer to the “Lambertsche W-Funktion”, see Google.

    In your context I like the “konstante Koordinatenlichtgeschwindigkeit” and metrics, where one complete loop is different from 360° (you know how to get from a flat disc to a cone by slicing a paper disc?).

    Angular deficits are typical for loops in curved spacetime (an-holonomy, Levi-Civita, …).

    But as you know probably better than me, the Lyapunov exponents of the chaotic solution could vary with the energy scale and very likely destabilize the growing “hole”. But of course, there could also be very “hungry” attractor states … . So I would simply suggest to invest some time analyzing the “Ich/Rössler-Metric”, maybe in the context of interface metrics that arise from a nonlinear superposition of known metrics (I think you did so).

    For me this could be a good example how intuition-based creativity successfully works (but who could handle the personal risks? Wer hat die Kraft und die “Eier” mit all den damit verbundenen Fehlern und Irrtümern seinen eigenen Weg zu gehen?). You have already shown your abilities regarding chaos and hyper-chaos.

    Congratulations and thanks.


  80. Thank you, Bernd. You see, this is very interesting stuff indeed.

    However, it is also very difficult stuff, with a myriad of ramifications and specifications. This is why I switched to kindergaten physics with the Telemach theorem, leaving the — for everyone too difficult on a short-term basis — Schwarzschild metric aside.

    The author ICH will become famous with his new Schwarzschild equation, but this will take time. In the meantime, angular-momentum conservation and Ehrenfest flatness are very much easier (and accessible to a much larger and younger costituency) topics to check.

    I do not wish to be right. I only wish the proof of danger implicit in my not (yet?) being falsified to be disproved before the world lets the LHC experiment go on one more day in the absence of a counterproof to its being planetocidal with a sizeable probability.

    This fact — that the whole planet is watching while CERN accepts the reproach of risking he planet — I cannot understand. And even if I could understand it, I would not accept it. Would you?

  81. Bernd says:

    Dear Otto,

    We are talking about brute forces and non-zero probabilities of beeing damaged as a human.

    Yesterday me and my kids swam in the Lake Constance before these strong thunderstorms came to southern germany. We faced the probability beeing killed by a lightning strike, mabye 1:100000 this day. Exactly 10 years ago two planes crashed in heaven in the same region with many kids from russia dead — a very very small probabilty of occurence, technically almost impossible. Nevertheless, these probailities can be calculated since there are good models.

    In our case there is no good model. If we had it, we wouldn’t need such a machine.

    You talk about String theory and you started hyper-chaos. You know what dS5 and AdS5 means (and of course also ADHS :), pseudo n-spheres, and so on… The major point for me is: I could imagine that you would even hide solutions or background information just for preventing a misapplication. Here Kindergarden strategy without caring about details and the way you act would make a lot of sense.

    But I am not so familiar with the LHC, I only know that its existence is highly political. To find out how far you know that this machine is also both, redundant and dangerous, let’s talk about it in detail at the lake — hopefully during a not so dangerous but nice summer day.


  82. I admit to not knowing about dS5 and AdS5: tell me.

    What I know for sure is that the new features of black holes make the currently running public attempt at generating them absolutely unacceptable to every human being — until the new features have been disproved. This no visible physicist claims to have achieved as everyone knows.

    Hawking makes a very bad figure here — to my utmost chagrin for I do not blame him at all: It is the fault of the media who do not dare ask him. He himself has every excuse of the world given his daily and hourly heroism. Someone could take the initiative to enable him to speak his mind. The planet is waiting for his word. Especially so the mothers who do not seem to play a role any more to date after Mary Ainsworth fell into oblivion.

    If no one dares ask the mothers: how about asking the children themselves? Unlike their parents, they are not stupid, says Uncle Remus.

  83. Bernd says:

    I thought you could tell me. Here is a good introduction:
    About two years ago my kids found Hawking in the media and told me a joke about him they got from friends (this is rather normal in school today). My wife laughed but I was not so happy.
    “Papi, wieso darf ich keine Witze über Behinderte erzählen?“
    Google has the answer.

  84. To me Hawking is not a handicapped person.

    As to AdS: I now see you take dogmas in string theory seriously. This is too early at present, I feel. One of their representatives should first respond to the proof given that “something” must be responsible for the fact that electrons cannot be point-shaped (since otherwise they would be black holes and hence uncharged). This “something” is the only empirical clue that so far exists in favor of string theory. But it is of course a big triumph at the same time on their behalf.

    The silence of the string community is just as appalling as that of the planet’s media: two groups without a single personality in it?

  85. hdc says:

    non-sequitur alert again. Rössler, you are somewhat funny. :D

  86. Bernd says:

    Did you follow the link? It is non-serious, anti-dogmatic, satiric.

    You look for representatives in a Vogelschwarm? There are some that fly a litte bit faster than the average.

    A density at a point in space could be determined by a Green’s or delta function. What about a non-point like thing (like a string) made of point-like entities?


  87. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The simile with the swarm is nice.

    Any string or brane is made of point-like entities, I would say. But there could be something more general here — a 3D substance that is neither string nor brane, something to be named fog? Is that your idea? I find it ingenious.

  88. Bernd says:

    Yes, exactly, it’s a fog, great, thank you. Your intuition works extraordinary. But there is also a hyper-fog without limit to 3D, Mr. Hyper-Chaos.


  89. Otto E. Rossler says:


  90. Bernd says:

    Dear Otto,

    your model is based on 3 spatial dimensions plus one time dimension without other degrees of freedom. With such a setup/boundary condition I could imagine an endless process of growth.

    Could you please comment this hypothesis:

    the more degrees of freedom the small black hole gets the more likely it will desintegrate?


  91. Nothing but another black hole (both being unfinished in finite outer time) can do anything to a black hole.

    So black holes can only grow for all practical purposes (FAPP). Unfortunately, they are the best (the only unstoppable) exponentially growing parasites of the cosmos. As long as there is mass around them (as when one is planted into earth), this “earth AIDS” is both unstoppable and fast.

  92. Bernd says:

    “Higgs Cancer” rather, since it has exclusively to do with the mass.
    But where do the degrees of freedom and the entropy go?
    I believe in symmetries and conservation laws.

  93. eq says:

    The go into the fog.. :D

  94. Otto E. Rossler says:

    It would be wonderful if Professor Higgs would join us in asking for a respite to have a hearing about the undisproved terrible danger.

  95. Bernd says:

    “Higgs” is alive, “Schwarzschild” is dead.

    The LHC is not a monster, the people there are smart.

    A more serious subject — I think — could be a Higgs mechanism out-of-control scenario from a chaos theoretic point of view. Who does understand the Higgs mechanism in its full range of possible effects?

    I am afraid that you could even become an element in your own proposed risk chain if you further act like Don Quijote.

  96. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Smartness cannot reside in refusing to respond to a proof of danger, dear Bernd, or can it?

    The Higgs mechanism is ingenious. I deeply admire this man. if anyone can help, it is he.

  97. lsd says:

    There is no proof of danger, oly a proof of your incompetence, dogmatism and megalomania.

    You are just like your crackpot friend El Naschie. :D

  98. bernd says:

    Dear Otto,

    These smart people think in terms of the standard model — not in your terms. Why should they adopt them?

    Operating according to the standard model could mean to argue like:
    If there is something like a rest-mass non-conservation or mass increase out-of-control scenario then it must have something to do with the Higgs-mechanism.


  99. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Bernd:
    A scientific proof based on assumptions shared by everyone is valid until someone is able to dismantlie it.
    Proving that it is incompatible with accepted other knowledge is tantamount to saying that it is new — that is, confirming it.
    The young scientists on this blog give the impression of having forgotten this fact.
    Take care,
    P.S. I deeply admire Higgs. He made no mistakes.

  100. lsd says:

    The stupid Rössler-dogma again: because it is contradicted already by proven and accepted knowledge it HAS TO BE CORRECT.

    Thats not science, that is more a immunization strategy of a crackpot.

    Otto simply neglects that new science, like for example Einsteins, is most of the time not replacing the “old science” but extending it…The old science is then a special case of the new, more generalized view (like the Newtonian law of gravity in the context of GR).

    The fact could not be forgotten because it never really existed, crackpot!

  101. bernd says:

    Assume Aliens would write into crop a message including a short mathematical prove that the LHC is dangerous.
    Even you would ignore it.

  102. lsd says:

    You are not helping your friend here by imaging a hypothetical, so far not existing rigorous mathematical proof of danger…of course if there would be something liike that it would not be ignored…that is the advantage of precise and rigorous mathematics.

    On the other hand Rössler has nothing like that, so your hypothetical case is irrelevant being a kind of the well-known crackpot strategy known as “galileo-gambit”.

    By the way, stop kidding Otto, dear “Bernd”..

  103. bernd says:

    Sorry LSD, nobody is talking with you here. The post was addressed at Otto.

  104. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Bernd:
    No one ever succeeded in proving Telemach wrong.
    Can you try to do it?
    Thank you,

  105. Peter Howell says:

    Roessler: many succeeded in proving ‘Telemach’ wrong. You just didn’t accept it. That’s a difference. So I am now allowed to oficcially call you a liar, am I not?

  106. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Sir Peter Howell: If you don’t give the evidence supporting your claim, you stand here as a man who delibetately says untrue things. So, please, be so kind as to substabtiate. No one will be more grateful than the person you address so harshly.

  107. Bernd says:

    Dear Otto,

    You say that Telemach relevance is given by black hole considerations.
    You also think the Higgs-mechanism is relevant and possibly even acting in your black hole. Consequently, with this assumption Higgs should be ultimatively responsible for the mass of a black hole. Have you checked if the Higgs-mechanism is affected by strong space-time curvatures? If not, I guess your theory is valid as many others showing the opposite result but not considering the Higgs mechanism.


  108. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Bernd:

    Thank you for thinking so positively!

    My knowledge about the Higgs mechanism is constrained by my having read Professor Matt Strassler’s blog which is absolutely outstanding but does not make me a specialist. Nevertheless I think I can reply – or try to.

    The Higgs field – the essential universally constant new object – is everywhere constant. (Nothing else in the universe is.) At first sight, nothing speaks in favor of its being dependent on local properties like a high space-time curvature. Einstein’s postulated principle of general covariance means that LOCALLY the Higgs field is always the same. How it can manage to be globally constant at the same time is a question that the specialists – presumably – cannot answer as of yet. Modern particle physics does without space-time curvature as you know.

    So the question you posed is maximally important. And you kindly allude to the fact that I showed that rest mass decreases with gravitational redshift. This could be interpreted as the Higgs field going down there — as you suggest. If so there is a direct connection between Telemach and Higgs.

    To venture a guess, I would predict that the astounding universal constancy of the Higgs field manages to go unscathed by the two relativities. This will most certainly constrain the field’s properties,although no one has any idea as of yet in what way this occurs. General relativity lives off the postulate of general covariance. Otherwis, black holes would cease to exist. On the other hand, there is plenty of (indirect) evidence for their existence in astronomy. The “quasar scaling law” of 2008 therefore needs to be taken seriously at present – and with it the black hole danger caused by a certain beautiful experiment as a side effect.

    Thank you very much,

  109. Bernd says:

    Dear Otto,

    It’s my pleasure.
    A little speculation could help here:
    Global field strengths should scale with powers of the light velocity as the interaction velocity. In your example metric this would imply a constant field strenght in your radial variable.

    Would be happy if you could make progress in any direction.


  110. Peter Howell says:

    Roessler (and anyone els interested): here is one of many examples where your ‘theory’ has been proven wrong:


    Now you will say again that this is not the case, so let me ask you: who is the judge on what’s right or wrong?

  111. lsd says:

    Otto can not be the judge as he is a fanatical follower of the Rössler-Dogma.

  112. Dear Sir Peter: 239 items named are unfortunately not a single counterargument — unless you can point out which anonymous comment you think has the quality of a counter-argument that you could have formulated yourself.

  113. Peter Howell says:

    Roessler: all of them. If you are too dumb to follow an argument for more than 2 sentences, how can you ever understand anything?

    But I know that this is just another of your moves to avoid a scientific discurs — similar to El- Naschie by the way.

  114. Nayeli says:

    Einstein was right about the shortcomings of Quantum Mechanics and so treehfore String Theory is also the incorrect approach. As an alternative to Quantum Theory there is a new theory that describes and explains the mysteries of physical reality. While not disrespecting the value of Quantum Mechanics as a tool to explain the role of quanta in our universe. This theory states that there is also a classical explanation for the paradoxes such as EPR and the Wave-Particle Duality. The Theory is called the Theory of Super Relativity. This theory is a philosophical attempt to reconnect the physical universe to realism and deterministic concepts. It explains the mysterious.

  115. Otto E. Rossler says:

    To which of the 239 entries he is quoting is our esteemed professor of psychiatry directing the readers of this blog so we can all be enlightened by the sudden existence of a counter-proof?

  116. Otto E. Rossler says:

    There seems to be more than one such theory already, dear Dr. Nayeli. Eventually, one of them (or a combination) will become standard wisdom. Thank you very much for your kind remark.