Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 8 May 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.459
News
Austria to quit CERN
Move will end 50-year participation in physics laboratory.
Austria has announced that it will withdraw from CERN, Europe's premier high-energy physics laboratory, which is located near Geneva, Switzerland. The announcement — just months before the restart of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the world's most powerful particle accelerator — has left Austrian physicists stunned.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Thank you for covering Austria's courageous pullout. My congratulation present is the following pre-publication of my recent short text submitted to Nature: "Overlooked Twin Paradox in Oppenheimer-Snyder Theory ? Greatest Oversight and Risk of History O.E. Rossler, Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, 72076 Tubingen, F.R.G. Abstract: Black hole horizons can be reached or left in finite proper time (Oppenheimer and Snyder 1939). But they cannot be reached or left in finite outside time. The implied gravitational twin paradox was overlooked. Nonevaporation, unchargedness and absence of information paradoxes are corollaries; the LHC experiment becomes unsafe. (April 27, 2009) --- In 1939, Oppenheimer and Snyder described a surprisingly short proper infalling time into a stellar black hole of the order of one day [1]. A second fact also first calculated by them ? that watched from the outside, the free-falling traveler takes up an infinite amount of time appearing ?frozen? ? seemed dwarfed in comparison. This traditional conclusion is misleading: Both facts possess an equal status. Proof: We assume that the infalling astronaut rebounces from the black hole?s horizon due to the assumed presence of a trampoline there. How long will the return trip take him? One day again owing to time-reversal symmetry. But the same roundtrip lasts infinitely long in the eye of an observer who stays aloft (note that even light takes infinitely long for the same down-up roundtrip [2]). Thus, an extremal case of Einstein?s famous twin-clocks paradox applies in this gravitational context: by the return of the two days older twin, the stationary twin has grown infinitely old. What does the new result mean? The answer is obvious: it implies an infinite slow-down of the traveler?s clock. This is the only way how an infinite outside time can be bridged in finite proper time. Yet this simple fact got overlooked by the scientific community. Simultaneously, the famous ?information paradoxes? and ?singularity theorems? erected on the first half of Oppenheimer and Snyder?s finding also lose their correspondence with physical reality. For with an infinitely slowed clock, you can in principle reach any unphysical ? for example infinitely far-away ? place in finite time. The horizon and its interior hence become ?effectively unreachable? in the same sense as a point at infinity is. The conventional use of infinitely re-scaled coordinates contributed to the oversight. Thus, a seven-decades old belief in the horizon as a finitely-accessible element of physical reality suddenly represents an equally old globally accepted scientific error. Two consequences stick out: 1) Black holes are different. They cannot evaporate in finite time since nothing can leave the horizon in finite time. And they are uncharged since in-falling charges suffer a redshift-proportional attenuation. These two predictions alter the behavior of potential miniblack holes generated in an earth-based experiment. CERN?s prestigious ?safety report? therefore loses its grip. At the same time the accident which halted the LHC launch acquires the ring of a godsend. 2) The scientific community has lost face. Sophisticated formulae masked a logical error. And an experiment was launched against cautioning with the confidence of a dogmatic believer risking a planet. How can the loss of status and vision be repaired? Installation of ?Lampsacus hometown of all persons on the Internet? by CERN could be a gesture of good will. To conclude, a tiny little overlooked fact (infinite clock-slowdown) led the whole scientific community astray. A planned experiment ? second ignition of the LHC ? appears in a new light. For J.O.R. References [1] Oppenheimer, J.R. and Snyder, H., On continued gravitational contraction. Phys. Rev. 56, 455- 459 (1939). [2] Foster, J. and Nightingale, J.D., A Short Course in General Relativity, 3rd edn. New York: Springer-Verlag 2006, p. 130." Sincerely yours, Otto E. Rossler
As a (bio)phyisicist who lived in Austria for a long time, as a basic reearcher, I feel sad and confused. Even if other scientific fields than physics - e.g. life sciences - are gaining importance (and Austria seems to make some effort in supporting life sciences), should a 'focus of interest' be so drastic? CERN is - hopefully not only in physicist eyes - a crown juwel of european science AND cooperation, to say the least. Looking from Germany, Austria's image does not always shine as that of a country of science and technology. The decision of a political class with little scientific background (Hahn has a Dr. in Philosophy) will possibly not improve this image. Peter Schuster, president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and a great theoretical biochemist, did not seem to signalize much resistance, even though his own fame stems from basic research, too. I somehow have difficulties to imagine, how 16M EUR/year (said to be <0.5% of the present science budget) make enough difference for one of the richest of smaller european economies to counterbalance the losses. These are not only scientific, also political. On the long term, I do think, also technological and economical - somewhat linked to the assumption that member countries of CERN have better knowledge transfer on the involved technologies (e.g. because of more people present there). The physical sciences have become much the technology of our everyday lifes - did we forget that this does not come for free? I very much think that the technologies (being) invented or advanced in CERN are numerous and often close to industrial application. After all, they have to solve the practical implementation of unprecedented projects. For example I wonder where the prices for supraconducting magnets would still be whithout the decade long usage in Geneva (e.g. used in medical MRI devices). What about PET? Need I mention IT... - I am just guessing here, I would love to see some analysis on actual technological benefits of 'pure' scientific projects in the past, whether intended or not. CERN's own list is here: https://oraweb.cern.ch/pls/ttdatabase/display.mainmenu?menu_id=8 And beyond industrial technology as a by-product... the technology of the 22sd century (you know, the one with the global problems) will probably include some High Energy Phisics itself! Lets try to explain it to politicians: If we are EVER to realize Star Trek we need CERN! Think of all the trekkies' votes! ;) '... no one ever accused Austria of being visionary...' wrote the Economist on a very different topic few weeks ago. This would be the bottom line in ONE possible interpretation of Hahns decision. Another is the opposite: that the 'courageous pullout' will lead the way to times when priorities shift from basic research to more readily applicable research. Are we leaving a golden era of basic research? :-( Or does Austria simply risk falling back behind its neighbours on the long run? in any case: if they dont pay, we have to. In case you want to sign a PETITION: http://www.hephy.at/