Fake Banner
    Interview: Professor Otto Rössler Takes On The LHC
    By Alan Gillis | August 12th 2008 08:22 PM | 118 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    On the vast CERN landscape outside Geneva, there’s only one figure in science tilting at the LHC windmill, Dr Otto E Rössler(Roessler). An aged veteran with some 300 research papers under his belt, sometimes called the father of Chaos theory, he looks the part of a sprightly campaigner for human rights, for knowledge and the imagination, poised now to do battle with the fiercest demons of all, the dreaded micro black holes from the Large Hadron Collider, should they appear. He worries they will consume the earth for breakfast.

    CERN, the arch enchanter of nuclear physics, isn’t much concerned, with an underground lab to rival any fortress ever built, bolstered by an army of 2,500 physicists and another 6,000 worldwide just in case.


    The ALICE Experiment, Time Projection Chamber, LHC, courtesy CERN 2007

    If you do the math, there’s not much chance Rössler can delay the firing of the first round of protons, delayed over and over again by CERN itself, due to construction and technical problems for three years now, though again expected perhaps this September. This June CERN released its own review of LHC Safety concerns, the LSAG Report, that includes a discussion of micro black holes and other dangerous objects that might be produced. It denies the probability of any such theoretical problems, including mBH.

    So far the scientific community and the public at large haven’t heard much about Rössler’s new theories. Those who have say he hasn’t the credentials in physics, though his accomplishments are many, and in several fields, including physics papers he’s published, and teaching Theoretical Physics. Starting out in 1966 with a degree in medicine, then a postdoc at the Max Planck Institute in Behavioral Physiology, he began his teaching career in Theoretical Biology at SUNY, Buffalo, in 1969, and then became professor of Theoretical Biochemistry at the University of Tübingen in 1970, where he still teaches today.

    Professor Otto E Rössler lecturing, courtesy Bild/Jonathan Gröger 2008
    In recognition of his accomplishments in chemistry, he was made a Professor of Chemistry by Decree.

    As a visiting professor he’s taught at several universities in Canada, the U.S. and Denmark. What’s remarkable is each appointment was for a different discipline: Visiting Professor of Mathematics, of Nonlinear Studies, of Chemical Engineering, of Theoretical Physics, and of Complexity Research. Currently teaching Chaos Theory and Brain Theory at the University of Tübingen, he also collaborates with ATOMOSYD, a French research group studying Topological Analysis and Modeling of Dynamical Systems. So far he has published 5 books, among them, Encounter with Chaos, 1992, about his work on Chaos theory since the 1970s. Endophysics: The World as an Interface, 1998, is his introduction to a new field of physics he founded.

    In physics you’ve got to be a physicist, especially a pre-eminent one, if you want to challenge CERN, which of course is loaded with them, including Nobel Laureates. It’s not just snobbery, but it’s more or less the club rules today. If they had been applied to Albert Einstein when he was drudging as a clerk at the Swiss Patent Office, he would have dwelt in obscurity. Actually as it happens, Einstein’s logic informs much of Rössler’s thinking on black holes.

    Rather than let the matter drop, as other scientists do when they’re outgunned, Rössler continues to drum up support for a delay in LHC start-up, seriously alarmed at the prospect of runaway black holes being created that could destroy this planet. To that end he’s called for a Conference on LHC Safety, and has submitted his theories directly to CERN for evaluation. His latest foray is more political. In mid-August he is to meet the Swiss President, Pascal Couchepin.

    Recently, I had the pleasure of talking with Dr Rössler. The interview follows.

    Gillis: How did you arrive at the idea that mBH, if produced at the Large Hadron Collider, could accrete matter?

    Early on, the idea that the LHC could be dangerous did not arrive in my brain. A Relativist friend of mine who was correcting this paper on my new interpretation of the Schwarzschild metric, asked me just as a joke if this wouldn't have repercussions on the LHC. I didn't know what the LHC was. It forced me to think whether this was a good question or a joke. Then it might mean that black holes or mini black holes cannot evaporate. The mathematics are the same. I tried to falsify (disprove) it, but I couldn't.

    Another thing that occurred to me is that we can now predict the existence of non-point shaped black holes using El Naschie’s Fractal theory. Once we know they are string-shaped then we can ask what is their size. It occurred to me only a few days ago that we might use El Naschie’s theory to calculate their size.

    Gillis: So you think that String theory is basically correct?

    Yes. I never believed in String theory until quite recently, when I found this result.  That electrons cannot be essentially point-shaped.  For if they were, they would necessarily be little black holes at the same time, which indeed no one else finds objectionable.  But black holes are uncharged according to my new reading of the Schwarzschild metric.  Strings then must already exist in front of our eyes -- in the form of electrons.  This makes string-shaped mini black holes much more likely.

    Gillis: Are you suggesting that you think electrons are actually elementary black holes?

    No, it is everybody else who implicitly thinks so.  They could of course also be clouds of smaller charged particles, in principle, although I doubt it. This would only reiterate the problem.

    Gillis: Then you agree that like all particles in String theory, electrons are string-shaped and not point-shaped in real space?

    That is too hard a question for me to answer definitively.  In real space, there would only be a size increase, I guess.  But so perhaps, more or less the same one for all mini particles, from neutrinos to mini black holes? 

    Gillis: There are still no experimental confirmations of String theory, not from collider data or any other experiments. CERN is hoping to find evidence of Strings at the much higher energies of the LHC.

    Yes, it is one of the two big goals, besides the Higgs.

    Gillis: There are a lot of String theorists at CERN. Given that String theory supports the formation of mBH at much lower energies than what you would need to produce a Planck mass size Black Hole, perhaps within reach of LHC collision energies, then why isn’t CERN taking this seriously? They did earlier, with their "Micro Black Hole Factory". Now the recent safety assessment by CERN, the LSAG report, discounts them, quoting Einstein’s Relativity, that they are an impossibility.

    They’re less enthusiastic than they were before. The String theorists don’t believe in String theory anymore. That was my impression when I met Dr Landua at CERN, but maybe I misunderstood him. They don’t talk about black holes anymore since I started saying they are dangerous. They even abandoned String theory just to say they don’t believe in them anymore.

    Gillis: What do you think the probabilities are of mBH being produced at the LHC with proton to proton collisions at 10 TeV, before winter this year?

    I would almost say something like 10%. Maybe 16% or 16.6%. Russian Roulette has 6 probabilities.

    Gillis: If they load the collider 6 times with protons? But seriously, at 14 TeV ordinary operating energies next year, and then much higher energy collisions planned for lead ions at 1,150 TeV, then the probability would be higher?

    No, not in the second stage. Because quark-quark collision energies will still be low in that case.

    Gillis: You wrote to Stephen Hawking recently on this subject, asking him to contact CERN, if he agreed there was room for doubt about black hole evaporation through Hawking radiation, and so some risk with mBH produced at the LHC. Did you get a response?

    Not that I know of. I sent him the tape, actually on CD, of my long talk on this problem on January 31st in Berlin at the Transmediale, a big conference, an art conference. It was from the keynote address I gave. He asked his secretary to send a reply card which she did. I also asked several people to make contact with him. It’s a pity, really. I’m a big fan of his.

    Gillis: You mentioned Dr Rolf Landua earlier. You had an interview with him at CERN this July 4th about your black hole theories. What happened?

    It was an amiable meeting. When I arrived at the airport there were two ladies from Zurich expecting me. In order for me not to be alone. They were LHC activists. They accompanied me to CERN. When Landua came, he offered all three of us a ride to the ATLAS Detector. So there were four of us at the meeting later in the CERN cafeteria, with the view of Mount Blanc. He promised, since he couldn’t disprove my Relativity argument, that he knew several famous people in Relativity working at CERN that would talk to me. I was happy that there would be another discussion. Before we left, I reminded Landua of our next meeting with the Relativists. He didn't recall suggesting one, that it wasn't necessary. He said he would send my paper along to an expert. The matter is still pending. If I am wrong, I want at least to know where I am wrong.

    Gillis: Did you have time to counter CERN's main safety arguments?

    A little bit. We came to discussing neutron stars, the hardest conundrum. According to CERN, neutron stars should not exist if there were natural analogs to the LHC mini black holes. Neutron stars, consumed at first by mini black holes, would be black holes themselves. The CERN argument looks like a good one, but it is demonstrably wrong. I had brought this to CERN's attention in May. Mini black holes can exist. In the most susceptible stars to mini black holes, the neutron stars, they are so dense there is no hope at first sight that any fast particle can pass through without getting stuck. This is CERN's safety net argument. Or was.

    Gillis: Then how do these super dense neutron stars survive attack by natural mBH? What is your theory?

    Neutron stars are in a macroscopic quantum state called superfluidity. And this state protects them because it makes them transparent to fast particles.

    Gillis: Because these stars are in a strange quantum state, like a Bose-Einstein Condensate?

    Yes.

    Gillis: Did Landua accept your argument?

    I think so, after I had told him that my counter-argument had been accepted by a famous Nobel Laureate in the field: That neutron stars, which alone are susceptible to this CERN argument in the last instance, are protected due to their superfluidity, by being transparent to the stipulated fast mini black holes. And then, Dr. Landua realized that this stipulated new quantum effect was just the opposite to the famous Mossbauer rigidity -- which insight greatly impressed me. Then he and I suddenly saw that the predicted new transparency could actually be tested at CERN, in a separate experiment. For they have the largest amounts of a superfluid anywhere on the planet, in the form of their coolant, Helium II. Thus, fast mini particles -- I thought of neutrinos -- could for comparison, be shot through a long pipe of this superfluid and through an analogous pipe containing ordinary fluid helium. To see whether there is a difference in the cross section. But then, we both realized that this would probably take years to accomplish.

    Gillis: Dr. Landua agrees with you, that this experiment is important? That it could show that superfluidity protects neutron stars from mBH?

    On this point it seems. But unfortunately, superfluidity will not protect this planet from artificial sufficiently slow mini black holes, likely or possibly produced at the LHC.

    Gillis: Did the subject of a possible bosenova implosion and explosion come up in your discussions? Superfluid Helium II is a quantum superfluid with strange properties, and generally considered to be a Bose-Einstein Condensate.

    Yes, but the question of this superfluid being dangerous as such, because of the risk of bosenova formation at the LHC, I did learn only from you today: It did not occur to us. This is an important point, and should also be tested experimentally by CERN, I feel. They will of course be accidentally testing it when they switch on the LHC. This local catastrophe if occurring would inadvertently protect the planet at large.

    Gillis: That a bosenova could destroy the LHC? You're not joking?

    Not at all. My friend Artur Schmidt told me about the historical rule that whenever there is a technology jump by a factor of ten -- the LHC's energy will be by 8 times higher than ever before achieved, so it qualifies -- always major accidents happen owing to humanity's built-in lack of clairvoyance.

    Gillis: Then you support my idea that a possible bosenova explosion could threaten the LHC and Geneva? And a safety test should be performed by CERN on both superfluid heliums? Recently I learned that Helium I is also used at the LHC, to cool both beam cryostats, in the main ring. I published an article recently on my findings, in ScientificBlogging, Superfluids, BECs and Bosenovas: The Ultimate Experiment.

    Would I not have to say yes here? The problem is the BEC bosenova mechanism is still unknown. CERN should be reminded of this.

    Gillis: Considering you are one of the leading critics in science of the safety of mBH, and CERN wasn’t prepared for the meeting you had to discuss your theories, will CERN invite you back?

    This has not yet happened. Perhaps the answer is implicit in what a Nobel Laureate in physics, told me a few weeks ago. He told me I should go on with my fight against CERN. Because CERN needs the publicity.

    Gillis: But why isn’t CERN taking you seriously? Are physicists there or elsewhere afraid of rocking the boat? With their reputations and jobs on the line?

    No, I think there are other reasons as well. People nowadays no longer believe in originality of single people and small groups. Everybody believes in the big group and in the joint power. We have a Maoism in science. Let flowers grow. It’s no longer likely to happen. Everybody believes the ideology that it’s no longer possible to be a Poincaré or an Einstein. But we also live in the Age of everybody believing in the Big Bang, which is the greatest nonsense of all, if my co-workers are right. And yet it’s impossible to get rid of it. We live in a dogmatic age. People want to derive certainty from common opinions. They don’t believe it’s possible to find something really original. It’s a pity for our young people. They’re not allowed to believe in themselves anymore.

    Gillis: I think you hit it on the nose. In a way, this is all about proving the Big Bang theory?

    The younger physicists know it doesn’t exist. Many people knew it’s nonsense including Hubble himself. He was denied the Nobel Prize because of not believing in what everybody believed. Very strange.

    Gillis: Hubble discovered the redshift as proportional to distance, which physicists think indicates the Universe is expanding, confirming the Big Bang theory.

    He stopped believing in this. He said there is a non ad-hoc reason why light gets tired on its way through long distances. But no one found the reason for a long time. Until some 6 years ago when my group found the reason. I published it, but no one has any interest in it. The paper was published last year in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. In August. It has a nice title actually. Hubble Expansion without Space Expansion. But you shouldn’t tell anyone I don’t believe in the Big Bang. Then they won’t believe anything I say, Professor Rössler laughs.

    Gillis: But there is no other real alternative theory to the Big Bang?

    There are many who know it must be nonsense, but no one has found the key. I had the good fortune to talk to a young American-Iranian physicist who worked in Switzerland. And he gave me the key paper by Chandrasekhar of 1943, which gives the mechanism, but no one saw it including the author himself. But he got a Nobel Prize later for Black Holes. It’s a very old theory, and I just found a more general simpler explanation of Chandrasekhar’s result. It applies not just to big stars, as he thought, moving faster than the rest. But any potentially gravitationally attracted fast body gets slowed down in a whirling cloud of heavier attracting bodies like galaxies, and light gets red-shifted in proportion. That’s a very simple law of physics, of classical physics essentially. But it was overlooked since 1865. This older paper was by the discoverer of Statistical Mechanics, Rudolf Clausius, who didn’t have a high school diploma. It was the ETH, the Swiss Polytechnic which saved him. You could pass an exam and be allowed to study there. The only (such) university in Europe and the world probably. It saved him and it saved Einstein 30 years later.

    Gillis: On that score CERN would show Einstein the door today. Is that why you’re appealing to the public and politicians? In mid-August you’ll be seeing the President of Switzerland, Pascal Couchepin. What do you hope to achieve?

    I’m trying to get a friendly contact with him, so he understands how I think. And that I’m not an enemy of CERN, which probably everybody believes. I’m the only friend of CERN I see around. Everybody else is trying to destroy it. Including themselves. They have this nice argument. We all have children. Would we do this experiment if we didn’t believe we were safe? But if they are ready to sacrifice their families, they are still not allowed to do it with the planet. CERN still hasn’t answered my questions, or refuted my papers, though they are publicly available on the Internet.

    Here are Dr Rössler’s unanswered questions from his Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference with minor revisions by Dr Rössler, original paper at http://wissensnavigator.ch/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf which will be updated soon, as below.

    This paper was recently presented by Dr Rössler to more than two hundred participants of the 20th International Conference on Systems Research, Informatics and Cybernetics, July 24-30, 2008, in Baden-Baden, hosted by the IIAS, the International Institute for Advanced Studies. The conference participants and the IIAS publicly endorsed Dr Rössler's call for an LHC Safety Conference as soon as possible.

    Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference 

    1) Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively infinitely far away in spacetime according to my new interpretation of the Schwarzschild metric [1].

    2) Black holes are effectively uncharged [1]. Therefore, charged elementary particles cannot at the same time be black holes (or point-shaped). Hence non-point-shaped mini objects exist already. This makes mini black holes much more likely.

    3) Mini black holes grow exponentially rather than linearly inside the earth: “mini-quasar principle” [2]. Hence the time needed by a resident mini black hole to eat the earth is maximally shortened – perhaps down to “50 months”. This contrasts with the “50 million Years” obtained assuming linear growth by BBC Horizon [3] and CERN’s analogous “5 billion years” [4].

    4) CERN [4, 5] counters that if the hoped-for mini black holes are stable as claimed [1], equal stable particles must arise naturally by ultra-fast cosmic-ray protons colliding with planet bound protons. This is correct. However, there remains a fundamental difference: Only the man-made ones are “symmetrically generated” and hence dangerous. For they alone are slow enough with respect to the earth that one of them (at less than 11 km/sec) can take residence – in contrast to the almost luminal speeds of their natural cousins.

    5) CERN‘s counter argument could still hold true for more compact celestial bodies than the earth – such that their lifetimes would be drastically reduced in defiance of observation if mini black holes exist. A quantitative bound can be derived from this argument: Take white dwarfs first. They are 10^5 times denser than earth while being the same size. Hence their cross-section for a mini black hole passing-through is by a factor of 10^5 greater than earth’s. They remain safe if no more than 10^4 eating-type collisions with a quark await a fast natural mini black hole entering them (so it can pass through).

    Why? Because the planned energy of 14 TeV pumped into two colliding protons at CERN is 14,000 times the rest mass of a proton (1 MeV). Therefore a mini black hole born of two quarks (one from each proton) likewise has about 14,000 times the rest mass of a quark. Hence by momentum conservation, only about 14,000 collisions with a resident quark can be survived by a fast natural mini black hole of LHC energy, without losing its almost luminal speed. If this bound is to be heeded by nature in white dwarfs, then no more than about 0.1 collisions must await a CERN mini black hole on its first passage through the earth. This estimate appears plausible -- so that the continued existence of white dwarfs cannot be construed as a counter-argument against the dangerousness of man-made slow mini black holes.

    6) This number presupposes that the nonlinear growth process in point (3) above, is inapplicable if very dense matter is passed through at almost luminal speeds. The shorter collision intervals, by many orders of magnitude, allow this prediction.

    7) Finally, neutron stars have by another factor of 10^9, greater density than white dwarfs. Since they are a thousand times smaller, they are a million times more susceptible. But they are protected by quantum coherence effects of the superfluidity type: so mini black holes can pass without being braked. The superfluidity extends to the “inner crust” [6]. This prediction, if confirmed, renders natural mini black holes if they exist, non-dangerous. Hence, their man-made ultra-slow cousins on earth or spreading to the sun, can indeed have dreaded dangerous consequences that everybody prefers not to believe in.

    In order to exclude the possibility that human-made mini black holes will endanger the earth, it will be necessary to disprove the first of these 7 points, or if this is not possible, the second, and so forth. Until this has been accomplished, no one can give the “green light” to the LHC crossing the 2 TeV barrier, as is currently planned within a few weeks.

    It appears that only an immediate safety conference can save the LHC experiment from disaster.

    References

    [1] O.E. Rössler, “Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: Â-theorem derived in Schwarzschild metric”. Chaos, Solitons and Fractals (publication pending) Preprint available at www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf (a revision of section 5 is forthcoming)

    [2] O.E. Rössler, “Abraham-solution to Schwarzschild metric implies that CERN mini black holes pose a planetary risk” (submitted on September 27, 2007). Also found on the above URL.

    [3] BBC Horizon documentary, “The Six Billion Dollar Experiment” www.BBC.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/universe/

    [4] M. Mangano, in an interview with Michael Liebe, at golem.de (in German) www.golem.de/0802157477.html

    [5] R. Landua, in an interview with Andreas Séché, pm-magazin.de (in German) www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TjYobXKebM

    [6] G. Colò, “A microscopic quantal calculation of the superfluidity of the inner crust of neutron stars” (Abstract) www.mi.infn.it/~colo/TRENTO/Abstracts/gori.txt

    Comments

    Hank
    I have made fun of the LHC delays plenty though I don't agree that the world is at risk.

    That said, I can still enjoy a piece of work whether I agree with the premise or not.

    Plus sentences like this
    CERN, the arch enchanter of nuclear physics, isn’t much concerned, with an underground lab to rival any fortress ever built, bolstered by an army of 2,500 physicists and another 6,000 worldwide just in case.

    are just brilliant.

    Please read the John titor story. He claimed to be a time traveler from a simliar world line as ours but there was a 2.5% divergence between the two. He came here in late 2000 and left in early 2001. He has made quite a few correct predictions and has also missed some. He said that CERN would be the ones who find some interesting new particles and science based off of the LHC that leads directly to time travel in about 30 years or roughly 2034. He said N10 seems to work the best as far as string theory. Do not have any concerns about the LHC destroying earth or anything like that at all. GE will be the one who creates the actual machine. Not only does he talk about our soon to be future which is not good but he also talks in decent detail about the physics and who the machine works via 2 micro singularities and an active method of timing the atom or something like that. Here is the link. His screen name was Timetravel_0

    http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/30260/video

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread61544/pg1

    Sorry the is the correct link for John Titor.

    Outstanding interview Allan. My respect for Dr. Rossler is immeasurable.

    My theoretical work creating the open source project at bigcrash.org (pre-big bang theory) lead me to first suspect that micro black hole creation might not be safe.

    The theory tends to indicate that black holes grow from Reverse Hawking Radiation, making the obvious follow on prediction that creating slow moving micro black holes on Earth would not be safe. I have been studying LHC safety issues ever since and founded LHCFacts.org in response.

    I would be interested in what Dr. Rossler thinks of the bigcrash.org or mass.bigcrash.org projects?

    Thank you for your outstanding contributions to science and to the Large Hadron Collider safety issue Dr. Rossler. I will do everything in my power to assist your efforts and the efforts of nuclear physicist and US Federal Lawsuit co-planitiff Walter L. Wagner who in 2007 first discovered fundamental flaws in CERN's cosmic ray safety arguments. Safety should be a prime concern, not just a public relations exercise. Thank you also Allan. Great Column!

    Kudos.

    I agree, a great column. As a nuclear safety and risk expert I hear the concerns. Because there are no prior data for comparison. Do the fault trees to your heart's content but you will not find the answer there. The risk is huge given the physics (and technology) push into an unknown territory. It comes down to a political decision as far as I am concerned. Much like the atomic bombs falling on Japan.

    I am listening.

    I don't agree with Dr. Rossler. Although I don't know the details at a doctorate level, niether does Dr. Rossler. He cannot be a jack of all trades and a master of all trades as well. This is just about the fear of the unknown. I myself can think of a million reason why this experiment will be a disaster for Earth but not one is experimentally proven. And that's what I believe Dr. Rossler is doing. What you are saying is that this experiment, with the small amount of energies that are involved, is going to destroy the Earth. That's absurd. Remember that we are talking about a particle beam and although relatively speaking it's a lot of energy, it's not enough to create a black hole that will destroy the Earth. And Black Holes do indeed evaporate, partly due to the fact that the fabric of space-time tends to want to "right" or correct itself because of dark energy. The energies involved, with no doubt, will create dimples in space time, but the smaller the dent in space-time, the faster it will "pop" back out to it's normal configuration.

    And who is the jack of all trades and a master of all trades at CERN who says that the LHC experiments are safe for this planet? One of the theories explaining why we have not found intelligent life in the universe is that one by one they have eradicated themselves and their planets when doing 'intelligent' experimentation with particle colliders.

    Hank
    You lack any comprehension of what the word 'theory' means in science.  There is no 'theory' of any kind, there is philosophical speculation.   

    The common thread in all these conspiratorial claims is a guy who did no math at all, the 'writer' of this article, who takes on faith Otto Rossler, a guy who got basic math wrong, yet the thousands of competent researchers who have determined the chances of even a tiny black hole existing at all is the same as the chance you will open your closet in the morning and be transported to Narnia ... are all more stupid than two guys who know basically nothing.
    You haven't answered my question? Who is the jack of all trades and a master of all trades at CERN who says that the LHC experiments are safe for this planet? The word 'theory' definitely does mean philosophical speculation for the LHC scientists who are running these experiments. What are their theories? Do any scientists know with certainty what to expect from these experiments? Do any of them agree on a single theory of anything or everything?

    Bente_lilja_bye on this blog says "its manipulative to insist on postponing a physics experiments simply because the layman can't understand theoretical physics" but isn't it fair to postpone the LHC experiments until the scientists themselves can either understand or predict using theoretical physics before they do these experiments? Or until at the very least, they have publicly debated with their fellow scientist critics without simply ridiculing them and /or slanging their credentials? Public LHC critics also include Dr. Mark Leggett, Dr. Rainer Plaga, Dr. Tony Rothman, Professor Wolfgang Kromp, Professor Paul Virilio, Dr. Toby Ord, Dr. Anders Sandberg and Professor Eric Johnson.

    On another blog you have identified that one of the problems facing science today is the competition for research grants and who decides who receives them, and how their mean ages are becoming middle-aged. Is there a career path for a modern day young Newton or Einstein to develop theories that could more accurately predict the results of these LHC experiments? If it takes years to qualify and become recognised surely those who publicly doubt whether the Emperor is wearing clothes, would also be unlikely to qualify or even be able to work at CERN.

    If Einstein was alive today firstly CERN would probably ridicule him along with Professor Rössler and Dr Wagner; secondly, like them, he wouldn't be qualified enough to work for CERN; thirdly he probably WOULD be able to publicly debate the risks associated with the LHC generating Strangelets, Microscopic black holes,Vacuum bubbles, Magnetic monopoles and Bose supernovas without worrying about scientific groupthink and his next research grant; and fourthly he would probably be able to predict the likely outcomes of these LHC experiments.

    CERN's website addressing public concerns about the safety of the LHC can be found at http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html It is far from reassuring to the public when it recommends that we download expert comment on speculations raised by Professor Otto Roessler about the production of black holes at the LHC in a report that claims that quote "the arguments of Mr. Roessler are even self-contradictory: ONE THE ONE HAND...." and then concludes: "this text would not pass the referee process in a serious journal". There is a fear that a bunch of mad scientists at CERN aren't paying enough attention to detail and CERN references to a document with this blatant typo does nothing to reassure anyone, because however trivial it might seem, like the energy from the wings of a mosquito, the 'butterfly effect' can be quite catastrophic.

    Hank
    You've done no basic research of any kind.   First, "Dr Wagner" - which perhaps he and you and 5 other people call him - is beyond dishonest because he calls himself 'Dr' only due to the fact that in the US (and only the US) a law degree is called a Juris Doctorate - he is not a PhD in anything, he knows nothing at all about physics, he is just a lawyer who does what lawyers do - he files lawsuits.    You should not take physics classes from a lawyer who makes a habit of filing specious lawsuits and a science fiction writer who helps him craft mumbo jumbo 'theories.'

    Rossler, on the other hand, gave a few interviews he now regrets acknowledging that in an infinite universe bad things can happen - that is why I used my Narnia example.  If you aren't spending every day in court defending whether or not your closet will transport you to a magical land where you can rescue Aslan, and instead you just get out your pants and put them on, you can understand why the actual science community is irritated with this fluff paranoia that is based on bad math and silly conjecture.   The 'energy' actually produced by the LHC in the sense you understand it is less than a fruit fly.

    What does Einstein have to do with Atty Wagner or the LHC?  Nothing at all.   He was treated with skepticism as are all new theories - nothing in the LHC is a new theory, it is an attempt to validate theories we already have about fundamental particles.  It is the experiment.    Imagine if you were panning for gold and you could gather 500 pieces of silt and you built a device that could now look for even tinier flakes of gold - that is what the LHC is doing, not something Atty Wagner read in a Dan Brown book.

    Only in TV courtroom dramas can dishonest lawyers like Atty Wagner twist words of scientists, by claiming that an honest scientist saying in an unlimited number of probabilities anything can happen to mean that bad things can actually happen.  

    If Atty. Wagner had been around 50 years ago he would have filed lawsuits to stop computer chips from being manufactured, because no one can define what a magnetic field is, so in that same infinite universe where he claims the LHC can destroy CERN,  he could claim the world could stop spinning from a PC magnetic effect - yet you wrote your comment on a computer without fear.
    You don't like answering questions do you?. Are you even writing these responses to me or do you have a critic credentials slanging word generator that has now added Einstein to the list?

    My simple questions are :-

    1. Who is the jack or master of all trades at CERN who says that the LHC experiments are totally safe for this planet? Does s/he also understand Chaos theory and risk management?(yes that’s a new one)

    2. Isn't it fair to postpone the LHC experiments until the majority of scientists can either understand and/or predict the outcomes using theoretical physics before they do these experiments?

    3. Why shouldn't we be afraid that a bunch of mad scientists at CERN aren't paying enough attention to detail when the CERN website at http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html
    publicly references an expert comment document with a blatant typo "the arguments of Mr. Roessler are even self-contradictory: ONE THE ONE HAND....".

    You might think the last question about a typo is nit-picking, but as you claim that “the 'energy' actually produced by the LHC in the sense you understand it is less than a fruit fly” you might also understand that the fruit fly or 'butterfly effect' has the potential to be quite significant and catastrophic.

    As you are probably aware, and for those who aren’t (see Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect) “The butterfly effect is a metaphor that encapsulates the concept of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory; namely that small differences in the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. It questions whether the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas? (1972, Philip Merilees).

    Now I would like to question whether the equivalent energy to a fruit fly buzzing its wings, or two mosquitos colliding in Geneva, can in any way be related to or even cause an earthquake in the Andaman Islands or in Melbourne (see http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/epic/epic_global.php
    or even a volcanic eruption in Iceland, which as we all probably know, commenced at the end of 2009 and became much worse on April 14th 2010 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull#2010_eruptions?

    As you are also probably aware, and a Jack of all trades would be, but for those who aren’t, “Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, physics, economics and philosophy studying the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behaviour is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. Although this may appear to be an esoteric and unusual behavior, it is exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position…” (my highlighting) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory)
    .
    I am concerned that there was a hopefully unrelated large earthquake in the ANDAMAN ISLANDS, INDIA REGION on May 31st, coincidently on the same day that quote “ ...researchers on the OPERA experiment at the INFN’s Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy announce the first direct observation of a tau particle in a muon neutrino beam sent through the Earth from CERN, 730km away”. See http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2010/PR08.10E.html
    .
    Quote "Neutrinos can pass through matter without interacting with it; they keep the same direction of motion they have from their birth. Hence, as soon as they are produced, they maintain a straight path, passing through the Earth's crust. For this reason, it is extremely important that from the very beginning the beam points exactly towards the laboratories at Gran Sasso" (My underlining)
    See http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2010/PR08.10E.html

    Quote “The neutrino puzzle began with a pioneering and ultimately Nobel Prize winning experiment conducted by US scientist Ray Davis beginning in the 1960s. He observed far fewer neutrinos arriving at the Earth from the Sun than solar models predicted: either solar models were wrong, or something was happening to the neutrinos on their way. A possible solution to the puzzle was provided in 1969 by the theorists Bruno Pontecorvo and Vladimir Gribov, who first suggested that chameleon-like oscillatory changes between different types of neutrinos could be responsible for the apparent neutrino deficit”.

    Are these the same solar models, that apparently might be wrong, that the LSAG Report (See http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf relies upon when it claims that because the universe is doing the same experiments as the LHC and that because the Earth, Sun, neutron stars, white dwarfs and other astronomical bodies are all still here, then there is no safety problem when doing these same experiments on the Earth?

    Quote “The LHC reproduces in the laboratory, under controlled conditions, collisions at centre-of-mass energies less than those reached in the atmosphere by some of the cosmic rays that have been bombarding the Earth for billions of years. We recall the rates for the collisions of cosmic rays with the Earth, Sun, neutron stars, white dwarfs and other astronomical bodies at energies higher than the LHC. The stability of astronomical bodies indicates that such collisions cannot be dangerous.

    Did you know (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light) that an earthquake light, “is an unusual luminous aerial phenomenon, that reportedly appears in the sky at or near areas of tectonic stress, seismic activity, or volcanic eruptions. Once commonly challenged, it was not until photographs were taken during the Matsushiro earthquake swarm, from 1965 through 1967, that the seismology community acknowledged their occurrence”?And did you also know that Earthquake lights were reportedly spotted in Tianshui, Gansu, approximately 400 km north-northeast of the earthquakes epicenter. The phenomenon was also widely observed and caught on film during the 2010 Chile earthquakes

    Finally, did you know that Earthquake lights are caused by an unknown mechanism. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light) but that there are naturally numerous theories as to how and why they occur. “One explanation involves intense electric fields created piezoelectrically by tectonic movements of rocks containing quartz. Another possible explanation is local disruption of the Earth's magnetic field and/or ionosphere in the region of tectonic stress, resulting in the observed glow effects either from ionospheric radiative recombination at lower altitudes and greater atmospheric pressure or as aurora.”

    How do you know whether a universe generated or even a man-made tau particle in a muon neutrino beam sent through the Earth to a lab in Italy 730 km away from CERN, did not make chameleon-like oscillatory changes between different types of neutrinos, that could be responsible not just for the apparent neutrino deficit but also for creating the energy associated with these earthquake lights, which are caused by some unknown mechanism? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquake_light

    How can you be sure that this LHC experiment is not in any way related to the earthquake in the Andaman Islands on the same day and roughly in the same direction? Can you also be sure that the unusual earthquake in Melbourne on March 31st (the first this century) had nothing to do with the Geneva, experiment on 30 March 2010. where beams collided at 7 TeV in the LHC at 13:06 CEST, marking the start of the LHC research programme. Quote “With these record-shattering collision energies, the LHC experiments are propelled into a vast region to explore, and the hunt begins for dark matter, new forces, new dimensions and the Higgs boson, said ATLAS collaboration spokesperson, Fabiola Gianotti”.( see http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2010/PR07.10E.html

    From what I understand of the experiments at LHC, which as I am sure you will be quick to point out is not much, only a tiny percentage of the data is extracted and analysed by the computer programs involved. The vast majority of the particles generated go undetected, and are not even recorded, as this would be impossible with so many collisions per second. Accelerating particles to velocities close to the speed of light and bringing them into collision at very high energy is allowing you scientists to exploit the now discredited by you (or your critic slanging word-generator) Einstein’s equation E=mc² and to convert this energy into new particles.

    Quote “The higher the energy, the heavier the particles that can be produced, making it possible to explore states of matter that, while playing no apparent role in our daily life, were nevertheless present in the early instants of the Universe, when the prevalent high energy made their production possible”. (See the European Strategy for Particle Physics).

    Surely if these heavy particles are not contained and many not even identified because the computers can only select a very small percentage them, and surely if some can travel through the earth to Italy then others can travel through the earth to its magnetic core? Once created they are then impossible for man to control. Finally, is this why CERN say that .”For this reason, it is extremely important that from the very beginning the beam points exactly towards the laboratories at Gran Sasso"? (My underlining) see http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2010/PR08.10E.html

    Hank
    There is no 'jack of all trades' who hands down physics decisions.   CERN is not the UN IPCC or a body that votes on physics data.
    I am concerned that there was a hopefully unrelated large earthquake in the ANDAMAN ISLANDS, INDIA REGION on May 31st, coincidently on the same day that quote “ ...researchers on the OPERA experiment at the INFN’s Gran Sasso laboratory in Italy announce the first direct observation of a tau particle in a muon neutrino beam sent through the Earth from CERN, 730km away”. See http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2010/PR08.10E.html
    You are drawing correlations where you want to and making up causation arrows to go with them.   A few weeks ago an Iranian cleric was able to correlate earthquakes with immodest dress of women in Iran with just as much validity as you just did.  That does not mean a 'boobquake' occurred when a whole bunch of women in America made fun of him for it.

    Unless you are camped out in your house every day concerned about asteroids hitting you on the head or planes crashing into your car, I still don't understand your concern - the LHC taking us to a weird place  is 1/100 millionth the chance of those two events happening to you.
    It’s interesting that you should mention earthquakes in Iran because the large magnitude 6.1 Bandar Abbas earthquake occurred there on September 10th 2008 at 11:00:34 see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Iran

    Coincidentally on the same day that “The first beam in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN was successfully steered around the full 27 kilometres of the world’s most powerful particle accelerator at 10h28 this morning". See http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2008/PR08.08E.html

    Quote “Experiments at the LHC will allow physicists to complete a journey that started with Newton's description of gravity. Gravity acts on mass, but so far science is unable to explain the mechanism that generates mass. Experiments at the LHC will provide the answer. LHC experiments will also try to probe the mysterious dark matter of the universe – visible matter seems to account for just 5% of what must exist, while about a quarter is believed to be dark matter. They will investigate the reason for nature's preference for matter over antimatter, and they will probe matter as it existed at the very beginning of time”.

    Yes, I do appear to be drawing correlations where I want, and making up causation arrows and questions to go with them. I am not at all worried about asteroids hitting me on the head or planes crashing into my car, but I am still concerned that the LHC could ‘take us to a weird place’ as you put it.

    If there is no Jack of all trades at CERN who can explain why the LHC is not dangerous, then I suppose I shall just have to try to understand Quantum field theory and new generations and the invalidity of the standard model as revealed by the recent tau event, all by myself.

    By the way, who decides what is restricted information at CERN if there isn’t a Jack of all trades?

    Hank
    Coincidentally on the same day that “The first beam in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN was successfully steered around the full 27 kilometres of the world’s most powerful particle accelerator at 10h28 this morning"
    My gut told me I should have pulled this goofy article the minute I saw it - Rossler didn't recall giving this interview when I wrote him to ask why 'his' comments had Gillis' name on them - but I thought it better to have legitimate scientists debunking the bizarre anti-science hysteria these guys were fomenting.

    But it hasn't worked because none of you seem to read beyond what you were predisposed to believing and now you are stating something is coincidence and yet inferring it is more, even though the first 'beam' on that date was more like a flashlight, 10% of what Fermi has been doing for a long time.   I did more high energy physics in my microwave oven on that date so maybe I caused an earthquake.

    Regarding some jack-of-all-trades overlord, CERN is like any other group in high energy physics - it is run by an expert in physics, not a 'jack of all trades' and they are okay with press releases on general stuff but when it comes to actual results, they want 5 standard deviations so anything that is not accurate and confirmed multiple times is restricted.   Obviously they let people blog about all kinds of things there but you can't claim to have found the Higgs with a 65% confidence interval, for example.    It's funny that the most politically correct cultural group in the world - Europeans - is the one you think is going to be involved in a cover up about safety in the LHC.    It's more ridiculous than the aliens in Roswell conspiracy.
    Its funny that you (and not I) should mention UFOs Hank. Are they UFO’s or Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena?

    See http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/58/unidentified_atmospheri...

    In an Article called ‘Seeing the light’ Paul Devereux celebrates the ‘Cinderella’ of UFO research, and traces the evolution in our understanding of ‘earth lights’ and other luminous mysteries. Here are some excerpts...

    Quote “The heroic investigative efforts of Dr David Clarke and colleagues have revealed the Condign Report, a weighty internal document prepared for the British Ministry of Defence in 2000 (FT211:4–6). It concludes that, though UFOs are not alien spaceships, some sightings do relate to “Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena” (UAPs), a term first coined by UFO researcher Jenny Randles. It also cites the term “earth lights”, which I coined to describe the same range of phenomena”.

    Quote “Historical literature has revealed that people from all cultures and times have seen unexplained light phenomena. To the Irish they were fairy lights; to the Scots they were simply gealbhan (balls of fire); to Malaysians, pennangal – the spectral heads of women who had died in childbirth; to Indians they were local deities or the lanterns of spirits; to Africans they were devil lights; to Brazilians, the “Mother of Gold” leading to buried treasure; and to Chinese Buddhists they were Bodhisattva Lights. (The Indians and Chinese sometimes built temples where lights had appeared with some regularity.) Europeans visiting some of these lands also reported seeing strange lights – demonstrating they were more than just local lore.”

    Quote “In 1977, Canadian-based scientists Michael Persinger and Gyslaine Lafrenière published Space-Time Transients and Unusual Events. Using a statistical approach, they correlated reported UFOs in North America with “seismic-related sources”. They argued that the enormous energies built up in tectonic strain even without actual release in earthquakes were sufficient to produce glowing, ionised, lightforms in the atmosphere above such areas. Bodies of water, especially reservoirs, could also produce strain on underlying geology.In UFOs – A British Viewpoint (1979), Jenny Randles and Peter Warrington coined the term “Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena”, suggesting these were the root cause of many genuine sightings”.

    Quote “UAPs are exotic natural phenomena apparently belonging to the same family as earthquake lights and ball lightning but with their own distinctive characteristics, such as sometimes displaying greater longevity. There certainly seems to be an association between the appearance of UAPs and tectonic factors such as stresses and strains in the Earth’s crust, and there are doubtless many more sources of energy, geological and meteorological, that could power these lightforms. There is probably a spectrum of UAP types”.

    Quote “UAPs are presumably some form of plasma – plasmas can appear metallic in daylight and shine in the dark. But UAPs can occasionally also appear totally black – perhaps an indication of an anode-cathode, polarity-type effect. Two other characteristics of UAPs are so bizarre that one hesitates to mention them – but Fortean Times is not a publication for the intellectually squeamish (you saw the light first in its pages, after all, so we might as well be precognitive again!)”

    Quote “. One is that, according to witnesses far and wide, some UAPs seem to react to onlookers. John Keel, for instance, observed small lightballs in the Ohio Valley skittering about to avoid his flashlight beam. Again, geologists in a jeep chasing after a Marfa light felt that it “definitely had intelligence”. And several of the original Project Hessdalen people, including Erling Strand, have quietly admitted that in about 10 per cent of their observations they felt the lights interacted with them. If such reports have any credence, then some UAPs may possess rudimentary intelligence, often displayed as a playful, animal-like curiosity”.

    But this is a forbidden topic. For one thing, it raises the tricky question of the nature of consciousness. Scholars and scientists cannot agree on what that actually is, but the prevailing reductionist view is that it is an effect of brain complexity. To even suggest that consciousness might manifest in geophysical contexts as well as biological ones is to go beyond the pale. Nevertheless, laboratory studies in Romania have revealed cell-like forms within plasmas that can replicate, grow, and communicate…

    Quote “The other highly exotic Unidentified Atmospheric Phenomena (UAP) characteristic sometimes reported might give the strongest clue to the deep nature of these phenomena. It revolves around QUANTUM PHYSICS” (my capitalisation).

    Quote “ If you examine a solid object closely enough, down through its constituent molecules and its atoms, it dissolves (as does all matter) into the weird sub-atomic quantum realm where peculiar properties prevail: entanglement, for instance, in which electrons can communicate with one another instantaneously over any distance; or quantum events that are neither waves nor particles but probabilities that “collapse” into one or the other when subjected to attention”.

    Quote “It is only in the last decade that science has noticed vast energetic phenomena such as SPRITES (coloured discharges of energy rising thousands of feet above certain types of thunder clouds) or ELVES (discoid lightning of enormous size) (see FT86:14, 178:13), so it’s perhaps no wonder the relatively more intimate UAPs have gone unnoticed”.

    Did anyone look to see if there were any of these UAP above the thunderstorm at CERN that knocked out the cooling towers? See scientificblogging article - The LHC Passed Every Test Except The Thunderstorm One at http://www.scientificblogging.com/big_science_gambles/the_lhc_passed_eve...

    Back to http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/58/unidentified_atmospheri...

    Quote “Perhaps the existence of the Condign Report might give enough confidence to a few brave scientists to seek proper funding and resources to commence serious scientific research on UAPs. But only prolonged, direct study of them in their habitats is likely to reveal their secrets. Although there have been short-lived attempts at scientific field studies over the years, the only ongoing effort is Project Hessdalen. An automatic field station there is continuously online (www.hessdalen.org/station/), but Erling Strand is strapped for cash and time. Better funding and resources are needed. UAPs are saucerfuls of secrets that could change our world, for they seem to display physics we have yet to understand”.

    To see youtube film of the earthquake lights that appeared in Chile and China recently see go to -

    http://www.google.com.au/search?q=youtube+earthquake+lights&hl=en&safe=o...

    10th June 2010 Video of Elves and Sprites Caught Dancing Near the Edge of Space, anything to do with LHC experiments?

    See livescience article by Brett Israel, Staff Writer posted: 10 June 2010 11:40 am ET
    See http://www.livescience.com/environment/elves-sprites-100610.html

    Quote “ Spectacular light shows shooting out of the tops of storms clouds have been reported by pilots for decades. At first, scientists didn't believe what the pilots claimed to be seeing. Now the strange colored lights have been captured on high-speed video".

    Quote "The fleeting, brilliant electric phenomena are known as elves and sprites. These electric displays are produced in the upper layers of the atmosphere. They've been photographed and videotaped before, but in the new research, they have been captured in a variety of forms that will allow the researchers to study the structure and dynamics of these strange electric discharges."

    Quote "This is the first time in Europe that we have been able to use high-speed video to detect transitory luminous phenomena taking place in the upper atmosphere — so-called sprites [in the form of a carrot or column] and elves [which are ring shaped]," said study co-author Joan Montanyà of the Polytechnic University of Catalonia (UPC) in Spain".

    Quote "Sprites are jellyfish-shaped emissions that occur above thunderstorms. These and other lightning-related phenomena — like blue jets and elves — are called transient luminous events (TLEs). "

    Outlines of the elves, sprites and blue jets of storms. Credit: Danish National Space Center.
    Full Size

    1 of 2
    Sprites, also called red sprites, frequently occur in clusters of three or more. They soar up to 59 miles (95 kilometers) into the atmosphere, above thunderstorms. Their flash is incredibly brief — just 3 to 10 thousandths of a second long. The flashes expand to cover a wide area but are weak in electrical energy. Their brightest portions exist 40 to 45 miles (65 to 75 kilometers) up, above which wisps and glowing regions often extend.
    Occurring at about the same time as red sprites are elves, a pancake-shaped red glow created by the heat of conventional lightning below. These flashes last only thousandths of a second, and scientists are still investigating exactly what causes them.

    Blue jets — cousins to red sprites — are cones of bluish light that occur lower in the atmosphere than red sprites.
    As it is difficult to record these phenomena inside a storm while they're happening, the researchers placed a high-speed video camera on land with an image intensifier. This was used to remotely record a winter storm in the Western Mediterranean at a distance of between 250 and 620 miles (400 and 1,000 kilometers) away from the recorder between the coasts of Italy and Spain.

    For video see http://www.livescience.com/environment/elves-sprites-100610.html

    I have two quick questions.

    There is an article that reviews Prof Rossler's article but is never referred to in these sort of interviews. Prof Rossler says his proof has never been invalidated but never refers to this either. It is found here...

    http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/NicolaiComment-en.pdf

    In case the link didn't work.. it is here..

    http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHC...

    A few of it's points...

    "1) The argument of Mr. Roessler rests upon a coordinate-dependent reinterpretation
    of the concept of 'spatial distance' (which he calls the 'true' one),
    and that is used to support some arbitrary 'physical' arguments that are at odds
    with conclusions of general relativity.
    Formula (1) of his article appears in all text books and simply expresses the wellknown
    fact that an object, as measured in the coordinate time of a distant
    observer, needs an infinitely long time to reach the horizon (or rather, that no
    light beam can escape the horizon). The correct physical interpretation of the
    mathematical statements of general relativity (and only this is the point, since Mr.
    Rössler has only taken over well-known formulas) has been established for
    decades and has been confirmed in countless experiments. In particular,
    physical statements must not depend on the choice of a coordinate system - for
    example, if a black hole emits radiation or not is not a question of choosing a
    particular coordinate system.
    (2) Abraham's theory, to which Mr. Roessler refers in part, may be considered as
    disproved since 1915. At that time Abraham made the attempt (in confrontation
    with Einstein) to formulate a scalar theory of gravitation in the framework of
    special relativity. However this theory predicts a false precession of the [Mercury]
    perihelion (-1/6 of Einstein's result) and 'no' deflection of light, which clearly
    contradicts precise observations (the deflection of light has been measured to a
    precision of 10-4).
    (3) The arguments of Mr. Roessler are even self-contradictory: one the one hand,
    the black hole does not radiate because it is supposed to be at infinite distance in
    the re-interpreted spatial geometry, on the other hand he says that because of its
    infinite distance it cannot arise within a finite time, and thus can also not be
    produced in the laboratory."

    Second question.

    When Prof Rossler says that his argument on super fluidity was accepted by a Nobel Laureate, who is he talking about?

    Dear Mr. Degraves:

    Thank you for highlighting the fact that CERN does not give links to rebuttals to rebuttals commissioned by itself - like the Nicolai report. That explains my answer to Mr Gillis that "the matter is pending" since I had long answered and am still waiting for a reply.

    To the short Nicolai report that you kindly referred to, I did respond in public on: www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2008/08/05. The same thing holds true for the second public comment by Giulini and Nicolai, to which I replied in German at the same URL (but ending on 06 rather than on 05). For your convenience I provide a a shortened English translation of bothz:

    #1) Professor Nicolai's expert opinion requested by CERN, came as a surprise to me since we had never met even though I had been promised this contact at CERN. The report does not recognizably refer to my second - relativistic - paper, the one with the Gothic-R theorem, but obviously only to the first - essentially chaos-theoretic one - on the same Url (www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/ottoroesslerminiblackhole.pdf). This reading of mine could explain how the false claim made by Professor Nicolai came into being: that I were contradicting both Einstein's theory of general relativity and experiment by my (allegedly) supporting an experimentally disproved paper by Abraham from the year 1915; which I in fact had never quoted nor alluded to nor even knew. My only referral to Abraham was Abraham 1912, in the second - relativistic - paper, for my new theorem, presented there, unexpectedly confirmed a wishful thought of Abraham's expressed toward Einstein in a published question in 1912.

    #2) Report by Giulini nad Nicolai: Dear colleagues, you are writing me public letters of rebuttal without granting me prior access to them. Now, you also declined my kind request to be allowed to talk to you for the first time before my responding in public. My answer can be brief: First, I appreciate the evolution that visibly took place between your, Professor Nicolai, first public criticism of my work and this second response. In the first, you still asserted that my findings were at variance with both experiment and General Relativity - being disproved as such since 1915. These two verdicts are now gone. The theorem remains unscathed and nature is no longer invoked as your ally. Nothing but “interpretation” is still at stake. But a theorem by definition is more than an interpretation since it invites disproof, not polemics in its stead, and/or empirical falsification or - sometimes more dangerous - verification. Let me nevertheless add that I am disappointed with this "progress" shown between the two reports. For like the public at large, I had genuinely hoped for a falsifying statement on your part.

    Let me add that if an authority in the field of General Relativity had been able to disprove my Gothic-R Theorem, this would have dispelled its unsettling implications which, unfortunately, are of more than mere academic interest. People across the planet have thus been gravely disappointed by your report.

    At this point I should mentioned that I wrote a third rebuttal - to a public statement made by KET, an organization of 20 eminent German institutions in loose connection with CERN. This response written in German was titled "Attempt at a clarifying statement - subito, al monodo!", see: www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2008/08/11. Let me briefly summarize:

    #3) Firstly, Nicolai's abandoned false statements are repeated. Secondly, the prestigious 20 institutions are misleading the public when they say that "under no circumstances" would any "danger to our existence" emerge from black holes produced at CERN, and that "cosmological observations do imply this,too," whilst I, their target, am accused of keeping silent toward this important issue. It is important, but I'm not the one who keeps silent: I had found out to my reluctance, and immediately mailed to CERN in May (as acknowledged by Professor Landua on the 4th of July), that these arguments which draw sweet consolation from cosmic-ray collisions of the same or greater energy than the artificial ones at CERN, are unfortunately invalid. (Compare the end of the above interview.) At the end, I could not resist reminding the reader of Einstein's remark to Linus Pauling that he had made "a single mistake in life." The context makes it clear: the mistaike of not having put his full energy behind his active attempt to prevent the trigger from being pulled on a certain technical reactor in mid-air. Sometimes, every effort is needed in life, the old man wanted to say.

    Allow me to add today that very recently, a young anonymous scientist-blogger ("ICH") found the full 3-D version to the radial gothic-R solution to the Schwarzschild metric. In its wake, a so far overlooked hidden assumption present in the famous traditional "finite-proper-infalling-time theorem" could be pinpointed tentatively. If the lead bears out, the Oppenheimer-Dynder theorem ceases to be physical without losing its mathematical correctness (if the new-found physical conditions are specially provided). All diverging opinions will then be reconciled.

    Can I rattle on a little longer? The lack of a rebuttal of my results stands in stark contrast to public statements currently being made made almost every day by leading CERN representatives. Unfortunately, it goes without saying that this state of affairs accompanies an already started LHC experiment. Hence an incalculablle danger - for the first time to every single atom of the planet - is optimistically embraced. I wish I may, I wish I might.

    But that you don't read me wrong: I never really believed into that danger myself. I just tried hard to validate every single defense argument that I could come across: that it is no joke perhaps in the eyes of nature. For the whole suspicion had not been my own idea, it had been posed to me as a joke - or was it a riddle? A much more competent colleague whom I had consulted on my relativity paper had made the jokeful remark that my academic theorem in general relativity - with its sensitivity to historical undercurrents - could have repercussions on a certain three-letter acronym that I had never heard - LHC? - and laughed heartily. Was he serious? I only wanted to make sure that the joke had been one. Perhaps someone else will find the resolution of this conundrum? It would be too nice indeed if I could return to my l'art-pour-l'art activities soon. That is: before the tenth of Septemmber when collisions start in earnest.

    I am obliged to you, Mr. Degraves, for your having insisted on my answering your public question. Sorry that I am not very adroit at this meedium which I beg you to take as an excuse why it took me so long.

    Since CERN has such a difficult time defusing the very same joke, and so has the Albert-Einstein-Institute, and so has the Committee of Elementary Particles - evidently we all are pulling on the same string! - maybe the idea to convene a conference where people can at last talk across institutional barriers and the slowness of friendly CERN-borne media is, perhaps, not a bad idea after all?

    Or else a reader of this blog is even faster than the 18 days that still remain to us for the conference, finding the missing cue that explodes the whole joke so we all can laugh again from the depth of our hearts?

    As to your final question regarding the friendly nobelist: He did not reply as yet to my letter with the "A rational and moral and spiritual dilemma" paper in it, in which I had quoted him anonymously twice as you know. So I cannot tell whether I have his nod to reveal his identity at this point in time. (He is a great laugher.) Is this okay with you, Mr. Degraves?

    A privileged postscript: I wasn't pressured by Mr Gillis when he allowed me to read his "Superfluids, BECs and Bosenovas" article before the interview started.

    Sincerely yours,
    Otto. E. Rossler
    For J.O.R.

    So far the scientific community and the public at large haven’t heard much about Rössler’s new theories. Those who have say he hasn’t the credentials in physics, though his accomplishments are many, and in several fields, including physics papers he’s published, and teaching Theoretical Physics.

    This person has a degree in medicine. Having visiting teaching positions in Theoretical Physics (likely related to the Theoretical Biology/Chaos fields he is established in) does not make one an expert in Theoretical or any other type of physics.

    As an engineering student, even I can see the logical fallacies in this man's statements - I've taken a course in modern physics, and he is using technical "physics" words without seeming to understand what they really mean.

    While I don't disagree that projects such as this need to have safety investigations, they are performed by experts in the field, not interested novices whose "theories" fail cursory review (see the review of his paper by an actual physicist, as given above http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/NicolaiComment-en.pdf).

    If you want to call him a novice what do you call me something who crawled out of the slums or grammar school or something.

    RichardKanePA,

    Of course I, RichardKanePA-2, don't know how dangerous it is. But the info to soothe the masses is that mini Black Holes occur very occasionally when cosmic rays pass thru a planetary body, and comes in contact with a piece of a molecule but a cosmic ray bouncing like two billiard balls colliding will at nearly the speed of light be out of the earths atmosphere and crust in a fraction of a second to collect mini amounts of matter out in deep space.

    So researchers are humoring the public into relaxing, whether or not there is any real danger. Besides at first Einstein was about pure math, bombs were a so called practical result, us monkeys have powerful enough forces already although perhaps someday mini black holes may be garbage cans to put in nuclear waste etc.

    I want to march on the UN to get involved.
    See, www
    .capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416#comment-41936
    .capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416#comment-41732
    .capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416#comment-41936

    While we all realize Professor Rossler might not readily qualify to present the physics sections of the LHC EIS, he qualifies imminently to express his opinions about the experiments as a learned member of the public. I, for one, am grateful that he does what he does. All the power to him.

    Going back to his credentials, if they are inadequate for him to really know what he is concerned about, then it should be a piece of cake for the 'credible' people to resolve his concerns. In the absence of that, the controversy brews because the truth is we have unspecified uncertainties about potential failures and their consequences.

    (This is my second response. #3 was mine.)

    Hank
    No one can satisfy theoretical concerns. If someone is convinced they are going to be in a car accident, talking statistically or scientifically about it will do no good.

    So it is with some opponents of the LHC; their concerns are about unknown science. In the early days of railroads they tested with dogs because they were not certain people could survive going 30 MPH - at some point they needed people to go for it. Likewise, the LHC has been tested as well as anything can be tested but the same people who are crippled by fear of getting on planes are never going to have relief about the LHC unless something goes wrong - so they get to be right.

    It's not so much about the qualifications of Prof Rossler but about the math in this situation.

    For one thing... these rebuttals of Prof Rossler's work have never been addressed, either by himself nor by those who believe his work to be correct.

    http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/NicolaiComment-en.pdf

    http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/NicolaiFurtherComment-en.pdf

    In addition, there are very odd aspects to this interview and to the meeting that Prof Rossler attended.

    For one thing, it would have been preferable for Prof Rossler to have been interviewed by a real journalist, ie someone who does not have a specific agenda, as is shown by this leading question...

    Gillis: Then you support my idea that a possible bosenova explosion could threaten the LHC and Geneva?

    This shows fairly strong bias towards a specific response, one that Prof Rossler had little time to evaluate before being asked to agree with it.

    For another thing, from the interview, it seems like the Prof was not shown much nor is there much in the way of the details of the conversation. A more complete article would have included the views of Dr Landua as well. Maybe that can be the next interview.

    Dr. Rossler addresses criticisms of his paper at achtphasen.net

    Prof. Otto E. Rössler an Gerhard W. Bruhn

    "the diverging conclusion... is therefore not disconfirmed. On the contrary. Which of the two interpretations of the same finding is correct remains open."

    Those at CERN can't even figure out what the Uniform Field is even though it's right in front of their faces at every single moment, and yet they feel perfectly qualified that what they're doing is "perfectly safe".

    If they can't even figure out the very simplest thing in all physics, why should I trust anything they say?

    The Uniform Field is pre-school, pre-kindergarten stuff. Why are they having such trouble with something so simple? If you know what the Uniform Field is, a ridiculously expensive and dangerous boondoggle like the LHC is completely irrelevant and absolutely worthless. It's just an over-priced pile of junk built by those who have a vested interest in construction payments and others who think they have a vested career interest in something that's really nothing more than a giant kevorkianesque suicide machine.

    Using nothing more than pen and paper, I unlocked the secrets of the universe. Why? Because I actually dared to use my mind to think with. Using a totally low-tech method, I succeeded. Although, I did try using a chalkboard and chalk, but chalk dust got all over everything and I prefer the pen and paper method because I have hard copies of my work which I can and do constantly refer to and correct when needed.

    And what's the Uniform Field from which every single everything derives?

    You're looking right at it right this very moment. Do you see it? Do you recognize it?

    Hint: What color is a photon? The photon itself, not the effect it has on your retina. Further hint: it's the exact same color as an electron. And proton. And of course neutron. As well as neutrino. And the actual color of everything else.

    If you know the correct answer, welcome to kindergarten!
    As Judge Dredd would say, "I knew you could do it!"

    Kindergarten? Judge Dredd? LOLWHUT?

    The paper at this reference...

    http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2008/08/08/gerhard_w_bruhn_darmstadt_university_of__2008

    is a refutation of Prof Rossler's theory by Prof Gerhard W. Bruhn who is a relatively well known mathematician. Prof Rossler's rebuttal of Prof Bruhn's paper is one paragraph with no math and little substance.

    This is a nice little paper. Everything it says is also said in the quoted paper, reference (2), which is represented in but a few (non-literal) excerpts. Only the diverging conclusion, presented at the very end, is new. It is obtained as follows: Since the paper of reference (2) has arrived at a result which, as it stresses, is at variance with accepted calculations based, not on the Schwarzschild metric itself but rather on transforms of the latter (as is detailed in the present paper with the aid of the Eddington-Finkelstein transform), it is bound to be “void.” The conclusion of reference (2) that the fault lies with the use of transforms - compare the Jacob’s-ladder argument in ordinary space presented there - is therefore not disconfirmed. On the contrary. Which of the two interpretations of the same finding is correct remains open. Nonetheless, the odds for a consensus have been greatly improved by an author who chose to enter the Olympic court on this side of the ocean, on 080808.

    I don't know who he is referring to with that last sentence but this can hardly be considered a proper response to Prof Bruhn's article. Prof Rossler simply claims that both interpretations could be correct without any proof. He also ignores the claim that the math in the rebuttal and it's interpretation is also backed by experimental results as is pointed out in the other refutations I have linked.

    I note also that Prof Rossler has never addressed these other refutations. I am not sure he knows they exist however, even though they are linked at the CERN website.

    Also... I take it there is no sign of the Nobel laureate that was mentioned in the article? I am curious as to whom he meant.

    Dr. Ellis Defends Safety Arguments

    I recently viewed Dr. Ellis's 73 minute presentation of safety arguments to CERN scientists. The LHC is Safe. The talk was intended to give ammunition to CERN scientists to use to defend safety arguments. The mood of the CERN scientists in the audience in notably serious and somber.

    Dr. Ellis's criticisms of minority views were blunt as is my response to what I consider to be more about public relations propaganda and less about objective science.

    Dr. Jonathan Ellis tells only half of the story unfortunately.

    All of Dr. Ellis's arguments are disputed, done best in papers by Professor Dr. Otto E. Rössler[2] and Dr. Rainer Plaga[3].

    By far the worst argument is for Hawking Radiation, clearly fundamentally flawed conjecture. Did you see Dr. Ellis's slide with the outlandish reference to reverse time travel? I did not see a reference to negative energy though. LOL (Laugh Out Loud, anti-matter falling into black holes adds energy to the black hole, no matter how clever the counter arguments are to try to correct Dr. Hawking's more than 30 year old blunder). See the following for references to a few compelling papers that argue Hawking Radiation is flawed conjecture, black holes are neutral* and do not radiate: [4][5][6]*).

    Dr. Michael E. Peskin argues that the micro black hole danger scenarios are plausible except that they are excluded by cosmic ray arguments[1], but he does not address compelling counter arguments by Dr. Plaga[2] and Dr. Rossler[3], summarized well by Dr. Plaga "Concluding, G & M have not demonstrated that white dwarfs stop cosmic-ray produced mBHs in general. Their exclusion of dangerous mBHs thus remains not definite."

    (For the record I do not find plausible the arguments that safety is sufficiently proven for micro black holes created at Large Hadron Collider energies, but the safety of micro black holes created by future higher energy colliders still requires confirmation. I was unable to reconcile this line of reasoning other than it may have been creative wording to disguise and minimize minority opposition concerns in the SPC report.)

    The most disturbing statement of all was the stunningly arrogant prediction that safety will be proven when the Large Hadron Collider begins high energy collisions in a few weeks.

    I suspect General Custer said something similar to re-assure his troops that he would defeat the American Indian's at the Little Big Horn. General Custer was arrogant and ignorant, but his mistake had relatively limited consequences.

    Dr. Ellis comments that Hawking Radiation is "just elementary quantum mechanics" and argues only that an extremely implausible CP violation result could allow failure. Learn about Bohmian (Einstein deterministic) Quantum theory[7] Dr. Ellis then decide which passes the Occam's Razor test by an order of magnitude and decide how sure you are about "elementary quantum mechanics" before you arrogantly potentially risk the future of humanity and belittle the genius of Dr. Rössler and others in your rush to prove yourself correct. Reverse Hawking Radiation is a theory you should familiarize your self with, it is predicted by at least one speculative theory that I find compelling[8].

    An open and independent safety conference as Dr. Rössler calls for is desperately needed before micro black hole creation energy thresholds might be exceeded. The response to petition Swiss President Pascal Couchepin not to meet with Dr. Rössler appears to follow the pattern that Dr. Rossler alleges in his blog[9] "I consider it very plausible that the [disinformation] policy of CERN’s has shielded the author from his field of research for the last 18 months"

    Heed the appeal for reasonable confirmation of safety arguments by an open and independent credible decision making process before collisions begin.

    Sincerely,
    JTankers
    Founder and co-administrator of LHCFacts.org

    *Dr. Otto E. Rössler's brilliant yet obvious re-interpretation[6] of General Relativity theory concludes that mass in black holes is infinitely far in space time from the event horizon and black holes never reach infinite density because time approaches a stop as infinite density is approached. Dr. Rossler calculates that Earth will be destroyed in 50 months to 50 years if micro black holes are created (micro black holes become charged by capturing charged particles outside the event horizon). Dr. Ellis arrogantly and ignorantly belittles "Mr. Rössler". Inappropriate and misguided.

    [0] http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1120625/ ''The LHC is Safe'', Jonathan Ellis, August 14, 2008.
    [1] http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/14 ''The end of the world at the Large Hadron Collider?'' - Michael E. Peskin Paper, 8/18/2008
    [2] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v1.pdf ''On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders'' - Rainer Plaga Rebuttal, 8/10/2008
    [3] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf ''A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma'' - Otto E. Rōssler Safety Counter Arguments
    [4] http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304042v1 Do black holes radiate? '' Do black holes radiate?'' - Adam D. Helfer Paper.
    [5] http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607137 On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again ''On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again'' - VA Belinski Paper.
    [6] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf ''Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk'' - Otto E. Rōssler Theory a
    [7] http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700 Quantum randomness may not be random, New Scientist Magazine, March 22, 2008
    [8] http://www.bigcrash.org "The Pre-Big Bang Universe Model", open source speculative physics project
    [9] http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2008/08/21/on_the_splend... "On the Splendid Article by Michael E. Peskin" by Otto E. Rossler, August 21, 2008

    To Dr. Rossler.

    Thank you very much for answering my questions. I missed the fact that you had and I am quite frankly mortified.

    If you don't mind, I would like to continue this conversation, even in such an indirect fashion. If you wish to be more direct I will provide my email address here, though sadly my german is poor...or we can continue here.

    First of all, I would like to assure you that I consider you a most worthy academic, even though I may not agree with your position in this case. This done, I have the following questions.

    1.

    I note that, though there are several papers that CERN has published about your new interpretation of relativity that contradict it, I have not seen any work from any physicists that support it. Perhaps I have missed something. Of course, this does not invalidate it per se but it would be far more daunting if independent confirmations of your interpretation were arrived at.

    2.

    You say

    In the first, you still asserted that my findings were at variance with both experiment and General Relativity - being disproved as such since 1915. These two verdicts are now gone.

    In what way are these verdicts gone?

    Here is the crux of my problem with this... your theory has been attacked as being an incorrect derivation of relativity at odds with experimentation and almost a hundred years of mathematical work. Can you point out where, specifically, this is false? Are there experimental values that support your interpretation?

    3.

    In the case of the Bosonova part of the interview, I simply meant that you agreed with his interpretation without what I would consider to be the proper time to examine the situation in a considered light, unless you were already quite familiar with the science of Bose-Einstein condensates, etc.

    4.

    You mention superfluidity in your interview. However, from what I have been able to read, it appears that a neutron star is not so simple a creature, ie it is not a superfluid throughout. It would have a crust, quite compact but not superfluidic and this would be quite a lot for micro black holes to simply pass through. Of course, this assumes that a super fluid would allow a micro black hole such unrestrained passage. Are there any studies on this subject?

    5.
    Your interpretation is a derivation of relativity. However, would a micro black hole not be mostly ruled by quantum mechanics, considering it's microscopic size? As far as I know, relativity has never been successfully used to described the sub-atomic world.

    I would like to make a last point if I may.

    It seems that we both have a similar emotion towards the LHC. I believe in science and want to see it move forward but not at the cost of the whole planet and all that live on it. However, I also believe that proper scientific dialog is the only way to resolve issues that stand in the way of understanding such dangers, if dangers there are. The problem, from my point of view, is that there is far too many people who have alarmist agendas and who's understanding of the science is limited. This tends to make the CERN scientists paint all who are concerned with the same brush. The recent paper by Dr. Rainer Plaga is quite interesting but again, it has many flaws. I think it would be interesting and maybe convincing if you could get some experts in the field to confirm or infirm your theory but I fear that few will want to do so for fear of being seen in the same light as some of your supporters.

    As an aside, I do not know if you are aware of the pain this causes to many people who do not understand the science but only know that they may die soon because they read it on the internet. Your name is oft quoted to further an agenda of fear and I consider that most unfortunate.

    Whereas I do not like to imagine a catastrophic result like a black hole or strangelet devouring the earth, I will not succumb to the primitive fear of the unknown, no matter how tempting it might be. If there is a logical reason to stop or slow down the LHC experiment, I say "let's hear it and let's have it evaluated properly by those who are experts in the field." If not.. let us put an end to the fear.

    Rössler has been a scientist for decades, yet only just started working on general relativity (let alone elementary particle physics or string theory) - now he claims to have some revolutionary new results that contradict what almost everyone in those fields has been saying for decades.

    We could say with certainty almost from the beginning: These are just beginner's mistakes, amplified by someone who places a great faith in his own abilities. Anyone who tries to change fields, let alone to subjects as subtle as quantum physics or GR, must start learning from scratch and make sure they understand the existing literature, otherwise they will make these sort of errors again and again.

    Just for one example: The question of whether black holes may be charged. Rössler tries to argue that they cannot be, because of some properties of the Schwarzschild metric. However, that metric is only appropriate for uncharged black holes anyway. In order to deal with charged BH you need a different solution, namely the Reissner-Nordstrom metric. This does not seem to have penetrated through to Rössler yet...

    Alan Gillis
    This is a nice psycholgical statement by a professional physicist. It is about probabilities, and I have no occasion to object. There is no mistake anywhere. Only some to the author unknown facts are necessarily absent. Like the duration of work in the area - some 16 years. But there are indeed not many papers in the field (only about ten). One even contains a mistake - actually two - which, I admit, I did not draw special attention to when correcting them in later papers. This technique I learned from Maxwell but I admit is not optimal: I deserve being castigated for that. Also, it is correct that Professor Nicolai contradicted my theorem in public in his first statement (violation of general relativity; violation of experimental facts) but ceased to do so in his second public statement (written jointly with Professor Giulini and no longer in English). Why he refuses to acknowledge this retreat I cannot ask him since he refused communication from the beginning and still does. The fact that he still objects to my "interpretation" I will have to live with since I did the same thing to previously accepted interpretations in my paper. So we do agree on a metalevel. The point here is that theorems have a different weight than interpretations. The former are susceptible to disproof. So if my theorem is no longer being assailed by someone who did so before, he acknowledges defeat. Maybe all theorems from newcomers should be banished? Mine implies that all black holes are uncharged (so that only the Schwarzschild metric remains for their proper treatment, in the assumed absence of angular momentum. Why should such a result not be presented to the world? Like any scientist, I look forward to being falsified. Especially so in the present situation in which the world at large does not have the means to judge my theorem and its implications. Opinions are not the franchise the world expects for once. Like the public statement that what Professor Rossler says "is absolute nonsense." Both Director General Aymar and Professor Ellis from CERN who made this statement will have a difficult job explaining it to the public. The whole world waits for the evidence. This sounds as if I were sure. The contrary is true. I only want to be given the benefit of the doubt. Doubt says: I don't believe you but I try to find out. This currency was denied, not to me but to every citizen of the world, by CERN. I liked your very perceptive response. Sometimes one has to take recourse to probabilities. As you did and as I do when I say that the unprecedented danger unfortunately still has a finite (not even small?) probability. So you contributed by your doubts to the fact that the world will now ask for a short-term evaluation of the danger I (and others) described before the experiment starts on September the tenth. We both give the other the chance to respond because we both remain in the question mode - right? Thank you for this rare gift. Sincerely yours, Otto E. Rossler
    Hank
    I liked your very perceptive response. Sometimes one has to take recourse to probabilities. As you did and as I do when I say that the unprecedented danger unfortunately still has a finite (not even small?) probability. So you contributed by your doubts to the fact that the world will now ask for a short-term evaluation of the danger I (and others) described before the experiment starts on September the tenth.
    We both give the other the chance to respond because we both remain in the question mode - right? Thank you for this rare gift. Sincerely yours, Otto E. Rossler

    Who is actually writing this stuff? It says Alan Gillis but then is signed Otto Rossler.

    Alan Gillis

    It's a ScientificBlogging software glitch. Dr Rössler wrote it and sent it in. When it was published, an extra line of gibberish appeared below his signature, and he asked me to delete it. I did that and then my name replaced his as the sender.

     

    Physics is in flux right now. Many theories are proposed. It is well known that quantum theory and relativity do not agree. Given this flux, it seems impossible to prove to a very high certainty the safety of a foray into territory exhibiting unknown physics, the very purpose of the LHC.
    A demonstration of the difficulty of proving safety is the speed with which three collider safety studies became outmoded by new physics. The 1999 RHIC study said that black hole creation by colliders was impossible. Within months, some string theorists were predicting black hole production. The 2003 CERN study said that black holes would dissipate via Hawking radiation. At the same time, and even earlier, studies appeared questioning Hawking radiation. The 2008 LSAG study is already questioned. I am not saying that any of these questions are definitive. I think that there is a fairly good probability that colliders are safe. However, standard decision theory would address this with an expected value calculation, i.e. probability times the cost if the probability is actualized. When the cost is destruction of earth, any reasonable probability results in an enormous negative expected value. Humanity should not address this with safety studies made up of advocates for one side.

    James...

    Your decision theory is absolutely silly when it's applied the way you apply it.

    Let me give you an example... one that I more or less copied from Scott Adams (this way he can't sue me for taking the credit for the idea :) ).

    Let's say I ask you for a thousand dollars now... but I will repay you a billion trillion dollars in the afterlife.

    Now.. the odds of me being able to repay you that much in the afterlife seems rather small... but on an expected value calculation a high reward compensates for a low probability...so it's not so bad a deal is it?

    So... how about it. I could use the cash now.

    Fact is.. there is no acceptable level of risk when the chips are down... but your type of analysis would lead to a complete stop to all scientific exploration... as there is no project out there that you can demonstrate an absolute zero level of risk, even to the entire earth. I could go on at length about the risks in any biological experiments, physics, robotics, etc. You don't understand the physics involved and you insist on applying methods of analysis that are not appropriate to the subject at hand.

    Hardly a fair estimate.

    RobDegraves, your example is precisely Pascal's wager. Do you disparage the religious people who think that way? (Most religious people have better reasons for their faith.) Your example is a straw man. In the context of decision theory, a gamble of the kind you propose does not make sense because of the declining marginal utility of money. If you don't get that, then "you don't understand the economics involved." Look it up.

    My argument is essentially that of Adrian Kent, in his paper "A critical look at risk assessments for global catastrophes," (Risk Analysis, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2004) I agree that the value of science needs to be put in the balance. I told Adrian Kent that, and I am one of the many people he thanks in the article because of that comment. However, science is not so valuable that it justifies taking anything but a very small chance of destroying earth. That limit might shut some science down, and properly so. But it would allow most to continue. Unfortunately, it is a limit that is not currently implemented, despite much talk of the precautionary principle. If it were implemented, scientists would not see it as a threat that would take away something that they have now. What they have now is the right to bet the world on the truth of their theories, often quite speculative theories.

    I am familiar with Pascal's wager. However, Pascal's wager, and in fact all risk analysis falter in one specific area. They are dependent on an understanding and knowledge of the subject matter to base the wager on.

    In the case of Pascal's wager, the infinite rewards of worshiping God are contrasted with the finite rewards of earthly life. In that case, infinite over finite is 1/0 and is an obvious winner. However, there are a number of problems with this.

    1. Which God (s) exist? In addition to the thousands of faiths in history.. there could be an infinite more that may exist in the future. Which one is correct is impossible to determine and choosing the wrong one may well make any afterlife more difficult.

    2. It does not deal with the central issue... is any of this true? Pascal's wager is just that, a wager. It does not attempt to determine the truth of the matter.

    In this case, the second objection is closer to the situation at hand.

    Science evaluated by statisticians does not make for very good science. So far, the arguments for the LHC producing a catastrophe have been remarkably lacking in actual qualified authorship. Prof Rossler is likely the most erudite of the lot and he is not a physicist. Other than Dr Plaga, the others are largely taken out of context and have no real objections to the LHC or are not practicing physicists at all. Dr. Plaga remains the only actual physicist with an objection to the LHC and his work has yet to be evaluated.

    So.. how do put an estimate on the probability of the world being destroyed in this case, where an overwhelming majority of physicists say the possibility is essentially nul, and one physicist says that it may not be completely nul?

    Also...

    However, science is not so valuable that it justifies taking anything but a very small chance of destroying earth.

    This we agree on. The problem is evaluating if there is even that small chance. I would say that so far, there is little evidence to show even a small chance... but that jury is still out for now.

    As an aside, using the term strawman and claiming that my lack of understanding of decision theory invalidates my argument is a rather poor way to continue a debate and only solidifies people into their original stance. If you have a point I am more than happy to respond to it directly.... as I have.

    Hi, I know I'm just a student and everything but I read your article, sir, and I was wondering why the public doesn't even know about this, I'm not talking about the scientists, I mean the genearal public no one I know know's of this. If you would like to gain a serious advantage, consult the public through the media and start with the United Kingdom, create polls, let the public have their say in this, if paople knew about this it would cause international outrage that it was kept so quite what happened to freedom of expression and the right to live, which I'm sure we have. People have a right to know when a bunch of mad scientists are toying with their lives.

    Alan Gillis

    It's a good point.  If you read the major media stories on the LHC, you'll note nearly all of them are rewrites of CERN Press Releases.  It's hardly a conspiracy.  Most journalists have writing backgrounds.  They aren't scientists.  They don't know what questions to ask and don't know how to evaluate the answers they get.  They don't have time either.  They rush from one story to another under deadlines.

    What CERN tells them is gospel.  They report it, believing they're getting the full story.  Science jounalists have a more general understanding, unless they're physicists and engineers. There aren't many. Most are rather in awe of mighty science labs like CERN, like to be part of the club, so often are uncritical like other journalists.

    It's really old fashioned investigative journalism that's required.  You need nerve and long nights of hard work.  

    Quick question in relation to your comment ...

    Are you a scientist Mr Gillis?

    It does not mention it in your short bio but then again you might just not have included it.

    From the point of view of cosmology.
    If the cosmic ray argument is to be refuted as unsafe we need to look closer at understanding the conditions for the natural creation of ordinary black holes which arise according to some precisely at the centre of galaxies.

    If one does compare with the geometric setup of fission or fusion devices, spherical implosion basically, one has a model that gives that the centerpoint of the sphere is acoustically silent because all periferically originating waves negate each other at that point. In looking at an array of centrically oriented cosmic ray sources "stars" generating centrifocally cosmic rays accelerating streams of mBH:s It is obvious that at least some mBH collisions may occur at the galactic focal point by impact slowing at least some mBH:s to a standstill from their initial close to luminal velocities. This vould suggest that concentric impacting mBH flux could contribute to explaining the observed predilection for galactic centres attributed to black holes.
    Suggesting thus that low speed be an actual factor in their becoming increasingly energetic through allowing their condensing interaction with surrounding matter and other mBH.

    Why did the US Congress halt the Texas Superconducting Super Collider project?

    Pascal's Wager is interesting.

    There can only be one God, since the creator would have no equal.

    "thousands of faiths would be better represented as thousands of religions. Which religion would be be correct?

    None or all.

    Faith is what determines final destiny.

    Hank
    Why did the US Congress halt the Texas Superconducting Super Collider project?

    It was wildly over budget and unlikely to stop hemorrhaging money. Europeans have a lot more patience for budgetary sinkholes (CERN's budget overrun is equal to the SSC's total budget) than Americans do.

    Obviously we haven't missed much not having it.

    Hi,

    I am NOT a scientist, just a thinker.
    Therefore what i will say now will most likely sound strange.

    Everything that moves will eventually stop when hitting resistance one way or another, a BH in my eyes is nothing more than a dense attracting particle which is not really a hole,.....
    So therefore a "BH" consists of matter, if you would ad a opposite to this it would be cancelled,..,.... every measurement of neutrino stars are also based on just theory, they are assumptions made on combining data from primitive tools,... what if they where build around a core of lets say anti matter, it would explain to me why tiny BH would be cancelled upon impact.

    If something goes "wrong" in the LHC it would be an explosion, this seems more likely because of the energy used and the surrounding factors after breaking the vacuum.

    That what we cannot measure might still be there, tiny matter unmeasurable right now might still be there, many things of a little is still a lot.

    If i have a soccer game and i cannot see the players, the ball seems to move in a way i can not calculate, when i develop the tools to see the players i understand the movements of the ball, also those players are coached so steered, every action is connected,what is the ball made of what are those items made of, why is the field flat, why is it being used like that etc etc,....
    However when i remove that ball, the players would be useless and have nothing to do,..... so everything ends where it started and everything starts where it ends.

    Now for most of you, that what i wrote is looking like BS and childs thinking, as i said before, i have really no understanding what so ever about what is in all of your books, i just like to think, and i think tomorrow the worst thing that can happen is no more geneva, and some shockwaves,..... nothing major.
    A BH can be cancelled out, maybe by radiation decay, but most likely by adding an variable that is the opposite, so basicly making the implosion implode and seize.

    Well,
    Bye now from someone who finds your science funny and interesting, i think the feeling is mutual (most likely the funny only).

    (ps,.. you dig the ground and move trough it, you swim the water and move trough it, you walk in air and move trough it. maybe now you will master time, more then just forward.)

    As I see it:
    Their trying to re-enact the exact conditions of the initial Big Bang (only a theory) as closely as all of our availble resources will allow (meaning their not holding anything back).
    Doesn't this seem utterly insane if you were witnessing this from anything but their egoistic perspective?

    A) So if their really right, everything is smoked. B)If their wrong, then they ask for much, much more money until A is achieved. A great plan, or where does it end?

    Philosophy lags behind science as it requires feedback from the natural world, which usually is provided by scientists. Some scientist's approaches to solving some of the most difficult scientific problems have been notably philosophical (i.e Einstein's relativities and much of Fred Hoyle's unjustly discredited work).

    I think some of the most cogent arguments for more emphasis being put on the possible malignant outcomes of experimentation, rather than on forging ahead at the maximum possible speed in experimental physics in particular, ought to be philosophical in nature. That is philosophy and even intuition must take up leadership functions.

    I am no scientist, just somebody interested in the world and philosophy and any experimentation that might bring the two coherently together.

    I have published a blog response at http://bigsciencenews.blogspot.com/2008/07/superfluids-becs-and-bosenova... and I would like to reprint it here as it comes from an intuitive and spontaneous approach to the recent events at the LHC:

    ---------------BEGINNING OF RESPONSE------------------------

    As an "almost" complete layperson in matters of particle physics, I do however see a philosophical approach to the LHC experiment which should be discussed.

    Even if this current experiment does not lead to the creation of a space stationary black hole that does not evaporate (and thus logically, as a gas only expands because that's the only way the molecules can go, will grow), the possibility that the next such experiment, or the one after it may lead to the end of space and time for us must be seriously discussed by the scientific and non-scientific community.

    It is entirely possible that the odd findings of SETI and other quests to discover extraterrestrial communications are directly linked to such experiments.

    The fact that no extraterrestrial artificial signals are found can be well explained by considering that any advanced civilisation which develops the ability to send detectable interstellar signals, whether willingly or unwittingly, will have developed, within a relatively short time-frame (similar to that between Marconi's successes and the LHC experiment), technologies to create stationary black holes. If it is inevitable that they will discover such experiments (and it seems likely if we assign them the attribute of scientific ability and interest which enables technological communication)the thought must turn to the presumption that all civilisations that developed technologies before us would have also done this very experiment before us. Then why aren't they out their. I worry that the answer might be that all these civilisations push the boundaries of their experimentation until they "commit" an experiment that destroys time and space for them and their region of the universe.

    It is very valid to point out that all naturally created black holes will not be stationary in regards to the earth. After all they are the result of matter and energy rich processes which, in an ever moving universe, are always more likely to be in contrary motion in respect to the earth.

    Even if they circled around our solar system or within the core areas of the galaxy or universe, they would be governed by Newtonian physics in regard to their position within such systems. Much as the moon is benign to us because of the centrifugal (centripetal?) forces that keep it on a steady track. If, however, for example, we made the moon stationary on the earth's surface, it would certainly destroy the current fragile development of like on earth and would massively disrupt the geophysics of the planet. A stationary black hole ( in respect to an inhabited planet) is surely not naturally possible.

    Perhaps we are the first civilisation that can escape the inevitable conduction of the last experiment. If not, we must do all in our powers to create a warning beacon (probably from the remains of our regional matter under the effect of the black hole) for other civilisations on the brink of trying these experiments.

    Indeed, perhaps there are already many such beacons out there and we have not been able to decipher them or the demised civilisation was not left with enough time to install them adequately.

    I hope this provokes some thought.

    Frank
    ------------------END OF RESPONSE---------------------------

    Do any of you really think any of us normal folk that make up 99% of the people on this planet care about any of this? What we do care about is the fact CERN have stated a 1-10% chance that we all die (the whole planet) it doesn't take a genius to realize whatever they may or might not find, prove or win is not worth that chance. CERN are madmen to think otherwise and the world should stop them and charge them with terrorism.

    Hank
    What we do care about is the fact CERN have stated a 1-10% chance that we all die

    Show your data.

    http://capitolhillblue.com/cont/blog/3138
    This is RichardKanePA-2 again comment 5747
    *
    Anonymous Mom, I wouldn't want to have declared Einstein to be a mad man, but perhaps if he was still alive this time he would join me in emailing, mailing, and marching on the UN.

    Come on all of us fearful citizens, the US pushed the world around too much. I don't blame the Hawaiian judge who was asked, on a technicality, to stop an experiment in Europe, instead found a technicality that it was submitted too late, to dismiss the suite.

    If the subatomic world is as empty as outer space, and every once in a while a cosmic ray comes in contact with a bit of matter and turns into or gets surrounded by a mini Black Hole and out into space, perhaps the near cosmic rays in the European underground laboratory will continue around the race track and shoot into space when the magnets are turned off. However if the track slowly decelerates, the microscopic sucking machine might just be thrown to the rocks surrounding the experiment, a quiet stable place to grow ever more powerful.

    Anyway a future bin Laden could threaten to destroy the Galaxy unless everyone did everything his way.

    Someday kids may have nuclear-powered toys with black holes attached to gather the nuclear waist and radiation. A self compressing garbage cans, but perhaps we should wait a few years or centuries to conduct these experiments.

    Please everyone, join me faxing and mailing the UN and respond on my blog,
    capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416#comment-41936
    http://capitolhillblue.com/cont/blog/3138
    capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416

    I have to say all I read in the article is very interesting and I can see professor Rossler is a very wise man. I personally dont believe in the big bang either and I especially like the part when professor speaks about the dogmatism in todays society!

    I just hope people at CERN dont mess up our planet as there seem to be no way to stop them! I wish critics of the CERN were wrong, however sadly I am not convinced they are!

    What do you mean nothing we can do.

    Email, write and a number of us visit with placards Ki-moon's office at the UN or invite him to an auditorium to speak to us on this issue, and comment on my blog.
    RichardKanePA-2 #comment-5747
    capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416#comment-41936
    capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416

    Theres nothing to loose if CERN scietist will stop for a moment, and discuss the safety of this experiment.Where talking here the fate of human kind, not there fate please. They accepted the fact that they are in the field of the unknown, and because of this, anything goes, including the destruction of dear Earth. They are into a research project that is exclusively on the dominion of our GOD, the creator of every thing.Is the CERN scientist want an equal footing with GOD??? Thats scary ! ! !

    So please involve us all in the discussion of this project, before going ahead. WHY go in a hurry for something that we can leave even with out it please? ! It seems the CERN people is doing these project just for the sake of their own curiosity and satisfaction. They cant even have the chance to correct things , when these project fails, I hope and pray it wont.

    The simple reality is that very few of us (including alan or Dr Rösslerthe biologist) have any real understanding of this topic. The only one's who do, luckily for us, are those conducting the experiment. The unknown is scary sometimes, but we have THOUSANDS of the worlds best involved. Suddenly a few scare mongerers declare they know more. Give me a break!

    Might I also add that it is these stupid and utterly unfounded claims from people like alan that drive poor people like the 16 yr old Indian girl to kill herself from fear and paranoyer. This sort of pseudo-journalism is shameful.

    How awful a person you are to infer that people questioning the fact that NO ONE really knows what is going to happen when the LHC is used, caused someone to commit suicide!

    Hey genius, CAN YOU tell me what is going to happen? Can ANYONE!?!

    It seems to me that the CERN people have a win-win situation here, not Pascal's Wager. If everything works out they can say "told you so". If things go haywire....well then there might not be anyone around to hold accountable, eh?

    Why is it such an affront to question the certainty of nothing bad happening?

    Why is it such a problem to ask that CERN slow down and take time to really assure the general public that there is NO CHANCE that there will any catastrophic result?

    Is it because there is that chance?

    Oh that's a relief! And who are these few? Who is the jack and master of all trades at CERN who does have a real understanding of this topic , and who 'luckily for us' is conducting these experiments? Dr Rössler is one of the few people who has the breadth of knowledge including physics, theoretical Physics, medicine, Behavioral Physiology, Theoretical Biology, Theoretical Biochemistry, to enable him to form and describe a concerned BIG PICTURE.

    He is a Professor of Chemistry by Decree and has been a Visiting Professor of Mathematics, of Nonlinear Studies, of Chemical Engineering, of Theoretical Physics, and of Complexity Research. He teaches Chaos Theory and Brain Theory and collaborates with ATOMOSYD, studying Topological Analysis and Modeling of Dynamical Systems. He has published 5 books, among them, Encounter with Chaos, 1992, Endophysics: The World as an Interface, 1998, is his introduction to a new field of physics he founded.

    I have been a project manager and computer programmer/analyst for many years, have a science degree and a layman's understanding of the LHC goals from my own extensive research. I would like to know who at CERN has the equivalent breadth of knowledge as Dr Rössler required to understand his concerned BIG PICTURE and to project manage the "THOUSANDS of the worlds best involved" who all have expertise in their own specialist fields but who do not individually necessarily understand the BIG PICTURE and the BIG RISKS involved?

    This jack and hopefully master of all trades at CERN needs to identify themself to the public and then respond publicly to Dr Rössler and other respected LHC critics' concerns. This person needs to explain how CERN can possibly justify taking even a tiny risk, that LHC man made mini black holes growing exponentially within the Earth's atmosphere could in 50 months, suck in the planet ,and becomes the ultimate BIG BANG, or BIG BOOMERANG, that knocks out the ill-prepared ignorant hunters for knowledge that threw it, and unfortunately the rest of us too.

    I wouldn't say 20 years in construction was 'in a hurry'. How long has Dr Rössler been in the business by comparison?

    Actually CERN used particle physicists to conjecture that dense stars prove safety (astrophsics not particle physics).

    Senior German Astrophysicist Physics PHD Rainer Plaga politely attempted to correct CERN's potential theoretical flaws in the field of astrophysics which CERN was delving into, but he was ignored?

    I highly recommend that a safety conference with particle physicists AND astrophysicists AND risk experts be discussed soon?

    I am not a scientist, but still a human thinking person.
    And what if Røssler is right? Why should´nt he bee? Where are wee going?
    http://clauslinks.wikispaces.com/Cern

    how does a black hole interact in a vaccum space ?
    I hardly believe that there is such at lhc.


    Stop the trolls, open your books and educate yourself before spreading so many brainfarts all over the world !

    People are scared because they don't know. It was already difficult to accept the "concepts" of atom, electron, kernl=>proton and neutron etc... and nobody knows what this CERN stuff is all about. All i can read is FUD !!!! We learn by experience, not by invention. Too many people mistake theories, conjectures and laws... Who can tell (in your neighbourhood) a meson from a quark ?

    Now come the "micro black holes", the Worst thing i've read for long :

    - first the name. a "black hole" is a "huge" quantity of matter that has an enourmous gravitation / attraction. It even bends light forever.
    Now someone invents a "microscopic" version. It looks more like an exercise in marketing rather than science. It's highly confusing and unapropriate, which opens the door for
    unfounded fears, exageration, misquoting, escalation... and premature death :-(

    - Second, even if a particle was generated that was 10^10 more massive than existing (common) ones, that would be nothing in comparison to the rest of the Earth. And remember that Energy and Mass are linked together. How much energy would be needed to make a small black hole, like 1cm^3 ? Much more than what the planet can produce. The energy balance is not there.

    - Third : If a "black hole particle" (i prefer that term) was ever generated (in the event of this possibility), what instrument could NOT detect it ? A hugely massive particle leaves a huge trail of signs. If the CERN can't detect that with all the machines they have installed, then... either they don't know their job (i'm sarcastic here) or it does not exist.

    In fact, I'm eager to read about the first experimental results. And if CERN finds the trace of a "hyper-heavy" particle, we'll know it very quickly, as this is what CERN is seeking (from what I understand). But whoever invented the term "micro black-hole" deserves to be hung by the testicles, no less.

    [:benou]

    I am concerned about the CERN LHC experiments too. I agree there should have been a lot more public debate and discussion about safety factors. It would not matter if the experiment had been postponed even while safety matters were discussed with 100 per cent public disclosure. Also I would make the point, we are all born equal on this planet and we all have human rights including the right to question and comment without anybody deriding us or trying to take our voices away or our rights to comment. Having a PhD in a topic does not make anyone infallible or God and the fact that scientists themselves have been arguing on the safety factors is worrying enough. Of course if CERN and LHC were to publicly post that their experiment is absolutely 100 percent risk free and there is absolutely no (and I mean Zero) chance of creating black holes or other unwanted phenomena, then by all means please post the link so I can read such a declaration. The bottom line is that even they do not know what to expect because the experiment was never done before. This planet is my home too. I do not agree to risks being taken in some experiment to prove some elitist theory that has very little bearing on the health and happiness of my family but which may pose some considerable risk to our future.

    this is the dumbest experiment it has no effect on the world so why take any risk at all even if there is no chance a black hole will be created, who cares do not take such a risk these scientists need to see what is at risk the world may end this is scary, they really shouldnt do this. this experiment was never done befor ANYTHING can happen this is too dangerous i really wish they wouldnt do this. everyone pray that nothing bad happens i am really scared.

    what if black holes suck matter til point of equilibrium and that equilibrium is beyond our solar system ? That we don't know -when or why hawking radiation get released!

    I, too, fail to see the justification for this experiment. To me, creating circumstances that could endanger our planet, regardless of the hoped for scientific benefits, is unspeakably arrogant. I echo the thoughts of others: what's the hurry? It's been in the works for 20 years. So what? What's a few more months.........or even a year? The harmless benefits of more scholarly conversation on safety issues certainly can't do any harm. And the potential rewards of that discourse could protect our future.

    I agree that delaying or postponing the LHC experiment while the safety concerns of Prof Rossler, Dr Wagner and Dr Plaga (and any other physicists who may have felt too intimidated to speak out) are addressed would be wise. There is nothing urgent or crucial depending on the outcome of the LHC experiment and stopping the experiment while safety concerns are all addressed (and addressed 100 percent with full public disclosure) would certainly be fair to all of us who also reside on this planet who have nothing to gain from the LHC experiment and everything to lose if there are unaddressed safety issues. The LHC experiment effectively turns our planet into a laboratory for this experiment and therefore we all have a say in the safety issues that have been raised. Furthermore, much of what is being tested is theory only and there are no certainties either in outcomes or in safety of the LHC experiment. I am not a Naysayer or Doomsday theorist but I do believe in safety issues being addressed 100 percent since there seems to be so many issues involved and also new concerns arising during the discussions. Lets be intelligent and rational about this and give everyone a fair go in having their concerns discussed and addressed before the experiment goes any further.

    Hank
    If the standard you are proposing here, this mythical 100% of everyone on the planet being able to propose ridiculous 'theories' and have them all studied by physicists, why not do it for everything?

    We should lower the speed limit in cars to 5 MPH too. That is the only way to keep people 100% safe in them.

    On the other hand, I shouldn't speak for academics here. We will have 100% of them employed for the next hundred years chasing hare-brained ideas around and laughing all the way to the taxpayer-funded bank.

    P.S. Wagner is not a PhD in physics, he has a Bachelor's degree from Berkeley (biology, with a minor in physics) and a graduate degree (1978) in law. So that's juris doctorate. His using the term 'doctor' in anything about himself is a lot more misleading than anything CERN has done, unless every attorney you know insists on calling himself 'Doctor.'

    As for Plaga, I have seen the sentence, "German Astrophysicist Dr. Rainer Plaga concludes in his August 10, 2008 paper…" which it turns out was “submitted to Elsevier” - heck, I can submit this comment to Elsevier, that doesn't make it peer reviewed.

    I have begun to think this is a bit of limelight seeking on the parts of one scientist who can at least do algebra, one guy (Wagner) pretending to be a scientist, and a science writer (Sancho) who just likes having fun in Hawaii.

    Hello Hank,

    Sorry you are offended that other scientists might pose questions.

    I would like to respond to comments about a brilliant mind that I greatly respect, Walter L. Wagner, the former cosmic ray researcher and Nuclear Safety Officer who notably discovered fundamental flaws with cosmic ray safety arguments that CERN missed and later acknowledged.[1]

    Though he is not a fan of "casting pearls before swine", but I will provide a short bio of Walter L. Wagner.

    a) He completed two years of graduate-level physics while training incoming graduate physics students in high-energy cosmic radiation physics techniques used at the space-sciences laboratory at UC Berkeley. This work resulted in numerous publications, which he allowed the PI to publish under his name as he was not interested in the 'publish or perish' game. He was very involved in keeping abreast with current theoretical physics;

    b) He took a break from science for three years to obtain a doctorate degree in law;

    c) Resumed work in physics thereafter for nearly five years as a nuclear safety officer, responsible for maintaining a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Radioactive Materials License at at federal institution [Veterans Administration] that had a broad usage of radioactive materials from Z = 1-92; while developing knowledge and expertise in a wide variety of fields pertaining to nuclear materials safeguards and nuclear security.

    d) Thereafter, engaged in science and mathematics education at numerous institutions at the collegiate and grade-school levels. Of approximately 10,000 teacher applicants required [in 1984] to take CBEST [California Basic Educational Skills Test], he was the only applicant to score a perfect 80/80 on the math section, in essence, a speed test for algebra, geometry and trigonometry problems. The next highest was 79/80, by a math major from Stanford he happened to meet later.

    Walter L. Wager has impressed many of his peers in the physics community with his depth of understanding and incredible intuition. He was the first to raise this safety concern, a concern that is still unsettled in the scientific, legal, moral and risk assessment communities.

    His web site is LHCDefense.org.

    Corrected grammar and link:

    [He] is not a fan of...

    [1] http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t... LHC Safety Assessment Group, 16 Mar 2008

    Hank
    Sorry you are offended that other scientists might pose questions.

    I never said I was offended that scientists asked questions, but I am saying Wagner has less knowledge of physics than 100% of the physics columnists on this site, much less all of CERN. There have been numerous independent validations of the LHC - they just aren't chasing hobgoblins invented by cranks on the internet who have no idea what they are talking about and use the word 'theory' in ways that only make sense to cranks on the internet.

    Working as a nuclear safety officer is not the same thing as working in the world of physics, any more than working as a police officer would make him qualified to be a psychiatrist.

    Having a BS in biology and a law degree but calling yourself 'doctor' and pontificating on physics as an authority is deceptive. This persistent and intentional deception about his credentials casts real doubt on his ethics and therefore his motivation.

    Hank I believe you are displaying an incredible amount of arrogance and lack of respect for other people like myself who live on this planet and have a say in any experiment that poses risks to our planet (based on current scientific controversy). I am a mother with qualifications in the Arts field and I have read much of the information posed by Prof Rossler et al and I have read as much as I can concerning arguments put forth by others. The bottom line is the CERN safety theory seems to rely much on theories that have never been seen in the real world or tested. There is a considerable risk (in my view) based on what I have read. I would love to think there was no risk and I would enjoy spending my time doing other things other than posting here. Unfortunately I have two small family members under 3 years of age and I do feel some sense of responsibility that they be allowed a world to live in where sensless risks are not taken by fellow humans that could cause irreversible damage to our planet. I don't want to personally attack anyone or name call or accuse Americans of disliking European science or any of the other idiotic stuff that is happening here and/or at other discussion venues. I would repeat that it would be very reassuring to have the CERN LHC experiment halted for now while we are allowed debate and discussion on the issues raised by the scientists who have spoken out including
    * Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler, Max Planck Institute, University of Tübingen
    * Teresa E Tutt, Ph.D, Nuclear Engineering Texas A&M University
    * Dr. Paul J. Werbos, National Science Foundation
    * Nuclear physicist and lawyer Walter L. Wagner
    * James Blodgett, Master’s degree in statistics and leader the Mensa Special Interest Group Global Risk Reduction.
    * Many others, including some wish to remain anonymous.
    Cheers, Concerned Person

    Stellare
    It is manipulative to insist on postponing a physics experiments simply because the layman can't understand theoretical physics. A large portion of the population will never in their lifetime understand theoretical physics. That is just how it is. As I've told Alan Gillis before, I think it is sound that questions are being asked. In the case of LHC those questions have been both asked and answered. That is why the experiment is now running. Feel free to check the list of independent evaluations of LHC safety generously provided by SB columnist and theoretical physicist Georg von Hippel here Not making a deadline doesn't give you the right to stop a project. Those who think they can are indeed pretty arrogant . And shame on those who use their children as a manipulative tool on top of it.

    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    It is manipulative too, if you think you knew everything.
    That is just how it is.
    And shame on those who use their children as manipulative tool, to say that this experiment is safe.

    It is NOT manipulative to remind people that this
    experiment is an experiment with unknown risks that could have an impact on our planet Earth and the future
    of children's lives and their home planet. I for one wish this experiment could have been conducted on another planet in another galaxy. Reminding people that this planet belongs to our children too is a valid point and not in any way meant to be manipulative.

    CERN relies heavily on the Hawking theories. The Hawking theory on radiation has never been observed nor tested and
    proved correct according to what I have read. In the meantime other people have written of other theories or arguments challenging the Hawking theory.

    Hawking is an aging old wheelchair bound man with a debilitating illness, not an oracle nor God. Cern has never
    said there will be no risks to our planet and they have not
    disproved the theories of those who are concerned about the
    LHC experiments nor have they proven the Hawking theory correct.

    The bottom line is these are all theories and the experiment
    has never been done before, an experiment supposed to cause amongst other things, black holes.

    I am very concerned that the safety concerns of many physicists have not been properly addressed. If there were no concerns and no debate, I would not be here and all the millions of people posting all around the world on notice boards like this would not be voicing their concerns. Has
    anyone considered the effect this is having on so many of the young people today? They are not stupid nor uneducated and it is of concern to me that they see scientists arguing amongst themselves, theories being lauded and attacked and the future of the planet shown as being at risk. I believe that no amount of money compensates for the death of the 16 year old girl in India who suicided over fears about this experiment. Many other young people are extremely concerned and I believe that postponing the experiment and debating the concerns that have been raised properly is not a huge thing to ask. There is no rush to conduct this experiment. No ones life is depending on it at this time. Let's slow down and look at all the relevant issues and let all those who are concerned have their concerns addressed.

    This planet belongs to ALL of us, not just an elite few. WE ALL have a say in anything that could have a safety impact on our beautiful planet which is also the home and the future of our children.

    What is the point of this whole experiment [Okay maybe the question i may ask might be the stupidest question you have heard [mind me I'm not smart I'm just a b+ student in high school who is really very much into astronomy].] I currently heard about this on the news and i really got interested in it so i thought why not do my science research [for my class] on this. And i got some information on it although its just some not a lot, so in short i would like to know more about it. I apparently am not taking sides because i think both sides of the arguments have very good reasons.

    All the americans can't take that Europe is doing this. Like USA don't do scientific research that can harm the planet.

    People, please. The world is not gonna end, I've seen the calculations, and the only thing people(and mostly the Americans) are afraid of, is new experiments. The chance of a black hole big enough to end the world, is non-existence. Particals colliding with eachother has happened before, just not at the speed of light.
    Many experiments have been done when it comes to high energy particals, just not when all of the conditions are combined.
    So, happy Doomsday 21th of october xD

    People, please. The world is not gonna end, I've seen the calculations, and the only thing people(and mostly the Americans) are afraid of, is new experiments. The chance of a black hole big enough to end the world, is non-existence. Particals colliding with eachother has happened before, just not at the speed of light.
    Many experiments have been done when it comes to high energy particals, just not when all of the conditions are combined.
    So, happy Doomsday 21th of october xD

    What happens, if 2 particles, are smashed together, and becomes one, of the dobble size.
    Now you got a bigger particle, will it start attract the smaller particle, nr 3. 4. and so on?
    Could wee know, that for sure.

    Here is how it goes, you send 2 atoms at the speed of light against eachother, they then smash, but the atoms don't "realize" what is happening, they therefore don't explode before they already passed eachother. They therefore vaporize, into smaller parts, in this case, quarks.

    BTW, the americans, have made a similar kind of experiment, they just haven't tried it yet, from what I have read.

    Sry for the post 2 times

    From James Blodgett's Affadavit (the CERN court case)
    8. It was surprising to me that CERN would rely on Hawking radiation as a safety factor, since even in 2003 it was well known that Hawking radiation was totally theoretical and had never been seen. The probability that it would work did not seem adequate to protect Earth. I wondered how physicists would judge this probability. In 2004, I circulated a series of questionnaires in which I asked Ph.D. physicists to estimate the probability that Hawking radiation would fail. Those who responded estimated that probability as follows: 0, 0, 1E-10, 0.001, 0.01, 0.01, 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.07, 0.1, 0.1, 0.3, 0.35, and 0.5. (Five of these responded to a questionnaire that asked for the probability that Hawking radiation would work, rather than the probability that it would fail. Their responses are subtracted from one here to give the probability of failure.) At the time I circulated these questionnaires I was unaware, and respondents were apparently unaware, of two physics papers that appeared at about that time that questioned the theory behind Hawking radiation. [Adam D. Helfer, "Do Black Holes Radiate?" Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 66 No. 6 (2003) pp. 943-1008; and William G. Unruh and Ralf Schützhold, "On the Universality of the Hawking Effect," Physics Review D 71 (2005) 024028] Had we known of these papers, it seems likely that respondents would have estimated the probability of the failure of theoretical Hawking radiation to work as predicted to be somewhat higher.

    9. Discussions of collider risk have appeared in several books and several papers, including in Sir Martin Rees’ “Our Final Hour“, (Basic Books, 2003); and in Richard A. Posner’s “Catastrophe: Risk and Response” (Oxford University Press, 2004). Most such discussions conclude that the risk is low, but that the risk is nevertheless important because of expected value considerations. (Expected value is the product of probability times value, or negative value in this case. Expected value is used by decision theorists to evaluate decisions. In the case of destruction of Earth, any reasonable probability results in an enormous negative expected value.) I would say that the risk is somewhat higher than these authors consider, since they did not take into consideration some of the safety factors that subsequently evaporated. I would not say that the risk is high, since the theories that permit trouble appear to be a relatively small subset of the set of all possible theories. But I would say that there is definitely a risk, and that the risk is considerably higher that was thought until recently. Most of the authors who have written on the subject agree that there is a risk.

    10. CERN’s Chief Scientific Officer, Jos Engelen, was recently quoted in The New Yorker as instructing CERN scientists not to say that the risk from colliders is low, but to say that the risk is zero. [Elizabeth Kolbert, "Crash Course," The New Yorker, May 14, 2007]. This appears to be an attempt to skew the risk analysis by administrative fiat.

    Why would mBH be dangerous ?

    A mBH is created not out of the way a "normal" black hole (gathering mass) but from energetic collisions.
    Gravity attracts mass to mass and the more mass the more mass gets attracted, that how "normal" black holes grows.
    mBH can (in theory) be created but they dont have the mass to attract more mass.

    So how would a mBH attract other matter ?

    Even if they could, the safe distance from a black hole is a result of their mass and radius (though I dont know if quantum phys may override these "laws"). The safe distance from a BH the size of earth is a few thousand km.

    Scale this down, if a mBH would attract other matter (though I still dont understand how) the distance of the gravity effect would be so small it would quickly eat all the elementar particles near and create a vaccum bubble around itself.
    Other particles would eventully stray in there and a few of they might get eaten.

    Hawkins radiation may or may not exist, but it does not really matter on "normal" black holes since mass accumulation progresses slowly (on a galaxy scale) and gravity declines fast with distance. Thats what limits the BH size, not some sort of leakage.

    The same should apply to mBH, gooble matter near, then just sit there in your waiting

    Still, someone tell me how a mBH with really, really small mass could generate enough gravitons to attract other particles ? Gravity may not be needed to create a mBH but to grow it yes ?

    And shame,shame,shame, on you Dr Evans!
    But Dr Evans, the leader of the project, who has devoted 14 years of his life to building the vast particle accelerator, is dismissive of the doom-mongers.

    In fact, he is so relaxed about the project, he even wears shorts to work.

    He said that Prof Rossler was a ‘crazy’ retired professor who had invented his own theory of relativity.

    ‘We have shown him where his elementary errors are, but of course people like that just will not listen,’ said Dr Evans.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1053091/Meet-Evans-Atom-e...

    Thank you for the article. I believe Evans should have stuck
    to blowing the fuses in his home and playing with his chemistry and left our world alone. An interesting comment on
    another message board I noticed yesterday...In our search for
    Genesis, it would be unfortunate if we brought about Revelation

    Bending of heavy light?
    Supposing a mBH and a beam of light interacted through warping ie. "light wave surfing" or mBH-photon coupling or mBH-proton coupling on a light beam warping eg. a proton. The said beam of light traveling through space in the vicinity of a SMBH as the one referred to as Sgr A* The signature of the presence of a mBH coupled with a particular light wave ought to be the red shifting of that light wave...
    Furthermore a hypothesis could be advanced about particular properties of a mBH-light wave or a mBH-Proton-Light wave system. The mBH being a singularity, might not some properties ascribed to singularities carry over to the light wave and vice versa from the light wave to the mBH for instance The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that in double slit apparatus experiments testing Bell's theorem the concept of locality is not absolute.
    if say the whole extension of the light beam were seen to partake of the same gravitational field "1" as the mBH
    it might follow that the interaction of field "1" with gravitational field "2" belonging to the SMBH at a distance of say som light minutes. The mBH-Light wave path would bend considerably more than say a Light wave path past the SMBH but without mBH coupling. Hawkins radiation may or may not be related to mBH-light wave coupling. The signature of mBH coupling to a light wave out to be detectable by several methods a reference light beam of synchrotron light could be obtained from and retrofitted be made to follow in the same path and interact with the particles accelerated and auto interference patterns from reflected light obtained may show redshift anomalies.
    This is to say detection is part of safety. If antimatter may be stored at CERN so may perhaps mBH. ONLY NOT at velocities lesser than the escape velocity of the gravitation well they pass through ie of The solar system if less than C.

    Initial question: Why should black holes form at precisely the centre
    of galaxies?
    Assumptions:

    1. mBH are a regular phenomenon in the Universe
    2. most mBH have formation and maintained velocities close to C thus
    only slightly interacting with matter
    3. Focal orbits of mBH is a consequence of passing through proximity
    of the galactic center SMBH volume
    each revolution increasing the probability P of the mBH being accreted
    to the SMBH
    4. SMBH formation is in it's initial stage resulting from mBH focusing
    and mBH accretion
    5. the galactic plane generates through cosmic ray and solar wind
    interactions a mBH flux with a maximum density at the galactic center.
    6. doubly energetic diametrical opposite vector impacts occur at the
    galactic focus considerably more than elsewhere.
    7. If a pair of mBH impact according to point 6. they accrete with a
    much reduced resultant velocity.
    The resulting orbit is therefore subject to interaction with the
    ambient galactic gravity well.
    8. mBH do not evaporate due to one, coupling effects"redshift warping"
    with "heavy light". and second,
    the density of photons at the galactic focal point give rise to
    interactions exceeding Hawkins evaporation requisite conditions.
    thus a significant number of mBH do not evaporate.
    9. The process is analogous to sound waves travelling from a spherical
    circumference to the centre
    where the various frequencies phase each other out creating a silent
    point where mBH accretion may occur,
    similar to implosion conditions for fission and fusion devices.
    10. Particle and electromagnetic accretion according to known models ensues.

    "http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~reid/sgra_position.html
    "Surprisingly, none of the infrared stars corresponds to Sgr A*! While this solves a long-standing problem in astronomy, the result raises perplexing problems, challenging astronomers to explain how a super-massive black hole in the dense environment of the Galactic Center can be so dim""

    I read an excellent Cambridge University Press article today on Large Hadron Collider safety by Professor Shahn Majid, author of "On Space and Time" with contributors including Prof. Sir Roger Penrose (available October 2008).

    Prof. Majid writes:

    "I’m only not worried because I do not think that step 1 [micro black hole creation] will occur in the first place. But this is just my personal skepticism."

    The article is a quality ready, recommended.

    [1] http://www.cambridgeblog.org/tag/shahn-majid/ Particle Accelerators, CERN, and Doomsday. Prof Shahn Majid (2008)

    I'll avoid the whole debate going on. I understand there's a threat. I also understand some of the good that came come from it, as long as it doesn't do anything bad.

    The scariest debate I read awhile back was about releasing energies that have not been "floating" around Earth since the beginning of our planet. And the Gods only know what those energies could due to our planet.

    But that's not why I'm posting. Since this article, unlike so many others, have actually had some intelligent people discussing it.

    Has anyone read the latest about the new theories of space travel? To sum up all the tech-mumbo jumbo for those of us who view this from a fanbase. They concluded that if the string theory is correct, which the LHC could prove, they might be able to use the String Theory for space travel.
    ~~~ Copy/Paste ~~~~
    Think of it like a surfer riding a wave,” said Cleaver, who co-authored the paper with Obousy about the new method. “The ship would be pushed by the spatial bubble and the bubble would be traveling faster than the speed of light.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Thru manipulation they could produce a bubble around the ship, and travel at the speed of light. Their drawback currently? (minus the string theory being unproven)

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Copy/Paste~~~~~~~~~~~~
    That is an enormous amount of energy,” Cleaver said. “We are still a very long ways off before we could create something to harness that type of energy.”
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Anyone have any thoughts on this? For those seriously interested here is one of the many articles about it.
    ( http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/543391/?sc=dwhn )

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Side not to those of us who view a lil of everything with interest. There have been notable mentions from self-proclaimed "Time Travelers" and numerous Abductees not to mention people who claim they are in contact with Aliens, that they got here via use of a bubble around their ships. This isn't some new mentioning either, it's been noted over the years quite a few times. But now we might have found a way to move faster (if we fix the energy problem).
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Sanity is illogical.
    The entire world has gone sane. People no longer are "individuals". First was our becoming the same as a public via what is acceptable and what is not in the public. Now, it has became the same in the mind. People do not think for themselves. They base opinions off others opinions instead of facts. Religion has been used to control the masses, those who cannot accept religion, are controled thru science. No matter where you look someone is keeping something from you. Don't believe this? Research all the theories refused by the Scientific Community which turned around and were proven as Fact. Most current one that comes to mind is the discovery that Oil is not a fossil fuel.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    If the human body is a temple for the soul, and the soul was made in the image of man. But man cannot determine what a soul is exactly or how to even weigh it, it would be easy to assume our soul is a form of energy.
    If our soul is a form of energy, which we are made in the image of God. God would be a form of energy.

    Now I just need to know how much he'll charge me to run my house for a month. Dang electric company charged me 45 dollars for consumption and 35 dollars for fuel costs. After taxes I was charged 112 dollars. If God begins to offer better rates ... I'm gonna plug into him.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    A break from the norm is always puts a smile on the face.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Don't worry if you don't respond I understand. I have went by this name for many years and probly will do so until death. Or 2012 when the Anunnaki masters return to reclaim us slaves as their property! (JOking!)

    Your irresponsible journalism and wild speculation have caused an Indian teen to commit suicide, and I think you should be tried for manslaughter to determine your role in her death.

    See the arxiv preprint
    0809.4004 -
    points out that the 'bosenova' has only occurred in systems with a Feschbach resonance which can be exploited to create attraction between atoms.
    Helium-4 does not have a Feschbach resonance.

    ...Does Mr. Gillis even know what a Feschbach resonance is?

    Moreover, as is common knowledge, liquid helium has been used for many decades in physics and other applications, also as a target for nuclear/particle beams, with no history of sudden explosions.

    Far from being 'ignored', the claims of Roessler, Plaga, etc have been thoroughly looked into by physicists both at CERN and outside, and shown to be mistaken and even self-contradictory.

    To be brief: Roessler is wrong because he doesn't understand the difference between coordinate distance and physical distance in general relativity. He is self-contradictory because he says that the black hole horizon is infinitely far away and takes infinite time to reach, but he thinks that black holes can be formed at LHC (which is not infinitely far away) and can be a danger to us (but we won't live infinitely long)...

    Plaga is wrong because he applied a formula extracted from another paper to a physical situation where it is not valid, and got an answer which is wrong by 20 orders of magnitude. He is self-contradictory because he claims that 1) certain types black holes have *suppressed* Hawking radiation 2) it is precisely these BH which are dangerous because of a greatly *enhanced* radiation rate.

    As for 'intimidation', no-one has produced any evidence that CERN or anyone connected to it has ever been involved in such activity. Neither Roessler, Plaga nor anyone else has complained of intimidation by CERN.

    Alan Gillis

    Intimidation, see above. And also in my new article on ScientificBlogging, "Politics Mixes With Science At The LHC", http://www.scientificblogging.com/big_science_gambles/politics_mixes_with_science_at_the_lhc

    Not all CERNies are happy. Some are in therapy, see "The Black Hand of Dr CERN", http://bigsciencenews.blogspot.com/2008/09/black-hand-of-dr-cern.html

    The new and only CERN Helium paper is also only one dead mosquito in the CERN safety ointment, discussed in "Politics Mixes With Science At The LHC".

    Plaga also has refuted the CERN paper critical of his Metastable Black Hole Theory, in a Sept 26th update of his paper, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v2.pdf

     

    As of being a scientist and engineer I can tell you all that we will not be allowed to damage this planet. We are not the sharpest tool in the shed at this time. Higher intelligence that has been monitoring this project will govern it's use and purpose, and can pull the plug when ever they choose.
    These are incrediable if not astonishing times we are living in.And for some of us telling the truth is truley a revolutionary act.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

    God Bless you all....Dwapara

    Of course I, RichardKanePA-2, don't know how dangerous it is. But the info to soothe the masses is that mini Black Holes occur very occasionally when cosmic rays pass thru a planetary body, and comes in contact with a piece of a molecule but a cosmic ray bouncing like two billiard balls colliding will at nearly the speed of light be out of the earths atmosphere and crust in a fraction of a second to collect mini amounts of matter out in deep space.

    So researchers are humoring the public into relaxing, whether or not there is any real danger. Besides at first Einstein was about pure math, bombs were a so called practical result, us monkeys have powerful enough forces already although perhaps someday mini black holes may be garbage cans to put in nuclear waste etc.

    I want to march on the UN to get involved.
    See, www
    .capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416#comment-41936
    .capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416#comment-41732
    .capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416#comment-41936

    STOP THIS NONSENSE!

    I don't know if Rössler is right. Probably he is not. Probably. But WHAT IF he is????!!

    Scientists are too proud to recognize what they don't know and there is no possibility here to say
    "Oops. We miscalculated. Rössler was actually right".

    Scientists have no right to decide these things on behalf of all people... Citizens' should be asked if they support using their money (and maybe risking their lives) for this.

    What are the important applications that the LHC has for humanity?! Aren't there any other priorities?!

    It's unbelievable (and outrageous) how scientists and politicians apart themselves from citizens, their priorities and needs day by day!

    I have to agree with people in opposition to these experiments. Has humanity come so far as to be so bored with life to take foolish gambles with such high consequences just to leap ahead in understanding or at much less, proving someone's idea right or wrong.

    What kind of characterizations can we make of ourselves to even consider doing something never before done with such limited data and understanding of the Pandora's box we might be opening.

    I advocate all science and research in all disciplines, but have to reign in my ambitions and curiosity when it stirs me to take a path that could lead to the end of the very thing I seek to understand. Wisdom and Love of Life should always be of utmost priority in all our endeavors.

    If even the slightest chance at failure or mistake in our physical research could bring harm of the scale we're discussing, more study and understanding of lesser things related should morally be pursued until a complete certainty is reached by the consensus. After all, there may not be a second chance to learn from our mistakes and correct our error.

    If indeed we are successful how can this new knowledge and data be used to help and free humanity and in the wrong hands destroy it? How many a genius joyous at discovery became devastated when shown mankind's use?

    I leave you to ponder my thoughts with the thoughts of another thinker and humanist, Albert Einstein, as he vocalized...

    "Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations."

    "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

    "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

    "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

    "The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."

    "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."

    "Most people say that is it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character."

    "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe."

    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

    "It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid."

    Sorry to bother everyone I accidentally pressed the disable icon.

    Growing up in school I always tried to understand instead of parrot back paying close attention to such things as a billion expressed in dominos starched between here and the moon and the story of Flatland to illustrate the third and fourth dimension.

    In understanding standard deviation mean and medium I worked with blocks and colored in squares on graft paper, so I can make instant estimates. I was never one to think a 6 inch pizza is twice as much pizza as a 3 inch pizza.

    But suddenly all I had was questions. A ray like a cosmic ray or a ray of light, does it travel at the spead of light or does it travel faster zig zagging back and forth forward like a very even lightning bolt? Is you add in the speed of its sideward zigs and zags, or does the central particle become broad like a ruler?

    According to chance theory if you toss coins often enough eventually one will land on its edge and enough times two will land on top of each other and in an infinite number of tries eventually at some infinitestible few tosses every coin will end up on its edge. Chaos theory says not so. Maybe two coins will never end up on edge on top of each other, on single tries over and over again, but if a huge number of coins are tossed at each try then it will happen but never in an infinite number of year will all the coins land up on edge.

    The only punch line is, if Otto Rössler is the number one expert on chaos theory and a little green when it come to physics maybe his opinion should have greater impute than someone who only knows physics and no idea of what chaos theory is all about.

    Truthfully my original thought when I started to post this was just getting back on the blog.
    RichardKanePA-2

    This is RichardKanePA-2 again. I can be reached also at,

    .capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416 Sorry to bother everyone. This time I accidentally left out that I was Richard Kane in PA (Pennsylvania)

    Growing up in school I always tried to understand instead of parrot back paying close attention to such things as a billion expressed in dominos starched between here and the moon and the story of Flatland to illustrate the third and fourth dimension.

    In understanding standard deviation mean and medium I worked with blocks and colored in squares on graft paper, geting the standard deviation and mean of four or five small numbers so I can make instant estimates. I was never one to think a 6-inch pizza is twice as much pizza as a 3-inch pizza, or accidently ever on a test said it was 8 ½ meters between here and the sun, or confused squared with to the 10th power.

    But suddenly all I had was questions. A cosmic ray or a ray of light, does it travel at the speed of light or does it travel faster zig zagging back and forth forward like a very even lightning bolt? Is you add in the speed of its sideward zigs and zags, or does the particle become broad like a ruler? Like a line segment not a dot traveling toward us.

    According to chance theory if you toss two coins often enough eventually one will land on its edge and enough times two will land on top of each other and in an infinite number of tries eventually at some infinitestibly few tosses every coin will end up on its edge. Chaos theory says not so. Maybe two coins will never end up on edge on top of each other, on single tries over and over again, but if a huge number of coins are tossed at each try then it will happen but never in an infinite number of years will all the coins land up on edge. Why does mini black hole possible form only when a cosmic ray is in the upper atmosphere? Not as it passes though the ocean or at the center the earth or do scientists mean to say, the only place they are able to observe reactions that may indicate this is in the upper atmosphere. If a Black Hole forms when a cosmic ray actually touches something and a black hole forms around it instead of slowing down, continues at the speed of light, wouldn’t when two particles pass though each other, wouldn’t the black hole continue around the 28 mile race track for the scientists to slowly slow down using the magnets to get it to stop, or would it be immune to magnets continuing through the earth or since not quite at the speed of light slow down as it passes though the earth to come to a stop. As I debate my friends, most change the subject as soon as possible. One who didn’t think it likely changing my rhetoric to a million to one. When I tried to get the one that alerted me to worry more about the danger to debate him it became too heated

    The only punch line is, if Otto Rössler is the number one expert on chaos theory and a little green when it come to physics maybe his opinion should have greater impute than someone who only knows physics and no idea of what chaos theory is all about.

    RichardKanePA-2

    Concerning contacting the UN about taking up the issue possibly marching or faxing, this is an email I got back.

    -----------------------From: info_bwc@betterworldcampaign.org
    To: richardkanepa@aol.com
    Sent: 10/16/2008 3:16:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
    Subj: International Insights from UN Dispatch

    Dear Richard,

    Want to see Ban Ki-moon rapping with Jay-Z about the United Nations? Curious about the international community’s response to the antics of modern-day pirates? Interested in how the UN is using kung fu to promote peace?

    These are just a few of the stories that you’ll find at UN Dispatch, a fantastic source for news and analysis on international issues. UN Dispatch covers breaking UN news, carries in-depth commentary on world affairs, and arranges insightful interviews with top UN experts.

    Check out our coverage of UN and international issues at UN Dispatch.

    From Haiti to Ethiopia, from Kosovo to North Korea, and from Darfur to East Timor, UN Dispatch covers crises and conflicts, as well as stories of international cooperation and diplomacy—including many on which the mainstream media may not be as focused.

    UN Dispatch has also paired up with On Day One over the last several months to host online “salon” discussions, in which experts on issues such as women’s health, counter-terrorism, and peacekeeping debate YOUR policy ideas for the next president.

    Right now we’re preparing for another salon—this time on human rights and democracy—and we once again need your ideas to spur the discussion. Starting next week, experts will be debating YOUR IDEAS for how the next president can best help protect human rights and promote democracy around the world.

    Submit your ideas on global human rights and democracy to On Day One today!

    We’ll let you know as soon as the discussion gets under way. For now, send us your ideas on how the next administration can best defend human rights and foster democracy—and keep reading UN Dispatch!

    Best regards,

    The Better World Campaign team
    http://www.betterworldcampaign.org
    http://www.ondayone.org

    PS this was forwarded from Richard Kane not sent by Better World Campaign to this blog.

    (RichardKanePA-2) .capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/11416

    The chance of finding definitive proof of the Higgs Boson alone outweighs the risk of a non-decaying mbh; such a discovery may very well render the fears of both secular and non-secular minds irrelevant, even if the worst-case scenario at LHC materializes. Absurd? Not if you realize the implications behind the HB as it relates to consciousness, the multiverse, spirituality, et al

    I predict that the L.H.C is, in fact, the most expensive piece of junk ever created, and it will never produce valuable results because there are more problems yet to occur with this machine. The quality of workmanship involved in its construction and assembly were very poor. In the future there will be a great reluctance to fund such large scale scientific projects, and when people ask why, they will be reminded of the disaster that was the Large Hadron Collider. The long fabled collision of particles, will never in fact take place at all, with the L.H.C.

    Hank
    It is a problem in Big Physics.   The SSC was likewise way over budget and behind schedule and had indeterminate results so Clinton pulled the plug on it and Congress agreed (see "Democratic War On Science"), despite eating a lot of money.   It meant there was no chance of us funding the LHC.

    I am not sure you are using the term 'results' in a way that shows you understand physics, though.   Unless the parts break down - and kooks out there went from insisting it would destroy the world by starting to contending it will destroy the world by not starting - it will certainly achieve the energy levels it is designed to achieve.  Sadly for conspiracy freaks, none of that will result in black holes consuming the universe or strangelet overlords leading an army of Mayans appearing from an interdimensional portal to Planet X on 12-21-12.

    Now, it will require an even more expensive ILC to interpret what it finds - everyone in science knew this but European bureaucrats never thought to ask - but there is no question it will do what it is supposed to do.
    The actual title of the paper Rössler refers to as "Hubble Expansion without Space Expansion" is:
    Rössler/Fröhlich/Movassagh/Moore: "Hubble expansion in static spacetime", in: Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 33 (2007) 770–775.

    Туризм обучение прелестный блог о отдыхе в болгарии. Здесь вы сможете узнать про туризм обучение. А также найти для себя масса удобной информации.

    is there a contact for Alan Gillis? I need to let him know about a web access problem in one of his articles, thanks

    Readers who wish to contact Alan Gillis can email writealangillis@yahoo.com . His latest articles on the LHC appear on newshammer.blogspot.com. Over 30 other articles he wrote on the LHC are published on bigsciencenews.blogspot.com/


    You don't like answering questions do you?. Are you even writing these responses to me or do you have a critic credentials slanging word generator that has now added Einstein to the list?

    My simple questions are :-

    1. Who is the jack or master of all trades at CERN who says that the LHC experiments are totally safe for this planet? Does s/he also understand Chaos theory and risk management?(yes that’s a new one)


    Well, I don't have any problem answering questions! But before I do, may I ask you one after this one? Are you a COMPLETE IDIOT?

    You're question can be easily answered using nothing more than simple Newtonian mechanics. We don't even have to consult Einstein on this one.

    Do you even know what a black hole, a singularity even is? NO, YOU DON'T!!! NO ONE DOES!!!

    But I'll tell you what we DO know. We know that outside of the event horizon, a singularity obeys the same inverse square law as formulated by Sir Isaac Newton. Perhaps we need a review of classical mechanics?

    The force of attraction between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart, or



    where G is the gravitational constant (G = 6.670 × 10^-11 newton-M^2 /kg^2).

    Now, do you understand what this equation means? Take a good look at it! It means that the gravitational influence that one body has on another is contingent upon 1) their respective masses and 2) is inversely proportional to the distance between them--the key phrase here being MASS!

    Given that, how much MASS do you think sub-atomic particles have? I HAVE MORE GD MASS THAN ANY BLACK HOLE THAT COULD BE CREATED IN THE LHC! But do you feel afraid that my gravitational influence is going to DESTROY THE EARTH?

    Black holes are like the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland--the analogue being just as the Cheshire cat disappears leaving only his smile behind, a quantity of matter is something that has disappeared from our universe and has left nothing of itself behind except its gravity. Now, how much gravitational influence do you think the mass of subatomic particles leave behind after they disappear from our universe? Anymore gravitational influence than the mass that they had before they left?

    You could have one in your hand and not even know it!

    And I didn't even have to use any equations to explain it to you! Well.........almost no equations. Sometimes it can't be help!

    P.S.

    There are plenty of things in this universe to fear, but the LHC and micro-black holes are not one of them! If you want something to be afraid of, then just have a peek at some of the articles in my column.

    Do any of you have any formal training in physics at all? Or do you just watch documentaries on TV on topics such as black holes and supermassive black holes and come into this forum with this silly nonsense?
    Your questions to me are “Are you a COMPLETE IDIOT?”and “Do any of you have any formal training in physics at all? Or do you just watch documentaries on TV on topics such as black holes and supermassive black holes and come into this forum with this silly nonsense?”

    My answer is yes, probably I am a COMPLETE IDIOT, no I don’t have any formal training and yes I watch documentaries on TV on topics such as black holes.

    This is why I call myself the brat, after the fairy tale in which an annoying little boy says “the Emperor has no clothes on” when many feel unqualified to point out the obvious. Yes there are probably parallels to Hank Campbell’s belief that “I’m afraid that if I open my closet in the morning I will be transported to Narnia, a magical land where I can rescue Aslan, and instead I just get out my pants and put them on”.

    My question that you claim to have answered was :-
    1. Who is the jack or master of all trades at CERN who says that the LHC experiments are totally safe for this planet? Does s/he also understand Chaos theory and risk management?(yes that’s a new one)

    You have then given me an explanation as to why I shouldn’t be scared of the LHC and micro black holes. Does that mean that you believe that you are the Jack of all trades who can say that the LHC experiments are totally safe for this planet?

    Quote from your profile at http://www.scientificblogging.com/profile/eric_diaz says “I'm an scholar who has become a reluctant wordsmith”. Hmmm, see what you mean.

    Quote “I am also one of the last, living, life, governing member of the Adler Planetarium and Astronomy Museum, Chicago, IL. After the few of us who are left dies, there will be no more. I guess you could say that I am the last of my kind. So, I suppose I must be on the endangered species list? lol ;-)”

    Either you don’t think you’re human or you and the rest of humanity are on the endangered species list (possibly because of LHC experiments), or you’re a scientist who has no understanding of an important aspect of genetics, which is what this COMPLETE IDIOT is worried about. Definitely not the Jack of all trades at CERN that I’m seeking, who will explain how the LHC experiments are totally safe for this planet

    By the way it might also be rather worrying for you to know that this COMPLETE IDIOT checked out and quite liked your website and your poems but also encountered a Java ™ plug-in Fatal Error when I clicked on the world map at :- http://www.revolvermaps.com/?target=enlarge&i=23RRb4uxLdt&color=ff0000&m... Not sure which you will find more worrying.

    Anyway in response to your explanation of the non-existent dangers of LHC generated miniature black holes………

    According to Charles Keeton and Arlie Petters at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/tiny.html
    Quote “Stephen Hawking claims that black holes can lose mass by emitting elementary particles and Quantum mechanics permits matter/antimatter pairs to form and quickly disappear just outside a black hole's event horizon. If one particle falls in and the other flies away, it looks to a distant observer like the black hole has emitted a particle”. "Hawking radiation" should cause a black hole to shrink and eventually evaporate. This process is basically irrelevant for black holes the mass of our sun or larger, but it's vital for their minute cousins”.

    Like you, the LHC safety report at (http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf relies heavily upon this ‘Hawking radiation’ to assure us of the safety of LHC mini black holes:-

    Quote “Any microscopic black holes produced at the LHC are expected to decay by Hawking radiation before they reach the detector walls. If some microscopic black holes were stable, those produced by cosmic rays would be stopped inside the Earth or other astronomical bodies. The stability of astronomical bodies constrains strongly the possible rate of accretion by any such microscopic black holes, so that they present no conceivable danger”. See (http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf

    According to Charles Keeton and Arlie Petters at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/tiny.html
    Quote “In Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes a universe with three dimensions of space (plus one of time), Hawking radiation would have caused all primordial black holes smaller than a few hundred million tons to evaporate by now. That could change, though, if the universe has more than three spatial dimensions. The idea of extra dimensions grew out of string theory—which needs them to explain how the strings vibrate—but it has taken on a life of its own”..

    According to Charles Keeton and Arlie Petters at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/tiny.html
    Quote “One thought is that everything we know might be confined to a three-dimensional membrane floating, like a strand of seaweed in the ocean, in a larger universe that actually has four spatial dimensions. Physicists Lisa Randall of Harvard and Raman Sundrum of Johns Hopkins University have turned this "braneworld" concept into a specific model that they and others are examining as a possible alternative to Einstein's general relativity”.

    According to Charles Keeton and Arlie Petters at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/tiny.html
    Quote “In the Randall-Sundrum braneworld model, the fourth dimension of space changes how gravity operates on small scales, which changes the rate at which small black holes form and evaporate. The upshot is that very tiny primordial black holes—perhaps as small as a pound or two—may have been able to survive to today and may even constitute some of the exotic dark matter in the universe.

    The assumption that micro-black holes would evaporate with Hawking radiation could therefore be wrong as there is a clear distinction between general relativity and the Randall-Sundrum model and consequently the safety of microscopic black holes at the LHC.

    As I asked in an earlier post

    2. Isn't it fair to postpone the LHC experiments until the majority of scientists can either understand and/or predict the outcomes using theoretical physics before they do these experiments?

    3. Why shouldn't we be afraid that a bunch of mad scientists at CERN aren't paying enough attention to detail when the CERN website at http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html
    publicly references an expert comment document with a blatant typo "the arguments of Mr. Roessler are even self-contradictory: ONE THE ONE HAND....".

    I’m still waiting for these answers.

    In your post you asked me “Do you even know what a black hole, a singularity even is? NO, YOU DON'T!!! NO ONE DOES!!!”

    Quote “But I'll tell you what we DO know. We know that outside of the event horizon, a singularity obeys the same inverse square law as formulated by Sir Isaac Newton. Perhaps we need a review of classical mechanics?

    The force of attraction between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart, or where G is the gravitational constant (G = 6.670 × 10^-11 newton-M^2 /kg^2).

    Now, do you understand what this equation means? Take a good look at it! It means that the gravitational influence that one body has on another is contingent upon 1) their respective masses and 2) is inversely proportional to the distance between them--the key phrase here being MASS!

    Given that, how much MASS do you think sub-atomic particles have? I HAVE MORE GD MASS THAN ANY BLACK HOLE THAT COULD BE CREATED IN THE LHC! But do you feel afraid that my gravitational influence is going to DESTROY THE EARTH?

    Black holes are like the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland--the analogue being just as the Cheshire cat disappears leaving only his smile behind, a quantity of matter is something that has disappeared from our universe and has left nothing of itself behind except its gravity. Now, how much gravitational influence do you think the mass of subatomic particles leave behind after they disappear from our universe? Anymore gravitational influence than the mass that they had before they left?

    You could have one in your hand and not even know it!”

    Unlike you, the following scientists have given less comforting explanations of black holes (and whether you like it or not mini-black holes are still black holes) at :- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/expl-text.html

    Gregory Benford Physicist and Author University of California, Irvine says "People regard black holes as troubling, because they are the enemy you cannot defeat. They always win in the end. It's no different than the guy in the black cloak with the scythe—it's Death triumphant. We now believe that in the long run most of the mass in the universe is going to end up being eaten by a black hole. Thee and me and all that we know will probably be swallowed by one of these dragons in the long run. And if you don't think that's disturbing, well, maybe you've been watching too many horror movies".

    Roger Blandford Astrophysicist, Stanford University says "Well, what it is really is a region of space and time where the properties are very different from those we encounter in the space and time around us. It has lots of weird effects that it can exhibit—and then those we think we can understand as physicists. But right at the heart of a black hole is the center nugget, which we call the singularity, and there we don't know what goes on. There I can't answer your question, I'm afraid".

    David Brin Physicist and Author says "A black hole is one of these folds in space that is so deep that things spiral down into it and they can't get out. Whether that hole leads someplace else or is completely self-contained, and whether that matter and energy and information is going to come back into our universe someday—these are subjects of argumentation. But the best way to look at it is that the fabric has been pulled in such a way that if you stick your finger down in there, you ain't getting it back".

    Reinhard Genzel Astrophysicist Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics says "Well, a black hole to first order is just a very large concentration of mass. Anything can be a black hole—it's just a matter of getting mass to be concentrated in a small enough volume. So let's take the Earth. If you just push all of the Earth mass into a region roughly of one centimeter across, well, then it'll be a black hole. The concentration of mass means that light cannot escape anymore, and then it becomes black in the sense that anything which is inside a black hole cannot communicate with the world outside, that is us".

    Andrea Ghez Astrophysicist University of California, Los Angeles says "We don't know! We'd like to know, but we don't actually know. The real problem is that we can't make any measurements inside the event horizon. Which leaves everything inside to the realm of theory. [But] a black hole is a region of space where the pull of gravity is so immense that not even light can escape it. That's sort of the simple definition. So that means that we can introduce the concept of an event horizon around the black hole. That's the last point at which we can get any information or light can escape from the pull of the black hole. You can also think of a black hole as an object where the pull of gravity got so strong that there's no other force that can oppose the pull of gravity, and the object collapses to an infinitely small volume".

    Andrew Hamilton Astronomer University of Colorado, Boulder says "What's a black hole? It's this monstrous, mysterious thing that, I don't know, eats everything. That's not true... [laughs] It's a region of space—well, blub, blub, blub—how should we do this? [sigh] I don't know what a black hole is. [laughs] It's a region of space where the gravity is so strong that not even light can escape. Imagine a waterfall falling over a cliff. It's like that, except it's space itself that's falling over the cliff, and there's a place where the space starts moving faster than light, and then light can't make its way out of that space. What's a black hole? Take a mass and compress it very, very prodigiously. As you do so, the gravity of its surface becomes exceedingly strong, and there comes a point where it's so strong that not even light can escape".

    Brian McNamara Astronomer Ohio University says "When something falls into a black hole, it is no longer accessible to our world. The only memory that our world has of that object after it falls into the black hole is that the black hole gets slightly bigger. But if you were to jump into the black hole, you would no longer be who you are now. The protons and neutrons and electrons that make up who you are would cease to exist. The only thing that would remain is essentially the mass of your person after you fell in. The black hole would grow in mass by your mass, but your identity would cease to exist."

    Mark Morris Physicist University of California, Los Angeles says "A black hole is a concentration of mass that is so concentrated that the gravity of the matter has crushed the mass into a point. It has become a black hole, because there is nothing that we know of in nature that can withstand that gravitational pressure. Nothing can counteract the gravity and prevent it from collapsing completely to a point in space. What we mean by a point is the subject of current research. If we simply refer to Einstein's general theory of relativity, we mean by point a mathematical point, what's called a singularity, where all the mass is concentrated. But there are recent attempts to merge that description with a quantum mechanical description, where quantum mechanics says that nothing is located precisely at a point; there's always a fluidity to the definition of a point. It still eludes us, because people haven't successfully been able to merge quantum mechanics and general relativity. But that is a subject of current research that I think will produce results in coming years".

    Steve Ritz Astrophysicist NASA Goddard Space Flight Center & University of Maryland says "A black hole is one of the most interesting and unusual ideas in all of science. It's enigmatic, because it represents the laws of physics in the most extreme environments that we can imagine. It's outside of our experience. We don't make black holes, at least yet, here on Earth, so we don't really have all the words for describing them. One way you can think about it is that it's an incredibly simple object. Looking from outside, there are really only a very limited number of properties that describe a black hole. It has a total mass. The event horizon has a certain size, or there is a certain curvature associated with the hole. We know that it can have a spin, just like the Earth has a spin. And in principle it can also have an electric charge. So you can think of it as a fundamental particle which has a mass, a spin, and a charge. And that's it".

    Kip Thorne Physicist California Institute of Technology says "When a black hole forms by the implosion of a star, which is how most black holes probably form, the matter implodes, and as it gets more and more compact its mass generates the warping of space and time around it; its spin generates the whirling motion of space around it. But the matter continues to shrink smaller and smaller and smaller, shrinks down to the very center where it gets destroyed in a singularity, a region of infinite warped space and time. And it's gone. When it's gone there is nothing left except the warped space and the warped time. So the common idea that a black hole is just made of very compacted matter—it's wrong. It is just simply wrong. It may have been created from very compacted matter, but the matter is gone. It's been completely destroyed; it no longer exists. And all that's left behind is the warped space and the warped time, and this little nugget of a singularity at the center of the black hole that we don't understand.

    Neil de Grasse Tyson Astrophysicist American Museum of Natural History says "On Earth the old adage "What goes up, must come down"—that works to a point. It turns out there is a speed with which you can toss something from Earth's surface where it will never come back ever again, and that's about seven miles per second. Different objects throughout the universe have different speeds for which this is true. So imagine a place where the gravity is so strong that that escape velocity starts rivaling the speed of light itself. Imagine turning on a flashlight—the light would go up and it would never leave. It would curve and come back down, just the way a tossed ball on Earth, if not traveling fast enough, it goes up, curves, and comes back down. In fact, the black hole, according to Einstein's general theory of relativity, has curved the very fabric of space and time, preventing anything from ever coming out at all. And so there's no better hole that you could possibly imagine than a black hole.

    Finally, quote “the size of an atomic nucleus but weighing as much as a small asteroid—that's a tiny black hole for you”. In this photo the asteroid Ida has the likely mass of a micro-black hole (see Charles Keeton and Arlie Petters website at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/tiny.html)

    The only relevant question here "BRAT" is could a micro-black hole created in the LHC pose a threat to our existence? And the answer is NO, simply because it wouldn't have enough mass to pose a threat to even an ant!

    Are you aware that cosmic rays are continuously bombarding this planet's atmosphere with a lot more energy than you're ever going to get out of the LHC? So, it is highly probable that micro-black holes are being created in our atmosphere continuously without our even being aware of it!

    But, clearly you don't want an answer. You just want to argue. And, as you have said, you are a "brat" and the only thing you can do with brats is ignore them!

    This discussion is over!
    Bosoneva resonace at middle frequency oscillation is nearby dark matter region will pave the way for understanding astrogenetic symmery breakages from the solar-lunar-planeatry boundray genetic connected simulation will be most important ivestgation we are carrying out at Oxford astrogenetics -astro physics group.Space magnetic field reconnection possible by frequency dispersed opposing magnetic fields of space:
    According to Bloch that applying a uniform force to a particle in a periodic potential would not accelerate it beyond certain limits, but instead would result in Bragg reflection when its deBrogle wave length became equivalent to the lattice period. Thus electro magnetic field applied to a potential could not accelerate electrons to a speed faster than corresponding Brillion zone ,and at longer periods the particles would execute oscillatory motion,called Bloch oscillation of cross polarisation dynamics initiate a cross graphics on the palm print.Cross polarisation forbidden dynamic resonance as obsrvedin case of Lord Kitchner ,naval commnder of England as well on W.T.Stead on water affined genes as time delayed genetic water drowning is worth investigation.Simllarly a cross on the palm print of Madam Sarah Berhardt's plam print with cross at the saturn mount initiated further curiousity in Astrogenetic plarised cross oscillating genes in understanding genetic catstrophe theories.
    Magnetic reconnection is a physical process in which oppositely directed magnetic fields are annihilated and the energy stored in them is converted to beams of energetic atomic particles. Based on two phenomena at frequency dispersion opposing quantum mechanical magnetic fields, this may be possible. This reconnection process is believed to drive the dynamics of the Earths magnetosphere and is responsible for phenomena such as solar flares and the aurora. These findings really are a breakthrough because magnetic reconnection is very difficult to observe. Before now we have had the 'smoking gun' of small-scale events but far from a full picture. Now for the first time we have proof that reconnection can and does occur on scales that make it as important as theoretically predicted. This becomes the basic foundation of astro genetics . While an electromagnetic field was applied to cause a stronger attraction among themselves causing bosenova explosions also. At this point the thermal energy released will be more for an explosion and the thermal energy released was greater than the normal energy. With increased magnetic field involving a Fesh bach resonance causing a reversible flip from attraction to repulsion in solar magnetic field emissions.
    Interesting frequency dispersed acceleration is possible by interference calling for positive and negative momentum resulting in an increased oscillation but at forbidden points there seems to be no transfer of energy .Simply by a change in the frequency in any one of the interference beams creating acceleration in optic lattice. A time may come when the interference energy distribution becomes a shut off at the eighth phase plane.vr=hk/m becomes -vr
    This requires information on phase conjugated converging domains of solar,lunar and planetary boundary reflections converged along negative refractive index plasmons of polaritons acting as feedback system along the plane of hologram which calls for more investigations on GRP(genetic reference plane) as genetic feedback system at radio waves frequencies as phase shifted auto feedback system in reinforcing the theory of astro genetics along the plane of hologram in understanding genetic codes of palm print.,based on the solar bosenova reflecting a cross polarised dark matter forbidden resonance responsible for genetic discontuinity which will further reinforce the theory of Astro genetic hologram connectionand disconnection.

    Sankara Velayudhan Nandakumar special officer on combustion nano technology along with Dr.GANESAN ,IIT professor ,combustion dept Cape Institute of Technology,Nagercoil formerly with ,KNSK Engineering college ,Nagercoil as research scholar,Anna University with Hubble space research committee of Hon.Roger Davies,Hon.Collin Webbs FRS of Laser dn of Oxford uk,Hon.Marteen Rees ,Emeritus Professor of cosmology Cambridge ,former president of Royal society, London.
    Sankara Velayudhan Nandakumar member PNAS ,American ,JILA Group member on behalf of Loyola college of Engineering and technology ,Member American committee for the Weizman institute of science ,Energy renovation committee cape Institute of Technology,Nagercoil ,former Guest lecturer ,KNSK Enginering college ,Anna University have surprisingly found out genetic mirror.

    Solar magnetic field by its cross middle frequency cross polarized oscillation initiate Rogue waves in sea during June-July along surface plasmons polaritons.
    Abstract: We propose and experimentally demonstrate the generation of cross-polarized photon pairs via four-wave mixing with cross-polarized frequency-conjugate laser equivalent pulse of solar magnetic field pulses of frequency-conjugate laser dynamics at 45 degree grace angle This method can be used for astrogenetic applications and various quantum information applications such as the preparation of Bell states of Toa cross polarization integrated over stoke and antistoke split stages that lead the stoke by cos 45 degrees.
    Solar magnetic field ejecting surface plasmons that oscillate along middle frequency resonance oscillation seems to be an important investigation on super string wave theory of helium fluid calls of optic lattices of Equi potential for wz of rotating dynamics of ds squeezed for cross polariton resonance of Bosenova oscillation from air affine to water affined affine the sea water.
    It has been demonstrated that by injecting a laser beam into a single mode optical lattice (SMF) or a MF, correlated Stokes (ωs) and anti-Stokes (ωas) photon pairs at conjugate frequencies are generated via degenerate four-wave mixing process (FWM) at the phase matching condition, ωs+ωas=2ω0 [16-19]. In a reverse process, it was also shown that by recombining these pairs of parallel-polarized conjugate photons in a second layer, photon pairscan be generated at the middle frequency with good efficiency, ω0=ωs+ωas [20].It is known that in an ideal single mode fiber (SMF), a mode excited with its polarization. This effect has been used to generate polarization-entangled photon pairs by synchronizing two orthogonal but degenerate FWM processes in a dispersion-shifted fiber(DSF) [22, 23]. Two same wavelength laser pulses with polarizations perpendicular to eachother coupled into a DSF, each create a correlated photon pair in the polarization state ofHsHi> or |VsVi>. |H> and |V> are two orthogonally polarized photon states and “s” and “i”stand for signal (anti-Stokes) and idler (Stokes) photons at different wavelengths. |HsHi> and
    |VsVi> are interferometrically combined.
    We overlap a Stokes (Es(t,z)) laser pulse polarized along principal axis x with an anti-Stokes (Eas(t,z)) laser pulse polarized along principal axis y in a MF, in thephoton pairs by FWM at the iddle frequency generating correlated state of |x> |y> when phase matching condition is satisfied.(1) At delay t1, overlap only occurs between Easx and Esy. In this case we launch the anti-Stokes pulse ahead of the Stokes pulse into MF2. Cross-polarized photon pairs in the state|x>|y> are generated by FWM at the middle frequency. This is similar to a collineardegenerate type-II PDC process [24].(2) At delay t3, overlap only occurs between Easy and Esx, generating cross-polarizedphoton pairs in the state |x>|y> at the middle frequency through FWM. In this case, we launchthe Stokes pulse ahead of the anti-Stokes pulse into MF2.With polarization oriented at 45o with respect to axes x and y, the Stokes (anti-Stokes)pulse is split into two pulses with equal power in MF2 polarized along axes x and y,respectively, resulting in a four-pulse co-propagation configuration in MF2. The electric fieldof the four-pulse is,
    Es(t,z)=Esx(t,z)x+Esy(t,z)y, (1a)
    Eas(t,z)=Easx(t,z)x+Easy(t,z)
    Rotational vector frequency of cross polariton resonance amplifying the sea during June-july by space polaritons of 69 dynamics of solar magnetic field at cancer-reg [Incident: 100729-000144 news@nature.com
    Some interesting simulation on fliud mechanics that could be derived using the velocity potential of -1 as as dy/dx -1at Wz =1/2(dv/dx-du/dy) that simulate violent surface palsmons by incearsed rotational frequencies due to circularly polarised polariton collection on water surface from linearity to partitionned polarity and collapsible resonance amplify the force by the cross polarisaing stoke and antistoke forces. They’re the stuff of sea captains' nightmares—giant waves barreling in seemingly from out of nowhere to capsize or swamp even the largest vessels or offshore drilling platforms. What creates these elusive monsters? In a new paper to be published in Physical Review Letters, researchers use a computer model to simulate a rogue wave's birth and propagation. Two or more small waves, driven forward by strong currents, and at the same time resisted by powerful headwinds, suddenly combine and amplify their height into a single, giant wave. Once formed, the wave structure stabilizes itself and concentrates its energy in one direction. That enables it to travel many kilometers before breaking up, typically when either the driving currents or headwinds subside. Along the way, anyone unfortunate enough to be sitting in the wave's path is bound to remember the experience. The same experience occurred to Lord Kitchner nval commander of England who had Einstein’s spooky hologram plane in his palm print of cross polarization graphics at the end of travel line confirmed the astro genetic theory along the plane of cross polarized surface polaritons of solar magnetic field acted as a timer in his case.. Sankara Velayudhan Nandakumar along with Hon. Sir J.Pendry F.R.S of imperial college uk special officer on combustion nano technology along with Dr.GANESAN ,IIT professor ,combustion dept Cape Institute of Technology,Nagercoil formerly with ,KNSK Engineering college ,Nagercoil as research scholar,Anna University with Hubble space research committee of Hon.Roger Davies,Hon.Collin Webbs FRS of Laser dn of Oxford uk,Hon.Marteen Rees ,Emeritus Professor of cosmology Cambridge ,former president of Royal society London

    Main reference: Generation of cross-polarized photon pairs in a microstructure fiber with frequency-conjugatemicrostructure fiber with frequency-conjugate laser pump pulsesJ. Fan and A.MigdallOptical Technology DivisionNational Institute of Standards and Technology
    100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8441, Gaithersburg. MD 20899-8441Jfan@nist.gov
    References and links
    1. C. Kurtsiefer, P. Aarda, M. Halder, H. Weinfurter, P. M. Gorman, P. R. Tapster, “Quantum cryptography:
    A step towards global key distribution,” Nature 419, 450 (2002).
    2. M. Aspelmeyer, H. R. Böhm, T. Gyatso, T. Jennewein, R. Kaltenbaek, M. Lindenthal, G. Molina Terriza,
    A. Poppe, K. Resch, M. Taraba, R. Ursin, P. Walther, and A. Zeilinger, “Long-distance free-Space
    distribution of quantum entanglement,” Science 301, 621 (2003).
    3. I. Marcikic, H. de Riedmatten,W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, M. Legre, and N. Gisin, “Distribution of time-bin
    entangled qubits over 50 km of optical fiber,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 180502 (2004).
    4. D. C. Burnham, D. L. Weinberg, “Observation of simultaneity in parametric production of optical photon
    pairs,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 84 (1970).
    5. S. Friberg, C. K. Hong, and L. Mandel, “Measurement of time delays in the parametric production of
    photon pairs,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 2011 (1985).
    6. S. Friberg and L. Mandel, “Production of squeezed states by combination of parametric down-conversion
    and harmonic generation,” Opt. Commun. 48, 439 (1984).
    7. P. G. Kwiat, E. Waks, A. G. White, I. Appelbaum, and P. H. Eberhard, “Ultrabright source of polarizationentangled
    photons,” Phys. Rev. A60, R773 (1999).
    8. C. Kurtsiefer, M. Oberparleiter, and H. Weinfurter, “High-efficiency entangled photon pair collection in
    type-II parametric fluorescence,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 023802 (2001)
    9. E. Brannen, F. R. Hunt, R. H. Adlington, R. W., Hicholls, “Application of nuclear coincidence methods to
    atomic transitions in the wavelength range 2000-6000A,” Nature 175, 810 (1955).
    10. A. Kuzmich, W. P. Bowen, A. D. Boozer, A. Boca, C. W. Chou, L.-M. Duan, and H.J. Kimble,
    “Generation of nonclassical photon pairs for scalable quantum communication with atomic ensembles,”
    Nature 423, 731 (2003).
    11. C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vu, G. S. Solomon, Y. Yamamoto, “Indistinguishable photons from a single-photon
    device,” Nature 419, 594 (2002).
    12. S. Tanzilli, F. D. Riedmatten, W. Tittle, H. Zbinden, P. Baldi, M. D., Micheli, D. B. Ostrowsky, N. Gisin,
    “Highly efficient photon-pair source using periodically poled lithium niobate waveguide,” Electron. Lett.
    37, 26 (2001).
    13. S. J. Mason, M. A. Albota, F. Konig, and F. N. C. Wong, “Efficient generation of tunable photon pairs at
    m,” Opt. Lett.0.8 and 1.6 27, 2115 (2002).
    14. F. Konig, E. J. Mason, F. N. C. Wong, and M. A. Albota, “Efficient spectrally bright source of polarizationentangled
    photons,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 033805 (2005).
    15. T. A. Birks, J. C. Knight, and P. St. J. Russell, “Endlessly single-mode photonic crystal fibers,” Opt. Lett.
    22, 961 (1997).
    16. M. Fiorentino, P. L. Voss, J. E. Sharping, and P. Kumar, “All-fiber photon-pair source for quantum
    communication,” IEEE Photonics Tech. Lett. 14, 983 (2002).
    17) Your call CNSHD789849 regarding With polarization oriented at 45 degrees with respect to axes x and y, the Stokes (anti-Stokes) may shifted for anti laser-reg has been received Outreach@stsci.edu
    18) #TAG# With polarization oriented at 45 degrees with respect to axes x and y, the Stokes (anti-Stokes) may shifted for anti laser-reg [Incident: 100802-000314 news@nature.com"
    pierre.lemonde@obspm.fr

    Solar magnetic field by its cross middle frequency cross polarized oscillation initiate Rogue waves in sea during June-July along surface plasmons polaritons.
    Abstract: We propose and experimentally demonstrate the generation of cross-polarized photon pairs via four-wave mixing with cross-polarized frequency-conjugate laser equivalent pulse of solar magnetic field pulses of frequency-conjugate laser dynamics at 45 degree grace angle This method can be used for astrogenetic applications and various quantum information applications such as the preparation of Bell states of Toa cross polarization integrated over stoke and antistoke split stages that lead the stoke by cos 45 degrees.
    Solar magnetic field ejecting surface plasmons that oscillate along middle frequency resonance oscillation seems to be an important investigation on super string wave theory of helium fluid calls of optic lattices of Equi potential for wz of rotating dynamics of ds squeezed for cross polariton resonance of Bosenova oscillation from air affine to water affined affine the sea water.
    It has been demonstrated that by injecting a laser beam into a single mode optical lattice (SMF) or a MF, correlated Stokes (ωs) and anti-Stokes (ωas) photon pairs at conjugate frequencies are generated via degenerate four-wave mixing process (FWM) at the phase matching condition, ωs+ωas=2ω0 [16-19]. In a reverse process, it was also shown that by recombining these pairs of parallel-polarized conjugate photons in a second layer, photon pairscan be generated at the middle frequency with good efficiency, ω0=ωs+ωas [20].It is known that in an ideal single mode fiber (SMF), a mode excited with its polarization. This effect has been used to generate polarization-entangled photon pairs by synchronizing two orthogonal but degenerate FWM processes in a dispersion-shifted fiber(DSF) [22, 23]. Two same wavelength laser pulses with polarizations perpendicular to eachother coupled into a DSF, each create a correlated photon pair in the polarization state ofHsHi> or |VsVi>. |H> and |V> are two orthogonally polarized photon states and “s” and “i”stand for signal (anti-Stokes) and idler (Stokes) photons at different wavelengths. |HsHi> and
    |VsVi> are interferometrically combined.
    We overlap a Stokes (Es(t,z)) laser pulse polarized along principal axis x with an anti-Stokes (Eas(t,z)) laser pulse polarized along principal axis y in a MF, in thephoton pairs by FWM at the iddle frequency generating correlated state of |x> |y> when phase matching condition is satisfied.(1) At delay t1, overlap only occurs between Easx and Esy. In this case we launch the anti-Stokes pulse ahead of the Stokes pulse into MF2. Cross-polarized photon pairs in the state|x>|y> are generated by FWM at the middle frequency. This is similar to a collineardegenerate type-II PDC process [24].(2) At delay t3, overlap only occurs between Easy and Esx, generating cross-polarizedphoton pairs in the state |x>|y> at the middle frequency through FWM. In this case, we launchthe Stokes pulse ahead of the anti-Stokes pulse into MF2.With polarization oriented at 45o with respect to axes x and y, the Stokes (anti-Stokes)pulse is split into two pulses with equal power in MF2 polarized along axes x and y,respectively, resulting in a four-pulse co-propagation configuration in MF2. The electric fieldof the four-pulse is,
    Es(t,z)=Esx(t,z)x+Esy(t,z)y, (1a)
    Eas(t,z)=Easx(t,z)x+Easy(t,z)
    Rotational vector frequency of cross polariton resonance amplifying the sea during June-july by space polaritons of 69 dynamics of solar magnetic field at cancer-reg [Incident: 100729-000144 news@nature.com
    Some interesting simulation on fliud mechanics that could be derived using the velocity potential of -1 as as dy/dx -1at Wz =1/2(dv/dx-du/dy) that simulate violent surface palsmons by incearsed rotational frequencies due to circularly polarised polariton collection on water surface from linearity to partitionned polarity and collapsible resonance amplify the force by the cross polarisaing stoke and antistoke forces. They’re the stuff of sea captains' nightmares—giant waves barreling in seemingly from out of nowhere to capsize or swamp even the largest vessels or offshore drilling platforms. What creates these elusive monsters? In a new paper to be published in Physical Review Letters, researchers use a computer model to simulate a rogue wave's birth and propagation. Two or more small waves, driven forward by strong currents, and at the same time resisted by powerful headwinds, suddenly combine and amplify their height into a single, giant wave. Once formed, the wave structure stabilizes itself and concentrates its energy in one direction. That enables it to travel many kilometers before breaking up, typically when either the driving currents or headwinds subside. Along the way, anyone unfortunate enough to be sitting in the wave's path is bound to remember the experience. The same experience occurred to Lord Kitchner nval commander of England who had Einstein’s spooky hologram plane in his palm print of cross polarization graphics at the end of travel line confirmed the astro genetic theory along the plane of cross polarized surface polaritons of solar magnetic field acted as a timer in his case.. Sankara Velayudhan Nandakumar along with Hon. Sir J.Pendry F.R.S of imperial college uk special officer on combustion nano technology along with Dr.GANESAN ,IIT professor ,combustion dept Cape Institute of Technology,Nagercoil formerly with ,KNSK Engineering college ,Nagercoil as research scholar,Anna University with Hubble space research committee of Hon.Roger Davies,Hon.Collin Webbs FRS of Laser dn of Oxford uk,Hon.Marteen Rees ,Emeritus Professor of cosmology Cambridge ,former president of Royal society London

    Main reference: Generation of cross-polarized photon pairs in a microstructure fiber with frequency-conjugatemicrostructure fiber with frequency-conjugate laser pump pulsesJ. Fan and A.MigdallOptical Technology DivisionNational Institute of Standards and Technology
    100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8441, Gaithersburg. MD 20899-8441Jfan@nist.gov
    References and links
    1. C. Kurtsiefer, P. Aarda, M. Halder, H. Weinfurter, P. M. Gorman, P. R. Tapster, “Quantum cryptography:
    A step towards global key distribution,” Nature 419, 450 (2002).
    2. M. Aspelmeyer, H. R. Böhm, T. Gyatso, T. Jennewein, R. Kaltenbaek, M. Lindenthal, G. Molina Terriza,
    A. Poppe, K. Resch, M. Taraba, R. Ursin, P. Walther, and A. Zeilinger, “Long-distance free-Space
    distribution of quantum entanglement,” Science 301, 621 (2003).
    3. I. Marcikic, H. de Riedmatten,W. Tittel, H. Zbinden, M. Legre, and N. Gisin, “Distribution of time-bin
    entangled qubits over 50 km of optical fiber,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 180502 (2004).
    4. D. C. Burnham, D. L. Weinberg, “Observation of simultaneity in parametric production of optical photon
    pairs,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 84 (1970).
    5. S. Friberg, C. K. Hong, and L. Mandel, “Measurement of time delays in the parametric production of
    photon pairs,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 2011 (1985).
    6. S. Friberg and L. Mandel, “Production of squeezed states by combination of parametric down-conversion
    and harmonic generation,” Opt. Commun. 48, 439 (1984).
    7. P. G. Kwiat, E. Waks, A. G. White, I. Appelbaum, and P. H. Eberhard, “Ultrabright source of polarizationentangled
    photons,” Phys. Rev. A60, R773 (1999).
    8. C. Kurtsiefer, M. Oberparleiter, and H. Weinfurter, “High-efficiency entangled photon pair collection in
    type-II parametric fluorescence,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 023802 (2001)
    9. E. Brannen, F. R. Hunt, R. H. Adlington, R. W., Hicholls, “Application of nuclear coincidence methods to
    atomic transitions in the wavelength range 2000-6000A,” Nature 175, 810 (1955).
    10. A. Kuzmich, W. P. Bowen, A. D. Boozer, A. Boca, C. W. Chou, L.-M. Duan, and H.J. Kimble,
    “Generation of nonclassical photon pairs for scalable quantum communication with atomic ensembles,”
    Nature 423, 731 (2003).
    11. C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vu, G. S. Solomon, Y. Yamamoto, “Indistinguishable photons from a single-photon
    device,” Nature 419, 594 (2002).
    12. S. Tanzilli, F. D. Riedmatten, W. Tittle, H. Zbinden, P. Baldi, M. D., Micheli, D. B. Ostrowsky, N. Gisin,
    “Highly efficient photon-pair source using periodically poled lithium niobate waveguide,” Electron. Lett.
    37, 26 (2001).
    13. S. J. Mason, M. A. Albota, F. Konig, and F. N. C. Wong, “Efficient generation of tunable photon pairs at
    m,” Opt. Lett.0.8 and 1.6 27, 2115 (2002).
    14. F. Konig, E. J. Mason, F. N. C. Wong, and M. A. Albota, “Efficient spectrally bright source of polarizationentangled
    photons,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 033805 (2005).
    15. T. A. Birks, J. C. Knight, and P. St. J. Russell, “Endlessly single-mode photonic crystal fibers,” Opt. Lett.
    22, 961 (1997).
    16. M. Fiorentino, P. L. Voss, J. E. Sharping, and P. Kumar, “All-fiber photon-pair source for quantum
    communication,” IEEE Photonics Tech. Lett. 14, 983 (2002).
    17) Your call CNSHD789849 regarding With polarization oriented at 45 degrees with respect to axes x and y, the Stokes (anti-Stokes) may shifted for anti laser-reg has been received Outreach@stsci.edu
    18) #TAG# With polarization oriented at 45 degrees with respect to axes x and y, the Stokes (anti-Stokes) may shifted for anti laser-reg [Incident: 100802-000314 news@nature.com"
    pierre.lemonde@obspm.fr

    Hello sankravelayudhannandakumar,

    thanks for your comment - I am wondering no one replies to mine (Ellis-Pretzell) but I had a look at your "optical thing".

    Who are you - where did you do research? Are you Mr. Fan or Mister Migdall? Please do not shadow yourself in the context of this important public findings - except I would say if you fear anything. You could give an idea of this problem - I might help you, I am myself an "illuminateur" and disclosed the LSAG reports in a way they are not sufficient together with other "illuminateurs" - I like little pocket lights running on their own, those can be bought at handicraft markets at the moment. I mistrust the cold light a bit (not natural) but maybe you can clarify (optics)? It would be better it would be warm (black - you know this technical term) radiation (natural). It is energetically more expensive I know.

    I talked often to Prof. Dr. Roessler and I am well known to Mister Gillis: I think they would agree I am a second scientific figure who like Dr. Roessler banged on the doors at Geneva - and like him I was welcomed as you see above. A note to the readers: Support us by studying the material in the internet and press and talk to people at scientific places and on the street. The pressed situation is not solved and the problem is pending - the engines are running and the particle thinkers go ahead. Our colleagues are often too busy and absorbed especially in this computer era to listen to Otto Roessler and me. Refutation - in whatever way - would be at place in case they are right. They pose possible danger without giving reasonable numbers and reasoning as far as I/we see. The theory division at CERN is too enthousiastic in my opinion and not well informed about counterargumentation.

    We are only semiprofessional but made good work hitting the problem on the nose from my point of view - doubting Hawking radiation, the MBH denial and the cosmic ray comparison.

    The comments here are interesting - thanks so far and good bye

    Hank
    You can't be an amateur theoretical physicist and then portray personal expertise with odd claims like "I think they would agree I am a second scientific figure who like Dr. Roessler banged on the doors at Geneva" - what does that even mean?   A lawyer and a science fiction writer trumped up some hysteria for the LHC like they had previous physics experiments and amateurs use 'No one can prove this won't happen' as evidence.

    Well, no one can prove tomorrow I won't walk into my closet and discover I am the King of Narnia either.   But I will keep my day job, just in case.
    Aitch
    I'll have a crack at proving it tomorrow, if you'll be willing to answer a short questionnaire......

    Q: Are you the King of Narnia, yes or no?
    Q: Have you just stepped out of a closet, yes or no?
    Q: Do you know Hank Campbell, yes or no?
    If you answer 2 out of 3 affirmatively you may or may not be the King of Narnia and there may be a reward available, so don't go anywhere

    Aitch :)
    I have spent my whole life pondering one question and believe i have the answer.
    Stephen Hawkins lead me to this answer, he nearly got it bless him, nearly as smart as me that one. The question was an ancient one and was this;

    'If once upon a time there was nothing, how could anything ever have begun?'

    (Please excuse the word 'time' here, i used the best words i could to explain anti-existance, it is clear that before anything existed there was no such thing as time/change,... or a 'before' for that matter....)

    A student of theology told me it was gods doing and the best evidence she put forward was that there are billions of coincidences that have lead me here, a walking talking thinking human being, typing to a fellow human over this thing we call 'internet'. 'How could this be an accident?' she asked. 'god must have created this universe for us'. She was correct in one thing, we are too perfect, the universe is just too perfect to be an accident, this is almost certainly undeniable.
    Afew months ago i read a little of Stephen hawkins most recent theories and they lead me to the answer ive been seeking for so long! He explained how all the universe is balenced. everything = nothing.
    Please understand that this is the first philosophical question i ever asked myself. So from a very very young age i have spent tens of thousands of hours pondering this question. This is the only theory that makes any sense to me, it can be elaborated on i expect but i think it is essentially correct.....

    ....The answer... simply, is that nothing can be created from nothing. Therefore, the only thing that can exsist is something that creates itself and amounts to nothing. All those coincidences, those billions of flukes that created humans are essential as it is the humans with there hunger for power that created the big bang in the first place. (I, like you, do not completely understand black holes but it is generally understood, and I agree, that it is entirely probable that they can distort time in ways we cannot comprihend.) We created the universe and we will destroy it, without us there would be no universe, only empty space. I expect the large collider is behind it all.(its purpose is to recreate the big bang lol) 2012 is when it goes into full swing, 2012 is probably our last year so enjoy it.

    The funny thing is, that if im right, then there is no stopping what must come to pass, otherwise the universe would never have exsisted in the first place, and therefore me writing these msgs is completely pointless. Infact, if i am right, then me writing this shows that there isnt long left atall. I hope i have opened your eyes although i do doubt it lol. Well done if u understand, and remember, theres nothing you can do about it. Have no fear, if you can follow the logic then you will see that you will live indefinalty, just like everyone else, so just enjoy your time.