I have found that the rejection of the ether at the beginning of the 20th century was
a) not agreed to by one of the foremost experimenters with interferometers
b) not in accord with a significant amount of the data (10 - 16km/s ether speed) from other interferometer experimenters who were looking for an ether speed from the ground of 30km/s - but which was only relevant for a static ether..
c) reliant itself on a static ether notion which the experimenter of a) (D. Miller) had already rejected. Infact, both the great Huygens
and Maxwell wrote supportively, though with uncertainty, of a non static ether and even Einstein referred to a ‘gravitational ether’…

Re Gravastars, we could imagine that micro gravastars would be possible and it looked like Mottola /Mazur have time for the Closed Time-like Curve concept of string theory. We’ve only got till beginning of June ‘09 to look into that possiblitiy..

You learn more by being inquisitive than by being arrogant!  So far you have displayed more arrogance and less understanding.

——

Full email:

Dear Bob McElrath,

Sir, you left a comment at LHCFacts.org suggesting that the Collider Incidents article (http://www.lhcfacts.org/?p=6) is related to LHC safety and the document refuting an LHC concern you posted a link to.  This article is not about LHC safety. 

Sir, you do not appear to have read or comprehended this article. The article and comments do not pertain to the LHC/superfluid Helium BEC conjecture raised elsewhere.

      The concern of this article (and the concern of some physicists who have begun to review this possible issue) is that mBH creation might be possible from (purposely created) bosenovas of BEC with attractive interactions as proposed by multiple articles and studies particularly from MIT, and not the possibility of accidental bosenova at LHC as proposed elsewhere.

Perhaps the following might help, but (respectfully) it will likely take some careful study on your part, not just superficial skimming and shotgun posts that do not directly relate to the topic of this article.

Sincerely,
James Tankersley Jr.
Co-Admin LHCFacts.org

I posted the following at a blog that did relate to your paper… (my response was a related concern that does not apply to the paper you posted): http://www.theskepticsguide.org/sgublog/?p=340#more-340

What concerns me more is the possibility that bosenova implosions (BEC with attractive interactions) might be potentially capable of causing matter density collapse to “infinite” density (create a micro black hole in the lab).

A difference of opinion appears to exist on the potential for mBH formation:

NASA and other speculation for[1][4], MIT papers for[2][5], Prof Huang and Nobel Laureates Dr. Cornell and Dr. Weiman comments against.[6][7][8]

(Dr. Cornell and Dr. Weiman won the 2001 Nobel prize for Physics for creation of the first BEC[10] and were present when the first bosenova implosion was accidentally created and the mechanics of this event are not fully understood, including explanation for the fraction of atoms that disappeared from the experiment. Some physicists are concerned that low velocity micro black holes should not be created on Earth before the safety of doing so is proven with 100% certainty.)

The following is a brief chronology of quotes, events and papers from 1996 to 2008:

 1996 John G. Cramer[1] “The BEC is so compact and dense that, with sufficient atoms added, a mini-black hole of atomic size should form. Readers of David Brin’s Earth and Larry Niven’s “Hole Man” should be familiar with some of the implications of this.”  “The BEC of Wieman and Cornell contained only a few thousand atoms of rubidium [naturally repelling RB87]. The first BEC is a long way from any danger of black hole formation.”

 2000 Kerson Huang MIT[2] “A black hole opens up at the center, …density fluctuations becomes infinite“ “The density in the black hole shoots up as time goes on, fed by waves of implosion“

 2001 Cornell, Wieman[3] “In the first of these Feshbach resonance experiments our students Jake Roberts, Neil Claussen, and postdoc Simon Cornish suddenly changed the magnetic field to make a negative. We observed that, as expected, the condensate became unstable and “collapsed,” losing a large number of atoms” “Because of its resemblance (on a vastly lower energy scale) to a core collapse supernova, we have named this the “Bosenova.”” “there is no clear explanation of the energy and anisotropy of the atoms in the explosion, the fraction of vanished atoms, and the size of the cold remnant.”

 2002 Science@NASA[4] “Neutron stars and their cousins, white dwarfs and black holes, are extreme forms of matter that many scientists would love to tinker with — if only they could get one in their lab. But how? Researchers experimenting with a new form of matter called Bose-Einstein condensates may have found a way.”

 2008, Feb 1 Eleftheriou, Huang[5] “…local collapse to a state of infinite density.” “We verify that the picture presented by Ueda and Huang is correct. For N> Nc , a “black-hole” does appear at the center of the trap”

 2008, Feb 28 Eric Cornell[6] “Probably not a black hole, more likely they just clumped together into molecules”

 2008, Jun 6 Carl Wieman[7] “I can state ABSOLUTELY CATEGORICALLY that it is totally inconceivable that a black hole could be produced by these phenomena”  “In the Bosenova, the BEC is seen to get slightly denser than a regular BEC for a brief time, but it still remains thousands of times less dense than regular air.”

 2008, Jun 9 Eric Cornell[8] “Yes it causes the cloud to shrink a lot, but no, not all the way down to an infinitesimal black hole. ”

 2008, Jun 10 Kerson Huang[9] “There’s no way the ultimate density of the collapsed atoms can be any higher than that of an ordinary solid”

References:

 [1] http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw77.html, Bose-Einstein Condensation, A New Form of Matter, Analog Science Fiction & Fact Magazine (Mar 1996)
 [2] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0012/0012418v1.pdf Cold Trapped Atoms: A Mesoscopic System, Kerson Huang, MIT (21 Dec 2000)
 [3] http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2001/cornellwieman-lecture.pdf BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION IN A DILUTE GAS; THE FIRST 70 YEARS AND SOME RECENT EXPERIMENTS, Nobel Lecture, Cornell, Wieman (8 Dec 2001)
 [4] http://cua.mit.edu/ketterle_group/Press/My_pet_neutron_star_4-02.pdf, My Pet Neutron Star, Science@NASA (3 Apr 2002)
 [5] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/9908/9908229v1.pdf Instability of a Bose-Einstein Condensate with Attractive Interaction, Eleftheriou & Huang, MIT (1 Feb 2008)
 [6] http://www.lhcfacts.org/?p=6#comments Email, Dr. Eric Cornell (28 Feb 2008 2008)
 [7] http://www.lhcfacts.org/?p=6#comments Email, Dr. Carl Wieman (6 June 2008)
 [8] http://www.lhcfacts.org/?p=6#comments Email, Dr. Eric Cornell (9 June 2008)
 [9] http://www.lhcfacts.org/?p=6#comments Email, Prof. Kerson Huang (10 June 2008)
 [10] http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/spotlight/issue2/bosenova.html Do the Bosenova

“Unlike astrophysical Super-Novae, the end result of a Bose-Nova cannot be a
black hole. Black holes with masses below the observed Planck scale have been
proposed as being possible in theories containing extra dimensions [20, 21].
The safety implications of these kind of black holes was thoroughly considered
in Ref. [22]. To be consistent with the non-observation of such objects, the
fundamental Planck scale must be at or above the TeV energy scale. The energy of
the Bose-Nova collapse is too small by at least 14 orders of magnitude to create
a black hole even in these speculative low-Planck scale theories. ”

Now, please stop making up and/or defending ridiculous ideas, and find something
productive to do with your time. You cannot cut and paste press releases from
different sources and end up with real physics.

The concern of this article is the possibility of mBH creation from BEC with attractive interactions as proposed by mulitiple articles and studies.

Please stop mangling quotes from press releases in different areas of physics to come up with “doomsday” scenarios.

My additional point is, the occasionally formed dense matter particle can be stabilized by its surface tension against decomposition, which is another effect, which the CERN security analysis never considered. The evidence of pentaquark and tetraneutronium states makes this hypothesis relevant.

It’s alarming, such large scale experiments are started without thorough analysis and persons responsible for its actualization, whenever new risk factors appears.

Thank you for taking valuable time to address these safety questions.

You state “There’s no way the ultimate density of the collapsed atoms can be any higher than that of an ordinary solid.”

Your statement does not appear to be consistent with what you publish, including the following (and none of the terms are in quotes):

…local collapse to a state of infinite density.

A black hole opens up at the center, …density fluctuations becomes infinite

The density in the black hole shoots up as time goes on, fed by waves of implosion

You did not state that you changed your opinion as to what results a bosenova implosion might produce, but rather you state that you never intended to imply actual creation of black holes of infinite density when you wrote “black holes of infinite density”.

Do you believe that it would be unreasonable for a career physicist to read your published works and conclude that you predict that a bosenova type implosion of a Bose-Einstein Condensate with Attractive Interactions might result in creation of a micro black hole of infinite density?

Do you believe that there might potentially be any possibility of creation of micro black holes and gravitational capture by Earth of the same from experiments that create bosenova implosions from Bose-Einstein Condensates with Attractive Interactions?

Thank you,
JTankers

In my publications on BEC I am not talking about

a literal black hole, but using the term as a sort of scientific metaphor.

There’s no way the ultimate density of the collapsed atoms can be any

higher than that of an ordinary solid.

Kerson Huang

From: jim_tank@hotmail.com
To: [Professor Kerson Huang]
Subject: fyi: Referred by Dr. Cornell
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:29:08 -0500

Dear Professor [Kerson Huang]
fyi…

You write “I assume you are referring the work of Ueda and Huang, PRA 60, 3317 (1999).”
Yes, the studies that I was referring to include the following, primarily related to your original study (reference links at http://www.lhcfacts.org/?p=6)

Thank you,
James Tankersley Jr.

—————————————————

What Studies tend to predict that Micro-Black Holes might plausibly be formed from Bose-Einstein Condensate Bosenova Implosions?

Instability of a Bose-Einstein Condensate with Attractive Interaction by Antonios Eleftheriou and Kerson Huang, Department of Physics and Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA (February 1, 2008)

“…local collapse to a state of infinite density.”
“We verify that the picture presented by Ueda and Huang is correct. For N > Nc , a “black-hole” does appear at the center of the trap”

Physicists researchers at MIT appear to suggest that laboratory created Bose-Einstein Condensate Bosenova implosions might result in the creation of micro black holes:

Cold Trapped Atoms: A Mesoscopic System by Kerson Huang, Department of Physics and Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT-CTP#3048

“A black hole opens up at the center, …density fluctuations becomes infinite“
“The density in the black hole shoots up as time goes on, fed by waves of implosion“

Physicists researchers at MIT appear to suggest that laboratory created Bose-Einstein Condensate Bosenova implosions might result in the creation of micro black holes:

Instability of a Bose-Einstein condensate with an attractive interaction by Department of Physics and Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139

“results are consistent with the formation of a “black hole” of infinite density fluctuations, as predicted by Ueda and Huang”

Theories proposed by Los Alamos Researchers indicate that black holes might contain a new form of matter that is less than infinitely dense, and may actually be similar to Bose-Einstein condensate matter.

Los Alamos researcher says ‘black holes’ aren’t holes at all by James E. Rickman, elvis@lanl.gov, (505) 665-9203, LOS ALAMOS, N.M., April 21, 2002

“Mottola and Pawel suggest that while some degree of collapsing does take place in a dying star, the collapse proceeds only to a certain point. At that point, the intense gravity of the dying star transforms the star’s matter into an entirely new phase. Mottolla describes this phase as similar to a Bose-Einstein condensate, a phase of matter recently observed in a laboratory setting and the subject of scientific excitement in the past few years. “

However Nobel Laureates Dr. Eric A. Cornell and Dr. Carl E. Wieman argue that micro black holes would not be created from gravitational forces that exist with [normal] laboratory created Bose-Einstein Condensates (editor: as long as the BEC atoms continue to mutually repel such as with RB87, and for non-Bosenova implosions as far as I can determine), as detailed in the “The Alternate View” columns of John G. Cramer:

Bose-Einstein Condensation, A New Form of Matter by John G. Cramer, Alternate View Column AV-77

“The BEC is so compact and dense that, with sufficient atoms added, a mini-black hole of atomic size should form. The BEC of Wieman and Cornell contained only a few thousand atoms of rubidium. The first BEC is a long way from any danger of black hole formation.”

Dear Professor Kerson Huang,

You ask “What has this got to do with the LHC?”
You are probably aware that several recent papers conclude that Hawking Radiation is doubtful (may or may not exists), and therefore micro black holes might theoretically be stable rather than immediately evaporate, and at least one credible scientist (Professor Dr. Otto E. Rossler) calculates that if micro black holes are created they might grow exponentially (potential Earth accretion in possibly years or decades) due primarily to theorized electromagnetic forces that the micro black hole might generate after capturing charged particles (an adversarial debate of the issues with references available here: http://www.lhcfacts.org/?cat=53)

Therefore, low atom count micro black holes, previously generally considered harmless, might theoretically pose a potential danger that physicists may not have been previously aware of.

So the question remains, in light of these assumptions, in your opinion, might the creation of bosenova type implosions from Bose-Einstein Condensates with attractive interactions have the potential to create the same type of micro black hole that might be created from head-on particle colliders, if head-on particle colliders might create such particles.

If so, and if creation of micro black holes from head-on particle colliders is proven reasonably safe, then it should be safe to create the same type of micro black hole from bosenova type implosions of Bose-Einstein Condensates with attractive interactions or other methods. And conversely, if it is not proven to be reasonably safe to create micro black holes from head-on particle colliders, then it should also be considered not reasonably safe to create the same type of micro black holes from bosenova type implosions of Bose-Einstein Condensates with attractive interactions.

Forgive me, but I found your answer to be difficult to clearly comprehend. So in layman’s terms, and I understand the question is necessarily less precise that your previous answer, but as the question might pertain to the possible safety issue related to the creation of micro black holes that might theoretically be independently stable, when you use the term “black hole”, do you literally mean the more dramatic sense of “that thing from which nothing can ever escape” for lack of a better definition. And when you use the term “infinite density” you mean density collapse of part of the BEC matter would be complete, to the density of “the stuff of black holes”, be that a singularity or some hyper dense phase of matter?

Or in short, is it plausible in your expert opinion to believe that bosenova type implosions from Bose-Einstein Condensates with attractive interactions might theoretically create the same type of micro black holes that some theories predict might be caused by head-on particle collisions above 1 Tev, and therefore the safey discussion with respect to creation of micro black holes, which is currently being debated, might also relate to creation of similar matter from bosenova type implosions from Bose-Einstein Condensates with attractive interactions?

Thank you for your time and attention to this issue,

Sincerely,
James Tankersley Jr.

I assume you are referring the work of Ueda and Huang, PRA 60, 3317 (1999).

You will note that “black hole” was in quotes. The density in a harmonic trap is greatest at the center, and decreases away from it. The “black hole” is a region surrounding the center, outside of which the atoms slowly tunnel out of the trap. Inside there is instability and collisions will drain the particles from the trap. It is a black hole to the gas inside, for they fall in and are lost, and there is an “events horizon” , namely the rim of the black hole. It is a metaphor if we viewi system and environment together, but real if we don’t count the environment. The “infinite density” is a mathematical singularity in the equation, quite analogous to “self-focusing” in nonlinear optics. In reality, the atoms get squashed into something [small crystals (?)] and drop off the trap. For a picture, see Fig.1 in A. Eleftherio and K. Huang, PRA 61, 043601 (2000),

What has this got to do with the LHC?

Regards,

Kerson Huang

Dear Professor Kerson Huang,

My name is James Tankersley Jr., administrator of LHCFacts.org.

I have read your work related to Bose-Einstein Condensates with attractive interactions and I have been in recent communications with Dr. Cornell and Dr. Wieman.

My understanding of your work is that you predict that bosenova type implosions of Bose-Einstein Condensates with attractive interactions may result in “infinitely dense” “black hole” formation, which to me is non-ambiguous.

However, and I apologize for the awkward nature of the following question, but for clarity in unambiguous layman’s terms, for the benefit of myself and Dr. Cornell, could you please confirm the following:

When you use the term “black hole”, you are not just using the term as a metaphor, but you literally mean the more dramatic sense of “that thing from which nothing can ever escape” for lack of a better definition. And that when you use the term “infinite density” you mean that the collapse would be complete, to the density of “the stuff of black holes” be that that a singularity or some hyper dense phase of matter.

Thank you,
[Edit: JTankers]

SYNONYMS infinite, boundless, eternal, illimitable, sempiternal. These adjectives mean being without beginning or end: infinite wisdom; boundless ambition; eternal beauty; illimitable space; sempiternal truth.

USAGE NOTE Infinite is sometimes grouped with absolute terms such as unique, absolute, and omnipotent, since in its strict mathematical sense infiniteness is an absolute property; some infinite sets are smaller than others, but they are no less infinite. In nontechnical usage, of course, infinite is often used to refer to an unimaginably large degree or amount, and in these cases it is acceptable to modify or compare the word: Nothing could give me more infinite pleasure than to see you win. Withdrawing the troops would create an even more infinite set of problems for the coalition. • Note that unlike other incomparable adjectives, infinite when used in its strict literal sense cannot be modified by words like nearly, since quantities do not approach infinity by degrees. This constraint, too, can be ignored when the word is used simply to refer to a very large number: You need a nearly infinite amount of patience to do the job. See Usage Notes at absolute, unique.

(I was unable to find any definitions that diverged significantly from my understanding of the definition of infinite, nor one that would tend indicate that a definition of “formally divergent within the context of my idealized mathematical treatment” would be a reasonable definition for the term infinite. I would certainly be open to reviewing any published definitions that might indicate this definition… Otherwise perhaps we can accept that the Colorado team and the MIT team may have different opinions as to the plausibility of “infinitely dense”, “micro black hole” formation from bosenova type implosions of Bose-Einstein Condensates… Please correct me if I am “off track” in any way…)

Dear Mr. Tankersley,
You wrote me:
“Am I correct in concluding that this research appears to suggest a
difference of opinion between credible and knowledgeable groups of
physicists?”
my answer:
No.
Kerson Huang is indeed a creditable, knowledgeable physicist, but
no, he does not think there is any chance of a black hole being formed by
BECs with attractive interaction. He’s using the term “black hole” as a
metaphor, really. He is not using it in the more dramatic sense of “that
thing from which nothing can ever escape”. And when Huang writes “infinite density”, he’s using the word “infinite” in the usual sense of the word when a condensed-matter theorists uses the word, meaning “formally divergent within the context of my idealized mathematical treatment.”
If you don’t believe me, you could write Huang and ask him
yourself, but the poor guy will probably say something kind like “No, it
probably wouldn’t result in a REAL black hole. Even what I call ‘infinite
densities’ are a bit too low” And then he’d read on your website
“Neither Cornell nor Huang will rule out the possibility of a black
hole….”
Mr. Tankersley, I recognize that you are genuinely worried about
the possibility of ultra-cold atoms imploding on themselves and
forming a sort of worm that gobbles up the whole earth. I’m not sure how
best to reassure you. I tried gently demurring (”I don’t think it’s a
black hole”) and the reward I got for that was your telling the world on
your blog that “Cornell does not rule out the possibility of a black
hole.” My colleague Carl Wieman tried the written eqivalent of yelling,
but all that gets him is your commenter Walt G writing “Wieman doth
protest too much.” So Carl’s approach doesn’t work, either.
I’m really not sure how much science and math background you have,
so it’s tricky for me to put this in a way that on the one hand doesn’t
sound like babytalk condescension to you, and on the other doesn’t go way
over your head. Try this: the attraction between the the atoms in the
Bosenova is at the end of the day a chemical attraction. Yes it causes
the cloud to shrink a lot, but no, not all the way down to an
infinitesimal black hole. Here’s another example of chemical attraction:
if you have air with a bunch of water vapor in it, the water molecules
attract each other and sometimes, quite suddenly, a bunch of it clumps
into water droplets. It’s the difference between humid air (lots of water
vapor) and foggy air (lots of tiny water droplets). The density inside a
water droplet is VERY MUCH GREATER (perhaps a 100,000 times) than the
density of the water vapor. The formation of the droplets can be thought
of as a sort of run-away collapse of water vapor, almost a little
implosion, on a tiny scale. Yet you don’t lie awake wondering if one of
those water droplets might cave all the way down into a black hole, and
then gobble up the earth.
Why not? Why doesn’t the water drop cave in all the way down into
a black hole? It turns out that once atoms get too close together, there
is a very strong repulsion that pushes them apart, a repulsion which is
MUCH STRONGER than the chemical attraction. How much stronger? So much
stronger that in the entire history of weather, and fog, on this planet
earth, not one drop of fog as ever formed a black hole and destroyed up
the planet. And that applies even more to BEC, too (which have much less
mass than water droplets.)
Does it help?
Please don’t take offense when I tell you that I can’t really
spend a lot more time on your worries. Since the advent of the web,
anyone can type “infinite density bec” into Google and think that they’ve
thereby done “research” in for instance black holes. Since the advent of
email, anyone can share their concerns with any Nobel laureate they care
to. This is all great technology, I guess, and it does enable hundreds of
people every year to get in touch with me to discuss their reflections on
all sort of scientific things (most of them not related to the end of the
world!) But technology hasn’t given me any more hours in the day to
respond, and so I probably only write back to one in fifty. I wrote back
to you because you seemed more worried and frankly less crazy than many of
the people who write me.
yours,
Eric Cornell

——————————————–

[JTankers: Commentary]

I received the following email from Dr. Cornell moments ago, which is clearly sincere and thoughtful, but I am left with the dilemma that Dr. Cornell wishes for me to comprehend that “black hole” of “infinite density” as the MIT team asserts multiple times in multiple different phrasings in multiple publish papers (see main article above for references) means the same thing as a 100,000 times less dense than air as the Colorado team asserts.

(Note that Laboratory created Bose-Einstein Condensates tend to be approximately 100,000 times less dense than air, this is a fact that was pointed out to me by Dr. Wieman, as my understanding of BEC prior to our conversation was primarily from self study at Dr. Cornell’s Colorado web site which tended to incorrectly imply high BEC density from the numerous interactive learning devices on the web site. An outstanding web site, and an excellent introduction to BECs, but obviously only an introduction and perhaps BEC density could be more clearly explained on that site I think. However the conversation is in the context of rare and technically challenging to create subsequent bosenova implosions where it is disputed as to how high a density the condensate may achieve. The Colorado team asserts that the density never exceeds 100,000 times less dense than air before or after the bosenova implosion, while the MIT team appears to assert the possibility that a bosenova implosion might achieve infinite density or at least the same density believed by some to be the constituent matter density of black holes.).

I do not understand the argument that Dr. Cornell is trying to make, nor why he is making this argument. Either I am confused (possible?), or there simply is a difference of opinion between teams of physicists. That is fairly simple, and common among physicists or even teams of physicists to have divergent theories, that is not uncommon!

I will attempt to contact the MIT team for clarification, as there does appear to be a striking conflict of opinion on this issue. Clearly the Colorado team believes that their BEC bosenova implosion did not result in formation of a micro black hole. I accept that they are sincere, and they are world recognized top experts in this field, clearly. However, the MIT team appears to suggest in multiple published papers that “infinitely dense” “black holes” may conceivably be a possible result of such bosenova implosions. I can not possibly conceive of how “infinitely dense” “black hole” could be confused with “low density”, “100,000 times less dense than air”. But I will investigate…

(For the record, my educational back ground includes a batchelors degree in computer science, one year of college physics, some notable accomplishments in High School Physics related to relativity study, and fairly significant independent research primarily related to cosmological studies, I also run two open source physics projects at BigCrash.org and BigCrash -> Inertia, very speculative work but it has been reviewed by a few career physicists including one who contributed some Loop Quantum Gravity related in-site to the project, speculative yes, but I think it shows some theoretical physics aptitude I think… I do know what infinite density means. I do have some comprehension of what a black hole is. I tend to think that the constituent matter of a black hole is probably more similar to highly compressed, extremely dense but less than infinitely dense phase of matter possibly similar to Bose-Einstein Condensate of extremely high density [perhaps a million million times more dense than air I would assume], rather than a singularity which may not be physically possible. Dr. Einstein did not think so. See Los Alamos researcher says ‘black holes’ aren’t holes at all by James E. Rickman, LOS ALAMOS, N.M., April 21, 2002)

JTankers

Dear Sir,

fyi below,

And I apologized for the adversarial tone of my site, I believe it is necessary, and I do greatly respect the incredible [genius] of your team’s work with Bose-Einstein Condensates. I find BECs absolutely fascinating. But I am also quite concerned that micro black holes might be deadly to Earth and of the possible link that MIT appears to suggest might be plausible. The LHC and Micro Black Hole Safety arguments are probably best argued in the adversarial debate with physicist Wwheaton here: http://www.lhcfacts.org/?cat=53 (if interested…)

Thank you again for your extremely significant contributions to science and your time spent helping me learn more about BECs.

Best,
James

[Attached copy of RE: email to Dr. Cornell]