In nature such temperatures may only occur in supernova and the known outcomes are violent explosion, collapse to a new matter state (neutron star) or collapse further to a black hole. Unfortunately the only reaction I have received from the public forums to a quantum singularity destroying a planet has been “cool”.

One needs to ponder the intelligence of the scientific community and the public (in the public defense … they were trekkies).

He may not see it as ‘plausible’, but don’t ask me why he puts in brackets!

———————————————————————

February 4, 2009

Dear Dr. Rothman:

Thank you for your
signed blog article “Apocalypse CERN.“ I would probably have agreed
with everything you say including what you say about that “European
scientist“ if I did not happen to be the latter. But even then I would
perhaps have asked out of curiosity: dismissing a theorem as crackpot
stuff is easy once you have falsified it or know someone who did and
whom you trust – did you do it or who is it?

Forgive me if I
add here the URL of the recently revised paper (“Abraham-like return to
constant c in general relativity – ‘(Gothic-) R theorem‘ demonstrated
in Schwarzschild metric“ - http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Chaos.pdf - ) because on the previous URL, there were two papers one of which
contained no theorem. So maybe it was the latter you implicitly
referred to? I still hope that this long paper is going to be
published in the high-impact scientific journal to which I first
submitted it – despite the fact that its editor was just ousted for
petty reasons. I hope that this latter fact, too, is reversible.

My friend and mentor Bob Rosen called me an “interdisciplinary
hybrid“ way back in the 1970s. I’m afraid I still haven’t picked up
the right jargon in any field I touch. But I would like you to believe
me that I wish nothing more than to be falsified. If you can do it or
help me find someone who does, I would be most grateful. Take care,

Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rossler

http://press.princeton.edu/blog/2009/02/02/metaphysics-apocalypse-cern/

I wonder also, whether the phyisicist he refers to, Gregory Vilkovisky - who believes half the mass of black holes survives Hawking radiation - has any concerns about the risk.

The problem is science is presented in a way leading the public to trust scientists to know the unknown. Knowing the unknown is a church function only but somehow scientists are able to present their untested ideas with unchallenged authority. So to the officials responsible for public safety and awareness have failed to challenge this most basic issue. How does anyone predict the unknown?

Dark matter is still theory and not yet found or measured. There is no way of knowing what dark matter will do around an event horizon. On a galactic scale there appears to be very little dark matter around event horizons so what is the accretion rate for dark matter. This is a significant unknown because dark matter is on average six times more abundant than the regular matter we can measure. How does one account for the unknown and the interaction of the unmeasured.

Mathematics is an excellent tool for working with known properties. Actually ordinary matter is not properly understood yet. Ordinary matter has been very accurately measured that is true but ordinary matter is still not yet defined. So when one measures the unknown (matter), the not detected (dark matter) in a way not reproduced in nature since the big bang then risk is a factor.

unfortunately the CERN developed just into such a status called “international organization”, sort of a quasi-state, responsible only to its own rules. The term “agreed conventions” refer to UN rules, while there is no such thing as “international laws” which could be implied onto CERN. Unfortunately.

What I miss concerning the risk assessment is the risk implied by the experimental setup. Here I have discussed the official statement of the CERN (as of 9th Nov 08) [http://lhc.blogsite.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68].
among other arguments addressing the physics.
The main argument is that energy densities may be millions of times higher than discussed by LSAG due to effects like (1) hypersonic compression of (2) strongly-coupled Quark gluon Plasmas [QGP], (3) overlapping sQGP, (4) self-organized blisters in beam packages, (5) “multi-collisions” of relativistic particles with sQGP.
Any resulting strange object would be millions of times larger than investigated by LSAG
Nothing of that ihas been consideed so far by CERN, LSAG or any physicists feeding o our taxes. That is what I call ridiculous.

If there is any incidence where synchrotron radiation is disturbing animal behavior it might also be an early safety indicator of potential long term hazard to the human inhabitants of the region. When one lady wrote in to say the start of the low energy beam run set her dog off because the house is directly above the collider tunnel it raises some valid non-particle physics points.

With the increased sensitivity that animals have is the running of this experiment a case of animal cruelty? Does it cause deviation in the flight paths of migrating birds which could increase the threat risk to various species? And does it have any effect on indigenous wildlife and are there important studies that should be run in parallel with the low powered runs to ensure proper biological assessment.

The science of particle physics may beyond the knowledge of the ordinary citizen but that still does not permit particle scientists to operate outside agreed conventions and international laws.