CERN’s Dr. Ellis tells only half of the story

On August 14th, CERN’s Dr. Jonathan Ellis presented safety arguments to CERN scientists in order that they may use this information to defend CERN. The video presentation is 73 minutes long and the mood of the scientists is serious and somber. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1120625/

Dr. 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 [the horizon of black holes is infinitely far in spacetime from the outside world and never quite finished].  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, unbecoming and utterly misguided.

[0] http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1120625/ The LHC is Safe – Dr. J Ellis

[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 physics project

[9] http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2008/08/21/on_the_splendid_article_by_michael_e_pes “On the Splendid Article by Michael E. Peskin” by Otto E. Rossler, August 21, 2008

Tags: , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “CERN’s Dr. Ellis tells only half of the story”

  1. Thomas D says:

    You forgot some relevant citations:

    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

    Surely it cannot be that the LHCFacts website is intolerant towards criticism of its favourite son Prof. Roessler!

    Sadly, by omitting the views of the general-relativist Otto Nicolai as to whether Prof. Roessler’s work is correct or even physically meaningful, this post tells even less than half the story. By now, several relativists have shown that the Roessler ‘theorem’ does not tell us anything about physical realities, being simply a mathematical rewriting of known results, which are then misinterpreted by him.

    Some of these refutations are in German

    http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2008/08/13/p691

    however here is one in English:

    http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2008/08/08/p675

    Perhaps the author of this post could try to engage with the arguments presented by Nicolai and Bruhn, rather than treating every utterance of Roessler’s as selfevident ‘genius’.

  2. [...] from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders – Rainer Plaga Rebuttal [4] LHC Facts

  3. Michael Noonan says:

    When complete the LHC particle accelerator will be over 500 times more powerful than any particle accelerator ever built. This is not just a step into the unknown it is a giant leap for all mankind, womankind and childrenkind and any other kind of life or material on this small remote planet whether we like it or not.

    Is it responsible to take such a risk? Do we need to take such a risk?

    For comparison we know from Soviet research that it is safe to explode a 57 mega tonne fusion bomb in the atmosphere. On the same figures is it safe to assume we could safely detonate a 33,000 mega tonne fusion bomb in the atmosphere. That is the comparative risk.

    I don’t know is a valid scientific answer. The scientists have quite openly stated they do not know what will happen which is an honest and valid answer. What I intend to do is to get to know as much as I can about Jesus Christ The Messiah, my personal Savior. I don’t know what you intend to do.

  4. “and the mood of the scientists is serious and somber. ”

    I assume the ‘lesser’ scientists at the CERN LHC are starting to feel the public pressure and internally , silently, between themselves are starting to discuss and raise disturbing questions and having certain doubts in what their ‘big bosses’ tell them.

    But as in any profession, they have been told the irrefutable truth in years of (Mis-)education at those great Universities. But they may not have been told to think…

    It’s not the argument that Prof. Roesslers or any other critics theory may be wrong or that a disaster event may actually not happen that some LHC-Fans keep pursuing, that I find so irritating. I can somewhat understand their position.

    It is the fact that these ‘Fans’ are completely against a public discussion, an open communication and ‘an open and independent safety conference as Dr. Rössler calls for that is desperately needed’.

    Dear LHC supporters (whatever your real motivations are) what is there to loose if you agree and support the above? A few months? A year? Maybe 2?

    And what is there to win? Increased safety. Peace of mind. For if you are wrong and people like Prof. Roessler are right, what a huge burden did you load on yourself by disallowing the public discussion, the independent safety conference?

    I’ve heard so many LHC supporters in so many forums and blogs say exactly the same:

    ‘We don’t need a discussion, we do not need to ask anybody before we turn this on, just trust us, don’t interfere! We have the right to do it all alone. And we will.’

    Is this an acceptable position in so-called democratic countries? Is this the way you would like the world to be run?

    Don’t you think that the simple citizen of this world has a right to know? Don’t you think that the critics arguments should be seriously discussed? Should a couple of 1000′ scientists decide on the future of humanity (and more) all alone, all by themselves?

    Why do you fear a public discussion and a serious independant safety conference so much? Why is your only way to deal with critics to silence them, to make them look stupid? Have you never been wrong in your life?

    admin
    http://www.notepad.ch

  5. Eddie says:

    CERN reiterates safety of LHC on eve of first beam

    Geneva, 5 September 2008. A report published today in the peer reviewed Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics* provides comprehensive evidence that safety fears about the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are unfounded. The LHC is CERN**’s new flagship research facility. As the world’s highest energy particle accelerator, it is poised to provide new insights into the mysteries of our universe.

    “The LHC will enable us to study in detail what nature is doing all around us,” said CERN Director General Robert Aymar. “The LHC is safe, and any suggestion that it might present a risk is pure fiction.”

    Safety has been an integral part of the LHC project since its inception in 1994, and the project has been subject to numerous audits covering all aspects of safety and environmental impact. A comprehensive report by independent scientists addressing safety issues related to the production of new particles at the LHC was presented to CERN’s governing body, the CERN Council, in 2003. It concluded that the LHC is safe. This report was updated and its conclusions strengthened in a new report incorporating recent experimental and observational data that was presented to Council at its most recent meeting in June 2008. This new report confirms and strengthens the conclusion of the 2003 report that there is no basis for any concern about the safety of the LHC. The CERN Council is composed of representatives of the governments of the 20 European Member States of CERN.

    The report was prepared by a group of scientists at CERN, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The papers comprising the report have been accepted for publication in leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. The report was reviewed carefully by the Scientific Policy Committee (SPC), a body composed of 20 independent external scientists that advises the CERN Council on scientific matters. Five of these independent scientists, including one Nobel Laureate, examined in detail the 2008 report and endorsed the authors’ approach of basing their arguments on irrefutable observational evidence to conclude that new particles produced at the LHC will pose no danger. The full SPC agreed unanimously with their findings.

    “The LHC safety review has shown that the LHC is perfectly safe,” said Jos Engelen, CERN’s Chief Scientific Officer, “it points out that Nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programmes on Earth – and the planet still exists.”

    Notes for Editor:

    * Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, published by IOP Publishing, covers theoretical and experimental topics in the physics of elementary particles and fields, intermediate-energy physics and nuclear physics. For further information please visit http://www.iop.org/journals/jphysg. The LHC safety report “Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions” (J. Ellis et al, 2008 J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35 1150004) is available online.

    ** CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, is the world’s leading laboratory for particle physics. It has its headquarters in Geneva. At present, its Member States are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. India, Israel, Japan, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, Turkey, the European Commission and UNESCO have Observer status.

    CERN – Press Office

    CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland

    Tel: +41 22 767 2141 /3432 – Fax: +41 22 785 0247

    http://www.cern.ch/Press

    Press.Office@cern.ch

  6. Eddie says:

    lol, the doomsday is near =) luv u all :P

  7. C. Svensson says:

    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. In a galaxy a lot of it’s matter could be mBH orbiting at close to C velocites until coming to rest as pairs of high energy particles in diametrically opposit impacts at the galactic centre rather than as may generally be the case elswhere single high energy particles impacting low energy particles. Is this a correct assumption

  8. JTankers says:

    I do not know, but it is very creative and appears plausible and worthy of further investigation.

  9. Valter says:

    January or February of 2006 I was a CERN for an interview. I did not see everything but I did see the plant where they were building the sections of the ring. Which measuring 3 to 4 m if I can recall correctly. I applied trough out a link a friend gave me to be honest I did not know much when I did it. Then I started investigating it but since I’m no physicist the idea was small. I’m writing here based on all I’ve read about the LHC the dangers that could come from him and also that a big safety inspection was not done up until now. When I visited the plant in some places there were several warnings alerting to a possible exposure to radiation however never we (me and the other candidate) were requested to wear any kind of protective clothing. So I leave a question about how serious do they take safety into consideration? At the time I was not too concerned about it maybe the exposure is just under certain circumstances but now it made me think… I’m not physicist as I said I was being recruited for programming purposes and when the interview ended I had no hope of being recruited because we all know what we are worth and I know I’m not a genius and programming wasn’t a big passion of mine still I leave a question if this works we might be (according to some theories) risking all the life in the planet and for what purpose? More if this doesn’t work or doesn’t accomplish fully who can ensure us that they won’t build a bigger LHC? or even if it works what will stop them of building a more powerful one)? And if doesn’t work billions of euros were spent in some ridiculous machine when we have millions of people starving and sick all over the world. My conclusions so far is that no one really knows for sure what will happen because no one as ever experienced them and all there is is theories, some negative other positive but all agree on something a black hole can be created as so I think this should be canceled. To end I have a theory of my own towards why safety inspections are doubtful and inconclusive. The ring (part of it) is inside Switzerland all the R&D center is inside Switzerland. Only the plant is in France. I’m assuming the control center is in Switzerland too. The Swiss government lost millions of taxes due to the agreement they had with CERN employees don’t pay taxes as a normal Swiss would do and another bunch of millions was spent in funding and giving the proper conditions to the center since 1983. To add to this Swiss are known as wise business people so there is an objective here of some investment return either in researchers from all the worlds or even from a possible new and clean energy supply. As so this as to go forward because there was too much investment into this from several European countries. If there is 1 country that can actually dictate the rules is Switzerland, the biggest fortunes in the world are there, funds investments even all the richness from Vatican is there. That is why you probably didn’t even heard a word from them yet…. Resuming Switzerland as lot’s of people in their hands this was how they managed to stay neutral during WWI and WWII although they were placed right in the center of Europe and in a strategical place. They influence lot’s of things and they can for sure influence this as well…. not mater what the cost may be

  10. Mike says:

    I’m planning to live to see the results of the experiment so I got myself an I Survived the LArge Hadron Collider t-shirt from http://www.madscistuff.com :P

  11. You wrote “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.”

    IMHO this is not arrogant, it is blatantly criminal. Let me explain why:
    (1) All their theories are either incomplete, inconsistent, or both.
    (2) The energy range the LHC is addressing is not supported by ANY theory
    (3) The even concede nothing to know. Taking action without knowing anything is gambling by tossing the coin.
    (4) All others can not choose neither their role in this game, nor whether they are willing to take part. We are simply taken hostage.
    (5) CERN is acting intentionally.
    From that follows, that CErn is acting like a criminal.
    Deeply unethical. On my blog I call this a “zero ethical intelligence score”.

    Because CERN people are not dumb, this raises the questions about the true incentives, and the hidden agenda.
    Here it may be interesting to consider the legal status of the CERN. Even the county court of Hawaii denied jurisdiction in that case. It can not be stopped taking legal action. There are completely out of control, just billions of euros are pouring into that machine. All this only to understand nature? Come on!! what’s about the military? A herd of physicists at the border of failure, running out of money, being sort of “blackmailed” by th military? Who knows…

  12. JTankers says:

    Hello Nico Martirelli,

    I read your blog, well written. I agree, reckless and negligent.

    Humanity appears to have passed its first “Global Darwin Awards” test by not destroying ourselves with nuclear weapons that we do comprehend could destroy us.

    It saddens me that we may be about to fail the second “Global Darwin Awards” test because we fail to comprehend the possible danger of experimentation with forces that we do not comprehend.

    Those who should know the limitations of their own knowledge appear to be either deluded or reckless.

  13. Hi JT
    there is a nice book by the French philosopher Michel Serres, named “Hominscence”, a mixed term meaning the transformation from puberty to adulthood. Also a concept which can be used to describe the dumbness, eagerness, jealousy exhibited by physicists in their “last battle”, as one of them called (cited?) it in a blog.
    The problem with them, the physicists is a very complex one, deeply cultural, heredited from the scholastics, loaded with strange humanistic myths about God’s orders to understand his creation, but with contemporary aspects, too: they loose ground as the primary science, Ellies desperately claiming that the LHC will explain all things around us. Poor guy, if we survive this, the ages of constructing conscious network will begin, the bio-stuff being only a servant, and physics only a minor servant.
    So let us work hard … :)

  14. Michael Noonan says:

    The most difficult part is getting ordinary people to understand that physicists do not hold the high ground when it comes to reality.

    That may sound a bit rich but the fact is there is no absolute understanding of what nature is or what it will do under extreme conditions. I look at the alternate sciences which is the stuff ‘respected’ physicists wont touch.

    Take vacuum energy for example. Helium will not solidify even at near zero kelvin. At the temperatures when all movement ‘should’ stop it takes a further 25 atmospheres of pressure to form a solid mass of helium. Vibration is estimated to be beyond the energy of the universe to suppress.

    All it takes is an inaccurate description of matter where a false level of energy can be carried within atomic structure to reverse the expected outcomes of the LHC and form a white hole or draw into existence uncontrolled levels of charge. A white hole being the backlash of exceeding as yet some untested boundary.

    On a second per second basis a single particle at 51 Joules is 110,000,000 time more energetic than the 0.000,002 Joules per particle in the accelerator. However in terms of absolute numbers 300 trillion particles in collision makes CERN 3,000,000 times more powerful on a single point focus than anything in nature. That is not multiplying by 11,200 times for the crossings per second and does not take into account anything else that could get drawn into a fireball before backlash.

    The Bosenova achieved 2 trillion degrees on 10,000 atoms.

    On the astronomy side it is easier to see solar systems with dust rings than it is to detect extra solar planets. Some 300 light tears from us is a solar system with a sun like star trailing debris in excess of a light year. The dust ring has enough material to construct two earth like planets or a Venus Earth system and the star is much closer to dying than our sun either due to age or damage. If it is damage then my question is was it a particle accelerator or some other high end failed attempt to tap into the power of the universe.

    On the plus side it is highly effective global euthanasia as the explosive result if it did come from a planet would mean no person on the planet would experience more than a few milliseconds of destruction.

  15. Michael Noonan says:

    Perhaps to explain the last post is to ask who called it vacuum energy?

    The vibration anomaly is in matter. Helium not becoming solid is a property of matter. So if there is anything strange it is our understanding of matter.

    To say that Dr Ellis tells only half the story may be giving the physicist way more credit than anyone is due. There is no one with even that much understanding of what matter and consequently of what reality is.

    Unless there is a survivable accident (or by some miracle public concern) our future what ever it could be is in doubt.

  16. 18001 health and safety…

    OHSAS 18001 standard contains requirements that can be objectively audited and does not establish specific requirements for OH&S performance. The performance is assessed against company’s commitments documented in its OH&S policy and its compliance wit…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.