LHC Facts

heck back soon for all the details of the ongoing war over the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LHC This article used to have a significant safety section.  But recently, safety was moved to it’s own article:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety of the Large_Hadron_Collider

Changes are now being made to delete key information even in the separate Safety article and a coordinated effort is underway to censor Jtankers and others who have been contributing editors for some time now.

-Another

The discussion below details an incident at Wikipedia. Recently I was blocked from adding references to the Wikipedia article “Safety of the Large Hadron Collider”, that challenged the probability that Hawking Radiation might cause micro black holes to evaporate. A CERN employee and Wikipedia administrator became annoyed with my efforts and reported my conduct to the Wikipedia Administrators’ Incidents board under the heading “LHC Fringe Theorists”.

At this same time, a notice was placed on my talk page that my talk page had been
nominated for deletion. I’m not sure what would happen if my talk page was deleted, as I don’t think this has ever been done to an active user before, but it may have left my account crippled in its ability to communicate.

After the two actions above, I stopped editing the Wikipedia article. If the intent was to silence me, they made some progress. The discussion below details what I believe is an attempt at censorship by persons with a clear conflict of interest IMHO (In My Humble Opinion).

Terms Used:
* COI: Conflict of Interest
* NPOV: Neutral Point of View
* DR: Dispute Resolution

- JTankers

…

Update… (July 14, 2008)

The Wikipedia article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider now contains a summary of some of the basic safety arguments of the organized safety opposition, after a long battle with CERN supporters to fight censorship of these concerns.

The concerns are not just from legal action and from what is raised in the media as the article still tends to imply. The safety concerns are lead by world recognized, credible scientists. Dr. Otto Rossler is an eminent award winning professor of theoretical sciences and a significant contributor to Chaos Theory. Professor Rossler’s research indicates that safety has not been reasonably proven, and danger is very plausible.

Published peer reviewed papers from science professors that question one of the of the primary safety arguments (Hawking Radiation) are still censored from the article. A 2004 Delphi study showing up to 50% doubt among physicists polled is still censored from the article. (Physicists do have reasonable doubt about Hawking Radiation, contrary to what the article implies).

From the Wikipedia article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider:

Concerns raised in the media

Nuclear physicist Walter L. Wagner has argued that if Micro black holes are produced at the LHC, they might not decay as predicted by CERN, since Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon and might not exist.[8][22]

Professor Otto Rössler has stated that micro black holes created in the LHC would grow exponentially, accreting the Earth in 50 months to 50 years, and he has sought scientific debate on his research[23] before the LHC particle collisions begin.[24]

- JTankers
—-

Update June 20, 2008

What part is undue weight? This just feels like censorship of concerns from the general public and from credible PHD level scientists. The conflict of interest could not be more clear. I have nothing to gain that I do not share with the defendants (safety of Earth), CERN has potential Nobel prizes, future employment, fame and fortune, potentially at the cost of Earth 50 months to 50 years from now. The debate could not be more relevant now and could not affect more people. To bury the concerns another link level deeper would certainly be better than completely censoring the concerns, and I can accept the solution. But I think the undue weight is given to the concerns of CERN and they will not be satisfied until the article appears to suggest that there is no conceivable danger, when in fact safety arguments are no more substantial than unverified original research. CERN’s safety analysis is original research that has not been accepted by peer reviewed journal for publication, only approved by a 4/5 majority internal assessment which called some major argument unverified and peer review of the self published work is still in progress. A CERN employee editor has even had links to published peer reviewed papers that challenge the primary safety argument, the probability that Hawking Radiation exists removed against editor consensus. How can that be justified? According to Professor Dr. Otto Rössler the results of CERN’s actions could result in the greatest crime against humanity imaginable. Dr. Rossler is arguably among the world’s most eminent living contributors to theoretical sciences, a former university visiting professor of theoretical physics (a fact suspiciously removed from Dr. Rossler’s Wikipedia bio June 2, 2008 without prior discussion) and founded a new field of theoretical physics in collaboration with MIT Physics Professor David_Finkelstein who is historically significant for his contribution to black hole theory. The public and other scientists have the right to know that scientific consensus is credibly challenged by multiple credible PHD level theoretical scientists. More importantly, we deserve credible concerns to be addressed before collisions begin. Wikipedia should not be a public relation tool to influence public opinion and limit information to other physicists by censoring descent. This is a very significant issue.

–Jtankers (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

—–

Administrators’ noticeboard/IncidentsArchive446

LHC fringe theorists

Hi, I’d appreciate another admins input on an article I’m involved in, hence I cannot take any actions. If you have 10 spare mins read through Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider.

User:Jtankers is part of a fringe theory group on the web who believe that the LHC will possibly destroy the world. He’s continually adding original research links and adds material in a WP:ATT join the dots type of logic to make readers come to his conclusions. For 6 months we (myself and a number of other editors) have been trying to explain to him the meaning of reliably sourced and verifiable information. Yet he still continues to add his links and tries to sway the article to his own agenda. A quick google search of his name (James Tankersley) and a look at his user page shows his involvement in these fringe groups.

I myself work at CERN but have I believe at no time compromised my position either as an administrator or via COI by the fact I work at CERN. This can be seen on the talk page as well, when James made some unbased accusations and eventually he recalled them when pressed to show where I had abused my position.

Myself and a number of other editors have repeatedly try to explain to Jtankers why his links are not suitable, and have given him far more leeway than WP:FRINGE recommends. But all we have in return is alot of handwaving and how we are repressing him and the article is biased agianst his position. Though we have repeatedly explained to him the type of links he should find to promote his position, yet is unable to do so. We revert and he goes past 3RR, and we explain to him about 3RR and yet we are threatening him.

Yet the OR links keep coming, we keep trying to explain why they aren’t acceptable but it’s falling on deaf ears. You may also wish to read the LHC talk page as this is where it started before the subject matter was split away. Any help pointers etc would be appreciated. ^Khukri 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I got as far as where JTankers alleges a Vast ecritKabalConspir’cee to get him and his, and got sick of it. There are three regular editors there, WWheaton, Khukri, and Phenylalanine desperately trying for … over a week? to get this guy to pay attention. It’s a great deal of CIVIL POV PUSH, till he gets to the conspiracy to suppress him. He refuses to acknowledge a lot of their gaps, instead purporting some great theoretical idea and demanding they all disprove it. He seems, at this point, to be actively ignoring policies. The only way he couldn’t understand the policies by now is if he’s deliberately refusing to ever read them, which may well be possible, but then, he’s deliberately being disruptive. Another editor came in and offered an opinion, but that too, seems to have fallen on deaf ears. The editor could well do with a topic ban. ThuranX (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

More on this: JTankers has brought this, in one day, to : AN, 3RR, NPOV, and COI in the last 24 hours, in what’s got to be the Memorial day sale of Forum Shopping.

I note that the user’s User page is being used as a SOAPBOX for his viewpoint, since it cannot be achieved in the article. ThuranX (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor has been notified. ThuranX (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I MfD’d the user page, as you are right, it is a blatant WP:SOAP violation. (There is an ongoing controversy about another user’s page which has WP:SOAP-ish problems, and I feel I would be a terrible hypocrite if I did not take action against this page as well) –Jaysweet (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I immediately removed all content I thought might violate WP:SOAP as soon as it was brought to my attention. –Jtankers (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But where to next, we’ve tried to explain and he claims he wants dispute resolution but when a new editor HaeB came in and explained the position he was ignored and the information was re-added. I’ve said from the outset when it was included in the LHC article that it deserves an a section/article, although it does fall squarely into the realms of fringe theories it has received main stream press hence deserves a mention. But it’s been a continual fight to try and keep these theories in perspective, and it’s far in breach of WP:UNDUE and yet we cannot seem to explain this clearly enough. ^Khukri 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What’s this about black holes??? Is that for real? –Dragon695 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? That’s the best response we can get at AN/I? read all that material. I did. (Well, msot of it. after a while, it’s repetititve.) ThuranX (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody who has responded is an admin. The admin’s are terribly overburdened, and the best us non-admins could do here would be to try to explain to the user what the problem is — which has already been tried extensively and failed.

If you can get an admin’s attention, that would be great, but “That’s the best response we can get at ANI/I?” is not likely to endear you to them ;p –Jaysweet (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my name is James Tankersley Jr. I am a US Army Officer veteran, a computer programmer with some college physics back ground, and founder and co-administrator of the web site LHCFacts.org. The safety opposition are not fringe, supporters to one degree or another include the following scientists:

• 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.

I have been contributing to the Large Hadron Collider and Safety of the Large Hadron Collider article and for several months without incident, including content related to legal action against CERN in US Federal Courts. I respect and follow Wikipedia rules and admin instructions to the best of my ability, and my only goal is to prevent unreasonable censorship of the Large Hadron Collider safety issue.

There is an effort to censor the views of recognized experts on Hawking Radiation. Credible scientists including Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler who warn of potential danger from operation of the Large Hadron Collider have been censored from the article in violation of virtually every aspect of WP:NPOV in my opinion. Peer reviewed published references that meet WP:VERIFY and challenge Hawking Radiation are being censored by members with apparent WP:COIN concerns. The validity of Hawking Radiation is a primary safety argument and a significant component of legal challenges to CERN currently before US Federal Courts in Hawaii. Wikipedia admin and CERN employee Khukri (talk) recused himself of admin duties when I asked him to intervene against rule violations by user Phenylalanine (talk) during the period of July 4th through July 9th 2008.

Details of activities in apparent violation of WP:NPOV by editors with potential WP:COIN concerns are detailed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard and Talk:Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider. Thank you, –Jtankers (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I see an argument from special knowledge above. I see an attack on Khukri for doing the right thing. I see forum shopping. I do not see Jtankers acting ina responsible manner. The assertions of censorship aren’t borne out by the talk page, where his sources are ripped apart by numerous editors who oppose his edits. ThuranX (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor Phenylalanine (talk) removed the content without discussion multiple times and editor Wwheaton (talk) argued for keeping the references. What actions were not responsible? I am not getting help and assistance, just attacks. There is a clear conflict of interest, the issue is before US Federal Courts and CERN editors outnumber the opposition. Shouldn’t we error on the side of inclusion rather than on the side of possible censorship? –Jtankers (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No. Here we err on the side of Wikipedia policy; one policy is WP:NPOV, which specifically charges us to avoid undue weight given to fringe claims. You shouldn’t need to have this explained any further. If you continue to ignore Wikipedia policies, you may be blocked for tendentious editing. — Scientizzle 04:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to violate Wikipedia policy. There are no fringe claims that I am aware of, I believe that the article violates WP:NPOV by excluding references to published peer reviewed papers that directly challenge safety arguments (Hawking Radiation) used by CERN related to operational safety and to argue for dismissal of the lawsuit currently before US Federal Court in Hawaii. I wish to pursue formal dispute resolution, I am not sure exactly how this is done, but in the mean time I plan to limit my efforts primarily to the discussion page. (fyi: Of a quarter million AOL voters, 61% do not feel that the risks have been reasonably addressed, not fringe theories and not fringe concerns). –Jtankers (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

While it may or may not be undue to dispute the existence of Hawking radation on the article Hawking radiation, peer-reviewed papers that dispute it do not belong in an article on something else! And that’s because, NPOV concerns aside, a tangent on a merely related topic constitutes original synthesis if it is placed there to draw a conclusion unsupported by those high quality sources. That is to say, there is a difference between Hawking radation doesn’t exist and Hawking radation doesn’t exist; the LHC will kill us all! Aside from the one blog, none of the sources I’ve seen from you even mention the LHC. So until you find a high quality source to demonstrate that this belief is significant, it is adequately covered by the statement already present and a link to the article on the topic. You can carry your Hawking-radiation-doesn’t-exist argument to that page if you wish. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider currently contains the statement:

• “One concern is that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all“.

It seems reasonable to me that Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler’s work would be a reasonable reference to support that statement. He argues that mini black holes created by the Large Hadron Collider might become charged, grow exponentially and destroy the planet. His theory Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk has been published on the web for several weeks and Dr. Rossler had an appointment to meet with CERN scientists July 4th to discuss safety issues Grösstes Verbrechen der Menschheit, Chaos, conspiracy, black holes. CERN’s [Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions] also addresses charged micro black hole, a concept that does not appear to have existed before Dr. Rossler published his work, and it appears to be in direct response to Dr. Rossler’s theory. It seems reasonable to me that this reference should be included, as both his report and CERN’s reports are almost equally new and both published similarly on the web and both in the process of peer review.

Variations of the following references have been in the article previously. Hawking Radiation is a significant safety factor, if it is found to not be valid, delay of the Large Hadron Collider would be much more likely. Both of the references speak at least to some degree about the “probability” that Hawking Radiation might be found to be invalid.

• Do black holes radiate?, Dr. Helfer Rep. Prog. Phys. 66 943-1008, Published 12 May 2003 by Reports on Progress in Physics The possibility that non-radiating `mini’ black holes exist should be taken seriously; such holes could be part of the dark matter in the Universe“.

• Universality of the Hawking effect, William G. Unruh and Ralf Schutzold, published 24 January 2005 by The American Physical Society “Therefore, whether real black holes emit Hawking radiation remains an open question and could give nontrivial information about Planckian physics.“

An AOL poll is hardly a meritable source for your arguments, I’d wager that a sizable minority, if not majority, still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, that Bush is doing a great job, that global warming’s a myth from the liberals, and that the earth was created in 7 days. Big deal. Uninformed people given questions that push that the world could end immediately, and would that be bad? will answer that the end of everythign would be bad. Duh. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the “founder and co-administrator of the web site LHCFacts.org” should probably not use conflict of interest as an argument against another editor. The rest of it looks like a content dispute, as has been mentioned. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, I was afraid that this would be labelled as a content dispute & the involved parties told to go away. (I stumbled across this thread late last night, & so was unable to offer any comments.) Looking at the discussion on Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider, it’s obvious that this is a far-to-familiar one person vs. a group of editors; the problem is not the content, but interpersonal dynamics. Can one person veto the assumption of a consensus? I don’t know the answer, but I can think of reasons to say “yes” — & “no”.

More to the point in this case, while I have the utmost respect for anyone who has earned a position at CERN, Jtankers has a point here, after a fashion: the article lacks any explanation for why the people who filed an injunction think that the LHC is a potential danger. It doesn’t matter whether their reasoning is based on a Ouiji board, or that a mistake was in CERN’s rationale by an undeniable expert (think Klaatu or Sheldon Cooper :). A sentence or two in the proper paragraph ought to meet that need. And please note carefully: doing this does not give undue weight to a fringe theory, it is explaining the motivation for one group’s actions. Thus writing more than the amount I suggest, IMHO, would give undue weight. — llywrch (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I’s more than a content dispute, it’s more of the Civil POV Push we have seen increasingly on WP as the Pushers of all sorts of POVs get smart about how to abuse Wikipedia. He’s a POV pusher, and end is near kinds guy who won’t stop till forced to. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone should feel they need to “go away” at this point, and I’m sorry if my post gave that impression. Either there is enough material to justify a WP:RFC/U or continued attempts to resolve this are needed. I just don’t think AN/I is the right place for it just yet. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is clear it is a content dispute, but it’s more along the lines of a number of editors trying to explain what is acceptable entries to a couple of editors with an agenda. But even though there is a COI with JTankers and even more so with another editor, they are very relevant to these issues currently ongoing and I feel can/should be able to contribute. However trying to explain what is acceptable and what is unacceptable is falling on deaf ears. Maybe RFC/U would be the place to take this, but I have a horrible feeling another group of editors explaining a position would be ignored as well. However Jtankers has said he will no longer edit the article until he “wins” dispute resolution, how one wins a resolution I don’t know. I brought this to ANI to avoid the request for mediation channel as it’s lengthy and some form of resolution is needed rapidly. It’s been through asking for third opinion, spammed across various noticeboard assitance, but still goes on.

I’m asking if someone could take this on and act as an unofficial arbiter, taking an impartial view pointing out to all issues, take some time to look through the LHC article talk page and it’s archives, and look through Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider. ^Khukri 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I’m somewhat aware of the topic in question and uninvolved in the on-wiki frufru over this. I will start taking a look as an uninvolved administrator. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Translation from German: Interview: Chaos, Verschwörung, schwarze Löcher

Interview: Chaos, conspiracy, black holes
Professor Dr. Otto E. Rossler over the dangers of the LHC at the CERN

Interview: Chaos, Verschwörung, schwarze Löcher, Part 1 of 5
The largest particle accelerator of the world, the Large hadron Collider (LHC) of the European organization for nuclear research (CERN), is to help, to experience more over the emergence of the universe. Chaos researcher professor Otto E. Rossler sees a danger for the earth, whose fall he can introduce in the LHC however. Golem.de spoke with Rossler at the edge of the Transmediale, which carry the title “Conspire” in this year. For mankind the scientists at the CERN see however no danger, how a leading scientist of the LHC project explained opposite Golem.de.

It is already quite a while ago that the chaos research made publicly attentive on itself. Also over black holes for a long time nothing more was reported. Both is already nearly normal. But the Transmediale of this year dedicated itself in the citizen of Berlin house of the cultures of the world to the topic of the conspiracy. “Conspire.” is the slogan of this year of the steeped in tradition festival for art and digital culture. With professor Otto E. Rossler the curators invited completely special key note a Speaker to their conference. The habilitierte biochemist, chaos researcher and untiring reconnaissance aircraft in the service of the natural science and art are among other things well-known for it, the Rossler Attraktor to have discovered and the theoretical school of the Endophysik to have justified. Both brings up for discussion natural phenomena, which are only with difficulty understandable with common, rational approaches. A conspiracy within the physical world.

In May this yearly is to begin at the European organization for nuclear research (CERN) one of the most important attempts of physics. The Large hadron Collider (LHC) - the largest particle accelerator of the world - is used to experience by the collision of protons more over the emergence of the universe. Largest hopes lie in it to occupy on the one hand the Higgs mechanism - a theoretical explanation model for asymmetrical behavior of elementary particles - and on the other hand the Hawking’ dematerializing theorem for black holes. The latter in particular would be a sensation, since so far nobody knows exactly, what black holes are real and how they behave. After Hawking they would have to dematerialize directly after their emergence and be thus harmless. But there is not the practical proof for it yet. Rossler states against the fact that black holes do not have to dematerialize necessarily and remain very probably stable could. And that could become quite dangerous.

Golem.de: Mr. professor Rossler, Sie it believes that the experiments with black holes at the CERN could be dangerous. What for is a man behind so a theory? Could you introduce yourselves please briefly?

Professor Otto Rossler: One is always unsympathisch itself. I have several identities. I saw no character scientific. I make everything and am responsible therefore for nothing. Before 35 years I was habilitiert in theoretical biochemistry. That remained also actually my field of activity until today, but it was added then still some. For example the chaos research, which developed only in the course of the time.

Golem.de: How do you define chaos research?

Rossler: That is, if they want, a form of applied mathematics. One concerns oneself there with oscillations. Only that the oscillations are somewhat more complicated. One can get periodic oscillations with two interacting variables with impulse and place. If one adds however still further variables, as for example a pendulum at the swing, then one has already four variables and the condition for chaos. Chaos is thus simply an oscillation possibility of systems, where several particles and variables can interact with one another.

Interview: Chaos, Verschwörung,
schwarze Löcher, Part 2 of 5

Golem.de: Wherein does the difference between chaos and coincidence lie?

Rossler: These chaotic oscillations have it actually that they are very irregular. They do not repeat themselves only taken in very long periods and strictly at all. That works coincidentally. But if one has the appropriate equation and from different computers with the same computational accuracy and the identical in each case configuration lets compute, then one will produce the same trajectory from the same point of origin always exactly, the same picture, the same movement. Then it is thus no coincidence. One calls it also deterministic chaos. The term comes from Edward Lorenz.

Golem.de: Is there also and term table chaos?

Rossler: With difficulty. Thus if one takes noise in, which is evenly and datistic, then it looks still exactly alike. One can thus hardly differentiate between it. In former times one even meant that it would have to be always disturbed and it has for a long time lasted to one accepted that the coincidence can come also from the inside and is not only added from the outside. But most sadistischen systems are naturally a little disturbed. Then the chaos is mixed with genuine coincidence. Then there is thirdly still the really genuine coincidence of quantum mechanics. That is still much, many coincidentally as the chaos. Wolfgang Pauli calls that the primary coincidence. It is produced behind the world, while the chaos comes in the world still with right things. It is only infinitely sensitive in relation to small changes. But the coincidence behind the world, in the quantum mechanics, which is not so far avowedly.
Niels bore, one of the pioneers of quantum physics, times from a journalist one asked, what quantum mechanics is actually. There has bore it back-asked: “credit it a matchbox in the bag, an empty?” - “no?!” - “”, here is one. Have do they a cube in the bag?” - “no.” - “is here one. Then I can explain to you, what quantum mechanics is. Open the box completely carefully. Do please the cube completely carefully inside. Close it completely carefully and then give you them me completely carefully.” Then it took the box with the cube and turned it completely slowly. Around 180 degrees. Then it vibrated violently and turned back it just as carefully again. Then it gave it to the journalist and said: “now you make the box please completely carefully again on… That is quantum mechanics.” Quantum mechanics is thus the coincidence, which comes behind the back of the world. That is another coincidence than the chaotic coincidence, with which it happens still with right things.

Golem.de: They spoke on the Transmediale in Berlin about the danger of black holes. How do you explain, what a black hole is?

Rossler: A very humorous man, John Wheeler, the famous pupil of Einstein, invented. Its most famous theorem reads: “a black hole does not have hair”. That is, each object, which falls there, loses all its characteristics. Up to three: the mass, the energy and the angular momentum. Wheeler is meanwhile 96 years old. For 50 years it waits on the Nobelpreis. He would have earned it completely surely, but he is always ignored. Why, I do not know.

Golem.de: And now with the experiments in the Large hadron Collider at the CERN is its chance again there?

Rossler: No, he has to do thereby nothing. Although, but! If the world goes down shortly therefore, it with security still fast a Nobelpreis gotten. There you are right.

Golem.de: Thus you fear, the world because of the black holes produced perhaps artificially in the LHC will go down?

Rossler: Yes, at the CERN a machine is built, with which the first time in the history of mankind black holes on earth could be produced. Nobody knows whether it goes. The probability lies about around the 10 per cent.

Interview: Chaos, Verschwörung, schwarze Löcher, Part 3 of 5

Golem.de: But how one can build, what for something, from which one does not know exactly at all it at all is?

Rossler: Exactly. One has there so theories, which forecast one that it could go and that it should even go. But completely surely one cannot be thereby. That is with all physical theories like that that one does not check up everything, what it depends on and one gropes so for a long time in the dark, until one catches and then of a realization speaks something!

Golem.de: And how one recognizes that one built a black hole now?

Rossler: Yes, that is a completely important question! It turned out that one cannot find the Dinger at all. Although one produced it. Until it is too late. The Dinger hides itself, because they do not have radiation effect.

Golem.de: But the Hawking theorem to black holes means nevertheless something else.

Rossler: Yes, there is this famous theorem of Stephen Hawking. It set up that in the 70’s-years. Afterwards dematerialize black holes, which means that such micro black holes, how they are to develop in the LHC would verpuffen immediately. This realization be based on the initially mentioned realizations of Wheeler. I can prove however that the objects swallowed by a black hole very probably keep their mass and their angular momentum, their energy however to lose.

Golem.de: They contradict it thus?

Rossler: Yes, it is however very heavy to attack it. Almost the entire scientific community stands behind it. And as the durchoekonomisierte science enterprise today, is larger the power of the consent runs than those the reason.

Golem.de: Do you stand with this opinion alone there?

Rossler: No, there are also different scientists, who say. There are at least two internationally admitted. One is called Bill balance spring from Canada and the other one is called Adam D Helfer from the USA. Both wrote essays, from which it follows that the black holes do not evaporate probably. To only prove they cannot do it. Thus I am my knowledge the only one.

Golem.de: Which danger saves such an artificially generated black hole?

Rossler: The amazing is, no humans believes that that is dangerous. Recently a reader letter was in the magazine picture of the science, now in the January, which commentates the article, which was brought in September over the LHC. It says, which is very interesting that one expects from the experiment so marvelous things here, where still no humans know, what at all thereby comes out. But one knows one against the fact completely reliably that it is harmless! (laughs) that is absurd. One cannot say: I do not know, what comes out, but I know that it is harmless. That aufgespiesst this reader in picture of the science well. This absolutely idiotische Naivitaet of physicists.

Interview: Chaos, Verschwörung, schwarze Löcher, Part 4 of 5

Golem.de: But which is the concrete danger? I understood that not yet completely.

Rossler: The danger is that a small black hole forms and then evenly not dematerialized. The probability is quite high that it flies away, but there is a completely small probability that it does not fly away. One wants to produce of it one million per year. Those are enough, in order to say that of it one will not dematerialize completely surely. This would circle then in the earth and occasionally with an elementary particle, an atomic nucleus or a quark would collide and it would up-eat. The question, which remains, is, how long it lasts then, until this small black hole grew sufficient strongly, in order to finally up-eat the whole world. That sounds absurd, is however last end very probable. There is an estimation with BBC Horizon that this 50 million years will last. That is the official Worst Case Scenario. But they forget with the fact that there is chaos and non-linearity. Thus it grows many faster. I came in such a way on a factor of 50 months!

Golem.de: Thus does a black hole function in principle? It eats atoms?

Rossler: Yes, it can only eat, it can not decrease, it is, it can dematerialize, but I broken-made, unfortunately that. Growth functioned thereby similarly as money by the interest and compound interest on the financial market increases. That happens also not linear, but exponentially.

Golem.de: The remedy would be another black hole?

Rossler: No, there is no remedy. The thing is hopeless, after 50 months the earth on a centimeter would have shrunk. It would be nothing more there, not only no more life, there but also the earth would be away, only their weight would be - as small black hole.

Golem.de: What happens, if two black holes meet one on the other?

Rossler: Unite. Then there is a larger. There there is also a theorem, again from Hawking, which mentioned that black holes can grow in each case, they cannot remove. It set up that, before it discovered dematerializing. Dematerializing negated this theorem as it were then. There it was no longer good as as before. Naja, is correct not completely, it later also still different good things made, but in the case the first theory was better than the later.

Golem.de: But a black hole is not a real hole, but it is subject, only strongly consolidated?

Rossler: A black hole is as it were a so strongly compressed subject. So strongly that even the light can no longer away. There is there the black sign in such a way specified radius, which Karl black sign, a friend of Einstein discovered. It means that according to the Einstein theory there is a compression diameter, which is so strong for each mass that even the smallest mass tightens locally so strongly that the light of it cannot no more. Besides can be assigned still somewhat on it. It lasts however eternally, until it arrives there. And one knows that the light, which ascends from the edge of a black hole is not only infinitely red-shifted, thus in its wavelength slowed down and/or increased is, but that it needs also infinitely for a long time, until it comes out. One knows. But one believes strangely enough, a body could fall there in finite time, although the light needs infinitely for it… One does not see already, there is correct somewhat. There participates a calculation error. The error is however already 90 years old. Therefore it is improbable that the science accepts in the short term that it exists. Because it like that blamabel is.

Golem.de: Do black holes have actually such an enormously large attraction, how it is often implied straight in Science Fiction films?

Rossler: Those have exactly the same attraction, as each mass of the same size. Thus if the earth were a black hole with scarcely a centimeter of diameters, then the attraction would be unchanged. The moon would circle exactly the same around this point like now around the earth, because this point would be just as heavy as the earth.

CERN holds dangers for very small

Professor Otto Rossler addresses the CERN in Switzerland with his statements directly. Golem.de inquired therefore with Michelangelo Luigi Mangano, a leading scientist in the LHC project, which position takes the CERN for the position of the critic.

Interview: Chaos, Verschwörung, schwarze Löcher, Part 5 of 5

Golem.de: Which hopes lie in the attempt to create black holes with the LHC?

Michelangelo Mangano (CERN): First it is the principal purpose to examine with the Large hadron Collider the Higgs mechanism - a theoretical explanation model for asymmetrical behavior of elementary particles -. But we will naturally try to take most out of the LHC. If it is possible to generate and then examine black holes, we will do that naturally. However we do not talk here about black holes, how they are described by Einstein or Hawking - thus those, which we can observe as extinguished star in the universe. In addition one braeuchte 10 to the power of 16 times more energy than we at the CERN for the order has. We talk here about microscopically small black holes, from which there are so far only theoretical models, we thus at all do not know whether they exist at all.

If we discover it however with our attempts, then it would prove that our universe consists not only of four dimensions (three space dimensions plus the time), but of many more dimensions. This would revolutionize the perception of our environment! Think only of pagings in the philosophy and art, which caused relativity theory! That would be a sensation! Similarly the Phoeniziern, the magnetism had discovered and owing to the compass their ships to thus navigate more surely could - without however to know that they had discovered thereby the condition for electricity and our modern civilization.

Golem.de: Why do you that it is not dangerous think, for creating black holes?

Mangano: We are conscious us of the concerns, which circulate in the public. The CERN will publish a brochure in approximately one month to the topic. We have here all family, friends, children and used and we them to danger would never expose. We concerned ourselves here very intensively with these questions. it believes 99.99 per cent of my colleagues that the black holes will dematerialize. We accept nothing the defiance in the publication mentioned that they could remain stable. But even then they should be harmless: Black holes move very fast. Thus they would travel through theoretically directly by the earth. Black holes behave a little like the electrically neutral neutrino. They react only very slowly and can fly by several thousand kilometers iron, before they collide at all with somewhat. Those, which would be somewhat slower and were caught by the gravitational pull of the earth, remained existing in the earth core and could actually subject take up. But they became after 5 billion years - the time, until the sun expires - only a few kilograms weigh.

Golem.de: From where do you know that?

Mangano: If they would react more strongly, there would be no neutron stars in the universe. The universe is fully with cosmic rays, thus high-energy jets, which develop with the explosion of stars. One can observe these from the earth. Most of these jets have a substantially higher energy than we in the LHC ever producing could. Thus if the LHC can create black holes, these jets can do it also. Besides it can be observed that each neutron star, which we discovered in the universe, by a large number of such cosmic rays were already bombarded and with black holes be therefore full could. Neutron stars have however a much higher density. The subject there is 10,000 Millarden mark more closely than in the earth, why a black hole - if it would actually cause damage - 10 billion time “eat such a star faster” and would destroy quasi immediately. We know however from neutron stars, which are years old 100 million.

The 2008 LHC Safety Report from CERN’s LHC Safety Assessment Group is out.[1][2]

2008 LSAG Safety report

The Giddings and Mangano paper on black holes

The conclusion of the CERN SPC committee vetting the report

Web page summarizing the report

A summary of the report

The CERN Scientific Policy Committee (SPC) was asked by the President of the CERN Council to examine the documents produced by the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) and to provide Council with an independent opinion on the conclusions stated in those documents. Their stamp of approval is contained in the document SPC REPORT ON LSAG DOCUMENTS.  The report has not been externally validated, but the report has been released so that the world’s scientists are now able to critically review and validate this report.

Quote from the SPC committee: “A powerful argument applicable also to higher energies is formulated making reference to observed neutron stars, but this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation, as can be expected in the coming years.”

The SPC committee does not appear to recommend delaying high energy collisions at the Large Hadron Collider until after these safety theories can be confirmed.

The new report argues that when a stray cosmic ray matter particle collides with Earth or a Neutron star, dangerous black holes are not produced.

The report confirms that neutral micro black holes that might be created from cosmic ray impacts with Earth would exit Earth at near the speed of light. And Dr. Otto Rossler appears to argue that a micro black hole should be neutral unless it captures a charged particle such as an electron in orbit around the micro black hole. Capturing a charged particle in orbit around the black hole appears unlikely to be possible while traveling through Earth at relativistic speeds, and might not be possible in a Neutron star.

The Safety Report appears to argue that a micro black hole could become charged by consuming charged quarks, but that might be a controversial assertion, since once matter passes the event horizon of a black hole, it should no longer have effects outside of the event horizon, so the black hole should remain neutral.

The safety report also asks us to accept what appears to me to be a questionable assumption, that a cosmic ray particle collision with Earth must produce a micro black hole if any possible collider collisions might produce one.

“cosmic rays do not produce such [dangerous] black holes, and hence neither will the LHC“.

The report appears to require that a single cosmic ray particle impact with Earth or a Neutron star must produce the same results as any possible collider conditions, including colliding thousands of tightly packed protons and Lead to Lead nuclei head on at 99.9999991% of the speed of light with powerful magnets to focus the energy and exactly opposing momentums that might create dangerous black holes at rest with respect to Earth.

The LHC may create for the first time on Earth, slow moving micro black holes that might be captured by Earth’s gravity, and since evaporation (Hawking Radiation) is disputed, and fast growth of charged micro black holes is predicted, I am still concerned, and very interested in what the world’s scientists will conclude after studying this report in detail.

JTankers,
Co-Admin,
LHCFacts.org

(See comments below for re-posted comments from Enrique Fernandez, chair of the CERN Scientific Policy Committee and Fabio Zwirner, member of the CERN Scientific Policy Committee and coordinator of the SPC review panel)

I am assisting in educating about the potential danger and counter unsupportable public relations statements of “no danger”, “don’t worry…” concerning operation of the Large Hadron Collider.

Unlike what CERN tells the public, the Large Hadron Collider Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) writes that current safety arguments are not valid proof of safety. Micro black holes might be created by the Large Hadron Collider, they might not evaporate, they might grow quickly and we have not been damaged by cosmic rays because cosmic rays pass harmlessly through Earth. CERN does tell the public that a new safety report has been completed, but so far the final report is kept secret from the world’s scientists.

The physicists involved, actually a majority of experimental physicists really really want to believe that this type of experimentation is safe, otherwise it could shut down a huge amount of science research.

The problem is that this experiment might be unsafe, actually it might be really really unsafe.

A primary issue is that the energies are so high that the experiment may collapse some particles into ‘micro black holes’. (CERN estimates possible creation at a rate of one per second).

If these exotic particles evaporate or grow extremely slowly, then there would be no problem. However several PHDs in Math and Physics and other theoretical sciences (I can provide quotes and links) believe that BOTH might be false. Micro black holes may likely NOT evaporate and they likely might grow relatively QUICKLY.

That might mean that in a matter of just perhaps a few years or decades a single micro black hole could grow so large that it might actually collapse the entire Earth into it.

CERN wishes to start operating the LHC experiment later this year and is planning to release a study that will attempt to prove safety. But it might not be possible. And the fear is that the experiment might go forward anyway, with the hope that it will prove to be safe…

The alternative is hugely negative for the thousands employed by the experiments and who have been working for years to conduct their experiments. Big stakes for careers, science, prestige, funding, etc.

A court case before US Federal Courts to compel reasonable proof of safety has its first hearing on June 16, 2008 in Hawaii.

More information is also available at other sites, including LHCFacts.org and LHCDefense.org (wealth of quotes, links, articles, etc. from independent sources and credible experts).

Cheers,
JTankers

A good discussion in layman’s terms is available on YouTube video. Interview with Nuclear Physicist Walter L. Wagner on Coast to Coast AM “LHC may cause mini black hole and swallow earth”:

part 1 of 4

part 2 of 4

part 3 of 4

part 4 of 4