LHC Facts

Dear Sirs,

I would like to report numerous factual errors with the August 18, 2008 University of Wisconsin-Madision news article “Curiosities: What’s behind the claims that the new particle accelerator in Europe may create black holes that could destroy the Earth? Should we be worried?” at: http://www.news.wisc.edu/15490 False or misleading statements and assumptions include:

“if miniature black holes were created” … “would vanish almost immediately”

Buy Phentermine online
Buy Proscar online
Buy Biaxin online
Buy Lexapro online
Buy Soma online
Buy Xenical online
Buy Adipex online
Buy Zoloft online
Buy Propecia online
Buy Paxil online
Buy Wellbutrin online
Buy Diflucan online
Buy Valium online
Buy Prozac online
Buy Effexor online

CERN’s LHC Safety Assessment Group states “we are not working under teh assumption that BHs decay”. [4] Several recent peer reviewed papers concluded that Hawking Radiation “remains an open question” [10], “black holes do not radiate” [11] and “the effect does not exist” [12] Hawking Radiation theory as proposed in 1975 is fundamentally flawed, accretion of anti-matter by a black hole would add energy and mass to a black hole, not subtract. Alternate explanations requiring quantum tunneling are not compatible with predictions of ubiquitous existence of dark energy, and rapid micro black hole growth from Reverse Hawking Radiation is plausible [2].

“these hypothetical tiny objects would have too little energy to drag anything in.”

Micro black holes may grow exponentially from becoming charged by capturing charged particles in orbit outside the event horizon as theorized by Professor Dr. Otto E. Rossler [1] or from Reverse Hawking Radiation [2] as theorized by nuclear physicist and US Federal law suit co-plaintiff Walter L. Wagner. CERN’s 2008 Safety Report also considers the possibility that charged micro black holes might emit a charge originating from inside the event horizon. [3] CERN’s interpretation of charged black hole theory is notably refuted by Dr. Rossler’s work based on recent re-interpretation of relativity theory, particles inside the event horizon are infinitely far from the event horizon in space time. [1]

“high-energy cosmic rays bombard Earth and its atmosphere. “If there were black holes being made that are dangerous to the Earth, we wouldn’t be here.””

CERN’s LHC Safety Assessment Group acknowledged that any stable initially neutral micro BH (black holes) that might be created by cosmic ray impacts with Earth’s atmosphere would travel through Earth and into space. “While it is true that a BH produced by cosmic rays would not be stopped by the Earth…” [4]. Dr. Rossler refutes follow on arguments involving cosmic rays and Neutron stars “protected by quantum coherence effects of the superfluidity type: so miniblack holes can pass without friction” [5] that CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee (SPC) categorizes these arguments as “do require confirmation”. [13] Some percentage of micro black holes that might be created in head-on particle colliders will have velocities too slow to escape Earth’s gravity “less than 11 km/sec”. [5]

“None of the people who understand the physics of what’s going on have any concerns whatsoever and find all this rather amusing.”

Professor Dr. Otto E. Rossler is the most eminent and notable of the scientists who fully understands the physics of “what’s going on”. Dr. Rossler writes: “A nightmarish situation, that can still be hoped to be averted in time through communication within the scientific community, is drawn attention to. Only a few weeks remain to find out whether the danger is real or nothing but a mirage. After this time window is closed, it will take years until we know whether or not we are doomed.” [5][6]

Nuclear physicist and co-plaintiff Walter L. Wagner [in 2007 enlightened] CERN of the fundamental flaws in their cosmic ray safety arguments prompting a promise in writing from CERN for creation of the 2008 LHC Safety Report. [7]

“if miniature black holes were created — a scenario UW-Madison physicist Wesley Smith calls unlikely”

This statement may be supportable, but may also be misleading. The CERN Courier in 2004 predicted possible micro black hole creation at a rate of one per second.[15]. Michael E. Peskin writes in American Physical Society “Giddings and Thomas and Dimopoulos and Landsberg realized that” [Particle collisions at energies above the Planck scale must create black holes] “implies that high-energy collisions at TeV energies should produce black holes.”[14]

Dr. Otto E. Rossler, a modern day Leonardo Da Vinchi, Professor of Theoretical Biochemistry, visiting Professor of Theoretical Physics, inventor of the Rossler Attractor, founder of Endophysics, winner of the 2003 Chaos Award of the University of Liege and the 2003 Rene Descartes Award, contributor to hyper chaos, micro relativity and author of approximately 300 scientific papers.

Nuclear physicist and attorney Walter L. Wagner was notably attributed with discovery of what was believed in 1975 to be the first observation of a magnetic monopole at the University of Berkeley as noted by Time Magazine. [8][9]

 Sincerely,
 James Tankersley Jr.
 Founder of LHCFacts.org
 Middleton, WI

[1] Otto E. Rossler, Abraham-like return to constant c in general relativity: “Â-theorem“ demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric, http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf, (2008)
[2] MSNBC CosmicLog, The benefits of Black Holes, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/02/1180976.aspx comment by Walter L. Wagner, (July 3, 2008, 12:49am)
[3] Giddings, Mangano, Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes, http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/CERN-PH-TH_2008-025.pdf, (2008)
[4] LHCSafetyAssessment.Group@cern.ch, email, LHC Safety Procedures, http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=10 (16 Mar 2008, 12:06:05 +0100)
[5] Otto E. Rossler, A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma, http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf (2008)
[6] SCIENTIFICBLOGGING, Alan Gillis, Professor Rossler takes on the LHC, http://www.scientificblogging.com/big_science_gambles/professor_rossler_takes_on_the_lhc, (12 August 2008)
[7] Walter L. Wagner, US Federal Legal Filings and Affidavits, http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_legal.php, (2008)
[8] Time Magazine, Bring is Back Alive, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913445,00.html, (1975)
[9] Walter L. Wagner, Wikipedia Cosmic Rays, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays#Unusual_Cosmic_Rays, (1975)
[10] Unruh, Schutzhold, On the Universiality of the Hawking Effect, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0408/0408009v2.pdf (2004)
[11] Adam D. Helfer, Do black holes radiate?, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0008016, (2000)
[12] V.A. Belinski, On the existence of quantum evaporation of a black hole, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/03759601/1995/00000209/00000001/art00785 (1995)
[13] CERN Scientific Policy Committee (SPC), SPC REPORT ON LSAG DOCUMENTS, http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=20&resId=0&materialId=0&confId=35065 (2008)
[14] Michael E. Peskin, American Physical Society, The end of the world at the Large Hadron Collider?, http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/14 (2008)
[15] CERN Courier, The case for mini black holes, http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199 (Nov 12, 2004)

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)

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)

Luis Sancho

PO Box 411

Honomu, HI 96728

808-964-5535

pro se

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF HAWAII

–oo0oo–

LUIS SANCHO, et al., ) Civil No. ____________

)

Plaintiffs ) AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES R. BLODGETT) IN SUPPORT OF TRO ANDvs. ) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION)

US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, et al., ) )

Defendants )

________________________________)

I, James R. Blodgett, affirm, state and declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the state of Hawaii as follows:

1. I am Coordinator of the “Global Risk Reduction Special Interest Group” in American Mensa, Contact Person and Webmaster for www.risk-evaluation-forum.org, a member of the Ethics Board for the Lifeboat Foundation, and a member of the Society for Risk Analysis. I have a Master of Science degree in Biometry and Statistics from the School of Public Health at the University at Albany, State University of New York; a Master of Business Administration degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; and a Master of Arts degree in Sociology from the University at Albany, State University of New York.

2. I have been working on issues of existential risk, that is, risks to the very existence of the human species, risks that could make the human race extinct, for several years. One of these risks is the risk that upcoming particle colliders could create particles that could destroy the Earth. Two of the particles that are predicted by some theories that might do this are micro black holes and strangelets. The collider of concern is the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] at CERN, which is currently scheduled to begin operation in the summer of 2008. This collider will be several times more powerful that existing colliders. Because of this, it is expected to probe beyond the standard model of physics and to produce particles that have not previously been seen by scientists.

3. There has been a controversy about the safety of colliders at least since 1999, when Scientific American published a letter to the editor by Walter Wagner, with a responding letter by Frank Wilczek. Collider advocates have continued to maintain that colliders are safe. At times some collider advocates appear to have ignored and even covered up evidence to the contrary. “Many, indeed most, of them seemed to me to be more concerned with the public relations impact of what they, or others, said and wrote, than in making sure the facts were presented with complete scientific objectivity.” [Francesco Calogero, "Might a Laboratory Experiment Destroy Planet Earth?" Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 25, 191-202 (Autumn 2000)]

4. Initially it appeared (even to Wagner) that black hole creation would require energy beyond the reach of any collider. This is the position of Brookhaven’s “nothing can go wrong” paper. [Busza et al, "Review of Speculative ‘Disaster Scenarios'", Brookhaven, 2000]

5. Beginning in 2000, a large number of physics papers were published, based on new string theory, predicting (if the relevant theories are true) creation of miniature black holes at colliders.

6. In approximately 2003, I used Google to search for material pertaining to black holes at colliders. As part of its listing of search results, Google offers users the option of looking at a cache of the webpage at the time it was scanned by Google. I found the following material in a Google cache of a CERN beta website that contained brief descriptions of presentations at the Atlas Lund workshop in 2001. “John Ellis was given a yellow card and cautioned by the convener during his theory introduction when he mentioned the possibility of black hole production as a signature in some extra-dimension models. The mention of the controversial term has been banned since the heavy ion media frenzy two years ago which resulted in the average teenager’s expertise being extended from dungeons and dragons, Pokemon, and Gameboy, to include earth-engulfing black holes at RHIC.” When I looked at the underlying web page, this material had been removed.

7. The ban on the term “black hole” was not successful. I guess that this is because there were too many papers predicting black hole production at colliders. By 2003 collider advocates were touting the great science that could be accomplished if black holes were created by colliders. A CERN “nothing can go wrong” paper, [Blaizot et al, "Study Of Potentially Dangerous Events During Heavy-Ion Collisions At The LHC: Report Of The LHC Safety Study Group" CERN, 2003] anticipated black hole production, but maintained that black holes will dissipate by “thermal processes,” which in this context means Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation was also mentioned as a safety factor by several other sources.

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

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

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

11. WHEREFORE, I respectfully request that this Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order that will preclude operation of the LHC until I, my associates, the scientific community, the risk assessment community, and the public have had the opportunity and a reasonable time period to review and analyze the CERN safety report that defendants are presently preparing, and which was originally scheduled for release prior to January 1, 2008, and since delayed.

DATED: March 8, 2008

__________________________

James R. Blodgett

NOTARIZATION

Before me, the undersigned Notary, today appeared James R. Blodgett, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, who being by me first duly sworn on his oath, deposes and says the text of this affidavit on this eighth day of March, 2008.

____________________________

Notary Public, State of New York

____________________________

(Typed or Printed Name of Notary)

My commission expires: ______________ [seal]

[Note: the Notary will sign and affix his/her notary seal, which should include the state where issued, and the expiration date.]

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