LHC Facts

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

Dr. Ellis tells only half of the story unfortunately.

All of Dr. Ellis’s arguments are disputed, done best in papers by Professor Dr. Otto E. Rössler[2] and Dr. Rainer Plaga[3].

By far the worst argument is for Hawking Radiation, clearly fundamentally flawed conjecture. Did you see Dr. Ellis’s slide with the outlandish reference to reverse time travel? I did not see a reference to negative energy though. LOL (Laugh Out Loud, anti-matter falling into black holes adds energy to the black hole, no matter how clever the counter arguments are to try to correct Dr. Hawking’s more than 30 year old blunder). See the following for references to a few compelling papers that argue Hawking Radiation is flawed conjecture, black holes are neutral* and do not radiate: [4][5][6]*).

Dr. Michael E. Peskin argues that the micro black hole danger scenarios are plausible except that they are excluded by cosmic ray arguments[1], but he does not address compelling counter arguments by Dr. Plaga[2] and Dr. Rossler[3], summarized well by Dr. Plaga “Concluding, G & M have not demonstrated that white dwarfs stop cosmic-ray produced mBHs in general. Their exclusion of dangerous mBHs thus remains not definite.”

(For the record I do not find plausible the arguments that safety is sufficiently proven for micro black holes created at Large Hadron Collider energies, but the safety of micro black holes created by future higher energy colliders still requires confirmation. I was unable to reconcile this line of reasoning other than it may have been creative wording to disguise and minimize minority opposition concerns in the SPC report.)

The most disturbing statement of all was the stunningly arrogant prediction that safety will be proven when the Large Hadron Collider begins high energy collisions in a few weeks.

I suspect General Custer said something similar to re-assure his troops that he would defeat the American Indian’s at the Little Big Horn. General Custer was arrogant and ignorant, but his mistake had relatively limited consequences.

Dr. Ellis comments that Hawking Radiation is “just elementary quantum mechanics” and argues only that an extremely implausible CP violation result could allow failure. Learn about Bohmian (Einstein deterministic) Quantum theory[7] Dr. Ellis then decide which passes the Occam’s Razor test by an order of magnitude and decide how sure you are about “elementary quantum mechanics” before you arrogantly potentially risk the future of humanity and belittle the genius of Dr. Rössler and others in your rush to prove yourself correct. Reverse Hawking Radiation is a theory you should familiarize your self with, it is predicted by at least one speculative theory that I find compelling[8].

An open and independent safety conference as Dr. Rössler calls for is desperately needed before micro black hole creation energy thresholds might be exceeded. The response to petition Swiss President Pascal Couchepin not to meet with Dr. Rössler appears to follow the pattern that Dr. Rossler alleges in his blog[9] “I consider it very plausible that the [disinformation] policy of CERN’s has shielded the author from his field of research for the last 18 months“

Heed the appeal for reasonable confirmation of safety arguments by an open and independent credible decision making process before collisions begin.

Sincerely, JTankers Founder and co-administrator of LHCFacts.org

• Dr. Otto E. Rössler’s brilliant yet obvious re-interpretation[6] of General Relativity theory concludes that [the horizon of black holes is infinitely far in spacetime from the outside world and never quite finished].  Dr. Rossler calculates that Earth will be destroyed in 50 months to 50 years if micro black holes are created (micro black holes become charged by capturing charged particles outside the event horizon). Dr. Ellis arrogantly and ignorantly belittles “Mr. Rössler”. Inappropriate, unbecoming and utterly misguided.

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

[1] http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/14 The end of the world at the Large Hadron Collider? - Michael E. Peskin Paper, 8/18/2008

[2] http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v1.pdf On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders - Rainer Plaga Rebuttal, 8/10/2008

[3] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma - Otto E. Rōssler Safety Counter Arguments

[4] http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0304042v1 Do black holes radiate? Do black holes radiate? - Adam D. Helfer Paper.

[5] http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607137 On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again On the existence of black hole evaporation yet again - VA Belinski Paper.

[6] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk - Otto E. Rōssler Theory a

[7] http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700 Quantum randomness may not be random, New Scientist Magazine, March 22, 2008

[8] http://www.bigcrash.org “The Pre-Big Bang Universe Model”, open source physics project

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

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)

Existing colliders are many times less powerful than the Large Hadron Collider. And most physicists think that the much lower power existing head-on particle colliders have not created micro black holes. However there have been some incidents that hint that science may be close to creating micro black holes even with less powerful colliders, and papers published by MIT physicists argue that bosenova implosions of ultra-cold Bose-Einstein Condensates with Attractive Interactions could result in micro black holes of infinite density. However at least one author of one of those papers argues that the papers may be misleading. Our initial investigation indicates that the papers do appear to predict “real micro black holes”.

RHIC Fireball
For example, Horatiu Nastase of Brown University writes: “We argue that the fireball observed at RHIC is (the analog of) a dual black hole.” The RHIC fireball as a dual black hole by Horatiu Nastase: “… dual to gravitational interaction inside the black hole, deconfining quarks and gluons…”, “… core of the fireball is the pion field soliton=black hole interior…”, “… Most likely there will be no singularity for this black hole….”

The RHIC fireball is not believed to be a true micro black hole, but only the pre-cursor to, or the analog of a micro black hole. Creation of a true micro black hole has been predicted based on some theories to require at least 1 Tev of highly focused energy such as can be achieved with head-on collisions generated by the Large Hadron Collider.

Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) Bosenova Implosion
Nobel laureate Dr. Eric A. Cornell, who leads Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) research at the University of Colorado, wrote of the possibility of stable micro black hole creation as an explanation for missing atoms after an unexpected BEC bosenova implosion at the university of Colorado using naturally attractive Rb85 atoms, “probably not a black hole, more likely…“, though Dr. Cornell doesn’t think a micro black hole was created by one of his experiments, and he explains that the term “probably not” was merely a diplomatic response to that suggestion, and not meant to indicate a belief that micro black hole creation was plausible. Dr. Carl E. Wieman, who also shares the 2001 Nobel prize for Physics writes “I can state ABSOLUTELY CATEGORICALLY that it is totally inconceivable that a black hole could be produced by these phenomena.” However physicists at MIT published papers that appear to suggest (paraphrase) “probably a black hole“.

A difference of opinion appears to exist between the University of Colorado team and physics researcher’s at MIT including Masahito Ueda and Kerson Huang who conduct similar research, based on my understanding of related published material on the subject and communications with some of the physicists involved.

The unexplained Bosenova implosion of Bose-Einstein Condensate with attractive interactions involved a “super atom” at 3 nk (3 billionths of a degree above absolute zero) containing approximately 16,000 naturally attracting Rb85 atoms that were induced to repel to make the condensate stable. From the Wikipedia article on the subject:

When the scientists raised the magnetic field strength still further, the condensate suddenly reverted back to attraction, imploded and shrank beyond detection, and then exploded, blowing off about two-thirds of its 10,000 or so atoms. About half of the atoms in the condensate seemed to have disappeared from the experiment altogether, not being seen either in the cold remnant or the expanding gas cloud.

These atoms were compressed to a single giant atom while mutually repelling each other, and when the atoms were subsequently induced to attract to each other, the BEC unexpectedly imploded beyond detection then exploded and after the explosion thousands of atoms could not be accounted for, they unexpectedly and mysteriously vanished. BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION IN A DILUTE GAS; THE FIRST 70 YEARS AND SOME RECENT EXPERIMENTS

This incident was named bosenova because of its similarity to a “core collapse supernova”.

“However, as yet there is no clear explanation of the energy and anisotropy of the atoms in the explosion, the fraction of vanished atoms, and the size of the cold remnant. One of the more puzzling aspects is that the cold remnant can be far larger than the condensate stability condition that determines the collapse point would seem to allow “

“The atoms that seem to have disappeared almost certainly still exist in some form, just not in a form that could be detected in that experiment. Two likely possibilities are that they formed molecules consisting of two bonded rubidium atoms, or that they somehow received enough energy to fly away fast enough that they left the observation region before they could be observed. They may also have undergone nuclear fusion.”

For a good start understanding what a Bose-Einstein Condensate is, I recommend Dr. Cornell’s high quality web site written in lay person’s terms with several interactive graphics describing Boes-Einstein Condensates

I found the following short article by Science@NASA to be very interesting. The article My Pet Neutron Star speaks of the desire of physicists to create micro black holes in the laboratory and how this might be accomplished.

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

Is it plausible to believe that bosenova implosions from Bose-Einstein Condensates with attractive interactions might theoretically create the same type of micro black holes that some theories predict might be caused by head-on particle collisions above 1 Tev, and therefore the safety discussion with respect to creation of micro black holes in head-on colliders, which is currently being debated, might also relate to some forms of BEC experimentation? Papers published by the MIT team appear to indicate this.

Have any of these experiments shown any evidence that might tend to support or debunk Hawking Radiation theory? Unknown. Such experimental evidence might be of extreme interest as it relates to the current Safety debate concerning the Large Hadron Collider and predictions that the LHC might create micro black holes.

JTankers

Additional References Added June 9, 2008:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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