May 10, 2011

I Need Your Advice

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

I am at a loss: I have a scientific proof that can save everyone’s life but no one listens.

The proof implies that CERN — the European Research Council – currently attempts to shrink the earth to 2 cm in a runaway process consummated in about 5 years’ time and effective with a probability of about 8 percent, if the LHC experiment is not stopped immediately.

The scientific safety conference already demanded three years ago got recently requested from the German government by a Cologne court. But the globe’s media keep silent (except for the tiny “ET-Journal,” Volume 16, pages 58–59, 2011).

Maybe the court and the present writer are both crazy? But even if you assume this, is the danger not appreciably reduced thereby as long as the offered proof stays unaddressed. (The proof has three elements: Telemach – a new black-hole theorem involving Time, length, mass and charge -, a quantum theorem protecting the superfluid cores of neutron stars, and a chaos theorem yielding exponential growth inside earth.)

Can one of my readers name a scientist ready to shoulder the job of disproving my result (so far a few tried but none remained in the ring)? Or advise me how to get the benefit of the doubt of the planet at large? Or advise me why I should stop this desperate campaign?

Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen (For J.O.R., May 10, 2011)


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Fred Jack says:

    Why are they doing this? or are they unaware of the danger of their experiment?

  2. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Deep question. I guess it is a mixture of dogmatism (new findings are viewed as a threat to consensus rather than as an opportunity in the current decade) and a big money-heavy machine whose deliberations by definition take very long so eventually everybody is happy with the status quo. And of course, most alleged innovations do turn out to be false statistically speaking. So the temptation to feel safe in the common fold is overwhelming. And then there are accidents of personal misunderstanding, and cheap misplaced psychological arguments — the so-called chemistry. And not to forget the old feud between classical chaos theory and an alleged acausality of quantum mechanics . But the real reason still escapes me since all of this should pale before the opportunity offered. A safety conference is nothing to be ever afraid of, one would naively think. So probably I am wrong. I do have a bad conscience for my insisting on being shown why.

  3. Fred Jack says:

    I meant to ask what is their motive for attempting to shrink the earth are they evil or are they unaware of the danger.

    I apologize I didn’t understand your answer.

  4. Thank you for asking and making me see my unforgivable lack of clarity. Of course they are acting in good faith! They are only just bypassing the good custom of discussing unwelcome new results obtained by others — as it can happen for a variety of reasons. They feel sure my new results on black holes are “absolute nonsense,” as the most outspoken representative of CERN’s, Jon Ellis, called them 3 years ago in a talk on the Internet. I like him best of all colleagues there for his courage. If he did not refuse to talk to me, everything would probably have been ironed out quite a while ago. If I am right that black holes are neither finished in finite time nor charged, they can only grow. And, as bad luck has it, they then do so in an exponential fashion inside matter (earth), once having got stuck there. So all of this is just about diverging scientific opinions. What is unsual is alone the impact the minority version has should it hold water (which it so far unfortunately does to the best of may knowledge). So what is interesting to a bystander is only the unusual lack of communication. And the abnormal consequences this fact for once has on everyone’s life. I do still hope it is a mirage — but there are ways to find out in time or almost in time by now (which still would markedly reduce the danger).

  5. Mr. Cleese says:

    By confronting you, Mr. Rössler, it will bring unwanted attention from the media. News networks won’t give this matter any airtime if you’re being ignored by CERN which they regard highly. Cern physicist more than likely believe there’s a danger, but are willing to take this risk to save face, which is why they’re avoiding you. They have reached the point of no return. Countries invested billions… They’ve been promoting this experiment for years. Nothing will stop them from running this experiment. Their thinking is if they’re wrong, at least we went out with a bang trying to expand our knowledge. No one will prosecute them if the world implodes, so why not take this risk? Their unproven theories might be right! No need to risk embarrassing their organization.

  6. It makes sense what you are saying, dear colleague.

  7. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for the point-of-no-return argument. I should add that presently, politicians in Europe are being ousted with a public lie — I see a bit of a connection. It is alleged that they had violated proprietary rights on formulations used in their PhD theses, and this was unscientific. Whether they had unearthed a new scientific truth is no longer seen as the essential element of science. So CERN too can lie to the public in public about its allegedly doing science because the public no longer knows what science is: that there is a difference between truth and money-supported interests. Sorry this answer is a bit too indirect but perhaps you see the point: no one is responsible but the public. If they are happy to be lied at, the world cannot saved even on a very short-term basis.