Aug 24, 2011

Why Do My Alarmist Results — One Percent Armageddon — Not Cause a Stir?, Says Gandhi

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Answer: the media. They have – much as in an authoritarian society – voluntarily decided to keep a lid on it all. This is fine as soon as one cannot do anything about it anymore. But this “hurrying-on-ahead obedience” has the consequence that the experiment is presently running with a vengeance, raising the danger by a factor of three in the coming ten weeks. Imagine: 3 percent Armageddon.

After 4 years of waiting in vain, I still hope that someone will find a fault in my deductive chain no matter how unlikely. Therefore I still request nothing but the “scientific safety conference” asked-for by the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011.

Someone outside the big CERN umbrella reading this near-inaudible cry for help ought to be able to sneak through the media curtain to publicize the content of this Samizdat. Anyone who has children anywhere on the planet. Or do you want to see the terror in their eyes in a few years’ time? We all are the horn of Africa.

The request to have a second look at the European Nuclear Experiment is a most decent request – absolutely nonviolent. To deny it is a manifest crime. Even a court is on my side. Why not join the new Gandhi movement since this is what Gandhi would say today?


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Robert Houston says:

    The inhabitants of this imperiled planet owe Professor Rossler their profound gratitude for his heroic efforts to bring the issue of collider risks to the forefront of world concern. He and other scientists have raised very serious criticisms of CERN’s safety arguments and these need to be resolved.

    CERN’s own scientists admit that the Large Hadron Collider may “become a black hole factory” and may generate stable strangelets. Both phenomena would entail equal potential cost: the end of all life on Earth. Consequently, an outside safety review should be a top priority of the international community, and a safety conference on the LHC should be held immediately and regularly.

    As Dr. Rossler says, to deny such a request “is a manifest crime.” Indeed, 27% of the world population are children under the age of 15. The lives of thse 1.8 billion minors are being criminally endangered by CERN’s reckless experiments in black hole hole bomb-making.

  2. jtankers says:

    I recall another prominent scientist who found it challenging to convince the physics community of the worth of his ideas, which puts you in good company I think Dr. Rössler.

    The physics community was slow to accept of Relativity theory [1], and that was not Dr. Einstein’s only fight, at least one may still not be settled…

    According to a few scientists, Dr. Einstein’s quantum model (a weirdness-free model where light speed is obeyed and unmeasured objects do not exist in a super-position of all possible states, etc.) is still waiting for a chance to be proven correct [2] (“The debate over whether the universe is random or deterministic is not likely to end before such experiments become possible.”)

    [1] Encyclopædia Britannica, Albert Einstein, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/181349/Albert-Eins…to-America

    [2] NewScientist, Mark Buchanan, 22 March 2008,
    Quantum randomness may not be random, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700-quantum-r…andom.html

  3. Very interesting. It happens to have to do with the Feingold experiment which ESA was asked to do about a decade ago, as I learned from Anton Zeilinger at the time.

  4. LivingLife says:

    Otto, with the freakish weather conditions happening all over the world… like the intense lightning storm in a part of Germany which was equivalent to a strobe light flashing 30 times a second in persons face for 45 minutes straight… I think this planet is on it’s way to extinction.

  5. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear jtankers:

    Thank you for opening the wound with Bell nonlocality which shows how nontrivial the questions raised by Einstein all were. I have a recent article on this maximally challenging frontier of physics which like the smile of a child is too beautiful to be risked by Bell’s original employers. http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Variantology.pdf

  6. jtankers says:

    Dear Otto, I enjoyed reading “Variantology: Einstein–Bohr Battle
    Confirms Everett’s Eternal Now”. (http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/Variantology.pdf)

    Interesting proposed experiment.

    I suspect that even if we just accepted determinism at the quantum level (as I think Einstein believed he had already proven at least to himself, though apparently not to “Bell’s original employers”), perhaps that still does not rule out the possibility that some element of true randomness might still exist at some level, that might also avoid the unsettling notion that the future might already be “cast in stone”, and that only a single possible future might exist.

    Just interesting.

  7. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Yes. The exo approach is actually compatible with the creator of the game — matrix language — taking into account the free decisions of the players. Although I do not really know how.

  8. Anthony L says:

    “a safety conference on the LHC should be held immediately and regularly.”

    As long as there is the slightest chance of disaster, and the disaster in view is total, erasing the humanity and the planet, the correct risk assessment response is to act as if the risk is infinite, which it is. It is not partial, or low, or infinitesmal, as long as there is any credibility in the theorizing which states a possible result is totally fatal.

    Furthermore, it must be understood that there is no way to estimate the probability of any outcome, since the actual outcome is unpredictable and therefore unknown.

    In this context it is interesting that CERN is now deciding that maybe the Higgs doesn’t exist after all.

    As I say, there is no predicting what will happen, only what may happen, and if that includes total extinction, a review has to be held as long as everyone is behaving rationally.

    If anyone is behaving rationally.…

  9. Anthony L says:

    Sorry, no ‘the’ before humanity.

  10. Why not behave rationally?

    Why is the world not insisting on rationality?

    Not a single medium with a former voice of its own being visible any more: Why? Why? Why?