Feb 23, 2015

I Need Advice from Everyone

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

I am old and have not many years left. My most recent physics results are c-global and cryodynamics. Both are minor results that nonetheless upset cosmology and energy technology.

I see no way how to get them the recognition they deserve. Especially not since one of them endows black holes with properties that render the most prestigious experiment of history unsafe.

I implored CERN to renew their Safety Report before doubling their collision-energy world records — to no avail. My results require this for 7 years as CERN knows, but their Safety Report goes un-updated for equally long.

My friends John A. Wheeler and John S. Bell would help me if they could. Now only a renowned journalist can.

Do you, dear reader, know one?


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Randy Hammond says:

    Dear Mr Rossler

    In regards to your post “I need advice from everyone”, you asked whether the reader (in this case me) knows any renowned journalists.

    I do know a well know and respected Australian investigate journalist. He is married to one of my cousins.

    I don’t have much contact with him, but I have been thinking about getting in touch with him about the Large Hadron Collider for some time.


    Randy Hammond

  2. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Mr. Hammond:

    I am thrilled by the kind information you gave.
    Sometimes the Internet acts like an angel out of the blue, if I may add this remark.

    With my cordial thanks
    Sincerely yours,
    Otto E. Rossler

  3. Kash says:

    I think the real concern with the LHC is not a micro black hole, but of the birthing of something self-sustaining that might grow quickly out of control. The more energy in the collision, the more “time” it has to coalesce within what we would perceive as a microsecond. It seems that if that point of space-time becomes so radically different from the rest of space-time surrounding it as to split off completely from it, it may never be able to come back in which case we could have a serious problem. And what doesn’t seem to make sense is the comparison to cosmic ray’s coming into contact with stationary particles as being equivalent to two particles so naturally-improbably colliding at the same point with 13 TEV of force. It seems that such an assault on space-time couldn’t be “good” for it.
    I could be worrying over nothing, but at least some detailed acknowledgement and reassurance by CERN of the reasonable concerns presented by many rational thinking people including yourself, Mr. Rossler(of whom I’ve followed since hearing your concerns as early as 2008) would be quite appreciated and respectable.

  4. Kash says:

    In other words, it’s as if the collision could “poke a hole” in space-time, which the surrounding space-time may not be able to cope with. The balance could be forever lost. How can these people at CERN be so arrogant as to not consider the potential dangers? It’s barbaric, really. Mad-science it seems. I see you as a hero for expressing your views bc I understand your concerns perfectly, or at least intuitively. I hope that they’re not valid though, because I don’t see how CERN is going to be reasoned with on this, which is ironic to say, as science is supposed to be based on reason. What would Carl Sagan say about this? I don’t believe he would condone such pseudoscience.

  5. Kash says:

    I just hope space-time is so fragile as to have to worry about the LHC being dangerous to it, as it is all-in-all very interesting.

  6. Kash says:

    *not so fragile

  7. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Kash:
    Thank you, and forgive me that I was travelling — hence the delay.
    I can pacify you a bit: the danger you are considering is “only” a “thinking possibility. There are others, too.
    I do not dare think about possibilities, although I do sympathize with you.
    I talk about proofs of danger, published scientific proofs. The fact that CERN refuses to update its 7 years old Safety Report in the face of the world despite — possibly many independent — published proofs of danger is what makes me worry: Why is no one interested in this fact? Are there no media left?
    Maybe you can find a way to ask them. They are used to ignoring me but perhaps they would not ignore you.
    Take care,

  8. Kash says:

    Thank you so much for the reply, Otto. It’s a true honor. I just have a few questions in summary:

    What are the chances of two particles traveling at least 6.5 TEV each, colliding naturally?

    Could it be a relatively common occurrence?
    Is it so improbable that it could’ve even been the cause of certain current black holes in existence or is it even more improbable to have never happened? Could these collisions be so improbable in nature that it takes consciousness to create such unique collisions?

    And is the concern that in open space there’s no issue but the fact that it’s so close to matter when in the laboratory that there’s a danger?

  9. Kash says:

    *What are the chances of two particles traveling at least 6.5 TEV each, colliding head-on, naturally?

  10. Kash says:

    *…or is even more improbable as to never have happened.

  11. Kash says:

    *or is it even more improbable as to never have happened?
    Pardon the typos.

  12. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Kash:
    Thank you for the perceptive question.
    In nature, the probability of the two protons colliding at zero (or near-zero) sum momentum is virtually zero anywhere else in the cosmos.
    If one of the two is more or less at rest, such things can happen with a possibly (but apparently not yet definitively demonstrated) equally high sum energy.
    But then the miniature black hole that will be generated in case the mentioned local sum energy suffices as no one knows (I reckon with a probability of about 1:6), will possess almost the speed of light.
    Tom Kerwick is a specialist here. In white dwarf stars, such fast minimonsters ought to have a chance to grow exponentially inside — but these stars (at least a few very old ones) seem to persist. So this is a valuable safety argument.
    Unfortunately, it is possible and even likely that these ultrafast miniature black holes, if they exist, are much less efficient at accreting matter than when they are ultraslow (as in the terrestrial experiment).
    So while some safety arguments can be concocted in the sky, the decision to create a situation on earth that never occurred before in the history of the universe (except once if one can believe in the Big Bang) is not something to be done without prior public debate. And: what could be a serious motivation for creating a second (or even first) Big Bang down on our little planet?
    Thanks again,

  13. Kash says:

    Exactly. This should totally have/have had public debate. I don’t see how anyone could argue with that after reading this conversation, especially since there seems to be little debate that black holes are even remotely possible at the LHC. I wonder if you’d be willing to sum up in even just a paragraph, why a micro black hole should be created at the LHC, at 14 TEV, and the reason why they should evaporate, as is so widely accepted.

  14. Kash says:

    What is it about the collision that creates the micro black hole? The energy of the collision is so great that it would implode instead of explode?

  15. Kash says:

    I found this, which sort of explains it and I hope is accurate:


  16. Kash says:

    *accurate in the sense that there is no danger at the LHC. I guess all we can do is hope for the best.

  17. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you for the important question.
    Essentially what I say is four things:
    (a) Hi lads and girls, do you really agree that here an experiment is about to be done in plain sight that creates conditions on earth that never existed before anywhere else in the universe as a localized energy concentration?
    (b) The experimenters say they hope to thereby create micro black holes.
    © The experimenters do not object that there exist up to 7 years old regularly published scientific results to the effect that black holes possess properties radically different than believed before, including permanent exponential growth inside matter.
    (d) The experimenters refuse to update their 7 years old official Safety Report in view of these (and likely many more) safety-relevannt regularly published scientific results accrued in the meantime, before doubling their even last time already unprecedented energies in a few weeks time from now.
    (The proven fact that the ill effects are bound to become terribly obvious only after a symptom-free interval of several years only adds to the surrealism.)

    No sentient rational being can deny the irrationality of this behavior. It is very hard to spot the logistic source that orchestrates this visibly irrational collective behavior. The latter is only comparable to the bet Oppenheimer took before Alamogordo (that the atmosphere would not be drawn into a chain reaction). But at that time, a war was still raging on that offered a minor excuse for the bet that was taken. Also at that time, there were no media involved.
    This time around, the best worldwide media structure that ever existed supports this. And the planet’s billions-strong public proves to be devoid of little spots of bright people scattered all over the planet: Can this silence really be?
    I must be dreaming. I mean: Are you, my dear reader, sure that you are not dreaming?
    Why don’t YOU insist on a word of assurance?

  18. Kash says:

    How do they not see that the duality of the two-beams collision could theoretically be greater than the sum of its parts? This could make all the difference between a stationary particle being hit by a UHECR and two mirror particles colliding at equally high energy.

  19. Kash says:

    The question is why 13 TEV? Do the secrets of the universe have nowhere to hide at this energy? And if so, how can that be comforting? My hope is that it would take far more energy for there to be a concern, but I don’t know what’s special about 13 TEV over 8 TEV, for instance.

  20. Kash says:

    *…could theoretically make it greater

  21. Otto E. Rossler says:

    14 TeV is about twice as much as already reached last time. But the effects of that earlier time still wait to become manifest themselves.

    You do not seem to agree that a “first” in the history of the universe deserves an updating of a by seven years outdated Safety Report?

    Can you understand the irrational silence of the media?

  22. Kash says:

    Actually, I completely agree with you. I just hope for the sake of the planet that there is no danger, whether there is or not. I totally appreciate your views and expressions of them. It would be an honor to possibly meet you one day to perhaps discuss the multitude of other issues plaguing the world presently, if all goes well at CERN, that is.

  23. Kash says:

    And if you ever visit the USA especially, although I eagerly want to visit Europe but haven’t had the opportunity as of yet.

  24. Kash says:

    Oh, and of course the media was bought a long time ago. There really is no media anymore. That’s a huge problem.

  25. Otto E. Rossler says:

    It will be great to meet with you, Kash.

    Do you have an idea how one could wake up the media to the unheard-of fact that CERN tries to pull the Big Bang down on earth at twice world-record energies but refuses to renew its 7 years old Safety Report?

  26. Kash says:

    I wish I did. Too much money invested to look back I suppose, and those in power pay to keep it that way. And if top scientists say something, then the media will blindly follow, apparently.

  27. Kash says:

    *if the majority of top scientists agree on something

  28. Kash says:

    Whether the LHC is safe or not, I appreciate all of your efforts to bring the subject to light. If CERN was really as sure as they claim, they could have at least complied in some way with multiple requests for more safeguards, simply as a display of openness and good will. Have they even once invited you to see the facility yourself, being their number one critic? They have a very long way to go before they can actually be seen as the open, benevolent organization they pose as.

  29. Kash says:

    *their facility

  30. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Yes, they invited me in 2008 and I enjoyed the big sight of the underground cathedral, as a poet had called it.
    You probably correctly presume that “the majority of top scientists agree on something” — meaning that they do not agree with my regularly published proven new results on black holes.
    But why then does none of them have the courage to “out” themselves as a critic of these results?
    Not saying a word of contradiction to the public accusation of preparing the largest crime of history (implicit in my results on black holes as long as they remain uncontradicted) is not the kind of behavior the world’s public is used to.

    Imagine: not a single state attorney on the planet sticks to her or his duty to investigate.
    And not a single investigative journalist appears to be left.
    This cannot be so, right?

    So there must be someone somewhere who takes it on his or her oath that I am wrong. This much is for sure.
    But would it not be reassuring to learn who is it who has the clout to say so?
    I mean, everyone including even me has the right to learn who takes the final responsibility for the planet by saying the proof of danger I gave is wrong.
    Is it really Stephen Hawking himself who takes the responsibility for the planet?

    Or who else is it who blocked the access to the flight cabin?

  31. Kash says:

    Is there anywhere on line that I can access your published proofs?
    Also, why does Stephen Hawking claim that a collider the size of the Earth would be the only cause for concern? Is there any way you can contact and challenge him with your proofs?

  32. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I published a new post 4 minutes ago.

  33. Kash says:

    I typed in c-global vs local and found a previous post where you apparently already did challenge Stephen Hawking, coincidentally. I can’t find anything else on the Internet about c-global though. It just brings up info about computer programming. I managed to find something about gauge symmetry but it doesn’t explain much.

  34. Kash says:

    I actually just searched c-global relativity and found something that gave me a little better explanation.

  35. Otto E. Rossler says:

    You are very kind.
    My most recent publications mentioning c-global are in the European Scientific Journal. Is this okay? Have a nice remaining holy day.

  36. Kash says:

    You too, Otto. Thank you so much.

  37. Kash says:

    *Happy Easter to you too.