The safety page of CERN — http://press.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html – is 3 years old. Everything written there is outdated. The scientists quoted by name and word therefore are at risk to lose their face. For their statements which are taken to represent their best reasoned opinion are misleading in case any new safety-relevant results have surfaced in the meantime.
Therefore I ask the scientists, quoted verbatim by CERN as its supporters, to update their reasoned opinions. Specifically, I dare ask the following 8 persons to update:
1) Dear Nobel Laureate Vitaly Ginzburg:
Do you still uphold your 2008 public statement that you think that any concern
“that LHC particle collisions at high energies can lead to dangerous black holes is rubbish. Such rumors were spread by unqualified people seeking sensation or publicity”?
I dare mention a recent scientific paper of mine in this context:
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/einsteins-equivalence-principle-has-three-further-implications-besides-affecting-time_t-l-m-.pdf
If you allow I would love to talk to you in person since I admire your work and spirit.
2) Dear Nobel Laureate Sheldon Glashow:
Do you still uphold your 2008 statement that
“the risks involved in the operation of the LHC […] are merely hypothetical and speculative and contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis”
inspite of new findings that have accrued in the meantime?
3) Dear Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek:
Please, allow me to ask you the same question as Dr. Glashow, since you signed the same text.
4) Dear deeply respected Professor Stephen Hawking:
Do you still uphold your 2008 statement
“The LHC is absolutely safe”?
In particular, would you declare that Hawking radiation – the best and possibly only survival guarantee for the planet – has not been ruled out or made less likely by the Telemach theorem, quoted under point 1 above?
5) Dear Professor Penrose, dear Sir, dear Roger:
Do you still stick to the expression that
“I certainly have no worries at all about the purported possibility of LHC producing microscopic black holes capable of eating up the Earth. There is no scientific basis whatsoever for such wild speculations”?
I trust that you know my results obtained over the last three years which the original report does not reflect?
Specifically: would you agree that new evidence needs to be taken into account?
6) Dear Lord Martin Rees:
Do you still say
“There is no risk in LHC collisions, and the LSAG report is excellent”
from the basis of current developments?
7) Dear Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘t Hooft:
Do you still uphold your three years old public conclusion
“We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that could possibly be produced at the LHC”?
If so, please state why you are sure that the Telemach theorem, which proves non-evaporation and non-chargedness of black holes, is false. (In our E-mail correspondence for which I thank you, you dropped out when I asked you this question.)
8) Dear Professor Hermann Nicolai of the Albert-Einstein-Institute:
Are you still upholding, after having seen the new Telemach paper which as you know profited from a discussion we had in 2009, your three years old opinion that
“Rossler’s argument is not valid: the argument is not self-consistent”?
Coda:
I was emboldened toward bringing up these questions by the Administrative Court of Cologne’s official appeal to the German minister of science to convene a “scientific safety conference.”
Since time is running out as the “luminosity” (the danger-determining parameter) is being increased every day at CERN, I ask the 8 distinguished scientists to give their public answers as soon as possible.
Otto E. Rossler, Chaos researcher, university of Tubingen