Why does CERN continue refusing the scientific safety conference demanded by a Cologne court last January? Insiders say it is Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation – a 38 years old hypothesis – was disproved 4 years ago by the gothic-R theorem of general relativity, followed in 2010 by the simpler Telemach theorem of the equivalence principle, and independently by the 2009 paper “Gravitational space dilation” by professor Richard J. Cook of the U.S. Air Force Academy.

CERN’s only defense consists in not quoting those findings known to it since early 2008 and in never updating its already fraudulent safety report of late 2008 – a reproach it accepts ever since.

The UN Security Council has been asked to enforce the logically necessary scientific safety conference before CERN may or may not continue with its according to current knowledge earth-jeopardizing nuclear experiment.

I am waiting for the Security Council’s decision and so does the whole of humankind.

Pascal claimed: When the size of a potential punishment is infinite, any finite advantage gained by taking the risk is stupid.

CERN does not dispute that the so far un-disproved Telemach theorem predicts that its currently running LHC experiment will shrink the planet to 2 cm in perhaps five years’ time with a finite probability (8 percent?).

But CERN refuses since January 27, 2011 the “scientific safety conference” requested by a court to disprove the danger if possible, and continues instead.

Pascal would say that this behavior is incompatible with reason. Is there any citizen on the planet not being an employee of CERN who agrees with the logic of CERN? For example, a member of the UN Security Council?

For J.O.R.

Science requires trust and doggedness, not reproduction. I got introduced to it by Lennartz, Bertalanffy, Weizsäcker, K. Lorenz, Rosen, Winfree, Yamaguti, E. Lorenz, Wheeler, Birman.

1) BIOGENESIS: Life as a self-improving fire (in parallel with Stu Kauffman); as an Erdös growing automaton (in parallel with Joel Cohen); as a Teilhard-Prigogine attractor

2) WELL-STIRREDNESS: Liquid finite automata

3) NP-COMPLETENESS: Traveling-salesman-with-alarm-clocks problem; Gödel as a limit; spatial Darwinism; positional adaptation (unlike metabolic adaptation) is predictable; brain equation

4) HUMANUM: Smile-laughter indistinguishability in a single species; Pongo goneotrophicus; invention of the suspicion of benevolence by the human toddler; epigenetic personogenesis (a function change in the mathematical sense of Bob Rosen); jump to Point Omega; acoustic smile therapy of primary autism; “galactic export” of personhood to other bonding species endowed with mirror competence (including artificial brains)

5) CHAOS: New attractors; chaotic hierarchy; nowhere differentiability on a Cantor set; superfat attractors; transfinite invertibility (Anaxagoras) confirmed; out of gratitude to Anaxagoras, his adopted hometown Lampsacus was later declared “hometown of all persons on the Internet” (1994)

6) PLANCK’S CONSTANT: A first explanation of h offered (based on the Sackur-Tetrode action in conjunction with classical indistinguishability); fever test in the spirit of von Neumann; message sending to another Everett world (with Peter Weibel); cession twin of action

7) EINSTEIN’S CONSTANT: A first explanation of a universally constant c offered (based on Sackur-Tetrode and finite observer diameter); microscopically exact assignment conditions testable

8) NONLOCALITY EXPLAINED: Einstein completion of quantum mechanics made falsifiable; combined ground-satellite Bell experiment to test whether more than one quantum world exists (similarly Feingold, Penrose, Zeilinger)

9) CRYODYNAMICS: Zwicky’s and Chandrasekhar’s “dynamical friction” re-discovered; the new science of cryodynamics as applicable to a gas of mutually attractive Newtonian/Einsteinian particles of different mass classes; sister science to thermodynamics; no Maxwellian velocity distribution; ectropic behavior; Boltzmann’s “hypothesis of molecular chaos” confirmed; connection to Poincaré homoclinicity; new open frontier

(Predicted negative implications: no big bang; no primordial synthesis; no inflation; no accelerated expansion; no dark energy; no distant origin of background radiation in confirmation of Guillaume-Assis; no nonbaryonic dark matter; no multiple universes; no modified gravity

Predicted positive implications: Giacconi’s ultra-distant quasars confirmed; fractal Fournier-Mandelbrot universe; new explanation for Pioneer anomaly; new machines in sight)

10) BLACK HOLES REVISITED: Telemach (T-L-M-Ch) theorem; black holes are non-charged; are eternally unfinished; a Reeb foliation of space-time forms around rotating black hole; in a merger of two [pre-] black holes, the larger one recycles every particle of the smaller one by ejecting it into the outer universe (analog to Ralph Abraham’s blue-sky catastrophe); topology inversion near horizon (Abramovicz) confirmed; quasars acting as charge generators; microscopic mini-quasars existing; exponential quasar growth inside matter; small black holes cannot grow inside superfluid core of neutron star; electrons can no longer be maximally small since they then would be black holes and hence non-charged (first empirical evidence of string theory); LHC danger

APOLOGY: I am not a detached observer. But I hope that the above chronological listing shows that my latest findings are not necessarily less cogent. In particular, point 10 means that the artificial black holes hoped to be produced at CERN are,

i) more likely to form,

ii) undetectable at first,

iii) growing exponentially inside earth,

iv) devoid of astronomical safety assurance.

Therefore, I implore the planet to at long last install the scientific safety conference necessary to deal with the black hole danger incurred by CERN.

I thank Dieter Fröhlich, Bill Seaman, Christophe Letellier and Andreas Scheider. (For J.O.R.)

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

Lease, give a statement to the effect that the planet’s short-term survival is NOT threatened by CERN’s currently running LHC experiment. There is un-disproved scientific evidence that to the contrary. Thank you.

Otto E. Rossler, University of Tubingen, Germany

At issue is the likely production by CERN of miniature black holes that in a small fraction will get stuck inside earth to eat it inside out in a few years’ time.

The “scientific safety conference” recently demanded by a Cologne court is being shunned by CERN while the world’s media keep their mouth shut. What is the rationale behind this “interesting time”?

Answer: Official belief in miracles. The whole physics community is convinced that even though light takes an infinite time to reach the surface of a black hole or come up from it, particles could do either trip in finite outside time. Famous theories speaking of an “information paradox” and “cosmic censorship” were built around this assumption so that the whole scientific community lost sight of the underlying breach of logic.

While clearly a treat for any future historian of science, this irrational belief remains not without consequences: Every day and every minute, the planet is being consciously sacrificed on the altar of this superstition. CERN refuses to reply. No high-ranking scientist on the planet speaks up for it.

I therefore herewith ask the Nobel committee to either speak a word of authority or schedule the scientific safety conference at once.

Dear citizens of the planet: Please, forgive me that I insist on reason. The young people are my motivation.

For J.O.R.

I herewith ask the Hebrew University to withdraw the honorary doctorate given yesterday to the German minister of science because this minister is responsible for the worst threat to the survival of Israel.

She refuses the scientific safety conference asked for by a Cologne court, the only aim of which is the assessment of the mentioned danger: just to have a look.

Not looking is the worst human sin. A father who does not look when a lion comes close to his child is no father. Please, dear fellow Jewish people, start taking seriously the scientific proof of danger of the LHC experiment that Dr. Walter Wagner and I have given.

Prof. Otto E. Rossler, chaos researcher, University of Tubingen (For J.O.R.)

- Black holes do not evaporate.

- Black holes are uncharged.

- Black holes cannot eat neutron stars from within.

- Black holes grow exponentially inside earth.

- Black holes arise more readily than thought.

Everybody immediately agrees that so many simultaneous overturns of accepted wisdom are unlikely to be all valid even if no counterproof has been forthcoming for 4 years. If a single one of the first four findings is false, CERN is safe (if the fifth is false, CERN is less unsafe).

On the basis of this purely probabilistic argument, CERN quietly rejects the “scientific safety conference” requested from the German government by a court. On the same basis, the planet’s print media have resolved to spare their readers the disquieting news that there is an 8 percent chance of the planet being shrunk to 2 cm in perhaps 5 years’ time if all 5 points are true and CERN continues.

If science were a matter of probabilistic common sense, this decision — shared by the pope, the queen, the emperor, the president and the helmsman — would be impeccable. But then the earth would still be flat too. So, please, forgive me for continuing.

- Point 1 dethrones Stephen Hawking’s famous 38 years old conjecture. (The reason is the Telemach theorem which states that along with the gravitational time dilation T, also length L, mass M and charge Ch co-vary in proportion or anti-proportion, respectively.)

- Point 2 dethrones the famous electromagnetic extensions of general relativity and the venerable physical law of charge conservation (again Ulysses’ son Telemach is responsible).

- Point 3 is an implication of quantum mechanics (frictionless superfluidity).

- Point 4 is an implication of chaos theory (Kleiner attractor).

- Point 5 is due to the empirical validity of a form of string theory (implicit in point 2).

That so many new results should hold true simultaneously is highly improbable a priori. Therefore the un-disproved five coincidences amount to a genuine trap posed to humankind by nature: To either give up on 5 scientific dogmas simultaneously or else die with a probability of 8 percent.

The most recent analog is the 7 plagues sent to a self-righteous pharaoh in an old tale. Then I would be given the role of the prophet – a 71 years old chaoticist who finds himself forced by destiny to try and bring his contemporaries to dismantling at least one out of 5 insights blown by the wind onto his desk? Fortunately, every earthling retains the chance to survive with 92 percent if CERN continues not tolisten. So maybe I should rather shut up?

Forgive me for being less risk-prone than many: I insist publicly on CERN’s stopping immediately until one of the 5 fateful coincidences has been removed. My perseverance may have to do with my having seen the uniqueness of the human smile in the cosmos. Old people have strange insights.

(Elements of an improvised talk given yesterday at the University of the Arts Berlin to unwind Olafur Eliasson’s interdisciplinary conference “Life Is Space 4 Marathon.” I thank the wonderful interactive audience and the organizer who of course do not share in the responsibility. For J.O.R.)

Dear Dr. Hawking:

Excuse the public letter.

Europe does not object that it is betting the planet on the existence of Hawking radiation.

Hawking radiation got disproved implicitly by Kuypers in 2005 and explicitly in my “gothic-R theorem” of 2007 and my “Telemach theorem” of 2010. The pertinent paper which is on www.lifeboat.com goes un-rejected for months by the Albert-Einstein Institute to which it was submitted.

The impression is building up on the planet that CERN – that is, the European Nuclear Research Organization – is continuing its dangerous experiment only because they have passed a point of no return. Note that if CERN at last allowed for the scientific safety conference called for 3 years ago and officially requested by a court 5 months ago, CERN would implicitly concede having consciously risked the planet for many months in a row. Hence CERN is in a trap: No matter how high the risk, they feel they have to go on because otherwise the act of their having gone as far as they did would become known to every individual on the planet so that both science and Europe might end up being excluded from the still to be hoped for planetary future.

Please, dear Dr. Hawking: be so kind as to help CERN out of its “double bind” in the sense of Gregory Bateson. The planet justly admires you. If you declare that you take the sole responsibility on your shoulders for having made the mistake of refusing to discuss Hawking radiation with a concerned colleague, the world public will forgive CERN.

Even better: If you talk to me there is a remaining chance that we jointly find the flaw in my disproof of Hawking radiation which eluded everyone else so far. In that case the black-hole danger will be over. The world is waiting for your answer.

In deep respect,

Sincerely yours,

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

I just posted this story on Universe Today — which is a science-based moderated blog (i.e. any pet theories and psuedoscience nonsense are cut out).

The story offers a quick precise of why there is zero danger of the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) destroying the Earth, but also a (hopefully) interesting discourse on cosmic rays.

This is the kind of interesting science we might see on this blog if it was moderated Eric!

Steve Nerlich (Member of the Board)