Aug 22, 2011

How Can I Convince the World That It Is Reasonable to Double Check?

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

Despite some nominations I am just a stupid scientist who found evidence that the currently running LHC experiment in Geneva jeopardizes the planet with a probability of 3 percent, with the largest part of this number still avoidable if the LHC is stopped immediately.

No one in science or the media believes me, only a court in Cologne did but they since also have become nonpersons. This appears to be a unique phenomenon in history since not a single scientist has a counter-proof to offer. All I am and ever was asking for is to double-check: a scientific safety conference. The latter has become the best-heeded taboo of history.

Why is it a sin to see farther? The youngest sailor who can climb the crow’s nest possesses the right and the duty to tell the crew what no one else sees. No one is allowed to shout him down. The same holds true in science: The most reasonable consensus of yesterday is scrap paper in the face of a new finding. My finding bears the name of a young man, Telemach.

The T stands for time, l for length, m for mass and ch for charge (the vowels being for better pronunciation). T,l,m,ch all change by the same factor in gravity, the first two go up, the last two down. Einstein 104 years ago focused on the T but the other three letters are implicit in his later equation. Nevertheless the young man got overlooked for nine decades. Now in the absence of a counter-proof, the specialists are unable to rejoice. Maybe it is because it was not one of them who found the news?

If mass m decreases downstairs, many things are different than thought. The changed l also has a surprising effect already: the famous speed of light c becomes a global constant again, Einstein’s most famous basic discovery. Why are they not smiling?

It is because at the same time, the distance to and from the surface of a black hole, which is known to take up an infinite amount of time to be bridged by light, has now become infinite too. So unfortunately, Hawing’s famous conjecture (the so-called Hawking radiation) evaporates. Hence the LHC cannot even detect the “mini black holes” that it was built to create. And owing to ch, the undetectable minis are in addition virtually frictionless. Only a very slow one will stay inside earth to grow there exponentially by virtue of chaos theory. This is the risk earth is currently taking: that one of the invisible ones takes residence.

All your ship’s boy is asking for is to find a specialist who can prove Telemach wrong. Then I will retract all my warnings. But please, hurry up. For three years in a row, no colleague was strong enough.

But why do they not support the logically required safety conference? This is the quadrillion dollar question which no one can answer. Every person will have to suffer from this by not knowing whether and when CERN’s slow bomb becomes manifest. Every missed day increases the total risk by 3 percent.

The media are not allowed to report because the agenda of the UN Security Council is a secret. Take care, everyone – as long as saying “take care” is still a permitted phrase outside the context of planetary survival.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. robomoon says:

    All right, the Rosslerian interpretations of Einsteinian physics look good for big science business. However, there are not enough independent scientists doing their job, like a newer and bigger mathematical simulation without knee-jerk reactions to any of those critics who are just in for cash from governments and fame from Nobel Prizes, like the majority of physicists. Those included some physics advocates who blamed you for mathematical incompetency without even gaining any serious consent by independent scientists. However, a quadrillion dollar question demands an expensive reply. Here is were real cash plays a role. Looking at the budget required to tell the answer, can it even get close enough to a trillion dollars? See…h-the-cost for the good intentions from those asking: Is it worth the cost? Certainly, the example calculation linked through at considers an extinction risk posed by asteroids and the assumption: “a ‘detect and deflect’ system would set us back $20 billion.” Other short-term risks listed in this assessment: overpopulation, nuclear war, gamma-ray bursts, climate change, engineered bioweapons, and rogue high-energy physics experiments. There we go. Who thought to calculate how many billions for safety against rogue high-energy physics experiments would set us back? Nobody we knew before. So where was the dull observer who has not seen this quadrillion dollar question coming? Sorry, there were only private questions like and much beer at as the answer! So please do not blame yourself, all those immature financial calculations for short-term risks were only my fault, silly me! Certainly quite more than only a few independent Professors would have known that on time if most people were mentally healthier but normal. Only look at the liberal arts and psychology from whatever side, so far, nobody has been doubtful about the only answer to your question at on 2011/05/19: Is our planet caught in the midst of a dark age? To repeat my answers shortly: yes. Also refer to my comments with big requests about psychology science to your blog articles from 2011/06/02 and 2011/07/15. There should be our devotion to more mathematical simulations and riskful experimentation.

  2. How do you explain the phenomenon that new results with an acute rescue competence are refused to be discussed by the scientific community and the media?

  3. robomoon says:

    WYSIWYG, and what you see on top is an important article asking the reader how to convince the world that a double-check is reasonable. Below this article is a less important one called The Nature of Identity Part 3. What you also see is a reply to the 1st comment below the important article. With that reply you get a request for scientists and the media to discuss the new results with an acute rescue competence. What you see in the 1st comment are references to calculations that shall be accomplished to convince the world that a double-check is reasonable. It also considers reasons why new results with an acute rescue competence are refused to be discussed by the scientific community and the media. Regarding the psychological method how the explanations of requests for safety were done, it is showing the technique available: WYSIWYG. See the difference of acute rescue competence you get from the scientific community and the media: the higher it is, the more you get. See how high the level of rescue competence in psychology can be: you see how much you are afraid of death. When you are much afraid of death, the level of rescue competence is becoming acute enough for a competent request about safety. Do you see from whom you should have gotten competent advice regarding this phenomenon? From natural science or psychologists? See one alternative explanation to the less important article below, not real psychology, but at least neuroscience: s/t = v + WYSIWYG. Also consider the formula Cost / (Population x Survival time x Risk x Risk reduction from the example calculation referred to by the 1st comment when you see a sufficient level of being afraid of death is what you get. When you see the world is not afraid of death from the growing risk, please get some reasonable accomplishments beyond the actual example calculations in addition to the currently visible results.

  4. Anthony L says:

    Since Professor Rossler is posting a series of posts on the same theme, perhaps I may be permitted to post this comment again here which I just posted on an earlier post of this distinguished theoretical physicist.

    We have a problem: the complete lack of realism about bureaucracies and governments and their possible response to actvisim offered by some of those here who believe that any suggestion to cut funds to the LHC would be welcome discredits their valid realism about the seriously inadequate safety arguments advanced by CERN to justify rocketing ahead with the escalation of energy at the LHC .

    Professional defenders of the LHC such as PassingBy do not have to do much to discredit the anxious supporters of Professor Rossler as long as they continue to make impractical suggestions as to how to stop the LHC by writing ill formulated appeals to general addresses at the UN.

    This is a pity since the safety arguments of CERN are totally inadequate and if Professor Rossler’s mathematical speculations are valid, despite being somewhat intuitive, he joins others who predict dire results if the gamble fails this time.

    Perhaps the conCERNed here could make more of an effort to demonstrate that their view of the world is as realistic in regard to the workings of large institutions of a political nature as it is in regard to the workings of CERN, even though CERN is of course also a highly political instituion.

    They could follow the lead of Robert Houston who writes precisely formulated and (usually now) dispassionate posts quoting factual statements drawn from the texts published by CERN and other authorities and thus confines himself to unvarnished realism in these and related matters.

    Otherwise they will not create the required impression of seriousness in positing the potential swallowing up of the entire planet into a 2m black hole, and no one will be motivated to help them avoid this catastrophe.

    Which seems to be the present state of affairs.

    What is needed is a well formulated appeal addressed to a specific recipient in high position who has the power to respond effectively.
    But who? Does such a person even exist?

    It may be that the end of the world will follow from the reality that institutions grow larger and larger and further and further beyond any outside control.

  5. Robert Houston says:

    Thnak you, Anthony, for your kind comments, but I confess to being an admirer of Professor Rossler, whose insight, courage and perseverance have made him the one scientist on Earth willing to stand for humanity against the CERN juggernaut which may bed headed to our doom. As such, Dr. Rossler has become the single most important scientist in the world. I totally support him in his efforts to bring sanity and review to the reckless experiments at CERN.

    My efforts here have been merely to reinforce his stated concerns with those of other scientists who have independently raised similar objections to the safety arguments for the LHC, though often on separate grounds.

  6. Anthony L says:

    You have achieved your objective very well, then, Houston. But you fail to suggest the suitable recipient of his complaint, which is the sine qua non for a positive outcome to his efforts.

    It seems to be the old story in science and politics. The expertise which allows miscreants to hid their public irresponsibility also prevents their public irresponsibility from being exposed.

  7. Robert Houston says:

    Cambridge astrophysicist Lord Martin Rees might be quite influential in calling for a safety review and conference, if he could be persuaded
    Dr. Rees wrote a frightening expose of the planetary risks of colliders in his 2003 book “Our Final Hour” (Chap. 9).

    However, he reassured the readers that Hawking radiation would evaporate mini black holes, and that a strangelet disaster, though “a frightening possibility,” was unlikely for it would require the then implausible conditions of strangelets being stable and negatively charged.

    But CERN has since admitted, based on recent Chinese studies, that strangelets could be both negatively charged and stable, and two dozen CERN scientists have written that the LHC might produce strangelets (see Moreover, subsequent to 2003, respected physicists have questioned whether Hawking radiation would evaporate black holes. If Rees were apprised of these studies, it’s possible he could become concerned and motivated.

    However, he was mainly concerned with the danger of producing strangelets, and reassured the reader that these would only be dangerous if stable and negatively charged, which seemed theoretically unlikely at the time.

  8. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Dr. Houston:

    Thank you for your kind thoughts.

    I admire Sir Martin for not stabbing his friend in the back.

    No one knws anything for sure about strangelets, but there is a very accurate knowledge of black holes lying on the table. Only one prefers not to acknowledge it.

    Nevertheless I understand very well why Sir Martin keeps silent: It would be to no avail if he came forward with new insights of his own. No one can take on the role of contradicting 10.000 silent physicists in the open. He or she would only appear to be “bought” by the party of the flag-holder.

    What bystanders should focus on instead of finding an outspoken ally is finding an outspoken adversary of my position. This is the real riddle. Why are the media unable to see that no individual scientist contradicts me in the open on the whole planet? Even Dr. Ellis refuses to reply, just as did Dr. ‘t Hooft. Someone should resuscitate the two most courageous CERN allies.

    “The trouble with physics” has unfortunately become more than a joke. I need enemies, not friends.

    Sincerely yours,
    Otto E. Rossler

  9. Anthony L says:

    There is nothing admirable about Martin Rees’ behavior. He wrote a good book and does not have the leadership capacity, the sense of moral responsibility to the human race or the planet, or the faith in his own public musings, to stick with what he wrote.

    He has lost the vim and vinegar of youth, and is now old, and behaves more like a chicken than a man.

  10. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Former good deeds are never forgotten, though. I hold Sir Martin in high esteem.

  11. Anthony L says:

    You are trying to save the world, Professor, and you give your fellow human a pass because he did you a favor in the past?

    Isn’t that precisely the kind of mind bending alteration of truth seeking that is endemic at CERN, and the cause of all your current troubles in gaining their attention, and the attention of the world?

    Mrtin Rees is an amiable fellow, and that is exactly what large rgoups seek as the first credential of someone they listen to. If a man is a maverick, they tend to reject him as a nuisance and not agreeable.

    That is what Martin Rees is aware of, it seems, and would rather keep his position at the Captain’s table in spite of the prediction he made himself that the ship is likely to hit the biggest iceberg ever.

    Not very rational for someone who claims to be a scientist, would you agree?

  12. Otto E. Rossler says:

    No, he did not do me any favor in the past — he only was more intelligent than I was at the time.

    Imagine he would stick to his old position and acknowledge his new ally, me: it would be to no avail. The public would see the same alleged nonsense re-iterated: no news stuff.

    What we need is that single remaining great relativist who confesses that he still finds no fault with Telemach (the new-found implication of Einstein’s “happiest thought” that is available on the Internet for a year).

    Preventing progress by keeping one’s mouth shut, as the specialists do, is much more ugly than talking lowly of one’s own past merits as Sir Martin does.

    But still more important: Every single quality medium on the planet could work the miracle that the whole planet is waiting for. There are more good journalists around than there are good relativists on the planet.

    Why not make a planet-wide search for a journalist with a genuine connection to his vocation? Diogenes said: “I am looking for a man.” I say: “I am looking for a journalist.” All this journalist has to do is say: “I am asking this physicist for his opinion about the Telemach theorem.” Then the nightmare will be gone and the licking of the wounds can start.

  13. Anthony L says:

    And that single great remaining relativist is who, exactly? And do we know his email?

  14. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The old man with the greatest experience no doubt is Wolfgang Rindler at the University of Texas, [email protected]

    I revere him very much. I do not know whether this is a nuisance to him — can he forgive me that I mentioned his name in a matter where the greatest benevolence on the planet needs to be recruited? He is closest to the original thinking of Einstein’s.

  15. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear AnthonyL:

    I just realize you probably rather had in mind one of my influential detractors who after my repudiating their claims of falsification never retracted their proven-false statements. Especially Albert-Einstein-Institute co-director Nicolai (E-mail: [email protected]) would be capable of answering you in a most competent fashion. After my proving his defense of charge conservation wrong more than two years ago he never replied again and also never retracted his outdated counterclaims. And he never responded later to my Telemach theorem after I had submitted it to him and his Institute’s journal “Einstein-online.”

    This could give you the impression that he is my scientific enemy. I for my part would object to that. I am deeply obliged to Professor Nicolai because he forced me in 2009 to find a better proof of black hole non-chargedness than the one I had offered in my 2007 paper on the gothic-R theorem. If he is strong enough to prove the non-chargedness (ch) part of my Telemach theorem wrong more than 2 years after I first sent him my pertinent proof, I shall immediately retract all my warnings against the CERN experiment. I also promise, of course, that I shall do my best to make his proof better understandable to you in case he has one.

    For science by definition is friendship. This fight with CERN is absolutely exceptional.