Hawking radiation is dead ever since the Telemach result and its precursors surfaced on the web. No one ever defended Hawking including his own heroic voice.
The same holds true for CERN’s detectors. They are blind to its most touted anticipated success – black hole production – by virtue of the said theorem. Again not a single word of defense.
This is why a court asked CERN and the world for a safety conference on January 27, 2011.
The press cannot continue shielding the world, and Lifeboat must be relieved from its having to carry the burden of informing an otherwise lifeboat-less planet, singlehandedly.
RichardKane’s comment which had disappeared, reconstituted:
2:52 am
Maybe there isn’t a minimum mass that a micro black hole could shrink and thus everything pass right by except with a rare hit that will just absorb a little energy making dark matter and dark energy just micro holes too small for light ways to react to it.
Unless many billions gather together at the center of an planet or star, or when absolute zero is approached as the Helium cooling coil in a collider.
Historically epicycles had to exist until the concept of the earth rotating replaced them
I have a couple of historical questions that I wonder is someone could answer. When the the theory of the universe or solar system was epicycles were there attempts to defend the theory.
When I was a little boy I learned a lot about science on my daddies knee. Also we had an old encyclopedia that raved a about the wonders of the Panama canal. Many years later what my father told me about people in a clock factory putting the paint brush in their months in order to make the brush tip pointed, suddenly didn’t fit in with my understanding of radiation poisoning. However, I have a hunch if we could retrieve the old theory of ether and added in new theories of moving in many more than four dimensions, simultaneously, the original theory and new theories might supplement each other.
The following is not what I saw back in 1958 in an old encyclopedia, which I would like to see a copy of,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Dear Richard:
Both papers you quote are excellent from an historical point of view. You also correctly point out that theories need not fight with each other. Only when lack of good will enters — like refusing to check an undisproved risk — do historical dimensions take part.
Semmelweis who discovered asepsis was “more right” than the otherwise very sympathetic representatives of the tradistional school. But I agree completely that quarreling is never necessary. Ordinary standards of fairness suffice. And, very rarely, shouting is necessary to call someone back from a deadly step. This looks like quarreling but is pure benevolence. And no ill feelings remain.
I admire Giddings and Mangano; only their refusal to reply for more than 4 years I criticize. I hope they can forgive me that I combine this critique of an ordinarily very minor sin with shouting because of the consequences they thereby are closing their eyes to in case I am right. In terms of the consequences, it is (hopefully not) the worst crime of history as I could not dispel so far along with everybody else for 4 years. In terms of culpability, it is absolutely a gentlemen’s faux pas. Everyone including me fully understands their being miffed by my impossible behavior. I would be too, in their place.
Nevertheless I continue to implore them and call them … — I need words I do not have. I ask their and everyone else’s forgiving for my pointing desperately to the hands of a big clock that is running every minute and then the next and still is not being allowed to stop.
Take care, Otto
And of course it is maximally unfair that no one- including Hawking — is rushing to their side. So if you wish I am their only friend. And so I feel.
Right or wrong the court did not ask for a safety conference as has been reflected in the official court documents. Those documents reflect the official findings of the court.
But in the absence of such a safety conference I submit the 454 000 000 000 000 collisions produced by the LHC in their proton runs as evidence of its safety. If one of those collisions has already created the world ending result you predict then there is no point in continuing this discussion as it is too late. On the other hand if none of those 454 000 000 000 000 collisions created the result you predict wouldn’t that call your predictions into question?
We do not know the collision energy needed for the creation of micro black holes.
We do not know how many of these collisions do possibly create a MBH.
We do not know what else could possibly be created. But we know that there are important differences between most of the natural collisions and collisions at the LHC. There is no treatise, whether there is ANY SIGN of a dangerous threshold or something similar for the artificial collisions. Instead there is chaos and the data spread somewhere else.
“We do not know the collision energy needed for the creation of micro black holes.“
“We do not know how many of these collisions do possibly create a MBH.”
Mr. Rossler would disagree with you on those points. It seems like the energy level at which the LHC becomes a threat would be a central point for critics to agree on or at the very list know themselves. If you don’t know at what energy level a threat emerges we can’t judge whether the theory of danger is right in the long term because there is no way to evaluate the concerns and know if they should have happened already or not.
Dear Mr. Bill Johnson:
Good points.
The court did not “ask” for a safety conference as you say: it expressed its “opinion” to hold a safety conference, in the official final ruling which phrase for some reason is being suppressed by the media. CERN, however, was present and no one ever denied all this.
Your second point also is very illuminating.
You draw attention to the fact that SO FAR, the collisions already achieved (scheduled to be followed by several times more this year) have not produced any visible damage. But you seem to be unaware that exactly this was predicted by the new results on black holes which no one denies so far. (Namely, that there is a delay of several years before the ultra-atrocious becomes evident as being imminent.)
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rossler
Better not drive motorcycle with the indication that its frame could break.
I was afraid it is because I’m an old man that I cannot understand the refusal by CERN to enter a safety discussion. The judge in Cologne also was not very much younger which could have been a reason for his advice given to CERN. But now the young generation is starting to harbor similar thoughts. This makes me afraid for the first time.
Mr. Rossler, I am completely aware that you predict several years delay between the collision that causes the MBH and when it is detected.
However this was my point; if one of those collisions has already created the world ending result you predict then there is no point in continuing this discussion as it is too late.
Basically if the black hole was already created were already done for even if the LHC was shut down tomorrow. Thus your continued writing on this topic must assume that a MBH has not yet been created in which case there are 454 000 000 000 000 examples of the safety of the LHC.
Rossler, you wrote: “The court did not “ask” for a safety conference as you say: it expressed its “opinion” to hold a safety conference, in the official final ruling which phrase for some reason is being suppressed by the media”
Why do you keep lying so shamelessly? Just let it go, it’s a dead end. The text of “the official final ruling” is here:
http://www.justiz.nrw.de/nrwe/ovgs/vg_koeln/j2011/13_K_5693_…10127.html
And the relevant paragraph appears to be this:
“Vor diesem Hintergrund fordern sie insbesondere — wie der in der mündlichen Verhandlung anwesende Prof. Rössler dort nochmals deutlich gemacht hat — eine fachwissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung in Form einer Expertentagung, die sich mit den seitens der Klägerin behaupteten Gefahren beschäftigt. Eine solche Tagung durchzuführen, ist eine von der Beklagten zu beantwortende Frage der politischen Opportunität; sie kann aber nicht Folge einer gerichtlichen Entscheidung sein.”
Can you please point out to your non-German readers where is it that the Court expresses support for the conference?
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for returning.
The collision number will be about quintupled. Every single collision has the same chance to produce a black hole. And every black hole has the same chance to get stuck inside earth to automatically cause the exponential cancerous growth inside. We agree on that.
What I need to add to explain why it is so important that CERN stop immediately is that the probability of this irreversible event having already occurred is a fixed number — take 2 percent for lack of a better estimate. The same amount of black holes created always entails the same probability of having this side effect. Thus by still begging and clamoring for the immediate safety conference, one can still reduce the risk to planet earth by a factor of 5 or so: The ratio between the number of collisions already achieved and the number of collisions planned to be achieved by the end of the year when the machine is to be stopped for two years.
Is this not an absolute ethical imperative to observe?
Thank you again for your insisting.
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rössler
The anonymous coward PasssingByAgain (sorry — anonymi have consciously waived their person rights, especially when they play a recognizably evil role) does not quote the original document that I quoted on Lifeboat several times. The one he cites may also be an official document, but it is not that of the original protocol at the original time bearing the original signatures of the judges, of the words directed at CERN’s representatives and every other attendee; which for some reason is not being distributed on the planet so as if there were no reliable media left.
It will be very interesting to uncover the background of this cover-up which even crept into wikipedia — a strong argument against the latter’s reliability also.
It takes some nerve, when you’re caught lying, to insult the one who points out your lie. Why don’t you just shut up? The document I’ve linked is from the website of the Ministry of Justice of the State of Nordrhein-Westfalen, you don’t get more official than this. Where is the other “original protocol” you keep blathering about? Does it really exist or you just made it up? And even if it existed, there is no doubt that “the official final ruling” of the court is the document published in the ministry’s website.
Dear Otto
It is not in the link of PassingByAgain, it is in the protocol of the court. I do not know whether the protocol is available in the internet now, but the paragraph is on “LHC-Kritik” and “heise.de”:
„Das Gericht gibt seiner Meinung Ausdruck, dass es möglich sein sollte, die unterschiedlichen Sicherheitsaspekte, die auch Gegenstand der beiden Sicherheitsberichte aus den Jahren 2003 und 2008 waren, im Rahmen einer ‘Sicherheitskonferenz‘ diskutieren zu lassen“, diktierte der
Vorsitzende Richter Niemeyer nach gut dreistündiger Verhandlung in das Sitzungsprotokoll. In Anbetracht des bisherigen Prozessverlaufs ist dies eine bemerkenswerte Wendung.
Perhaps you can translate, I do not have time at the moment.
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/34/34302/1.html
Thank you very much.
Best regards, Niccolò
——-
The protocol was not officially but I think (perhaps) now it is, I just do not have time to search. But it is told in my link that the court told the phrase is correct.
Ok, here the translation:
“The court has expressed its opinion that it should be possible, to discuss the various safety aspects, which were also the subject of two safety reports from the years 2003 and 2008, as part of a ‘safety conference’” dictated the presiding judge Niemeyer after a meeting of approximately three hours in the protocol. Given the previous process history, this is a remarkable turn.
Best regards to all.
Would be a good idea, because there was no independent safety assessment nor a quantitative calculation (for the probability) of the risk.
The standards of such an independent, interdisciplinary safety assessment or conference must be on a very high level, as long as we have only the discussed ‘quality‘ of the risk — the destruction of our planet or according to some theories even of the entire universe.
Dear Otto
The protocol must be somewhere, otherwise one can ask the court.
Best regards, Niccolò
I am grateful that this question is being taken seriously – including the anonymous passenger who continues to hold on to the thesis that CERN had not acted, and did not continue to act, in open neglect of the “opinion” of a court.
I am ready to send the passenger a copy of the genuine official protocol read in the name of 4 judges on January 27, 2011: to your inscrutinable E-mail address if you allow.
Putting the same document on the Internet will take me longer. Maybe you will be ready to do this yourself much faster — after having come to the conclusion that this official document reproduced verbatim by Mr. Tottoli above is indeed the opinion given publicly to CERN and everyone else by a chamber of the Cologne Administrative Court on January 27, 2011?
Give away my e-mail address so that Mad Otto can harass me in private? hhmmm… doesn’t sound like a good idea… ;-)
Publish “your” document if you really have one, but — as I already told you — it’s futile. Courts speak by their rulings, and the ruling of the Administrative Court of Cologne in case 13 K 5693/08 is the one I linked above from the website of the Ministry of Justice. The Court rejects the claim, the plaintiff must pay the expenses. If the Court had demanded/solicited/supported a safety conference, they would have written it in the ruling, but THEY DIDN’T. This case is closed, this boat has sailed, this bus was missed. When will you let it go?
I do have your E-mail address since you replied to my blog. So this joke of yours was in vain. Do you accept my offer to spare the planet a bit of time or do you still refuse to do so?
Dear PassingByAgain
You wrote “If the Court had demanded/solicited/supported a safety conference, they would have written it in the ruling, but THEY DIDN’T.“
As you know the ruling is quite long and there are many points.
I have read it. It is true that “the Court rejects the claim, the plaintiff must pay the expenses” but it is told (just for example) that “Eine solche Tagung durchzuführen, ist eine von der Beklagten zu beantwortende Frage der politischen Opportunität.“
In other words it is a question of fairness whether CERN agrees to an independent safety conference or not.
But there are many other interesting points in the text too, enough to discuss it on at least three pages here.
And don‘t forget, a protocol would not be written if it would be useless. In other words the world is not only black and white.
Best regards, Niccolò
——-
(My example can be read at point 88 in the link of PassingByAgain).
Rossler: what makes you think that you have my real address? Anyway, read again my last comment and see how much I care about your “protocol”.
Tottoli: I had already quoted that sentence in my comment of “May 15, 2012 2:31 pm”. In fact, I had also quoted the rest of the sentence, which you appear to have “accidentally” forgotten:
“sie kann aber nicht Folge einer gerichtlichen Entscheidung sein.”
why didn’t you translate that as well? BTW, while I don’t really speak German, I suspect that translating “politischen Opportunität“ with “fairness” is a quite a stretch.
When will you guys just face the facts? The Court did not support (let alone “request”) the safety conference, period. Some equivocation might have been possible before the text of the ruling was published, now it’s no longer possible. Do yourselves a favor and move on.
Dear PassingByAgain
Thanks for some ‘gray‘ in your new comment.
Best regards, Niccolò
——-
“I suspect that translating “politischen Opportunität“ with “fairness” is a quite a stretch.”
It is. The sentence clearly states that it is left to Cern alone whether they regard it as appropriate to conduct such a conference. The key phrase here is “eine von der Beklagten zu beantwortende Frage,” i.e. according to the court, the defendant (Cern) decides what to do in this regard. How could it be a question of fairness and simultaneously be Cern’s decision? Did the court state its opinion that it rests on Cern’s authority to decide what is fair and what is not? That is hardly an interpretation Tottoli or Rössler would like to attribute to this quotation.
Also, leaving the decision to someone else is quite the opposite of requesting a particular procedure.
Do you, TRGM (your previous name) allow me to send you the original document?
“Do you, TRGM (your previous name) allow me to send you the original document?”
I was consistently posting as “TRMG”. Only you were confusing things occasionally.
Why do you want to send me your “original document”?
Because your ally, the ByPassingPassenger, refused and you seem to be equally believing in CERN’s lack of wrong-doing.
I don’t even know what you are trying to convince me of. That Cern is legally obliged to host a conference and invite incompetent show-offs like Wagner, Goritschnig, and crackpots like yourself? You can’t really believe that.
But go ahead my email is valid. Could you also please restore my comment correcting your nonsense about Komar mass in the other thread, which was flagged as spam?
There are so many international scientists and publications referring to risks, so I feel it would just be fair to make a safety conference and allow people to discuss their issues. Not all known risks are considered in the LSAG safety report of CERN. There are not all risks in the list of the following link too but quite many documents for an independent review, at least all risk of LSAG. And there is a critical assessment with 80 pages of the GM paper too (see link):
http://www.lhcsafetyreview.org/
Thank you.
Thank you for being interested in the truth — the first CERN defender so far who is.
I cannot restore anything since I have no authority here and am often censored myself. But send me what I should post and I can try, too. By the way, your E-mail looks as if you had more authority here.
Your crackpot friend.
“I cannot restore anything”
Too bad. As it happens, your interest in the truth was a topic of my comment too.
“By the way, your E-mail looks as if you had more authority here.”
I don’t know what you are talking about. Are you sure you have the correct e-mail address?
Please, repeat your topic.
“Please, repeat your topic.”
Just tried. Did not seem to work.
Also, I received your mail with the court record, and, as expected, I am completely underwhelmed. Well, I did state earlier that Cern was the defendant in that case, which is of course nonsense. Since naturally the administrative court of Cologne has no jurisdiction over Cern directly, the defendant in this case was the Federal Republic of Germany. Besides that, the record contains no new information at all. Yes, I know, the court states its opinion that it should be possible to discuss several safety issues in a conference. That’s what you were making a fuss about for over a year now. Did you think I somehow missed that?
So, it is the the opinion of the court that a safety conference should be possible. Big deal. Also the court explicitly states that such a conference cannot be the outcome of a court ruling, that, in its opinion, the defendant has fulfilled all necessary obligations with regard to risk assessment, and it leaves the decision to the defendant of whether they regard conducting a safety conference as necessary or appropriate. In other words the court did not request anything. Move on.
“should be possible” is far away from a “request to do it”. Again Rössler was revealed as a liar here — how often will he repeat the same lies again in the future? :D
“The court expresses its opinion that it should be possible, to discuss the various safety aspects, which have been the subject of the safety reports of 2003 and 2008, in a “safety conference”.
Is indeed quite a big deal, if one considers that it was the very last sentence of the judge in the hearing.
No, it is not. It is an opinion, not a ruling, as Rössler suggested. And it is mentioned after the clear statement, that it is not for the court to request any kind of conference — in contrast to Rössler suggestions. The court stated also that in his opinion the defendant had already given sufficient arguments addressing the theses of crackpots like Rössler (ok, without stating explicitly that he is indeed a cp).
An official request of a court for a conference or somethng like that as suggested by Rössler can not be found anywhere in the documents. Case closed, propaganda-Otto again naked.
Bigger than what was said in the court’s final opinion after closing the hearing or what is in the written judgment quoted by PassingByAgain?
Dear TRMG: Thank you for admittting everything I said.
CERN’s open non-response to the kindly expressed opinion of a court directed to the world and the representatives of CERN standing before it, is a scandal in the eye of every uncomitted citizen.
I publicly request an apology from CERN for the cover-up relative to the planet’s media.
Would anyone be interested enough to have the document published at long long last????
Dear EQ
We all know that there are two different writings. It is mentioned in the published ruling that “it is not for the court to request any kind of conference” (as you told).
But NOTHING is mentioned after the LAST sentence of the not yet published hearing which I have shown in my last comment — and Otto meant the hearing, nothing else.
So it is quite a big deal to have such a last sentence from the judge in the hearing. (Now you can refer again to the link of PassingByAgain).
Dear Otto
Naturally it would be great to have the document in the internet!
Best regards to all.
Even this last sentence, Tottoli, does not support your and Ottos suggestions.
The case is closed.
Dear EQ
No problem if it is closed for you. Everybody can read above what I have suggested. We will see whether the document will be published or not. Perhaps the court must give its ok.
Good evening.
Sincerely yours, Niccolò
Where is my last comment?
Ok, this is getting stupid even for the standards usually set by Rössler’s threads. So Cern should admit that a conference would be “possible” (hard to deny, because utterly trivial), even though it is, according to the court’s opinion, not legally obliged to host one? And the fact that Cern did not explicitly concede the truth of this trivial statement, which was clear anyway to anyone even prior to the judge’s expressed opinion is the whole scandal?
It will not change anything, Tottoli. The court has not ruled for a conference, it has not asked for one, it has not requested one. It has stated, that it should be possible, in principle, to discuss the stuff again, but, and this is usually forgotten by some people, also that it was already discussed and that it is on CERN to decide whether they want to discuss it again or not.
It was by the way even discussed with otto, two times. There is little hope that he will ever be able to catch is errors during a third meeting.
“TRMG on May 19, 2012 9:14 am
Ok, this is getting stupid even for the standards usually set by Rössler’s threads. So Cern should admit that a conference would be “possible” (hard to deny, because utterly trivial), even though it is, according to the court’s opinion, not legally obliged to host one? And the fact that Cern did not explicitly concede the truth of this trivial statement, which was clear anyway to anyone even prior to the judge’s expressed opinion is the whole scandal?”
really a great scandal. The biggest the planet has ever seen. :D
There never was a meeting at CERN, only a hearing (“Anhörung” in the legal sense) conducted by a single person — without genuine dialog since what I said fell into a black hole in retrospect. I do not say that I for one did not profit.
The emissary of CERN is quite well known in his own specialty of antimatter: a pity we found no common ground. We by the way both happen to be featured, together with some further CERN scientists, in a play that played in Basel, Zurich and Berlin to great success with its audiences during the last few months. Hereby, understandably only the shiny sides of each of us were presented. No names were mentioned, of course.
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/urteilsoriginal.pdf
There is still no request for the conference.
The above linked pdf does not contain the official ruling of the court nor does it support any of Rösslers statements about a “request for a conference” etc.
poor Rössler again.
eq is slandering my friends (and now the truth): please, quit or apologize.
Page 1 of the discussion:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/05/rossler-cook-versus-hawking…ent-page-1
I am telling the truth about your crackpot friends.
I am still searching for your “request of the court for a conference” which you have mentioned for one year now.
For everyone’s sake: 4th paragraph on page 7.
(If you say that all my friends are crackpots by definition, I would have to live with that. But then please, say so openly: That the friend whom you slandered in particular is “no worse” than any other friend of mine: Do you?)
No, Rössler, there is nothing more than already known from the official ruling cited countless times.
There is no request for a conference.
You friend El Naschie is a numerology-crackpot and this is simply supoorted by facts (his “papers”)
However, El Naschie is not the topic here — nice try again, Rössler, to evade the truth by changing the topic.
To the comment of eq on May 19, 2012 9:17 am: “…that a conference would be “possible” (hard to deny, because utterly trivial)…“
A funny statement. Do you think the very last sentence of the judge in the hearing that “a safety conference should be possible” was meant in such a trivial sense? Oh no — no way! Imagine a friend at your home who asks: “Dear EQ, would it be possible to give me something to drink, I am very thirsty” but Eq would just say: “Oh yes, dear friend, quite possible.” — without making any move…
Not very gentleman-like.
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/urteilsoriginal.pdf
Tottoli, you obviously forgot again that the court explicitly left the decision to the defendant in its written judgment. Whatever “a conference should be possible” was supposed to mean, it did not mean “we hereby ask you to host one” in any sense that is legally binding or relevant.
BTW, are you suggesting that Cern has any reason to be particularly friendly and complaisant to Rössler and his ilk? Remember he called its director “worse than Hitler.” Not very wise if you are asking a favor the other party is in no way obliged to provide.
Dear TRMG
It is not true that he called the director anything, the bad sentence was about CERN, in the sence of the worst case scenario. I do not like to take side for someone but he was very often provoked too, as you have probably seen. To be kindly, we should not talk about the point again and again, I hope you agree. But you know yourself that there are many scientists, publications and risks which have to be included in a conference. I have often shown the uncompleted list of documents and even CERN‘s LSAG has not considered all known risks and there is no treatise which looks whether there is any sign of a dangerous threshold, etc., etc., … Ooh, I am tired.
Sincerely yours, Niccolò
——-
BTW, the moderator should censore or delete your “BTW”.
censor, not censore, sorry.
“It is not true that he called the director anything, the bad sentence was about CERN, in the sence of the worst case scenario. ”
As if this would make any difference. But he was addressing Heuer directly once.
“To be kindly, we should not talk about the point again and again, I hope you agree.”
LOL, no, I strongly disagree. I don’t see any reason to be kind to a slanderous impostor, and I hope his insults will haunt him until he finally vanished into oblivion completely.
“But you know yourself that there are many scientists, publications and risks which have to be included in a conference.”
No, I think every rationally conceivable risk has been exhaustively addressed already. I don’t see any reason to put more effort into this issue.
“BTW, the moderator should censore or delete your “BTW”.”
What? Are you crazy?
Dear TRMG
You know that there is not only one risk issue. And as I told, not all risks have been addressed by CERN. Please read my comment above and be a bit friendly, we are all humans and all in the same boat, right?
I wish you honestly a good evening.
Sincerely yours, Niccolò
——-
“You know that there is not only one risk issue.”
I meant the issue of LHC safety.
“And as I told, not all risks have been addressed by CERN.”
Yes, you said that. But I don’t have to agree with your quite uninformed opinion, do I?
Dear TRMG
No, naturally you can have your own opinion.
I have found a link in the internet. Even the politicians of Germany have understood the last sentence of the judge as “explicitly suggested a safety conference” (ausdrücklich nahegelegt):
http://dipbt.bundestag.de/extrakt/ba/WP17/374/37408.html
“Wird die Bundesregierung eine Sicherheitskonferenz zur fachwissenschaftlichen Diskussion der Sicherheitsaspekte des Betriebs des Protonenbeschleunigers Large Hadron Collider (LHC) am CERN in Genf, die auch Gegenstand der beiden vom CERN beauftragten Sicherheitsberichte der LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) aus den Jahren 2003 und 2008 waren, einberufen, wie vom Verwaltungsgericht Köln im Prozessverfahren 13 K 5693/08 in der mündlichen Verhandlung am 27. Januar 2011 laut Sitzungsprotokoll ausdrücklich nahegelegt wurde, und wenn nicht, weshalb wird auf die Einberufung einer solchen Sicherheitskonferenz verzichtet?”
Thank you.
BTW: You say I would be uninformed. For example have LSAG handled the Higgs-inflaton risk? (And please do not lead me to wikipedia…)
Why you do not say specifically the reason that you think I would be uniformed?
It was not said in my link that there was no INDEPENDENT safety report. But even the Swiss government assumed once in its answer to Mr. Vischer that LSAG and SPC would be CERN-independent committees.
Real science is discussion in friendship between scientists with different opinions.
http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/065/1706541.pdf
Das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung wird eine derartige
Sicherheitskonferenz nicht einberufen, da es die
Risikobewertung des Betriebs des Protonenbeschleunigers Large
Hadron Collider am CERN bei Genf umfassend vorgenommen
hat. Das BMBF hat gemeinsam mit weltweit anerkannten
Wissenschaftlern dabei nicht nur alle wissenschaftlich fundierten
Erkenntnisse in Erwägung gezogen, sondern sich auch mit dem
Vorbringen der Klägerin im genannten Verfahren intensiv auseinandergesetzt.
Das BMBF ist zu dem Ergebnis gelangt, dass die beabsichtigten
Forschungen am LHC kein Gefahrenpotential begründen
!!!!Im Übrigen ist eine rechtliche Verpflichtung zur Durchführung einer
solchen Konferenz vom Verwaltungsgericht Köln nicht festgestellt
worden.!!!!!
Even CERN‘s “LSSG-report” of 2003 was not independent, so all these three reports have been from CERN.
Yes, dear EQ — but not in the text of my link. In the text of my link they say “explicitly suggested a safety conference” (ausdrücklich nahegelegt):
http://dipbt.bundestag.de/extrakt/ba/WP17/374/37408.html
Oh, sorry ada, not eq.
Tottoli, you write: “For example have LSAG handled the Higgs-inflaton risk? (And please do not lead me to wikipedia…)”
I guess they did not handle it because there is no such thing as a “Higgs-inflaton risk”, you just made it up. Perhaps you should indeed check the wikipedia article on inflation, and try to understand what you are talking about before throwing around random words.
Tottoli, the text you found is a question raised by one member of parliament (Hans-Christian Ströbele) directed at the German government. It is not a statement by “the politicians of Germany.” The text ada was quoting is an excerpt of the answer to that question given by the parliamentary secretary of state, Thomas Rachel. I really don’t know what you are getting at here.
Mr. Tottoli!
The fact that you do not even get the point in this short document(s) should lead to more reticence.
Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses!
Pinky, full-time armageddon-mouse
Dear TRMG
You are right and precise. But it shows that other people (even A politician) have understood the sentence of the judge similar like me or Prof. Rössler.
Dear PassingByAgain
Wikipedia: “The hypothetical particle or field thought to be responsible for inflation is called inflaton.“
And: “It is known now that the inflaton cannot be the Higgs field“
Generally I like wikipedia, because many interesting articles can be found but the problem is, that physics articles on wikipedia seem to be mostly ‘occupied‘ by people who write in favour of CERN. I have some experience with it, therefore I take a look at other links too.
Just for example according to the paper here the Higgs can lead to inflation:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/0710.3755v2.pdf
Don‘t you think it could be eventually dangerous to experiment near an artificial Big Bang, with a such extreme luminosity and possibly produce Higgs particles which could be unnaturally slow, even if we do not know the needed collision energy to produce the Higgs?
Dear Pinky
Where haven‘t I got the point?
Thanks to all for discussion, Niccolò
——-
I guess we will be soon on page three here.
About the other risks: There are various papers, regarding a man-made Big Bang.
Tottoli, please, please, stop writing about stuff that you obviously don’t understand. Sure, there are many papers in which the role of the inflaton, i.e., a field coupled to the scalar curvature whose transition to a lower-energy state induced an exponential expansion in the early Universe, is played by the Higgs field. So what? How would this imply that producing Higgs particles at the LHC involves any risk whatsoever? Please explain to me the mechanism you have in mind, it’s going to be fun. But you should first make sure that you understand the difference between Higgs field and Higgs particle, for example. Right now, you sound like you don’t. And while you are at it, you might also want to explain why the cosmic-ray argument would not extend to your hypothetical “dangerous” Higgs bosons.
Sorry, I meant Higgs field, not particle. Higgs field, inflaton particle, right?
Dear PassingByAgain
Perhaps because of unnatural energy concentrations, mostly if the Higgs would be found at higher energies, because comic rays with such energies mostly collide with stationary particles of celestial bodies?
I have only asked some questions. Can‘t I?
Thank you.
How to know whether there is a risk if experiments are conducted which are actually unnatural?
HUH? Tottoli, none of your three previous comments makes any sense. Sleep on it and try again tomorrow.
Mr. Tottoli!
You wrote: “Dear Pinky
Where haven‘t I got the point?”
Well …
There is an ANSWER to the QUESTION (your link), but you took the QUESTION for the ANSWER.
The answer is not blowin’ in the wind, but to be found here:
http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/065/1706541.pdf
Got that?
Pinky, the alphabetized armageddon mouse
Tottoli, I asked you to explain the mechanism by which, if the Higgs field was indeed the inflaton, producing Higgs bosons at the LHC would induce any risk. All I got in reply was incoherent gibberish, showing that you don’t understand any of the concepts involved (inflation, inflaton, Higgs field, Higgs boson, and so on). The sad and comical part is that mentioning the “Higgs-inflaton risk” was part of your piqued reaction to TRMG’s statement that your opinions are uninformed…
The opinion of the PasserBy is certainly less informed about what matters than that of his non-anonymous partner.
It is a great tragedy that all those superstitions (inflaton etc.) which are based on an ingrained myth (big bang etc.) are taken seriously todate by most everyone in a science that has become medieval again inits irrationality.
The CERN catastrophe — that they behave as if possessing clairvoyance — would not be possible without this loss of dialogue in modern physics. Alexander Unzicker’s bestseller shows that the audience — of high-school students mostly — is much more mature than the profession at large in cosmological physics todate.
Otto, please, we are trying to discuss physics here. Go spout your nonsense somewhere else.
Ada writes: “!!!!Im Übrigen ist eine rechtliche Verpflichtung zur Durchführung einer solchen Konferenz vom Verwaltungsgericht Köln nicht festgestellt worden.!!!!!”
This is absolutely correct: The public advice expressed to CERN and the whole planetary public by a court is in no way a court order.
It is rather something that CERN and everyone else is allowed to hide from the planetary media.
More specifically, everyone who is opposed to safety, like Ada and CERN and — so it must be feared — the whole physics profession, is part of a recognizably mean group of individuals: So of course only as long as not a single physicist dares stand up and say in public WHY he or she is opposed to finding out the truth.
Poor planet, poor courage, poor Ada.
But: Every young person on the planet is indebted to Niccolò Tottoli.
Is it not strange that only NOBODYs (people who say: “I am no one”) speak out in favor of CERN?
The physics profession is hiding their faces and tearing their clothes.
Tottoli: “But it shows that other people (even A politician) have understood the sentence of the judge similar like me or Prof. Rössler.”
It also shows that “even a politician” gets the same answer as you and Rössler did. But for some reason you found that answer not worth mentioning.
i´m opposed to safety?
is this your guess or a fact or even theorem ? ;) Do i have to disproof it?
Prof. Rössler ich hab in der Vergangenheit mir viel Zeit genommen Ihrer Argumentationen unvoreingenommen zu folgen. Mich von Ihnen herunter würdigen zu lassen hab ich nicht nötig ich wünsche Ihnen daher viel Spass noch irgentjemanden auf diesem Planeten zu finden der sich für Ihre Ideen interessiert.
poor Otto
und Tschüss
Dear all
Prof. Rössler is right if he says that not all scientists say that there was a Big Bang and contradicting theories exist, even regarding dark energy or the expansion of the Universe. At the moment most people of the physics community believe that the expansion of the Universe increases (accelerates).
Most of us have read about the “Big Rip”, as an ‘end-solution‘ of the Universe.
Could it be dangerous to experiment at energies near the Big Bang, mostly at higher LHC-energies?
This is a valid question if one considers the following (which I often told).
Head-on proton-proton and lead-lead collisions with both particles having almost an equal velocity relative to astronomical bodies with energies as at the LHC (mostly the ones with higher energies) are very rare in the universe and perhaps happen never or very seldom near (50cm or less) the surface of celestial bodies.
The sort/kind of these high energy cosmic rays is also not known but only assumed.
At CERN we know that pairs of protons or lead ions collide very frequently and very near the surface of dense materials.
Slow particles react different than fast particles. For example graphite moderators at nuclear power plants decrease the velocity of neutrons, to increase their reactivity in the nuclear fuel (uranium, plutonium or the like). Generally said the decay rate of very fast particles is decreased, ask a collider physicist.
So how can one be sure that there is absolutely no risk?
Dear PassingByAgain
To discuss ‘in favour of you‘: You can laugh if you think it might be funny, I have not seen a publication with the title “Higgs-inflaton risk”, so I can not provide you one. I only ask whether it might be dangerous, to produce Higgs fields and inflaton particles at the LHC, probably ‘unnaturally‘ (or naturally unusual) close to the matter of the detectors.
More important would be to provide a safety committee or –conference with important publications and in the case of the “Big Bang risk” there are various.
I think that CERN, its own safety groups and its supporters behave mostly as denying all risks, instead of searching for risks — and this could lead to some danger.
There are many theories, models and ‘observed‘ phenomena which are called with fancy names, but the real truth is concealed behind these names.
(For example I think a single quark have never been observed).
Naturally I do not mean that it is not important to discuss, if a specific theory indicates a serious risk.
I only mean we should actively search for not yet considered risks.
Perhaps you can tell me the reason as an expert why it should be absolutely safe to search and to produce the Higgs, which (according to theory) “can lead to inflation and produce cosmological perturbations in accordance with observations.”, specially if it would be found at higher energies? How can you be sure that no unnatural energy concentrations could trigger some kind of new inflation or the like?
It is (at least) really exaggerated to say that “every young person on the planet is indebted” to me — as Prof. Rössler said — and I had to laugh about it, although he meant it friendly (many thanks) but it led me to some points about the last sentence of the judge one more time.
To summarize the issue it seems to be not only a matter of fairness.
People who only like to avoid a safety conference tell the “hard fact” that the lawsuit has been rejected.
People who want a conference mention the last sentence of the judge in the original hearing, “that it should be possible to discuss the various issues in a safety conference.“
To compare, as I said above it would not be ‘fair‘ to deny if a thirsty guest asks “would it be possible to get some water?”
But the discussed issue concerns not only a thirsty person, so the question is: could such a conference harm anybody and what can we lose? And what can we lose in the case that an important discussion is avoided, leading to a catastrophe?
Best regards and good evening to all.
Dear ada:
Thank you from my heart for having tried to understand.
Please, help us by giving the fruits of your understanding.
Believe me that I never tried to detract from your honor.
If my remark above looked like that, I take it back with my heartfelt apologies.
Thank you for coming back and giving us a reason for your feelings which I obviously had misunderstood.
Thank you very much,
Sincerely yours,
Otto
There is one “Mittler” (mediator) on this blog in the sense of poet Goethe in his “Werther.” I thank him for his seemingly easy but actually very difficult job done.
I am sure other readers will agree with me that we all need this kind of activity the most. It is a pity that I do not have this strength of mind myself. I will be grateful for every hint as how to create a minimum amount of mutual trust. Despite the pressure of time. (You see: I already fell out of my desired role again.)
Page 2 of discussion:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/05/rossler-cook-versus-hawking…ent-page-2
Page 1 of discussion:
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/05/rossler-cook-versus-hawking…ent-page-1
Tottoli, you write: “I only ask whether it might be dangerous, to produce Higgs fields and inflaton particles at the LHC, probably ‘unnaturally‘ (or naturally unusual) close to the matter of the detectors. (…) Perhaps you can tell me the reason as an expert why it should be absolutely safe to search and to produce the Higgs, which (according to theory) “can lead to inflation and produce cosmological perturbations in accordance with observations.”, specially if it would be found at higher energies? How can you be sure that no unnatural energy concentrations could trigger some kind of new inflation or the like?”
What you write is nonsensical on so many levels that I’m not even sure I can count all of them. As I suggested in an earlier comment, before making wild claims you should at least try understand what inflation is, as well as the difference between Higgs field and Higgs boson. The Higgs field permeates all space, while the Higgs particles (i.e. the Higgs bosons) can be viewed as localized oscillations of the Higgs field around its configuration of minimum energy. In models in which the inflaton is the Higgs, the Higgs field has a coupling to gravity, and — in the early stages of the life of the Universe — it undergoes a transition from a state of higher energy to a state of lower energy. During this transition the Universe expands and you have inflation. Therefore, inflation is a phenomenon that involves the Higgs field as a whole, there is no conceivable mechanism by which the production of Higgs bosons at the LHC can trigger it. Not least because the transition between different energy levels that is responsible for inflation *has already happened*, and the Higgs field is now in a low-energy state (see the lower-left corner of figure 1 of the paper that you quoted, 0710.3755).
You see, it’s not enough to put together two concepts at random (Higgs, inflation) and claim that the LSAG report is sloppy because it does not take your made-up risk scenario into account. You must be able to describe a mechanism through which the risk you are talking about could materialize. But hey, this would require understanding the physics first. Surely we can’t demand that much from poor Tottoli?
Congratulations, forces of pseudo-skepticism and anti-science.
Thanks to discovery that Otto Rössler still believes someone is going to organize a safety conference along the lines suggested by plaintiff’s attorney Olaf Möhring, my long running thread “LHC Safety and the Law” has finally hit post #400.
Posts #355/#356 detail some of Möhring’s proposed invitees and highlight how ridiculous it would be to try and get them talking the same scientific language. But then Möhring, being a lawyer, would better know how to organize a “fishing expedition” (depositions scheduled in the hopes that some unexpected sound bite will be entered into the record) than a scientific conference aimed at advancing human knowledge. Does anyone know if the Gabriele Schröter case was further appealed in 2011/2012?
Walter L. Wagner (who has a history of posting at the above-linked website) eventually gave up his similar US Federal lawsuit.
Best wishes,
R. Penner
(“Herr Penner” is funny in colloquial German)
“I will be grateful for every hint as how to create a minimum amount of mutual trust.”
Mr. Rossler, If you want to create a minimum amount of mutual trust a good place to start would be to represent events as they happen even if an alternate story would be more favorable to your cause. Given the recent release of official court documents it is clear that you have overstated how supportive the cologne court was of your position.
An overstatement can be corrected and walked back but denying any overstatement but instead insisting that there is a media cover up of the facts does not bode well for mutual trust.
bill johnson is a bit unfair here — but presumably in good faith. So we must agree to disagree, Mr. Johnson.
Dear Mr. Penner, I did not get the gist of your text: are you opposed to clarifying the issue or is this a wrong impression of mine?
Mr. PassingBy is trying to be as cruel as he can in his usual derogatory style. Unfortunately, he is defending nonsensical if very “noble” topics in which he is much better versed than Mr. Tottoli; so it is a feast for him to show his superiority. But this is no help for anyone here: The common sense of the less informed person deserves much more respect than empty sophistication. Mr. PasseerBy is kindly asked to embark on a more cooperative style. Otherwise the casual reader gets the impression scientists are mean people. I am very much convinced that this is a wrong impression that none of us here wants to create. Right?
Rossler, the sense of entitlement of people like you and Tottoli has always been a source of wonder to me. Just look at the two most recent cases: you, falsely quoting from the Wald textbook as if TRMG couldn’t check it by him/herself; Tottoli, quoting from the abstract of a paper that he obviously hasn’t read. Clearly, neither of you could be bothered to try to understand what you were talking about. However, you consider it as your right that actual physicists drop everything they are doing, convene a conference and discuss your uninformed nonsense. Try saying something meaningful instead, and perhaps others will pay attention and treat you with more respect.
To start with, go answer TRMG’s questions in the other thread. You are not off the hook there.
Dr. Rössler,
I would like clarification on many things.
1) For years, I have seen old press clippings of how you assert that from your calculations of “chaos”, the habitability of the Earth persists only 50 months past the point of the capture of a black hole of molecular mass. Where was that calculation published? (You also make claims about other calculations and theorems, which I have not seen published.)
2) Is it not unfair to proclaim that no-one has found flaws in a purported theorem which was never written up and widely read by the world’s best mathematicians?
3) Scientific conferences are generally hosted by an organization with an interest in the subject and voluntarily attended by those that actually want to attend, frequently paying their own way and offsetting the costs. How could Olaf Möhring’s deposition wishlist translate into a conference protocol when there is no way to compel attendance?
4) Even at conferences, there is no way to assure a meeting of the minds. In practice, people may not agree on definitions or points of metaphysics so physical evidence, even if fully understood, can be interpreted in various internally consistent manners. How can one who holds a minority opinion in such a crowd have confidence that they are correct?
5) What possible physical evidence would you require to conclude that the LHC experiments through 7 TeV do not, in fact, pose a risk to the survival of humanity?
6) Quantum physics allows the possibility of events so low that 1040 man-years of observation have less than even chances of happening. To date, not one person has been documented as being an outlier to the law of radioactive decay to the point that one-billionth of the Potassium-40 in their body decayed in the same minute. An easy calculation shows that this would produce an exposure of more that 10,000 rads absorbed. While no physicist has a theory that links decreasing microchip size with unusual deviations from the radioactive decay law, how does your anti-LHC claims differ from the entirely speculative hypothesis that one day microchips will cause people to fall over due to self-radiation poisoning? What evidence should an anti-microchip activist take as “good enough” to stop worrying about hidden laws of nature not yet in evidence?
It is not enough to assert that truth and justice are on one’s side; it is more persuasive to demonstrate one’s intimate and profitable understanding of truth and justice and to teach it to others. None of the anti-LHC activists have seemed persuasive to me. While nonlinear dynamical systems have been an important part of the research part of my career, my past understanding of the Rössler attractor does nothing to inspire confidence in your understanding of General Relativity and I found your attempt to publish fundamental General Relativity results in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, to be poorly motivated. Likewise, this years publication in African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research I found to be unworthy. In 2008, the anti-LHC activists shouted “Fire” and the world press heard and repeated them. How fortunate we are that only one little Indian girl was (metaphorically) trampled in the resulting panic.
You are a very well-informed and reasonable adversary. And you even have a name to you — my first clear enemy. Thank you very much for that.
All your points are very well taken, and all false — but wonderful. I can explain every item. You risk thereby that the other scientists who are so maximally helped by your statements also lose face. Only you won’t because you were the first to come forward.
It is an honor that you wrote the above piece. It is a classic and needs to be answered with loving detail, just as it is written.
But since one sentence is a real scientific one, I pick it out first:
Quote: “this year’s publication in African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research I found to be unworthy.”
“Unworthy” everything I write always is, since I am maximally imperfect. But can you substantiate? Is there a single error in it, and where? You see, no one before ever said so. So I am maximally interested.
Dr. Rössler,
I wrote: “While nonlinear dynamical systems have been an important part of the research part of my career, my past understanding of the Rössler attractor does nothing to inspire confidence in your understanding of General Relativity and I found your attempt to publish fundamental General Relativity results in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, to be poorly motivated. Likewise, this years publication in African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research I found to be unworthy.”
When you quoted only part of the second of these two sentences you omitted the word “Likewise” and in contextomy lost the intended focus on the topic. Specifically, I found the act of publication in that journal to be unworthy, as I believe the African Journal of Mathematics and Computer Science Research to be a publication without a history of publishing physics, the article is characterized as Pure Mathematics, which is clearly wrong, and there are hallmarks of the journal being a sham journal — a vanity press. They do not accept, for example, LaTeX manuscripts. Neither does your paper meet the ordinary requirements of a review in physics or math. Neither did they do a respectable job of vetting your manuscript. The first derived equation, equation labelled (2), is introduced with this misunderstanding of the Rindler metric: “With Einstein’s result put into this simple form, one is immediately led to expect a spatial corollary: If all temporal unit wavelengths T are increased, the very same thing is bound to hold true for the spatial unit wavelengths L of the same light waves” which does not follow, since you are applying the local consistency of the speed of light to a situation where the lengths and times are not local. Alternately, you are misapplying axioms of the wrong physical theory, which is equally invalid. The Rindler metric in fact admits different notions of length, and these notions are inequivalent. Your paper lacks precise terms and does not work as a functional review of these topics and is unpersuasive in not actually making a physics or math argument for derived results. But my intended criticism was the meritless choice of this journal which is (like CS&F) marginal to the point of irrelevancy on the topic of general relativity. A physics journal would perhaps alter “temporal unit wavelength” to “period” if T = 1/f = 2π/ω was meant.
Thank you for retreating into vague paraphernalia. I was hoping for a counter-proof, though. Can you help me in finding that?
Or a specialist who can? It would be a major help.
vague paraphernalia? rpenner provided a very detailed answer to your request for substantiation listing several problems with the work. the problem here is that you have an extremely narrow view of what a counter-proof is that allows you to dismiss most criticism of your findings rather then actually address the points made. Then you continue in saying that you have never been countered when in fact there is criticism that was made that simply was not addressed. I would be interested in seeing your response to the points rpenner made in that post.
If AJoMaCSR were a math journal of good reputation, “does not follow” would invalidate the result. Even in physics, it would be a reviewer comment that should prompt a hard think and strong consideration of a re-write. Since the problem is a either a confusion of coordinate time and proper time or a mixing and matching of general and special relativity, any journal with a track record in general relativity would reject the argument as specious.
It’s not a matter of providing a disproof. It appear to be a matter of getting you to tear up your own manuscripts and actually learn general relativity. One possible reason Hawking is silent on this matter is that he has better things to do. Your arguments are unpersuasive in convincing physicists that you have more than a paper-thin veneer of understanding the material. You cite textbooks that you do not understand.
With Bill Johnson, I look forward to your replies to numbered points 1–6. As a favor, I will begin a comprehensive correction of the paper as should have been done by the alleged peer reviewers.
Quote: “Since the problem is a either a confusion of coordinate time and proper time or a mixing and matching of general and special relativity, any journal with a track record in general relativity would reject the argument as specious.”
You feel very secure it appears, but as evidence you have nothing to offer but personal opinion. If you can deliver the announced counterproof, I and everyone else will be happy. Thank you.
Dear PassingByAgain
You wrote in your comment (May 21, 2012 1:43 pm): “…the Higgs field is now in a low-energy state…“
But do you know how the energy state was before the Big Bang, I mean do you know whether it was on a higher energy state than now and do you know, what triggered the Big Bang?
How can you know whether searching for the Higgs at high energies, with head-on collisions near the matter of the detectors is safe? You know that there are various differences between natural collisions and the ones at the LHC and for example the kind of high energy particles is not known.
How can you be sure whether the mechanism of inflation (which is believed to be observed on large scales in the universe) can not cause a danger if something unnatural is done by experiments on small scales?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GVA115I1I8Y/TTrsDrx7ROI/AAAAAAAABU…eation.jpg
Thank you.
(I mean the kind of high energy cosmic ray particles is not known).
“I can explain every item.”
Then do it. So far you never did it.
Please, send in your “comprehensive correction” of the Telemach paper first, dear Professor Penner. Thank you.
Perhaps you can show the world the fantastic review you got from this african journal (you know, you claim to have published your crap in a peer-reviewed journal — but apparently there was nothing like a review).
And now answer the points made by penner. You claimed to be able to answer every item,. so do it instead of hiding evading again. :D
Tottoli: It cost me some time to explain to you, in my comment on May 21, 2012 1:43 pm, “how [I can] be sure that the mechanism of inflation cannot cause a danger”. Unfortunately, it appears that you were too lazy to even try to understand what I wrote — otherwise you would not be asking the very same question again. Furthermore, your question “do you know how the energy state was before the Big Bang?” reaches a new low of stupidity (are you by chance confusing big bang and inflation?). Clearly you lack the background required for a meaningful discussion about particle physics and cosmology, and perhaps your understanding of these topics doesn’t go beyond the cartoon you linked in your comment.
Don’t get me wrong: there would be nothing to be ashamed of in that, not everybody has to be familiar with particle physics. As I wrote in my previous comment, the real shame is how you and your friend Otto find it completely superfluous to gather even a modicum of information before pontificating about stuff you don’t understand. You prefer to make wild claims at random, then accuse the scientific community of sloppiness (or worse, murderous conspiracy) because they don’t drop everything they are doing and convene a conference to address your nonsense.
I won’t waste any more of my time discussing trivial stuff with you, only to have to start all over again the next day. Look around for the information you lack, or live with your concerns that “unnatural collisions” at the LHC might create fire-breathing dragons which will burn your ass (indeed, the LSAG has not provided a safety argument against that risk either). I don’t care, the world doesn’t care, there certainly won’t be a conference about it.
How can a reasonable physicist be so blind?
How can i be possible that the great Otto Rössler does not answer this silly points made by penner?
:D
I am waiting for Mr. Penner to deliver — if he is the physical chemist he pretends to be. Okay?
No, Otto, the world is waiting for your answers. You said you could easily answer every point, so do it. The worldis waiting.
This silly game to avoid any answer is becoming boring, Otto.
There are also open questions in the other threads. For example, you have not delivered any convincing statement that you are not contraditing Komar and Wald as it was clearly demonstrated ny TRMG. Your cloudy answers were not sufficient and perhas they will impress laymen but for sure no one who is able to THINK a little bit about your nonsensica answers ;)
Professor Penner announced a counter-theorem to Telemach — do you not also yearn for it?
It is not my intention to avoid any answer of 1–6 but I think a counter-theorem to TeLeMaCh would be more important. An interesting detail of 1–6: radioactive potassium in our bodies is believed to be an important aging factor. Thanks to Prof. Penner.
Dear PassingByAgain
Please it was never my intention to make my discussion partners angry.
Perhaps there is a reason that I ask you the same questions two times but if you like to stop, then no problem too. I never said that you MUST answer any question.
You told: “Furthermore, your question “do you know how the energy state was before the Big Bang?” reaches a new low of stupidity (are you by chance confusing big bang and inflation?).“
I only ask you this because you said the Higgs-field would be “in a low energy state”.
Do you think the current energy state is a safety guarantee regarding inflation? And is it safe to create conditions that occured shortly after the Big Bang?
Can you say me whether the Higgs field is in the lowest energy state now and if it is not, then can you show me a proof (or else a safety argument) that creating local oscillations of the Higgs field by experiments is absolutely safe?
I have read about the Big Rip, as a possible end of the Universe.
What will trigger the Big Rip and where will it start? Will it start somewhere in the space or could it be triggered by some sort of high energy collisions or disturbances of the Higgs field?
Do you still believe that there are no differences between high energy cosmic ray collisions and the collisions at the LHC and do you really not care at all?
Thank you for reading.
Tottoli, you did not even understand why the question of yours that I quoted was so stupid, didn’t you?
For what concerns inflation, just forget about it. When you learn what inflation is, it will be clear to you that it can’t happen again. Until then, you are just wasting your time (and mine). There is indeed a reason why you ask the same question twice, and it is that you couldn’t be bothered checking the facts before blurting out more nonsense. Have you actually read the paper whose abstract you were quoting? Have you looked at its figure 1 as I suggested?
As to the “Big Rip”, it’s just another random concept that you throw into the discussion without first bothering to check if it is relevant. If you had simply looked it up, even on wikipedia, you would have learned what triggers it, and why it has nothing to do with particle collisions.
Finally, there is the issue of whether the Higgs field is in the lowest-energy state or it can transition to another state (note, this is fully independent of whether or not the Higgs is the inflaton). For this, the usual cosmic-ray argument applies. If the LHC collisions could trigger such a transition, cosmic-ray collisions would trigger it as well. Note that all the complications of the cosmic-ray argument for hypothetical stable black holes are related to the question of whether such black holes will be stopped in matter and start accreting. In the case of the hypothetical state transition of the Higgs field, there is no such question. Nothing needs to stop in matter in this scenario, thus LHC collisions and cosmic-ray collisions are equivalent.
In any case, the properties and interactions of the Higgs are pretty well understood. You cannot just wave your hands and claim a danger, you must first devise a physical mechanism by which the collisions could trigger a transition of the Higgs field. Good luck with that… Otherwise, as I already told you, you might as well start worrying about LHC-generated dragons. The LSAG hasn’t ruled them out yet.
Now please, please, please, don’t come back with more random nonsense until you have at least tried to understand what I have just written. On a second thought, don’t come back at all, surely I have already wasted enough of my time with you.