L
LHC Awareness
(European Organization for Nuclear Research) Build Worlds
Largest 17 Mile Round Particle Accelerator
Planetary Risk To Create Artificial BIG BANG Conditions In Lab
Old Dying Physicists want to go out with a BIG BANG
CERN LHC Blackhole Generator Online Soon
Many More Helpful Links And Video Links At Bottom Of Post
A Rational, Moral and Spiritual Dilemma
www.lhcfacts.org
Citizens Against The Large Hadron Collider is a non-profit organization
established for the purpose of using legal action to prevent the operation
of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) until further safety tests are conducted.
The LHC is a particle accelerator located on the France/Switzerland border;
it has been dubbed the largest, most expensive, most powerful experiment
ever attempted, certainly dwarfing all particle colliders ever built before,
both in terms of size and power.
Some experts fear that the risk of operating the LHC disproportionately
outweighs anything science might gain from this experiment. It is not
possible to know what the outcome of the experiment will be, but even CERN
(the European Organization for Nuclear Research) scientists concede that
there is a real possibility of creating destructive theoretical anomalies
such as miniature black holes, strangelets and deSitter space transitions.
These events have the potential to fundamentally alter matter and destroy
our planet.
http://lhcconcerns.com/
http://www.lhcdefense.org/
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/the_large_hadron_collider.html
Please see bottom of Post for many links from all sides of the debate.
In summer of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific experiment ever,
The Large Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth
located along the French and Swiss border with a total estimated
circumference of 17 miles will be the most powerful particle accelerator
in existence. The principal behind a particle accelerator is that by
speeding up the smallest elements of matter and then colliding
them together that they can be broken down further into even
smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once thought
to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be smashing these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV. Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space, this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Documentaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of all time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality, in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
evaporate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
evaporate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this document go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of support in the scientific community such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced, which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't evaporate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety assessment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative sense
any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or
to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
At that point two hypothetical scenarios exist. It would either maintain a
rather low orbit within our planet itself, slowly accreting mass at an
exponential rate, or it's possible it may "gravitate" to the direct center
of the planet in which case would accrete mass very quickly
Wait a second, I've also heard of other dangers like "Strange Matter",
"Bubble Nucleation", and "Magnetic Monopoles", why the focus on Black Holes?
It is true that these scenarios are also possible, however the problem with
representing them accurately is the true danger can never be quantified as
None of these have been observed, however that does not mean the risk is
zero. The very fact that this experiment is called an experiment is the
prove a hypothesis, if the results were truly known then this would not be
occurring in the first place.
The Large Hadron Collider is going to be forcing Protons together in a very
unnatural way, not only forcing them into groups of roughly 3,000 protons
for the collisions, but exposing them to temperatures colder than space as
well (1.9 K or -271 C). These types of collisions in a sense are unnatural
because collisions at those speeds and temperature would never happen,
meaning at the point of activation, no one will truly know these results
until they occur, in a matter of Femtoseconds we would be placing the entire
world in potential Danger. I've seen many websites calculate
possiblity/problem or a percentage of risk, however without many of these
theories as proof, there is no accurate way to calcuate them, So although
the risk potential is unknown, the risk can never be calculated at zero.
Although the credence given Strange Matter production, and it's subsequent
catalytic behavior by the scientific community is not always mutual. Certain
types of Strange Matter could be formed that would catalytically convert all
matter that it touches into strange matter as well, although this is not as
likely as creating a Black Hole, it's worth mentioning because it is a
possibility.
I want to learn more, where can I go?
We would recommend familiarizing yourself with all the issues, and
a basic understanding of Black Holes won't hurt either, of course we can
always recommend reading A Brief History of Time or the Universe in a
Nutshell there is always Google, for as many people as there are concerned,
there are people who believe the danger is zero, it's important for you, to
properly evaluate the facts and come to your own conclusion.
Thinking outside the box can't hurt either, We encourage you to Talk to a
Professor at a local college, write a Letter to CERN, do whatever you need
to do to inform yourself and make an informed decision, any contribution you
make, even discussing with one other single person in the world, has the
possibility to make all the difference.
The probability of them finding what they are looking for is near if not
ZERO. But there is a tiny chance of success.
The probability of some bad happening is NOT zero.
But there is a tiny chance of massive failure.
Most scientists agree on these two points.
The question is do they have the right to endanger the entire planet and
future generations to conduct this experiment?
A Rational, Moral and Spiritual Dilemma
by Otto E. Rossler, Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of
Tubingen, F.R.G.
Abstract. A nightmarish situation, that can still be hoped to be averted in
time through communication within the scientific community, is drawn
attention to. Only a few weeks remain to find out whether the danger is real
or nothing but a mirage. After this time window is closed, it will take
years until we know whether or not we are doomed. The story line has all the
features of a best-selling novel. The reader is asked to contribute
constructively.
Introduction
A surreal situation is described as being present: the greatest conceivable
danger - the end of both history and future. This author still stands almost
alone with a few hard results that completely change the status of a
currently running public endeavor. What can and must rationally be done in
what order?
The most economic way would be to find out where the error lies in the
perceived new danger. Since time is running out, the help of other
scientists needs to be solicited. This proves not easy. The two major
science journals refuse to publish but equally steadfastly refuse to give a
scientific reason for their verdict. The unwillingness of the scientific
community to falsify the danger takes the public hostage. This remains true
even if the whole danger is only a mirage. To publicize the danger because
time is running out is a big decision. The legal term for doing something
like this is "instigation of irrational panic." Can anyone take this on his
or her shoulders?
Most likely, of course, the silent scientific establishment is well-advised
to ignore the danger. Nevertheless a younger-generation Nobel laureate in
physics recently suggested I should go on - even CERN would profit from the
publicity. But at the expense of many ordinary citizens being unnecessarily
scared to death, I added.
All I suggest to do is to convene an independent safety conference within
the remaining four to ten weeks time. This is very little to ask, but
exactly this bit is being refused. Why? It looks as if my scientific
proposals are so far-off that anyone who ever had a physics course grasps
this immediately while everyone else is deeply impressed by the arguments.
Or is this just a crime story made up to boost the publishing rights of an
unnamed person?
The Rational Dilemma
The scenario looks unbelievable enough: that a prestigious group of ten
thousand mostly young and enthusiastic scientists should unwittingly prepare
the greatest conceivable risk to the planet. Both "Trinity" and "Eniwetak" -
the two previous Russian-roulette feats of our species - would be dwarfed by
this third instance, without the protagonists' noticing.
You will have realized by now that I do not have a 100-percent proof to
offer - just probabilities. The latter can be summed up in 7 points. Those
points I have put into the Appendix for conciseness. Here let me at last say
what we are talking about. The experiment in question is called the LHC
("Large Hadron Collider") and is the most expensive and prestigious
non-military scientific endeavor ever. Hadrons (protons) are to be hauled
against each other at 14 times the power of the previous generation of
accelerators and 7 times the maximum energy ever achieved (2.000
Giga-electron-Volts).
The experiment at CERN is completely normal science as far as an
understanding of every single element is concerned. Only the implications
are unusual here since an unexplained natural threshold (called the
electro-weak unification barrier) will be surpassed for the first time. This
excites string theorists - perhaps the most sophisticated brand of
theoretical physicists - since they have a way to predict that even these
minuscule energies (compared to the Planck energy thought necessary before)
will be sufficient. Mini black-holes could then arise for the first time in
history.
Now my group has discovered that black holes possess a new property (lack of
evaporation). The two possibilities - that string theorists are right and
that we are right - taken together make for a volatile mixture. In such a
case it is the most rational thing for the world to convene a scientific
conference to discuss the joint implications before the experiment is
allowed to become overcritical.
If this plea is heeded, everything is going to be alright. For we will then
all know how the leading experts of the world sum up both their mutual
consensus and their currently unresolvable dissent. In either case everyone
will see clearly what is the most reasonable response to take. Since
rationality will be back, no dilemma will remain.
This statement concludes the rational dimension. What about the two other
dimensions?
The Moral Dilemma
This second aspect arises because of the following fact: If anyone points
out the rational danger, he or she cannot possibly know what this
information will entail in the longer run. People could be misled into
panicking, for example. But only if the experiment becomes overcritical
before a scientific consensus has been achieved (our current situation
unless a miracle happens). Or else after it has been done with the dreaded
outcome so that the catastrophe takes its course.
Unexpectedly, there exists a third dismal possibility: that the experiment
proceeds and no mini black holes are found. This profoundly distinguishes
the present situation from Trinity and Eniwetak (the first atomic fission
and fusion explosions which fortunately did not engage the atmosphere).
While the probability of a dismal outcome is perhaps no greater this time
than it was in the previous instances ("1 percent"), it will not be possible
to return to business as usual after the event, this time around: the danger
will not be over once the scientists declare that their attempt to produce
mini black holes has failed since they found no trace of them. For if mini
black holes do not evaporate as predicted, they also leave no decipherable
sign of their existence - at first. So a negative and a positive outcome are
indistinguishable.
This difference to its predecessors makes the current experiment a
guaranteed success: at causing an unprecedented amount of human suffering.
For there will be no way to explain to anyone that he or she is safe nor to
apologize for the suffering to expect. The rational fear unavoidably caused
can only be made to go away by convening a post-facto scientific world
conference that proclaims absolute safety. Unfortunately, every scientist
who would not agree with this preassigned verdict would act irresponsibly.
Since this will be obvious, no one would ever again believe a single word
from a scientist. Anti-scientific fundamentalism would have won - even if
the experiment proves innocuous in hindsight.
Hysterical irrational responses from the part of the up-until-now uninformed
majority of persons and countries on the planet would be preprogrammed for
years to come. This medieval angst is a danger almost as great as the
experiment itself. No one will be astonished in retrospect that 10,000
scientifically trained minds were unable to anticipate this predictable
consequence since this rational deduction belongs, not to the realm of the
natural sciences, but rather to that of the humanities and arts. The
oversight would nonetheless not be forgiven. This second catastrophe can
only be avoided through rapid action - the very safety conference already
proposed above.
The Spiritual Dilemma
The third dilemma is the most disturbing, perhaps. The experiment started
operation on April the first 2008 (end of the official countdown) and is
currently in the process of being booted-up in a step-by-step manner to
reach a planned 70 percent performance level this summer: 10,000 GeV (or
five times beyond the threshold of danger). Suppose for a moment that this
way of proceeding took place, not today but at any earlier time in history.
Spiritual questions would then inevitably have posed themselves.
Today, even thinking of this possibility ("sin"?) sounds crazy. Indeed, no
spiritual world leader - pope, emperor, helmsman - was or is ready to speak
up on behalf of their worldly and spiritual constituencies despite the fact
that they were informed in time. Why is this so?
There is an intelligible reason for this third phenomenon, too: It is
nothing but probabilities that are at stake here. To decide on such matters
is traditionally entrusted to the military - this is what they have been
hired to deal with in the first place: sandbox games. Only Gorbachev and
Raissa deviated from this preformed path once. Their example illustrates the
danger we are presently in: They realized that the equilibrium of deterrence
implied a remaining finite risk of bilateral annihilation, but no one
currently appreciates their decision. This shows in a nutshell that
humankind is no longer able even to notice when it is rescued:
Kindynagnosia - the inability to recognize danger - is a collective
disturbance caused by mental synchronization. Human beings are still, or
once again are, the proverbial lambs of the spiritual. Who would not love
them for their innocence?
An Enlightened Response Is Called For
The spiritual dimension goes still farther. Everyone knows today that for
the first time in history we possess the tools to do away with the cruelest
inequalities on the planet. The computer and the Internet have made this
miracle possible: Work done once can be multiplied and transported free of
charge. Information has become cost-free. Nevertheless project Lampsacus
remains unknown for 14 years (Google and Wikipedia which implement elements
of it notwithstanding). In a historical parallel, the
computer-facilitated medical revolution is increasingly withheld from the
less well-to-do public even in privileged countries while student fees are
re-imposed in defiance of a UNO decision without protest. No one seems to
feel his own human rights any more and hence also not those of his neighbor.
The notion of cruelty - something that must never happen in the universe -
has slipped from public consciousness. Most everybody agrees that someone
who rescues people from drowning (like Elias Bierdel) is a "Schlepper."
If the notion of dignity (for what is killed by cruelty is dignity) has
miraculously slipped from public consciousness: why should anyone be
expected to stand up for the future of his neighbor's children since his own
children and their future are no longer on his mind? Showing love is almost
a taboo topic. But it is the young child - the toddler - who invents
benevolence out of nothing because no one in the cosmos is wiser or greater.
Possessing benevolence and being a person are one and the same thing.
Make the test and ask your child whether the LHC emperor has any clothes on.
He/she will ask you back to explain what you mean since Hans-Christian
Andersen is no longer well known. The returned question will enable you to
tell the truth: "Darling, no one seems to know for sure - only after a
scientific conference will anyone be able to say." Then your child will ask
you what you did to make this conference happen. Will you reply: "Darling, I
am not a scientist"?
To conclude, I ask you to forgive me for stirring up your waking day. Buddha
would do the same thing (now I am crazy!) and Jacob and Martin Luther.
Notwithstanding the fact that most hopefully - knock on wood - the danger
does not exist. The Appendix demonstrates that we still can find out in
time. A petition inviting every parent to sign is on the Internet (just
google "Honey, I shrunk the earth!").
Acknowledgments
Kensei Hiwaki, George Lasker and Hugh Gash encouraged me to write this
paper. I thank Gottfried Mayer for his early criticism and Artur Schmidt,
Joachim Frank, Andy Hilgartner, Roland Maurmair, Wolfgang Fedyszin, Gabriele
Schröter, Heino Breilmann, Enrico Pellegrino, Michael Langer, Frank Kuske
and Dieter Fröhlich for discussions. For J.O.R.
Appendix:
Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference
1) Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively
infinitely far away in spacetime according to a new theorem in the
Schwarzschild metric ("Â-theorem") [1].
2) Black holes are effectively uncharged because of the Â-theorem [1].
Therefore, charged elementary particles cannot at the same time be black
holes (or point-shaped). Hence nonpointshaped mini-objects exist already.
This makes mini black holes much more likely.
3) Mini black holes grow exponentially rather than linearly inside the
earth: "miniquasar principle" [2]. Hence the time needed by a resident mini
black hole to eat the earth is maximally shortened - perhaps down to "50
months." This contrasts with the "50 million years" obtained assuming linear
growth by BBC-Horizon [3] and CERN's analogous "5 billion years" [4].
4) CERN [4,5] counters that if the hoped-for mini black holes are stable as
claimed [1], equal stable particles must arise naturally by ultra-fast
cosmic-ray protons colliding with planetbound protons. This is correct.
However, there remains a fundamental difference: only the man-made ones are
"symmetrically generated" and hence dangerous. For they alone are slow
enough with respect to the earth that one of them (at less than 11 km/sec)
can take residence - in contrast to the almost-luminal speeds of their
natural cousins.
5) CERN's counterargument could still hold true for more compact celestial
bodies than the earth - such that their lifetimes would be drastically
reduced in defiance of observation if mini black holes exist. A quantitative
bound can be derived from this argument: Take white dwarfs first. They are
105 times denser than earth while being the same size. Hence their
cross-section for a mini black hole passing-through is by a factor of 105
greater than earth's. They remain safe if no more than 104 eating-type
collisions with a quark await a fast natural mini black hole entering them
(so it can pass through). Why? Because the energy of 14.000 GeV pumped into
two colliding protons at CERN is 14.000 times the rest mass of a proton (1
GeV). Therefore a mini black hole born of two quarks (one from each proton)
likewise has about 14,000 times the rest mass of a quark. Hence by momentum
conservation, only about 14,000 (104) collisions with a resident quark can
be survived by a fast natural mini black hole of the LHC energy without
losing its almost-luminal speed. If this bound applies to white dwarfs, no
more than about 0.1 collisions must await a CERN mini black hole on its
first passage through the earth. This estimate appears plausible.
6) The just-obtained number presupposes that the nonlinear growth process of
point (3) is inapplicable if very dense matter is passed through at
almost-luminal speeds. The by very many orders of magnitude shorter
collision intervals let this prediction appear justified.
7) Finally, neutron stars have a by another factor of 109 greater density
than white dwarfs. Since they are a thousand times smaller, they are a
million times more susceptible. But they are protected by quantum coherence
effects of the superfluidity type: so mini black holes can pass without
friction. The superfluidity extends to the "inner crust" [6].
In order to exclude that man-made mini black holes endanger the earth, it
will be necessary to falsify the first of the 7 points, or if this is not
possible the second, and so forth. Until this task has been solved, no one
can shoulder the responsibility to give the "green light" to the LHC's
crossing the 2.000 GeV barrier, as this is currently planned to do within a
few weeks. It thus appears that only an immediate safety conference can save
the LHC experiment.
Links..
LHC Defense
http://www.lhcdefense.org/
LHC Concerns
http://lhcconcerns.com/
Large Hadron Collider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
CERN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN
Some CNN Articles
http://search.cnn.com/search?query=lhc&type=news&sortBy=date&intl=false
Some Fear Debut Of Powerful Atom Smasher
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/30/doomsdaycollider.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
National Geograhic - The God Particle
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text
BBC News - Lab Fireball May Have Been Black Hole
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm
An Open Letter To Stephen Hawking
http://lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=72
Black Holes On Demand (George Street Journal)
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/George_Street_Journal/vol26/26GSJ10a.html
CBC News - LHC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/science/lhc.html
New York Times - LHC Dangerous?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/s...25f6782d7029e7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
LHC Legal Defense Fund
http://www.lhcdefense.org/
http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_legal.php
LHC Risk Evaluation Forum
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/
MySpace STOP CERN Website
http://www.myspace.com/stopcern
YouTube music Video Of The Atom Smasher (LHC) Black Hole Generator
French Build Doomsday Machine
http://www.misunderstooduniverse.com/France_Builds_Doomsday_Machine.htm
U-Tube Videos
Documentery
Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [1 of 3]
Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [2 of 3]
Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [3 of 3]
The Large Hadron Collider: The End Of The Universe?
Safety Of The Large Hadron Collider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider
What Is The LHC?
http://www.uslhc.us/What_is_the_LHC
High Res Photos Of The LHC During Construction
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/the_large_hadron_collider.html
Radio Interview- CERN Dangers
First hour guest, physicist Dr. Walter L. Wagner spoke about possible
dangers from upcoming experiments conducted by CERN's Large Hadron
Collider, and an accident that occurred there a number of months ago.
Assurances that all will be fine at CERN are not borne out by the evidence,
he said, and a lawsuit to postpone testing is proceeding.
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/6992/
Doomsday Debate Update From May 30th 2008
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/30/1078538.aspx
CERN uses 666 in new Logo
http://www.lhcfacts.org/?tag=666
Large Hardron Collider "Probably" Won't Destroy Earth
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/24/large-hadron-collide.html?referer=sphere_related_content
About Black Holes
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q1
"It's not so unlikely that the LHC could produce black holes,
but it's almost certainly true that if it produces those black holes,
they are going to evaporate very quickly"
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/08/15/f-burgess-lhc.html
Largest 17 Mile Round Particle Accelerator
Planetary Risk To Create Artificial BIG BANG Conditions In Lab
Old Dying Physicists want to go out with a BIG BANG
CERN LHC Blackhole Generator Online Soon
Many More Helpful Links And Video Links At Bottom Of Post
A Rational, Moral and Spiritual Dilemma
www.lhcfacts.org
Citizens Against The Large Hadron Collider is a non-profit organization
established for the purpose of using legal action to prevent the operation
of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) until further safety tests are conducted.
The LHC is a particle accelerator located on the France/Switzerland border;
it has been dubbed the largest, most expensive, most powerful experiment
ever attempted, certainly dwarfing all particle colliders ever built before,
both in terms of size and power.
Some experts fear that the risk of operating the LHC disproportionately
outweighs anything science might gain from this experiment. It is not
possible to know what the outcome of the experiment will be, but even CERN
(the European Organization for Nuclear Research) scientists concede that
there is a real possibility of creating destructive theoretical anomalies
such as miniature black holes, strangelets and deSitter space transitions.
These events have the potential to fundamentally alter matter and destroy
our planet.
http://lhcconcerns.com/
http://www.lhcdefense.org/
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/the_large_hadron_collider.html
Please see bottom of Post for many links from all sides of the debate.
In summer of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific experiment ever,
The Large Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth
located along the French and Swiss border with a total estimated
circumference of 17 miles will be the most powerful particle accelerator
in existence. The principal behind a particle accelerator is that by
speeding up the smallest elements of matter and then colliding
them together that they can be broken down further into even
smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once thought
to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be smashing these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV. Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space, this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Documentaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of all time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality, in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
evaporate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
evaporate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this document go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of support in the scientific community such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced, which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't evaporate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety assessment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative sense
any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or
to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
At that point two hypothetical scenarios exist. It would either maintain a
rather low orbit within our planet itself, slowly accreting mass at an
exponential rate, or it's possible it may "gravitate" to the direct center
of the planet in which case would accrete mass very quickly
Wait a second, I've also heard of other dangers like "Strange Matter",
"Bubble Nucleation", and "Magnetic Monopoles", why the focus on Black Holes?
It is true that these scenarios are also possible, however the problem with
representing them accurately is the true danger can never be quantified as
None of these have been observed, however that does not mean the risk is
zero. The very fact that this experiment is called an experiment is the
prove a hypothesis, if the results were truly known then this would not be
occurring in the first place.
The Large Hadron Collider is going to be forcing Protons together in a very
unnatural way, not only forcing them into groups of roughly 3,000 protons
for the collisions, but exposing them to temperatures colder than space as
well (1.9 K or -271 C). These types of collisions in a sense are unnatural
because collisions at those speeds and temperature would never happen,
meaning at the point of activation, no one will truly know these results
until they occur, in a matter of Femtoseconds we would be placing the entire
world in potential Danger. I've seen many websites calculate
possiblity/problem or a percentage of risk, however without many of these
theories as proof, there is no accurate way to calcuate them, So although
the risk potential is unknown, the risk can never be calculated at zero.
Although the credence given Strange Matter production, and it's subsequent
catalytic behavior by the scientific community is not always mutual. Certain
types of Strange Matter could be formed that would catalytically convert all
matter that it touches into strange matter as well, although this is not as
likely as creating a Black Hole, it's worth mentioning because it is a
possibility.
I want to learn more, where can I go?
We would recommend familiarizing yourself with all the issues, and
a basic understanding of Black Holes won't hurt either, of course we can
always recommend reading A Brief History of Time or the Universe in a
Nutshell there is always Google, for as many people as there are concerned,
there are people who believe the danger is zero, it's important for you, to
properly evaluate the facts and come to your own conclusion.
Thinking outside the box can't hurt either, We encourage you to Talk to a
Professor at a local college, write a Letter to CERN, do whatever you need
to do to inform yourself and make an informed decision, any contribution you
make, even discussing with one other single person in the world, has the
possibility to make all the difference.
The probability of them finding what they are looking for is near if not
ZERO. But there is a tiny chance of success.
The probability of some bad happening is NOT zero.
But there is a tiny chance of massive failure.
Most scientists agree on these two points.
The question is do they have the right to endanger the entire planet and
future generations to conduct this experiment?
A Rational, Moral and Spiritual Dilemma
by Otto E. Rossler, Division of Theoretical Chemistry, University of
Tubingen, F.R.G.
Abstract. A nightmarish situation, that can still be hoped to be averted in
time through communication within the scientific community, is drawn
attention to. Only a few weeks remain to find out whether the danger is real
or nothing but a mirage. After this time window is closed, it will take
years until we know whether or not we are doomed. The story line has all the
features of a best-selling novel. The reader is asked to contribute
constructively.
Introduction
A surreal situation is described as being present: the greatest conceivable
danger - the end of both history and future. This author still stands almost
alone with a few hard results that completely change the status of a
currently running public endeavor. What can and must rationally be done in
what order?
The most economic way would be to find out where the error lies in the
perceived new danger. Since time is running out, the help of other
scientists needs to be solicited. This proves not easy. The two major
science journals refuse to publish but equally steadfastly refuse to give a
scientific reason for their verdict. The unwillingness of the scientific
community to falsify the danger takes the public hostage. This remains true
even if the whole danger is only a mirage. To publicize the danger because
time is running out is a big decision. The legal term for doing something
like this is "instigation of irrational panic." Can anyone take this on his
or her shoulders?
Most likely, of course, the silent scientific establishment is well-advised
to ignore the danger. Nevertheless a younger-generation Nobel laureate in
physics recently suggested I should go on - even CERN would profit from the
publicity. But at the expense of many ordinary citizens being unnecessarily
scared to death, I added.
All I suggest to do is to convene an independent safety conference within
the remaining four to ten weeks time. This is very little to ask, but
exactly this bit is being refused. Why? It looks as if my scientific
proposals are so far-off that anyone who ever had a physics course grasps
this immediately while everyone else is deeply impressed by the arguments.
Or is this just a crime story made up to boost the publishing rights of an
unnamed person?
The Rational Dilemma
The scenario looks unbelievable enough: that a prestigious group of ten
thousand mostly young and enthusiastic scientists should unwittingly prepare
the greatest conceivable risk to the planet. Both "Trinity" and "Eniwetak" -
the two previous Russian-roulette feats of our species - would be dwarfed by
this third instance, without the protagonists' noticing.
You will have realized by now that I do not have a 100-percent proof to
offer - just probabilities. The latter can be summed up in 7 points. Those
points I have put into the Appendix for conciseness. Here let me at last say
what we are talking about. The experiment in question is called the LHC
("Large Hadron Collider") and is the most expensive and prestigious
non-military scientific endeavor ever. Hadrons (protons) are to be hauled
against each other at 14 times the power of the previous generation of
accelerators and 7 times the maximum energy ever achieved (2.000
Giga-electron-Volts).
The experiment at CERN is completely normal science as far as an
understanding of every single element is concerned. Only the implications
are unusual here since an unexplained natural threshold (called the
electro-weak unification barrier) will be surpassed for the first time. This
excites string theorists - perhaps the most sophisticated brand of
theoretical physicists - since they have a way to predict that even these
minuscule energies (compared to the Planck energy thought necessary before)
will be sufficient. Mini black-holes could then arise for the first time in
history.
Now my group has discovered that black holes possess a new property (lack of
evaporation). The two possibilities - that string theorists are right and
that we are right - taken together make for a volatile mixture. In such a
case it is the most rational thing for the world to convene a scientific
conference to discuss the joint implications before the experiment is
allowed to become overcritical.
If this plea is heeded, everything is going to be alright. For we will then
all know how the leading experts of the world sum up both their mutual
consensus and their currently unresolvable dissent. In either case everyone
will see clearly what is the most reasonable response to take. Since
rationality will be back, no dilemma will remain.
This statement concludes the rational dimension. What about the two other
dimensions?
The Moral Dilemma
This second aspect arises because of the following fact: If anyone points
out the rational danger, he or she cannot possibly know what this
information will entail in the longer run. People could be misled into
panicking, for example. But only if the experiment becomes overcritical
before a scientific consensus has been achieved (our current situation
unless a miracle happens). Or else after it has been done with the dreaded
outcome so that the catastrophe takes its course.
Unexpectedly, there exists a third dismal possibility: that the experiment
proceeds and no mini black holes are found. This profoundly distinguishes
the present situation from Trinity and Eniwetak (the first atomic fission
and fusion explosions which fortunately did not engage the atmosphere).
While the probability of a dismal outcome is perhaps no greater this time
than it was in the previous instances ("1 percent"), it will not be possible
to return to business as usual after the event, this time around: the danger
will not be over once the scientists declare that their attempt to produce
mini black holes has failed since they found no trace of them. For if mini
black holes do not evaporate as predicted, they also leave no decipherable
sign of their existence - at first. So a negative and a positive outcome are
indistinguishable.
This difference to its predecessors makes the current experiment a
guaranteed success: at causing an unprecedented amount of human suffering.
For there will be no way to explain to anyone that he or she is safe nor to
apologize for the suffering to expect. The rational fear unavoidably caused
can only be made to go away by convening a post-facto scientific world
conference that proclaims absolute safety. Unfortunately, every scientist
who would not agree with this preassigned verdict would act irresponsibly.
Since this will be obvious, no one would ever again believe a single word
from a scientist. Anti-scientific fundamentalism would have won - even if
the experiment proves innocuous in hindsight.
Hysterical irrational responses from the part of the up-until-now uninformed
majority of persons and countries on the planet would be preprogrammed for
years to come. This medieval angst is a danger almost as great as the
experiment itself. No one will be astonished in retrospect that 10,000
scientifically trained minds were unable to anticipate this predictable
consequence since this rational deduction belongs, not to the realm of the
natural sciences, but rather to that of the humanities and arts. The
oversight would nonetheless not be forgiven. This second catastrophe can
only be avoided through rapid action - the very safety conference already
proposed above.
The Spiritual Dilemma
The third dilemma is the most disturbing, perhaps. The experiment started
operation on April the first 2008 (end of the official countdown) and is
currently in the process of being booted-up in a step-by-step manner to
reach a planned 70 percent performance level this summer: 10,000 GeV (or
five times beyond the threshold of danger). Suppose for a moment that this
way of proceeding took place, not today but at any earlier time in history.
Spiritual questions would then inevitably have posed themselves.
Today, even thinking of this possibility ("sin"?) sounds crazy. Indeed, no
spiritual world leader - pope, emperor, helmsman - was or is ready to speak
up on behalf of their worldly and spiritual constituencies despite the fact
that they were informed in time. Why is this so?
There is an intelligible reason for this third phenomenon, too: It is
nothing but probabilities that are at stake here. To decide on such matters
is traditionally entrusted to the military - this is what they have been
hired to deal with in the first place: sandbox games. Only Gorbachev and
Raissa deviated from this preformed path once. Their example illustrates the
danger we are presently in: They realized that the equilibrium of deterrence
implied a remaining finite risk of bilateral annihilation, but no one
currently appreciates their decision. This shows in a nutshell that
humankind is no longer able even to notice when it is rescued:
Kindynagnosia - the inability to recognize danger - is a collective
disturbance caused by mental synchronization. Human beings are still, or
once again are, the proverbial lambs of the spiritual. Who would not love
them for their innocence?
An Enlightened Response Is Called For
The spiritual dimension goes still farther. Everyone knows today that for
the first time in history we possess the tools to do away with the cruelest
inequalities on the planet. The computer and the Internet have made this
miracle possible: Work done once can be multiplied and transported free of
charge. Information has become cost-free. Nevertheless project Lampsacus
remains unknown for 14 years (Google and Wikipedia which implement elements
of it notwithstanding). In a historical parallel, the
computer-facilitated medical revolution is increasingly withheld from the
less well-to-do public even in privileged countries while student fees are
re-imposed in defiance of a UNO decision without protest. No one seems to
feel his own human rights any more and hence also not those of his neighbor.
The notion of cruelty - something that must never happen in the universe -
has slipped from public consciousness. Most everybody agrees that someone
who rescues people from drowning (like Elias Bierdel) is a "Schlepper."
If the notion of dignity (for what is killed by cruelty is dignity) has
miraculously slipped from public consciousness: why should anyone be
expected to stand up for the future of his neighbor's children since his own
children and their future are no longer on his mind? Showing love is almost
a taboo topic. But it is the young child - the toddler - who invents
benevolence out of nothing because no one in the cosmos is wiser or greater.
Possessing benevolence and being a person are one and the same thing.
Make the test and ask your child whether the LHC emperor has any clothes on.
He/she will ask you back to explain what you mean since Hans-Christian
Andersen is no longer well known. The returned question will enable you to
tell the truth: "Darling, no one seems to know for sure - only after a
scientific conference will anyone be able to say." Then your child will ask
you what you did to make this conference happen. Will you reply: "Darling, I
am not a scientist"?
To conclude, I ask you to forgive me for stirring up your waking day. Buddha
would do the same thing (now I am crazy!) and Jacob and Martin Luther.
Notwithstanding the fact that most hopefully - knock on wood - the danger
does not exist. The Appendix demonstrates that we still can find out in
time. A petition inviting every parent to sign is on the Internet (just
google "Honey, I shrunk the earth!").
Acknowledgments
Kensei Hiwaki, George Lasker and Hugh Gash encouraged me to write this
paper. I thank Gottfried Mayer for his early criticism and Artur Schmidt,
Joachim Frank, Andy Hilgartner, Roland Maurmair, Wolfgang Fedyszin, Gabriele
Schröter, Heino Breilmann, Enrico Pellegrino, Michael Langer, Frank Kuske
and Dieter Fröhlich for discussions. For J.O.R.
Appendix:
Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference
1) Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively
infinitely far away in spacetime according to a new theorem in the
Schwarzschild metric ("Â-theorem") [1].
2) Black holes are effectively uncharged because of the Â-theorem [1].
Therefore, charged elementary particles cannot at the same time be black
holes (or point-shaped). Hence nonpointshaped mini-objects exist already.
This makes mini black holes much more likely.
3) Mini black holes grow exponentially rather than linearly inside the
earth: "miniquasar principle" [2]. Hence the time needed by a resident mini
black hole to eat the earth is maximally shortened - perhaps down to "50
months." This contrasts with the "50 million years" obtained assuming linear
growth by BBC-Horizon [3] and CERN's analogous "5 billion years" [4].
4) CERN [4,5] counters that if the hoped-for mini black holes are stable as
claimed [1], equal stable particles must arise naturally by ultra-fast
cosmic-ray protons colliding with planetbound protons. This is correct.
However, there remains a fundamental difference: only the man-made ones are
"symmetrically generated" and hence dangerous. For they alone are slow
enough with respect to the earth that one of them (at less than 11 km/sec)
can take residence - in contrast to the almost-luminal speeds of their
natural cousins.
5) CERN's counterargument could still hold true for more compact celestial
bodies than the earth - such that their lifetimes would be drastically
reduced in defiance of observation if mini black holes exist. A quantitative
bound can be derived from this argument: Take white dwarfs first. They are
105 times denser than earth while being the same size. Hence their
cross-section for a mini black hole passing-through is by a factor of 105
greater than earth's. They remain safe if no more than 104 eating-type
collisions with a quark await a fast natural mini black hole entering them
(so it can pass through). Why? Because the energy of 14.000 GeV pumped into
two colliding protons at CERN is 14.000 times the rest mass of a proton (1
GeV). Therefore a mini black hole born of two quarks (one from each proton)
likewise has about 14,000 times the rest mass of a quark. Hence by momentum
conservation, only about 14,000 (104) collisions with a resident quark can
be survived by a fast natural mini black hole of the LHC energy without
losing its almost-luminal speed. If this bound applies to white dwarfs, no
more than about 0.1 collisions must await a CERN mini black hole on its
first passage through the earth. This estimate appears plausible.
6) The just-obtained number presupposes that the nonlinear growth process of
point (3) is inapplicable if very dense matter is passed through at
almost-luminal speeds. The by very many orders of magnitude shorter
collision intervals let this prediction appear justified.
7) Finally, neutron stars have a by another factor of 109 greater density
than white dwarfs. Since they are a thousand times smaller, they are a
million times more susceptible. But they are protected by quantum coherence
effects of the superfluidity type: so mini black holes can pass without
friction. The superfluidity extends to the "inner crust" [6].
In order to exclude that man-made mini black holes endanger the earth, it
will be necessary to falsify the first of the 7 points, or if this is not
possible the second, and so forth. Until this task has been solved, no one
can shoulder the responsibility to give the "green light" to the LHC's
crossing the 2.000 GeV barrier, as this is currently planned to do within a
few weeks. It thus appears that only an immediate safety conference can save
the LHC experiment.
Links..
LHC Defense
http://www.lhcdefense.org/
LHC Concerns
http://lhcconcerns.com/
Large Hadron Collider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
CERN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN
Some CNN Articles
http://search.cnn.com/search?query=lhc&type=news&sortBy=date&intl=false
Some Fear Debut Of Powerful Atom Smasher
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/30/doomsdaycollider.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch
National Geograhic - The God Particle
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text
BBC News - Lab Fireball May Have Been Black Hole
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm
An Open Letter To Stephen Hawking
http://lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=72
Black Holes On Demand (George Street Journal)
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/George_Street_Journal/vol26/26GSJ10a.html
CBC News - LHC
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/science/lhc.html
New York Times - LHC Dangerous?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/s...25f6782d7029e7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
LHC Legal Defense Fund
http://www.lhcdefense.org/
http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_legal.php
LHC Risk Evaluation Forum
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/
MySpace STOP CERN Website
http://www.myspace.com/stopcern
YouTube music Video Of The Atom Smasher (LHC) Black Hole Generator
French Build Doomsday Machine
http://www.misunderstooduniverse.com/France_Builds_Doomsday_Machine.htm
U-Tube Videos
Documentery
Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [1 of 3]
Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [2 of 3]
Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [3 of 3]
The Large Hadron Collider: The End Of The Universe?
Safety Of The Large Hadron Collider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider
What Is The LHC?
http://www.uslhc.us/What_is_the_LHC
High Res Photos Of The LHC During Construction
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/the_large_hadron_collider.html
Radio Interview- CERN Dangers
First hour guest, physicist Dr. Walter L. Wagner spoke about possible
dangers from upcoming experiments conducted by CERN's Large Hadron
Collider, and an accident that occurred there a number of months ago.
Assurances that all will be fine at CERN are not borne out by the evidence,
he said, and a lawsuit to postpone testing is proceeding.
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/6992/
Doomsday Debate Update From May 30th 2008
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/30/1078538.aspx
CERN uses 666 in new Logo
http://www.lhcfacts.org/?tag=666
Large Hardron Collider "Probably" Won't Destroy Earth
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/24/large-hadron-collide.html?referer=sphere_related_content
About Black Holes
http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q1
"It's not so unlikely that the LHC could produce black holes,
but it's almost certainly true that if it produces those black holes,
they are going to evaporate very quickly"
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/08/15/f-burgess-lhc.html