AWT and LHC safety risk

The LHC "black hole" issue disputed (1, 2, 3) and recently reopened (1, 2, 3) is manifestation of previously disputed fact, every close community becomes sectarian undeniably and separated from needs of rest of society like singularity by total reflection mechanism. Ignorance of fundamental ideas (Heim theory) or discoveries (cold fusion, surface superconductivity, "antigravity") on behalf of risky and expensive LHC experiments illustrates increasing gap between priorities of physical community and interests of the rest of society.

The power of human inquisitiveness is the problem here: as we know from history, scientists as a whole never care about morality, just about technical difficulties. If they can do something, then they will do it - less or more lately, undeniably. No matter whether it's nuclear weapon, genetically engineered virus and/or collider. Which makes trouble at the moment, the results of such experiments can threaten the whole civilization. We should know about this danger of human nature and we should be prepared to suffer consequences. Max Tegmark’s “quantum suicide” experiment doesn't say, how large portion of the original system can survive its experiment.

So, what's the problem with LHC experiments planned? Up to this day, no relevant analysis, evaluating all possible risks and their error bars is publicly available. Existing safety analysis and reports (1, 2) are very rough and superficial, as they doesn't consider important risk factors and scenarios, like formation of charged black holes or surface tension phenomena of dense particle clusters. There's an obstinate tendency to start LHC experiments without such analysis and to demonstrate first successful results even without thorough testing phase. Because the load of accelerator was increased over 80% of nominal capacity during first days impatiently, the substantial portion of cooling system crashed due the massive spill (100 tons) of expensive helium and monitoring systems of whole LHC are in extensive upgrade and replacement to avoid avalanche propagation of the same problem over whole accelerator tube in future.

Up to these days, publicity has no relevant and transparent data about probability of supercritical black hole formation during expected period of LHC lifetime and about main factors, which can increase total risk above acceptable level, in particular the risk associated to:

1. Extreme asymmetry of head-to-head collisions, during which a zero momentum/speed black holes can be formed, so they would have a lot of time to interact with Earth with compare to natural protons from cosmic rays. The collision geometry is has no counterpart in nature, as it's a product of long-term human evolution, not natural processes.
   
   
2. Avalanche-like character of multi-particle collisions. When some piece of matter appears in accelerator line, then whole content of LHC will feed it by new matter incoming from both directions by nearly luminal speed, i.e. in much faster way with compare to collisions of natural cosmic rays appearing in stratosphere
   
   
3. Proximity of dense environment. With compare to stratospheric collisions of gamma rays, the metastable products of LHC collisions can be trapped by gravitational field of Earth and to interact with it in long term fashion. Some models are considering, the black hole can move in Earth core for years without notion, thus changing the Earth into time-bomb for further generations.
   
   
4. Formation of charged and magnetic black hole. As we know from theory, real black holes should always exhibit nonzero charge and magnetic field as the result of their fast surface rotation. While force constant of electromagnetic force is about 10^39 times stronger then those of gravitational interaction (and the force constant of nuclear force is even much higher), the omitting of such possibility from security analysis is just a illustration of deep incompetence of high energy physics and it looks rather like intention, than just omission. It's not so surprising, as every introduction of such risk into safety analysis would lead into increasing of LHC risk estimations in many orders of magnitude, making them unfeasible in the eyes of society.
   
   
5. Formation of dense clusters of quite common neutral particles, which are stable well outside from LHC energy range (presumably the neutrons). This risk is especially relevant for ALICE experiment, consisting of head-to-head collisions of heavy atom nuclei, during which the large number of free neutrons can be released in the form of so called neutron fluid. The signs of tetra-neutron existence supports this hypothesis apparently. The neutron fluid would stabilize neutrons against decay due its strong surface tension by analogous way, like the neutrons inside neutron stars. The risk of neutron fluid formation is connected to possible tendency to expel protons from atom nuclei in contact with neutron fluid, thus changing them into droplets of another neutron fluid by avalanche like mechanism, which was proposed for strangelet risk of LHC originally.
   
   
6. Surface tension effects of large dense particle clusters, like the various gluonium and quarkonium states which CAN stabilize even unstable forms of mater, like neutral mesons and other hadrons up to levels, they can interact with ordinary matter by mechanism above described under formation of another dense particle clusters, so called strangelets (sort of tiny quark stars, originally proposed by Ed Witten). The evidence of these states was confirmed recently for tetra- and pentaquark exotic states. By AWT the surface tension phenomena are related to dark matter and supersymmetry effects observed unexpectedly in Fermilab (formation of di muon states well outside of collider pipe), as we can explain later. If this connection will be confirmed, we aren't expected to worry about strangelet formation anymore - simply because we observed it already!

With compare to black hole formation, the risks of strangelet and neutron fluid aren't connected to collapse of Earth into gravitational singularity, but to release of wast amount of energy (comparable to those of thermonuclear fusion), during which of most of matter would be vaporized and expelled into cosmic space by pressure of giant flash of accretion radiation.

As I explained already, cosmic ray arguments aren’t wery relevant to highly asymmetric LHC collisions geometry, so it has no meaning to repeat them again and again. This geometry - not the energy scale - is what makes the LHC collisions so unique and orthogonal to extrapolations based on highly symmetrical thermodynamics. It’s product of very rare human evolution. Whole AWT is just about probability of various symmetries.

So we are required to reconsider LHC experiments in much deeper, publicly available and peer reviewed security analysis. We should simply apply scientific method even to security analysis of scientific experiments - no less, no more. By my opinion, these objections are trivial and mostly evident - but no safety analysis has considered them so far from apparent reason: not to threat the launch of LHC. So now we can just ask, who is responsible for this situation and for lack of persons responsible for relevant safety analysis of LHC project of 7 billions € in total cost?

Safety is the main concern of LHC experiments. You can be perfectly sure, LHC experiments are safe because of many theories. After all, the main purpose of these experiments is to verify these theories.

Isn't the only purpose of LHC to verify it's own safety at the very end? Is it really enough for everybody?