The Standard Model is not a complete theory of particle physics, and does not include gravity, hence does not cater for the graviton.

At the moment, “we’re” working through the four fundemental interactions of the Stong Nuclear, Electromagnetic, Weak, and Gravitation forces.

For the moment, gravity is (I understand) considered to be adequately covered by general relativity, which any (gravitational) theory ultimately reduces to, but there are further particle models postulated which could link the two (relativity and the Standard Model) together. There seems to be a problem in the Standard Model due to infinities caused by quantum effect, but these can be catered for by using String Theory – but that’s where my knowledge runs out, string theory taxes my maths capabilities and moves into “hand-waving”.

Thanks for the thought, I haven’t come across the graviton for a while.

I’m also slightly concerned that a poke around some of the items, eg [10] quickly referred to Trinity (the A-Bomb “the earth will catch fire – we’ll all be killed” scare) which not only didn’t happen, but was in fact a load of absolute tosh.

I may be wrong, and most probably am since I’m not employed as a theoretical physicist, but Hawking Radiation is not “debunked”, but is “debated”, as we cannot currently observe it experimantally, so with such a basic error, I won’t be reading too much more into the above, but am grateful for the listing for anyone else that may wish to read further.

The safety opposition alleges CERN is not being fully open and honest about the facts, about the certainty of safety or the credibility of the scientists who calculate a reasonable probability of catastrophic danger.

The safety arguments are based on disputed physics including Hawking Radiation (refuted by multiple papers as flawed conjecture, does not exist[1][3]) and disputed cosmic ray arguments (if micro black holes are created by head-on collissions in particle colliders they might travel too slowly to escape Earth, unlike cosmic ray created particles that may not be stopped by any of the stable bodies we see in the universe[7][9][10]).

A Brief History of LHC safety issues follows:

In 2004 CERN announced the possibility that micro black holes might be created by the Large Hadron Collider possibly at a rate of one per second but believed they would evaporate.[2]

Several physicists wrote papers concluding that black holes do not radiate.[1][3][10]

In 2007, former cosmic ray researcher and Nuclear Safety Officer Walter L. Wagner discovered flaws with CERN’s safety arguments. He believes that the Large Hadron Collider might create dangerous particles including strangelets possibly with Earth destroying potential, he filed a US Federal law suit to require proof of safety after CERN failed to deliver a promised safety report.[5]

In response, CERN scientists created a safety report in 2008 that argues no real chance of danger. [6]

After review, German Astrophysicist (Physics PHD) Dr. Rainer Plaga argues that CERN’s new report does not prove safety. Dr. Plaga proposes that CERN follow additional safety procedures to help reduce the danger, including proceeding slowly. [7]

On August 14th, CERN’s Dr. Jonathan Ellis stated that there is no real danger and they will not proceed slowly, collisions will begin in a few weeks. [8] (Collisions are probably not possible that soon, CERN does not tend to meet their own time schedules).

Another German scientist famous for contributions to Chaos theory, founder of Endophysics and visiting professor of physics Dr. Otto E. Rössler theorizes that if micro black holes are created in the Large Hadron Collider, they could grow large enough to destroy Earth in decades or centuries.[9]

Dr. Rössler requests that an emergency safety conference be held before collisions begin.[11]

On August 26, 2008, suit was filed against CERN in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg alleging the Large Hadron Collider poses grave safety risks.[12]

[1] xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0304042 Do black holes radiate?. Dr. Adam Helfer (2003)

[2] cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29199 The case for mini black holes, CERN Courier (2004)

[3] arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607137, On the existence of black hole evaporationyet again, Prof. VA Belinski (2006)

[4] http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_expertssay.php What the Experts Say (2008)

[5] http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_legal.php US Federal Lawsuit Filings – Walter L. Wagner (2008)

[6] public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/Safety-en.html The safety of the LHC, Web Site – CERN (2008)

[7] arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.1415v1.pdf On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders – Rainer Plaga Rebuttal (2008)

[8] http://www.lhcfacts.org/?p=72 CERN?s Dr. Ellis tells only half of the story – LHCFacts.org (2008)

[9] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROESSLERMINIBLACKHOLE.pdf Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk, Prof. Dr. Otto Rossler (2008)

[10] http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf A Rational and Moral and Spiritual Dilemma – Otto E. Rössler Safety Counter Arguments (2008)

[11] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider Safety of the Large Hadron Collider (2008)

[12] lhc-concern.info/?page_id=28 European Legal Action (2008)

[13] http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/risk/2006/00000026/00000001/art00006 Scientific Peer Review to Inform Regulatory Decision Making: A European Perspective (2006)