I welcome Professor Doctor Otto E. Roessler to this new interview about the danger at the CERN LHC, the Large Hardon Collider in Geneva. Welcome, Otto. 
Welcome, Armin.
We are having this interview in exactly the same location we had the first interview a few years ago, at the University of Tuebingen in Germany,
and in these years between the two interviews quite a few things happened.
So we would like to discuss these and a few new things. And make a new point on the developments at the CERN LHC. 
Quite some few years ago Wagner and Sancho, Sancho is this scientist and Wagner also in the US they have made a complaint at the court of Hawaii in order to stop the LHC. 
They lost. 
Few years later Gabriele Schroeter went up to the highest German court to stop the CERN LHC and she lost. 
Then a compliant was made at the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva and failed. The CERN LHC seems untouchable. 
You agree, Professor?
Yes. That is the phenomenon, yes.
It is impressive of course. Nothing imposes more than being unimpressable.
I remember when Luis Sancho and Walter Wagner in the US they made this complaint we where in contact and they asked me to find a person
- in the US there are these professionals, I do not remember what they are called, 
but they bring court papers to a company in order to inform them that a complaint
And in Geneva I found this similar person to the US - a ‘Hussier’ it is called in Geneva
- it is a kind of special lawyer with a special certification from the State and he can do that, theoretically. 
I was quite impressed. I gave him 500 Swiss Francs and he said “Yeah, I do it, I do it, it is interesting”
and he found it himself quite interesting to do and then after he went there we had a last meeting
and it was quite strange. He was very surprised, because usually he is given a slight bit of respect in his work
but when he came to the CERN with the paper they just said No. 
We don’t need to let you in, we don’t need to come out, and we don’t need to take these papers. Good-bye, Sir. 
And someway I think this is another example of how untouchable they are. 
It’s a state of its own. 
Yes. I think they call it supranational.
It is on the same level as the UN. And both are very closely… they like each other, so to speak.  
Why do they like each other? Because they are both international organizations?
And it is automatic. It's such a small circle of high-ranking people; they have to like each other. Why not?
And could this be part of the attraction of the of the LHC, of the CERN, that it’s so international, it’s global; it’s about peaceful, scientific experiments?
Yes. And the most beautiful science of all of them is physics and the people of physics are very well educated and very humble 
usually in their manners so the whole thing is something very, very positive. 
And you are not exactly as positive about this as they are. Why?
No. I would say that science is wonderful and that it is great if one has a chance to be supported in doing something important. 
And CERN is lucky to have this status. And as long as they follow scientific principles, everything is fine.
Only when they go beyond what is science, the customs of science, one of them is openness, the other would be honesty, 
if one decided not to follow the usual standards of science, then the whole thing becomes a little bit hard to support, so to speak. 
For example, if you are building a bridge in one of the countries of the West and of the East as well,
you have to get certificates that this is safe what you are doing. 
And very strangely, CERN – and this is about the only thing I would criticize with them – does not renew their seven years old safety report.
While even the seven years old safety report they did was done by their own staff, which is quite interesting. 
I mean, if I have a company and I want to assess the security, usually I get an external company that independently assesses the security.
This would of course be possible but it has not been done. But still, to have safety report is much better than to have no safety report.
And now this safety report is seven years old, they are doubling their energy, they plan to double the energy very soon, 
maybe on the 8th of May I was told this morning and in that case before the 8th of May would, according to international standards, be forced,
would be expected to – very humbly – to present a new safety report, which takes into account new results which where not available seven years ago. 
For example, building the atomic bomb took less than six years between the letter from Einstein to the American President and the final result, which made Einstein weep.
That was only six years. So now we have seven years where scientific progress is not been considered by CERN in the context of its new experiment. 
Which is something very strange to the World. And that is essentially my only message. 
That I would like to see a written safety report in which CERN is disclaiming the dangers that have been presented scientifically in scientific publications in the meantime.
But that report would have to be published again and reviewed by peer scientists. Right?
Ok. Yes. But, you see, being afraid even of presenting a not quite clean report is even worse than having a not quite clean report. 
I understand, yeah. On the other side, if I would be one of these ten thousands of scientists, well paid, driving my bicycle in Geneva and making what I love most to do,
scientific experiments, I would maybe also be inclined to say, well, if there is anything that becomes dangerous to us potentially, we wont go that way. 
Not if you have signed a document which forces you to keep your mouth shut. 
You think they have?
I mean, even German Professors have to sign such documents. Why should the CERN people not sign such documents? 
Did you have to sign such a document?
I never did, but that was my problem once.
Really? It was your problem that you did not want to sign a document?
It was not even shown to me. Maybe I would have signed it, if they had this level of fairness. So maybe CERN is more advanced in that respect.
It is true that over the years I’ve been interested and working on the subject, I’ve been always impressed by the fact that how can so many scientists be on a project
and not one from them shows an openness to criticism or to dangers that are possible,
but they seem like a homogenous group of people which all have the same voice and the same ideas and the same position. 
It’s a very interesting sociological phenomenon.
Or put in another way I looked at something which is also a controversial subject but I would take this now as an example,
if we look at whistleblowers like Edward Snowden or Julian Assange – we don’t have that at the CERN. 
We have no whistleblowers apart from you. 
You are a bit of whistleblower in a certain way. Because you are also part of the scientific community. 
I call myself the ships boy on the big ship. What was the name, the very big one, you know, the Titanic. 
You are the first ships boy that is also co-founder of the Chaos Theory. Usually ships boys don’t found Chaos Theories. 
Yes. But one does not talk about younger children, who sometimes have become saints in the Catholic Church. Even young people can be at a very high level. Somehow this was not the right way to put it…
I see. I see. My next question would be: Do you still consider – I mean, when I did the last interview with you, maybe I have to backtrack a bit,
I had quite a lot of media attention because of this interview and you where also invited to I believe three new interviews afterwards, one with RT, 
and there was one interesting long article actually in The Register, it is an online publication in the UK I believe,
where the title was The CERN LHC will explode the Sun and the Moon and you where quoted from that interview because you said to me that one option which I would
recommend would be to build the CERN LHC on the Moon.
Yeah. Which is very expensive of course. 
Actually that was interesting because it was actually discussed in some forums between some scientists and they said it is not a bad option but it is too expensive.
Do you still consider moving the CERN LHC to the Moon a viable alternative?
Yes. Even though it would be so expensive that it would postpone the experiment for quite a few years. That’s the price to pay, so to speak. 
And would you still consider that alternative also a safe alternative, based on the know-how you have?
Yes. The risk would be so much smaller that probably of one would take a vote on the planet the planet would say yes. We do it together. We shoulder it. 
Stephen Hawking, a very smart person we all know…
… we saw the movie…
… apparently also thinks now that the LHC is dangerous but only if it has the size of the Earth. Does this statement make any sense to you?
Yes. It is promoting CERN in the public consciousness of the planet. 
Ok. It is a kind of advertisement of the CERN. Because interestingly some media, I’ve read some articles that say like, Hawking says that the CERN is dangerous, 
it could destroy the Universe and then, when you read the whole article it says, but only if the CERN LHC has the size of the Earth. So, this is quite interesting.
It is an ingenious strategy, so to speak, if you are absolutely sure that there is no danger whatsoever involved. Which is nice to see and to watch. If you are so sure. 
At our last interview, Otto, you said that you would be interested in having a discussion directly with Stephen Hawking. Would you still be interested in that personally?
Very much so. I admire Stephen Hawking very much and he happens to be a friend of a person whom I consider a friend in science and I know several persons who are quite close to him
and I have a very deep respect for him and plays the role of a saint nowadays and everyone has to say he deserves it.
I mean, he is one of the few people who have proven that their resilience and mental strength and probably also kindness are superhuman. 
I agree with that, Otto. The only thing I would say is he has made science, his areas of science much more popular to many people also by the books he wrote and by the interviews, by his apparitions. 
The only question is, is he too optimistic, too positive, and does he in general not see much danger. 
I can understand, there is for example this Mars One mission where apparently these 10000 people have inscribed themselves so they could participate in a one-way trip to Mars.
From which they would never be able to come back because the technology is not ripe for that and they are basically accepting to leave this Earth and 
die somewhere between Earth and Mars, I suppose, because I don’t think they will ever get there. But they still want to do it. They are very eager to do it. 
They are heroes.
So this thinking of maybe being a hero and discoveries reminds me a bit of the old times with the ship when they discovered America, Christopher Columbus, 
this all sounds very adventurous, exciting, rewarding – is that maybe a reason why somebody like Stephen Hawking doesn’t see the dangers that science also poses? 
No, I’m not sure. He might be so deeply imbued in the scientific techniques that he is a master of that he cannot doubt these techniques. 
It is general relativity. Which is maybe the most difficult mathematical version of theoretical physics. Very few people manage to get good exams, 
good enough to have a career in that area. So it combines the highest level of mathematic which is hard to achieve with the highest level of physics 
which is a science so it two kinds of genius you need to be accepted in that community. The whole community believes it is a sacred community.
And therefore it is very hard to avoid a consensus. 
But we agree that for example the atom bomb, just to take one example, was a scientific discovery, in itself nor bad nor good, but then was used for the bad. 
Yes. And Einstein thought one would need it as a deterrent and then it was suddenly used against his will and he felt betrayed but also responsible
because it was his mind child, so he was the first victim besides the people who where killed by the bomb.
But your main theory, Otto, your theory about the CERN LHC is that a stable Black Hole would be produced.
No, that is not my idea. That is CERN’s claim. Yes. And I can agree that this sounds reasonable.
They say they would produce them. But that they wont be stable. 
Exactly. So they think it would be wonderful to produce them, because they will immediately Hawking radiate, as is the term, because he found this radiation, 
and this equation is the real safe guard or the real guarantee that CERN has with a signature from Hawking that this is not dangerous. 
CERN was claiming in that safety report that let’s assume Hawking radiation did not exist, would then be there some danger, 
which sounds very fair, but everybody knew in his background, in this mind, of course the radiation does exist so we are safe. 
Ok. That sound to me like I would believe in ferries and I would speed up with my Ferrari to 350 and I’m absolutely sure that when the wall comes
that there is a guardian angel, a ferry coming and she will save me. It sounds a bit like that.
Exactly. Yes, it is a medieval phenomenon. But at the same time it is a consensus type phenomenon as in a science called sociology, which deals which such phenomena. 
It is very easy to explain that when very, very many people have made a consensus it is very, very hard to lick against this consensus.
If you have hard evidence, it will take 30 years, Max Plank said,
until the old generation of scientists has died out before the new truth can be accepted, even if it is 30 years old.		
Do you think that that humanity has thirty years left?
I hope so, yes. I mean, some people think it is less, even Stephen Hawking sometimes talks bleakly about the future of humankind. 
He is one of the first people actually who seriously proposed to make space colonies – not just for the fun of it but because
this would be a way to guarantee the survival of humanity. So he is very deep. 
He is my ally. There are two Stephen Hawking so to speak. One is my closest friend and ally and the other is CERN’s ally.
And these two somehow fit into one mind.
It would be great if we could be together persuade Stephen Hawking to talk once in an atmosphere of friendship. 
But this idea of being able to colonize the Universe; when I look at the latest adventures of some companies who tried just to go to out of the Earth atmosphere
they didn’t even go to the Moon, they just exploded. Is the technology ready to populate the Universe?
In principle yes, and if one would really put much into such an effort it would also create so much enthusiasm that it would finance itself so to speak. 
So it would not be at the expense of the poor inhabitants of our planet, which is the majority.
So we have two options, Otto, one is to build the LHC on the Moon and one is that all humanity leaves the Earth and we continue.
Yes. Unfortunately not all of humanity would be part of it. It would only be a select few which would be chosen to leave it, so not many people would really profit.
I am not so sure that would include you and me.
Not very likely. But nothing is better than nothing at all, that is an old saying, you see, and if the whole planed would die
more happily if one could know that the tradition will not be entirely lost. It’s like  parents having children knowing they have to die but that their children can go on living. 
So the planet could have children in the future. Which is very, very important. 
You mentioned the word magic and it brings me to one question. The CERN LHC and I think it’s Noble price eager particle scientists remind me a bit of 
Goethe’s poem ‘Der Zauberlehrling’, in English ‘The Sorcerers Apprentice’ – you too?
Yes, of course. Absolutely. It is a human condition. And if you wish it is a temptation if history provides such an opportunity for consensus building
and getting together in a big, very high-level scientific consensus.
But maybe they cannot control what they are doing. Like in the Sorcerers Apprentice his boss, the old Sorcerer, he went out that evening, 
he did experiments with some magic, finally the whole castle was under water and he completely panicked until the old Sorcerer comes home and with two, 
three words everything becomes calm again. So apparently we have the power like the Sorcerer apprentice had 
had to use some magic because of some books we have some experience, but are we able to control it?
You put your finger on the right spot. But all what we discussed so far is still hypothetical. As if there was no evidence whether Hawking radiation exists or not.
But if one has very hard evidence that it has been disproved, then suddenly it is not just a matter of probabilities
or judgment or choosing between possibilities which both are not well known. It suddenly becomes a matter
of choosing between something which is proven to be dangerous and refraining from doing that.
0:29:08.000,0:19:16.00
And this has happened unless one person on the planet can prove that the counterproof to Hawking radiation is false. 
And there is only one person who is good enough to do that. Based on the publications that exist. And that is Stephen Hawking himself.
So what we have here, if you wish, is not a battle between ten thousand scientists at CERN and a minority opinion
which happens to be the group that it centered around Tuebingen and some places in the US, like Hawaii. 
Hawaii was the first place where such thoughts emerged. But that looks like to tiny insects against a big lion. No chance.
The 2 US scientists Sancho and Wagner their first action was not against the LHC in Geneva but against the Hadron Collider in the US, 
which was apparently older and smaller. At that time I think also this older movie ‘The Black Hole’ was produced
and it was in reference to the US collider. At least it was at the time that the US collider was still in function.
And of course nothing has happened so far with these old collision machines and one could extrapolate that probably nothing will happen also in the future. 
This is a good point, Otto. Because there is this huge tunnel and in this tunnel they have this quite
very, very big Alice they call it and CMS, they are tools that allow data to be harnessed from this collider.
… and they look like cathedrals… wonderful.
Very impressive, exactly. And my question there is I read that from all the data that is produced during collisions only ten percent can actually be analyzed. 
Much less.
Even less? How much do you think that is?
I have no precise estimate. It could be one percent. It could be much, much less.
Means that 99% or more of the data will not be analyzed. Means that if the interesting data happens to be in the part that is not analyzed, how can we know? 
How can we know if there is Hawking radiation, how can we know if there is Black Hole, because we don’t see it. 
But of course one could try to make it. And maybe one will see it. That is the hope that is the excuse. As long as one has no theory, what will happen. 
First of the probability that they are being produced, that this probability can ben shown to be much higher than CERN pretends to believe so. 
At the moment, while at the beginning, they believed it is enough to build the machine. 
That was one of the reasons to build this beautiful machine. Higgs Boson was the secondary reason at the time. 
Now it was found, which is wonderful. But unfortunately, Hawking radiation has not yet been found so the main motivation is still going on. 
And CERN is playing this down. But in reality the triumph for Hawking that is being expected is
still the real motivation for the upgrade of CERN. And somehow it is beautiful. 
A whole community is trying to prove that one ingenious individual was right. And this is an old myth also on the planet. 
It’s a messianic type of thinking is behind this. And Hawking is almost like Jesus on the Cross.  He is a holy man.
Based on the know-how that most scientists at the CERN are basically Atheists, as far as I know…
I doubt it.
I heard so. But basically what I want to say with this what you’re saying sounds nearly a bit religious. So can we see the CERN LHC as a kind of religious tool in a certain way?
It is a spiritual tool, yes. The planet has lost so much religion except the one of the 3 Abrahamic religions about which people don’t talk much at the moment. Because it’s too many. 
The Spanish press is actually a bit critical of the CERN I think and they often used to call it the “God Machine” in their articles. 
And I think I had a bit the feeling that what they want to express is that we want to play God with the machine.
Yes. And the cathedral shows it’s related. It’s like a Aztec myth. But the Aztec myth is usually misunderstood. 
As I recently learned. There were people who where sacrificed and their hearts where taken out and so on.
Meaning they weren’t such nice people.
It looks very cruel, but I recently learned the truth about this. So in reality, these were self sacrifices to make sure that the next cycle of the Universe gets started. 
So then we are all Jesuses. There is a very close parallelism between the old Aztec and
I don’t know exactly the names of the Indian tribes which all had this religion – but it is a very, very Christian religion.
And Christianity wiped out the real competitor in South America. And somehow this is also very moving and one should not be critical of it. 
So the sobriety of scientific work, finding something new, in many rooms with many little isolated people, with many little computers. 
But not combined. This type of science is still possible. Somehow it got into oblivion.
It is not true that 10000 scientists are more intelligent than one scientist. It never was the case.
But 10000 scientists could start to discuss a new result with a so-called dissident.
Even if the dissident is not a dissident but has results, which are worthy of being taken seriously. But Hawking alone would be sufficient. I don’t need 10000.
Your last few sentences went a bit into the spiritual, into the philosophical area and this gives me a good incentive to show this book. 
You have been published in this book as far as I understand. And Ali Sanayei, I hope I say this right, he published this book.
It is called ‘Chaotic Harmony’, ‘A Dialog about Physics, Complexity and Life’ and it contains 25 interviews with you.
I understood from the content of the book; you are a person who is not just interested in one area of science. You are more like a multi discipline scientist. Is that correct?
Yes. As I call it: I have no character in science. 
Do you think that a multi discipline scientist is a better or a safer scientist, because he takes different areas into account and gets the big picture. 
For example, in your last interview you told me that with medicine when you became a Doctor you were asked to do the
0:37:58.000,0:37:00.00
… remind me of the exact name… the oath of the Doctor profession…
The Hippocratic Oath.
And you said that it would be good if the Hippocratic Oath or something similar also went for particle scientists. 
Yes. I once had a nice experience of flying from Santa Fe to Los Alamos where it is nice when you fly there with a small plane when you suddenly land 
without going down because Los Alamos is so high. That was one surprise.
The other surprise was that my fellow travellers, about 5 only, very small plane, talked about weapon physics during the flight. 
And I realized how much they loved their science. Weapons physics is a real of physics and it is a very exiting branch and Leonardo, 
he was one of the first to be a very great designer of weapons for his Government. So physics contains many sub-disciplines. 
If the planet were already unified, if elections as they were instituted in South Africa by the greatest living saint of memory I can think of. 
What was his name?
You talk about Mandela.
Exactly. He found a way to make sure that without changing the poverty ratio in his country, nonetheless democracy was introduced. 
Nothing like that happened ever in the past. But the same spirit can of course be used to make elections on the whole planet. 
With the same proviso  that they wont improve your living standards very soon. 
There will be 50 years to wait. But nonetheless you are allowed to vote. It is now one country. 
One planet without war. And there is no reason that in the time of the Internet no one talks about this. 
So it’s the press that suppresses this possibility of instant democracy and instant peace. 
What you are saying, Otto, is very near of what the UN says or organizations like that. 
Yes. But they have no clout. They are happy with having been given no clout and to say thank you for the little bits. They are little monkeys. 
But monkeys are better than no monkeys at all of course. 
Yes. Does that mean that in your opinion the time of the end of nations is arriving?
It has arrived a long time ago. Yes. And Einstein was one of the people who proposed this. And Einstein and Mandela are very close.
I have to say that you see that in the EU especially nowadays that people are afraid of this losing of nations. 
They are even becoming more nationalistic. You see that in Germany with Pegida, you see that in…
It doesn’t matter, you see. The same thing happened in South Africa. But nonetheless they have agreed on a level, on a minimum of equality
in the right settings, not in the possessions.It makes a lot of difference. 
I was told that the young lawyers that are black and don’t make money,
nonetheless are much happier than their ancestors were who also made no money but had also no titles, no dignity.
And Mandela was a lawyer at the outset.  
And somehow he was a smiler. And I have a big theory in the book, called the Smile Theory. And that is my real contribution to science. It’s not the fight against the LHC.
That is something that you told me, Otto, when we were in the car, is that most scientists never smile. And Einstein was one of the few that smiled sometimes. 
And you also smile sometimes but as you told me that is only a kind of image preservation smile. Because you are basically the bad man with the Black Hole. 
I’m a child. You see, children are allowed to smile. And people forgive children if they are smiling. It doesn’t mean anything evil even though adults might think of that. 
As you told me in a phone, no, in an email conversation we had a few days ago; why were you asked not to talk
about Black Holes and about the dangers at the CERN LHC during the 25 interviews?
It was because, first of all to protect the interviewer.
So my interview is dangerous? Can I still live a few days after this interview?
And the other reason is, science is so beautiful that applications that border on suicide are a little bit a taboo topic. 
So I was not unhappy not to be having to include dangers in a purely scientific context. We don’t have a purely scientific context here at the moment. 
It is a little bit a political context. And also a context of trying to generate friendship. Science also does that. There is not so much difference. 
Otto, were you always interested in science since you were a child?
Thank you. I started out with being interested in religion. 
But you also studied theology. 
Yes. For a few semesters I had two identities as a student, yes. 
Did you study just Christianity as a religion or did you also touch other religions?
I also touched other religions. Something happened when I was 51 years old to my self-identity. I suddenly learned that I am Jewish.
I had been Christian up to that moment. I realized I can be both at the same time. But the deeper religion is the Jewish religion because it is older. 
Did you read the Talmud?
I didn’t read the whole Talmud, but I own a version of it. As a child I remember meeting Martin Buber. 
Martin Buber is like Mandela or like Hawking. A very big topic. One of my favorites. 
That reminds me of something. Because when I was like 12 years old, there was this movie by a Jewish person, Stephen Spielberg , ‘Close encounters of the 3rd Art’ 
or something like that and this movie influenced me a lot this movie. 
Because there was this story with this family driving up a mountain
and on top of the mountain there were these extraterrestrials and they were doing big experiments and trying to communicate with them. 
The whole setting of the movie. Before that many movies had just shown  extraterrestrials as bad people trying to destroy us. 
Then Spielberg came along with this movie and later on E.T. which was a bit on the lighter side,
a bit more entertainment – but still, the idea that some entity from another planet could actually be nice, I quite liked that. I was very impressed. 
And also A.I. is a movie by Steven Spielberg. I think it is an immortal movie – again. It’s about immortality. I mean Steven Spielberg is one of the biggest minds on the planet. 
So we have a common idea.
The type of interview here is really what I call an inter.doc, a combination between interview and documentary also giving a bit background on you and on the history and on surrounding of the subject.
I think Steven Spielberg was also somebody who achieved well to connect entertainment and… edutainment. 
You know, his movies are wise and at the same time they are entertaining. 
Millions of people go into the cinema and go like, wow, this was a fun movie. At the same time, at least some of them, go quite deep into subjects. 
That is the secret of science. So I would call him a very big scientist. Otherwise he couldn’t have done it. 
That is a very good point. I mean, what is science actually? We were talking about Mandela, now we are talking about Spielberg. 
What is the definition of a scientist? Who is a scientist and who is not . If I am discovering something while I am cooking,
and I am doing this experiment with different ingredients and I’ve never had such a fantastic taste before. Am I a scientist?
The real scientists are the children. Discovery. And some of us are allowed to remain children and stupid. Only if you know you are stupid
you are as modest a child is and by that you loose having to be afraid. 
And I am concerned about the fate of Putin at the moment. He disappeared I was told. 
Some people say his young, new wife had a child in Lugano so he would maybe sit on the Lake of Lugano,  
sip some champagne and laugh about people being afraid.  
And maybe we can win him over that he agrees to planetary elections. His voice.  
He might be able to get into the footsteps of Mandela. It’s a chance. 
This is an interesting subject because in the Putin case there are like two people, one says Putin is a good guy – 
the other says Putin is a nutcase.
I know, yes. It is like with Napoleon. And I always wondered why Napoleon and Goethe, the big poet, were so close. Napoleon from  Goethe said: “Voila un homme!”. 
So Napoleon was able to appreciate the most intelligent person of German tongue so far apart from Einstein.
Isn’t it that many powerful politicians they border a bit on the craziness? It is a bit like great visions, big ideas…
and yeah, I can do it all.
Yes. They are not afraid but they have no friends, you see. This is their problem.
But Putin must have some friends at the Secret Service from his ex-work?
Yes. But Snowden also is in this category of people. Of secret service people. And nonetheless he is a hero.
Again, this is a controversial subject. I was talking to ex secret service people, ex government people. 
They said to me, he is a traitor. He should be going to prison. And of course there are many people that say he is a hero. 
It can happen. Yes. That both definitions are true. And certainly Snowden would agree with having broken law in the interest of higher law. 
There is the question. Whether it is true that is something like human rights, which is above the law. Or not.
And of course nations cannot allow that. Because there are other nations and there might be war. 
And that would be deadly to do that. As soon as we have the Mandela planet, 
suddenly it would no longer be dangerous to be a traitor like Snowden and he would be just a hero at the same time. 
And there is actually, I think it is even somewhere in the US constitution a law that and it’s understood globally I think a bit that being a citizen in a country 
does not only always mean to follow orders but sometimes it’s also your duty to say no or to become a whistleblower or to work against the orders. 
For example if I imagine I would have been living in Germany during the Hitler time
and they would have asked me to shoot some people or gas some people it would have been
my obligation to say no but it would have been against the law at the same time.
Absolutely. And of course one can also understand that singing the national anthem really has a very deep meaning, a religious meaning for people. 
So I understand both sides. I understand people who criticize Snowden and find him to be a criminal
and people who say he belongs in the category you just described. If the United Nations could give him a status –
but they are not allowed yet to give any person such a status, as far as I know. But that would be the solution.
I was quite impressed. I recently watched a documentary by Poitras, a documentary filmmaker, she is living in New York
and this documentary won recently the Oscar  at the film festival for the best documentary and it is about Snowden Citizenship Four 
or something like that and in this documentary and also in other interviews but in this documentary
which actually I can only recommend because it is a nice quality Snowden says something like 
“And I did this for my country”. His point of view is I had to protect my country.
He still seems to be working in the mindset of a secret service employee
only now he says what they are doing is against my country. Because when you work for an organization like that 
at some point you have to make a kind of oath that says I will do everything to protect my countries interests.
And suddenly he seemed to be for himself realizing that what the NSA did was against the own countries or the publics interest. 
In his view he did this out of loyalty for his own country. 
But you see, one has to say that out of the point of view of that country or that government that as long as this country is still being threatened
by other countries it cannot allow the luxury to people to think not patriotically. 
And so Snowden is really a Citizen of the future. Not of the present. 
And in the future he has always been loyal to America. To the US. I’m sure.
That is a very nice way to put it, Otto. I don’t want to go to far into that area but let’s just maybe for 1,2 seconds discuss another person, 
Julian Assange, who is currently since over two years at the Ecuadorian embassy in London – who I would also much like to interview in the next months –
who was in a kind of legal trouble with Sweden because they said he raped somebody
while basically the definition of rape in that he forced a woman to sleep with him without using condoms,
which in Sweden constitutes statutory rape. 
The thing I wanted to mention is that in the meantime – Sweden had always said that he should come out of the London embassy,
come to Sweden if not we will not go forward with this –
now Sweden has agreed to send somebody to London and interview him concerning that complaint at the embassy. 
Assange must be quite relieved by this because he is afraid that once he is in Sweden, 
Sweden will give him to the US and then he will spend the rest of his days in prison.
What do you think about what Julian Assange has done and what do you think about his current position?
He is obviously very close to Snowden, whom we discussed already. And he is also a very charismatic person. 
Yes, I met him in Geneva, and he is definitely a charismatic person.
And his motivations are pure, I am sure. And so I would pledge that he should also be given the status of a non national on the planet, 
who is allowed to think of the interests of the bigger community. Even tough again, it is true, he violated laws in one nation. 
As long as the planet is not ready to introduce the voting laws of Mandela, the planet is kind of responsible
for the cruelty that is being done to such people. And that people have the courage 
to be so Jesus like – like Hawking, again – is very intimidating. 
We also have to say that while Assange is in the Embassy, a person which was a main person in Wikileaks Chelsea Manning,
the soldier who has become a woman in the time is in prison I think for over 30 years. 
In a military prison for the information she has leaked to Wikileaks. So I think this person is paying an even higher price.
Soon an American singer will come to Tuebingen, the most famous one, what is his name?
An American singer?
Yes, the most famous one.
Elvis Presley.
No, he is still alive. But I agree. I would agree with Elvis, but he is still living. Bob Dylan.
Yes. Bob Dylan. Modern Times is the last CD I heard from him. 
So this is the place where Bob Dylan will be singing soon. Where we had this interview. 
Going back to the CERN, I was recently working in Zurich and a good colleague of mine  explained me – 
I wasn’t talking with him about the CERN and didn’t mention it with one word, I swear –
but this colleague suddenly said, you know at the CERN when they have important meetings there is always a member of the US military present 
and a member of the US Secret Service CIA present at each meeting. Is that a surprise to you, Otto?
No. I mean that every country that has a certain dignity should have a Secret Service member there. 
But the Swiss they don’t…
They certainly have also, yes. 
Why, if I may ask?
The whole thing is too important. 
For me it is a bit contradicting. On one side the CERN says, no, we will never do anything that could in any way be used, 
anything big, they make it small in a way, and on the other side… what could be interesting for the military and the Secret Service at the CERN. I don’t get it.
The CERN always has been a military thing from the beginning. It was part, it was in the interest of both superpowers
to have such a meeting ground where they could somehow hope to leak or to get leaked information
which could be decisive for survival of one of them. 
One doesn’t understand anymore how close the planet was to mutual extinction at the time.
And there is one science called Astronomy, I was once told by a professional astronomer
in a University that this science has every document on the Internet and is well founded on the planet
because every astronomical project is at the same time a military project.
So it is wonderful to have astronomy, 
it is wonderful that it helps the military.
But this is not an aggressive statement of mine. If anyone understands it this way,
I will take it back. It is natural. It is logical.
One shouldn’t be angry with people who love weapons physics. I like them.
They are children. The nicest children, no, the nicest people to talk to is military 
people – in times of peace. You realize they are really playful human beings.
They are grown up boys. And grown up little girls with courage. So I love the military.
As long as it doesn’t become serious. As long as it’s police type game. Police is…
I could love police. Even if they sometimes have to arrest someone. They don’t have an evil spirit. 
Otto. A few years ago, when we had the last interview, I believe it was just before
the interview, there was this big media action about CERN Black Holes
because suddenly your theory or theorem became interesting to the media and
then there was lot of reporting and most media said:
Tomorrow will be the End of the World, because Otto Roessler said so.
And we both know that is completely wrong as a statement – but at the same time,
a 12 year old girl in India had committed suicide because she was so afraid
of the World being finished tomorrow. We both felt really bad during that interview
about this action of her. What do you think are the reasons for the media to
report false information in regards to the CERN?
They didn’t report false information, they just reported truncated information.
And this always can happen. It usually happens with the media.
So it’s a law of nature and if the media gets something, gets onto something
then it will be distorted in many ways. One cannot prevent such things.
But it is very, very sad of course. 
For me, Otto, it just felt a bit orchestrated. Because all the media outlets
reported this. And at the same time I also got a call from the Swiss TV
that they wanted to do a discussion round about the CERN LHC and I should be there
at 6 o’clock in the afternoon and twenty minutes before it started they called
and said it’s cancelled. 
I had the same experience with the Swiss President. I was invited and it was cancelled. 
Actually I was never told it was cancelled. 
Who was this President at that time, just to tell our listeners?
I took the freedom to forget his name. It was in 2008.
Was it Otto Stich?
1:04:58.000,1:04:00.00
In 2008. It’s easy to find out. 
We should know that, that is all. We get a minus point for that.
In a way, how this thing developed with the media, I also found that a bit strange.
Do you think there was pressure on people not to report on certain things?
See, it all depends on whether you believe that there is a theorem or not.
And if the theorem has a small number of people have understood it, there is no chance to… 
I mean, it is ridiculous. There is only in science, that a ships boy is allowed to say
that he sees an Iceberg. In what other profession can you do that?
And so the public doesn’t know that such can happen. And it doesn’t know that
sometimes a ships boy has to be taken seriously. There are professional ships boys.
I would like to ask a bit a personal question, because I feel the years pass in my life, 
some years have passed since our last interview. And sometimes I ask myself questions 
about how it is to get old. How does it feel to get old, Otto? How does it feel for you?
You told me in the car I think or before we went to the car, you said to me:
“At the End of life, before we go, we have this huge push of energy, it seems,
and we look much younger than ever kind of. 
Because this seems to be happening to you - you look like a baby. 
My friend Konrad Lorenz had a technical term for that. In German it is called:
‘Altersprachtkleid’. And if your memory is fading you can have clearer thoughts, you see.
Because not so much is interfering. Also you have not much to loose.
You can be benevolent and people might even believe you. There is no reason to believe
a younger person to be benevolent. He might have reasons, secondary reasons.
Old people, if they are benevolent, Ok, it might be a trick of theirs to be remembered
nicely. But actually I think most old people are benevolent. Society doesn’t know that.
It forgot it. So old age does have no dignity because people don’t know anymore
how kind people get when they are old. 
Yes, because they get maybe less selfish and they need to accept	
that life is limited  in size.
They are not just stupid. The only explanation to explain their stupidity is their 
kindness. And no one knows it. It is like young children. 
They are much, much kinder than older children – or the adults.
Traditional societies used often happen to have, what are they called, ‘Aelterenrat’,
the council of the old or stuff like that, and that doesn’t exist anymore, right.
Apart from the Queens or the Kings, they are allowed to get old and then somebody listens 
to them. But often old people nowadays they go in horrible houses and you let them die there. 
They get into a machinery. 
Which again is a contradiction to for example Google’s President or somebody there said 
yesterday that human beings are soon going to live 500 years. I don’t know if that is 
true. But what would be the benefit of living 500 years if nobody wants you?
Unless people realize that having had more experience sometimes pays to having been 
learned about young people. So young people can appreciate older people,
specially if they are honest about their deficits. 
I was sitting in Basel at a tram station and there was this really quite old woman
and we started talking and in 10 minutes she told me so many interesting things
but she needed a word from me, an incitation. Because sometimes these people
are just afraid to talk, they think, I start to talk and they will say,
don’t take my time away, I got other things to do. And they themselves maybe don’t
realize anymore that they got something interesting to say.
And if you have a profession like in the Universities, one has the big luck
that one has young people to talk to, so it is still possible to –
if you don’t use computers anymore as I do, except for email – 
compete with young minds and you learn things.
Now a very indiscrete question: How old are you?
I get 75 in 2 months time. 
And you are still working at the University?
Yes.
How do you enjoy it to work with young people?
It is the greatest honor one can be given. 
It happens quite often that people decide, for some sickness or for some other situation 
in life that they don’t want to continue.
My personal position there is it is everybody’s free will. 
Yes. But I have a friend who is strongly advocating against signing that
you don’t want to revived or so when you have a stroke or something.
Because he has many patients who had a faith and they don’t talk anymore except
because to him because he has the machines to do it, a machine like this one so to speak,
and he found out they want to life, but they can not communicate and then they have to
listen how the relatives say: He or she shouldn’t suffer anymore, let us switch off.
And they are crying: No. And no one knows it except this Niel Spielbaumer. He is a hero.
He is a holy man in my eyes. Because he saves people from being murdered. Successfully.
This is again a very controversial subject. This whole question.
In Switzerland we are quite open on this, now we have these organizations like Dignitas
or Exit, which allow people to finish off their life in certain situations and we
also got quite a heavy tourism coming to Switzerland.
People for example from England come - because they want to die with us.
Of course this is a controversial subject. I mean when we talk about Eugenics,
then this reminds us of historical facts and the main question is then,
will society come at a point when they will say, Oh, these people at these elderly homes,
they need to commit suicide now, because they
are too old and they are too expensive for society. 
The ‘Brave New World’ has this in it.
Yes. Exactly. It is a controversial question as another question which I think
you talk about in the book ‘Chaotic Harmony’, about artificial intelligence.
Can you tell us anything about this subject?
Yes. It is very kind of you to touch it, I had hoped it would be coming up
but I hadn’t thought it would be possible.
I have a method how to turn Elephants into persons. That would be artificial intelligence. 
But on the level of a superhuman intelligence. It would not be silicon, it could also be
done by silicone, later. But at the moment, it could be done to date. With Elephants.
Or Dolphins. Gottfried Mayer-Kress, a friend of mine, who unfortunately died.
It is by means of understanding my Smile Theory. So the Smile Theory is the most
difficult theory I ever developed. It was also the first.
No, it was the second. It’s very dangerous.
Is it more dangerous than Black Holes at the CERN? 
Yes. It is more dangerous in a good sense.
And Black Holes are more dangerous in a bad sense?
Yes. Unfortunately. Unless somebody finds a contrary theorem to mine. Which I hope.
So what makes your Smile Theory so dangerous?
Because understanding love is dangerous. People are afraid of understanding love.
It’s so close to religion. When I was quite young, seventeen, I thought
I thought I had to become a monk. But I didn’t want to. I was afraid. I had the call so to speak,
I was not strong enough to follow the call. I was quite grateful
to my father for forbidding me to become a monk. 
Being a monk means loneliness, no girls, lots of praying. 
Yes, but you see, there is a lot of temptation in religion. It’s the most tempting subject 
of all of them. People forgot that. They don’t know anymore how sweet it is –
I wouldn’t call it a poison. But there is also an intelligence behind religion
that is much deeper than scientific intelligence. And people know that.
People wouldn’t go to Church if they didn’t know. Of course the numbers are
declining but some other Churches are coming up. Human kind is much more
intelligent than in science – but science is…
But now we have to find the connection between the theory of the smile and religions.
Yes, I forgot. Young children, you see, children are nowadays a subject of sexual,
how should I say, discussions. Everybody thinks children and sexuality have something
to do with each other. Very strange. But really, there is one species of humans beings
called females – now I am saying something impossible – Sigmund Freud talked of the
polymorphic pervert nature of the female. So, females love children. That is dangerous. 
And it gives them a kind of orgasm if they are breastfeeding. It’s oxytocin.
Oxytocin use is dangerous. There is a spray you can get it, people don’t know it.
It’s nice to use Oxytocin. You love your friends more – and you hate your enemies more.
It’s in the body of the woman, of the mother, and it’s making the milk shoot.
And it’s also in orgasm. The main element is oxytocin. 
Very interesting, that could be the next Red Bull.
What is Red Bull? Oh yeah, it always has been this  Red Bull. 
The CERN LHC will be turned on again – as you mentioned before – 
sometimes in May I think this year. More powerful than ever. 
I know. It will be turned on this month but the collisions
will start in May. On the 8th of May.
What feeling do you have?
I’m still optimistic. I believe that CERN will realize that there is an atmosphere
of mutual benevolence in which one could discuss the safety of the LHC.
And I got an offer from CERN Young Scientists in 2010 in January or was it February,
to give a talk before them. And then I got a letter from the Boss of CERN
that he does not allow this talk to take place.
Do you still have that letter?
On email. I’m sure I have it somewhere.
If you can send that to me…
I will try to.
Do you know the leader of these young scientists by chance?
No, I don’t I had visited CERN I was standing at the bus station getting to leave
and there was a young person – I was allowed to see the machine and so on –
and a young man was standing there, we came into a discussion and he was a member
of the CERN Young Scientists. And he invited me for a talk,
about the dangers, then I got this official disinvitation. 
When I was living in Geneva with my daughter, my daughter sometimes couldn’t sleep because
there was this hum. We actually found out later that we lived straight above the tunnel. 
You are one of the few people on the planet who lived there.
That is what made me interested in the CERN, this hum. I was like, what is this?
And a few years later I went to Geneva and there was a restaurant and I was talking
with somebody about that and there where 2 children and they instantly said:
Yeah, I have that too, I can hear that too. What is that?
You need very fine ears. And children are of course quite different than adults.
People forgot that. They are the higher human species. I used to say with
Konrad Lorenz’s approval that in a 1000 years – no, he said, Walt Disney will
be the most famous artist in a Thousand years. And children will be much higher
than adults in the hierarchy. And rightly so. But the smile was the topic.
The smile has two meanings. It means friendly smile. Or…
Or the mad scientist smile…
And happy smile. And happiness and – of course if the scientist is wrongly happy
for the wrong reasons, it’s also a smile and then it is dangerous.
Maybe my smile is dangerous too. 
You may have seen the movie Roger Rabbit by chance, it is a drawn movie, a comics movie.
And there is this scene where Roger Rabbit, there is this Mad Scientist
who I think he has had some bad experiences with cartoon characters
and now he wants to eliminate all cartoon characters and he has this this big huge
pot filled with some grey-greenish fluid and if you throw a cartoon character into
that pot it dissolves completely. So there is this key scene in the movie
where he tries to put Roger Rabbit and his girlfriend with her huge boobs in that pot.
And he has this very special smile on his face while he does that and his eyes which go 
round in circles like hypnosis eyes and this reminds me of your smile theory.
Everybody is so ecological today and green but the CERN consumes the same energy
than half the city of Geneva - and Geneva is quite a big city – when in operation.
This does not seem to generate any discussions. How can you explain this?
That’s natural. People living near the Vesuvius mountain will also not discuss eruptions.  
But they could say, why are we driving bicycles and why are we using public transport
are we throwing our waste in the right box – and the CERN can consume so much energy?
But as soon as there is no proof that what CERN is doing is dangerous,
one cannot object to it. And I have this proof. But I want this proof to be checked.
And the proof is easy. But unfortunately the proof goes back to Einstein 1907.
So it digs deeply into a version of Einstein that most specialists are not aware of
anymore. Because this is not part of the canon. But it is very easy to explain. 
I got a call from ProSieben, this a big German  TV channel, and they want to publish 
excerpts of  my interview with Gabriele Schroeter in a science medium called Galileo. 
Galileo is a very nice science medium. The people there are very devoted. Wonderful.
So there seems to be increased media interest again on the CERN LHC.
Why do you think is this so?
This is part of CERN’s effort to get more visibility. And so CERN is paying
for this criticism towards CERN because it raises the level of consciousness. 
Why don’t we get paid then?
No, no. That is not a way journalists are being treated. 
The CERN LHC is not only the largest machine ever built by humankind,
but also the most expensive one. Financed mainly by European nations and
of course by European  taxpayers. In these times of economical crisis,
don’t you find surprising that the CERN gets it’s funding no questions asked?
No. We talked about this already. CERN is basically a military project.
But the military is of course a very benevolent organization. It is funding,
how do you call it, these fundamental physics type and
the hope that something might also fall off from this research. 
Which might fall off for the military companies which then might make lots of money with it.
Yes. I wonder how many Chinese are allowed to be members of CERN. 
I believe not many.
I’m afraid so. That is something I wonder about, a question 
that came to my mind this morning.
The Chinese seem to be more welcome when they produce computers
and stuff like that then to really play as big players in the worlds
political strategies and scientific strategies. 
It’s interesting, I have another theory. Not about the smile.
I come back to the smile in a minute. I have a theory called cryodynamics.
Cryo means cold and dynamics means dynamics. So it’s the opposite of thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics exists for a 150 years, it is a wonderful theory.
Cryodynamics exists for 10 years. It is an equally wonderful theory.
It’s essentially the same thing. Only with a gas theory, thermodynamics is when particles
are repelling each other and cryodynamics is when the gas is mutually attracting.
So cryodynamics is a theory of galaxies in the cosmos with gas of galaxies.
And it turns out that suddenly cryodynamics explains the shift of the Hubble Law.
So the Big Bang is suddenly gone. Which actually I planned not to mention today. 
Because if we mention everything in our interview it may just take 250 years,
which would be nice for us, maybe we would actually survive those 250 years because
we are having so much fun, but for any listeners this interview would maybe
be a bit lengthy. They would maybe tell us that we have overdone it. 
Maybe we have.
Maybe we have already, who knows. 
Shall I say one more word about the smile. Because I almost killed it.
The smile in humans has two meanings. It means friendliness and it means happiness.
And if you’re happy, others might laugh. But it does not mean they like you.
But if you are smiling in a friendly way and someone and someone will be offended that you smile
at him, but if the smile is really moving enough, he will smile back and suddenly you are 
friends. So the smile is a rewarding, a bonding type signal. And it also has the signal
of just pure happiness. Or friskiness. Which is more silly so to speak. Silliness.
This feature of the human smile is shared by in only one other animal.   
But maybe the particles at the LHC are also in a friskiness feeling when they collide? 
This is too difficult for me to touch or to understand, but it is one of
the deepest questions I was ever asked at the same time. 
I recently read this book about Durak, the strangest man who saw another reality,
the Durak Sea so we never know if someone turns the World around totally enough
it ceases to be ridiculous and it becomes deep. But I come back to the smile.
There is only one animal which has the same structure as the human face.
That’s the rear part of the dog. The tail wagging of the dog means happiness,
friskiness and if the dog likes you he comes. It’s not only happy, it’s also showing
it loves you. Between wolves the tail wagging both show good spirits and bonding.
So the wolf has just the same structure with the back part of it’s body as humans
have with the front part of their bodies. But that is why they are the best friends
of humans. The human and the dog. But no other animal has this coupling. 
And I claim that this bonding is responsible for a child when it turns into a person.
For loosing autism. At a young age, before one remembers.
Why then don’t dogs or wolves become persons? If they have the same misunderstanding.
If one thinks about it, if both mother and child are rewarded by
the smile or the laughter of the other, they start to get more of that reward. By giving. 
So that the child suddenly feeds the mother and the mother is moved in her heart
and loves. And the child realizes that the mother misunderstands, I was just playing.
But she thinks it is serious that I give her the sweet. And the child gives her the sweet. 
Eventually. After a while. And then this is benevolence. So the child has the suspicion
of benevolence and gives the mother… so the giving. Only humans give.
No other animal gives. They feed and such but never give. And they realize
if you like something they would never give it away. They would keep it more
if it’s interesting. Only humans share. And if you know this structure
of the smile you can treat autism. Autism are people who are smile blind.
They look at a face and they don’t realize that the smile means anything.
I once watched a movie, a report, where a hairdresser, a person who works in a 
hairdressers shop, talked about how he had been an autistic child,
when he walked with his parents near the Sea, he was just looking at the shadow
of their parents in the sand. How the shape changed. But had no interest in anything,
in the persons. But when he was seven years old, he was sitting on his mothers lap and
she was showing him how to write. And whenever he succeeded in writing the right letter, 
she was acoustically so happy, she was rewarding him in the same way as other people are
rewarded by the smile of the mother. And then he lost autism. He was not autistic anymore.
So we can use this as a therapy for autism. Nobody uses it on the planet.
And one can use it as a therapy for the autism of an elephant. Of a young elephant.
Because animals are autistic. By definition. Only humans are non-autistic.
But if you know this trick, you can turn an elephant
into a more intelligent discussion partner – and scientist.
I like your smile theory. 
Thank you. You are the first.
I am not a scientist. I’m a journalist. Gabriele Schroeter is not a scientist.
But a citizen and a nurse. You, Professor, you are a scientist but you are
not a particle scientist. Does the CERN think we should just all shut up
and behave and let them do their staff and that’s it?
Yes, I’m sure. But I am not only an amateur particle scientist,
I am also an amateur relativity physicist and an amateur thermodynamics physicist,
1:35:54.000,1:35:06.00
I discovered cryodynamics, it can be used to make cheap energy, not in colliders
but another type of big machine which costs even more than CERN actually. 
And this machine can be controlled by cryodynamics so that they can safely produce hot
plasma fusion. But even China is not interested in that at the moment.
Which shows to me that China is much closer to Western thinking than people think.
Because they even don’t believe in big progress if CERN doesn’t believe it.
But CERN does know about this. But now I said enough crazy things…
One point I wanted to make is in preparation of this interview
I’ve read a bit of articles and other stuff and I also looked at the German Wikipedia
page about you and it says there that you are in a major legal dispute with this 
University we are sitting since over 20 years. And I was quite surprised as to
what such a paragraph would do in Wikipedia. It would be like if they would write
something about me in Wikipedia, which I luckily don’t yet have a page in and they would
say when he was ten years old he stole a piece of bread from somewhere or he drove without
a ticket in the bus. Do you have an idea why somebody
could be interested in putting such information in Wikipedia?
One is helpless against any information that is distributed.
1:37:54.000,1:37:04.00
I would be grateful if someone could remove it. But that is all I can imply.
It is not true also. It is not true that I ever did anything illegal – but it is true
that the Minister of science of this local government here, Baden-Wuerttenberg,
ordered me to go into a closed psychiatric clinic – and I refused.
And I never went there but I had to wait at home once because the newspapers said
on that day they will come to fetch you. And a colleague of mine had gone there
and he’s later committed suicide. And it was because new laws had been introduced in Germany. 
This is actually a very sad subject because we talked about this when we had
a break in this interview, about how society tries to place people that they see
as critical of something don’t want to be critized in institutions like that. 
But at that time I hadn’t critized anything. Strangely.
Only there was a new law which said that Professors can be forced to chance their field
for which they had gotten a so called call, as it was called.
So I’m being uncalled and getting a new call against my will. And this happened to me.
And I didn’t say no. I just said yes, if I have to I do it but I tell the students.
And because I told the students that this was an involuntary election in a field which I
had never studied and had never published in - it would be an experiment.
We do this together. And I said we will fly this plane, which I had never flown,
and we will land this plane. I will also take the exams I have to take from you.
But together we can do it. And then they took it away. So I was not allowed to make
this experiment which I would have enjoyed. Even though it took a lot of nerves to be so honest. But that was the reason I was declared an enemy of the state. 
Otto, if you could have a wish concerning the CERN LHC. What would you wish for right now?
I am so grateful for you to ask this question. Usually only Angels do that. Who knows. 
That I may be allowed to give this talk before the CERN Young Scientists. 
I wish for that too, Otto, and I thank you very much for that interview.
I appreciate very much the kind atmosphere in which you imbued me so that I made all
the mistakes I could possibly make. Thank you very, very much. 
Thank you, Otto.
