There is no way I could trust such a proof as it would completely rely on
the very particular and certainly arbitrary axiomatic theory in which such
a proof could be produced (there is no way we can take the 'universe' as
being operating on theories of relativity and quantum field, for
example). It makes little to no sense to rely on a mathematical proof or to
even give it more credit than some empirical evidence. I, myself, feel
pretty safe with the arguments provided so far (I do not pretend anyone
else to do so, perhaps you don't, but my understanding is that the people
that know and certainly would be concerned, are satisfied enough), of
course as long as the calculations were correct, i.e. that if nature does
not produce such black holes, CERN would therefore not produce them in the
same circumstances and at lower energies. For certain there will be still
people that feel unsafe and I think that is also good, always some
dissension helps to get things right and force the other side to be even
more convincing. What I definitely would think is definitely wrong, is that
a mathematical proof can give any definite proof of the real world. I once
worked in an animal behaviour lab where they wanted me to prove theorems
about animal behaviour and I told them they were insane =)

All Best,

- Hector

P.s. Notice I am a mathematician by training, so I am not suggesting at all
to throw away maths, but I think some people clearly overestimate the power
of maths or math theories as if axioms were physical 'trues', when they are
merely mathematical assumptions. Similar to people that have proven the
Church thesis in the negative because they have created a theoretical model
that computes beyond the Turing limit, the problem is not that one, the
problem is to show it can be implemented and one can actually compute with
such models.






-------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and
delete the message.

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Dear Terry and FISers,
>
> I know that there is probably theoretical “no proof” or guarantee in the
> mathematical sense, but this should not mean that irresponsible experiments
> can be carried out on a large scale like Tesla did them a century ago. What
> you suggest about “experiments of nature” sounds reasonable. Hawking's
> argument is also good. But he was also wrong a couple of times.  What you
> say about maths is also true, but the issue is more about the moral and
> methodology of science. We cannot afford doing Frankenstein experiments on
> this small Earth. Do we know the consequences of all these experiments for
> our ecology? Polynesia is still suffering the French H-bomb tests in the
> 1950s: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/03/french-nuclear-tests-
> polynesia-declassified. As I told Lou, if the experiments were made in
> another remote galaxy, I would not have a problem as an observer. But they
> are made here, under our feet, and there is no guarantee that they cannot
> go wrong. We cannot escape anywhere. Again, this has nothing to do with the
> statistics of airplane or lift crashes. The entire human civilisation of
> 100.000 years can disappear within a minute. Maybe not with this
> experiment, but with the next one. Of course, this could happen also with
> an asteroid or  a comet hit, or a series of volcano eruptions and
> earthquakes, but don’t we have other,  more important problems to solve
> here on Earth?
>
> All the best.
>
> Plamen
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Terrence W. DEACON <dea...@berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Mathematic analysis seldom provides "proof" of any physical theory or
>> prediction. This is of course why we do empirical experiments. So being
>> unpersuaded by either side's theoretical analysis and prior to running the
>> actual experiment on the LHC, what is the best approach? I think that there
>> is another option than simply avoiding performing any such experiment until
>> reaching mathematical certainty. I am much more persuaded by the results of
>> "experiments of nature" than by anyone's calculations. And there is ample
>> evidence from the results of such "experiments" that the predicted
>> catastrophic consequences will not occur (because they have not, despite
>> millions of replications). I quote again from
>>
>> http://press.cern/backgrounders/safety-lhc
>>
>> "Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the
>> earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens."  Prof. Steven Hawking,
>> Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University
>>
>> "Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the
>> moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed
>> up the moon. The universe doesn't go around popping off huge black holes."
>>  Prof. Edward Kolb, Astrophysicist, University of Chicago
>>
>> Math is not the ultimate arbiter. But if we didn't have this empirical
>> background it would have been a good reason to seek out empirical
>> counter-examples before running our own test. Of course this sort of
>> caution was not heeded when we tested nuclear weapons.
>>
>> — Terry
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <
>> plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, these are only citations. What if all of them are wrong?
>>> What if the data that were measured are incorrect?
>>> We have had this many times in human history. Titanik was considered
>>> unsinkable.
>>> Bismark too. But both went down to the seaground.
>>> Where is the mathematical proof or the computer simulation?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Plamen
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:32 PM, <tozziart...@libero.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that
>>>> word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have
>>>> thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of
>>>> the LHC. [Any concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and
>>>> contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis."
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston University,
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate in Physics, Massachusetts Institute
>>>> of Technology,
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Richard Wilson, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard
>>>> University
>>>>
>>>> "The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is
>>>> absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of
>>>> times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens."
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge
>>>> University
>>>>
>>>> "Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the
>>>> moon with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed
>>>> up the moon. The universe doesn't go around popping off huge black holes."
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Edward Kolb, Astrophysicist, University of Chicago
>>>>
>>>> "I certainly have no worries at all about the purported possibility of
>>>> LHC producing microscopic black holes capable of eating up the Earth. There
>>>> is no scientific basis whatever for such wild speculations."
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Sir Roger Penrose, Former Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics,
>>>> Oxford University
>>>>
>>>> "There is no risk [in LHC collisions, and] the LSAG report is
>>>> excellent."
>>>>
>>>> Prof. Lord Martin Rees, UK Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal
>>>> Society of London
>>>>
>>>> "Those who have doubts about LHC safety should read LSAG report where
>>>> all possible risks were considered. We can be sure that particle collisions
>>>> at the LHC  cannot lead to a catastrophic consequences."
>>>>
>>>> Academician V.A. Rubakov, Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, and
>>>> Russian Academy of Sciences
>>>>
>>>> "We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis
>>>> for any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter
>>>> that could possibly be produced at the LHC."
>>>>
>>>> R. Aleksan et al., the 20 external members of the CERN Scientific
>>>> Policy Committee, including Prof. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in
>>>> Physics.
>>>>
>>>> http://press.cern/backgrounders/safety-lhc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Inviato da Libero Mail per Android
>>>> martedì, 10 gennaio 2017, 06:09PM +01:00 da Louis H Kauffman
>>>> lou...@gmail.com:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Folks,
>>>> It is very important to not be hasty and assume that the warning
>>>> Professor Rossler made is to be taken seriously.
>>>> It is relatively easy to check if a mathematical reasoning is true or
>>>> false.
>>>> It is much more difficult to see if a piece of mathematics is correctly
>>>> alligned to physical prediction.
>>>> Note also that a reaction such as
>>>> "THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND
>>>> SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.”.
>>>> Is not in the form of scientific rational discussion, but rather in the
>>>> form of taking a given conclusion for granted
>>>>  and using it to support another opinion that is just that - an
>>>> opinion.
>>>>
>>>> By concatenating such behaviors we arrive at the present political
>>>> state of the world.
>>>>
>>>> This is why, in my letter, I have asked for an honest discussion of the
>>>> possible validity of Professor Rossler’s arguments.
>>>>
>>>> At this point I run out of commentary room for this week and I shall
>>>> read and look forward to making further comments next week.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Lou Kauffman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 9, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan <
>>>> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From Alex Hankey
>>>>
>>>> -------- Mensaje reenviado --------
>>>> Asunto: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
>>>> Fecha: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530
>>>> De: Alex Hankey <alexhan...@gmail.com>
>>>> Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
>>>>
>>>> THIS STORY IS A GOOD REASON FOR SHUTTING DOWN CERN PERMANENTLY AND
>>>> SAVING A LOT OF LARGELY WASTED MONEY.
>>>>
>>>> On 5 January 2017 at 16:36, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <
>>>> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear FISers,
>>>>
>>>> Herewith the Lecture inaugurating our 2017 sessions.
>>>> I really hope that this Curious Story is just that, a curiosity.
>>>> But in science we should not look for hopes but for arguments and
>>>> counter-arguments...
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!
>>>> --Pedro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *De:* Otto E. Rossler [oeros...@yahoo.com]
>>>> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
>>>> *Para:* PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ
>>>> *Asunto:* NY session
>>>> ----------------------
>>>>
>>>> *A Curious Story*
>>>>
>>>> Otto E. Rossler, University of Tübingen, Germany
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I am the only one who finds it curious. Which fact would then
>>>> make it even more curious for me. It goes like this: Someone says “I can
>>>> save your house from a time bomb planted into the basement” and you respond
>>>> by saying “I don’t care.” This curious story is taken from the Buddhist
>>>> bible.
>>>>
>>>> It of course depends on who is offering to help. It could be a lunatic
>>>> person claiming that he alone can save the planet from a time-bomb about to
>>>> be planted into it. In that case, there would be no reason to worry. On the
>>>> other hand, it could also be that you, the manager, are a bit high at the
>>>> moment so that you don't fully appreciate the offer made to you. How
>>>> serious is my offer herewith made to you today?
>>>>
>>>> I only say that for eight years' time already, there exists no
>>>> counter-proof in the literature to my at first highly publicized proof of
>>>> danger. I was able to demonstrate that the miniature black holes officially
>>>> attempted to be produced at CERN do possess two radically new properties:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - they cannot Hawking evaporate
>>>>    - they grow exponentially inside matter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If these two findings hold water, the current attempt at producing
>>>> ultra-slow miniature black holes on earth near the town of Geneva means
>>>> that the slower-most specimen will get stuck inside earth and grow there
>>>> exponentially to turn the planet into a 2-cm black hole after several of
>>>> undetectable growth. Therefore the current attempt of CERN's to produce
>>>> them near Geneva is a bit curious.
>>>>
>>>> What is so curious about CERN's attempt? It is the fact that no one
>>>> finds it curious. I am reminded of an old joke: The professor informs the
>>>> candidate about the outcome of the oral exam with the following words “You
>>>> are bound to laugh but you have flunked the test.” I never understood the
>>>> punchline. I likewise cannot understand why a never refuted proof of the
>>>> biggest danger of history leaves everyone unconcerned. Why NOT check an
>>>> unattended piece of luggage on the airport called Earth?
>>>>
>>>> To my mind, this is the most curious story ever -- for the very reason
>>>> that everyone finds it boring. A successful counter-proof would thus
>>>> alleviate but a single person’s fears – mine. You, my dear reader, are thus
>>>> my last hope that you might be able to explain the punch line to me: “Why
>>>> is it that it does not matter downstairs that the first floor is ablaze?” I
>>>> am genuinely curious to learn why attempting planetocide is fun.  Are you
>>>> not?
>>>>
>>>> For J.O.R.
>>>> ---------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
>>>> Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
>>>> SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
>>>> Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
>>>> Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
>>>> Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences,
>>>> Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Professor Terrence W. Deacon
>> University of California, Berkeley
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis@listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to