Dear All,

I follow O. Rössler's concerns for a few years.

As a physicist (who is probably not the best specialist in the black hole physics), I do not want to involve in detailed physical explanations and mathematical proofs for information specialists, not certainly specialised in physics.

According to me, there is a misunderstanding that makes the story curious.

Stellar black holes are a result of a gravitational collapse. That collapse takes place, when the mass of the star exceeds a critical value; it is a result of the locally high gravitational field. that gravitational field is stronger than the electromagnetic field that (in a very simplified picture) keeps the electrons revolve in a distance around the nucleus. In the course of that gravitational collapse the electron shells of the atoms fall in the nucleus. The properties of the black holes are defined for them. The star becomes very small in size, but has a strong gravitational field, and behaves like described in the bh literature.
Cause: high gravity; effect: collapse, emergence of a bh.

One can produce single atom collapse in extreme laboratory circumstances. Why not? However, that single (or few) atom collapse will not produce a gravitational field exceeding the critical value; since its mass is much less than the critical. The reason is that it was "created" not by a self-generated gravitational collapse. Therefore, it will not "eat" matter in its environment. According to the lack of distance between the nucleus and electron shell(s) around it, these "atoms" (sic!) are called mini-black-holes. However, they do not behave like the stellar black holes over the critical mass. *The name is only an analogy*, marked by the prefix "mini-". Cause: not high gravity; effect: no critical mass, no more attraction of other masses around it than before its collapse.


On 2017.01.11. 11:33, Otto E. Rossler wrote:
I like this response from Lou,

*From:* Louis H Kauffman <>
*To:* Pedro C. Marijuan <>
*Cc:* fis <>
*Sent:* Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:09 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

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.
Lou Kauffman

On Jan 9, 2017, at 7:17 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan < <>> wrote:

From Alex Hankey
-------- Mensaje reenviado --------
Asunto:         Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Fecha:  Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530
De:     Alex Hankey <> <>


On 5 January 2017 at 16:36, PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ < <>> 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

    Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year!

    *De:* Otto E. Rossler [ <>]
    *Enviado el:* miércoles, 04 de enero de 2017 17:51
    *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 <> 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 mailing list <>

Fis mailing list

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to