Thank you very much, dear Bob (if I may call you so) for your open letter which 
could as well have come from Dirac himself (whom my wife and I once met when we 
attended the same conference in Miami).
I realize I have a little contribution to make with my suggested answer for 

c-global implies that black holes are necessarily uncharged. (Important 
innovations like c-global if its proof happens to be flawless, always have many 
implications.)  If black holes are always uncharged, electrons cannot be 
point-shaped as is usually assumed because they would then be black holes and 
hence uncharged. They are bound to have a finite diameter large enough to 
prevent them from becoming black holes and hence be uncharged. Thus, the main 
qualitative element of string theory (bored-openness of space) suddenly has an 
empirical basis. 

The question that poses itself now is where to suspect the size of electrons to 
lie. There are quite a few orders-of-magnitude that potentially qualify. All we 
know for sure empirically is that ther diameter lies below ten to the minus 23 
meters or so, right? 

If some form of string theory thus is proven to be implemented in nature (if 
you are ready to equate "unexplicable finite diameter" with this perhaps to 
grandiose name), one has to make probabilistic guesses as to where their size 
lies. For each order of magnitude, one can in the absence of any better hint 
assume the same probability. This leaves you about 6 scale steps. This size 
factor at the same time most likely increases the size of micro black holes 
beyond the classical radius. 

Here one now has to choose between the CERN energy and the Planck energy (which 
mass energy can be said to guarantee that a particle is a black hole because 
its corresponding photon has a wavelength smaller than the Schwarzschild radius 
of its mass energy). So we have only about six orders of agnitude to choose 
If you then give, in the absence of any better hint, each order of magnitude 
the same weight in between the proton mass and the Planck mass, and subtract 
the orders of magnitude covered empirically at CERN beyond the proton rest 
mass, you come up roughly with a probability of 5 percent that the CERN energy 
already reaches the black hole threshold.
I hope this reply was not too confused and hand-waving. 

For some reason, string theorists have retreated from public visibility ever 
since the CERN controversy began.
You may wonder about the above because this type of doing theoretical physics 
is different from the familiar one. Here one tries to exclude things, not prove 
things. But it is a beautiful new type of scientific endeavor, or so I feel.
Can you forgive me the built-in "handwavingness" in the above?
Take care,Otto

P.S. I acknowledge here a discussion I had with Heinrich Kuypers 12 years ago.

      From: Robert E. Ulanowicz <>
 To: Otto E. Rossler <> 
Cc: fis <>
 Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:11 PM
 Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Dear Prof. Roessler:

My training in quantum physics lies over a half-century in the past, so I
cannot add or detract from the specifics of this issue without exposing my
ignorance. I can only respond as an engineer with a devotion to the field
of dimensional analysis.

I note that the Planck constant and the gravitational constant deal with
phenomena that are roughly some 43 orders of magnitude apart. Common
engineering practice holds that dimensionless constants that differ by
more than 5 orders of magnitude can be neglected in treating the problem a
hand. Either the phenomenon in question is so fast that it is always in
equilibrium with respect to more pertinent dynamics, or so slow that it
takes on the guise of a boundary constraint.

This is why I have always been skeptical of natural small black holes. It
seems to me that in order to include the two constants into a
dimensionless ratio of order one, one would have to combine them with
characteristic distance and mass parameters of very large magnitudes --
such as those of galactic or cosmic scale. Such combination might be
interposed artificially, of course, but I wouldn't expect the resultant
bhs to behave like galactic systems.

I know this sounds like ignorance or witchcraft to trained physicists, but
engineers often have to evaluate and deal with systems for which the
governing dynamics cannot be specified -- and dimensional analysis usually
provides quite a reliable gauge.

Bob Ulanowicz

> I like this response from Lou,Otto
>      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
> WASTED MONEY.â€.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 <>
> 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 counter-arguments...
>  Best wishes to All and exciting times for the New Year! --Pedro
>    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