Cari Joseph, Loet, Pedro, Terry e Tutti, anch'io non sono esperto di mini-buchi neri. Posso semplicemente (?) dire, per essermene occupato nel contesto della "Nuova economia", che: - i buchi neri danno luogo e tempo ad un processo di tras-in-formazione i cui "input" e "output" sono materia, energia e informazione, sebbene, in stati diversi; - Il mio "Il sistema fabbrica-mercato" (1979-2011) non è altro che un'organizzazione-struttura che funziona come un buco nero o scatola magica; - in diversi libri ho trattato questa problematica evidenziando, pur non essendo un fisico (teorico), che S. Hawking negli anni Settanta formulò una difettosa o sbagliata concezione-definizione dei buchi neri, tanto da fare-perdere una famosa scommessa come lui stesso ha riconosciuto nel 2004; - la mia teoria del valore (economico) è basata sulla combinazione creativa di energia e informazione oppure, in modo più completo, sul triangolo dei tre surplus o neg-entropie; - non ho la pretesa di esporre-imporre punti di vista esclusivamente economici implicanti approfondimenti specialistici tipici della scienza delle valutazioni; etc. Non sarebbe il caso di affrontare la discussione-confronto su i problemi che di volta in volta la Fis-rete affronta senza fare uso di eccessive specializzazioni concettuali e linguistiche, almeno nella prima fase dell'analisi, onde consentire a tutti coloro che ne hanno titolo e voglia di partecipare evitando la confusione-disordine che si traduce inevitabilmente in entropia termodinamica o cibernetico-matematica, ma esclude proprio la primaria importanza della neg-entropia della vita legata all'ordine o all'informazione genetica e semantica? Come bene dice (benedice) spesso Joseph senza un approccio ontologico (ed io aggiungo un'apposita memoria paradigmatica) adeguato e condiviso da tutti, non si fa molta strada e soprattutto chi è poverino come me non apprende molto. Comunque, grazie anche per le critiche e i suggerimenti che mi verranno. Un saluto affettuoso. Francesco Rizzo
2017-01-12 11:03 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>: > Dear All, > > I am sorry but I am still not satisfied with the evolution of this > discussion to date. I am still looking forward to some explicit comment on > my initial question of why mini black holes would not evaporate. I note > that both Alex and Bruno asked the same question, before we have seen > Gyorgy's comment. > > I can confirm from my own small experience as an organic chemist that > entities can be created in the laboratory that not only do not exist in > nature but could not be produced by 'Nature' on its own. The reactants, > reaction vessels, temperatures and pressures to produce certain > fluorochemicals and fluoropolymers could not be brought together in the > same place and time without human intervention. > > In contrast, I see nothing in the discussion here of mini black holes > that, first, suggests they could be the consequence of intentionally > prepared states, with large energies 'brought together' in such a way that, > second, their development would not follow known paths. I do not claim > that I could follow the detailed mathematical physics of the demonstration > of the existence of a "5% probability" that such states would not > evaporate. But I and probably others of you much better could still follow > a scientific discourse on the basis of some background and internal > structure. > > For example, the following statement from one of Otto's notes seems to me > to be a *non sequitur:* > > "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." > > It is no longer valid to say that electrons are dimensionless points; > experiments now establish a radius of the order of 10 to the -22 meters. If > they are 'point-shaped' in the sense of being effectively spherically > symmetrical, their putative fate as black holes seems irrelevant. > > Would it still be possible to see some such new statements regarding both > formation and evolution of mini black holes? The reference article > (Szilamandee) simply repeats the statements we have seen, albeit in an > interesting poetic context. > > Thank you. > > Joseph > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Otto E. Rossler <oeros...@yahoo.com> > *To:* Gyorgy Darvas <darv...@iif.hu> ; fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2017 10:49 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story > > https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type= > publication&query=szilamandee > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Otto E. Rossler <oeros...@yahoo.com> > *To:* Gyorgy Darvas <darv...@iif.hu>; fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> > *Cc:* Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com>; Pedro C. Marijuan < > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:12 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story > > I conform with Geörgyi's tale. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Gyorgy Darvas <darv...@iif.hu> > *To:* fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> > *Cc:* Otto E. Rossler <oeros...@yahoo.com>; Louis H Kauffman < > lou...@gmail.com>; Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2017 2:09 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story > > 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. > Regards, > Gyuri > > > On 2017.01.11. 11:33, Otto E. Rossler wrote: > > I like this response from Lou, > Otto > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com> <lou...@gmail.com> > *To:* Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > *Cc:* fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> <fis@listas.unizar.es> > *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. > 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> <alexhan...@gmail.com> > Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > <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 > <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 > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > _______________________________________________ > 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 > listFis@listas.unizar.eshttp://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
