Dear Joseph:
Quote: "It is no longer valid to say that electrons are dimensionless points;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."
What I meant is: They would be uncharged. Hence they cannot be point-shaped.
So I see no dissensus between us.
Thank you,Otto
From: Joseph Brenner <[email protected]>
To: fis <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 11:03 AM
Subject: [Fis] Fw: A Curious Story
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 It is no longer
valid to say that electrons are dimensionless points; experiments now establish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 To: Gyorgy Darvas ; fis Sent: Wednesday,
January 11, 2017 10:49 PMSubject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication&query=szilamandee
From: Otto E. Rossler <[email protected]>
To: Gyorgy Darvas <[email protected]>; fis <[email protected]>
Cc: Louis H Kauffman <[email protected]>; Pedro C. Marijuan
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
I conform with Geörgyi's tale.
From: Gyorgy Darvas <[email protected]>
To: fis <[email protected]>
Cc: Otto E. Rossler <[email protected]>; Louis H Kauffman <[email protected]>;
Pedro C. Marijuan <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
To: Pedro C. Marijuan <[email protected]>
Cc: fis <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>
wrote:
From Alex Hankey -------- Mensaje reenviado --------
| Asunto: | Re: [Fis] A Curious Story |
| Fecha: | Sun, 8 Jan 2017 19:55:55 +0530 |
| De: | Alex Hankey <[email protected]> |
| Para: | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <[email protected]> |
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
<[email protected]> 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 [[email protected]]
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
[email protected]
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
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
