[Fis] Information Black Holes !!!

[Krassimir Markov]

Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,

First of all I wish you Happy and Very Successful New Year !

Let it will be peaceful and healthy for us and our families, for all our
friends all over the world !

Second - I am not specialist in physics - because of this I trust that in
CERN there exist such specialists and they really understand what they are
doing and the Chernobyl tragedy will not be repeated.
But who knows – political and military interests already many times
overbear the scientific wisdom ...

Third –  figuratively we may think about “information black holes” which
already have worked in our world.
Who may control theirs explosions ?
And who may stop concentrating the information in such “information black
holes”?

Everybody can imagine at least one.

But a few of us can imagine the destructive effect of theirs existence
especially for the young people.

Do we need such “information black holes” when we may access every
information object directly at the original web site all over the world ?


Friendly greetings
Krassimir



___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Fw: A Curious Story

[Francesco Rizzo]

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 :

> 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 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=
> publication=szilamandee
>
>
> --
> *From:* Otto E. Rossler 
> *To:* Gyorgy Darvas ; fis 
> *Cc:* Louis H Kauffman ; Pedro C. Marijuan <
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:12 PM
> 

[Fis] Fw: A Curious Story

[Joseph Brenner]

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 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story


https://www.researchgate.net/search.Search.html?type=publication=szilamandee





From: Otto E. Rossler 
To: Gyorgy Darvas ; fis  
Cc: Louis H Kauffman ; Pedro C. Marijuan 

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story



I conform with Geörgyi's tale.





From: Gyorgy Darvas 
To: fis  
Cc: Otto E. Rossler ; Louis H Kauffman ; 
Pedro C. Marijuan 
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;