Re: [Fis] A Paradox

[Otto E. Rossler]

Dear Dr. Zou:
Most interesting.I enclose a recently submitted manuscript for your perusal.
Cordial  wishes,Otto E.Rossler
-

Who can program the Einstein Rocketship?

 Otto E. Rossler1 and YaëlKolb1,2

 1Faculty of Science,University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 
Tübingen, Germany

2University of Design (HfG), Lorenzstrasse 15, 76135Karlsruhe, Germany

Abstract

Acomputer-game version of the famous Einstein equivalence principle of 1907 
isproposed. Surprising implications predictably follow. The idea appears 
worthchecking by the computer-game community as a contribution to science. 

 (March 12, 2018)

 The Einstein rocketship of 1907 [1] consistsof a constantly accelerating 
vertical paper strip (interpreted as the interiorof a roaring rocketship) and 
an internal light ray that is continually emittedvertically along the strip 
from the bottom to the tip. 

 Einsteinfirst solved this typical computer-game problem in his mind, to in 
this waypredict out of the blue sky the famous “gravitational redshift”: The 
ascendinglight ray on arrival at the tip is slowed in its frequency by a 
negativeDoppler effect (like the sound of a departing ambulance) because the 
point oforigin of the vertical light ray is constantly falling back from the 
tip duringthe time it takes the light to arrive although the distance remains 
unchanged.This at the time absurd prediction enables accurate car navigation to 
date.

 Thejust described “Einstein task” is only the first step (one-dimensional 
case).It has never been simulated even though this is of course possible and 
indeeddesirable. The young Einstein thereafter in the same 1907-paper looked 
also atthe two-dimensional case: How does a horizontal light ray that hugs the 
floorof the rocketship appear from the tip when made visible towards above 
throughsome smoke in the air? This mental image would later become the “light 
clock” –a laser pulse inside a glass tube with reflecting ends and a bit of 
glitterinside to make the ticking visible to the outside world.

Programmingthis 2-D game to make it totally transparent, too, is a bit more 
difficult butis bound to teach something new. While the light pulse is 
progressinghorizontally down there, the bottom is constantly falling back from 
the tipwhile keeping its distance as we saw. Therefore, the horizontally 
advancinglight pulse downstairs necessarily does so in a locally 
downwards-slantedfashion relative to the tip. This is a first post-Einsteinian 
Einsteinianprediction (PEEP). 

 Megaconsequences follow suit if the PEEP can be successfully programmed rather 
thanremaining a mere mental fantasy. For it logically follows that the light 
pathdownstairs is increased in its length relative to the tip owing to its 
beingslanted everywhere locally relative to the tip, but this without 
appearingshortened due to the slant. For special relativity which governs the 
gadgetenforces preservation of optical width inside the rocketship. Hence 
theslowdown visible from the tip, seen in Einstein’s mind in 1907, reflects 
thefact that all objects downstairs are invisibly to above enlarged in 
sizerelative to the tip by the gravitational redshift factor. This prediction – 
iftrue – entails that the speed of light downstairs is actually 
non-reduceddespite appearances.

If theproposed computer game confirms this new prediction made whilst 
anticipating it,surprising consequences follow suit. One of them reads: “No Big 
Bang” anymore becausethe speed of light is rendered a global constant again by 
the computer game. Notethat mutually very distant points in the universe now 
can no longer recede fromeach other at super-luminal speeds as is being assumed 
at present.  

So the proposed “Einstein computer game”(ECG) is a surprisingly serious playful 
proposal in the realm of games. Itwould be especially great if it could get 
implemented right away by utilizingan already existing game portal like 
“gamelab” [2]. The race is on.

We thankWolfgang Rindler, Susan J. Feingold and Andrei Ujica for stimulation. 
ForJ.O.R.

References

[1] A.Einstein, On the relativity principle and the conclusions drawn from it. 
Jahrbuchder Radioaktivität und Elektronik 4, 411-462 (1907), in German. 
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/GR_2007/pdf/Einstein_1907.pdf

[2] https://code.org/educate/gamelab

 

On Monday, March 19, 2018, 7:26:52 AM GMT+1, ZouXiaohui <949309...@qq.com> 
wrote:  
 
 Dear colleagues
The era of large-scale or big production of knowledge and small-scale or normal 
production of knowledge is about to come. Author: Zou Xiaohui Time: 2018-03-19 
08:57:37  In the age of mobile networks where information and knowledge 
exponentially grows, any one of a small WeChat group and a circle of friends 
can detonate the spiritual world of any individual. This is incredible in 
ancient times. Therefore, it is already lagging behind to rely on the 
2,000-year-long knowledge production method to do spiritual product 

Re: [Fis] Math, math, math!

[Otto E. Rossler]

Well said, dear Koichiro,Otto


  From: Koichiro Matsuno 
 To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
 Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2017 1:04 AM
 Subject: Re: [Fis] Math, math, math!
   
On 14 Nov 2017 at 6:21 AM, tozziart...@libero.it wrote: 

I provide what is required by truly scientific reviewers, i.e., testable
mathematical predictions.

[KM] Any mathematical proposition, once confirmed, can stand alone. There is
no doubt about mathematical reality in the eternal present accessible in the
present tense. Also, our folks interested in historical sciences including
biology and communication at large often refer to something not in the
present via the present tense. In any case, we are historical beings. That
must look quite uneasy to mathematicians. One loophole for making it
tolerable to the mathematicians might be to admit that the mathematical
notion of a trajectory of observable parameters does survive in the finished
record but the future trajectories may remain unfathomable at the present.
Despite that, historical sciences can raise the question of what could be
persistent and durable that may be accessible in the present tense, though
somewhat in a more abstract manner compared to the record of concrete
particulars. 

  Koichiro Matsuno



-Original Message-
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of
tozziart...@libero.it
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 6:21 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Math, math, math!

Dear FISers,

My so called pseudoscience has been published in not dispisable journals,
for a simple reason: I provide what is required by truly scientific
reviewers, i.e., testable mathematical predictions.  


Sent from Libero Mobile

___
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

Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!

[Otto E. Rossler]

I do not contradict Györgyi.


  From: Gyorgy Darvas 
 To: fis@listas.unizar.es 
 Sent: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 1:32 PM
 Subject: Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!
   
 David: The nature of evolution is such that symmetries emerge and disappear 
(change). Gyuri http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Scie/ScieDarv.htm
http://epistemologia.zoomblog.com/archivo/2007/11/28/symmetry-breaking-in-a-philosophical-c.html
 
 Darvas, G. (1998) Laws of symmetry breaking, Symmetry: Culture and Science, 9, 
2-4, 119-127 
http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/content-pages/volume-9-numbers-2-4-pages-113-464-1998/
 ; 
 Darvas, G, (2015) The unreasonable effectiveness of symmetry in the sciences, 
Symmetry: Culture and Science, 26, 1, 
39-82.http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/content-pages/volume-26-number-1-pages-001-128-2015/
 ; http://journal-scs.symmetry.hu/purchase/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284341950_THE_UNREASONABLE_EFFECTIVENESS_OF_SYMMETRY_IN_THE_SCIENCES
 
  
 On 2017.02.28. 19:01, Dave Kirkland wrote:
  
 
 Dear Arturo Tozzi and FISers Thank you for your very interesting ideas. For me 
they raise more questions: Why did the number of cosmic symmetries ever start 
diminishing? Could the whole process be eternally cyclical? I like your 
respectful use of capital letters. My mind boggles. Best rgds David 
   On 24 Feb 2017, at 15:24, tozziart...@libero.it wrote: 
 
  Dear FISers,  hi!   A possible novel discussion (if you like it, of course!): 
 
  A SYMMETRY-BASED ACCOUNT OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION
  After the Big Bang, a gradual increase in thermodynamic entropy is occurring 
in our Universe (Ellwanger, 2012).  Because of the relationships between 
entropy and symmetries (Roldán et al., 2014), the number of cosmic symmetries, 
the highest possible at the very start, is declining as time passes.  Here the 
evolution of living beings comes into play.  Life is a space-limited increase 
of energy and complexity, and therefore of symmetries.  The evolution proceeds 
towards more complex systems (Chaisson, 2010), until more advanced forms of 
life able to artificially increase the symmetries of the world.  Indeed, the 
human brains’ cognitive abilities not just think objects and events more 
complex than the physical ones existing in Nature, but build highly symmetric 
crafts too.  For example, human beings can watch a rough stone, imagine an 
amygdala and build it from the same stone.  Humankind is able, through its 
ability to manipulate tools and technology, to produce objects (and ideas, 
i.e., equations) with complexity levels higher than the objects and systems 
encompassed in the pre-existing physical world.  Therefore, human beings are 
naturally built by evolution in order to increase the number of environmental 
symmetries.  This is in touch with recent claims, suggesting that the brain is 
equipped with a number of functional and anatomical dimensions higher than the 
3D environment (Peters et al., 2017).  Intentionality, typical of the living 
beings and in particular of the human mind, may be seen as a mechanism able to  
increase symmetries.  As Dante Alighieri stated (Hell, XXVI, 118-120), “you 
were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge”.   In 
touch with Spencer’s (1860) and Tyler’s (1881) claims, it looks like 
evolutionary mechanisms tend to achieve increases in environmental complexity, 
and therefore symmetries (Tozzi and Peters, 2017).  Life is produced in our 
Universe in order to restore the initial lost symmetries.  At the beginning of 
life, increases in symmetries are just local, e.g., they are related to the 
environmental niches where the living beings are placed.  However, in long 
timescales, they might be extended to the whole Universe.  For example, Homo 
sapiens, in just 250.000 years, has been able to build the Large Hadron 
Collider, where artificial physical processes make an effort to approximate the 
initial symmetric state of the Universe.  Therefore, life is a sort of gauge 
field (Sengupta et al., 2016), e.g., a combination of forces and fields that 
try to  counterbalance and restore, in very long timescales, the original 
cosmic symmetries, lost after the Big Bang.  Due to physical issues, the 
“homeostatic” cosmic gauge field must be continuous, e.g., life must stand, 
proliferate and increase  in complexity over very long timescales.  This is the 
reason why every living being has an innate tendency towards self-preservation 
and proliferation.  With the death, continuity is broken. This talks in favor 
of intelligent life scattered everywhere in the Universe: if a few  species get 
extinct, others might continue to proliferate and evolve in remote planets, in 
order to pursue the goal of the final symmetric restoration.   In touch with 
long timescales’ requirements, it must be kept into account that life has been 
set up after a long gestation:  a childbearing which encompasses the cosmic 
birth of fermions, then 

Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!

[Otto E. Rossler]

Dear David:
No symmetry ever started diminishing.
Take care,Otto



  From: Dave Kirkland 
 To: "tozziart...@libero.it"  
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
 Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 7:01 PM
 Subject: Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!
   
Dear Arturo Tozzi and FISersThank you for your very interesting ideas. For me 
they raise more questions:Why did the number of cosmic symmetries ever start 
diminishing?Could the whole process be eternally cyclical?I like your 
respectful use of capital letters.My mind boggles.Best rgdsDavid
On 24 Feb 2017, at 15:24, tozziart...@libero.it wrote:

Dear FISers, hi!  A possible novel discussion (if you like it, of course!): 
A SYMMETRY-BASED ACCOUNT OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION
After the Big Bang, a gradual increase inthermodynamic entropy is occurring in 
our Universe (Ellwanger, 2012).  Because of the relationships between 
entropyand symmetries (Roldán et al., 2014), thenumber of cosmic symmetries, 
the highest possible at the very start, is decliningas time passes.  Here the 
evolution ofliving beings comes into play.  Life is aspace-limited increase of 
energy and complexity, and therefore ofsymmetries.  The evolution 
proceedstowards more complex systems (Chaisson, 2010), until more advanced 
forms oflife able to artificially increase the symmetries of the world.  
Indeed, the human brains’ cognitive abilitiesnot just think objects and events 
more complex than the physical ones existingin Nature, but build highly 
symmetric crafts too.  For example, human beings can watch a roughstone, 
imagine an amygdala and build it from the same stone.  Humankind is able, 
through its ability to manipulatetools and technology, to produce objects (and 
ideas, i.e., equations) with complexitylevels higher than the objects and 
systems encompassed in the pre-existingphysical world.  Therefore, human 
beingsare naturally built by evolution in order to increase the number of 
environmentalsymmetries.  This is in touch with recentclaims, suggesting that 
the brain is equipped with a number of functional and anatomicaldimensions 
higher than the 3D environment (Peters et al., 2017).  Intentionality, typical 
of the living beingsand in particular of the human mind, may be seen as a 
mechanism able toincrease symmetries.  As Dante Alighieristated (Hell, XXVI, 
118-120), “you were notmade to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and 
knowledge”.  In touch with Spencer’s (1860) and Tyler’s (1881)claims, it looks 
like evolutionary mechanisms tend to achieve increases in 
environmentalcomplexity, and therefore symmetries (Tozzi and Peters, 2017).  
Life is produced in our Universe in order torestore the initial lost 
symmetries.  Atthe beginning of life, increases in symmetries are just local, 
e.g., they arerelated to the environmental niches where the living beings are 
placed.  However, in long timescales, they might beextended to the whole 
Universe.  Forexample, Homo sapiens, in just 250.000 years, has been able to 
build the Large HadronCollider, where artificial physical processes make an 
effort to approximate theinitial symmetric state of the Universe. Therefore, 
life is a sort of gauge field (Sengupta et al., 2016), e.g.,a combination of 
forces and fields that try to counterbalance and restore, invery long 
timescales, the original cosmic symmetries, lost after the Big Bang.  Due to 
physical issues, the “homeostatic” cosmicgauge field must be continuous, e.g., 
life must stand, proliferate and increasein complexity over very long 
timescales. This is the reason why every living being has an innate tendency 
towardsself-preservation and proliferation. With the death, continuity is 
broken. This talks in favor of intelligentlife scattered everywhere in the 
Universe: if a few species get extinct, othersmight continue to proliferate and 
evolve in remote planets, in order to pursuethe goal of the final symmetric 
restoration.   In touch with long timescales’ requirements,it must be kept into 
account that life has been set up after a long gestation:a childbearing which 
encompasses the cosmic birth of fermions, then atoms, thenstars able to produce 
the more sophisticated matter (metals) required formolecular life.   A 
symmetry-based framework gives rise to two oppositefeelings, by our standpoint 
of human beings. On one side, we achieve the final answer to long-standing 
questions: “why are we here?”, “Why does the evolution act in such a way?”, an 
answer that reliefsour most important concerns and gives us a sense;on the 
other side, however, this framework does not give us any hope: we arejust 
micro-systems programmed in order to contribute to restore a partially“broken” 
macro-system.  And, in case wesucceed in restoring, through our mathematical 
abstract thoughts andcraftsmanship, the initial symmetries, we are nevertheless 
doomed to die:indeed, the environment equipped with the starting symmetries 
does not 

Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!

[Otto E. Rossler]

Very nice, dear Pedro,Otto


  From: Pedro C. Marijuan 
 To: 'fis'  
 Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 5:39 PM
 Subject: Re: [Fis] WHY WE ARE HERE? ...AN UNPLEASANT ANSWER?!
   
 Dear Arturo and colleagues,
 
 Very interesting piece, indeed. It has strongly reminded me Teilhard de 
Chardin's views on the Omega Point of cosmic maximal complexity--although this 
was for him not a pessimistic outcome but a brilliant and up-beating prospect 
for all humankind. His eclectic views were bitterly rejected by most of the 
scientific and religious establishment of his time (no wonder that particularly 
by evolutionary biologists); but the arrival of Internet, as well as today's 
multi-level selection approaches, and the works of some quantum information 
scientists (Tipler, Deutsch) have vindicated his brave, Quixotic figure. Late 
Popes of the Catholic Church (Benedict XVI) have also vindicated his whole 
intellectual legacy.
 
 I have some minor problems with the present essay, but substituting some of 
the excessively teleological "purposive" terms about life (perhaps all of 
them?), and using instead a more austere description of organizational 
facts who knows! If life contains a unitary principle, I think it is more 
subtle, and cannot be expressed in unilateral physical terms such as maximum 
entropy production, symmetry restoration, free energy maximization, etc. Well, 
symmetry and information have more clout and hidden complexity, so I express 
not a rejection but some uneasiness regarding too direct "orthogenetic" views 
on biological and social evolution. 
 
 My further suggestion --could it be a good idea that you change Monod's style 
"unpleasantness" (Oh, we the accidental discover that we are alone in the 
cosmos!) and point towards some of Teilhard's and Vernadsky's noosphere and the 
Omega Point? You would have several curious items to choose...
 
 More opinions??
 
 Best wishes to all--Pedro 
 
 El 24/02/2017 a las 16:24, tozziart...@libero.it escribió:
  
 
 Dear FISers,  hi!   A possible novel discussion (if you like it, of course!):  
  A SYMMETRY-BASED ACCOUNT OF LIFE AND EVOLUTION
  After the Big Bang, a gradual increase in thermodynamic entropy is occurring 
in our Universe (Ellwanger, 2012).  Because of the relationships between 
entropy and symmetries (Roldán et al., 2014), the number of cosmic symmetries, 
the highest possible at the very start, is declining as time passes.  Here the 
evolution of living beings comes into play.  Life is a space-limited increase 
of energy and complexity, and therefore of symmetries.  The evolution proceeds 
towards more complex systems (Chaisson, 2010), until more advanced forms of 
life able to artificially increase the symmetries of the world.  Indeed, the 
human brains’ cognitive abilities not just think objects and events more 
complex than the physical ones existing in Nature, but build highly symmetric 
crafts too.  For example, human beings can watch a rough stone, imagine an 
amygdala and build it from the same stone.  Humankind is able, through its 
ability to manipulate tools and technology, to produce objects (and ideas, 
i.e., equations) with complexity levels higher than the objects and systems 
encompassed in the pre-existing physical world.  Therefore, human beings are 
naturally built by evolution in order to increase the number of environmental 
symmetries.  This is in touch with recent claims, suggesting that the brain is 
equipped with a number of functional and anatomical dimensions higher than the 
3D environment (Peters et al., 2017).  Intentionality, typical of the living 
beings and in particular of the human mind, may be seen as a mechanism able to 
increase symmetries.  As Dante Alighieri stated (Hell, XXVI, 118-120), “you 
were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge”.   In 
touch with Spencer’s (1860) and Tyler’s (1881) claims, it looks like 
evolutionary mechanisms tend to achieve increases in environmental  complexity, 
and therefore symmetries (Tozzi and Peters, 2017).  Life is produced in our 
Universe in order to restore the initial lost symmetries.  At the beginning of 
life, increases in symmetries are just local, e.g., they are related to the 
environmental niches where the living beings  are placed.  However, in long 
timescales, they might be extended to the whole Universe.  For example, Homo 
sapiens, in just 250.000 years, has been able to build the Large Hadron 
Collider, where artificial physical processes make an effort to approximate the 
initial symmetric state of the Universe.  Therefore, life is a sort of gauge 
field (Sengupta et al., 2016), e.g., a combination of forces and fields that 
try to counterbalance and restore, in very long timescales, the original cosmic 
symmetries, lost after the Big Bang.  Due to physical issues, the “homeostatic” 
cosmic gauge field must be continuous, e.g., life must stand, proliferate and 

Re: [Fis] A curious tale and QBism

[Otto E. Rossler]

Dear Andrej, my respect,Otto


  From: Andrei Khrennikov 
 To: Hans von Baeyer ; "fis@listas.unizar.es" 
 
Cc: "qbism.fu...@gmail.com" 
 Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 11:21 AM
 Subject: Re: [Fis] A curious tale and QBism
   
    Dear Hans,
Thank you for mentioning QBism. It can be treated as the quantum alternative 
for classical Bayesian inference. 
In this connection, it is good to mention that classical Bayesian PU suffers of 
 the well known Cromwell problem: if prior probability is zero it would always 
be zero, 
if it is 1 it always be 1... 

Quantum update of probability does not suffer of this problem, zero probability 
can be updated to nonzero, the same  can happen for the probability one. 

See our paper in attachment, it was published in Journal of Mathematical 
Psychology.
yours, andrei

From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Hans von Baeyer 
[henrikrit...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 4:32 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] A curious tale and QBism

Thank you Pedro for mentioning my new book.

Actually, there is a connection between my book and the curious tale.  QBists 
look at the future as a web of interlaced personal, numerical probability 
estimates, with no certainties anchored in REAL mechanisms.  The probability 
that CERN will blow up the world is small enough to be negligible for most 
people, but not for all.  The thing QBists reject as in principle unattainable 
is ABSOLUTE certainty, which many lay people and some physicists (Einstein was 
among them) continue to long for.

Hans Christian von Baeyer

___
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

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

[Otto E. Rossler]

Dear Bruno:
You are the same fair mind as ever. Rare contacts never destroy 
friendships.Since you asked, I have a new result, it is due to Einstein up 
until 19011, but was given up by him at the time through an oversight (his mind 
had been "seared" by thinking too much bout the equivalence principle, he once 
said).So his earlier view was right: c-global.Accordingly, if light takes 
infinitely long down to, and back up from a black hole's surface as this is 
known, the distance also is infinite.But for some reason, everybody pretends 
that things can reach horizons in finite outer time.it is because everyone 
thinks mathematical transformations were physically allowed. The movie 
"Interstellar" showed that one can age more slowly still fairly far from a 
black hole (the father figure in the plot). But the fact that if you touch down 
virtually to the horizon itself to return soon, you necessarily arrive in an 
effectively infinitely far away future (the ultimate twins paradox), has 
escaped the specialists up to this day (ask Kip Thorne who is happy with this 
inconsistency). Since he is my age I cannot quarrel with him.
Thanks for the gesture,take care, 
Otto





  From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
 To: Otto E. Rossler <oeros...@yahoo.com> 
Cc: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com>; Louis H Kauffman 
<lou...@gmail.com>; FIS Webinar <fis@listas.unizar.es>; Pedro C. Marijuan 
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
 Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:32 PM
 Subject: Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
   
Dear Otto,

On 11 Jan 2017, at 12:05, Otto E. Rossler wrote:

Dear Plamen:
I love your response.But: it misses my point: The fact that I have provided a 
proof since 9 years' time (often published) as to why the experiment represents 
a sizeable risk. Everyone in physics is invited to invalidate my proof. 
I am not against taking unknown risks in science. I am only opposed to acting 
against known risks.
But as convincing as this may be, it is still not my main point. My main and 
real point is: CERN refuses to update its official safety report LSAG for 
exactly as long.
But there is an even more disturbing point. IF an organization openly refuses 
to contradict evidence of committing a crime (even the biggest of history), it 
is very very strange in my own eyes at least that no one in the world, from the 
media to the profession, from Europe to Africa to America to Asia, is even able 
to spot this fact as deserving to be alleviated or at least publicly discussed. 

Can anyone in this illustrious round offer an excuse or explanation for this 
historically unique phenomenon? 



Is it really unique? I'm afraid it might be a rather common attitude. As a 
different example, we know, since a very long time that the prohibition of 
drugs does not work at all: it augments the consumption of drugs, in the worst 
unqualified conditions, and benefits immensely, and *only*  to the 
international crime and terrorism. Concerning hemp all the papers showing that 
there is a serious danger have been shown, since long, containing elementary 
errors in logic and statistics, or having delirious protocols, but prohibition 
continues, and the number of people suffering directly from it has grown and is 
quite huge. All the literature is available, but nothing changes. I could say 
much more on this, as I have studied the human-lies phenomenon and the drugs 
fields is a nest of human lies, but it is now a bit of topic (but not quite 
unrelated to information and communication, through the notion of (purposeful) 
misinformation,miscommunication and propaganda).
I think that the prospect of blowing up the planet is just a non-concern for 
some lobbies, and that with fake religion we just accepted fake science, and 
that there is no more free markets nor free-thinking because all powers are 
concentrated into the hands of few bandits, dispersed in rotten clubs, rotten 
politicians working for petrol or pharma interests, etc.
I am alas very well placed to know that a part of the academical world is 
itself hostage of those bandits.
So I am not so much astonished that nobody will give attention to anything 
going against the special interest of a small community of very influent 
people, influent by force and not by reason.
It is not so much astonishing, as we have not yet transformed, accomplished the 
Enlightened Period. All sciences have come back to Academy, except the most 
fundamental one (theology), with the result that it stays in the hand of the 
charlatans. We are just still in the Middle-Age, and the only difference is 
that it is a nuclear Middle-Age, which is indeed a bit frightening. We are just 
not rational (yet?).
Having said this, I would also be happy to understand how some small black hole 
could not evaporate.  The math still eludes me.
Of course, I am not an expert in particle physics, and I cannot pretend to even 
been convinced, through p

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

[Otto E. Rossler]

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 
you: 

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 
from.
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 <u...@umces.edu>
 To: Otto E. Rossler <oeros...@yahoo.com> 
Cc: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es>
 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.

Respectfully,
Bob Ulanowicz

> I like this response from Lou,Otto
>
>      From: Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com>
>  To: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
> Cc: fis <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 b

Re: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story

[Otto E. Rossler]

ments 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
 
 
  
 
 
  -- 
   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@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




___
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

Re: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story

[Otto E. Rossler]

  From: "tozziart...@libero.it" <tozziart...@libero.it>
 To: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> 
 Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:32 PM
 Subject: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story
   
 "The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but 
in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly 
considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any 
concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contradicted by much 
evidence and scientific analysis." Prof. Sheldon Glashow, Nobel Laureate in 
Physics, Boston University, Prof. Frank Wilczek, Nobel Laureate in Physics, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Prof. Richard Wilson, Mallinckrodt 
Professor of Physics, Harvard University
 "The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is 
absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of 
times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens." Prof. 
Steven Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge University
 "Nature has already done this experiment. ... Cosmic rays have hit the moon 
with more energy and have not produced a black hole that has swallowed up the 
moon. The universe doesn't go around popping off huge black holes." Prof. 
Edward Kolb, Astrophysicist, University of Chicago
 "I certainly have no worries at all about the purported possibility of LHC 
producing microscopic black holes capable of eating up the Earth. There is no 
scientific basis whatever for such wild speculations." Prof. Sir Roger Penrose, 
Former Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics, Oxford University
 "There is no risk [in LHC collisions, and] the LSAG report is excellent." 
Prof. Lord Martin Rees, UK Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society 
of London
 "Those who have doubts about LHC safety should read LSAG report where all 
possible risks were considered. We can be sure that particle collisions at the 
LHC  cannot lead to a catastrophic consequences." Academician V.A. Rubakov, 
Institute for Nuclear Research, Moscow, and Russian Academy of Sciences
 "We fully endorse the conclusions of the LSAG report: there is no basis for 
any concerns about the consequences of new particles or forms of matter that 
could possibly be produced at the LHC." R. Aleksan et al., the 20 external 
members of the CERN Scientific Policy Committee, including Prof. Gerard 't 
Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics.
 http://press.cern/backgrounders/safety-lhc



  --
 Inviato da Libero Mail per Androidmartedì, 10 gennaio 2017, 06:09PM +01:00 da 
Louis H Kauffman lou...@gmail.com:



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> |
| Para:  | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <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: 

Re: [Fis] A Curious Story

[Otto E. Rossler]

I like this response from Lou,Otto

  From: Louis H Kauffman <lou...@gmail.com>
 To: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> 
Cc: fis <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> |
| Para:  | PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <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.
   --- 
  
 
   
 __ _