[Fis] Fwd: A Curious Story Explained
Pedro C. Marijuan
pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
Fri Jan 27 13:00:50 CET 2017
(Sorry, this very interesting message had not been entered into the
list! ---P.)
-------- Mensaje reenviado --------
Asunto: [Fis] A Curious Story Explained
Fecha: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 10:32:41 +0000
De: Otto E. Rossler <oeross00 at yahoo.com>
Responder a: Otto E. Rossler <oeross00 at yahoo.com>
Para: pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
Dear Pedro and colleagues:
I am very grateful to you that you forced me to re-think the LHC risks.
Forgive me for the delay of about a week which this attempt caused me.
You said implicitly: Okay, the fact that c-global and cryodynamics
radically change the properties of black holes does not interest me much
because the energy levels of nature's own particle collisions known to
be innocuous are very much higher than those at CERN.
This correct observation is, unfortunately, not sufficient to feel safe.
For it overlooks a decisive difference between nature and CERN:
asymmetry vs. symmetry. The artificial collisions at CERN are symmetric,
a feature which never occurs in nature on a celestial body. The
artificial micro black holes are like all black holes uncharged due to
c-global, so that they can pass through matter virtually unbraked. Hence
they can only under the symmetry condition created by CERN on earth get
stuck to start growing inside matter in an exponential fashion.
CERN openly refuses to renew its safety report "LSAG" for 9 years
because it obviously has no counterargument to offer. It also openly
shuns the “safety conference” that a judge asked it to hold in 2011. Why
the world public is accepting this open violation of trustworthiness is
a big mystery to me.
A second point is probability: How probable is the successful production
of micro black holes which hope was one of the main motivations for the
construction of the LHC in the first place?
At that time, /string theory/ was a big issue. Ever since I showed in
2008 that Hawking radiation does not exist owing to c-global (Hawking
leaves his disproved result undefended up to this day), the prediction
made by string theory that black holes have a good chance to be produced
at CERN got suppressed. Indeed the whole flourishing string-theoretic
community suddenly lost its public visibility by magic – as if it had
never existed. This strong is the power of the CERN community with its
more than ten thousand physicists world wide and with the money that
stands behind. The whole young generation which had entered string
theory in good hope was sacrificed.
But much more important, so I hear you say, is the question of
probability: Is the chance to produce black holes at the moderate
center-of-mass energies of the LHC not low enough that – while the
investment of ten billion euros was justified -- the risk of of success
is actually negligible?
Unfortunately, the risk is non-negligible. The risk is about 1 over 6.
This follows from the new unchargedness of black holes ("charge" is the
one “hair” I clipped from the three remaining "hairs of black holes"
that my humorous friend John Wheeler had left standing as he said, so
that now only two of them, “mass” and “angular momentum,” remain). The
new unchargedness implies that electrons cannot be point-shaped, because
they would then be black holes and hence uncharged. So “something” is
bound to be "boring open" the electron. Hence some form of string theory
or an even more general principle along the same lines is bound to be at
work in nature.
Previously in the /absence/ of the new finding of unchargedness, the
smallest black hole possible was the “Planck hole” as it can be called.
It has the Planck mass of about 20 milligrams. This limit follows from
the fact that a photon of this energy has a wavelength of roughly the
Schwarzschild radius possessed by this mass-energy. Hence more energetic
photons cannot exist in nature (a previously overlooked fact for which
Heinrich Kuypers is co-responsible).
This classical result applies in the absence of string theory or its
analogs, as mentioned./If/ it held true in nature as such, it would
require an accelerator millions of times stronger than the LHC in
Geneva. But the mentioned proof of an analog of string theory applying
in reality, means that in reality ten times lower energies may already
suffice for the generation of a black hole. Or a hundred times less
energy. Or a thousand times less. Or a million times less – CERN’s energy.
So we are suddenly back at CERN. Each of the six boring-open factors
mentioned (up to nie million) has the same probability of holding true
in reality in the absence of any better knowledge. Hence very roughly
speaking, the LHC has a chance of about 1 over 6 (a dice toss) to reduce
earth to a 2-cm black hole following a silent period of exponential
growth inside earth of a short number of years.
This argument goes unchallenged in the literature for 9 years. No
physicist of the younger generation is allowed to work on it. The CERN
Young Scientists who invited me for a talk in early 2010 were not
allowed to meet with me when I was waiting in the CERN cafeteria to fix
the date.
Much of the above-said is not maximally precise. But in questions of
risk, it is not exact equalities that count but inequalities.
We saw that “ex novo paene quodlibet” – from the new, almost anything
can follow. The "unchargedness of black holes" was the decisive point
besides "lack of Hawking radiation." I still hope that the danger can be
dispelled. But no one at CERN or in the scientific community at large is
trying to help me find the decisive point that would do away with the
danger as the clear-all call everyone hopes for. The reason for this
restraint, I believe, has to do with the fact that a public discussion
of the risks is "no good" for business reasons.
But: the fact that no one is contradicting my publications in the
literature could, of course, also mean that none of the points I told
you holds water. If not even Hawking bothers to defend himself and
thereby CERN, why should anyone else bother? For 9 years, everyone
working at CERN has the official order to always maintain that “the risk
is exactly zero.” Under such an administrative imperative, renewal of a
safety report is impossible by definition. The rest of the world has to
live with this fact as long as it can muster -- if there were not this
"a silent period" before which everything is too late already without
anyone knowing it. To me for one, waking up in time appears preferable:
Why not check and why not discuss after all? Is the fact that the judge
at Cologne implicitly contradicted the German highest court that had
ruled a bit earlier that "CERN is safe" without even having listened to
the pro and con, really a sufficient excuse for risking the planet with
a non-zero probability?
Of course, the whole story throws an appalling light on Science and
Europe and Germany. This fact -- I am Austrian and Austria briefly left
CERN in response -- makes me especially sad. Do you think that after the
loud silence of the sciences the humanities have a voice of their own to
offer?
I recently wrote a paper just accepted for publication which I cannot
resist to append here owing to its humanistic style. Maybe it will make
the "other culture" no less upset about me than the scientific one
appears to be to judge from its loud silence:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312213666_Szilamandee_Paper_submitted_to_the_Grand_Palace
It can show how deep my concern is since humankind is really behaving
strangely, dooes it not?
Thank you from my heart for your important encouragement.
Take care,
Otto
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
*To:* Otto E. Rossler <oeross00 at yahoo.com>
*Sent:* Friday, January 20, 2017 1:57 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Fis] A Curious Story
Dear Otto and colleagues,
Thanks for the curious story and sorry that my absorption in low level
administrative themes has knocked me down-down during these weeks. But
not being a physicist, and even not a third rate aficionado, I can
contribute very little to the exchanges. At least I will try to remark a
couple of lateral aspects:
First, when I heard about this story, I was amazed how hysterical the
web records were. On the one side, the tabloid style comments and the
malicious personal attacks, and on the other side the offended,
irritated scientists. That your opinion deserved a "Charge of the Nobel
Brigade" with all those big names hurried together to smitten any
possible doubt, was sort of humorous. Wasn't from Horace that saying of
"vociferant montes et parturient ridiculus mus"? My impression is that
all those hyperactive new media have deteriorated the exchange and
maturation of scientific opinion. The fate of your position on those
hypothetic risks was irrationally discounted.
And about the theme itself, I join one of the initial comments on the
energy of singular cosmic rays, probabilistically having to cause such
microscopic destructive black holes in The Moon and somewhere else. The
wide swaths of the cosmos we watch today do not show sudden instances of
planet or star disappearance. As many thousands and millions of those
are well followed nowadays without reports of sudden destruction: can
this "stable" cosmos be an extra argument in the discussion? Let me
improvise some further views: Black holes relate "quite a bit" to
information matters. The controversy between Hawking, Penrose, etc.
about the fate of the quantum information engulfed seemingly emitted is
not the end of the story I think. If everything should make functional
sense in an integrated "organismic" cosmos, the functionality of black
holes is really enigmatic. They just become a reservoir of dark matter
for gravity? In this point our common friend Michael Conrad (1996)
put"/when we look at a biological system we/ are looking at the face of
the underlying /physics of the universe/." Thereupon, I have always
thought about the similarity between cellular proteasomes (protein
destructing machines) and the cosmic (destructive) black holes. But the
former RECYCLE and emit single amino acid components for reuse, and then
would the latter provide only residual gravity? Lee Smolin said
something bold: they recycle too, and produce "baby universes" with
slightly altered laws of nature. Our planet final blimps would have some
more fun incorporated (with the big IF, of course)...
Best wishes
--Pedro
lEl 11/01/2017 a las 11:33, Otto E. Rossler escribió:
I like this response from Lou,
Otto
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Louis H Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> <mailto:loukau at gmail.com>
*To:* Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
<mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
*Cc:* fis <fis at listas.unizar.es> <mailto:fis at 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.iacs at aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at 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 <alexhankey at gmail.com> <mailto:alexhankey at gmail.com>
Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
<mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at 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.iacs at aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at 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 [oeross00 at yahoo.com <mailto:oeross00 at 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 at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at 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 at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta 0
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20170127/c4427560/attachment.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list