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 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.â.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 Rosslerâs 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 âI can > save your house from a time bomb planted into the basementâ and you > respond by saying âI donât care.â 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 âYou are bound to laugh but you have > flunked the test.â 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 personâs > fears â mine. You, my dear reader, are thus my last hope that you might > be able to explain the punch line to me: âWhy is it that it does not > matter downstairs that the first floor is ablaze?â 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
