Conjecture: “A fast frictionless ball that recurrently passes through “grooves” with a lowered, locally time-periodic potential loses energy on average in forward time for non-selected initial conditions.”
Even a single such groove on a ring predictably suffices. This mechanical toy then qualifies as a prototype example for dynamical friction.
Corollary: If the vibrating grooves are replaced by vibrating mounds, the ball statistically gains energy in forward time for non-selected initial conditions.
Conclusion: These are the 2 deterministic prototypes of statistical dynamical behavior in the cosmos: cryodynamics and thermodynamics. Life is an implication of the latter. The former is still largely unexplored. I thank my Tübingen group for discussions.
Oh no, Mr Roessler. No one needs to attack your results — because there are no results. What you call results was on the one hand reviewed by experts years ago with the result that it is meaningless pseudoscience and on the other hand completely irrelevant to the safety issues. If someone has to attack something then it is you who has to attack the G&M paper. For example you could do this by pointing out why your “results” should have been quoted by them.
If this unfounded pseudo-argument about the neutron stars is all you can contribute then the case is already closed. Then you have not even entered the stage.
It is your turn to read the paper and to point out the errors in there by referring to the paper. It is your turn to show them why your results deserve to be quoted by them. It seems strange that in 3 years you apparently had not even started to do this.
And please deliver the next time more than “quantum mechanics”. Write a review of the paper on a scientific level. But do not bother anyone any longer if you have nothing more to say than you have presented here.
To present the conclusion of the discussion also on this new page:
Mr Roessler believes that neutron star matter does not interact with anything. He does so without presenting any scientific reason and any substantial explanation.
He thinks that not citing something like this example of poorest reasoning is scientific fraud. This is rather amusing as Mr Roessler so far has not shown scientific behaviour concerning these issues at all. For example it seems he has not even read the G&M paper.
Dear professor Nicolai:
Thank you for this learned anonymous response in your defense which is unfortunately misleading.
Please, be so kind to ask Dr. Mangano to make our E-mail correspondence from early and mid 2008 public.
Thank you,
Sincerely yours,
Otto E. Rössler
Oh yes, we all want to see that. It will prove that you were already disproved one more time almost 4 years ago.
But probably it would be more useful to ask Dr Mangano himself and not Dr Nicolai.
And I am almost sure that even in this correspondence you were not refering to the contents (equations, models, assumptions) of the paper .
Please be so kind to release your email-correspondence with other outstanding anti-scientists, and the CEO of lifeboat.com
Here are the first 50 comments: http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/12/short-paper/comment-page-1
Mr. Kilgore, email correspondence is private and its release would require permission of all involved. If by “anti-scientists” you mean those who believe that some restriction should be placed on experiments that may imperil public safety, let’s hope there are many such activists.
It’s impressive that Mr. Kilgore actually checked the book by Prof. J. C. Wheeler that I quoted in regard to the superfluidity of neutron stars. He correctly named the chapter and did not dispute the accuracy of my quote. He suggested, however, that I did not read the chapter. I did read it, and wonder to what he referred. Dr. Wheeler described evidence that “strongly suggest that the inner portions of the neutron star are superfluid” (p 151) The chapter concludes that “the glitch phenomenon cannot be explained without invoking a superfluid core” (p 152). Since its 2007 publication, more evidence has accumulated, including direct evidence this year from NASA’s Chandra X-ray satellite, that the neutron star’s core is superfluid.
The reason for quoting the particular passage was that it described the role of gravity, density, and nuclear forces in producing a superfluid state in neutron stars — factors that Mr. “blackhole” seemed to deny. He also is under the impression that the Giddings & Mangano paper has been ignored, but in fact it has been quoted numerous times at Lifeboat, by myself, Dr. Rossler, and others. If as he suggests, the superfluidity argument of Dr. Rossler regarding neutron stars is “weak”, then it is still immensely stronger than that of G&M, who had no counter-argument at all. In fact, they carefully omitted all mention of “superfluid” in their 2008 paper, even though the phenomenon was well-known in regard to neutron stars since 1960. This omission was therefore deliberate and deceitful, for it was withholding essential information that undermined their argument. Why else would they ignore it?
An explanation may be possible, but it was not made by G&M, nor by Mr. “blackhole” or EQ/Hansel, who only provide self-proclamations without evidence or references. According to Wikipedia, “since even gasses have viscosity, superfluids have less resistance…” A mini black hole may thus shoot through the superfluid core — and inner crust — of a neutron star like a bullet through a fog. At near light speed, the 1/10,000 of a second trip would not be enough time for any significant accretion — as G&M themselves acknowledged by giving far higher time estimates for black hole accretion on a neutron star.
Mr Houston, gain you are setting up a strawman. No one ever denied the superfluidiy of the core but that this would have an effect on the interaction of hypothetical particles with the nucleons in the core.
No one has mentioned the superfluidity concerning the accretion because the state of matter simpy does not matter. It is the density, the gravity and, of course, the interaction via the nuclear forces which are the important parameters.
Mr Kilgore actually did dispute the accuracy of your quote (as I did concerning your SPC-quote) as you had left out something not unimportant:
“At the highest densities in the center of a massive neutron star, the quantum effects among the neutrons can cause yet another arrangement of the structure. Theories predict that the neutrons will clump together into a rock-like solid. This material would be somewhat akin to the solid crust. ”
And so on…There is also not a single reference of Mr Roessler referring to the G&M paper, expressing for example why equations and models presented and derived there should be invalid or simply wrong.
To conclude once more Mr Roessler believes apparently that neutron star cores are not interacting with anything (as the black holes). He also believes that mentioning the term “quantum mechanics” is already a satifying argument to override the obvious problems of this “hypothesis”.
Robert,
“Mr. Kilgore, email correspondence is private and its release would require permission of all involved.”
Yes! But it would be the one part of the safety conference. So, like a poster session.
It’s admirable that Mr. “black hole”, like Mr. Kilgore, obtained the rather obscure book I had cited (J.C. Wheeler, Cosmic Catastrophes, 2007) and examined the chapter. You guys are good!
The old view that “theories predict…a rock-like solid” in the center of a neutron star, expressed by Prof. Wheeler in 2007, may have been superseded by the new direct evidence from NASA that the inner core is a superfluid, as was previously also found for the inner crust. See, for example, the news release of 2÷23÷2011 from the Royal Astronomical Society: http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/217-news201.....-core" rel="nofollow">http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/217-news2011/1925-superfluid-and-superconductor-discovered-in-a-stars-cor http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/217-news201.....s-core
Mr. "blackhole" contends that the superfluid "state of matter simply does not matter." It evidently does matter, however, for the escape of neutrinos from the core. It's obvious that a friction-free superfluid environment - which is even less resistant than a gas, according to Wikipedia - would facilitate the passage of a tiny high-speed particle, essentially cancelling the resistance of the star's density.
The strong and weak nuclear forces would lock down any tasty morsels at the Nuclear Star Cafe, making them unavailable to a relativistic uncharged black hole that zips through without staying.
The "No-Hair Theorem" of another Dr. Wheeler recognizes only mass, angular momentum, and charge as pertinent parameters of a black hole. Moreover, the basic Schwarzschild black hole lacks charge, and the Schwinger mechanism would neutralize any charge. Since the protons and quarks whose collision may produce a mini black hole would disappear behind the event horizon and be lost forever in the singularity, it seems questionable whether the black hole would be affected the nuclear forces which affected its progenitors. All that's left is the Cheshire smile of its gravity field.
Mr Houston, the state of superfluid and rock like neutrons are probably present in the star at the same time. You again misunderstood Wheeler and the literature.
furthermore you lack a deeper understanding of the issues, If the black hole is “disappearing behind the horizont” and therefore not affected by anything like expressed in your posting that it is also less likely that it will eat anything at all. In fact you are reprodcing in some way the disproof of Roesslers “proof of danger”.
The comparison of non-interacting neutrinos with much heavier particles which contain also particles affected by strong forces is simply a strawman. To repeat it again and again reveals a kind of irrational dogmatism resitant against any reasonable and rational argument.
So if the ultradense matter can not interact with this hole by any force strong enough to stop it than this s also less likely in an environment with much lower density even though the speed of the particle may be lower. If te hole has disappeared behind a horizont disabling the interaction via much strnger forces than gravity there is almost per defintionem no danger. Mr Houston is in fact constructing the ultimately safe hole, not interacting via electromagnetism, not via nclear forces and due to its extreme low mass and the nearly complete empty space around it, not via gravity. a black hole so less interactive that it would not be stopped in the ultimate dense target of a neutron star crust or core will not affect normal matter.
It is questionable if someone can treat these hypothetical particles like normal black holes anyway. It is further questionable why the Schwarzschildmetric should be enough to describe these particles at all.
It is interesting that suddenly Mr Houston sees his source as an obscure book after some people had shown his selective citation.
Nicolai is trying here to trash a friend the world and I never had a better one (although I never met him or would know anything about him except what he wrote appearing like an angel on this website).
Why do Nicolai and his entourage not offer a single counter-theorem to my decisive Telemach theorem (or Ich’s unique explicit 3-D solution to the Schwarzschild metric)?
Assertions are fine, but in science assertions do not suffice. And if in science they have no name attached to them, they automatically come with a big sign flashing: THIS ASSERTION UNLESS SIGNED ON REQUEST IS A LIE. I only see such lies on this blog, and no one in the whole world contradicts.
Not even my genuinely admired colleague at Golm does, who publicly accepts my statement that his refusal to reply is living proof that he cannot dismantle the proven fact that what CERN has been doing and has scheduled to continue doing, is the worst crime of history and the worst conceivable crime. Done, of course, with German impeccability.
The User ICH has not confirmed the R-theorem but also disproved it. He emphasized repeatedly that especially your interpretation of this disnatce as real distances etc was unphysical and meaningless. He stated the exactly same for his “R-version”.
There is no support for your case from that side.
Oh yes, Prof Nicolai had never a better friend than the guy who replaced proper scientific arguments with Nazi-comparisons.
Who is the “Nazi” (sorry) if not someone who helps destroy the planet by unashamedly presenting lies as defined in the very entry he responds to?
This “defense” of the “Max-Planck-Institut” by apparently an employee of the very same institute is a disgrace.
It falls back on the boss who permits such a public defense of his own person.
He is delusional. He really thinks that someone in GOLM or in Geneva does still care about him
BTW “lies” are your area. You are lying all the time. For example to present “ICH” as a supporter while he clearly stated the same as Nicolai et al before,especially that there is no new physics in your physical meaningless “interpretations”, is a lie. (Therefore you are the only one dreaming of something like a “disproof of hawking radiation” while your “proof” was on the one hand disproved long ago and on the other hand never relevant to the hawking effect (was pointed out by many people,including ICH as well, you never gave a counterargument) )
Hansilein wants to become the most hated anonymous mud-thrower of history. Shall I make his E-mail public? (I won’t and he knows that.)
He could ask “Ich” — why doesn’t he?
He could ask Hawking: Why doesn’t he?
He accepts having no honor: This is a tragedy for a young person and a young scientist. The responsibility is not his but his advisor’s.
Probably you have not read the statements of ICH about your stuff — he is certainly not a supporter of your private interpretation of relativity with “new physics” and so on.
Perhaps I have asked ICH long before? Who knows?
Concerning Hawking: It is obvious that your stuff has nothing to do with Hawking radiation. Hawking radiation is a quantum effect predicitng the loss of energy of e.g. black holes even though nothing can escape them classically. Rössler in fact says because classically nothing can escape there is no hawking radiation totally neglecting the specialty of this quantum effect. So far there is not quantum mechanical argument of Rössler against it. Nothing more to say about that (in fact this was said countless times before, Rössler prefers to “forget” that
)
Good bye Otto. I will not waste any more time on your bullshit. I leave you alone with your delusions of Nicolai communicating with you here. Träumen Sie schön weiter von einer Bedeutung die Sie nicht ansatzweise besitzen, Rössler. Es war amüsant, aber alles hat ein Ende. Vielleicht werde ich das Material für eine Arbeit über Wahnvorstellungen verwenden.
Promises, promises. Does this foreshadow a new alias for the Hydra-headed Hansel?
The issue of Hawking radiation has reappeared. After some 35 years, it has never been detected and has no direct evidence. Even before Dr. Rossler’s black hole papers, its theoretical basis was disputed by a number of respected physicists, including Belinski, Helfer, and even Ulrich. Moreover, some physicists who accept its existence found that it would not extinguish a mini black hole; these include Vilkovisky, Rothman, Plaga, and even the CERN-affiliated Horst Stocker (references available). Columbia physicist Brian Greene succinctly summed up the matter: “Are we willing to bet the fate of the planet on an untested insight?” (NY Times, Sep. 11, 2008).
Hansel refers to me as “the guy…with Nazi comparisons.” But as he knows, I have endeavored to show the differences: CERN leaders and scientists are motivated to advance science, not to do harm. The unintended consequences of their activities could be far worse than any war, but would be fully democratic. For the sake of Science, all people are to be put at risk of extinction, regardless of race, creed or color.
Mr. “b” objected to my comparing neutrinos with mini black holes, since he believes the latter would be affected by the strong nuclear force. Is there evidence for this contention? Behind the “iron curtain” of the event horizon, any quarks or nucleons that would normally be affected by the strong force are out of contact with what’s outside. The neutrinos are similar to an mBH in respect to dealing with the gravity and density of a neutron star.
Regardless of theories expressed by Dr. Wheeler in 2007, the standard view today is that the inner core of a neutron star is superfluid, not solid rock, and that the outer crust is far less dense.
Mr Houston, again the strawman based in part clearly on Roesslers views about horizonts.
The “black holes” here are *particles* consisting of nucleons or parts of nucleons like quarks. These are affected by the strong force, a force much stronger than gravity. Gravity on the other hand is weak and especially the gravity of a particle consisting of a few quarks is extremely weak. You state now that these forces are in some way hidden behind a event horizont, far away from the outside and so on (a kind of Roessler view). But, if the the strong force cannot interact because of the horizont, why should gravity do? The quarks are out of contact with the outside. To strip quarks from atoms by gravitational interaction in order to grow the black hole needs the direct contact because gravity is, as mentioned before, nealy non-existing on that scales.
It is a mistake to think of microscopic black holes in the same way as about macroscopic ones.
Concerning Dr. Wheeler, there is no evidence against the presence of an even more solid inner core embedded in the superfluid neutron core. In fact Wheeler said that both states of matter could be there, a superfluid core and a denser more solid “core of the core”. It is interesting that you are apparently trying to kick this book out of the discussion after your your selective citation was shown.
With a clarity of focus reminiscent of TRMG, Mr. “blackhole” has shown why a mini black hole cannot grow on a neutron star. Everything there is nailed down by the strong force, which affects things only at extremely short distances of less than one nucleon. A mini black hole whizzing past at near light speed would be unable to yank out a quark or other tiny morsel, since they’re all locked tight by the strong force. The weak gravitational field of the mBH would be at a competitive disadvantage, especially at such high speed.
If the neutron star has a solid (non-superfluid) center, the mBH may merely ricochet off, as would a handball off a concrete wall, returning to the airy superfluid realm and then outer space. If it got stuck, there’d be no free lunch at the Nuclear Star Cafe, for all the quarks and even the electrons there are locked into nucleons and nucleon pairs, thousands of times larger than the tiny mBH.
The result could be very different for a slow moving mBH such as could be produced by the nearly head-on LHC collisions on Earth, where there are abundant quarks and other tiny snacks freely available to be caught in its capture radius. This was worked out by three CERN-affiliated physicists, who found that “with one extra dimension, the earth would be accreted into the black hole in 27 years” (B. Koch, M. Bleicher, H. Stocker, arXiv.org, July 22, 2008, v.1, p. 2). This is the exact midpoint of Dr. Rossler’s estimated range of “50 months to 50 years.” Of course, the entire section and accompanying figure had to be censored from the published paper, which sought to defend the LHC.
Correction: In my previous comment, the name “Ulrich” should have been Unruh.
Interesting analysis, Mr. Houston. Could it be that Neutron Stars and White Dwarfs really are immune to accretion by mini black holes? This certainly undermines CERN’s safety arguments…
Thank you, JWG. I showed this in my paper “A rational, a moral and a spiritual dilemma” that appeared in 2008.