Dec 5, 2011

Short Paper

Posted by in category: cosmology

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.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. VirgilSamms says:

    I am thinking of getting a petition of signatures together to stop this ridiculous spamming of a worthwhile website with conspiracy theory garbage. The public might actually come and visit here and take the lifeboat mission seriously if this kind of stupidity would stop.
    Go away.

  2. Robert Houston says:

    Cryodynamics and thermodynamics, the subject of this profound little essay, are not “conspiracy theory” but features of the cosmos. Apparently, however, it went over Mr. Samm’s head. He should “go away” himself to corporate sites to find reassurance that technology is totally risk-free.

  3. Craig Mayhew says:

    Agreed. It would be good if there were the ability to up vote and down vote blog entries.

  4. The point in this example is that the two periodic perturbations are in effect non-sinusoidal, so that their time integral is positive in the one case and negative in the other.

  5. W. Kilgore says:

    liefeboat has a seriously anti-scientific mission

  6. Robert Houston says:

    Mr. Kilgore is only half right. Lifeboat takes a balanced approach, cognizant of the risks as well as benefits of science and technology. According to its Mission statement, “the Lifeboat Foundation is…dedicated to encouraging scientific advancements while helping humanity survive existential risks and possible misuse of increasingly powerful technologies…”

  7. I understand that Mr. Kilgore is irritated about the fact that a tiny minority of mavericks demands a large scientific majority to debate their results at a safety conference. This is “anti-democratic.” I agree. But this is — unfortunately — no argument in science.

    It would not matter much were the danger proven to exist not unprecedented. All the minority is asking for is the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Kilgore is doubting. This puts him way up over CERN who are afraid of doubting more than of dying and killing. (Sorry — I just remembered the stakes again…)

    Did I catch the point?

  8. VirgilSamms says:

    This is idiocy. There are supermassive black holes that make the energy of cern look like.….….well, gee whiz. This is cluttering up lifeboat with post after post of technobabble no one understands except a couple people with mental problems.

    How am I supposed to recommend this site to people when they will come here and see this bizarro conspiracy stuff the tabloids would not even run?

    Craig, got any ideas?

  9. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Don’t recommend a site you don’t understand — I also need help.
    Trust in CERN is an understandable desire. I therefore absolutely sympathize with you, dear Mr. Sams.

  10. Robert Houston says:

    To be skeptical of the self-serving reassurances of science agencies such as CERN, which operates a collider that its own scientists have called “a black hole factory” (CERN Courier, Nov. 12, 2004), could only be due to “idiocy” and “mental problems” — in the view of good conformist fools.

    However, some distinguished scientists have also expressed concern about the dangers of colliders, including Cambridge astrophysicist Martin Rees, Cambridge theoretical physicist Adrian Kent, and Nobel laureate physicist Francesco Calogero. Idiots all, no doubt.

    Supermassive black holes began as small black holes. CERN-affiliated physicists have calculated that “the lifetime of the earth could be shortened to less than 30 years after the LHC produced its first black hole in one extra dimension” (B. Koch et al., July 22, 2008, v.1).

    By the way, Mr. Mayhew, of the “Top 10 Authors” on the Lifeboat blog Professor Otto Rossler is ranked first.

  11. VirgilSamms says:

    “Supermassive black holes began as small black holes”

    Small black holes being a sun several times larger than ours dying.
    Not some sparks in an accelerator. This is pathetic.

  12. blackhole says:

    “Supermassive black holes began as small black holes”

    Only if there is enough matter around that could be accreted.

    if there is nothing in range, a black hole is not growing. If the black hole is not interacting in a nearly empty space (on the scale of the black hole) like the Roessler-mbhs it will probably not accrete anything.

  13. … at first. The first in-spiralling quark changes this forever.

  14. blackhole says:

    If the mbh is not interacting there is no spiralling quark.

    It is obvious that your knowledge in particle physics is limited (to put it mildly)

  15. Your first sentence is correct — when you deny gravitational attraction at very short range to our little guy.

  16. blackhole says:

    …and if it is interavting strong enough to accrete a quark from a nucleus by overruling the strong force there is no reason why this very strong intreaction should no be able to accrete ultradense packed nucleons in whithe dwarfs or nuetron stars.

  17. blackhole says:

    The same argument concerning ultradense bodies applies for gravitational interaction on very short distances. In fact it is even more relevant in this dense bodies compared to earth

  18. I see what you mean. You are right: With white dwarfs it is a matter of density, as calculated in my 2008 “A rational… dilemma” publication. They happen not to be dense enough. Neutron stars are, but their internal superfluidity prevents mBH’s from accreting matter in their cores.

    Walter Wagner assumes that the mBHs hence can pass right through unhampered. I do not know this for sure — regarding the crust. If the latter is superfluid, too, as seems to be assumed by many, this is the final answer to your question.

    If the crust can stop them and is not superfluid, they can grow there until having reached a certain size and weight. Then they fall into the superfluid core, where they dash around (hyper-) chaotically much like Olafur Eliasson’s famous rope-suspended fan in air. Through Chandrasekhar dynamical friction in the presence of others, they then come to settle peacefully inside the neutron star for the rest of the latter’s natural lifetime.

    Thank you for asking so constructive questions, dear “blackhole.” They will be taken up at the safety conference.

  19. blackhole says:

    Mr Roessler, superfluidity does not matter as I have pointed put in my previous posting above. Perhaps you remember the few sentences about strong forces or gravitation. So far there is no evidence for gravitational or strong force superfluidty. Therefore your argument is useless. It fails from the start.

    It seems that you were desperately searching for some sciencey sounding terms to get rid of the neutron stars. Unfortunately it seems also that you have not thought long enough about them.

  20. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Why do CERN scientists always fall back on folk psychology as their last argument?

    No one said anything about gravitational-force superfluidity. You disappoint me. Did you understand what I said?

  21. blackhole says:

    You have said it Mr Roessler. Perhaps you do not realize the implications of your own arguments? If your black hole is not interacting with a ultradense packing of nucleons than the neutron star must be superfluid in terms of gravitaion and the strong force.

  22. blackhole says:

    You must admit that it seems a little bit strange if there is absolutely no interaction with a ultradense packing of nucleons for a black hole being able to extract quarks from nuclei against the strong force .

  23. Otto E. Rossler says:

    You are right: quantummechanics always“seems a little bit strange” as you put it.

    Superfluidity is a quantum effect, right? As such it overrides all forces. Or do you say that a superfluid — like that inside a neutron star — is superfluid only with respect to certain physical objects and forces and not to others? Please, tell me if there is such a principle.

  24. blackhole says:

    You mean really mentioning the term “quantum mechanics” overrules the arguments about the strong force between nucleons (by the way described by quantum theories) and mbhs (which must intreact via the strong force to extract quarks) ?

  25. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I talk about a frictionless superfluid whose existence is accepted. Or is this what you are questioning?

    And I said that mini-Black-Holes can NOT extract anything from a superfluid (if they could, they could not pass through frictionlessly). Shall we start our dialog all over?

  26. blackhole says:

    There is no reason why a particle interacting via forces described in quantum field theories or gravitationally should not be able to extract matter from a superfluid. Perhaps you should think about the term friction and fluidity again, Mr Roessler.

  27. Otto E. Rossler says:

    So you are claiming frictionlessness applies not to all minute objects passing through a superfluid?

  28. blackhole says:

    You claim that in a superfluid there is no gravitation and no forces of quantum field theories. And you claim that mantioning the term “quantum mechanicy” is already a sufficient argument.

    There is no reason why this ultradense packing of nucleons (!) should not interact with particles like these black holes.

  29. Otto E. Rossler says:

    I obviously have a higher opinion of quantum mechanics.

  30. blackhole says:

    You obviously hide yourself behind a term without having a real argument.

  31. blackhole says:

    So can we conclude that the neutrons in a neutron star strangely lost their ability to interact via strong forces as described by QFT?

  32. blackhole says:

    And: Is there no gravity generated by this gigantic mass of nucleons because of your brilliant idea that quantum mechanics “overrides all forces”?

  33. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Oh no — you seem to believe that the quantum property of frictionlessness (ultimately due to the indistinguishability of particles) can be overcome by certain privileged passing objects.

    I hope you are alone with this conviction. It is as unhappy as believing in Hawking radiation, dear anonymous colleague(s), but perhaps no less dangerous?, it now surfaces.

  34. blackhole says:

    Unfortunately that is no answer to the questions and again no argument.

    It is obvious that you are really confused about the meaning of friction and superfluidity.

    So again: Can we conclude that in your opinion the nucleons in the neutron star are not interacting via electromagnetism, gravity and the nuclear forces? This is the logical conclusion of your posting about that issue.

  35. Robert Houston says:

    Since the nucleons inside the neutron star are nearly all neutrons, and thus neutral in electric charge, they indeed “are not interacting via electromagnetism.” (In a neutron star, most of the charged particles — protons and electrons — are combined to form neutrons.)

    Mr. “Blackhole” is setting up a strawman by suggesting that gravity and the nuclear forces are being dismissed by anyone. At the high densities of the neutron star, these result in the quantum effect of superfluidity.

    Prof. J. Craig Wheeler, president of the Am. Astronomical Society, has described the superfluidity of a neutron star: “The nuclear forces cause the quantum waves that represent the neutrons to line up in a special way that minimizes the repulsive nuclear forces. The result is…a superfluid.” It’s “a special state of matter in which all the particles flow in consonance and the result is absolutely zero viscosity, no resistance to motion” (J.C. Wheeler, Cosmic Catastrophes, p. 150).

    If there’s “no resistance to motion,” then a mini black hole may transit the star without resistance. Thus the density would fail to have any stopping power, At nearly light speed, the mBH could travel across a 12 mile neutron star in about 1/10,000 sec. This is too short a time to accrete significantly even if it could yank any quarks out of their tightly bound state.

    The superfluid condition thus nullifies the neutron star safety argument of Giddings and Mangano. It is a scientific scandal that they never even mentioned the superfluid state of neutron stars, which was already was well-known when they wrote in 2008. Of course, on separate grounds, CERN’s Science Policy Committee judged the neutron star argument to “require confirmation” (SPC Report, 2008, p. 3), If unconfirmed, it’s unproven.

  36. blackhole says:

    Mr. Houston, as usual you are not understanding what you are talking about. No resistance to motion among the neutrons (!) does not mean that there is no interaction (in fact there must be an interaction between the neutrons because otherwise there would be no neutron star.). It does not imply that a particle consisting of two quarks will not interact with this ultradense packing of nucleons. It does of course also not imply that there is no effect from gravity of this ultradense body.

    The strawman is set up by Mr Roessler who thinks that mentioning the term “quantum mechanics” is already a full argument in order to explain this strange hypothesis that there should be no kind of interaction between particles in ultradense neutron packings.

    So far there are no objections against the respective papers using the dense stallar bodies. The argument is still valid.

    To come to an end, let me quote the part of the SPC you have left out:

    “In particular, at the LHC energy, any danger for the Earth on time scales lower than or
    comparable to the natural lifetime of the solar system can be ruled out on the basis of its
    contradiction with the observation of white dwarf stars of known mass, age and other

    After that the report is adressing future colliders. The confirmation of some properties is required for future colliders with much higher energies.

    So on the one hand we have Houston who conciously quotes only a part of the report changing the meaning. And on the other hand we have scientists mentioning the need for some additional evidence in the open, without hiding anything behind something like selective citation.

    I think the reader can draw some conclusions from this.

  37. blackhole says:

    To sum up Mr Roessler here believes that neutron star cores are not interacting with anything by strong forces or gravity while quantum field theories predict something different. His explanation was mentioning the term “quantum mechanics” what is a real brilliant argument.

    The reader can also draw some conclusions from this.

  38. Otto E. Rossler says:

    This is very meek retirement-flak from a frightened “specialist” who dioes not even dare give his name. Is no one around with a scientific argument? Or with a moral argument to exculpate CERN for not quoting my pertinent paper published in July 2008?

    And — if I may say so — why is no one responding to my purely classical “ball” question posed at the top? It has significance only in the context of statistical mechanics and cosmology and has nothing whatsoever to do with black holes or CERN.

    But of course it is true that the CERN question is a billion times more important at the time being. So please continue — or rather start — exculpating CERN if you can, dear CERNies. And thanks to VirgilSamms for the good tone brought in.

  39. blackhole says:

    I think the reader can even get some insights about Mr Roessler after reading his last statement containing not a single scientific argument. Suddenly the names matter. Suddenly he does not want to discuss his fantastic non-interacting black holes any more while this was obviously no problem a few hours before.

  40. W. Kilgore says:

    Houston, you have a problem!

    Why didn’t read the whole chapter of J. Craig on the internal structure of neutron stars? The only scandal that apears on this blog is selective citing and the use of buzz words from your and Ottos side.

    Your crusade against the this machine and science itself is bizarre.

  41. blackhole says:

    I forgot to mention that this morning.

    The problem is not only the problem of Mr Houston. It is a problem of Mr Roessler as well.

  42. Otto E. Rossler says:

    The problem is that physicists have learned to publicly refuse dialogue, a new phenomenon on the planet.

    I liked professor Hermann Nicolai’s talk this morning on SWR3. Even E10 (including E-infinity), but not the golden mean was mentioned.

    What I missed was, of course, the new size-, mass- and charge-change result in general relativity and the equivalence principle which had been presented to him. I hope his next talk will include it.

    In two days’ time, evidence for the Higgs boson is to be presented in a press conference at CERN, discovered at one 50th of the energy used for a year at the LHC ( ).

    It would be wonderful if the “safety conference,” refused by CERN for 4 years despite an official request made by a court last January, would be made the topic of a question posed one of the invited international journalists.

  43. blackhole says:

    I doubt that a serious physicist would mention pseudoscientific numerology like E-infinity…

    But I think we can confirm the conclusion about your private neutron star theory.

    By the way, Mr Roessler, if you want to discuss arguments based on astronomical observations please adress the respective papers (e.g. Giddings & Mangano) directly. Show the errors by referring to the exact models and calculations made there in the paper. For example, show where in the paper only linear growth is assumed, show it *in the paper*. You made some accusations against this studies but it seems that you have not even read these papers. And please start to learn the background of terms you are using. It is embarrassing to see how weak your neutron star argument is and the limitations of your knowledge about these stellar objects (and particle physics in general). It apparently consists mainly of saying “quantum mechanics”.

  44. blackhole says:

    I forgot to add the conclusion, the core of Mr Roesslers views about neutron stars:

    “Mr Roessler here believes that neutron star cores are not interacting with anything by strong forces or gravity while quantum field theories predict something different. His explanation consists of mentioning the term “quantum mechanics” which is a brilliant argument. ”

  45. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Mr. blackhole: The paper you quote consciously avoided to quote my results.
    If you find my neutron star arguments “weak,” I wholeheartedly agree and ask you to make them harder.
    Every new argument is weak. Like a baby. It needs help. Can you be so kind?

  46. Otto E. Rossler says:

    P.S. My answer still refererred to your second-but-last entry.

  47. blackhole says:

    Mr Roessler, not every new argument is weak. Your argument is simply nonsense and that is the reason why it is weak.

    It requires more than mentioning fancy terms like “quantum mechanics” to counter a strong argument presented in a paper like Giddings & Mangano 2008.

    (There are no results from you relevant to the paper to be cited.)

  48. Otto E. Rossler says:

    “Your argument is simply nonsense”

    This only someone who has a name can dare say. In this form, it reveals cowardice and a lack of character. Please, excuse yourself. Then I will embrace you. Otto

  49. blackhole says:

    I have pointed out why it is nonsense. To be precise, in its present form it is not even an argument.

    If you want to be heard by the scientific community discuss the paper Giddings & Mangano 2008. If you have something to criticize point it out refering to the paper. So far it seems that you have not even read it.

    Here we have reached the conclusion that in your view neutron star matter is not interacting at all. Fine, but you cannot expect to be taken serious by any thinking scientist on this planet having at least basic knowledge about neutron stars and particle physics.

    There is nothing more to say.

  50. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Dear Mr. blackhole: You continue behaving in a way which you could not uphold if you had a face.

    You forgot to say above why I should answer to a paper by two colleagues who accept the reproach of having committed scientific fraud by selective non-quotation (unless they first repair).

    Since you appear to know the two gentlemen, kindly ask them to please start attacking my results if they can. This would be the greater help than to care about my understanding their (non-pertinent) results — although I appreciate your efforts.

    The whole world public looks emotionlessly at the spectacle of CERN being unable to defend itself against the reproach of scientific fraud. Why do you think is this so?

    It obviously is because they realize that this reproach, however deadly in science, is absolutely negligible compared to the other reproach which they likewise accept before the world and its highest institutions for more than 3 years: attempting to end the life of every person on the planet.

    This latter acceptance is the more surprising since all the accused need do to wash their faces clean was or is, I hope: saying yes to the scientific safety conference publicly asked for in April 2008 and in January 2011.

    Imagine: The noblest and greatest scientific institution of history, mother of the Internet, fearing nothing more than answering to two scientific questions:
    1) Are you sure that you can detect micro black holes if you successfully produce them at your unprecedented energies? And
    2) Can you exclude that one of these at first invisible fruits of your activity will grow exponentially inside earth?

    Thank you, dear anonymous Mr. blackhole, for having the kindness to convey this double question to CERN and their answer to the world’s media at next Tuesday’s press conference?

  51. blackhole says:

    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.

  52. blackhole says:

    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.

  53. Otto E. Rossler says:

    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

  54. blackhole says:

    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.

  55. blackhole says:

    And I am almost sure that even in this correspondence you were not refering to the contents (equations, models, assumptions) of the paper .

  56. W. Kilgore says:

    Please be so kind to release your email-correspondence with other outstanding anti-scientists, and the CEO of

  57. Robert Houston says:

    Here are the first 50 comments:

    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.

  58. blackhole says:

    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”.

  59. W. Kilgore says:


    “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.

  60. Robert Houston says:

    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:…tars-core” rel=“nofollow ugc”>…stars-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.

  61. blackhole says:

    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.

  62. blackhole says:

    It is interesting that suddenly Mr Houston sees his source as an obscure book after some people had shown his selective citation.

  63. Otto E. Rossler says:

    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.

  64. Hansel says:

    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.

  65. Hansel says:

    Oh yes, Prof Nicolai had never a better friend than the guy who replaced proper scientific arguments with Nazi-comparisons.

  66. Otto E. Rossler says:

    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.

  67. Hansel says:

    He is delusional. He really thinks that someone in GOLM or in Geneva does still care about him :D

  68. Hansel says:

    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) )

  69. Otto E. Rossler says:

    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.

  70. Hansel says:

    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 :D )

    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.

  71. Robert Houston says:

    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.

  72. blackhole says:

    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.

  73. Robert Houston says:

    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,, 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.

  74. JWG says:

    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…

  75. Otto E. Rossler says:

    Thank you, JWG. I showed this in my paper “A rational, a moral and a spiritual dilemma” that appeared in 2008.