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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.