Stardrives and Spinoza by Louis Crane

Dear Louis Crane,

There is a descriptive error in my posting on, Oct. 13, 2009 @ 13:49 GMT:

'Anyhow the Screening and Antiscreening behavior in QED described by asymptotic freedom on gauge theories is the representation of micro BH in quantum level that I would like to call it as QBH', is to be as:

'Anyhow the Screening and Antiscreening behavior in QED, described from asymptotic freedom in QCD on gauge theories is the representation of micro BH in quantum level that I would like to call it as QBH'.

Regretting for the inconvenience.

Yours jayakar

Congratulation to the winner.

Admittedly, it was the judgment of jury that made me curious. When I read only the abstract some time ago, I looked in vain for the word Spinoza. Having read the essay now, I am disappointed that Spinoza is does mention Spinoza just once and not at all for any of his may very prudent insights but for his pantheism.

Spinoza was certainly correct when he denied atomism and indivisibles in mathematics. He declared it absurd to claim that bodies are composed from areas, areas are composed from lines, and lines are composed from points.

As Spinoza objected to the act of creation, he would perhaps object to the idea of a single big bang.

I do not consider sensational and even religiously colored wild speculations genuine contributions to foundational questions. Maybe, they are nonetheless valuable because they challenge us to ask for hidden flaws in the most basic logic behind possible fallacies. My favorite focus is on the notion singularity.

If I am correct, then the function 1/(x-1), i.e. with a pole, has the value -oo for x=0.999..., which means the limit from the left to x=1, and the value +oo for x-->1 from x>1 with x in IR.

The basis for this remedy is my insight that a number dos not denote a single point and also not the unquantifiable sauce of uncountably much of rather than infinitely many points, but it denotes a measure alias two points on a line. Simply speaking numbers denote the distance between two points with respect to a given unit one. Is there really a measure exactly at x=1? No. There are two different measures, one from the left and one from the right. Buridan's donkey cannot suffer starvation if we use prudent mathematics.

Sorry for killing fireplace romantics.

Eckard

Dear Louis,

my best congratulation for winning this Essay Context.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Louis,

Congratulations on your win! Great essay, I liked the optimism!

Any chance you can cite a good reference/s which support/s the assertion, in relation to baby universe creation, that....

"the maximal analytic continuations of the standard BH solutions to Einstein's equation suggest that they do" ?

Are we talking universes or white holes?

Cheers

Roy

Hi dear Mr Crane,

Congratulations.

You know I have thought about your essay, I have some ideas ,the volume of a sphere and the rotation and the mass are proportionals....thus to create an ABH these parameters must be checked in correlation with the universal quantic and cosmologic spheres,it is the mass the secret and its attraction ,thus with a BH all is not perceptible thus a critic point exists in this constant.

Thus all BH are in equations and thus the proportion is universal.

A BH is a sphere,it turns and has a mass which implies an non perceptibe physicality .

Steve

You know I asked me all days what is the pure rule of these centers ,these spheres, these BH,

In my line of reasoning about spheres and the link mv, their mass and the velocity of rotation spinal are linked in a pure universal constant.Thus the velocity of rotation is in a kind of universal fractal of spheres.

In this logic the volume is important too.

If the stars produce particles due to their intrinsic system, this electromagnetism is polarised by the planetary gravity and its complexification in 3D, creating lifes ,intelligences and conscious.

Thus a sorting and a synchronization between gravity and electromagnetism becomes the main part of the puzzle on this line time.

Thus all has a rule of complementarity to create.

Thus when a star produces in a sphericality, all this production has a not utile rest, it is there it is interesting about the rule of the BH, they balance the particles and the rests, thus the space at this scale is connected with sevaral hypothesis, the centers or the center of our Universe where all turns around are relevant about a kind of tori system of re diffusion.

All spheres have a specific rule for the evolution in my humble opinion.

Best Regards

Steve

Thus of course in this uniqueness, it doesn't exist white holes because the tori is linked with the centers, probably our stars or others.

Regards

'Infinite curvature'? Elementary mathematics teach only a straight line can extend from infinity to infinity, not so a curves that tends to come around and therefore cn be measured.

no sense, no whole point of vue, no reallism thus no rational for me.

I invite you thus to learn what is the difference between the physical finite system in evolution and the unknown behind the wall of perception.There you shall understand better the infinity I beleive in my humble opinion

Regards

Steve

Mr. Crane,

Interesting essay, thanks!

I was wondering, Would feeding the ABH charged particles make it easier to store/move it or is it simply better to push it around as described in the main text?

Thanks again,

Luis

Dear Louis,

great essay, congratulations.

I have independently come up with quite a similar idea (maybe it was influenced by having read Lee Smolin's impressive book many years ago).

I felt very lonely with these thoughts and was quite glad to find somebody with quite similar considerations.

What was missing in my scenario was a reason as to why an advanced civilisation would want to create microscopic black holes.

I would like to ask you, what you think about my solution to that problem, that I try to sketch in the following (in particular if it physically makes sense to you):

The conjecture is that any advanced civilisation has the desire to do information processing.

This inevitably leads to manipulations of (physical) structures on ever smaller scales.

But there is an ultimate limit, namely the Planck scale. In a paper I found it was calculated that Moore's law can hold at best about 600 years, for then one reaches the Planck scale. (This is a time scale way shorter than the one you mention in respect to running out of energy supplies).

The point is that if we really reach this scale with information technology, we not only would be able to manipulate the very fabric of spacetime, but we could do it in a controlled way. Thus we not only could be able to create microscopic black holes, but we could create "Designer Microscopic Black Holes", seeding information into them.

The whole scenario appears not too far fetched to me, taking into account that large companies are already discussing to harness accelerators for generating synchrotron radiation for the production of microchips. Thus my predicting is that there might arise kind of a Moore's law in respect to the scaling up of accelerators to produce ever smaller information processing structures. (The idea of gamma-ray lasers might also make sense in this context).

Best regard,

Markus