Electronic Black Hole/The Beat of a Different Drum
Murat Ozer
I just came to know couple of days ago that on Dec 27, 2002 a lot
was said about my idea of an Electronic Black Hole when Peter Z
posted the following
I'm not a physicist - more of an enthusiast. I was just reading about
Murat Ozer's proposal on building an electron black hole in a lab
environment (http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/grqc/pdf/9911/9911011.pdf).
Is it something worth worrying about? Is it complete fantasy, or could
he really do it?
to which Steve Carlip responded as:
It's complete fantasy. The idea is based on a fairly bizarre, and
transparently incorrect, proposal for a unification of general
relativity and electromagnetism. The paper you cite, and the one it
is based on, have not been published; the referees probably
immediately rejected them as obviously wrong.
I would like to bring the following to your attention and ask Dr.
Carlip several questions as I continue.
I have not submitted the electronic black hole preprint for
publication. I first wanted to publish the preprint it's based on. The
Physics Letters B and later Physical Review D referees rejected the
preprint. But not as something obviously wrong. None of them really
understood my main idea. I answered all their questions but failed to
convince them. I told them that the Reissner-Nordstrom solution
violates Newtonian laws in the weak field limit. The R-N solution does
not reduce to \nabla^2\phi_G=0, where \phi_G is the gravitational
potential. A correct formulation should reproduce this result.I
received no answer…
Question 1: Dr. Carlip, why do you think that my proposal for a
General Relativistic Theory of Electromagnetism based on a
multi-metric framework is fairly bizarre and transparently incorrect?
While I was wrestling with the referees, I came across an interview
with the late Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of all
times. (Superstrings, A Theory of Everything, ed.by P.C.W.Davies and
J.Brown, Cambridge University Press, p. 201). Feynman says:
`In the quantum field theories, there is an energy associated with
what we call the vacuum in which everything has settled down to the
lowest energy; that energy is not zero-according to the theory. Now
gravity is supposed to interact with every form of energy and should
interact then with this vacuum energy. And therefore, so to speak, a
vacuum would have a weight-an equivalent mass energy-and would produce
a gravitational field. Well, it doesn't! The gravitational field
produced by the energy in the electromagnetic field in a vacuum-where
there's no light, just quiet, nothing-should be enermous, so enermous,
it would be obvious. The fact is, it's zero! Or so small that it's
completely in disagreement with what we'd expect from the field
theory. This problem is sometimes called the cosmological constant
problem. It suggests that we're missing something in our formulation
of the theory of gravity. It's even possible that the cause of the
trouble-the infinities-arises from the gravity interacting with its
own energy in a vacuum. And we started off wrong because we already
know there's something wrong with the idea that gravity should
interact with the energy of a vacuum. So I think the first thing we
should understand is how to formulate gravity so that it doesn't
interact with the energy in a vacuum. Or maybe we need to formulate
the field theories so there isn't any energy in a vacuum in the first
place.'
As those of you who are familiar with my work will see, Feynman was
essentially conjecturing along my ideas. I was utterly exhilarated
when I saw these words of Feynman. I then immediately wrote a preprint
on a possible solution to the Cosmological Constant Ptroblem. But
again, I could not submit it for publication before publishing the
main paper. When I lost all my hope of publishing the paper an idea
occurred to me after reading about the Gravity Probe B experiment on
their website. General Relativity had not really been tested fully, as
they were saying, and there was no experiment to test its assumptions
regarding electromagnetism. The deflection of electrons by a
positively charged sphere in a small vacuum chamber experiment that I
had proposed in my preprint was really a New Test of General
Relativity. I thought the General Relativity community would welcome
my proposed experiment. The result of this experiment could not only
negate the Reissner-Nordstrom solution but could also solve the
cosmological constant problem, a la Feynman.
So, I wrote the preprint ‘ A Proposed New Test of General Relativity
and a Possible Solution to the Cosmological Constant Problem' . The
first signs of that this paper would not be welcomed by certain people
came from the moderators of LANL gr-qc. They posted it on ‘physics'
instead of gr-qc (see physics/0103062).
Question 2: Dr. Carlip, do you think my vacuum chamber experiment
constitutes a new test of General Relativity? If you don't, will you
please explain why?
First, I submitted the preprint to Phyical Review Letters. The two
referees rejected the paper on the grounds that the Eotvos experiment
proves that all kinds of energies couple to the gravitational field.
Obviously, the electric energy around a metallic sphere had to couple
to the gravitational field. My rebuttal that their interpretation of
the Eotvos experiment was incorrect was not even sent to the referees
by the associate editor of PRL. I then sent it to Physics Letters B.
There the referee said that the Casimir Effect proves that the vacuum
enegy couples to the gravitational field. I rebutted with no
effect…Then I sent the paper to MPLA. The referee said the Eotvos
experiment disproves my claim. I asked him to read the explanation in
the paper carefully. He did nor respond to my comments but yet
continued to reject it.
Question 3: Dr. carlip, do you think that the Eotvos experiment proves
that the electrostatic energy in the atoms couples to the
gravitational field *independently* or that it shows that all kinds of
energies in the atoms are already converted to mass and that these
energies contribute to gravitational and inertial masses in equal
amounts?
The history of physics is full of many phenomena that had violated
the common sense of many a physicist. Of course, my ideas may all be
wrong. But in the light of historical surprises on one hand, and
being backed by Feynman on the other, the judge of these ideas,
seemingly so bizarre and wrong to some, must be experiment. The vacuum
chamber experiment is so simple that I would have done it myself if I
had the financial means.
Question 4: Dr. Carlip, I believe you would agree that there is always
a probability, however minute it is, that my ideas may be correct. So,
while the physics community spends almost 500 million dollars for the
Gravity Probe B and many years, isn't it worth spending two weeks and
not more than ten thousand dollars to do the vacuum chamber
experiment? What if I am correct? Can physics afford not to do this
experiment?
Last, let me say few words on the Electronic Black Hole idea. If my
scheme of general relativistic electromagnetism is correct, then
electric black holes, the simplest of which are the electronic ones,
just follow naturally...Theoretically there is no problem. I do not
know if there may be an experimental impasse. I do not know what kind
of tests can be done to test if the resulting object is a black hole.
In any case, the whole experiment must be performed in vacuum. I am
sure people would come up with an idea to test this object for it's
*electronic blackness*. The outcome of this project would also
distinguish between Standard General Relativity and its variations
like the Yilmaz theory. Still another reason why the vacuum chamber
experiment should be done...
I should not be misunderstood. All I am saying is that General
Relativity is not only a theory of Gravitation but also a theory of
Electromagnetism, but the present assumptions regarding
Electromagnetism are incorrect. People have considered many
modifications or alternatives to General Relativity to find a general
relativistic theory of electromagnetism. But nobody has ever tried the
SIMPLEST of all the possibilities.This is what I'm saying. Let's try
the simplest possibility, because it's what we see in nature. I wish
to end my words with a saying of Feynman
"It is possible that the truth lies in the fashioanable direction.
If it lies in another direction who will find it?
Dare to follow the beat of a different drum?"
and a last question
Question 5: Dr. Carlip, if Feynman were alive today, do you think he
would have endorsed my work and help publish my preprints and ask the
experimentalists to do the vacuum chamber experiment?
Best regards,
Murat Ozer
Mike Varney
"Murat Ozer" <m_h_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33971fb8.03022...@posting.google.com...
> Dear Friends:
<SNIP>
Go away, Crackpot.
Mike Varney
Wow! The crackpot Ozer pegged the crankometer and scored very high on
Baez's crackpot index.
Old Man... I nominate Ozer for your crackpot list after just a single
post.
Any seconds?
Murat Ozer
I knew I would get such comments from people like you. My posting
is meant for those who know one has to keep an open eye when it comes
to matters that require scientific objectivity and curiosity.
Since you could only respond like this I wonder if you ever heard of
Feynman! I don't expect that you would respect such *unorthodox* ideas.
But don't you have a little decency to respect the legacy of Feynman?
Murat Ozer
Mike Varney
"Murat Ozer" <m_h_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:33971fb8.03022...@posting.google.com...
> "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<R5k6a.1349$u5.1...@news.uswest.net>...
> > "Murat Ozer" <m_h_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:33971fb8.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > > Dear Friends:
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Go away, Crackpot.
>
> I knew I would get such comments from people like you. My posting
> is meant for those who know one has to keep an open eye when it comes
> to matters that require scientific objectivity and curiosity.
> Since you could only respond like this I wonder if you ever heard of
> Feynman! I don't expect that you would respect such *unorthodox*
ideas.
> But don't you have a little decency to respect the legacy of Feynman?
>
> Murat Ozer
Alert! Alert! The crankometer is about to blow!
Well Old Man... seen enough? :-)
Spaceman
> is meant for those who know one has to keep an open eye when it comes
> to matters that require scientific objectivity and curiosity.
> Since you could only respond like this I wonder if you ever heard of
> Feynman! I don't expect that you would respect such *unorthodox* ideas.
> But don't you have a little decency to respect the legacy of Feynman?
Murat,
you can ignore Varney.
He has nothing to help anyone with.
Old Man
Old Man has decided to drastically reduce his participation
on sci.physics. It just isn't enjoyable anymore. With this
goes the responsibility for maintaining the sci.physics
crackpot list, which never was enjoyable. The list is herein
published for the last time by Old Man. Anyone not on the
list is welcome to assume responsibility for it. Farewell!
sci.physics Crackpot List:
CC
Pmb
Burt Libe
Mathew Orman
FrediFizzx
Spaceman
Jeff Relf
Richard Perry
Traveler
tj Frazir
Y.Porat
Charles Cagle
Mitchell Jones
Jack Sarfatti
ole.rughede
Anonymous
TomGee
kdthrge
ralph sansbury
Kenneth 'pawl' Collins
josX
HERetic3
Harry Conover
Dr X
2N3819
Oriel36
Habshi
Slavek.
JPDavid
James Harris
GRAVITYMECHANIC2
Henry Wilson
smart1234
DON JENSEN
Archimedes Plutonium
John C. Polasek
Keith Stein
Richard
Paul Stowe
Douglas Eagleson
David Thomson
brian the Roary Lion
David Rutherford
Average Joe
Anna&Will
Maleki
Robert
reticher
Dave Ulmer
Harold Ensle
MarkK
ThomasL283
S. Enterprize Company
V.Gopal
John Chelen
Tom Potter
By Courtesy of [Old Man]
Mike Varney
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:3e5adab6_3@newsfeed...
> Mike Varney <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c9k6a.1358$u5.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > "Murat Ozer" <m_h_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:33971fb8.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > Wow! The crackpot Ozer pegged the crankometer and scored very high
on
> > Baez's crackpot index.
> > Old Man... I nominate Ozer for your crackpot list after just a
single
> > post.
> > Any seconds?
>
> Old Man has decided to drastically reduce his participation
> on sci.physics.
Bummer.
> It just isn't enjoyable anymore.
Don't let the likes of Brown and the plethora of cranks get you down,
Old man. Just know that those who count respect your input.
> With this
> goes the responsibility for maintaining the sci.physics
> crackpot list, which never was enjoyable.
Not I, thak you. I would be quite too harsh. Perhaps Mati? :-)
> The list is herein
> published for the last time by Old Man. Anyone not on the
> list is welcome to assume responsibility for it. Farewell!
You can abdicate the list, but hopefully not your participation.
Franz Heymann
[...]
>
> Old Man has decided to drastically reduce his participation
> on sci.physics.
That would be most regrettable. The number of sane folk in the ng is
now so small that the loss of Old Man would be too serious to
contemplate.
> It just isn't enjoyable anymore.
How about starting a thread on some physics topic instead?
Remember, if the cretins and crackpots jump in.we would all be
delighted to see you either simply ignore them or lampoon them
mercilesly.
> With this
> goes the responsibility for maintaining the sci.physics
> crackpot list, which never was enjoyable. The list is herein
> published for the last time by Old Man. Anyone not on the
> list is welcome to assume responsibility for it. Farewell!
NO.
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
I am first jerk,
You said so long ago.
Why do you change your mind so often?
I think you are mad we will not allow you on the list because
you are a flatworlder so you have no thoughts of your own
and this list does and you just can not take some of the facts
the people on this list can show.
Old Man has no facts so he needs to make lists of people
that have shown some facts he does not understand.
> Spaceman
> CC
> Pmb
> Burt Libe
> Mathew Orman
> FrediFizzx
Sam Wormley
>
>
> Old Man has decided to drastically reduce his participation
> on sci.physics. It just isn't enjoyable anymore. With this
> goes the responsibility for maintaining the sci.physics
> crackpot list, which never was enjoyable. The list is herein
> published for the last time by Old Man. Anyone not on the
> list is welcome to assume responsibility for it. Farewell!
>
Old Man--You really are needed as a candle [of reason] in the
dark. Think of all the students who might turn to news:sci.physics
and see just cranks and trolls arguing with each other.
Should we have the discipline (I don't yet) to ignore troll posts
this newsgroup would evolve into something different than it is
today.
Then we might as well all hang it up
Y.Porat
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:3e5adab6_3@newsfeed...
> > Mike Varney <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c9k6a.1358$u5.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > > "Murat Ozer" <m_h_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:33971fb8.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > > Wow! The crackpot Ozer pegged the crankometer and scored very high
> on
> > > Baez's crackpot index.
> > > Old Man... I nominate Ozer for your crackpot list after just a
> single
> > > post.
> > > Any seconds?
> >
> > Old Man has decided to drastically reduce his participation
> > on sci.physics.
'drastically reduce his participation' ???!!!!!
why not better completely ???
it might be the best service to scince he ever did
btw you are welcome to come back with your real name
and take more responsibility on your actions and posting
and not doing cowardish things like crackpot lists
that no one on earth nominated and approved you
to be worthy of doing things like that.
keep well (and farewell)
Y.Porat
-----------------
Mike Varney
"Y.Porat" <por...@netvision.net.il> wrote in message
news:c91f39eb.03022...@posting.google.com...
> "Mike Varney" <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<BKE6a.965$KB3.1...@news.uswest.net>...
> > "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> > news:3e5adab6_3@newsfeed...
> > > Mike Varney <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:c9k6a.1358$u5.1...@news.uswest.net...
> > > > "Murat Ozer" <m_h_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:33971fb8.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Wow! The crackpot Ozer pegged the crankometer and scored very
high
> > on
> > > > Baez's crackpot index.
> > > > Old Man... I nominate Ozer for your crackpot list after just a
> > single
> > > > post.
> > > > Any seconds?
> > >
> > > Old Man has decided to drastically reduce his participation
> > > on sci.physics.
> --------------------------
> 'drastically reduce his participation' ???!!!!!
> why not better completely ???
> it might be the best service to scince he ever did
If you are going to discuss science, Porat, you had better first learn
how to spell it correctly. *smirk*
Tom Potter
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:b3fhd7$26d$5...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:3e5adab6_3@newsfeed...
> > Mike Varney <anti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Birds of the feather....
--
Tom Potter http://www.tompotter.ws
Thinh Tran
> Old Man has decided to drastically reduce his participation
> on sci.physics. It just isn't enjoyable anymore. With this
> goes the responsibility for maintaining the sci.physics
> crackpot list, which never was enjoyable. The list is herein
> published for the last time by Old Man. Anyone not on the
> list is welcome to assume responsibility for it. Farewell!
[Puzzled] May I know why? Is it the personal abuse that is now
characteristic of this NG that disappointed you?
The reason I ask is because Old Man seems to be a very
knowledgeable person. Although I'm not for the idea of a crackpot
list, I think Old Man will be sorely missed.
Despite all the personal attacks I like this NG. It seems to be
an indication of the time. Something big is about to happen in
physics. I personally do not want to miss it. Whatever Old Man's
decision is, I hope he checks back on this NG periodically.
Thinh Tran (http://www.thinhtran.com)
Old Man
news:54187164.03022...@posting.google.com...
Thanks for your concern. Old Man enjoys physics and
really cannot stand pretenders to the thrown. I am not
going away, but, for the future, I am determined to ignore
pretentious and boastful childlike behavior. The result will
be to ignore about 98% of all the posts on sci.physics.
by my calculations, that leaves about eight interesting posts
per day. That seems sufficient. This policy might also
rob crackpots of the reward of attention that they so dearly
cherish (like, don't feed the trolls). [Old Man]
FrediFizzx
Well, I hope Old Man has finally achieved the necessary wisdom to take my
advice and read the guides to Usenet posting and netiquette. I too, enjoy
his posts that actually have physics content in them. Old Man, stick to
physics. You are pretty good at it. Just remember, if you try to be nice
to people, they will most of the time be nice to you. And I will try to
practice what I preach also.
FrediFizzx
Thinh Tran
[Comment] I'm happy to hear that Old Man does not plan to leave
sci.physics completely. Regarding the issue "the pretenders to the
throne" that seems to trouble Old Man, I have an alternative view.
We're dealing with science, not politics or religion. The water may be
murky or even muddy, but science has the unique ability to sort things
out eventually. Truth will take care of itself.
I started my participation 11 months ago. First I took all
messages seriously. Later on, I developed a strategy to differentiate
things. It's difficult, but I think it is rewarding. The 20% things I
learned more than made up for the 80% time wasted.
Thinh Tran (http://www.thinhtran.com)
Mike Varney
Thanks for your submission to www.crank.net