SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

The current energy levels at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory have been increased from 1.2 TeV to 33 TeV (trillion electron volts) for the the Tevatron 2 trials scheduled for this March or April 2001.
Please check the Luminoisty Webpage at Fermilab to verify this enormous increase.

Clearly, this is enough energy to access those energies resident in de Sitter space thus produing a supernova. This is termed a Type Ia supernova and is used as a standard candle for distance estimates in observational astonomy.

Even though research is often risky this is an unacceptable risk since supernova production will destroy everthing out to a perimeter of some 50 light years.

Please contact me at <dixon@hawaii.edu> for further information. Go to: ( Paul Dixon Supernova) on Google.com or (Paul W. Dixon supernova) as well to check various webpages on this topic.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Hi Paul,

33 TeV = 33000 GeV = 33000*1000 MeV which equals approximately 33000 proton-masses of energy. So every collection of 33000 protons should trigger a supernova according to you ?

Sidenote: On average, every gram of material has something like 10^23 protons in it, a billion billion billion times more those 33000 protons.

Anyway, 33 TeV might sound like a lot of energy (and actually it is) but it is peanuts compared even to the energy of a nuclear bomb (and a supernova is just this tiny bit more powerful). The worst that could happen with a 33 TeV-beam is that the particles (going at a tremendous speed) smash into something at the wrong place, producing a rain of exotic particles of which 99,999% decays before they even reach the wall that seperates the project from the outside world. The remaining 0,001% is not really something to worry about since we're bombarded by those particles continiously from outer space anyway.

Conclusion: I wouldn't worry too much about accelerator experiments... The experiments you should worry about are the ones where people are trying to create black holes in laboratories.. Now it would suck if something goes wrong with these he ? (pun intended :)).

Bye!

Crisp

Originally posted by Crisp
Hi Paul,

33 TeV = 33000 GeV = 33000*1000 MeV which equals approximately 33000 proton-masses of energy. So every collection of 33000 protons should trigger a supernova according to you ?

Sidenote: On average, every gram of material has something like 10^23 protons in it, a billion billion billion times more those 33000 protons.

Anyway, 33 TeV might sound like a lot of energy (and actually it is) but it is peanuts compared even to the energy of a nuclear bomb (and a supernova is just this tiny bit more powerful). The worst that could happen with a 33 TeV-beam is that the particles (going at a tremendous speed) smash into something at the wrong place, producing a rain of exotic particles of which 99,999% decays before they even reach the wall that seperates the project from the outside world. The remaining 0,001% is not really something to worry about since we're bombarded by those particles continiously from outer space anyway.

Conclusion: I wouldn't worry too much about accelerator experiments... The experiments you should worry about are the ones where people are trying to create black holes in laboratories.. Now it would suck if something goes wrong with these he ? (pun intended :)).

Bye!

Crisp


Dear Crisp,

Alas, as is well known, the energies now employed at Fermilab are equivalent to those found at the point origin of the universe, i.e. the "Big Bang." This energy level is not found in the examples which you have provided. Please send your email address to <dixon@hawaii.edu> for further information.

A very common defense mechanism used in this kind of difificulty is that of denial. There was a very famous geologist who remained on Mt. St. Helens at the point of its cataclysmic eruption. When asked why he was not leaving, he said he was just staying to observe. He perished at the time of the great eruption. His name was Dr. Johnson.

Many thanks for your kind interest in these matters. Let us proceed in these matters before all is lost.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Thanks for the reality Crisp.
You might think that a PHD would be aware of the points you made.

Paul,
Your post is a fine story. However, if does not address the point it evades it by accusing someone of poor motives simply because they disagree with you and provide the reason why.
Is Paul in error regarding the amount of energy contained in his sample size? You did not bother to make this clear. Are you saying that every gram of matter has the same energy level as the moment of creation?
Why do you want to send the information to crisp of list when others would like to see it here? Surely you came to your conclusion by good evidence. Please be a good sport and provide that evidence so it does not appear that you are asking people to have FAITH in you.
BTW where did you acquire your PHD and in what field? It is not that believe in argument from authority but since you go the extra mile to inform us about your credeshalls I thought that you could toot your horn some more...

Dear Paul and m3harri,

I wasn't entirely correct when I said that 33 TeV equals 33000 proton masses. The numbers figure out alright (since one proton comes in at 1000 MeV), but I was assuming that all mass could be converted to kinetic energy (just to keep it plain and simple, but it appears we have to go into more detail now :)).

I want to set this straight by redoing a similar reasoning in a bit more detail:


a) The math:

First, let's do some math:

One electronvolt (eV) equals 1.6*10^(-19) Joules. You can check this in a book on nuclear or quantum physics or for example, at the following URL:
http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemistry/general/units.html.
This means that 33 TeV = 33*10^12 eV equals about 52*10^(-7) Joules.

Now when particle physicists talk about "33 TeV" this means that within a beam of particles every particle has this energy on the average. Let's also assume that they can accelerate.. hrm..let's say a billion (10^9) of these particles to this energy (I don't know the finer details of particle accelerators, but just judging on my intuition I'd say that 10^9 particles is a lot at this energy). That would mean that the total (kinetic) energy of all particles is approximately:

52*10^(-7) Joules * 10^9 Particles = 5200 Joules.


b) The accident:

Imagine the worst possible scenario that could happen in a particle accelerator: this would probably be that the particles (going at 99,999999999999999999% of the speed of light) smash into something they shouldn't hit in the first place. Assuming, and this will almost certainly not happen, that ALL kinetic energy of the particles gets converted to heat (which is probably the most hazardous form of energy) this would mean that about 5200 Joules of heat is released in this horrible accident.

Let's compare this to the energy of a small nuclear device: I just happened to stumble across this page at NASA, http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/facts/faq04.html, where they state that the energy released by a 1 megaton nuclear device is about 10^15 Joules of energy. Comparing this to the measly 5200 Joules of the particle beam I'd say we're at no risk at all.

Compared to a supernova - which I think is just a bit more powerful than a 1 Megaton nuclear device - the particles' energy is peanuts. Hence I would logically conclude that these kind of experiments pose no danger at all.

You could argue that there is another possible hazard: at these high energies, new particles are created upon collision (which is after all why scientists conduct these kind of experiments). Perhaps those particles are dangerous ? Well, I'd like to use the argument of "numbers" here: even if they are dangerous, there are just too few particles created in the accident to pose any danger. You should know that while you are reading this, your body is bombarded by billions of exotic particles from outer space every second (the so-called cosmic radiation). These cosmic ray particles are the very same particles that are created with accelerators, so even if something goes wrong during the experiment, it wouldn't matter anyway (the immediate environment would get the 10-fold dose of cosmic radiation during 1/1000 of a second or so), which is hardly dangerous (the chemical plant in your backyard exhausts a lot more dangerous stuff ;)).


c) Ethical arguments:

Furthermore, I would like to add that no sane scientist would even think about starting an experiment that could wipe out... ehr... everything in a 50 lightyear radius. I can assure you that the scientists at Fermilab are very sane :). To do this kind of experiments, you need like 100 or 200 people (if not more) and I can hardly imagine that they all agree on taking such risks.


I noticed Paul was talking about the beginning of the universe, and I think that this is where the confusion arised: you can indeed find in textbooks that at about 10^(-12) seconds after the Big Bang, energies where around 1 TeV, and this corresponds to temperatures of 10^16 Kelvin (which is about 10^15 degrees Fahrenheit). This seems like an awful lot, but you have to remember that for a person to feel these kind of temperatures, billions and billions of particles have to have this energy. That would mean that you would need total energies that are far beyond the capacity of human devices. Besides, I don't think that even if all of the mass on earth is converted to pure energy, that we could get to the energy levels of supernovae (I mean: that is an exploding star we're talking about, compared to a star the earth's mass is approximately 1/1000000 of it).


Bye!

Crisp

I think Paul is concerned with the concentration of large energy in a small volume, not about the total energies employed. I've heard people suggest that such cramming of energy might produce a femtoscale black hole, which could accidentally absorb some nearby particles and grow larger before it can evaporate, and continue absorbing surrounding matter/energy and growing until it consumes the Earth.

I've seen such concerns addressed by the simple quoting of the energy of some high-energy cosmic rays that constantly hit the Earth's atmosphere. These energies (per particle) go as high as 3.2x10^20 eV, or 320,000,000 TeV (http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/astrophysics/3e20.html). Compare 320 million to 33, and suddenly the Tevatron 2 looks ridiculously whimpy. Now, it's a fact that such high-energy cosmic rays have been pummeling the Earth for at least the past 4.5 billion years, and in all that time no black hole has been formed. So I'd say there's nothing to worry about.

Paul's been sending me the same form email every few weeks for the last few years about this. I'm far from a physicist, so I really haven't read it.

What I can gather is that Paul is concerned with somehow triggering a transition to "de Sitter" space. I include below the abstract of a paper he has submitted:



Whereas, quantum tunneling towards de Sitter space is unlikely in one Hubble space-time volume. the penetrance of the potential barrier between de Sitter space and the continuum in a classical sense, is only a function of energy. The final evolutionary stage of collapse of stars having ten or more solar masses, may initiate this transition. The presence of active galactic nuclei, B L Lacertae objects and quasars, where these are found to be monopolar and are observed to be 4 to 5 times larger than bipolar objects, are also seen as intrusional events from de Sitter space in this postulation. Where natural phenomena may cause a transition towards de Sitter spaces it may be possible to cause these same effects with high-energy physics experimentation. Supernovae (SN) Type Ia evidence some 2.5 times greater luminosity than SN Type II, yet originate from objects of approximately one solar mass and show no trace of hydrogen near maximum light. If we are not the only sentient entities extant in the potentially infinite reaches of space and time, and with increased evidence of planetary bodies circling other stars, is the generation of SN Type Ia evidence for high-energy physics experimentation on other planetary bodies?

Again, I am no physicist, so I have no clue if any of this is rational.

btw... I believe that Paul works for the department of Psychology at the University of Hawaii.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB


May we request your interest in the onset of the very great energy increment coming on line this March or April 2001 at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. There is a very great probability that this experimental apparatus will generate a supernova thus producing a very great and grave public endangerment to the personnel of the laboratory, their families, the United States of America and also the population of our planet.

A physicist, Dr. Walter Waqgner, has already brought suit against this fortcoming diaster in New York State and also in California. He states that the research is being brought forward without regard for the potential danger only to get the research underway. May we very respectfully call on the good offices of all concerned citizens of the world to halt this reckless plunge into the unknown on behalf of the families of all mankind.

In this connection, may we present an alternate hypothesis to that presented by Mike Perricone in the FermiNews (The Universe Lives On, June 19, 1998). This postulation may be termed the high-energy postuation wherein the equations show the attractive properties of the high-energy condition termed de Sitter space. It would, therefore, under this postulation be found that high-energy physics experiementation now coming on line at the Tevatron in our Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory would have a greater probability of releasing a supernova upon our planet and solar system by breaching the potential barrier towards the high-energy condition (de Sitter Space) than initiating a transition towards the low-energy condition. This hypothesis is based on the work of Albert Einstein and Wiillem de Sitter. Their work has proven uniformly correct in the realm of physics and would necessarily be found to be true in relativistic cosmology. (Blau, S. K., Guendelman, E. I. & Guth, A. H(1987) Physical Review D. Particle and Fields, 3, 1747-1766. To quote in this connection from Alan Guth who initiated inflationary cosmology, "one might guess that the gravitational repulsion of the false vacuum would push outward on the bubble wall, so, if the repulsion were strong enough. Not so however, say the equations of general relativity. The gravitational repulsion causes the false vacuum to swell, but the repulsion does not extend beyond the false vacuum. Objects outside the bubble wall are attracted towards the bubble, and the gravitational force on the bubble is inward." (Burns, J.O. (1990) Astronomy, 18, 28-37)

The possibility of initiating a transition towards the lower-energy condition from high-energy physics experimentation may still be present, yet this kind of transition would have far lower probability value according to the aforementioned equation.

May we very respectfully request that these transitions be modeld via computer simulation before the Tevatron at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory is brought to its highest energy level. To avoid any bias in understanding, publication of these results in a peer-reviewed journal of highest repute is most respectfully recommended to members of the staff at Fermilab.

It may be helpful to clarify the philosophical position and astrophysical energetics instrinsic to de Sitter space in the standard cosmological model in this postulation of transition from de Sitter space as generative of supernova in high-energy physics experimentation.

A philosophical position may be cirted from, G. W. F. Hegel (The philosophy of history, New York: Dover, 249, 1956) ..." there is no essential existence which does not manifest itself." The very large energies derived by Willem de Sitter for the equations describing the false vacuum of de Sitter space yield an energy density of 1.69 x 10 to the 126th power for eV (electron volts) per cm to the 3rd power (centimeters cubed). (Gott, R. (1982) Creation of open universes from de Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304-307. In Waldrop. M.M., Bubbles upon the river of time, Science, 215, 4536, 1082-1083, the energy density of de Sitter space is given as: 5 x 10 to the 31st power kelvin and 3 x 10 to the 93rd power grams per cm to the 3rd power, converted to eV via e=mc squared - which is Albert Einstein's famous equation. This energy would then find expression in the observable universe. In the sense of this analysis, it would be quite unlikely that energies of this order of magnitude would remain hidden should a transition be formed in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. This would serve as an immediate and everpresent danger for the investigator and constitutes a public endangerment as well.

This is based on the mainstream theory of universe formation by Professor R. Gott of Princeton University in which each bubble universe forms smoothly out of de Sitter space. A potentially infinite number of universes may form in de Sitter space. In a topological sense, de Sitter space is cobordant at each point with the continuum (our universe). De Sitter space is then prevented by a large potential barrier from forming an intrusional event into the continuum. The essential hypothesis of this formulation is that with sufficiently great energetics, a classical breach in the potential barrier towards de Siitter space will be formed thus releasing the force of Type !a supernova upon the terrestrial ecosphere, the solar system and those nearby stars. These energies are from de Sitter space, therefore; the energies of the accelerator only serve as a trigger for their release.

With sufficient energies, under this postulation, we discover that the accelerator is in the Einstein de Sitter universe, as it is now termed, and we have gone from particle physics as our governing theory to relativistic cosmology.

No harm will result from computer modelling of this alternate hypothesis for generation of Type Ia supernovae as a result of the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space. Yet clearly, vast harm may result form our continuing to plunge into the unknown without proper foresight concerning this possibility.

All of the children will thank you for your kind offices on their behalf. Please do what you can for them in this connection.

Your kind attention and consideration in this most salient matter are most gratefully appreciated.

All best wishes for you and your family.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
P. S. Please look into a recent copy of Who's Who in America for a biographical sketch for Paul William Dixon.

Boris,

Whether or not we are talking about total energylevels or the concentration of energy, I think you already quoted the most important argument in the entire discussion: nature constantly conducts the very same experiment on us with cosmic radiation (which has both a relatively high total energy and energy/particle density/flux).

In this context I would like to refer to the FermiNews issue of 19 June 1998 where they address Paul's claims that supernovae can occur from high-energy beams and/or concentrations: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-06-19.pdf, "The universe will live on", pages 4-5.


Paul,

First of all my apologies for the sarcasm in my previous post ; I've just reread the entire thread and noticed that my phrasing could perhaps have been a bit more... elegant ;).

Now, I took the liberty of looking up one of the references you provided (Dynamics of false-vacuum bubbles,Blau, Guendelman, Guth, Phys.Rev.D 35, p1747-1766 (1987)). I couldn't work out all the details since the article is ofcourse meant for people who are into this kind of research, which I am not. Nevertheless, I did understand that they talk about the origin of universes and their relation to black holes in the inflationary universe model (as being two sides of the same medal: false-vacuum bubbles). Could you perhaps take the time to elaborate a bit further on how you couple the expansion of a black hole with supernovae ? Perhaps I completely missed the point somewhere, but I have absolutely no clue where supernovae come in.

Furthermore, I am under the impression that "de Sitter" spaces are merely mathematical spaces, just like Hilbert- or Minkowskispaces, that have no physical equivalent at all (meaning you cannot go to or move in these spaces like you would in our three-dimensional world). Perhaps you would care to elaborate on this aswel ?

If you happen to have a link on the paper you wrote (of which Dave quoted the abstract), then I would gladly like a reference to it.

Concerning the "calculations" I made in the previous post: I still believe they are correct, but I now realize they are not related to the danger you believe is connected with particle experiments. Unfortunately, I cannot do more than re-assure you that 33 TeV is not as much as it sounds. Compare it with the actual value of a coin: right after the first world-war you had to pay several million (!) German marks to buy a bread. That doesn't necessarily mean that the bread was very expensive ; it just meant that you couldn't get much for one German mark. It's basically the same here: one electronvolt (eV) is such a small unit in terms of energy that even a million (MeV) or a billion (GeV) units mean nothing.

Finally, I would like to quote from the article mentioned above (which you mentioned in your post) concerning the amount of energy needed to theoretically pose any danger with false-vacuum bubbles or ruptures in spacetime or whatever you want to call them:

Work is currently in progress to determine whether or not it is possible in principle to produce an inflationary universe in the laboratory (i.e. by man-made processes). This question is academic, since the energies that are required are inaccessible (...) and we presume that an energy of the order of 10^28 GeV would be necessary to produce an inflationary universe by any laboratory mechanism
Once again, comparing the order of magnitude of 10^28 GeV ( = 10^25 TeV) involved in these "de Sitter"-space processes, I'd conclude that the Tevatron 2 looks incredibly whimpy (as Boris put it so.. elegantly :)).

Bye!

Crisp

thank you all!

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

As you may now have realized, the continuing progression towards higher energies in the collider facilities both at Fermilab and also in Europe makes the transition towards de Sitter space inevitable as time progresses.

The cosmic ray energies whose very great frequency in the past history of our planet and the Moon at 10 to the 19th power eV (electron volts) in the past history of the solar system, as mentioned in the FermiNews, are far outweighed by the proposed luminosity at FermiLab with its now coming on line Tevatron fired up to 2x 10 to the 44th power electron volts per centimeter squared per second (Feder, T., Witherell is tapped to head Fermilab, Physics Today, April 1999, p. 65) since the integrated luminosity is being increase from the 1989 value of .32 to 210.62 (Please note the Tevatron Luminosity webpage). This energy level is far greater than the 10 x 19th power cosmic ray that is solitary and relatively infrequent and which are spaced at about two weeks to one month interval apart. In this connection, we must also consider the field effects of this densely energetic flux as compared with single particle interactions.

Our civilization is at a very advanced level since we have, with the use of a triggering mechanism, initiated
an atomic explosion and we now have with the triggering mechanism at Fermilab the capacity to access unlimited energy in de Sitter space. This energy would not at this stage be under our control and would, therefore, generate a supernova.

Since high-energy physics is an experimental science, it may be understood that verification of this theoretical postulation is based on empirical observation. Should this by some great misfortune come about, let us devoutly pray that all of the above is without merit and has no truth value whatsoever.

All of the children now and all subsequent generations of mankind will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D
Supernova from Experimentation

Dear Paul,

Your fear for a supernova seems to be founded on the impression that 2*10^44 eV/s*cm^2 sounds and looks like a large number. Allow me to make some remarks about this number that put the "size" a bit into perspective:


First of all, the number you talk about is the size of a flux (the amount that passes through a surface every second). It would be reasonable to say that a transition to a "de Sitter"-space -- if it exists, and if it is possible -- can only occur if you cram a lot of energy into a very small volume. This means that we should be talking about energydensities and not energy fluxes.

But have no fear, we can convert your flux to an energydensity, assuming that every number you mentioned so far is in the laboratory-reference system. The particles in the beam propagate at about the speed of light, meaning that every second, they move 300000 km. If 2*10^4 eV passes through a surface of one cm^2 in a second, you could say that this amount of energy is stored in a VOLUME of ONE cm^2 by 300000km, and that this volume passes in one second, at the speed of light, through that surface of one cm^2. To put it simple: if we put 2*10^44 eV in a box of 300000 km by one cm^2, and move this box at the speed of light, then we also have an energyflux of 2*10^44 eV/s*cm^2.

Using this reasoning, the energydensity can be calculated as follows: the volume of the box is 3*10^10 cm^3. We have 2*10^44 eV in this box so this gives an energydensity, being E / V, of (2/3)*10^34 eV/cm^3.


Now let's compare this number something less exotic than particles in particle-accelerators. We all know that one liter of water weights 1 kg. and has a volume of about 1 dm^3. This is equivalent to saying that water has a density of 1kg/dm^3 or 1 gr. / cm^3. One mole of water (H2O) would have a mass of 18 gr, so we have (1/18) mole of water in our volume of one cm^3. Since one mole corresponds to 6*10^23 particles (Avogadro's number), we have about 3*10^22 of water molecules in one cm^3.

The energy-massequivalent of one H2O molecule is 18 GeV (the oxygen has 16 nucleons, and two hydrogen nucleons gives 18 nucleons, with each nucleon having a mass of approximately 1 GeV). This means that the energydensity of water is 18 GeV * 3 * 10^22 / cm^3. Evaluating this number gives you 5 * 10^31 / cm^3.

The number you gave is 1000 times larger, implying that the energy/mass density of the particles in the accelator is 1000 times larger than a common energy/mass density of water. If we had taken lead of gold instead of water, you would have found that your number was only 50 times larger.

Nature has already shown us that no supernova's occur if you pack matter/energy 50 times as dense as gold or lead (neutron stars could be a good example, where matter is packed immensly dense. Those exist and our universe still is not flooded by infinite amounts of de Sitter-space energy). Once again, I'd say where still pretty safe.

Bye!

Crisp

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

A Better Mousetrap

Having read with interest the many fine letters from readers of sciforums.com, may we venture a reply. As we now in our colliders are producing energies nearly equal to the "Big Bang" at the point origin of our universe in the form of kinetic energy, we are testing the Relativistic Cosmology of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter. In their theory, only a large potential barrier prevents the entrance of an exploding universe into our continuum (1). This instrusional event would generate a Type Ia supernova. The multidude of species on other planets circling other stars envisioned by Ian Crawford may somtimes achieve intelligence and then in our universe, much like a better mousetrap, are rewarded for their technological advance by a vast explosion destroying their solar system and a host of near-by stars. In this way, offering another confirmation to the well-established relativistic physics of Albert Einstein and his co-workers. Type Ia supernovae are used as standard candles due to their great similarity in size and lack of evidence for hydrogen near maximum light (2).

1. Perry, M. J. (1986) Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe? Nature, Vol 320, p. 579.

2. Newly discoverd bright supernova is testament to value of UC Berkley's robotic telescope and the only fully automated supernova search, http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/release/99legacy/11-11-1999.html (Please note: Type Ia supernova are some 2.4 times as bright as, for instance, the Type II supernova imaged in this news release.)

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Please view the thread now posted under: sciforums.com>News>exosci.com>Physics>Fermilab Tevatron begins Run II

From a particle physics perspective, supernova generation from high-energy physics experimentation is only a side-effect and is not the focus of the research effort.

It is indeed unfortunate that the kinetic energies of the Tevatron at Fermilab are of such magnitude as to be significant to the relativisitic physics of the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed.

Your kind attention and consideration in this most salient matter are gratefully appreciated.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Hi Paul,


From a particle physics perspective, supernova generation from high-energy physics experimentation is only a side-effect and is not the focus of the research effort.

I cannot believe you just said this. So you actually think that particle physicists would take the risk of blasting us all to pieces ? What good will that do to particle physics, to discover a new particle and then get blown away in a supernova.

To be completely honest, I think you heavily underestimate the ethical and moral judgement of your colleagues and fellow-researchers at Fermilab.

Bye!

Crisp

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Dear Crisp,

Please contact Professor Michael S. Witherell, Director of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory at 1 (630) 840-3211 and ask him if there are any publications in peer-reviewd journals of the highest repute showing that there is no possibility of forming a transition towards de Sitter space (high-energy condition) at the luminosity (energies) now under preparation in his laboratory. Please fax any documents that you receive in this connection to me at 1 (808) 974-7737.

Your kind thoughts and very genuine concern are most gratefully appreciated in this most salient matter.

All the children will thank you for your kind offices on their behalf.

With greatest respect,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank everyone for their kind cooperation in these matters as we reach towards the end of April, 2001. Mike Perricone, the main spokes-person for Fermilab, remarks in Run II, The Hunt is On (FermiNews, March 2, 2001, Volume 24, No. 4) that the number of inelastic collisions has been increased from some
800, 000 to 10 to 15 million collisions, per second for Run II of the collider. This represents an increment of some %1250 without formal work to assess the very well-known hazards inherent in high-energy physics experimentation.

Shall we suggest an end of the month celebration to commemorate our having come this far unharmed during this gravely irresponsible plunge into the unknown!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

I have read this dicussion with interest and have questions for Paul Dixon. You start off saying the energy per particle is being increased from 1.2 TeV to 33 TeV and urge people to check this on the Fermilab webpage. I found the document entitled TREVATRON Collider Luminosity Upgrades by Dave McGinnis which listed the changes. It was also in their Fermi Newsletter. It clearly states the energy per particle is changing from 0.9 TeV to 1.0 TeV for run IIb, an 11% increase.

First question: why are your energies wrong?

Later on you switch arguments and talk about luminosity. Luminosity (per square cm per sec) is just a quantity used for accelerators. You must be comparing something in the beam to something in the early universe.

Second question: What is it? Energy per particle, energy density, density, Temperature?

The cosmic ray argument has aready shot down energy per particle.

You use the value of 2E44 eV per square cm per sec as an energy flux in the beam, which Crisp nicely related to energy densities we are familiar with. I assume you got 2E44 by multipling the luminosity (2E32 per square cm per sec) by the particle energy which should be 1E12 eV. This is wrong, there not that many particles in the beam. The luminosity is roughly the number of protons (7E17 per second, from the website) times the number of antiprotons (3E11 per sec) times a few small factors. To get the total number of particles one would just add the numbers together, about 7E17. So the energy flux would be about 7E29 eV per square cm per sec. It is complicated somewhat since the particles travel in bunches, but 2E44 is not at all the right number.

Third question: Is this how you got the 2E44 number?

Fourth question: Have you published anything (in physics) in a "peer-reviewed journal of the highest repute"? A reference would help your credibility.

Everyone might be interested in the world record energy flux from the Lawrence Livermore Lab laser (Physics Today, Jan, 1998) which is about 1E21 watts per square cm or 1e40 eV per square cm per sec). They do this by making the pulse extremely short (less then 1e-12 sec).

I look forward to your response.

steven23

Well people,

I think you have been all very courtious against this Paul W. Dixon guy. But this has gone far enough.

Have you noticed he keeps on posting and reposting the same stuff like he is trying to convince himself more then us. I also like the way he places Ph. D. after his name as if to give some credibility to his hysterical nonsense.
Dave seems to think he is working in the psychology department in the university of Hawai, if this is the case it would explain why he began with his 'denial explantion' in his second post. Very good Freudian touch there but way to lame.

There is no way our mister Dixon will be convinced of his errors with simple logical arguments, I'm afraid. I would put him on the same level of all the other dooms profets that have plagued our planet since man began to wonder if it was safe to harness the powers of the Firegod in a simple camp fire.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIEMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your very kind interest in these matters.

Please note: the Tevatron Luminosity in the Fermi National Accelerator Webpage. This is now cited as TEV33 in contrast to the former value of TEV1.2. This is an increase of some 2750 percent. The integrated luminosity is to be increased from the 1989 value of .32 to 210.62. We have thus an increase in energetics of 65818 percent. Also we may note, that bunch spacing in nanoseconds is to be decreased from the 1989 value of 3500 nsec to 132 nsec, a decreae of 1661 percent, with the interactions/crossing going from the 1989 value of 0.25 to 9.13, which is an increase of some 3652 percent. Clearly, these enormous increases are a gigantic, foolhardy plunge into the unknown which will destroy us all!

In the Physics Today article it is noted that the energy increment is to be increased to 2 x 10 to the 44th power electron volts per centimetered squared at Fermilab (Feder, T. Witherell is tapped to head Fermilab, Physics Today, April 1999, p. 65) This is far greater than the cosmic ray energies of 10 to the 19th power electron volts which are solitary and relatively infrequent and are spaced from about two weeks to one month interval apart. Physics Today is one of the primary journals for professional physicists and is of the highest professional repute.

Please note Malcolm J. Perry's Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe? (Nature Vol 320 24 April 1986 p. 679). A review of these concepts is thus in the primary journal of science world round.

The initial increment is to be of some 10% above current values with, however, the Main Injector now being brought on line, (Please note: Fermilab news of May 2, 3, 4, 2001 stacking in the Tevatron has begun via the Main Injector) which is designed to bring the Tevatron up to the energy levels noted above.

All of the children will thank you for your kind efforst on their behalf.

Every Best Wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

This post reminds me of the naysayers during the time of the Wright brothers and their attempts at flight. Those educated in science postulated at the time that man could not survive at such speeds. He could not breathe in such conditions. That man was never meant to fly or he would have been born with wings.
These experiments will be held. Worrying about them will not stop them. To their credit, these experiments did not start out wide open, full power. Rather, they have been eased into a little at a time. That it has been done in this matter leads me to believe in them and the folks who are running this experiment. Paul, learn to live with it. If not find a hole and pull the lid over behind you. The world is not going to stop and the atmosphere is not going to fall out of the sky. It’s time for Chicken Little to go to bed.

I hate to be a bore everyone, but Paul Dixon didn't answer any of my questions. Since I find the Fermilab website is rather difficult to navigate I am including an address for those interested in checking on the issues. This is the link to the document of the Run II parameters which also defines luminosity:

http://cosmo.fnal.gov/organizationalchart/mcginnis/Run2b/Run2b.htm

This clearly states the particle energy is being increased from 0.9 TeV to 1.0 TeV (actually 0.98 TeV is all they can get). This is also described in the Fermilab newsletter of March 2, 2001. I also tracked down what they mean by TeV 33, which appears on the site. This does not mean an energy of 33 TeV per particle, it refers to a future design where they hope to get the luminosity up to 1E33 per square cm per sec. The original design was called TeV 1.

Paul Dixon also misquotes the Physics Today article (April 1999,p65). The article says nothing about an energy flux of 2E44 eV per square cm per sec. It ony mentions the luminosity increase to 2E32 per square cm per sec. He is still using the luminosity incorrectly to get an energy flux (my third question).

I am sure Plato and Wet1 would think this futile, but I am going to add two more questions for Paul Dixon to ignore. In an earlier post he refers us to Whos Who in America for his background. I found his entry in the 1996 volume. After various education and psychology items he says he was nominated for the Noble prize in Physics, 1986. Since you didn't answer my question four I have to assume you have never published anything in physics.

Fifth question: How could anyone seriously nominate you with no publications?

You then list an achiement of solving the Last Theorem of Fermat. This has been the holy grail of mathematics for 200 years. It was solved a few years ago by Andrew Wiles at Princeton. There is a wonderful book about the history of the theorem and the dicovery called Fermat's Enigma by Simon Singh (www.simonsingh.com).

Sixth question: Do you expect us to believe you solved Fermat's last theorem and didn't share it with the world (and didn't collect the thousands in prize money)?

Steven23
Paul is still hanging around so maybe he'll get around to your answer. Now I'm not going to beat the probverbal dead horse (issue) But I think our thread starter did not expect to find such an educated forum to debate the issue. Not that I think I contributed in any meaning full way
You brought up excellent points. So hang in there, You may get lucky.

SUPERNVOA FROM EXPERIEMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks for your kind interest in these most salient matters.

In regards to current exemplars of experimentation at this level, it is then Carl Sagan who stated that there are a number of ways that we can destroy ourseleves with the level of technology that we have now reached.

We have for example Chernobyl, where the reactor scientists had to disable all of the warning devices in order to assess whether or not the reactor could be reactivated via the spin down energy of the main generator; something which is already known to be impossible by all engineers and safety experts.

A further example may lie in the last flight of the Challenger, where the main safety controller would not release the flight and yet it was still sent off due to political considerations. Alas, all perished in this due to O - rings which did not function at the temperatures present at lift-off on a cold day in Florida.

Since the arguments which are presented are of a semantic and ad hominem nature, you must agree with the physics presented in earlier posts. The physicists and astrophysicsts working in the observatories on the Big Island of Hawaii also agreed with the physics of supernova generation via high-energy physics experimentation. Their only counter argument was that it would be a small supernova. Perhaps we can have further disputation on the size of the supernova to be generated via high-energy physics experimentation at Fermilab. Would you rather it was small or large or perhaps even medium-sized?

Please email me at the University of Hawaii at Hilo for all documents relevant to this vital area of interest.

All good wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Hi Paul and all others,

First of all, three cheers for Steven23. You were able to actually find this information at the Fermilab site. I just totally blew it (pun intended) - I just couldn't find anything related to our discussion there. I hate "difficult-to-navigate" sites ;).


Paul,

I agree with your quotation of Carl Sagan. Humankind indeed is capable of destroying itself. However, I think the quote is totally unrelated to our discussion. Mankind acquired the ability to wipe itself out from the moment one individual got the idea of using some sort of primitive weapon for hunt some 10000 years ago (Vision loosely inspired on 2001: A Space Odyssey). Technology just has replaced this weapon in the meantime. I believe there is a difference between having the ability to finish ourselves, and consciously working towards that goal (which is what you implied by that quote).

You quote some famous accidents that you use as a comparision to what could happen at Fermilab. Both are not applicable IMHO, and because of the following reasons:


The reactor accident at Tsjernobyl is not even close to whatever could happen in an accelerator accident. Nuclear reactors have the ability to unleash a tremendous amount of energy in a short time (when not operated properly). The energies used in accelerator experiments are several orders of magnitude less. In one of my previous posts I converted those energies to more daily used units (Joules), by which I tried to put things a bit in perspective. Even if you think that my reasoning is flawed (which could very well be, I stated before that I am no accelerator expert), there are no bars of uranium being bombarded by neutrons at Fermilab, or any similar other mechanisms of releasing comparable amounts of energy.
You use the Challenger accident as an example of how a human decision to continue with a mission (be it a shuttle launch, or accelerator experiment) can have disastrous consequences. While I believe the decision to launch Challenger was politically motivated, the decision to perform TeV accelerator experiments is far from (the motivation here is ofcourse the pursuit of knowledge).



The physicists and astrophysicsts working in the observatories on the Big Island of Hawaii also agreed with the physics of supernova generation via high-energy physics experimentation. Their only counter argument was that it would be a small supernova. Perhaps we can have further disputation on the size of the supernova to be generated via high-energy physics experimentation at Fermilab. Would you rather it was small or large or perhaps even medium-sized?

Before we should even start arguing about that, I think it would be good if you would take the time to explain to us, in laymen's terms, why exactly a supernova would occur in the first place.

As mentioned before in this thread, the only point of danger could be the concentration of energy (loads of energy, small volumes). Numerous examples of comparable energy concentrations exist in nature, without producing the supernova's you talk about. I am only human, so I can't keep up with all new developments in high-energy physics, so obviously I have missed something that makes my reasoning wrong. Please point out to me where.

Thanks,

Crisp

I cannot believe Paul Dixon dismisses our specific questions as semantic. Even a first year physics student knows energy, energy density and energy flux are different quantities and cannot be interchanged simply because one wants more powers of ten to attract attention. As for ad hominen arguments (attacking a person's character), if you list outrageous things in Who's Who and then suggest people look them up, what do expect?

Paul Dixon mentions Carl Sagan, who is a very good example of a fair minded scientist who has investigated many controversial claims. A good book of his on this subject is "The demon-haunted world: science as a candle in the dark". His chapter in the book on developing one's "Baloney Detection Kit" should be required reading. I have used several of his tools in debunking Paul Dixon's theory. One of the tools in Sagan's Baloney Detection kit is recognizing statements that can't be tested. Paul Dixon's latest of this sort is the claim that "The physicists and astrophysicsts working in the observatories on the Big Island of Hawaii also agreed with the physics of supernova generation via high-energy physics experimentation". There must be quite a few working there with all the telescopes, couldn't you name a few? I have a hunch that many would be angered to be unknowingly used as support for your theory.

An important consideration of Paul Dixon's posts is that they are not just discussions of an idea, he is calling for people to contact Fermilab staff. He is asking for us to jump on his bandwagon even though it has no wheels. There are certainly extremely deserving environmental issues to devote one's time to, I suggest you find one based in reality. The example of Chernobyl (how in the world do Chernobyl and the Challenger relate to the discussion) reminds me of an up and coming one. Since nuclear reactors don't produce carbon dioxide there is a resurgence of interest in them because of the greenhouse warming issue. Their fate should be based on fact, not special interest politics.

Steven23

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your very kind interest in this most critical matter.

As indicated in exosci - Physics, Fermilab Tevatron Begins Run II, what is is being sought for via empirical confirmation is to identify the Higgs boson. There is also the possiblity of finding,"signals of possible extra dimensions to the universe." As documented in the literature of astrophysics, one of these dimesions is de Sitter space. The very great energies resident in de Sitter space are well-known to the physics community.

We may append here the illustrations of Chernobyl and the Last Flight of the Challenger to clearly indicate that experimentation is often motivated by socio-political as well as economic considerations. These sources of motivation may out-weigh considerations of safety and the preservation of human life.

According to the Fermi National Accelerator Website, the Accelerator is being activated this May 22, 2001. It is, therefore, a matter of empirical, experimental observation as to whether or not sufficient energies are generated by Run II to breach the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of a supernova upon our planet, solar system and a host of nearby stars. This would be, under this postulation, a Type Ia supernova which though generated by an approximately one solar mass object, is 2.4 tiimes more energetic than a Type II supernova having origin in a stellar object of greater than 10 solar masses. There is also no trace of hydrogen for the Type Ia supernova at maximum light.

May we express our most heartfelt gratitude for having had the opportunity to bring this information to the general public.

Your kind actions on behalf of all the children are gratefully appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

I believe the abuse of de Sitter has lasted long enough, lets call the things by their names shall we ?

First of all was is meant by de Sitter space is simply normal space but devoid of any matter. The vacuum sort of speak.
Now, energy is calculated via differential equations of the first order. This is a very basic thing that we know since Newton and Leibniz invented calculus. This implies that energy is not an absolute quantity since a constant doesn't change the solution of a differential equation.
The only thing that is know are relative energy, relative to what ? To the vacuum (de Sitter Space in other words).

In the twenties of the last century, phycisist began to wonder if it was wise to equal the constant to zero since combining special relativity with quantum mechanics lead to the concept of anti matter. Thus Dirac introduced the concept of an infinite sea of 'negative' energy. He proposed this to explain an anti particle as a 'hole' in this sea of negative energy.
Casimir went a little further in devising a way to actually measure this so called vacuum energy, which was experimentally verified.
However this doesn't mean we have an infinite supply of energy at out disposal : the only way to get energy from the vacuum would be if we found an energy level which is lower then the zero level, this is of course impossible since by definition the vacuum energy is the lowest level of energy in the universe.

In the newest theories of Membranes and strings, there is talk about a so called anti-de Sitter space, this would represent the folded dimensions. M-theory needs at least 11 dimensions to be self consistent, since we only see 4, the others are 'folded'. The same principle hold for the anti-de Sitter space as in the unfolded dimensions : there is no way to tab energy from it without having a lower energy level.

Experimentators at Cern or Fermilab can go to what ever energy levels they want without any danger of suddenly releasing vacuum energy since adding energy will never result in obtaining a lower energylevel.
Even making a micro black hole would be totally harmless since the little monster would evaporate (because of Hawking radiation) long before it could grow to any dangerous size.

Besides we are far from any such energy levels and with the current technology of cyclotrons, one spanning the planet wouldn't even be sufficient to get enough energy to make one of the proposed GUT particles.

An other side note, most of the theories of the last fourty years are just that, they have still no fundament in experiment. It is crucial that this unbalance needs to be set right because soon our theories will have as much worth as any other mythological claim.

Hi Plato,

(Welcome word in Dutch)
Lang geleden. Proficiat met uw pas verworven vaderschap. Een nieuwe fysicus (m/v) in spe ? :).


there is no way to tab energy from it without having a lower energy level.

Just wondering here, is this based on a similar principle as for example the heat flow in two subsystems where energy "flows" from the subsystem at higher temperature to the subsytem at lower temperature ?


An other side note, most of the theories of the last fourty years are just that, they have still no fundament in experiment. It is crucial that this unbalance needs to be set right because soon our theories will have as much worth as any other mythological claim.

I totally agree on that one. Especially now that a second candidate-theory on the origin of the universe emerges from M-theory, it would surely come in handy to get a hint to whether extra dimensions exist or not. (Even a confirmation of supersymmetric partnerparticles would be a good starter here). It is only thanks to experiments at CERN and Fermilab that we are able to learn more about the fundamental character of nature.

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

Dank je wel. Een nieuwe fysicus, wie weet ? Haar moeder is ook een fysicus dus het zou wel eens kunnen...

Zie je de komende examens een beetje zitten ? Trouwens moet jij nu zo onderhand geen thesis onderwerp gekozen hebben ? Wat is je titel als ik vragen mag ?

About the energy question :

Yes indeed it is just like warmth flowing since warmth is energy...
The only energy that is observable is energy differences. For example an exited atom will only be recognized as such when it has emitted a photon, in other words when an exited electron has changed its energy to a lower level.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION FROM FERMILAB

May we thank you for your kind interest in this most salient concern.

As of May 22, 2001, the beam is now activated at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill, U.S.A.. We are thus ready to generate a Type Ia supernova via a transition towards de Sitter space since with those great increments in energy, now seen in the Luminoisty Webpage for Fermilab, the energies are to be increased from 1.8 TeV to some 33 TeV (Trillion electron volts). Since the energies resident in de Sitter space are well-known to those familiar with relativisitic cosmology why is it, aside from socio-political as well as economic motivations, that we find this most hazardous work continuing? (Our portion of the cosmos is now termed the, Einstein de Sitter Universe)

Historically, we may refer to the Greek term hubris. By this was meant, "Presumption, originally towards the gods; pride, excessive self-confidence." (Oxford Unabridged) We may note in this connection the words of Aldous Huxley in the text, Themes and Variations, p. 259. The Greeks ... knew very well that hubris against the essentially divine order of Nature would be followed by the appropriate nemesis." In this regard, we have seen in recent times the ill-fated experiment that produced Chernobyl, where the engineers responsible shut down all of the saftety signals to see if the reactor could be restarted from the spin-down of the generator. All engineers, as well as saftey officials, know that this is impossible. We may also cite, in this connection the Last Fllight of the Challenger, where concerns about the stability of the O-rings made the chief saftey officer unable to sign for the safety of the flight on a cold day in Florida.

All of the children will thank you for your kind offices on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

I think all the seats are already taken!

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your kind interest in these most salient matters.

Please note in the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory - Accelerator Update that the cryogenic aspect of the magnets used in the ring at Fermilab is mentioned. This indicates that the magnets are used in a super-conducting mode of operation. As is very well known, there is virtually no upper limit to the energies that may be brought into being with a superconducting accelerator.

Since the large potential barrier between the continuum and de Sitter space is classically defined, breaching this potential barrier is then only a function of energy available in the Einstein - de Sitter Universe. Generation of a supernova via the formation of transition towards de Sitter space is then only matter of time as the energetics of the Tevatron are, " fired up," towards its highest value.

It is, therefore, a matter of the greatest urgency that the public make their wishes known to Professor Michael S. Witherell, Director of Fermilab, in regards to this most significant and perilous matter before it is too late.

Many, many thanks for your kind efforts on behalf of all mankind.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Although I have a hunch that human pride will cause the end of the world as we know it, I truly hope that this isn't it.

I can't believe it! This put-on has been going on for a few months now - Great going Paul. The best part was discovering how rusty I am in this area. Oh well.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your very kind interest in these matters and most humbly request immediate action.

Please note: It Takes a Laboratory, Raising the Main Injector was the work of an army of Laboratory personnel. (Sharon Butler, FermiNews Volume 22, Tuesday, June 1, 1999, Number 11) It is indicated here that the main injector took seven long years of planning and designing to bring together the $260-million dollar machine that will usher in a new era in particle physics at Fermilab. It is this device with its 15 million pounds of steel which will create the capacity for the 33 TeV (trillion electron volt) energetics in the Tevatron that breaches the classically defined potential barrier towards de Sitter space - thus releasing a supernova on our planet and our solar system. Our portion of the cosmos is now termed the Einstein de Sitter Universe.

Of further interest in the Fermilab Theoretical Physics Department is the Seminar on, The TEV33 Committee Report, The TEV33 Working Group.

We are now in the 11th hour. They now, "Fire up the Tevatron," using the Main Injector to stack the Tevatron bringing it to those vast energies noted above. Please note the website for the Tevatron Department at Fermilab:
http://www-bd.fnal.gov/index.html

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

I would like clear up a misconception about superconducting magnets that Paul Dixon makes in his post on 05-27-01.

Quote: This indicates that the magnets are used in a super-conducting mode of operation. As is very well known, there is virtually no upper limit to the energies that may be brought into being with a superconducting accelerator.

If there was 'virtually no upper limit' then the Fermilab people would turned up the power long ago. Any superconducting material will continue to superconduct only if the magnetic field stays below a certain critical field. They have been able to increase the critical field a little bit so the particle energy can be increased from 0.9 Tev to 0.98 Tev (see my earlier post for reference). To boost the energy per particle any more might mean replacing all the magnets, which is horribly expensive. I believe the Texas Superconducting SuperCollider, if it would have been built, had similar magnets to Fermilab's but with a much larger radius, which can also produce higher energy per particle.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks for your most kind interest in these critical matters.

Please note: the communication of Paul W. Dixon on 05-05-01 11:41 PM which delineates the advance in all the parameters now being brought on line at Fermilab. In the Accelerator Update of Wednesday June 6, 2001, reference is made to a quench where a cryogenic magnet goes from the superconducting temperature of 4 degrees Kelvin to normal. The stacking of the Tevatron continues from the Main Injector which is to produce 36 bunches of protons on top of 36 bunches of antiprotons this weekend of June 9 - 10, 2001. It is the combined action of these sets of 36 x 36 bunches which induces the 33 TeV (trillion electron volts).

With superconducting magnets, there is no resistance to the current employed for electromagnetism. It is for this reason that the energies therein can be increased virtually without limit.

A commonsense argument may be used in this connection: that is to employ energies at the level of the the point origin of universe must be done with extreme caution, otherwise all is lost!
We are then set to confirm the standard model of relativistic cosmology in the Einstein de Sitter Universe via supernova generation.

Yours sincerely,

All Best Wishes,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your kind attention in this most salient matter.

Please access the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory webpage for the Accelerator Update. There you may observe the pattern of the interactions for the 36x36 bunches of protons and antiprotons as well as the luminosity of the interactions of the these stacked trillion electron volt bunches.

The 1.8 TeV (trillion electron volt) level of operation was attained for about 15 years in the precryogenic (supercooled) mode of operation. It is important for us to know the level of energetics obtained in the Tevatron as they work towards the 33 TeV operating level. Please contact the staff of Fermilab in this regard and if so moved register a protest as well!

It has been some 25 years of continuous work in this vital area of concern.

Every Best Wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

I would like to add to some points made earlier by Crisp and others in this discussion about comparisons of the energy density in the early universe and in the beam of particles at Fermilab. In a very readable little book called 'The first Three Minutes' by Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize in physics) he describes the conditions of the universe shortly after the big bang. The earliest he believes we can really describe is 0.01 seconds. At that time the temperature was 1E11 degrees K and the energy density was 21E41 eV per cubic cm.

The Fermilab beam is made of bunches of protons and antiprotons traveling in opposite directions. The highest energy density in the beam is when one bunch (2.7E11 protons) overlaps with a bunch of antiprotons (3.0E10 antiprotons). The length of a bunch is about 8 nanoseconds which at the speed of light is 240 cm long. Some of these data come from the reference in my earlier post, but the others came from other spots on their website. They are able to focus the cross-section of the bunches down to 0.015 cm by 0.015 cm. The better the focusing the more interactions there are between the particles. The energy per particle is 1E12 eV (1 TeV). Paul Dixon's value of 1.8 Tev is correct for two particles colliding head-on before the upgrade (0.9 + 0.9 Tev). Since the upgrade the values are now 1.0 + 1.0 TeV.

So the energy density for two colliding bunches is 3.0E11 particles times 1.0 TeV per particle divided by the volume (240 cm * 0.015 cm * 0.015 cm).

Fermilab beam: 5.6E24 eV per cubic cm.

Early universe: 21E41 eV per cubic cm.

The energy density of the early universe is over 17 orders of magnitude larger than the Fermilab beam.

Why do people keep on replying to this nut? He doesn't answer our questions and mixes unalike quantitative measurements to come up with huge energy densities! Paul doesn't even understand superconductors! Stop trying to oppose him. Join my movement instead. It's the "Put Paul Dixon through High School so he can someday get a PhD maybe."

May we thank you for your kind attention in this most salient matter. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! lol

I'm sorry, but after reading all three pages of this threads non-sence I couldn't help myself.:D I feel better now.

I said, "Self you're not going to do this" but lost the good sense I thought I might have had. This is what I was refering to as a one horse merry-go-round with the seat already taken.
I've noticed that Paul usually comes on the board late when not many are there and makes his posts. In the morning he's not there to answer any questions but new stuff is there to be read. Doesn't smack of I really believe this stuff.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your very kind interest in this most salient and urgent matter.

In the most ancient days, it was thought that there were a series of concentric spheres on which the heavenly bodies were fixed. We had then the the system of epicycles which saved the phenomena of the retrograde motion of the planet Mars in relation to the oribit of our planet. Following this were the observations of Johannes Kepler whose system of laws predicted the motion of the planets and comets with great accuracy. It was then after these great discoveries, that the inverse square law of Sir Issac Newton provided an explanatory framework for observational astronomy. It was not then till the work of Albert Einstein with modern Einsteinian physics and advanced observational astronomy that the image of the universe changed from that of a tranquil, distant and immoveable realm to that of violent universe where the possibility of a nearby supernova extinguishing all life on earth would now be considered possible.

As we are now within some orders of magnitude of those energies thought to be extant at the point origin of the universe,
it well behoves us to proceed with extreme caution in the violent Einstein de Sitter universe as it is curently termed. Please access Luminosity Upgrade Project at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory with John Marniner as Director <mariner@fnal.gov>. The massive construction of the Main Injector, as well the cryogenic implementation for electromagnetism will not yield only 2 TeV which was already the capacity of the Tevatron before these additions where brought forward. The director of Fermilab was severely attacked in the scientific literature for not bringing the Tevatron up to its full potential from 1.8 Tev to 2 Tev in the precryogenic mode of operation.

All the children now and for all the future history of mankind will thank you for your most kind efforts on their behalf.

Every best wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Hi all,

A very fine history lesson by Paul Dixon, but as I see it, completely irrelevant to the discussion. I think it has been widely accepted that just plain "living" is a danger business (eventually leading to death in some way). We do have the capability to blast ourselves to cosmic dust, but I do not think the danger lies in:
a) Supernova's happening anywhere nearby somewhere in the near future.
b) Accelerator experiments.

That's why I have another question for Paul Dixon to file in his "unanswered questions" archive: Do you have an idea of what happens in high-energy collisions ?

Apart from the fact that they are high-energetic - which is quite relative anyway. As Steven pointed out the energies are some 10^20 times smaller than the energylevels at the beginning of the universe - not quite exactly what I would call "we are now within some orders of magnitude of those energies thought to be extant at the point origin of the universe".

Bye!

Crisp

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your very kind interest in these most pressing and salient matters.

The current work at Fermilab indicates that the first measurable luminosity of proton and antiproton collisions is now coming on line. (Please note: Accelerator update) Since the Main Injector is now being used for this stacking procedure, it should not be long before those energies are reached which will form a transition towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of a supernova upon us.

The energies employed by the accelerators are those found only some trillionths of a second after the "Big Bang" at the point origin of the universe as described in the scientific literature . The energies resident in de Sitter space are given in the communication of Paul W. Dixon, 03 - 04 - 01 10 AM, in this series of communications.

Those energies now coming on line at Fermilab are then conceived of as a trigger for the release of those vast energies resident in de Sitter space which, as indicated in the aforementioned communication, are already pre-existent as now shown in mainstream modern cosmology. This triggering is via the penetration of the large but classically defined potential barrier towards de Sitter space.

May we thank you for all your kind actions on behalf of all the children now and in all future time.

Every best wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your very kind interest in this most critical area of concern.

Please access the," Accelerator update," on the Fermi National Accelerator Webpage. You may there view the ongoing
collisional energetics of the Central Detector Fermilab (CDF). Please view the live events of the CDF Beam Edge View. Here we see a reading of the transverse actions on the relativisitically defined beam. Thus we see Eta, the angle of scattering/outgoing hadronic particles (pink) and electromagnetic energy, summed in GeV (billion eletron volts). The review of these energetics showed a variation from some 1.60 GeV to 82.35 GeV in a ten minute observation period. We note, therefore, a variation of some 51.47 x during this brief observational period.

It may, therefore, be hypothesized that the intrusional event from de Sitter space should be a monopolar jet, where scale, according the astrophysicists from the Mauna Kea, Hawaii observatories is of no consequence with energies of this magnitude. Please join with me in these ongoing observations in the monitoring for supernova generation at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois. May God have mercy on us all!

Your kind actions in response to this public endangerment will earn the gratitude of all mankind now and in all future time.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Dear Paul,

Actually what you are seeing in these graphs (lego graphs at <A HREF="http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/live_events/cdf_live.htm">CDF Live data</A>) is the angular distribution of the energy deposited in the detector. The peaks you see there are nothing more than the total sum of the energies of collided particles measured in a small volume of the detector. To get the total energy deposited, you'd have to add up all the peaks, leading to far higher energies than you proposed in your communication.

Phew, for a few seconds I thought the Tevatron TeV-accelerator was only producing particles with a couple of GeV's of energy ;).

Bye!

Crisp.

[B]xxx[B] No seriously what are you guy's talking about i want to know.

Hi Sphinx,

Paul believes that the elementary particle accelerator at the Fermilab laboratory will create an explosion that is comparable to a supernova, based on the fact that loads of energy is crammed into a tiny volume (and that this would rupture spacetime). Most of us disagree.

Bye!

Crisp

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your most kind interest in
these gravely salient matters.

As expressed in previous communications in this thread, the high-energy condition is well known to those cognizant in the area of relativistic cosmology. It is termed de Sitter space. The postulation, here brought forward, is that the concentration of energy found in the Central Detector at Fermilab (CDF, as it is increased, will inevitably create those conditions necessary for breaching the classically defined potential barrier towards de Sitter space. These conditions at Fermilab are approximately equal to those energies found at the point origin of the Universe, i.e., the Big Bang.

To view this see: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/live_events/cot.html

Thank you for assisting us in monitoring for supernova generation at Fermilab in the form of a large transverse jet (under this postulation) for the generation of supernova via an intrusional event from de Sitter space (the pre-existent high-energy condition).

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul,
You have used the term de Sitter space in every post. This time three times. If you expect that anyone will take you seriuosly you will have to answer some questions from the forum. Being as I do not have the background you will have to bring me up to speed so to say. So please start with an explaination of de Sitter space. The link you provided in your last post is a pretty picture. Care to give some text to it?

Paul,
You have left no choice but speculation as you refuse steadfastly to answer the forum questions. I see from the Internet that you have been at this particular drum beating since at least 1997. You have appeared on a few “wacky TV shows” to express your alarms. But you’re not a physicist. You’re a psychologist if I’m right. Now you have been at this long enough to know that the de Setter Space you talk of is mainly described in mathematics. Mathematics complex enough that fully 80% of the population will not understand it. Very possibly that is the low figure. Now Paul, that means that most likely you don’t either. Is this the reason you will not answer questions? That in spite of the length of time you have been doing this and not just at this forum, that like the rest of us you don’t have it down yet? You even have a web site set up for whomever wishes to look. Consists of much the same hokum. Excerpts from who knows whom, taken out of context, to support what you say. But nothing concrete or real.
I give you credit, you really know how to play people and given your background you should. You slip in every few days and make a quick post to keep it at the top of the list but still no answers are ever posted. Mysterious stranger with inside knowledge? From where, one of your patients in Chicago?

Below for our readers is a small sampling of page after page of these type of forumla used to explain de Sitter and Anti-de Sitter Space.

http://www.ioppublishing.com/EJ3-Images/0264-9381/18/9/101/Full/img23.gif

Paul:

As a psycholinguist at University of Hawaii, you know that using language to confound smart people does work. If you are writing a thesis on the subject or teaching students, do not wait for the end result.

This is the end result. Some of us figured out your game, others get sucked in to it, and still others do not give a hoot. There is a word for it: Psychobabble

I was asked to review this thread by a fellow member. I was able to discern from the very first page of the posting what you are upto.

Good Luck my friend.

Paul,

We're still here, so I guess Fermilab hasn't run its experiment yet...

Anyway, wouldn't high-energy cosmic ray collisions have produced higher energy densities near Earth many times in the past? Some cosmic rays reach much higher energies than Fermilab's experiment.

And, if Type Ia superenovas are due to alien physics experiments, how come we don't see then starting at Type G stars?

Hello Paul:

There is a sucker born everyday. If you want to engage, I do not mind. It is fascinating....

Strange you should talk about this supernova machine. It features heavily in the first of a new TV documentary series just started on UK TV. It's called Space and is hosted by Sam McNeill (Red October etc). I have just watched the first episode - brilliant! Watch out for it. Oh! by the way, the experiment works, we saw it on TV.:rolleyes:

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Your kind thoughts and understanding in these matters are most gratefully appreciated.

The highly energetic conditions of de Sitter space in the equations derived by Willem de Sitter from the General Theory of Relativity have been published in the most internationally respected journals, Science and Nature. These results are cited with the references in the communication by Paul W. Dixon of 03 - 04 -01 10 AM. The topological interface between the extended tensor of our continuum with the extended tensor of de Sitter space indicates that our continuum is cobordant at each point in the continuum with de Sitter space. It is, therefore, only an empirical question as to whether the energetics now coming on line with a colliding beam (Please note the Accelerator Update for Fermilab) this July 28th, 2001 will effect a transition by breaching the classically defined potential barrier to the highly energetic conditions of de Sitter space thus releasing the force of supernova upon us all.

This now is some 25 years that this effort has been underway. Twice we have gone to Fermilab to picket.

All of your efforts will be of the utmost historical significance for all of the children now and for all future time.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

THIS HAS BEEN MOVED TO ITS OWN THREAD

I dont pretend to understand physics or quantum thingies or relativity. I am neither a scientist nor an astronomer. However, I have just watched the second in the series of "Space", with Sam Neill, a BBC documentary, which I recommend to you all. As soon as you can, watch it - it is an eye opener to us amateurs on this fragile planet we call Earth. In this second programme (UK spelling!) Sam explains how the Earth is like a ball in a giant game of luck! Not only does the Earth spin around the sun, which rotates about the galaxy, but the sun also rotates up and down - every 30 million years or so it passes through the densest part of the galaxy - and the dangers increases proportionately. If you like, you can describe the suns galactical path as a corkscrew. The sun and our solar system last passed through this dense region one million years ago BUT, the dislodgement of the outer sphere of tons of debris which coats our system, takes a million years for it (as comets) to reach the inner system! Therefore, we can expect, within the next 200 years, according to an eminent scientist, something WILL hit the Earth! In the programme it was explained that we must be doing something NOW to try and achieve some sort of planetary defence system. Also explained in this second episode, the dinosaurs were wiped out during such a phase, and there have been at least 20 "civilisations" before that!! Should a comet the size of Schumaker-Levy 9 hit the earth - all life would have been wiped out. As we all saw in the 90s; the explosion on Jupiters surface was actually bigger than the Earth. As it happens, and has happened since the solar system began, Jupiter has acted as a giant vacuum cleaner, sweeping up the comets of sufficient size, before they enter the inner solar system. But our luck, and it has been luck, will one day run out and Jupiter will miss one!! The Earth, when it was forming, was hit by a molten object the size of Mars; it nearly decimated the planet - but didn't! More luck! The resulting explosion released thousands of tons of rock as asteroids into the system - most of which Jupiter ate up. The remainder can be found in the asteroid belt. The moon was born of this titanic detonation. More luck - as the moon is instrumental in our existence and survival. The universe has thrown all it can at us in an effort to wipe us out, so far we have been lucky!! But in order to survive, our species has to learn, now, how to defend the planet from debris - or we will all perish. I look forward to the remainder of this programme with interest. It looks like we are riding a giant roulette wheel and pretty soon, something is going to throw the ball in! Should any of you get the chance to see this programme for yourselves - I thoroughly recommend it!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: looks upwards!!

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for you most kind attention to this vital concern

According to the Accelerator Update for the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the Tevatron has achieved the second highest luminosity to date where luminosity is defined as the total number of particle interactions per unit time.

What is underway is the discovery of those particles still left missing in the Standard Model as it is now termed. Various predictions regarding the tau quark, the graviton and supersymmetry - with the Holy Grail of the identification of the Higgs boson are the goals of the current series of investigations now underway with Run II at the Tevatron. Though these results are of importance to the work of theoretical physicists, the increment in energies necessary for these discoveries are sufficient to breach the classically defined potential barrier towards de Sitter sapce. Since the very high energies resident in de Sitter sapce are well-known to these investigators, it may well be the height of hubris (arrogant and wanton pridefullnes) to continue with these investigations to advance their own interests (e.g., Nobel Prizes). and by this course of action place the entire world at risk of certain destruction!

Your kind actions on behalf of all mankind are gratefully appreciated.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul,
I don't think you're having any better results than when you were rallying against food irradation.

Paul:

Here is one for you. The Cosmic Rays are hurting us. We need to do something about it. That sounds like a good cause for you.

And the Tachyon showers causing temporal displacements. And a super string is heading our way that if touches you will put you in Nirvana....

B'Lana - can you get out the tachyon converters please - we are having a spot of bother in No 3 Sciforum converter with temporal displacement!:D :D :rolleyes:

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your very kind interest in these most salient and critical matters.

The exact positioning and distribution of the cluster of particles in the Tevatron is a major task for the ongoing engineering now occuring a Fermilab. (Please note: the Accelerator Updates for August 2001.) It is then, these pencil shaped combined clusters of particles so directed as to form the maximum luminosity of particle interactions, which far exceeds the energetics of those singular widely disbursed cosmic ray particles found in nature. In a mathematical sense, it is the intersection of two n-dimensional topologies which permits a correlational matrix of image centroid values that allow a statistical approximation of the extent of the overlap between the matrix geometry of this universe and other geometrical entities. Where such an overlap occurs it may be possible to find the penetration of extra-universe (i.e., de Sitter space) energy.
This would then be found in the transition towards de Sitter space seen in the rupture of the classically defined potential barrier towards de Sitter space here postulated in Type Ia supernova generation. This is then the mechanism for the forthcoming supernova generation at Fermilab.

This postulation invokes the high-energy condition of modern Relativistic Cosmology and not the low-energy condition which is also part of the standard cosmolgical model. The oscillatory action of the circulating clusters of particles in the accelerator ring may also form a kind of key to the energetics of de Sitter space under this postulation.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation













All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your kind interest in these most critical matters.

We note that the Tevatron at Fermilab has again reached the former luminosity levels of particle interactions over time. (Please note: Accelerator update) The standard model of relativistic cosmology shows some sixteen dimensions for our continuum. Even though it may be stated that so far there has been no empirical verification of these dimensions, the other conclusions from the general theory of relativity have so far been verfied. Even the demonstration of gravitational wave radiation from binary stars was recently awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. It may, therefore, be unwise to plunge forward into the unknown with yet increasingly large energies in the Tevatron only to confirm the existence of higher dimensions via supernova generation here on earth.

All of the children will thank you for your kind offices on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Dear Paul,

Gravitational waves in the context you use them are a concept in the theory of General Relativity, which describes the universe as a four-dimensional entity (space-time).

"The standard model" used in cosmology refers to a way of indexing the known particles (quarks/leptons). You could call it a "Mendeljev's table" for elementary particles. It is very lickely that these parameters are described in a 16-dimensional space, but this refers to the number of quantum parameters required to uniquely label an elementary particle (if I am not mistaken then at the moment the mathematical space used to describe elementary particles is SU(24) which is a... ehr... 47-dimensional space (dimension of SU(n) = 2n - 1 ... hrm, I should check my math books on this)). Anyway, the exact dimension is not really of importance, every now and then another quantum parameter is added so this is no fixed number yet. These SU(n) spaces are fictional (abstract mathematical entities), and are not parallel/sub universes.

Bye!

Crisp

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks to all our dear friends and colleagues for your kind interest in these most salient matters.

Please note: the communication of 03-17-01 8:30 AM of Paul W. Dixon in reference to sciforums.com >News>exosci>.com. Physics, Fermilab Tevatron Begins Run II. In this review, it mentions that with increased energetics now coming on line at Fermilab one of the stated goals is to search for other dimensions. What is here the major concern, is not those dimensions associated with the continuum, but rather those highly energetic conditions which may be referred to as the high-energy condition also termed de Sitter space, in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed.

Our sincere and heartfelt prayers are that this perilous leap into the unknown will be halted before it is too late.

All best wishes,

All of the children will thank for your most kind offices on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Dear Paul,


What is here the major concern, is not those dimensions associated with the continuum, but rather those highly energetic conditions which may be referred to as the high-energy condition also termed de Sitter space, in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed.

In all your previous communications, you mentioned a potential barrier that may get broken and hence unleash vast amounts of energy upon us. This barrier has to stand between our universe and "something else" (let's coin that a "subuniverse", as I am still not convinced "de Sitter" space is an appropriate word) ; the potential barrier between the Fermilab experiment and the supernova energy cannot be a barrier in our own universe, since that would imply that the supernova energy would already be present in our universe. The later cannot be the case since this amount of energy would have already spread out in the form of radiation or similar, and would have engulfed us already. So we are forced to conclude that this "hidden" energy has to be in some "subuniverse".

This "subuniverse" can only be two things: either it is some parallel or underlying universe, or it is hidden in some form in extra dimensions unknownst to us. Since the extra dimensions are no problem according to the quote above, the energy you talk about must be stored in some parallel/underlying universe.

As I've stated before, there is no experimental evidence, or generally accepted theory that proves or assumes the existance of a parallel universe. Ironically enough, it will be through high-energy experimentation with particle accelerators such as the one at Fermilab, that will give the final conclusion on the existance of parallel universa or extra dimensions.

In the end this entire discussion comes down to the question whether extra dimensions or anything similar beyond the known universe exists. Unless you have a repeatable experimental result that points in this direction, or a theoretically founded argument in favor for either of these, I am afraid the entire scientific community will dismiss the idea of a supernova from high-energetic experimentation as weakly argumented theoretical "spielerei" (and this is a general remark, not an attack on your person).

Sincerely,

Crisp

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank all of our friends and colleagues for their kind interest in these most pressing matters.

The relationship between the continuum and de Sitter space is given in the references cited from the most respected journals, Science and Nature, given in the communication of Paul W. Dixon of 03-04-01 10:10 AM. Here we see that a potentially infinite number of universes can form within de Sitter space. In the sense of this discussion, therefore, it may be understood that our universe is a subuniverse of the larger cosmos of de Sitter space. This is the mainstream theory of modern cosmology. This may be thought of as another Copernican revolution, in the sense that our planet is no longer the center of the universe in the original heliocentric theory of Nikolai Copernicus nor is our universe now the central universe in the modern cosmology of Andrei Linde. This is a difficult concept to grasp and its conceptual magnitude may then account for the number of observations of Type Ia supernovae in our immediate universe. From a topological perspective, where our universe is not is then de Sitter space - albeit behind a large potential barrier.

May we thank you for your most kind efforts in notifying the director of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory concerning these vast energies resident in de Sitter space. All of the children will thank you for your kind efforts on behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATON AT FERMILAB

We thank one and all for your most kind interest in these most salient concerns.

The experimentation now underway at Fermilab, chronicled in the Accelerator update on the Fermilab homepage, indicates that the luminosity now employed at the accelerator is 7.4 E30. In scientific notation, this is 7.4 x 10 to the 30th power particle interactions (collisional impacts). With a beam energy of approximately 10 to the 11th power electron volts, we have then the energy of current work at Fermilab set at 7.4 x 10 to the 41st power electon volts (7.4 E41 eV). This is much larger than the largest energies seen on earth via cosmic ray interactions at 10 to the 19th power eV (E19 eV). Without your kind efforts regarding this most critical danger, a breach in the potential barrier may occur at any moment thus releasing the force of a supernova on our planet and our solar system. We may thus generate an intrusional event from from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter universe as it is now termed.

Your kind and generous action on behalf of all mankind is greatly needed at this critical juncture or all is lost and we shall all perish.

All good wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your most kind interest in this very great potential for disaster.

Please access the live viewing for ongoing experimentation at Fermilab for the CDF under inquiring minds on the Fermi National Accelerator Webpage. In the chronology of these events, No. 131972 demonstrates a monojet of electromagnetic energy of > 30 GeV. It is this kind of monojet which, under this postulation, heralds the intrusional event from de Sitter space. Some precursor events may be visible which are then illustrative of small 'leaks' in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. There may be other events of this nature which become visible as this research continues. Please be so kind as to report them to us, since it is the nature of this research enterprise to seek novel results for Nobel prizes or otherwise.

All of the children will thank you for your most kind efforts on their behalf in the prevention of yet another most grave and horrible disaster to the good people of the United States of America and to the entire world.

Every best wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Your kind interest and concern in these most pressing and important matters are gratefully appreciated.

A seminar by Raphael Bousso of Stanford entitled Global Structure of the Inflationary Universe
(http://www-astro-theory.fnal.gov/Seminars/spring99/Bousso.html) at Fermilab showed the result for a similar cosmology to that of Andrei Linde for the generation of n-number of universes from de Sitter space. Professor Bousso states, "I show that de Sitter sapce disintegrates into an infinite number of copies of itself... Applied to cosmology, this process leads to the production of a large or infinite number of universes in most models of inflation and yields a new picture of global structure."

We note also that the emittance (particle density) of the beam at Fermilab has been increased so that the median energy at the CDF is some 39.25 GeV whilst the high value has now gone to 95.21 GeV (event 3052348, run 126097). May we request of Professor Michael Witherell, Director of Fermilab, that this research be halted until the limits of the strength of the potential barrier be established in a peer reviewed journal or this potential barrier will be breached thus releasing the force of a supernova on our planet and solar system.

All mankind and every child now and in all future time will thank you for your kind offices on their behalf.

We have witnessed most grave disasters in our recent history. Let us not have another greater one of our own devising.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends and colleagues: may we thank you for your great concern and attention in this most salient matter of catastrophe prevention.

Recent work at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has gone to 7.5E30, which is then the frequency of particle collisions at the CDF between protons and antiprotons (anti-matter) in the ring. In scientific notation, this is
7.5 x 10 to the 30th power collisional interactions at some 10E12 eV per interaction per second per cm squared. With increased precision of focusing(emittance), this figure of 10E42 eV per second is far greater than the E19 eV of the relatively infrequent cosmic rays found in cosmic ray observations. It may be then only chance alone which has prevented the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space and hence
the generation of a supernova here on earth.

Charles Seife on page 188 of his mathematical text, Zero, (Penguin Books) mentions a transition towards the zero (lower energy condition). He states," This hasn't stopped some believers-physicists included-from picketing high-energy laboratories like Fermilab, they beleive that a high-energy collision could cause a spontaneous collapse of the vacuum." The hypothesis, here put forward, is for the collider to form a transition towards the high-energy condition, i.e., de Sitter space.

All of the children now and in all future time will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All good wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Friends and colleagues: many, many thanks for your kind interest in these most salient matters.

To explicate those variables necessary for generation of Type Ia supernovae under this postulation, it may be helpful for those who have come to this discussion more recently to consider the following:

1. The concentration of energies in the focal point of the accelerator such as the CDF at Fermilab is much greater in terms of electon volts ,eV, than that which is found in nature. We see, therefore, the solitary and widely dispersed cosmic ray at 10 to the 19th power eV in contast to the current work at Fermilab at 7.5E44 = 7.5 x 10 to the 42th power eV per centimeter squared per second. None of the replies put forward have been able to answer this point at all.

2. The attractive properties of de Sitter space provide an increased likelihood that the transition made in the accelerator will be to the highly energetic conditions seen in the equations for de Sitter space and not to the lower (zero) energy condition.

3. It may be found, that the primordial state of de Sitter space as well as those conditions now being altered in the accelerator at Fermilab form a kind of lattice or key which permits the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space and hence supernova generation.

All of the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Hi Paul,

"We see, therefore, the solitary and widely dispersed cosmic ray at 10 to the 19th power eV in contast to the current work at Fermilab at 7.5E44 = 7.5 x 10 to the 42th power eV per centimeter squared per second. None of the replies put forward have been able to answer this point at all."

Some of the replies did: we pointed out that the number is not as large as it seems, and that it is not correctly used within the context (messages by Steven23 and myself).

"The attractive properties of de Sitter space provide an increased likelihood that the transition made in the accelerator will be to the highly energetic conditions seen in the equations for de Sitter space and not to the lower (zero) energy condition."

If the "de Sitter space" has attractive properties, then there is no danger: anything entering it will remain there forever, as there is no repulse behaviour according to that reasoning.

Bye!

Crisp

Hi everybody...
I am new in this forum, and I have read with a lot of interest the messages from Paul and all the numerous answers (I admire the patience that some of you have had to address Paul's comments, and also the high level of some of these answers)...
..and now I am wondering what Paul wants (I am reluctant to address it directly and personnally to you, Paul, because I do believe that you will NOT answer, as you do most of the time) !!!
I have several hypothesis in mind:
1) It is a bet: Paul has bet with friends and/or collegues that he could make a lot of people answering and reacting to his 'bla bla' (this is a french term - may be you would say babbling?), for some time ?
2) May be it is a psychological experiment, part of Paul's job, to collect a lot of reactions, answers, and analyze them (and write some nice article in some Journal of Psychology) ?
3) May be Paul is an alien coming from a parallel subspace that was created as one of the numerous (infinite?) spaces created during the phase transition following the BigBang and predicted in Paul Guth's Inflationary theory (OK I am joking, :D I couldn't resist...)
4) Or may be Paul is overanxious about this world, physics in general that are difficult to understand etc... May be he needs to see a doctor ?

I am anyway in full agreements with all remarks/comments and additions made by Crisp, Plato (Boujour à tous deux!) Steven23, Plato and Kmguru !!!

Scorpio

PS for those interested, I suggest reading 'The Inflationary Universe' from Paul Guth, 1997, Helix Books/Addison-Wesley - Very interesting and very accessible, no equations...)

Has this experiment failed miserably or what?

How come there is still no supernova?

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Friends and colleagues: may we offer our great thanks for your kind interest in this most salient concern.

As mentioned previously, penetrance through the domain wall towards de Sitter space permits the rapid emergence of an exploding universe, with its time vector tau, also expanding exponentially until the momentum is adsorbed within the true vacuum region. The energies of 1.6 x 10 to the 126th power eV per cubic centimeter resident in de Sitter space may account for this exploding universe phenomenon. (Perry, M. J. Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe? Nature Vol 330, 24 April 1986, p.679)

We may note that the energies an exploding hydrogen bomb are some 10 to the 7th power eV per cubic centimeter. Where the energies of a cosmic ray are measured at 10 to the 19th power eV, their point origin must lie in supernovae, quasars or other highly energetic events. Those energies now observed at Fermilab are some 25 orders of magnitude greater than those found in these cosmic ray observations. Surely this is sufficient to penetrate the very large, though finite, potential barrier towards de Sitter space.

As Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winner in Physics, stated in the formal inquiry on the Last Flight of the Challenger; what is safe at time A may not be safe at time B in experimental work.

Your kind offices will earn you the eternal gratitude of all the children.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

All Best Wishes,

Dear Paul,

We may note that the energies an exploding hydrogen bomb are some 10 to the 7th power eV per cubic centimeter. Where the energies of a cosmic ray are measured at 10 to the 19th power eV, their point origin must lie in supernovae, quasars or other highly energetic events.

Two remarks:
- You are mixing up different quantities again, the number of hydrogen bombs is an energydensity, while the cosmic ray number is an energylevel. These cannot be compared as densities can be made arbitrarely large. Eg. 10^7 eV/cm^3 equals 10^22 eV/km^3. This number seems larger, but it isn't. Also, the number for the hydrogen bomb energy density seems a bit underestimated, as an eV is really REALLY a very small unit of energy (1 Joule = 10^19 eV, so that would add up to about 10& (-12) Joules / cm^3... Considering that hydrogen bombs heat up matter to several million degrees Celsius, this seems a bit small).

- The cosmic ray energy you state is one of the highest ever estimated. The average cosmic ray energy is about 2 GeV = 2*10^9 eV, which is a lot smaller.

Those energies now observed at Fermilab are some 25 orders of magnitude greater than those found in these cosmic ray observations. Surely this is sufficient to penetrate the very large, though finite, potential barrier towards de Sitter space.

As we pointed out already, the orders of magnitude can be put into perspective. And also, I don't think "Surely this is..." suffices as an argument to pursuade people here.

Bye!

Crisp

Hi from Australia Paul, wow what can I say, I've been searching for blow by blow descriptions of what's going on at fermilab.

It's a shame they haven't got a daily transcript like this on their web page about the search for the Higgs boson.

I'd really like to read something rather than try to understand the live collision photos.


<A HREF="http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/live_events/index.html" target=new><FONT COLOR=blue size=+1> Fermilab collisions live </FONT></A>

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your very kind interest in this historical scientific forum.

The values for hydrogen weapons as well as that for the most energetic cosmic rays may be found in a thorough review of the scientific literature: which are then cited in electron volts, eV, in order to provide for a common measure for comparison.

The progress of science is often marked with controversy. It is our hope that this discussion may soon reach a frutiful conclusion since a permanent storage ring for anti-matter protons is now being completed a Fermilab. When this current program is completed, it will permit more continuous as well as more energetic collisional events at the CDF in Fermilab thus generating a supernova in this sector of our galaxy.

All of the children will thank you for your kind offices on their behalf now and for all future time.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul Dixon claims the energy in a Hydrogen bomb is 1E7 ev per cubic cm. As Crisp politely points out, that is a bit small. Going back to physics 101 (you should really take it Paul), one calorie of energy is 4.184 Joules which is 2.6E19 ev. That is the energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree. You couldn't raise the temperature of a gram of water even a microkelvin with 1E7 ev per cubic centimeter.

There... that didn't even take a thorough review of the scientific literature. This blunder ranks with Paul's statements about superconductors. Wouldn't everyone out there like to hear an "oops, I made a mistake"?

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank all friends and colleagues and for your most kind interest in these most salient, historical concerns.

The prediction of supernova generation in this sector of our Galaxy is possible in a purely statistical sense. These findings shown in:LBL study of supernovas had a surprising result, January 17, 1992: http://www.lbl.gov./Science-Articles/Archive/supernova-search.html,
This finding would indicate that supernova can be expected at a 30 year interval or longer where most of these supernovae occur in late spiral galaxies such as our own. Thus it has been stated, that this sector of our Galaxy is overdue for a supernova. In this, we are dependent on a phenomenological analysis.

As we examine the physical basis for the calorie, it is then 4.184 joules, or 2.6E19 eV.
So also it may be recalled, that the largest cosmic rays are found to be relatively infrequent events of some 1E19 eV. Thus we must distinguish between potential and kinetic energy in nature within a phenomenological analysis in modern physics.

All of the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf - now and for all eternity.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul, your link doesn't work.

What's the big deal if a mini supernova was created?

It would be fun to study, you can't get out more energy than you put in.

Have you heard that a supernova has already been created in a Bose-Einstein condensate?
From the send to a friend section of "nature journal".



<A HREF="http://www.nature.com/nsu/010322/010322-3.html" target=new><FONT COLOR=blue size=+1> bosenova</FONT></A>


Albert Einstein postulated the existence of BECs in 1924
Some clusters of very cold atoms have physicists foxed, the American Physical Society's March meeting heard this week in Seattle. Bose-Einstein condensates, the bizarre form of matter that bridges the tiny, topsy-turvy world of quantum mechanics and the everyday world, are pulling dramatic tricks with which today's theories just can't cope.

Ordinary matter comes in five forms. Three - solids, liquids and gases - are familiar. The fourth, plasmas, are found in high-temperature systems such as flames and fluorescent tubes. You could be forgiven for having never heard of the fifth: the Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC).
Christened in honour of Albert Einstein, who postulated their existence in 1924 based on the work of Satyendra Bose, the first BECs were produced by Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman at the University of Colorado in 1995.

These curious entities never occur naturally, can exist only at temperatures a few ten-billionths of a degree above absolute zero (-273 degrees Celsius) and until recently could contain only a few hundred atoms. Even so, they fascinate physicists keen to deepen their understanding of quantum phenomena.
As an atom cools, it moves increasingly slowly, causing its wavefunction (roughly speaking, the area in which it might be found) to grow. Eventually, the wavefunctions from neighbouring atoms overlap and the whole condensate starts to behave as a single quantum-mechanical object.

It is hard to form a stable BEC of more than 100 atoms, and seeing what's going on in condensates so small is very difficult. The recent discovery of a particular mode in rubidium-85 called a ‘Feshbach resonance’ increased the maximum condensate size to several tens of thousands of atoms - but only at just two billionths of a degree above absolute zero. "Damn cold by anyone’s standards," as Wieman says.

Nonetheless, the new technique gave researchers a tool rather like a pair of magnetic pliers to manipulate the condensates. Their results have them scratching their heads.
When compressed quickly enough, a condensate explodes, blasting off the outer atoms and leaving a cold, collapsed remnant. The effect has been dubbed a ‘bosanova’ because of its similarity to a supernova (an exploding star).

Unsurprisingly, the size of the remnant left when the condensate does a bosanova depends on the energy of the explosion. But, strangely, the number of atoms blasted off does not change. This is a real surprise, particularly as researchers currently have no idea what happens to the remaining atoms.

Unexplained jets have also been observed projecting from the mass of atoms just before it collapses. And the more egg-shaped the initial condensate (physicists call this anisotropic), the rounder the remnant - entirely contrary to expectations. Charles W. Clark of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, has even observed curious smoke-ring formations within a BEC1.

"These are not complicated crystals with many degrees of freedom and complex interactions we are talking about; they are just atoms. We understand atoms, right?" Wieman jokes. "Basic physics is missing to explain these effects."
Jeremy Thomson is the Assistant Web Editor of Nature

What bothers me most about this entire thread is that Paul uses "for the children" in every post. I'm a chemist, so I've been able to run along side the discussion for about 90% of it. Frankly I'm impressed by Paul. Most people let simple scientific fact and logical argument sway them. Kudos to you, it makes me proud to know that in a mere 6 years, I will become a peer of yours, and can put Riomacleod PhD on my posts. Of course, I'll stick to the philosophy board where my PhD has some relevance. :)

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank one and all for your very kind interest in these most salient matters.

Where previously Fermilab's Tevatron was limited by storage insufficiency for antimatter antiprotons, the new Recycler with permanent magnets will provide virtually unlimited storage for antiprotons. In this way, the previous limitations to the Tevatron will be overcome allowing more continuous operations as well as greater collisional energetics. The likelihood of creating a transition towards de Sitter space will thus be increased and hence the generation of supernova at Fermilab will be more certain. It is more than evident in our current history what tragic disasters can be generated by modern technology!

Area tests as an entering student in college showed scores: 99+ percentile in the Natural Sciences, 99+ percentile in Humanities, and 99th percentile in Social Sciences. Alas, it has been all downhill since then...

Every child will thank you for all eternity for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Hi Paul, I was just wondering what the chances of a supernova were?

Do you have any probability studies available?

Are there any papers on how one would be produced by the procedure?

Personally I like the possibility of strangelets more than SNs.
What exatly are you refering to here?

Quote..."Area tests as an entering student in college showed scores: 99+ percentile in the Natural Sciences, 99+ percentile in Humanities, and 99th percentile in Social Sciences. Alas, it has been all downhill since then... "

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMIALB

All friends and colleagues: many, many thanks for your kind interest in these most salient concerns.

In the communication of 10-27-01 02:05 AM, the web site for the frequency of supernova generation is given. This frequency is based on prior observation as well as other considerations such as the opacity of the interstellar medium. Mathematically, it may be possible to employ the Poisson distribution for a statistical approximation used when the number of events is large and the probability of observation becomes small. Thus a formula may be obtained for relatively unique events to provide their expected frequency of observation. From this statistical basis, the general view is that this sector of the galaxy is now overdue for a supernova.

As Fermilab is now coming back to operation with the Recycler, a permanent magnet storage facility for antimatter - antiprotons. It is now a matter of great concern as to whether a transition will be formed via a breach in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space, thus releasing the force of a Type Ia supernova on our planet and solar system.

All of the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf now and for all eternity.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Hi Paul,

"Thus a formula may be obtained for relatively unique events to provide their expected frequency of observation. From this statistical basis, the general view is that this sector of the galaxy is now overdue for a supernova."

I'm sorry, but this is totally unrelated to what you're trying to prove here. The statistical calculation you give can only take "natural" supernovae into account (of stars that are at the end of their lifecycle) and not other possible means of creating a supernova (under the assumption that there is another way to create a supernova that is).

"As Fermilab is now coming back to operation with the Recycler, a permanent magnet storage facility for antimatter - antiprotons."

Could you explain the link between antimatter and supernovae ? To my knowledge, antimatter is just "regular" matter with a specific configuration of quantum parameters. So following that reasoning, even the storage of regular matter should pose a problem for a supernova ?

Bye!

Crisp

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMLAB

All friends and colleagues: many, many thanks for your kind interest in this most salient concern.

In this exegesis, the Poisson distribution provides the expectation for the statistical expectation for both Type Ia and other types of supernova generation. Under this postulation, the Type Ia supernovae whcih are used as standard candles in observational astronomy are viewed as having artifical origin via experimenation by other sentient species. The Type Ia supernova show no trace of hydrogen near maximum light and can have origin in stellar masses less than the Chandrasekar limit of 1.4 solar masses. Thus observations of Type Ia supernova have been traced to objects with .7 solar masses; far less than that necesssary for the implosional mechanism necessary for supernovae deflagration.

The new permanent magnet Recycler antimatter antiproton storage ring at Fermilab allows for a virtually unlimited supply of animatter for collisional purposes in the Tevatron. This will greatly extend the energies available as well as extend the time parameters of operation. All of this together will create certain generation of a Type Ia supernova at Fermilab.

All of the children now and for all future time will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

The differences between supernova types Ia and II (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/supernovae.html) are explained here.

Paul, your mechanism for how Supernova type Ia work is fundamentally wrong as you are mixing the mechanisms for supernova type Ia and II. Also the chandrasekhar limit is related to Black Hole production and has only secondary relevance to supernova. Supernova typically being needed to form a Black Hole. BTW, the chandrasekhar limit pertains to the core of the star.

On the principle your starting assumptions and knowledge are wrong, your conclusions are wrong as well

The maximum energy from any collision is E=Mc^2. In a normal collision in an accelerator the mass incolved is a few hundred particles. A tiny fraction of a gram.

The amount of energy this releases is orders of magnitudes less than that released in a Supernova, of any type.

The concerns about making strange matter in RHIC a few years ago had more founding scientfic founding in them.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Please receive our heartfelt gratitude for your kind interest in these most grave concerns.

Alas, the Tevatron at our Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, aside from some minor technical problems, is about to come on line with a virtually unlimited supply of antimatter. It is
then the role of the accelerator to bring the matter together with the anitmatter particles to generate energies equivalent to those found at the point origin of the universe. This is very well-known in terms of those energies now observed in the modern accelerators. Whether this will produce a Type Ia supernova is then a matter of experimentation in high-energy physics.

If the envelope of the progenitor solar mass is some .7 solar masses, then the core of this progenitor cannot be larger than .7 solar masses. The classic method for generation of a supernova is by means of an implosional mechanism. Should the initial mass be less than 1.4 solar masses, i.e., the Chandrasekar limit, this aforementioned implosional mechanism cannot ensue.
Thus we see the possibility for generation of Type Ia supernova via high-energy physics experimentation!

All of the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf now and for all eternity.

All best wishes,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul

Do you have a reference for this putative 0.7 solar mass supernovae?

I will point out, again, that the Chandrasekhar limit pertains more to type II Supernova and not type Ia. Type Ia are thought to be White Dwarves accreting mass and gaingin enough mass to become Neutron Stars, violently. In order to get a supernova of mass 0.7 solar masses, you need 0.7 solar masses or more. There is no way the Tevatron an achieve those energies.

Dave Barlow

I think I can see where the confusion is coming from. This page on electron degeneracy explained (http://panda.unm.edu/courses/astro101/Degeneracy.html) and this page (http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~bchandra/Astro2950/Lecture_notes/lec29.html) points out that the maximum mass a white dwarfs electron degeneracy can support is 1.4 solar masses. The typical mass of a white dwarf is 0.7 solar mass. As type Ia supernova are thought to be white dwarves accreting mass a typical Type Ia supernova may have been misreported to have a mass of 0.7 solar masses?

The only tie in with the Chadrasekhar limit is that the white dwarf needs to exceed this mass before collapsing again.

As pointed out in Astrophysics I, Stars by Bowers and Deeming stars of mass 10 solar mass are thought to exist without forming supernova. Things are never as simple as they seem once you peak behind the curtains.

A very wise man has spoken.

I agree......

Its easy to sit on the roof, and guess whats in the grass!

Once you get down to the ground, all kinds of things become much clearer..



bjl:rolleyes:

I'm not sure what Paul is trying to do it may be just a psychological experiment, if this is the same guy he is from the psychology department at Hawaii, maybe he is not aware that people wish to discuss his assumptions with him or that these statements require some proof.

I can't quite see the link between his field of psycho linguistics and supernovas though unless he is being impersonated.

You may have some luck with replies if you email him direct.

dixon@hawaii.edu

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for these most kind replies from all friends and colleagues in this most salient and tragic concern.

The observations in the journal Nature and other astrophysical journals indicated that a stellar object of .7 solar masses had created a Type Ia supernova. As a white dwarf is already in the degenerate condition in regards to the outer shell of electrons in their orbital paths, it cannot deflagrate to supernova generattion without further accretion of matter. This would produce a mass of greater than .7 solar masses. Such was not observed in this case.

Alas, if you review the accelerator update for the
the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, it is clear that the Tevatron is about to come on line with the permanent magnet Recycler now providing a
virtually unlimited supply antimatter antiprotons.
It is, therefore, at this time only a matter of empirical observation to discover if this postulated mechanism for generation of Type Ia supernovae is indeed correct.

All of the children will thank you now and for all eternity for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately the number of articles and papers printed monthly in the combined Astro journals and nature is more than I can search by myself.

I've done a moderately exhaustive search on several pre-print, archive servers around the net, xxx.lanl.gov, nature.com, xarchiv and so on. The total number of articles containing key words supernova Ia 0.7 solar mass exceeds 2,000.

Any details you may have on the exact journal, year, page or whatever would help here. Even an authors name and year.

Inquiring minds and all that.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for your most kind interest in this catastophic crucial concern of total annihilation!

As shown in the Accelerator Update for the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the current luminosity is already at
7.3E30 which when multiplied by the current eV level of 10E12 eV yields 7.3E42 eV. This value of considerably greater than that found in nature in the most energetic of cosmic rays at 10E19 eV. From a philosophical point of view, the substratum of de Sitter space will become manifest owing to its most energetic nature at 1.6E126 eV cm cubed. We thus have one possibibility in reply to the Fermi Paradox. Civilizations, as they reach a given level of technological ability, destroy themselves in some instances via a Type Ia supernova generated by high-energy physics experimentation. Limits can be extended only to a certain level before threshold phenomena are found as in a transition towards de Sitter space.

References in the journal Nature may be obtained by contacting Dr. Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature at: nature@nature.com We have been in contact regarding the possibility of Type Ia supernovae generation via high-energy physics experimention for over twenty years.

Think of the children and their future.

Wishing everyone a Very Merry Christmas!!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

I am sure you understand that in science the onus is on the claimant to back their arguments up. That includes citing references and not asking others to find papers by searching. A near imposible task without at least a year and Author of a paper.

Please provide the Author, year and preferably volume (assuming Nature) of publication of this paper you keep referring to. The one with the supernova below the chandrasekhar limit. There is no way Nature is going to do a paper search for me. I can not longer afford a subscription, I threw my back issues out a long time ago to make way for children.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for everyone's kind interest in this emergent crisis.

Please note the December 7, 2001 Accelerator Update for the FERMI NATIONAL ACCELERATOR LABORATORY. The energies now given are in the range of 7.7E30 for luminosity and are thus at the higher end of the range of values for the Tevatron as measured at the CDF station.

May we request from the earnest readers of this SCIFORUM who have access to a comprehensive search engine in physics/astrophysics your assistance in locating in the journal Nature as well as in other Astrophysical journals the reference to the Type Ia supernova having origin in a stellar object of .7 solar masses. At the time of its discovery, this was a major finding.

It may be important to continue with this discussion until the very moment of supernova generation to at least demonstrate that as a species we were not totally ignorant of our fate and our final extinction.

All of the children will thank you for your kind assitance in these matters.

WISHING EVERYONE A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

You keep referring to 'all of the children' and you've got me curious: Whose children?

Take care. ;)

What interests me is what Paul W. Dixon will do when the Tevatron comes on line and nothing happens. Will we get an apology or like many in this situation, will the rules and predictions change to encompass another scenario. Just wait until the <i>next</i> bigger and more powerful accelerator comes on line.

It's the nice thing about testable predictions like this. You can either die happy knowing you where right, or not.

Paul, BTW I did spend the better part of a day searching and reading Nature and other online journals to no avail. I even used to have a personal subscription to Nature (for 5 years) and do not remember any such paper on supernovae. On the basis you must have read something, somewhere are using that as a cornerstone hypothesis I would have thought you would have memorised the papers title, author and year of publication. That you have not makes your conclusions suspect as you may be mis-remembering something.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks for your all your kind interest in this most tragic concern.

As noted in the Accelerator Update, the 12 TeV and antimatter ant-proton Recycler are being brought into operation. Thus a higher level of energetics, as previouslsy cited, are now being brought forward at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Since the energies resident in de Sitter space are well-known, it has been requested that the astrophysicists at Fermilab publish a paper(s) which demonstrates the impossiblity of causing a transition towards de Sitter space thus generating a Type Ia supernova before preceeding with increased energetics in this reckless plunge into the unknown. Please access the Astrophysical Section at Fermilab to inquire in this regard.

Without children the future of all mankind is in peril. We thus have in the words of William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616) in the Tempest, Act V Scene 1, 148 the voice of Prospero:

Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And like this insubstantial pagent faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

************************************************** *
During the Christmas vacation, I will peruse the computer files for the missing reference.

Wishing Everyone a Very Merry Christmas!!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

<i>Since the energies resident in de Sitter space are well-known, it has been requested that the astrophysicists at Fermilab publish a paper(s) which demonstrates the impossiblity of causing a transition towards de Sitter space thus generating a Type Ia supernova...</i>

This is new to me. Could you please explain what de Sitter space is, exactly, and how a transition towards it could occur? My general relativity course didn't cover that.

Thanks.

Appreciate the clarification re.'the children'

But confused by the quote's relevance.

Take care ;)

Originally posted by James R

This is new to me. Could you please explain what de Sitter space is, exactly, and how a transition towards it could occur? My general relativity course didn't cover that.

Thanks.

A 5 dimensional hyperboloid (http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-05/msg0024699.html)

To be honest, I am also not sure what Paul means by this. De Sitter space is more to do with a possible Topology of the Universe. Might have to do more research into this.

Hyperboloid ...

Humm.

Flat Space ...

Humm again.

Hyperbolic Paraboloid?

Interesting. No?

Topology is not my strong point.

Hyperboloid, Hyper-Paraboloid, P'raps.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends and colleagues: many, many thanks for your very kind interest in this most tragic crisis.

The references for de Sitter space are given in the communication of 03 - 04 - 01 10:10 AM, which is near the beginning of the thread on page 1. Energies now employed in the collider will be approaching 12 TeV in the progress towards the 33 TeV as indicated by the research groups working at Fermilab. Those energies now in use are approximately 2 TeV.

The energies of de Sitter space are very great and this fact is quite well-known by those familiar with modern cosmology. The fact that this research still continues with this realization in mind is absolutely mind-boggling. Should this research continue with the currently luminosity at 7.7E30 and beyond with the energetics at of 2E12 eV per cm squared per second thus yielding energies of some E42 eV per cm squared per second, makes supernova generation inevitable in the Einstein - de Sitter Universe, as it is now termed.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf else this great globe and all upon it will be utterly destroyed.

Wishing everyone a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul W Dixon,

I started reading the start of this thread and got as far as this quote from you:


the energies now employed at Fermilab are equivalent to those found at the point origin of the universe, i.e. the "Big Bang."It seems I don't need to read any further.

...But just for interest, I looked at what Fermilab had to say about your scenario and found this:


<b>The Universe Lives On and rumors of its imminent demise have been greatly exaggerated.</b>
<i>by Mike Perricone, Office of Public Affairs</i>

Poor old Earth, and indeed our whole cosmic neighborhood, has been under attack from talk shows, tabloids and Hollywood. Despite threats ranging from cosmic objects to subatomic particles, our beleaguered universe hasn’t blown its stack. Nor is it likely to, despite recent warnings on a late-night radio talk show
that turning on the Tevatron for Run II would “blow the universe to smithereens.” In a scenario described on the Art Bell show by University of Hawaii psychologist <b>Paul Dixon</b>, the energy released by proton-antiproton collisions in the Tevatron would “tear a hole in the universe,” pushing it into a phase transition, opening up a super vacuum where the laws of physics are different, and promulgating an energy bubble that would propagate at the speed of light— meaning the end of the universe as we know it. Dixon also invoked the specter of a homemade supernova cooked up in the Tevatron. However, Dixon’s doomsday predictions haven’t a scientific leg to stand on.

“We don’t have to worry about it happening,” said Fermilab and University of Chicago cosmologist Michael Turner. “Mother Nature has already done the experiment.” Every second, Mother Nature sends 100 million cosmic-ray particles raining down on Earth, creating particle collisions with energies surpassing those of Tevatron collisions. What happens? Nothing. No holes in the universe. No backyard supernova. “If we see a supernova, that means that the supernova’s energy has reached us,” said Fermilab cosmologist Rocky Kolb. “But in a phase transition, that
energy in the shock front would never dissipate. The shock 100 billion light-years away would be just as powerful as if you were standing next to it.” So if a supernova had set off a phase transition, we wouldn’t see the supernova because the shock would have blown us away when it reached us.

<b>Dixon</b>, who is a psychologist, has espoused the phase transition theory for years. He picketed Fermilab in 1995, describing it as the “home of the next supernova.” The supernova scenario also appeared recently in the tabloid, Weekly World News, attributed to Hans Estienne, who claims affiliation with the University of Bonn’s Department of Applied Physics—
apparently without basis. “Neither in the Physikalisches Institut
nor in any other physics institute of the University of Bonn is a Hans Estienne employed,” Erwin Hilger, professor of physics, Physikalisches Institut der Universitaet Bonn, replied by e-mail
to a query on Estienne.

...and then I went back and read more of this thread, just so I can't be accused of not doing my homework. After reading a few pages of posts, I realised that Paul W. Dixon does not want to debate his theory. He just wants to use it as spam. As far as I can see, Paul, you haven't answered any of the queries or objections here. In fact, you've treated the people here as if they don't exist.

I think I shall do you the same courtesy.

Paul thinks that the energy densities present in the Tevatron may be enough to <i>create</i> a region of De Sitter space, with associated Higgs Scalar Field. This then inflates.

This region of space would be effectively, a type Ia supernova.

All this from a possiblew observation of a Supernoa type Ia with mass less than the chandrsekhar limit and that the energies in the Tevatron are large.

Paul, I strongly suggest you post your hypothesis to one or all of,

news://sci.physics
news://sci.physics.relativity
news://sci.physics.new-theories

And related news hierarchies. There are active researchers participating on those groups with up to date information, possibly people working on the Tevatron. People like Ned Wright and 'Uncle Al' for example.

See you there my old mucker.

I see we have already posted the theory to usenet (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22paul+w.+dixon%22+group:sci.*&hl=en&rnum=9&selm=Pine.GSO.3.95q.980307182336.23694A-100000%40uhunix4) .

If I get time I'll wade through that and the references, if possible. Most importantly, there are references that can be followed up.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENATION AT FERMILAB

Friends and colleagues: may we thank you for your kind interest in this most tragic concern.

A reference which may pertain to the formation of a transition toward de Sitter space could be found in the following reference which we have been unable to access due to time limitations, i.e., grading of examinations and term papers. This is:
CRITICAL PHENOMENA OF THICK BRANES IN WARPED SPACE-TIMES. By Antonio Campos (Portsmouth U., Rel. Cosmol. Grp.) Nov 2001 599 e-print archive: hep-th/0111207 CERN Library Record

Those individuals who aspire towards careers in science may have somewhat unusual personality profiles in that they may strive for objectivity and to be both solid and steadfast. Thus they may seem unresponsive toward others even though all their efforts are focused on the welfare of all mankind.

A synopsis of this work has been forwarded to the: relativity science news group, listed above. They were also informed of the sciforums thread we are here embarked on.

All of the children now and always will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Best Holiday Greetings!!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Men have waited 2002 years and yet to see Jesus.

How long will men have to wait to see your beloved supernova?

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends and colleagues: many thanks for your kind interest in this most pressing concern during a most difficult time in our World History.

A recent view of the Live Tevatron Status on the Fermi National Accelerator Webpage, has indicated that the luminosity has been increased from 7.6E30 to the reading of 10.166E30. This is 10.166 x 10 to the 30th power collisions per centimeter squared per second. This would indicate that there is an increased probability of forming a transition toward de Sitter space as they press forward recklessly into the unknown. The formation of a Type Ia supernova is the greatest possible tragedy a civilization can ever know.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf. Let us pray that we can a least come into the New Year intact.

Wishing everyone the Best of Christmas Cheer!!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Hi Paul, it seems you may be keeping an eye on the responses here, if so you may want to place your topic in a thread on the biggest science forum in the world. (over half a million posts)

Click here <A HREF="http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/" target=new><FONT COLOR=blue size=+1> SSSF
</FONT></A>

Tell me is it all to do with a certain amount of energy concentrated into a particular quantity of space/time?





Ps, Hi JR, thanks for that article.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends and colleagues: please relay this information to all interested groups, websites, accelerator personnel, etc..

The values now given for Fermilab as seen on the Tevatron Status of the Acclerator Update posted on the homepage for FERMILAB are now set at about 2 TeV. This is a marked increase from the previous value of 1.8 TeV. The luminosity also increases after the initial value of about 7.6E30 to much higher values as the experiment proceeds. Please monitor the Accelerator Update live status to observe these effects.

The article in the Astronomical Journal (Leibgundgut, B., et al., (1993) SN 1991BG: A Type 1A Supernova with a difference (1) January 301-313) shows evidence for a supernova which has deflagrated below the Chandresekhar limit at .7 solar masses. This was also chronicled in the journal, Nature. Also from Peter M. Garnavich, "Early Spectra of Supernova 1993J in MB1, Astronomy Journal, 108 (3) (1994) on page 1006 it is stated: "The observed drop in H alpha flux inserted in this model implies a zero radius for the progenitor at March 29.5 regardless of expansion velocity assumed. This is clearly unphysical." Unless, it is as here postulated, a transition towards de Sitter space which provides for those vast energies of supernova deflagration: which is then clearly physical and of nearly zero dimensionality.

Every child on earth will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf now and for all future time.

All Best Wishes for the New Year !!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

PWD's condition seems to be perseverance. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnall's or any psychopathology text.

Know what Ph.D. stands for?

"Piled higher and Deeper"

:rolleyes:

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks for everyone's kind suggestions in this most pressing concern.

Since the essential hypothesis which began this work comes from the conception that Type IA supernovae are caused by sentient entities much like ourselves who destroy themsleves via high-energy physics experimentation, how could this be the case since it is clear that this level of technological expertise implies in most cases a knowledge of the vast energies found in de Sitter space?

Let us consider a matrix of historical causation which includes social, political and economic factors, etc., which motivate a continued reckless progress into the unknown despite all evidence as to their possible extinction via the vaporization of their planet of origination. Such is now clearly the case at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, whose staff, while fully appraised of the their imminent demise, are continuing to increase those energies of experimentation regardless of possible consequences; whereby, we are all plunging to our doom. Please note: the Tevatron Live Status on the Accelerator Update of the Fermilab homepage.

All of the children now and at all future time will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Wishing Everyone a Very Happy and Healthy New Year!!!

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Let us also consider that Paul Dixon is somewhat less qualified to judge these things than the Fermilab physicists.

Qualifications are only part of it. There is a fixation and compulsive verbal syndrome at work here, I think.

Type IA supernovae are caused by sentient entities much like ourselves who destroy themsleves via high-energy physics experimentation


Such is now clearly the case at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, whose staff, while fully appraised of the their imminent demise, are continuing to increase those energies of experimentation regardless of possible consequences; whereby, we are all plunging to our doom.

Hey Paul,

Not only are you a complete nutter....


All of the children now and at all future time will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.


Wishing Everyone a Very Happy and Healthy New Year!!!

...but you're also a polite nutter! :D

Happy New Year to you too! But according to you, we might not be here to enjoy it! :rolleyes:

1-1-2002, we are still here. Could be in a virtual world, who knows.... :D

Yep. What happens when you try to pour 1 qt. of concepts into a 1 c. brainpan? Overflow and massive spillage.

:eek:

In this new year, I predict, this thread will continue as long as Sciforums exists....or Paul checks in to a Nursing Home.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All good friends and colleagues: Many thanks for your kind interest in these most tragic concerns.

As chronicled in the FermiNews, please check with the search engine. google.com (Paul Dixon Supernova) you may view a news photograph of our first picketing of The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinois. We were greatly honoured to speak with the scientists as they came to visit with us and we asked them specifically if they were aware of the dangers of supernova generation through the vast energies at work in the accelerator ring. They said they were aware of the dangers inherent in their work in forming a transition to the already existing de Sitter space. We then very politely inquired as to why they continued with this work in the light of these very great dangers. Their reply was two-fold in nature:

1. They wished to continue with their employment and did not wish to work for, "Ma Bell Illinois," the telephone company of Illinois. In other words, they wished to continue with their current employment status.

2. Their interest was in the pursuit of truth, a kind of philosophic quest for truth by means of their experiment in high-energy physics. They did not deny that this research was extremely dangerous for everyone including themselves yet they wished to purse the research for these two reasons.

As a scientist, this made good sense to me. My companions on the picket line and others with whom I subsequently discussed this matter, however, viewed this as gravely irresponsilble! They indicated that this was a very selfish act on their part to risk everyone's saftey for their own personal advancement.

All the children now and for future time will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Wishing everyone a VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR 2002 !!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

As chronicled in the FermiNews, please check with the search engine. google.com (Paul Dixon Supernova) you may view a news photograph of our first picketing of The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinois.

Here's the direct link (see page 4):

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/ferminews/FermiNews98-06-19.pdf

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends and colleagues: many kind thanks for your most needed assistance in this most pressing historical concern.

It is time now for us to bring together our common humanity and to stand for the continuance of our precious home and birthplace, this planet earth. This unification of common will and shared humanity is all that finally stands between us and the termination of all that we hold most dear in friends and family.

Let us echo the words of Horace Mann, the first President of Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio: "Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity."

All the children will thank you now and for all eternity for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for everyone's kind thoughts and concern in this most tragic high-energy physics experimentation.

Consider the trillions upon trillions of galaxies each with their trillions upon trillions of stars which are ours to explore and to comprehend if we are able to persevere and not self-destruct with our advancing technological expertise. Let us proceed with caution and preserve the future for all the children of these many years. We have everything to gain and very little to loose if we maintain a prudent course into all future time with due regard for the perils and traps that nature has placed in our way.

All best wishes for the NEW YEAR!!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

More bumph. There are 100s of billions of galaxies at most recent best guess, not trillions.:rolleyes:

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All good fiends and colleagues: many kind thanks for your earnest interest and endeavours upon this most tragic concern.

In science, we may follow the thought of Sir Francis Bacon and also more modern philosophy in the thought of William James and Charles Sanders Pierce in Pragmatism. The general concept is termed induction, in that a conclusion in derived from a sampling of data rather than from all the data within a given domain of interest. Thus, for example, the Hubble observatory has given us the number of 125 billions of galaxies in the observable universe. There has not been, to my knowledge a claim so far of anyone's having detected the edge of the universe. It may then be inductively stated: that the distribution of galaxies continues beyond those now within the observable universe. Thus we have the standard conclusion that there are many trillions of galaxies in the entire universe.

The presence of life, as an emergent property, may also be inductively concluded in modern science. Thus, it may assumed that where the conditions for life obtain, it will almost inevitably occur. In this way, also sentience, as a result of evolutionary development within a given ecosphere, should also be in evidence in a statistical sense acrosss this broad domain of trillions upon trillions of planetary formations.

All of the children now and for all future time will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Warning: responding to the mindless banter of Mr. Dixon could lead this thread to become a 'supertring' which could curl up once a critical mass is reached thereby initiating a supernova type 1a Denial of service attack on the server The IP-packet radiation will send a EMP pulse throught the whole internet, effectively throwing us back to stone-age. Which is exactly the ultimate means of Mr. Dixon to stop the groundbreaking experiments at Fermi labs.

Already he has created a black hole of psychobabble which sucks up the intellectual energy of great membersminds like CRISP and PLATO , who with all due respect (biertje?) are a bit pathological like Mr. Dixon in the sense that they persist explaining something to Mr. Dixon who DOES NOT WANT TO BE TEACHED in the first place.

As Mr. Dixon is a certified pscychobabblist in Hawaii it would be interisting to study his motives:

- Is he a member of the pacific liberation movement, trying to destabilize our culture by attempting to frustrate technological progress ?

- Just seeking attention in order to become famous like Erich von Daniken , selling books to make big bucks to the general public?

- Mr. Dixon's responses are really a artificial program like LISA in order to prove to fellow psychobabblists he can pass the Turing test


Anyway , I feel that there is a huge densitie of unguided energy here and I carefully suggest that some moderator lock this thread up in the babbletron and throw the key away.
:D

For how long is this going to continue ???:confused:

Is anything going to happen to the Fermi lab and Earth ?:bugeye:

They'll keep getting:

"One day older
And deeper in debt!"

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends, colleagues and efans: your efforts in this most tragic concern are most gratefully appreciated.

We may examine the historical precedent for this current crisis in the work of Johann Carl Fredrich Gauss, Janos Bolyai, Lobachevsky and Riemann. It was their contribution to shift the 2000 year adoration for Euclidean geometry to non-Euclidean geometry. The adoption of Riemannian, spherical geometry enabled Alber Einstein to develop the Generalized Theory of Relativity which then replaced the time-honoured work of Sir Issac Newton as the leading theory of gravitational forces. Willem de Sitter was able to generalize these equations to describe de Sitter space leading to those references cited in the first page of this thread. Where a potentially infinite number of universes may form in de Sitter space, we may also form a transition to this highly energetic condition at any point in the continuum by breaching the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of a supernova upon our planet, solar system and a host of nearby stars.

The highly energetic condition of de Sitter space is well-known in this mainstream theory of derived from the work of Albert Einstein. Thus our universe is now termed the Einstein - de Sitter Universe in modern cosmology.

All best wishes and many thanks for your contributions. Recent work at Fermilab is at 9.16E30 (luminosity) at 2 TeV. This is more than one order of magnitude (times 10) greater than previous work at Fermilab.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Every best wish!!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Perhaps Paul is right... and I think that our scientists are hiding many of their discoveries from the public. If they really can act with this Sitter Space (which Paul says is where the universes are created, as I understood) they can probably create even more energy than a supernovae...
Sometimes it seams that the U.S. government is hidding many things from the public (some people even think that they have contact with the famous Zeta-Reticulian species called Greys who teaches them Super-Advenced Technologies). If this is true, why not create a supernovae in one laboratory? Of course they would have that stupid idea.
Once I read in an article from a Brasilian Magazine which talked about the plans to make a Black Hole in a laboratory in New York!!! What a stupid idea!! Perhaps the Greys gave them that idea and want to conquer the world... :D And them, with their stupidity (this don't include you, Paul. You seem to be conscient about the danger of this kind of experiment) they would say: Allright, we do it!.... DUHHHHHH!!!! :bugeye:
Whatever... being right or not, this discussion amuses me. I think we, as human beings, as "intelligent" creatures (enough to destroy ourselves) are already dumb enough. We don't need to come back to our Pre-History...
We MUST decide what is more important for us: our childish search for knowledge or our lives and the lives of those who we Love.
Anyways... better watch what is going on in our scientific world before we turn into melted dust...

Blessings,
Nelson

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends, family, colleagues and efans. Many, many thanks for your kind support.

A URL of the ZoechlingNew - News Gateway - sciphysics relativity - SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

http://news.zoechling.net/sci.physics.relativity/200112180051590685200000589mbmjaolcom.html

This provides an excellent summary of this most tragic concern and provides a news release that may be referred to all interested members of the government(s), officials and other concerned citizens.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf now and for all eternity. May I express my profound gratitude to everyone for their kind help as well !!!

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends, family, colleagues and efans. Many, many thanks for your kind support.

A URL of the ZoechlingNew - News Gateway - sciphysics relativity - SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

<http://news.zoechling.net/sci.physics.relativity/200112180051590685200000589mbmjaolcom.html>

"Where a potentially infinite number of universes can form in de Sitter space in the dominant theory of modern cosmology, it may be possible to form a transition in the large potential barrier between de Sitter space and the continuum with sufficient energy. The current energies at Fermilab may be derived from the luminosity now at 7E30 with the energy per collisional interaction 2E12 eV per cm squared per second. This yields an energy level of some E42 eV per cm squared per second. The combined effect in the beam at Fermilab is far greater than the largest cosmic ray energies observed in the solitary infrequent cosmic rays at E19 eV. Thus the proability of forming a transition towards de Sitter space at Fermilab is very great. Please comment on http://www.sciforums/ or http://www.sciforums.com.showthread.php?threadidid=2607
regarding this possibility in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed."

We were able to access this thread via, google.com, with the above website entered or (supernova paul w. dixon) and then via cached websites.

This provides an excellent summary of this most tragic concern and provides a news release that may be referred to all interested members of the government(s), officials and other concerned citizens.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf now and for all eternity. May I express my profound gratitude to everyone for their kind help as well !!!

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends, colleagues and efans: Many thanks for your most kind support and consideration in this most tragic concern.

According to the text, Transpersonal Psychology, by Professor C. Tart it should be possible to express these concepts as outlined in this thread via other media.

A live performance of free extemporaneous composition on piano, synthesizer with emulated voice is herewith posted for your possible interest. It is entitled:

Angels Here and Now: Part III Gaia Forever

You can download your free music at
http:/www.coolgoose.com/go/music
click classical
click piano

or

http://www.coolgoose.com/sites/pauldixon/

Copyright 2001 Paul W. Dixon

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Every Best Wish,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

This is getting more bizarre by the post.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends, colleagues and efans: many, many thanks for your kind encouragement in this most tragic concern.

May we consider the generation of Type Ia supernova from high-energy physics experimentation from a statistical perspective. These supernovae have been observed out to the limits of modern observational astronomy and are sufficiently identical as to be considered standard candles for distance estimates in modern astronomy. These supernovae are some 2.4 times larger than Type II supernovae and yet have origin in solar objects of one solar mass or less. There is also no trace of hydrogen in these objects when they achieve maximum light.

Historically we note, "innumerable Suns exist: innumerable earths revolve around these Suns in a manner similar to the way seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds ..."
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600)

As predicted, the staff at the Fermi National Observatory Laboratory have, despite many warnings, again increased the collisional rate further to 11.83E30 while maintaining the energy level at around 2 TeV. This is far greater energy than anything observed in nature, except perhaps, in the imploding stellar envelope of a Type II supernovae.

"If they existed they would be here." Enrico Fermi (1901-1954) Are we too moving inevitably towards a final immolation of everything we hold dear for no better reason than to encode another decimal in the standard model in physics?

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Every Best Wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul,
Do you have any idea of how many projects of this kind... "suicide"... there are in the world now? If you know... give me some examples... I would like to know, but I don't know how to find it out...

Blessings,
Nelson

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for everyone's very kind assistance and support in this most critical concern.

May I indicate my willingness to engage in public discussion with Professor Michael Witherell, Director of Fermilab as well as Dr. Ellis, Head of the Theoretical Division at Fermilab at any time on national televison to forestall this tragic plunge into universal catastrophe.

In the same league as supernova generation from high-energy physics experimentation, would be the dedicated work of all the major world powers, including Russia, Germany, Great Britain, France and the United States in creating more and more potent forms of anthrax to be used in Biological Warfare. A recent seminar for Public Health authorities at Johns Hopkins University, stated that the release of biological agents for terroistic effects heralded the end of civilization. They thus perceived that once this threshold of release for these agents had been passed, within twenty years or so, the mutant German anthrax possessed by Saddam Hussein, for example, would be used as a method of mass destruction. This virulent form of the anthrax spore could not be controlled by those vaccines currently being produced here and in Great Britain.

Perhaps also the great mass of radioactive material at Chernobyl may still burn throught the concrete pad on which it rests whereupon the effects would according to the news reports make the original release of radioactive material be considered as, " only air freshener."

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf
now and for all future time.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely.

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Kind regards and many, many thanks for everyone's efforts in this most tragic concern

Current events from the Fermi National Accelerator Webpage, Accelerator Update, indicate that the energies are being gradually increased over time from some 4E30, to 7E30 now to 11.02E30 luminosity at approximately 2 TeV. Thus these vast energies are being ramped up with increased likelihood of forming a transition toward de Sitter space with every increment in energy. This progression can have only one logical outcome in terms of modern physics and that is to release the force of a supernova on our planet, solar sytem and a host of nearby stars. We are thus doomed to immediate vaporization by these vast energies and extinction as a species. It is not certain at what energies this will occur; it is however certain, that with each increment in energy there is an increased probability of forming a transition to de Sitter space, thus releasing the force of supernova upon us.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Every Best Wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank everyone for their most kind assistance in this tragic concern.

A recent telephone converstation with a Senior Editor of a newswire service, indicated that a careful review of these considerations revealed that this material concerning supernova generation from high-energy physics experimentation was hard news. Unfortunately, they were unable to bring this news forward since their news service was for lighter and more popular material.

To quote from the Accelerator Update of Fermilab, "Luminosity is a measure of particle interaction. The higher the luminosity, the greater the chance of quark production." It may also be concluded that the higher the luminosity the greater the danger - owing to increased probability of supernova generation with approximately 2 TeV (trillions of electron volts) level of energetics.

The measure of luminosity is now at some 11.5E30.

This work of bringing this news to the attention of the general public and to the scientific community been continuing since 1975 without pause or letup.

Every child now and for all time will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

<i>This work of bringing this news to the attention of the general public and to the scientific community been continuing since 1975 without pause or letup.</i>

Hmm... well, top marks for persistence, PWD. :)

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends and colleagues, many, many thanks for your kind assistance in this most tragic concern.

From the perspective of modern cosmology, de Sitter space is the primordial ylem from which all of the universes are derived. In this false vacuum of de Sitter space, it may be postulated that great variations in energetics are likely to occur . It would, therefore, be predicted that high-energy physics experimentation would be safe at time A, yet at a latter time B, the same level of energetics for high-energy physics experimentation would not be safe due to the variation in the energetics of the de Sitter space substratum.

Let us halt this reckless plunge into the unknown before it is too late!!!

All the children will thank you for your most kind efforts on their behalf.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul, your link at the top of this page A URL of the ZoechlingNew - News Gateway - sciphysics relativity - SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

is a wild goose chase nobody will find any of your arguements or physics there.

At least give me the rough date of when you posted the information.

I have been trying to get some facts and figures off you for months as to when you predict this event will occure at what energy levels and the physical process or theory by which this will occure.

As usual you have side stepped any real facts, theories or links to them.

Please try posting your facts and figures and theories of how, here.

Maybe if you could debate some of the physicists here or on the SSSF, the firmilab boys might take you seriously and give you air time.

Debate the physics, we dare you, put your physics where your mouth is.

John, as you well know, Paul has a running history in this thread of not answering. That is his gopher hole, if you will. He babbles but he is not going to answer, hence it wll remain babbling.

When he first started I thought he might have something. That he might be worth listening to. That quickly ended when I found out he was not willing to answer anything. The forums are idea for this kind of blathering. That is why he is here.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends, colleagues and efans: may we thank you for your kind interest and efforts in this most tragic concern.

As indicated previously, the current work at Fermilab is at some 11.5E30 luminosity with around 2TeV energetics. Where these energies are greater than anything every seen on earth at this highest-energy Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory facility, the risk of a transition towards de Sitter space is very great at all times. This is especially true if we posit that de Sitter space as a primordial false vacuum may show great variation. We are thus faced with the imminent possibility of Type Ia supernova at any moment.

It may be recommnded that those intersted in these matters review those fundamental works of Albert Einstein concerning the special and generalized theories of relativity. Also in this connection, the brief text entitled, Topology from a Differentiable Viewpoint by John W. Milnor may also be recommended. All of these works are models of clarity and precision and will help to clarify these important issues.

Every child now and forevermore will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank everyone for your complete support and cooperation in this most tragic concern.

In large measure, as it is well known in the world of physics that these high-energy physics experiments consititute a public endangerment via breaching the potential barrier towards a preexistent de Sitter space, the essential theory for Type Ia supernova generation must rest on some sciological basis.

The impetus for accelerator construction and continued experimentation may begin in a matrix of historical causation. Thus in the case of Fermilab, we are working in the area of "Big Science." Many are employed at the accelerator facility which for many also implies the possibility of socio-economic advancement, i.e., Noble Prizes in Physics with attendant increases in prestige. Thus, the advance in energetics within the ring continues relentlessly to the point of a vast deflagration marking the tragic destruction of yet another world's flower of learning and knowledge. Even the sure knowledge of
total and complete destruction cannot, it would seem, halt this reckless plunge into final immolation of everything we hold dear.

All the children now and for all time will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Every best wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

the essential theory for Type Ia supernova generation must rest on some sciological basis.


Paul Dixon, If this is your definition of a theory and figures on the generation of a type 1A SN then I think I can understand why nobody is taking you seriously.

You really should try learning some physics and math because scientists look at theories based on these not sociology.

When you have a theory instead of a belief you should really post some of it and some figures.

Do you know much about de-sitter space and the energy levels predicted to achieve this?

There are some interesting pdfs with theories and energy levels predicted for de-sitter space and gravatons, would you like me to link to some for you and you can start to learn about what you obviously know nothing about?

Would you also like me to link to something on energy levels and density? you seem to not be able to talk about these either. Would you like to learn about this before you talk about it?

yours,

John Devers, still waiting for just one theory, idea or figure on how this could happen.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends, colleagues and efans: many, many thanks for your kind thoughts and actions in this most grave matter.

The luminosity at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has again been increased to 11.75E30 which places us at yet again a higher risk level for supernova generation. Those very large values for the energetics of de Sitter space are given about midway on page 1 of this thread. We may quote from the works of Galileo Galilei in the year 1622 from his text, Assayer:
"Philosophy is written in this grand book, the universe which stands continually open to our gaze. But the book cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and read the letters in which it is composed. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometic figures. Without a knowledge of them, it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it. Without these, one wanders in a dark and obscure labyrinth."

In large measure, the essentially geometric works of Einstein and de Sitter are among the most well-established in modern physics, yet the final confirmation of their work will, alas, be in the generation of a Type Ia supernova. The motivation for this reckless plunge into the unknown, it is here posited, comes from the socio-psychologically defined drives and desires of the physicists who would sacrifice everyone for their personal advancement and/or enlightenment.

All the children will thank you for your most kind actions on their behalf.

Every best wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul Dixon,

You do realise that nothing you've said here over the last few months has advanced your argument at all, don't you?

Or at least clueless.

De Sitter space is one of the classic solutions of the Einstein field equations. It predicted a dynamic universe with some curvature. Now know as &omega;₀

Dr. Dixon keeps referring to tunnelling into a De Sitter Space and it releasing energy from a false vacuum. For some reason I can't help but think Dr. Dixon is referring to the Scalar Higgs Field thought to be responsible for Inflation. As per Guth and Albrecht.

Last I saw De Sitter space had no relation to Inflation, per se. The relation is more like a Model T ford to a modern formula 1 racing car.

If I have this right, and Paul is right, then Fermi Lab will create a false vacuum that will cause a local mini-Inflation when the false vacuum undergoes spontaneous symmetry breaking, due to a negative pressure density between it and the real vacuum.

But then ALL Type Ia supernova should have zones of mini-Inflation, shouldn't they?

Please tell me I am being stupid or totally mis-understanding this.

This is a very quick overview (http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4a1.html) of the relation of De Sitter space to the Inflation models. Unfortunately Guths work was brand, spanking new when I was a student and I only learned of it after college.

As I thought, if Paul is right and the Fermi Labs create a false vacuum by accident an Inflationary event will occur. So if Paul is right all type Ia supernovas are mini-inflation events. Seems to me this is wrong, the signatures of Type Ia supernova are consistent with material falling onto an accretion disk and not expanding regions of spacetime.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for everyone's most kind efforts in prevention of this most tragic outcome.

As indicated in the article (Gott, R. Creating open Universes from de Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304-307), the creation of a false vacuum at Fermilab does not have the highest probability, rather the breaching towards a prexistent de Sitter space, a false vacuum - very high-energy condition, does. Type 1a supernovae are characterized by a monopolar jet which would then be the signature of those vast energetics resident in de Sitter space. Supernovae Type 1a are also some 2.4 time larger than the result of the implosion of a large, 10 or more solar masses, Type II supernovae. This is true even though
the progenitor object is of around one solar mass or less. As far as these objects being the result of accretion from a near-by stellar object, they show no trace of hydrogen near maximum light. Thus the companion object could not be the average hydrogen dominant stellar object. Altogether, this makes the now standard causal picture for Type 1a supernova logically unacceptable.

Please review on page 1 of this thread the post of 03 - 04 - 01 10 AM
for a more complete explanation of these most salient variables.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

If we do believe that you can produce desitter space and cause a type 1a supernova, axactly where does the matter come from that turns the Earth into the progenitor object of around one solar mass?

The magic matter fairy?

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All friends and colleagues: many, many thanks for your kind efforts in this most tragic concern.

Please note: Live Events at CDF Beams Eye View at Fermilab:

May we conjecture in this connection the most tragic instance where there may be an extension of Event 9164 of Run 141218 at 254.69 GeV. This event was a monopolar electromagnetic which was of such great energy that it ws transformed into a completely hadronic (matter) event as compared with events ranging from 1.98 - 98.45 GeV having signatures for both electromagnetic and matter.

This is then potentially a window into the primordial energies of de Sitter space which is both very great and also transitory since all the white holes eventually go to crunch (close) according to the equations for general relativity.

Thus we may observe from a distant vantage point the supernova remmnant for our solar system. A neutron star (our former sun) with very high transverse momentum of say 850 kilometers per second and an expanding envelope of ejecta from the supernova. These are the standard residuals of a Type 1a supernova and would match in large measure the generation of supernova from Fermilab with the total volume at about 1 solar mass.

Every child now and for all time will thank you for your most kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes !!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Ok, what's the significance of a monopolar electromagnetic event and how does that fit with your theory?

It sounds like the disscovery of a particle to me or a glith, has it been repeated?

I'll see what I can learn in the mean time.

<i>This event was a monopolar electromagnetic event...</i>

Electric monopole or magnetic monopole? If the former, so what? If the latter, well <i>that's</i> the most interesting thing you've said for a while. Do you have a link?

Hi James, could give any more detail as to other things that this could mean besides, desitter space and SNs?


<A HREF="http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/live_events/index.html" target=new><FONT COLOR=blue size=+1> Live collisions from the accellerator </FONT></A>



<A HREF="http://www.fnal.gov/" target=new><FONT COLOR=blue size=+1> fermilab
</FONT></A>

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks for everyone's most kind actions for all mankind.

A large monopolar event may serve as a window into de Sitter space since it may indicate a jet-like extrusion of energies at a certain angle, eta, to the relativistic beams path.

Where this event is initially only electromagnetic energy it, in a sense, condenses into hadronic matter due to the geometric properties of the continuum. The more energy produced, the greater the amount of matter following the well-known equation, e = mc squared.

This kind of a monopolar event may then serve as a precursor event to a greater transition towards de Sitter space thus generating a Type 1a supernova. Please review the preceeding post which has now been revised to include this information.

All the children will always thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul Dixon,

You didn't answer my question.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for your kind interest in this most tragic concern.

The accelerator update for the Fermilab Tevatron indicates that the luminosity (collisional rate) has been increaased to 12.28E30. The greatest amount so far produced on earth. Thus, as predicted, no arguments of universal destruction have had any impact on the gradual increase in energetics at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

The presence in the universe of a magnetic monopole is one of the predictions from some of the grand unified theories of physics. So far, to my knowledge, there have been no observations of any actual occurrence of this type of particle though many very interesting experiments have been conducted in this connection.

Monopolar jets of electromagntic energy, as mentioned in the previous post, are possible evidences of formations of transitions towards de Sitter space under this postulation. As Professor Weinberg, Nobel Prize winner in physics has indicated, we should not ignore but pay attention to what our equations tell us.

All the children will thank you now and for all eternity for your kind
efforts on their behalf.

Every best wish !!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Yes, I know what a magnetic monopole is.

Can you please explain what a "monopolar jet" is? i.e. what it is, not what it is evidence of.

Your information is out of date by a day or 2.

Fermilab
Run II another luminosity record
Saturday, March 30 Operations established #1144 at 1:12 PM with initial luminosity of 13.66E30

After reading the Fermi Labs press release I can not see any reference to a 'monopolar electromagnetic'. I occasionally suffer mild dyslexia so may have missed it. As for EM energy-> hadronic matter, I saw no reference to that either. At the energies and luminosities Tevatron works at I wouldn't expect much hadronic matter per se. Unless Paul is referring to high energy Mesons (being hadronic in nature). But if so that is obfuscating the issue a tadge.

Paul, you later assert tha Sn Ia have 'monopolar jets'. This is the first I've heard of this and I thought I had studied this rather extensively. A quick check of my copy of Bowers and Deeming, Astrophysics I, Stars and my other books on stellar models seem to bear me out. Can you provide a cite?

Paul later cites a theoretical model of Inflation that predicts Magnetic Monopoles, thought to exist between domain walls.

You later make an assertion that your model is likely because the word Monopole is used in all 3 posts? I.E.


The presence in the universe of a magnetic monopole is one of the predictions from some of the grand unified theories of physics. So far, to my knowledge, there have been no observations of any actual occurrence of this type of particle though many very interesting experiments have been conducted in this connection.

Monopolar jets of electromagntic energy, as mentioned in the previous post, are possible evidences of formations of transitions towards de Sitter space under this postulation.

Apart from the fact that Magnetic Monopoles are highly theoretical, after all div(B = 0, where is the evidence for this 'monopolar electromagnetic jet' and monopolar jet from Sn IA.

If you can not provide reliable cites I can only assume you are making this up. Googling on combinations of supernova monopolar monpole jet returns nothing. Even if true (as in I missed the obvious) these are 3 very seperate affects and together provide no proof of an underlying mechanism.

And why do I feel part of an astoundingly complex experiment to test the reactions of debunkers on the Net when faced with material designed to get responses and peg the bogosity meters.
<i>Uh, Mice!</i>

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks for your kind interest and action in this most tragic concern.

As the energies of the collider are being increased towards the inevitable supernova generation, according to the extension of the generalized theory of relativity provided by Willen de Sitter, please note Event 9164, Run 141218 with energies of 254.69 GeV (billion electron volts). Here we note in the coding in the Beams End View for the CDF that this is composed of hadronic matter. (It may be helpful to search the Fermi National Accelerator Website for this coding system.) This has been chosen as a possible candidate for a monopolar intrusional event from de Sitter space. The picture for a monopolar jet formation in supernova generation was found in the journal, Nature (1980's ? or before). Perhaps during the summer vacation, if our segment of the galaxy survives that long, there may be time to search for this picture.

The monopolar magnetic particle, a theoretical prediction, has never been detected experimentally to my knowledge. There is no implied connection in this work between a monopolar electromagnetic intrusional event from de Sitter space and a monopolar magnetic particle.

All of the children will thank you now and for all time for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul,

It's really a simple question: Please explain what you mean by "electromagnetic monopolar jet".

You've said it has nothing to do with magnetic monopoles, so in what sense is it monopolar?

I'd also like to know what a 'mompolar intrusion event' is?

Monopolar simply means 'one pole'. E fields are by their nature monopolar, B fields are bipolar as div ( B ) = 0. EM fields are waves propagating linearly or circularly - polarisation. They are not monopolar in the context used by Paul.

Given that conventional Astrophysics modesl Sn Ia as material fusing on the surface of a compact object (which is why no H is observed) the signature of these is also not monopolar, in this context. I for one am sure that a Sn event not conforming to conventional models woulds be subject to intense scrutiny. There is absolutely no reference to a monopolar Sn that I have heard of. As an M.Sc student of Astrophysics at qmw.ac.uk in 1992/93 I am also sure it would have been discussed then

I used to subscribe to Nature around about the 1990's and can not remember any such articles. Nor does a search of xxx.lnl.gov return anything.

Dave Barlow B.Sc(hons) Pg. Dip.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks all friends and colleagues for your kind actions in this most tragic concern.

The Accelerator Update has chronicled an increase in luminosity to 14.8E30 which sets a record according to this report for the greatest collisonal rate and hence energies at the highest energy collider yet seen on earth. As noted previously, a transition towards de Sitter space should produce a monopolar jet of very high energy.
The largest objects, which show monopolar jet formation, such as quasars and active galactic nuclei are 4 to 5 times larger than the bipolar objects.


The energetics of the larger events is such that an area in some cases no larger than our solar system extrudes the energy
equivalent of some 100 millions of galaxies. These energies show rapid total variation which indicates that the source is small enough that light propagates across the aperture with no observable hysteresis.


It may be that the foolhardy actions of the accelerator specialists in generation of Type Ia supernova are due to the highly specialized compartmentalization of scientific knowledge found especially at the level of doctoral work. The point made here is that the energies now employed at the Fermi National Acelerator Laboratory are at the levels of cosmological significance being equivalent to those thought to occur at the point origin of the universe. Education if it is to be a high quality education cannot be too specialized or it obscures the Big Picture. Or more generally, you cannot perceive the forest for the trees.

Thus for example, in the general case, if the accretion of hydrogen onto a white dwarf is causing Type Ia supernovae, it must be the case that this supernova will show the presence of hydrogen at maximum light. Alas, this is not what the standard candle in observational astronomy, the Type Ia supernova, shows.

All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul W. Dixon:

Based on your lack of a response, I thinks it's fair to assume that you use the term "monopolar jet" without actually understanding it. That doesn't give me great hope for the validity of the rest of your argument.

Hi Paul, now it's getting interesting, you said

<font color=red> The energetics of the larger events is such that an area in some cases no larger than our solar system extrudes the energy</font>

Do you claim that 14.8E30 luminosity is high for cosmic energies?

Do you know how bright the sun is? or how bright other stars are? in the same terms.

You also mention,

<font color=red> The energetics of the larger events is such that an area in some cases no larger than our solar system extrudes the energy equivalent of some 100 millions of galaxies.
</font>

In regard to GRBs I assume.

Do you know the luminosity of GRBs?

Then you say,

<font color=red> The point made here is that the energies now employed at the Fermi National Acelerator Laboratory are at the levels of cosmological significance being equivalent to those thought to occur at the point origin of the universe. </font>
Now this is rubbish, you have been told at the SSSF forum by Chris and many others here that the energies for the Big Bang and the energies produced at Fermilb are Magnitudes apart.

You also said

<font color=red> please note Event 9164, Run 141218 with energies of 254.69 GeV </font>

How do you equate 10¹⁴GeV to the 254.69 GeV?

How do you make 100,000,000,000,000 GeV equal to 254.69 GeV?



see Chris's post below.

From: Chris (Avatar) 01/02/2002 12:27:54
Subject: re: SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB post id: 602656

I'm still not sure what Paul is exactly referring to. The last time there was an expanding bubble of de-sitter style space-time in this universe was during the inflationary period. If this is what he means, then the energy threshold is typically a GUT energy density, about 10¹⁴GeV, which is 11 orders of magnitude higher than Paul's figure given for proton/anti-proton collisions.

Mind you, I don't think that a new meta-stable vacuum state triggering a new inflation will look anything like a supernova explosion, so I'm still a little confused...

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for everyone's kind interest in this most tragic concern.

In moving from particle physics to relativistic cosmology, it would appear that there is something lost in the translation as is clearly indicated in these many exchanges of thought and understanding.
My thought is that modern education in far too narrow in focus particularly at the doctoral level. An authority in modern cosmology should be consulted to help shed some light on the conceptual framework regarding the formation a transiton towards de Sitter space via the breaching of a large potential barrier.

A graphical analysis of the increase increase in energetics at Fermilab is now presented in the Accelerator Update. An empirical confirmation of this hypothesis via Type Ia supernova generation may, alas, be forthcoming.

All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf.

Every best wish!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Hi Paul, Still no answers or explainations to your theory?

You say an authority in modern cosmology should be consulted, well we have plenty of authorities who give explainations, details and figures on the subject, you just repeat your psuedoscience.

On April 3, Christopher T. Hill from the Fermilab Theory Group wrote many things, you can do a search for it if you like.

There is a mention of magnetic monopoles by him that may interest you here's part of an answer to someones question from him.


Out of context.........."Maybe theoretical physics will one-day stumble into number theory, or get a handle on why there is only one dimension of time (is there?) , or understand gravity as a collective phenomenon and solve the riddle of the tiny cosmological constant. In the realm of experiment, suppose we could ultimately affect the way in which things acquire mass? Could we envision a new kind of physical material? Or, suppose someday that we could manufacture magnetic monopoles, or find some new strange and quasistable elementary particle (perhaps the harbinger of dark matter)?"........cont.

Now I can give you links to de sitter space theories and magnetic monopole theories or a direct link to the above but you are the one who claims to have a theory, now what is it and what are it's predictions in detail?

From what I see the creation of de-sitter space would be a wonderful asset to humanity. A small harmless managable tool.

Can you explain otherwise? you know guys like you used to say the same thing about the creation of antimatter. "It would destroy the universe"

It seems to me that the education of psychologists is much too narrow these days. They should really stick to psychology and stop trying to discuss physics, don't you think?

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for everyone's most kind actions in this tragic concern.

As noted on the first page of this thread, and also cited more recently, the standard cosmological model shows a potentially infinite number of universes forming in a pre-existent de Sitter space. Thus,
it is unnecessary to invoke the creation of a false vacuum via high-energy physics experimentation but rather to create a breach in the large potential barrer towards an already existing de Sitter space which is topologically cobordant at every point in our continuum. The release of these energies in our continuum, please review the values posted Page 1 of this thread, are sufficient to generate a monopolar Type Ia supernova.

One of my professors in graduate school spoke only of the rotation of n-variables in n-dimensional space. Alas, graduate school in psychology had very little to do with psychology and mostly with mathematics and theories derived from physics. The degree is a doctorate in philosophy, Ph.D., with some specialization in an area in psychology. In graduate studies, there is now offered a Psy.D. which is a doctorate in Psychology. This we believe will help those students who do not want to become researchers and wish to practice clinical therapies of a psychological nature.

Every child, now and for all future time will thank you for most kind
efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

<i>Alas, graduate school in psychology had very little to do with psychology and mostly with mathematics and theories derived from physics.</i>

They must do things in a strange way over there in Hawaii.

<i>The degree is a doctorate in philosophy, Ph.D., with some specialization in an area in psychology.</i>

I am somewhat familiar with the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, as it happens. :)

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for everyone's kind actions in this most tragic concern.

Please access the most recent Accelerator Update for this news of the greatest energies to date of some 15.98E30 luminosity at the world's highest energy collider now with some 2 TeV. This a new record of energies found on our planet! How much further this can continue before creating a transition and thus releasing a supernova on our planet, solar system and host of nearby stars is uncertain. There is, however, increased probability of creating this transition towards de Sitter space with increased energetics in the ring at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

All the children now and for all time will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

I wonder if you get any support from these kind of web postings.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for your most kind actions in this tragic concern.

In a very strange way, the proper word is, is, "okashi," which means something like strange and horrible at the same time, the scientists at Fermilab are those who are providing the greatest support for this hypothesis of sufficient energies forming a breach in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus generating a Type Ia Supernova. The stated goal of the research at Fermilab is to create as many interesting events, i.e., quark generation, as possible. To do this the most logical and safest thing to do is to continue at the level of luminosity, particle generation, and energetics, around 2 TeV. This will accomplish the stated goals of the research though it may take a while longer. What is now being carried out at Fermilab is a steady ramping up of luminosity to now the new record of 16.4E30 luminosity at some 2TeV. They are, therefore, bound and determined to test this hypothesis of generation of Type Ia supernova via highest energy physics experimentation. As the emittance, the diameter of the particle interaction is constrained to only nanometers, the focus of these vast energies towards the breaching of the potential barrier towards de Sitter space is being accomplished in the most effective manner possible! This, indeed, is most frightening and strange.

All the children will always thank you for your most valiant efforts on their behalf.

Every Best Wish,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Luminosity is a measure of particle interaction, specifically the chance that a proton will collide with an antiproton. The higher the luminosity, the greater the chance of quark production. To achieve high luminosity you place as many particles as possible into as small a space as possible. When the two beams of protons and antiprotons are brought together it's called a squeeze.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks to everyone for their actions in this most tragic concern.

The current accelerator update provides the news that the luminosity as described above is now at 18.31E30. To quote from this page, "This is another Run ll luminosity record." It may be noted in this connection that the increase in luminosity coupled with the focus of the beams to yield maximum proton antiproton collisions provides for those optimun conditions necessary to breach the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus creating a Type Ia supernova.

Thus with energies of this magnitude, as described in earlier portions of this thread, particle physics enters into the realm of relativistic cosmology. In the paleontological (fossil) record, most of the species seen there have become extinct. Where are we headed?

All the children will thank you for your most kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks to everyone for your most kind efforts in this tragic concern.

As indicated in the recent Accelerator Update at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the luminosity has been increased to 19.6E30 at some 2TeV with the luminosity of continuous operation in the CDF of some 15.5E30. These values, with the focus of the energies of ongoing collisions within some nanometers diameter, are optimum conditions for breaching the classically defined potential barrier towards de Sitter space. This would then release the force of a Type Ia Supernova upon our planet earth, the solar system and a host of nearby stars. None will survive this vast catastrophe.

The increment in energies has been in the order of some + 1.5 magnitudes since the beginning of Run II at Fermilab. This is an enormous increment in energies at this level of collisional energetics. We are thus plunging blindly into the unknown with the fate of all mankind hanging in the balance.

All the children now and for all time will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All kind thanks to everyone for your prompt actions in this most tragic concern.

We may refer to the BBC News Online of Monday 9 April 2001 in a quotation from Professor Michael Witherell, Director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory regarding the research at Fermilab whre he states," We can look forward to the excitement of seeing new physics results. We can't predict what nature has in store for us. All we can guarantee is the opportunity for discovery."

Clearly, even though there is at the time of this quote the prospect of working with energies basically equivalent to those found at the time of the 'Big Bang," i.e. the point origin of our universe, and what is in store for us is unknown, there is no sense of caution or prudence in this statement. Challenging the unknown in nature must always include the possibility of potential danger or you are doomed from the outset. Also, to quote from another Fermilab scientist, "I will be shocked and dissapointed if don't have at least one major discovery." We thus have the major dilemma of those scientists exploring the outer limits of our energy envelope in that they feel compelled to continue with their researches within the matrix of socio-historical necessity regardless of the fate of mankind!

Let us call a halt to this research before it is too late and we all perish in a vast cataclysm.

All the children now and forever will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks to everyone for your kind efforts in this most tragic concern.

The Accelerator Update at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has indicated that the CDF is running at higher levels of energetics with the values now at some 18.5E30 luminosity at approximately 2TeV after the initial value of some 19.5E30 luminosity. Thus, if there is variation in energetics of de Sitter space, this variation could yield a transition towards de Sitter space at any time with the same values present in this great series of energies of Run II now in use in the accelerator.

It is clear also with a survey using Google as the search engine that those energetics of Type Ia Supernovae generation are not in correspondence with the computer models of the deflagrations actually observed. A careful reading of these findings is necessary to see how far these models are from the actual event. Thus for example:

http://.uchicago.edu/ricker/research/type1a/data/html

If there is possiblility for concern of our being in the outer fringes of astronomical supernova generation, as now indicated in the New Scientist magazine, should we not be much more concerned about the possibility of generating a supenova in our own backyard?

All of the children now and for all time will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

Every best wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Hey, Paul.

You've been on about this for years now. The energy keeps getting higher, but there's still no supernova. Rather disappointing, really.

Do you have a firm prediction for when the Big Bang will happen?

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks to everyone for their kind interest in this most tragic concern.

During the current two weeks down time at the Fermi National Acclerator Laboratory, additional work is being done to cool the colliding beams thus producing a narrower and more focused area of collisional interaction been the protons and antiprotons. Where these energetics are at the level of energies seen at the point origin of the universe, i.e., the "Big Bang," the probability for penetrating the potential barrier towards de Sitter space is made greater by this increased focusing of energies. Thus, even though the exact threshold for penetrance towards de Sitter space yielding an empirical experimental verification for the generation of Type Ia Supernovae is not known, it may be expected that this current work at Fermilab will increase the likelihood of verification of this hypothesis. Under this postulation, therefore, we may assume that the generation of a Type Ia supernova is imminent through highest-energy physics experimentation (with current "improvements" underway) at Fermilab.
Please note: this accelerator update is found on the Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory Webpage under Fermilab today.

All the children now and for all time will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks for everyone's kind thoughts and assistance in these most tragic concerns.

We may think of high-energy physics as a cosmic mouse-trap. Only those species with enough intelligence and also in this case enough concern for other members of the species and for that matter all other species within that particular ecosphere are both alert enough in their grasp of relativistic cosmology and ethical enough to survive. Will we as a species pass this test, avoid the cosmic mouse-trap, and survive?

All of the children, now and for all future time, will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All thanks to everyone for your most kind attention and prompt action in this tragic crisis.

The schedule at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Update on the Fermilab Lab Webpage under, "Fermilab now," indicates that the condensed (chilled) beam with greater focus is scheduled to come on line latter tonight. Again, it is clear that with a classically defined breaching of the potential barrier towards de Sitter space, that this greater focus provides for a higher probability of forming a transition towards de Sitter space, thus releasing the force of a Type Ia Supernova upon our planet and solar system.

Please, therefore, contact Fermilab immediately if you are at all concerned about this possibility.

All the children now and for all time will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All thanks to everyone for their very kind and prompt action in this tragic concern.

The observation of other planetary systems much like our own is now being brought forward through obervational astronomy. The possibility of other lifeforms developing towards a technological expertise sufficient to build high-energy physics experiments may no longer seem as far-fetched as it did some years ago when even the possibliity of finding planets around other stars was considered quite fantastic.

The central hypothesis, therefore, is that Type Ia Supernova, which may be used as standard candles in observational astronomy are generated by high-energy physics experimentation such as is now being carried out at Fermilab. Let us not further verify this hypothsis by generating our own Type Ia supernova!

All the children now and for all future time wll thank you for your most prompt actions on their behalf.

All Best Wishes!

Yours sincerely,


Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks to everyone for their kind actions in this most tragic concern.

Should we not create a supernova by breaching the potential barrier towards de Sitter space, then we would have refuted the most respected and tested theories of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter in relativistic cosmology. Do we wish to continue with this foolhardy plunge into the unknown in a vain belief that the laws of physics will somehow be suspended during the course of this experimentation?

All the children will thank you for your kind actions in these matters.

All Best Wishes!

Yours sincerely

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

<i>Do we wish to continue with this foolhardy plunge into the unknown in a vain belief that the laws of physics will somehow be suspended during the course of this experimentation?</i>

Could be fun.... :)

Well I see you can name drop as in this quote below,

"then we would have refuted the most respected and tested theories of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter in relativistic cosmology"

Do you know what energy densities they provided in their calculations?

Do you know what their "tested theory" says and what figures they gave?

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for everyone's kind actions in this most tragic concern.

Please review the post of 03 - 04 - 01 10:00 AM of Paul W. Dixon where the references are cited for Gott, R. (1982) Creation of open universes from de Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304 - 307., and Waldrop, M. M. (1982) Bubbles upon the river of time, Science 215, 4536, 1082 - 1083. From these figures cited therein the value of 1.6 x 10 to the 126th power electron volts per cubic centimeter can be derived for de Sitter space. This concentration of energy is more than sufficient to create a Type Ia Supernova. This post is found about midway in Page 1 of this thread.

The current luminosity now cited in the Accelerator Update at
Fermilab is 16.64 E30 at some 979.66 GeV. With the increased focal powers now derived from the chilling of the beam, the concentration of energies in a classical sense is now greater than previously evidenced thus increasing the probability of forming a transition towards de Sitter space by breaching the large potential barrier found at each point in the continuum.

All the children now and for all future time will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf - and may God have mercy on our souls.

All Best Wishes,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

UPERRNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank everyone for your most kind actions is this tragic concern.

The scientists at Fermilab have again increased the luminosity to the highest energy levels ever found on this planet, a new record, with 21.2E30 at some 979.66 GeV. In this way, the central hypothesis that it is the matrix of historical/social causation which gives rise to Supernovae Type Ia is further supported by the scientists at Fermilab.

It is important to realize that according to modern relativistic cosmology this progression cannot long continue before the potential barrier towards de Sitter space has been breached thus releasing the force of a supernova on our planet, solar system and a host of nearby stars!

All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf - and may God have mercy on us all.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D
Supernova from Experimentation

<i>It is important to realize that according to modern relativistic cosmology this progression cannot long continue before the potential barrier towards de Sitter space has been breached thus releasing the force of a supernova on our planet, solar system and a host of nearby stars!</i>

Oh goody! Does that mean this thread will end?

If Fermi Lab don't kill us by inflicting the energies of DeSitter space on us, Planet X will kill us all next year anyway. If that fails then the termination of Mayan calender will get us in 2012 and if that fails we all die in 50 years when all natural resources are depleted. Of course, a rogue asteroid/planetismal may hit at any time.

"Roll up, roll up, get your doomsday scenario here please. Form an orderly queue. Prizes will be awarded for the most novel and entertaining method of destroying the world. You there madam, in the floral print, what's your take on this?".

"Yes, you madam"

"We are all going to die in the Rapture that started when Bush took the presidency. Fine, fine, heard that before".

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks to everyone for your kind actions in this tragic concern.

It is important for the historical record that we continue with this interchange as we plunge into the unknown via highest energy physics experimentation at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. There is always the possibility that through enough discussion we may come at last to our collective senses and, for example, as in my lifetime, defer the nuclear catastrophe which came so near to reality during the cold war.

This coming August 1st 2002 will be my 66th birthday! My hope is to continue with this work until these accelerator facilities are either shut down completely or are regulated as most serious public endangerments.

Every child will thank you for your most kind actions on their behalf - and may God have mercy on us all!

Every Best Wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Happy birthday

Dr. Dixon, the mothers that rallied against nuclear testing and war did in fact contribute to forcing the testing underground with some exceptions made by other countries.

The testing that goes on behind closed doors will not rally powerful demonstrations in the street. The fact that a de Sitter space breach defies human understanding in its destructive power is too abstract for people to storm "Frankenstein's castle".

The shortest distance between two points is a new discovery and its weapon application. A weapon that would require one to be many light years away would seem to me to have limited application. The actual success of creating de Sitter space in Long Island NY USA suggests an explosion that would doom what? Levittown? NY? Earth? the solar system?

Hi Paul, you may want to look at this thread and the information on Type 1A supernova and De sitter space.


<A HREF="http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/posts/topic118435.shtml" target=new><FONT COLOR=blue size=+1> Type 1A Supernova and the Cosmological Constant
</FONT></A>

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks to all those who have taken prompt action in this most tragic concern.

The Accelerator Update at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has now stated that a new luminosity record has been set with 26.4E30 where this is with some 2TeV energetics. Clearly, this progression cannot be continued without the generation of a Type Ia supernova.

While picketing at Fermilab in Batavia Illinois, it was clear that the general populace both fears and mistrusts the activities being carried out with their tax monies. Please contact all interested parties in this connection and make the strongest possible statement to them to instill in them a most grave sense of peril and truly unnecessary hazard now underway in this highest energy facility on our planet.
A Type Ia Supernova detonation extends for some 50 light years - thus destroying our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars.

The observational findings with Type Ia supernova as standard candles at cosmological distances indicates that the universe shows an accelerative expansion. This may be interpreted to indicate that Einstein's cosmological constant has a positive value.

All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf - and God have mercy on us all!

Every Best Wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

http://www.snopes.com/message/icons/icon302.gif

Paul

Tell you what. If they keep increasing the Luminosity at Fermi Lab and we are still here at the end of the year, will you admit you might be wrong. If on the other hand we are wrong and Fermi Lab take out the Earth, I'm sorry. Right.

<i>...it was clear that the general populace both fears and mistrusts the activities being carried out with their tax monies.</i>

Ok. Hands up who has contacted anybody about their fears following Paul Dubya's extensive exhortations to this forum?

*looks around for any hands. Sees none.*

I know I fear and mistrust my tax office to get my tax returns right, first time. Still waiting for a tax refund from 2 years ago. They incorrectly gave me a tax rebate last year and have now decided to recover it at £100 a month.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Our heartfelt thanks to everyone for their prompt actions in this most tragic concern.

The advance in energetics of Run II at Fermilab has increased the number of collisions by an order of magnitude to 2 x 10 to the 32nd power per centimeter squared per second in comparison to Run I at Fermilab (Feder, T. Witherell is Tapped to Head Fermilab, Physics Today, April, page 65, 1999). The oscillations of some 26.425 per turn of the new Main Injector (FermiNews, Volume 22, Feb. 5. 1999), may also serve to provide for a resultant capacitance in vacuo, which in turn may trigger a reply from de Sitter space. (Smythe, W. R. Static and Dynamic Electricity, New York, McGRaw-Hill, page 75, 1950)

As we look over to Switzerland, the construction of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN will again increase these energetics by orders of magnitude within the next few years. The very well-known prediction from Relativistic Cosmology that at some point in this progression the force of supernova will be released upon our planet and solar system via a breach in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space, has never been answered by the theoreticians at these facilities. Thus we may conclude that without a doubt we are plunging recklessly into the unknown.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf - and may God have mercy on the souls of all mankind!

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

<i>The very well-known prediction from Relativistic Cosmology that at some point in this progression the force of supernova will be released upon our planet and solar system via a breach in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space, has never been answered by the theoreticians at these facilities.</i>

Come now, Paul. You know that's not true.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks to one and all for your prompt actions in this most tragic concern.

We have in our scientific prowess acheived energies that are essentially equal to those found at the point origin of the universe. This may serve as a means of breaching the classically defined potential barrier towards de Sitter space. In the theoretical physics section of the journal Nature, we find Malcolm J. Perry's, Quantum tunnelling toward an exploding Universe? Nature, Vol 320, 24 April 1986, p. 679. The existence of the high-energy condition is well-established in modern relativistic cosmology. It is, therefore, only an emprirical question as to whether the ongoing highest-energy physics experimentation will have sufficient energy to breach the classically defined potential barrier towards de Sitter space - thus releasing the force of Type Ia supernova on our planet, solar system
and a host of nearby stars.

Increased energetics at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory show an increased probability of supernova generation during Run II which is now in progress. The magnets of the ring are at cryogenic temperatures so the accelerative power is vitually unlimited.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf - and may God have mercy on our souls.

Every best wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All thanks to everyone for their most kind actions in this tragic concern.

The current values seen in the Accelerator Update now posted on the Fermi National Accelerator Webpage show 24E30 for the luminosity reading and the energetics of one beam of 979.66 GeV. Thus the Tevatron in Run II at Fermilab is still being activated at the those highest levels found so far in Run II.

May we recall those words of Professor Richard P. Feymnan, Nobel Prize Winner in physics, in his commentary regarding the last flight of the Challenger Shuttle spacecraft. In his remarks, he pointed out that in experimentation something with a certain set of parameters may be safe at one time, yet the same experiment may not be safe at some latter time. In this, he was referring to the change in ambient temperature on the launching pad in Florida. Similarly, in this case, we may expect variations in the energetics of the primoridal region termed de Sitter space leading to the generation of Type Ia supernova with unexpected variations and unpredicted oscillations in the characteristics of this highly energetic continuum.

All the children will thank you for your prompt action on their behalf - and may God have mercy on our souls!

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Originally posted by Paul W. Dixon
All the children will thank you for your prompt action on their behalf - and may God have mercy on our souls!Why wasting your time when you have God to back you up? :bugeye:

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks to all and everyone for prompt action in this most tragic concern.

The current reading for the luminosity at near 2TeV is 23.42E30. The Tevatron is thus running at near the maximum value for Run II at this time. This work at highest energy in modern physics is thus continuing without any formal published investigation of the safety of this experimental work.

Theologically, the current view in modern Christianity is that we are granted a benevolent diety. We are, however, in this same theological perspective granted "free-will." Within this context, therefore, we should be granted in a benevolent sense the knowledge of whether or no we are to destroy ourselves via supernova generation at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Definitely, at this point in time, all of the staff at Fermilab have been informed of this possibility. Should we continue with this reckless plunge into the unknown and destroy ourselves, we are given free will to make this choice and so continue - within this theological perspective.

All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf - and may the good God have mercy on our souls!

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D,
Supernova from Experimentation

<i>Should we continue with this reckless plunge into the unknown and destroy ourselves...</i>

Yeah, what the hell - let's just do it!

The Cadillac passed our van
doing 90mph
The Parkway was slick with cadet blue rain.

I heard the music pounding inside the Caddy
and disappear in the hiss of tires.
Ahead the road barely bent to the right.

I saw their front tires turn to the right
and the car steadily creep to the left.
the shoulder the grass the shallow muddy ditch

Nine seconds telescoped into ninety
Slow motion vision slowed even further
as the mind raced suddenly faster and faster.

The car dug in at the left front tire.
Pole vaulting high into the air.
They were now cartwheeling right alongside.

The back doors sprung open and luggage spilled out.
No.. those are two people sliding in the grass
on their butt at 70 mph.

I saw his eyes wide open staring
at the car going end over end ahead.
The other passenger was a limp bloody blur.

With one last leap into the opposite lanes
it came down flat upside down on the pavement.
BOOM...The rain on the road lept 4 feet high.

The roof collapsed level with the hood.
I saw the people still sliding, stare.
I watched as they receded behind us.

A truck was stopping to help.
Their fate was sealed but unknown.

The innocent 1/8 of an inch of water
behaves differently at different energies
just like atoms bursting de Sitter space
in a Long Island lab

We're about to discover the secret of the type IA nova.

Except this time there will be no witnesses
unless there are eyes two light years away.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

With deepest and most heartfelt thanks, we note everyone's most kind actions in this tragic concern!

The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has been holding the luminosity at the range of 24.3E30 at some 2TeV which has not of late been increasing beyond this level. Thus again, we may note the effectiveness of education in the restraint imposed first on the nuclear war enthusiasts of an earlier era and now the scientists within the highest-energy physics domain of research.

This medium of sciforums has been most effective in bringing forward a coherent presentation of those arguments gemane to the understanding of the generation of Type Ia Supernova via penetration of the classically defined potential barrier towards de Sitter space. For this information presentation, we must all be most grateful.

All the children now and for all time will thank you for your most kind continuing actions on their behalf - and may the good God have mercy on our souls.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

The current reading for the luminosity at near 2TeV is 23.42E30.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its a piece of paper with 8 o'clock written on it!

:(
:D

Surly this thread should be in pseudoscience.
Or just the trash bin!
:(

This guy is just having a laugh & I'm not gonna beat my head against a wall for it, damn I wouldn't give his "theory" the steam off my piss but hey I'll laugh, with him, of-course:D :p
This guy has single handedly evaded an entire forum, give him that - exclusive participation. Don't mind him lads he's having a ball:D

http://deoxy.org/h_bohm.htm


According to this, the Ph. D. guy is underestimating the power of empty space:D & frankly may this serve as a lesson well-learnt that any article posted with "Ph.D" or without for that matter, shouldn't be engrained into us as irrefutable knowledge because some people just like to talk. Question everything! Even the question

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All thanks to everyone for their most kind actions in this tragic concern.

Please review the article in most respected journal Nature in the Theoretical physics section from Malcom J. Perry, Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe? (Nature, Vol 320, 24 April 1986, p. 679) where it is seen that our Universe is separated from de Sitter space by means of a large potential barrier. Sufficient energetics as found in the highest-energy physics laboratory,i.e., Fermilab, can overcome this potential barrier thus releasing the force of an exploding universe, i.e., supernova on our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars. These are the best results form the relativistic cosmology of Einstein and de Sitter in description of the Einstein - de Sitter Universe as it is now termed. These theories are deemed the best - the most tested and the most respected of all the theories of modern science. To plunge ahead blindly, as is now being done at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, cannot be understood in the light of these considerations.

All children now and for all future time will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf - and may the good God now have mercy on our souls.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

I was wondering when he would post again

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All thanks to everyone for their most kind actions in this tragic concern.

The energies now underway at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory are again at the highest levels at this highest-energy physics facility. These values are 25.67E30 at 2(977.97) GeV. It must then be only a matter of time till the oscillatory action of the ring at Fermilab coupled with these very high energies produces the stochastic effect of sufficient magnitude to breach the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. This is a classical event in that the potential barrier towards de Sitter space may be overcome with sufficient energetics in the CDF of Fermilab. By analogy, finding a key that will unlock the vast energies of de Sitter space via a kind of trial and error process thus producing a Type 1a Supernova.

All the children will thank you for your kind most kind actions on their behalf - and may the good God have mercy on our souls.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul

It must then be only a matter of time till the oscillatory action of the ring at Fermilab coupled with these very high energies produces the stochastic effect of sufficient magnitude to breach the potential barrier towards de Sitter space.

I had secretly hoped that the barrier would breach after the number of posts on this thread passed two-hundred - so get on with it already !

Originally posted by m3harri
Thanks for the reality Crisp.
You might think that a PHD would be aware of the points you made.

Yeah but a Ph D in what? and from where? I get spam at least 3 times a week offering me one. At a price of course.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks to everyone for your most kind actions in this tragic concern.

In large measure, the current experimentation at Fermilab may continue to increase energetics viturally without limit since the magnets in the ring are kept at cryogenc temperatures. It is then only this sciforums and related publicity that has kept the inevitable from happening, since any increment in energetics increases the probability of Type Ia supernova generation via the creation of a transition toward de Sitter space.

All the children will thank you for prompt actions on their behalf - and may the good God have mercy on our souls.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

It is then only this sciforums and related publicity that has kept the inevitable from happening

Surely you must believe by now that your ranting is ignored by all, and not just Fermilab. What then, has it directly or indirectly achieved ?

:confused:

Surly this thread should be in pseudoscience.
Or just the trash bin

I'll give him this, Odin. Paul has been persistant in what he believes. Who knows we may reach a day when we look around and say, "Wished we had listened to him."

Yes.But I doubt it!

Yeah but a Ph D in what?

Agesilaus,

Sometime after this thread started, I did a search on him. You will find he has his own web site and there are many hits that showed as a result. I invite you to do so. I think that your question will be answered through that way for Paul has shown he will not answer your queries.

Paul contributes regularly and many members have shown that they are interested.

I just tend towards the sceptical when I see people tagging themselves with an advanced degree. He could have a Ph.D from MIT in Physics and have 5 years at CERN as a Postdoc for all I know. But in general I find that most people who do this have degrees in Oriental Philosophy (or somesuch) and are commenting on String Theory or some other technical field. But if he has a degree in a applicable field I certainly offer an apology for my comment.

Ah is this the fellow?

Paul W. Dixon, PhD.
Professor of Psychology and Linguistics
Social Sciences Division
University of Hawaii at Hilo

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks to everyone for their most kind actions in this tragic concern.

The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory has again set a new record in luminosity with 30.15E30 at 977.97 GeV. This is a clear precedent since these energies are now going beyond those reached during Run I at Fermilab.

As mentioned previously, ad hominem arguments are not relevant to matters of physics. The laws of physics, which alas, are well-known to those working a cosmology, show that these vast energies are resident in de Sitter space and may be accessed via the breaching of a
large potential barrier toward de Sitter space. This would then release the energies of a Supernova Type Ia on our planet, solar system and a host of nearby stars. (Please print the entire thread to review this most significant information.)

All of the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf - and may the good God have mercy on our souls!

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Well thats Good news then,lets hope they can get it higher still!
;)

I found it interesting how early on Paul implied that the reason we haven't been contacted by species from different parts of the galaxy was that they all inevitably reached a point in thier respective technological development where they started screwing around with particle accelerators and subsequently annihilated themselves because they didn't adequately understand what they were messing with.

LOL!

This thread made me laugh, so it hasn't been a waste of time. Why is it funny? I'm not sure really. Perhaps it's just ironic.

Next time we observe another supernova somewhere in our galaxy, it might be a case of "There go another bunch of poor bastards".

Paul W. Dixon,

I note from your home page that you have been nominated three times for the Nobel Prize in Physics. I have a couple of questions:

1. What were you nominated for?
2. How do you know you were nominated?

Nominations for the Nobel prize are confidential. They are never made public, except in your case, it seems. Why is that?

answer the question dammit
i see you viewing this thread

:D

is it still gonna blow????

rotfl

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

A thousand thanks to everyone for your most kind actions in this tragic concern.

Even though the CDF at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory is not at peak luminosity, it is still at the level of 27.61E30 at 2(977.97GeV) which places it far beyond the largest cosmic ray at some E19 eV. We are, therefore, subject to the potential variation resident in de Sitter space. Please review the first page of this thread for those energetics of de Sitter space found in relativistic cosmology for the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed. Deflagration of a Type Ia supernova, under this postulation, may therefore be expected at any time.

In the Las Vegas SUN mainpage, Nevada'a largest website, it is stated that for the Nobel Prize, "These nominations are kepts secret for 50 years, though those those making the nominations often announce their choices." (Dough Mellgen, Nobel Committe Seeks Worthy Winner, 2002 October 3) My two most recent nominations for the Nobel Prize in Physics have been for this work in Type Ia Supernova generation from high-energy physics experimentation. The first nomination was for a patent, alas sequestered by the United States Patent Office that dealt with an aspect of atomic energy.

All the children will thank you for your most kind efforts on their behalf and may the Good God have mercy on our souls.

Every Best Wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul do you wear a foil hat,if yes,you need more layers of foil!


http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

:rolleyes:

Paul

Please review the first page of this thread for those energetics of de Sitter space found in relativistic cosmology for the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed.

You mean the first page where Crisp went to great lengths to show you the maths and point out that those energies pose no threat whatsoever.

Hmmm... come to think of it, your initial post is dated Feb. 2, 2001. You're quite determined, or just plain stubborn. ;)

Interesting. Have a read of this page here. (http://cbjd.net/orbit/tevatron.html).

:eek: :eek: :eek:

(Welcome back) :D

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

All thanks to everyone for your most kind actions in this tragic concern.

Those knowlegeable in the area of relativistic cosmology are well-aware of the very high energies in de Sitter space. Since Run II at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory are now at 36.05E30 for 2(977.97) GeV, please see the Accelerator Update for this new record, there has been a steady increment in energtics in the highest energy physics facility in the world. Where these energies are already approximately equal to those found at the point origin of the Universe, i.e., the "Big Bang," it is then only a matter of empirical observation as to when the potential barrier toward de Sitter space is breached thus releasing the force of Type Ia supernova
on our planet, solar system and a host of nearby stars. Since this is an experiment in high-energy physics, by this very fact the results are not known until demonstrated via the experimental manipulations in the ring at Fermilab.

All the children will thank you for your most kind actions on their behalf - and may the good God have mercy on our souls!

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation

Paul Dixon and Paul Sammuel both put the Phd after their names. Should I stick my qualifications after mine, do you think? Should all of us?

PS: I'm drunk now, and it seems a fun idea.

have you left your foil hat off again?& you know the Doctor said it would be a good idea to keep it on!

Since the Tevatron's gonna make a Type Ia supernova, just wait until the Large Hadron Collider comes online in 2006 at CERN with 10 times the energy of the Tevatron. I guess it'll make a Type IIa supernova.

*chuckles quietly to himself*

- Warren