Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS

Survival may result not only from the action of the individual but also from the action of the group through mutualism or symbioses. Thus we note:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/93

Our survival is also group dependent and will not occur without the cooperation of the scientists at Fermilab, CERN and elsewhere in the prevention of the generation of Type Ia SUPERNOVA from high-energy physics experimentation.

Let us all work together for our survival at this most crucial juncture in the history of all mankind.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKAHVE AND LOS ALAMOS

It is perhaps not too late to enter a plea for prudence and forethought in this research which employs the greatest energies yet seen on earth. Are we endowed with such hubris that we can press on without any concern for the welfare of all mankind when the penalty for a single laboratory mischance will generate, as is well-knwon in modern astrophysics a Type Ia Supernova, thus erasing the millions of years of evolution on our planet, our civilization and every child in every home in one titanic explosion? The possibilty of our species creating such a catastrophe is now more than ever a legitimate concern of modern humanity.

Will our tears wash away this terrible tragedy and our crys of anguish bring back the sweet breath of childhood?

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

Yours sincerely,

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just a silly question. The conditions in a star to create a super nova reaction have to be pretty specific do they not? I mean, lets take our sun.. its not going to become nova.. its going to become a giant red ball then burn out.

If our own sun does not have the required conditions/energy to create a super nova, what makes you think we have enough juice on this planet to cause a nova? Were on a rock with a bit of thermal energy and fossil fuels. Surely the amount of energy to create a supernova must be way beyond the energy output of our entire planet ... as well as our sun?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATON AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKAHAVEN AND HERA

Please note: the energies necessary for forming a transition towards de Sitter space are created in the highest-energy physics accelerators and not present in the standard environmental context of our planet.

In the development of our technological capacity, we have now attained energies some 10 ^ -9 to 10 ^ -14 seconds after the "Big Bang" at the point origin of the Universe. The work of Michael Farady unifying electrical impulse with magnetism in 1821 may serve as a time for the beginning these discoveries leading up to the modren cryogenic accelerators. This interval of 186 years is very small in proportion to the the cosmological intervals noted in observational astronomy for Type !a Supernovae which extend back billions of years to a time near to the origin of our Universe.

Astrophysics, abstract
astro-ph/0510054
From: Romeel Dave' [view email]
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:41:19 GMT (58kb)

Simulations of Early Galaxy Formation
Authors: Romeel Davé
Comments: 9 pages, to appear in the proceedings of UC Irvine May 2005 workshop on "First Light & Reionization", eds. E. Barton & A. Cooray, New Astronomy Reviews
Journal-ref: New Astron.Rev. 50 (2006) 24-28

We present the predictions for the photometric and emission line properties of galaxies present during the latter stages of reionization from z=8 to 6. These preliminary predictions are made from cosmological hydrodynamic simulations that include star formation and feedback, but not the effects of radiative transfer. We find significant numbers of galaxies that have stellar masses exceeding 10^8 Mo by z=8, with metallicities in the range of one-tenth solar. These galaxies are just beyond the reach of current near-infrared surveys, but should be found in large numbers by next-generation programs. The Lyman alpha luminosity function does not evolve much from z=6 to z=8, meaning that it should also be possible to detect these objects in significant numbers with upcoming narrow band surveys, unless the escape fraction of Ly-alpha evolves significantly between those epochs.
Full-text: PostScript, PDF, or Other formats

Type Ia Supernovae are remarkable for their singular uniformity in luminosity where they are used as standard candles for distance estimates. May we inquire whether this unifomity is due to their artificial origin? Since there is a large but not infinite potential barrier bewteen the continuum and de Sitter space, breaching this potential barrier is only a function of energy. Alas, we may soon reach this point in the history of mankind thus creating the greatest TRAGEDY OF HISTORY.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

 

Paul I now only open this thread annually. I have several times asked you to be clear on this, but you never are. I will ask again:

Is the critical "break-thru" parameter:

(1) Total energy carried by one particle? In whose rest frame? (Yours or its, in which case it is only the the massXC^2.)
(2) Total energy in "swarm" of colliding particles? (Sort of a thermal energy, but not really "thermal" as most likely half were traveling near c in opposite directions to other half, just before colliding.)
(3) Total energy in some small volume, I.e. energy density > some critical level.
Note the the "small volume" must be larger than a proton, as it would be hard to top that energy density when the rest mass energy of the proton is divided by its volume.
(4) Does "Power level" not play any role? I.e. how long can you take to assemble this "energy"? - surely not two hours.
(5) etc. Please be clear.

Why do you always refuse to be clear about realtively simple things? Is it because you have no reply when people ask, as I and others have:

(A) Does not the Queen Mary or the French TGV train (or even super-sonic fully loaded bomber), moving at top speed, have more kinetic energy than any accelerator can generate?
OR,
(B) Does not the primary collision of highest energy cosmic ray from space (the first hit of say an oxygen nucleus) have far greater energy (and much higher energy density) than any accelerator event?
(C) This question comes after you are clear on the first four or five above.

I expect you still, as in the past, remain intentionally vague, refuse to respond, etc. but I will read your next two post looking for an answer. If, as in past, you simply ignore simple direct questions I will then not read here for another year. (This, I think, is my third annual asking for a clear answer.)

 

Billy T:

Allow me to reply somewhat on Paul's behalf.

In my conversations and exchanges with him, I believe he is concerned not about a single collision of a proton/anti-proton, but rather the sum of all the collisions for each 'packet' of protons and anti-protons that are in the collider ring. There are millions of protons in each packet, and thousands of packets in the ring, though I don't have the exact figures in front of me.

He has acknowledged to me that the center-of-momentum [c.o.m.] energy of a single collision is below that of the highest-energy c.o.m. events in the cosmic rays that strike earth [though this might not be true if we exclude the deduced energies from showers, which might have the alternative explanation of representing the break-up of high-mass exotic particles such as magnetic monopoles; the highest energy cosmic rays directly measured are only about 1 E 15-17 eV, whereas the showers can be up to 1 E 22 eV]. However, when all of the collisons of a single packet are summed, the energy exceeds that of the cosmic ray showers.

I pointed out to him that the spacing within the packet between each proton is on the order of 100,000 proton diameters, i.e. they are quite far apart, even though the packet diameter (beam diameter) is only a fraction of a millimeter when they collide. I personally cannot fathom a 'mechanism' whereby all of the collisions can somehow 'unite' to trigger a deSitter space transition, though I cannot readily disprove that such cannot occur, either.

Certainly, such high density of proton/anti-proton collisions does not occur in nature.

Of greater concern to me, not so much now at Fermilab, but rather at the LHC, is the potential for creating a new particle such as a mini black hole (mBH) or strangelet.

If such particle were created at a collider, it presents a far different situation than if such particle were created in a cosmic-ray collision.

Specifically, if such exotic particles are created by the highest-E cosmic ray impacts, the exotic particle would then be moving at 0.99999c relative to Earth (or a star, or moon, etc.). The time to transit earth would be about 0.04 seconds, if there are no interactions.

We know for neutrons that the faster they go, the smaller the apparent target area (measured in 'barns', i.e. square cm.), and this changes by many orders of magnitude for 'fast' neutrons (a few MeV) compared to 'slow' (thermalized, or a few KeV) neutrons. Likewise, neutrinos 'see' earth as a virtually transparent target, and simply zip right on through without interaction. Only with exceptionally large numbers (such as produced by the sun) can a few sometimes interact, allowing us to set up chambers in mines with large volumes of solvent or other scintillating target to occasionally detect an interaction.

Since the presumptive "exotic particles" that might be produced by a cosmic ray collision have unknown interaction properties while traveling 'at near light speed', they too might simply zip right through earth with little or no interaction.

Conversely, if produced in a collider, an appreciable percentage of such exotic particles would have speeds well below escape velocity (18,000 mph), and be produced in relatively copious quantities compared to the history of such exotic particle production during earth's lifetime. If they have relatively much larger cross-sections for interaction while traveling at 'thermalized' speeds, they could easily interact and grow larger, increasing their cross-section for subsequent interaction, resulting in a runaway reaction.

This presumes, by the way, that such exotic particle is essentially neutral, which is possibly the case. An electrically charged exotic particle would almost certainly decelerate by normal methods, even if near-relativistic.

Anyway, let's see if Paul posts a response to your post and mine.

Regards,



Walter

---------------------

 

Nor can I. I had not considered their separation across the beam diameter, but only along the velocity direction. (I know there are strong focusing forces which keep the beam diameter quite small.) I do not know but think that along the direction of travel the proton to proton separtion must be even greater. Surely the duration of a head on collision is not much greater than a few times Pd/c where Pd is the Proton diameter. I will call this brief time "t". If we conservatively assume the in flight separation is also 1e5Pd, then the interval between collison events, T, is on the order of 1e4, or possibly more.

Thus, we have an event that is over in t and another T later. Even T is so small it is hard to think about what this means, so I will use my "time magnifier" to expand t to be one minute. Then T , the interval between collison events is at least 10,000 minutes. In a day there are 24x60 = 1440 minutes so T = approxinately one week! Paul is claming that energy released in a minute "now" (for a minute or less) and then is over can combine with a simular one minute of energy release next week, as if they were one? - I don't think so!!!!

I was probably much too conservative. I think the proton bunch is not a sphere, but more like a long cigar. If you know how much longer in track it is than cross track perhaps you will redo this - I would not be surprised if you tell me that Paul is adding a one minute energy release in 2007 to then next one on the same date in 2008!!!!!!! (When viewed thru my "time expander magnifier")

SUMMARY: t <<<<< T and these very well separated collision events can not be combined.

Thanks for your answer for him. I bet that is all I get, but I agree to wait to see what he has to say. - I expect nothing seriously responsive - only another of his very repetitious, nonsensical posts.

PS - I also have some thoughts on the other danger you think more real, but do not want to discuss them here. (Paul may reply to those comments of mine and ignore the on thread ones.) Why not start a thread on your concerns?

 

What a bummer.... I was hoping Fermi be able to provide us with tabletop cosmic firework so that I wouldn't have to pay taxes in 2008, also from that point there wouldn't be any children to worry about, but no, you guys just had to step in and with your common sense destroy my high hopes...thanks duh.

 

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATON AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKAHAVEN AND HERA

Let us not forget that the energies needed to carrry out the research enterprise at Fermilab and elsewhere is that found at some 10 ^ -9 to
10 ^ - 14 seconds subsequent to the Big Bang at the point oriigin of the Universe. These energetics are far greater than those energies seen with cosmic ray interactions, They are sufficient to form a transition towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of Type Ia Supernova whcih will then destroy our planet and our solar system and a host of nearby stars!

Please note: the energies necessary for forming a transition towards de Sitter space are created in the highest-energy physics accelerators and not present in the standard environmental context of our planet.

In the development of our technological capacity, we have now attained energies some 10 ^ -9 to 10 ^ -14 seconds after the "Big Bang" at the point origin of the Universe. The work of Michael Farady unifying electrical impulse with magnetism in 1821 may serve as a time for the beginning these discoveries leading up to the modren cryogenic accelerators. This interval of 186 years is very small in proportion to the the cosmological intervals noted in observational astronomy for Type !a Supernovae which extend back billions of years to a time near to the origin of our Universe.

Astrophysics, abstract
astro-ph/0510054
From: Romeel Dave' [view email]
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:41:19 GMT (58kb)

Simulations of Early Galaxy Formation
Authors: Romeel Davé
Comments: 9 pages, to appear in the proceedings of UC Irvine May 2005 workshop on "First Light & Reionization", eds. E. Barton & A. Cooray, New Astronomy Reviews
Journal-ref: New Astron.Rev. 50 (2006) 24-28

We present the predictions for the photometric and emission line properties of galaxies present during the latter stages of reionization from z=8 to 6. These preliminary predictions are made from cosmological hydrodynamic simulations that include star formation and feedback, but not the effects of radiative transfer. We find significant numbers of galaxies that have stellar masses exceeding 10^8 Mo by z=8, with metallicities in the range of one-tenth solar. These galaxies are just beyond the reach of current near-infrared surveys, but should be found in large numbers by next-generation programs. The Lyman alpha luminosity function does not evolve much from z=6 to z=8, meaning that it should also be possible to detect these objects in significant numbers with upcoming narrow band surveys, unless the escape fraction of Ly-alpha evolves significantly between those epochs.
Full-text: PostScript, PDF, or Other formats

Type Ia Supernovae are remarkable for their singular uniformity in luminosity where they are used as standard candles for distance estimates. May we inquire whether this unifomity is due to their artificial origin? Since there is a large but not infinite potential barrier bewteen the continuum and de Sitter space, breaching this potential barrier is only a function of energy. Alas, we may soon reach this point in the history of mankind thus creating the greatest TRAGEDY OF HISTORY.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

 

Wasn't this the plot of Spiderman II?

The solution would therefore be to dump the supernova into the East River. It's a scientific fact that anything that goes into the East River dies

 

Do yourself a favor and re-reach absolute dissolution in mind.
Allow me to elaborate, you my friend, lack foundation for your ignorance. It is ok, when using a philosophers name to assert credit to your own work(just like P.hD behind our friends name). However, it is far to out of place to go against Plato' foundation conceptions.

A wise man knows that he knows nothing. How can you assert that this man is at fault? Where is your mathematical particulars, that assert the contrary of our friends. You sir, if I may be so bold, are a F-A-K-E.

 

I see (from Paul's post 1069) that he is again doing just what I predicted in post 1067 where I predicted:

"I expect nothing seriously responsive - only another of his very repetitious, nonsensical posts."

This was his response one and two years ago also when I enumerated several short questions (five this year) Walter L Wagner made post 1066 and also asked a very pointed question (also ignored in Paul's post 1069) and in my post 1067 I also showed that If Paul was concerned about collective interaction among the individual protons in two oppositely traveling colliding bunches, each collision had such short duration (t) compared the time interval between collisions (T) that it was like treading something that last one second now as if it were an integral part of another one second event that occurred next week! I.e. t <<<<< T

I will read again this thread in about a year - it is so boringly repetitious and never responsive to simple questions that you miss nothing by reading only once each year. Thus, I suggest no one should reply to him for a year. Let him repeatedly post the same nonsense, with no readers all he likes, until he learns to discuss, answer questions etc.

 

I will answer your questions.

 

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVE AND LOS ALAMOS

Please note the empirical observation of a large Supernova. The empirical observation of these energetics may indicate the formation of a rent or tear in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. Quasar formation would then
entail the create of a larger perforation towards de Sittter space as well as a perforation with longer duration. The question we might ask in this connection would it be advantageous to us as individuals and as a species to form such a transtion at one of our centers for highest-energy physics experimentation? In this way, under this postulation, we would form a Type Ia Supernova.

Please note the recent observation.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

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

“King” of star explosions seen, Supernova SN 2006gy

May 7, 2007
Courtesy NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
and World Science staff

Astronomers have detected the brightest stellar explosion, or supernova, on record, and say it may be a new type of supernova. The findings come from observations by NASA’s Chandra X ray Observatory and ground-based optical telescopes. This discovery indicates that violent explosions of extremely massive stars were fairly common in the early cosmos—and that a similar explosion may be ready to go off in our own galaxy, scientists said. “This was a truly monstrous explosion, a hundred times more energetic than a typical supernova,” said Nathan Smith of the University of California at Berkeley, who led a team of astronomers from California and the University of Texas in Austin. “That means the star that exploded might have been as massive as a star can get, about 150 times [the weight] of our sun. We’ve never seen that before.” Astronomers think many of the first generation of stars were this massive, and this new supernova may thus provide a rare glimpse of how the first stars died. It’s unprecedented, though, to find such a massive star and witness its death, they said. The supernova, known as SN 2006gy, provides evidence that the death of such massive stars is funda mentally different from theoretical predictions, researchers claimed. “Of all exploding stars ever observed, this was the king,” said Alex Filippenko, leader of the ground-based observations at the Lick Observatory at Mt. Hamilton, Calif., and the Keck Observatory in Mauna Kea, Hawaii. “We were astonished to see how bright it got, and how long it lasted.” The Chandra observation allowed the team to rule out the most likely alternative explanation for the supernova, the astronomers said: that a white dwarf star only slightly heavier than the sun exploded into a dense, hydrogen-rich environment. In that event, SN 2006gy should have been 1,000 times brighter in X-ray light than what Chandra detected, they said. “This provides strong evidence that SN 2006gy was, in fact, the death of an extremely massive star,” said Dave Pooley of the University of California at Berkeley, who led the Chandra observations. The star that produced SN 2006gy apparently blew off a large amount of mass before exploding, astronomers said. This large mass loss is similar to that seen from Eta Carinae, a massive star in our galaxy, raising suspicion that Eta Carinae may be poised to explode as a supernova. Although SN 2006gy is intrinsically the brightest supernova ever, it is in the galaxy NGC 1260, some 240 million light years away. However, Eta Carinae is only about 7,500 light years away in our own Milky Way galaxy. “We don’t know for sure if Eta Carinae will explode soon, but we had better keep a close eye on it just in case,” said Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, who was not involved in the research. “Eta Carinae’s explosion could be the best star-show in the history of modern civilization.” Supernovas usually occur when massive stars exhaust their fuel and collapse under their own gravity. In the case of SN 2006gy, astronomers think that a very different effect may have triggered the explosion. Under some conditions, the core of a massive star produces so much radiation in the form of gamma rays that some of the energy from the radiation converts into matter, forming pairs of particles and mirror-image-like anti-particles. This leads to a drop in energy that causes the star to collapse under its own mighty gravity. After this violent collapse, runaway thermonuclear reactions ensue and the star explodes, spewing the remains into space. The SN 2006gy data suggest that it may have been more common than previously believed for the first stars to die in spectacular supernovas, rather than completely collapsing to a black holes as theorized, according to the team. “In terms of the effect on the early universe, there’s a huge difference between these two possibilities,” said Smith. “One pollutes the galaxy with large quantities of newly made elements and the other locks them up forever in a black hole.” The results from Smith and his colleagues are to appear in the research publication Astro physical Journal.

 

Thank you for the information

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS

Let us not forget that modern experimentation aims at the confirmation of hypotheses drawn from the domain of science under investigation. Working in the realm of highest energy physics, with energies approximating those shown at the point origin of the Universe, we are testing for the presence of other dimensions not hithertofore discovered. We may then venture into the region of the continuum termed de Sitter space. Thus we may observe those energetics referred to in, Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe? by Malcolm J. Perry, Nature 320, 24 April, 1986. Such an experimental finding will be stumbled upon only once with the generation of the energies of a Type Ia Supernova.

We must, therefore, call for a moratorium on highest energy physics experimentation at this time.

All Best Wiishes,

Yours sincerely,

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

 

So, I know it's been a while since I've checked into this thread...but does he respond at all? If you say, "Hey Paul, where are you from?" will he answer? Or will he simply keep pushing his propaganda on us?

 

I think he just cuts and pastes the same shit over and over again.

If you look at the first few replies, he has been successfully rebutted. He is like a child with his fingers in his hears, screaming so he can't hear what people are telling him.

This thread should have been shitcanned a long time ago, if for no other reason than Paul not responding.

 

Do you guys realize that this thread has been going on for six years now? And according to a reply early on the first page, he had been sending these panic letters out via e-mail for a number of years prior to the starting of this thread. So for close to a decade (if not longer), Paul has been ranting about this supposed supernova threat.

And here we are, at least a decade later...and nothing has happened. What do you guys think he is really up to? What do you think is the real point of this? I can't imagine that he's truly worried about this, because if he were truly knowledgeable about the subject, he would have realized that his initial concerns were without merit.

Somewhere in this abyss, there is a series of posts that discuss Dixon's credentials. I seem to remember something about him being a psychologist, or something along those lines...could this all be an experiment of his own?

 

This is interesting. But if it has been going for six years, most people have ignored him for 5.9 years, so he has a pretty small data set.

If theoretical physicists turn the planet into a black hole or a supernova, I will admit that I was wrong.