Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

Paul is a psychologist at Un of Hawaii, I think. Thus I am inclined to think this is some strange psychological experiment. Generally I support psychological experiments where the subjects volunteer (or find the pay adequate for their participation) so I occasionally participate and try to expose his foolishness, with a few pointed questions, but he never falls into my trap of trying to make this all a rational discussion of the risk, if any. (He just ignore and reposts more of the same.)

Once I went back to his first post and took the energy levels he was then concern about and compared them to the many order of magnitude greater level now achieved. His currently levels for the "danger threshold" are still like then. i.e. just a little above the current levels achieved. (I chided him by comment that: As he could not be wrong, God must be "moving the goal posts" away from man's effort at self destruction.)

I have also considered the possibility that Paul does not exist. I.e. "Paul" is only some reasonably good AI only is making these repetitive, never-responsive, posts.

There does not seem to be much point to either possibility (or this thread), but it seems harmless enough and does help keep anyone else from wasting their time trying to make the longest thread. :shrug:

BTW, I doubt that you will admit you were wrong if Paul's supernova is triggered by Fermi Lab or any one here in our solar system.

Perhaps the true author of this thread is “Science Contingencies.” He promised to answer my annual questions a few post back, but never did. -Very “Paul like.”

I returned in less than a year to read as I notice you (BenTheMan) had posted here and suspected you might have something worth reading to say about the physics. - How disappointing!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, Paul's assertions have actually been published. Bionature ran his paper a while back...I can't remember now if this was prior to him starting this thread, or afterwards...but I believe he was published before he came here.

And yeah, he's a Professor of Psychology at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. He received his PhD from there in 1966, in General Experimental Psychology--whatever that means. I have no clue if that's just the fancy name for regular ol' Psychology, or what.

I find it funny, though, that none of his education or professional experience speaks of the field we're talking about in this thread. All of his published works deal with amazing things regarding the human brain, cognitive abilities, and linguistics...except this.

It makes me think that one of two things have happened here:

1) He's performing some extended experiment to see just how people will react to such claims, which would explain his persistence and the fact that this theoretical "threshold" of his keeps moving just beyond whatever value Fermilab and company are ever achieving.

2) He truly believe it. This would explain his persistence, also, but you have to take a pretty big leap to explain why the "threshold" keeps jumping higher and higher. But then again, if he truly does believe, the belief could have very well made him crazy, and therefore not accountable to himself as to the change in the "danger level". I mean, if he's crazy, he could give himself a million reasons as to why the threshold would always be just beyond our current state--like, because the Pink Bunny God told him it was cool.

And Paul used to respond--albeit vaguely--to posts. I don't believe there were any beyond the first page of the thread, but he even used a couple of the member's names in his response. So he's human, and not a bot. Or, at least, he used to be human. I think it's fishy that every single post he's ever made has been edited afterwards. Very fishy.Anytime something is either "always" or "never", I tend to believe there is something automatic involved.

I'm starting to wonder if this Walter Wagner fellow is somehow involved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Anything I say about the physics has already been said

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

J Dawg:

I joined SciForums about one year ago, long after this thread had started. I had not heard of SciForums or Paul Dixon prior to then.

However, because by coincidence I live near to Hilo where he teaches at the UH Hilo campus, I did meet him there once last year. He is real, not a bot, and he's been involved in many areas of science for many years, though physics is not his specialty. He is concerned about the psychology of physics, i.e. what motivates physicists, etc.

As I've noted to Billy T, a retired physicist/engineer living in Brazil, I've not been able to come up with a plausible 'mechanism' as to how a de Sitter space transition would occur at Fermilab. Such is not true for the LHC collider, to be at higher energy still, with respect to formation of a mini-black-hole or strangelet, as I've noted in earlier posts in this thread.

And, we do know that accidents can happen. Just a few days ago a major accident occured at the LHC while they were placing one of our Helium cooled superconducting magnets, setting the schedule back several months.

There was another thread on the LHC a while back, so you can check on that there.

Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)

 

Walter,

When you met Dr. Dixon, did you try to mention to him that there were no plausible means for Fermilab to create the disaster he talks about? Did you try to pose any of your own questions to him?

You say he is interested in the psychology of physicists, so where does that play into him "discovering" this looming problem? I mean, I'm just trying to figure out if he gave you any insight as to how he figured this out, and what he thinks of the answers he's received here. Does he not understand that he's been wrong?

 

J. Dawg:

Paul recounted that he's been to Fermilab and met with some of the physicists there. He recounts that they admitted to him that there was a risk, but that they considered it small, and they were personally willing to take the risk, as they considered the alternative for themselves, such as employment with the phone company or some other work, to be sufficiently less desireable that they would continue doing what they were doing. I don't know whom he met with, or whether they're even still employed there.

I believe that Paul considers that with each increase in beam energy, or each increase in luminosity at that energy, that it sets the stage for a new round of risk. Technically, he would be correct on that assumption, if there is a risk/run.

After a new run, each subsequent run at the new energy/luminosity would result in an ever decreasing risk/run, since for example 100 runs resulting in no supernova would mean the risk/run is less than 1/100 for the next run(assuming arguendo that there is a risk, which I have not conceded for the de-Sitter space transition scenario).

However, once one increases those base parameters, i.e. steps up the energy, or increases the luminosity, then if there is a risk, one would have to start the risk assessment all over at that new energy or new luminosity.

Hence, detractors who point out that the energy has increased several orders of magnitude over time and still no disaster are utterly missing the point of his argument. If there is a risk, then the empirical calculation must begin anew with each bump in energy or luminosity.

This concept is clearly understood by the physicists at Fermilab as they seek new particles. One does not detect a new particle with each run. There is only a small probability of creating such a particle with each run, and many hundreds of runs must be performed in order to create enough evidence to show the creation of that new particle. The same would go for the creation of a de Sitter space transition, though this has been discounted as too improbable, or too upsetting to ponder, by the physicists there.

Paul regularly keeps himself apprised of each new run paradigm (increase in energy or luminosity) at Fermilab, and posts those here. He is actually much more knowledgeable than most who post here about what's going on there.

I believe he first began writing about this some 20 years ago or so, though you'd have to email him directly (he has it on his bio page) to get the specifics.

While I have not been able to come up with a 'mechanism' whereby some 1 E 6-8 collisions (the number of protons and anti-portons in each of the two colliding packets in the beam) happening essentially simultaneously in a small volume (the diameter of the beam as the diameter of a disk with thickness of 1 relativistic proton as the best approximation for the volume in which the collisions occur) would act 'in concert' with each other, let alone create a de Sitter space transition (which is only theoretical, though with some good underlying theory), I have not been able to disprove that such could not act in concert either. Sorry, my physics is not all-knowing.

As indicated earlier, I consider the other scenarios (creation of a semi-stable mini-black-hole with somewhat-suppressed Hawking radiation; creation of a semi-stable strangelet) as have been postulated for the LHC to be more compelling, since NUMEROUS theorists have postulated about it, and I have some knowledge regarding fusion physics, and how theorists at times can be wrong.

Anyway, hope this gives you some more insight.

Regards,


Walter

 

Yes, it actually does help, Walter. Thanks for the reply.

My knowledge of anything scientific runs about as deep as Paris Hilton...and I'm not even close to being able to postulate my own conclusions on the actual probabilities of this whole mess. So, I am reliant on you guys to fill me in with the basics. And I thank you, Walter, for breaking it down into layman's terms.

I guess the question is if we should believe him or not. To say that he's been to Fermilab, and spoken with the people there, and to say that they've admitted that there is such a risk involved...I just don't know. I can't imagine that a physicist would be working for the phone company if this whole thing was shut down.

Regardless, at least now I understand why the numbers keep going up. But let me pose this question to you: What of this "semi-stable" black hole? Exactly where would it occur, if it were to occur at all? There's certainly no way for a black hole to be maintained in any sort of tube--such as the one at Fermilab--is there? I thought the very nature of black holes was that they were (on the most basic of analogies) mega-vacuum cleaners, sucking up everything around them. Am I wrong? If light itself cannot escape a black hole, how could one taking place on this planet not just immediately suck up everything?

Your replies have been extremely helpful, Walter, and I greatly appreciate it.

 

J Dawg:

The idea of a minature black hole was postulated at least as early as 1973 by Stephen Hawking, who wrote about it then. To summarize the idea, essentially the Universe can be considered to be the inside of an infinite black hole that is time-reversed, i.e. expanding rather than contracting (the "Big Bang"). The idea was postulated that possibly small pockets of 'minature black holes' as remnants of the original initial state (infinite mass at a singularity point) would have been in existence during the expansion (in addition to the creation of the myriad other particles, particularly protons, neutrons, etc. to form normal matter). However, there was no evidence of such minature black hole particles in our region of the Universe, presumed to be essentially the same as any other region.

Hawking postulated still later that they 'evaporated' by quantum tunneling, and derived a formula for their lifetime of existence as a function of their total mass.

I used that formula to calculate the lifetime of a minature black hole of the mass of the collision products of the RHIC collider (roughly about 400,000 amu, or about 1,000 times the mass of the two colliding Gold atoms due to the relativisitic enhancement of their mass due to their high speed), and determined that the lifetime of existence would be on the order of 1 E -30 seconds, i.e. sufficiently short that they would not 'budge' from their point of creation, even travelling at light speed (1 E 10 m/s) more than a tiny fraction of a meter (roughly 1 E -20 meters) and thus could not escape the vacuum chamber confines of their point of creation and subsequently interact with normal matter before disintegrating into a hail of fundamental particles.

However, I was uncertain if Hawking was absolutely correct on the idea that they would evaporate according to his formula, and sought additional input via the Sci Am letters that were published in 1999 pertaining to the RHIC.

Frank Wilczek also had a letter published, sought by the Editors at Sci Am in response to my letter. He derided the possibility of creating such minature black holes, apparently not having read of Hawking's work.

He then raised the idea that instead the RHIC might create another type of particle, a "strangelet", which is slightly more stable than normal matter. Since nuceli tend towards greater stability by fusing and releasing energy (as for example the D-T fusion route), the prospect of a runaway fusion reaction ("Ice-9" as he called it, after Kurt Vonneguts novel of a runaway freezing reaction for a novel form of water - Ice-9 - though clearly impossible in real life) was raised.

While Frank likewise derided that prospect, I have examined it in detail and find that it too cannot be excluded, should a "strangelet" or "strange matter" or SQM (strange quark matter) be formed.

Since then, numerous theoreticians have derided Wilczek's derision of creating a minature black hole, and have postulated that they might be created in copious abundance, but that they would evaporate as Hawking suggested, and so would pose no problem.

However, no one is certain if Hawking is correct, because it is just theoretical, not empirical. And is the Earth the best testing ground for that theory?

Likewise, no one is certain that strangelets cannot fuse with normal matter, notwithstanding the "coulomb barrier". Because of their greater fusion potential, they might very readly fuse even if maintained at a distance of 1 Angstrom (typical covalent bond distance) from a normal matter nucleus by coulombic repulsion.

We see just such a thing happen even with normal matter. In the early 1980s, Steven Jones and others at BYU and elsewhere were causing D-T to spontaneously fuse (aka "cold fusion", which was given a bad name by Pons/Fleischman trying a different route) when they introduced muons into a D-T system, which replaced an electron in a co-valent bond. Each muon would jump from one molecule to the next, some few thousand times, before exiting the container. During that brief transit, some 137 D-T molecules would fuse, just by a slight shortening of the covalent bond. Normally, the spontaneous fusion rate is so low that only about 1 E -27 fusions/D-T molecule occur per second. In other words, in a liter of D-T water, only about 1 fusion per second would occur spontaneously, but introduction of muons would cause a tremendous fusion increase. However, for other reasons it did not pan out for fusion energy. Sci Am even did an article about it back then, though I believe the current Sci Am editors were still in diapers when that article came out.

Apparently, the much greater mass of the muon would force the covalent Hydrogen (D and T are both isotopes of Hydrogen, being H-2 and H-3 respectively) nucleii slightly closer together, enough so that their wave functions sufficiently overlapped that the strong-nuclear force caused them to fuse, releasing energy and forming a more stable nucleus.

Anyway, if this can happen with normal matter which is less stable than strangelet matter, there is potentially nothing to prevent a runaway fusion reaction, notwithstanding glib assurances to the contrary from LHC front people protecting their salaries.

Incidentally, the "cosmic ray argument" for the "safety analysis" has likewise been shown to be bogus for neutral particles, though I will not go into that here.

Hope this helps still further.

Regards,


Walter

 

Well, honestly, most of that is over my head. But I'm pretty good at taking things in context...and if I am, what you're basically saying is that--though theoretical--the possibility of something going boom and wrecking the entire planet (and possibly beyond) is real.

Am I on the level with that?

If I'm correct in my understanding, why is there no attention being drawn to this matter? I'm not going to go all wing-nut on you, because as you said this is all theoretical, but if there is still a possibility, shouldn't the public at least be made aware of it?

 

J. Dawg:

There has been some minimal coverage. A few days ago the BBC interviewed some people in London, linked below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/universe/
When I took the poll, it was at 47% in opposition, 53% in favor, if the risk is only 1/50,000,000 [which actually cannot be calculated, as I'm sure you might recognize].

Also, the LHC has geared up their PR people and directed that their scientists are to assert that the risk is zero, not that there might be a risk. So, you won't be hearing about it from anyone on the LHC payroll hereafter.

For more information, email to this: email@risk-evaluation-forum.org

or go to their web-site at: www.risk-evaluation-forum.org

Regards,


Walter

 

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

There is a government photograph posted on this thread which shows yours truly and my two companions picketing at Fermilab. Prominently displayed is our sign which depicts the planet earth with the caption; HOME OF THE NEXT SUPERNOVA. Place "Paul W. Dixon" on the search engine GOOGLE and this Ferminews website with this photograph can easily be found.

As we picketed members of the staff at Fermilab visited with us and as we discussed the possiblity of Type Ia Supernvoa generation, we discovered that these scientists were well aware of this hazard and so we further inquired why in the light of this did they still continue with this most hazardous line of research.

Two replies were forthcoming. They stated that they needed to be employed. They did not wish to work for, "Ma Bell Illinois," i.e., the telephone company, and secondly they were engaged in a quasi-religious quest for truth with a truly marvelous instrument, the Tevatron. While yours truly tended to agree with this, my two companions labeled this as selfish since they were clearly risking everyone's life for their own personal advantage.

Clearly then, we are being sacrificed for the personal advantage of those who wish to pursue this line of research for their own selfish reasons. We may cite similar examples in this line of infamy with the Last Flight of the Challenger orbiter and Chernobyl.

There seems only legal recourse remaining before all is lost. All the children 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, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS

Please recall that the highest-energy physics experimentation is an empirical science. As such, it cannot predict exactly what will happen as these experiments are performed. Thus, to state a priori (beforehand) that these experiments are without risk, is a betrayal of public trust. When experimenting with energies that approximate those found at the point origin of the Universe, it may be understood that an experimental error could have vast consequences. We may include in this catalogue of possible consequences Type Ia Supernova Generation.

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

Every Best Wish,

Yours sincerely.

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

 

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

As indicated in previous posts, the physics community realizes that the entrance into new dimensions is possible as the colliders have increased energetics. Thus the possiblity of generating Type Ia Supernova is, therefore, possible within these models. We note the following statement:

"Physics Beyond the Standard Model: Exotic Leptons and Black Holes at
Future Colliders
Christopher Michael Harris
01 Feb 2005

The question of how likely it is that any particular model for new physics
is realized in nature is inevitably impossible to quantify. Every
physicist has their own prejudices and in general supersymmetric models
seem to be the favoured option. Extra dimension models are wacky enough to
attract the attention of the popular science media and are quickly
dismissed by some physicists. However, as outlined in Chapter 1, they can
be well motivated theoretically.
Almost all high-energy physicists are convinced that the LHC will discover
new
physics of some kind. Leaving aside all the theoretical arguments, it
would be unprecedented in the history of the field if the
order-of-magnitude increase in available energy did not reveal something
new. It may well be that nature surprises us and re veals physics that
nobody has so far suggested. Even if extra dimensions do exist the
compactification scheme may make the physics much more complicated than
the simple cases discussed here.
With half a decade still to wait before CERNs Large Hadron Collider has
produced a substantial amount of data, there is good reason for theorists
to continue investigating these models, and refining and extending their
phenomenological studies."

The example that comes to mind in this connection is the very famous Geophysicist who decided to stay on the summit of Mt. St. Helens at the time of the eruption. When asked did he not realize that he would soon perish when the Volcano erupted, he replied that he would just stay and observe. He then perished when Mt St. Helens finally erupted.
We shall then join with the physics community and observe the generation of
of a Type Ia Supernova, according to the postulation brought forward here, with the intrusional event from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed.

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

 

There weren't any famous geophysicists on Mt. St. Helens when it erupted.

 

How long has this thread been going now?

 

All you have to do is look at the date/timestamp on the first post: 02-28-01, 02:11 PM.

And I hope you notice that in over six years not a single one of his 'fears' have come true. But that never slows him down...

 

It was kind of a rhetorical question...

 

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

We may note for the historical record the tragically brief life of Dr. David Johnston.

Dr. David Johnston at Mt. St. Helens

"Prior to the major eruption that year, Dartmouth was working with the
U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) in monitoring the sulfur dioxide gases
emanating from the gas plumes.Emissions of SO2 gases were known to be
indicators of a possible eruption.David Johnston, a geologist with the
USGS was on the ground monitoring the gases only a few miles from the
mountain's summit when the eruption occurred.Dr.Johnston was killed that
day and the current, live VolcanoCam from Johnston's Ridge is named in
memoriam for him.On October 2 of this year, the USGS issued a Level III
Volcano Alert, which included the evacuation of the Johnston Ridge
Observatory, which is located at approximately 4,500 feet and five miles
from the center of the crater. The volcano's summit is 8,364 feet and
stood at 9,677 feet before the 1980 eruption."

"Following his Ph.D., Dave increasingly focused on the fundamental role of
volatiles in volcanic processes, as he continued his studies on Augustine
and began work on Katmai Volcano," The study of expanding volatiles physics provides for one part of the physical explanation for the explosive power of volcanic eruptions.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/CVO_Info/david_johnston.html

We can now join in the observation of precursor events from the Tevatorn at the Fermi National Accelerator for Type Ia Supernova Generation. Please note large transverse jets of high energy. These may provide for early signals of the formation of a transition towads de Sitter Space. Please note:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/live_events/index.html

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

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

 

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATON AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS

It may be noted that the spectral recordation for Type Ia
Supernova demonstrates 2.4 times greater energetics than Type II Supernova yet are of ~1 solar mass. Their source for accretion is deemed
a nearby star yet the Type Ia Supernova shows no trace of hydrogen when reaching maximum light and the typical solar compostion is one showing hydrogen dominance for the nearby star. We may thus postulate the creation of one of the most luminous events in the universe at our centers for highest energy physics experimentation. Please note:

"Type Ia Supernova Energetics
sn2001gc spectrum1
SN 1997ff2 Type Ia lightcurve3
Type Ia supernovae, spectroscopically defined by the absence of H
and a deep Si II absorption line at 612 nm, are among the most
luminous transient events in the universe, with explosion energies
1051 ergs frequently outshining their host galaxies (SN 1997ff was
detected at a record redshift of z=1.755). The Phillips relation,
correlating peak luminosity with lightcurve decay time, allows for
the use of type Ia SNe as probes of the Hubble flow, revealing
the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Explaining the
empirical Phillips relation with a detailed supernova model is
crucial in checking the hypothesis in the arguments for a positive
cosmological constant.
Type Ia SNe are believed to be thermonuclear explosions of accreting
C/O white dwarfs near the Chandrasekhar limit, powered by the
energy released in burning the initial composition to Nuclear Statistical
Equilibrium (NSE). Numerical simulations of the explosion
should take into account that the NSE state is not static, but rather
shifts from a NSE rich in 4He to a NSE completely dominated by
Fe-peak elements as the initially hot ashes cool on a hydrodynamic
timescale. The nuclear binding energy released during this process
is  20% of the total energy released. The amount of 56Ni produced,
which is believed to power the optical lightcurve via the decay chain
56Ni T1/2= 6.08d
−−−−−−−−−−−−! 56Co T1/2= 77.2d
−−−−−−−−−−−−! 56Fe
depends sensitively on the trajectories of the hydrodynamical
evolution of the explosion, which are affected by electron captures:
A lower Ye reduces the contribution of degenerate electrons to the
total pressure, and neutrinos carry away energy. Furthermore, as
Ye decreases, the most abundant nucleus in NSE shifts from 56Ni to
more neutron rich Fe-peak nuclei. This could result in an additional
release in binding energy, since the trinity of the most tightly bound
nuclei 62Ni, 58Fe and 56Fe have significantly higher binding energies
than 56Ni ( 0.15 MeV/nucleon), and a smaller heat capacity of the
ion gas, since the mean nucleon number per nucleus increases for a
neutron rich NSE.
Image credit: 1CfA, 2HST, 3CfCP.
This work is supported by the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics under
NSF Grant PHY0216783 and by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant No.
B523820 to the ASC/Alliance Center for Astrophysical Thermonuclear Flashe
Ye = 0.5 contours of mean nucleon
number in NSE.
Ye = 0.475 contours of mean nucleon
number in NSE.
Researchers:
I. R. Seitenzahl1, D.M. Townsley1,
F. Peng1, A. C. Calder1,2,
J. Truran1,2, D. Q. Lamb1,2
1 U. Chicago
2 ASC Flash Center"

All Best Wishes,

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

Yours sincerely,

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

 

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

It may be possible to infer the size of the Type Ia Supernova from this medium size Supernova, SN 1987A, where the calibration was carried out with scientific accuracy. These observations revealed a blast front with a diameter of some 1.32 light years after 0.66 years. The Type Ia Supernova would have a similar dimensionality with some 2.4 times the energetics. The obliteration of the solar system in its present form may be accomplised by these vast energies.

"The superb resolution of HST has provided an accurate measurement of the
apparent angular size of the inner circumstellar ring. The absolute size
was determined by studying the observations taken by one of Hubble's smaller
predecessor satellites, the International Ultraviolet Explorer. IUE
measured the time interval between the supernova explosion and the time
the inner ring brightened up to be 0.66 years. This means that the
diameter of the ring is 1.32 light years. By comparing the angular and
true sizes, we find the distance to SN 1987A (and thus to the Large
Magellanic Cloud) to be 168,000 light years. This result is fundamental
because it permits astronomers to calibrate the luminosity of the Cepheid
variable stars in the LMC. Then, knowing how bright Cepheids are, we can
measure the distances to many other galaxies, and thus measure the size,
expansion rate, and age of the Universe."

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

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

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