Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

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

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
 
Last edited:
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

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
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

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
 
Well I'm confused

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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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
 
Last edited:
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 10<sup>14 </sup>GeV 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 10<sup>14 </sup>GeV, 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

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"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top