Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

P

Paul W. Dixon

Registered Senior Member
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
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIEMENTATION FROM AT FERMILAB

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
Click to expand...

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
 
You would think...

Thanks for the reality Crisp.
You might think that a PHD would be aware of the points you made.
 
So is Crisp right or wrong...

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...
 
You don't have to take my word for it, but...

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:
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
 
Energy density, not total KE

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. 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?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Last edited:
Tevatron is gonna catch us all!

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
Click to expand...
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
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

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
 
Numbers, numbers everywhere...

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

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
 
Last edited:
If we all get blown to pieces then at least we have front-row seats

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.
Click to expand...

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

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top