Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIEMENTATION AT FERMILAB

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIEMENTATION AT FERMILAB

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every Best Wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
Chicken Little

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sixth question: Do you expect us to believe you solved Fermat's last theorem and didn't share it with the world (and didn't collect the thousands in prize money)?
 
Steven23
Paul is still hanging around so maybe he'll get around to your answer. Now I'm not going to beat the probverbal dead horse (issue) But I think our thread starter did not expect to find such an educated forum to debate the issue. Not that I think I contributed in any meaning full way
You brought up excellent points. So hang in there, You may get lucky.
 
Last edited:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

SUPERNVOA FROM EXPERIEMENTATION AT FERMILAB

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

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

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

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

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

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

All good wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
Re: SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Hi Paul and all others,

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


Paul,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Crisp
 
Arrogance or Delusion?

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

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

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

Steven23
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
de Sitter Space

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Plato,

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

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

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

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

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

Bye!

Crisp
 
Crisp,

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

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

About the energy question :

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

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION FROM FERMILAB

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

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

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

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

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

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

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Although I have a hunch that human pride will cause the end of the world as we know it, I truly hope that this isn't it.
 
Supernova!

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

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

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

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

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

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

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
Wrong Again

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

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

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

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

All Best Wishes,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

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

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

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

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

Every Best Wish,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top