Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab
- Thread starter Paul W. Dixon
- Start date
Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATON AT FERMILAB
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many, many thanks to one and all for your strong support in this most critical issue.
Please review the theoretical arguments brought forward in this thread. In the sense of a sciforum, the refutation of the scientific principles is required since this is the accepted form of debate within the realm of science. The principles of Relativistic Cosmology are well established in science so you must refute this body of knowledge in order to demonstrate that Supernova generation from current high-energy physics is not possiible.
Only publicity will stop this line of research beofre it is too late!
The new International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences Commission on the Anthropology of Mathematics has has had its first meeeting at the XV International Congress of Anthropology and Ethnology in Florence, Italy. Please enter Paul W. Dixon in the fixed search for the Google search engine. The results from this meeting will soon posted.
All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls!
EVERY BEST WISH
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many, many thanks to one and all for your strong support in this most critical issue.
Please review the theoretical arguments brought forward in this thread. In the sense of a sciforum, the refutation of the scientific principles is required since this is the accepted form of debate within the realm of science. The principles of Relativistic Cosmology are well established in science so you must refute this body of knowledge in order to demonstrate that Supernova generation from current high-energy physics is not possiible.
Only publicity will stop this line of research beofre it is too late!
The new International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences Commission on the Anthropology of Mathematics has has had its first meeeting at the XV International Congress of Anthropology and Ethnology in Florence, Italy. Please enter Paul W. Dixon in the fixed search for the Google search engine. The results from this meeting will soon posted.
All the children will thank you for your kind actions on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls!
EVERY BEST WISH
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
Last edited:
Sorry to repeat myself
I haven't participated in a long time and this forum has gotten so long that the good stuff is buried (I think that is on purpose by you know who). But I can't help reposting (6-14-01) what I think is the clearest refutation of Dixon's theory, which of course never got a response. It only relies on first-year physics and some numbers from fermilab. What do you say folks, shall we all refuse to participate until Dixon addresses this post?
Energy density at the point origin of the Universe
I would like to add to some points made earlier by Crisp and others in this discussion about comparisons of the energy density in the early universe and in the beam of particles at Fermilab. In a very readable little book called 'The first Three Minutes' by Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize in physics) he describes the conditions of the universe shortly after the big bang. The earliest he believes we can really describe is 0.01 seconds. At that time the temperature was 1E11 degrees K and the energy density was 21E41 eV per cubic cm.
The Fermilab beam is made of bunches of protons and antiprotons traveling in opposite directions. The highest energy density in the beam is when one bunch (2.7E11 protons) overlaps with a bunch of antiprotons (3.0E10 antiprotons). The length of a bunch is about 8 nanoseconds which at the speed of light is 240 cm long. Some of these data come from the reference in my earlier post, but the others came from other spots on their website. They are able to focus the cross-section of the bunches down to 0.015 cm by 0.015 cm. The better the focusing the more interactions there are between the particles. The energy per particle is 1E12 eV (1 TeV). Paul Dixon's value of 1.8 Tev is correct for two particles colliding head-on before the upgrade (0.9 + 0.9 Tev). Since the upgrade the values are now 1.0 + 1.0 TeV.
So the energy density for two colliding bunches is 3.0E11 particles times 1.0 TeV per particle divided by the volume (240 cm * 0.015 cm * 0.015 cm).
Fermilab beam: 5.6E24 eV per cubic cm.
Early universe: 21E41 eV per cubic cm.
The energy density of the early universe is over 17 orders of magnitude larger than the Fermilab beam.
I haven't participated in a long time and this forum has gotten so long that the good stuff is buried (I think that is on purpose by you know who). But I can't help reposting (6-14-01) what I think is the clearest refutation of Dixon's theory, which of course never got a response. It only relies on first-year physics and some numbers from fermilab. What do you say folks, shall we all refuse to participate until Dixon addresses this post?
Energy density at the point origin of the Universe
I would like to add to some points made earlier by Crisp and others in this discussion about comparisons of the energy density in the early universe and in the beam of particles at Fermilab. In a very readable little book called 'The first Three Minutes' by Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize in physics) he describes the conditions of the universe shortly after the big bang. The earliest he believes we can really describe is 0.01 seconds. At that time the temperature was 1E11 degrees K and the energy density was 21E41 eV per cubic cm.
The Fermilab beam is made of bunches of protons and antiprotons traveling in opposite directions. The highest energy density in the beam is when one bunch (2.7E11 protons) overlaps with a bunch of antiprotons (3.0E10 antiprotons). The length of a bunch is about 8 nanoseconds which at the speed of light is 240 cm long. Some of these data come from the reference in my earlier post, but the others came from other spots on their website. They are able to focus the cross-section of the bunches down to 0.015 cm by 0.015 cm. The better the focusing the more interactions there are between the particles. The energy per particle is 1E12 eV (1 TeV). Paul Dixon's value of 1.8 Tev is correct for two particles colliding head-on before the upgrade (0.9 + 0.9 Tev). Since the upgrade the values are now 1.0 + 1.0 TeV.
So the energy density for two colliding bunches is 3.0E11 particles times 1.0 TeV per particle divided by the volume (240 cm * 0.015 cm * 0.015 cm).
Fermilab beam: 5.6E24 eV per cubic cm.
Early universe: 21E41 eV per cubic cm.
The energy density of the early universe is over 17 orders of magnitude larger than the Fermilab beam.
Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many thanks to everyone for your most kind work in this increasingly tragic concern.
Current values at Fermilab for luminosity are of 37.90E30 at almost 2Tev energetics. This focal energy is therefore at some 37E42 eV in the most consrvative interpretation with the focal area in nanometers. In a phenomenological interpretation, it is the focus of these vast energies which overcomes the potential barrier toward de Sitter space.
This potential barrier is then breached in a classical sense. To expand these energies to a cubic centimeter distorts the understanding of the physics of the causation of the transition toward
de Sitter space.
Following the work of Albert Einstein, the derivation of these equations from relativistic cosmology by Friedmann, Walker and Robertson gave rise to the most accepted interpretation of the Big Bang, point origin of the Universe, in the formation of a singularity with infinite density and temperature. Using the equation e = mc squared, it is clear that energy in electron volts is also infinite at the point origin of the Universe in the generally accepted
F-W-R interpretation. These values are also those now generally accepted within the current inflationary cosmology.
Let us halt this reckless plunge into the unknown with such vast energies before it is too late!
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls!
All Best Wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many thanks to everyone for your most kind work in this increasingly tragic concern.
Current values at Fermilab for luminosity are of 37.90E30 at almost 2Tev energetics. This focal energy is therefore at some 37E42 eV in the most consrvative interpretation with the focal area in nanometers. In a phenomenological interpretation, it is the focus of these vast energies which overcomes the potential barrier toward de Sitter space.
This potential barrier is then breached in a classical sense. To expand these energies to a cubic centimeter distorts the understanding of the physics of the causation of the transition toward
de Sitter space.
Following the work of Albert Einstein, the derivation of these equations from relativistic cosmology by Friedmann, Walker and Robertson gave rise to the most accepted interpretation of the Big Bang, point origin of the Universe, in the formation of a singularity with infinite density and temperature. Using the equation e = mc squared, it is clear that energy in electron volts is also infinite at the point origin of the Universe in the generally accepted
F-W-R interpretation. These values are also those now generally accepted within the current inflationary cosmology.
Let us halt this reckless plunge into the unknown with such vast energies before it is too late!
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls!
All Best Wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
Last edited:
Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many, many thanks to everyone for your prompt actions in this tragic concern.
As is well known, the vast energies at this highest enegy collider, i.e., Fermilab are those found some few trillionths of a second after the singularity at the point origin of the Universe. A description of the energies found at the singularity in the standard F-R-W derivation from the equations of General Relativity is given in the preceeding post on this page of this thread. With continued increae in energetics and increased time of operation the probability of initiating a transition toward de Sitter space thus approaches one, 1, which is absolute certainty. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that these energies are sufficient to breach the potential barrier toward de Sitter space in a classically defined manner. This will under this postulation derived from relativistic cosmology then release the force of Type Ia Supernova upon our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars.
It would seem almost deeply comic to read the comments in this regard regarding this eventuality on this thread if it were not for this most tragic content of destruction of all that we hold most dear.
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf, and may the good God have mercy on our souls!
ALL BEST WISHES,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D
Supernova from Experimentation
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many, many thanks to everyone for your prompt actions in this tragic concern.
As is well known, the vast energies at this highest enegy collider, i.e., Fermilab are those found some few trillionths of a second after the singularity at the point origin of the Universe. A description of the energies found at the singularity in the standard F-R-W derivation from the equations of General Relativity is given in the preceeding post on this page of this thread. With continued increae in energetics and increased time of operation the probability of initiating a transition toward de Sitter space thus approaches one, 1, which is absolute certainty. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that these energies are sufficient to breach the potential barrier toward de Sitter space in a classically defined manner. This will under this postulation derived from relativistic cosmology then release the force of Type Ia Supernova upon our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars.
It would seem almost deeply comic to read the comments in this regard regarding this eventuality on this thread if it were not for this most tragic content of destruction of all that we hold most dear.
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf, and may the good God have mercy on our souls!
ALL BEST WISHES,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D
Supernova from Experimentation
Last edited:
blackholesun
Registered Senior Member
Yes because we all know that he has no fu**ing idea what he's talking about.
Last edited:
First of all, let me state that I have no concerns of a type 1a
supernova being generated at Fermilab. I have confidence the
scientists on the team have an understanding of what they
are doing.
I doubt that Paul Dixon would respond to a lay person such as
myself on this topic, but I have a couple of questions anyway.
My limited understanding of de Sitter space is that it was theorized
as one of the early "stages" in the big bang. Paul, do you believe
de Sitter space is a "real" state of the universe still currently existing
in another dimension or something like that? Is your belief based
on QM or what? I am not questioning your knowledge, just asking
if your concepts could possibly be explained to someone with a
very limited knowledge of physics.
The second thing that has me stumped is your concern a type
1a supernova could result from a tiny spot of energy. I thought
it was pretty well accepted that the energies of two neutron stars
or something like that would be needed to create a type 1a supernova. If anything, wouldn't a tiny, very shot lived black hole
be the most likely product of the experiments? I am not trying
to be argumentative, just trying to understand why you are so
firmly entrenched in your fears.
supernova being generated at Fermilab. I have confidence the
scientists on the team have an understanding of what they
are doing.
I doubt that Paul Dixon would respond to a lay person such as
myself on this topic, but I have a couple of questions anyway.
My limited understanding of de Sitter space is that it was theorized
as one of the early "stages" in the big bang. Paul, do you believe
de Sitter space is a "real" state of the universe still currently existing
in another dimension or something like that? Is your belief based
on QM or what? I am not questioning your knowledge, just asking
if your concepts could possibly be explained to someone with a
very limited knowledge of physics.
The second thing that has me stumped is your concern a type
1a supernova could result from a tiny spot of energy. I thought
it was pretty well accepted that the energies of two neutron stars
or something like that would be needed to create a type 1a supernova. If anything, wouldn't a tiny, very shot lived black hole
be the most likely product of the experiments? I am not trying
to be argumentative, just trying to understand why you are so
firmly entrenched in your fears.
Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many, many thanks to everyone for your most prompt actions in this tragic concern
The current luminosity at Fermilab is again inthe 38.00E30 range at some 2TeV.
Two divergent views have arisen in this thread: the first is the, Big-Bang Model (Encyclopedia Brittanica) a "widely held theory of the evolution of the universe. Its essential feature is the emergence of the the universe from a condition of extremely high temperature and density - the so-called big bang that occured at lease 10,000,000,000 years ago." The second theory we may term the Little-Bang Model in that the intitial explosion may be thought of as a modest event. Those energies in the modern accelerators at Fermilab, under this postulation, even though approximating the Little-Bang in energetics would not then be sufficient to penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. Scale in this discussion is not relevant according to the authorities in modern cosmology.
Since the work at the Fermi National Acclerator Laboratory is essentially experimental in nature, and as cited above, is within the energy range sufficient to breach the potential barrier toward de Sitter space we must wait for experimental verification of the first or the second theoretical positions. The references for de Sitter space are given on the first page of this thread and also throughout the discussion as needed. Alas, it would seen unlikley that the vast concourse of the observable universe would have origin in the equivalent to a cosmological wet firecracker.
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf - and may the good God have mercy on our souls.
ALL BEST WISHES,
Yours sincererly,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Many, many thanks to everyone for your most prompt actions in this tragic concern
The current luminosity at Fermilab is again inthe 38.00E30 range at some 2TeV.
Two divergent views have arisen in this thread: the first is the, Big-Bang Model (Encyclopedia Brittanica) a "widely held theory of the evolution of the universe. Its essential feature is the emergence of the the universe from a condition of extremely high temperature and density - the so-called big bang that occured at lease 10,000,000,000 years ago." The second theory we may term the Little-Bang Model in that the intitial explosion may be thought of as a modest event. Those energies in the modern accelerators at Fermilab, under this postulation, even though approximating the Little-Bang in energetics would not then be sufficient to penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. Scale in this discussion is not relevant according to the authorities in modern cosmology.
Since the work at the Fermi National Acclerator Laboratory is essentially experimental in nature, and as cited above, is within the energy range sufficient to breach the potential barrier toward de Sitter space we must wait for experimental verification of the first or the second theoretical positions. The references for de Sitter space are given on the first page of this thread and also throughout the discussion as needed. Alas, it would seen unlikley that the vast concourse of the observable universe would have origin in the equivalent to a cosmological wet firecracker.
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf - and may the good God have mercy on our souls.
ALL BEST WISHES,
Yours sincererly,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
Last edited:
Fermilab's Tevatron breaking records daily.
The antimatter collider is finally running properly after 6 months, and a racoon problems;-)
<A HREF="http://www.fnal.gov/pub/news03/update.html" target=new><FONT COLOR="ff0098" size=+1>FERMI UPDATE</FONT></A>
Saturday May 17
At 3 PM, Operations established store 2555 with an initial luminosity of 44.895E30. This set a new luminosity record.
Pbar set another new stacking-rate record with a rate of 13.51mA for one hour between 3:15 and 4:15 PM.
Friday May 16
Pbar sustained a stack-rate of 13.35 mA for one hour at 2:52 PM. This set a new stacking record.
Monday May 12
The midnight shift began with the TeV in shot setup, and with MiniBooNe taking beam.
After resolving a lot of problems with loading protons into the TeV, at 2:04 AM, Operations established store 2538 with an initial luminosity of 44.865E30. This luminosity set a new record. Pbar resumed stacking.
Thursday May 15
At noon, Operations put the TeV into shot setup. At 2:07 PM, Operations established store 2549 with an initial luminosity of 44.45E30. Pbar resumed stacking.
Tuesday May 13
The midnight shift began with the TeV in shot setup, and with MiniBooNe taking beam.
Operations established store 2540 at 12:57 AM. The store's initial luminosity was 43.065E30. Pbar resumed stacking.
Friday May 2 2003
The midnight shift began with the TeV in shot setup, and with MiniBooNe taking beam.
At 12:05 AM, Operation established store 2502 with a new record initial luminosity of 42.35E30.
Pbar Resumed stacking.
The antimatter collider is finally running properly after 6 months, and a racoon problems;-)
<A HREF="http://www.fnal.gov/pub/news03/update.html" target=new><FONT COLOR="ff0098" size=+1>FERMI UPDATE</FONT></A>
Saturday May 17
At 3 PM, Operations established store 2555 with an initial luminosity of 44.895E30. This set a new luminosity record.
Pbar set another new stacking-rate record with a rate of 13.51mA for one hour between 3:15 and 4:15 PM.
Friday May 16
Pbar sustained a stack-rate of 13.35 mA for one hour at 2:52 PM. This set a new stacking record.
Monday May 12
The midnight shift began with the TeV in shot setup, and with MiniBooNe taking beam.
After resolving a lot of problems with loading protons into the TeV, at 2:04 AM, Operations established store 2538 with an initial luminosity of 44.865E30. This luminosity set a new record. Pbar resumed stacking.
Thursday May 15
At noon, Operations put the TeV into shot setup. At 2:07 PM, Operations established store 2549 with an initial luminosity of 44.45E30. Pbar resumed stacking.
Tuesday May 13
The midnight shift began with the TeV in shot setup, and with MiniBooNe taking beam.
Operations established store 2540 at 12:57 AM. The store's initial luminosity was 43.065E30. Pbar resumed stacking.
Friday May 2 2003
The midnight shift began with the TeV in shot setup, and with MiniBooNe taking beam.
At 12:05 AM, Operation established store 2502 with a new record initial luminosity of 42.35E30.
Pbar Resumed stacking.
Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
All good thanks to everyone for your prompt efforts in this most tragic concern.
Please note: a new world's record for luminosity has now been set at Fermilab with 45.34E30 at 2(976.66) GeV. Thus the highest energy levels yet seen on earth have again been brought forward at Fermilab. As indicated above in this thread, with each increment in energetics the probability of forming a transition toward de Sitter space is increased with the consequent production of a Type Ia supernova from the energies resident in de Sitter space. This reckless and imprudent plunge into the unknown can have only one conclusion under this postulation and that is the destruction our planet and solar sytem and a host of nearby stars.
All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls.
EVERY BEST WISH,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
All good thanks to everyone for your prompt efforts in this most tragic concern.
Please note: a new world's record for luminosity has now been set at Fermilab with 45.34E30 at 2(976.66) GeV. Thus the highest energy levels yet seen on earth have again been brought forward at Fermilab. As indicated above in this thread, with each increment in energetics the probability of forming a transition toward de Sitter space is increased with the consequent production of a Type Ia supernova from the energies resident in de Sitter space. This reckless and imprudent plunge into the unknown can have only one conclusion under this postulation and that is the destruction our planet and solar sytem and a host of nearby stars.
All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls.
EVERY BEST WISH,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
Last edited:
Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Our kindest thanks to everyone for your most prompt actions in this tragic concern.
The current operating parameters at Fermilab are at 41.0E30 luminosity and 2(976.66) GeV energetics. These operating characteristics indicate that Fermilab continues to operate at these extremely high energies and hence imperils the existence of everyone on earth with each second of continued running time.
With each increment in operating characteristics, under this postulation, there is:
1) An increased probability of initiating a transition towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of a Type Ia Supernova.
2) There should be a continued protest against this action for the historical record to show that: a) This is a continued and present danger to all mankind. b) There has been no refutation of the presence of this grave danger from a scientific point of view.
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls.
All Best Wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB
Our kindest thanks to everyone for your most prompt actions in this tragic concern.
The current operating parameters at Fermilab are at 41.0E30 luminosity and 2(976.66) GeV energetics. These operating characteristics indicate that Fermilab continues to operate at these extremely high energies and hence imperils the existence of everyone on earth with each second of continued running time.
With each increment in operating characteristics, under this postulation, there is:
1) An increased probability of initiating a transition towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of a Type Ia Supernova.
2) There should be a continued protest against this action for the historical record to show that: a) This is a continued and present danger to all mankind. b) There has been no refutation of the presence of this grave danger from a scientific point of view.
All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf and may the good God have mercy on our souls.
All Best Wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
<i>There should be a continued protest against this action for the historical record to show that: a) This is a continued and present danger to all mankind. b) There has been no refutation of the presence of this grave danger from a scientific point of view.</i>
There was a refutation earlier in the thread, but you ignored it, Paul.
Also, all historical records will be destroyed if you are right, so why bother?
There was a refutation earlier in the thread, but you ignored it, Paul.
Also, all historical records will be destroyed if you are right, so why bother?
My God, is this *still* going ? That makes 30 months already!
We should be concerned about SciForums' harddisk! There could be so much information stored there that the binary 1's outnumber the 0's, this could lead to an accumulation of information and energy! And since E = mc squared, this information-energy could generate enough mass to create a mini black hole in Canada.
Stop posting Paul, or you might destroy us all! We might all be sucked into the depths of your black hole!
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Cheers,
Crisp
We should be concerned about SciForums' harddisk! There could be so much information stored there that the binary 1's outnumber the 0's, this could lead to an accumulation of information and energy! And since E = mc squared, this information-energy could generate enough mass to create a mini black hole in Canada.
Stop posting Paul, or you might destroy us all! We might all be sucked into the depths of your black hole!
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Cheers,
Crisp
Every time I read this particular thread, I hear honking gooses. I wonder why or how this was placed into the thread and if it is appropriate to do so. Did someone insert a WAV file into a post somewhere? We might disagree with Paul Dixon but such harassing tactics would be considered inappropriate by Plato.
NOTE: Since I posted this, the sounds have stopped. Who knows...
NOTE: Since I posted this, the sounds have stopped. Who knows...
Last edited: