Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank you for your very kind interest in this historical scientific forum.

The values for hydrogen weapons as well as that for the most energetic cosmic rays may be found in a thorough review of the scientific literature: which are then cited in electron volts, eV, in order to provide for a common measure for comparison.

The progress of science is often marked with controversy. It is our hope that this discussion may soon reach a frutiful conclusion since a permanent storage ring for anti-matter protons is now being completed a Fermilab. When this current program is completed, it will permit more continuous as well as more energetic collisional events at the CDF in Fermilab thus generating a supernova in this sector of our galaxy.

All of the children will thank you for your kind offices on their behalf now and for all future time.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Ten million ev per cubic cm, you've got to be kidding!

Paul Dixon claims the energy in a Hydrogen bomb is 1E7 ev per cubic cm. As Crisp politely points out, that is a bit small. Going back to physics 101 (you should really take it Paul), one calorie of energy is 4.184 Joules which is 2.6E19 ev. That is the energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree. You couldn't raise the temperature of a gram of water even a microkelvin with 1E7 ev per cubic centimeter.

There... that didn't even take a thorough review of the scientific literature. This blunder ranks with Paul's statements about superconductors. Wouldn't everyone out there like to hear an "oops, I made a mistake"?
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank all friends and colleagues and for your most kind interest in these most salient, historical concerns.

The prediction of supernova generation in this sector of our Galaxy is possible in a purely statistical sense. These findings shown in:LBL study of supernovas had a surprising result, January 17, 1992: http://www.lbl.gov./Science-Articles/Archive/supernova-search.html,
This finding would indicate that supernova can be expected at a 30 year interval or longer where most of these supernovae occur in late spiral galaxies such as our own. Thus it has been stated, that this sector of our Galaxy is overdue for a supernova. In this, we are dependent on a phenomenological analysis.

As we examine the physical basis for the calorie, it is then 4.184 joules, or 2.6E19 eV.
So also it may be recalled, that the largest cosmic rays are found to be relatively infrequent events of some 1E19 eV. Thus we must distinguish between potential and kinetic energy in nature within a phenomenological analysis in modern physics.

All of the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf - now and for all eternity.

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
Paul, your link doesn't work.

What's the big deal if a mini supernova was created?

It would be fun to study, you can't get out more energy than you put in.

Have you heard that a supernova has already been created in a Bose-Einstein condensate?
From the send to a friend section of "nature journal".



<A HREF="http://www.nature.com/nsu/010322/010322-3.html" target=new><FONT COLOR=blue size=+1> bosenova</FONT></A>


Albert Einstein postulated the existence of BECs in 1924
Some clusters of very cold atoms have physicists foxed, the American Physical Society's March meeting heard this week in Seattle. Bose-Einstein condensates, the bizarre form of matter that bridges the tiny, topsy-turvy world of quantum mechanics and the everyday world, are pulling dramatic tricks with which today's theories just can't cope.

Ordinary matter comes in five forms. Three - solids, liquids and gases - are familiar. The fourth, plasmas, are found in high-temperature systems such as flames and fluorescent tubes. You could be forgiven for having never heard of the fifth: the Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC).
Christened in honour of Albert Einstein, who postulated their existence in 1924 based on the work of Satyendra Bose, the first BECs were produced by Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman at the University of Colorado in 1995.

These curious entities never occur naturally, can exist only at temperatures a few ten-billionths of a degree above absolute zero (-273 degrees Celsius) and until recently could contain only a few hundred atoms. Even so, they fascinate physicists keen to deepen their understanding of quantum phenomena.
As an atom cools, it moves increasingly slowly, causing its wavefunction (roughly speaking, the area in which it might be found) to grow. Eventually, the wavefunctions from neighbouring atoms overlap and the whole condensate starts to behave as a single quantum-mechanical object.

It is hard to form a stable BEC of more than 100 atoms, and seeing what's going on in condensates so small is very difficult. The recent discovery of a particular mode in rubidium-85 called a ‘Feshbach resonance’ increased the maximum condensate size to several tens of thousands of atoms - but only at just two billionths of a degree above absolute zero. "Damn cold by anyone’s standards," as Wieman says.

Nonetheless, the new technique gave researchers a tool rather like a pair of magnetic pliers to manipulate the condensates. Their results have them scratching their heads.
When compressed quickly enough, a condensate explodes, blasting off the outer atoms and leaving a cold, collapsed remnant. The effect has been dubbed a ‘bosanova’ because of its similarity to a supernova (an exploding star).

Unsurprisingly, the size of the remnant left when the condensate does a bosanova depends on the energy of the explosion. But, strangely, the number of atoms blasted off does not change. This is a real surprise, particularly as researchers currently have no idea what happens to the remaining atoms.

Unexplained jets have also been observed projecting from the mass of atoms just before it collapses. And the more egg-shaped the initial condensate (physicists call this anisotropic), the rounder the remnant - entirely contrary to expectations. Charles W. Clark of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, has even observed curious smoke-ring formations within a BEC1.

"These are not complicated crystals with many degrees of freedom and complex interactions we are talking about; they are just atoms. We understand atoms, right?" Wieman jokes. "Basic physics is missing to explain these effects."
Jeremy Thomson is the Assistant Web Editor of Nature
 
What bothers me most about this entire thread is that Paul uses "for the children" in every post. I'm a chemist, so I've been able to run along side the discussion for about 90% of it. Frankly I'm impressed by Paul. Most people let simple scientific fact and logical argument sway them. Kudos to you, it makes me proud to know that in a mere 6 years, I will become a peer of yours, and can put Riomacleod PhD on my posts. Of course, I'll stick to the philosophy board where my PhD has some relevance. :)
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENATION AT FERMILAB

May we thank one and all for your very kind interest in these most salient matters.

Where previously Fermilab's Tevatron was limited by storage insufficiency for antimatter antiprotons, the new Recycler with permanent magnets will provide virtually unlimited storage for antiprotons. In this way, the previous limitations to the Tevatron will be overcome allowing more continuous operations as well as greater collisional energetics. The likelihood of creating a transition towards de Sitter space will thus be increased and hence the generation of supernova at Fermilab will be more certain. It is more than evident in our current history what tragic disasters can be generated by modern technology!

Area tests as an entering student in college showed scores: 99+ percentile in the Natural Sciences, 99+ percentile in Humanities, and 99th percentile in Social Sciences. Alas, it has been all downhill since then...

Every child will thank you for all eternity for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
Hi Paul, I was just wondering what the chances of a supernova were?

Do you have any probability studies available?

Are there any papers on how one would be produced by the procedure?

Personally I like the possibility of strangelets more than SNs.
What exatly are you refering to here?

Quote..."Area tests as an entering student in college showed scores: 99+ percentile in the Natural Sciences, 99+ percentile in Humanities, and 99th percentile in Social Sciences. Alas, it has been all downhill since then... "
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMIALB

All friends and colleagues: many, many thanks for your kind interest in these most salient concerns.

In the communication of 10-27-01 02:05 AM, the web site for the frequency of supernova generation is given. This frequency is based on prior observation as well as other considerations such as the opacity of the interstellar medium. Mathematically, it may be possible to employ the Poisson distribution for a statistical approximation used when the number of events is large and the probability of observation becomes small. Thus a formula may be obtained for relatively unique events to provide their expected frequency of observation. From this statistical basis, the general view is that this sector of the galaxy is now overdue for a supernova.

As Fermilab is now coming back to operation with the Recycler, a permanent magnet storage facility for antimatter - antiprotons. It is now a matter of great concern as to whether a transition will be formed via a breach in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space, thus releasing the force of a Type Ia supernova on our planet and solar system.

All of the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf now and for all eternity.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

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

"Thus a formula may be obtained for relatively unique events to provide their expected frequency of observation. From this statistical basis, the general view is that this sector of the galaxy is now overdue for a supernova."

I'm sorry, but this is totally unrelated to what you're trying to prove here. The statistical calculation you give can only take "natural" supernovae into account (of stars that are at the end of their lifecycle) and not other possible means of creating a supernova (under the assumption that there is another way to create a supernova that is).

"As Fermilab is now coming back to operation with the Recycler, a permanent magnet storage facility for antimatter - antiprotons."

Could you explain the link between antimatter and supernovae ? To my knowledge, antimatter is just "regular" matter with a specific configuration of quantum parameters. So following that reasoning, even the storage of regular matter should pose a problem for a supernova ?

Bye!

Crisp
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMLAB

All friends and colleagues: many, many thanks for your kind interest in this most salient concern.

In this exegesis, the Poisson distribution provides the expectation for the statistical expectation for both Type Ia and other types of supernova generation. Under this postulation, the Type Ia supernovae whcih are used as standard candles in observational astronomy are viewed as having artifical origin via experimenation by other sentient species. The Type Ia supernova show no trace of hydrogen near maximum light and can have origin in stellar masses less than the Chandrasekar limit of 1.4 solar masses. Thus observations of Type Ia supernova have been traced to objects with .7 solar masses; far less than that necesssary for the implosional mechanism necessary for supernovae deflagration.

The new permanent magnet Recycler antimatter antiproton storage ring at Fermilab allows for a virtually unlimited supply of animatter for collisional purposes in the Tevatron. This will greatly extend the energies available as well as extend the time parameters of operation. All of this together will create certain generation of a Type Ia supernova at Fermilab.

All of the children now and for all future time will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
The differences between supernova types Ia and II are explained here.

Paul, your mechanism for how Supernova type Ia work is fundamentally wrong as you are mixing the mechanisms for supernova type Ia and II. Also the chandrasekhar limit is related to Black Hole production and has only secondary relevance to supernova. Supernova typically being needed to form a Black Hole. BTW, the chandrasekhar limit pertains to the core of the star.

On the principle your starting assumptions and knowledge are wrong, your conclusions are wrong as well
 
Also

The maximum energy from any collision is E=Mc^2. In a normal collision in an accelerator the mass incolved is a few hundred particles. A tiny fraction of a gram.

The amount of energy this releases is orders of magnitudes less than that released in a Supernova, of any type.

The concerns about making strange matter in RHIC a few years ago had more founding scientfic founding in them.
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Please receive our heartfelt gratitude for your kind interest in these most grave concerns.

Alas, the Tevatron at our Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, aside from some minor technical problems, is about to come on line with a virtually unlimited supply of antimatter. It is
then the role of the accelerator to bring the matter together with the anitmatter particles to generate energies equivalent to those found at the point origin of the universe. This is very well-known in terms of those energies now observed in the modern accelerators. Whether this will produce a Type Ia supernova is then a matter of experimentation in high-energy physics.

If the envelope of the progenitor solar mass is some .7 solar masses, then the core of this progenitor cannot be larger than .7 solar masses. The classic method for generation of a supernova is by means of an implosional mechanism. Should the initial mass be less than 1.4 solar masses, i.e., the Chandrasekar limit, this aforementioned implosional mechanism cannot ensue.
Thus we see the possibility for generation of Type Ia supernova via high-energy physics experimentation!

All of the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf now and for all eternity.

All best wishes,

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

Do you have a reference for this putative 0.7 solar mass supernovae?

I will point out, again, that the Chandrasekhar limit pertains more to type II Supernova and not type Ia. Type Ia are thought to be White Dwarves accreting mass and gaingin enough mass to become Neutron Stars, violently. In order to get a supernova of mass 0.7 solar masses, you need 0.7 solar masses or more. There is no way the Tevatron an achieve those energies.

Dave Barlow
 
I think I can see where the confusion is coming from. This page on electron degeneracy explained and this page points out that the maximum mass a white dwarfs electron degeneracy can support is 1.4 solar masses. The typical mass of a white dwarf is 0.7 solar mass. As type Ia supernova are thought to be white dwarves accreting mass a typical Type Ia supernova may have been misreported to have a mass of 0.7 solar masses?

The only tie in with the Chadrasekhar limit is that the white dwarf needs to exceed this mass before collapsing again.

As pointed out in Astrophysics I, Stars by Bowers and Deeming stars of mass 10 solar mass are thought to exist without forming supernova. Things are never as simple as they seem once you peak behind the curtains.
 
Reply of agreement

A very wise man has spoken.

I agree......

Its easy to sit on the roof, and guess whats in the grass!

Once you get down to the ground, all kinds of things become much clearer..



bjl:rolleyes:
 
I'm not sure what Paul is trying to do it may be just a psychological experiment, if this is the same guy he is from the psychology department at Hawaii, maybe he is not aware that people wish to discuss his assumptions with him or that these statements require some proof.

I can't quite see the link between his field of psycho linguistics and supernovas though unless he is being impersonated.

You may have some luck with replies if you email him direct.

dixon@hawaii.edu
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for these most kind replies from all friends and colleagues in this most salient and tragic concern.

The observations in the journal Nature and other astrophysical journals indicated that a stellar object of .7 solar masses had created a Type Ia supernova. As a white dwarf is already in the degenerate condition in regards to the outer shell of electrons in their orbital paths, it cannot deflagrate to supernova generattion without further accretion of matter. This would produce a mass of greater than .7 solar masses. Such was not observed in this case.

Alas, if you review the accelerator update for the
the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, it is clear that the Tevatron is about to come on line with the permanent magnet Recycler now providing a
virtually unlimited supply antimatter antiprotons.
It is, therefore, at this time only a matter of empirical observation to discover if this postulated mechanism for generation of Type Ia supernovae is indeed correct.

All of the children will thank you now and for all eternity for your kind efforts on their behalf.

All best wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
Supernovas < Chandrasekhar mass

Paul

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately the number of articles and papers printed monthly in the combined Astro journals and nature is more than I can search by myself.

I've done a moderately exhaustive search on several pre-print, archive servers around the net, xxx.lanl.gov, nature.com, xarchiv and so on. The total number of articles containing key words supernova Ia 0.7 solar mass exceeds 2,000.

Any details you may have on the exact journal, year, page or whatever would help here. Even an authors name and year.

Inquiring minds and all that.
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FREMILAB

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks for your most kind interest in this catastophic crucial concern of total annihilation!

As shown in the Accelerator Update for the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the current luminosity is already at
7.3E30 which when multiplied by the current eV level of 10E12 eV yields 7.3E42 eV. This value of considerably greater than that found in nature in the most energetic of cosmic rays at 10E19 eV. From a philosophical point of view, the substratum of de Sitter space will become manifest owing to its most energetic nature at 1.6E126 eV cm cubed. We thus have one possibibility in reply to the Fermi Paradox. Civilizations, as they reach a given level of technological ability, destroy themselves in some instances via a Type Ia supernova generated by high-energy physics experimentation. Limits can be extended only to a certain level before threshold phenomena are found as in a transition towards de Sitter space.

References in the journal Nature may be obtained by contacting Dr. Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature at: nature@nature.com We have been in contact regarding the possibility of Type Ia supernovae generation via high-energy physics experimention for over twenty years.

Think of the children and their future.

Wishing everyone a Very Merry Christmas!!!

Yours sincerely,

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