Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS

The subjective impression of a nearby Supernova may be of interest in this connection also.

"If a supernova happened 50 light years from Earth, would it outshine the
Sun?
The amount of light produced in the core of a supernova is beyond
comprehension, and equals 10^54 ergs. The Sun emits 4x10^33 ergs/sec, so
in one blast a supernova produces more energy than the Sun does in about 3
x10^20 seconds or 10^13 years.

The luminosity of a supernova is this energy delivered over its roughly
week maximum brightness period which leads to 10^54 ergs/600,000 seconds =
2 x 10^48 ergs/sec or 4 x 10^14 times the output of the Sun. This is why
supernova regularly outshine entire galaxies of stars.

Now if such a supernova were 50 light years away, the flux would be L/(4
pi d^2) = 7 million ergs/sec/centimeters^2. The Sun at its distance from
the earth of 150 million kilometers delivers a flux of energy of 4 x 10^33
ergs/sec divided by 4 pi d^2 = 2 million ergs/sec/centimeters^2.

So, in very round numbers such a nearby supernova would deliver 7 times
more energy IN ALL FORMS than just the light energy we see from the Sun.
But a large fraction of the supernova energy goes into accelerating
particles, perhaps only 1 percent ends up in visible light, so although a
supernova would be a bright, intense pinpoint of light in the sky, my
guess is that it would be somewhere between a Full Moon and noon-day
sunlight. It would certainly light up the night sky probably to the
intensity of an overcast day. It would be quite an event to experience,
and it would stay this way for several months before fading.

Ask the Astronomer"

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

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS

Please note that the method of deflagration for Type Ia Supernova is unknown in this current review which cites the world's leading authorities. Under the theory presented herein, deflagraqtion is initiated by the forming a transition towards de Siter space via high-energy physics experimentation,

"Type Ia Supernovae
Background

Whipple Observatory image of the Type Ia supernova SN 1998bu in M96 (Jha et al. 1999).


Type Ia supernovae are extremely bright, transient astronomical sources that most likely result from the sudden release of nuclear binding energy within a compact stellar remnant such as a white dwarf (Woosley 1990). Their peak emission, integrated over all wavebands, typically exceeds the entire radiative output of their host galaxies, and their total energy release (typically over a span of days to weeks) is of order 1051 erg. Unlike Type II supernovae, their optical spectra do not display hydrogen lines. They tend to be found in elliptical galaxies and show no preference for spiral arms. These facts suggest that they originate in low-mass stars through some mechanism other than the core-collapse mechanism generally thought to produce Type II supernovae. The best current models attribute them to thermonuclear runaways in the interiors of white dwarfs of between 0.8 and 1.4 solar masses. The ignition mechanism is not known. Deflagration (subsonic, conduction-driven nuclear burning) must play a role in order to produce the observed intermediate-mass isotopes, but without a detonation (supersonic, shock-driven burning) occurring at some point during the event it is difficult to obtain the observed energy release. This energy release is easily enough to unbind (disrupt) a white dwarf.

A progenitor model for a Type Ia supernova. Matter accreted onto the surface of a white dwarf from its binary companion causes regions in its interior to become unstable to thermonuclear runaway.


Supernovae play a profound role in the history of the universe, producing the heavier elements without which planets and life would not exist. They also serve as excellent beacons, allowing us to measure the distances to galaxies at high redshift (and thus the expansion rate of the universe) and to probe the properties of the intervening matter. However, despite the regularity of the observed properties of Type Ia's (e.g., the Phillips relation), we still do not fully understand the physical mechanisms responsible for them. The growth of the flame that ultimately becomes the supernova involves a complex, multidimensional interplay among hydrodynamic turbulence, diffusive energy transport, a degenerate equation of state, a network of temperature-sensitive nuclear reactions, and radiation, occurring over a vast range of length and time scales. (Diffusive flames wrinkle on the Gibson scale, set by thermal conduction, nuclear burning, and turbulence at about 10-4 cm; a white dwarf has a radius of about 108 cm. Nuclear burning occurs on nanosecond timescales, but produces hydrodynamical effects on timescales closer to 1/10 second.) Thus analytical models have necessarily been oversimplified, while numerical models have had to sacrifice three-dimensionality, reaction complexity, and/or spatio-temporal resolution just to produce results.

Simulations

White dwarf initial conditions on an adaptive mesh.


To improve our understanding of Type Ia supernova physics, I am using an adaptive-mesh hydrodynamics code called FLASH to simulate the propagation of carbon detonation fronts in Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarf stars. This is one of the three key astrophysical project areas of the ASCI Flash Center at the University of Chicago. To overcome the tremendous range of length scales required to study Type Ia physics, we are using adaptive mesh refinement techniques to put expensive refined grids only where high resolution is truly necessary. In addition, our group is performing simulations of the microstructure of thermonuclear detonations and deflagrations in an effort to develop appropriate subgrid models for calculations which span the entire white dwarf.
Images, movies, and data
Type Ia simulations (currently access restricted)

Publications
Check back later...
References
Arnett, W. D. Ap&SS 5 280 (1969)


Arnett, W. D., and Livne, E. ApJ 427 330 (1994)


Blinnikov, S. I., and Khokhlov, A. M. Soviet Astron. Lett. 12 131 (1986)


Garcia-Senz, D., and Woosley, S. E. ApJ 454 895 (1995)


Garcia-Senz, D., Bravo, E., and Woosley, S. E. A&A 349 177 (1999)


Hillebrandt, W., and Niemeyer, J. C. ARA&A 38 191 (2000)


Jha, S., et al. ApJS 125 73 (1999)


Khokhlov, A. M., Oran, E. S., and Wheeler, J. C. ApJ 478 678 (1997)


Niemeyer, J. C., and Woosley, S. E. ApJ 475 740 (1997)


Niemeyer, J. C., Hillebrandt, W., and Woosley, S. E. ApJ 471 903 (1996)


Reinecke, M., Hillebrandt, W., and Niemeyer, J. C. A&A 347 739 (1999)


Woosley, S. E. in Supernovae, A. G. Petschek, ed. (Springer, 1990)"

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

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely.

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS

We may understand the progress of research at the highest-enegy accelerators when we understand their
desire to fulfill the program underlying the Standard Model devised during the 1970's. As can be seen in
the following description, the understanding of gravity which was developed in A. Einstein's Generalized
Theory of Relativity during the 1920's is not included in this description. Thus it is possible for the researchers
to ignore the conclusions based on this earlier theory regarding the generation of Supernovae via the formation
of a transition towards de Sitter space even though the energies in the accelerators are at an energy level
sufficient for this transition towards de Sitter space. Please note the following description from Fermilab.

"2. THE D DETECTOR

For many years, our understanding of nature revolved around four separate,
unrelated forces -- gravity (familiar to us all), the electromagnetic
force (involved in everything from the formation of molecules to the
pointing of the arrow of a compass northward), the weak force (responsible
for radioactivity), and the strong force (which holds the nuclei of atoms
together). Over the past three decades, many experimental and theoretical
advances have led to a coherent and predictive picture of the strong,
electromagnetic and weak forces called the Standard Model (SM). In the SM,
the elementary constituents of matter, quarks and leptons, interact
through forces, which are transmitted through the exchange of particles
called gauge bosons. Each of these three microscopic forces is described
by a gauge theory, in which the interactions are invariant under changes
in the complex phase of the constituent fields at every point in
space-time, thus requiring the presence of a spin-1 massless gauge boson.
Gravity remains outside the SM framework.

During the 1960s and 70s, it was recognized that the electromagnetic and
weak forces could be described through a unified picture, and the theory
of electroweak interactions was born. A set of four gauge bosons with zero
mass was introduced in the SM, together with two pairs of spin-0 "Higgs"
particles, to provide the observed breaking of the symmetry in the
underlying electroweak force. As a result of the symmetry breaking, two of
the mediators of the electroweak force, the W and Z bosons, acquire mass,
while the photon remains massless. Three of the Higgs particles are
absorbed in giving the W and Z their masses, while the last one remains to
be discovered; its mass is not predicted, but can be inferred in the
framework of the SM from precision measurements of other quantities.

The strong force is mediated by a set of eight massless gauge bosons
called gluons, and is described by Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). Of the
matter particles, only the quarks experience the strong force. In the SM,
the strong and electroweak interactions are specified separately, but are
not unified. There are compelling reasons to believe that the SM, though
remarkably predictive and extremely well tested, is only an approximate
theory to nature. Theories have been postulated that extend the SM,
provide unification of the forces, and give deeper understanding of the
Higgs particles. Seeking evidence for the path beyond the SM is the major
theme of future experimentation.



According to the SM (see Fig. 2), the particles created at the Tevatron
fall into two broad classes: leptons (electron, muon, tau, and neutrinos
associated with each) and hadrons (protons, pions, kaons, etc.), the
latter being composed of combinations of the six quarks. The quarks and
leptons are mirrored by their respective antiparticles. In addition, the
gauge bosons transmit the fundamental forces; these include the photon
(electromagnetic force), the gluons (QCD strong force), and the W and Z
bosons (weak force). Other particles, outside this framework, could exist
and are the subject of many of our searches. Most collisions produce
quarks or gluons, which evolve into collimated sprays of hadrons called
jets. These jets usually do not contain leptons, and many of the studies
of rare processes -- such as the production of the top quark, W and Z
bosons, or searches for new phenomena -- that would be swamped by
backgrounds from copious QCD processes with jets, can be realized only by
using decays of the interesting objects into leptons. Neutrinos and
certain newly proposed particles do not interact with matter often enough
to be detected, but can be inferred by an apparent imbalance in momentum
conservation. Because of such considerations, the detector was optimized
to measure jets, leptons, and "missing" transverse momentum."

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

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
I have just discovered that this is thread is still active after a 3 year laps from Sciforums.
 
Xevious,

I have just discovered that this is thread is still active after a 3 year laps from Sciforums.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Sometimes I wish that Paul Dixon's right, and the Earth blows up, just so I don't have to see his thread anymore. :p
 
It shows at least the guy really believes what he is saying. Who knows, he might have something. There have been others in this thread who have said there is some truth in what he is worried about. Sometimes the lone voice crying in the night is the one everyone should be paying attention to. That was Winston Churchill two to three years before Hitler invaided France, calling for a pre-emptive strike against Germany. We all know what happened.

I for the record respect Dixon's conviction. It's honest at least, even if most people consider him a crackpot.
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS

Please note in this connection what is very well-known to astrophysicists:
It may be helpful to clarify the philosophical position and astrophysical energetics intrinsic 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 cited 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 10^126 for eV (electron volts) per cm^3. (Gott, R. (1982) Creation of open universes from de Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304-307. In Waldrop. M.M., (1982) Bubbles upon the river of time, Science, 215, 4536, 1082-1083), the energy density of de Sitter space is given as: 5 x 10^31 kelvin and 3 x 10^93 grams per cm^3 , converted to eV via e=mc^2 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 ever present 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 Ia 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.

Your kind attention and consideration in this matter are most gratefully appreciated.

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

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, BROOKHAVEN, CERN AND LOS ALAMOS

With the energies now employed in these colliders the observation of precursor events to type Ia Supernova may become visible. Thus as the energies in the colliders both at Fermilab and also at Brookhaven are increased from those expected at 10^-9 to 10^-15 seconds after the point origin of the universe (Big Bang), there should occur changes in the energetics which indicate the presence of the densely energetic condition of de Sitter space in what is here postulated to be a mini-supernova rather than a black hole as is here explicated. The false vacuum of de Siter space inflates as expected, yet does not move out into the true vacuum region. In fact the domain wall is constantly accelerating towards the false vacuum region, but the false vacuum region is inflating so rapidly that the motions of the wall does not prevent it from expanding exponentially. (Blau, Sk.K., Gundelman, E. L., Guth, A H. (1967) Dynamics of false vacuum bubbles. Physical Review D. Particles and Fields 35: 1747-1766.

Such has now been observed at Brookhaven where the enormously dense energy matrix of de Sitter space has created an influx of particles from the accelerator. This has given rise to thermal radiation as would be expected from this level of energetics as we follow the results from the familiar equation e=mc^2.

The next level of energetics should, under this postulation, create a reply from de Sitter space in the form of Type Ia Supernova thus destroying our planet, our solar system and a host of nearby stars. Please contact Horatiu Nastase at the RHIC at Broohaven National Laboratory of this conclusion from the theoretical formulations of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter in the Einstein de Sitter Uinverse as it is now termed.

"A fireball created in a US particle accelerator has the characteristics of a black hole, a physicist has said. It was generated at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York, US, which smashes beams of gold nuclei together at near light speeds. Horatiu Nastase says his calculations show that the core of the fireball has a striking similarity to a black hole. His work has been published on the pre-print website arxiv.org and is reported in New Scientist magazine. When the gold nuclei smash into each other they are broken down into particles called quarks and gluons. These form a ball of plasma about 300 times hotter than the surface of the Sun. This fireball, which lasts just 10 million, billion, billionths of a second, can be detected because it absorbs jets of particles produced by the beam collisions. But Nastase, of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, says there is something unusual about it.

Ten times as many jets were being absorbed by the fireball as were predicted by calculations. The Brown researcher thinks the particles are disappearing into the fireball's core and reappearing as thermal radiation, just as matter is thought to fall into a black hole and come out as "Hawking" radiation. However, even if the ball of plasma is a black hole, it is not thought to pose a threat. At these energies and distances, gravity is not the dominant force in a black hole.

This text was taken from this link right here:
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.co...ws.php?id=36412"
Quoted from Astro news: Man made pseudo blackhole, Astronomy, Exobiology & Cosmology

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

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB. CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS

The structures of the Einstein de Sitter Universe are consistent within themselves according to the General Theory of Relativity as indicated in the following citation. Supernova generation would therefore follow from the derivations cited in this thread via a transition towards de Sitter space.

Physics Letters A
Volume 347, Issues 1-3, 14 November 2005, Pages 8-13
Coexisting vacua and effective gravity by F.R. Klinkhamera and G.E. Volovikb

"This also implies that, most likely, emergent gravity is not able to
incorporate the geodesically-complete Einstein Universe with spatial
section S3. (For a Hausdorff manifold, this would indeed be difficult to
imagine topologically.) It, therefore, appears that the original static S3
Einstein Universe can exist only within the context of fundamental general
relativity."

So far, the predictions from the General Theory of Relativity have been verified observationally and experimentally. We should therefore predict
observational evidence for this theory with the generation of Type Ia Supernova from highest energy physics experimentation.

All the children will thank you for your kind efforts in bringing a halt to this
kind of experimentation with our hard-earned tax dollars.

All Best Wishes,

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
To Paul:

Congratulations on the "New Paul." Your last three post are well worth reading, not like the highly repitious post of the "Old Paul." I will look at this thread more often now.

In post 1067, I stated my main reasons for lack concern with your POV and if you have answered, I have not seen it. Namely I said:

"... Thus, we have an event {for example, a gold on gold nucleus collision} that is over in t seconds and another {next gold on gold nucleus collision} T seconds later. Even T is so small it is hard to think about what this means, so I will use my "time magnifier" to expand t to be one minute. Then T, the interval between collison events is at least 10,000 minutes. In a day there are 24x60 = 1440 minutes so T = approxinately one week! Paul is claming that energy released in a minute "now" (for a minute or less) and then is over can combine with a simular one minute of energy release next week, as if they were one? - I don't think so!!!!

I was probably much too conservative. I think the proton bunch is not a sphere, but more like a long cigar. If you know how much longer in track it is than cross track perhaps you will redo this - I would not be surprised if you tell me that Paul is adding a one minute energy release in 2007 to then next one on the same date in 2008!!!!!!! (When viewed thru my "time expander magnifier")

SUMMARY: t <<<<< T and these very well separated collision events can not be combined. ..."

I note that each of the individual events (for example, a gold on gold nucleus collision) is dozens of orders of magnitude LESS ENERGETIC than the events nature provides, at least daily, in the primary cosmic ray collions. To be persuasive that there is a real danger, you need to give some reason why the events that are very well separated in time in the accelerator can be treaded as if they were one more energetic event.

I am reasonable sure you know that cosmics are much more energetic, but see www.auger.org and the sub pages. Also see thread where I posted:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1511657&postcount=10
for more discussion and another good reference.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T:

I understand your POV, but you are making some fundamental errors yourself.

There are two forms of measurement for the energies of the incoming cosmic rays - direct measurement and indirect measurement.

The direct measurement is from satellite, directly measuring high-E particles, and has a low-error-bar energy of about 1E15 eV [and a high-error-bar of about 1E17 eV]. Those error bars are at 2 standard deviations. The particles are all H and He nuclei.

On the other hand, there are very rare, very-high-E events [so rare one would not expect to detect them from a satellite], which produce ground-observed showers [for example, at Pierre Auger] with energies of about 1E21 to 1E23 eV.

In either case, it is NOT correct to simply assert that these natural events are "dozens of orders of magnitude" greater than what is ongoing at the Tevatron [Fermilab's proton-antiproton collider], which collides particles with an energy/particle of about 2E12 eV [2 Trillion Electron Volt, hence the name TEVatron].

One has to take into consideration the rest frame of the particles and the observer.

For example, if you were moving along with the cosmic ray at its same speed, what would be the observable energy of the cosmic ray? Zero kinetic, of course, and only its rest-mass energy would be present. However, you'd see the earth coming at you quite fast.

To take those factors into account, what is of actual interest to collider experimentalists is the Center-Of-Momentum rest frame [COM]; i.e. the rest frame of the product of the collision.

To find the COM energy for cosmic-ray-collision products, one multiplies the total energy of both particles [kinetic-energy and mass-energy combined for the incoming ray; mass-energy of the earth-stationary particle], divides by 2, and then takes the square root.

This is typically an easy mental calculation. The rest mass of a proton is about 1E9 eV.

Thus, if an incoming cosmic-ray proton of 2E15 eV strikes a stationary proton in the upper atmosphere, the COM energy of the product would be 1E12 eV, much higher than the rest mass of the proton it struck, but much lower than the energy of the incoming ray as measured in earth's rest frame.

Please note, this is at about the COM energy of the Tevatron, which is simply the energy of the collision [because the resultant mess is at rest in earth's reference frame].

The LHC, however, will be about 1,000 fold greater in COM energy than the Tevatron!

There is some question as to the nature of the very rare and very-high-E events that are in the 1E21 eV range [in earth's rest frame]. Assuming arguendo that they are in fact fast protons, then their COM energy would be about sq.rt.([E21 X E9]/2), or about 5E14 eV, slightly lower than the COM energy of the LHC.

If, on the other hand, those rare high-E events are actually the shower that results from the break-up of the rest-mass of massive particles [WIMPs, for example; or massive magnetic monopoles as another possibility], then the LHC would be operating at about 1,000 fold higher than the highest directly measured COM energies of cosmic rays.

Also, I believe you have your "time magnifier" set wrong.

At the Tevatron [and as at RHIC and as will be at the LHC if it were to begin operation], the particles are in bunches of millions of particles, with thousands of bunches spread around the ring. At that speed, the particles in each bunch can be treated as colliding nearly simultaneously, as the bunches are quite small, though certainly each bunch is separated by a small finite time between itself and the next bunch.

It is apparently Dr. Cox' position that by colliding millions of particles [millions of particles/bunch] nearly simultaneously, in very close proximity, that there could potentially be an additive effect, so that the COM energy is not merely 1E12 eV, as it is for each individual particle collision, but more on the order of about 1E18 eV for the sum of the particle collisions in each bunch. If so, this would place it well above the COM energy of all cosmic rays, even if those rare high-E events are in fact protons, and not the break-up of the rest mass of exotic particles.

While I have not been able to elucidate any 'mechanism' by which there would be an 'additive effect' as suggested by Dr. Cox, I have not been able to disprove it either.

Certainly, as the luminosity increases, and the beam diameter narrows, the likelihood of an 'additive effect' increases. It appears that we are not there yet, but where such 'additive effect' would kick in [i.e. at what luminosity and beam diameter] has not been ascertained, or even if it is ascertainable.

The closest approximation would be in the interior of exploding stars, where the energies/collision are actually much lower than in our colliders, and result in a build-up of nuclear mass by rapid-neutron-capture, rather than in 'obliteration' of the nuclei [as is what occurs, for example, in Gold-Gold collisions].

These facts are known to the researchers at Fermilab, who believe that we are nevertheless safe because nothing bad has happened yet, after hundreds of runs at the present energy.

Whether the same could be said for the LHC remains to be seen.

Regards,


Walter
 
My insert are in all CAPITALS in Walter L. Wagner's post which follows

Billy T: I understand your POV, but you are making some fundamental errors yourself.
PROBABLY.

There are two forms of measurement for the energies of the incoming cosmic rays - direct measurement and indirect measurement. The direct measurement is from satellite, directly measuring high-E particles, and has a low-error-bar energy of about 1E15 eV [and a high-error-bar of about 1E17 eV]. Those error bars are at 2 standard deviations. The particles are all H and He nuclei. On the other hand, there are very rare, very-high-E events [so rare one would not expect to detect them from a satellite], which produce ground-observed showers [for example, at Pierre Auger] with energies of about 1E21 to 1E23 eV.
ONLY ONE MUCH HIGHER ENERGY EVENT IS NEEDED TO SHOW NO DANGER (I.E FORGET ABOUT SATELLITE DATA AND EVEN THE COSMIC RAY THAT ARE PROTONS - SOME ARE IRON NUCLEI)

In either case, it is NOT correct to simply assert that these natural events are "dozens of orders of magnitude" greater than what is ongoing at the Tevatron [Fermilab's proton-antiproton collider], which collides particles with an energy/particle of about 2E12 eV [2 Trillion Electron Volt, hence the name TEVatron]. One has to take into consideration the rest frame of the particles and the observer.
For example, if you were moving along with the cosmic ray at its same speed, what would be the observable energy of the cosmic ray? Zero kinetic, of course, and only its rest-mass energy would be present. However, you'd see the earth coming at you quite fast.
To take those factors into account, what is of actual interest to collider experimentalists is the Center-Of-Momentum rest frame [COM]; i.e. the rest frame of the product of the collision.
To find the COM energy for cosmic-ray-collision products, one multiplies the total energy of both particles [kinetic-energy and mass-energy combined for the incoming ray; mass-energy of the earth-stationary particle], divides by 2, and then takes the square root.
This is typically an easy mental calculation. The rest mass of a proton is about 1E9 eV.
Thus, if an incoming cosmic-ray proton of 2E15 eV strikes a stationary proton in the upper atmosphere, the COM energy of the product would be 1E12 eV, much higher than the rest mass of the proton it struck, but much lower than the energy of the incoming ray as measured in earth's rest frame.
WHY ASSUME SO LITTLE? TAKE AN IRON NUCLEUS WITH AT LEAST 1E20ev. NOTE I SAID: "AT LEAST ONE PER DAY FOR THE ENTIRE EARTH."

Please note, ...
Also, I believe you have your "time magnifier" set wrong.
At the Tevatron [and as at RHIC and as will be at the LHC if it were to begin operation], the particles are in bunches of millions of particles, with thousands of bunches spread around the ring. At that speed, the particles in each bunch can be treated as colliding nearly simultaneously, as the bunches are quite small, though certainly each bunch is separated by a small finite time between itself and the next bunch.
"SIMULTANEOUSLTY BY HUMANS STANDARDS, YES, BUT IS IT STILL NOT TRUE THAT TIME BETWEEN COLLISIONS IS MUCH GREATER THAN COLLISION DURATION?
I.e. my old t <<<<< T arguments.

It is apparently Dr. Cox' position that by colliding millions of particles [millions of particles/bunch] nearly simultaneously, in very close proximity, that there could potentially be an additive effect, so that the COM energy is not merely 1E12 eV, as it is for each individual particle collision, but more on the order of about 1E18 eV for the sum of the particle collisions in each bunch. If so, this would place it well above the COM energy of all cosmic rays, even if those rare high-E events are in fact protons, and not the break-up of the rest mass of exotic particles.
While I have not been able to elucidate any 'mechanism' by which there would be an 'additive effect' as suggested by Dr. Cox, I have not been able to disprove it either.
NOR HAVE I; BUT I AM NOT WILLING TO ADMIT THAT THERE "COULD BE" UNICORNS ON MARS JUST BECAUSE I CAN NOT PROVE THAT THEY CAN NOT BE ANY. {REFERENCE WHAT OF Dr. COX I MADE BOLD}
THE t<<<<<< T IS A VERY STRONG ARGUMENT AGAIST Dr. COX's "COULD BE." iT IS AT LEASE AS STRONG AS "ABSENCE OF AIR ON MARS" IS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST UNICORNS BEING THERE. (PERHAPS UNICORN ARE GREEN AND MAKE THEIR OWN OXYGEN? DOES HE HAVE ANY, EVEN EQUALLY WILD, EXPLANATION OF HOW THING SO SEPARATED IN TIME CAN ACCUMULATE?)


Certainly, as the luminosity increases, and the beam diameter narrows, the likelihood of an 'additive effect' increases. It appears that we are not there yet, but where such 'additive effect' would kick in [i.e. at what luminosity and beam diameter] has not been ascertained, or even if it is ascertainable.
TRUE

The closest approximation would be in the interior of exploding stars, ...
I DO NOT SEE MUCH CONNECTION TO STARS. EVEN INSIDE THE ENERGY IS SMALL COMPARED TO MOST ENERGETIC COSMIC RAY EVENTS KNOWN

Regards, BILL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T:

The high-E satellite events are all H and He, not Iron.

Do you have any data on the highest-E events as to what is believed to be the probable source [i.e. H, He, Iron, or other]. I've read reports from some of the researchers at Piere Auger in which they suggested that they could be caused by the break-up of the rest mass of exotic particles.

I have extensive experience at examining Iron cosmic ray tracks [hundreds measured] in particle detectors [balloon, satellite] and their energy ranges go quite high, but not nearly up to the 1E15 of the H and He seen in the satellite detectors.

As to your "unicorn" argument, that really does not hold merit. For example, lets take another 'exotic' critter, the legendary Bigfoot. Most people believe Bigfoot does not exist. Other people do. Would you be willing to stake the fate of mankind on whether or not Bigfoot exists? [My personal views are irrelevant, but if you want to start a Bigfoot thread, be sure to let me know, and I might weigh in.]

Instead, we need to proceed with an abundance of caution, when we do have theorists who have predicted that there are such things as deSitter space transitions, etc.

As to the LHC, even more exotic scenarios have arisen other than deSitter space transitions, including creating of mini black holes, strangelets, etc. Likewise, these cannot be disproven, or proven. However, there is good theory to suggest that they could be created.

Likewise, there is an absence of proof that creation of such exotic particles IN EARTH'S REST FRAME, that have not existed in our region of the Universe since the early moments of the BB, might prove less than benign.

Yes, the COM energy of high-E cosmic rays striking Earth is greater than in the interiors of stars. And it is less than the COM energy of colliders, if the highest-E events are showers caused by the break-up of the rest mass of exotic particles, not showers caused by normal nuclei striking our upper atmosphere.

Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference between creation of such particles at relativistic speeds [the COM for a high-E normal particle striking earth would be travelling at about 0.9999+ c] compared to the COM being at rest relative to Earth. The transit time across the diameter of earth would be about 1/4 second for the COM of the newly created particle. This compares to the time spent on Earth of approaching infinity, for exotic particles created at rest in Earth's reference frame. This is a strikingly fundamental difference ignored by most theorists, to date.

Regards,

Walter
 
I do not want to consider satellite data - not any concern or required.
Walter L. Wagner said:
Billy T:

The high-E satellite events are all H and He, not Iron. ...
Nevertheless, there is a fundamental difference between creation of such particles at relativistic speeds [the COM for a high-E normal particle striking earth would be travelling at about 0.9999+ c] compared to the COM being at rest relative to Earth. The transit time across the diameter of earth would be about 1/4 second for the COM of the newly created particle. This compares to the time spent on Earth of approaching infinity, ...
Click to expand...
I am not really well qualified (and too lazy to work at it) to continue, but this last point of yours is interesting and perhaps a significant counter to my cosmic ray argument, at least for some creations (micro black holes*, strangelets etc). None the less, if a Cosmic Ray collision did punch a hole thru to de Sitter space and that rupture was traveling away from Earth with almost the speed of light, we would still know it if it led to a type II supernova - after all it would still be closer than sun for more than 8 minutes!

Consequently, even though your final paragraph is an interesting point, it will not keep me awake tonight worring. ;) Regards, Bill
---------------------
* Strange thought hit me after posting and reread:
If micro-black hole were formed by C.R. event it might make a "vaccuum straw" thru the Earth, that would collapse under the static pressure but be a 'fault" for the abiotic-oil people to exploit or at least talk about, so I am keeping this quiet:rolleyes:.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BillyT:

I agree the last point applies to the exotic particle production, but not to deSitter space transitions.

This is actually somewhat developed theoretically. Mini black holes [MBH] are theorized to have a low cross-section for interaction initially, so that any one transiting earth at near c might only absorb one or two nucleons before exiting, without substantially slowing. However, if formed "at rest" on earth, they would have a speed of a few thousand kph,and would go into an orbit taking them in part through earth, over and over, where they would have multiple chances of interaction.

The same would be true for strangelets, too.

Regards,


Walter

----------
 
Last edited:
Walter L. Wagner said:
...However, if formed "at rest" on earth, they would have a speed of a few thousand kph,and would go into an orbit taking them in part through earth, over and over, where they would have multiple chances of interaction. The same would be true for strangelets, too. ...
Click to expand...
As my head is still above the sea level, I am sure no micro black hole was produced (or at least did not survive long enough to begin "eating the Earth.") If it had been, then the Earth would not become hollow, but shrink under its self compression from the surface. Very soon there would no dry land. Longest lived would be the fish, but perhaps only minutes longer before they too became part of the black holes mass.

I assumed nearly circular decaying orbit inside the still spinning Earth, as I am nearly sure that the intitial elliptical orbit (part in the air) would rapidly become near circular inside the Earth as mass is absorbed mainly in the dense Earth.
 
Correct.

No MBHs as of yet.

If one were created [at LHC, or VLHC], its original elliptical orbit would circularize as you detailed. It would also drop to the center, growing smaller and smaller in circle diameter orbit, until essentially stationary and growing, as the overlying mass would be squeezed into it, "eating" our planet from the inside out. On the surface, the first effects would be a series of massive earthquakes growing larger.
 
Walter L. Wagner said:
Correct. ...It would also drop to the center, growing smaller and smaller in circle diameter orbit....
Click to expand...
That is what I intended you to understand by adjective "decaying" in: decaying circular orbit.

However, thinking slightly more about it, I think the "orbit" may not remain "nearly circular" when the Earth is nearly all eaten. I.e if there is no earth mass inside its orbit, then its orbit will be more like a straight line. (a very open parabola, initially but still orbiting the sun in about 365 days as then the black hole will then be most of the system mass.) Perhaps it even "punches thru" or misses entriely the small part of "asteroid Earth" remaining? Whether or not "asteroid Earth" will form is a complex problem - I bet yes. What do yout think, guess?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS

Please recall that the event predicted on the basis of Malcolm J. Perry's, Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe? (Nature, 320. 679, 1986 ) would have real consequences to our life on earth. A Type Ia Supernova would vaporize our planet, and our solar system. In the sense of a phenomenological analysis, this would be an intrusion from the foreign hull, similar in this sense to a lightning strike or a tsunami, only much larger. Thus the forces of nature would intrude into our subjective world. A breach in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space may be accomplished only once for each planetary stystem. Alas, no subsequent activity can be made.

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

Yours sincerely,

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