That is silly, chocholate is clearly best.
Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab
- Thread starter Paul W. Dixon
- Start date
Indeed.
I refer to Dark Chocoalte, of course - none of the crap Milk Chocolate pretending to be REAL chocolate.
Right on! I dont even consider Milk Chocholate to BE chocholate. And dont get me started on White Chocholate!
As most believe that the actual mass of the black hole is concentrated in singularity (Zero Volume point) I will assume your "marble size" is describing the volume inside the event horizon. This fixes the mass you are speaking of, but I am too lazy to find it, so remainer is just an "educated guess"
I strongly suspect that even if all the energy used to run the accelerator were converted into mass at 100% (best man can actualy is many orders of magnitude less efficient - don't know but guess best that man can do in making mass out of energy is an efficiency of 0.00000000000001% but lets stick with 100% conversion assumption.
I.e. there is not enough mass produced (I think) even with 100% conversion of all the machine energy into mass to make your "marble size" black hole.
Also as far as any much smaller BH that Fermi labs etc can produce, the evaporation rate must be enormous - basically making a flash of nanoseconds or less (possibly much less -again just too lazy to get it correct). So lets assume that there is a set of 8 protons only one proton diameter away from the just createde "micro BH" and they are accelerated towards it by it micro gravity. I strongly suspect that it has evaporated away well before they can fall in that micro gravity into it. I.e. what I am almost sure, but admittly just gussing is that the photon pressure of the evaporation flash would actually completely overcome the micro BH's micro gravity and dominate their acceleation forces - i.e. blast them away, not attract them.
Perhaps some one not so lazy will numerically test my guess, but both because I am lazy and because I am quite confident the evaporation is too quick, I do not do the work to demonstarte this fear of the Earth being eaten is groundless as there just is not enough energy to make a black hole big enough to last long enough to "swallow" anything before it is literally "gone in a flash."
At the very least, Paul W. Dixon's conviction and the fact that there have been some credible posters in here who have suscessfully re-articulated his statements in something more understandable by the masses had frankly got me wondering more lately. Working for the moment under the assumptoin that Dixon is right, and a Supernova can occur with the right conditions, then to me the public safety issue is one of probability.
The possibility of something going wrong is what drives all safety regulations in America. Safety regulations get tighter for situaitons where the more disasterous the outcome of a given situation might be. For example, a car doesn't have nearly as much safety consideration on an individual basis as say an aircraft. A military truck carring grenades through a public highway doesn't have nearly as much regulation as say a B-52 carrying a load of nuclear bombs.
If Dixon is right, and Fermilab keeps ramping up the reactor and shrugs "Nothing has happened YET," that does not make a valid argument. That's like saying it's OK to play Russian Roulette as long as the revolver has 100 chambers instead of 6. If you are dealing with an experement which could wipe out billions upon billions, then what is the real justification for it? "Just because" is not a valid argument. How does Fermilab's work impact our lives, and has new technology developed from it? NASA's got a great track record for inventing new things with all the money we dump into it but I don't hear much about what FermiLab is doing... in fact, not much at all. If not, then why pay billions of dollars for it in the first place, safety aside?
The possibility of something going wrong is what drives all safety regulations in America. Safety regulations get tighter for situaitons where the more disasterous the outcome of a given situation might be. For example, a car doesn't have nearly as much safety consideration on an individual basis as say an aircraft. A military truck carring grenades through a public highway doesn't have nearly as much regulation as say a B-52 carrying a load of nuclear bombs.
If Dixon is right, and Fermilab keeps ramping up the reactor and shrugs "Nothing has happened YET," that does not make a valid argument. That's like saying it's OK to play Russian Roulette as long as the revolver has 100 chambers instead of 6. If you are dealing with an experement which could wipe out billions upon billions, then what is the real justification for it? "Just because" is not a valid argument. How does Fermilab's work impact our lives, and has new technology developed from it? NASA's got a great track record for inventing new things with all the money we dump into it but I don't hear much about what FermiLab is doing... in fact, not much at all. If not, then why pay billions of dollars for it in the first place, safety aside?
OK, in fun, "safety aside" answer:
Most of the Ph.D.s and many of the technicians working there tend to be deep in thought at least part of the time and paying little attention to things happening around them. (There is some truth in the "absent minded professor" steriotype.) So I ask you:
Do you want them driving taxi cabs in city where you live?
:shrug:Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOST ALAMOS
May we offer a formal invitation to Professsor Pier Oddone,
Director of Fermilab and Dr. Ellis, Head of the Theory Division to engage
in a discussion of these most grave matters on National Television
in the near future, before it is too late. Please contact them to indicate your interest in their participation in this discussion.
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
May we offer a formal invitation to Professsor Pier Oddone,
Director of Fermilab and Dr. Ellis, Head of the Theory Division to engage
in a discussion of these most grave matters on National Television
in the near future, before it is too late. Please contact them to indicate your interest in their participation in this discussion.
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
i realize i've done this experiment while playing sims 2 and constructing buildings while using cheat mode. it's just only virtually deadly.
Paul W. Dixon
Registered Senior Member
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS
Type Ia supernovae are sufficiently uniform as to be used as standard
candles in observational cosmology. While they are believed to form as a
neighboring star has hydrogen siphoned off of it to form sufficient mass
to produce the implosion necessary for supernova generation from a white
dwarf, there is no trace of hydrogen at the time of maximum light. Also,
the process of ignition is not known. The hypothesis that sentient
entitites much like ourselves create Type Ia Supernovae is therefore brought forward. Should we be the only ones to create Type Ia Supernova this would in a sense go against the uniformity of Nature. If on the other hand, they are noted arising as uniquely bright events that outshine their respective galaxies of origination throughout the cosmos, and are some 2.4 times larger than Type II Supernova originating from >. = 10 solar mass objects, this would indicate that the possiblity of causing a Type Ia Supernova from experimentation is a frequent and uniform event. At this time, all of the major leaders in high-energy physics are familiar with this postulation. May we therefore call for a moratorium on this line of research until those parameters
controlling a transition towards de Sitter space are better understood.
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~pmricker/research/type1a/
All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf now and forever.
All Best Wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
Type Ia supernovae are sufficiently uniform as to be used as standard
candles in observational cosmology. While they are believed to form as a
neighboring star has hydrogen siphoned off of it to form sufficient mass
to produce the implosion necessary for supernova generation from a white
dwarf, there is no trace of hydrogen at the time of maximum light. Also,
the process of ignition is not known. The hypothesis that sentient
entitites much like ourselves create Type Ia Supernovae is therefore brought forward. Should we be the only ones to create Type Ia Supernova this would in a sense go against the uniformity of Nature. If on the other hand, they are noted arising as uniquely bright events that outshine their respective galaxies of origination throughout the cosmos, and are some 2.4 times larger than Type II Supernova originating from >. = 10 solar mass objects, this would indicate that the possiblity of causing a Type Ia Supernova from experimentation is a frequent and uniform event. At this time, all of the major leaders in high-energy physics are familiar with this postulation. May we therefore call for a moratorium on this line of research until those parameters
controlling a transition towards de Sitter space are better understood.
http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~pmricker/research/type1a/
All the children will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf now and forever.
All Best Wishes,
Yours sincerely,
Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
Last edited:
Thanks for the post 1152 link Paul. (It was interesting.)
I know you never respond to question raised by others. (You only repeat yourself with zero discussion.) Perhaps you will make an exception this time as I will quote back to you from your own link:
“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 …”
How is this possible (If type 1a supernova are caused by intelligent life)?
Large red shift is looking back into the early stages of the universe, BEFORE there is time for intelligent life forms to have evolved. (As I understand it is these very type 1a supernova that allow the earliest observations as the briely are brighter than an entire galaxy.)
If you do make an exception, just this once, and actually participate in forum discussions, perhaps you will also explain why or how the rupture to De Sitter space energy is terminated. I.e. once "the barrier is broken" how is it "fixed"?
Also ONLY hydrogen and helium were available when the first stars and galaxies formed. Are you suggesting that from these two gases experimental high energy physicists can be constructed? – I don’t think so.
I know you never respond to question raised by others. (You only repeat yourself with zero discussion.) Perhaps you will make an exception this time as I will quote back to you from your own link:
“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 …”
How is this possible (If type 1a supernova are caused by intelligent life)?
Large red shift is looking back into the early stages of the universe, BEFORE there is time for intelligent life forms to have evolved. (As I understand it is these very type 1a supernova that allow the earliest observations as the briely are brighter than an entire galaxy.)
If you do make an exception, just this once, and actually participate in forum discussions, perhaps you will also explain why or how the rupture to De Sitter space energy is terminated. I.e. once "the barrier is broken" how is it "fixed"?
Also ONLY hydrogen and helium were available when the first stars and galaxies formed. Are you suggesting that from these two gases experimental high energy physicists can be constructed? – I don’t think so.
Last edited by a moderator:
---------
BillyT:
I hope Paul responds.
However, I believe you have an anthropic error in your analysis. For ease of argument, let me use the age of the Universe, and hence the age of our region of the Universe that formed our Milky Way galaxy, as 15 Billion Years [instead of the usual 13.7 Billion]; and the age of our Solar System as 5 Billion Years. By "age" of our region of the Universe, I mean the time since the H/He formed from coupling of electrons and protons which arose from the primordial quark-gluon plasma that preceded it; and "age" of our Solar System as the time from the initial fusion-ignition of our Sun to the present.
We know that initial stars were formed early on [and some exceptional ones have been estimated to still exist that are some 12 billion years of age], but they were of very low metal content [almost entirely H and He]. We also know that the metallicity of stars is a reflection of their relative age, and the higher the metallicity, the younger they are, since they are formed from the remnants of numerous prior stars that supernovaed and ejected metals, enriching surrounding gases. This is an ongoing process of Type-II supernovae in galaxies, and has occurred regularly during a typical galaxy's nearly 15 Billion year history.
What this implies is that even as far back as 10 Billion years ago, a star system could have arisen [in our galaxy or other galaxy] that had relatively high metallicity, comparable to the metallicity of our Sun, which arose only 5 Billion years ago.
If such star system evolved over the course of 5 Billion years [much like our solar system], culminating in sentient life [much like Homo sapiens], such sentient beings might have come into existence some 5 Billion years ago [about the time our planet was forming], give or a take a Billion years. If they did as Paul suggests, and commited "suicide" by creating a Type IA supernova on their home planet, and they were located in a far distant galaxy some 5 Billion light years away, then we would just now be registering that Type 1A supernova here on Earth, from an event that occurred eons ago.
In other words, your premise that high metallicity stars do not arise until after about 10 Billion years [which is when our high metallicity Sun arose] is not correct. Many might well have arisen after only 5 Billion years in regions of their galaxies.
I believe that most of the Type 1A supernovae arise from galaxies far closer than 5 Billion light years away, though I don't have the figures on their distances in front of me. The use of the term "high red-shift" I believe means they are on the order of 1-2 Billion light years distant, though I would request that Paul [or others better versed in astronomy] weigh in and clarify that information.
Of course, Paul's suggestion that so many sentient civilizations are routinely wiping themselves out is 'profound', to say the least.
Paul's suggestion as to the 'mechanism' of Type 1A supernova creation, and in particular your question as to what terminates the deSitter space intrusion of energy, remains unaswered. However, just because we don't have all the answers does not disprove that possibility. Certainly, no where else in our solar system [other than at our colliders] do millions of high-energy particles collide in such a tiny region, not even in the interiors of stars, or exploding stars.
I would like to see more information on the lack of Hydrogen signature for the Type IA supernova, compared to the Type IIA. That does seem strange.
Regards,
Walter
----------
---------
BillyT:
I hope Paul responds.
However, I believe you have an anthropic error in your analysis. For ease of argument, let me use the age of the Universe, and hence the age of our region of the Universe that formed our Milky Way galaxy, as 15 Billion Years [instead of the usual 13.7 Billion]; and the age of our Solar System as 5 Billion Years. By "age" of our region of the Universe, I mean the time since the H/He formed from coupling of electrons and protons which arose from the primordial quark-gluon plasma that preceded it; and "age" of our Solar System as the time from the initial fusion-ignition of our Sun to the present.
We know that initial stars were formed early on [and some exceptional ones have been estimated to still exist that are some 12 billion years of age], but they were of very low metal content [almost entirely H and He]. We also know that the metallicity of stars is a reflection of their relative age, and the higher the metallicity, the younger they are, since they are formed from the remnants of numerous prior stars that supernovaed and ejected metals, enriching surrounding gases. This is an ongoing process of Type-II supernovae in galaxies, and has occurred regularly during a typical galaxy's nearly 15 Billion year history.
What this implies is that even as far back as 10 Billion years ago, a star system could have arisen [in our galaxy or other galaxy] that had relatively high metallicity, comparable to the metallicity of our Sun, which arose only 5 Billion years ago.
If such star system evolved over the course of 5 Billion years [much like our solar system], culminating in sentient life [much like Homo sapiens], such sentient beings might have come into existence some 5 Billion years ago [about the time our planet was forming], give or a take a Billion years. If they did as Paul suggests, and commited "suicide" by creating a Type IA supernova on their home planet, and they were located in a far distant galaxy some 5 Billion light years away, then we would just now be registering that Type 1A supernova here on Earth, from an event that occurred eons ago.
In other words, your premise that high metallicity stars do not arise until after about 10 Billion years [which is when our high metallicity Sun arose] is not correct. Many might well have arisen after only 5 Billion years in regions of their galaxies.
I believe that most of the Type 1A supernovae arise from galaxies far closer than 5 Billion light years away, though I don't have the figures on their distances in front of me. The use of the term "high red-shift" I believe means they are on the order of 1-2 Billion light years distant, though I would request that Paul [or others better versed in astronomy] weigh in and clarify that information.
Of course, Paul's suggestion that so many sentient civilizations are routinely wiping themselves out is 'profound', to say the least.
Paul's suggestion as to the 'mechanism' of Type 1A supernova creation, and in particular your question as to what terminates the deSitter space intrusion of energy, remains unaswered. However, just because we don't have all the answers does not disprove that possibility. Certainly, no where else in our solar system [other than at our colliders] do millions of high-energy particles collide in such a tiny region, not even in the interiors of stars, or exploding stars.
I would like to see more information on the lack of Hydrogen signature for the Type IA supernova, compared to the Type IIA. That does seem strange.
Regards,
Walter
----------
Hi Walter. I agree with almost all you sayl, but ...
I note that even later, when residual is a much dimmer light source, I do not expect to see much hydrogen spectra. This is because the "blasting into space" of all the hydrogen mass (even assuming it was a "hydrogen-coated, hot neutron star"* (See Paul's link for one eating its companion star, perhaps in it red giant stage.) that made huge hydrogen bomb would end up very dispersed. Perhaps initially lower than inter galactic density when cool enough to recombine and form hydrogen atoms.
Even the much, much cooler inter glactic gas is nearly 100% ionized. The Saha equation predicts this. Basically, in simple terms, if there is any way (such as passing UV photons) that hydrogen can be ionized, space is so empty that it is eons before the electron and proton get close enough and with less than 13.6 ev relative energy can combine.
Thus not strange at all to me - exactly what I would expect.
Regards, Billy T
---------------------
*I do not know how thick a surface coating of hydrogen on neutron star needs to be before it goes critial and bomb like fusion begins again, do you? Perhaps there is not much hydrogen there to start with. The answer to that question may be: less than a centimeter thick coating on the hot neutron star will block enough radiation to heat the hydrogen layer to thermonuclear temperatures. (Essentially at same time all around the neurton star, which probably is more nearly a perfect sphere than anything man can make. (In that gravity, a three atom tall peak elevation above the average depth may be its "highest mountain"!) Note this may be too simple a POV if magnetic fields are still there. - Perhaps only very old (now dead/ no longer with magnetic field) pulsars can become type1a supernova. I.e. Others, which lack this high symetry, may be like the North Korean A-bomb and convert very little mass into energy before blowing themselves apart.
that is not my premise. (Read my post again and that should be obvious.) I can even agree that 99% of all supernove yet observed are from stars that died in the last 10 billion years (I do not know if this is the case.) All one needs to prove Paul's theory of how supernova occur is wrong is to observe ONE type 1a supernova that is more than 10 billion light years from Earth. I.e. occured before inteligent life had time to evolve. That is what I am assuming is the case (my premsie, but again I do not know that is the case either. I suspect it is as they are the standard distance yard sticks for extreme distances.)
Perhaps to you, but as type 1a is so much more energetic, I would expect there to be essentially no bound electrons to make hydrogen spectra. I.e. a 100% ionized plasma.
I note that even later, when residual is a much dimmer light source, I do not expect to see much hydrogen spectra. This is because the "blasting into space" of all the hydrogen mass (even assuming it was a "hydrogen-coated, hot neutron star"* (See Paul's link for one eating its companion star, perhaps in it red giant stage.) that made huge hydrogen bomb would end up very dispersed. Perhaps initially lower than inter galactic density when cool enough to recombine and form hydrogen atoms.
Even the much, much cooler inter glactic gas is nearly 100% ionized. The Saha equation predicts this. Basically, in simple terms, if there is any way (such as passing UV photons) that hydrogen can be ionized, space is so empty that it is eons before the electron and proton get close enough and with less than 13.6 ev relative energy can combine.
Thus not strange at all to me - exactly what I would expect.
Regards, Billy T
---------------------
*I do not know how thick a surface coating of hydrogen on neutron star needs to be before it goes critial and bomb like fusion begins again, do you? Perhaps there is not much hydrogen there to start with. The answer to that question may be: less than a centimeter thick coating on the hot neutron star will block enough radiation to heat the hydrogen layer to thermonuclear temperatures. (Essentially at same time all around the neurton star, which probably is more nearly a perfect sphere than anything man can make. (In that gravity, a three atom tall peak elevation above the average depth may be its "highest mountain"!) Note this may be too simple a POV if magnetic fields are still there. - Perhaps only very old (now dead/ no longer with magnetic field) pulsars can become type1a supernova. I.e. Others, which lack this high symetry, may be like the North Korean A-bomb and convert very little mass into energy before blowing themselves apart.
Last edited by a moderator:
BillyT:
Perhaps your explanation as to the lack of Hydrogen signature for a type 1A is correct, but I've not spent much time thinking about it, and not read the prevailing view about it, so I cannot comment authoritatively at the moment. Certainly the prevailing view is not Paul's hypothesis, and I would imagine that persons in the field have explanations, and I would welcome any substantive comments.
However, I can also see the possibility that type 1A could have two mechanisms - Paul's hypothesis, plus a small portion that would have a purely physical component as a natural trigger, so having a few type 1As at extreme distances would not rule out Paul's hypothesis.
I do believe, however, that the type 1A use as a standard candle is for much closer galaxies, as almost all of the measured very distant galaxies are well less than 10 Billion light years away, and indeed well less than 5 Billion light years away. That's simply because the ones that are very far away are so dim and difficult to see, that most of what we've observed are the much nearer galaxies. Perhaps someone with more astronomical knowledge in that area than I could weigh in; someone such as 2Inquisitive perhaps.
Regards,
Walter
----------------
Perhaps your explanation as to the lack of Hydrogen signature for a type 1A is correct, but I've not spent much time thinking about it, and not read the prevailing view about it, so I cannot comment authoritatively at the moment. Certainly the prevailing view is not Paul's hypothesis, and I would imagine that persons in the field have explanations, and I would welcome any substantive comments.
However, I can also see the possibility that type 1A could have two mechanisms - Paul's hypothesis, plus a small portion that would have a purely physical component as a natural trigger, so having a few type 1As at extreme distances would not rule out Paul's hypothesis.
I do believe, however, that the type 1A use as a standard candle is for much closer galaxies, as almost all of the measured very distant galaxies are well less than 10 Billion light years away, and indeed well less than 5 Billion light years away. That's simply because the ones that are very far away are so dim and difficult to see, that most of what we've observed are the much nearer galaxies. Perhaps someone with more astronomical knowledge in that area than I could weigh in; someone such as 2Inquisitive perhaps.
Regards,
Walter
----------------
Perhpas conceptually not absolute proof he is wrong, but sure would damage it beyond rational belief. Note both his mechanism and the hydrogen film on surface of neutron star exploding in huge fusion bomb both SEPEARTELY account for their extreme regularity, BUT IT IS TOO MUCH TO BELIEVE THAT TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MECHANISMS PRODUCE EXACTLY THE SAME OUT PUTS through out their identical time histories.
IMHO, it is either one or the other, but definitely not two as you are now suggesting, in a strange effort to save his concept. Thus, observation of only one type 1a supernova at 10 billion light years distance, or more, completely DESTROYS HIS IDEA.
Not the first time an "ugly fact" destroys a "beautful theory." I had it happen to one of mine recently when in new thread here I suggested a single possible explanation for both the Pioneer analomy and the origin of the asteroids.
Last edited by a moderator:
BillyT:
Hold your horses! I was suggesting that if there were some other natural cause 'mechanism' that triggered the deSitter space transisiton postulated by Paul, one would have the identical situation. No major coincidence here. Further, you haven't provided any evidence that type 1A supernovae occur at exceptionally great distances [beyond 10 Billion light years] - - and I haven't provided any proof that they don't. So, let's at least get the facts before us before we start arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Hold your horses! I was suggesting that if there were some other natural cause 'mechanism' that triggered the deSitter space transisiton postulated by Paul, one would have the identical situation. No major coincidence here. Further, you haven't provided any evidence that type 1A supernovae occur at exceptionally great distances [beyond 10 Billion light years] - - and I haven't provided any proof that they don't. So, let's at least get the facts before us before we start arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Let me clearly understand: Are you suggesting, in conflict with Paul, that man has nothing to do with two different natural processes that both result in the same type1a supernova as both trigger the "rupture of barrier" to De Sitter space? (and that rupture also terminates the same way, on same time scale, same energy release etc, despite different initiation mechanisms. - not a unreasonable possibility as how the below dam village is destroyed does not depend upon which side of the dam breaks first, etc.)
Certainly, even if you are suggesting that one is man made and one is natural, this still weakens Paul's concerns as perhaps this "other natural mechanism" could be responsible for most, even 100%, of the type 1a supernova.
I agree we badly need some knowledgable astronomer types to tell us if or if not there has ever been observed even a single type 1a supernova located at 10 or more billion light years from Earth. I am ASSUMING THAT ANSWER IS "YES" as they are brighter than an entire galaxy, so it sure seems likely that they would be if caused by natural process (excluding man as "un-natural"
) AND the mechanism of this natural process is possible in Gen III stars (no metal - but I hate that term as "metal" mainly refers to oxygen, carbon, etc in this context - considering that stupidity, who can believe what any astronomer might say? ) I.e. I am ASSUMING thatsome lucky astronomer has had his telescope pointed at a dark spot in the heavens when the type 1a super nova happened and it was the only detectable light from an entrie galaxy while it lasted. (but this need not be the case as surely we can see galaxies at 10+ billion LY.) I am not good at searching, except my own "grey matter data bank," but if one were to look for locations of Gen III stars, I bet at least this would be quickly answered.
As ever, regards - Billy T.
BTW, I can not comply with your initial request. I sold my horses with the cattle farm about 5 years ago.
Last edited by a moderator: