Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

[2inquisitive]

Type 1a supernovas are used as 'standard candles' to estimate the rate of expansion of the universe. For that to be possible, we must be able to observe the standard candle (type 1a supernovas) at great distances. I did a search to find one of the original articles when it was discovered that the rate of expansion was increasing. Here is a cut and paste, along with a link for more detail:

To their surprise, the redshift readings indicated that the expansion rate for distant supernovae was lower than the expansion rate for closer supernovae, Perlmutter said. On the largest scale imaginable, the universe’s galaxies appear to be flying away from each other faster and faster as time goes on.

“What we have found is that there is a ‘dark force’ that permeates the universe and that has overcome the force of gravity,” said Nicholas Suntzeff of the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, who is the co-founder of another group called the High-z Supernova Search Team. “This result is so strange and unexpected that it perhaps is only believable because two independent international groups have found the same effect in their data.”

Einstein revisited
To make sure they haven’t made a mistake somewhere, the two teams are double-checking their results and adding to their supernova database. Perlmutter said his team only recently discovered the most distant Type 1A supernova ever found, 10 billion light-years from Earth.

Also, Walter, you will notice in the article how universal expansion is different than an 'explosion' of spacetime. Many people have too simplistic a view on how the universe is expanding. Galaxies located at great distances (in the early universe) are not moving away from each other as rapidly as relatively closer galaxies ( in the later universe). This refers to galaxies that are not gravitationally bound, of course. This article is from 1998, so I am sure more distant 1a supernovas have been detected since then. I recall reading about them, but don't remember the details or exact distances.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077857/

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

2inquisitive:

Thanks, I knew I could count on you to find information on distant type 1A supernova.

Certainly at 10 Billion light years, it does not appear to give enough time [a maximum of about 3.7 Billion years] for any sentient civilization to have arisen from primordial H/He via even a first-generation solar system, let alone a second/third generation high metallicity solar system.

So, that would then imply that at least some [if not most, or even all] of the type 1A supernovae are by natural causes, as opposed to sentient-being causation [as suggested by Paul in his posts].

However, that still does not eliminate the underlying suggestion by Paul, that colliders might initiate a supernova. It does, however, weaken his argument somewhat, in that we can at least attribute some of the 1A supernovae to natural causes, and indeed it would imply that possibly most are due to natural causes, though as you suggested, there is likely more information available now [i.e. if we can get a flux of such supernovae at 10 Billion light years distance, then perhaps we can get an estimate as to how many we should expect from closer distances?]


As to the "universal expansion" versus "explosion", those are subjective terminologies that actually mean the same thing.

 

[(Q)]

As to the "universal expansion" versus "explosion", those are subjective terminologies that actually mean the same thing.

And yet are completely different concepts with completely different characteristics to those who have grasped them. The "explosion" assertion is NOT supported by observation.

 

[Billy T]

I too thank 2inquisitive.

... Certainly at 10 Billion light years, it does not appear to give enough time [a maximum of about 3.7 Billion years] for any sentient civilization to have arisen from primordial H/He via even a first-generation solar system, let alone a second/third generation high metallicity solar system.

Let me more explicitely state this:

The only elements existing in the universe when the first type 1a supernovas happened were the two lightest gases, hydrogen and helium. It doesn not seem possible that any living creature could be made exclusively from them - only gas clouds. Even if there could be some type of intelligence in a huge gas cloud of He, H2 & H, how could it (with no hands, no magnetic materials, etc.) make an accelerator and energy density that Paul fears is sufficient to "punch thru" the THEORETICALLY EXISTING barrior to huge energy concentrations PREDICETED BY SOME to be found in "De Sitterspace"?

This is a fairy tale orders of magnitudes less believeable than Santa Clauss is hard at work now at the North Pole, making toys with his elves for delivery on 25 December 2007.

Clearly, some (Why not all, as Occam suggests?) type 1a supernovas are natural events.

... However, that still does not eliminate the underlying suggestion by Paul, that colliders might initiate a supernova...

True. Nor does it eliminate the more conceptually possible possibility that a "stable hole" can be punched thru to this unlinited energy and end mankind's energy problems forever. - I do not believe that will happen either, but it seems much more probably (still essentially zero probability) than Paul's suggetion that a rupture will occur, open a connection to De Sitter's energy and that a fixed quantity (exactly one type 1a supernova's worth) will explode thru the hole and then the hole will magically seal up again.

Before believing that, the idea that a "stable hole" (about the size of the colliding accelerator particles) would be made, seem much more believable as then no "magic closure mechanism" must also be postulated. - Occam wins again. In contrast Paul's hole grows and then closes, always exactly when the precise type 1a energy has passed thru.

Perhaps, Paul will now bury his campaign and this thread? -I doubt that, but is much more probable than what he is suggesting in this thread.

Personnal to Paul: Why not relax and enjoy your later years more?

 

[2inquisitive]

Yes, I would think the very early 1a supernovas would eliminate his speculation that those types of supernova might be caused by sentient beings experimenting in a lab. The high energy condition of de Sitter space is a legitimate scientific hypothesis derived from a mathematical extension to the theory of General Relativity. There is some evidence supporting GR as a theory, but I know of no actual evidence supporting that particular extension (the high energy condition) as a physical reality. I also know of nothing that would disprove it as a theory. Simply stated as I understand it, de Sitter's hypothesis posits two additional universes, a low energy condition and a high energy condition, in addition to our observable 3 + 1 dimensional spacetime. The two 'conditions' are separated from our spacetime by some type of potential barriers. Paul's concern is that the extremely high temperatures and concentrated energies created in the colliders will somehow 'breach' the barrier between us and the high energy condition, allowing that high energy to flow into our universe, something like a miniature 'big bang' or a type 1a supernova explosion. I do not know if the hypothetical 'high energy condition' actually exists. I do not know the mechanics of the 'pontential barriers', or if high temperatures and highly concentrated energy could possibly breach them. I think Paul is simply saying 'Better safe than sorry', because the consequences are too great if the hypothesis of a high energy condition is correct and we possibly breach the barrier separating us from that hidden universe. The de Sitter hypothesis does have competition from other theories and hypothesis, of course. String theories and aether/dark energy theories seem to eliminate the 'high energy condition' and seem to be more compatitable with our observations of an accelerating rate of expansion, at least IMHO.

As to the "universal expansion" versus "explosion", those are subjective terminologies that actually mean the same thing.

Let me try one more time to see if I can get you to understand the difference in the terminologies.

First, the observation of a red shift does not give us anything other than estimated relative velocities and the most crude of distance estimates. The 'brightness' of observed type 1a supernovas is where cosmologists derive their distance estimates. Assume we observe a 1a supernova at a 10 billion light year distance. The distance measurement is derived by comparing its relative brightness with that of a nearby 1a supernova that we measured the distance to by other methods, such as triangulation. All type 1a supernovas are essentially equal in brightness according to observations. We compare the relative brightness of the distant supernova with the near one to arrive at the estimated distance. We come up with an estimated distance of 10 billion light years. No red shift is used in this estimated distance. We then look for another 1a supernova that is estimated at 9 billion light years from us using the same relative brightness method. Once these distances are determined, we then look at red shift of each of them. By the variation in their individual red shifts, we determine how fast these two supernovas are separating from each other. Just to use an arbitrary figure, lets say these supernovas at 10 bly and 9 bly are separating at the speed of 1/10 c from each other, not from us. We then find two more type 1a supernovas located at, say, 2 bly and 3 bly using the relative brightness method again. We then compare their red shifts and determine they are separating from each other at the speed of 1/5 c. The closer supernovas are separating at twice the speed the distant supernovas were separating. This is what is observed, the more 'modern' supernovas are flying apart faster than the early universe supernovas. The rate of expansion between galaxies (supernovas) universe is accelerating as time passes by. Most people just focus on the fact that more distant galaxies have a higher red shift than nearby ones, so they are moving away from us faster. That tells us nothing about the varying expansion rate and could be viewed as an explosion. But the fact is modern galaxies are moving apart faster than the early galaxies, which cannot be explained by an explosion scenario. We can compare supernovas to the north of us and supernovas to the south of us and draw the same conclusions. Many, many supernavas were sampled at various distances to arrive at how the universe has been expanding over the last 10 billion years. The rate of expansion was slowing down until about 5 billion years ago, then the rate started increasing again for some reason. That is where the hypothetical 'dark energy' arises, it is a proposed mechanism for explaining the change in expansion rates 5 billion years ago, from the earlier slowing rate to the more modern increasing rate.

 

[Billy T]

...Simply stated as I understand it, de Sitter's hypothesis posits two additional universes, a low energy condition and a high energy condition, in addition to our observable 3 + 1 dimensional spacetime. ...

Not only is there no evidence supporting the DeSitter space or its energy, but if that mathematical extention of GR is a 3+1 dimentional universe, as I read you to be saying, then it also is contradicted by modern "string theory's higher dimentional POV of the universe. (Of course string theory is also, I think, without any experimental evidence, but many physicsts seem to believe it anyway.)

Is there a conflict between string theory and DeSitter's mathematical extension of GR?

BTW, thanks again 2inquisitive for the nice disussion about expansion and explosion in your post. I aready knew all that, but did not have it so clearly organized in my mind.

 

[2inquisitive]

Billy T,

but if that mathematical extention of GR is a 3+1 dimentional universe, as I read you to be saying,

I don't want you to read too much into what I posted about de Sitter space. I have read little about it, mostly just general references to it. It "seems" to me that the high energy condition of de Sitter space suggests a 3+1 universe that is hidden from our own behind the potential barrier, but this is only a guess as to the actual hypothesis. If there is real energy in that 'high energy condition' that could possibly flow into our universe, it suggests to me that it has to consist of several dimensions, but I could be wrong.

Is there a conflict between string theory and DeSitter's mathematical extension of GR?

Stated very basically, it seems to me that string theory suggests extra dimensions in our own universe that are rolled up and hidden from our view. de Sitter space seems to suggest complete, but separate, universes with different physical characteristics that are parallel to our own for lack of a better description. I am always reminded of things like 'pair production', where electrons and antielectrons arise from the 'vacuum'. They could be evidence of a Dirac sea, zero-point energy, an aether, or dark energy, among other things. Are those things located in hidden dimensions in our universe, evidence of a so far undiscovered 'substance' within our own universe like an aether or dark energy, or could they be energy 'seeping' through the barrier separating us from something like a de Sitter high energy universe? I don't think anyone has the answers to those questions yet. I think Paul feels it is dangerous to continue the experiments with ulta-high temperatures and energy densities until we have a better understanding of the reality. I think the experimenters believe the only way to get a better understanding is by experimenting to see what can be discovered to help our understanding. A kind of catch-22.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

That tells us nothing about the varying expansion rate and could be viewed as an explosion. ... The rate of expansion was slowing down until about 5 billion years ago, then the rate started increasing again for some reason.

Thanks for the exposition, which covers the points well.

Allow me to paraphrase what that seems to imply. Some astrophysicists have decided to throw the baby [Big Bang explosion] out with the bathwater [muddied details because of "varying expansion rate"] because of what is now perceived as a "varying expansion rate", due to the results from type 1A supernova observations tending to show varying rates in the expansion at different distances, rather than a uniformity throughout. I believe there is now more than one such anomalous change at two different distances, adding still further to the mystery. And yes, you are correct that that is what has given rise to the cry for the need to add "dark energy" into the picture.

However, it is just as 'easy' to 'fix' the problem by modulating on the underlying original theory of an 'explosion', as to add in the 'ad hoc' ideas of "dark energy", etc. Either way, its messy.

The problem with throwing out the "baby" is that the collider people, and all other high-energy physicists, still refer to the original "explosion" in their writings that the earliest stages of the universe were at high energy density [quark-gluon plasma] that expanded [thermal expansion] and cooled, ultimately giving rise to electrons and protons, that still expanded and cooled, ultimately giving rise to H [and some He] which process then made the univese 'transparent', and which remnant of that process we see at some 13.7 billions light years distance, receding from us at some 0.999999c [which is a red-shift of 1,000] via photons that are received in the microwave frequencies, as if they were the same photons emitted by a stationary black-body of 2.7 degrees K.

It does not appear that they are willing to discard the idea of the early universe being at high temperature and high energy density. That necessarily implies that our Milky Way was once like that too, and likewise the other galaxies, and from their observed red-shifts which we imply means either their physical recession from us [or even "expansion of space" that exists between us and those other galaxies], that they too were on top of us in the distant past.

So we are still left with that conundrum, and I believe it might prove easier to modulate the "explosion" scenario that to try to 'fix' things with the ad hoc idea of "dark energy". This appears more like Einstein's 'fix' he made to try to account for what he erroneously perceived was a 'steady state' universe, instead of recognizing that the universe was expanding, which he later learned from Hubble.

 

[Billy T]

...However, it is just as 'easy' to 'fix' the problem by modulating on the underlying original theory of an 'explosion', ...

can you expand on this a little? what is the general nature of the '
"modification"? Specifically is it all at "t=0" or some form of changing gravity with time or what?

I do not have much problem with the dark energy approach to the observations, but do find it strange that the dark energy "pushes harder" the more dilute it gets. - As I understand the current thinking, eventually when the universe is much bigger, it will push so hard, even at nuclear separations, that even the nuclei will be torn apart. - I.e. only hydrogen again.

Perhaps Dark Energy can not act on hydrogen. That would be consistent with the strength of dark energy incresing (not with the size of the universe as most believe) but with its "metal" content. I sort of like this idea as when in the very distant future only hydrogen exists, gravity will make the "big crunch" and start the next cycle with its Big Bang as our universe's time ends.

I.e there was no begining and is no end - only "bang to crunch" cycles.

What do you see wrong, if anything, with my idea that dark energy is acting on everything but hydrogen (and possibly helium)?

 

[2inquisitive]

It does not appear that they are willing to discard the idea of the early universe being at high temperature and high energy density. That necessarily implies that our Milky Way was once like that too, and likewise the other galaxies, and from their observed red-shifts which we imply means either their physical recession from us [or even "expansion of space" that exists between us and those other galaxies], that they too were on top of us in the distant past.

I haven't much time right now, but I thought I might address your assumption above.
Some seem to follow the older interpretation of the 'big bang' as arising from a single point, with a period of 'inflation' during which it expanded exponentially. Some prefer to think of it as an explosion 'of' space, not an explosion at a particular point 'in' space. Both these ideas require a very dense, hot primodal plasma-like state to exist before it expanded and cooled enough for the first photons to form, called the surface of last scattering. No massive bodies, let alone galaxies, existed during this time in the universe's evolution. That type 1a supernova we observed happened at an estimated 3.7 billion years after the beginning of the universe, the big bang or whatever one wishes to call it. That distant galaxy that was the home of the supernova was already 10 billion light years from our location here on Earth. The supernova exploded before the Earth was even formed, the light from it is just now reaching us. That distant galaxy would now be beyond our horizon, never to be seen again, located something like 40 billion light years distant at the present time in the universe's evolution. That is why cosmologist estimate the present size of the universe at near 100 billion light years in diameter. Those early galaxies were 10 billion light years from our location 10 billion years ago. They were receeding from us at tremendous velocities then, the increasing rate of expansion means they would be receeding even faster today, if we could see them to measure the redshift. This later light will never reach us because they are 'now' receeding from us much faster that the speed of light.

 

[Dinosaur]

It astonishes me that any but Paul post here.

 

[Billy T]

It astonishes me that any but Paul post here.

Since Paul has made his post less repeative and much shorter, I look here more often, even when Paul has the most recent post!

It has become the main place where I exchange ideas with Walter. We may start off commenting on some aspect of Paul's concerns/post but quickly drift off that subject. It seem harmless enough to briefly hijack Paul's thread. He will be back to reclaim it I am quite confident, but probably ignore the devistating turn of events (from his POV) that our discusions have recently reached thanks to 2inqusitive supplying some data we were only speculating about. (There are type 1a supernovas, 100s of millions of years before there were any intelligent life forms - back when ONLY hydrogen and helium gases existed.)

 

[Paul W. Dixon]

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

Please review, Quantum tunnelling towards as exploding Universe? (Malcolm J. Perry (1986) Nature 320, p. 679) We note: "Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the transtion from the continuum to de Sitter space is only a function of energy. The source of energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the implosion of a stellar envelope, conditions existing in the early Universe, or via high energy physics experimentation. We now have an empirical experimental test of the generalization of the equations in the General Theory of Relativity in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed paid for with billions of our tax dollars. We, therefore, await the tragic confirmation of the Exploding Universe via the generation of a Type Ia Supernova at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia. Illinnois or in March 2008 at CERN with those energies found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the Big Bang at the point origin the Universe.

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

 

[Billy T]

...The source of energy could be from natural sources, i.e., the implosion of a stellar envelope, conditions existing in the early Universe, ....

Gee Whiterkers! Paul can read as well as post!

OK since he does read, I ask:

Why is that intense energy in De Sitter space not able to tunnel thru to our universe? Is there a big "one way" or "wrong way" sign painted on the De Sitter space side of the barrier wall?
Note that tunnel thru from De Sitter space has been "testing the barrier" since at least the begining of time AT ALL POINTS in space, but man's (plus all of intelligent life's) feeble efforts for only very short time intervals and only at very discrete points in space.

I have already asked several times why once the barrier has been broken (thousands of times if that is what type 1a supernovas are) does the "hole seal up"? - I guess there must be a little Dutch boy, with very fat, heat resistent finger, living near the Barrier on De Sitter side. Actually there must be many little fat fingers near by as it always takes exactly the same time for them to plug up the hole. Perhaps they have some sort of union that limits their work rate so none acts sooner than the union regulation permits.

I know it is too much to hope for an answer (or even a comment) on both questions. - So Paul take your pick and only answer one.

 

[MetaKron]

I think that something like De Sitter space gives our continuum its structure and physical laws, and relative to our position in the multiverse, it is neutral. It does not "tunnel over." It is already with us. It is why the speed of light is pretty much a constant in "flat" space.

 

[Paul W. Dixon]

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

My early correspondence with John Archibald Wheeler, Professor of Physics at Princeton University indicated that white holes, as he termed them, always proceeded to crunch. By this is meant, that the holes would close after some period of time. Were this not so, this would signal of the end of the universe as we know it.

In the fundamental approach here proposed, all of the larger cosmolgical events such as Supernovae Types I & II, Unipolar Active Galactic Nuclei, and quasars are a result of transitions towards de Sitter space.

Thank you for your interest in this most significant matter.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

 

[Billy T]

Looks like even letting Paul chose which of my two questions in post 1174 to answer and which to ignore, was still too much to require / ask of him. - He is ignoring both.


That is undestandable. - Paul has no time for discussion - he is too busy posting / saving the intelligence in the universe to use any of it in rational arguments, discussion and persuasion.

 

[Reiku]

It's slightly ignorant actually.

 

[2inquisitive]

Billy T,

Looks like even letting Paul chose which of my two questions in post 1174 to answer and which to ignore, was still too much to require / ask of him. - He is ignoring both.

I think Paul did pay you the courtesy of answering your second question. John Archibald Wheeler stated a white hole must seal up, or it would mean the end of the universe. I believe Paul thinks any extremely large, unipolar outpouring of energy in the universe may indicate a breach in the barrier that separates our universe from de Sitter space.

 

[Reiku]

Not true. I studied physics for two years at college and didn't even recieve my Ph.D, because i left, but they have totally ignored essential factors of BillyT's questions, and blind utter facts.
Now don't get me wrong here... they are very clever. I know of Dr. Wagners reputation, and its well-credited. Never heard of DR. Dixon, but i'm sure its just a matter of my ignorance.
Dr. John G. Cramer proposed mathematical constructs proposing the likelyhood of a black hole creation, would also naturally mean a white hole creation, and whilst the equation described these two holes being created turning up at vast distances, Dr. Cramer showed that this might be flawed.
Instead, whenever a white hole is created, they may come in pairs, a bit like particle-antiparticle pairs, with a black hole.
If this is true, then they would, according to Dr. cramer, oscillate round each other, with the black holes feeding off the white hole so a neutral balance has been created... Hawking Radiation could be cancelled out by the equal gain of the mass of the white hole.

But i saw a danger in this. If this is true, then what about the current hypothesis that Hawking Radiation might not even be a real thing? It is afterall, only a theory.
If this is true, then contemplate this: If the Black Hole/White Hole pair are created, and the black hole did not radiate, then the white hole would add to it seven hundred times more mass than what it contained, making it quite a much larger black hole in the lab to deal with...
It doesn't end there though. You might be saying, ''yeh... but... it will radiate.''
Maybe it will... i'm not saying it won't... but how will that radiation escape the following:

1. The strong curavature produced around the black hole...

2. And how will it escape the incomming energy spurting an equal amount of energy back into the black hole in equal proportions, also unable to escape, and square every passing second?