Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

kmguru said:
Yes, I first suggested Paul may be conducting a psychology experiment in the beginning of the posts. But after doing some serious research in to the physics of the issues, I am not too sure....
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't read the posts more carefully. Has Paul gone to ground or
have those mad scientists at Fermilab abducted him in order to suppress the truth ?
 
Dinosaur said:
Myles: I doubt that many here take Paul seriously or expect to change his point of view.

He reminds me of most believers in conspiracies. They get satisfaction by pretending to know (or actually believing that they know) information unknown to most others.

I doubt that it is a valid explanation, but somebody posted an interesting motive for this thread.
  • It is believed (with good reason) that Paul is a psychologist. It was suggested that this thread is part of a clinical study run by Paul and perhaps a group of students or other psychologists.
BTW: Perhaps the originator of this thread is not the Paul Dixon found via Web Searches by various posters to this thread. He could be in some institution associated in some way with the real Paul Dixon, who seems to have academic credentials in psychology.

Perhaps, the real Paul Dixon knows that this thread was originated and is being kept alive by one of his patients.

The Internet is an interesting phenomon. Who really knows that there is a Paul Dixon with academic credentials?
Click to expand...


Then if that is true, then Dr Walter Wagner is on the conspiracy too. Whilst he might be somewhat discouraged by the pscyhological analysis of this site which he will inexorably do if that is the field he is accomplishing, it still holds to logic and reason that Dr. Dixon is not a ''made up character,'' for I have seen previous work by Dr Wagner in the biological sciences involving LET particles. So, your conspiracy is deeply flawed.
 
Read-Only said:
No. He's just like a noxious weed that keeps sprouting up now and again.
Click to expand...

Read Only...

Tha isn't nice at all, for what can we say.

Whilst i made a note of saying that it seemed improbable, i also held onto the notion that it is still a probable theory.
 
Thus, with this POV, time has no beginning or end, but every universe does have a beginning and end. The more I consider this POV the more I like it.
Click to expand...

I like this too. Imagine one has built a quantum computer and used the seed DNA of the universe for simulation. (Read A new Kind of Science by Stephen Wolfram to understand the DNA of the universe). Now if we run that simulation, the beginning of the time can not be known from inside the simulation since the computer is already "on" to run the simulation. But the Universe will have a beginning coming to existence out of no where.

Of course this idea needs a separate thread....
 
Of course, in physics you have the no-boundary proposal, by Dr Hawking. He shows that by looking back at the universe in imaginary time, the univese is found to have a two-dimensional surface most like that of planet Earth. Just like on planet Earth, you can keep on traveling and never fall off an edge.
The same would be found in the universe: No beginning and that must also mean no end; but paradoxically there WAS still an end and STILL a beginning... It's a bit of an illusion though depending on the right math.
 
Read-Only. Just in case you look here first. I'd like some evidence for time dilation which you claim exists. You must have a text book somewhere to provide examples for me.

I'm an official toe-jumper-oner.
 
kaneda said:
Read-Only. Just in case you look here first. I'd like some evidence for time dilation which you claim exists. You must have a text book somewhere to provide examples for me.

I'm an official toe-jumper-oner.
Click to expand...

There are thousands of references all over the web that you could read. You could start here, with section 2 :http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...lation+time+dilation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Another interesting bit of information is the fact that it affects the network of GPS satellites and their internal clock have to be periodically adjusted to compensate for it.
 
Read-Only. The wiki? Hardly peer reviewed. It mentions the old nonsense about muons in atmosphere. They lose energy! These people are doing the equivalent of measuring basket balls at the top of the mountain and at the bottom of the mountain, except the same basket balls which have travelled to the bottom of the mountain are now baseballs (as they have lost substantial energy!). They are measuring two different types of particles.

Electrons have kinetic energy which allows them to orbit a nucleus. Light speed is a cosmic speed limit. If something moves at 1,000 mps, then light from it can effectively only move at 185,282 mps in the direction of travel. That means that any object moving will have it's atomic movements slowed in the direction of travel as it effectively has lower energy. The atomic resonance of cesium in an atomic clock is slowed down, so the counter of man-made time is now counting slower, so time appears to slow.

I'd prefer you to come up with arguments other than just telling me to read something. Even a creationist can do that.
 
kaneda said:
Read-Only. The wiki? Hardly peer reviewed. It mentions the old nonsense about muons in atmosphere. They lose energy! These people are doing the equivalent of measuring basket balls at the top of the mountain and at the bottom of the mountain, except the same basket balls which have travelled to the bottom of the mountain are now baseballs (as they have lost substantial energy!). They are measuring two different types of particles.

Electrons have kinetic energy which allows them to orbit a nucleus. Light speed is a cosmic speed limit. If something moves at 1,000 mps, then light from it can effectively only move at 185,282 mps in the direction of travel. That means that any object moving will have it's atomic movements slowed in the direction of travel as it effectively has lower energy. The atomic resonance of cesium in an atomic clock is slowed down, so the counter of man-made time is now counting slower, so time appears to slow.

I'd prefer you to come up with arguments other than just telling me to read something. Even a creationist can do that.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, here's one bit of information for you: the speed of light in a vacuum is invariant. It's speed is independent of the speed of it's source. That's exactly the principle that the Doppler effect depends on - and it works perfectly every time.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did say "effectively". If you are moving away from a light source at half the speed of light, how fast do the photons you detect appear to be moving? C or C/2? And if you are moving towards the light source at the same speed, C or 3C/2?
 
Reiku. Hawking? Wasn't he the idiot who said you can enter a super-massive black hole alive?
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROKHAVEN AND LOS ALAMOS

We note that the postulation of a transition towards de Sitter space comprehends a theoretically different cosmolgical energetics than the current theoretical models. Are we willing to pursue these current research programs where the fundamental parameters are so poorly known and the result of this theoretical oversight will generate a Type Ia Supernova? Thus for example:

"The supernova, known as SN 2006gy, provides evidence that the death of
such massive stars is fundamentally different from theoretical
predictions, researchers claimed.

Of all exploding stars ever observed, this was the king, said Alex
Filippenko, leader of the ground-based observations at the Lick
Observatory at Mt. Hamilton, Calif., and the Keck Observatory in Mauna
Kea, Hawaii.

We were astonished to see how bright it got, and how long it lasted. The
Chandra observation allowed the team to rule out the most likely
alternative explanation for the supernova, the astronomers said: that a
white dwarf star only slightly heavier than the sun exploded into a dense,
hydrogen-rich environment. In that event, SN 2006gy should have been 1,000
times brighter in X-ray light than what Chandra detected, they said."

We may conclude, that more basic research delineating those fundamental differences found in the results of transition towards de Sitter space in, for instance, gamma ray production in contast to other types of energetic flux, should be carried out.

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
 
Paul W. Dixon said:
...Of all exploding stars ever observed, this was the king, said Alex Filippenko, leader of the ground-based observations at the Lick Observatory at Mt. Hamilton, Calif., and the Keck Observatory in Mauna Kea, Hawaii. ...
Click to expand...
Please give link of at least a reference. I would like to read the fully report, not just your selections from it.
 
Walter L. Wagner said:
BillyT:

Try googling. Lots of articles. Here're some of about 1200:...Regards,

Walter
Click to expand...
Thanks. I read the first two and the last. All three seem to agree on the "pair production instability" idea so I just assumed the other two did also.

The last was re asuring in that I had the idea that Eta Carinae* might be able to sterilize Earth with gama ray flux. (more than 24 hours of it.)

I must admit that I do not intutively understand this instability. I.e. if there were any significant number of positrons being produced by a Black Body radiation with distribution peak in the gama ray part of the spectrum due to the extrodinary high temperatures, why are not these positrons essentially instantously being anhilated in the stellear core to make the gama rays back again? I.e. How can the radiation pressure be dropping by pair production?

Perhaps the answer is that there is very little matter at the core of these very massive stars - it is "all " or "only" radiation pressure preventing the collapse to a black hole. Even our puny sun has low matter density at the core, so I bet that is the answer. -What do you think? I have trouble with this idea, even if essentially no matter in the core - consider a iron nucleus near the center (say at "edge of the core") The radiation is essentially equally pushing it towards R = 0 as away from that point but there is enormous net gravity towards R = 0. I.e. the gradient of the radiation pressure acting over only nuclear dimensions must exceed gravity's first order term. Does not seem possible to me!
------------------
*Did you know that it was some Brazilian amature astronomer who first called attention to Eta Carinae. He studied it for years before he could get any professionals to agree it was big and strange.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BillyT:

Like yourself, I'm not clear on the 'mechanism' of pair-production reducing the photon pressure. I suppose that if it occurs 'all at once', and there is a time-delay for the annihilation, then the pressure would be reduced during that brief instant. Otherwise, as you suggested, they would simply annihilate and release their 511 KeV annihilation gammas back into the gamma photon 'soup'.

However, I believe it likely that it's been well researched theoretically, and that perhaps this particular supernova does fit the theoretical description!? Anyway, I'd like to learn more about the pair-production scenario, and see if it's as I've imagined above.

Regards,


Walter

-------------
 
Why must we resort to antimatter to explain this phenomena? Couldn't it have been a sudden release of negative energy within the vacuum, or am i missing something pivotal here?
 
I am guessing over 50 people have read this now, and have yet still not answered my question... this is the ad hoc of this thread... so many conclusions, and not enough answers.
 
Reiku said:
Why must we resort to antimatter to explain this phenomena? Couldn't it have been a sudden release of negative energy within the vacuum, or am i missing something pivotal here?
Click to expand...
Real physicists prefer to explain things with proceses that are known to exist, instead of ad hoc postulated processes, especially when the ad hoc processes like the one you are suggesting violates one of the most fundamental laws of physics ("conservation of energy" in this case.)

PS to Walter:
I prefer my speculative answer: "There is only radiation in the core" and it is so intense that pair production rates exceeds the anhilation rates (of the "just produced" and normally rapidly separating electron/positron pair). Certainly true, at least until the particle density increases. The "equal pratician of energy law" (between particles, among particles and with the radiation field) is not instantious. I.e. LTE does not initially exist. Thus, the "just made" pairs may not have much Kinetic energy (to make pressure on the surrounding "non-core" matter) sufficient to compensate for the decreased photon density and the associated drop in radiation pressure. Note also that the pair production would surely tend to "burn a hole"* in the high energy tail of the black body gama ray distribution (just above 1 Mev, I think) so the drop in radiation pressure with the loss of these more energetic gamas would be greater than a simple analysis based on the numerical density drop would predict.
------------------
* I have seen this hole burnt in the distribution in a laser's gas. The stimulated emission selectively depopulates that part of the Doppler distribution which is resonate with the very high cavity "Q" of the laser. (The exact frequency of the laser is that resonate frequency, which has the higher excited state density under the Doppler profile gain, not necessarily exactly the center wavelength of the Doppler profile, but always near it of course. I.e. the cavity resonace can and usually does, "pull" the the laser frequency slightly off exact center of the Doppler profile** and as stimulated emission is depopulating those excited atoms moving with the cavitiy's resonace, it does "burn a hole" in the Doppler distribution. You need a Fabry Perot interferomenter and must look at the normal, not simulated emission, to see this hole in the distribution. My Ph.D. investigation of AII line shape and shift details at in a high electron density plasma. (The Stark broading effect) It also used an argon ion laser***, as wavelength reference, and a Fabry Perot for high spectral resolution anyway - I only had only to rotate the horizontal line of laser gas radiation from the side of the laser discharge tube so it was vertical and could pass thru the vertical entrance slit of a conventional spectrograph. Then it could pass thru both my FP and a regular spectrograph which was used as an "order sorter" so only one of the FP's orders could reach my photo-multiplier tube at the exit slit of the regular spectrometer.)

**I suspect that sometimes a laser will oscillate between two slightly different out put frequences. I.e. It will burn a hole in the distribution on one side of the exact center and then the gain on the other side, approximately the same wavelength difference for exact center will be higher and it will begin to lase at that frequency. I was never able to observer this, but know that some lasers can run at more than one frequency even in the same principle mode of the resonace. (Burning two holes in the Doppler distribution, but perhaps they are not really running simulatneously on both. I.e. just very rapidly switching to the other possible frequency as the current hole gets too deep, then returning to it when it has filled back in more than the other which is getting deeper as the laser uses up its excited atoms.)

My FP was inside a sealed box (with windows, of course) and I "tunned" the central band pass of the FP by varing the pressure of dry N2 inside the box. (That changes the "optical separation" of the plates with no physical change, which would then require making them exactly parallel again in practice. Actually I just started with it high pressure and let is slowly leak out to near atmospheric to scan thru line profiles. Because of that N2 enviroment, I used silver on the 200th wave FP plates instead of the normal Aluminium films as "silvering." Thus I had unusually good "fineses" in my FP with the higher reflectivity of real silver.)

***A green line output. Ours was the first in Maryland and very probably the only one within 700 miles of us, perhaps even the only one East of the Mississippi river. I did little to help develope it; I mainly borrowed its beam and could keep it operating. (Ion lasers are hard to make.) It was on another floor and horizontally displaced also by about 100 feet. I had a lot of mirrors that lead the beam up to where my experimental system was set up, thru a turning stairwell etc. People were kind to me and rarely shut doors or walked thru my beam - I mainly used it as at least a 6 digit wavelength reference for absolute measurement of the line shifts, some of which were more than a full Anstrom! Thus, It was used only a few minutes several times each day to make sure I knew the relationship between the central pass wavelength of the FP and the pressure in the FP chamber. (Measured by large, high-precision gauge, with mirror for paralax elimination when reading. Because of the thermal mass of the chamber and tight temperature contol of the lab room, there was very little thermal drift of the physical space between the FP's plates, so once a day callibration was all that normally was needed, but I was careful to check several times.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top