Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

[Paul W. Dixon]

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

Highest energy physics is an experimental science and the determination of the threshold towards de Sitter space and the generation of Type 1a Supernova is now being approached via laboratory work. Where the energies now observed at Fermilab and soon at CERN approximate those found at the point origin of the Universe, it may be postulated that we are very close to the threshold values for the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.

Please review, Quantum tunnelling towards as exploding Universe? (Malcolm
J. Perry (1986) Nature 320, p. 679) as well as Dragging of Inertial Frames
(Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) 7158, 449, 41-53) 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. Please note, Perry (1986)
"Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is
forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the
transition 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, as
noted above, 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 May 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. The excellent, Dragging of Inertial
Frames, article in its review of the findings concerning The General
Theory of Relativity indicates the confirmation of the theories
predictions up to the limits of current astrophysical observational
measurement Let us not confirm this theory once again with the
generation of a Type Ia Supernova in our planetary neighborhood.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

 

[Paul W. Dixon]

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

All friends and colleagues: please relay this information to all interested groups, websites, accelerator personnel, etc..

The article in the Astronomical Journal (Leibgundgut, B., et al., (1993) SN 1991BG: A Type 1A Supernova with a difference (1) January 301-313) shows evidence for a supernova which has deflagrated below the Chandresekhar limit at .7 solar masses. This was also chronicled in the journal, Nature. Also from Peter M. Garnavich, "Early Spectra of Supernova 1993J in MB1, Astronomy Journal, 108 (3) (1994) on page 1006 it is stated: "The observed drop in H alpha flux inserted in this model implies a zero radius for the progenitor at March 29.5 regardless of expansion velocity assumed. This is clearly unphysical." Unless, it is as here postulated, a transition towards de Sitter space which provides for those vast energies of supernova deflagration: which is then clearly physical and of nearly zero dimensionality.

Every child on earth will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf now and for all future time.

All Best Wishes for the New Year !!!

Yours sincerely,

 

[Sputnik]

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.
Let us not confirm this theory once again with the generation of a Type Ia Supernova in our planetary neighborhood.

Paul , does that mean , that if we survive march 2008 , then you will stop posting here

Every child on earth will thank you for your kind efforts on their behalf now and for all future time.

All Best Wishes for the New Year !!!

And a Happy New Year to you Paul ..........

 

[2inquisitive]

Paul , does that mean , that if we survive march 2008 , then you will stop posting here

I think it is more likely that Paul will stop posting here only if we don't survive March 2008.

 

[Michael83]

This really scares me. Is this guy (Paul Dixon) credible?

Someone please respond, this is very frightening.

 

[Dinosaur]

Michael83: Paul's academic credentials are in psychology rather than cosmology or physics. It has been suggested that this thread is part of an experiment in clinical pyschology.

Most of us think he is a few cards short of a full deck.

 

[Michael83]

Michael83: Paul's academic credentials are in psychology rather than cosmology or physics. It has been suggested that this thread is part of an experiment in clinical pyschology.

Most of us think he is a few cards short of a full deck.

Is there anyone reason to be worried about this March?

Once I read that it started giving me a panic attack. I'm really shaking right now. If Paul is not serious or if he is not qualified on this subject, he should not say these things. He needs to consider the effect they may have on others.

My posts are NOT are psychological experiment. I posted a thread about my issues on the "Physics and Math" section of the forum a while back ago.

I'm really really scared right now. I'm not kidding. I'm just a mess today, I'm sorry.

Thank you so much for your reply. It means a lot.

 

[Paul W. Dixon]

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

Please consult with Dr. Walter Wagner who is a physicist and has brought suit against the work cited below stating in court in both San Francisco and New York that more brackground information is needed before the research may proceed safely. The realization of the extant possiblity of a Type Ia Supernova being generated via these researches created in myself and others a profound panic reaction that only dissipated gradually over time. DR. Wagner has provided many posts on this thread.

We need to work with Dr. Wagner to bring suit aginst this work in Switzerland and halt the reckless plunge to universal destruction when the Large Hadron Collider at CERN begins operation in May 2008. He feels there is indeed a great likelihood that the vast energies to be produced in the LHC at CERN, that are some 7x greater than those employed at Fermilab, will be sufficient to form a transtion towards de Sitter space and create a Type Ia Supernova.

High Energy Physics - Theory
Title: The RHIC fireball as a dual black hole
Authors: Horatiu Nastase
(Submitted on 10 Jan 2005 (v1), last revised 22 Mar 2006 (this version, v3))

Abstract: We argue that the fireball observed at RHIC is (the analog of) a dual black hole. In previous works, we have argued that the large $s$ behaviour of the total QCD cross section is due to production of dual black holes, and that in the QCD effective field theory it corresponds to a nonlinear soliton of the pion field. Now we argue that the RHIC fireball is this soliton. We calculate the soliton (black hole) temperature, and get $T=4a <m_{\pi}>/\pi$, with $a$ a nonperturbative constant. For $a=1$, we get $175.76 MeV$, compared to the experimental value of the fireball ``freeze-out'' of about $176 MeV$. The observed $\eta/ s$ for the fireball is close to the dual value of $1/4\pi$. The ``Color Glass Condensate'' (CGC) state at the core of the fireball is the pion field soliton, dual to the interior of the black hole. The main interaction between particles in the CGC is a Coulomb potential, due to short range pion exchange, dual to gravitational interaction inside the black hole, deconfining quarks and gluons. Thus RHIC is in a certain sense a string theory testing machine, analyzing the formation and decay of dual black holes, and giving information about the black hole interior.

Thus, there should be precursor events as shown above, as we approach the threshold towards a transition to de Siitter space.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

 

[Billy T]

... 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.
...
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.
...
Regards, Walter

Walter: In view of your more obvious concerns (assuming Paul's post is not fabrication) I returned to re read some of our exchanges made in the first week of Oct07. The above quote is part of post 1155 from that period. (Others wishing to see serious discussion should do the same.) As stated in a reply back then, I was NOTassuming stars with adequate metal (strange astronomer's use of the word to also mean things like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc) for any intelligent organism to evolve was delayed as you mis understood. In fact, as the first stars were monsters (100 to 500 times solar mass) they ran thru their Hydrogen fuel quickly. I don't know how quick, but think at least in a few cases perhaps no more than 3 billion years. - I.e. possibly the first collective unintentional mass suicide did occur 10 Billion years ago by mechanism Paul (and now you?) fear.

Also it is only very strange, not impossible, that Paul's Type 1A and a nature's Type 1A supernova, would have the same time scales etc. Certainly there could be two entirely different mechanism (One dumping energy from De Sitter space and the other rapidly producing and releasing energy with only our universe's participation.) with the same time scales.

I remain calm because of both my "little Dutch boy" argument (How is the flood of energy form De Sitter space stopped?) and also as you and I have discusssed, for me at least there are only a string of independent nuclear accelerator produced collisons, well separated in both space and time (Time compared to the duration of each and the "event volume" compared to the volume between events.) Not one much more energetic collision. However, I initially had much too large an estimate on the volume of the colliding beams and I also have ignored the fact that there are many "daughter paricles" produced by each collison with much longer life times than the time for the accelerated nucleus going one way to pass by one going the other way around the accelerator.

Thus I will become neutral on the main question of this thread. I have done enough to earn my entry into hell as a possibility, but helping to terminate all life would surely guarentee my entry.

I have long been impressed by how similar the bibical story of creation of the universe and the big bang are. (Taking into account the the writers of the bible had very limited understanding of physics) I.e. both start the creation of the universe exaclty the same way ("let there be light" - no matter initially etc.) Perhpas Paul and the Bible are correct about the end also: Hell is a very hot place, so both say.

 

[Paul W. Dixon]

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

The central motivation for this thread is to prevent the ultimate doom for all of mankind. Where modern physics clearly reveals the presence of the high-energy condition according to the work of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter which we are protected from by a large potential barrier. The question has been raised by myself and my colleagues with the scientists as Fermilab, how this research can continue with the generation of a Type Ia Supernova as a certain result of laboratory mischance with the increased energies in the CDF at Fermilab. In a classical sense, the penetration of a potential barrier is only a function of energy. The scientists and other staff members indicated to us that 1.) They did not wish to work for "Ma Bell," Illinois. In other words for the telephone company. 2.) There was a philosophical quest for truth undergirding their research. To these replies, my colleagues indicated that this was essentially a selfish motivation since they risked the doom of everyone by their research with their energies approximating those found at the point origin of the universe. Should we accept their explanatory framework, or should we avoid this headlong rush to ultimate doom?

Gravitationally based phenomena such as the formation of black holes and strangelets would not be expected from the highly-energetic conditions either at Fermilab or Brookhaven.. In modern physics, the lower energy condition as well as de Sitter space (the higher energy condition) would be possible. As indicated in the letter to Illinois Attorney General Madigan, the postulation of an intrusional event from de Sitter space is more likely than a transition towards the lower energy condition though a transition to the lower energy condition would be possible. The entire universe would then flow into the lower energy condition. The energies now found at Fermilab will be exceeded by a factor of seven when the Large Hadron Collider at CERN begins operation. For some reason best known to the physicsts at Fermilab, they are leaving the accelerator in Batavia, Illinois. (Brumfiel, G., High-risk physics, Nature. 9 June 2005, V. 435, 7043,pp. 728-729) All of the information forwarded to sciforums has also been sent to the staff at Fermilab.

Professor Archibald Wheeler indicated in earlier correspondence that white holes such as Type Ia Supernova, in this example, always go to crunch. In other words, they always close again according to his understanding of the structure of spacetime. He has been deemed the world's leading auhority in this area of understanding.

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

Yours sincerely.

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

 

[Asguard]

are you STILL here?

God sake you were peddling this when i first joined. The world is NOT going to explode

 

[Billy T]

SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB, CERN, BROOKHAVEN, AND LOS ALAMOS...Where modern physics clearly reveals the presence of the high-energy condition according to the work of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter which we are protected from by a large potential barrier.

Let’s assume this is true. I.e. great energy is available in "de Sitter space" and some or all of it would transfer into our space (universe?) except for the potential barrier. Normally, at least in quantum theory, there is some probability that the energy could "tunnel thru" but it has not appeared to have happened in approximately 15 billion years our universe has existed. I say "appeared" because the type Ia supernovas you postulate would result always seem to be located in our universe where there are already stars. If the energy of de Sitter space were to initiate the tunneling thru, it is very strange that it only occurs at points in our universe where the energy density is high instead of where it is low. One would normally expect that it would break thru where the difference in energy between the two sides of the barrier is greatest, not where it is least.
Thus I since there is little or no evidence of this tunneling thru having occurred into the 99.99+% of our universe that is of low energy density, I conclude that the energy density (assumed to exist) in de Sitter space is not able to tunnel thru to our universe.

How does the theoretical value of it compare to the energy density that the LHC can produce? Are you stating that the LHC will produce a greater energy density than that in de Sitter space and thus can initiate a rupture of the potential barrier?

The question has been raised by myself and my colleagues with the scientists as Fermilab, how this research can continue with the generation of a Type Ia Supernova as a certain result of laboratory mischance with the increased energies in the CDF at Fermilab.

You weaken your argument by claiming your postulated danger is a "certain result." Already few take you seriously and silly statements like this make fewer inclined to do so.

In a classical sense, the penetration of a potential barrier is only a function of energy.

I am not sure that this part I made bold is always true, but if it is then you must be stating that the energy density in de Sitter space is too low to "punch thru" the potential barrier.

The scientists and other staff members indicated to us that 1.) They did not wish to work for "Ma Bell," Illinois. In other words for the telephone company. 2.) There was a philosophical quest for truth undergirding their research. To these replies, my colleagues indicated that this was essentially a selfish motivation since they risked the doom of everyone by their research with their energies approximating those found at the point origin of the universe. Should we accept their explanatory framework, or should we avoid this headlong rush to ultimate doom?

There is risk in all research in that what is learned can be misused. Personally I think the danger of developments in the field of biologic knowledge are a much greater risk to life on Earth than the one you are concerned with, yet I think that the potential benefits justify taking that risk.
Is your argument that here is little benefit to be expected for better understanding of the fundamental structure of matter? - So little that the benefit /risk ratio is too low (to continue exploring this structure)?

Gravitationally based phenomena such as the formation of black holes and strangelets would not be expected from the highly-energetic conditions either at Fermilab or Brookhaven.

This is a great reversal of all your earlier post warning of the danger they were exposing the Earth to. About a year ago, I noted that your first posts were concerned with an energy density that has now been exceeded by millions of times. When nothing happens at the "danger level" you have previously suggested is real, you simply "move the goal post" to a higher danger level. This also destroys your credibility, especially as the moves are millions of times the prior danger levels.

In modern physics, the lower energy condition as well as de Sitter space (the higher energy condition) would be possible. ... the postulation of an intrusional event from de Sitter space is more likely than a transition towards the lower energy condition though a transition to the lower energy condition would be possible.

Certainly true, if normal quantum physics applies. - This is just a restatement of point I have made several times: Namely why is not the high energy in de Sitter space punching thru to our universe? (especially at the 99.99+% of it where there is no "back pressure" from energy concentrations in our universe.)

The entire universe would then flow into the lower energy condition.

Again, you seem to be making the same point I have several times asked about. Namely if even once the barrier has been broken at some location, why has not the energy density in the two spaces come to equilibrium or equality?

The energies now found at Fermilab will be exceeded by a factor of seven when the Large Hadron Collider at CERN begins operation.

Not a problem for your thread's continuation if the Earth does not convert to a type 1a supernova this March. Just move the energy density "goal posts" by a factor of 8 or more. - a trivial adjustment compared to the millions of folds you have already moved the danger level since you started this long thread.

...Professor Archibald Wheeler indicated in earlier correspondence that white holes such as Type Ia Supernova, in this example, always go to crunch. In other words, they always close again according to his understanding of the structure of spacetime. ...

Can you please give a reference to his article? (If it is only a personnel letter to you, why is such an important conclusion not published? - Perhaps he thinks differently now?) IMHO this is a very critical factor. If there is any reason to think that the ruptured potential barrier would "self heal" long before the energy density in the two spaces became essentially equal I would like to try to understand it. In all cases I am aware of (such as two potential wells separated by a thin finite barrier, the "tunneling thru" does not stop until the energy density on both sides is equal. Why is this barrier between de Sitter space and our universe so different? I.e. What is the nature of the "only one way tunneling permitted" physics? Why is the barrier not symetric to tunneling?

If the energy density in de Sitter space is already the same as in our Universe, then clearly your concerns are nonsense.

In closing let me again say your recent posts, as you have gotten older, are much better than your early ones, but you still need to learn how to be more responsive to questions and less dogmatically repetitive.

 

[Reiku]

There are more powerful events in space and time, which would reduce itself into a massive explosion. So large in some area's, that we would detect such a tunnel of energy... Noting this, i can definately say that we haven't got near enough energy to cause a massive explosion. The only worry i have is the type of elements we may produce.

 

[Billy T]

There are more powerful events in space and time, ...

What are your referring to? (cosmic rays? if so, your suggestion is nothing new.)

 

[Reiku]

Well... cosmic rays, nuclear reactions inside of massive stars... even the smaller dwarfs such as ours... Possible interaction between our vacuum, and the false vacuum... black holes collisions... The list is really endless against the mere 33TeV.

 

[Billy T]

Well... cosmic rays, nuclear reactions inside of massive stars... even the smaller dwarfs such as ours... Possible interaction between our vacuum, and the false vacuum... black holes collisions... The list is really endless against the mere 33TeV.

You seem to be speaking of total energy, not energy density. The energy density at the core of even large stars is very low - less than produced by an explosion of TNT. I think all your suggestions have much lower energy density that that produced by a high energy primary cosmic ray hitting a nucleus of oxygen or nitrogen. This high energy event has been extensively discused in this thread before.

I do not think Paul (or anyone) is concerned with only the total energy. In fact I have suggested that the QEII at full speed (or a fully loaded jumbo jet like the Air bus 380) might be a concern if "total energy" in one object were the concern.

 

[Reiku]

Let me work it out...

 

[Reiku]

After a very quick review, as i understand all of this, above 103 TeV, neutrino detection from stars are indeed possible.

The emittance of >1019 eV cosmic rays are yet unknown. But from what i understand, such high energies are indeed frequent in the universe.

 

[Paul W. Dixon]

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

Highest energy physics is an experimental science and the determination of the threshold towards de Sitter space and the generation of Type 1a Supernova is now being approached via laboratory work. Where the energies now observed at Fermilab and soon at CERN in May 2008 (or shortly thereafterwards) approximate those found at the point origin of the Universe, it may be postulated that we are very close to the threshold values for the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.

Please review, Quantum tunnelling towards as exploding Universe? (Malcolm
J. Perry (1986) Nature 320, p. 679) as well as Dragging of Inertial Frames
(Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) 7158, 449, 41-53) 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. Please note, Perry (1986)
"Classically, transition from one type of solution to the other is
forbidden by the existence of a large potential barrier." Thus the
transition 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, as
noted above, 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 May 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. The excellent, Dragging of Inertial
Frames, article in its review of the findings concerning The General
Theory of Relativity indicates the confirmation of the theories
predictions up to the limits of current astrophysical observational
measurement Let us not confirm this theory once again with the
generation of a Type Ia Supernova in our planetary neighborhood.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

 

[AlphaNumeric]

After a very quick review, as i understand all of this, above 103 TeV, neutrino detection from stars are indeed possible.

We already detect neutrinos from the Sun at much much lower energies. Let's see your workings.

Gravitationally based phenomena such as the formation of black holes and strangelets

Strangelets are not gravitationally based.

Please consult with Dr. Walter Wagner who is a physicist

If he is the person who posts on PhysOrg under that name, then he is completely clueless and certainly doesn't warrant being called a 'physicist' any more than my postman does.