Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

Hi Paul. Your post is too long to read (I probably have read much of it before anyway.)

You may find this following post interesting:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2289788&postcount=69
and number 79 later.
I.e. in additon to all the reasons already given why one need not fear as you do, there is the possibily that the Steady State theory, not the Big Bang theory, is correct.
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB AND CERN

For the generation of Type Ia supernova thermonuclear explosion explanations have been proposed, none of them have withstood modern testing.
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/supernovae/SupernovaeThermonuclear.h
tml
Thus the formation of a transnsition towards de Sitter space may be considereed as a viable alternative
explanatory framework. Before we take the imprudent action of testing additional energies at CERN or yet again at the Fermi Nationional Acclerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, more theoretical research should be employed to verify the safety of this research in highest-energy physics or all is lost.

An educational presentation may be provided also:
https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/co...1010/Education
Paul W. Dixon is responsible for this presentation, Copyright 2009 Paul W. Dixon.

Consider the parameters for universe formation as being similar
to that for Type Ia Supernova generation as being very small and
vastly energetic. This may be philosophically difficult to comprehend
yet essentially vital for survival!

The parameter space of inflationary cosmology is seen in the estimate of chaotic expansion theory of the universe beginning at ~10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, point origin of the Universe with total duration of expansion of 10^-35 seconds or thereabouts. Here the region of expansion no bigger than 10^-33 cm yielding with simultaneous inflations to reach the observable size of our Universe at l<~10^28 cm .. (Andrei Linde, Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology, La Tex Harwood, Chur, Switzerland, 1990, p39) Andrei Linde is the leading authority in this important work at the Department of Physics at Stanford University.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0503/0503203v1.pdf

Should we consider the hypothesis of the uniformity of nature as predictive of the abundance of living forms with some of them attaining the capacity to
transfer themselves to our location in the universe, what can account for their absence? We may note in this connection that there is only a short delay before a transition towards de Sitter space at CERN, Fermilab or other high-energy physics experimentation has generated a Type Ia Supernova as demonstrated in this thread. The frequency of Type Ia Supernova in the observable universe would then signal the termination of these technically advanced civilizations. A technical experimental mischance may then occur before the members of the respective civilizations are philosophically ready to accept this possibllity.

The approach of the transition towards de Sitter space at Fermilab
with the ongoing increase in luminoisty is seen:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/tevlum.html
with these energies are now equivalent to those found at the point
origin of the universe. i..e. "The Big Bang."

We need to consider the increased evidence of water on Mars and the possibilty of water
on other planetary bodies as the source of life as well as intelligent life thus supporting the hypothesis
that other creatures much like ourselves can be a source of Type Ia Supernovae.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7919113.stm

It is generally agreed that the the Large Hadron Collider will provide an
empirical test for the formation of transition towards de Sitter space.
The collisional energetcis are much greater that those tested in the
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia Illinois.

"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is being built in a circular tunnel 27 km
in circumference. The tunnel is buried around 50 to 175 m. underground. It
straddles the Swiss and French borders on the outskirts of Geneva.

The first beams were circulated successfully on 10th September 2008.
...fortunately on 19th September a serious fault developed damaging a
number of superconducting magnets. The repair will require a long
technical intervention which overlaps with the planned winter shutdown.
The LHC beam will, therefore, not see beam again before September 2009.

The LHC is designed to collide two counter rotating beams of protons or
heavy ions. Proton-proton collisions are foreseen at an energy of 7 TeV
per beam."

The competing hypothesis which is considered even more objectionable than the transition towards de Sitter space is given in the False Vacuum solution to the Einstein de Sitter equations. Yet as can be seen in this formulation high-energy physics experimentation may serve as a trigger for this most untoward event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

Please note in this regard that the transition towards de Sitter space is well-known in the cosmological literature. http://www.springerlink.com/content/p8377167602421t1/

An affidavit regarding the contingency of a Type Ia Supernova has been submitted as part of the legal action to bring a moratorium against such an experimental mischance.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cou...case_id-78717/
Many thanks for the happy birthday wishes!!!

With the additional energies available at the LHC in CERN, it may also be possible to test the competing hypothesis of forming a transition to the lower condition in the Einstein de Sitter Universe. Following the formation of this transition, our Universe would drain off into the lower energy condition. This should be of a lesser probabilty of occurence yet it is still considered as a possible outcome to this research.

Please note: http://professordixon.blogspot.com

The WORLD RECORD luminosity now employed at the accelerator (Please note:
Accelerator Division Notification on the Fermilab Home Page) is 362.37 E30.
In scientific notation, this 362.37 x 10 to the 30th power particle interactions. With a beam energy of 10 to the 11th power electron volts, we have then the energy of the current work at Fermilab set a 362.37 x 10 to the 41st power electron volts (362.37 E 41 eV). This is much greater than the largest energies seen on earth via cosmic ray interactions at 10 to the 19th power eV (E 19 eV). Without publicity regarding this most critical danger,
a breach in the potential barrier may occur at any moment thus releasing
the force of a supernova on our planet and solar system. We will thus have an intrusional event from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe
as it is now termed. Your kind and generous action on behalf of all
mankind is greatly needed at this critical juncture or all is lost and we
shall all perish.

Please note that the return flight of the Columbia shuttle was not halted because of the false belief that the the foam shards could not cause a life threatening defect in the aerodynamic properties of the shuttle.
http://www.reuters.com/article/lates.../idUSN30568874

As a fictional work, the novel Anathem remarks on scientists tinkering with what they do not understand. To quote from the journal Nature, "Anathem is a shrewd exploration of what might happen if the fear of scientists meddling with things they were never meant to know becomes entirely justified." with space-time itself included in the list of potential problem areas.
(Jennifer Rahn, Imprisoned by intelligence, Neal Stephenson, Anathem, Opinion Nature, 456, 7221, 27 November 2008, 447-447)

It may be noted in this connection that the term Anathem refers to an ecumenical curse of severe proportions. This may be understood to mean that we are expected to take extreme exception with predjudice to the work of those who would destroy us and our children through this meddling.

Tycho Brahe's supernova, now identified as a Type Ia Supernova, shows those characteristics as predicted by the model expected in supernova from experimentation. A large Supernova has been generated leaving behind a type G star such as is found in our solar system. (Andrea Pastorello, Astrophysics, Echo from an ancient supernova, Nature 456, 7222, 4 December 2008, 587-589) The technique of light echoes was used for this identification of an historical object.

As noted in Chang, J.,et al., An excess of cosmic ray electrons at energies of 300-800 GeV (Nature, 456, 7220, 20 November 2008, pp. 362-365) could be tapping into "muti-dimensional spaces with potenially important implications for our understanding of the Universe." Similarly, we may postulate that Type Ia supernovae are expressing the energetics of an n-dimensional space
whose properties may be understood with further study.

Please note that while the Type II Supernovae have origin in 10 or more solar mass objects Type Ia Supernovae have origin in objects of some 1 solar mass.
It may be noted in this connection that the smaller massed Supernova give rise to deflagration of some 10 billion solar luminosities whilst the larger objects give rise to some 1 billion solar luminosity deflagration objects. This difference may lend support that the energetics of Type Ia Supernovae is created via an aperture formed towards de Sitter space. As also noted in this connection, there is no trace of hydrogen at maximum light for Type Ia Supernovae thus making it statistically unlikely that they have reached the Chandrssekhar limit by accretion from a nearby solar object.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/snovcn.html

The formation of Type 1a Supernovae is dependent on them reaching the Chandrasekhar limit of greater than 1.4 solar mass to implode into a Supernova according to current theory.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/snovcn.html

Yet there is evidence that the Type !a Supernova can form at one solar mass
or less thus contradicting current theory and thus supporting the alternate theory where Type Ia Suoernovae may be formed via the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.
Probing Dark Energy with Supernovae
by Sebastian Ihle
9.6.2006

As noted in our sciforums discussion, there are a number of competing hypotheses. An empirical investigation is under way at CERN in the LHC.
Should we generate a Type Ia Supernova, this will confirm the existence of a
highly energetic topologically cobordant continuum termed de Sitter space.
So far, the astrophysical theoretical generalizations of the generalized theory of relativity have been confirmed at the 100% level. The world's largest experiment may yet create a tragic confirmatiion of Albert Einstein's theory.

Please recall that the energies now proposed for the LHC at CERN will be some 7 times greater that those employed at FERMILAB. As is well-known, the energies in use at FERMILAB approximate those predicted for those found at the point origin of the Universe. Thus even from a Common Sense perspective we may penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space
thus releasing the force of Type Ia Supernova on our planet with the increaased energies to be employed at the LHC. Please note:

Philosophy and Common Sense (Frances)

"Not every philosophy professor takes philosophy seriously in the sense
that she thinks that some purely philosophical theories that go against
common sense have a good chance to be true. These philosophers respect
anti-commonsensical theories, in that they admit such theories are very
important in the pursuit of philosophical understanding. But they also
think that there is no real chance that they are true. If you have a valid
argument based not on scientific but purely philosophical reasoning, and
that argument concludes with something against cross-cultural and timeless
common sense, then at least one of the premises isnt true, or so they say.
It might be tremendously difficult to identify the mistaken premise, but
we can start our investigation off assuming that our assumption that the
conclusion is false is safe. These philosophers take philosophising
seriously, of course, but they dont take seriously the idea that purely
philosophical (so not empirical, not mathematical) theories have a good
chance at overthrowing parts of common sense."

A videotaped presentation of this statement is under preparation. Link to this will be provided as soon as it is made ready. This should provide a more interesting source. We welcome any suggestions you may have in this connection for illustrative material. Please let us know what Malcolm Perry would indicate regarding the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space via highest-energy physics experimentation.

Highest energy physics is an empirical science as noted below. We may then discover through experimentation the answer to our theoretical questions
which are then derived from observation. Should the ongoing LHC at CERN produce the Higgs boson and field, this would then be a major victory for the Standatrard Model in Physics. Should we note the generation of a Type Ia Supernova, this will further confirm the current record of 100% successful predictions of the Generalized Theory of Relavity of Albert Einstein. These energies to be generated at CERN are those energy levels seen some 10^-9 - 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the point origin of the Universe. Experimentally we note that these energies are deemed sufficient for the testing of these hypotheses.

Please access this webpage for a thorough update on the LHC at CERN.

http://www.lhcdefense.org/

Generation of Type Ia Supernova via a transition to de Sitter space may be added to this description as a consequence of highest energy physics experimentation.

There has been a brief hiatus introduced from now until April or thereabouts for the reactivation of the LHC at CERN. We should consider all possible alternatives before this gravely irresponsible experiment begins anew.

Please recall that the activation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is the onset of the largest highest-energy experiment so far extant on our planet.
The empirical observation of a Type Ia Supernova will serve as another confirmation of the Generalized Theory of Albert Einstein. This theory, as noted below, has had 100% verifcation in other astrophysical observations.
Let us not be so rash as to further test this theory and lose all that we hold most dear as a sacrifice to the ambitions of ruthless egoism and professional incompetence. We may discover the Higgs boson and field and yet create a perforation in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space and create a Supernova. The tentative date for the onset of the collisional actions at CERN is now around May 1, 2009.

From the LHC Machine Outreach

The LHC is designed to collide two counter rotating beams of protons or
heavy ions. Proton-proton collisions are foreseen at an energy of 7 TeV
per beam.

The WORLD RECORD luminosity now employed per example at the US accelerator (Please note:
Accelerator Division Notification on the Fermilab Home Page) is
288.89E30.
In scientific
notation, this 288.89 x 10 to the 30th power particle interactions. With
a beam energy of 10 to the 11th power electron volts, we have then the
energy of the current work at Fermilab set a 288.89 x 10 to the 41st
power
electron volts (288.89 E 41 eV). This is much greater than the largest
energies seen on earth via cosmic ray interactions at 10 to the 19th
power eV (E 19 eV). Without publicity regarding this most critical danger,
a breach in the potential barrier may occur at any moment thus releasing
the force of a supernova on our planet and solar system. We will thus have an
intrusional event from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe
as it is now termed. Your kind and generous action on behalf of all
mankind is greatly needed at this critical juncture or all is lost and we
shall all perish as this undergoes a vast increment at CERN.

As one of the seven plaintiffs in the District Court in Hawaii, may I offer a formal complaint agasinst Director of CERN Robert Aymar and to John Ellis chief theoretican of CERN to appear in the International Court in the Hague to answer charges of gross negligence in the operation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As noted in this post, is the formal derivation of the generation of Type Ia Supernova from their experiment following the well-known work of Albert Einstein and his colleague Willem de Sitter in the generalized theory of relativity. The energies in nature do not approximate those found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the Big Bang at the pont origin of the Universe without forming a transition towards de Sitter space as noted per exemplar in Type II supernovae and in quasars. Their willingness to proceed with this experiment with full knowledge of this potentiallity consititutes a criminal act of public endangerment. May we request that the good people of Switzerland discontinue power service to CERN until this matter has reached full legal disposition in the International Court in the Hague.

May I add a personal note to this discussion. We should preserve the
future for all mankind. Children have the right to grow-up in a safe and
sheltered environment. We need to give our children the time to dream and
grow into all future time. We should visit other planets, other stars, other
galaxies to see and understand all things. Let us call for patience in
this research endeavor until we are certain of the potential dangers that
may lurk for the unsuspecting researcher. One Supernova will terminate all
that we hold most dear.

Update on the research progress at CERN.

End of July: First particles may be injected, and the commissioning with
beams and collisions will start.
It is expected that it will take about 2 months to have first collisions
at 10 TeV. Please note that only one area remains at below collisional
energies.

We shall now observe at CERN the onset of collisional energies at far
greater impact than those observed at Fermilab.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...der-first-beam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7512586.stm

The Director General of CERN Robert Aymar as well as the safety officers
of CERN have received the appended posting. We may hope that this message
will alert them to the forthcoming generation of a Type Ia Supernova from
the experimental highest-energy physics at CERN. So far, as the
preparation for the LHC experiment continues, there has been no refutation
of the theoretical work of Albert Einstein and the extension of his
Generalized Theory of Relativity by Willem de Sitter. This forms the basis
of our understanding of the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now
termed. A review of the cosmological perspective is provided in the generation of Type Ia Supernova:
http://professordixon.blogspot.com/


Please note: Cool down at CERN is near completion as all segments are in
the blue condition. Collisional energetics should now be observed shortly.
May God have mercy on the souls of all our children.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

As we are in engaged in an eschatological discourse, the "philosophy of
last things," we need to distinguish between black hole generation as well
as strangelets and Type Ia Supernova. Their generation and their effects
are uncertain whilst Type Ia Supernova Generation is almost completely
certain as are as any of the effects under the auspices of Albert
Einstein's generalized theory of relativity. Please note: Dragging of
Inertial Frames (Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) Walter
L. Wagner and I have discusssed this. Type Ia Supernova generation will be
sudden and the destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host of
nearby stars will follow. Should the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) cool
down schedule proceed as now planned, an empirical test of the hypothesis
of Type Ia Supernova generation via highest energy physics experimentation
will commence in June/July 2008. The 7 Tev phase of the research would
then begin at this time. Please note: http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
cooldown progress in preparation of the empirical test of this hypotheisis
at the LHC in CERN as noted above.

Please review, "Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe?"
by Malcolm J. Perry (1986) (Nature Vol. 320, 24 April, p. 679)


It may be helpful to clarify the philosophical position and astrophysical
energetics instrinsic to de Sitter space in the standard cosmological
model in this postulation of transition from de Sitter space as generative
of supernova in high-energy physics experimentation.

A philosophical position may be cited from, G. W. F. Hegel (The philosophy
of history, New York: Dover, 249, 1956) ..." there is no essential
existence which does not manifest itself." The very large energies derived
by Willem de Sitter for the equations describing the false vacuum of de
Sitter space yield an energy density of 1.69 x 10^126 for eV (electron
volts) per cm^3. (Gott, R. (1982) Creation of open universes from de
Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304-307. In Waldrop. M.M., (1982) Bubbles upon
the river of time, Science, 215, 4536, 1082-1083), the energy density of
de Sitter space is given as: 5 x 10^31 kelvin and 3 x 10^93 grams per cm^3
, converted to eV via e=mc^2 which is Albert Einstein's famous equation.
This energy would then find expression in the observable universe. In the
sense of this analysis, it would be quite unlikely that energies of this
order of magnitude would remain hidden should a transition be formed in
the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. This would serve as an
immediate and ever present danger for the investigator and constitutes a
public endangerment as well.

This is based on the mainstream theory of universe formation by Professor
R. Gott of Princeton University in which each bubble universe forms
smoothly out of de Sitter space. A potentially infinite number of
universes may form in de Sitter space. In a topological sense, de Sitter
space is cobordant at each point with the continuum (our universe). De
Sitter space is then prevented by a large potential barrier from forming
an intrusional event into the continuum. The essential hypothesis of this
formulation is that with sufficiently great energetics, a classical breach
in the potential barrier towards de Siitter space will be formed thus
releasing the force of Type Ia supernova upon the terrestrial ecosphere,
the solar system and those nearby stars. These energies are from de Sitter
space, therefore; the energies of the accelerator only serve as a trigger
for their release.

With sufficient energies, under this postulation, we discover that the
accelerator is in the Einstein de Sitter universe, as it is now termed,
and we have gone from particle physics as our governing theory to
relativistic cosmology.

This supports of the theoretcal position that sufficient energy will penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of an exploding Universe i.e., Supernova, on our planet. The works of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter as shown here have never been refuted.

From the viewpoint of classical physics, the penetration towards de Sitter space is prevented by a large though not infinite potential barrier as described by Malcolm Perry. As the energies in the collliders go from 10^-9 seconds to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the big bang at the point origin of the Universe, this penetrance becomes inevitable thus releasing the force of a Type Ia Supernova on our planet, solar system and host of nearby stars.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

It may be noted in this connection that there is no trace of hydrogen at maximum light for Supernovae Type Ia, which indicates that the companion star for this model is statistically unlikely since most stars are are of an hydrogen dominant order. This observation supports the the origin of these supernovae via a transtion towards de Sitter space or other highly energetic flux. Please note:

The Golden Standard Type Ia Supernova 2005cf: Observations from the
Ultraviolet to the Near-Infrared Wavebands
Wang, X.; Li, W.; Filippenko, A. V.; Foley, R. J.; Kirshner, R. P.;
Modjaz, M.; Bloom, J.; Brown, P. J.; Carter, D.; Friedman, A. S.; Gal-Yam,
A.; Ganeshalingam, M.; Hicken, M.; Krisciunas, K.; Milne, P.; Silverman,
J. M.; Suntzeff, N. B.; Wood-Vasey, W. M.; Cenko, S. B.; Challis, P.; Fox,
D. B.; Kirkman, D.; Li, J. Z.; Li, T. P.; Malkan, M. A.; Moore, M. R.;
Reitzel, D. B.; Rich, R. M.; Serduke, F. J. D.; Shang, R. C.; Steele, T.
N.; Swift, B. J.; Tao, C.; Wong, D. S.; Zhang, S. N.

For the generation of Type Ia supernova thermonuclear explosion explanations have been proposed, none of them have withstood modern testing.
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com...hermonuclear.h
tml
Thus the formation of a transnsition towards de Sitter space may be considereed as a viable alternative
explanatory framework. Before we take the imprudent action of testing additional energies at CERN or yet again at the Fermi Nationional Acclerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, more theoretical research should be employed to verify the safety of this research in highest-energy physics or all is lost.

An educational presentation may be provided also:
https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/co...1010/Education
Paul W. Dixon is responsible for this presentation, Copyright 2009 Paul W. Dixon.

Consider the parameters for universe formation as being similar
to that for Type Ia Supernova generation as being very small and
vastly energetic. This may be philosophically difficult to comprehend
yet essentially vital for survival!

The parameter space of inflationary cosmology is seen in the estimate of chaotic expansion theory of the universe beginning at ~10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, point origin of the Universe with total duration of expansion of 10^-35 seconds or thereabouts. Here the region of expansion no bigger than 10^-33 cm yielding with simultaneous inflations to reach the observable size of our Universe at l<~10^28 cm .. (Andrei Linde, Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology, La Tex Harwood, Chur, Switzerland, 1990, p39) Andrei Linde is the leading authority in this important work at the Department of Physics at Stanford University.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0503/0503203v1.pdf

Should we consider the hypothesis of the uniformity of nature as predictive of the abundance of living forms with some of them attaining the capacity to
transfer themselves to our location in the universe, what can account for their absence? We may note in this connection that there is only a short delay before a transition towards de Sitter space at CERN, Fermilab or other high-energy physics experimentation has generated a Type Ia Supernova as demonstrated in this thread. The frequency of Type Ia Supernova in the observable universe would then signal the termination of these technically advanced civilizations. A technical experimental mischance may then occur before the members of the respective civilizations are philosophically ready to accept this possibllity.

The approach of the transition towards de Sitter space at Fermilab
with the ongoing increase in luminoisty is seen:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/tevlum.html
with these energies are now equivalent to those found at the point
origin of the universe. i..e. "The Big Bang."

We need to consider the increased evidence of water on Mars and the possibilty of water
on other planetary bodies as the source of life as well as intelligent life thus supporting the hypothesis
that other creatures much like ourselves can be a source of Type Ia Supernovae.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7919113.stm

It is generally agreed that the the Large Hadron Collider will provide an
empirical test for the formation of transition towards de Sitter space.
The collisional energetcis are much greater that those tested in the
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia Illinois.

"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is being built in a circular tunnel 27 km
in circumference. The tunnel is buried around 50 to 175 m. underground. It
straddles the Swiss and French borders on the outskirts of Geneva.

The first beams were circulated successfully on 10th September 2008.
...fortunately on 19th September a serious fault developed damaging a
number of superconducting magnets. The repair will require a long
technical intervention which overlaps with the planned winter shutdown.
The LHC beam will, therefore, not see beam again before September 2009.

The LHC is designed to collide two counter rotating beams of protons or
heavy ions. Proton-proton collisions are foreseen at an energy of 7 TeV
per beam."

The competing hypothesis which is considered even more objectionable than the transition towards de Sitter space is given in the False Vacuum solution to the Einstein de Sitter equations. Yet as can be seen in this formulation high-energy physics experimentation may serve as a trigger for this most untoward event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

Please note in this regard that the transition towards de Sitter space is well-known in the cosmological literature. http://www.springerlink.com/content/p8377167602421t1/

An affidavit regarding the contingency of a Type Ia Supernova has been submitted as part of the legal action to bring a moratorium against such an experimental mischance.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cou...case_id-78717/
Many thanks for the happy birthday wishes!!!

With the additional energies available at the LHC in CERN, it may also be possible to test the competing hypothesis of forming a transition to the lower condition in the Einstein de Sitter Universe. Following the formation of this transition, our Universe would drain off into the lower energy condition. This should be of a lesser probabilty of occurence yet it is still considered as a possible outcome to this research.

Please note: http://professordixon.blogspot.com

The WORLD RECORD luminosity now employed at the accelerator (Please note:
Accelerator Division Notification on the Fermilab Home Page) is 362.37 E30.
In scientific notation, this 362.37 x 10 to the 30th power particle interactions. With a beam energy of 10 to the 11th power electron volts, we have then the energy of the current work at Fermilab set a 362.37 x 10 to the 41st power electron volts (362.37 E 41 eV). This is much greater than the largest energies seen on earth via cosmic ray interactions at 10 to the 19th power eV (E 19 eV). Without publicity regarding this most critical danger,
a breach in the potential barrier may occur at any moment thus releasing
the force of a supernova on our planet and solar system. We will thus have an intrusional event from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe
as it is now termed. Your kind and generous action on behalf of all
mankind is greatly needed at this critical juncture or all is lost and we
shall all perish.

Please note that the return flight of the Columbia shuttle was not halted because of the false belief that the the foam shards could not cause a life threatening defect in the aerodynamic properties of the shuttle.
http://www.reuters.com/article/lates.../idUSN30568874

As a fictional work, the novel Anathem remarks on scientists tinkering with what they do not understand. To quote from the journal Nature, "Anathem is a shrewd exploration of what might happen if the fear of scientists meddling with things they were never meant to know becomes entirely justified." with space-time itself included in the list of potential problem areas.
(Jennifer Rahn, Imprisoned by intelligence, Neal Stephenson, Anathem, Opinion Nature, 456, 7221, 27 November 2008, 447-447)

It may be noted in this connection that the term Anathem refers to an ecumenical curse of severe proportions. This may be understood to mean that we are expected to take extreme exception with predjudice to the work of those who would destroy us and our children through this meddling.

Tycho Brahe's supernova, now identified as a Type Ia Supernova, shows those characteristics as predicted by the model expected in supernova from experimentation. A large Supernova has been generated leaving behind a type G star such as is found in our solar system. (Andrea Pastorello, Astrophysics, Echo from an ancient supernova, Nature 456, 7222, 4 December 2008, 587-589) The technique of light echoes was used for this identification of an historical object.

As noted in Chang, J.,et al., An excess of cosmic ray electrons at energies of 300-800 GeV (Nature, 456, 7220, 20 November 2008, pp. 362-365) could be tapping into "muti-dimensional spaces with potenially important implications for our understanding of the Universe." Similarly, we may postulate that Type Ia supernovae are expressing the energetics of an n-dimensional space
whose properties may be understood with further study.

Please note that while the Type II Supernovae have origin in 10 or more solar mass objects Type Ia Supernovae have origin in objects of some 1 solar mass.
It may be noted in this connection that the smaller massed Supernova give rise to deflagration of some 10 billion solar luminosities whilst the larger objects give rise to some 1 billion solar luminosity deflagration objects. This difference may lend support that the energetics of Type Ia Supernovae is created via an aperture formed towards de Sitter space. As also noted in this connection, there is no trace of hydrogen at maximum light for Type Ia Supernovae thus making it statistically unlikely that they have reached the Chandrssekhar limit by accretion from a nearby solar object.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/snovcn.html

The formation of Type 1a Supernovae is dependent on them reaching the Chandrasekhar limit of greater than 1.4 solar mass to implode into a Supernova according to current theory.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/snovcn.html

Yet there is evidence that the Type !a Supernova can form at one solar mass
or less thus contradicting current theory and thus supporting the alternate theory where Type Ia Suoernovae may be formed via the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.
Probing Dark Energy with Supernovae
by Sebastian Ihle
9.6.2006

As noted in our sciforums discussion, there are a number of competing hypotheses. An empirical investigation is under way at CERN in the LHC.
Should we generate a Type Ia Supernova, this will confirm the existence of a
highly energetic topologically cobordant continuum termed de Sitter space.
So far, the astrophysical theoretical generalizations of the generalized theory of relativity have been confirmed at the 100% level. The world's largest experiment may yet create a tragic confirmatiion of Albert Einstein's theory.

Please recall that the energies now proposed for the LHC at CERN will be some 7 times greater that those employed at FERMILAB. As is well-known, the energies in use at FERMILAB approximate those predicted for those found at the point origin of the Universe. Thus even from a Common Sense perspective we may penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space
thus releasing the force of Type Ia Supernova on our planet with the increaased energies to be employed at the LHC. Please note:

Philosophy and Common Sense (Frances)

"Not every philosophy professor takes philosophy seriously in the sense
that she thinks that some purely philosophical theories that go against
common sense have a good chance to be true. These philosophers respect
anti-commonsensical theories, in that they admit such theories are very
important in the pursuit of philosophical understanding. But they also
think that there is no real chance that they are true. If you have a valid
argument based not on scientific but purely philosophical reasoning, and
that argument concludes with something against cross-cultural and timeless
common sense, then at least one of the premises isnt true, or so they say.
It might be tremendously difficult to identify the mistaken premise, but
we can start our investigation off assuming that our assumption that the
conclusion is false is safe. These philosophers take philosophising
seriously, of course, but they dont take seriously the idea that purely
philosophical (so not empirical, not mathematical) theories have a good
chance at overthrowing parts of common sense."

A videotaped presentation of this statement is under preparation. Link to this will be provided as soon as it is made ready. This should provide a more interesting source. We welcome any suggestions you may have in this connection for illustrative material. Please let us know what Malcolm Perry would indicate regarding the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space via highest-energy physics experimentation.

Highest energy physics is an empirical science as noted below. We may then discover through experimentation the answer to our theoretical questions
which are then derived from observation. Should the ongoing LHC at CERN produce the Higgs boson and field, this would then be a major victory for the Standatrard Model in Physics. Should we note the generation of a Type Ia Supernova, this will further confirm the current record of 100% successful predictions of the Generalized Theory of Relavity of Albert Einstein. These energies to be generated at CERN are those energy levels seen some 10^-9 - 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the point origin of the Universe. Experimentally we note that these energies are deemed sufficient for the testing of these hypotheses.

Please access this webpage for a thorough update on the LHC at CERN.

http://www.lhcdefense.org/

Generation of Type Ia Supernova via a transition to de Sitter space may be added to this description as a consequence of highest energy physics experimentation.

There has been a brief hiatus introduced from now until April or thereabouts for the reactivation of the LHC at CERN. We should consider all possible alternatives before this gravely irresponsible experiment begins anew.

Please recall that the activation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is the onset of the largest highest-energy experiment so far extant on our planet.
The empirical observation of a Type Ia Supernova will serve as another confirmation of the Generalized Theory of Albert Einstein. This theory, as noted below, has had 100% verifcation in other astrophysical observations.
Let us not be so rash as to further test this theory and lose all that we hold most dear as a sacrifice to the ambitions of ruthless egoism and professional incompetence. We may discover the Higgs boson and field and yet create a perforation in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space and create a Supernova. The tentative date for the onset of the collisional actions at CERN is now around May 1, 2009.

From the LHC Machine Outreach

The LHC is designed to collide two counter rotating beams of protons or
heavy ions. Proton-proton collisions are foreseen at an energy of 7 TeV
per beam.

The WORLD RECORD luminosity now employed per example at the US accelerator (Please note:
Accelerator Division Notification on the Fermilab Home Page) is
288.89E30.
In scientific
notation, this 288.89 x 10 to the 30th power particle interactions. With
a beam energy of 10 to the 11th power electron volts, we have then the
energy of the current work at Fermilab set a 288.89 x 10 to the 41st
power
electron volts (288.89 E 41 eV). This is much greater than the largest
energies seen on earth via cosmic ray interactions at 10 to the 19th
power eV (E 19 eV). Without publicity regarding this most critical danger,
a breach in the potential barrier may occur at any moment thus releasing
the force of a supernova on our planet and solar system. We will thus have an
intrusional event from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe
as it is now termed. Your kind and generous action on behalf of all
mankind is greatly needed at this critical juncture or all is lost and we
shall all perish as this undergoes a vast increment at CERN.

As one of the seven plaintiffs in the District Court in Hawaii, may I offer a formal complaint agasinst Director of CERN Robert Aymar and to John Ellis chief theoretican of CERN to appear in the International Court in the Hague to answer charges of gross negligence in the operation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As noted in this post, is the formal derivation of the generation of Type Ia Supernova from their experiment following the well-known work of Albert Einstein and his colleague Willem de Sitter in the generalized theory of relativity. The energies in nature do not approximate those found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the Big Bang at the pont origin of the Universe without forming a transition towards de Sitter space as noted per exemplar in Type II supernovae and in quasars. Their willingness to proceed with this experiment with full knowledge of this potentiallity consititutes a criminal act of public endangerment. May we request that the good people of Switzerland discontinue power service to CERN until this matter has reached full legal disposition in the International Court in the Hague.

May I add a personal note to this discussion. We should preserve the
future for all mankind. Children have the right to grow-up in a safe and
sheltered environment. We need to give our children the time to dream and
grow into all future time. We should visit other planets, other stars, other
galaxies to see and understand all things. Let us call for patience in
this research endeavor until we are certain of the potential dangers that
may lurk for the unsuspecting researcher. One Supernova will terminate all
that we hold most dear.

Update on the research progress at CERN.

End of July: First particles may be injected, and the commissioning with
beams and collisions will start.
It is expected that it will take about 2 months to have first collisions
at 10 TeV. Please note that only one area remains at below collisional
energies.

We shall now observe at CERN the onset of collisional energies at far
greater impact than those observed at Fermilab.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...der-first-beam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7512586.stm

The Director General of CERN Robert Aymar as well as the safety officers
of CERN have received the appended posting. We may hope that this message
will alert them to the forthcoming generation of a Type Ia Supernova from
the experimental highest-energy physics at CERN. So far, as the
preparation for the LHC experiment continues, there has been no refutation
of the theoretical work of Albert Einstein and the extension of his
Generalized Theory of Relativity by Willem de Sitter. This forms the basis
of our understanding of the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now
termed. A review of the cosmological perspective is provided in the generation of Type Ia Supernova:
http://professordixon.blogspot.com/


Please note: Cool down at CERN is near completion as all segments are in
the blue condition. Collisional energetics should now be observed shortly.
May God have mercy on the souls of all our children.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

As we are in engaged in an eschatological discourse, the "philosophy of
last things," we need to distinguish between black hole generation as well
as strangelets and Type Ia Supernova. Their generation and their effects
are uncertain whilst Type Ia Supernova Generation is almost completely
certain as are as any of the effects under the auspices of Albert
Einstein's generalized theory of relativity. Please note: Dragging of
Inertial Frames (Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) Walter
L. Wagner and I have discusssed this. Type Ia Supernova generation will be
sudden and the destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host of
nearby stars will follow. Should the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) cool
down schedule proceed as now planned, an empirical test of the hypothesis
of Type Ia Supernova generation via highest energy physics experimentation
will commence in June/July 2008. The 7 Tev phase of the research would
then begin at this time. Please note: http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
cooldown progress in preparation of the empirical test of this hypotheisis
at the LHC in CERN as noted above.

Please review, "Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe?"
by Malcolm J. Perry (1986) (Nature Vol. 320, 24 April, p. 679)


It may be helpful to clarify the philosophical position and astrophysical
energetics instrinsic to de Sitter space in the standard cosmological
model in this postulation of transition from de Sitter space as generative
of supernova in high-energy physics experimentation.

A philosophical position may be cited from, G. W. F. Hegel (The philosophy
of history, New York: Dover, 249, 1956) ..." there is no essential
existence which does not manifest itself." The very large energies derived
by Willem de Sitter for the equations describing the false vacuum of de
Sitter space yield an energy density of 1.69 x 10^126 for eV (electron
volts) per cm^3. (Gott, R. (1982) Creation of open universes from de
Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304-307. In Waldrop. M.M., (1982) Bubbles upon
the river of time, Science, 215, 4536, 1082-1083), the energy density of
de Sitter space is given as: 5 x 10^31 kelvin and 3 x 10^93 grams per cm^3
, converted to eV via e=mc^2 which is Albert Einstein's famous equation.
This energy would then find expression in the observable universe. In the
sense of this analysis, it would be quite unlikely that energies of this
order of magnitude would remain hidden should a transition be formed in
the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. This would serve as an
immediate and ever present danger for the investigator and constitutes a
public endangerment as well.

This is based on the mainstream theory of universe formation by Professor
R. Gott of Princeton University in which each bubble universe forms
smoothly out of de Sitter space. A potentially infinite number of
universes may form in de Sitter space. In a topological sense, de Sitter
space is cobordant at each point with the continuum (our universe). De
Sitter space is then prevented by a large potential barrier from forming
an intrusional event into the continuum. The essential hypothesis of this
formulation is that with sufficiently great energetics, a classical breach
in the potential barrier towards de Siitter space will be formed thus
releasing the force of Type Ia supernova upon the terrestrial ecosphere,
the solar system and those nearby stars. These energies are from de Sitter
space, therefore; the energies of the accelerator only serve as a trigger
for their release.

With sufficient energies, under this postulation, we discover that the
accelerator is in the Einstein de Sitter universe, as it is now termed,
and we have gone from particle physics as our governing theory to
relativistic cosmology.

This supports of the theoretcal position that sufficient energy will penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of an exploding Universe i.e., Supernova, on our planet. The works of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter as shown here have never been refuted.

From the viewpoint of classical physics, the penetration towards de Sitter space is prevented by a large though not infinite potential barrier as described by Malcolm Perry. As the energies in the collliders go from 10^-9 seconds to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the big bang at the point origin of the Universe, this penetrance becomes inevitable thus releasing the force of a Type Ia Supernova on our planet, solar system and host of nearby stars.

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

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
... It may be noted in this connection that there is no trace of hydrogen at maximum light for Supernovae Type Ia, which indicates that the companion star for this model is statistically unlikely since most stars are are of an hydrogen dominant order. ...
I "googled" and found your reference at:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697..380W

The abstract tells of some doubly ionized Ca & Si lines which implies a very high temperature (as does the enormous output of light, which can never exceed a black body at the same temperature.)

Thus, one should not expect any hydrogen lines to exist in the radiation. - All the infalling hydrogen from the companion star is now only protons and electrons in a plasma.

But carry on - don't let facts get in your way. :rolleyes:

Thanks for making an easily refuted error so early in your post. I rarely read down more than a few lines. I.e. I stop reading when text has been posted before, (many times usually).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I "googled" and found your reference at:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...697..380W

The abstract tells of some doubly ionized Ca & Si lines which implies a very high temperature (as does the enormous output of light, which can never exceed a black body at the same temperature.)

Thus, one should not expect any hydrogen lines to exist in the radiation. - All the infalling hydrogen from the companion star is now only protons and electrons in a plasma.

Billy T;

Thanks for providing the link. I found it interesting that Ca and Si show up, but not Fe or Ni, as the dominant lines. It appears that Ca and Si are the dominant elements, and moving at very high velocity [measured, I presume, by their doppler shift of their lines]. I'm not certain that H would not have lines showing, since at some point it should have 'cooled' to below plasma temperatures to produce lines, even if moving outwards from the explosion at high velocity. However, I believe we have lots to learn about supernovae, and perhaps I'm missing something about that. Thus, the explanation for the lack of H lines might be the same as for the lack of Fe or Ni lines [which have even higher ionization energies than Ca and Si (due to more protons)]. That is, those lines are much lower in intensity due to the dominance of Ca and Si, which apparently dominates the light output. So, it seems to me quite plausible that the supernova occurs when the 'burning' starts producing Ca and Si, rather than Fe and Ni, in great abundance. I'd always believed that Fe and Ni were the dominant elements produced during the supernova, but perhaps that is true in other categories of supernovae, and not in Type 1a as this one was. Perhaps someone with a better background in supernovae than I might wish to post about this.
 
Last edited:
... I'm not certain that H would not have lines showing, since at some point it should have 'cooled' to below plasma temperatures to produce lines, even if moving outwards from the explosion at high velocity. However, I believe we have lots to learn about supernovae, and perhaps I'm missing something about that. Thus, the explanation for the lack of H lines might be the same as for the lack of Fe or Ni lines [which have even higher ionization energies than Ca and Si (due to more protons)]. That is, those lines are much lower in intensity due to the dominance of Ca and Si, which apparently dominates the light output. So, it seems to me quite plausible that the supernova occurs when the 'burning' starts producing Ca and Si, rather than Fe and Ni, in great abundance. I'd always believed that Fe and Ni were the dominant elements produced during the supernova, but perhaps that is true in other categories of supernovae, and not in Type 1a as this one was. Perhaps someone with a better background in supernovae than I might wish to post about this.
I do not know much about std details of super nova either, but can comment a little on your post:

There are surely shock waves that are forming the heavier than iron elements in the expanding gas and very likely magnetic fields trapped in the plasma. (In these conditions there can even be something called "collisionless shocks." ) Clearly as I noted the radiation is coming for a very hot source in which hydrogen can not exist - only its separated protons and electrons.

True the expanding gases will cool, but they also are becoming less dense and this dominates to keep the once ionized plasma fully ionized even when it has cooled down to less than room temperature.

The Saha equation tells the fraction ionized as a function of both temperature and density. Even the ~4degree K inter galactic gas anywhere vaguely near a star is highly ionized. If you do not want to do the Saha Equation math, you can physically understand this very cold but nearly fully ionized plasma as follows:

The harsh solar UV is able to ionize any neutral atom it falls on. Once a single ionization stage ion and its now separated electron form, space is so empty they rarely ever get back together again. Thus the expanding super nova gases remain ionized as they cool and expand, especially when you realize they are in a very intense very harsh UV and X-ray flux, which immediately re-ionizes any "lucky electron" that happens to find the ion (or proton in the case of hydrogen) AND also has relative velocity essentially the same as the ion does. (Capture of the electron must still conserver energy and after capture of the electron by the ion the neutral will have essentially the same speed as the ion did. If the electron had significant Kinetic Energy it can not be captured and conserve energy (unless there is a third body near by, which is highly unlikely. The hotter the plasma is, the less likely both will have essentially the same velocity - note only equal speeds will not help as momentum must be conserved also.) Also if captured it will be into a very high principle quantum number state like n = 80 and then only a tiny energy is carried away by a microwave photon, which with the expansion of space gets to sort of an audio wave length EM wave! I.e. without a "third body" nearby, recombiantion is dam near impossible in low density plasma.)

I think you have a miss conception about the relative ease of ionizing iron and Ca. If memory serves me, neutral Ca has two outer shell electrons so when you remove one there is only one remaining to partially shield the leaving electron from the net +1 positive ion being produced. I think there are many outer shell electrons in iron's case; say seven just to illustrate. Then there will still be six in the outer shell to shield the net +1 positive nuclear charge. Furthermore, that electron leaving iron has a "head start" over the one leaving Ca as it is already much farther from the positive nucleus. (The ionization potential or energy is the work done to pull the electron away. - I am too lazy to look it up but am quite confident it less for iron than for Ca.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are surely shock waves that are forming the heavier than iron elements in the expanding gas and very likely magnetic fields trapped in the plasma. (In these conditions there can even be something called "collisionless shocks." ) Clearly as I noted the radiation is coming for a very hot source in which hydrogen can not exist - only its separated protons and electrons.

Billy T:

I believe that the Ni/Fe formation takes place during a rapid-neutron-capture phase, which also produces the heavier elements through Pu [and beyond]. This occurs in the interior of the explosion during a big 'crunch' in which lots of neutrons are released during fusion of lower-Z elements. I do not believe this takes place during the expansion phase of the supernova in the 'shock wave' of the expanding gas.

The electron structure of Ca is: [Ar]4s(2)

The electron structure of Fe is: [Ar]3d(6)4s(2)

In other words, after the 4s shell is filled with 2 electrons as in Ca, the 'inner' 3d shell begins filling for Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, until at Fe it has 6 electrons more than Ca. [i.e. Ca-20 and Fe-26].

Since the article reports measuring the light output long after the fusion processes have completed, any iron present would already have formed, and been producing light along with the lines of the two electrons removed from the Ca [the doubly ionized lines are likely the 'outermost' 4s lines, though I'm not certain about that, as there might be 3d lines also present, and I'd have to look up the ionization potentials of each electron to know for certain, as I do not have them committed to memory]. Since the article did not report much [if any] Fe, I am assuming that there was little Fe compared to the Ca.

While it is true that the inner shell electrons require KeV range energies [i.e. weak X-ray photons] to ionize for Fe/Ca, while the outer s shells only require eV range energies [i.e. visible-light/weak-UV photons], I believe the article was reporting only examining visible light, and in particular looking for the dominant ionization lines for visible light [which would also be the most abundant photon production]. Since Fe, Ca and H all have outer-s-shell ionization lines of comparable eV range energies, I do not see how or why H would not produce visible light photons from a cooling 'plasma' when Ca is producing such photons, if they are both present. Ergo, H is not present in the comparable abundance of Ca [and likewise Fe/Ni is not present either in Ca's abundance].

But I'd be happy to have anyone with more knowledge about the details of supernovae explain this more fully, if I've made an error of analysis.
 
I have only read long ago that most of the beyond iron elements are made in shock waves by fusion of lighter elements and only a small part are "endothermically cooked" in the later stages of solar burning in big stars. That may not be the current POV.
 
... I do not see how or why H would not produce visible light photons from a cooling 'plasma' when Ca is producing such photons, if they are both present. ...
Thereare no spectral lines from the singly ionized "hydrogen atom ion" as that is a proton. The Ca and Si lines were from the doubly ionized ions but they still have the states the removed electons did occupy and plenty of still bpound electrons that can be excited into them (to then decay back cown and emit photons). I.e. they are able to radiate, but the proton is not. It can only rqadiate when it captures a free electron, but that is rare for reasons I explained in prior post.

One of the still bound electrons of Ca++ ion will absorb a solar photon without becomning unbound (not make the Ca+++ ion). In the intense high temperature photon flux, it most probable that it is pronmoted up to one of the highly excited states (must take all the photon's energy not only small part). Thus it will usually cascade down thru a sequense of states each step emitting a photon and each subsequent one typical with more energy than the prior ones. When it finally gets back to where it was before the solar photon was absorbed, the last emited photons are X-rays, I think, but the first few delta n = 1 steps down in the cascade may even be IR photons. (Not much energy difference between two adjacent high principle quantum number, n , states.)
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT CERN AND FERMI8LAB

Where there is no evidence of either helium or hydrogen at maximum light for Type Ia supernova this would further support the hypothesis of a transition towards de Sitter space. This is evidence of a statistical nature.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996PASJ...48...51S
Title: Type-Ia Supernova SN 1995D in NGC 2962: Optical V, R, and I Band
Photometry and Spectra, Sadakane, K., Yokoo, T., Arimoto, J.-I., Matsumoto, K., Honda, S., Tanabe, K., ,
Journal: Publ. of the Astronomical Society of Japan, v.48, p.51-57.
Bibliographic Code: 1996PASJ...48...51S

It may be noted in this connection that there is no trace of hydrogen at maximum light for Supernovae Type Ia, which indicates that the companion star for this model is statistically unlikely since most stars are are of an hydrogen dominant order. This observation supports the the origin of these supernovae via a transtion towards de Sitter space or other highly energetic flux. Please note:

The Golden Standard Type Ia Supernova 2005cf: Observations from the
Ultraviolet to the Near-Infrared Wavebands
Wang, X.; Li, W.; Filippenko, A. V.; Foley, R. J.; Kirshner, R. P.;
Modjaz, M.; Bloom, J.; Brown, P. J.; Carter, D.; Friedman, A. S.; Gal-Yam,
A.; Ganeshalingam, M.; Hicken, M.; Krisciunas, K.; Milne, P.; Silverman,
J. M.; Suntzeff, N. B.; Wood-Vasey, W. M.; Cenko, S. B.; Challis, P.; Fox,
D. B.; Kirkman, D.; Li, J. Z.; Li, T. P.; Malkan, M. A.; Moore, M. R.;
Reitzel, D. B.; Rich, R. M.; Serduke, F. J. D.; Shang, R. C.; Steele, T.
N.; Swift, B. J.; Tao, C.; Wong, D. S.; Zhang, S. N.

For the generation of Type Ia supernova thermonuclear explosion explanations have been proposed, none of them have withstood modern testing.
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com...hermonuclear.h
tml
Thus the formation of a transnsition towards de Sitter space may be considereed as a viable alternative
explanatory framework. Before we take the imprudent action of testing additional energies at CERN or yet again at the Fermi Nationional Acclerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, more theoretical research should be employed to verify the safety of this research in highest-energy physics or all is lost.

An educational presentation may be provided also:
https://laulima.hawaii.edu/access/co...1010/Education
Paul W. Dixon is responsible for this presentation, Copyright 2009 Paul W. Dixon.

Consider the parameters for universe formation as being similar
to that for Type Ia Supernova generation as being very small and
vastly energetic. This may be philosophically difficult to comprehend
yet essentially vital for survival!

The parameter space of inflationary cosmology is seen in the estimate of chaotic expansion theory of the universe beginning at ~10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, point origin of the Universe with total duration of expansion of 10^-35 seconds or thereabouts. Here the region of expansion no bigger than 10^-33 cm yielding with simultaneous inflations to reach the observable size of our Universe at l<~10^28 cm .. (Andrei Linde, Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology, La Tex Harwood, Chur, Switzerland, 1990, p39) Andrei Linde is the leading authority in this important work at the Department of Physics at Stanford University.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0503/0503203v1.pdf

Should we consider the hypothesis of the uniformity of nature as predictive of the abundance of living forms with some of them attaining the capacity to
transfer themselves to our location in the universe, what can account for their absence? We may note in this connection that there is only a short delay before a transition towards de Sitter space at CERN, Fermilab or other high-energy physics experimentation has generated a Type Ia Supernova as demonstrated in this thread. The frequency of Type Ia Supernova in the observable universe would then signal the termination of these technically advanced civilizations. A technical experimental mischance may then occur before the members of the respective civilizations are philosophically ready to accept this possibllity.

The approach of the transition towards de Sitter space at Fermilab
with the ongoing increase in luminoisty is seen:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/now/tevlum.html
with these energies are now equivalent to those found at the point
origin of the universe. i..e. "The Big Bang."

We need to consider the increased evidence of water on Mars and the possibilty of water
on other planetary bodies as the source of life as well as intelligent life thus supporting the hypothesis
that other creatures much like ourselves can be a source of Type Ia Supernovae.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7919113.stm

It is generally agreed that the the Large Hadron Collider will provide an
empirical test for the formation of transition towards de Sitter space.
The collisional energetcis are much greater that those tested in the
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia Illinois.

"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is being built in a circular tunnel 27 km
in circumference. The tunnel is buried around 50 to 175 m. underground. It
straddles the Swiss and French borders on the outskirts of Geneva.

The first beams were circulated successfully on 10th September 2008.
...fortunately on 19th September a serious fault developed damaging a
number of superconducting magnets. The repair will require a long
technical intervention which overlaps with the planned winter shutdown.
The LHC beam will, therefore, not see beam again before September 2009.

The LHC is designed to collide two counter rotating beams of protons or
heavy ions. Proton-proton collisions are foreseen at an energy of 7 TeV
per beam."

The competing hypothesis which is considered even more objectionable than the transition towards de Sitter space is given in the False Vacuum solution to the Einstein de Sitter equations. Yet as can be seen in this formulation high-energy physics experimentation may serve as a trigger for this most untoward event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

Please note in this regard that the transition towards de Sitter space is well-known in the cosmological literature. http://www.springerlink.com/content/p8377167602421t1/

An affidavit regarding the contingency of a Type Ia Supernova has been submitted as part of the legal action to bring a moratorium against such an experimental mischance.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/cou...case_id-78717/
Many thanks for the happy birthday wishes!!!

With the additional energies available at the LHC in CERN, it may also be possible to test the competing hypothesis of forming a transition to the lower condition in the Einstein de Sitter Universe. Following the formation of this transition, our Universe would drain off into the lower energy condition. This should be of a lesser probabilty of occurence yet it is still considered as a possible outcome to this research.

Please note: http://professordixon.blogspot.com

The WORLD RECORD luminosity now employed at the accelerator (Please note:
Accelerator Division Notification on the Fermilab Home Page) is 362.37 E30.
In scientific notation, this 362.37 x 10 to the 30th power particle interactions. With a beam energy of 10 to the 11th power electron volts, we have then the energy of the current work at Fermilab set a 362.37 x 10 to the 41st power electron volts (362.37 E 41 eV). This is much greater than the largest energies seen on earth via cosmic ray interactions at 10 to the 19th power eV (E 19 eV). Without publicity regarding this most critical danger,
a breach in the potential barrier may occur at any moment thus releasing
the force of a supernova on our planet and solar system. We will thus have an intrusional event from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe
as it is now termed. Your kind and generous action on behalf of all
mankind is greatly needed at this critical juncture or all is lost and we
shall all perish.

Please note that the return flight of the Columbia shuttle was not halted because of the false belief that the the foam shards could not cause a life threatening defect in the aerodynamic properties of the shuttle.
http://www.reuters.com/article/lates.../idUSN30568874

As a fictional work, the novel Anathem remarks on scientists tinkering with what they do not understand. To quote from the journal Nature, "Anathem is a shrewd exploration of what might happen if the fear of scientists meddling with things they were never meant to know becomes entirely justified." with space-time itself included in the list of potential problem areas.
(Jennifer Rahn, Imprisoned by intelligence, Neal Stephenson, Anathem, Opinion Nature, 456, 7221, 27 November 2008, 447-447)

It may be noted in this connection that the term Anathem refers to an ecumenical curse of severe proportions. This may be understood to mean that we are expected to take extreme exception with predjudice to the work of those who would destroy us and our children through this meddling.

Tycho Brahe's supernova, now identified as a Type Ia Supernova, shows those characteristics as predicted by the model expected in supernova from experimentation. A large Supernova has been generated leaving behind a type G star such as is found in our solar system. (Andrea Pastorello, Astrophysics, Echo from an ancient supernova, Nature 456, 7222, 4 December 2008, 587-589) The technique of light echoes was used for this identification of an historical object.

As noted in Chang, J.,et al., An excess of cosmic ray electrons at energies of 300-800 GeV (Nature, 456, 7220, 20 November 2008, pp. 362-365) could be tapping into "muti-dimensional spaces with potenially important implications for our understanding of the Universe." Similarly, we may postulate that Type Ia supernovae are expressing the energetics of an n-dimensional space
whose properties may be understood with further study.

Please note that while the Type II Supernovae have origin in 10 or more solar mass objects Type Ia Supernovae have origin in objects of some 1 solar mass.
It may be noted in this connection that the smaller massed Supernova give rise to deflagration of some 10 billion solar luminosities whilst the larger objects give rise to some 1 billion solar luminosity deflagration objects. This difference may lend support that the energetics of Type Ia Supernovae is created via an aperture formed towards de Sitter space. As also noted in this connection, there is no trace of hydrogen at maximum light for Type Ia Supernovae thus making it statistically unlikely that they have reached the Chandrssekhar limit by accretion from a nearby solar object.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/snovcn.html

The formation of Type 1a Supernovae is dependent on them reaching the Chandrasekhar limit of greater than 1.4 solar mass to implode into a Supernova according to current theory.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/snovcn.html

Yet there is evidence that the Type !a Supernova can form at one solar mass
or less thus contradicting current theory and thus supporting the alternate theory where Type Ia Suoernovae may be formed via the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space.
Probing Dark Energy with Supernovae
by Sebastian Ihle
9.6.2006

As noted in our sciforums discussion, there are a number of competing hypotheses. An empirical investigation is under way at CERN in the LHC.
Should we generate a Type Ia Supernova, this will confirm the existence of a
highly energetic topologically cobordant continuum termed de Sitter space.
So far, the astrophysical theoretical generalizations of the generalized theory of relativity have been confirmed at the 100% level. The world's largest experiment may yet create a tragic confirmatiion of Albert Einstein's theory.

Please recall that the energies now proposed for the LHC at CERN will be some 7 times greater that those employed at FERMILAB. As is well-known, the energies in use at FERMILAB approximate those predicted for those found at the point origin of the Universe. Thus even from a Common Sense perspective we may penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space
thus releasing the force of Type Ia Supernova on our planet with the increaased energies to be employed at the LHC. Please note:

Philosophy and Common Sense (Frances)

"Not every philosophy professor takes philosophy seriously in the sense
that she thinks that some purely philosophical theories that go against
common sense have a good chance to be true. These philosophers respect
anti-commonsensical theories, in that they admit such theories are very
important in the pursuit of philosophical understanding. But they also
think that there is no real chance that they are true. If you have a valid
argument based not on scientific but purely philosophical reasoning, and
that argument concludes with something against cross-cultural and timeless
common sense, then at least one of the premises isnt true, or so they say.
It might be tremendously difficult to identify the mistaken premise, but
we can start our investigation off assuming that our assumption that the
conclusion is false is safe. These philosophers take philosophising
seriously, of course, but they dont take seriously the idea that purely
philosophical (so not empirical, not mathematical) theories have a good
chance at overthrowing parts of common sense."

A videotaped presentation of this statement is under preparation. Link to this will be provided as soon as it is made ready. This should provide a more interesting source. We welcome any suggestions you may have in this connection for illustrative material. Please let us know what Malcolm Perry would indicate regarding the formation of a transition towards de Sitter space via highest-energy physics experimentation.

Highest energy physics is an empirical science as noted below. We may then discover through experimentation the answer to our theoretical questions
which are then derived from observation. Should the ongoing LHC at CERN produce the Higgs boson and field, this would then be a major victory for the Standatrard Model in Physics. Should we note the generation of a Type Ia Supernova, this will further confirm the current record of 100% successful predictions of the Generalized Theory of Relavity of Albert Einstein. These energies to be generated at CERN are those energy levels seen some 10^-9 - 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the point origin of the Universe. Experimentally we note that these energies are deemed sufficient for the testing of these hypotheses.

Please access this webpage for a thorough update on the LHC at CERN.

http://www.lhcdefense.org/

Generation of Type Ia Supernova via a transition to de Sitter space may be added to this description as a consequence of highest energy physics experimentation.

There has been a brief hiatus introduced from now until April or thereabouts for the reactivation of the LHC at CERN. We should consider all possible alternatives before this gravely irresponsible experiment begins anew.

Please recall that the activation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN is the onset of the largest highest-energy experiment so far extant on our planet.
The empirical observation of a Type Ia Supernova will serve as another confirmation of the Generalized Theory of Albert Einstein. This theory, as noted below, has had 100% verifcation in other astrophysical observations.
Let us not be so rash as to further test this theory and lose all that we hold most dear as a sacrifice to the ambitions of ruthless egoism and professional incompetence. We may discover the Higgs boson and field and yet create a perforation in the potential barrier towards de Sitter space and create a Supernova. The tentative date for the onset of the collisional actions at CERN is now around May 1, 2009.

From the LHC Machine Outreach

The LHC is designed to collide two counter rotating beams of protons or
heavy ions. Proton-proton collisions are foreseen at an energy of 7 TeV
per beam.

The WORLD RECORD luminosity now employed per example at the US accelerator (Please note:
Accelerator Division Notification on the Fermilab Home Page) is
288.89E30.
In scientific
notation, this 288.89 x 10 to the 30th power particle interactions. With
a beam energy of 10 to the 11th power electron volts, we have then the
energy of the current work at Fermilab set a 288.89 x 10 to the 41st
power
electron volts (288.89 E 41 eV). This is much greater than the largest
energies seen on earth via cosmic ray interactions at 10 to the 19th
power eV (E 19 eV). Without publicity regarding this most critical danger,
a breach in the potential barrier may occur at any moment thus releasing
the force of a supernova on our planet and solar system. We will thus have an
intrusional event from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe
as it is now termed. Your kind and generous action on behalf of all
mankind is greatly needed at this critical juncture or all is lost and we
shall all perish as this undergoes a vast increment at CERN.

As one of the seven plaintiffs in the District Court in Hawaii, may I offer a formal complaint agasinst Director of CERN Robert Aymar and to John Ellis chief theoretican of CERN to appear in the International Court in the Hague to answer charges of gross negligence in the operation of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. As noted in this post, is the formal derivation of the generation of Type Ia Supernova from their experiment following the well-known work of Albert Einstein and his colleague Willem de Sitter in the generalized theory of relativity. The energies in nature do not approximate those found some 10^-9 to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the Big Bang at the pont origin of the Universe without forming a transition towards de Sitter space as noted per exemplar in Type II supernovae and in quasars. Their willingness to proceed with this experiment with full knowledge of this potentiallity consititutes a criminal act of public endangerment. May we request that the good people of Switzerland discontinue power service to CERN until this matter has reached full legal disposition in the International Court in the Hague.

May I add a personal note to this discussion. We should preserve the
future for all mankind. Children have the right to grow-up in a safe and
sheltered environment. We need to give our children the time to dream and
grow into all future time. We should visit other planets, other stars, other
galaxies to see and understand all things. Let us call for patience in
this research endeavor until we are certain of the potential dangers that
may lurk for the unsuspecting researcher. One Supernova will terminate all
that we hold most dear.

Update on the research progress at CERN.

End of July: First particles may be injected, and the commissioning with
beams and collisions will start.
It is expected that it will take about 2 months to have first collisions
at 10 TeV. Please note that only one area remains at below collisional
energies.

We shall now observe at CERN the onset of collisional energies at far
greater impact than those observed at Fermilab.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...der-first-beam

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7512586.stm

The Director General of CERN Robert Aymar as well as the safety officers
of CERN have received the appended posting. We may hope that this message
will alert them to the forthcoming generation of a Type Ia Supernova from
the experimental highest-energy physics at CERN. So far, as the
preparation for the LHC experiment continues, there has been no refutation
of the theoretical work of Albert Einstein and the extension of his
Generalized Theory of Relativity by Willem de Sitter. This forms the basis
of our understanding of the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now
termed. A review of the cosmological perspective is provided in the generation of Type Ia Supernova:
http://professordixon.blogspot.com/


Please note: Cool down at CERN is near completion as all segments are in
the blue condition. Collisional energetics should now be observed shortly.
May God have mercy on the souls of all our children.
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

As we are in engaged in an eschatological discourse, the "philosophy of
last things," we need to distinguish between black hole generation as well
as strangelets and Type Ia Supernova. Their generation and their effects
are uncertain whilst Type Ia Supernova Generation is almost completely
certain as are as any of the effects under the auspices of Albert
Einstein's generalized theory of relativity. Please note: Dragging of
Inertial Frames (Ignazio Ciufloni (2007) Nature 7158, 449, 41-53) Walter
L. Wagner and I have discusssed this. Type Ia Supernova generation will be
sudden and the destruction of our planet, our solar system and a host of
nearby stars will follow. Should the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) cool
down schedule proceed as now planned, an empirical test of the hypothesis
of Type Ia Supernova generation via highest energy physics experimentation
will commence in June/July 2008. The 7 Tev phase of the research would
then begin at this time. Please note: http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
cooldown progress in preparation of the empirical test of this hypotheisis
at the LHC in CERN as noted above.

Please review, "Quantum tunnelling towards an exploding Universe?"
by Malcolm J. Perry (1986) (Nature Vol. 320, 24 April, p. 679)


It may be helpful to clarify the philosophical position and astrophysical
energetics instrinsic to de Sitter space in the standard cosmological
model in this postulation of transition from de Sitter space as generative
of supernova in high-energy physics experimentation.

A philosophical position may be cited from, G. W. F. Hegel (The philosophy
of history, New York: Dover, 249, 1956) ..." there is no essential
existence which does not manifest itself." The very large energies derived
by Willem de Sitter for the equations describing the false vacuum of de
Sitter space yield an energy density of 1.69 x 10^126 for eV (electron
volts) per cm^3. (Gott, R. (1982) Creation of open universes from de
Sitter space, Nature, 295, 304-307. In Waldrop. M.M., (1982) Bubbles upon
the river of time, Science, 215, 4536, 1082-1083), the energy density of
de Sitter space is given as: 5 x 10^31 kelvin and 3 x 10^93 grams per cm^3
, converted to eV via e=mc^2 which is Albert Einstein's famous equation.
This energy would then find expression in the observable universe. In the
sense of this analysis, it would be quite unlikely that energies of this
order of magnitude would remain hidden should a transition be formed in
the potential barrier towards de Sitter space. This would serve as an
immediate and ever present danger for the investigator and constitutes a
public endangerment as well.

This is based on the mainstream theory of universe formation by Professor
R. Gott of Princeton University in which each bubble universe forms
smoothly out of de Sitter space. A potentially infinite number of
universes may form in de Sitter space. In a topological sense, de Sitter
space is cobordant at each point with the continuum (our universe). De
Sitter space is then prevented by a large potential barrier from forming
an intrusional event into the continuum. The essential hypothesis of this
formulation is that with sufficiently great energetics, a classical breach
in the potential barrier towards de Siitter space will be formed thus
releasing the force of Type Ia supernova upon the terrestrial ecosphere,
the solar system and those nearby stars. These energies are from de Sitter
space, therefore; the energies of the accelerator only serve as a trigger
for their release.

With sufficient energies, under this postulation, we discover that the
accelerator is in the Einstein de Sitter universe, as it is now termed,
and we have gone from particle physics as our governing theory to
relativistic cosmology.

This supports of the theoretcal position that sufficient energy will penetrate the potential barrier towards de Sitter space thus releasing the force of an exploding Universe i.e., Supernova, on our planet. The works of Albert Einstein and Willem de Sitter as shown here have never been refuted.

From the viewpoint of classical physics, the penetration towards de Sitter space is prevented by a large though not infinite potential barrier as described by Malcolm Perry. As the energies in the collliders go from 10^-9 seconds to 10^-14 seconds subsequent to the big bang at the point origin of the Universe, this penetrance becomes inevitable thus releasing the force of a Type Ia Supernova on our planet, solar system and host of nearby stars.

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

Yours sincerely,

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

I read through some of your posts since the beginning!
I understand your concerns, and I am pretty sure that you are right on some of the potential results.
I agree that we might open a crack to a Universe filled with infinite energy.
But I have doubts on how such energy will express itself inside our Universe, because physical laws do seems to be different from a Universe to another, so we can't really say what will happen, but cross finger we are right!

In all cases, this experiment will have to go forward for the simple reason, that if we do not get access to an unlimited source of energy, then we just won't make it and destroy ourselves in the old fashion way (Nuclear).

So we must accept that human creative potential is reaching a new level of potential, that if unleash could be used to destroy our solar system. Stopping the evolution of our creative potential, will just render weaker at surviving our new ecosystem (which isn't scale at planetary level (somewhat a close system), but rather at Universal level( definitely an open system), since we became a global society).

But its a good thing to call the breaks, because it might have save us more than once. You know the LHC did postpone his tests since last year, so scientists are taking their time... for a reason maybe...
 
I agree that we might open a crack to a Universe filled with infinite energy.
Out of all of Paul's claims that's the one which we are most sure is wrong, given nature does particle collisions of much much higher energy than anything the LHC will do and it doesn't result in a new vacuum state. Paul's numbers are lies, he is flat out lying when it comes to how he computes his 'energy levels', which demonstrates he isn't interested in truth, he's just wanting his 15 minutes.
 
Isn't the real danger of a hypothetical "transition to de Sitter space" not a supernova, but the possibility that a bubble of space with lower vacuum energy would nucleate and expand? (And yes, I realize that for the moment it's a moot point since we aren't anywhere near the energies of cosmic ray collisions anyway).
 
Out of all of Paul's claims that's the one which we are most sure is wrong, given nature does particle collisions of much much higher energy than anything the LHC will do and it doesn't result in a new vacuum state. Paul's numbers are lies,
he is flat out lying when it comes to how he computes his 'energy levels', which demonstrates he isn't interested in truth, he's just wanting his 15 minutes.


You know, at this level of mathematics, lying is pretty hard... Guessing yes, but anyhow, the LHC will unleash a new dimension in physics that will defy our current conceptions. A new physic will be born from those experiments, so from there on, EVERYTHING is possible!! But we will have to try to know, because, I ain't sure that we the Universe has a Unified field theory, but I am pretty darn sure that he will have an Universal law of unpredictability (from our current standard) So we might have to redefine our scientific method and go empirical from there... Maths might just not cut it...
 
You know, at this level of mathematics, lying is pretty hard...
Yes, I do know, I do that kind of maths. And yet Paul tries; I'll quote the section :

The WORLD RECORD luminosity now employed at the accelerator (Please note:
Accelerator Division Notification on the Fermilab Home Page) is 362.37 E30.
In scientific notation, this 362.37 x 10 to the 30th power particle interactions. With a beam energy of 10 to the 11th power electron volts, we have then the energy of the current work at Fermilab set a 362.37 x 10 to the 41st power electron volts (362.37 E 41 eV). This is much greater than the largest energies seen on earth via cosmic ray interactions at 10 to the 19th power eV (E 19 eV). Without publicity regarding this most critical danger,
a breach in the potential barrier may occur at any moment thus releasing
the force of a supernova on our planet and solar system. We will thus have an intrusional event from de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe
as it is now termed.
Paul takes the total beam energy, which is the number of particles, $$3 \times 10^{32}$$ times by the average energy, $$10^{11}$$eV, and compares that to the energy of a single particle interaction in nature, $$10^{19}$$ and declares we're much much much higher than nature so causing a real danger.

Firstly, the beam interaction amounts for a single run are much much smaller than beam particle number, which is not a distinction he makes, so his number of interactions is off by factors of the order $$10^{24}$$ and he's comparing the sum of interactions over the entire lifetime of the collider to a single interaction in nature. That isn't like for like, it's like saying that if you add up all the energy in all the petrol burnt by all the cars in history it amounts to more than an atom bomb's energy so noone should drive a car for fear of nuking themselves and their neighbours.

That is lying. I've pointed it out to him and I'm sure he's aware of his flawed methodology but he's not changing it. Thus proof he's a fraud.

Guessing yes, but anyhow, the LHC will unleash a new dimension in physics that will defy our current conceptions. A new physic will be born from those experiments, so from there on, EVERYTHING is possible!
The biggest shocks would be no Higgs boson, supersymmetry and extra dimensions. None of them would be equivalent to 'anything is possible'. Revolutions in physics don't mean all the old rules get thrown out. So no, 'anything is possible' is not correct.
 
Hi Paul. You do know that it has been eight years since you started this thread and we still haven't had a nova? Should't you be worried about the (forgive my spelling, its late and I don't have time to check it, and correct me if I'm thinking of the wrong one) Large Hadron Collider? I doubt there will be a nova now if it hasn't happened yet in the last eight years.
 
To Alphanumeric:

You make good point in post 1777, but even if all the particles in the beam did collide, Paul is still wrong to treat it as one event. It is too much effort to find my old post showing this so just make quick outline of it:

Considering the individual particle’s "diameter" and the speed they pass each other, the duration of each collision is so short that humans cannot grasp it. Thus, I invented a "time magnifier" to view the beam’s interactions with a guess at the beam bunch length and cross section. (You may know those.) Anyway, with the time magnifier set to make a collision appear to be about one second in duration, on the average, as I recall the next collisions would be a weeks or so later or even next year with some of the reasonable choices for total particles in the beam, it diameter and length.

Paul is trying to treat as one event that last so short that the next may 1,000times more distant into the future. In other terms the "duty cycle" of the collision is 0.001 or less as I recall with nothing happening 99.999% of the time!

Perhaps you will redo my "time magnifier" analysis more correctly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thus, I invented a "time magnifier" to view the beam’s interactions with a guess at the beam bunch length and cross section. (You may know those.)
I'm not one for collider physics (if it's got experimental applications I'm not interested ;)) but orders of magnitude-wise you're talking about beams which are a few centimetres in length and a few micrometres in width, if not smaller. In terms people more easily grasp I've heard things like "It's like getting two sharp pencils and trying to get them to hit tip to tip when firing them at one another a few miles apart". The beam width gives you some idea of the relative lack of density compared to the beam length, as only a few particles in that pencil-like beam will collide and there's a few hundred million at least in each beam. CERN's website will undoubtedly have the specifics but that's a rough idea.
 
Back
Top