Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Fermi-lab LHC etc

  1. Feb 9, 2004 #1
    Gather round thinkers...:)

    I would like to know if anyone here is acquainted with Dr. Paul Dixon's theory and speculation on the accidental creation of a supernova by experimentation in particle accelerator's.

    This is a very deep subject that first came up in 1998. Dr. Dixon appears to be a tad eccentric but he is by no means a quack. His credentials have been verified and I am at odds wondering why the has been no answer to this from the above accredited Labs.

    To follow here is Dr. Dixon's last post quoted and the link of study since 1998 within that thread. The thread at that location is no longer moving because no one seems to have any answers and is exhausted (burned out). The major problem with this from a layman's sense is there has been no release or explanation from the labs explaining their posturing on the subject and its' safety.


    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=2607

    Thanks,

    Will Sheephogan
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 9, 2004 #2
    The RHIC was going to create strangelets which would create a huge gray condensate where the Earth once was. Several CERN experiments were going to destabilize the vacuum to a lower value or create quantum black holes. The Alamogordo test of the first nuclear bomb was going to ignite the Earth's atmosphere....

    These are all great "what if" stories when venturing to the new and unknown in energy levels, but the associated risks can be shown to be comfortably infinitessimal!

    ** By the way, this Paul W. Dixon is a nutcase. He is a psychologist at U of H Hilo, and is convinced that Fermilab will destroy the world in a "supernova from transition to de Sitter space" (which makes no sense). I also noted this on his CV from his website:

    Honors:
    ...
    Nominated for Nobel Prize in Physics, 1986, 1995, 1998
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2004
  4. Feb 9, 2004 #3
    Those were my sentiments exactly GRCQ, when I started researching this, I had the exact same mind-set. However the numbers and evidence don't say exactly that. When you get time - tip toe through some of the math in the 544 pages of documentation and counter calculus on this at that thread above. Dr. Dixon's math holds true - his timing is off by a few years. But time is only a function of working program experimentation in this matter. Here is one of many word argument's from the thread.

    "Anyway, what he is saying is perfectly plausible. All the Cosmologists
    today agree that the Big Bang itself probably erupted from a singular
    mathematical point as a "vacuum fluctuation" of empty space, the aether, or whatever you want to call it. (The entire universe just spontaneously expanded from a single mathematical point, out of NOTHING!)

    Remember that all of the horrendous energy of the (fission) atomic bomb comes from tearing open of uranium atoms.

    What Dixon is talking about is the possibility of inadvertently tearing a hole in the fabric of space-time, itself, the result of which could instantaneously release the amount of energy equivalent to a Supernova, thus vaporizing everything for 50 light years around.

    Modern subatomic physics is aware of incredible amounts of concentrated energy the smaller and smaller you get on the sub-atomic level.

    For instance, the Higgs Boson is theorized to be horrendously more massive than the proton (the Higgs is one of the fundamental building blocks in the same realm as quarks)

    mass of proton - 1,800 electron volts
    mass of Higgs boson - 500 Gev to 1 Tev

    1 electron volt
    Mev million electron volts
    Gev billion electron volts
    Tev trillion electron volts

    and when the particle physicists start swimming around in the mathematics of the virtual soup of the space/vacuum, itself, they start coming up with unimaginable, incredible concentrations of energies in areas as small as a mathematical point. (refer to all of the speculation and discussion about zero-point energy, etc.).

    Additionally, I read most of the article he posted to sci.physics.plasma and one of the features that he analizes is that there is one type of Supernova (Ia)that has been observed in the Cosmos that does not fit into any of the current models of particle or astro-physics.

    He argues in his article that the characteristics of these anomalous
    Supernovas would make sense if one postulates that they were generated
    by some distant civilization doing exactly the thing that he is warning about! (I don't know how frequent these "anomalous Supernovas" are. But I think we're, rather, talking about a lot of civilizations blinking out quite frequently, just because they put together the wrong gadget and pushed the wrong button...)

    Dixon posted only that one 18 part article, 3/8/98, and only *one* person commented on it (which was the predictable "that's not science" kind of stuff)."
     
  5. Feb 9, 2004 #4
    "These are all great "what if" stories when venturing to the new and unknown in energy levels, but the associated risks can be shown to be comfortably infinitessimal!"

    And exactly - in your opinion, how many chambers does this revolver have that are loaded and how many are empty, that you are playing Russian Roulette with? I'm asking this because 1 chance in any is probability for concern, and the theoretical argument against this happening has never satisfied the mathematics.

    What are the "chances" that in this universe a cybernetic pseudonymous entity called GRCQ should "exist" to argue against an accountable and identifiable human being with valid concern's? Hmmm?

    "Nut-case" appears no where in his CV. BTW "infinitesimal" did you mean? I hope your math is more accurate. :smile:
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Fermi-lab LHC etc
  1. Fermis paradox (Replies: 0)

  2. Spacefuel etc. (Replies: 3)

  3. Fermi electron (Replies: 4)

  4. LHC at CERN (Replies: 4)

  5. Fermi's constant (Replies: 5)

Loading...