Bmpbmp1975

No it’s not about getting there mass it’s that they caused vacuum decay at that mass your telling me I am reading it wrong but it’s written in plain English so that’s how I understand it, I clearly don’t understand The papers and data but I do understand plain English.

Why do you say no, it is written in plain English in the paper conclusion and on Wikipedia Relatedcosmological stud- ies of the resulting inhomogeneities in supercooled late-time phase transitions have been presented in Ref. [98], which finds that kinetic-SZ data constrain bubble nucleation from false vacuum decay to hap- pen very recently

No it states that false vacuum decay happened recently because of this.

Paper does not specify timeframe https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum Other decay modesEdit Decay to smaller Vacuum expectation value, resulting in decrease of Casimir effect and destabilization of proton.[6] Decay to vacuum with larger neutrino mass (may have happened relatively recently).[3] Decay to vacuum with no dark energy[4]

I didn’t properly understand cosmo constant I thought it had to do with vacuum state and no expansion. I thought it was negative and just turned poaitive now I see it was always positive thank you

When do I think what happened

Thank you this is what I meant by happened recently Relatedcosmological stud- ies of the resulting inhomogeneities in supercooled late-time phase transitions have been presented in Ref. [98], which finds that kinetic-SZ data constrain bubble nucleation from false vacuum decay to hap- pen very recently

I have seen that paper before that paper states constant is positive. My question is has it always been positive or has it switched from negative to positive?

I miss read your comment I am sorry , I have been trying a lot harder lately. As I said above thought that the cosmo constant was always negative and I just found out it’s positive or has it always been positive

I am sorry I thought that the cosmo constant was always negative and I just found out it’s positive

Thank you

I was just trying to interpret this comment The fact that expansion is accelerating, COULD mean that we are still in a 'slow roll' from a false vacuum state, to a lower false vacuum state, or the true vacuum state. Or it could not; that's why we call it 'dark' energy.

So your saying we can turn to a true vaccum state soon

Won’t let me copy it’s on page 10 third paragraph. Starts with another aspect we neglected

Came across this paper while I was looking up entropy. Now I am not sure if I am reading it right but the conclusion section seems to imply false vacuum started due to large neutrinos. I am not sure if I am reading that right. I can copy and paste the section if anyone would like but was told not to do that last time. Here is the paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.01991.pdf

Not sure if that entropy deals with temperature of the universe which has to do with the voids. it also deals with heatdeath, so is that what’s happening the voids are the beginning of heat death since they are newly formed objects, I think that’s what dim was implying If the cosmological constantis zero, the universe will approach absolute zerotemperature over a very long timescale. However, if the cosmological constant is positive, as appears to be the case in recent observations, the temperature will asymptote to a non-zero positive value, and the universe will approach a state of maximum entropy in which no further work is possible.[9] so we are positive does positive not mean a true vacuum state? well that’s my understanding from what I read

Why is it irrelevant? This has to do with the voids and coldness of the universe. Which is part of the subject. How does entropy ply into this I thought entropy has to do with heat death?

How new is entropy?

Sorry got a little confused here , so are these stars just disappearing from the skies?

So I was right thank you,this is a non issue I think I am finally learning a little Now if I understand correctly these voids either regular or supervoid are areas in the cosmos that not many galaxies and allot of empty space. Also these areas are colder than other areas around it with more galaxies. but the coldness is not a big difference that the coldness of the universe around it.Am I correct so far. Question: are these voids newish or have they existed for a long time meaning are they forming now or have always been there?

Most of his past threads seem ok

I notice a lot of his comment towards me have been similar. Did I offend him in anyway. I messaged and asked him if I did and pretty much got a réponse like I just asked? Were you the one that moved it?

There was a comment made by Dim to me that I want to reply to but it was moving to trash. Just curious as to why it was moved to trash? is there a rule I don’t know of?

I get it,

Sorry the article had said there one moment and gone the next