Strange

The wikipedia page is about vacuum decay (the clue is in the title), not about the end of the universe. It mentions several different types: Inflation Electroweak vacuum decay Decay to smaller vacuum expectation value Decay to vacuum with larger neutrino mass (may have happened relatively recently) **** Decay to vacuum with no dark energy There may well be others. For example, the Higgs field. The one I have marked **** is the one that your paper (and therefore this thread) is about. Note that "recently" means at least 13.3 billion years ago. Your complete and total inability to understand anything you read is really frustrating. The bad things you see are entirely in your mind. We cannot help you with that. Please seek professional help. (And, apparently, we can't help you understand the physics either.)

You quoted three different ones from Wikipedia. You can't even read the stuff you post! You turn all of your threads into a joke.

Complete and utter drivel. Please quote the line where it says that everything has been destroyed. This is beyond a joke. You are just posting invented nonsense. There is absolutely no point this thread staying open if you are just going to carry on posting stupid stuff you have made up. Douglas Adams

Oops. I misread some of the data. I thought it was Z=0.1; but it was alpha=0.1 and Z=10. So some of my previous comments are wildly out on timescale!

Oh don't start that nonsense again. What do you think is on its way to us? Why do you think that? No, on second thoughts don't answer that. We will just end up in another rabbit hole of your misunderstandings. If you mean the phase change and neutrino mass, then no. It is not "on its way". It has already happened, neutrinos already have mass.

The vacuum decay which generated neutrino mass (if it happened at all) could have happened recently. Where "recently" means a few billion years ago. OK?

Which is NOT what it says. No. They are exploring what the effects would be if the neutrino mass had changed at different times. This would produce different effects in things like the CMB spectrum, the large scale structure of the universe. Then if/when we are able to measure those things, we may be able to determine which of the models is correct and hence when and how neutrinos got their mass. Which is currently an open question in physics. It is not currently explained by the standard model. So we don't currently know what mechanism gave neutrinos their mass or when it happened. It could have been more than 13 billion years ago or 1.3 billion years ago. Or somewhere in between.

The paper explicitly says that the neutrino masses are derived from a phase change, not the other way around. From your cited paper: The mass is caused by the phase transition in this model. (Which is one of many and may be wrong) Again, why are you so interested in when neutrinos got their mass?

No. It was a phase change (decay in the vacuum) that gave neutrinos their mass. That is the whole point of the paper you started with: when and how neutrinos got their mass. You don't even understand what your own thread is about. Again: why are you so interested in when neutrinos got their mass? What difference does it make if it was 13 billion years ago or 1 billion years ago? Frustratingly, this is actually quite interesting but I doubt anyone who could shed more light on it is going to post in your threads. Because they know you will misunderstand/misrepresent everything they say.

No. You think it is because you can't understand what you are reading. And why does it matter to you when neutrinos got their mass?

Nope. You are back to your "Coffee?" "What do you mean? Are we all going to die?" delusions again. Stop it. See a doctor. By the way, you generally won't see recognisable timescales in these papers. The times are given in terms of Z or scale factor. Converting that to time, depends on the details of the model used.

From what I can see, they look at a range of models where neutrinos got their mass at times between 13.3 billion years ago and 1.3 billion years ago (that is "very recent" in cosmological terms). They do this to determine what the effects would be and so if there is (or can be) any evidence in favour of these different models. This is, I suppose, interesting. But a pretty obscure and specialised bit of astrophysics. I'm not sure why you are so interested in it. Note: knowing the time when neutrinos got their mass is not going to kill you. OK?

! Moderator Note OK. The OP is clearly not able to defend the claims about this system. This thread is closed. Do not bring this up again. If you want to discuss your thermal vent idea, start a new thread. But be prepared to put more effort into it than this one.

Yet more incoherent claims. So it can't tell a reptile from a mammal, but it can tell a threat from a non-threat. Can it tell feathers from fur, or only Rocky Road from Vanilla? Your beliefs are irrelevant. No one cares what you believe (you have explained how profoundly idiotic your beliefs are lots of times).

! Moderator Note There is nothing to forgive. You are welcome to post here, as long as you follow the rules. One of the rules is that ideas in the Speculations forum must be supported with theory or evidence.

! Moderator Note Unless you can demonstrate, mathematically, that this will work (and all the people pointing out that it wasn't are wrong) then I will close this thread. Over to you.

"Would you like a cup of tea, I just made it?" "Are you saying the world is going to end!!!" Just stop.

For the benefit of others, this says: Which absolutely does not say "false vacuum started due to large neutrinos." What it does say (in the paper, not here) is that, according to one model, the current neutrino masses could have arisen due to a super-cooled (ie. late) phase transition. Here, I think "late" means about 5 billion years ago, but I don't know enough about the subject to be sure.

NO. NO NO NO NO NO STOP IT. NO ONE HAS SAID THAT. Sheesh. Grow up.

And that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

! Moderator Note And yet you are ignoring all the feedback so far. If you do not answer some of the questions asked in your next post, this will be closed.

I can't see anything like that. I have only skimmed the paper, and most of it is way over my head, but 1) It is about how neutrinos get their mass (and why their mass is so small) 2) It is purely theoretical. It is comparing different models and says things like if this were true then this would be the result, but if something else were the case then this would be the result, and so on. 3) the conclusion says that both the models they looked at (one is the standard model and the other involves the mass arising "late" in the evolution of universe) are both consistent with the evidence, so more data is needed to test them 4) Without spending more time on it, it says that the neutrino mass could have arisen very early in the universe or "late" (and "late" here means many billions of years ago) You probably need to show the section that says what you claim. So we can point out that it doesn't say anything like that. Nonsense.

Entropy is irrelevant. Dimreeper was just trolling again.

The cosmic background (CMB) appears cooler where voids are because the light has not passed through as much matter. The difference is tiny; just a few thousandths of a degree.

! Moderator Note @farsideofmoon That post appears to be identical to your first post. You have not addressed any of the questions or comments. If you are not interested in discussing this, then the thread will be closed.