Strange

That style of citation make it look like it is a published paper. Maybe just provide the link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.04334, it's a bit less pretentious. You are not doing science then.

As I say, you need to start from the beginning. Learn a few basics. Then build on that. Then, eventually, you might be able to understand the things you are asking about. But just asking random questions about complex subjects is not a good way to learn.

As we have no idea what that discussion was about and why someone thought that the lifetime of the Higgs particle was related to the cosmological constant ... we can't help you.

In science it is very important to be precise and specific. Which is why your scattergun approach of throwing together random bits of unrelated information will not help you understand or learn anything, and makes it hard for people to answer your questions. It's a bit like: "Hey, I have a problem with my car. The tires are flat. What should I do?" "You need to fill them with air." "But the fuel gauge is already at full" "No but that's not the same thing and ..." "Anyway, does it make a difference if I am having pasta for dinner?" "...?"

What is the mathematical name for that bit of the number? (I wasn't sure that mantissa was right, but it was the only thing that came to mind!)

Cosmological constant.

The lifetime of fundamental particles has no connection with the cosmological constant.

OK. It is still not relevant to the current discussion.

This has (as far as I know) absolutely nothing to do with whether the current vacuum state is metastable or not. Of course I saw it. I even read it. Which I don't think you did. What I didn't see, and still haven't seen, is a source, a reference, a link. As far as I know, you could have just made it up. I have no idea why you would think that. (Actually, I do. It is because you refuse to actually learn anything and so you just jump on random words and guess their meaning.) Most particles have short lifetimes and decay into other, less massive, particles. If you want to understand these things, you need to start by learning the most basic concepts and then build up your knowledge and understanding slowly.

It obviously isn't. Any appearance that it might be is (as they say) due to measurement error: Yes.

You could post your three answers and we might be able to tell you which is right (if one is ) and why you have got the others wrong. What makes scientific notation so nice is that you only have to divide the mantissa (the first bit of the number) and you can subtract the exponents (the "10 to the power" bit). So in the case, you divide 4.80 by 2.50 and subtract -26 from -14. Exactly. You can get the superscript from one of the buttons above the editor box (maybe not if you are on a phone). Another standard way of writing 1012,for example, is 10^12

Because you just posted a link about the many voids that exist in the universe but you started out claiming that there was only one. The measured value has changed over time as better (more accurate) measurement methods have been found. The article you are talking about is about two methods of measurement giving two different values. It is not about the value changing. And it has not increased by 5. The accuracy of one of the measurements has improved to 5 sigma. (You even link to an article explaining what 5 sigma is, but you obviously haven't read it). Stop saying "somewhere" and provide a proper reference or link. That is not about the cosmological constant, it is about the equation of sate of dark matter. It doesn't say anything about it changing; it says it is close to -1 (which I is less than 1, so I suppose you got that bit right). The equation of state is related to the Hubble constant, but not in a simple way. Also, note that the sentence starts with "IF Poplawski is right ..." Poplawski has some interesting ideas but, as with anyone, some of them are wrong. Then you need to study the subject in a structured way. You can't just jump around from one unconnected thing to another, without understanding any of them, and hope to learn anything. How is this relevant? Many other particles have very short lifetimes. This has nothing to do with the CMB, the cold spot, cosmic voids, the cosmological constant, the fine structure constant, the equation of state of dark matter, or any of the other subjects you have brought up. What next? The battle of Agincourt? Recipes for chocolate cake? Please try and stick to one topic.

Because it is not what the theory of relativity says. It is something you have invented based purely on your misunderstanding of the word "relativity". What the theory says is that some measurements depend on the frame of reference of the observer; in other words different observers may see the same thing differently. This is almost the exact opposite of your made-up version. No. It is just you that is wrong. If not, why not show the mathematics, or even a reference, that supports your claim.

Remember when you said there were no other voids? Bet you feel a bit silly now. It doesn't say the void is colder; it says: "Voids appear to correlate with the observed temperature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)". The source of the CMB is behind the voids, so because the radiation passes through the voids it makes the radiation appear cooler.

Your understanding is completely wrong in almost every detail. You have been repeatedly corrected. It is not a cold spot "in the universe"; it is a cold spot in the CMB. It could be a measurement error. It could be that the initial radiation was cooler there. It could be that something between us and the source of the CMB makes it look cooler. Of course there is a lot going on in the universe. That is why astronomy exists.

Yes: don't do it. If you don't know what you are doing (as appears likely) then you may cause yourself or others harm.

Actually, IF the cold spot is caused by a supervoid it does not mean that the void is cooler than the universe, it just causes the CMB to appear cooler after it passes through the void. And we don't know for sure that the cold spot is caused by a void. On the other hand, there are plenty of voids that have been observed directly. Why don't you talk about some of those? There are lots of things going on in the universe. And there you go: making up nonsense again.

I have. But you don't understand. Nonsense. If you see a mountain that is 30 miles away then the light has reached you but the mountain is still 30 miles away. You keep getting the same answers. You just don't understand them.

It doesn;t show that it is cooling any more than the rest of the universe. The entire universe is cooling. It is known as "the big bang". The universe has been cooling for 14 billion years and will continue cooling for a very long time. Billions and billions more years. Possibly forever. Nonense. That is because you are posting complete nonsense. You are not listening to what anyone says. And misunderstand and misrepresent the articles you read. We are not in the void. If it exists it is billions of light years away.

No one made any such comment. You have been repeatedly told that a temperature below 0 is impossible. The article does not say that. You do not understand the article so you should not be making false claims about what it says.

No one says that the reason that light is slower in a material is because it is "absorbed and re-emitted". yes, because momentum is a vector quantity. A small amount of light will be scattered because no material is perfectly transparent. But that is not relevant to the subject of the thread.

No one has said anything like that. The article doesn't say anything like that. Either you do not understand what you read or you are just making stuff up. Or maybe both.

Or maybe I can't. Or maybe I don't want to. Because it is a video and therefore a truly terrible way of communicating information. What next, interpretive dance? Or maybe I watch it and then say, "no you are both wrong, what they actually say is that the photons get eaten by dragons". If you can't find a proper source to support what you claim, then I am not going to take your claims seriously. And that would be a strawman argument.

Almost everything you say here is incorrect. Stop making stuff up. 1. A supervoid is one possible explanation for the cold spot, but that is not certain. 2. It is not the only one that exists. For example, the article says "Mackenzie’s team found three voids out to a distance of three billion light-years, and a possible fourth void beyond that" 3. There is nothing in the article that says the void is getting bigger and bigger. 4. There is nothing in the article that says it is cooling (any more than the rest of the universe) 5. It is, for all practical purposes, no closer to absolute zero than the rest of the universe. (If the rest of the universe is 2.7K then the void is 2.69993K. Pretty much the same.) 6. One of the possible voids that may have been seen is three billion light years away. So nothing is going to affect us in our lifetime. Even if there were something that could affect us. Which there isn't.

That sentence doesn't make any sense. The unit of temperature they are are using is K (kelvin) not kev 0 K is absolute zero. It is impossible to have a temperature of absolute zero or 0K, therefore it is impossible for anything to be under 0K. It is not the only one. The article talks about other voids.