Wierd paper about. Neutrinos

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

So why is it talking about false vacuum decay and it happening recently?

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?

[Bmpbmp1975]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

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?

So it’s on its way to us then?

[Mordred]

1 minute ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

That’s not what it says though and even the wiki page claims the same that false vacuum decay recently happened

Do you have comprehension of the time scale difference between the entire human history and cosmological timescales ?

The entire human history is nothing compared to the timescales in cosmological time.

This happened a few billion years before our planet even existed.

[Strange]

Just now, Bmpbmp1975 said:

So it’s on its way to us then?

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.

 

5 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

So it’s on its way to us then?

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.

[Mordred]

You should really learn how to use the Z distance scale in these papers.

Take Z=10 which is one of the papers low values.

How long ago does that describe ?

Answer 13.243 Billion years ago.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Mordred

[Bmpbmp1975]

There is only one type of false vacuum decay, the one that destroys everything. The paper states that this is what happened to change the neutrinos mass that they viewed. So that means if it happened it’s in the process of destroying everything. 

the paper shows the calculations and the conclusions states it.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Take Z=10 which is one of the papers low values.

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! 

[Mordred]

No that is not what false vacuum means in cosmology. You are 100 percent wrong on that.

Just now, Strange said:

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! 

No prob I calculated z= 10 above for light travel time using Planck dataset values

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

There is only one type of false vacuum decay, the one that destroys everything. The paper states that this is what happened to change the neutrinos mass that they viewed. So that means if it happened it’s in the process of destroying everything. 

Complete and utter drivel.

5 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

the paper shows the calculations and the conclusions states it.

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.

Quote

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

Douglas Adams

[Bmpbmp1975]

I am not making this into a joke. What I am saying is certain parts of the paper mentions false vacuum decay, including the conclusion and according to Wikipedia there is only one definition of it. I am unable to find any others 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

I am not making this into a joke. What I am saying is certain parts of the paper mentions false vacuum decay, including the conclusion and according to Wikipedia there is only one definition of it. I am unable to find any others 

You quoted three different ones from Wikipedia. You can't even read the stuff you post!

2 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

I am not making this into a joke.

You turn all of your threads into a joke.

[Bmpbmp1975]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

You quoted three different ones from Wikipedia. You can't even read the stuff you post!

What do you mean I quoted 3 different ones. The wiki page on false vacuum decay is about the end of the universe and different ways. What I posted was 3 possible ways it can happen and the neutrino mass was one of them. 

[Mordred]

Allen Guth false vacuum was the original inflation model.

That occurred when the universe first entered inflation.

False vacuum simply describes a higher energy density state.

[Bmpbmp1975]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Allen Guth false vacuum was the original inflation model.

That occurred when the universe first entered inflation.

False vacuum simply describes a higher energy density state.

I understand but false vacuum decay is a little different according to wiki, 

this is what the paper has stated 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[Mordred]

You have no idea what it means I am a professional Cosmologist telling you what it means.

[Bmpbmp1975]

36 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You have no idea what it means I am a professional Cosmologist telling you what it means.

can you please help me find the true definition online. Cause when I search all I find is the wiki page willing states end of universe. And please if you don’t mind explain how I am mis-interpreting the comments in the paper?

cause all I read from the paper and wiki is bad things 

Edited April 14, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

i just wish they would have said where they saw this happen and how far away from us it happen 

You really are a hoot!  For some reason I get a kick out of your "chicken little" routine.  Cracks me up every time.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

but I do understand plain English.

I think we all doubt that.

The neutrino paper presents a series of models, based on varying neutrino mass, and their possible effect on cosmological models.
It's like saying if I have a dollar I could buy a candy bar, if , instead I have $5, I could buy a burger, and If I have $20, I could buy a 1/4 chicken dinner and a beer at Swiss Chalet.
Different possibilities give rise to different outcomes.

If you read more on false vacuum decay, you will find that a symmetry break at the time of Electroweak dissociation ( Electromagnetic force separation from Weak Nuclear force ) accompanied a drop from a false vacuum state. A Salam, S Glashow and S Weinberg shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for this theory in 1979 ( I remember being in 3rd year Uni, at the time ).
And we are still here, are we not ???

[Mordred]

One of the earliest treatments of false vacuum I recall was by Sydney Coleman back in 1977. Here is his paper read how he describes false vacuum in his opening paragraph.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/ph564/Coleman.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjOq4TO9-boAhUKpp4KHTpVBf0QFjADegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2C_EEYqv4zbu9jrXvoXGk1

Note he specifies that false vaccum is the higher energy density of the two stable vacuum states. Secondly note he also refers to the word decay.

 False vacuum has been applied throughput cosmology with regards to symmetry breaking such as the electroweak symmetry break. It's also used with Higgs field seesaw mechanism.  These events have occurred in the early universe and we are still here.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Mordred

[Strange]

7 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

What do you mean I quoted 3 different ones. The wiki page on false vacuum decay is about the end of the universe and different ways. What I posted was 3 possible ways it can happen and the neutrino mass was one of them. 

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.

6 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

cause all I read from the paper and wiki is bad things

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.)

[Ghideon]

@Bmpbmp1975 When reading papers please not that the jargon may be intended for readers with extensive knowledge about the specific topic. This may be confusing when reading about "change" "recent" and similar. Make sure you distinguish theoretical changes in a model from physical changes to universe itself. 

Example: Neutrinos were long believed to be massless, recently that has changed and in current models neutrinos have a tiny masses. That does not I repeat NOT, imply that any cataclysmic event happened in cosmos in 20th century that made neutrinos gain mass. It means that scientists made better measurements in 20th century and updated the models with the new knowledge. Neutrinos did not change, they stay the same.

Example: Decay to vacuum with larger neutrino mass; the possible recent phase change discussed above. If that happened it was a real event in the universe, affecting neutrino masses back then. It is not an ongoing process that drastically changes the properties of the universe now.

Note the differences between the two above. 
 

Side note: Earlier large scale changes, where one example is the possible decay that generated neutrino mass are not bad. My opinion is that the changes that resulted in a universe where galaxies, stars and planets can form are good events. 

 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Side note: Earlier large scale changes, where one example is the possible decay that generated neutrino mass are not bad. My opinion is that the changes that resulted in a universe where galaxies, stars and planets can form are good events. 

Quite. If those phase changes (vacuum decay modes) had not happened, we would not be here now to discuss it. 

 

[swansont]

16 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

I can copy and paste the section if anyone would like but was told not to do that last time.

!

Moderator Note

Pasting a relevant section is allowed, and encouraged. What you can't do is paste the entire article, or a substantial fraction of it.

 

[Bmpbmp1975]

This is where it gets confusing for me the whole wiki page talks about it being a bad this. And the implications and the paper states that it happened 

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

You should really learn how to use the Z distance scale in these papers.

Take Z=10 which is one of the papers low values.

How long ago does that describe ?

Answer 13.243 Billion years ago.

How does that come to that time frame 

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

This is where it gets confusing for me the whole wiki page talks about it being a bad this. And the implications and the paper states that it happened

Almost every part of this is wrong.

1) There is one small section on the hypothetical (fantasy) "existential threat". That is about 200 words out of the total 4,500 words in the article. Less than 5%. It is a passing mention.

2) The paper does not state that it happened. It says IF it happened THEN we would see X, Y, and Z. So we should look for X, Y and Z to see if it happened or not. (The concept of conditional sentences does not appear to be a feature of your dialect of English.) It does this for several different models so we know what to look like to confirm or disprove each model.

3) But that is just one form of vacuum decay: the phase change that may have given neutrinos their mass, according to some models. But it may not have happened.

4) There are other vacuum decay / phase changes that probably did happen: inflation - probably; the separation of electroweak forces - very probable; the Higgs mechanism - almost certainly.

5) Even if the specific phase change they discuss did happen, it was more than 13 billion years ago. Why worry about it now. It's over. (And if it, or something like it, hadn't happened, you wouldn't be around to panic about it: "Oh no! Something perfectly normal happened billions of years ago! Help!")

15 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

How does that come to that time frame

From the physics. In simple terms, reaching the temperature and pressure that enabled the phase change. (There is probably more to it than that but a lot of this is beyond my understanding.) Actually, later than that, because the main model they look at is a "supercooled" model, where the phase change doesn't happen until long after the necessary conditions have been reached.