Bmpbmp1975 Posted April 14, 2020 Author Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) the paper states recently how can that be 13b years ago. Fact of the matter is paper is stating false vacuum decay recently happened and they saw it. That can only mean one thing, the wiki article explains it all I read the article word for word numerous times. I am not stupid like most think here. i am just trying to figure out where they saw it and how long we have left Edited April 14, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975
Strange Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 16 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: the paper states recently how can that be 13b years ago. Because we are talking about cosmology. If a geologist says "recently" they might mean 500 million years ago. If a cosmologist says "recently" they might mean 13 and a half billion years ago. Here, "recently" means "more recently than you might have thought; ie. not 13.8 billion years ago, but only 13.5 billion years ago". (If I talk about "recently" at work, it could mean days or millionths of a second, depending on context.) 16 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: Fact of the matter is paper is stating false vacuum decay recently happened and they saw it. I have explained why this is not true, in multiple ways. So stop lying. 16 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: That can only mean one thing Yes. That you cannot read. 16 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: i am just trying to figure out where they saw it and how long we have left Depends on your age. In my case, maybe 20 years if I am lucky. You can find actuarial tables that will give the average life expectancy for someone of your age, weight, health, etc. Although, with the current pandemic, it might be a lot less than that. 16 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: I am not stupid like most think here. I don't think you are stupid. I think you have some mental health issues that you need to seek medical help with. 16 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: i am just trying to figure out where they saw it They didn't see it. They are suggesting what we should look for, to determine if we can see evidence that it happened. IF it happened, then it happened everywhere. Which would be why neutrinos everywhere in the universe have mass.
Bmpbmp1975 Posted April 14, 2020 Author Posted April 14, 2020 23 minutes ago, Strange said: Because we are talking about cosmology. If a geologist says "recently" they might mean 500 million years ago. If a cosmologist says "recently" they might mean 13 and a half billion years ago. Here, "recently" means "more recently than you might have thought; ie. not 13.8 billion years ago, but only 13.5 billion years ago". (If I talk about "recently" at work, it could mean days or millionths of a second, depending on context.) I have explained why this is not true, in multiple ways. So stop lying. Yes. That you cannot read. Depends on your age. In my case, maybe 20 years if I am lucky. You can find actuarial tables that will give the average life expectancy for someone of your age, weight, health, etc. Although, with the current pandemic, it might be a lot less than that. I don't think you are stupid. I think you have some mental health issues that you need to seek medical help with. They didn't see it. They are suggesting what we should look for, to determine if we can see evidence that it happened. IF it happened, then it happened everywhere. Which would be why neutrinos everywhere in the universe have mass. Exactly it could have happened anywhere and is destroying the universe from that location and will come to us.
Ghideon Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 12 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: i am just trying to figure out where they saw it and how long we have left Then I guess you are using an incorrect source. The paper seem to be about a possible event that have already occurred. And obviously the event failed to harm the universe. Even if there is no universal "now" there is still a difference between "past" and "future". The event causing neutrino mass, if it happened, had no effect or a positive effect on the universe from our perspective: we are here discussing it. Without phase change(s) in the past that might not have been possible. 6 minutes ago, Strange said: Depends on your age. In my case, maybe 20 years if I am lucky. You can find actuarial tables that will give the average life expectancy for someone of your age, weight, health, etc. Although, with the current pandemic, it might be a lot less than that. I just checked official statistics here and my numbers are in the same range, give or take a few years. @Bmpbmp1975 Quite short compared to any numbers for any of the competing models for the ultimate fate of the universe.
Strange Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: Exactly it could have happened anywhere and is destroying the universe from that location and will come to us. No. IF it happened, it happened here (and everywhere else) already. More than 13 billion years ago. It created the universe we see around us. Nothing is "coming for us". Apart from a virus. So make sure you wash your hands regularly.
Ghideon Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: Exactly it could have happened anywhere and is destroying the universe from that location and will come to us. No. Note @strange said everywhere. Not anywhere.
Bmpbmp1975 Posted April 14, 2020 Author Posted April 14, 2020 Just now, Strange said: No. IF it happened, it happened here (and everywhere else) already. More than 13 billion years ago. It created the universe we see around us. Nothing is "coming for us". Apart from a virus. So make sure you wash your hands regularly. which finds that kinetic-SZ data constrain bubble nucleation from false vacuum decay to hap- pen very recently Decay to vacuum with larger neutrino mass (may have happened relatively recently).[3 decay to the vacuum so vacuum decay (vacuum collapse) they may not know where it happened but they know it did. And it’s not all neutrinos it some they have larger mass
Ghideon Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: which finds that kinetic-SZ data constrain bubble nucleation from false vacuum decay to hap- pen very recently Decay to vacuum with larger neutrino mass (may have happened relatively recently).[3 decay to the vacuum so vacuum decay (vacuum collapse) they may not know where it happened but they know it did. And it’s not all neutrinos it some they have larger mass If you prefer to not listen to the expert members interpreting the paper for you then may I suggest that you improve your own knowledge to a level where you are able to draw valid scientific conclusions?
Bmpbmp1975 Posted April 14, 2020 Author Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Ghideon said: If you prefer to not listen to the expert members interpreting the paper for you then may I suggest that you improve your own knowledge to a level where you are able to draw valid scientific conclusions? How is it now valid it is stated in plain english on the wiki page and the paper that is my point everyone says I am wrong and telling me why but no one is really showing me where and how I am interpreting the paper wrong. For all I know everyone could be hiding the truth. I don’t have understanding and I just understand what I read i am sorry to be a pain Edited April 14, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975
Strange Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: which finds that kinetic-SZ data constrain bubble nucleation from false vacuum decay to hap- pen very recently Their "very recently" is about 13.4 billion years ago. As it say 5 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: Decay to vacuum with larger neutrino mass (may have happened relatively recently) Yes, so in this hypothetical model there was a change in state of the vacuum which gave neutrinos a large mass; they then decayed to the light neutrinos we see today. (Which shows that if it happened, it happened here.) (And again, "relatively recently" means more than 13 billion years ago.) Quote they may not know where it happened but they know it did. And it’s not all neutrinos it some they have larger mass They don't know it did. They are describing what we would see for each of several different models. And it IS describing the neutrinos that we see around us, which may have got their mass via this mechanism, possible via a higher mass intermediary. You are picking a few words at random from the paper, without understanding it, and trying scare yourself. Please, please please, talk to your doctor. You are getting yourself into a state over something you don't understand. (I suppose it might good that you are worried about something that can't possibly harm you, rather than the real threats around us.) 9 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: everyone says I am wrong and telling me why but no one is really showing me where and how I am interpreting the paper wrong. I have explained this to you multiple times. No one here can help you any more. Speak to your doctor.
dimreepr Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 7 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said: How is it now valid it is stated in plain english on the wiki page and the paper that is my point everyone says I am wrong and telling me why but no one is really showing me where and how I am interpreting the paper wrong. For all I know everyone could be hiding the truth. I don’t have understanding and I just understand what I read i am sorry to be a pain Don't believe everything you read on tinternet, but you can believe the experts on this site; just ask the right questions. 1
Strange Posted April 14, 2020 Posted April 14, 2020 ! Moderator Note I am closing this thread as it is obvious that the OP has no interest in understanding the science.
Recommended Posts