Jump to content
Bmpbmp1975

Dead galaxy questions

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

It’s basically the current understanding 

That's a failure on all levels. No link, no quote, and no actual possible physics. 

So let me request this again: please provide the link, and a relevant quote, so I don't have to go digging for nonsense that has almost certainly been misrepresented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nope. Not telling you that at all. My apologies that you're so unmolested by enlightenment

Also, *you're

First you said it’s not possible and now you stated you didn’t say that so I am confused I am sorry 

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's a failure on all levels. No link, no quote, and no actual possible physics. 

So let me request this again: please provide the link, and a relevant quote, so I don't have to go digging for nonsense that has almost certainly been misrepresented.

That is my understanding a response stated if the universe falls infer 0 k it can be bad. According to the article this section on space is falling under that and continuing to fall?

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

That is my understanding a response stated if the universe falls infer 0 k it can be bad. According to the article this section on space is falling under that and continuing to fall?

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

That is my understanding a response stated if the universe falls infer 0 k it can be bad. According to the article this section on space is falling under that and continuing to fall?

Saying "the article" is not a link to the article, or a substitute for it.

Saying "according to" is not a quote from the article, or a substitute for it.

Do you not comprehend what is being asked of you? (Are you just re-creating that scene from "My Cousin Vinny"?)

———

Instead of wild claims, a better option for you is "I don't understand what this article is saying. Can someone explain it to me?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The process is called thermal equilibrium when dealing as to the when particles symmetry break ie drop out of thermal equibrium. For example the Higgs boson could not drop out of equilibrium unless the universe black body temperature drops below a certain temperature. They decouple from equilibrium with the temperature in relation to the total energy/mass of the particle. ( Obviously the Boson family applies to when the fields decouple)

 Another Higgs decoupling would require different mass value Higgs bosons than the SM model Higgs boson

its totally wierd issue on my end certain responses I have read from people here seem to no longer be here which vos very confusing to me as to why I see them in screenshots but nothong in the post  the post 

there is a response saying in the cooling temp In universe falls bellow 0 then a vacuum collapse is possible but that it cannot fall under 0. I can no longer find the post now and nbthisbthreasv

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

First you said it’s not possible and now you stated you didn’t say that so I am confused I am sorry 

You said something was below absolute zero.

I said that's not possible. Nothing is ever at absolute zero, and definitely never below it.

You asked, "Are you saying it's not possible temperature changes in these regions will affect us in our lifetimes."

I said, No. That's not what I'm saying. My comment was specific to your comments about absolute zero.

You then said you're confused, hence this clarification here.

 

Either way, I'd have to eat a whole lot more paste in order to continue this discussion on your level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has to do with the mass/energy of the Higgs boson.
Here is the relevant quote from the Wiki article on the Higgs boson...

"In the Standard Model, there exists the possibility that the underlying state of our universe – known as the "vacuum" – is long-lived, but not completely stable. In this scenario, the universe as we know it could effectively be destroyed by collapsing into a more stable vacuum state.[33][34][35][36][37] This was sometimes misreported as the Higgs boson "ending" the universe.[h] If the masses of the Higgs boson and top quark are known more precisely, and the Standard Model provides an accurate description of particle physics up to extreme energies of the Planck scale, then it is possible to calculate whether the vacuum is stable or merely long-lived.[40][41][42] A 125 – 127 GeV Higgs mass seems to be extremely close to the boundary for stability, but a definitive answer requires much more precise measurements of the pole mass of the top quark.[32] New physics can change this picture.[43] "

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

And this has nothing to do with the temperature of any voids.

 

Also, not being an expert on Differential Geometry, Gauge theory and Topology, I am not so sure a symmetry break travels at the speed of light, as I'm not sure there is information transport.
The example which brings this to mind is A Guth's from his original Inflationary theory.

Consider a symmetric dinner table arrangement where a fork and knife are placed between each plate.
It is certainly symmetric.
But as soon as one guest 'breaks' the symmetry by choosing either the fork/knife on his left, or his right, the choice has been immediately made for every other guest at the table.

Maybe someone more familiar with this issue can explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mordred said:

Nope the universe wouldn't cool down enough in either of our lifetimes. 

This is a quote about universe cool down

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

Yes but there is a part that says

!

Moderator Note

Please quote that part then, like this:

 
Quote

As a whole, the universe is growing and the temperature is falling as time passes. Cosmology is the study of how the universe began and its development. Scientists who study cosmology have agreed that the Big Bang theory matches what they have observed so far.[1]

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

4 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

also this supervoid is below 0 

!

Moderator Note

It's not though, and people have pointed that out. And you've ignored them. So they asked you for a link and a quote where the claim is made, and you ignored that too. Nobody is interested in "from what I've been told". Please ask questions about specific things you've read and can link to. This will make it easier to not only correct your misunderstandings, it will remove you as your own biggest obstacle to the learning process. You have a tendency to confuse yourself by not learning one thing correctly before proceeding to the next.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a symmetry break, the universe would have to cool below a phase transition.
And we don't think there are any more phase transitions; better measurements of Higgs boson and top Quark mass may tell us for sure.

The best analogy I can think of would be to cool water below 0 deg C. without it freezing and staying liquid.
IOW supercooling.
At that point, any 'upset' to the system ( even tapping the glass container ) would trigger an immediate phase change to ice.

I have often done this in the other direction.
You heat a cup of water in a microwave oven to above boiling, but the liquid remains calm.
You remove it, and drop in a teabag, or some instant coffee, and it immediately boils over the top of the cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MigL said:

This has to do with the mass/energy of the Higgs boson.
Here is the relevant quote from the Wiki article on the Higgs boson...

"In the Standard Model, there exists the possibility that the underlying state of our universe – known as the "vacuum" – is long-lived, but not completely stable. In this scenario, the universe as we know it could effectively be destroyed by collapsing into a more stable vacuum state.[33][34][35][36][37] This was sometimes misreported as the Higgs boson "ending" the universe.[h] If the masses of the Higgs boson and top quark are known more precisely, and the Standard Model provides an accurate description of particle physics up to extreme energies of the Planck scale, then it is possible to calculate whether the vacuum is stable or merely long-lived.[40][41][42] A 125 – 127 GeV Higgs mass seems to be extremely close to the boundary for stability, but a definitive answer requires much more precise measurements of the pole mass of the top quark.[32] New physics can change this picture.[43] "

From

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

And this has nothing to do with the temperature of any voids.

 

Also, not being an expert on Differential Geometry, Gauge theory and Topology, I am not so sure a symmetry break travels at the speed of light, as I'm not sure there is information transport.
The example which brings this to mind is A Guth's from his original Inflationary theory.

Consider a symmetric dinner table arrangement where a fork and knife are placed between each plate.
It is certainly symmetric.
But as soon as one guest 'breaks' the symmetry by choosing either the fork/knife on his left, or his right, the choice has been immediately made for every other guest at the table.

Maybe someone more familiar with this issue can explain.

Thank you for pointing that out. 
 

also the temperature comment i made are about a comment on here about of the universe falls below a temp of 0 vacuum collapse is possible. The article about the supervoid shows that that temp has fallen below that level which the article does not state but understanding the articles itself shows that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

also the temperature comment i made are about a comment on here about of the universe falls below a temp of 0 vacuum collapse is possible.

No one made any such comment. You have been repeatedly told that a temperature below 0 is impossible.

2 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

The article about the supervoid shows that that temp has fallen below that level which the article does not state but understanding the articles itself shows that 

The article does not say that. You do not understand the article so you should not be making false claims about what it says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current temperature of the supervoid shows that cooling is happening is it not? If the universe has cooled to that state in the supervoid it shows that it is possibly cooling to that state all around us. The proposed  cooling state puts the universe in a low level which is just happening now

with this cooling state happening now it means the universe is at its end.

i am sorry if no one sees what I am getting at 

 

and I am sorry if I misread about 0 i cannot find the comment that said that. We are currently in this void at the minimum 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

The current temperature of the supervoid shows that cooling is happening is it not? I

It doesn;t show that it is cooling any more than the rest of the universe.

9 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

If the universe has cooled to that state in the supervoid it shows that it is possibly cooling to that state all around us.

The entire universe is cooling. It is known as "the big bang".

9 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

The proposed  cooling state puts the universe in a low level which is just happening now

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.

10 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

with this cooling state happening now it means the universe is at its end.

Nonense.

11 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

i am sorry if no one sees what I am getting at 

That is because you are posting complete nonsense. You are not listening to what anyone says. And misunderstand and misrepresent the articles you read.

12 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

We are currently in this void at the minimum

We are not in the void. If it exists it is billions of light years away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Strange said:

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.

You answered but have not said why I am wrong 

also the light from void has reached us that means the void has also or is about to 

Also this supervoid is showing there is something now right 

i am trying to understand this whole post but keep getting different answers 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

You answered but have not said why I am wrong 

I have. But you don't understand.

40 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

also the light from void has reached us that means the void has also or is about to

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.

42 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

i am trying to understand this whole post but keep getting different answers 

You keep getting the same answers. You just don't understand them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

also the light from void has reached us that means the void has also or is about to 

When I look out my window i see a streetlight, the moon and some stars. That means the light has reached me. It does not mean any of those objects will reach me any time soon or at any future time. Please explain the reasoning behind your idea or provide a source and maybe the misunderstandings may be sorted out.

 

 

47 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

Also this supervoid is showing there is something now right 

Note: "there" and "right now" may not be the best way to describe something at cosmological scale. 

 

Edited by Ghideon
x-post with @Strange, who (again) stated same point but shorter and more efficient 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

When I look out my window i see a streetlight, the moon and some stars. That means the light has reached me. It does not mean any of those objects will reach me any time soon or at any future time. Please explain the reasoning behind your idea or provide a source and maybe the misunderstandings may be sorted out.

 

 

Note: "there" and "right now" may not be the best way to describe something at cosmological scale. 

 

The supervoid is a huge area cooler than the actual universe. So it’s there ans something is going on in the universe 

due to this that area is more prone to vacuum decay or vacuum collapse 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

The supervoid is a huge area cooler than the actual universe.

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?

24 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

So it’s there ans something is going on in the universe

There are lots of things going on in the universe.

24 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

due to this that area is more prone to vacuum decay or vacuum collapse

And there you go: making up nonsense again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Strange said:

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. 

This is my understanding and I am not being corrected.

 

and there are no other cold spots in the in universe such as this one 

a cold spot is an area in the universe different than the regular areas that for some reason that area is colder than anywhere else which does not coincide with the standard 

 

Also as I’ve been stating there’s a lot going on in the universe but no one seems to want to state it

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

This is my understanding and I am not being corrected.

Your understanding is completely wrong in almost every detail. You have been repeatedly corrected.

9 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

and there are no other cold spots in the in universe such as this one 

a cold spot is an area in the universe different than the regular areas that for some reason that area is colder than anywhere else which does not coincide with the standard 

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.

12 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

Also as I’ve been seen there’s a lot going on in the universe but no one seems to want to state it

Of course there is a lot going on in the universe. That is why astronomy exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Strange said:

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_(astronomy)

The articles states a full area of light years that is colder than anywhere around it

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot

axis of evil

 

again people think I am dumb

also this article implies the actual cosmo constant has changed also which confuses some of the answers here 

73.8 ± 1.1 km/s/Mpc according to this new measurement.

How much does that increase  Lambda (cosmo-constant) looks like it was by 5 

 

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=103

 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From your link...

1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

"Subsequently, using the data gathered by WMAP over 3 years, the statistical significance of such a large, cool region was estimated. The probability of finding a deviation at least as high in Gaussian simulations was found to be 1.85%.[5] Thus it appears unlikely, but not impossible, that the cold spot was generated by the standard mechanism of quantum fluctuations during cosmological inflation, which in most inflationary models gives rise to Gaussian statistics. The cold spot may also, as suggested in the references above, be a signal of non-Gaussian primordial fluctuations."

Other possible causes for the 0.00007 deg K deviation ( out of 2.7 deg K ) stated in the link, include...

Sachs-Wolfe ( integrated ) effect due to the large void between us and the CMB.
Cosmic Texture remnant of the last phase transition, i.e. primordial origin.
Parallel universe 'imprint which would necessitate an equivalent spot in the opposing hemisphere.
And sensitivity to finding method is also mentioned.

I did NOT find any mention of vacuum decay ( and the end of the universe ) as a possible cause for the cold spot.
So, I have to wonder, are you pulling this out of your a*s, Chicken Little ?
 

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

The articles states a full area of light years that is colder than anywhere around it

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure why I would feel silly about what I read 
 

also this article implies the actual cosmo constant has changed also which confuses some of the answers here 

73.8 ± 1.1 km/s/Mpc according to this new measurement.

How much does that increase  Lambda (cosmo-constant) looks like it was by 5 

 

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=103

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.