Jump to content
Bmpbmp1975

Dead galaxy questions

Recommended Posts

No it hasn't changed.
Our measurement methods have changed, yielding slightly differing results.

Again I must stress reading comprehension.
I really have no idea why you would link an article regarding 5 Sigma ( solution confidence ) to back up your assertion.
Now do you feel a bit silly ?

Edited by MigL

Share this post


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

No it hasn't changed.
Our measurement methods have changed, yielding slightly differing results.

Again I must stress reading comprehension.
I really have no idea why you would link an article regarding 5 Sigma ( solution confidence ) to back up your assertion.
Now do you feel a bit silly ?

What is 5 sigma and what exactly has changed 

Share this post


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

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

You tell us, you posted it...

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

How about now, are you feeling silly yet ?

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I read somewhere about cosmos constant changing to below 1 a comment about the article I posted 

IfPoplawski is right then the equation of state of Dark Energy might fall out trivially. I'd expect it to be close to w=p/ρ=1w=p/ρ=−1 like the usual cosmological constant but the kinetic term would make it slightly larger than -1. As it turns out the measured value of w from the Planck data is -0.98 but with an error bar of 0.05. So beating down on the error might allow some interesting conclusions to be drawn.”

 

 

i am trying my best to understand I am sorry but if you want to make fun of me it’s fine, I will keep trying to learn better 

 

and also this is from wiki about the Higgs and it’s possible decay lifetime 1.6×10−22 s which is not long

 

Quantum mechanics predicts that if it is possible for a particle to decay into a set of lighter particles, then it will eventually do so.[162] This is also true for the Higgs boson. The likelihood with which this happens depends on a variety of factors including: the difference in mass, the strength of the interactions, etc. Most of these factors are fixed by the Standard Model, except for the mass of the Higgs boson itself. For a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV/c2 the SM predicts a mean life time of about 1.6×10−22 s.

290px-HiggsBR.svg.png
The Standard Model prediction for the branching ratios of the different decay modes of the Higgs particle depends on the value of its mass.

Since it interacts with all the massive elementary particles of the SM, the Higgs boson has many different processes through which it can decay. Each of these possible processes has its own probability, expressed as the branching ratio; the fraction of the total number decays that follows that process. The SM predicts these branching ratios as a function of the Higgs mass (see plot).

One way that the Higgs can decay is by splitting into a fermion–antifermion pair. As general rule, the Higgs is more likely to decay into heavy fermions than light fermions, because the mass of a fermion is proportional to the strength of its interaction with the Higgs.[120] By this logic the most common decay should be into a top–antitop quark pair. However, such a decay would only be possible if the Higgs were heavier than ~346 GeV/c2, twice the mass of the top quark. For a Higgs mass of 125 GeV/c2 the SM predicts that the most common decay is into a bottom–antibottom quark pair, which happens 57.7% of the time.[3] The second most common fermion decay at that mass is a tau–antitau pair, which happens only about 6.3% of the time.[3]

Another possibility is for the Higgs to split into a pair of massive gauge bosons. The most likely possibility is for the Higgs to decay into a pair of W bosons (the light blue line in the plot), which happens about 21.5% of the time for a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV/c2.[3]The W bosons can subsequently decay either into a quark and an antiquark or into a charged lepton and a neutrino. The decays of W bosons into quarks are difficult to distinguish from the background, and the decays into leptons cannot be fully reconstructed (because neutrinos are impossible to detect in particle collision experiments). A cleaner signal is given by decay into a pair of Z-bosons (which happens about 2.6% of the time for a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV/c2),[3] if each of the bosons subsequently decays into a pair of easy-to-detect charged leptons (electrons or muons).

Decay into massless gauge bosons (i.e., gluonsor photons) is also possible, but requires intermediate loop of virtual heavy quarks (top or bottom) or massive gauge bosons.[120] The most common such process is the decay into a pair of gluons through a loop of virtual heavy quarks. This process, which is the reverse of the gluon fusion process mentioned above, happens approximately 8.6% of the time for a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV/c2.[3]Much rarer is the decay into a pair of photons mediated by a loop of W bosons or heavy quarks, which happens only twice for every thousand decays.[3] However, this process is very relevant for experimental searches for the Higgs boson, because the energy and momentum of the photons can be measured very precisely, giving an accurate reconstruction of the mass of the decaying particle.[120]

 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

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 

Thank for your attempt at explaining. Unfortunately you failed to address the question I asked and your explanation is not correct. After reading through the other post I do not think there is much point in trying to post corrections at this time. 

Question: are you using automated / machine translation that is incapable of properly handling the material you wish to discuss? The number of errors and misunderstandings combined with posts that looks confident about being correct just does not add up. 

 

6 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

What is 5 sigma and what exactly has changed 

Are you familiar with statistics, empirical tests and probability distributions? Short answer is that 5 sigma means that 1 in 1744278 will be approximate expected frequency outside range. See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68–95–99.7_rule

 

Share this post


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

not sure why I would feel silly about what I read

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.

8 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

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

The measured value has changed over time as better (more accurate) measurement methods have been found. 

Quote

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

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).

8 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

This is what I read somewhere about cosmos constant changing to below 1 a comment about the article I posted

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.

Quote

i am trying my best to understand I am sorry but if you want to make fun of me it’s fine, I will keep trying to learn better 

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.

8 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

and also this is from wiki about the Higgs and it’s possible decay lifetime 1.6×10−22 s which is not long

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strange said:

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.

Thanks so it is possible the universe is no long métastable thén? Since it is now -1 maybe 

 

and this is the whole comment not sure if you saw it 

 

IfPoplawski is right then the equation of state of Dark Energy might fall out trivially. I'd expect it to be close to w=p/ρ=1w=p/ρ=−1 like the usual cosmological constant but the kinetic term would make it slightly larger than -1. As it turns out the measured value of w from the Planck data is -0.98 but with an error bar of 0.05. So beating down on the error might allow some interesting conclusions to be drawn.”

 

Quote

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.

I thought the decay of the higgs was a bad thing?

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

Thanks so it is possible the universe is no long métastable thén? Since it is now -1 maybe 

This has (as far as I know) absolutely nothing to do with whether the current vacuum state is metastable or not.

1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

and this is the whole comment not sure if you saw it 

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.

1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

I thought the decay of the higgs was a bad thing?

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.

Share this post


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

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 read it as a comment on another board  which was posted about the article for the expansion of the universe during the discussion that comment was made 

 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

I read it as a comment on another board  which was posted about the article for the expansion of the universe during the discussion that comment was made 

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

Share this post


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

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

It was a question about that signifying the cosmos constant may have changed so I was looking for a better understanding of if I am right? 

Share this post


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

It was a question about that signifying the cosmos constant may have changed so I was looking for a better understanding of if I am right?

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

Share this post


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

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

There is a whole post about it but I did not want to paste all the information information. Wasn’t sure if that’s allowed the rest of it talks about cosmos constant. Which is why o was hoping that someone here may be able to help me out if it wasn’t to much trouble 

 

sorry

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

cosmos constant

Cosmological constant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Strange said:

Cosmological constant.

Sorry was cutting it short, 

 

sorry I seem to be all over the place 

this board has been a big learning experience for me, was just hoping the final confusion I had could be cleared.

Share this post


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

Sorry was cutting it short

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?"

"...?"

 

Share this post


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

Which is why o was hoping that someone here may be able to help me out if it wasn’t to much trouble 

!

Moderator Note

You're making it an incredible amount of trouble, because you can't seem to recognize when someone is answering your questions (SO many answers have been given, but you're still looking for someone's help?). How many posts/pages were wasted because you kept insisting on temperatures below ABSOLUTE zero? You keep bringing up unrelated information you picked up from sources you refuse to link to, yet you want accurate clarification in the replies you get. 

Everyone here would love to show you what mainstream science has observed about the topic, but you seem very resistant to learning. It's clear you have many misconceptions that are holding you back. Can you please think about how you might alter your learning style? It clearly is doing you no favors, and it seems to be actively blocking you from accepting help.

 

Share this post


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

There is a whole post about it but I did not want to paste all the information information. Wasn’t sure if that’s allowed the rest of it talks about cosmos constant. Which is why o was hoping that someone here may be able to help me out if it wasn’t to much trouble 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry again, as I said I am having trouble interpreting a lot and when I read it a lot sounds like a difference language ya can I post the link to the post n the forum I am having trouble understanding. That’s if anyone is willing to look at it from a better perspective.

I thought we were not allowed to do that so I didn’t and I post my understanding from what I read and asked questions 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bmpbmp1975 said:

I am sorry again, as I said I am having trouble interpreting a lot and when I read it a lot sounds like a difference language 

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.

Share this post


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

I am sorry again, as I said I am having trouble interpreting a lot and when I read it a lot sounds like a difference language ya can I post the link to the post n the forum I am having trouble understanding. That’s if anyone is willing to look at it from a better perspective.

I thought we were not allowed to do that so I didn’t and I post my understanding from what I read and asked questions 

Did I say something or ask something against forum rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2020 at 12:21 AM, MigL said:

Slim possibility = NOT happening soon.

What makes you think we are in a false vacuum state ?

I think you lied and you haven't read the Wiki page on 'false vacuum'.

Come back when you have...

I have read this wiki page a few times and I do understand what they are saying, but as I mentioned a change in the   Cosmological constant that puts us to under 0 changes the form of the universe from métastable to true, in a true state then vacuum decay is highly possible. This   Is states in numerous YouTube interviews and articles from Katie Mack. Reading up on Cosmological constant on wiki states that we are currently under 0 value so vacuum decay as predicted since the information found by the lhc shows that this is highly possible now. 

and I know people have responded about vacuum decay but either I did not grasp it or the responses did not account for the current state of the universe 

this is what I am having trouble understanding properly.

i am  not sure why I have been having so much trouble asking this and it is probably due to my lack or working and understanding. I apologize for that 

all I ask if there is something I am missing understanding if someone can clarify. 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

I have read this wiki page a few times and I do understand what they are saying

Which Wiki page? Why not provide a link to what you are talking about.

1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

but as I mentioned a change in the   Cosmological constant that puts us to under 0

Why do you think the cosmological constant has changed? 

It was originally assumed to be zero. When the accelerating expansion was discovered, the value was found the be slightly greater than zero.

Quote

Reading up on Cosmological constant on wiki states that we are currently under 0 value so vacuum decay as predicted since the information found by the lhc shows that this is highly possible now. 

It doesn't say it is "under 0". It says (note that Λ is the cosmological constant):

Quote

Λ has the value of

[math] \Lambda = 1.1056 \times 10^{-52}\, \text{m}^{-2}[/math]

or 2.888×10−122 in Planck units or 4.33×10−66 eV2 in natural units.

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

Which is greater than zero, not under 0.

1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

changes the form of the universe from métastable to true, in a true state then vacuum decay is highly possible.

The cosmological constant (as far as I know) has nothing to do with false vacuum. The rest of your statement is completely the wrong way round. Vacuum decay could only happen if the current vacuum were metastable. If the current vacuum state were a "true vacuum" then there would be nothing for it to decay into.

1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

and I know people have responded about vacuum decay but either I did not grasp it or the responses did not account for the current state of the universe 

I am going to go with: you did not grasp it. Given the evidence so far, it is the most plausible answer.

1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

all I ask if there is something I am missing understanding if someone can clarify.

You have misunderstood nearly everything.

People have tried to clarify but you have either ignored or misunderstood their explanations.

You need to take time to learn things from the beginning in a structured way. You can't just leap into the middle of things and expect to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, you're not here to satisfy intellectual curiosity or fill gaps in your knowledge. 

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.