Jump to content
Bmpbmp1975

Wierd paper about. Neutrinos

Recommended Posts

Came across this paper while I was looking up entropy. Now I am not sure if I am reading it right but the conclusion section seems to imply false vacuum started due to large neutrinos. I am not sure if I am reading that right. I can copy and paste the section if anyone would like but was told not to do that last time. Here is the paper

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.01991.pdf

Share this post


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

Came across this paper while I was looking up entropy. Now I am not sure if I am reading it right but the conclusion section seems to imply false vacuum started due to large neutrinos.

I can't see anything like that.

I have only skimmed the paper, and most of it is way over my head, but 

1) It is about how neutrinos get their mass (and why their mass is so small)

2) It is purely theoretical. It is comparing different models and says things like if this were true then this would be the result, but if something else were the case then this would be the result, and so on.

3) the conclusion says that both the models they looked at (one is the standard model and the other involves the mass arising "late" in the evolution of universe) are both consistent with the evidence, so more data is needed to test them

4) Without spending more time on it, it says that the neutrino mass could have arisen very early in the universe or "late" (and "late" here means many billions of years ago)

11 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

I can copy and paste the section

You probably need to show the section that says what you claim. So we can point out that it doesn't say anything like that.

12 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

but was told not to do that last time.

Nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What exactly does this paper have to do with Entropy ????
And no, it doesn't say that false vacuum 'started'.

The paper is an 'investigation' of time varying neutrino mass on the current cosmological model.
It can be summarized as: IF ( large neutrino masses ), THEN ( cosmological observables ).

 

edit: x-posted with Strange

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Won’t let me copy it’s on page 10 third paragraph. Starts with another aspect we neglected 

Share this post


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

Won’t let me copy it’s on page 10 third paragraph. Starts with another aspect we neglected 

For the benefit of others, this says:

Quote
  • Another aspect we neglected in our study is the formation and evolution of topological defects, as well as out-of-equilibrium effects like bubble nu- cleation and collision. Related cosmological stud- ies of the resulting inhomogeneities in supercooled late-time phase transitions have been presented in Ref. [98], which finds that kinetic-SZ data constrain bubble nucleation from false vacuum decay to hap- pen very recently. We defer the studies of such inhomogeneities as well as the cosmological effects of neutrino self-interactions, (partial) annihilation,

    7Ref. [1] already noticed a potential connection between the neu- trino vacuum condensate and dark energy, due to the surprising numerical coincidence of the dark energy and neutrino mass scales, and because the neutrino condensate is inherently connected to a new low-energy gravitational scale, ΛG. However, the model does and dark radiation to future investigations.

Which absolutely does not say "false vacuum started due to large neutrinos."

What it does say (in the paper, not here) is that, according to one model, the current neutrino masses could have arisen due to a super-cooled (ie. late) phase transition. Here, I think "late" means about 5 billion years ago, but I don't know enough about the subject to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Strange said:

For the benefit of others, this says:

Which absolutely does not say "false vacuum started due to large neutrinos."

What it does say (in the paper, not here) is that, according to one model, the current neutrino masses could have arisen due to a super-cooled (ie. late) phase transition. Here, I think "late" means about 5 billion years ago, but I don't know enough about the subject to be sure.

Thank you 

this is what I meant by happened recently 

 

Relatedcosmological stud- ies of the resulting inhomogeneities in supercooled late-time phase transitions have been presented in Ref. [98], which finds that kinetic-SZ data constrain bubble nucleation from false vacuum decay to hap- pen very recently

 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Paper does not specify timeframe 

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

Other decay modesEdit

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

Thank you 

this is what I meant by happened recently 

 

Relatedcosmological stud- ies of the resulting inhomogeneities in supercooled late-time phase transitions have been presented in Ref. [98], which finds that kinetic-SZ data constrain bubble nucleation from false vacuum decay to hap- pen very recently

From what I can see, they look at a range of models where neutrinos got their mass at times between 13.3 billion years ago and 1.3 billion years ago (that is "very recent" in cosmological terms). They do this to determine what the effects would be and so if there is (or can be) any evidence in favour of these different models.

This is, I suppose, interesting. But a pretty obscure and specialised bit of astrophysics. I'm not sure why you are so interested in it. 

Note: knowing the time when neutrinos got their mass is not going to kill you. OK?

Share this post


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

From what I can see, they look at a range of models where neutrinos got their mass at times between 13.3 billion years ago and 1.3 billion years ago (that is "very recent" in cosmological terms). They do this to determine what the effects would be and so if there is (or can be) any evidence in favour of these different models.

This is, I suppose, interesting. But a pretty obscure and specialised bit of astrophysics. I'm not sure why you are so interested in it. 

Note: knowing the time when neutrinos got their mass is not going to kill you. OK?

No it states that false vacuum decay happened recently because of this.

Share this post


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

No it states that false vacuum decay happened recently because of this.

Nope. You are back to your "Coffee?" "What do you mean? Are we all going to die?" delusions again. Stop it. See a doctor.

By the way, you generally won't see recognisable timescales in these papers. The times are given in terms of Z or scale factor. Converting that to time, depends on the details of the model used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Nope. You are back to your "Coffee?" "What do you mean? Are we all going to die?" delusions again. Stop it. See a doctor.

By the way, you generally won't see recognisable timescales in these papers. The times are given in terms of Z or scale factor. Converting that to time, depends on the details of the model used.

Why do you say no, it is written in plain English in the paper conclusion and on Wikipedia 

 

Relatedcosmological stud- ies of the resulting inhomogeneities in supercooled late-time phase transitions have been presented in Ref. [98], which finds that kinetic-SZ data constrain bubble nucleation from false vacuum decay to hap- pen very recently

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

Why do you say no, it is written in plain English in the paper conclusion and on Wikipedia 

No. You think it is because you can't understand what you are reading.

And why does it matter to you when neutrinos got their mass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. You think it is because you can't understand what you are reading.

And why does it matter to you when neutrinos got their mass?

No it’s not about getting there mass it’s that they caused vacuum decay at that mass 

your telling me I am reading it wrong but it’s written in plain English so that’s how I understand it, I clearly don’t understand   The papers and data but I do understand plain English.

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

No it’s not about getting there mass it’s that they caused vacuum decay at that mass

No. It was a phase change (decay in the vacuum) that gave neutrinos their mass. That is the whole point of the paper you started with: when and how neutrinos got their mass. 

You don't even understand what your own thread is about.

Again: why are you so interested in when neutrinos got their mass? What difference does it make if it was 13 billion years ago or 1 billion years ago?

Frustratingly, this is actually quite interesting but I doubt anyone who could shed more light on it is going to post in your threads. Because they know you will misunderstand/misrepresent everything they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. It was a phase change (decay in the vacuum) that gave neutrinos their mass. That is the whole point of the paper you started with: when and how neutrinos got their mass. 

You don't even understand what your own thread is about.

Again: why are you so interested in when neutrinos got their mass? What difference does it make if it was 13 billion years ago or 1 billion years ago?

Frustratingly, this is actually quite interesting but I doubt anyone who could shed more light on it is going to post in your threads. Because they know you will misunderstand/misrepresent everything they say.

That’s not what the paper says false vacuum decay and it mentions it happened recently, it is also mentioned in the wiki page of false vacuum

also a decay in the vacuum is pretty much vacuum decay. So basically vacuum decay happened somewhere recently and the neutrinos gained mass because of it.

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

That’s not what the paper says false vacuum decay and it mentions it happened recently, it is also mentioned in the wiki page of false vacuum

The paper explicitly says that the neutrino masses are derived from a phase change, not the other way around. From your cited paper:

Quote

The gravitational neutrino mass model in Ref. [1] pre- dicts the relic neutrinos to be massless until a late cosmic phase transition after photon decoupling. In the transition, a neutrino vacuum condensate forms and generates small effective neutrino masses 

The mass is caused by the phase transition in this model. (Which is one of many and may be wrong)

Again, why are you so interested in when neutrinos got their mass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Strange said:

The paper explicitly says that the neutrino masses are derived from a phase change, not the other way around. From your cited paper:

The mass is caused by the phase transition in this model. (Which is one of many and may be wrong)

Again, why are you so interested in when neutrinos got their mass?

As I fell onto this paper and read about vacuum decay happening because of neutrinos mass. Not that I had interest in neutrino mass. My title may have been to short.


also a phase change of false vacuum means we are now in a true vacuum state. And they were able to see the neutrino mass change cause of false vacuum decay which means it happened as stated in the paper.

 

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

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


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

As I fell onto this paper and read about vacuum decay happening because of neutrinos mass.

Which is NOT what it says.

Just now, Bmpbmp1975 said:

And they were able to see the neutrino mass change cause of false vacuum decay which means it happened 

No. They are exploring what the effects would be if the neutrino mass had changed at different times. This would produce different effects in things like the CMB spectrum, the large scale structure of the universe. Then if/when we are able to measure those things, we may be able to determine which of the models is correct and hence when and how neutrinos got their mass. Which is currently an open question in physics. It is not currently explained by the standard model.

So we don't currently know what mechanism gave neutrinos their mass or when it happened. It could have been more than 13 billion years ago or 1.3 billion years ago. Or somewhere in between. 

Share this post


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

Which is NOT what it says.

No. They are exploring what the effects would be if the neutrino mass had changed at different times. This would produce different effects in things like the CMB spectrum, the large scale structure of the universe. Then if/when we are able to measure those things, we may be able to determine which of the models is correct and hence when and how neutrinos got their mass. Which is currently an open question in physics. It is not currently explained by the standard model.

So we don't currently know what mechanism gave neutrinos their mass or when it happened. It could have been more than 13 billion years ago or 1.3 billion years ago. Or somewhere in between. 

So why is it talking about false vacuum decay and it happening recently? You see I am not grasping what your saying but reading that false vacuum decay happened recently from the paper and the wiki site on false vacuum 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really do not understand cosmological time. You could have a million lifetimes and it will be recent in cosmological time. Lol more recent than what this paper describes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

You really do not understand cosmological time. You could have a million lifetimes and it will be recent in cosmological time. Lol more recent than what this paper describes.

Regardless vacuum decay happened the time frame irrelevant now

 

paper states false vacuum decay happened already 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately you really don't understand what's involved in the term vacuum...

Any change in pressure is a change in vacuum. That happens without resulting in the universes end etc.

Share this post


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

Unfortunately you really don't understand what's involved in the term vacuum...

Any change in pressure is a change in vacuum. That happens without resulting in the universes end etc.

Yes but the paper states false vacuum decay? Have you read the paper 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Of course false vacuum simply describes a higher density state than that measured today.

Ie a higher pressure.

One day you will actually take the time to study a paper and learn what the terms mean.

The origin of the term false vacuum was Allen Guths false vacuum inflation

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


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

Of course false vacuum simply describes a higher density state than that measured today.

Ie a higher pressure

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

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.