Neutrinos

[Damien99]

Been trying to learn a little more about neutrinos and came across this writing. Talking out neutrinos as popcorn kernels. Looked up the writer do not see his as having any thing about him.

is he making sense or is the ramblings with no real science

http://www.mccelt.com/the-big-burst.php

cant even tell when this was written

Edited May 22, 2020 by Damien99

[Damien99]

9 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

Been trying to learn a little more about neutrinos and came across this writing. Talking out neutrinos as popcorn kernels. Looked up the writer do not see his as having any thing about him.

is he making sense or is the ramblings with no real science

http://www.mccelt.com/the-big-burst.php

Wonder is this is linked with this paper 

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

[Piney]

37 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

is he making sense or is the ramblings with no real science

Ramblings. 

.....so much ramblings I don't know where to start but it's obvious he hasn't read much Einstein

[Piney]

@sci-nerd

This will twist your brain a bit mate!! 

http://www.mccelt.com/

[bison]

 I'm all for original thinking in science, but even a very brief perusal of the link in the  original post reveals significant errors.  For example, Mr. Cranwell maintains that neutrinos are all about the same age. Not correct, they are created afresh, for example, in the Sun, by the same process that powers our local star.

He also claims that most neutrinos are more or less stationary in space, and that it is the movement of the Earth, which makes them seem to zip around. This is not correct. Neutrinos, being nearly massless, travel at very nearly the speed of light. The Earth moves nowhere near fast enough to produce such relative velocities.

He does not support his claim of a 'quantum thread network' (not string theory, he says) with any evidence, or scientific rationale, that I can see. He seems merely to declare that it exists.  I'd be very careful about taking Mr. Cranwell's word for any of his claims, without first finding independent confirmation, via observations and evidence. 

The arxiv article, linked in a subsequent post, has no apparent connection to Mr. Cranwell's ideas.

Edited May 22, 2020 by bison

[Damien99]

10 minutes ago, bison said:

 I'm all for original thinking in science, but even a very brief perusal of the link in the  original post reveals significant errors.  For example, Mr. Cranwell maintains that neutrinos are all about the same age. Not correct, they are created afresh, for example, in the Sun, by the same process that powers our local star.

He also claims that most neutrinos are more or less stationary in space, and that it is the movement of the Earth, which makes them seem to zip around. This is not correct. Neutrinos, being nearly massless, travel at very nearly the speed of light. The Earth moves nowhere near fast enough to produce such relative velocities.

He does not support his claim of a 'quantum thread network' (not string theory, he says) with any evidence, or scientific rationale, that I can see. He seems merely to declare that it exists.  I'd be very careful about taking Mr. Cranwell's word for any of his claims, without first finding independent confirmation, via observations and evidence. 

The arxiv article, linked in a subsequent post, has no apparent connection to Mr. Cranwell's ideas.

What’s the arxix about conclusion said that false vacuum decay has happened recently ?

[bison]

2 hours ago, Damien99 said:

Wonder is this is linked with this paper 

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

 

1 hour ago, Damien99 said:

What’s the arxix about conclusion said that false vacuum decay has happened recently ?

You've selected a very complex scientific paper. I find a couple of references in it to false vacuum energy density as it relates to a variability in the minuscule masses of neutrinos. I do not find a statement or claim that false vacuum decay has occurred, or any attempt to predict if, or when it might occur. If I have missed such a claim, I would appreciate your pointing it out to me. Please give page number, section, with subtitle, and paragraph count. Thank you.

[Damien99]

12 minutes ago, bison said:

 

You've selected a very complex scientific paper. I find a couple of references in it to false vacuum energy density as it relates to a variability in the minuscule masses of neutrinos. I do not find a statement or claim that false vacuum decay has occurred, or any attempt to predict if, or when it might occur. If I have missed such a claim, I would appreciate your pointing it out to me. Please give page number, section, with subtitle, and paragraph count. Thank you.

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
 

in the conclusion section

[zep73]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

@sci-nerd

This will twist your brain a bit mate!! 

http://www.mccelt.com/

I've read so many wacky proposals, that I've begun to get annoyed by them. They have become noise.

A good thing about the scientific community, is that it acts as a filter for those. I don't have to read them, someone else will, and they will dismiss all the wacky ones. So I'm not missing out on anything.

Edited May 22, 2020 by sci-nerd

[Waspie_Dwarf]

42 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

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
 

in the conclusion section

Oh no, not this same old nonsense again.

[bison]

43 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

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
 

in the conclusion section

Thank you, Damien, I see that now. It seems that there are a number of false vacuum decay modes, with varying effects. The one being discussed appears to possibly exist, and merely increase the mass of neutrinos slightly. Since neutrinos hardly ever interact with ordinary matter, this appears to be of academic, rather than practical significance.The state of the cosmos is very unlikely to be substantially affected.  The term 'very recently' can have a very different, much longer term, meaning in cosmology, than it does in everyday speech.

[Damien99]

1 minute ago, bison said:

Thank you, Damien, I see that now. It seems that there are a number of false vacuum decay modes, with varying effects. The one being discussed appears to possibly exist, and merely increase the mass of neutrinos slightly. Since neutrinos hardly ever interact with ordinary matter, this appears to be of academic, rather than practical significance.The state of the cosmos is very unlikely to be substantially affected.  The term 'very recently' can have a very different, much longer term, meaning in cosmology, than it does in everyday speech.

I am failing to Understand how it means different. I have tried To understand explanations and can’t grasp it. From what I have read on wiki under false vacuum there is 1 meaning and that’s false vacuum decay destroys the universe

[Waspie_Dwarf]

12 minutes ago, bison said:

Thank you, Damien, I see that now. It seems that there are a number of false vacuum decay modes, with varying effects.

This has all been explained to Damien99 multiple times in multiple topics. He simply cannot or will not accept any explanation other than that the universe is going to end.

In fact he has spammed the site with so many topics on this matter that he has been specifically asked to keep to existing topics and not start new ones.

As this is turning in to just another repeat of so many previous topics by Damien99 I am going to close it.