Recent content by exponent137

  1. E

    B Dark energy might not be constant after all

    I read. One option is for the degenerate case. I suppose that this option is contrary to the measured mass differences of neutrinos? If it is in contradiction with measurements, why it is used? Maybe because it gives some simplified information?
  2. E

    B Dark energy might not be constant after all

    So, is 0.113 eV the more correct answer? Let us ignore IH. What is the point of 0.072 eV? To show that the results are more precise?
  3. E

    B Dark energy might not be constant after all

    One question: In https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.03002.pdf it is written in the abstract: "upper limit Sum mν < 0.072 (0.113) eV at 95% confidence for a Sum mν > 0 (Sum mν > 0.059) eV prior." To which value we can believe more, 0.072 eV, or to 0.113 eV?
  4. E

    I New cosmological neutrino mass constraint: sum<0.09 eV at 95% CL

    The latest pdg update of the max. possible sum of neutrino masses is sum<0,12 eV at Normal Order. https://pdg.lbl.gov/2023/reviews/rpp2023-rev-astrophysical-constants.pdf The latest measurement and calculation gives sum<0,111 eV. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09703 What is now with the status of...
  5. E

    I Open Questions about Neutrinos Today

    Yes, in principle, we are waiting for ∼ 0.5 eV. It was predicted at the end of the year 2023. But here, this prediction was repeated; maybe the update is close. About 0,75 eV: I do not understand, but it is not as important as 0.5 eV. But I hope that this is more than rounding...
  6. E

    I Open Questions about Neutrinos Today

    News about KATRIN: https://www.katrin.kit.edu/130.php#Anker0 https://pos.sissa.it/431/011/pdf "Currently the combined analysis for measurement campaigns one to five is ongoing with an expected sensitivity of ∼ 0.5 eV." But it seems that value 0,75 eV is a new one? "The KATRIN collaboration has...
  7. E

    How do mods combat pseudoscientific misunderstandings among users

    It is not wrong how he thinks. It is wrong if he does not use the scientific method. (But also scientific method is not absolute truth.)
  8. E

    How do mods combat pseudoscientific misunderstandings among users

    It is not good to use the name "crackpottery" for ideas of people, who try to follow the scientific method and they quit when it is proved that they are wrong. This also happens. The scientific method is not so bad also for unorthodox scientists, but orthodox scientists also abuse it for the...
  9. E

    I Open Questions about Neutrinos Today

    By end of year 2023 KATRIN will release their results (page 26): https://indico.in2p3.fr/event/29681/contributions/122472/attachments/76424/110930/04-TLasserre-v1.pdf And then in 2025. "next data release by end 2023 (<0.5 eV sensitivity) target sensitivity: m < 0.2-0.3 eV by 2025"
  10. E

    B When Will Fermilab Release Its Initial Muon g-2 Measurement? [new update on August 10]

    For a moment, let us forget about the measurements of g-2. Can we say that the BMW assumptions are more logical and correct than these of the Standard Model? Or, this is not clear?
  11. E

    B Can there be time without mass?

    I found this book: https://ia801301.us.archive.org/22/items/SpacetimePhysicsIntroductionToSpecialRelativityTaylorWheelerPDF/Spacetime%20Physics%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Special%20Relativity%20[Taylor-Wheeler]PDF.pdf On which page can I find about empty space-time, please?
  12. E

    A Higher approximations of Ramanujan formula for ##\pi##

    You wrote "promising" for formula in section "Numerische Verfahren ab dem 20. Jahrhundert". Is it not yet 100% sure, that it is limiting toward ##\pi##? In this link, Euler's formula is also evident: ##\frac{\pi^4}{90}=\frac{16}{15}\times...## If we modify it to...
  13. E

    A Higher approximations of Ramanujan formula for ##\pi##

    I made a lapse in the Ramanujan formula. It should be written as : ##(9^2+19^2/22)^{1/4}=3.14159265258##.
  14. E

    A Higher approximations of Ramanujan formula for ##\pi##

    I wish to estimate whether my above formula of Ramanujan is accidental, or it is a part of some absolute precise series for ##\pi##. Namely, it is very accurate and very simple. I see that you know the formulae of Ramanujan a lot, do you know any other reference with analysis for my mentioned...
Back
Top