Ned Wright's TBBNH Page (C)

greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:


[snip]


Since Lerner did not identify what value he used for
'interesting mass,'
the claim that his math was wrong is spurious.

Well, it's rather clear (if one knows a bit about cosmology)
what an
"interesting mass" would be (several eV will do it). Hence the
fact that
Lerner doesn't give a specific value is rather irrelevant.

It wasn't "clear" at all, in 1991. See report below.

I read the report below and explained that it doesn't support your point
- it only talks about *electron* neutrinos.


There is still no basis for claiming that Lerner's "math is
wrong." As Lerner gave no math.

As I explained, if one takes reasonable values (and I explained (*why*
the numbers are reasonable) and puts them in, one sees that Lerner was
wrong. Hence there are only two choices, IMO:
1) Lerner didn't do any math and made the whole thing up.
2) Lerner did some math and screwed it up.
Ned Wright and me are only generous and assume that it was (2), not (1).

[snip]


They appear to travel at the speed of
light, so must have no mass.

This argument doesn't make much sense. They *appear* to travel
at the
speed of light, so *must* have no mass? What a great logic!

Well, yeah... if the 'appearance' is the result of an
experimental measurement. Can you say 'arbitrarily close to?'

No experiment can ever measure "arbitrarily close to", so this makes no
sense at all.

Hint: we know today that neutrinos *have* mass, hence that they *don't*
travel at the speed of light. Therefore, obviously, the experiments
which showed that they travel *approximately* at the speed of light
weren't sensitive enough - and every experimental physicist should have
known that even back then!



Additionally, there are theories which predict not only the
"light"
neutrinos we know, but additional neutrinos which are much more
heavy. Try reading up on "see-saw" mechanism.

No. Please stick to the issue.

Err, the issue is if the experiments back then were able to rule out
heavy neutrinos or not. The "see-saw" mechanisms is another point that
the experiments could *not* have rule this out. Hence this *is* the
issue.


However, particle theorists postulated that neutrinos do
have mass,
and some cosmologists decided that these massive neutrinos
could be the missing mass."

"A supernova blew away this idea.

I have to agree with Ned Wright: the supernova did *not* blow
away this
idea. His argumentation, which you quote above, makes perfect
sense.

Today. Not in 1991.

Absolutely wrong. It was clear even in 1991 that a mass of several eV
would
1) give a substantial contribution to Omega and
2) could not be detected by the supernova measurements.
Additionally, it was clear even in 1991 that the supernova measurements
could give limits only on the electron neutrino mass, not on the masses
of the other neutrinos.

Ned Wright is right, and you are wrong. Live with it.


[snip]


How does Lerner get from "they all arrived in a single bunch"
to "they
all travel at the speed of light"? This argument makes no sense
at all!

They arrived in a 'bunch', (a period of 6 sec) after travelling
160,000 light years.
And arrived minutes before the SN light pulse. So, they were
travelling at around 0.999999999999875*c (according to Ned).

Right. 0.999999999999875*c. Not c. So, again, where does Lerner get
"they all travel at the speed of light" from? The only thing you can
deduce from the supernova measurements is (taking Wright's numbers) that
"they all travel at 0.999999999999875*c". And this doesn't help Lerner's
case, because this still would give a significant contribution of the
neutrino mass to Omega.

Lerner shows here quite nicely that he either doesn't bother to do the
math, or that he did it, but screwed it up somewhere. The supernova
measurements simply weren't good enough to rule out at significant
neutrino mass. Furthermore, for the 5th time, at least, these
measurements could only place limits on the electron neutrino mass, not
on the other two masses.


Again, Wright's calculations above are much better;

Than what?

Than Lerner's unsupported assertions.


note that Wright, in
contrast to Lerner, presents specific numbers! Lerner says only
"a
single bunch" - but doesn't tell his readers that this "bunch"
had a
lenght of about 10 seconds, and that this is *way* too much
time to rule out a neutrino mass...

The key word being 'cosmologically interesting.'

I explained what "cosmologically interesting" means - that it is clear
(and was clear even in 1991) that a mass of several eV *would* have been
interesting, and that the supernova measurements weren't able to rule
this out, according to Wright's calculation. How often do I need to
repeat this argument until you understand it?


That Ned Wright disagrees with Lerner about what
constitutes
'interesting mass' is not an "error" on the part of Lerner.

Yes, it is. One can calculate what an "interesting" mass would
be: IIRC,
the contribution of neutrinos to Omega is equal to the neutrino
mass,
divided by 92 eV/c^2. Hence a cosmologically "interesting"
neutrino mass
is obviously a few eV/c^2 - just the number Wright used above
in his calculation!

Marvellous! But that is theory-dependent.

Well, it depends on the Theory of General Relativity, right. So what?


And the theories keep changing
(no problem with that).

The TGR hasn't changed since it was discovered.


But you contradict the 'wisdom' of 1991 -- when
Lerner's book was written.

I would say that you don't know what the "wisdom" of 1991 really were.

[snip]


Then again, so is Ned's bald assertion
that 5 eV neutrinos are 'cosmologically interesting'.

See above.

Thanks. Now please provide one using only 1991 theory.

That the contribution of neutrinos to Omega is given by their mass,
divided by 92 eV/c^2 was known long before 1991. It's a quite easy
calculation which uses only long established theories.



{snip the rest}

Since Eric Lerner did not identify a value of what he considered
'interesting mass' and because Ned Wright did not provide any
reference for
why he thought 5eV was cosmologically 'interesting,' it was
difficult to directly address the issue.

How about asking Ned Wright first about this, instead of at
once attacking him?

I'm not 'attacking him.'

Yes, you are.


I'm pointing out the 'elemenatry errors' in Ned
Wright's webpage.

If you had ask him first about what seemed to be errors to you, you
would have learned that they aren't really errors - only your lack of
knowledge.


I'm not 'attacking' anything. And I'm not providing
anything 'personal' against Ned. Only against his arguments.

I didn't mention "personal" anywhere.


But, if you think this is an 'attack,' why didn't Ned Wright ask
Lerner about his book, instead of 'attacking the book?'

How do you know that Ned Wright didn't discuss with Lerner?


However, I have run across a contemporaneous
reference about the degree of support available for
'interesting mass' as things existed in 1991.

The reference is the book "The End of Physics," by David
Lindley ("Nature"
editor and referee). Publication date 1993. On page 199 to
200, Lindley
discusses the evidence for 'interesting' mass for the
neutrino:

===========================================
There was a moment in the early 1980s when it seemed possible
that this dark
matter had been identified. A few experiments around the
world came up with
some evidence that the neutrino, in standard physics strictly
a massless
particle, might actually have a small mass. The mass per
neutrino was tiny,
but because there are as many neutrinos in the universe a
large as there
are photons in the three-degree microwave background, even a
tiny mass could
add up to a lot for cosmology. It was entirely conceivable
that there could
be about ten times as much neutrino mass as normal mass, in
which case the
overall density of the univsere could reach the critical
value. As a form
of dark matter, massive neutrinos had some appeal. Neutrinos
are known to
exist, and giving a previously unsuspected mass to an
existing particle is
more palatable than inventing a wholly new particle -- the
hypothetical
photino, for example -- to act the part of the dark matter.
On top of that,
the mass suggested by laboratory experiments was about the
right value to be
cosmologically significant. There were reasons for taking
'neutrino
cosmology' seriously.

IIRC, these experiments measured only the mass of the
*electron*
neutrino (the text doesn't say explicitly, but the only
experiments I
know of from that time which gave a hint on massive neutrinos
were the
ones where the beta decay was studied, AFAIK). Hence Wright's
point that
an "interesting" mass for the my and tau neutrino wasn't ruled
out at
that time remains still valid, and Lerner is still wrong.

There was no reason to suspect that mu and tau neutrinos had
significantly more mass than the electron neutrino, in 1991.

The point is that there were no measurements available to rule such
higher masses out. And "there is no reason to suspect" makes little
sense: little is known about the reasons for the various masses of the
particles (for example, no one can explain why the top quark is so heavy
compared to all the other quarks), so no one had the possibility to make
any educated guesses on the masses of the mu and tau neutrinos.




[snip rest of article]

No, let's leave it in -- since it explicitly contradicts your
statements (and Ned's).

The article claims that a "cosmologically interesting" mass for the
neutrino was ruled out, right - but I already explained that this
applies only to the mass of the electron neutrino, not to the other two.

Additionally, this article has nothing to do with the supernova
measurements, which, according to Lerner, ruled out a "cosmologically
interesting" mass for the neutrinos. I thought we were discussing this
assertion of Lerner? You are moving the goalposts, IMO.

[snip]


The original laboratory evidence that neutrinos might have a
small but
cosmologically interesting mass has now more or less been
discounted. ...

There, I guess you think that this contradicts my claims, and Ned's,
right? For the 10th time: this applies only to *electron* neutrinos!!!


So again, we see that Ned's accusations are completely
unsupported.

No, we see that they are well supported, sorry.

LOL! Only if you snip and ignore the evidence.

I only snipped irrelevant things: descriptions of experiments which
1) only refer to electron neutrinos and hence can't rule out
cosmologically interesting masses for the other neutrinos and
2) don't have anything to do with the supernova measurements, which,
according to Lerner, disproved such an interesting mass.

I'm only saying that Lerner is wrong when he claims that the supernova
measurements ruled out a cosmologically interesting mass, and from what
you quoted, I'd say that Wright argues the same thing. So, bringing up
*other* experiments which supposedly ruled out such a mass is beside the
point - in other words, it's moving the goalposts.


It appears that Lerner correctly described the common opinion
that existed in 1991 (at least until 1993) -- that neutrinos
did not contain cosmologically 'interesting' mass.

Even if that was the opinion back then (and I'm not sure about
this),

The only reason you are 'not sure' is that you snipped the
evidence.

For the 20th time: I explained that this evidence refers only to
*ELECTRON* neutrinos! Did you get it this time?


And if you're 'not sure', why are you butting in?

Because there is one thing I'm sure about: that Lerner's claims about
the supernova measurements are wrong. *You* started bringing up other
points, IIRC.


This is the whole point of the thread!

The "whole point" I'm debating are Lerner's arguments about the
supernova measurements.


Lerner's supernova argument is nevertheless still bogus.

It still is.


[snip rest]

LOL! Another 'convenient' snip.

Well, I explained why I don't it to be relevant.


Replacing the rest of the paragraph:
============================
Now, if Ned (in the year 2000) feels that neutrino mass
is 'interesting' again, that's a valid point of discussion
between
theories -- if he can come up with a reference. However, it is
NOT in any
manner an 'error' on the part of Eric Lerner or TBBNH.

I don't see why you have a problem that I snipped this. It has
absolutely nothing to do with my point.


============================

Of course you snipped it. It showed your attempt to divert from
the issue under discussion.

Pardon? The issue under discussion was Lerner's argument about the
supernova, wasn't it?


You (and Ned) are trying to claim an 'error' within the
1991 book TBBNH because of theories not proposed until after
1993!

For the 20th time: that neutrinos with a mass of several eV would give a
significant contribution to Omega was already known in 1991. That such a
small mass could not be detected by the supernova measurments was
already known in 1991, too.


Might as
well chastise Newton for not discussing General Relativity.

What a nonsense.


Bye,
Bjoern

I've digged up some references.

First:
G.G.Raffelt, What have We Learned from SN 1987A?, Modern Physics Letters
A, vol.5, no.31, 20 Dec. 1990 p.2581-92.
(notice that this is a review article; what is told in it wasn't known
only at the end of 1990, but already earlier - e.g., a reference is
given to a paper by Loredo and Lamb from 1989).
This article gives the limit of the mass of the *electron* neutrino
obtained from the observation of the supernova (eq. 9):
m_{\nu_e} 23 eV (at 95% confidence level).

Second:
E.W.Kolb, M.S.Turner, The early universe, Frontiers in Physics,
Addison-Wesley (1990). This is a well-known book on cosmology by two
famous cosmologists; it summarizes what was known on cosmology back then
and hence includes lots of things which were already long known at that
time. Equation (5.33) is the interesting one in that book:
\Omega_{\nu} h^2 = m_{\nu}/91.5 eV
(hey, the 92 eV which I remembered where quite accurate!).
I don't know exactly what value of h was available back then, but let's
use the (quite high and therefore favourable for you!) value of h = 0.8.
Then we get:
\Omega_{\nu} = m_{\nu}/58.56 eV.


Putting these two things together (which both were known *BEFORE* 1991,
when Lerner published his book!), we get:
\Omega_{\nu} 0.39.
Obviously, a value of 0.39 *IS* quite significant cosmologically!

Hence, contrary to Lerner's claims, the supernova observations did *not*
rule out a mass for the neutrino which would have been cosmologically
relevant. Lerner is wrong there, live with it.
(and please stop whining about the other report you quoted - the *only*
thing I wanted to discuss is if Lerner's claim, that the supernova
observations ruled out a cosmologically interesting electron mass, was
right!)

And again, please notice that this (and the other report you quoted)
only applies to the electron neutrino - *much* less was known about the
other neutrinos masses back then. IIRC, the mass bound for the mu
neutrino was something like 25 keV, and the mass bound for the tau
neutrino was somewhere in the MeV range!


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

I've digged up

*blush* Make that "dug up". Sorry, English isn't my first language.


[snip rest]

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" wrote in message
...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

I've digged up

*blush* Make that "dug up". Sorry, English isn't my first language.


[snip rest]

Digged Up had more nuance and style...

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

I've digged up some references.

Thanks. Sorry my newsreader missed these. It sure would have saved
us both a lot of trouble.

First:
G.G.Raffelt, What have We Learned from SN 1987A?, Modern Physics Letters
A, vol.5, no.31, 20 Dec. 1990 p.2581-92.
(notice that this is a review article; what is told in it wasn't known
only at the end of 1990, but already earlier - e.g., a reference is
given to a paper by Loredo and Lamb from 1989).

References don't always share conclusions. This paper wouldn't have
been accepted for publication, if there weren't at least something
new.

This article gives the limit of the mass of the *electron* neutrino
obtained from the observation of the supernova (eq. 9):
m_{\nu_e} 23 eV (at 95% confidence level).

What neutrino pulsewidth did this paper use? (The paper is not in
NASA ADS)

I did find a different paper with the same date and author: "Core mass
at the helium flash from observations and a new bound on neutrino
electromagnetic properties" ApJ, Part 1, vol. 365, Dec. 20, 1990, p.
559-568. But nothing on SN1987a or neutrino mass.


Second:
E.W.Kolb, M.S.Turner, The early universe, Frontiers in Physics,
Addison-Wesley (1990). This is a well-known book on cosmology by two
famous cosmologists; it summarizes what was known on cosmology back then
and hence includes lots of things which were already long known at that
time. Equation (5.33) is the interesting one in that book:
\Omega_{\nu} h^2 = m_{\nu}/91.5 eV
(hey, the 92 eV which I remembered where quite accurate!).

Excellent.

I don't know exactly what value of h was available back then, but let's
use the (quite high and therefore favourable for you!) value of h = 0.8.

According to Peebles' "Principles of Cosmology," 1993, equation 3.18,
the values of h were between 0.5 and 0.85.

Then we get:
\Omega_{\nu} = m_{\nu}/58.56 eV.


Putting these two things together

Is there a reference where these two *were* put together, prior to
12/1990?

(which both were known *BEFORE* 1991,
when Lerner published his book!),

My apologies for the confusion on publication date (the copyright is
given as
1991). The month of the year did not matter, prior to your proffering
of a
December 1990 paper and a book published in 1990.

According to the preface of TBBNH, the first edition was published in
"late
1990," a "year and a half" before the completion of the preface
(written for a
different publisher) in "May, 1992." So the first paper was
undoubtedly
published AFTER TBBNH was printed.

we get:
\Omega_{\nu} 0.39.
Obviously, a value of 0.39 *IS* quite significant cosmologically!

And using Ned's value of 5 (calculated in 2000), we get a value of .39
(5/23) = .08.

Hence, contrary to Lerner's claims, the supernova observations did *not*
rule out a mass for the neutrino which would have been cosmologically
relevant. Lerner is wrong there, live with it.

And now we return to what Lerner actually claimed in TBBNH. Lerner
did not make any claims about neutrino mass that was 'cosmologically
interesting' or 'cosmologially relevant.'

And my apologies for allowing myself to get sucked into Ned Wright's
diversionary strawman definition of 'interesting mass.'

What Lerner actually *wrote* begins on p 157 of TBBNH. He is
discussing the genesis of the 'inflationary' Big Bang model -- and the
cosmologists' desire for a value of omega of 1.0. Lerner uses the
term "missing mass":

"... Cosmologists knew that an opmega of 1 would solve at least the
flatness problem and probably the problem of anisotropy. Yet all the
known matter added up to a few percent of that density -- there just
wasn't enough. If the Big Bang was to be saved, there had to be far
more than we can see, so cosmologists decided that most of the
universe was dark, or "missing. ..."

The specific statements about SN1987a in TBBNH are on p.160:

"... (P)article theorists postulated that neutrinos do have
mass, and some cosmologists decided that these massive neutrinos could
be
the missing mass."

"A supernova blew away this idea. Supernovas produce large quantities
of
neutrinos when they explode. In 1987, when a supernova occurred in the
Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of our own Milky Way,
scientists
were able to detect the neutrinos released, using the same arrays that
had
been patiently waiting for a decaying proton. The neutrinos all
arrived in
a single bunch, showing that they all travel at the speed of light and
have
either no mass or so little that they couldn't fill up the universe.


So, we see that Lerner was describing the "filling up" of the universe
to the desired 1.0 value of omega, from the observed value of between
..02 to .03. Thus, a value of even .39 is a factor of 3 too small to
"fill up the universe."
Thank you for providing calculational support for Lerner's statements
in TBBNH. The main problem was another of Ned's mischaracterization
of Lerner's statements.

(and please stop whining about the other report you quoted - the *only*
thing I wanted to discuss is if Lerner's claim, that the supernova
observations ruled out a cosmologically interesting electron mass, was
right!)

LOL! But that wasn't what Lerner claimed! You fell for Ned's strawman
rewording, just like I did.

But it's even funnier, because you fully believe that neutrino masses
are a factor of 10,000 times lower. Which is not cosmologically
significant, let alone capable of 'filling up' the universe to an
omega of 1.0. The essence of TBBNH (at least that section) is that
'heavy neutrinos' cannot solve the Big Bang's problems.


And again, please notice that this (and the other report you quoted)
only applies to the electron neutrino - *much* less was known about the
other neutrinos masses back then. IIRC, the mass bound for the mu
neutrino was something like 25 keV, and the mass bound for the tau
neutrino was somewhere in the MeV range!

Contrary to your claim, the other book (Lindley) was not limited to
electron neutrinos. See my post of Sept. 10, the content of which you
have snipped.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

I've digged up some references.

Thanks. Sorry my newsreader missed these. It sure would have
saved us both a lot of trouble.

First:
G.G.Raffelt, What have We Learned from SN 1987A?, Modern
Physics Letters
A, vol.5, no.31, 20 Dec. 1990 p.2581-92.
(notice that this is a review article; what is told in it
wasn't known
only at the end of 1990, but already earlier - e.g., a
reference is
given to a paper by Loredo and Lamb from 1989).

References don't always share conclusions.

Err, this reference was given explicitly for the value of the neutrino
mass reported in this paper.


This paper wouldn't have
been accepted for publication, if there weren't at least
something new.

Right, probably there was something new; however, the bound for the
neutrino mass reported therein was known already before (the paper by
Loreda and Lamb, and several others).


This article gives the limit of the mass of the *electron*
neutrino
obtained from the observation of the supernova (eq. 9):
m_{\nu_e} 23 eV (at 95% confidence level).

What neutrino pulsewidth did this paper use? (The paper is not
in NASA ADS)

Try going to the nearest university library. The journal "Modern Physics
Letters" should be available there".

Unfortunately, as far as I can see, the neutrino pulse width
isn't given in this paper. There are very little actual calculations in
it; as I already mentioned, it's a review article - and therefore mainly
gives results. The reference given for the value of 23 eV/c^2 for the
bound on the electron neutrino mass is:
T.J.Loredo and D.Q.Lamb, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 571 (1989) 601.

Even more unfortunately, that journal isn't available at the university
library here...



I did find a different paper with the same date and author: "Core
mass
at the helium flash from observations and a new bound on neutrino
electromagnetic properties" ApJ, Part 1, vol. 365, Dec. 20, 1990,
p. 559-568. But nothing on SN1987a or neutrino mass.

So what? Do you want to pretend now that the paper I cited above doesn't
exist, or what?



Second:
E.W.Kolb, M.S.Turner, The early universe, Frontiers in Physics,
Addison-Wesley (1990). This is a well-known book on cosmology
by two
famous cosmologists; it summarizes what was known on cosmology
back then
and hence includes lots of things which were already long known
at that
time. Equation (5.33) is the interesting one in that book:
\Omega_{\nu} h^2 = m_{\nu}/91.5 eV
(hey, the 92 eV which I remembered where quite accurate!).

Excellent.

I don't know exactly what value of h was available back then,
but let's
use the (quite high and therefore favourable for you!) value of
h = 0.8.

According to Peebles' "Principles of Cosmology," 1993, equation
3.18, the values of h were between 0.5 and 0.85.

Well, then the value 0.8 *is* indeed rather high.

But just for fun, I'll do it again with 0.85:
\Omega_{\nu} = m_{\nu}/66.11 eV,
which, when inserting the bound mentioned above, gives
\Omega_{\nu} 0.35
- which is still a very significant number.


Then we get:
\Omega_{\nu} = m_{\nu}/58.56 eV.


Putting these two things together

Is there a reference where these two *were* put together, prior
to 12/1990?

I don't know, but this would be absolutely obvious to do! This *is* the
way to determine if the neutrino mass is cosmologically significant or
not - hence if Lerner claims that the SN observations showed that the
neutrinos don't have such a mass, then he *must* have used this formula.


(which both were known *BEFORE* 1991,
when Lerner published his book!),

My apologies for the confusion on publication date (the copyright
is given as 1991). The month of the year did not matter, prior to
your proffering of a
December 1990 paper and a book published in 1990.

According to the preface of TBBNH, the first edition was
published in "late
1990," a "year and a half" before the completion of the preface
(written for a
different publisher) in "May, 1992." So the first paper was
undoubtedly published AFTER TBBNH was printed.

Well, the paper of Loredo and Lamb mentioned above, from which the this
review article took the value of 23 eV, was published in 1989.



we get:
\Omega_{\nu} 0.39.
Obviously, a value of 0.39 *IS* quite significant
cosmologically!

And using Ned's value of 5 (calculated in 2000), we get a value
of .39 (5/23) = .08.

Which still would be significant.


Hence, contrary to Lerner's claims, the supernova observations
did *not*
rule out a mass for the neutrino which would have been
cosmologically
relevant. Lerner is wrong there, live with it.

And now we return to what Lerner actually claimed in TBBNH.
Lerner did not make any claims about neutrino mass that was
'cosmologically interesting' or 'cosmologially relevant.'

I repeat the quotes you gave from Lerner's book here (with slight
spelling corrections, and some added comments):

"Cosmologists weren't perturbed, though, because particle theorists had
provided an entire zoo of particles to make up the missing mass."

Lerner insinuates here that these particles were all made up only
because of the problem of missing mass, which is quite wrong. Lots of
these particles were theoretical predictions which weren't in the least
based on the fact that there was apparently missing mass in the
universe.

"First came heavy neutrinos."

I very much doubt that these came first. IIRC, they were one of several
parallel proposals.


"Neutrinos are real particles, observed in laboratory experiments, but
they are quite hard to detect because they interact so little with
matter. They appear to travel at the speed of light, so must have no
mass."

Jumping to conclusions. From "appear to travel at the speed of light"
does not follow "must have no mass" - only "must have at most a mass of
x eV/c^2", where x is a number which can be calculated from the
sensitivity of the velocity measurements.


"However, particle theorists postulated that neutrinos do have
mass,"

Well, that postulate wasn't a big deal. Yes, the Standard Model at that
time treated the neutrinos as massless - but there was no theoretical
reason at all why they really should be massless; the SM mainly treated
them as massless because it was already known that their masses must be
very low and hence are negligible for most effects.


"and some cosmologists decided that these massive neutrinos could be the
missing mass."

Right, some, not all. Others made other proposals. Sounds a bit
contradictory to "Cosmologists weren't perturbed, though, because
particle theorists had provided an entire zoo of particles to make up
the missing mass. First came heavy neutrinos.", IMO.


"A supernova blew away this idea."

Lerner is partly right: the supernova blew away the idea that the
*electron* neutrinos could provide *all* of the missing mass.
Nevertheless, he conveniently never mentions that the SN measurements
were not able to place constraints on the *other* neutrino masses - and
that the SN therefore did *not* blew away the idea that *all* of the
neutrinos could perhaps provide *all* of the missing mass.


"Supernovas produce large quantities of neutrinos when they explode. In
1987, when a supernova occurred in the
Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of our own Milky Way,
scientists were able to detect the neutrinos released, using the same
arrays that had been patiently waiting for a decaying proton. The
neutrinos all arrived in a single bunch, showing that they all travel at
the speed of light"

Again, jumping to conclusions.


"and have
either no mass or so little that they couldn't fill up the universe."

Well, the measurements showed that the *electron* neutrinos couldn't
"fill up" more than about 0.39 of the universe (very strange wording
here!). They didn't show anything about the other neutrinos. Lerner
conveniently doesn't mention this.


And my apologies for allowing myself to get sucked into Ned
Wright's
diversionary strawman definition of 'interesting mass.'

I think the greater problem here is that Lerner pretends that looking at
measurements of the mass of the electron neutrinos is enough to rule
*all* of the neutrinos out as being able to "fill up the universe".


What Lerner actually *wrote* begins on p 157 of TBBNH. He is
discussing the genesis of the 'inflationary' Big Bang model --
and the cosmologists' desire for a value of omega of 1.0.

Well, this value was measured, hence speaking of a "desire" makes little
sense.


Lerner uses the
term "missing mass":

"... Cosmologists knew that an opmega of 1 would solve at least
the flatness problem and probably the problem of anisotropy."

IIRC, this wasn't the reason to introduce the concept of "missing mass".
The reason was more that Omega was *measured* to be close to 1.0.

And what "problem of anisotropy" does he talk about here?


"Yet all the
known matter added up to a few percent of that density -- there
just wasn't enough. If the Big Bang was to be saved, there had
to be far
more than we can see, so cosmologists decided that most of the
universe was dark, or "missing. ..."

That's a strong misrepresentation of what actually happened. Already at
that time, it was known from 1) theoretical predictions and 2)
measurements of the rotation curves of galaxies that there indeed exists
"dark matter". It wasn't made up simply to "rescue" the BBT.


The specific statements about SN1987a in TBBNH are on p.160:

[snip - see above]



So, we see that Lerner was describing the "filling up" of the
universe to the desired 1.0 value of omega, from the observed
value of between
.02 to .03. Thus, a value of even .39 is a factor of 3 too small
to "fill up the universe."

Hint: there are three neutrino flavours. 3 * 0.39 = 1.17.


Thank you for providing calculational support for Lerner's
statements in TBBNH. The main problem was another of Ned's
mischaracterization of Lerner's statements.

You are right, Wright apparently misrepresented Lerner a bit here.
But what you won't ever admit, apparently, is that Lerner misrepresented
lots of things, too.


(and please stop whining about the other report you quoted -
the *only*
thing I wanted to discuss is if Lerner's claim, that the
supernova
observations ruled out a cosmologically interesting electron
mass, was right!)

LOL! But that wasn't what Lerner claimed!

Wouldn't you call a neutrino mass which would enable them to "fill up
the universe" "cosmologically interesting"?


You fell for Ned's strawman rewording, just like I did.

Well, the argument still stands - 3 * 0.39 = 1.17, so the SN
measurements did *not* show that the neutrinos weren't able to "fill up
the universe".


But it's even funnier, because you fully believe that neutrino
masses are a factor of 10,000 times lower.

A few years ago, when little data was available (only the LSND
measurements, which were very questionable), I believed that neutrinos
have no mass. Then came the Superkamiokande measurements, the SNO
measurements, and some others. This changed my opinion - now I don't
believe any more that neutrinos have no mass. I *know* that they have a
mass of about 10^(-3) eV/c^2. This has nothing to do with "belief" -
this is based on *experimental evidence*.


Which is not cosmologically significant, let alone capable of
'filling up' the universe to an omega of 1.0.

Right. So what? Weren't you the one who insisted to concentrate on the
knowledge of 1991? Moving the goalposts again?


The essence of TBBNH (at least that section) is that
'heavy neutrinos' cannot solve the Big Bang's problems.

I never claimed that they are able to solve any (perceived) problems in
the BBT. So what's the problem?



And again, please notice that this (and the other report you
quoted)
only applies to the electron neutrino - *much* less was known
about the
other neutrinos masses back then. IIRC, the mass bound for the
mu neutrino was something like 25 keV, and the mass bound for
the tau neutrino was somewhere in the MeV range!

Contrary to your claim, the other book (Lindley) was not limited
to electron neutrinos.

Wrong. It was. It doesn't say "electron neutrino" explicitly, right -
but it says the following things:

"There was a moment in the early 1980s when it seemed possible that this
dark matter had been identified. A few experiments around the world
came up with some evidence that the neutrino, in standard physics
strictly a massless particle, might actually have a small mass."

These "few experiments" he mentions here measured only the mass of the
electron neutrino - hence obviously everything that follows can refer
only to the electron neutrino, too.



See my post of Sept. 10, the content of
which you have snipped.

I explained why I snipped it - I didn't consider it to be of much
relevance to the question in discussion (if the SN measurements rule out
an "interesting" mass or not - or, if you prefer, if they rule out the
possibility of neutrinos "filling up the universe" or not). The SN
wasn't mentioned in the text, hence I didn't consider it to be relevant
to this question. What's so hard to understand here?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...


I thought I had hit 'save' instead of 'send', but an earlier draft of mine
went into my files as sent. But it hasn't shown up on the newsgroups. My
error, apparently. My apologies if this becomes a semi-duplicate.

I'm trying to tie up the various dangling threads with Bjoern. Most of the
details apply to the "references" post provided by Bjoern. Since that's the
most concrete of the three parallel posts in this thread. Almost everything
contained in the other two are repeats of arguments made herein.

{snip higher levels}

First:
G.G.Raffelt, What have We Learned from SN 1987A?, Modern
Physics Letters
A, vol.5, no.31, 20 Dec. 1990 p.2581-92.
(notice that this is a review article; what is told in it
wasn't known
only at the end of 1990, but already earlier - e.g., a
reference is
given to a paper by Loredo and Lamb from 1989).

References don't always share conclusions.

Err, this reference was given explicitly for the value of the neutrino
mass reported in this paper.

Then why didn't you say so? "A reference is given to a paper..." does not
tell me what the reference is used for.

This paper wouldn't have
been accepted for publication, if there weren't at least
something new.

Right, probably there was something new; however, the bound for the
neutrino mass reported therein was known already before (the paper by
Loreda and Lamb, and several others).

Again, your statement did not indicate this, your reference wasn't listed in
ADS, and I haven't gotten to the library to check it out. How was I to
know? (Try not to skip interim steps when you write.)

This article gives the limit of the mass of the *electron*
neutrino
obtained from the observation of the supernova (eq. 9):
m_{\nu_e} 23 eV (at 95% confidence level).

What neutrino pulsewidth did this paper use? (The paper is not
in NASA ADS)

Try going to the nearest university library. The journal "Modern Physics
Letters" should be available there".

I said I would, what's your problem?

Unfortunately, as far as I can see, the neutrino pulse width
isn't given in this paper.

There are very little actual calculations in
it; as I already mentioned, it's a review article - and therefore mainly
gives results. The reference given for the value of 23 eV/c^2 for the
bound on the electron neutrino mass is:
T.J.Loredo and D.Q.Lamb, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 571 (1989) 601.

Even more unfortunately, that journal isn't available at the university
library here...

Let me provide another contemporary reference. The standard text, "The
Stars: their structure and evolution," R.J. Tayler, 2nd ed, 1994, p 303.

"Although only about twenty neutrinos were detected, a considerable amount
of useful information was obtained. ... (T)his observation places an upper
limit to the mass of the electron neutrino. If a neutrino has a very small
mass its velocity is not quite equal to c and the velocity depends on the
energy of the neutrino. The spread of neutrino arrival times at Earth can
arise from three sources: spread of times of emission, differing travel
time from different points in the pre-supernova and variation in neutrino
energy. If the whole spread of travel times is attributed to neutrino mass,
which cannot be correct, an upper limit to the neutrino mass of order 15
eV/c^2 is obtained. ..."

First, here is yet another 'value' of the upper limit -- 15 eV. Obviously,
there was only one event, and there was only one set of data to be
analysed -- in 1987. If you pick and choose your analyses to find the
largest number, you can come up with an upper limit that barely makes up
'enough' neutrino mass to make up the 'missing mass.' So far in this
thread, we've seen contemporary references of 23 and 15 -- and Ned Wright's
estimate of 5 eV. All from the same data. And all marginal, at best.

Second you only get your "upper bound" by ignoring the rest of the
physics -- by assuming an instantaneous collapse to a mathematical point,
with neutrinos emitted only at a mathematical point. Which Tayler
explicitly notes "cannot be correct." This is why I asked about the
neutrino pulse width in your reference. You missed the significance of the
question. Which indicates that you never really thought about what was
contained in that 'upper bound' you were pushing.

I did find a different paper with the same date and author: "Core
mass
at the helium flash from observations and a new bound on neutrino
electromagnetic properties" ApJ, Part 1, vol. 365, Dec. 20, 1990,
p. 559-568. But nothing on SN1987a or neutrino mass.

So what? Do you want to pretend now that the paper I cited above doesn't
exist, or what?

No aspersions were being cast upon yourself. However, I have had bogus
references provided to me in this newsgroup before. I thought it possible
that you might have made an error when citing the reference (we all make
mistakes). Since the paper you cited doesn't show up in ADS, but there is
another paper with the same author and same date. The concurrent publishing
of two different papers by the same author on the same calendar date is
improbable -- especially when one is in ADS and the other isn't. Which is
not to say it didn't happen.

Second:
E.W.Kolb, M.S.Turner, The early universe, Frontiers in Physics,
Addison-Wesley (1990). This is a well-known book on cosmology
by two
famous cosmologists; it summarizes what was known on cosmology
back then
and hence includes lots of things which were already long known
at that
time. Equation (5.33) is the interesting one in that book:
\Omega_{\nu} h^2 = m_{\nu}/91.5 eV
(hey, the 92 eV which I remembered where quite accurate!).

Excellent.

I don't know exactly what value of h was available back then,
but let's
use the (quite high and therefore favourable for you!) value of
h = 0.8.

According to Peebles' "Principles of Cosmology," 1993, equation
3.18, the values of h were between 0.5 and 0.85.

Well, then the value 0.8 *is* indeed rather high.

It's not 'high' at all. It's within the 'expected' range.

But just for fun, I'll do it again with 0.85:
\Omega_{\nu} = m_{\nu}/66.11 eV,
which, when inserting the bound mentioned above, gives
\Omega_{\nu} 0.35
- which is still a very significant number.

A moot point, however, because Lerner never mentioned 'significant.'

Then we get:
\Omega_{\nu} = m_{\nu}/58.56 eV.


Putting these two things together

Is there a reference where these two *were* put together, prior
to 12/1990?

I don't know, but this would be absolutely obvious to do! This *is* the
way to determine if the neutrino mass is cosmologically significant or
not - hence if Lerner claims that the SN observations showed that the
neutrinos don't have such a mass, then he *must* have used this formula.

Lerner never discussed 'cosmological significance.' And we don't know what
formula he used. He may have had a different constant than you provided.
We don't know what value for neutrino mass that he used (or referenced). We
don't know what equation he used (or referenced). So there's no *must*
about it.

(which both were known *BEFORE* 1991,
when Lerner published his book!),

My apologies for the confusion on publication date (the copyright
is given as 1991). The month of the year did not matter, prior to
your proffering of a
December 1990 paper and a book published in 1990.

According to the preface of TBBNH, the first edition was
published in "late
1990," a "year and a half" before the completion of the preface
(written for a
different publisher) in "May, 1992." So the first paper was
undoubtedly published AFTER TBBNH was printed.

Well, the paper of Loredo and Lamb mentioned above, from which the this
review article took the value of 23 eV, was published in 1989.

Now a moot point. But I still would like to know the month in 1990 when the
Kolb book was published? Did it also come up in December (i.e. post-TBBNH)?

we get:
\Omega_{\nu} 0.39.
Obviously, a value of 0.39 *IS* quite significant
cosmologically!

And using Ned's value of 5 (calculated in 2000), we get a value
of .39 (5/23) = .08.

Which still would be significant.

Now a moot point.

Hence, contrary to Lerner's claims, the supernova observations
did *not*
rule out a mass for the neutrino which would have been
cosmologically
relevant. Lerner is wrong there, live with it.

And now we return to what Lerner actually claimed in TBBNH.
Lerner did not make any claims about neutrino mass that was
'cosmologically interesting' or 'cosmologially relevant.'

{You made an 'invisible' snip. Can I guess why?}

I repeat the quotes you gave from Lerner's book here (with slight
spelling corrections, and some added comments):

And I will bypass commenting on your individual comments until you are
through.

"Cosmologists weren't perturbed, though, because particle theorists had
provided an entire zoo of particles to make up the missing mass."

Lerner insinuates here that these particles were all made up only
because of the problem of missing mass, which is quite wrong. Lots of
these particles were theoretical predictions which weren't in the least
based on the fact that there was apparently missing mass in the
universe.

"First came heavy neutrinos."

I very much doubt that these came first. IIRC, they were one of several
parallel proposals.

"Neutrinos are real particles, observed in laboratory experiments, but
they are quite hard to detect because they interact so little with
matter. They appear to travel at the speed of light, so must have no
mass."

Jumping to conclusions. From "appear to travel at the speed of light"
does not follow "must have no mass" - only "must have at most a mass of
x eV/c^2", where x is a number which can be calculated from the
sensitivity of the velocity measurements.

"However, particle theorists postulated that neutrinos do have
mass,"

Well, that postulate wasn't a big deal. Yes, the Standard Model at that
time treated the neutrinos as massless - but there was no theoretical
reason at all why they really should be massless; the SM mainly treated
them as massless because it was already known that their masses must be
very low and hence are negligible for most effects.

"and some cosmologists decided that these massive neutrinos could be the
missing mass."

Right, some, not all. Others made other proposals. Sounds a bit
contradictory to "Cosmologists weren't perturbed, though, because
particle theorists had provided an entire zoo of particles to make up
the missing mass. First came heavy neutrinos.", IMO.

"A supernova blew away this idea."

Lerner is partly right: the supernova blew away the idea that the
*electron* neutrinos could provide *all* of the missing mass.
Nevertheless, he conveniently never mentions that the SN measurements
were not able to place constraints on the *other* neutrino masses - and
that the SN therefore did *not* blew away the idea that *all* of the
neutrinos could perhaps provide *all* of the missing mass.

"Supernovas produce large quantities of neutrinos when they explode. In
1987, when a supernova occurred in the
Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of our own Milky Way,
scientists were able to detect the neutrinos released, using the same
arrays that had been patiently waiting for a decaying proton. The
neutrinos all arrived in a single bunch, showing that they all travel at
the speed of light"

Again, jumping to conclusions.

"and have
either no mass or so little that they couldn't fill up the universe."

Well, the measurements showed that the *electron* neutrinos couldn't
"fill up" more than about 0.39 of the universe (very strange wording
here!). They didn't show anything about the other neutrinos. Lerner
conveniently doesn't mention this.


And my apologies for allowing myself to get sucked into Ned
Wright's diversionary strawman definition of 'interesting mass.'

I think the greater problem here is that Lerner pretends that looking at
measurements of the mass of the electron neutrinos is enough to rule
*all* of the neutrinos out as being able to "fill up the universe".

So, you prefer dishonesty to imprecision?

If Ned thought there was a problem with focusing on "electron neutrinos", he
could have said so. There then would have been no need to distort Lerner's
statement. So I conclude that your own, personal view about the possible
role of mu and tau neutrinos was not shared by Ned Wright. And that he knew
5 eV was insufficient to 'fill up' the universe to omega = 1.0. So he
distorted Lerner's claim, to make it attackable.

What Lerner actually *wrote* begins on p 157 of TBBNH. He is
discussing the genesis of the 'inflationary' Big Bang model --
and the cosmologists' desire for a value of omega of 1.0.

Well, this value was measured, hence speaking of a "desire" makes little
sense.

ROTFLMAO!! Omega = 1.0 has NEVER been measured!!!! That's what the whole
issue of "dark matter" is about!!!!

Look at the reference (Peebles) given by Ned Wright! Table 20.1.

Lerner uses the term "missing mass":

"... Cosmologists knew that an opmega of 1 would solve at least
the flatness problem and probably the problem of anisotropy."

IIRC, this wasn't the reason to introduce the concept of "missing mass".
The reason was more that Omega was *measured* to be close to 1.0.

LOL!!! Too rich. Read the reference. You just shot any faith I had in your
historical memory. You seem to remember numbers, but not where they came
from.

And what "problem of anisotropy" does he talk about here?

Read the book and find out.

"Yet all the
known matter added up to a few percent of that density -- there
just wasn't enough. If the Big Bang was to be saved, there had
to be far
more than we can see, so cosmologists decided that most of the
universe was dark, or "missing. ..."

That's a strong misrepresentation of what actually happened. Already at
that time, it was known from 1) theoretical predictions

Uh, bubby, that's what Lerner SAID. Theoretical predictions were the
problem. Because the "predicted matter" wasn't observed.

and 2)
measurements of the rotation curves of galaxies that there indeed exists
"dark matter". It wasn't made up simply to "rescue" the BBT.

But the theoretical ad-hoc *assumption* of 'galactic' dark matter only got
one to omega = 0.1. Which was insufficient for the BB. That is, it was
assumed -- it was not *known.*

The specific statements about SN1987a in TBBNH are on p.160:

[snip - see above]

So, we see that Lerner was describing the "filling up" of the
universe to the desired 1.0 value of omega, from the observed
value of between
.02 to .03. Thus, a value of even .39 is a factor of 3 too small
to "fill up the universe."

Hint: there are three neutrino flavours. 3 * 0.39 = 1.17.

According to Ned, it was only 3 * .08 = .24. According to Tayler, it was at
most 3 * .15 = .45 -- and that value was 'known to be too high" on it's
face. The paper *you* used (published after TBBNH) assumed an instantaneous
(i.e. unphysical) supernova.

Thank you for providing calculational support for Lerner's
statements in TBBNH. The main problem was another of Ned's
mischaracterization of Lerner's statements.

You are right, Wright apparently misrepresented Lerner a bit here.

A BIT????

Here????

Wright misrepresented damn near EVERY statement of Lerner's to which he
referred.

But what you won't ever admit, apparently, is that Lerner misrepresented
lots of things, too.

Name one. What you claim above, is that Lerner was insufficiently detailed.
That is not the same as misrepresenting an argument!

(and please stop whining about the other report you quoted -
the *only*
thing I wanted to discuss is if Lerner's claim, that the
supernova
observations ruled out a cosmologically interesting electron
mass, was right!)

LOL! But that wasn't what Lerner claimed!

Wouldn't you call a neutrino mass which would enable them to "fill up
the universe" "cosmologically interesting"?

Why would I bother making up a phrase that was not used? One only performs
such strawman maneuvers in order to avoid unpleasant truths. Or to be lazy.

You fell for Ned's strawman rewording, just like I did.

Well, the argument still stands - 3 * 0.39 = 1.17, so the SN
measurements did *not* show that the neutrinos weren't able to "fill up
the universe".

*Ned's* argument was simply .08 = .08. Using your (2003) logic, it would be
3 * .08 = .24. So *Ned's* argument still falls. What you do with
references published after TBBNH is your own problem.

But it's even funnier, because you fully believe that neutrino
masses are a factor of 10,000 times lower.

A few years ago, when little data was available (only the LSND
measurements, which were very questionable), I believed that neutrinos
have no mass. Then came the Superkamiokande measurements, the SNO
measurements, and some others. This changed my opinion - now I don't
believe any more that neutrinos have no mass. I *know* that they have a
mass of about 10^(-3) eV/c^2. This has nothing to do with "belief" -
this is based on *experimental evidence*.

OK, I'll reword to remove the word 'belief':

But it's even funnier, because you fully accept that neutrino masses are a
factor of 10,000 times lower.

Which is not cosmologically significant, let alone capable of
'filling up' the universe to an omega of 1.0.

Right. So what? Weren't you the one who insisted to concentrate on the
knowledge of 1991? Moving the goalposts again?

My point was to concentrate on the statements actually made in TBBNH (late
1990), and Ned Wright's unprofessional webpage attack on same (2000). You've
admitted that Ned misrepresented the statements in TBBNH -- by bringing in a
strawman 'argument by definition.' *You* -- in 2003, using a reference
published after TBBNH -- have been able to 'just barely fit' an upper bound
to declare "it can't be ruled out" -- even though you know the estimate was
fundamentally incorrect -- and even though you know that the 'real' value is
at least 10,000 times lower.

But the "truth" remains that the 'massive neutrino' solution for the Big
Bang *was* generally abandoned during the late 1980s. And Ned's
misrepresentation of Lerner's argument was NOT the argument you bring to his
defense.

The essence of TBBNH (at least that section) is that
'heavy neutrinos' cannot solve the Big Bang's problems.

I never claimed that they are able to solve any (perceived) problems in
the BBT. So what's the problem?

The whole point of the argument in TBBNH is that massive neutrinos were
postulated to comprise the 'missing mass' -- and failed 'round about 1987.
And Ned Wright and you are busting Lerner's chops for so stating. You want
to say -- well yes, Lerner was right about the abandonment of the theory --
but not JUST because of the reason he mentioned.

And again, please notice that this (and the other report you
quoted)
only applies to the electron neutrino - *much* less was known
about the
other neutrinos masses back then. IIRC, the mass bound for the
mu neutrino was something like 25 keV, and the mass bound for
the tau neutrino was somewhere in the MeV range!

Contrary to your claim, the other book (Lindley) was not limited
to electron neutrinos.

Wrong. It was. It doesn't say "electron neutrino" explicitly, right -
but it says the following things:

"There was a moment in the early 1980s when it seemed possible that this
dark matter had been identified. A few experiments around the world
came up with some evidence that the neutrino, in standard physics
strictly a massless particle, might actually have a small mass."

These "few experiments" he mentions here measured only the mass of the
electron neutrino - hence obviously everything that follows can refer
only to the electron neutrino, too.

Nope. See the *rest* of the quote (which you removed). About the
'theoretical' failings -- which AREN'T limited to electron neutrino
experiments.

See my post of Sept. 10, the content of
which you have snipped.

I explained why I snipped it - I didn't consider it to be of much
relevance to the question in discussion (if the SN measurements rule out
an "interesting" mass or not - or, if you prefer, if they rule out the
possibility of neutrinos "filling up the universe" or not). The SN
wasn't mentioned in the text, hence I didn't consider it to be relevant
to this question. What's so hard to understand here?

If anyone expresses the slightest doubt of the BB, you see nothing wrong
with distortions made to smear the heretic (i.e. Ned Wright smearing
Lerner)? And if anyone (i.e. me) dares to point out the arguments are based
on distortions, *you* go to extreme lengths to support the smear -- when you
already understand that the point you are pushing is wrong by at least a
factor of 10,000?

I must admit, that I'm not surpised. Only disappointed that such is the
norm here in a "sci." newsgroup.


Let's take a look at what you'd like Lerner to have 'more properly' stated
in TBBNH:

In 1987, a "supernova completely blew away the idea that electron neutrinos
could provide all of the missing mass." If you ignored the physical time it
takes to make a supernova, and ignored the size of the supernova, and
assumed all of the difference was in travel times, you could -- just
barely -- make up enough mass to fill up the universe. It was not
*absolutely* ruled out that mu and tau neutrinos might be significantly
'heavier' (there being no significant experimental evidence on either) and
make up the 'missing mass.' However, there were also serious theoretical
problems with the 'heavy neutrino' theory, and the theory was abandoned.
Even though it was not yet 100% disproved by experiment.

The above paragraph meets the arguments of both you and Ned. Yet the
essence of the information communicated is unchanged. Since it is now
'accepted' by you that neutrino masses are 10,000 times smaller than the
'upper bound' estimates that we knew "could not be correct" at the time.
Why the heck are you trying to bust Lerner's chops?

Hello? Heavy neutrinos filling the universe to omega = 1.0 WERE abandoned
around 1987. I'm sure SN1987a played some part in that. Yet both you and
Ned Wright fight on! As if 'heavy neutrinos' were still a valid and ongoing
effort in 1990. And Lerner's description of the abandoning of the theory
(which is a historical fact) was not SOLELY due to SN1987a, and it was not
absolutely, positively impossible that 'heavy neutrinos' existed.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"g" == greywolf42 writes:
[regarding what was known from astronomical measurements regarding the
mass of the (electron) neutrino about 1990]

g First, here is yet another 'value' of the upper limit -- 15 eV.
g Obviously, there was only one event, and there was only one set of
g data to be analysed -- in 1987. If you pick and choose your
g analyses to find the largest number, you can come up with an upper
g limit that barely makes up 'enough' neutrino mass to make up the
g 'missing mass.' So far in this thread, we've seen contemporary
g references of 23 and 15 -- and Ned Wright's estimate of 5 eV. All
g from the same data. And all marginal, at best.

For other readers of the newsgroup, it might be worth pointing out two
facts. First, the Standard Model of particle physics (at the time)
expected that the mass of the electron neutrino (and the other two
neutrino species) would be 0 eV, so any value is significant (though
perhaps not cosmologically).

Second, one must understand that many measurements in astronomy are
not made to the 50th decimal point, as in some branches of
experimental astronomy. As an initial measurement (or upper bound) on
the electron neutrino mass 5 eV ~ 15 eV ~ 23 eV. These various
estimates are all within a factor of 4 of each other, not so bad for
an initial measurement given the uncertainties and the fact that we
don't control the supernova explosion.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

I thought I had hit 'save' instead of 'send', but an earlier
draft of mine
went into my files as sent. But it hasn't shown up on the
newsgroups. My
error, apparently. My apologies if this becomes a
semi-duplicate.

I'm trying to tie up the various dangling threads with Bjoern.
Most of the
details apply to the "references" post provided by Bjoern. Since
that's the
most concrete of the three parallel posts in this thread. Almost
everything
contained in the other two are repeats of arguments made herein.

{snip higher levels}

First:
G.G.Raffelt, What have We Learned from SN 1987A?, Modern
Physics Letters
A, vol.5, no.31, 20 Dec. 1990 p.2581-92.
(notice that this is a review article; what is told in it
wasn't known
only at the end of 1990, but already earlier - e.g., a
reference is
given to a paper by Loredo and Lamb from 1989).

References don't always share conclusions.

Err, this reference was given explicitly for the value of the
neutrino mass reported in this paper.

Then why didn't you say so? "A reference is given to a paper..."
does not tell me what the reference is used for.

1) I thought that was clear from the context.
2) I expected you to look the paper up for yourself, then you would have
seen this.


This paper wouldn't have
been accepted for publication, if there weren't at least
something new.

Right, probably there was something new; however, the bound for
the
neutrino mass reported therein was known already before (the
paper by Loreda and Lamb, and several others).

Again, your statement did not indicate this, your reference
wasn't listed in ADS, and I haven't gotten to the library to
check it out. How was I to know? (Try not to skip interim steps
when you write.)

Why didn't you go to the library in order to look at this paper *before*
answering my post?


This article gives the limit of the mass of the *electron*
neutrino
obtained from the observation of the supernova (eq. 9):
m_{\nu_e} 23 eV (at 95% confidence level).

What neutrino pulsewidth did this paper use? (The paper is
not in NASA ADS)

Try going to the nearest university library. The journal
"Modern Physics Letters" should be available there".

I said I would, what's your problem?

My problem is that you ask me questions instead of first going to the
library and looking up these things for yourself!


Unfortunately, as far as I can see, the neutrino pulse width
isn't given in this paper.

There are very little actual calculations in
it; as I already mentioned, it's a review article - and
therefore mainly
gives results. The reference given for the value of 23 eV/c^2
for the
bound on the electron neutrino mass is:
T.J.Loredo and D.Q.Lamb, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 571 (1989) 601.

Even more unfortunately, that journal isn't available at the
university library here...

Let me provide another contemporary reference. The standard
text, "The
Stars: their structure and evolution," R.J. Tayler, 2nd ed, 1994,
p 303.

1994? Didn't you insist that we talk about the knowledge of 1991?


"Although only about twenty neutrinos were detected, a
considerable amount
of useful information was obtained. ... (T)his observation places
an upper
limit to the mass of the electron neutrino. If a neutrino has a
very small
mass its velocity is not quite equal to c and the velocity
depends on the
energy of the neutrino. The spread of neutrino arrival times at
Earth can
arise from three sources: spread of times of emission, differing
travel
time from different points in the pre-supernova and variation in
neutrino
energy. If the whole spread of travel times is attributed to
neutrino mass,
which cannot be correct, an upper limit to the neutrino mass of
order 15 eV/c^2 is obtained. ..."

First, here is yet another 'value' of the upper limit -- 15 eV.

Does he provide a reference for this number? Apparently not. I would
rather rely on a review article for such data than on a book.


Obviously,
there was only one event, and there was only one set of data to
beanalysed -- in 1987. If you pick and choose your analyses to
find the largest number,

I didn't do this. I simply looked for a review article which summarizes
what was known about the neutrino mass from the SN measurements in 1991
(and even already in 1990).


you can come up with an upper limit that barely makes up
'enough' neutrino mass to make up the 'missing mass.' So far in
this thread, we've seen contemporary references of 23 and 15

Well, the number my review article gives comes from a paper which was
published *before* Lerner's book; your number comes from a book which
was published afterward. Hence if we want to discuss the available
knowledge in 1991, your reference is rather irrelevant.



-- and Ned Wright's
estimate of 5 eV. All from the same data.

Ned's estimate isn't from the data. He uses the data to demonstrate that
a neutrino mass of 5 eV could not have been detected, but he doesn't
place an upper bound on the mass which could have been not detected.


And all marginal, at best.

Why do you consider these to be marginal?


Second you only get your "upper bound" by ignoring the rest of
the physics -- by assuming an instantaneous collapse to a
mathematical point,
with neutrinos emitted only at a mathematical point.

I don't recall that the review article I cited uses this rather
unphysical model. Are you sure about this?


Which Tayler
explicitly notes "cannot be correct." This is why I asked about
the neutrino pulse width in your reference. You missed the
significance of the question.

No, I know that the pulse width is significant - even Wright uses it in
his calculation!


Which indicates that you never really thought about
what was contained in that 'upper bound' you were pushing.

Wrong. I know quite well what is contained in that upper bound - the
review article I cited explains in some detail how the bound was
established (unfortunately without giving explicit numbers or formula;
the review article states that these can be found in the article by Lamb
and Loredo).


I did find a different paper with the same date and author:
"Core mass
at the helium flash from observations and a new bound on
neutrino
electromagnetic properties" ApJ, Part 1, vol. 365, Dec. 20,
1990,
p. 559-568. But nothing on SN1987a or neutrino mass.

So what? Do you want to pretend now that the paper I cited
above doesn't exist, or what?

No aspersions were being cast upon yourself. However, I have had
bogus references provided to me in this newsgroup before.

Well, that's a pity. Nevertheless, the article I quoted *does* exist.


I thought it possible
that you might have made an error when citing the reference (we
all make mistakes).

Well, I used the very reference I gave you later again to find the
article again in order to look up some more details, hence the citation
I gave you should be correct.


Since the paper you cited doesn't show up in ADS, but there is
another paper with the same author and same date. The concurrent
publishing of two different papers by the same author on the same
calendar date is improbable -- especially when one is in ADS and
the other isn't. Which is not to say it didn't happen.

Well, the paper exists, hence it did happen.

It does show up in the INSPEC database; do you know that database? The
paper you mention above, "Core mass...", does show up there, too.


Second:
E.W.Kolb, M.S.Turner, The early universe, Frontiers in
Physics,
Addison-Wesley (1990). This is a well-known book on
cosmology by two
famous cosmologists; it summarizes what was known on
cosmology back then
and hence includes lots of things which were already long
known at that
time. Equation (5.33) is the interesting one in that book:
\Omega_{\nu} h^2 = m_{\nu}/91.5 eV
(hey, the 92 eV which I remembered where quite accurate!).

Excellent.

I don't know exactly what value of h was available back
then, but let's
use the (quite high and therefore favourable for you!)
value of h = 0.8.

According to Peebles' "Principles of Cosmology," 1993,
equation 3.18, the values of h were between 0.5 and 0.85.

Well, then the value 0.8 *is* indeed rather high.

It's not 'high' at all. It's within the 'expected' range.

It's a high value within the expected range. Sorry, I don't see any
contradiction here.


But just for fun, I'll do it again with 0.85:
\Omega_{\nu} = m_{\nu}/66.11 eV,
which, when inserting the bound mentioned above, gives
\Omega_{\nu} 0.35
- which is still a very significant number.

A moot point, however, because Lerner never mentioned
'significant.'

Well, 0.35 * 3 (three neutrino flavours) = 1.05, hence "filling up the
universe" (which *were* Lerner's words) still isn't excluded.


Then we get:
\Omega_{\nu} = m_{\nu}/58.56 eV.


Putting these two things together

Is there a reference where these two *were* put together,
prior to 12/1990?

I don't know, but this would be absolutely obvious to do! This
*is* the
way to determine if the neutrino mass is cosmologically
significant or
not - hence if Lerner claims that the SN observations showed
that the
neutrinos don't have such a mass, then he *must* have used this
formula.

Lerner never discussed 'cosmological significance.'

Well, he discussed if they are able to "fill up the universe". That's
the same formula. If one wants to determine what contribution to the
mass of the universe the neutrinos make, one *has* to use this formula.
It's the standard one.


And we don't know what formula he used.

If he used any other formula, he didn't use the Big Bang Theory - and
thus he couldn't claim that the SN measurements ruled out the
possibility that the neutrinos could make up the missing mass in the
BBT.


He may have had a different constant than you provided.

What constant? The 91.5eV? This constant follows from straightforward
calculations; and, as I explained elsewhere, this formula was very
well-known in 1990 (it was proposed first in 1966!).


We don't know what value for neutrino mass that he used (or
referenced).

Well, if I would make such pronouncements, I would use an accepted value
for the neutrino mass bounds - in other words, I would use a mass from a
review article. If Lerner didn't do this, that's just incompetence on
his side.



We don't know what equation he used (or referenced).

See above.


So there's no *must* about it.

He *must* have used this - because otherwise, his whole claim makes
little sense. Using non-established values or formulas in order to claim
that some measurements are a problem for the BBT wouldn't make much
sense.


(which both were known *BEFORE* 1991,
when Lerner published his book!),

My apologies for the confusion on publication date (the
copyright
is given as 1991). The month of the year did not matter,
prior to your proffering of a
December 1990 paper and a book published in 1990.

According to the preface of TBBNH, the first edition was
published in "late
1990," a "year and a half" before the completion of the
preface (written for a
different publisher) in "May, 1992." So the first paper was
undoubtedly published AFTER TBBNH was printed.

Well, the paper of Loredo and Lamb mentioned above, from which
the this
review article took the value of 23 eV, was published in 1989.

Now a moot point. But I still would like to know the month in
1990 when the Kolb book was published? Did it also come up in
December (i.e. post-TBBNH)?

The book itself gives only the publication year, but there is a
stamp in it which says that the library here bought it in February of
1990; hence it must have been published very early in 1990.


we get:
\Omega_{\nu} 0.39.
Obviously, a value of 0.39 *IS* quite significant
cosmologically!

And using Ned's value of 5 (calculated in 2000), we get a
value of .39 (5/23) = .08.

Which still would be significant.

Now a moot point.

Right, Wright's numbers aren't demolishing to Lerner's claims. However,
the numbers in the review article *are* (because 0.35*3 1).



Hence, contrary to Lerner's claims, the supernova
observations did *not*
rule out a mass for the neutrino which would have been
cosmologically
relevant. Lerner is wrong there, live with it.

And now we return to what Lerner actually claimed in TBBNH.
Lerner did not make any claims about neutrino mass that was
'cosmologically interesting' or 'cosmologially relevant.'

{You made an 'invisible' snip. Can I guess why?}

What do you mean by "invisible"? That I didn't mark it? If yes, then
sorry; I always try to mark my snips and often even remark *why* I
snipped these things. Apparently, I forgot this here, sorry.


I repeat the quotes you gave from Lerner's book here (with
slight spelling corrections, and some added comments):

And I will bypass commenting on your individual comments until
you are through.

"Cosmologists weren't perturbed, though, because particle
theorists had
provided an entire zoo of particles to make up the missing
mass."

Lerner insinuates here that these particles were all made up
only
because of the problem of missing mass, which is quite wrong.
Lots of
these particles were theoretical predictions which weren't in
the least
based on the fact that there was apparently missing mass in the
universe.

"First came heavy neutrinos."

I very much doubt that these came first. IIRC, they were one of
several parallel proposals.

"Neutrinos are real particles, observed in laboratory
experiments, but
they are quite hard to detect because they interact so little
with
matter. They appear to travel at the speed of light, so must
have no mass."

Jumping to conclusions. From "appear to travel at the speed of
light"
does not follow "must have no mass" - only "must have at most a
mass of
x eV/c^2", where x is a number which can be calculated from the
sensitivity of the velocity measurements.

"However, particle theorists postulated that neutrinos do have
mass,"

Well, that postulate wasn't a big deal. Yes, the Standard Model
at that
time treated the neutrinos as massless - but there was no
theoretical
reason at all why they really should be massless; the SM mainly
treated
them as massless because it was already known that their masses
must be
very low and hence are negligible for most effects.

"and some cosmologists decided that these massive neutrinos
could be the missing mass."

Right, some, not all. Others made other proposals. Sounds a bit
contradictory to "Cosmologists weren't perturbed, though,
because
particle theorists had provided an entire zoo of particles to
make up
the missing mass. First came heavy neutrinos.", IMO.

"A supernova blew away this idea."

Lerner is partly right: the supernova blew away the idea that
the
*electron* neutrinos could provide *all* of the missing mass.
Nevertheless, he conveniently never mentions that the SN
measurements
were not able to place constraints on the *other* neutrino
masses - and
that the SN therefore did *not* blew away the idea that *all*
of the
neutrinos could perhaps provide *all* of the missing mass.

"Supernovas produce large quantities of neutrinos when they
explode. In
1987, when a supernova occurred in the
Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of our own Milky
Way,
scientists were able to detect the neutrinos released, using
the same
arrays that had been patiently waiting for a decaying proton.
The
neutrinos all arrived in a single bunch, showing that they all
travel at the speed of light"

Again, jumping to conclusions.

"and have
either no mass or so little that they couldn't fill up the
universe."

Well, the measurements showed that the *electron* neutrinos
couldn't
"fill up" more than about 0.39 of the universe (very strange
wording
here!). They didn't show anything about the other neutrinos.
Lerner conveniently doesn't mention this.

And my apologies for allowing myself to get sucked into Ned
Wright's diversionary strawman definition of 'interesting
mass.'

I think the greater problem here is that Lerner pretends that
looking at
measurements of the mass of the electron neutrinos is enough to
rule *all* of the neutrinos out as being able to "fill up the
universe".

So, you prefer dishonesty to imprecision?

No. But in contrast to you, I consider Lerner's wording to be dishonest,
and Wright's comments to be imprecise, not the other way round.


If Ned thought there was a problem with focusing on "electron
neutrinos", he could have said so.

Err, he did. Quote (from your original post, where you quoted what
Wright wrote):
"Lerner claims that the neutrinos from SN 1987A in the LMC rule out an
interesting neutrino mass, but the light water detectors used can
essentially only detect electron antineutrinos, so the mu and
tau neutrinos can have plenty of mass."


There then would have been no need to distort Lerner's
statement.

Wright did both things: He mentioned that there is a problem with
Lerner's argument, because they only concern electron neutrinos, and
then he did make a calculation, where he unfortunately distorted
Lerner's view a bit. (come on, "cosmologically significant" and "filling
up the universe" are not sooo much different!)


So I conclude that your own, personal view about the possible
role of mu and tau neutrinos was not shared by Ned Wright.

Wrong. See the quote above. Which you yourself provided in your original
post.


And that he knew
5 eV was insufficient to 'fill up' the universe to omega = 1.0.
So he distorted Lerner's claim, to make it attackable.

I would rather think that he tried to clarify what he was talking about.
Contrary to what Lerner claims, even low masses for the neutrinos aren't
so much of a problem, because there are lots of other theoretical
proposals for dark matter (which weren't all only made up because the
BBT "needs" dark matter, BTW). Hence it is sufficient to discuss if the
SN measurements were able to detect a "cosmologically interesting" value
of the electron mass; it isn't necessary to discuss if the electron
neutrinos alone could "fill up the universe".

Yes, Wright's argument doesn't attack Lerner's argument directly, and
somehow distorts it - but I don't think that this is much of a problem,
if one views these arguments in their context!


What Lerner actually *wrote* begins on p 157 of TBBNH. He is
discussing the genesis of the 'inflationary' Big Bang model
--
and the cosmologists' desire for a value of omega of 1.0.

Well, this value was measured, hence speaking of a "desire"
makes little sense.

ROTFLMAO!! Omega = 1.0 has NEVER been measured!!!!

Well, that depends on how you define "measured". This value obviously
wasn't measured *directly*; it was determined from fits of theoretical
models to the measured data - as in most of physics.
Do you have a problem with such methods?

What is crucial here is that several independet set of data lead to fits
with Omega parameters which agree with each other (within there error
bounds). *I* would call this "Omega = 1.0" was (approximately,
obviously, no measurement is ever exact) measured.


That's what the whole issue of "dark matter" is about!!!!

No, it isn't.


Look at the reference (Peebles) given by Ned Wright! Table 20.1.

I know quite well what "Dark Matter" is about, thank you. I took several
courses here at the university about cosmology, and I've looked at
current research articles, for examples the ones listed at
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/pub_papers/firstyear.html.


Lerner uses the term "missing mass":

"... Cosmologists knew that an opmega of 1 would solve at
least
the flatness problem and probably the problem of anisotropy."

IIRC, this wasn't the reason to introduce the concept of
"missing mass".
The reason was more that Omega was *measured* to be close to
1.0.

LOL!!! Too rich. Read the reference.

Which? The one to Peebles above? Thank you, I've already read lots about
dark matter.


You just shot any faith I had in your
historical memory. You seem to remember numbers, but not where
they came from.

Well, you appear to have read mainly popular science books. I've had
university courses about this and have read several original scientific
articles about this, in well-established scientific journals - decidedly
not pop-science. So, I doubt that you are qualified to judge my
"historical memory".


And what "problem of anisotropy" does he talk about here?

Read the book and find out.

Nice. Couldn't you give me a small hint first?


"Yet all the
known matter added up to a few percent of that density --
there
just wasn't enough. If the Big Bang was to be saved, there
had to be far
more than we can see, so cosmologists decided that most of
the universe was dark, or "missing. ..."

That's a strong misrepresentation of what actually happened.
Already at
that time, it was known from 1) theoretical predictions

Uh, bubby, that's what Lerner SAID. Theoretical predictions were
the problem. Because the "predicted matter" wasn't observed.

I didn't talk about theoretical predictions of the BBT. I talked about
theoretical predictions from particle physics. And it's no wonder that
the predicted particles weren't observed - it was *predicted* that they
would be very hard to observe! And, again, these were predictions from
theoretical particle physics - these particles weren't just made up in
order to solve the "Dark matter" problem of the BBT!


and 2)
measurements of the rotation curves of galaxies that there
indeed exists
"dark matter". It wasn't made up simply to "rescue" the BBT.

But the theoretical ad-hoc *assumption* of 'galactic' dark matter

Yes, it was an assumption. But calling it "ad hoc" is simply wrong.
Again, as I already mentioned, particle physics had already predicted
the existence of dark matter at that time. And if one detects that the
rotation curves of galaxies don't match the calculated ones, which were
calculated based simply on Newton's law of gravity and the observed
matter, then it's a quite natural assumption that there is dark matter.
I don't see your problem with this.


only got one to omega = 0.1.

Yes, that was the number one got back then, approximately, right. I
think more modern numbers are around 0.3. So what? The measurements were
in its infancy back then, no one could say how much dark matter could
"lurk" out there.


Which was insufficient for the BB. That is, it was
assumed -- it was not *known.*

The value of (approx.) 1.0 for Omega wasn't determined from direct
measurements of the available mass - it was determined indirectly from
other measurements and fits to a model. Again, do you have a problem
with that? If yes, care to suggest another model, which also gives
consistent fits with the data?


The specific statements about SN1987a in TBBNH are on p.160:

[snip - see above]

So, we see that Lerner was describing the "filling up" of the
universe to the desired 1.0 value of omega, from the observed
value of between
.02 to .03. Thus, a value of even .39 is a factor of 3 too
small to "fill up the universe."

Hint: there are three neutrino flavours. 3 * 0.39 = 1.17.

According to Ned, it was only 3 * .08 = .24.

Yes, Wright's numbers don't do it, right. So what? He made an
*estimate*, he didn't use the actual numbers which were published back
then! His main point was to demonstrate that the SN measurements
couldn't have ruled out a neutrino mass of a few eV. And his calculation
demonstrated exactly that.


According to Tayler, it was at
most 3 * .15 = .45

Where do you get the .15 from? You said that Tayler gives a value of 15
eV/c^2 - with h = 0.85, I then get 0.227, not 0.15. 3 * 0.227 = 0.68.
This isn't enough to "fill up the universe", right - but nevertheless,
it makes a very substantial contribution. Taking account that lots of
other "dark matter" candidates existed back then (again, which weren't
invented simply because of problems with the BBT, but which were
predicted independently by particle physics!), this still doesn't rule
out that "dark matter fills up the universe".



-- and that value was 'known to be too high" on it's
face.

In 1994. Weren't we talking about 1990/91?


The paper *you* used (published after TBBNH)

The paper which was quoted therein (Lamb and Loredo) was published
*before* TBBNH.


assumed an instantaneous (i.e. unphysical) supernova.

Did you read the paper in the meantime? Or how do you know?


Thank you for providing calculational support for Lerner's
statements in TBBNH. The main problem was another of Ned's
mischaracterization of Lerner's statements.

You are right, Wright apparently misrepresented Lerner a bit
here.

A BIT????

Is "filling up the universe" and "cosmologically significant" really so
much of a difference for you? Especially in the light of all the
comments I added above?


Here????

Well, I don't know about other instances; I only commented on this short
excerpt.


Wright misrepresented damn near EVERY statement of Lerner's to
which he referred.

I don't know about this, I haven't read Lerner's book. I only wanted to
comment on the specific quotes you gave in your original post.


But what you won't ever admit, apparently, is that Lerner
misrepresented lots of things, too.

Name one.

See my comments way above, which I inserted in the quotes from Lerner's
book. You said you wanted to comment on these later?


What you claim above, is that Lerner was insufficiently detailed.
That is not the same as misrepresenting an argument!

Saying that the SN measurements ruled out the neutrinos as candidates
for filling up the universe *is* a misrepresentation of the actual data.
Saying that these measurements "proved" that neutrinos can have no mass
*is* a misrepresentation of the actual data. That's not merely
"insufficient detail" - it's just plain wrong.


[snip another argument about "cosmologically interesting" and other
repetitions]


But it's even funnier, because you fully believe that
neutrino masses are a factor of 10,000 times lower.

A few years ago, when little data was available (only the LSND
measurements, which were very questionable), I believed that
neutrinos
have no mass. Then came the Superkamiokande measurements, the
SNO
measurements, and some others. This changed my opinion - now I
don't believe any more that neutrinos have no mass. I *know*
that they have a
mass of about 10^(-3) eV/c^2. This has nothing to do with
"belief" - this is based on *experimental evidence*.

OK, I'll reword to remove the word 'belief':

But it's even funnier, because you fully accept that neutrino
masses are a factor of 10,000 times lower.

I don't see what's so funny about this. That we know today that the
neutrino masses are insufficient to explain Dark Matter doesn't change
my argument in the least: Lerner's claim that the SN measurements ruled
out the neutrinos as a candidate to "fill up the universe" is simply
wrong. Based on a review article from 1990, which used data from 1989.
Published before Lerner's book. Your data from 1994 is simply not
relevant for my argument.


Which is not cosmologically significant, let alone capable of
'filling up' the universe to an omega of 1.0.

Right. So what? Weren't you the one who insisted to concentrate
on the knowledge of 1991? Moving the goalposts again?

My point was to concentrate on the statements actually made in
TBBNH (late
1990), and Ned Wright's unprofessional webpage attack on same
(2000). You've
admitted that Ned misrepresented the statements in TBBNH -- by
bringing in a
strawman 'argument by definition.'
*You* -- in 2003, using a reference
published after TBBNH

How often do I have to point out that the relevant article (Lamb and
Loredo) was published already in 1989?


-- have been able to 'just barely fit' an upper bound

1.17 is "just barely fit"? Even 1.05 I wouldn't call "just barely fit".


to declare "it can't be ruled out"

Well, that's obviously right. If the most pessimistic estimate for h
(using 0.85, the upper bound) and the accepted mass bound for the
electron neutrino (23 eV, from the review article, which took this value
from an article from 1989) gives Omega_{mu} 1 (and 1.05 is obviously
1), then stating that the SN measurements ruled this out is just plain
wrong.


-- even though you know the estimate was
fundamentally incorrect

I don't know this. Have you studied Lamb's and Loredo's model?


-- and even though you know that the 'real' value is
at least 10,000 times lower.

Which is absolutely irrelevant for the question in discussion, and you
know that.


But the "truth" remains that the 'massive neutrino' solution for
the Big
Bang *was* generally abandoned during the late 1980s.

The only quote you presented for this so far where from a text which
obviously discusses only electron neutrinos, and from a book from 1994.
Not very convincing, IMO.


And Ned's
misrepresentation of Lerner's argument was NOT the argument you
bring to his defense.

Huh? Sorry, I don't understand this.


The essence of TBBNH (at least that section) is that
'heavy neutrinos' cannot solve the Big Bang's problems.

I never claimed that they are able to solve any (perceived)
problems in the BBT. So what's the problem?

The whole point of the argument in TBBNH is that massive
neutrinos were
postulated to comprise the 'missing mass'

That's one of Lerner's misrepresentations. They were postulated to be
*one possible source* of missing mass. I don't think that anyone ever
thought them to be the *only* component of missing mass!


-- and failed 'round about 1987.

Using the numbers I gave you, you can see that this claim of failure is
wrong.


And Ned Wright and you are busting Lerner's chops for so stating.

Well, because this claim is wrong.


You want
to say -- well yes, Lerner was right about the abandonment of the
theory -- but not JUST because of the reason he mentioned.

Huh? What are you talking about?

[snip a bit]


Contrary to your claim, the other book (Lindley) was not
limited to electron neutrinos.

Wrong. It was. It doesn't say "electron neutrino" explicitly,
right - but it says the following things:

"There was a moment in the early 1980s when it seemed possible
that this
dark matter had been identified. A few experiments around the
world
came up with some evidence that the neutrino, in standard
physics
strictly a massless particle, might actually have a small
mass."

These "few experiments" he mentions here measured only the mass
of the
electron neutrino - hence obviously everything that follows can
refer only to the electron neutrino, too.

Nope. See the *rest* of the quote (which you removed).

*sigh* I *read* the rest of the quote. I *still* think that the text
only refers to electron neutrinos. Yes, he states at the end that
neutrinos have been ruled out as dark matter - but I think he either
only means electron neutrinos there, or that he has some other data
available which rule the mu and tau neutrinos out. Nevertheless, he
doesn't mention anywhere the SN measurements, and therefore the whole
text is *ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT* to the discussion, because (*AGAIN*!!!!!)
my argument is about the claim that the SN measurements were able to
rule out the neutrinos as a candidate for "filling up the universe".


About the
'theoretical' failings -- which AREN'T limited to electron
neutrino experiments.

Which have nothing to do with the question if the SN measurements were
able to rule out neutrinos as a candidate for "filling up the universe"
and are therefore *ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT* to the point in discussion.

I don't want to dispute that neutrinos were ruled out as a candidate for
"filling up the universe". I *ONLY* want to debate if the SN
measurements ruled this out!!! How often do I need to repeat this simple
point until you finally understand it?


See my post of Sept. 10, the content of
which you have snipped.

I explained why I snipped it - I didn't consider it to be of
much
relevance to the question in discussion (if the SN measurements
rule out
an "interesting" mass or not - or, if you prefer, if they rule
out the
possibility of neutrinos "filling up the universe" or not). The
SN
wasn't mentioned in the text, hence I didn't consider it to be
relevant
to this question. What's so hard to understand here?

If anyone expresses the slightest doubt of the BB, you see
nothing wrong
with distortions made to smear the heretic (i.e. Ned Wright
smearing Lerner)?

This question is absolutely ridiculous and has nothing to do with my
comments and explanations above.


And if anyone (i.e. me) dares to point out the arguments are
based
on distortions, *you* go to extreme lengths to support the smear
-- when you
already understand that the point you are pushing is wrong by at
least a factor of 10,000?

Again, this has nothing to do with the comments I made above, with my
arguments or with the original point of the discussion. Don't you have
any arguments left? Do you need to resort to such ad hominems nows? (and
please spare me a comment that these aren't ad hominems!)


I must admit, that I'm not surpised. Only disappointed that such
is the norm here in a "sci." newsgroup.

Typical reaction of a crackpot. As soon as he is proven wrong, he
resorts to personal attacks and pretends that the BBT is something like
a "sacred cow" and defenders of it are so misguided that they
have to resort to exactly the sort of cheap arguments the crackpot
himself is using.


Let's take a look at what you'd like Lerner to have 'more
properly' stated in TBBNH:

In 1987, a "supernova completely blew away the idea that electron
neutrinos could provide all of the missing mass."

Yes, that would have been accurate.


If you ignored the physical time it
takes to make a supernova, and ignored the size of the supernova,
and assumed all of the difference was in travel times, you could
-- just barely -- make up enough mass to fill up the universe.

If you ignore that lots of other candidates were around back then (and
are still around) for dark matter, you can pretend that this rules out
the BBT.


It was not
*absolutely* ruled out that mu and tau neutrinos might be
significantly 'heavier'

Well, most people back then (and still today) assumed that the mu and
tau neutrinos are significantly heavier than the electron neutrino -
simply because the mu and tau are significantly heavier than the
electron. Ever heard of particle "generations" or "families"?


(there being no significant experimental evidence on either) and
make up the 'missing mass.' However, there were also serious
theoretical problems with the 'heavy neutrino' theory, and the
theory was abandoned.
Even though it was not yet 100% disproved by experiment.

Again moving the goalposts. I never talked about the theoretical
problems. My whole concern was always the SN argument.

And what do you mean by "heavy neutrino theory"? The same as "massive
neutrino theory"? If yes, then you are wrong - that theory wasn't
abandoned.


The above paragraph meets the arguments of both you and Ned.

No. Lots of arguments are still missing. Lerner's insinuation that the
SN measurements (or any other measurements about neutrino masses)
disproved the BBT somehow are simply wrong (because, as I already
mentioned, there were several other possible candidates around already
at that time).


Yet the
essence of the information communicated is unchanged.

Wrong, it is changed. Lerner's text, as it stands, implies that the SN
measurements ruled out completely the possibility that neutrinos could
"fill up the universe" and perhaps even the existence of dark matter -
and therefore disproved the BBT. And that is simply wrong.


Since it is now
'accepted' by you that neutrino masses are 10,000 times smaller
than the
'upper bound' estimates that we knew "could not be correct" at
the time.
Why the heck are you trying to bust Lerner's chops?

I explained this several times. Apparentely you are totally unable to
understand what I write.


Hello? Heavy neutrinos filling the universe to omega = 1.0 WERE
abandoned around 1987.

You still haven't provided a reference for this claim.


I'm sure SN1987a played some part in that.

You are sure? Interesting. Any evidence?


Yet both you and Ned Wright fight on!

Well, because Lerner's claim is wrong - BASED ON PUBLISHED NUMBERS.
PUBLISHED BEFORE LERNER'S BOOK.


As if 'heavy neutrinos' were still a valid and ongoing
effort in 1990. And Lerner's description of the abandoning of
the theory
(which is a historical fact) was not SOLELY due to SN1987a, and
it was not
absolutely, positively impossible that 'heavy neutrinos' existed.

*sigh* You really won't ever get the point, will you?


Bye,
Bjoern

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:


[snip]


Since Lerner did not identify what value he used for
'interesting mass,'
the claim that his math was wrong is spurious.

Well, it's rather clear (if one knows a bit about cosmology)
what an
"interesting mass" would be (several eV will do it). Hence the
fact that
Lerner doesn't give a specific value is rather irrelevant.

It wasn't "clear" at all, in 1991. See report below.

I read the report below and explained that it doesn't support your point
- it only talks about *electron* neutrinos.

Electron neutrinos are the masses we are discussing. Kamiokande only
detects electron neutrinos.

There is still no basis for claiming that Lerner's "math is
wrong." As Lerner gave no math.

As I explained, if one takes reasonable values (and I explained (*why*
the numbers are reasonable)

No, you did not. You merely repeated the claim.

and puts them in, one sees that Lerner was
wrong. Hence there are only two choices, IMO:
1) Lerner didn't do any math and made the whole thing up.
2) Lerner did some math and screwed it up.
Ned Wright and me are only generous and assume that it was (2), not (1).

Ah, the refuge of the true believer. The fallacy of the excluded middle,
combined with a straw man.


[snip]


They appear to travel at the speed of
light, so must have no mass.

This argument doesn't make much sense. They *appear* to travel
at the
speed of light, so *must* have no mass? What a great logic!

Well, yeah... if the 'appearance' is the result of an
experimental measurement. Can you say 'arbitrarily close to?'

No experiment can ever measure "arbitrarily close to", so this makes no
sense at all.

Bingo! Claiming evidence of mass when all we have is upper bounds is indeed
senseless.

Hint: we know today that neutrinos *have* mass,

No, we see a discrepancy in theory. And we interpret this as 'evidence
of mass.' However, this is still irrelevant to knowledge in 1991.

hence that they *don't* travel at the speed of light.

Too bad that's what experiments show.

Therefore, obviously, the experiments
which showed that they travel *approximately* at the speed of light
weren't sensitive enough - and every experimental physicist should have
known that even back then!

ROTFLMAO! Rewrite the histories and the experiments, boys! We've found a
discrepancy in our theory, so experiment must be in error.

Additionally, there are theories which predict not only the
"light"
neutrinos we know, but additional neutrinos which are much more
heavy. Try reading up on "see-saw" mechanism.

No. Please stick to the issue.

Err, the issue is if the experiments back then were able to rule out
heavy neutrinos or not. The "see-saw" mechanisms is another point that
the experiments could *not* have rule this out. Hence this *is* the
issue.

Which leads us right back to that original issue, 'how heavy is heavy?'

However, particle theorists postulated that neutrinos do
have mass,
and some cosmologists decided that these massive neutrinos
could be the missing mass."

"A supernova blew away this idea.

I have to agree with Ned Wright: the supernova did *not* blow
away this
idea. His argumentation, which you quote above, makes perfect
sense.

Today. Not in 1991.

Absolutely wrong. It was clear even in 1991 that a mass of several eV
would
1) give a substantial contribution to Omega and
2) could not be detected by the supernova measurements.
Additionally, it was clear even in 1991 that the supernova measurements
could give limits only on the electron neutrino mass, not on the masses
of the other neutrinos.

Ned Wright is right, and you are wrong. Live with it.

LOL! Not according David Lindley (editor of Nature), as late as 1993.
Merely repeating a claim never makes it true.

[snip]

How does Lerner get from "they all arrived in a single bunch"
to "they
all travel at the speed of light"? This argument makes no sense
at all!

They arrived in a 'bunch', (a period of 6 sec) after travelling
160,000 light years.
And arrived minutes before the SN light pulse. So, they were
travelling at around 0.999999999999875*c (according to Ned).

Right. 0.999999999999875*c. Not c.

That is c to 13 decimal places. How many decimal places do you want before
you admit that it's 'c'?

So, again, where does Lerner get
"they all travel at the speed of light" from? The only thing you can
deduce from the supernova measurements is (taking Wright's numbers) that
"they all travel at 0.999999999999875*c". And this doesn't help Lerner's
case, because this still would give a significant contribution of the
neutrino mass to Omega.

You just keep asserting this, over and over. Please provide a pre-1991
reference for significant contribution to omega at this level.

Lerner shows here quite nicely that he either doesn't bother to do the
math, or that he did it, but screwed it up somewhere. The supernova
measurements simply weren't good enough to rule out at significant
neutrino mass.

Please provide a pre-1991 reference that states this. I provided a standard
one that refutes your claim.

Furthermore, for the 5th time, at least, these
measurements could only place limits on the electron neutrino mass, not
on the other two masses.

And your continued repeat of irrelevant observations changes nothing. You
never did provide any backup for this claim. Why repeat it 5 times?

Again, Wright's calculations above are much better;

Than what?

Than Lerner's unsupported assertions.

Lerner's assertions are not unsupported. Wright's 'argument by definition'
is not a 'calculation.'

note that Wright, in
contrast to Lerner, presents specific numbers! Lerner says only
"a
single bunch" - but doesn't tell his readers that this "bunch"
had a
lenght of about 10 seconds, and that this is *way* too much
time to rule out a neutrino mass...

The key word being 'cosmologically interesting.'

I explained what "cosmologically interesting" means - that it is clear
(and was clear even in 1991) that a mass of several eV *would* have been
interesting,

Please provide even a single reference available in 1991 that this was the
case. As late as 1993, several eV was *not* considered 'cosmologically
interesting' -- as indicated in the reference of Lindley as late as 1993.

and that the supernova measurements weren't able to rule
this out, according to Wright's calculation. How often do I need to
repeat this argument until you understand it?

Repeating irrelevant statements will never matter. Try finding a reference.
Post it.

That Ned Wright disagrees with Lerner about what
constitutes
'interesting mass' is not an "error" on the part of Lerner.

Yes, it is. One can calculate what an "interesting" mass would
be: IIRC,
the contribution of neutrinos to Omega is equal to the neutrino
mass,
divided by 92 eV/c^2.

Where did you get the value, above? Try providing a reference from 1991.

Hence a cosmologically "interesting"
neutrino mass
is obviously a few eV/c^2 - just the number Wright used above
in his calculation!

Marvellous! But that is theory-dependent.

Well, it depends on the Theory of General Relativity, right. So what?

Not 'just' GR. But 'GR plus dark matter.' Which was the point, of course.

And the theories keep changing
(no problem with that).

The TGR hasn't changed since it was discovered.

Sure it has. Now it needs 'dark matter' to match observations.

But you contradict the 'wisdom' of 1991 -- when
Lerner's book was written.

I would say that you don't know what the "wisdom" of 1991 really were.

So quit just 'saying' it, and provide a reference.

[snip]

Then again, so is Ned's bald assertion
that 5 eV neutrinos are 'cosmologically interesting'.

See above.

Thanks. Now please provide one using only 1991 theory.

That the contribution of neutrinos to Omega is given by their mass,
divided by 92 eV/c^2 was known long before 1991. It's a quite easy
calculation which uses only long established theories.

Then it should be simple to provide a reference. Why do you keep dodging?

{snip the rest}

Since Eric Lerner did not identify a value of what he considered
'interesting mass' and because Ned Wright did not provide any
reference for
why he thought 5eV was cosmologically 'interesting,' it was
difficult to directly address the issue.

How about asking Ned Wright first about this, instead of at
once attacking him?

I'm not 'attacking him.'

Yes, you are.

No. See my next sentence. Ned Wright is not his web page. Ned Wright's
web page is not Ned Wright.

I'm pointing out the 'elemenatry errors' in Ned
Wright's webpage.

If you had ask him first about what seemed to be errors to you, you
would have learned that they aren't really errors - only your lack of
knowledge.

They are fundamental errors. The web page contains numerous mis-stated
excerpts from TBBNH. Those are elementary errors.

I'm not 'attacking' anything. And I'm not providing
anything 'personal' against Ned. Only against his arguments.

I didn't mention "personal" anywhere.

LOL! You claimed -- and reiterated -- that *I* was *attacking* Ned Wright.
That *IS* a claim of a personal attack -- even if you don't use the word
'personal.' For 'Ned Wright' is a person -- not a corporation or a web
page. I am not attacking the person of Ned Wright. I am pointing out
elementary errors that exist on Ned Wright's webpage.

But, if you think this is an 'attack,' why didn't Ned Wright ask
Lerner about his book, instead of 'attacking the book?'

How do you know that Ned Wright didn't discuss with Lerner?

Because he refuses to allow anyone to see any theoretical responses from
Lerner. If Ned's web page had been honest, and if Ned had actually entered
into discussion with Lerner, then Lerner would have been allowed at least
one round of response.

However, I have run across a contemporaneous
reference about the degree of support available for
'interesting mass' as things existed in 1991.

The reference is the book "The End of Physics," by David
Lindley ("Nature"
editor and referee). Publication date 1993. On page 199 to
200, Lindley
discusses the evidence for 'interesting' mass for the
neutrino:

===========================================
There was a moment in the early 1980s when it seemed possible
that this dark
matter had been identified. A few experiments around the
world came up with
some evidence that the neutrino, in standard physics strictly
a massless
particle, might actually have a small mass. The mass per
neutrino was tiny,
but because there are as many neutrinos in the universe a
large as there
are photons in the three-degree microwave background, even a
tiny mass could
add up to a lot for cosmology. It was entirely conceivable
that there could
be about ten times as much neutrino mass as normal mass, in
which case the
overall density of the univsere could reach the critical
value. As a form
of dark matter, massive neutrinos had some appeal. Neutrinos
are known to
exist, and giving a previously unsuspected mass to an
existing particle is
more palatable than inventing a wholly new particle -- the
hypothetical
photino, for example -- to act the part of the dark matter.
On top of that,
the mass suggested by laboratory experiments was about the
right value to be
cosmologically significant. There were reasons for taking
'neutrino
cosmology' seriously.

IIRC, these experiments measured only the mass of the
*electron*
neutrino (the text doesn't say explicitly, but the only
experiments I
know of from that time which gave a hint on massive neutrinos
were the
ones where the beta decay was studied, AFAIK). Hence Wright's
point that
an "interesting" mass for the my and tau neutrino wasn't ruled
out at
that time remains still valid, and Lerner is still wrong.

There was no reason to suspect that mu and tau neutrinos had
significantly more mass than the electron neutrino, in 1991.

The point is that there were no measurements available to rule such
higher masses out. And "there is no reason to suspect" makes little
sense: little is known about the reasons for the various masses of the
particles (for example, no one can explain why the top quark is so heavy
compared to all the other quarks),

Sure they can -- because it was what was found by experiment (far above the
'theoretical' predictions). That simply is a 'hit' against the standard
model.

so no one had the possibility to make
any educated guesses on the masses of the mu and tau neutrinos.

That doesn't mean that it was 'known' that mu and tau neutrinos could be the
source of missing mass. Theory said zero. Exactly zero. And there was no
evidence otherwise.

[snip rest of article]

No, let's leave it in -- since it explicitly contradicts your
statements (and Ned's).

The article claims that a "cosmologically interesting" mass for the
neutrino was ruled out, right - but I already explained that this
applies only to the mass of the electron neutrino, not to the other two.

And you admitted, just above, that at the time there was no theoretical or
experimental reason to expect the mu or tau neutrino to be massive -- or
more massive than the electron neutrino.

Additionally, this article has nothing to do with the supernova
measurements, which, according to Lerner, ruled out a "cosmologically
interesting" mass for the neutrinos. I thought we were discussing this
assertion of Lerner? You are moving the goalposts, IMO.

The assertion of Lerner is that neutrinos weren't massive enough to make up
the 'cosmologically interesting.' This is what Wright and yourself have
been asserting. Statements of yours such as "One can calculate what an
'interesting' mass would be: IIRC, the contribution of neutrinos to Omega is
equal to the neutrino mass, divided by 92 eV/c^2. Hence a cosmologically
'interesting' neutrino mass is obviously a few eV/c^2 - just the number
Wright used above in his calculation!"

Lerner *did* focus on SN1987a. And David Lindley (1993) went into
theoretical failings of 'heavy neutrinos' as well as 'laboratory
experiments' -- and didn't mention SN1987a -- but came to the same
conclusion. That in 1993 (and 1991) neutrinos weren't massive enough to be
'cosmologically interesting.' It doesn't matter what you or Ned use --
today -- to determine what you think is 'cosmologically interesting' --
today. Lerner's statements were not in error in 1991 -- based on
information available in 1991.

[snip]
{putting back part of the reference that makes your claims look silly}
==================================
"... The uncollapsibility of massive neutrinos was too
much of a good thing. The large structures that would form in a neutrino
universe would be too large and too loose to correspond to the observed
galactic clusters. And it is impossible for neutrinos to be the dark matter
in individual galaxies, because they are too fast-moving to be retained by
the gravity of single galaxies. Massive neutrinos ended by failing on two
counts; they created too much large-scale structure in the universe, and
they could not account for galactic dark matter."
==================================

The original laboratory evidence that neutrinos might have a
small but
cosmologically interesting mass has now more or less been
discounted. ...

There, I guess you think that this contradicts my claims, and Ned's,
right? For the 10th time: this applies only to *electron* neutrinos!!!

Not according to David Lindley. Plus, you have already admitted that there
was no reason in 1991 to expect a (more) massive tau or mu neutrino.

So again, we see that Ned's accusations are completely
unsupported.

No, we see that they are well supported, sorry.

LOL! Only if you snip and ignore the evidence.

I only snipped irrelevant things: descriptions of experiments which
1) only refer to electron neutrinos and hence can't rule out
cosmologically interesting masses for the other neutrinos and
2) don't have anything to do with the supernova measurements, which,
according to Lerner, disproved such an interesting mass.

The fact that Lerner focused on SN1987a and Lindley didn't mention SN1987a
does not mean it's not a valid observation. After all, the point is that
neutrinos (electron and otherwise) were considered to have 'uninteresting'
mass in 1991 and 1993.

I'm only saying that Lerner is wrong when he claims that the supernova
measurements ruled out a cosmologically interesting mass, and from what
you quoted, I'd say that Wright argues the same thing. So, bringing up
*other* experiments which supposedly ruled out such a mass is beside the
point - in other words, it's moving the goalposts.

Not in the least. Wright's point was that neutrinos had 'cosmologically
interesting' mass in 1991. Now, Ned is welcome to examine any data provided
by Lerner in TBBNH and produce a different opinion. He is not welcome to
produce an opinion contrary to 'accepted wisdom in 1991' and then chastise
Lerner for providing 'accepted wisdom in 1991.' Even if we think
differently today.

I suppose I could go hunting for another reference that in 1991 neutrinos
(all types) were not considered to have 'interesting' mass, based on SN1987a
(I recall there were some such). But that would be beating a dead horse.
Perhaps you'd care to come up with a reference that claimed neutrino mass
WAS 'interesting' -- and written in the 1988 to 1991 timeframe. That would
give us something to discuss to effect.

It appears that Lerner correctly described the common opinion
that existed in 1991 (at least until 1993) -- that neutrinos
did not contain cosmologically 'interesting' mass.

Even if that was the opinion back then (and I'm not sure about
this),

The only reason you are 'not sure' is that you snipped the
evidence.

For the 20th time: I explained that this evidence refers only to
*ELECTRON* neutrinos! Did you get it this time?

And you also admitted that there was no reason to expect any more from mu or
tau neutrinos in 1991. So you can quit bringing up irrelvancies, now.

And if you're 'not sure', why are you butting in?

Because there is one thing I'm sure about: that Lerner's claims about
the supernova measurements are wrong. *You* started bringing up other
points, IIRC.

Nope. Lerner's claims are correct. Both specifically and the basic point.
In 1991, neutrinos were considered to have 'uninteresting' mass.

This is the whole point of the thread!

The "whole point" I'm debating are Lerner's arguments about the
supernova measurements.

Then kindly do so, and quit the tangents into mu and tau neutrinos.

{replacing another 'invisible' snip}
==============================
So again, we see that Ned's accusations are completely
unsupported.

No, we see that they are well supported, sorry.

LOL! Only if you snip and ignore the evidence.

It appears that Lerner correctly described the common opinion
that existed in 1991 (at least until 1993) -- that neutrinos did
not contain cosmologically 'interesting' mass.

Even if that was the opinion back then (and I'm not sure about this),

The only reason you are 'not sure' is that you snipped the evidence. And
if
you're 'not sure', why are you butting in? This is the whole point of
the
thread!
==============================

Lerner's supernova argument is nevertheless still bogus.

It still is.

You have to talk to yourself, just to make a point?

[snip rest]

LOL! Another 'convenient' snip.

Well, I explained why I don't it to be relevant.

No, you simply snipped it.

Replacing the rest of the paragraph:
============================
Now, if Ned (in the year 2000) feels that neutrino mass
is 'interesting' again, that's a valid point of discussion
between
theories -- if he can come up with a reference. However, it is
NOT in any
manner an 'error' on the part of Eric Lerner or TBBNH.

I don't see why you have a problem that I snipped this. It has
absolutely nothing to do with my point.

Truly pathological. Read the next sentence.

============================

Of course you snipped it. It showed your attempt to divert from
the issue under discussion.

Pardon? The issue under discussion was Lerner's argument about the
supernova, wasn't it?

No. It was Wright's claim that Lerner's statement about 'uninteresting'
mass was known to be incorrect in 1991.

You (and Ned) are trying to claim an 'error' within the
1991 book TBBNH because of theories not proposed until after
1993!

For the 20th time: that neutrinos with a mass of several eV would give a
significant contribution to Omega was already known in 1991.

Then why the hell don't you provide a contemporary reference for God's sake!
Why all this mealymouthed bushwa about 'the mass was not proved to be zero'
or 'what about mu and tau neutrinos?'

That such a
small mass could not be detected by the supernova measurments was
already known in 1991, too.

Please provide a reference, oh cowardly 'invisible' snipper!

Might as
well chastise Newton for not discussing General Relativity.

What a nonsense.

I agree that faulting someone in 1991 for not knowing something that wasn't
accepted until after 1993 is nonsense.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas