Skip to main content
Physics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

12
  • $\begingroup$ So we have to just wait long enough ... $\endgroup$
    – David Tonhofer
    Commented Jun 21 at 12:44
  • $\begingroup$ @CosmasZachos in the question that you linked (physics.stackexchange.com/questions/27498/…) the OP asks after getting the answers: "I guess no place is sufficiently empty at least because background radiation is everywhere. Maybe these creatures will become relevant in a very distant future when the background radiation cools off considerably?". I have basically the same question now, if not now, would neutrinos be able to form bound states once everything in the universe has cooled down? $\endgroup$
    – vengaq
    Commented Jun 23 at 10:19
  • $\begingroup$ My point above is that such bound states don’t fit in the universe now or in the conceivable universe in future, so the are irrelevant; not that they are so weakly bound so as to be unstable… $\endgroup$
    – Cosmas Zachos
    Commented Jun 23 at 10:30
  • $\begingroup$ @CosmasZachos two questions: 1# when you say "in the conceivable universe in future" what scale of years are you referring to? 2# then the conclusion is that these bound states are impossible no matter how far we go into the future of the universe? $\endgroup$
    – vengaq
    Commented Jun 25 at 9:59
  • $\begingroup$ 2. Indeed, because, 1. Compare todays size with its expansion rate… $\endgroup$
    – Cosmas Zachos
    Commented Jun 25 at 10:32