[Bored chemist]

However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.
So what is the energy source?
If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?

You seem to have finally seen the problem in your idea.

In that same way that the tiny bangs are impossible, so is the perpetual  light from stars like the Sun.

So, you now see why I'm asking the question

Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/04/2020 19:46:03
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:46:17
However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.
So what is the energy source?
If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?

You seem to have finally seen the problem in your idea.

No. There is no problem with the energy transformation in theory D.
You are more than welcome to read it, if you didn't read it yet.

However, you have just confirmed that there is a problem with the energy source for the BBT.
If you add to that all the other problems with the BBT than this theory should be set by now in the garbage of the history

Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

Well, If we discuss about stars:
Our scientists claim that there are more stars outside the galaxies than in the galaxies.
Try to calculate how many stars there are just in those 195 nearby galaxies (including our galaxy).
Only in Andromeda there are over than one trillion stars.
So, let's assume that there are x Trillion stars. Therefore, we can say that outside the galaxies (Just in that nearby area) there are at least x Trillion stars + 1 one more.
How the BBT could explain that Observation?
I assume that when our scientists have discovered that phenomenon they were very "Puzzled" as usual and as expected from anyone who is using totally wrong theory.
On the other hand, Theory D gives perfect explanation for that observation.
In any case, why do you think that stars should come with a fixed expire date.
Some of them might collide with each other in the open space, some might blow up in a supernova and some might be converted into BH.
However, why are you so sure that all of them must have a limited file cycle?

If we discuss about BH or especially SMBH, than there is good chance that at some point of time the SMBH will be so massive that it could be converted to Magnatar or Pulsar.
By that time it would probably kick out all the stars that it was hosting in its galaxy

[Bored chemist]

No. There is no problem with the energy transformation in theory D.

Yes there is.

You are more than welcome to read it, if you didn't read it yet.

I started, but it's based on something that's not true; so I stopped.

However, you have just confirmed that there is a problem with the energy source for the BBT.

No, I didin't.

If you add to that all the other problems with the BBT than this theory should be set by now in the garbage of the history

What problems?
You haven't pointed any out.
You have just made it clear that you don't understand it.

Try to calculate how many stars there are just in those 195 nearby galaxies (including our galaxy).
Only in Andromeda there are over than one trillion stars.
So, let's assume that there are x Trillion stars. Therefore, we can say that outside the galaxies (Just in that nearby area) there are at least x Trillion stars + 1 one more.

That's not relevant to my point, and you know it. It is sufficient that there is one star left- the Sun, for example- to show that there's a problem with your idea.
Stop wasting time and answer the question.
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?

In any case, why do you think that stars should come with a fixed expire date.

I don't. I'm just saying that their life is finite, and that any finite number is less than infinity so any star should have burned out if the universe is infinitely old.

Some of them might collide with each other in the open space, some might blow up in a supernova and some might be converted into BH.

The point is that tehSun hasn't done any of those things, it is still here.
Why hasn't it burned out yet?

However, why are you so sure that all of them must have a limited file cycle?

The conservation laws which are a consequence of the observed symmetries of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

If we discuss about BH or especially SMBH, than there is good chance that at some point of time the SMBH will be so massive that it could be converted to Magnatar or Pulsar.
By that time it would probably kick out all the stars that it was hosting in its galaxy

That may be hypothetically possible (though I doubt it), but it doesn't help.
You can put forward any process and I will ask the same question.
Why hasn't it finished yet, if the universe is infinitely old?

Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

However, you have just confirmed that there is a problem with the energy source for the BBT.
No, I didin't.

Ok
If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT, than would you kindly direct me to that article?
In wiki it is stated that they don't have any idea about the source of energy for the BBT:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available."
However they add that: "In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling."
So, they don't claim that they know what is the source of energy, they just claim the status of that energy at the "The earliest phases"
Therefore, at Time Zero of the BBT the universe was: "filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
However, now comes the Biggest contradiction to that assumption:
At Wiki it is stated:
"The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, and such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
However, in order to bypass that "physical impossibility" they came with a brilliant idea that: "physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang."
So the contradiction is as follow:
If there was no time before the BBT than our scientists can't claim that before the BBT Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures.
They have to clock the time from the moment that something came to our totally empty Universe.
So if there was something as: "very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures", than clearly the time was ticking from the first moment of accumulation that energy in the Universe.
Therefore, the time was already ticking before the zero time of the BBT..
However, as we already know the time kills the BBT as : "such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
Therefore, Just on this issue we should set the BBT deep in the garbage.
So, I have used an article to prove my statement that the BBT is totally none relevant.
If you still think that there is a way to bypass this obstacle, than please introduce an article that confirms the source of that infinite energy before the BBT and how it could be created and accumulated in the universe without ticking the time.
Please use articles to backup your understanding as I did!!!

[Bored chemist]

Ok
If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT

It doesn't need one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

than would you kindly direct me to that article?

It's not that important, but you should learn the difference between "then" and "than"

Please use articles to backup your understanding as I did!!!

You don't have the understanding to back up.

Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.

Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?

Why hasn't it burned out yet?

Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:02:00
Ok
If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT
It doesn't need one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Thanks for this Article.
It is very interesting.
However, did you try to read it first?
In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.
"the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist."

However, based on the BBT, there was no matter before the Big Bang.
Therefore, without matter, there is no gravity and therefore, the Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT in order to set the first High dense and high temp stage just before the bang itself.
So, this idea can't help the BBT.
Please try to offer better idea.

I would like to remind you that you have also totally ignored the contradiction between zero time and infinite energy that was requested to the BBT:

At Wiki it is stated:
"The Big Bang theory, built upon the equations of classical general relativity, indicates a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, and such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."
However, in order to bypass that "physical impossibility" they came with a brilliant idea that: "physics may conclude that time did not exist before the Big Bang."
So the contradiction is as follow:
If there was no time before the BBT the
n our scientists can't claim that before the BBT Universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures.
They have to clock the time from the moment that something came to our totally empty Universe.
So if there was something as: "very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures", thקn clearly the time was ticking from the first moment of accumulation that energy in the Universe.
Therefore, the time was already ticking before the zero time of the BBT..
However, as we already know the time kills the BBT as : "such an infinite energy density may be a physical impossibility."

So, can you please explain that contradiction?

There is one more key issue.
Please read the following message:

"In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling."

Let's assume that somehow we have got an infinite energy for free.
Just to our discussion, lets assume that Divine-power/god had delivered all of that infinite energy.
However, it is stated that "the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
So, the Universe must be INFINITE!
If the universe was finite, then how can we claim for any sort of "homogeneously and isotropically" at that finite Universe?

Even if we think about a singularity for the Big bang then still it is a distortion in the Universe that contradicts the "homogeneously and isotropically"
It is quite clear that without that key idea for "homogeneously and isotropically"  the BBT is actually none relevant.
So, if there was a big bang, it could only work at infinite Universe that "was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
If you have better idea, then please share it with us.
I actually do appreciate your effort to support that none relevant theory that is called BBT even if you can't offer any article to support your ideas.
So, please don't give up. At least you do your best to hold the theory flag above the water.

[Bored chemist]

I would like to remind you that you have also totally ignored the contradiction between zero time and infinite energy that was requested to the BBT:

I have ignored many of the things you made up.

In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.

And there is matter in the universe.

Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT i

It can now.

Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:07:52
Zero-Energy idea can't give any sort of energy to the BBT

It can now

In this article our scientists don't even try to claim that this idea could deliver any sort of energy to the BBT.
But as usual, you assume that your knowledge is much superior then those scientists.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:07:52
In the article it is stated clearly that matter is needed for that zero energy.

And there is matter in the universe.

Based on the BBT, there were no matter before the bang.
Just to remind you that even the time didn't start its ticking before the bang and the first Atom had been created only 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
Kryptid have already told me that our scientists don't really know what is the BBT' energy source.
So, it is clear that our scientists are not using this idea of zero energy as a source of energy for the BBT.
However, somehow you hope that you know much better than all of them, while you can't offer any article that could support your misunderstanding in this issue.

Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?

The Sun and any other star could live long life. So far you didn't offer any article that could confirm that a star should die after any limited time frame.

Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.
I also do not dare to claim that the age of our galaxy/SMBH is infinite.
However, I claim that they are old. Much, much older than those 13.8 BY.
This time represents less than a brief moment in our universe with its infinite age.

[Bored chemist]

In this article our scientists don't even try to claim that this idea could deliver any sort of energy to the BBT.

Do you really not get it?

The Big Bang does not need an energy source.

But as usual, you assume that your knowledge is much superior then those scientists.

OK, two things.
I am a scientist.
More importantly, I'm not assuming I understand the BBT better than them.
I am saying I understand it better than you.

You are suffering from the misunderstanding that it needs energy.
The thing about the zero energy universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
 is that it doesn't take any energy to create it..
There's a hint in the name.


OK, now since the BB doesn't need an energy source, this

If you claim that there is a confirmed source of energy to the BBT, than would you kindly direct me to that article?

Makes no sense.

So far you didn't offer any article that could confirm that a star should die after any limited time frame.

I'm fairly sure I did.
It's just that you ignore facts.

The conservation laws which are a consequence of the observed symmetries of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

There we go.
I did provide a source.

I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.

I didn't say you had.
I asked why it hasn't burned out yet.
That's not the same thing.

The point is that, after an infinite time, stars shouldn't be "starting",
So, any finite age for the Sun makes no sense.

After an infinite time, anything and everything that can happen will have happened.
And that includes the death of the Sun.
Yet it still shines

So...

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The Big Bang does not need an energy source.

Sorry
This assumption sets a severe contradiction with the first stage of the BBT as stated at wiki:
" the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures"
Therefore, our scientists didn't start the BBT while the energy is zero.
You have stated clearly that you don't understand the BBT better than them,

I am a scientist.
More importantly, I'm not assuming I understand the BBT better than them.

In this case, how could you claim that "the Big Bang does not need an energy source" while they clearly have stated that an energy is needed for the first stage of the BBT?

If you still believe that those scientists have no clue in science, than would you kindly offer an article that confirms your severe mistake for no need an energy source?
If not, than it shows that your following statement is also incorrect:

I am saying I understand it better than you.

It's time for you to read some relevant articles and improve your knowledge in science.

You are suffering from the misunderstanding that it needs energy.
The thing about the zero energy universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
 is that it doesn't take any energy to create it..

Sorry again
You suffer again by severe misunderstanding.
In this article they clearly claim that a matter is needed to create the zero energy.
Before the Big Bang there was no matter.
Therefore, there is no way to apply that idea for the first stage of the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe
"in fact, the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist"
I have already explained it to you.
Unfortunately, (and as Usual) you don't take the effort to read and understand.

Based on the BBT, there were no matter before the bang.
Just to remind you that even the time didn't start its ticking before the bang and the first Atom had been created only 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
Kryptid have already told me that our scientists don't really know what is the BBT' energy source.
So, it is clear that our scientists are not using this idea of zero energy as a source of energy for the BBT.
However, somehow you hope that you know much better than all of them, while you can't offer any article that could support your misunderstanding in this issue.

However, this zero energy idea confirms the basic idea in theory D for the energy that is contributed to the new created particle pair by gravity:
"its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity."
So, the gravity is a key element for new energy in our Universe.
However, you first need mater (as BH) to get gravity and use the benefit of this theory  --- and that exactly the base of theory D.
Thanks again for this article.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:52:15
I have never claimed that the sun age is infinite.

I didn't say you had.
I asked why it hasn't burned out yet.
That's not the same thing.

The point is that, after an infinite time, stars shouldn't be "starting",
So, any finite age for the Sun makes no sense.

After an infinite time, anything and everything that can happen will have happened.
And that includes the death of the Sun.
Yet it still shines
So...

I have already answered this question:

The Sun and any other star could live long life. So far you didn't offer any article that could confirm that a star should die after any limited time frame.

If you think that star has a limited time frame of only few Billion years, than please show your data in a clear article.
If not, please don't ask about it any more!

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, there is no way to apply that idea for the first stage of the BBT.

It didn't happen in stages.
Either you are trolling, or you don't understand the article.
Which is it?

"in fact, the zero-energy universe model requires both matter field with positive energy and gravitational field with negative energy to exist"

And we have them. They both came into being at the same time- nearly 14 Bn years back.

Because they happened at the same time, there is no need to worry about how one happened without the other.

And that's the point you seem to deliberately ignore.

[Bored chemist]

If you think that star has a limited time frame of only few Billion years, than please show your data in a clear article.
If not, please don't ask about it any more!

And there's the other point you miss.
I could find you articles about stellar evolution but that's not the point.

Even if you say that a star lasts a quintillion years (at which point everyone will laugh at you) I will point out that the Universe has- in your view, been round infinitely longer than that, so the stars (and their successors) should have died out long ago.

We should  look up and see only the heat death of the universe.

If the life of a star is not infinite, then they should all have died out but they have not.
So,

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 14:27:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If the life of a star is not infinite, then they should all have died out but they have not.
So,

You have totally got lost.
In our infinite age Universe there are many young stars and galaxies.
Based on theory D all the stars in our Milky Way galaxy for example are quite young.
Just to understand that quite young could be 100 BY or 500BY.
As you move closer to the SMBH, the Stars are younger.
S2 for example is quite young star.
Its age could be just several million years.
This star also carries with him Planets and moons.
If we had the technology for that, we could see that all of those planets and moons are actually hot gas balls.
Some of them might be big as our big gas planets and some might be quite small.
S2 is not there by itself.
It must have at least one twin. Its twin could be at the same size as S2. Unfortunately,  we don't see its light. So, it could be a dark star or even a small BH.
S2 orbits around their common center of mass.
Also our Sun should have a twin brother.
We also can't see it. But it is surly there.
In any case, all the stars are drifting outwards over time.
So, sooner or later any new born star should be ejected from the galaxy.
Our galaxy acts as one of the Biggest Star sprinkler in the Universe.
Most of the stars outside the galaxy might be quite old.
However, some of the stars could be ejected from the galaxy while they are still young.
So, I can't tell you the maximal life cycle for a star. I can only assume that it could be more than one trillion years - assuming that it didn't collide with any other object.
By the way, as long as a star is located in the galaxy, it is safe.
The chance to collide with other star in the galaxy might be less than winning the lottery.
However, as the star is ejected outwards from the galaxy its life could be end by a sever collision with other nearby star.
Therefore, as long as our sun holds itself in the galaxy - we all are safe.
One day the sun must be ejected out of the galaxy. At that time the whole solar system could end its life by unexpected collision.
Let's hope that the Local gravity force at our spiral arm could hold long enough our sun in the galaxy.
If we could built a space ship that can take us to other solar system closer to the center of the galaxy, we could extend the mankind life for longer time..
However, we can't just go too close to the center as the rocky planets didn't evolve yet from the hot gas balls

[Bored chemist]

You have totally got lost.

No.
You are the one who is lost.

As I pointed out, regardless of structure, of black holes, of lies about the ages of stars; in an infinitely old universe, everything has already happened.


Everything already finished, because, no matter how long it took, it has had an infinite amount of time; so it has finished it.

Do you not understand that?

And, since everything has happened in an infinitely old universe, among the things that must have happened is that any stars burned out.

All the stars already burned out in any infinitely old universe.
Do you understand that?

And since we have stars, the universe can not be infinitely old.

Yet, you claim it is.

So,
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:13:18

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 14:27:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:43:56
Now, it seems you somehow missed my subtle attempt to get you to answer a critical question about your idea.
Here's a precis.


Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't the Sun burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why hasn't it burned out yet?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 12:32:03
Why, , an infinite time after the universe started, has the Sun not burned out yet?

You need to start your response with  "The Sun has not burned out yet because".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Ok
This assumption is correct as long as you hold the unrealistic idea of the BBT.
However, in theory D it is totally different.
At any given moment new mass is created around any BH/SMBH in the Universe.
Therefore the Universe could live forever and ever.

[Bored chemist]

However, in theory D it is totally different.

Yes, because "theory" D is based on something which we know is not true.

If the universe was infinitely old, everything would have died by now.
It hasn't so we know the universe  has a finite age.

At any given moment new mass is created around any BH/SMBH in the Universe.

So, the "tiny bangs" I asked about earlier.
Why didn't you just say "yes" back then?

If you had, I could  have already pointed out that you seem to have reinvented this failed isea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests

And you could have avoided wasting  any further time.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If you had, I could  have already pointed out that you seem to have reinvented this failed isea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests

Based on your limited point of view there are only two options
BBT or steady state. Nothing could be in between.
You might consider that as the steady state couldn't give an answer for the observations, than the only available Theory is the BBT.
Therefore, you have no willing to open your mind and verify different approach.
It is clear that you and almost any person that consider himself as a scientist are totally locked in the BBT box.
You all totally ignore any observation that contradicts the BBT.
It seems that if you claim that you are scientist than by definition your main mission is to protect the BBT from any sort of attack.
Therefore, you have no interest to read theory D or any other Theory.
It seems that just the activity of Reading other theory would be considered as a sin or a crime.
Why is it?
Actually, you don't need to be scientist in order to verify that the BBT is clearly incorrect.
So, how could it be that our scientists that speak in the name of science do whatever it takes to protect so strongly the BBT?
I'm positively sure that you all know better than me why the BBT is none relevant from pure science prospective
Therefore, It is quite clear to me by now that the BBT is much more than a pure science.
If it was just science than long time ago our scientists would probably set the BBT in the garbage of the history.
So, could it be that there is also some sort of belief in the BBT?

By highlighting the negative points against the BBT, I do feel as I try to convince someone who believes in god that there is no god in our Universe.
I assume that most of the mankind in the world believes in the same god.
They could be Christians Jews or Muslims.
Hence, I would never ever dare to tell anyone of them that his belief is incorrect
Therefore, I wonder why do you all wish to believe so strongly ONLY in the BBT and ignore all the contradictions.
What is there in the BBT that could set such strong belief?
As you all totally ignore all the observations that contradict the BBT, could it be that this theory is more than just science for you?
Why is it so important for our scientists to protect the BBT?
Is there any sort of faith or belief that our scientists share in order to protect the BBT?
Did I miss something?

[Bobolink]

Why is it so important for our scientists to protect the BBT?
Is there any sort of faith or belief that our scientists share in order to protect the BBT?

No one is protecting the BBT, it just happens to be the best theory that explains observations.  If someone comes up with a theory that explains it better they would win the Nobel Prize and the scientific community would say that's peachy keen!  Theory D[umb] is not going to do it, sadly

Did I miss something?

As pointed out by Bored chemist you have missed quite a lot.

[Bored chemist]

BBT or steady state. Nothing could be in between.

Either it banged or it didn't.
Are you proposing a Ba, or a ng! ?

Did I miss something?

Yes, the impossibility of an infinitely old universe, and thus the impossibility of your so-called "theory".

You all totally ignore any observation that contradicts the BBT.

Show me one.


It only takes one.
Go on...

Give us a single observation which is inconsistent with the BBT.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If someone comes up with a theory that explains it better they would win the Nobel Prize

Thanks
Theory D is the Ultimate theory for our Universe.
It gives perfect explanation to all observations.
It also knocks down the BBT and sets it in the garbage of the history.
No more "Puzzled" scientists
So, how long it might take to get the Nobel Prize?