Vacuum decay and fine structure constraint

[Damien99 58]

Is anyone able to explain the following to me 

If the fine structure changes, then it's not actually a constant. If photons lose energy with expansion, then they are subject to time delays. So what I said for vacuum decay is possible 

 the decay would be a quantum leap from one configuration to another. Whether it is reversible is another issue.

it would also mean that acceleration of galaxies in distant sources tell us about the expansion in the past, so it may be that we can only trust the local acceleration of galaxies.

If the universe is actually decelerating, then it will reach a new phase. But the scales will be different.

 

[Waspie_Dwarf 16,263]

@Damien99, this is at least your seventh topic on vacuum decay.

From the rules of this site:

Quote

1c. Cross-posting: Do not cross-post the same content across multiple threads/sections.

Please do not start any more topics about vacuum decay. Restrict any more questions to THIS thread only.

To be clear, you can post new topics but they must NOT be about vacuum decay. Any new topic you post about vacuum decay will either be closed or merged with this one.

Thank you,

Waspie_Dwarf

Moderating Team

[Habitat 8,568]

I'd suggest you give Damien a signed, written guarantee, that "vacuum decay" will not impact him at any time in the future. 

[Waspie_Dwarf 16,263]

1 minute ago, Habitat said:

I'd suggest you give Damien a signed, written guarantee, that "vacuum decay" will not impact him at any time in the future. 

How many of them does he need? He has been presented with large amounts of evidence to that effect but either doesn't understand it and/or ignores it.

[Habitat 8,568]

3 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

How many of them does he need? He has been presented with large amounts of evidence to that effect but either doesn't understand it and/or ignores it.

Append a promise that he will be fully compensated within 14 days in the event the vacuum decay sets in. 

[Damien99 58]

Check this out I read 

The problem is that the mass of the presumed Higgs boson is somewhere between 124 and 126 times that of a proton. With such a mass value for the Higgs, the Universe could go through another phase transition. It's as if we were in a liquid phase and could decay into a solid phase in the future. When a phase transition of this kind happens, bubbles of the new phase suddenly appear within the old phase (where we are) and expand very quickly. In cosmology, with a speed near that of light. These bubbles collide with one another, finally converting the whole volume to the new phase.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/02/23/172766407/the-end-of-the-universe-the-higgs-and-all-the-ifs

What does it mean when they say hopefully new physics will save the day?

Edited February 19 by Damien99

[Waspie_Dwarf 16,263]

1 hour ago, Damien99 said:

What does it mean when they say hopefully new physics will save the day?

Firstly that article is 7 years old, and so out of date.

Secondly, the word, "hopefully", is a pure invention by you, as is the expression,"save the day". The actual quote is:

Quote

New physics could rescue our phase, making it the stable one.

What it means is that, as new and more accurate measurements are made, the possibility of instability may be discounted. It does not mean that anything will actually change except our understanding. Uncertainties will be removed. 

I would like to point out to you the really, REALLY important parts of that article. The facts that you have continuously ignored in post after post, article after article and answer after answer. The fact that the end of the universe is not, in any way, shape or form, imminent.

There is this:

Quote

even if unstable, the calculations also show that our current phase is very long-lived: we are safe for billions of years.

And this:

Quote

As a last pacifier, even if a bubble were to pop up somewhere in the Universe, odds are it will be very far from us. So, even if traveling at the speed of light, it will take billions of years to get to us.

And finally this:

Quote

Even if the Universe is slated to decay into a new phase, it will take a very very long time.

 

[Damien99 58]

I am still confused about how decay of higgs is not a bad thing 

higgs is 1.6x 10 -22
Which is short once it hits that’s it’s a bad thing 

Quantum mechanics predicts that if it is possible for a particle to decay into a set of lighter particles, then it will eventually do so.[162] This is also true for the Higgs boson. The likelihood with which this happens depends on a variety of factors including: the difference in mass, the strength of the interactions, etc. Most of these factors are fixed by the Standard Model, except for the mass of the Higgs boson itself. For a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV/c2 the SM predicts a mean life time of about 1.6×10−22 s.


The Standard Model prediction for the branching ratios of the different decay modes of the Higgs particle depends on the value of its mass.
Since it interacts with all the massive elementary particles of the SM, the Higgs boson has many different processes through which it can decay. Each of these possible processes has its own probability, expressed as the branching ratio; the fraction of the total number decays that follows that process. The SM predicts these branching ratios as a function of the Higgs mass (see plot).

One way that the Higgs can decay is by splitting into a fermion–antifermion pair. As general rule, the Higgs is more likely to decay into heavy fermions than light fermions, because the mass of a fermion is proportional to the strength of its interaction with the Higgs.[120] By this logic the most common decay should be into a top–antitop quark pair. However, such a decay would only be possible if the Higgs were heavier than ~346 GeV/c2, twice the mass of the top quark. For a Higgs mass of 125 GeV/c2 the SM predicts that the most common decay is into a bottom–antibottom quark pair, which happens 57.7% of the time.[3] The second most common fermion decay at that mass is a tau–antitau pair, which happens only about 6.3% of the time.[3]

Another possibility is for the Higgs to split into a pair of massive gauge bosons. The most likely possibility is for the Higgs to decay into a pair of W bosons (the light blue line in the plot), which happens about 21.5% of the time for a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV/c2.[3] The W bosons can subsequently decay either into a quark and an antiquark or into a charged lepton and a neutrino. The decays of W bosons into quarks are difficult to distinguish from the background, and the decays into leptons cannot be fully reconstructed (because neutrinos are impossible to detect in particle collision experiments). A cleaner signal is given by decay into a pair of Z-bosons (which happens about 2.6% of the time for a Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV/c2),[3] if each of the bosons subsequently decays into a pair of easy-to-detect charged leptons (electrons or muons).

Decay into massless gauge bosons (i.e., gluons or photons) is also possible, but requires intermediate loop of virtual heavy quarks (top or bottom) or massive gauge bosons.[120] The most common such process is the decay into a pair of gluons through a loop of virtual heavy quarks. This process, which is the reverse of the gluon fusion process mentioned above, happens approximately 8.6% of the time for a Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV/c2.[3] Much rarer is the decay into a pair of photons mediated by a loop of W bosons or heavy quarks, which happens only twice for every thousand decays.[3] However, this process is very relevant for experimental searches for the Higgs boson, because the energy and momentum of the photons can be measured very precisely, giving an accurate reconstruction of the mass of the decaying particle.[120] 

[Waspie_Dwarf 16,263]

31 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

I am still confused about how decay of higgs is not a bad thing 

I'm confused as to which part of "it won't happen for billions of years" is beyond your ability to grasp. You do know that a billion years is a very long time don't you?

[Damien99 58]

33 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

I'm confused as to which part of "it won't happen for billions of years" is beyond your ability to grasp. You do know that a billion years is a very long time don't you?

No the wiki talks about different decay scenarios 1.6×10−22 s time frame that’s not billions of years 

[Waspie_Dwarf 16,263]

4 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

No the wiki talks about different decay scenarios 1.6×10−22 s time frame that’s not billions of years 

Oh good grief, you really don't have a clue do you. It's obvious that you don't actually know what that number means. Once again you are latching on to a few words and phrases without understanding anything in the articles you quote.

That number is tiny, it's 1,800 trillion, trillionths of a second. That is how long a Higgs boson lasts, NOT WHEN VACUUM COLLAPSE WILL HAPPEN!!

I have given you quote after quote showing you that vacuum collapse (if it will happen at all) will not happen for billions of years. I have shown you quotes that even when it does happen it will almost certainly take billions of years to reach Earth.

Are you deliberately ignoring and misquoting facts to troll, because if not then you really have absolutely no comprehension of a subject you post so much about.

If you generally aren't trolling then I repeat my advice to you, forget this subject and go and get some books on basic science (you might even find out what radio signals are). Learn how science works, Because trying to understand quantum physics when you don't understand basic science is like trying to solve a differential equation when you can't count. I guarantee the universe won't end whilst you are reading. In fact if it is to end by vacuum decay it will be long after every living thing on Earth, and indeed the planet and sun we orbit, have died.

[Damien99 58]

16 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Oh good grief, you really don't have a clue do you. It's obvious that you don't actually know what that number means. Once again you are latching on to a few words and phrases without understanding anything in the articles you quote.

That number is tiny, it's 1,800 trillion, trillionths of a second. That is how long a Higgs boson lasts, NOT WHEN VACUUM COLLAPSE WILL HAPPEN!!

I have given you quote after quote showing you that vacuum collapse (if it will happen at all) will not happen for billions of years. I have shown you quotes that even when it does happen it will almost certainly take billions of years to reach Earth.

Are you deliberately ignoring and misquoting facts to troll, because if not then you really have absolutely no comprehension of a subject you post so much about.

If you generally aren't trolling then I repeat my advice to you, forget this subject and go and get some books on basic science (you might even find out what radio signals are). Learn how science works, Because trying to understand quantum physics when you don't understand basic science is like trying to solve a differential equation when you can't count. I guarantee the universe won't end whilst you are reading. In fact if it is to end by vacuum decay it will be long after every living thing on Earth, and indeed the planet and sun we orbit, have died.

Thank you for the clarification. 
 

Did Hawking not also predict this about Higgs Bosom?

isnt the discovery showing it’s at the potential?

has the Higgs always existed and has it always been at the level or has it changed and that’s what they found?

Edited February 20 by Damien99

[Damien99 58]

Anyone read about this guy

But here’s the thing about Greene, founder of the World Science Festival; host of multiple TV series on PBS; and the author of five books, including the blockbuster The Elegant Universe and the just-released Until the End of Time: he says it all with such ebullience, such ingenuous enthusiasm, that if he told you the whole cold, amoral universe was ending tomorrow you’d roll with it the way he would–as just one more dramatic chapter in an extraordinary tale in which we all have a precious if fleeting role. That’s not to say everyone embraces his cosmic view so easily.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/time.com/5787436/brian-greene-string-theory-universe/%3famp=true

[Damien99 58]

Sorry for the last 2 posts not sure what the heck I did lol can’t figure out how to delete them?

[Waspie_Dwarf 16,263]

22 hours ago, Damien99 said:

has the Higgs always existed and has it always been at the level or has it changed and that’s what they found?

How many times does the same thing have to be repeated to you?

The level of the Higgs (whatever that vague sentence actually means) has not changed. The published value for the mass of the Higgs boson alters because methods to measure it improve and it's value can be determined with greater precision. Is that clear enough?

[Waspie_Dwarf 16,263]

24 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

Sorry for the last 2 posts not sure what the heck I did lol can’t figure out how to delete them?

You can't. You need to report them and a moderator will do it for you. As a moderator is here I will do it. I assume you only want one copy removed. If not report the one I have left and a moderator will remove that for you too.

[Damien99 58]

7 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

How many times does the same thing have to be repeated to you?

The level of the Higgs (whatever that vague sentence actually means) has not changed. The published value for the mass of the Higgs boson alters because methods to measure it improve and it's value can be determined with greater precision. Is that clear enough?

Not sure what that means sorry 

also 

Did Hawking not also predict this about Higgs Bosom?

isnt the discovery showing it’s at the potential?

[Damien99 58]

1 hour ago, Damien99 said:

Not sure what that means sorry 

also 

Did Hawking not also predict this about Higgs Bosom?

isnt the discovery showing it’s at the potential?

Also 

Unfortunately, the Higgs potential is extremely sensitive to the discovery of any new physics at energies higher than what we probe at the LHC right now. Which is to say, any particles which we may discover (or may not discover) will significantly alter our current calculations of the Higgs potential. This is true even for particles with extremely large masses which we could never detect at the LHC, which is to say that even adding new particles with masses around 10¹⁶ GeV/c²drastically changes the answer. So the current answer is not likely to be correct.

[Waspie_Dwarf 16,263]

24 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

Also 

Unfortunately, the Higgs potential is extremely sensitive to the discovery of any new physics at energies higher than what we probe at the LHC right now. Which is to say, any particles which we may discover (or may not discover) will significantly alter our current calculations of the Higgs potential. This is true even for particles with extremely large masses which we could never detect at the LHC, which is to say that even adding new particles with masses around 10¹⁶ GeV/c²drastically changes the answer. So the current answer is not likely to be correct.

You don't actually know what any of that means do you?

[Damien99 58]

1 hour ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

You don't actually know what any of that means do you?

What does it mean to you ?

Edited February 21 by Damien99

[toast 16,317]

Edited February 21 by toast

[Damien99 58]

One  of the most important (and hardest) lessons to learn in science is that "we don't know" is a valid answer. And often it is the only, or the best, answer we have.

All other answers have a level of uncertainty associated with them, so we rarely (if ever) know things for sure.

 

i was told this so what’s make what we think of Higgs field and vacuum decay valid, we have no actual data that we understand for sure. 

 

 

Edited February 21 by Damien99

[Waspie_Dwarf 16,263]

1 hour ago, Damien99 said:

One  of the most important (and hardest) lessons to learn in science is that "we don't know" is a valid answer. And often it is the only, or the best, answer we have. 

Admitting you don't know IS an important part of science that is true, the sooner you admit that the sooner people will take you seriously. You ignore every question that is asked of you. You show zero understanding of a subject you have posted about over and over again.

Here is a quote from comedian, mathematician and theoretical physicist Dara O'Brien...

Quote

Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

You have been filling the enormous gaps in your knowledge with fairy tales since your first post. You have made stuff up, you have misquoted and misinterpreted virtually every post you have made. You have shown absolutely no understanding of basic science or mathematics. Your have an idea in your head that not only is not supported by evidence, but is positively disproved by the evidence. Despite that you have continued to cut and paste articles which you don't understand and which don't support you and you have continued to make false claims about what those articles contain. 

As a former chemist I find it laughable that some one as clueless as you should be telling me what science means.

[Damien99 58]

11 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Admitting you don't know IS an important part of science that is true, the sooner you admit that the sooner people will take you seriously. You ignore every question that is asked of you. You show zero understanding of a subject you have posted about over and over again.

Here is a quote from comedian, mathematician and theoretical physicist Dara O'Brien...

You have been filling the enormous gaps in your knowledge with fairy tales since your first post. You have made stuff up, you have misquoted and misinterpreted virtually every post you have made. You have shown absolutely no understanding of basic science or mathematics. Your have an idea in your head that not only is not supported by evidence, but is positively disproved by the evidence. Despite that you have continued to cut and paste articles which you don't understand and which don't support you and you have continued to make false claims about what those articles contain. 

As a former chemist I find it laughable that some one as clueless as you should be telling me what science means.

I didn’t write that comment 

One  of the most important (and hardest) lessons to learn in science is that "we don't know" is a valid answer. And often it is the only, or the best, answer we have.

All other answers have a level of uncertainty associated with them, so we rarely (if ever) know things for sure.

[Damien99 58]

So what do you think did they find evidence for PBH’s ?

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-astronomers-just-discover-black-holes-from-the-big-bang/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral