Vacuum decay and fine structure constraint

[XenoFish]

41 minutes ago, toast said:

Morbid obsession if you ask me.

[Peter B]

1 hour ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

10 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion googol googol googols to one against it happening. (10 to the power 367 to one against)

Hey, Damien99, take an ordinary coin and flip it. You have a 50% chance of getting Heads.

Flip a coin twice and you have a 25% chance of getting two Heads.

Flip a coin three times and you have a 12.5% chance of getting three Heads.

In other words, the more times you flip a coin, the less likely it is that you'll get only Heads.

Now think about the longest sequence of Heads you've ever achieved when flipping a coin. Five? Seven?

If you flip an ordinary coin about 1230 times and each time get Heads, and never once get a Tails result, then the chance of that happening is roughly that probability above.

And remember, that's the more likely probability...

[Damien99]

3 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

How many times do you have to be told the same thing? How many times do you have to post articles that don't say what you claim they do?

Read this very carefully, it was the title article you made false claims about yesterday:

Source: https://www.quora.com/q/debunkingdoomsday/Chance-of-false-vacuum-collapse-so-small-in-ordinary-language-it-is-not-possible

How much clearer can that be?

The article, which you didn't quote, but just copied an image and then put up a false description of what it means, basically says the following:

The universe can not be unstable. 

Physics has some uncertainty, but in the future it is likely to prove that the universe is stable.

If the universe is stable then false vacuum collapse is totally impossible. 

If the universe is unstable then it is metastable. If the universe is metastable then false vacuum collapse, whilst technically possible, is so highly unlikely that it might as well be considered impossible. 

It then goes on to give many examples of how ludicrously improbable it is.

It then gives the odds that we have already encountered a vacuum bubble (you know, the thing you repeatedly, falsely claim that articles say it is imminent or has happened). The odds of it happening any time in the existence of the universe, that's 13.8 billion years are:

Here is the thing Damien, you continuously post articles that answer the questions you ask. Those articles, without fail, contradict your claims.

You continuously make dishonest claims and post links to the articles that prove you are not telling the truth. Not particularly intelligent behaviour is it?

The thing is that is not going to change. No matter how many articles you provided links to, no matter how many times you make false claims about what they contain  they are never going to support your beliefs. That is because your beliefs are false.

Facts are stubborn things. No matter how much you believe a lie, no matter how many times you repeat that lie it will never stop being a lie.

Thank you for you response but my question on true vacuum came from this below 

Also this was a recently posted comment I read that I did a translation on

偽の真空（false vacuum） 基底状態のエネルギーが高い、準安定状態の真空。宇宙誕生から10^-36秒から10^-34秒後に発生したインフレーション期に、我々の宇宙は偽の真空から真の真空へ相転移したとされているが、実は今の真空は未だ完全な真の真空ではないという理論もある

Seems like it a claim that universe went through a phase transition from false to true 

False vacuum
A metastable vacuum with high ground-state energy. During the inflation period, which occurred 10^-36 seconds to 10^-34 seconds after the birth of the universe, it is said that our universe undergoes a phase transition from a false vacuum to a true vacuum, but in reality the current vacuum is still complete. There is also the theory that it is not a true vacuum

[Emma_Acid]

14 hours ago, Peter B said:

Hey, Damien99, take an ordinary coin and flip it. You have a 50% chance of getting Heads.

Flip a coin twice and you have a 25% chance of getting two Heads.

Flip a coin three times and you have a 12.5% chance of getting three Heads.

In other words, the more times you flip a coin, the less likely it is that you'll get only Heads.

Now think about the longest sequence of Heads you've ever achieved when flipping a coin. Five? Seven?

If you flip an ordinary coin about 1230 times and each time get Heads, and never once get a Tails result, then the chance of that happening is roughly that probability above.

And remember, that's the more likely probability...

All that means is that you live in a ultra-low-probability Everettian universe and there are 10 million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion googol googol googols (minus 1) universes where it didn't happen  

(Joke... ish)

[Waspie_Dwarf]

12 hours ago, Damien99 said:

Seems like it a claim that universe went through a phase transition from false to true 

False vacuum
A metastable vacuum with high ground-state energy. During the inflation period, which occurred 10^-36 seconds to 10^-34 seconds after the birth of the universe, it is said that our universe undergoes a phase transition from a false vacuum to a true vacuum, but in reality the current vacuum is still complete. There is also the theory that it is not a true vacuum

Do you have any idea what 10^-36 seconds to 10^-34 seconds after the birth of the universe means?

Do you have any idea how irrelevant this is to the false argument you have been posting for so long?.

Do you understand the logical fallacy of, "moving the goalposts"?

[Damien99]

7 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Do you have any idea what 10^-36 seconds to 10^-34 seconds after the birth of the universe means?

Do you have any idea how irrelevant this is to the false argument you have been posting for so long?.

Do you understand the logical fallacy of, "moving the goalposts"?

How does this have nothing to do with what I have been saying 

[Waspie_Dwarf]

1 hour ago, Damien99 said:

How does this have nothing to do with what I have been saying 

Are you going to answer the questions? Most importantly are you going to answer this one:

8 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Do you have any idea what 10^-36 seconds to 10^-34 seconds after the birth of the universe means?

Because if you do understand that it should be a massive clue as to why it does not support your repeated false claim that a false vacuum collapse is imminent and will result in the end of the universe. 

[Damien99]

On 8/18/2020 at 6:54 PM, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Are you going to answer the questions? Most importantly are you going to answer this one:

Because if you do understand that it should be a massive clue as to why it does not support your repeated false claim that a false vacuum collapse is imminent and will result in the end of the universe. 

No I do not really , it’s just false vacuum seems to be in the news again so I thought there was new info

[Waspie_Dwarf]

16 hours ago, Damien99 said:

No I do not really

That was pretty obvious. 

 

16 hours ago, Damien99 said:

it’s just false vacuum seems to be in the news again

No it hasn't, a book has been written about the FIVE, possible ways that the universe could end. That's why you are getting more hits when you Google things you don't understand. 

 

16 hours ago, Damien99 said:

so I thought there was new info

And there is the big problem. You don't understand the information. You don't know whether it is new, old, false, true or (as you have proved in the past) a joke.

10^-36 seconds to 10^-34 seconds after the big bang refers to a tiny, tiny fraction of a second after the big bang occurred and the universe started. It is between 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 and 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the birth of the universe. The post you were quoting states that the universe may have switched from metastable to stable in that time frame. If that is correct for the rest of the 13.8 billion years that the universe has existed it has been stable. A false vacuum collapse is impossible in a stable universe. 

Basically you were quoting an article that backs the idea that a false vacuum collapse is impossible... that is why it doesn't support your false claim that the end of the universe is near. But then again you quoting articles that say the opposite of what you say they do is fairly normal behaviour for you.

[Damien99]

Can someone please explain what this is about and what they found

https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01535

 

what I understood  is they claim it can happen sooner than thought previously 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Damien99

[Waspie_Dwarf]

3 hours ago, Damien99 said:

what I understood  is they claim it can happen sooner than thought previously 

What you understand is none of that article. 

Like just about every article you quote it is purely hypothetical, based on assumptions and approximations. 

Nowhere in that article is it stated that, "this can happen sooner than thought previously". Yet again you have Googled an article you don't understand and then dishonestly invented a conclusion to try and claim that it backs your paranoia. 

No figure is given for when this event will happen, it simply solves equations for a certain set of hypothetical situations involving quantum tunnelling. 

Here are some facts, no matter how many articles you falsely claim support you these facts will not change:

1) No one knows if the universe is in a state of false vacuum. Most experts believe it is not and that future physics will discount the possibility. For the moment it can't be discounted. 

2) If the universe is in a state of false vacuum then one way to trigger the false vacuum decay is a huge burst of energy. No event has ever been observed with enough energy to do this. It is unlikely that there are phenomenon in the universe energetic enough to trigger the collapse. 

3) In the tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang there was enough energy to trigger the false vacuum decay. The fact that the universe still exists means that the decay did not happen, which in turn means that it is unlikely that the universe is in a state of false vacuum. 

4) In the unlikely event that the universe is in a state of false vacuum and did survive the first few moments after the Big Bang there is one possibility of triggering the vacuum decay without an impossibly large amount of energy being required, and that is quantum tunnelling. This is a very rare event... once in trillions upon trillions of years. In theory it could happen at any time, in practice it is so rare that if it ever happens at all it is likely to be long after the universe has already died by other means.

Those are the facts, why do you continue to ignore them?

Quote

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

- John Adams

Edited September 4, 2020 by Waspie_Dwarf
typos.

[Damien99]

4 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

What you understand is none of that article. 

Like just about every article you quote it is purely hypothetical, based on assumptions and approximations. 

Nowhere in that article is it stated that, "this can happen sooner than thought previously". Yet again you have Googled an article you don't understand and then dishonestly invented a conclusion to try and claim that it backs your paranoia. 

No figure is given for when this event will happen, it simply solves equations for a certain set of hypothetical situations involving quantum tunnelling. 

Here are some facts, no matter how many articles you falsely claim support you these facts will not change:

1) No one knows if the universe is in a state of false vacuum. Most experts believe it is not and that future physics will discount the possibility. For the moment it can't be discounted. 

2) If the universe is in a state of false vacuum then one way to trigger the false vacuum decay is a huge burst of energy. No event has ever been observed with enough energy to do this. It is unlikely that there are phenomenon in the universe energetic enough to trigger the collapse. 

3) In the tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang there was enough energy to trigger the false vacuum decay. The fact that the universe still exists means that the decay did not happen, which in turn means that it is unlikely that the universe is in a state of false vacuum. 

4) In the unlikely event that the universe is in a state of false vacuum and did survive the first few moments after the Big Bang there is one possibility of triggering the vacuum decay without an impossibly large amount of energy being required, and that is quantum tunnelling. This is a very rare event... once in trillions upon trillions of years. In theory it could happen at any time, in practice it is so rare that if it ever happens at all it is likely to be long after the universe has already died by other means.

Those are the facts, why do you continue to ignore them?

- John Adams

I was just asking what it’s about

[Waspie_Dwarf]

3 hours ago, Damien99 said:

I was just asking what it’s about

That's clearly not true. You made a claim about what it's about:

12 hours ago, Damien99 said:

what I understood  is they claim it can happen sooner than thought previously 

You made a false claim,  then when it was pointed out that the claim was false, you falsely stated that you weren't making a claim in the first place, despite the fact that it is there for everyone to see.

Does the concept of, "credibility", mean anything to you?

[Damien99]

3 hours ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

That's clearly not true. You made a claim about what it's about:

You made a false claim,  then when it was pointed out that the claim was false, you falsely stated that you weren't making a claim in the first place, despite the fact that it is there for everyone to see.

Does the concept of, "credibility", mean anything to you?

I never claimed they said this, I said that what understood and just basically asked if someone can explain what they are saying that’s all 

[diddyman68]

16 hours ago, Damien99 said:

Can someone please explain what this is about and what they found

https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01535

 

what I understood  is they claim it can happen sooner than thought previously 

Well things like vacuum decay are totally beyond my understanding,and i didn't know most of the words in the link.

But even i could see it didnt have anything to do with what you were claiming.

I don't know if your a troll or just out of your depth,either way i find your posts entertaining,keep it up.