Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Damien99

Vacuum decay and fine structure constraint

90 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Damien99
7 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

No, it says the scientists of the paper are suggesting the universe is in a false vacuum.  That's called a hypothesis.

 

Please find out what a hypothesis is.  Your link does call it hypothetical.

Exactly they must have reason to believe that it just switched to false vacuum 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
10 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

Exactly they must have reason to believe that it just switched to false vacuum 

Because it's theoretically possible.  BTW they didn't say it switched.  Anyway I'm done with your poor reading skills.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
7 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Because it's theoretically possible.  BTW they didn't say it switched.  Anyway I'm done with your poor reading skills.

From my understanding of the paper they stated that they feel the universe has switched to a false vacuum state and that vacuum bubble is now possible 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

360° reading skills failure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
Posted (edited)

apparently false vacuum decay happened do you large mass of neutrinos 


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum
 

Other decay modesEdit

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.01991.pdf

Relatedcosmological stud- ies of the resulting inhomogeneities in supercooled late-time phase transitions have been presented in Ref. [98], which finds that kinetic-SZ data constrain bubble nucleation from false vacuum decay to hap- pen very recently

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
Posted (edited)

not sure what to make of it but it’s not good

according to the paper and the wiki page false vacuum decay has happened recently 

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
3 hours ago, Damien99 said:

not sure what to make of it but it’s not good

according to the paper and the wiki page false vacuum decay has happened recently 

Firstly, yet again, you are misquoting... it says it MAY have happened.

Secondly this is an ENTIRELY different thing to the universe falling into a state of vacuum decay.  Notice the heading "Other Decay Modes". The word "other" should have given you a big clue that it is not the same,

The wiki page provides a link to the article. The article, which like all the posts you make, misunderstand and misquote, is hypothetical. It explains that the transition they are talking about is one in which the neutrino decayed from a nearly massless state to one with a higher mass. That's it. No end of the universe scenario.

You really need to stop googling this stuff, you don't understand it and it is fuelling some kind of dooms day paranoia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Firstly, yet again, you are misquoting... it says it MAY have happened.

Secondly this is an ENTIRELY different thing to the universe falling into a state of vacuum decay.  Notice the heading "Other Decay Modes". The word "other" should have given you a big clue that it is not the same,

The wiki page provides a link to the article. The article, which like all the posts you make, misunderstand and misquote, is hypothetical. It explains that the transition they are talking about is one in which the neutrino decayed from a nearly massless state to one with a higher mass. That's it. No end of the universe scenario.

You really need to stop googling this stuff, you don't understand it and it is fuelling some kind of dooms day paranoia.

But the papers states this changed cause of false vacuum decay recently and conclusion states it in plain English the paper states the change in mass is due to false vacuum decay

I also looked up false vacuum decay and there is only 1 meaning to it. 

and am incorrect in saying hyperthetical or not the paper from axiv claims false vacuum decay happen which causes the end.

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
On 4/15/2020 at 12:09 AM, Damien99 said:

and am incorrect in saying hyperthetical or not the paper from axiv claims false vacuum decay happen which causes the end.

You are not correct.  You are inventing things YET AGAIN that are not being said in the paper. 

You ignore 99.9% of the data. This is called cherry picking. It is a logical fallacy and considered dishonest in science.

The 0.1% of the data you don't ignore you generally misrepresent. You have been shown data over and over again that states that the end of the universe, if possible at all by vacuum decay, is unlikely for TRILLIONS of years. Such information is even contained in the wiki article you quoted... but you have ignored it. You ignore everything relevant because none of the data backs up your false claims that the universe is ending. 

You don't understand even very basic science yet are under the delusion that you understand very complex quantum theory... you don't. 

Since you are incapable of being reasoned wit, are incapable of logic, are incapable of learning and quite possibly paranoid I will no longer respond to you. Your obsession is not normal and I will be no longer be a part of it.

I will say this one final time, stop googling this stuff, you don't understand it and it is making you unnecessarily frightened of something that isn't going to happen. Use the time to learn basic science. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
12 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

You are not correct.  You are inventing things YET AGAIN that are not being said in the paper. 

You ignore 99.9% of the data. This is called cherry picking. It is a logical fallacy and considered dishonest in science.

The 0.1% of the data you don't ignore you generally misrepresent. You have been shown data over and over again that states that the end of the universe, if possible at all by vacuum decay, is unlikely for TRILLIONS of years. Such information is even contained in the wiki article you quoted... but you have ignored it. You ignore everything relevant because none of the data backs up your false claims that the universe is ending. 

You don't understand even very basic science yet are under the delusion that you understand very complex quantum theory... you don't. 

Since you are incapable of being reasoned wit, are incapable of logic, are incapable of learning and quite possibly paranoid I will no longer respond to you. Your obsession is not normal and I will be no longer be a part of it.

I will say this one final time, stop googling this stuff, you don't understand it and it is making you unnecessarily frightened of something that isn't going to happen. Use the time to learn basic science. 

I am failing to understand how according to Wikipedia there is only one definition and outcome of false vacuum decay.  The paper mentions false vacuum decay in a couple of spots including the conclusion. 
i do not another how it has another meaning. I understand it’s frustrating I was just hoping you would show me the different definitions cause I can’t find them 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99

Also if I understand the universe has went from métastable to false vacuum state 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
6 hours ago, Damien99 said:

Is this paper stating that the decay rate for false vacuum is less than current age of the universe 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2007.14124.pdf

No it isn't.

Use you brain for once. How can the false vacuum possibly be less than the age of the universe if the universe is still here?

You also need to learn to read properly.  Time after time you make posts like this based on your inability to understand simple sentences. 

There are 69 pages of complicated mathematics in that document, which there is no way you understand. You have clearly done yet another Google search and then based your false conclusion on a single sentence you have not understood. 

Here is what that sentence ACTUALLY says:

Quote

 In particular, assuming that the standard model is valid up to the Planck scale, the EW vacuum decays within a timescale shorter than the present cosmic age if the top-quark mass is too large or the Higgs mass is too small.

Notice the sentence starts with an assumption. Also notice the part I have highlighted uses the word "if".

This is a hypothetical study using different models to see what the outcome is. It isn't making any claim about when or even if false vacuum decay is going to occur in the real universe. Indeed in the conclusions it says this:

Quote

Our results apply to various types of models with many scalar fields having gauge charges; in such models, it is often the case that there shows up a true vacuum whose energy density is lower than that of the electroweak vacuum.

This is a study of models using various parameters. It is totally hypothetical. The reality is that these parameters are not known accurately enough to know the real outcome. 

So despite your continued false and paranoid claims that the universe is about to end the reality is that no one knows if a false vacuum decay will occur or, in the slight chance that it will, when it will occur. 

What you don't seem to grasp about science,  despite it being explained to you many times, is that scientists like to look at all possible scenarios. They use maths to explore the possible, that doesn't make it inevitable or even possible. 

The reality of false vacuum decay is still that the most outcome is that, if it happens at all, it will be long after every star in the universe has died. No amount of cherry picking and misquoting documents you don't understand is going to change that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
Posted (edited)

I was under the Impression that stability is a good think this picture seems to make it seem it’s a bad thing and that 1 in 140 chance we are in it 

 

3EAFF9A7-235B-4184-92C6-E7B9EF9DDF01.png
 

from this article 

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

 

and I know the article contents I am talking about o thought being in stable region was bad 

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
16 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

I was under the Impression that stability is a good think this picture seems to make it seem it’s a bad thing and that 1 in 140 chance we are in it 

 

3EAFF9A7-235B-4184-92C6-E7B9EF9DDF01.png
 

from this article 

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

Where does that picture say that stability is a bad thing.

I'll give you a big clue... IT DOESN'T. 

Just another one of you inventions in an article that claims every thing you have said about false vacuum decay is wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
5 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Where does that picture say that stability is a bad thing.

I'll give you a big clue... IT DOESN'T. 

Just another one of you inventions in an article that claims every thing you have said about false vacuum decay is wrong. 

I said above that I was under the impression that stability is a true vacuum state and Instability false vacuum state and that true vacuum state is the bad thing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
45 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

I said above that I was under the impression that stability is a true vacuum state and Instability false vacuum state and that true vacuum state is the bad thing 

And you are wrong. You don't understand the science and so you just make stuff up, usually the stuff you make up totally contradicts what the articles you post ACTUALLY say. Once again this is the case with this article. 

This is dishonest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

And you are wrong. You don't understand the science and so you just make stuff up, usually the stuff you make up totally contradicts what the articles you post ACTUALLY say. Once again this is the case with this article. 

This is dishonest. 

That is not what I am doing from my understanding on the wiki page stable is bad unstable is good 

 

also what has changed all of a sudden for it to be in the news again recently 

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

You have continuously argued that a false vacuum collapse has either ready happened or is about to happen. You have been spreading male bovine excrement about the end of the universe for post after post.

Just how confused or dishonest do you have to be to claim that a post on a forum called, "Debunking Doomsday", and titled, "'Chance' of false vacuum collapse so small - in ordinary language not possible it is not possible", in any way supports you?

You repeatedly post articles that prove you wrong and then lie about their contents.

That forum describes itself as "Debunks to help people scared by the fake and exaggerated stories".

I would say that it could help you as you are scared by this nonsense, but I doubt that will work as you are making fake and exaggerated claims. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99

Vacuum collapse
If the vacuum of the universe we are in today is a false vacuum, it will release a large amount of energy when it undergoes a phase transition to a true vacuum due to the tunnel effect, and may destroy all the substances in the universe
 

真空崩壊 現在の我々がいる宇宙の真空が偽の真空だった場合、トンネル効果で真の真空へ相転移した時、大量のエネルギーを放出することになり宇宙に存在する全ての物質を崩壊させるかもしれない
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
Posted (edited)

So is it true universe has switched to a true vacuum?

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

:sleepy:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
2 hours ago, Damien99 said:

So is it true universe has switched to a true vacuum?

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:

Quote

"Chance" of false vacuum collapse so small - in ordinary language it is not possible

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:

Quote

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

It’s somewhere betwen that and a hundred million trillion trillion trillion googol googol googol googol googol googol googol googol googol googol googol googols to one against (10 to the power 1244 to one against)

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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.