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 -
UM-Bot

Could a 'bubble of nothing' eat the universe?

50 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Waspie_Dwarf
5 minutes ago, jpeniel333 said:

It's amazing to me, how incredibly stupid scientists can be sometimes.

It amazes me how people that don't actually understand how science works assume that it is the scientists that are incredibly stupid.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

No they haven't found a bubble of nothing. They are hypothesising what would happen if such a bubble were to spontaneously occur.

From the article:

The bubble is at no distance from Earth because , as the article makes clear multiple times,  it doesn't actually exist.

So is the paper they wrote claiming it could exist soon? 

Share this post


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

So is the paper they wrote claiming it could exist soon? 

No, it says the exact opposite. Yo either haven't read it or can't follow basic English. 

Again, from the article:

Quote

"But because the universe has lived for [so long]... we know that the probability of the birth of a deadly [bubble of nothing] shouldn't be much larger than [an extremely tiny number far less than one]."

Quote

"If a theory predicted a (much) larger probability density of a lethal destructive tumor, it would also predict that our universe should have been (certainly) destroyed by now."

It is saying that the chances of this happening are very, VERY, low.

This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people in the many posts you have made on the subject across multiple threads. You just ignore the answers and ask the same questions again.

Share this post


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

No, it says the exact opposite. Yo either haven't read it or can't follow basic English. 

Again, from the article:

It is saying that the chances of this happening are very, VERY, low.

This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people in the many posts you have made on the subject across multiple threads. You just ignore the answers and ask the same questions again.

I apologize I should have been more clear  the actual paper that was scientifically presented in February of this year.

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


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

I apologize I should have been more clear  the actual paper that was scientifically presented in February of this year.

No, because it is hypothetical. There is no such bubble. It does not exist. This is a "what if" exercise. Again, as explained to you in another topic, the paper was a hypothetical study. No such bubbles have been discovered. No such bubbles are likely to be discovered. It's not even known if such bubbles are actually possible, and even if they are they are unlikely to occur for billions or even trillions of years.

This has been explained to you ad nauseam but you just ignore the answers. You discover scientific papers (presumably using google) that you don't understand and the repeatedly make the same false claim that the universe is going to end because of vacuum decay.

You have an unhealthy obsession, an irrational fear, of an event that, if even possible, is unlikely to occur until long after the last star in the universe has cooled.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
53 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

No, because it is hypothetical. There is no such bubble. It does not exist. This is a "what if" exercise. Again, as explained to you in another topic, the paper was a hypothetical study. No such bubbles have been discovered. No such bubbles are likely to be discovered. It's not even known if such bubbles are actually possible, and even if they are they are unlikely to occur for billions or even trillions of years.

This has been explained to you ad nauseam but you just ignore the answers. You discover scientific papers (presumably using google) that you don't understand and the repeatedly make the same false claim that the universe is going to end because of vacuum decay.

You have an unhealthy obsession, an irrational fear, of an event that, if even possible, is unlikely to occur until long after the last star in the universe has cooled.

Yes, Waspie, we understand all that.  It's not a real 'bubble' (or should that be 'real' bubble?), just a theoretical construction.  But does the 'paper' these 'scientists' are talking about actually exist?  Or is it a purely hypothetical paper?  Can you even prove that 'Damien99' exists?  What about 'me' - am I real? 

I'm starting to lose it.  I think I'm coming down with a virus or something...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
18 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

Yes, Waspie, we understand all that.  It's not a real 'bubble' (or should that be 'real' bubble?), just a theoretical construction.  But does the 'paper' these 'scientists' are talking about actually exist?  Or is it a purely hypothetical paper?  Can you even prove that 'Damien99' exists?  What about 'me' - am I real? 

I'm starting to lose it.  I think I'm coming down with a virus or something...

You may understand that, Damien99 does not. He has a long history in many posts across multiple threads of claiming (absolutely falsely) that the universe is about to end because if vacuum decay. He repeats the same false claims repeatedly despite many people explaining the reality of the situation to him. It was to him alone that I was replying.

As to the paper, yes it exists. Many papers on this phenomenon exist, all of them hypothetical. The end of the universe by this scenario depends on whether the universe is stable or metastable (this is where Damien99 gets things very wrong, he equates metastability with instability). If the universe is stable then these bubbles simply can not happen. If the universe is metastable (i.e. giving the appearance of being stable over very long time scales whilst not actually being stable) then there is a finite, but unbelievably small, chance that these bubbles could form and end the universe. They are so unlikely, even in a meta stable universe, that in all probability all the stars would have died and all life been long extinguished before they occur. Despite this Damien99 still does his best impression of Chicken Little, running around and telling everyone that the sky is falling down.

As to the existence of either you or Damien99... after several weeks of dealing with Damien I am beginning to wonder if my sanity exists.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
1 hour ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

You may understand that, Damien99 does not. He has a long history in many posts across multiple threads of claiming (absolutely falsely) that the universe is about to end because if vacuum decay. He repeats the same false claims repeatedly despite many people explaining the reality of the situation to him. It was to him alone that I was replying.

As to the paper, yes it exists. Many papers on this phenomenon exist, all of them hypothetical. The end of the universe by this scenario depends on whether the universe is stable or metastable (this is where Damien99 gets things very wrong, he equates metastability with instability). If the universe is stable then these bubbles simply can not happen. If the universe is metastable (i.e. giving the appearance of being stable over very long time scales whilst not actually being stable) then there is a finite, but unbelievably small, chance that these bubbles could form and end the universe. They are so unlikely, even in a meta stable universe, that in all probability all the stars would have died and all life been long extinguished before they occur. Despite this Damien99 still does his best impression of Chicken Little, running around and telling everyone that the sky is falling down.

As to the existence of either you or Damien99... after several weeks of dealing with Damien I am beginning to wonder if my sanity exists.

My apologies it just the article and paper claim that we are currently in a false vacuum universe 

Share this post


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

My apologies it just the article and paper claim that we are currently in a false vacuum universe 

They don't.  That is your incorrect interpretation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

From the introduction of the article you posted a link to:

Quote

The possible decay of metastable spacetimes through gravitational instantons has a rich history and far-reaching applications. Writ large, the possible instanton decay channels can be grouped as Coleman-de Luccia tunnelling of a scalar field [1], the nucleation of charged membranes via the Brown-Teitelboim mechanism [2], and the decay of space- time itself through Witten’s bubble of nothing [3].

The use of the word possible in this context makes it as clear as day that they are talking about hypothetical scenarios. The vast majority of the paper is highly mathematical and way above my paygrade but it is perfectly obvious that they are, mathematically, investigating hypothetical possibilities.

The other article you posted is even more explicit it's title is: Theoretical Holes in Spacetime Could Swallow the Entire Universe

In none of the many articles you have linked to in multiple topics does it say that such a bubble has been found. I will repeat that in the vain hope it finally sinks in... none of them claim such a bubble has been found. In every single case where you have made that claim your links do not support you. Your belief that such bubbles exist is a figment of your imagination, pure invention on your part.

I am not the only one that has told you this but you just keep ignoring the evidence and what you are told. If you run true to form you will now search the internet for more articles you don't understand and make false claims about what they say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

They don't.  That is your incorrect interpretation. 

But now, scientists, including the ones behind the new paper, are questioning this conclusion, suggesting that the universe is experiencing a “false vacuum,” and hasn’t truly transitioned to its least excited and most stable state. The result: a “bubble of nothing” that could “‘eat’ all of spacetime, converting it into ‘nothing,'” Marjorie Schillo, lead author from Uppsala University, told Motherboard.

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/futurism.com/theoretical-holes-spacetime-swallow-entire-universe/amp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

@Damien99 In a previous topic I asked you what you thought metastable meant. You avoided answering the question. I am asking you again because I suspect that a lot of your fictional belief is based around your misunderstanding of this expression. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But now, scientists, including the ones behind the new paper, are questioning this conclusion, suggesting that the universe is experiencing a “false vacuum,” and hasn’t truly transitioned to its least excited and most stable state. The result: a “bubble of nothing” that could “‘eat’ all of spacetime, converting it into ‘nothing,'” Marjorie Schillo, lead author from Uppsala University, told Motherboard.

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/futurism.com/theoretical-holes-spacetime-swallow-entire-universe/amp

So what? 3 scientists out of hundreds are questioning the consensus? Do you understand what consensus is? Do you understand the scientific method and why scientists question the consensus?

Actually you don't need to answer that. Every single post you have made proves that you have as much understanding of the scientific method as a concussed bee.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Damien99
Just now, Waspie_Dwarf said:

So what. 3 scientists out of hundreds are questioning the consensus. Do you understand what consensus is. Do you understand the scientific method and why scientists question the consensus. 

Actually you don't need to answer that. Every single post you have made proves that you have as much understanding of the scientific method as a concussed bee.

All I am stating is according to the scientists in the paper and others we are experiencing the universe falling into a false vacuum state. I am n sure where that conclusion is coming from in the paper

Share this post


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

All I am stating is according to the scientists in the paper and others we are experiencing the universe falling into a false vacuum state. I am n sure where that conclusion is coming from in the paper

No it isn't what you are stating. What you are quoting is a story from the Vice website relating to a paper. The paper is what I quoted the introduction of a few posts ago. That introduction to the paper makes it quite clear that the work is hypothetical. No where in the paper does it say that they believe such a scenario is happening. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Even the story you claim backs you uses the word, "theoretical" in it's title. None of the many articles you have quoted put forward a single piece of evidence or observation that such an event is occurring. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

@Damien99 Are you going to answer the question about what you think metastable means?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

@Damien99 Are you going to answer the question about what you think metastable means?

Metastable means middle but close t o unstable. And I am not arguing with you at all , all I am stating is according to the article one of the people that wrote the paper stated the universe is falling into a false vacuum state. 
 

that’s all I am saying and I am trying to understand what in the paper gives them that impression 

i am just trying to get an understanding of what I am reading 

Edited by Damien99

Share this post


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

Metastable means middle but close to unstable.

Finally an answer. As I suspected you don't understand the term.

Here is the definition from dictionary.com:

Quote

Also labile. Physics, Chemistry.pertaining to a body or system existing at an energy level (metastable state) above that of a more stable state and requiring the addition of a small amount of energy to induce a transition to the more stable state.

Here is the definition from Collins dictionary:

Quote

of a body or system) having a state of apparent equilibrium although capable of changing to a more stable state

Here is what wikipedia has to say on metastability in physics:

Quote

In physics, metastability is a stable state of a dynamical system other than the system's state of least energy. 

and, from the same link as above, metastability in quantum mechanics:

Quote

A metastable state is then long-lived (locally stablewith respect to configurations of 'neighbouring' energies) but not eternal (as the global minimum is). 

This is the main source of your continuous misunderstanding and inability to grasp the reality of the situation. Metastability IS NOT mid-way between stable and unstable. It is a state that is HIGHLY stable and long lasting, just not infinitely so.

Scientists are not even sure if the universe is stable or metastable. 

This is why you have been told over and over again that the destruction of the universe by vacuum decay, if possible at all, is extraordinarily unlikely for an enormous amount of time to come.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

that’s all I am saying and I am trying to understand what in the paper gives them that impression 

There is NOTHING in the paper that says they have that impression. NOTHING. 

It is a hypothetical paper mathematically exploring a "what if" scenario. It is using maths to determine whether such a bubble can even, theoretically, exist. It is not trying to prove that such a bubble DOES exists.

It's theoretical... that's what theoretical physicists do.

I'll repeat this for seemingly the millionth time,  there is no observational evidence that such a bubble currently exists. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Finally an answer. As I suspected you don't understand the term.

Here is the definition from dictionary.com:

Here is the definition from Collins dictionary:

Here is what wikipedia has to say on metastability in physics:

and, from the same link as above, metastability in quantum mechanics:

This is the main source of your continuous misunderstanding and inability to grasp the reality of the situation. Metastability IS NOT mid-way between stable and unstable. It is a state that is HIGHLY stable and long lasting, just not infinitely so.

Scientists are not even sure if the universe is stable or metastable. 

This is why you have been told over and over again that the destruction of the universe by vacuum decay, if possible at all, is extraordinarily unlikely for an enormous amount of time to come.

Thank you, 

i was just unsure if this paper found something new, especially since it say that the universe is falling into a false vacuum state now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf
Just now, Damien99 said:

Thank you, 

i was just unsure if this paper found something new, especially since it say that the universe is falling into a false vacuum state now.

Why thank me now. You have been posting this crap for weeks and ignoring everything you have been told.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Why thank me now. You have been posting this crap for weeks and ignoring everything you have been told.

I am not ignoring I am learning as i said I felt this paper found something we didn’t know about. Because of the comments of currently falling into false vacuum state.  The article claims that this info came from ” Marjorie Schillo.

I do thank you and I mean it. 
i keep looking though the paper for the false vacuum claim by Marjorie. Having trouble finding the futurism got that info

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpeniel333
On 3/10/2020 at 10:06 AM, Waspie_Dwarf said:

It amazes me how people that don't actually understand how science works assume that it is the scientists that are incredibly stupid.

It amazes me how stupid people think they know anything about me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Waspie_Dwarf
19 hours ago, jpeniel333 said:

It amazes me how stupid people think they know anything about me.

I don't claim to know anything about you, but I have a lot of experience with posts like this:

On 3/10/2020 at 2:59 PM, jpeniel333 said:

It's amazing to me, how incredibly stupid scientists can be sometimes.

I have NEVER seen a post like that made by someone that understood the subject being discussed. I have never seen a post like that made by someone with a good understanding of the scientific method.

Maybe you are the exception. Maybe you are going to prove you are the exception by making an intelligent, coherent post backing why you think the scientists involved in this research are stupid. Maybe you will manage to do so without childishly calling anyone else stupid.

Maybe but, on the evidence presented so far, I doubt it.

  • Like 2

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.