/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10152054]

How likely is it that our universe is a false vacuum or whatever?

Like is it a distant possibility, very likely, unlikely, impossible?

[Anonymous No.10152065]

>>10152054
50% probable

[Anonymous No.10152070]

Well, since the calculation is model dependent, it depends on your prior probabilities for different models.

If you really, really trust the Standard Model, it's pretty good odds of metastability. People I've asked seem to believe higher order corrections are fairly well understood.

[Anonymous No.10152077]

>>10152070
so does that mean we'll probably all die or nah
I don't know physics stuff I'm just reading around the internet bored and now have existential dread

[El Arcón No.10152080]

I think in the future instead of "false vacuum that might spontaneously transition to lower energy state" they will say "permanent non-equilibrium condition associated with downhill energy condition in time."

[El Arcón No.10152085]

>>10152054
>>10152080
OP potential has local minimum
MCM potential is a permanent downhill slide

[El Arcón No.10152087]

In fact, when they say "parameter space of cosmology indicates meta-stability," one might ask, "How could it be stable (non-meta-stable) if it's on permanent downhill?"

[El Arcón No.10152091]

Also, you know it has t be on permanent downhill because that is the only reasonable way to get observable dark energy.
Modified Spacetime Geometry Addresses Dark Energy, Penrose's Entropy Dilemma, Baryon Asymmetry, Inflation and Matter Anisotropy
http://www.vixra.org/abs/1302.0022

[Anonymous No.10152093]

>>10152087
>>10152080
>>10152085
pls I'm retarded

[Anonymous No.10152095]

>>10152077
It hasn't decayed in 14 billion years or so, which means either it has a really long lifetime of stability, or we have been really lucky. The Standard Model calculations suggests its lifetime is much longer than the current age of the universe (like, hundreds of orders of magnitude different), so it's completely expected that it hasn't decayed. And it will be completely unsurprising if the universe goes another 14 billion years without a vacuum decay, and another 14 billion years, and so on. People who don't believe the Standard Model have even less reason to be concerned, because lots of new physics models help stabilize the vacuum.

You should be more worried about car crashes, or even meteors.

[Anonymous No.10152099]

>>10152093
It's okay, so is that guy.

[Anonymous No.10152100]

>>10152095
ok
so won't die of weird universe juice I don't understand, right?

[Anonymous No.10152115]

>>10152100
Nope. As a rough estimate, your odds of dying that way are about 1 in 10^(10^190). You'll win the lottery trillions and trillions of times long before this happens.

[Anonymous No.10152119]

>>10152115
oh
thanks fren
y'all smart
now I can stop feeling existential dread

[Anonymous No.10152125]

>>10152115
And actually your odds are actually a huge amount better, because I used the wrong number for the lifetime, it's actually more like 1 in 10^(10^600)

[Anonymous No.10152531]

>>10152093
That guy is clueless about math and physics, don't waste your time with his babble.

[Anonymous No.10152787]

>>10152080
Stop posting outside your own boards jon

[Anonymous No.10152793]

>>10152091
Damn you use a lot of the hot words and none of the math and I know you don't understand your own pictures as you don't have a foundation in field theory. Stop sharing vixra here as we care about academic publications and you have none

[Anonymous No.10152794]

>>10152054
haha it looks like boobs

[Anonymous No.10152797]

>>10152054
I think a good note to take is this: if black science man or cripple science man talk about any doomsday possibilities, don't listen to them.

[Anonymous No.10152801]

>>10152797
Fortunately, you only have to worry about new things from one of them

[Anonymous No.10152815]

>>10152054
Why only one nipple, though?

[Anonymous No.10153768]

>>10152119
Don't be afraid, anon. It's impossible to experience being dead, obviously, so you can only experience multiverse branches where you're alive. And since consciousness is basically a directed acyclic graph of observer moments, you're subjectively immortal.

[Anonymous No.10153815]

>>10152054
regardless of whether it's a global minimum or a local minimum, the higgs potential is protected by an infinite energy barrier (or, at least, something on the order of the higgs vev (249 GeV) times the volume of the universe divided by (10^-17 meters)^3 from tunneling to another minimum, so the probability of that is much smaller than the probability of donald trump tunnelling through the entire earth and ending up standing next to kim jong-un in pyongyang. seriously, that is many orders of magnitude more likely than spontaneous vacuum decay

anyhow, sidney coleman, the FUCKING MAN, talked about this

[Anonymous No.10153863]

>>10152065
this.
the probability is 1/2, it either happens or it doesn't.

[El Arcón No.10153932]

>>10152793
>none of the math
It was my intention to depict the 1/r potential of the 1/(r^2) force law in the main figure, which is math, and certainly the diagram contains all the relevant features of the function, whatever it is. The twisting mechanism is a mathematical operation that provably exists; the proof being the depiction of the process, which is math. The Feynman diagram has an entire quantum field theory attached to it already, since the mid-20th century, which is math. What you mean is "none of the quantification" but that is a poor criticism of a paper that contains the phrase in its abstract: "no attempt at quantification is made" in the paper that describes the mathematical principles.

This same caveat about quantification appears in a footnote on p762 of Ashcroft and Mermin.

[Anonymous No.10153959]

>>10153932
I've wasted enough of my life explaining why you're wrong previously with no progress, good day Tooker

[Anonymous No.10153970]

how can you plebs ignore entropy?

[Anonymous No.10153976]

>>10153932
>The Feynman diagram has an entire quantum field theory attached to it already
Of which you understand none.
The connection between the two is a photon that doesn't connect to a B bar(B) interaction (you probably meant b bar(b) as you probably aren't working with B mesons) ? Poorly distinguished W or Z boson which don't interact through that annihilation? Clearly not a Higgs (as per standard notation) since the Higgs doesn't interact at tree level in that way, would require a triangle diagram at leading order with quarks. Also, there are significantly stronger interactions with H from other, more massive particles.

Just because you have a Feynman diagram doesn't imply QFT is being done. Try actually learning how to read a picture before learning what all goes on behind it and applying it to anything you think you understand.

[Anonymous No.10154198]

>>10152091
What does the squiggly line in the Feynman diagram represent?

[Anonymous No.10154373]

>>10152054
SInce when phi is one dimensional thing?

[Anonymous No.10154673]

>>10153863
based and genius

[Anonymous No.10154720]

>>10153815
I bet if we ever reach this capability aliens will pay us a visit and slap our shit

[Anonymous No.10154799]

>>10154198
>squiggly

photons

[Anonymous No.10154858]

>>10154799
And what do you man by B? Is that a quark or meson or something else?

[Anonymous No.10154868]

>>10153815
>Assuming we are living in a false vacuum, are there some things we should not do?
My favorite question of the month

[Anonymous No.10154915]

>>10154858
>man by B
wut

[Anonymous No.10154923]

>>10154858
mean by B. What does the B stand for?

[Anonymous No.10155540]

>>10153976
I just hope he at least read this post. Probably just avoiding it and letting the thread die so he doesn't have to address his ignorance