MigL

From your link... "Subsequently, using the data gathered by WMAP over 3 years, the statistical significance of such a large, cool region was estimated. The probability of finding a deviation at least as high in Gaussian simulations was found to be 1.85%.[5] Thus it appears unlikely, but not impossible, that the cold spot was generated by the standard mechanism of quantum fluctuations during cosmological inflation, which in most inflationary models gives rise to Gaussian statistics. The cold spot may also, as suggested in the references above, be a signal of non-Gaussian primordial fluctuations." Other possible causes for the 0.00007 deg K deviation ( out of 2.7 deg K ) stated in the link, include... Sachs-Wolfe ( integrated ) effect due to the large void between us and the CMB. Cosmic Texture remnant of the last phase transition, i.e. primordial origin. Parallel universe 'imprint which would necessitate an equivalent spot in the opposing hemisphere. And sensitivity to finding method is also mentioned. I did NOT find any mention of vacuum decay ( and the end of the universe ) as a possible cause for the cold spot. So, I have to wonder, are you pulling this out of your a*s, Chicken Little ?

For a symmetry break, the universe would have to cool below a phase transition. And we don't think there are any more phase transitions; better measurements of Higgs boson and top Quark mass may tell us for sure. The best analogy I can think of would be to cool water below 0 deg C. without it freezing and staying liquid. IOW supercooling. At that point, any 'upset' to the system ( even tapping the glass container ) would trigger an immediate phase change to ice. I have often done this in the other direction. You heat a cup of water in a microwave oven to above boiling, but the liquid remains calm. You remove it, and drop in a teabag, or some instant coffee, and it immediately boils over the top of the cup.

By that logic a Neutron is composed of a Proton, an Electron and an anti-neutrino. Silly me, I thought they were composed of 2 up Quarks, one down Quark and a whole lot of binding energy. And that is the concept you don't seem to grasp; mass/energy equivalence, which explains your 'direct experiment'. And no, mass/energy equivalence is NOT matter/light equivalence. ( although if Conjurer thinks so, you're in good company )

This has to do with the mass/energy of the Higgs boson. Here is the relevant quote from the Wiki article on the Higgs boson... "In the Standard Model, there exists the possibility that the underlying state of our universe – known as the "vacuum" – is long-lived, but not completely stable. In this scenario, the universe as we know it could effectively be destroyed by collapsing into a more stable vacuum state.[33][34][35][36][37] This was sometimes misreported as the Higgs boson "ending" the universe.[h] If the masses of the Higgs boson and top quark are known more precisely, and the Standard Model provides an accurate description of particle physics up to extreme energies of the Planck scale, then it is possible to calculate whether the vacuum is stable or merely long-lived.[40][41][42] A 125 – 127 GeV Higgs mass seems to be extremely close to the boundary for stability, but a definitive answer requires much more precise measurements of the pole mass of the top quark.[32] New physics can change this picture.[43] " From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson And this has nothing to do with the temperature of any voids. Also, not being an expert on Differential Geometry, Gauge theory and Topology, I am not so sure a symmetry break travels at the speed of light, as I'm not sure there is information transport. The example which brings this to mind is A Guth's from his original Inflationary theory. Consider a symmetric dinner table arrangement where a fork and knife are placed between each plate. It is certainly symmetric. But as soon as one guest 'breaks' the symmetry by choosing either the fork/knife on his left, or his right, the choice has been immediately made for every other guest at the table. Maybe someone more familiar with this issue can explain.

I have no problem with this. Photons or EM waves are neither classical particles nor waves. But they do have properties of both, depending on what is being measured. I always use the term quantum particles, which should convey a totally different meaning. There is a cross-section for the interaction which depends on wavelength and atomic/molecular make-up ( for the purpose of this discussion ). Otherwise any material could be used for fiber optic cable. No memory. But they do have momentum; and that is required to be conserved.

Slim possibility = NOT happening soon. What makes you think we are in a false vacuum state ? I think you lied and you haven't read the Wiki page on 'false vacuum'. Come back when you have...

The fact that something has a very slim possibility, but current observations/theories dictate against it, does not mean 'happening soon'. IOW only IF we are in a false vacuum state is there a remote possibility. Forget Cosmology for now; work on your reading comprehension.

If you want to know what the above posts by Mordred and I, have to do with Katie Mack and vacuum collapse, I suggest you go to her Wiki page. Just Google 'Katie Mack, astrophycisist'. Scroll down to the heading 'Research ad Career', where you will find her fields of interest to be Dark Matter Vacuum Decay Cosmic Evolution/Re-ionization Epoch Primordial Black Holes Cosmic Microwave Background I assume you are interested in the second, 'Vacuum Decay' ( not collapse ), so if you click on the blue hypertab, it takes you to a new Wiki page 'False Vacuum', which aside from some speculative aspects, details the same things Mordred and I posted above. Read it, try to understand it, and if you have any questions, come back ad ask. ( or did you want me to do that for you also ? )

Maybe the Chinese Government and Medical Ministry should resign. For not releasing information sooner, which could have stopped the spread of the virus. The WHO only had whatever information the Chinese chose to release.

My problem is I don't waste any. I eat way too much. I should do like Phi; my knees say I should drop about 20 lbs. ( and like Phi, if it wasn't for the cat litter, I could easily go 3-4 weeks between garbage pick-up )

In modern Physics, the 'vacuum' has potential energy. This energy is responsible for virtual particles, and their many interactions. Think of this vacuum potential as a cliff, with one or more ledges down its face. The Big Bang event would have been the summit, or top, of the cliff. Dropping down the cliff drops you to a lower ledge, or energy state, of the vacuum. The last time this happened, as Mordred has explained, was 10^-32 secs after the Big Bang event. The universe dropped to a lower ledge ( and inflated exponentially ); this resulted in a symmetry break and the separation of the Electromagnetic force from the Weak force. Simultaneously, he Higgs interaction gave rise to invariant ( rest ) mass for certain fermions and bosons that interact with the Higgs field. Now, at the present time, we are not aware of any ledges further down the cliff. We may already be at the lowest possible ( ground ) level. But this level still has an energy value, and we know this because Quantum Mechanics works. If there are further lower ledges and another symmetry break causes a drop, you don't need to worry. You won't feel a thing.

Where the he*l did I put my magnifying glass...

I have to wonder if the Biden 'brand' has taken a hit because of all the accusations made by D Trump and Republicans. A lot of people may be thinking "where there's smoke, there is fire". I guess my 'virtual' vote, now, has to be for E Warren. But she'd better kick it into higher gear.

Euclid is still rock-solid for 'flat' geometries. It is kind of useless for 'curved' geometries, though. One didn't replace the other; they have different applications.

As Strange's link mentions, a distance of 50-100 light years would be the danger zone. Betelguese is well outside that range. Sit back and enjoy the show.

Other than the fact that the CMB hasn't always been at 2.7 deg., but has come down from about 3500 deg. , that seems a pretty good approximation. Something slightly less massive, to account for decreased radiation prior to the present era, could not have resulted from stellar collapse. Since only 'primordial' Black Holes of about 0.7 % Earth's mass would be completely evaporating by now ( in a final shedding of the Event Horizon, and a massive Gamma Ray burst ), the fact that none are observed might mean that the energy density of the early universe was homogenous and isotropic enough to prevent the formation of 'primordial' BHs.

"Presentism' is a local foliation of the block universe. IOW an interpretation of a model for GR.

I think you mean 'anthropic' in your discussion of J A Wheeler's Participatory Universe idea. 'Anisotropic' is related to observations in differing directions, Koti. But I fully agree. I don't mix Philosophy and Physics either. Although, to be fair to Eise, Philosophy can be a valuable 'guide' to doing Physics.

I think we are missing the gist of JC's original comment. No matter who wins the election this fall, deficits will increase. ( there is no B Clinton on the Democrat ticket )

One could make the argument that G W Bush did a much better job of reducing the deficit, between the year 2004 to 2008-9, when the Financial Meltdown happened. Even burdened by ongoing wars ( of his own doing, of course ). B Obama came in when the economy had already tanked, and bail-outs were being handed to any financial institution that asked. The economy had nowhere to go, but up, and the big deficits were much reduced by the ending of bail-outs and the previously mentioned improving economy.

Oh, wait... Did you say 'run' ? JC thought you said 'ruin'.

I don't have a problem with people's own personal beliefs, but don't like it much when they try to 'convert' me. I have found that, if you answer the door in your underwear, when JWs come calling, they don't come back again.

AI programmer...

The temperature probes are in the gas phase, not the liquid. And increased pressure will increase the temperature of the gas. Edit: cross posted with Strange. Sloppy experiments give people 'excuses' to deny validity.

Thanks for the breakdown JC. But unless someone breaks out and really resonates with the voters, I think the Democrats are trying to choose the candidate who will come in second to D Trump in the November election. If you're just 'preaching to the choir' ( your base ), you can't do any better than H Clinton did 3 yrs ago. Even after al the crap he's pulled, and an impeachment, D Trump is still polling high enough to win it. Unless one of the Democratic candidates can steal away some of that support, I don't see them ousting D Trump.