Jump to content
Bmpbmp1975

Dead galaxy questions

Recommended Posts

I am sorry but you lost me, you stated  before it was not possible in our current QM. Now it seems your stating it is possible. 

from my understanding this value is changing and bringing us closer to a true vacuum state under 1

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok fair enough this is actually where the English lanquage gets confusing with certain models.

An absolute true vacuum is one devoid of all particles including those due to quantum fluctuations. The zero point energy states that this state is impossible as quantum fluctuations always occur.

 Now with False vacuum inflation or the Higgs field the true vacuum is the lowest possible state which will always be of a positive energy density. It's not a true vacuum but rather the lowest possible vacuum state depending on what fields are used to describe that particular vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I am confused so basically we are currently sitting in a true vacuum

this states  we are on the verge of vacuum collapse 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Higgs field as far as we know is in a true vacuum state for the Higgs field. However where you are sitting wouldn't be a true vacuum. Let's assume your at 1 atmosphere of pressure is there a vacuum ?

The vacuum is subject to how you define it. Under classical definition you and I are not in a true vacuum.

Under certain QFT treatments how one defines a true vacuum depends on the fields being examined.

Share this post


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

Well the Higgs field as far as we know is in a true vacuum state for the Higgs field. However where you are sitting wouldn't be a true vacuum. Let's assume your at 1 atmosphere of pressure is there a vacuum ?

The vacuum is subject to how you define it. Under classical definition you and I are not in a true vacuum.

Under certain QFT treatments how one defines a true vacuum depends on the fields being examined.

So we are currently looking at a possible vacuum collapse happening at any time 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is viable for the Higgs field to be in a lower state however there is no supportive evidence that it is going to occur now or in the future. That would be where new physics research comes into play in something as of yet undiscovered such as another symmetry breaking leading to a new family of particles 

 

I don't think your grasping one essential detail there is more than one type of vacuum. You need to be more specific as to which vacuum your discussing.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am talking vacuum collapse that will destroy the universe 
 

I am still confused with the science, this state has recently changed  of the Higgs a true vacuum. So clearly something caused it to change recently.

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call 18.75 billion years ago roughly as recent were talking a change that occurred roughly [math]10^{-32}[/math] after the BB for electroweak symmetry breaking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but at our current state now we are sitting at a vacuum collapse happening at any time now in our lifetime 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope the universe wouldn't cool down enough in either of our lifetimes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Nope the universe wouldn't cool down enough in either of our lifetimes. 

I don’t understand exactly , can you please explain why it won’t happen in our lifetimes according to Katie Mack it can?

what do you mean cool down enough? The cooling has nothing to do with vacuum collapse it is all due to the state of Higgs bosin

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The process is called thermal equilibrium when dealing as to the when particles symmetry break ie drop out of thermal equibrium. For example the Higgs boson could not drop out of equilibrium unless the universe black body temperature drops below a certain temperature. They decouple from equilibrium with the temperature in relation to the total energy/mass of the particle. ( Obviously the Boson family applies to when the fields decouple)

 Another Higgs decoupling would require different mass value Higgs bosons than the SM model Higgs bosons. 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see, the only thing is the works of  katie Mack say otherwise

and I am not sure where your thermal equilibrium has anything to do with the vacuum collapse or the universe falling into a true vacuum state below a constant 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See Chronology of the universe in particular the Very early universe in particular

" These phase transitions in the universe's fundamental forces are believed to be caused by a phenomenon of quantum fields called "symmetry breaking".

In everyday terms, as the universe cools, it becomes possible for the quantum fields that create the forces and particles around us, to settle at lower energy levels and with higher levels of stability. In doing so, they completely shift how they interact. Forces and interactions arise due to these fields, so the universe can behave very differently above and below a phase transition. For example, in a later epoch, a side effect of one phase transition is that suddenly, many particles that had no mass at all acquire a mass (they begin to interact differently with the Higgs field), and a single force begins to manifest as two separate forces."

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

 

 I know you won't understand the related mathematics not unless your familiar with the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics for Bosons and Fermions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what the last 2 posts have to do with Katie Mack’s theory of vacuum collpaset

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take too long to explain if you can't see the basic principles of symmetry breaking with regards to the Higgs field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ? )

Share this post


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

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 ? )

I have read it and it is happening soon from what I read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MigL said:

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.

Not sure what you mean by slim possibility 

and are we not in a false vacuum state now?

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

I have read it and it is happening soon from what I read?

There is no reason to think it will happen soon. There is very little reason to think it will ever happen.

So clearly you have not understood what you have read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize there are so many answers and all seem to be different so having trouble grasping it all 

 

also this article implies the actual cosmo constant has changed also which confuses some of the answers here 

73.8 ± 1.1 km/s/Mpc according to this new measurement.

How much does that increase  Lambda (cosmo-constant) looks like it was by 5 

 

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=103

 

then this article below talks about the universe colder a very low levels which what was said above will not happen anytime soon 

https://physicsworld.com/a/the-enduring-enigma-of-the-cosmic-cold-spot/

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bmpbmp1975
I think an important thing for you to realise is that

A. Scientists, even experts in their respective fields, can be wrong. Don't take their word for gospel. Even if they had brilliant insights at other times.

B. Science functions by repeated measurements, improving measurements and verifying measurements in different ways. The methodology will be different or we have looked at a different part of space, or there are flawed assumptions. We have several hypotheses for most things but new evidence will change our way of looking at each individual 'problem'. We continuously find new things and discard old things. There MAY be changes of the constants, but since this would be quite unusual, we should also look at other explanations. And one always need a lot of evidence. I think you will find this video interesting (below), specifically 9:50 -15:00. 

C. Science-explanations and the actual science can be different and difficult to interpret (not always good to just believe whichever metaphor or analogy people use).


D. Some articles are flawed. Maybe they made mistakes or lied.

-Dagl

Edit: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.