Jump to content
Bmpbmp1975

Vacuum decay theory questions

Recommended Posts

So I was asking the other day about fine constant structure and vacuum decay and got some answers. What I found goes against what I was told here, why?

i have been looking more into this and found some more information.

If the fine structure changes, then it's not actually a constant. If photons lose energy with expansion, then they are subject to time delays. So what I said for vacuum decay is possible 
 the decay would be a quantum leap from one configuration to another. Whether it is reversible is another issue.
it would also mean that acceleration of galaxies in distant sources tell us about the expansion in the past, so it may be that we can only trust the local acceleration of galaxies.
If the universe is actually decelerating, then it will reach a new phase. But the scales will be different.
 
 
 
Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

If the fine structure changes, then it's not actually a constant.

Sounds correct.

7 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

If photons lose energy with expansion, then they are subject to time delays. So what I said for vacuum decay is possible 

Have you read that somewhere? As far as I know, photons does not lose energy and they do not slow down while traveling through space unless there is interaction. I'll try to find some good explanation; it has to do with the fact that the photon-emitting galaxy is not in the same frame of reference as an observer here at earth. The measurement of photon energy is frame dependent.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The energy that photons lose through expansion, [by having their wave length stretched ever so slightly]  would I suggest be very minimal...perhaps as minimal as the warping of spacetime by photons themselves due to their momentum.

But I'm open for correction on that point.

Otherwise I agree with Ghideon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, beecee said:

The energy that photons lose through expansion, [by having their wave length stretched ever so slightly]  would I suggest be very minimal...perhaps as minimal as the warping of spacetime by photons themselves due to their momentum.

The photons do not lose energy due to the expansion of universe. It is an effect of measuring the photon energy in another frame of reference than the photon was emitted in. If you persist please provide a source*.  

11 minutes ago, beecee said:

But I'm open for correction on that point.

I tried that in my first post.

 

 

 

*) Since the standard disclaimer always apply: I may be wrong and if so it is good to be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

So I was asking the other day about fine constant structure and vacuum decay and got some answers. What I found goes against what I was told here, why?

i have been looking more into this and found some more information.

Where did you find this information?

Share this post


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

Where did you find this information?

It was an explanation given to me by a scientist I asked weeks ago on a forum and they finally responded 

There comment are way different than here?

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

It was an explanation given to me by a scientist I asked weeks ago on a forum and they finally responded 

There comment are way different than here?

So a link is not possible...for a presumably online forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, swansont said:

So a link is not possible...for a presumably online forum?

I can post the contents if you’d like 

also my questions on only on the comments made that I posted? 

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

It was an explanation given to me by a scientist I asked weeks ago on a forum and they finally responded 

There comment are way different than here?

Since you choose to not provide a source I can't comment on what other have said or not said. 
Here is from a short Q&A from Fermilab regarding photons energy and redshift: 

Quote

First, let's put aside the idea of the photon losing energy in transit, as an explanation for redshift. A photon doesn't lose energy unless it collides with a particle. Photons can scatter off interstellar electrons, for example. (Perhaps you were thinking about particles, like electrons, losing energy "in transit" in a vacuum. That can happen if they change direction. Electrons radiate and lose energy if they travel on a curved path around a magnetic field line.) Photons carry energy, but they don't lose energy just because they travel.

The key to understanding the dilemma of a red-shifted photon is that not all observers will measure the same energy of the photon. Let's say an observer is traveling with the star or galaxy and sees a photon in the yellow portion of the spectrum. An observer who is moving with respect to the star (it doesn't matter if it's the star or the observer moving away) sees the same photon in the red part of the spectrum. That's OK--it doesn't violate the principle of conservation of energy--because they make their measurements in different reference frames. Similarly if you roll a marble while you are riding on a train, you will find that the marble has a certain velocity and kinetic energy as seen from your seat in the train, but an observer in the train station, who (somehow) sees the marble as it goes whipping by on the train, measures a different velocity and hence a different kinetic energy. The energy of a photon comes from its frequency, and that is different for different observers.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/inquiring/questions/red_shift1.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

I can post the contents if you’d like 

I asked for a link. Why is the idea of providing proper support for a claim so difficult a concept for you? (That’s rhetorical. Don’t actually answer the question. Just the link)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

I can post the contents if you’d like

Please do so.

You haven't understood many of the things explained to you on this forum.
you'll have to excuse us for being skeptical of you understanding what the 'scientist' from another forum explained to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Can a change in the fine-structure constant could lead to vacuum decay?

 

 

 

 

If the fine structure changes, then it's not actually a constant. If photons lose energy with expansion, then they are subject to time delays. What you say is possible, whether it is actually real is another matter for a deeper discussion. 

 

 
So it is possible then in our lifetime this can cause vacuum decay? 
Edited by Timboo, Today, 03:45 PM.

 

  •  

Dubbelosix, on 17 Feb 2020 - 5:33 PM, said:snapback.png

If the fine structure changes, then it's not actually a constant. If photons lose energy with expansion, then they are subject to time delays. What you say is possible, whether it is actually real is another matter for a deeper discussion.


So it is possible then in our lifetime this can cause vacuum decay? If the dead galaxy that was found not long ago was caused by a change in the fine structure constant then vacuum decay could be on its way? 
Edited by Timboo, Today, 04:07 PM.

 

 

Timboo, on 18 Feb 2020 - 10:38 AM, said:snapback.png

So it is possible then in our lifetime this can cause vacuum decay?


Yes, but the decay would be a quantum leap from one configuration to another. Whether it is reversible is another issue. 

 

 

Timboo, on 18 Feb 2020 - 10:58 AM, said:snapback.png

So it is possible then in our lifetime this can cause vacuum decay? If the dead galaxy that was found not long ago was caused by a change in the fine structure constant then vacuum decay could be on its way?


Maybe, but it would also mean that acceleration of galaxies in distant sources tell us about the expansion in the past, so it may be that we can only trust the local acceleration of galaxies. 

 

Dubbelosix, on 18 Feb 2020 - 2:38 PM, said:snapback.png

Maybe, but it would also mean that acceleration of galaxies in distant sources tell us about the expansion in the past, so it may be that we can only trust the local acceleration of galaxies.


I am not sure what you mean 

 

  •  

Dubbelosix, on 18 Feb 2020 - 2:37 PM, said:snapback.png

Yes, but the decay would be a quantum leap from one configuration to another. Whether it is reversible is another issue.


So you also believe vacuum decay will happen soon

 

Maybe, maybe not. If the universe is actually decelerating, then it will reach a new phase. But the scales will be different.
Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soooo...
Not real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s not a link.

Share this post


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

Soooo...
Not real.

What is not real 

i am just asking for the truth

Edited by Bmpbmp1975

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

What is not real 

!

Moderator Note

Your interest in learning, it seems.

!

Moderator Note

Thread closed.

 
 

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.