Jump to content

Are we living in false vacuum?


Recommended Posts

Hello All,
This is quote from Wikipedia entry if Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics

Quote:
Some cosmologists argue that the universe is in a false vacuum state and that consequently the universe should have already experienced quantum tunnelling to a true vacuum state. This has not happened and is cited as evidence in favor of many-worlds. In some worlds, quantum tunnelling to a true vacuum state has happened but most other worlds escape this tunneling and remain viable. This can be thought of as a variation on quantum suicide.

 

 

So,we live in false vacuum and is indication of many worlds?
Any thoughts?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We may or may not be in a false vacuum as opposed to the true vacuum.

 

The model you want to look at is De-Sitter/anti-De-Sitter model

We may or may not be in a false vacuum as opposed to the true vacuum.

 

The model you want to look at is De-Sitter/anti-De-Sitter model.

 

The original false vacuum inflation model is a quantum tunnelling process

In the false vacuum model inflation occurs due to false vacuum tunneling to the true vacuum. There is later inflation models such as chaotic eternal inflation, and the slow roll approximation that are still valid and uses the same process. So I'm not sure where this wiki article is getting its reference from. Can you link the particular page please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the referenced paper and quite frankly it made zero sense.

 

His metrics appears based on a toy universe with K=+1 open infinite universe with positive curvature.

 

Where our universe is k=0. Flat.

 

His age of the universe is way higher than our own.

 

That was just at a quick glance, seems sketchy to my reading

The k=+1 would make sense for a false vacuum state according to the FLRW metric . However our state is k=0 or extremely close to flat.

 

Ah I see what the discrepancy is the paper was released prior to WMAP. It's out of date. Prior to WMAP the curvature constant was still highly debatable

Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the referenced paper and quite frankly it made zero sense.

 

His metrics appears based on a toy universe with K=+1 open infinite universe with positive curvature.

 

Where our universe is k=0. Flat.

 

His age of the universe is way higher than our own.

 

That was just at a quick glance, seems sketchy to my reading

The k=+1 would make sense for a false vacuum state according to the FLRW metric . However our state is k=0 or extremely close to flat.

 

Just to note I wasn't promoting that hypothesis - or any in fact; merely showing the paucity of ideas that might move towards testing the interpretations. But thanks your analysis - it backs up my gut that it was either missing a lot of details or was a really bad example of wiki-writing

 

 

This has not happened and is cited as evidence in favor of many-worlds. In some worlds, quantum tunnelling to a true vacuum state has happened but most other worlds escape this tunneling and remain viable

 

This bit was so vague I expected the wikipedian protester to jump up as I moused over it. That sort of claim would get ripped to shreds in Specs forum :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the fact that expansion is accelerating mean that the universe is still slowly rolling down the 'Mexican hat' potential towards a 'true' zero vacuum state ( which it may never reach ), and be an indication that the universe hasn't tunneled to that state yet, if ever ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some models that support the slow roll as being associated with our current expansion. From what I gather from some articles I've looked over in the past its certainly not implausible.

 

My personal feelings however is in the Higgs mexican hat potential mechanism being responsible for both inflation and expansion. However it's still plausible for the inflaton slow roll to still be gradually declining.

There is still 70+ viable to observable evidence inflation models.

 

Planck data supports the single scalar models, which may narrow that list down to 7 viable. However multiscalar models aren't ruled out just yet.

(Just a side note. Pop media articles typically state that Higgs inflation requires supersymnetric particles.)

 

This isn't exactly true, SO(10) MSSM(minimal super symmetric model) is more commonly associated with the seesaw mechanism, however there is a little known and hard to find good papers on SO(10) MSM (minimal standard model) model that also includes the seesaw mechanism. Both models can support inflation and expansion.) Primarily due to both includes the standard model Higgs.

Edited by Mordred
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea it's one reason more support is on the MSSM varient

I can't recall how SO(10) MSM handled the Hierarchy problem, I recall there was a solution in a dissertation I read but I can't recall the details

I might still have that dissertation at home. However I'm in the field for a week still

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
×
×
  • 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.