False vacuum decay

False vacuum decay

RickardM 11 Aug 2010 21:40

I've seen discussions about this here and there and just thought I'd run this by you to see if someone could explain why this is supposed to happen when the LHC start colliding havy ions? Isn't the energy required for something like a vacuum bubble to form waaay beyond what LHC can perform in Pb-Pb collisions?

I tried consulting the trustworthy LSAG-report but vacuum decay/vacuum metastability or whatever you may call it isn't really covered there, at least not as thouroughly as microscopic black holes and strangelets. The only thing they mention is that CR reaches far higher energies and so on, and not a single mathematical evidence that this couldn't possibly happen. It seems strange that this is so poorly covered since this is the worst scenario of them all.

Is it neglected because it is so incredibly unlikelly or because they simply don't know all that much about what could trigger such event?

Would all kinds of vacuum bubbles more or less trigger a phase transition or is there benevolent vacuum bubbles just like there are harmless strangelets and microscopic black holes?

Sorry for going offtopic here, but this stuff really got me anxious again.

---

Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan

Re: False vacuum decay

UndeadxNurse 12 Aug 2010 03:11

I would say that they haven't even considered it because, as you said, it is incredibly unlikely.

---

Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.

Re: False vacuum decay

Astrogeek 12 Aug 2010 03:44

this idea was raised when another collider was brought online, and somewhere in the forum there is a link to a paper debunking the idea of a 'false vacuum decay', based on (among other things) the continued existence of the moon.

I will see if I can find it.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: False vacuum decay

Moo (guest) 12 Aug 2010 03:45

The LHC also cannot produce nearly enough energy to even attempt it… if it, you know, wasn't a bogus theory.

Which it is.

Re: False vacuum decay

Astrogeek 12 Aug 2010 03:52

This isn't the link I was looking for, but this thread has an extensive discussion of the LHC with many links to articles regarding its safety.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: False vacuum decay

RickardM 12 Aug 2010 10:59

Thank you all for the answers. I don't have any problem accepting the safety in general of the LHC, especially not after the lenghty disscusion we had in the other thread=) I do however find it strange that the vacuum decay part is so poorly covered in the LSAG report. I mean, all the scenarios portrayed in it is pure speculations but it seems as if LSAG hasn't been able to account for the risk of a false vacuum decay properly.

John Ellis said in one of his talks about the safety of LHC that the people who got the most affected by the fearmongering was those who had some understanding of how physics work, but not enough to be able to separate crap from gold so to speak. That I can account for, gladly.

My understanding of physics stretches no further than some crash courses in quantum physics back in college.

I know that quantum tunnelling is something that basically could happen any second, although some doubt that we even live in a false vacuum to begin with. If we live in a true vacuum then it's all fine, because no energies in the world would be enough to trigger a phase transition.

The problem I have with this scenario is just that it is so poorly covered. There simply isn't enough research done on heavy ion collisions and/or bubble nucleition to calm my mind. I know most think that a phase transition is quite unscary since we would cease to exist in less than a second, but still….

So if anyone know if Pb-Pb collisions (heavy ions) are less or more dangerous than P-P collisions (pure proton collisions) I would be more than glad?

What are your general oppinion on high energy physics (both heavy ion and proton collisions)? Safe/Unsafe?

---

Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan

Re: False vacuum decay

UndeadxNurse 12 Aug 2010 12:48

My general opinion is that it's just like any other new field of scientific research.
Correct me if I'm wrong on the date and name(s), but in 1932, Ernest Walton and John Cockroft were the two individuals to split the first Atom, now I'm sure that you can imagine that there were many concerns of the splitting of the Atom at that time.

The first Atomic Bomb began its production in 1939, I believe, and with the production of such a powerful weapon, also came with it a flood of negative theories, besides the obvious fact of its destructive power. Many things, just like now, were blown out of proportion. In spite of the oxymoron-like statement of calling the Atom-Bomb "safe", it was, in fact, safe. Until it was actually used in war in 1945.

Feel free to correct the dates or, names if they're wrong or misspelled, not 100% sure on my history on this particular section.

---

Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.

Re: False vacuum decay

RickardM 12 Aug 2010 18:31

My general opinion is that it's just like any other new field of scientific research.

I think that's spot on, it is just like any other field. I remember reading somewhere that there were speculations that the human body would explode if one were to travel faster than 30mph when the automobiles were introduced. Likewise as there were concerns that hydrogen bombs would empty all hydrogen of our atmosphere upon explosion. I think both were proven wrong=)

Even so, I find high energy physics both scary and exciting. And when the consequence of scientists being wrong is a bubble nucleition that engulfs the universe I tend to weigh over to the scary part=)

---

Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan

Re: False vacuum decay

elsgeorge 12 Aug 2010 19:29

Ok, I have tried to read up on the particle collision information, but it's way over my head. I'm just curious…why in the world would anyone want to do this? For what reason is it even being done? And, especially if there's so much speculation and worry about it causing such an 'unlikely event' as Rickard mentions above, why is it even being thought of. I do apologize, I am kinda dumb (ok, really dumb) when it comes to physics and I'm just not understanding.

---

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare

Re: False vacuum decay

UndeadxNurse 13 Aug 2010 04:44

That's a good question, Els, but if you're asking that then you may as well ask why they decided to invent the light-bulb or, the atom-bomb. Like before, we can only speculate on their reasons, but for the time being, the most accepted reason is that this research holds the possibility of revealing how our Universe came to be and possibly how we came to be.

That's the point of speculation, anything new or, strange, will attract those who will say that it is dangerous to our species. Electricity? It could electrocute everyone on the planet. Light-bulb? It could explode! Vehicle? It could squash us by traveling more than 30mph! Camera? It will steal our souls!

I'm sure you see where this is going.

---

Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.

Re: False vacuum decay

elsgeorge 13 Aug 2010 19:10

Yes, I see :) And it makes perfect sense, too. Things of the unknown, such as this LHC stuff today, to us, can cause uncertainty (fear). Just like you mentioned with the inventions of the light bulb, electricity, etc. I'm sure back then, uncertainty over these things loomed as well. Great point, thanks!!!

I do have a faith-based thought/question for ya though…isn't tampering around with this sort of science considered to be like sacrilege..like fooling around with God's creation? And do you really think that we, as humans, have the power to simulate (looking for a better word here) or re-create the existence of our universe or of our civilization?

That's my only concern for this to be potentially dangerous to our species..are we messing with God's plan and if we are, will we be punished for it??

---

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare

Re: False vacuum decay

Astrogeek 13 Aug 2010 19:18

Well, most of the posters in these forums will probably turn out to be either atheist or agnostic, which is fine. I happen to be a Christian (although I suppose that I am an atypical Christian by the standards of most Americans), so I'll address your question from my standpoint:

No. I don't think we will be punished for using the brains that God gave us.

Does that help?

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: False vacuum decay

elsgeorge 13 Aug 2010 19:29

Yeah, it does..after all, since we (not all) believe that we come from Him, He gave us this intelligence!! Good point Astro!! You are so awesome, lol!! But no, really, you are!!

---

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare

Re: False vacuum decay

Moo (guest) 13 Aug 2010 19:31

What Astrogeek said is pretty much why I do not believe in a "Rapture" or "Judgment Day" or whatever you all call a religious doomsday. God would not have given us the ability to do things that went against it's design unless it wanted to see what our limits were in discovery.

Mind you, I'm an atheist. However, I do honor the morals the Bible tries to teach people, and nothing more of it. I am open-minded, however, so my opinion is not me trying to spit on God or what not.

So, yeah. If it angers God to the point of killing us all for using what we were given, then God's a jerk. We would not have been given our limitless capacity if we weren't expected to use it to that end.

And, ultimately, if our limitless capacity was not meant to be abused, it just further proves that we're superior to that which created us. If, you know, you're into creatism or however you spell it.

So, yeah. Sort of also sums up my atheist stance, too. I just can't believe in any form of Biblical Apocalypse or Second Coming or what have you. I refuse to acknowledge our potential creator is that much of a crybaby to wipe us all out for using what we were given.

Just like we weren't given the natural ability to fly, or to breathe underwater, or anything like that… if we weren't meant to use our minds to their very limits, then yeeeeah.

TL;DR - God's a woman.

Re: False vacuum decay

Astrogeek 13 Aug 2010 19:37

Heh… yes, I tend to really annoy some of my fellow Christians, when I make statements that run against their particular doctrine. In fact, based purely on my outlook on science and reason, most people think I am an atheist, which I find strangely amusing and simultaneously complimentary.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: False vacuum decay

elsgeorge 13 Aug 2010 19:51

Well, people tend to conform to certain ideas and practices when it comes to religion. I am not a deeply religious person and I do not go to church (on a regular basis) but I am spiritual and I have my faith..and I see nothing wrong with that..people should be allowed to embrace religion and faith in their own ways. Whatever's comfortable to them..

---

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare

Re: False vacuum decay

elsgeorge 13 Aug 2010 19:45

Thanks Moo!! Great points!! Even though I am not an atheist, I respect those who have differing views of faith and you make great points that I cannot argue with! Why would any creator create man, give him intelligence and then want to punish him for using it? After all, we got the intelligence from the creator, so I totally see your point(s).

---

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare

Re: False vacuum decay

Moo (guest) 14 Aug 2010 02:46

Yeah. Really, my opinion of God and Jesus is just twisted by the portrayal that religion has shown for countless years. This whole "Great Creator/Savior > Almighty Purger" or whatever terms you want to use is just… insane.

If nothing else, I just believe the Bible is a work of fiction. God can exist, Jesus could have existed, though my impression is that he was just a normal man with a noble mission… but yeah. Then again, Book of Revelations is apocrypha, and I honestly think it was only accepted into the official bible canon for the sake of having a strong-arm to scare people into believing or being purged.

But this isn't a religious discussion forum. Just everytime I hear people go "Zomg we're all gonna die for going against God's plan!" or "Jesus is coming! Repent and be saved!" I go "Wow, our creator/savior is a real hypocrite. Thanks for ruining their images time and time again with your nonsense."

Re: False vacuum decay

elsgeorge 14 Aug 2010 03:31

Right!!! And I think a lot of people fight with themselves (and others) about that! It seems just as easy for people to add religion into the whole 2012 doomsday mix as pole shifts and planet X's are thrown in. Just another 'point' trying to be proved!!

---

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare

Re: False vacuum decay

UndeadxNurse 14 Aug 2010 05:44

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of Human frailty."

"I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Nobody could have said it better than Albert Einstein and with a full heart of confidence, I agree with Einstein.

---

Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.

Re: False vacuum decay

Moo (guest) 14 Aug 2010 06:58

Yeah, Einstein probably put it best. Then again I think he was trying to make both sides happy. Playing it safe, yo!

Just like those dirty agnostics!

… >.>

<.<

Exit Stage Left!