University of Mohaghegh Ardabili
Discussion
Started 6 March 2024
What is a phenomenon called "false vacuum collapse"?
What is a phenomenon called "false vacuum collapse"?
as you know :
Mean field energy and bubble formation. The cloud is initially prepared in FV with all atoms in |↑⟩ (A). Although the single spin mode |↓⟩ is lower in energy in the center of the cloud (E↓E↑), the opposite is true in the low-density tails. The interface (domain wall) between ferromagnetic regions with opposite magnetism has positive (kinetic) energy, which is added to the minimum double energy resulting from ferromagnetic interaction. Macroscopic tunneling can occur resonantly in the bubble mode (B), which has a |↓⟩ bubble in the center. The increase in core energy compensates for the cost of domain-wall energy. Crossing the barrier can be caused by quantum fluctuations at zero temperature (full arrow) or by thermal fluctuations at finite temperature (empty arrow). After the tunneling process, the bubble size increases in the presence of dissipation to reach the true vacuum (TV) state (C), without returning to (A). Credit: Nature Physics (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41567-023-02345-4
An experiment carried out in Italy with theoretical support from the University of Newcastle provided the first experimental evidence of vacuum decay.
In quantum field theory, when a not-so-stable state becomes a true stable state, it is called a "pseudovacuum collapse." This happens through the creation of small local bubbles. While existing theoretical work can predict how often this bubble formation occurs, there is not much empirical evidence.
The Pitaevskii Center for Supercold Atoms Laboratory for the Bose-Einstein Condensation in Trento reports for the first time observations of phenomena related to the stability of our universe. The results are the result of a collaboration between the University of Newcastle, the National Institute of Optics CNR, the Department of Physics at the University of Trento and TIFFA-INFEN and are published in Nature Physics.
The results are supported by theoretical simulations and numerical models, confirming the origin of the decay quantum field and its thermal activation, and opening the way to simulate out-of-equilibrium quantum field phenomena in atomic systems.
This experiment uses a supercooled gas at a temperature less than one microkelvin from absolute zero. At this temperature, the bubbles appear as the vacuum collapses, and Newcastle University's Professor Ian Moss and Dr Tom Billam were able to conclusively show that the bubbles are the result of heat-activated vacuum collapse.
Ian Moss, Professor of Theoretical Cosmology at Newcastle University's School of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics, said: "Vacuum collapse is thought to play a central role in the creation of space, time and matter in the Big Bang, but so far it has not. In particle physics, the decay of the Higgs boson vacuum changes the laws of physics and creates what has been described as the 'ultimate ecological catastrophe'."
Dr Tom Bilam, Senior Lecturer in Applied/Quantum Mathematics, added: "Using the power of ultracold atom experiments to simulate analogues of quantum physics in other systems – in this case the early universe itself – is a very exciting area of research. the moment."
This research opens new avenues in understanding the early universe as well as ferromagnetic quantum phase transitions.
This groundbreaking experiment is only the first step in the discovery of vacuum decay. The ultimate goal is to find vacuum decay at absolute zero temperature, where the process is driven solely by quantum vacuum fluctuations. An experiment in Cambridge, supported by Newcastle as part of the national QSimFP collaboration, is doing just that.
Stam Nicolis added a reply:
Just what the name says: There are many physical systems, whose potential energy, in the absence of fluctuations, possesses more than one minima. If these minima are not degenerate, it can occur that one is the absolute minimum, however, due to the choice of initial conditions, the system is found in another minimum. In the absence of fluctuations, it will stay in the potential well of that minimum.
In the presence of fluctuations, it can occur that the relative minimum is no longer a minimum: In that case the system won't stay there forever and it is possible to compute the rate at which it will evolve to another state.
While the presence of fluctuations is a necessary condition, it isn't sufficient for transitions to be possible.
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
“What is a phenomenon called "false vacuum collapse"?”
- the answer to this question is: the question really is absurdity, since really there cannot be fundamentally any “false vacuum”, i.e. that really is an fundamental absurdity, and so its “collapse” is absurdity as well.
Though yeah, in mainstream physics really rather numerous fantastic/mystic “true/false vacuums” really exist, and corresponding publications, where corresponding fantastic/mystic properties and effects of/in the vacuums are “discovered”, are well popular and numerous.
That exists in the mainstream completely logically inevitably from the fact that in the mainstream all really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all on this case “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., including “vacuum”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to something that is really fundamental, the results completely inevitably are only some the fantasies.
More see recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_a_super_vacuum_Is_the_earth_in_a_vacuum_And_what_is_dark_energy , and links in the post; reDzennn comment, 9/8 [because of too active moderator] passages, to a Nature Physics (2024) paper in
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-phenomenon-false-vacuum-decay.html) directly relates to the thread question.
Zoltan Vilagosh added a reply:
Not that complicated really. False vacuum example = because you cannot see over the hill, you think are at the lowest level possible. This makes you think you have no potential energy left. But a surprise awaits if you make it to the top of the hill...you tumble lower onto the vast endless plain on the other side.
__/\O/\
\
\__O
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
“…Not that complicated really. False vacuum example = because you cannot see over the hill, you think are at the lowest level possible. This makes you think you have no potential energy left. But a surprise awaits if you make it to the top of the hill...you tumble lower onto the vast endless plain on the other side. …..”
- that above looks as tooo not complicated passage really, though, again, on such level the authors of the paper in a top physical Nature Physics (2024) journal also thought,
- which “discovered” “false vacuum bubbles decays” in some Bose-Einstein Cond sate of Na-23 atoms, more see reDzennn comment, 8 passages, in https://phys.org/news/2024-01-phenomenon-false-vacuum-decay.html, the strangely removed by moderator passage is in the end of whole comments series.
Though yeah, the really full stop “false vacuum” theories are rather popular in mainstream physics, including rather popular is the theory that Matter was created soon 14 billion years ago at some “bubble in spacetime decay”. Thank heavens till now no any even small bubbles didn’t decay near Earth, and nowhere in Space at all, in last 10 billion of years Milky Way existence.
However, again, this full stop – and so quite easily composed - fantasies are so rather popular, and in this case so some people don’t like the comment, correspondingly it is heavily “down voted”.
Most recent answer
My dear Sergey Shevchenko
Emeritus doctor at the Institute of Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
Ukraine
Hello and thank you very much for your courtesy and respect. Abbas
All replies (4)
formerly conicet and universidad nacional del litoral
Perhaps vacuum does not collapse,
but you know the saying, nature abhors vacuum.
False vacuum collapse is a theoretical concept in particle physics and cosmology. It suggests that our universe might currently exist in a metastable vacuum state, also known as a false vacuum. If this false vacuum were to collapse to a lower energy state, it could trigger catastrophic consequences, such as the destruction of all matter and the laws of physics as we know them. This hypothetical scenario is based on certain models in quantum field theory and the structure of the universe. However, there is currently no empirical evidence to support the occurrence of false vacuum collapse.
Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The scientific answer to the thread question is given in two SS posts that are quoted in the thread’s preface. If quite briefly – the “super”, “false”, etc., “vacuums”, their “collapses”, etc., ”studying of which is rather popular in mainstream “fundamental” physics and cosmology,
- are completely transcendent fantasies that are composed by people who fundamentally have only some completely transcendent imagination about what fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter”, and so really what is everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, etc., is/are.
Correspondingly all these “vacuums” “theories/models” are based on completely fantastic assumptions, which are outside even real mainstream physics, and, at that, by no means can be tested experimentally.
But composing fantastic fairy tales is quite easy job, and so, again, the theories/models are well popular in the mainstream; and, since besides these theories/models in the mainstream there exist numerous other ones, where equally fantastic “new physicses” are “discovered” , so all this trash without any problems is publishing in, including top, physical journals.
Real new physics is possible only
- provided that at least a few fundamental phenomena/notions, besides “Matter” that are “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, which are also completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational in the mainstream physics, are really scientifically defined, what is possible, and done, only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
- and practically only as Planck scale physics, the base of this physics see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are
So more see the SS posts in the preface, here only repeat some links where the thread question is , is additionally answered/commented:
reDzennn comment, 9/8 [because of too active moderator] passages, to a Nature Physics (2024) paper in
Cheers
Similar questions and discussions
What is a super vacuum? Is the earth in a vacuum? And what is dark energy?
What is a super vacuum? Is the earth in a vacuum? And what is dark energy?
It has not been proven until today and nature has always applied and proven exceptions and violations in the accepted theories many times in the past. That these were merely human formalisms and experimental artifacts and exploiting the limits of technology, and physical limits and laws are constantly being broken and bent in nature. Hereby we will attempt to show theoretically why and how there is and experimentally evidence in our universe of vacuum space, either in its theoretically idealized absolute form, thus free space or the partial vacuum that characterizes the vacuum of QED or QCD. And its zero-point energy and oscillations may actually be the greatest proof in nature for super energy.
It is possible without violating causation. that the apparent effect of "nothing" of vacuum space may be evidence for it
superluminocity and all this time it was hidden right in front of us. We are here trying to answer a fundamental question of physics, why the vacuum is basically space to us looks like nothing on the assumption that "nothing" exists in nature, and why a hypothetical superluminous vibration, a particle the size of Planck creates apparent nothingness in our spacetime. The novelty of the research here infers that free space is dark energy and that superluminous energy.
Stam Nicolis added a reply:
(1) Depends what is meant by ``super vacuum''. The words must, first, be defined, before questions can be asked. As it stands, it doesn't mean anything.
(2) To a good approximation the earth is moving around the Sun in a vacuum, i.e. its motion can be described by Newtonian mechanics, where the only bodies are the Earth and the Sun and the force between them is Newton's force of gravitation.
(3) Dark energy is the property of space and time that describes the fact that the Universe isn't, simply, expanding, but that this expansion is accelerating. To detect its effects it's necessary to measure the motion of bodies outside our galaxy.
To understand all this it's necessary to study classical mechanics-that leads to understanding the answer to the second question-and general relativity-in order to understand the answer to the third
László Attila Horváth added a reply:
Dear Abbas Kashani ,
The graviton - which creates or capture elementary X-rays and gamma rays- , by itself, it can be considered almost like a super vacuum.
Sergey Shevchenko added a reply:
What are rather numerous, and really strange, “vacuums” in mainstream physics, and what are two real vacuums is explained in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model , 3 main papers are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physicssection 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”
The first vacuum is the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), which is the actualization of the Logos set elements “Space” and “Time” [what are “Logos” set, “Space” and “Time” see first pages in 1-st or 2-nd links] at creation and existence of a concrete informational system “Matter”,
- i.e. this vacuum is a logical possibility for/of Matter’s existence and evolving, and so is by definition nothing else than some fundamentally “empty container” , i.e. is “real/absolute” vacuum.
The second vacuum, which can be indeed rationally called “physical vacuum”, is the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which is placed in the Matter’s spacetime above;
- while all matter in Matter, i.e. all particles, fields, stars, galaxies, etc., are only disturbances in the lattice, that were/are created at impacts on some the lattice’s FLE. At that it looks as rather rational scientifically to assume, that such vacuum really existed – that was the initial version of the lattice that was created/formed at the “inflation epoch”, more see the SS&VT initial cosmological model in section “Cosmology” in 2-nd link.
After this initial lattice version was created, in the lattice a huge portion of energy was pumped uniformly globally [and non-uniformly locally], what resulted in Matter’s “matter” creation, which we observe now.
Since all disturbances always and constantly move in the lattice with 4D speeds of light, now can be only some “local physical vacuums”, etc.;
- though that is really quite inessential – the notion “physical vacuum” is completely useless and even wrong, since the really scientifically defined FLE lattice is completely enough at description n and analysis of everything that exists and happens in Matter. The introduced in mainstream physics “vacuums” really are nothing else than some transcendent/mystic/fantastic mental constructions that exist in mainstream physics because of in the mainstream all fundamental phenomena/notions, including “Matter”, “Space/space”, “Time/time” are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational,
- while these, and not only, really fundamental phenomena/notions can be, and are, really rigorously scientifically defined only in framework of the SS&VT philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
- the SS&VT physical model is based on which.
More see the links above, a couple of SS posts in
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_concept_of_quantized_vacuum_And_what_is_the_role_of_gravity_in_nature_And_what_is_the_relationship_between_dark_energy_and_quantum_gravi are relevant in this case also.
Abderrahman el Boukili added a reply:
Super vacuum, in my view, is just the vacuum itself, that is, the channel through which the universe of particles and anti-particles intersects.
Courtney Seligman added a reply:
For all practical purposes, the Earth is moving through a vacuum as it orbits the Sun, as there is so little of anything in any given place that only the most sensitive instruments could tell that there was anything there. But there are microscopic pieces of stuff that used to be inside asteroids or comets, and pieces of atoms blown out of the Sun as the Solar Wind, and cosmic rays that manage to get through the Sun's "heliosphere" and run into anything that happens to be in their way. So though the essentially empty space around the Earth would qualify as a vacuum by any historical standard, it isn't an absolutely perfect vacuum. And I suppose a "super vacuum" would be a region where there isn't anything at all, including not only matter, but also any form of energy (which has a mass equivalence of sorts, per Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity); and if so, then "super vacuums" do not exist.
【NO.30】The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics (6) - Are Planck Scales Constants, Parameters, or Principles?
Can Physical Constants Which Are Obtained with Combinations of Fundamental Physical Constants Have a More Fundamental Nature?
Planck Scales (Planck's 'units of measurement') are different combinations of the three physical constants h, c, G, Planck Scales=f(c,h,G):
Planck Time: tp=√ℏG/c^5=5.31x10^-44s ......(1)
Planck Length: Lp=√ℏG/c^3=1.62x10^-35m ......(2)
Planck Mass: Mp=√ℏc/G=2.18x10^-8 kg ......(3)
“These quantities will retain their natural meaning for as long as the laws of gravity, the propagation of light in vacuum and the two principles of the theory of heat hold, and, even if measured by different intelligences and using different methods, must always remain the same.”[1] And because of the possible relation between Mp and the radius of the Schwarzschild black hole, the possible generalized uncertainty principle [2], makes them a dependent basis for new physics [3]. But what exactly is their natural meaning?
However, the physical constants, the speed of light, c, the Planck constant, h, and the gravitational constant, G, are clear, fundamental, and invariant.
c: bounds the relationship between Space and Time, with c = ΔL/ Δt, and Lorentz invariance [4];
h: bounds the relationship between Energy and Momentum with h=E/ν = Pλ, and energy-momentum conservation [5][6];
G: bounds the relationship between Space-Time and Energy-Momentum, with the Einstein field equation c^4* Gμν = (8πG) * Tμν, and general covariance [7].
The physical constants c, h, G already determine all fundamental physical phenomena‡. So, can the Planck Scales obtained by combining them be even more fundamental than they are? Could it be that the essence of physics is (c, h, G) = f(tp, Lp, Mp)? rather than equations (1), (2), (3). From what physical fact, or what physical imagination, are we supposed to get this notion? Never seeing such an argument, we just take it and use it, and still recognize c,h,G fundamentality. Obviously, Planck Scales are not fundamental physical constants, they can only be regarded as a kind of 'units of measurement'.
So are they a kind of parameter? According to Eqs. (1)(2)(3), c,h,G can be directly replaced by c,h,G and the substitution expression loses its meaning.
So are they a principle? Then who are they expressing? What kind of behavioral pattern is expressed? The theory of quantum gravity takes this as a " baseline ", only in the order sense, not in the exact numerical value.
Thus, Planck time, length, mass, determined entirely by h, c, G, do they really have unquestionable physical significance?
-----------------------------------------
Notes
‡ Please ignore for the moment the phenomena within the nucleus of the atom, eventually we will understand that they are still determined by these three constants.
-----------------------------------------
References
[1] Robotti, N. and M. Badino (2001). "Max Planck and the 'Constants of Nature'." Annals of Science 58(2): 137-162.
[2] Maggiore, M. (1993). A generalized uncertainty principle in quantum gravity. Physics Letters B, 304(1), 65-69. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(93)91401-8
[3] Kiefer, C. (2006). Quantum gravity: general introduction and recent developments. Annalen der Physik, 518(1-2), 129-148.
[4] Einstein, A. (1905). On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Annalen der Physik, 17(10), 891-921.
[5] Planck, M. (1900). The theory of heat radiation (1914 (Translation) ed., Vol. 144).
[6] Einstein, A. (1917). Physikalisehe Zeitschrift, xviii, p.121
[7] Petruzziello, L. (2020). A dissertation on General Covariance and its application in particle physics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
Related Publications
Cable shear behavior in reinforcing rock discontinuities involves both the axial shear behaviour along the cable-grout interface and the local lateral shear behaviour of the cable deflecting section. This is a complex condition which is difficult to be solved in a theoretical manner. Pile structural elements in Flac3D were used here to investigate...
