Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Having trouble with understanding video

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    395

    Having trouble with understanding video

    I took a few people’s advice here and starting reading actual factual articles. Came across this video and around the 50 min or so she talks about vacuum decay. Besides the constant yeahs from Katie she seems to bounce around on her timeframes and probabilities. I listened to it a few times now from that point and do not understand what she is trying to say. She says 10 to the 60 but then says black holes and primordials and stuff like that anytime. I know most people here hate videos rather than papers and I am sorry but if anyone has actually seen this before and can possibly provide me a base idea of what she is saying it would be great. I think I understood it but am curious for another feedback to see if I actually did.

    The big part that confuses me is how she mentions due to the lhc they now know it’s possible with better probability of having anytime because lhc has proven the universe has changed from false to meta and will be changing again?

    Also I know that some of you may feel you have provided the answers in other posts and I understand them but I am trying to understand how you drew those answers and how in the future I can also. It’s easy for someone who understands to know the probability but for someone who dosent then it’s hard to grasp reality vs let’s just say won’t happen in our lifetimes.

    Thank you

    https://youtu.be/9VspveUvCg0
    Last edited by Sinbad; 2020-Jan-28 at 03:43 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,956
    I am not going to try to make sense out of anybody's YouTube presentation of the vacuum decay topic, for the simple reason that I do not have the mathematical knowhow to evaluate the theory. My educated guess is that few if any regular participants in this forum are conversant in that sort of mathematical model. If anyone reading this has the necessary background I will cheerfully stand corrected and respect their opinions on the topic. Sinbad, I think it is clear that you are an entry-level participant in astronomy and physics discussions, and that is okay as we all need to start somewhere. This is a good place to get well-informed answers on the basics about which the popular media frequently do a lousy job.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    395
    Also if I may add the end when they talk about gloom and legacy if they ever think it’s not worth it cause of the fact the universe will end. I don’t get her logic of unlikely and long ways away but depressed about it now?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Sinbad View Post
    I took a few people’s advice here and starting reading actual factual articles. Came across this video and around the 50 min or so she talks about vacuum decay. Besides the constant yeahs from Katie she seems to bounce around on her timeframes and probabilities. I listened to it a few times now from that point and do not understand what she is trying to say. She says 10 to the 60 but then says black holes and primordials and stuff like that anytime. I know most people here hate videos rather than papers and I am sorry but if anyone has actually seen this before and can possibly provide me a base idea of what she is saying it would be great. I think I understood it but am curious for another feedback to see if I actually did.
    She is not saying anything different than the things that have been discussed in other threads. I listened to a few minutes. The only timescale I heard was 1069 years as the time for black holes to decay once the universe has cooled enough to let them evaporate. That is a very long time:
    10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 years.

    And even then, we don't know that it could trigger vacuum decay. And there will no one around to know anyway (the universe is effectively over by then).

    The big part that confuses me is how she mentions due to the lhc they now know it’s possible with better probability of having anytime because lhc has proven the universe has changed from false to meta and will be changing again?
    The Higgs field is what gives mass to particles. It came to have its current value early on the universe through "symmetry breaking"; which is similar to the sort of vacuum decay we are talking about. Measurements indicate that its value may not be the lowest it could have (I don't know the details of that) which would make it possible that there is a "true vacuum" state that the universe could decay into.

    If the Universe is indeed metastable, then, technically, the transition could occur through quantum processes at any time. But it probably won’t – the lifetime of a metastable universe is predicted to be much longer than the current age of the Universe.
    So we don’t need to worry.
    https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/v...te-catastrophe

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    She is not saying anything different than the things that have been discussed in other threads. I listened to a few minutes. The only timescale I heard was 1069 years as the time for black holes to decay once the universe has cooled enough to let them evaporate. That is a very long time:
    10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 years.

    And even then, we don't know that it could trigger vacuum decay. And there will no one around to know anyway (the universe is effectively over by then).



    The Higgs field is what gives mass to particles. It came to have its current value early on the universe through "symmetry breaking"; which is similar to the sort of vacuum decay we are talking about. Measurements indicate that its value may not be the lowest it could have (I don't know the details of that) which would make it possible that there is a "true vacuum" state that the universe could decay into.


    https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/v...te-catastrophe

    The article posted is from 2015 and the video is from 2020, they has been new advances has there not?

    Also the constant anytime or any moment is where I get most confusion.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    18,878
    For anyone who finds these podcasts as soul-sappingly hellish as I do, there's an episode transcript here, which at least lets you skip through all the humming and hawing, endless repetition, and on-the-fly creation of bad analogies.

    Grant Hutchison

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,557
    This thread violates the instructions a moderator gave on closing another thread by Sinbad. Infraction issued, thread will remain closed.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •