Kurzgesagt - The Most Efficient Way to Destroy a Universe - False Vacuum
39 replies, posted
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;51243363]so it's like a worse black hole?[/QUOTE]
It's nothing like a black hole, and yes it's much worse considering there's billions of black holes around and we don't really notice it.
[QUOTE=paul simon;51243873]It's nothing like a black hole, and yes it's much worse considering there's billions of black holes around and we don't really notice it.[/QUOTE]
Well. There is one way that it could be worst. They do a video on it.
Super Black hole that sucks in itself and the universe.
[QUOTE=download;51239065]This graph from wikipedia helps visualise it:
[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Falsevacuum.svg/419px-Falsevacuum.svg.png[/img]
What we think is the lowest energy state isn't really the lowest energy state. To get to the true lowest energy state (which will release an enormous amount of stored energy) will require a very large amount of energy to get over the "hump".[/QUOTE]
Quantum tunneling doesn't require it to get over the "hump" though.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;51245288]Quantum tunneling doesn't require it to get over the "hump" though.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't it require energy though?
[QUOTE=download;51246542]Doesn't it require energy though?[/QUOTE]
No. It's not exactly a process. Whereas the probability of finding a particle in a state is very sharp classically (100% at the place where the particle is), it's fuzzy quantum mechanically. So the probability that a field is in a particular state "leaks out" of the potential well it's sitting in in your diagram. That means there's a probability that if you take a measurement, you'll find the universe in the true vacuum state, even though you'd need extra energy to get over that hump classically.
For a concrete example, a quantum mechanical particle in a finitely-deep potential well with square sides, from which the particle does not have the energy to escape classically, has a nonzero probability to be found in the region of higher potential even in its lowest-energy state. The probability "leaks out" of the well, though it falls off quickly the further you go from the classically-allowed zone. It looks somewhat [url=http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/imgqua/finwel.gif]like this image on the right[/url].
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51246636]No. It's not exactly a process. Whereas the probability of finding a particle in a state is very sharp classically (100% at the place where the particle is), it's fuzzy quantum mechanically. So the probability that a field is in a particular state "leaks out" of the potential well it's sitting in in your diagram. That means there's a probability that if you take a measurement, you'll find the universe in the true vacuum state, even though you'd need extra energy to get over that hump classically.
For a concrete example, a quantum mechanical particle in a finitely-deep potential well with square sides, from which the particle does not have the energy to escape classically, has a nonzero probability to be found in the region of higher potential even in its lowest-energy state. The probability "leaks out" of the well, though it falls off quickly the further you go from the classically-allowed zone. It looks somewhat [url=http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/imgqua/finwel.gif]like this image on the right[/url].[/QUOTE]
Fascinating.
What stops a particle somewhere in the universe from tunnelling from its present energy level to the true vacuum? I would assume that with tunnelling there is a non-zero chance of a particle being anywhere and there's a lot of particle in the universe.
[QUOTE=download;51246747]Fascinating.
What stops a particle somewhere in the universe from tunnelling from its present energy level to the true vacuum? I would assume that with tunnelling there is a non-zero chance of a particle being anywhere and there's a lot of particle in the universe.[/QUOTE]
The probability is usually quite low. Most of the reason we see classical behavior is because the probabilities are [I]hugely[/I] in favor of finding particles at their classical locations in situations at everyday conditions. The only thing is that if you have a very small chance of something happening per second, over a long enough time period it will become likely. For instance, if you have some event that has a 1 in a million chance per second of occurring, it seems very unlikely from second to second, but it only takes about 8 days of waiting until you have a 50% likelihood for that event to have occurred.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.