Coleman-De Luccia instanton

IN what way could some consistent measure be thought of, that such conditions while recognized in the false vacuum, and, with conditions of high energy considerations, be realized into useful information surrounding this move to the true vacuum? It would have to be geometrically explained. Planck epoch in itself, makes this very hard to do, so you use the action of the vacuum, from false to true, to help in that realization.

The volume of the haystack
Lubos Motl:

We don't have a real emotional intuition how "density" in a very-high-dimensional space should behave, but we should probably try to learn it. I feel that these (especially the de Sitter) vacua cannot be quite isolated. There are just many other vacua nearby (virtually all of them) into which one should be able to decay. KKLT only consider one Coleman-DeLuccia instanton, without an enhancement, and I feel it can't be the whole story

The Coleman-De Luccia instanton presents opportunities, or, is the paper countering this proposal? See link below for reference to paper.

I think one needed to understand this movement or how the false vacuum is understood, and how the true vacuum is created.

A geometical smoothly flowing understanding that arose out of "nothing!" Without some geometrical consistancy, this idea isn't going to go away, unless someone has a reason why, and if, that paper deals with it directly?

I remain non-judgemental about characters, and the nature people adopt. I only focus on those issues that would offer us some further ideas to exploit. To help us all push pespectve forward. While there is a facade in what the mind accumulates as the image of who we are, there is "kernels of truth" that we must seek to reference, so the knowledge base can increase, and intuitve leaps for the taking by who ever push persepctove add experimetal basis as a concluding result.

We'll leave the dance and facades for other to design themself. We always want them to be "whole" with what ever they have accepted in life.

Peter Woit recommends supersymmetry

Lubos Motl:

At any rate, quantum black holes do carry quantum information, the relevant entropy is, at least in some cases, attributable to the entanglement entropy, and the research of quantum entanglement in this context could turn out to be very fruitful which is why many of us should look at these "coincidences" more carefully. They may very well clarify the origin and mathematical details of the black hole complementarity

The circumstance around the nature of the state where such superfluids are created, needed some method in which to move, from "one state into another"(turned inside/out)?

If you hold the nature of the bubble universe and it's formation in mind, it does not seem so unlikely that you had the klein bottle, as some geometrical basis from which the false vacuum would direct itself into inflationary results?

So is the paper discounting the basis of the views of Coleman-De Luccia instanton?

The idea behind the Coleman-De Luccia instanton, discovered in 1987, is that the matter in the early universe is initially in a state known as a false vacuum. A false vacuum is a classically stable excited state which is quantum mechanically unstable. In the quantum theory, matter which is in a false vacuum may `tunnel' to its true vacuum state. The quantum tunnelling of the matter in the early universe was described by Coleman and De Luccia. They showed that false vacuum decay proceeds via the nucleation of bubbles in the false vacuum. Inside each bubble the matter has tunnelled. Surprisingly, the interior of such a bubble is an infinite open universe in which inflation may occur. The cosmological instanton describing the creation of an open universe via this bubble nucleation is known as a Coleman-De Luccia instanton.

Okay so we are talking about cosmological proportions here, in blackhole creation and the resulting standard model and interactions developed from the origins of this universe. Is it consistent all the way down to the planck epoch, and how would the planck epoch be described?

One would need to see the geometrical basis of what is hapening from one state to the next. Our universe into some other new expression, or blackhole states, that rejuvenize, using geometrical dynamics of what is already existing?

Would this run contrary to the arrow of time, by having such states within context of the whole universe? Would this not explain the susutenance need to keep the universe in the same state for a very long long time?

Backreaction

Do a search, under the heading of "backreaction in laval nozzle," for further references.

Black Holes and Analogues in Two Dimensions

Examples: acoustics in a moving fluid (“dumbholes”), BEC, Helium, slow light,

See:

Why Higher Energies

Why Higher Energies?

I guess I don't have to tell anyone how confusing all this stuff is and the need for a consistent picture to arise out of it.

New physics beyond the standard model of particle physics and parallel universes by Rainer Plaga

top-quark masses - for which the standard model predicts such a decay - cannot be interpreted as evidence for new physics at low energy scales.

The history of Risk Assessment, was a exercise into understanding the developing role as to what new physics should be? Strangelets and strange quarks arose from this?

The search for the very small requires very high energies. The discoveries necessary for the electroweak unification were near the upper end of available energies in the current generation of particle accelerators. Establishing Grand Unification is beyond the practical limits of earthbound laboratories. This forces particle physicists to look outward to astrophysical phenomena which may have enough energy to shed some light on further attempts at unifying the four fundamental forces.

This map defines the whole standard model and the phase transitions. We are talking about a "certain time" in the planck epoch. So what is happening "in" the Planck epoch?

If such energies had recognized the current state of the superfluid created, then anomalies in "this scenario" would have allowed such "geometrical presence to be channelled" as part of the cyclical features contained in the expression of the universe?

So you take this universe and apply the backhole on a cosmlogical scale eqaul to it's inflation, as a distance in the blackhole's radius? Such a crunch would have recognized the boundary conditions as a the furthest point this universe could have grown, from the original blackhole that created this universe?

So what evidence is left? That the universe and it's "dark matter" as the false vacuum is creating the scenarios for the universe to have found it's temeperature today, started from some "other condition" seen in the planck epoch? Okay how did you get there?

The bubble conditions would then have to existed in the superfluids? How would have geoemtrically arrived at such a "topology expressed" in this one universe?

Professor Satyendra Nath Bose, the founder of Bose-Einstein statistics and the discoverer of the “Boson,” is well known as a giant in the world of physics and science as the man who, along with Albert Einstein, revolutionized the world of theoretical physics and showed the world a new way to imagine how the world works.

The topological genus figure of the sphere, to a torus and it's rotation seen in characteristic, housed the equallibrium state arrived at, as to the channelling of that extra energy and the resulting "new physics" in the strange quarks created?

So what is "that cylinder" created as the jet is expressed, in the gravitational collapse

See: John Bahcall and the Neutrinos

Thus, this cycle is completed in the bulk perspective? Would have created the situation again in strong concentrations? Why cosmologically the conditons are "many" and such evidence pointing to ICECUBE, as to the conditons beyond the standard model, leads to questions about "cerenkov radiation?"

Is there no backreaction created, if we were to lets say look at the Laval nozzles, and understand that what is expressed in the standard model energy once ejected in the jet, would have had counter proposals manifest in the geomerical presence held to a whole universe. The Anti-matter? Non Qui

What First principle was-- was it the geometry

I thought I would contrast this quote of Dirac's with the one of Feynman's.

You see the very idea of a constancy that spread through all Maxwell's equations was a necessary one which allowed Einstein to move into positive and negative valuations within the geometries? So did Dirac know how this was to be approached?

Dirac:

When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.

Feynman:

‘Maxwell discussed … in terms of a model in which the vacuum was like an elastic … what counts are the equations themselves and not the model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are true or false … If we take away the model he used to build it, Maxwell’s beautiful edifice stands…’ – Richard P. Feynman, Feynman Lectures on Physics, v3, c18, p2.

Paul Dirac Talk: Projective Geometry, Origin of Quantum Equations Audio recording made by John B. Hart, Boston University, October 30, 1972

The quote below is in response to Dirac's comments

[ROGER PENROSE]

"One particular thing that struck me... [LAUGHTER]...is the fact that he found it necessary to translate all the results that he had achieved with such methods into algebraic notation. It struck me particularly, because remember I am told of Newton, when he wrote up his work, it was always exactly the opposite, in that he obtained so much of his results, so many of his results using analytical techniques and because of the general way in which things at that time had to be explained to people, he found it necessary to translate his results into the language of geometry, so his contemporaries could understand him. Well, I guess geometry… [INAUDIBLE] not quite the same topic as to whether one thinks theoretically or analytically, algebraically perhaps. This rule is perhaps touched upon at the beginning of Professor Dirac's talk, and I think it is a very interesting topic."

So the question might have been, how this was viewed and what the result was through such a axiomization? What was the first principe here? Was there one that became the guiding principal?

I mentioned the compass for Einstein, as a modelled perception that grew into the later years, but here, we might have seen the beginnings Feynmans toys model for such geometries?

G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1).

Here, each arrow represents a symmetry breaking phase transition where matter changes form and the groups - G, H, SU(3), etc. - represent the different types of matter, specifically the symmetries that the matter exhibits and they are associated with the different fundamental forces of nature

"Nothing to me would be more poetic; no outcome would be more graceful ... than for us to confirm our theories of the ultramicroscopic makeup of spacetime and matter by turning our giant telescopes skyward and gazing at the stars,"

Greene said.




Peter Woit:

Brian Greene was in the audience and somewhat objected to this. Brian's point of view appears to be the more traditional one that people should just try and cook up vacua with as many features as possible close to the Standard Model, and that once they've got such a thing it will have other implications for physics that can be checked. It seems to me that that kind of work has been going on for more than twenty years with no sign of success, but Brian still believes this will ultimately work out.

To me the idea of bubble dynamics is quite revealling when you place the context and question of the dynamics as underlying feelings(this is quite subjective). Much like GR, and these momentus occasions, that can move within our natures, as our comprehension grows. Time experienced in different ways, does this for us?:)It can still be a highly visula thing?:)

To not be mistaken, the questions materializes in the reasons why such dynamics may have been offerred in the same vain as GR, to see that this features becomes a signature of conscious effort, where what is being replaced, reveals some dynamics of the true vacuum?:)

So of course there are questions that need to be resolved. Some might not like to answer them and censor the blog of their own, so that blanket policies regardless of the question, is like who gives a **** about what you think in context of the larger picture of things. Of course they have their own agenda and have the right. It's their blog. I am quite greatful by such resistance presented, has forced me to expand here, where the truth of what I am seeing can be demonstrated.

But I have digressed some from the important question that is raised not only in Serkan's mind but mine as well. So resource info helps in perspective here.

Is QFT vacuum real?

Serkan Cabi:Almost everybody cite the Casimir effect as the proof of reality of quantum ground state of standard model fields. Lately it has become a commonsense especially in the dark energy literature, as an aspect deepening the problem.

So to me looking for an explanation of ths dynamics is a hard one to qualify as it suggested by some, that one wonders about the way early supersymmetrical idealizations have brought consideration to what emerges from these hottimes?



But there are other ways here, that having gotten a grasp of this elasticity of a membrane, that one can see how certain features are held too and others, are presented for further developement in the nature of those same psyches? Imagine introducing this memebrance and the elasticity. What has the mind grasped now?

Below Serkan helps to point out more info for consideration.

The Casimir Effect and the Quantum Vacuum

I have presented an argument that the experimental confirmation of the Casimir effect does not establish the reality of zero point fluctuations. Casimir forces can be calculated without reference to the vacuum and, like any other dynamical effect in QED, vanish as a→0. The vacuum-to-vacuum graphs (See Fig. 1) that define the zero point energy do not enter the calculation of the Casimir force, which instead only involves graphs with external lines. So the concept of zero point fluctuations is a heuristic and calculational aid in the description of the Casimir effect, but not a necessity.

This does not do away with the idea of what can happen within the confines of a vacuum, but ultimately, we realize that the speed of light remains the same, yet other dynamics when playing with physical things, can display wonderful intentions about about this elasticity nature?

Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles.

So it is a highly specialize vision that I had been moving towards that I wanted to make sure any bubble technolgies would encase all that we learnt. That we define the further reaches of what this bubble( K=0 before the crunch begins) might have encompassed? Revealled that outer value(K=0) of Friedman's equation and Omega in terms of what critical density would have expounded? In terms of the distance this bubble could grow, in this inflationary universe?

Outside this bubble universe, is a dimensionally filled universe that had grown as this bubble grew?

Such movement in propelling our universe to expression, seems quite a challenge, so having encompassed this larger view of reality, inverse square law would have exemplified the schwarzchild radius, determining the total expansive view of this cosmos?

You had to be able to confine this view and encapsulate it so that the total view developed through the phases of standard model production would have evetually helped us realize the wide scope this particle reductionism and cosmological endeavors had revealled with distances(large and small) joining?:)

Bubble Nucleation

Based on the no boundary proposal, I picture the origin of the universe, as like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water. Quantum fluctuations lead to the spontaneous creation of tiny universes, out of nothing. Most of the universes collapse to nothing, but a few that reach a critical size, will expand in an inflationary manner, and will form galaxies and stars, and maybe beings like us.

The images produce here of bubble formation are most pleasing to me, about what could have emerge from that early universe. If stringy components were evident and cosmic clumping rvealed as in previous post then how would such images lead to bubble nucleations as stringy cosmological patterns?

For such ideas to emerge in thinking there had to be a time when such conditions were conducive to bubble nucleation? Such energy considerations had to provide for these considerations to emerge so. How so?

First-order phase transitions (illustrated below) occur through the formation of bubbles of the new phase in the middle of the old phase; these bubbles then expand and collide until the old phase disappears completely and the phase transition is complete.



During a first-order phase transition, the matter fields get trapped in a `false vacuum' state from which they can only escape by nucleating bubbles of the new phase, that is, the `true vacuum' state.





G -> H -> ... -> SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) -> SU(3) x U(1). Here, each arrow represents a symmetry breaking phase transition where matter changes form and the groups - G, H, SU(3), etc. - represent the different types of matter, specifically the symmetries that the matter exhibits and they are associated with the different fundamental forces of nature

In order for such thinking to produce the cosmos then we would have to understand its early conditions.

Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles.

The Looking Glast

To test the claim, Gninenko has proposed a new experiment at CERN. He and his colleagues would confine orthopositronium to a sensitive heat-measuring device, called a calorimeter. The device would be under a strict vacuum to isolate its contents from collisions with other matter, which could confound the findings. Under ordinary conditions, the orthopositronium constituents—an electron and a positron—produce a specific amount of energy when they annihilate each other. But that energy simply wouldn't be there if the orthopositronium had oscillated into its undetectable mirror form.