False Vacuum

Quantum physics is a very strange world
User avatar
Allan
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Allan » Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:43 am

The quark gluon plasma has been created and studied at RHIC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark–gluon_plasma

Allan

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Stephen » Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:30 pm

But according to Wiki it's still theoretical and is different than the fireballs which were created at RHIC. Maybe I'm paranoid but have they considered my questions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%E2%80%93gluon_plasma

User avatar
Allan
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Allan » Wed Dec 23, 2009 5:35 pm

I don't follow your reasoning. What I read seems to say at least to me that a QGP has been created. I don't understand your suggestion that there are different forms QGP. I seems to see the QGP as the same no matter where it is created.

Allan

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Stephen » Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:31 pm

In the "how it is created in the lab" section the following sentence is written -
They largely pass through each other, but a resulting hot volume called a fireball is created after the collision. Once created, this fireball is expected to expand under its own pressure, and cool while expanding. By carefully studying this flow, experimentalists hope to put the theory to test.
So it means this particular kind of fireball hasn't been created yet. But is it possible, in any way, that this plasma was what caused a phase change of the universe in the past? Is it completely ruled out that high temperatures and high densities don't cause vacuum bubbles to form?

User avatar
Allan
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Allan » Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:29 pm

I disagree. I read "fireball is created after the collision" as saying that a QGP is create since that is what the fireball is.

Allan

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Stephen » Thu Dec 24, 2009 4:32 pm

Okay, so basically the LHC will create the exact same fireballs created by RHIC? Are those fireballs also created by cosmic rays?

Since they are going to do 3.5 TeV energies soon, I hope to be completely calm by that time.

User avatar
Allan
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Allan » Thu Dec 24, 2009 5:46 pm

I think on a very fast read that this document says that QGPs are the best explanation for the results from some of the most energetic cosmic rays. :geek:

http://www.lnf.infn.it/conference/vulc2 ... rukhin.pdf

Allan :mrgreen:

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Stephen » Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:58 pm

Well I don't understand a lot of what's written there, but I got a reassuring feeling that the LHC will explore things already present in the universe, and won't create vacuum bubbles (it remains the scariest doomsday theory I've ever heard).

One more thing - it says that 1-14 TeV corresponds to an energy of 10^17 in cosmic rays. Since The highest cosmic rays observed were at 10^20, what amount of TeV energy will a collider need to exceed this energy?

Shadowdraxx
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Shadowdraxx » Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:32 pm

I've heard its around 100 TeV + tho I've also noted in some papers stuff upto 1 million TeV


EDIT that "OH MY GOD" cosmic ray that hit us in 1991 was ten millions times higher in energy than the SSC that would have had an energy of 20TeV.

So pretty nuts some of the natural stuff.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/OhMyGodParticle/ < Awesome

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Stephen » Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:57 pm

Life was so much better before I knew about this theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LKjJT7gh9s&feature=fvw

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: False Vacuum

Post by CharmQuark » Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:38 pm

Stephen :romance-kisscheek: life would be so much better if we stopped thinking about everything :sad-pacing:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
Allan
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Allan » Tue Jan 26, 2010 8:40 pm

Hi Stephen

Exactly what in that video do you find be so worrisome? :?:

Allan :mrgreen:

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Stephen » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:28 pm

Allan wrote:Hi Stephen

Exactly what in that video do you find be so worrisome? :?:

Allan :mrgreen:
Just the reinforcement of the idea that theoretically a quantum tunneling event could happen at any second and everything would just disappear. I know the chances are astronomically low and all, but just the thought that a vacuum bubble could appear right now and kill me is terrifying.
emmylou wrote:Stephen :romance-kisscheek: life would be so much better if we stopped thinking about everything :sad-pacing:
True, but sometimes you can't control it (or the world). :sleeping-asleep:

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1469
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: False Vacuum

Post by CharmQuark » Tue Jan 26, 2010 9:42 pm

True, but sometimes you can't control it (or the world).
This is very true :geek:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: False Vacuum

Post by Stephen » Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:15 am

josch222 wrote:Since quantum theory, we know that observation makes a difference to the particles. .
You may actually be right.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/071 ... 1821v2.pdf

Post Reply