Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="freyar" data-source="post: 6753202" data-attributes="member: 40227">Well, models of cosmology that have false vacuum decay are by their nature at least somewhat speculative, but they're easily accommodated in pretty normal models of particle physics. In any case, though there are still some arguments over the details, the basic calculation in this type of case is pretty well understood. It's not quite basic quantum mechanics, but it's an extension that's by now a part of the graduate school curriculum.  Anyway, the upshot is that, while it's possible to set up rapid decays, usual sets of model parameters will lead to very very slow decays.The former.  The acceleration of the universe, the explanation of which goes by "dark energy," is well-established enough that it won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics.  Incidentally, it boggles the mind that the discovery of dark matter, which is back up by more evidence and happened decades prior to the discovery of dark energy, still doesn't have a Nobel Prize.  My guess is that someone on the committee just doesn't like dark matter (an alternative is modifying Newtonian's 2nd law F=ma, though that doesn't explain most of the evidence for dark matter, including lensing in clusters), but the cynical side in me wonders if it's because they'd have to give a share of the prize to a woman.  The Nobels, especially in physics, have a truly atrocious record for acknowledging the contributions of women in science.</blockquote>

Verification