Talk:False vacuum

message: The first statement in the article, "A false vacuum is a metastable sector of quantum field theory...,"
doesn't make any sense. The "sector of quantum field theory" is not, itself, metastable. The adjective "metastable" shouldn't refer to the state of a sector of the theory (unless, of course, the theory, itself, is not completely stable).
Likewise for the following statment, "... Simply put, the false vacuum is a state of a physical theory ...". The false vacuum is not the state of a theory.
69.107.143.233 16:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely wrong. Look in any reference on the subject. –Joke 20:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For example, Coleman and de Luccia, the first line of the abstract reads "It is possible for a classical field theory to have two stable homogeneous ground states, only one of which is an absolute energy minimum. In the quantum version of the theory, the ground state of higher energy is a false vacuum, rendered unstable by barrier penetration." State, sector, vacuum – they're interchangeable in modern use – as are unstable and metastable. Coleman wrote the book on the subject, so I'll take his word for it. –Joke 21:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: English certainly is my native language. Coleman, moreover,  is known as one of the clearest, most precise expositors in physics. Perhaps you are confused about the usage of the word "state." A state of a quantum theory is used, roughly, to mean "a vector in the Hilbert space of the quantum field theory." It is one object (a vector or wavefunction) among the collection of objects provided by the theory; it is not meant to describe a particular condition that the theory itself finds itself in. For further details, see quantum state. I see no point in discussing this well-established usage further. –Joke 21:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The first statement

message: This is a very interesting (to me personally, at least) topic. Any extra information, particularly about the vacuum metastability event, would be much appreciated.
Things like these make me ever regret not choosing theoretical physics as the profession. IgorSF 16:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information? 

message: So if a truer vacuum has less "stuff" in it than what may be a false vacuum, is it likely that this would alter the "maximum" speed of light?  Whereas things like dark energy/matter in a false vacuum could theoretically slow light down, light traveling through a true vacuum could reach a closer velocity to it's infinite potential, although by partially filling a true vacuum, it makes less of a true vacuum, thus remaining a finite (although much, much faster) speed.  With the stakes on light upped, presuming that just-pre-bigbang the singularity was surrounded by true vacuum, matter could also conceivably move faster... right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.22.19 (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of Light... and other things 

message: Since there is an article on "false vacuum", how about an article on "true vacuum"?
easonrevant 22:18 EST, 10 May 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.244.5.122 (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea is more like a dichotomy between "unstable vacuum" and "stable vacuum" than "false vacuum" and "true vacuum". -Rolypolyman (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they are both stable; the question is whether they are globally minumum, or just locally.12.53.10.226 (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  article on "True Vacuum" 

message: The "Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics" seems nonsensical to me. The same 'argument' could be used to argue against all catastrophic events. Is there a particular paper that someone is quoting in garbled form here? Sigfpe (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This information is at best irrelevant and at worst outright wrong. I also note that it was deleted after the above comment was made, but restored some years later, possibly being mistaken for vandalism. I have added citation tags to it, but would very much recommend that it is just deleted. Davidros (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your notion of irrelevancy or outright wrong qualifies for even general and special relativity, until they were largely proved. Whether or not something "seems nonsensical to me" or not is irrelevant, the theories of physics is what the topic is about. One could say the very same thing about helicopter flight, ignoring how it WORKS in the real world.
Indeed, one could explain CP violation easily, as a false vacuum state COULD account for a "preference" for one matter over another (matter vs antimatter). 
Or, as a different example, along the lines of Sigfpe's lines, "Gravity doesn't make sense to me. Indeed, it's nonsensical, as it seems higher to me in the morning than the evening." It's purely subjective. Wzrd1 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many Worlds 

message: Please remember that Wikipedia is a public-use encyclopedia and therefore should always include every-day-language descriptions in parallel to technical descriptions. Lets remember that it's bad manners to only use tech-speak when non-scientists are also a part of the audience.
'Technical' banner added until corrections are made (techno-science language may remain in the article, but must also have a parallel writing track that non-scientists can follow, where possible).
Remember also that scientists (ultimately) get their grant money from the public, so it's good practice to learn how to explain science concepts to the public.
173.246.35.182 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article is technical because the subject is technical.  If you can't understand it, then that says more about the modern American anti-science mindset than it does about the topic in question. 192.91.147.34 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be less dismissive:  Explaining the issue in "plain language" would introduce inappropriate and inaccurate simplifications, leading uneducated listeners to false and misleading conclusions.192.91.147.34 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll COMPLETELY agree with the last talk mention. The subject is BEYOND highly technical and theoretical, by nature. The mathematics are beyond obscene to consider and beyond notion for whatever a "true vacuum" IS, hence the rules of the true vacuum universe is beyond our imagination, as we have no common constants to consider and base a prediction upon.
So, regrettably, it HAS to be highly technical. 
I'm one of those poor SOB's that is beyond lousy at basic mathematics, but my building of mental models of that which is expressed by mathematics is unable to be explained by those gifted with arithmetic abilities. Wzrd1 (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  Okay, but even if we're not talking about dropping it to simple-english wiki levels, we could still drop it below where it is. Right now I'm having trouble believing anyone who doesn't already know the material could understand it, and at that point there doesn't seem to be a lot of point, eh? I'm no scientist but in general can understand and enjoy reading about things like this, but I can't scratch the surface of this.
In other words, don't dumb it down, but drop it to something like a collegiate level rather than a quantum-physicist level. 64.189.134.154 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the section above: I don't get it. The tank of water analogy by Dark Formal helped clear it up for me. SlightSmile 23:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Needs Plain English Descriptions in Parallel to Technical Language

message: Has Vacuum genesis something to do with this article? --Dia^ (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacuum genesis 

message: "[our universe] could cease to exist as we know it, if a true vacuum happened to nucleate"
How is a bubble expanding at the speed of light going to wipe out our entire universe when the universe is expanding at much greater speeds?
Doubledork (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think mainstream physics theories propose that the universe has an edge. -- Beland (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop exaggerating 

message: I have deleted and re-written the introduction. What was previously written was pseudoscience. (It wasn't just inaccurate, the whole thing was meaningless nonsense.)
Could whoever keeps filling the introduction with a large amount of their own original research (which disagrees with the scientific consensus) please stop doing so. Wikipedia is not for original research that you're unable to get published anywere else. Use viXra.org for that. What you write isn't even related to false vacuum and the animation provided whilst very pretty is also unrelated to false vacuums.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.253.147 (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The First Section Was Pseudoscientific Nonsense 

message: The word "instanton" needs to be removed from this article in every instance. The key concept is "domain wall", not an instanton. An instanton is not an extended object, but is a point in both space and time, whereas the domain wall is three-dimensional in its bulk. The intuition is borrowed from QM, where the tunneling event IS an instanton for a double well potential, but in the case of higher dimensions the objects become domain walls.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tin2019 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instantons? 

message: The article previously linked in the "See also" section to Schild's Ladder (the novel). False vacuum is the focus of the novel, and so clearly relates to the article. This link had remained undisputed since its insertion up to 24 October 2016, when it was edited by  to point to Schild's ladder (the theory). I have been unable to find any sources whatsoever that relate Schild's ladder (the theory) to false vacuum, however my edit to restore the Schild's Ladder link has been reverted by . I seek consensus to restore the link to Schild's Ladder. RunasSudo (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schild's Ladder vs Schild's ladder 

message: There seems to be a ridiculous amount of flagged issues on this page that don't have any reason. For a very clear example "A vacuum or vacuum state is defined as a space with as little energy in it as possible.[clarification needed]"
I cannot at all for the life of me figure out what clarification is needed here, this could not be more clear. If however somehow this isn't clear enough, clearly explaining what a vacuum is should be done on the vacuum page which is linked. The sentence alone is 100% clear, however even if it wasn't the link is where it should be clarified, not here. 
This is the case for nearly every single flagged issue on this article, of which there are a ridiculous amount.
77.98.22.147 (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I got rid of them. There were too many to be useful, and several of the reasons were just confusing. Two sections remain devoid of citations, so I've tagged those. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 10:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar deal on String theory landscape. This also isn't :simple:False vacuum. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Clarification needed] on [Clarification needed] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on False vacuum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130926215031/http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=49808 to http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=49808
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think, :File:Vacuumsimple.png is borderline pseudoscientific (especially at the end) and not as simple-explanatory as it may seem to somebody. Maybe it should not be used in the article. 136.169.232.53 (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, to be blunt, it's crap. I removed it. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so my change was reverted by the author of the image. Someone else can deal with it. It is misleading and pseudoscientific at best. The 6th and 7th panels are particularly problematic. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

text: The problems with this graphic are too many to list. Not even going into the poor physics explanations, simply the fact that the text is way too small to read when displayed on a Wikipedia page should be sufficient not to want to include this.TR 20:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanations of the physics are bad, but at least they're just about illegible. XOR'easter (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Too much text, too much images, illegible and surely not precise science. MaoGo (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  On File:Vacuumsimple.png 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on False vacuum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204042956/http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/decay.html to http://www.astronomycafe.net/cosm/decay.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: This phrase makes no sense and doesn't appear in the literature, as far as I can see. I highly suspect it originated on Wikipedia and has been parroted on forums and pop-sci articles. I've replaced it with "vacuum decay". — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds cool as shit though. Someone should fix the literature. Retardednamingpolicy (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vacuum metastability event" 

message: Since it appears that we've made some progress on the measurement of Higgs boson and Top quark mass over the last six years, the diagram needs updating. Or maybe the entire idea got debunked? Either way, the section "Stability and instability of the vacuum" appears to be out of date.
09:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed? 

message: This section needs to be rewritten. It's incomprehensible in places and generally poorly written throughout.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1515:83A2:F53F:7493:F8D6:AA60 (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bubble nucleation section 

message: The problems above are mostly fixed now a.f.a.i.k.
Remaining problems
1) Instantons or domain walls while describing bubble/bounce tunnelling to expanding state?
2) Poor coverage on physics after Higgs vacuum decay
3) No adequate explanation if domain wall have "kinetic energy" - seems mechanism how such "kinetic energy" could be measured do not exist?
Trurle (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large fix complete 

message: It would appear that the content under "True vacuum bubble nucleation" was written by a physicist not fluent in English.  Phrasing such as "Perhaps the unknown constant A is so high that bubble large enough to have barrier vanished has never yet been formed anywhere in the universe."  It needs the attention of an English-fluent physicist.  It appears from the comments above that that it might be a good thing for the whole article.  SkoreKeep (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , but with one question. The user used h instead of ħ in Eq. 2. What should be the correct form of this equation? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language problem 

message: If anything it should be the other way around64.121.1.13 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there an article for False Vacuum Decay but not for False Vacuum? 

message: Hello,
I removed the entry for Leviathan Falls including false vacuum decay from the "in fiction" section. The concept is mentioned once, and does not play a role in the plot, while the beginning of the section implies that if a work of fiction is included, false vacuum decay plays a substantial role. 
I would also suggest that the section be revised to include how false vacuum decay is relevant/included in the plot of the work of fiction; however, I have not read any of the other works of fiction so I cannot make this revision.
Plumeria03 (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacuum Decay in Fiction 

message: The very first sentence states that a false vacuum is stable; the second paragraph says that it is not stable. I presume this is because of different definitions of "stable", but can it at least be made to read consistently? W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to clarify this. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! W. P. Uzer (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: I reverted the undiscussed move from False vacuum to False vacuum decay by now-banned User:Oranjelo100. Both titles are correct, but the original is more concise, and agrees better with the first sentence. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move