[jeffreyH]

If you look at the staggered troughs of the true/false vacuum and compare this with the Higgs potential, then the Higgs mechanism would have to favour a false vacuum in order to supply a mass term. In which case the true vacuum may only contain particles with zero rest mass. If we actually exist within a true vacuum then no such bias is required. Occam's razor suggests the latter.

[Bill S]

If you look at the staggered troughs of the true/false vacuum and compare this with the Higgs potential, then the Higgs mechanism would have to favour a false vacuum in order to supply a mass term.

Simple explanation, please, Jeffrey.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #42

…

Quantum mechanics provides us with this type of vacuum, because it forbids us from having a classical vacuum, which can be identified as absolutely nothing.

We are on the same wavelength, and share disdain for “nothingness”

But I might like to nit pick the part about why QFT provides us with energy density everywhere. Not that I don’t think it is true that QFT denies us nothingness, but perhaps the reason is that a total or perfect vacuum cannot be achieved simply because there is no empty space; field is everywhere. 

If so … the vacuum has energy density everywhere, and the false vacuum has higher energy density than the true vacuum, but the true vacuum cannot be void of energy.

…

If the vacuum is a reality, and there is good reason to think it is, there has to be the possibility that the vacuum is “something”.  In fact, to the best of our knowledge, the vacuum is, on the scale of the Planck’s length, a very active and energetic place.

An additional requirement (one that for reasons which I find inexplicable, some experts hesitate to agree with) is that either this vacuum must be eternal, or it must have emerged from something else.

So we are in agreement again. The field is quite active at the quantum level, and in fact one conclusion offered by the Baez page in reply #33 was clear that one very active issue in the scientific community is to find a quantum solution to gravity. For example he said, “Here’s the deal. We have two fundamental theories of physics: quantum field theory and general relativity. … Quantum field theory takes quantum mechanics and special relativity into account, and it's a great theory of all the forces and particles except gravity, but it ignores gravity. … General relativity is a great theory of gravity, but it ignores quantum mechanics. … Nobody knows how to reconcile these theories yet. That's what people working on "quantum gravity" are trying to do.”

[jeffreyH]

The Higgs field would have to be tuned precisely to the value of the false vacuum for it not to have a detectable effect upon it. See the following.
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/how-the-higgs-field-works-with-math/2-why-the-higgs-field-is-non-zero-on-average/

[jeffreyH]

You could explain virtual particles in terms of quantum oscillations between the true and false vacuum states. This cannot be thought of in terms of tunneling, since this does not involve real particles. This speculation likely falls down for various reasons. I don't know enough to judge. Maybe others can comment.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #45

You could explain virtual particles in terms of quantum oscillations between the true and false vacuum states. This cannot be thought of in terms of tunneling, since this does not involve real particles. This speculation likely falls down for various reasons. I don't know enough to judge. Maybe others can comment.

Discussing virtual particles is part of the legitimate discussion of particle interactions and the nature of transition from the false vacuum at a particular energy and a higher of lower energy level of the vacuum. I will post related links to Wikis below, but whether the casual reader wants to indulge in reading that level of detail or not, they are intended to support these comments in this discussion of virtual particles in regard to the topic of the False Vacuum.

Stated earlier: “Therefore, the transition to the true vacuum must be stimulated by the creation of high-energy particles or through quantum-mechanical tunneling."

Your post brings to mind just what the vacuum is composed of; we have a lot of energy in a scalar field of  QFT, which includes the energy of a gravitational field. Virtual particles conserve energy and momentum while they are present, and virtual photons come into play in interactions involving particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, even classical forces—such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges—can be thought of as due to the exchange of many virtual photons between the charges.

This thread legitimately can describe the energy of the false vacuum as including virtual particles, with the stipulation that they aren’t the same as the fundamental particles of the standard model, and don’t necessarily have the same mass as a fundamental particle, but they can exist in the scalar field of the false vacuum, and as such, can be part of the energy involved in moving from a false vacuum to a true vacuum.

Comment freely and certainly state any objections to that stated position anyone might have.

__________________________________________________
Related links and quotes from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics
Particle physics (also high energy physics) is the branch of physics that studies the nature of the particles that constitute matter and radiation. Although the word particle can refer to various types of very small objects (e.g. protons, gas particles, or even household dust), particle physics usually investigates the irreducibly smallest detectable particles and the fundamental interactions necessary to explain their behaviour. By our current understanding, these elementary particles are excitations of the quantum fields that also govern their interactions. The currently dominant theory explaining these fundamental particles and fields, along with their dynamics, is called the Standard Model. Thus, modern particle physics generally investigates the Standard Model and its various possible extensions, e.g. to the newest "known" particle, the Higgs boson, or even to the oldest known force field, gravity.

“particle physics usually investigates the irreducibly smallest detectable particles and the fundamental interactions necessary to explain their behaviour.”

Then a look at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
In physics, a virtual particle is a transient fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, but whose existence is limited by the uncertainty principle. The concept of virtual particles arises in perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. Any process involving virtual particles admits a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines.^[1][2]Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The longer the virtual particle exists, the closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles. They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, even classical forces—such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges—can be thought of as due to the exchange of many virtual photons between the charges.
The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate.
Properties[edit]
The concept of virtual particles arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory, an approximation scheme in which interactions (in essence, forces) between actual particles are calculated in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. Such calculations are often performed using schematic representations known as Feynman diagrams, in which virtual particles appear as internal lines. By expressing the interaction in terms of the exchange of a virtual particle with four-momentum q, where q is given by the difference between the four-momenta of the particles entering and leaving the interaction vertex, both momentum and energy are conserved at the interaction vertices of the Feynman diagram.^[3]:119
A virtual particle does not precisely obey the energy–momentum relationm²c⁴ = E² − p²c². Its kinetic energy may not have the usual relationship to velocity–indeed, it can be negative.^[4]:110 This is expressed by the phrase off mass shell.^[3]:119 The probability amplitude for a virtual particle to exist tends to be canceled out by destructive interference over longer distances and times. As a consequence, a real photon is massless and thus has only two polarization states, whereas a virtual one, being effectively massive, has three polarization states.
Quantum tunnelling may be considered a manifestation of virtual particle exchanges.^[5]:235 The range of forces carried by virtual particles is limited by the uncertainty principle, which regards energy and time as conjugate variables; thus, virtual particles of larger mass have more limited range.^[6]

“Quantum tunnelling may be considered a manifestation of virtual particle exchanges.^[5]:235 The range of forces carried by virtual particles is limited by the uncertainty principle, which regards energy and time as conjugate variables; thus, virtual particles of larger mass have more limited range.”

[Bill S]

Thoughts about an energetic vacuum.  Absence makes the thoughts grow weirder!

I keep finding my thoughts back at the OP, and wondering if I can find time to pick through this thread to see if the answers to my inevitable questions are in there somewhere.  If they are, please forgive me, but I’m going to ask for some responses to these thoughts.

It makes no sense to talk of an absolute vacuum filling space.  An absolute vacuum is nothing, so it can fill nothing. 

As soon as one starts to think of a vacuum as having qualities, the concept changes, the vacuum becomes something, and has to be somewhere.  If the “vacuum of space” has energy, it is something; so, where is it? 

 Instinctively, the answer would seem to be “everywhere”; it fills the Universe.

Would it be more meaningful to say that it is the Universe?  This would mean that what we perceive as matter and energy are physical manifestations of the all-pervading vacuum energy.

Further consideration of the idea that the vacuum energy fills the Universe must lead one to ask if, in fact, it goes beyond that. 

If we accept that the Universe came into being at the Big Bang; and if we accept inflationary theory, which I am doing for the purposes of this line of thought, then our Universe began as a “quon-sized” scalar field, “rolling about” on a hypothetical landscape that represents the vacuum energy. 

It would follow from this that the energetic vacuum must have preceded the existence of the Universe.

Can we say anything about the possible extent of the vacuum, in this case?

Must it be infinite?

Must it always have existed?

Is there any alternative to either of those?

[Bill S]

Trying to make a start on #45.

Virtual particles conserve energy and momentum while they are present

So Wiki assures us, but here we are talking cosmic scale.  Is energy necessarily conserved in an expanding universe?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #48

Thoughts about an energetic vacuum.  Absence makes the thoughts grow weirder!

I keep finding my thoughts back at the OP, and wondering if I can find time to pick through this thread to see if the answers to my inevitable questions are in there somewhere.  If they are, please forgive me, but I’m going to ask for some responses to these thoughts.

It makes no sense to talk of an absolute vacuum filling space.  An absolute vacuum is nothing, so it can fill nothing. 

As soon as one starts to think of a vacuum as having qualities, the concept changes, the vacuum becomes something, and has to be somewhere.  If the “vacuum of space” has energy, it is something; so, where is it? 

Instinctively, the answer would seem to be “everywhere”; it fills the Universe.

Would it be more meaningful to say that it is the Universe?  This would mean that what we perceive as matter and energy are physical manifestations of the all-pervading vacuum energy.

Further consideration of the idea that the vacuum energy fills the Universe must lead one to ask if, in fact, it goes beyond that. 

If we accept that the Universe came into being at the Big Bang; and if we accept inflationary theory, which I am doing for the purposes of this line of thought, then our Universe began as a “quon-sized” scalar field, “rolling about” on a hypothetical landscape that represents the vacuum energy. 

It would follow from this that the energetic vacuum must have preceded the existence of the Universe.

Can we say anything about the possible extent of the vacuum, in this case?

Must it be infinite?

Must it always have existed?

Is there any alternative to either of those?

I don’t think those thoughts are weird at all. Thanks for weighing in with them, and I too have similar questions.

I’m at the point where I consider ruling out the possibility of an absolute vacuum too. Nothingness is the alternative, and you know how I feel about “something from nothing”.

To me, given the big bang event, and in line with the language of the topic, I’m wondering why it wouldn’t seem appropriate to think that our big bang was preceded by a bubble nucleation event within a false vacuum?

In the theoretical physics of the false vacuum, the system moves to a lower energy state – either the true vacuum, or another, lower energy vacuum – through a process known as bubble nucleation.

I don’t see any language about a beginning of the true vacuum. It doesn’t seem to be implied that bubble nucleation arises from nothingness; it arises from the false vacuum as a new higher energy bubble nucleates within a false vacuum, so if bubble nucleation can equate to the kind of event that we have come to think of as a big bang, the preconditions to a big bang event would be a relatively low energy false vacuum.

I also hate the talk that equates bubble nucleation, big bangs in the context of this individual post, with new universes. The bubbles nucleate in QFT to become expanding bubbles within a landscape of false and true vacuums, full of nucleated bubbles that start with low entropy and expand as entropy progresses (equating expansion to inflation). Why can't it be thought of as all one universe full of various vacuum densities and nucleated bubbles?

As for matter, I’m reminded of the statement that an event where bubbles converge or collide, matter occurs at the site:

If two bubbles are nucleated and they eventually collide, it is thought that particle production would occur where the walls collide.

There are many correlations between BBT and QFT, but the force of gravity seems to be the deciding factor. BBT gets gravity from the curvature of space, and QFT needs a quantum solution to gravity in order to come of age, so to speak.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Trying to make a start on #45.

Virtual particles conserve energy and momentum while they are present

So Wiki assures us, but here we are talking cosmic scale.  Is energy necessarily conserved in an expanding universe?

In an expanding universe, is energy necessarily conserved?

I know of no particle interactions or energy events where energy is not conserved. However, if the origin of matter and energy was the big bang event, and if we equate that event to the start of the universe out of nothing, for the sake of discussion, then there is no reason to expect that energy that can theoretically come from nothingness would necessarily be conserved. 

In a single nucleated bubble in a QFT landscape, where the origin of the energy is part of the history of the false and real vacuums of the landscape, a bubble that is expanding in the false vacuum may be a different story, i.e., what indication is there that energy is not conserved?

[Bill S]

I know of no particle interactions or energy events where energy is not conserved.

Nor do I; but if you are linking virtual particle interactions to expansion of the Universe, then it might be appropriate to remember that energy is not necessarily conserved.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #51

I know of no particle interactions or energy events where energy is not conserved.

Nor do I; but if you are linking virtual particle interactions to expansion of the Universe (italics added), then it might be appropriate to remember that energy is not necessarily conserved.

I agree, linking QFT virtual particle interactions to expansion would be a risky and presumptuous game, and in my comment to jeffreyH I was just lending support to his post, based on repeating from the links about the false vacuum that I provided. The comment should be confined to the presence of virtual particles, when they pop into and out of existence, presumable from the energy of the local vacuum.

There is a tendency to equate the use of the phrase “expansion of the Universe” to the implication that the whole universe is expanding, when actually only a portion of the space that is referred to as “causally connected to our big bang event” is visible in our Hubble view.

That same tendency to refer to expansion of the Universe seems less evident in regard to QFT, perhaps because QFT boldly supports multiple bubbles nucleating in the false vacuums, while BBT with inflation seems more comfortable referring to a single event. Is it just me, or is there an inclination to equate such bubbles in QFT to some version of the initial events related to Big Bang Theory with Inflation?

The observable portion of the universe does show that for as far as we can see, distant galaxies are moving away from us and from each other, based the redshift data. That observed separation of galactic structure makes perfect sense if it is true that the stable atoms that formed within our causally connected big bang space occurred at around 300,000 years after the initial event (reference the formation of hydrogen atoms and the “surface of last scattering”). If all of the particles that make up the now distant and receding galactic structure were formed in the very early stages after the big bang, then it is reasonable that they would have separation momentum that is conserved as they accumulate to construct the now visible galactic structure (reference dark energy and the conservation of momentum). As far as I know, that idea is in accord with observations of known science, and is an appropriate argument supporting the consensus view of the cause of the redshift data as it pertains to GR and QFT.

[jeffreyH]

The thing missing in the conversation is zero point energy. How does this relate to the idea of a false vacuum? This is considered to be a ground state. Is this a false ground state?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #53

The thing missing in the conversation is zero point energy. How does this relate to the idea of a false vacuum? This is considered to be a ground state. Is this a false ground state?

That is a great introduction to the ZPE topic, and I have a couple of links that can serve as a beginning for current research on the topic:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

From the rationalwiki:
Quantum mechanics, via Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, requires that the absolute position and velocity of any particle cannot both be simultaneously definable. From this it is an inevitable conclusion that even at a temperature of absolute zero, any substance must have a certain minimum energy. This energy is referred to as zero-point energy. The vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space — the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields and the Higgs field.
There have been speculations that usable energy might be extracted using this energy as a source using something called the Casimir effect, but this is almost certainly pseudoscience, as it would require using an extremely large collector device similar in some ways to an electronic capacitor, but much larger and thinner, with a vacuum dielectric; there is no knowledge currently extant that can allow the creation of such a collector cell, and even if it was possible, the zero point energy in a volume the size of the Earth is so small as to be fairly useless.^[1]
According to Martin Gardner in his essay collection Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?, one of the chief researchers involved in ZPE study is Harold Puthoff, who was one of the most prominent of a crowd of Geller-gawkers in the 1970s height of the Human Potential Movement. Gardner noted that Puthoff's work on ZPE lacked transparency and solid science, and in that regard was much like his Geller work.
—————————

From the Wikipedia:

Zero-point energy (ZPE) is the difference between the lowest possible energy, that a quantum mechanical system may have, and the classical minimum energy of the system. Unlike in classical mechanics, quantum systems constantly fluctuate in their lowest energy state due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.^[1] As well as atoms and molecules, the empty space of the vacuum has these properties. According to quantum field theory, the universe can be thought of not as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields: matter fields, whose quanta are fermions (i.e. leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g. photons and gluons). All these fields have zero-point energy.^[2] These fluctuating zero-point fields lead to a kind of reintroduction of an aether in physics,^[1][3] since some systems can detect the existence of this energy. However this aether cannot be thought of as a physical medium if it is to be Lorentz invariant such that there is no contradiction with Einstein's theory of special relativity.^[1]


Comment freely ...

[Bill S]

  …The comment should be confined to the presence of virtual particles, when they pop into and out of existence, presumable from the energy of the local vacuum….

This is my simplistic understanding:

1. Energy is borrowed from the vacuum energy to bring a perturbation into existence.  This is identified as a virtual particle.

2. Repayment of the energy is to the vacuum.  Some authors say it must be replaced “before the vacuum misses it”.  I would question this.

3. The vacuum is an integral feature of the Universe.

4. If it were possible to observe the energy while it was being borrowed, it might not be where classical physics says it should be, if classical physics could be applied, here.  However, it must still be in the Universe.

5. At no time does energy leave or enter the universe; therefore, conservation of energy is not violated.  Any violation of energy conservation in an expanding universe does not arise from virtual particle creation/annihilation.  (Sticking my neck out!)

There is a tendency to equate the use of the phrase “expansion of the Universe” to the implication that the whole universe is expanding, when actually only a portion of the space that is referred to as “causally connected to our big bang event” is visible in our Hubble view.

As far as I am aware, we have no direct evidence of anything that is not “causally connected to our big bang event”.  It would seem reasonable to suggest that anything “beyond” is either expanding with the observed Universe; or is not in direct/active contact with it.

Is it just me, or is there an inclination to equate such bubbles in QFT to some version of the initial events related to Big Bang Theory with Inflation?

It’s not just you!

[Bill S]

Here's one I thought earlier.

Ref. #10: 

 If/when a scalar field settles in a “valley”, what determines whether it remains or discharges its energy?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #56

Let me address your last two posts together:

  …The comment should be confined to the presence of virtual particles, when they pop into and out of existence, presumable from the energy of the local vacuum….

This is my simplistic understanding:

1. Energy is borrowed from the vacuum energy to bring a perturbation into existence.  This is identified as a virtual particle.

2. Repayment of the energy is to the vacuum.  Some authors say it must be replaced “before the vacuum misses it”.  I would question this.

3. The vacuum is an integral feature of the Universe.

4. If it were possible to observe the energy while it was being borrowed, it might not be where classical physics says it should be, if classical physics could be applied, here.  However, it must still be in the Universe.

5. At no time does energy leave or enter the universe; therefore, conservation of energy is not violated.  Any violation of energy conservation in an expanding universe does not arise from virtual particle creation/annihilation.  (Sticking my neck out!)

There is a tendency to equate the use of the phrase “expansion of the Universe” to the implication that the whole universe is expanding, when actually only a portion of the space that is referred to as “causally connected to our big bang event” is visible in our Hubble view.

As far as I am aware, we have no direct evidence of anything that is not “causally connected to our big bang event”.  It would seem reasonable to suggest that anything “beyond” is either expanding with the observed Universe; or is not in direct/active contact with it.

Is it just me, or is there an inclination to equate such bubbles in QFT to some version of the initial events related to Big Bang Theory with Inflation?

It’s not just you!

Here's one I thought earlier.

Ref. #10: 

If/when a scalar field settles in a “valley”, what determines whether it remains or discharges its energy?

Those replies show very astute analysis, IMHO.

The links we have looked at, and that are connected to them, tell us much about the theory of QFT. My take so far from the material and from generally accepted scientific observations and data about our known universe (influenced by the conclusion that we may well be in an expanding QFT bubble within the greater universe) is that the greater vacuum is an active place of bubble nucleation, bubble collisions, particle formation at the locations in the vacuum where those collisions occur, and expansion of resulting nucleated bubbles, governed by their vacuum density and by the vacuum density of the surrounding false/real vacuums.

The determining factors that govern the disposition and future course of events related to the energy contained in the vacuum of a particular bubble that settles in a “valley” is the relative vacuum energy density surrounding that bubble. That determination should have causes and limiting factors. A causative factor would be random nucleation and subsequent collisions of bubbles. Limiting factors would have to do with how the local vacuum densities react to the presence of adjacent bubbles and their vacuum densities.

The results of those possible events, including the collisions, the particle formation and nucleosynthesis at the boundaries of those collisions, and the evolution of galactic structure moving apart as the space occupied by the expanding bubble grows, all seem to nicely equate with what we observe in our Hubble view.


Bubble Nucleation in QFT

Edit:
I have added a link to this content to my thread in New Theories called "If there was one Big Bang event, why not multiple big bangs?"
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=70348.msg550474#msg550474

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #57

"In quantum field theory, a false vacuum is a hypothetical vacuum that is somewhat, but not entirely, stable." I don't believe anything to be entirely stable, so is it just a time frame thing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

I am continuing to refer to the Link provided by mrsmith2211 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum).


Click on the link again, and right after the True vs. False Vacuum section comes the section on the Standard Model vacuum, which we really have to address in more detail now, if anyone is going to follow the possible scenario that I included in reply #56. In that post, I concluded that our current Hubble view seems to correspond to a mature stage of evolution of the collision between two nucleated bubbles. The collision (Big Bang?) would account for the formation of particles, and the expansion of the nucleated bubble that we occupy (Inflation) would account for the separation of those particles and of the structures that subsequently formed from them (galactic structure that we observe).

Therefore, separation and the conservation of momentum would account for the observation that galaxies and galaxy groups are generally moving away from us and from each other, and that would explain the observed redshift:
Redshift
In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum.
(click for link to Redshift)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Standard Model Vacuum from Wiki:
If the Standard Model is correct, the particles and forces we observe in our universe exist as they do because of underlying quantum fields. Quantum fields can have states of differing stability, including 'stable', 'unstable', or 'metastable' (meaning very long-lived but not completely stable). If a more stable vacuum state were able to arise, then existing particles and forces would no longer arise as they do in the universe's present state. Different particles or forces would arise from (and be shaped by) whatever new quantum states arose. The world we know depends upon these particles and forces, so if this happened, everything around us, from subatomic particles to galaxies, and all fundamental forces, would be reconstituted into new fundamental particles and forces and structures. The universe would lose all of its present structures and become inhabited by new ones (depending upon the exact states involved) based upon the same quantum fields.


Everyone is invited to participate with generally accepted science or detail about competing theories, but please review the Wiki piece above about the Standard Model Vacuum and take a look at the imbedded hyperlinks, which I want to include in the content of my thread.

Comment freely.

Edit: We have a lot of material to cover even if we stick to just the @mrsmith2211 link and the associated imbedded links.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #58

The first link in the content about the Standard Model Vacuum posted in reply #57 goes to a more detailed Wiki page about the Standard Model. The imbedded links in that Wiki also have important content that we should review and share in order to stay with the direction of progress of the thread:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model:



The Standard Model of particle physics is the theory describing three of the four known fundamental forces (the electromagnetic, weak, and strong interactions, and not including the gravitational force) in the universe, as well as classifying all known elementary particles. It was developed in stages throughout the latter half of the 20th century, through the work of many scientists around the world,[1] with the current formulation being finalized in the mid-1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks. Since then, confirmation of the top quark (1995), the tau neutrino (2000), and the Higgs boson (2012) have added further credence to the Standard Model. In addition, the Standard Model has predicted various properties of weak neutral currents and the W and Z bosons with great accuracy.
Although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent[2] and has demonstrated huge successes in providing experimental predictions, it leaves some phenomena unexplained and falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions. It does not fully explain baryon asymmetry, incorporate the full theory of gravitation[3] as described by general relativity, or account for the accelerating expansion of the Universe as possibly described by dark energy. The model does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not incorporate neutrino oscillations and their non-zero masses.
The development of the Standard Model was driven by theoretical and experimental particle physicists alike. For theorists, the Standard Model is a paradigm of a quantum field theory, which exhibits a wide range of physics including spontaneous symmetry breaking, anomalies and non-perturbative behavior. It is used as a basis for building more exotic models that incorporate hypothetical particles, extra dimensions, and elaborate symmetries (such as supersymmetry) in an attempt to explain experimental results at variance with the Standard Model, such as the existence of dark matter and neutrino oscillations.
[End of quote from Wiki on Standard Model]

Take note of this particular link in the Standard Model Wiki quote labeled “Universe”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
It is a topic that was discussed in my previous thread about “nothingness”, and its logical opposite, “universe” which is all of space and time and their contents.It would be nice to be on the same page in regard to the concept of “Universe”; and that would be the page that says there is only one universe. If you have a different view, I am interested in the “who, what, where, when and why” behind what you're thinking. Why do we need to have a concept that there are multiple universes? The QFT thinking that multiple bubbles nucleating within the true and false vacuums of space is sufficient, and allows for as many bubble nucleations as you want, and therefore as many big bangs as you want, if you equate collisions of nucleating bubbles with matter producing big bang type events as proposed in QFT.

Comment freely …

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Reply #59

Standard Model Vacuum from Wiki:

If the Standard Model is correct, the particles and forces we observe in our universe exist as they do because of underlying quantum fields. Quantum fields can have states of differing stability, including 'stable', 'unstable', or 'metastable' (meaning very long-lived but not completely stable). If a more stable vacuum state were able to arise, then existing particles and forces would no longer arise as they do in the universe's present state. Different particles or forces would arise from (and be shaped by) whatever new quantum states arose. The world we know depends upon these particles and forces, so if this happened, everything around us, from subatomic particles to galaxies, and all fundamental forces, would be reconstituted into new fundamental particles and forces and structures. The universe would lose all of its present structures and become inhabited by new ones (depending upon the exact states involved) based upon the same quantum fields.

That makes perfect sense, and corresponds nicely with Big Bang theory with inflation.

If we backtrack the currently expanded state of our observable universe, going back in time we would get to an initial event. Under QFT that event could be caused by the colliding nucleating bubble “walls” or perhaps what we could call wave fronts, that result in the production of particles. The collisions, coupled with at least speed of light “bubble expansion” that one should expect to be associated with of the velocity of electromagnetism in the quantum field, the extreme high energy density vacuum at the outset would quickly evolve, resulting in the advent of the more stable vacuum states for particles. That means that as various sequences of massive particles (exotics relative to the standard model of particle physics as far as we know) form and decay in correspondence with the rapidly declining vacuum energy density of the local environment as the nucleated bubble evolves, longer periods of stability should be expected along with the normal course of particle decay.

That course of decay would continue until the resulting vacuum density can support the stability of the resulting particles for an extended period of time, as is the case with our own experience as an expanding bubble after some 14 billion years; one of a potentially infinite number of nucleated bubbles within the one greater universe .

Comment freely.