The Higgs Boson Should Have Crushed the Universe 188
astroengine writes: This may seem a little far fetched, but if our understanding of the physics behind the recently-discovered Higgs boson (or, more specifically, the Higgs field — the ubiquitous field that endows all stuff with mass) is correct, our Universe shouldn't exist. That is, however, if another cosmological hypothesis is real, a hypothesis that is currently undergoing intense scrutiny in light of the BICEP2 results. "The mathematics to arise from accepted Higgs field theory suggests the universe is currently sitting comfortably in a Higgs field energy 'valley.' To get out of this valley and up the adjacent 'hill,' huge quantities of energy would need to be unleashed inside the field. But, if there were enough energy to push the universe over the hill and into the deeper energy valley next door, the universe would simply, and catastrophically, collapse.
This is where the BICEP2 results come in. If their observations are real and gravitational waves in the CMB prove cosmological inflation, the Higgs field has already been kicked by too much energy, pushing the Higgs field over the energy hill and deep into the neighboring valley’s precipice! For any wannabe universe, this is very bad news — the newborn universe would appear as a Big Bang, the Higgs field would become overloaded with an energetic inflationary period, and the whole lot would vanish in a blink of an eye."
This is where the BICEP2 results come in. If their observations are real and gravitational waves in the CMB prove cosmological inflation, the Higgs field has already been kicked by too much energy, pushing the Higgs field over the energy hill and deep into the neighboring valley’s precipice! For any wannabe universe, this is very bad news — the newborn universe would appear as a Big Bang, the Higgs field would become overloaded with an energetic inflationary period, and the whole lot would vanish in a blink of an eye."
False vacuum (Score:4, Interesting)
Isn't this the same as false vacuum theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (Score:2, Interesting)
I think, therefore I am.
Assuming that a thought requires a medium, even if I am a figment of something else's imagination that imagination defines this universe as it is.
Of course, when observing from within there is no way we can tell if a thought really requires something to carry it or if the concept of it is sufficient for it to exist. (*)
* Since everyone can be wrong and by definition not knowing that they are wrong there is no way to prove any statement to be correct, including this one. Note that this isn't a paradox, this statement can be correct even if its correctness is non-provable.
Observations and measurements disagree (Score:5, Interesting)
The logical conclusion is that, because the current universe clearly exists, there is something wrong with either the BICEP2 measurements, conclusions or the theory of the Higgs field. IMO the first 2 options seems the most likely to contain an error. This kind of measurements is extremely complicated and a lot of assumtions are made to get from the raw data to the conclusions. The Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BICEP2) already states that they are backing down a bit and investigating alternative explainations.
Re: our Universe shouldn't exist. (Score:5, Interesting)
The difficulty with anonymous cowards is knowing when one is the same person. The coward to which Chrisq was responding was appeal to Descartes. The problem with Descartes is that you can only prove your own existence to yourself. In the event of some higher power deceiving you, the only proof you have is of your own existence. So even though you and others say that there's no evidence that I'm existing in a dream or simulation there's no way for me to verify their existence.