KFL@MIT-MC (04/21/83)
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL @ MIT-MC> So physicists abolished the luminiferous ether only to replace it with luminiferous nitroglycerine? We ceratinly have a ways to go before we rival the strongest cosmic rays observed. But someday we will get there. Or perhaps we will manufacture tiny black holes and accidentally drop one into the Earth... How much energy does this false vacuum supposedly have? Might there be some way to constructively tap that energy? Is there any known experiment which could determine of the neighborhood vacuum is false or not? And lastly, if a false vacuum is so unstable, how could it get created in the first place? ...Keith
jj (04/22/83)
I have a few simple thoughts (and keep your puns to yourself) about the "problem" of creating energetic particles. 1) How does the highest energy particle that we can/will <in the near future, that is> produce compare with the most highly excited particles that come from Supernova, black hole accretion cloud radiation, and other similar natural processes. (I'm not claiming anything, I'm just asking for a comparision of the man made processes and the more powerful natural ones.) 2) What would be the effect of a black hole, with its surrounding discontinuities, etc, on the "false vacuum"? 3) What about Seyfert Galaxies, Quasars, etc?? I'm not all that knowlegable about the various processes I've named, but a comparison between the natural and man made energies would be interesting. A related question is: Are cosmic rays the most energetic natural particles known, including those from catastrophic sources??? I must admit that the false vacuum idea seems to give a bit too much credit to the abilities of mankind...