>that feel when reading about vacuum decay

>>8857242
Don't worry you wont feel it.

>>8857242
Does knowing that you might cease to exist at any moment change your life in any way?

>>8857242
Weren't there more energetic events in the past anyways? If anything was energetic enough to kick start it wouldn't it have already happened?

>>8857258
I'm not a QM pro but I thought it could spontaneously happen somewhere due to quantum tunneling

If the false vacuum spontaneously decayed and the decay reached us, everything that gives our existence meaning would be destroyed with us. It wouldn't be so tragic; indeed, nobody would exist long enough to observe the event and reflect on this "tragedy." There would be no loss because there would be no observers to appreciate the feeling of loss. Adding to this, the probability of this occurring seems very small, far less than the probability of a quasar blasting us into nothing. So, why worry about it? It's unlikely to occur, and if it does then nobody will care.

>>8857242
Spooky /x/ stories are kind of fun.

File: 1484885733807.jpg (118KB, 900x641px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 900x641px

>>8857242
Dumb frogposter

brainlet here
explain it in easy words please.

File: ca.png (138KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 350x350px

>>8857377
>It's unlikely to occur, and if it does then nobody will care.
Just like homotopy types becoming the new accepted foundations for maths?

File: 1463392098566.jpg (68KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 633x758px

>>8857446
FUCKING TOPOLOGISTS

>>8857446
Topkek, pretty much. This can be said for just about any advancement in any particular field, though; if someone proved the Riemann Hypothesis most people wouldn't honestly care. Regarding homotopy types, I think they are cool as fuck, and if I can share the love and educate other people on them, then at least they will have had adequate exposure to decide whether or not they care about them.