Says the physicist Joseph Likin of Fermi Laboratories spoke about this at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference last week. Although at the earliest this will happen in another billions of years.
"It seems that the universe we live in is fundamentally unstable, and at a certain point in a few billion years from now it could disappear," says Joseph Lykken, a theoretical physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratories in Illinois. Licken said these things at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
"If we use all the physics we know now and ask to calculate simple and direct calculations, the news is bad" Quoted by Likin in NPR. "It seems that the universe we live in is incredibly unstable, and at some point in the future everything is going to disappear and it is something related to the Higgs field itself."
"The parameters of our universe, including the value of the Higgs boson mass and the top quark mass, show that we are right on the edge of stability. in a 'metastable' state. Physicists have been pondering this situation for over 30 years. In 1982, physicists Michael Turner and Frank Wilchek wrote in Nature that "Without warning, a bubble of true vacuum can form somewhere in the universe and travel at the speed of light, and before we know it we'll eject our protons and disappear."
Likin describes it in a slightly different way "the universe wants to be in a different state, so eventually a bubble of what we might think of as an alternate universe will appear somewhere, and it will spread and destroy us."
Likin's prediction is based on the calculation of the "vacuum instability" of the universe, which depends on the mass of the Higgs boson, which physicists believe they found at the Large Hadron Collider in Sarn near Geneva. The scientists discovered a new particle whose properties are similar to the theoretical properties of the Higgs, although further proof is still needed to declare the discovery with certainty.
The Higgs boson is related to the Higgs field, an energy field propagating through space that is thought to provide the other particles with their valve. Just as the swimmers cross the pool wet, so the particles gain mass through their movement through the Higgs field.
The Higgs field has a certain amount of potential energy associated with the way it interacts with itself. Just as a field of grass has ups and downs - highs and lows - the Higgs field contains a minimum and a maximum of potential energy.
Currently, according to the calculations, the Higgs field has a potential minimum, but it is possible that at a certain point the field could "tunnel" to another potential minimum that may give it other properties (tunneling is the equivalent in quantum mechanics to digging through a hill to go from one valley to another, instead of going up and down the hill. If the Higgs field of the universe goes from one minimum potential energy to another it can become stronger, causing particles in the universe to gain mass. Any change in the mass of a fundamental particle like the proton or the electron will be destructive. Atoms, planets, stars and galaxies will not be held together as they are today if the constants Their fundamentals will change.
"Then all the laws of physics will change and everything will fall apart," says Tim Bucklew, a physicist at the SLAC National Accelerator in California, a member of the Atlas experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, one of the laboratories responsible for the possible discovery of the Higgs boson.
The likelihood of this happening or not depends on a number of properties, including the mass of the Higgs boson. This was unknown until recently when the accelerator in Juba was searching for the Higgs. The two experiments reached slightly different results, but it is almost certain that the exact figure is between them - that is, approximately 126 giga electron volts (126 billion electron volts) or 126 times the mass of the proton. The instability in the vacuum of the universe also depends on the top quark mass, a relative of the proton and neutron components that make up all the atoms in the universe. Both the Higgs mass and the top quark mass are about what is needed to create a fundamental instability in the Higgs field and therefore destroy the universe.
"The existence of the phenomenon depends on the top quark being heavy and the Higgs boson being very light," says physicist Michael Paskin from SLAC. It appears that the top quark is very heavy and the Higgs is light which most physicists thought it would be."
This combination ensures that in billions of years the universe will break up but the sun will go nova much earlier, so we on earth have nothing to worry about. In addition, we lack more data to complete the picture because the mass of the top quark is not exactly known either. And on top of that, any Higgs instability scenario depends on there being no new particles beyond what we know today. Since many physicists suspect that the universe is rich in as yet undiscovered particles such as the variety of particles predicted by supersymmetry theory, the Higgs instability may be resolved. So this prediction of the universe collapsing is interesting, Peskin says, but there could be other possibilities that would save the universe from collapsing.
55 תגובות
Great, then stop acting like you have an answer to these questions.
The universe will eventually disappear but will be reborn, this is a cycle
The question is not whether he will disappear
The disturbing question is why the hell does he even exist!!??
And does it exist because there is something or something that manages things? So who created the manager?
These are questions that will probably never be answered
"Empty bubble" is a strange term. Everything that exists comes from nothingness. This is the essence of the saying "there is nothing". In other words, everything that exists [including the universe we live in] is inside the nothingness and the nothingness is in it. Similar to lending to anyone in water or anyone in interstellar space. According to this, the above concept is somehow strange.
The sun is on its way to a nebula and not a nova
I hope that the government is preparing for the situation and looking for a solution to the problem.
Something to think about
Note that Orr says in the first sentence that there is no connection between science and God, and in the second sentence he uses the laws of physics to prove the existence of God.
When you believe nonsense you start talking nonsense 🙂
Light, logic requires that if the universe must be created by any being, then this being must also create, etc...
Which leads to a clear conclusion that there is no logic in inventing a divine being to explain the existence of the world, because any other idea that comes out of the mouth can fit in just as logically.
What nonsense!
What is the connection between science and God, do you think it is possible to prove the existence of God with the help of a satellite?!
Logic requires you to be one entity that started everything with the bang, any other way is illogical (even according to the laws of physics)
that require motion that preceded the bang, look for the "cosmological argument"
my father
I guess your answer has to do with the fact that the Vatican was the biggest cigarette smuggler in Europe.
I guess the human race's annual expenditure on cigarettes is greater than CERN's lifetime budget.
Avi Blizovsky,
You are of course right about the converts, but the subject of your article is no less irrational than their preaching.
And don't you think it's funny how excited the CERN people are about the fact that the enormous energy they are pumping into the accelerator is detected in their sensors? Even though it sometimes appears in the magic number 126?
And why did so many religious organizations mobilize to make the CERN adventure possible?
I recommend you read an excellent article by Avi Blizovsky, "Investigation of the Big Bang and its religious meanings", in the link: https://www.hayadan.org.il/hawking-universe-2702981/
So could it be that after all the scientists at Sarn have some possibility of causing the universe to end?
* Disturbance
Yuval, if the comments bother you then focus on reading the articles.. they are interesting
Beauty. There are 3 interesting responses, followed by a heavenly and irritating trail of arguments between religious and atheists. This is exactly why I hardly ever go to this site anymore. Until there is already an interesting article on a scientific topic, scientists always have to turn it into a debate about religion against science. I thought it was a site about science, and I discovered a site about atheism from heaven.
Rumors of a bubble bursting in another part of the galaxy
Bozo the clown
Jonah tries to bring a scientific argument for the existence of a creator. I answered him about that. Where is the problem here?
I have no idea what you meant by your last line……
Miracles
The very existence of God is not a scientific question.
At most it is a self-contradictory claim.
And what you were yelled at in the street, twice, is not a real academic degree...
Pigeon
You are starting from a wrong assumption - either there is a creator, or the world was created randomly. You have already been told that there are other options, and you also admit it.
The second problem - you must use Bayes' law here - because you want to compare the probability of the correctness of each of the theories. You are making up values for these probabilities, and you have not explained what you are relying on.
A second way you can act, when you are missing data, is to compare to something similar that you know. If you walk in the woods and find a clock, your experience will tell you that a person made this clock. We have no experience in creating universes.
Jonah - I still think you are wrong and that your opinions are unfounded. You believe in God because that's how you were raised. Religious belief has a long history of tens of thousands of years and there are many reasons for these beliefs. This does not prove that there is a creator.
The very existence of God is a scientific question. Can you suggest an experiment that would disprove its existence?
Miracles my friend
It seems to me that Bayes' law is not the right way to examine things.
In my opinion there are 2 possible events - either the world was created from something randomly or it was created
{On the other possibility that the world is ancient, I answered in a previous comment. ]
The chance that it will be randomly generated from something is equal to the product of the probabilities that will cause this programming.
Starting with the physical constants of the elementary particles that must be in the form and size in which they appear to exist the matter in the form we know, through a series of events that depend on the existence of one another until the creation of life from a primordial soup - and the creation of the person who writes these words...
Since the sum of the 2 probabilities of the events - a random or healthy creation - should be equal to 1, you can calculate the probability of the existence of a creator by yourself.
Bayes' law may help in this calculation, which by definition is a result in probability theory that allows one to calculate the conditional probability of an event when the opposite conditional probabilities are known. [According to Wikipedia]
Your second claim that the existence of a creator contradicts the laws of physics is not clear. - My argument is that the laws of physics were determined at the moment of creation and are not relevant to the Creator.
Regarding your philosophical education, I was happy to know that the sentence you wrote "Who cares about these theories" does not stem from ignorance but from knowledge.
I also have a master's degree in philosophy and Jewish history - and a bachelor's degree in science - I work as a high school teacher in the center of Israel for physics and biology - so the material is familiar to me...
For the third claim: by definition, the creator has no beginning, because if he has a beginning he is not a creator... A beginning is defined as any point in time, but if time also has a beginning - then the creator of time does not..
Regarding the response of B. We celebrate the appearance of the Creator before the whole world on the holiday of Shavuot... but this is not the stage to discuss this event because it is not a theological site.
Regarding the randomness, Nissim has already answered.
And last things to my Nissim friends, your claim that started the whole argument is that I'm talking unfounded nonsense and lying to myself. I hope that in the long discussion I showed that these things are not nonsense and deserve respect as an opinion. Generations of wiser philosophers than me and you - studied the subject - to say that they are all idiots is a bit arrogant.
All in all, I quite enjoyed the lively discussion that developed, it is definitely a site where people stay and think. And it's nice to talk to you - thanks to manager Abi for allowing the discussion to take place - I'm withdrawing from it because we're starting to repeat ourselves and also because I'm going back to work tomorrow..
Your right to the last word..
Pigeon
ב
There is randomness in nature. Einstein didn't like it but today it is believed that there are phenomena that are indeed random.
Yona is also wrong that there are only 2 theories. There are at least 45:
1-2: the two specified. A combination of the two in the following way: some creator who created the basic laws and has not interfered since then, is not the God of the Jewish religion.
3: Multiplicity of creators. Why should there be only 1?
4. Matrix. This is not the solution of the Jewish Creator, not in the essential sense. His advantage over God is that if the word probability can be used in this context, and I'm not sure it is allowed, the matrix is much more likely because even we, in a few years or decades, can produce such an accurate simulation of reality.
5. Something else that has not been thought of yet and may be discovered in the future.
So anyone who thinks that in principle there will be only 2 theories of creation, is wrong.
Leona:
You use a random word and you don't think about its meaning.
There is nothing random in nature. Nature has forces and nature acts according to these forces with vigorous precision and without a trace of randomness.
Even the uncertainty principle does not speak of randomness. He only talks about the uncertainty in the measurement of certain sizes.
The word random takes the person into account.
When something happens without the person planning it then the person claims that what happened is random.
The source of our knowledge about the world is the world itself. We know nothing of anything that is outside the world.
We cannot know whether the world was created or has always existed.
A good proof of the existence of a creator would be if the creator showed us his existence.
Unfortunately !!! this is not happening! If there is a creator, he hides so well that it is impossible to sense his existence.
Jonah, to repent you don't need knowledge. They are all making stuff up to make people think religion is so rich.
Pigeon
Again - your claim about probability is wrong. If you want to talk about probability - you have to bring 2 theories and compare the probabilities between them (Bayes' law). You invented a value for the probability of creating the universe in a "random" way. Now you have to come up with a value for the probability of the existence of a creator. I would love to know what this value is and how you arrived at it.
Please don't tell me what I claim. What's your name?? I said there was such a possibility. And there is also the possibility that it was created out of nowhere. In both theories there is no contradiction to physics as we know it today. There may be a creator - but it does contradict physics - so why even come up with such a theory??
I have a master's degree in philosophy, so I am probably interested in the opinion of the ancients 🙂
Your basic claim that there must be a creator is simply wrong. Both the Rambam and the Holy Amlesem claimed this but that does not make it true. Because if this claim is true, then the Creator must also have a beginning!!!
You are the one who wrote "I have to choose the most logical one and according to it to lead my life" - that's why I talked about morality. Morality is an important part of managing life…..
to Judah
I made an explicit statement - I do not repent - I have never done so, and I do not have the necessary knowledge to do so.
All in all, I asked a question - I didn't get an answer, but insults and offers to shut my mouth, actually!!
I expect a more respectful conversation from rational people, who are willing to listen to the other person even if I don't agree with them.
To Danny
The reasons for the differences are that, by nature, texts are read for so many years by so many people. straits different insights.
The survival of many of those texts actually indicates their relevance and not their being idle...
Regarding opening books and a money mill - I agree with you!!! Not everything that is presented as Judaism is indeed so... but in order to criticize - you must first know what you are criticizing...
When I wrote "one theory" I meant the theory that the world was not created randomly. It can be defined as a pseudo-theory - because it cannot be proven or disproved, but it is no different from other pseudo-theories that are presented as scientific...
And regarding the idolatrous vanities - I already wrote in my response to miracles, my friend...
Danny, shut up
I understand you, so be specific:
The religion is stupid, as far as the books are concerned, great books.
The fact that there are a hundred and one different passages for each sentence, yes, it makes the books wonderful...
The fact that everyone chooses what suits them, yes, it makes the books wonderful...
The fact that people ask questions and open the book on a certain page, and find the answer there, yes it makes the books wonderful....
The fact that with one verse Iilg turned the kashrut into a money mill, with 200 Pharisees, yes it makes the books Iilg...
The theory of the existence of a creator is not just one theory, there are different religions and different pharisees, and in every religion there are different sects with different pharisees, and also religions with the existence of a large number of gods, and all kinds of different forms of gods.
Science does not argue with the existence of God, because according to science he does not exist.
Notice how Jonah drags you into a religious debate. You just have to ignore him. He and others like him have one goal: to prove that religious thought is equal to and even superior to scientific thought.
To Abi Blizovsky, I suggest pushing all dove-type reactions into the cell of religious reactions. Anyone who wants to go there and respond there. I don't have to hear this poor missionary religious brainwashing every time I access an interesting topic on the science website.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Danish.
The fact that you don't understand what is written in the books does not make them ridiculous..., to remind you the Hebrew language is based on those books.
The theory of the existence of a creator is only one theory, which is based on only one claim. I do not pretend to know everything - the opposite is true. I'm curious looking for answers!!
Science does not argue with the existence of God, and God does not argue with science - there is no conflict between the theories. Each speaks a different language and from a different logical system.
Science does not have an established answer about the creation of the universe, it speculates. The creator theory claims to have an answer and that's what the whole debate is about.
Danny, in a naughty way?
what did you read Bulletins of converts?
Pigeon,
It is sad that Judaism has deteriorated to the lowest level of miserable missionary work. Is it so hard for you to accept that there are people who are not interested in what you are trying to "sell"? There are so many websites where applicants can find a lot of information about religion (about its many nuances and internal contradictions), do you really have to pollute the only website that deals with popular science with the miserable Christian approach of pushing religious ideas everywhere? Maybe respect the people who chose to visit here and not act like the last of the missionaries who expect them and their religion to be respected but rush to take advantage of every free platform to dump their garbage there? This is a site that deals with scientific issues and not religion, do you understand that these are two very different things?
In terms of the content of your stuff, your source code isn't even wrong (meaning it's meaningless, for those who don't know the source of the phrase), it's obvious that you don't understand the concepts you're using like theories or probability or power. In this embarrassing situation, I would recommend you ask someone who understands these concepts before you reveal your ignorance, but from past experience I think, unfortunately, that the probability of you ever doing so tends to zero. In any case, we understood your main claim, the likelihood is *in your opinion* in favor of the existence of a creator who has always existed (for the sake of simplicity let's call him the Holy Omicron or Omi for short, if you were thinking of another god then you are wrong, Omi is the real thing, believe me) , so you're fine, the message has been delivered and understood, please leave us alone and leave us with these silly science junkies, that's what we like to do, yes, I know, it's dooming us to a horrible eternal life in hell, but don't worry, you'll be there with us too, Because in the meantime it seems that those who are taking over the world are precisely the Muslims for whom the promise that their seed will be as blue as the shore of the sea is beautifully fulfilled. There is also a promise that the chosen ones will multiply like the stars of the sky, but what can be done that this promise will probably never be realized since science has discovered quite unequivocally that the number of stars is so great that the earth simply cannot support even fractions of a percent of this number. Why did your God make such a stupid and patently false promise? Probably to God the solutions (or to the lawyers of the religion who will be quick to claim that it is only a parable, an allegory, and it is clear that he did not mean it literally).
In short, I ask you to stop bothering us with religious words (both ideas and references to texts), do you think you can respect and respond to such a simple and clear request?
Science does not pretend to know everything, over time new things are discovered, and theories change.
In contrast, the theory of God, are a wide variety of theories that enter the void, without a grip on reality, theories that pretend to know everything, with a huge variety of answers, which are measured according to the perception and belief of the believer, and the belief of the passing rabbi, which are based on books written in an eloquent manner, all the reader will understand what he wants
Miracles my friend..
I see that I pissed you off - I must have touched an exposed nerve..
I will try to answer your claims if you try to listen
Although reality exists, and the laws of probability do not apply to what exists - but to the claim that the existing was created by chance - they also apply!!. The one who wants to prove the claim of the case - must deal with the weak probability of his claim being programmed... and you didn't do that.
You do claim that the universe has always existed!! - because if not, then the second possibility is that it was created from nothing - and I asked you to prove it scientifically - but I did not receive an answer.
I did not try to prove my opinion against your opinion from ancient philosophers - my intention was to show that the debate is ancient and we did not invent it,
In my opinion, the cultural infrastructure of an educated person should also contain knowledge of ancient philosophies. You say it's not interesting. your right
You claimed at the beginning of the debate that my sentences have no basis and logic, you did not prove that!! The creation theory is no less illogical than the theory you believe in. [Probability…]
You probably think, my friend, that I tried to bring you back to repentance - a mistake is in your hands - I just wanted to understand the theoretical infrastructure on which you base your life,
Regarding claims of morality - this is not the stage to find out.
I would love to receive scientific proof from someone as knowledgeable as you, regarding the question of the beginning of the universe - I am very curious.
The process described in the article is similar to the situation where distilled water is cooled to temperature
certain below zero. The water is no longer stable and at some point it will form
Ice All water will turn to ice.
Therefore it is not clear to me if there are two time scales or one. One time scale is determined
From the tunneling process which, since it is exponentially small, i.e. its probability is very low
And from this, a time scale can be attributed to it. This time scale will surely be billions of years, though
It is fundamentally probabilistic. A second time scale could be the revolution of the universe at a point
A different phase then has time until the new phase takes over the universe, i.e. fluctuation
who grew up in an unrestrained manner. Another possibility is that there is a single time scale that includes everything
The universe suddenly transforms into the new phase, the fundamental state, that is, the tunnel is of
the whole universe. In any case, the time scale is indeed fundamentally probabilistic
Pigeon
As another who claims to have learned something in his life - what does probability have to do with something that happened in the past??
I do not claim that the universe has always existed!!! I say it's a possibility. Therefore there is not necessarily a creator. Really, learn to listen.
The ancient philosophers believed that the sun revolved around the earth (although not all of them) - certainly the Jewish philosophers 🙂
What interests me, what was written 1000 years ago? Does that make it true? Does this affect the correctness of my opinion?
I live my life according to my faith. I don't see myself as a plaything of some man-hating god. I have a purpose in life - I am not the purpose of a "Creator". My morals are no less than yours, and I'm afraid it's actually more. I don't have Yom Kippur to erase my mistakes.
Miracles my friend
Again we returned to my initial claim - facing two theories - one with a probability to the power of 210 and one a theory of a creator - in my opinion, the probability leans in the direction of a creator..
You say that the universe has always existed - and I say that the Creator has always existed.
Pay attention to the well-known words "Who reigned, before every creature was created...".
Think about it long before us the theories of the ancient universe versus creation already appear in the books of the ancient philosophers.
If you are curious, try to download the "Gate of Distinction" from the Obligation of the Hearts, the 2 theories were written there already 1000 years ago..
Pigeon
Daniel Dent once said "Don't confuse the inability to imagine with proof of commitment".
Before they discovered evolution it was clear to everyone that the species were created as they are today. In the not so distant past it was thought foolish to think that a heavier-than-air craft would ever be able to fly.
We don't know how it all started. But - assume from this that there is a "Creator". It is much more likely that the universe has always been. The invention of a creator only postpones the question. Who created the Creator? After all, every consideration that proves that there must be a creator is also valid for the creator of the creator and so on.
I don't claim to know how it all started. You claim to know. A little humility won't hurt you, my learned friend.
dear miracles,
Talking in passwords is easy
I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me as to why you think healthy is not bound by reality?
And please don't answer me because that's what science says, because science doesn't!!! saying so
Science begins from the point of creation of reality - from the moment of the bang, the scientific tools are not able to handle how reality was created
Nor does the gravitational singularity theory explain how that singularity was created...
Theories of quantum fields oscillating in the primordial empty space and virtual particles that are created at random and disappear at random... and suddenly create mass and matter and time and space..
I won't spend my life on it...
Try to prove scientific proof of the creation of the universe randomly - the entire universe!! Not ghost particles that are created in an accelerator after we put energy into it that turned into matter - it was proven to me that there is an absolute source of creation!! As long as you didn't succeed, you keep lying to yourself, and good luck with that..
Pigeon
When you write "Try to understand that "Lord of the world who is king" is bound by reality" - you are lying to both us and yourself.
You want your faith to be disrespected - keep it up. Keep throwing sentences without any basis and without any logic.
good luck with that
Well, everyone set their watches.
another one
Let's give these gods one more attribute: they exist even if they are proven not to exist.
Now let's see these atheists 🙂
To assemble
On the face of it, what you wrote is true, but I believe that the meaning of the article is slightly different.
It is known that the cosmological constants are not really constant and they change with variability
The dimensions of the universe and the decrease in density. The same is also true (probably..) regarding the mass of the Higgs boson.
In another few billion years, the Higgs mass will drop to a level where the probability
To tunnel into a parallel universe you will grow. Today, the probability of this is still very small,
Actually zero.
Avi Blizovsky, if I were you I would delete the three comments above me, these debates are simply boring and lower the level of the site.
to MouthHole
When faced with 2 theories, one that assumes the existence of reality, basic physics, life and everything in the programming of a series of random events whose probability is to the 210th power...
In front of a theory - based on history and evidence that you can call dubious - but existed in the minds of many people throughout history smarter than me and you...
....
I have to choose the most logical one and according to it lead my life
Gaia Uranus and all the pagan vanity - there is no connection between them the son of the theory of an all-creator - who stands outside of time and place - not made of any material and form - who created the whole reality.
Before the atheists around react - at least they won't react with the ignorance that stems from a lack of basic knowledge of what is that all-embracing theory that I and half the world believe in.
You can check, research, ask, and then form an informed opinion.
I did this after in-depth science and physics studies that include advanced degrees - as well as faith studies later - you are welcome to research and ask.
Dark matter is an example of an invention that is required due to physical reality - that matter is not observed - it does not interact with any other matter - and it is all in the minds of scientists...
It doesn't stop them from defining it as reality..
Try to understand that "Lord of the worlds who reigns" is bound by reality
Happy Purim
MouthHole
Idols of all kinds and how they exist besides the minds and emotions of humans - they also exist in poetry, sculptures, paintings and stories and also in the world of our images and questions.
Regarding your statement that they don't exist outside of that - well, I think it's a bit strange to state that something that one of the attributes attributed to it is that it can be hidden from humans - it doesn't exist - that is, do you have some way of proving its existence or non-existence?
Jonah, can you please stop pushing Gaia and Uranus everywhere.. Idols do not exist.. not in any form nor singular, except in the minds and emotions of humans.
Thanks.
The fact that the world was created has a source science has discovered
The fact that he will return to Ain Gilo now..
Lord of the world who is king
Before before every creature was created...
And after all
Nora will reign alone...
Particle science is at least the least understood area of physics.
It will also be very difficult for a prosecutor to understand unless he is in the field.
Bringing it to the level of popular science is simply impossible.
Instead we will get a simplified version of very complicated and completely non-intuitive ideas.
Trying to understand this science without a lot of background is a waste of time.
I agree with Assaf.
On the face of it, what is written in the article implies that the collapse of the universe is a probabilistic event, which does not depend on the state of the universe, so although it could happen in billions of years, it could also happen tomorrow.
I assume that Prof. Likin's intention is that the characteristic time constants for the occurrence of the event are of the order of billions of years.
Funny, I just wrote a comment on an article about the expansion of the universe that talked about this. It was once thought that the universe would collapse and we would all burn or spread forever and we would all freeze. It turns out that there is a third option.
What is not clear is the time frame we have given for the collapse of the universe, why it will only happen in billions of years, the tunneling they fear can happen at any given time or even it is possible that it has already happened and in a second the bubble will reach us.
The mass of the new particle is 126 GeV, not TeV
"In billions of years the universe will fall apart but the sun will go nova much earlier" - our sun will not go nova...