Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Is our vacuum metastable?


In spontaneously broken gauge theories of particle interactions there are sometimes several local minima of the effective potential. Any of these minima can serve as a vacuum in the sense that we can expand the fields around their values at the minimum, interpret the quantized fluctuations around the minimum as particles, and compare the properties of these particles with experiment. One might think that only the state with absolutely minimum energy could be what we ordinarily call our vacuum, as the other local minima will inevitably decay into this lowest one. However, this is not necessarily the case, because it is possible for the lifetime of a metastable vacuum to be very long, even when compared with the age of the Universe. Furthermore, the energy densities available in present laboratory or astrophysical environments are much less than the barriers which exist in field space between the different local minima, and so we have no direct sensitivity to the presence of a possibly lower vacuum state. (A possible exception to this are magnetic monopoles which do probe the large field region.) If it is not the absolute minimization of the effective potential, what does determine the present vacuum state of the Universe? We argue here that it is determined cosmologically by the dynamical evolution of the Universe from the hot, dense phase which existed shortly after the big bang to the present1,2.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1

    Linde, A. D. Phys. Lett. 70B, 306 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Srednicki, M. Preprint (Princeton University, 1982).

  3. 3

    Kirzhnits, D. A. & Linde, A. D. Phys. Lett. 42B, 471 (1972).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Dolan, L. & Jackiw, R. Phys. Rev. D9, 3320 (1974).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Weinberg, S. Phys. Rev. D9, 3357 (1974).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Coleman, S. Phys. Rev. D15, 2929 (1977).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Georgi, H. & Glashow, S. L. Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Buras, A. J., Ellis, J., Gaillard, M. K. & Nanopoulos, D. V. Nucl. Phys. B135, 66 (1978).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Magg, M. & Shafi, Q. Z. Phys. C4, 63 (1980).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Sherry, T. N. J. Phys. A13, 2205 (1980).

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turner, M., Wilczek, F. Is our vacuum metastable?. Nature 298, 633–634 (1982).

Download citation

Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing