>>10836538>Would it be fair to say that it is not a true vacuum then? In the meaning you're looking for, no. It'd be unfair because you want to redefine vacuum to mean something else (specifically, you thought vacuum meant nothingness).
The anon who replied to you interpreted you as referring to 'true vacuum' and 'false vacuum', which are the popular names for a stable vacuum state and a metastable vacuum state. But he's right, if ours is a metastable vacuum (aparently stable but not the lowest possible energy), then a sufficiently powerful event could catalyse its transition into a lower energy state. This can always happen unless you're on the lowest possible energy state already (the 'true' vacuum).
>Can we escape fields?What do you mean by 'escaping fields'? You're made of excitations of fields. How do you escape your own substance?
