' The Super Fluid Universe ' , A Conclusion From Cornell University' Scientist Grigory Volovik

[Urod]

' The Super Fluid Universe ' , a conclusion from Cornell University' scientist Grigory Volovik and from the Unifying Property of Nature ( UPN ) theory , two independent confirmations !

 

To the Forum Administration , this thread is about Mr. Volovik's discovery , not necessarally about the UPN , so please leave the thread at this location so Volovik's work can be analysed by the the more advanced forum members . Then , if they want they also can take a look at the UPN .

 

 

Before we go any further please take a second to recall the present technology which allows water under a lot of pressure to cut through an inch or more of steel used in metal fabrication and recall also what will happened if you hit the water at over one thousand kilometres per ... second ... hence the power of a flimsy Fluid resides in Speed .

 

This paper submitted in 2010 uses Quantum principles to determine that the Universe is made of a SuperFluid , a conclusion that is far reaching for science because in one shot it states that All possible phenomenon that can occur in the Universe can be Only the type that can occur in a Fluid , hence we all are Waves , Vortexes and their Harmonics !

 

To support this conclusion , the Unifying Property of Nature , UPN , also demonstrates that the Universe is made of a SuperFluid but using only Logic Steps , no Quantum principles .

 

Even though the two theories , Quantum Vs. UPN , are different like two trains on a collision course , it is remarkable to notice that both are using concepts that refer to ' emptiness ' , a ' quantum vacuum ' in Volovik's theory , while ' Nothingness ' was used in the UPN , similar but no cigar !

 

 

I was stunned not to see in the Abstract ( not having access to the full article ) that the conclusion that we all are waves , vortexes and their harmonics is missing from the Cornell University article .

 

Untill than we can now rest assured that we all are Waves , Vortexes and their Harmonics , a deep realisation that opens tremendeous opportunities !

 

For the record as it was Demonstrated in the UPN via the numbered Logic Steps , here are the top three properties of this SuperFluid , properties that to the best of my knowladge were not All demonstrated by Grigory Volovik's theory :

 

- uncompressible

 

- non-granular

 

- extreme low viscosity

 

Can anyone with Quantum theory knowladge confirm those three properties ? Thanks !

 

 

The Superfluid Universe

 

by Grigory Volovik of Cornell University

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.0597

 

 

“ ... We discuss phenomenology of quantum vacuum ...

 

The Standard Model vacuum both in its massless and massive states is topological medium. The vacuum in its massless state shares the properties of superfluid 3He-A, which is topological superfluid ...

.... The small nonzero masses appear in the infrared region, where the quantum vacuum acquires the properties of another topological superfluid, 3He-B, and 3+1 topological insulators ...“ .

 

 

... and the UPN :

 

http://UPNtheory.WordPress.com

Edited July 31, 2012 by Urod

[Pincho Paxton]

Before we go any further please take a second to recall the present technology which allows water under a lot of pressure to cut through an inch or more of steel used in metal fabrication and recall also what will happened if you hit the water at over one thousand kilometres per ... second ... hence the power of a flimsy Fluid resides in Speed .

 

It can be a fluid, but far more complex than you think.

[Urod]

It can be a fluid, but far more complex than you think.

 

That's exactely my question here for the people that are converse in the Quantum theory and can take a detailed look at how Volovik did it because it is remarkable !

 

For starters it would be helpful to have a better grasp on the Quantum Vacuum ( QV ) used by Volovik .

What is and what is not present in this QV ? Because if the Univerese is made of a SUperFluid shouldn't it be also a component of the Quantum Vacuum ?

[Urod]

 

That's exactely my question here for the people that are converse in the Quantum theory and can take a detailed look at how Volovik did it because it is remarkable !

 

For starters it would be helpful to have a better grasp on the Quantum Vacuum ( QV ) used by Volovik .

What is and what is not present in this QV ? Because if the Univerese is made of a SUperFluid shouldn't it be also a component of the Quantum Vacuum ?

 

 

 

Here is what I mean in particular and that makes me ponder :

 

If the definition of Quantum Vacuum as accepted ( see link in the OP ) is a space devoided of Matter YET the Quantum theory describes the Universe as made of a SuperFluid THAN it is clear that the Quantum SuperFluid is NOT Matter ! ...

 

But also it states in between the lines that there is no perfect Vacuum , it is filled with SuperFluid .

 

Besides that , is Volovik introducing a New state of matter that was imbeded in the Quantum theory ?

[LaurieAG]

Hi Urod,

 

But also it states in between the lines that there is no perfect Vacuum , it is filled with SuperFluid .

 

Besides that , is Volovik introducing a New state of matter that was imbeded in the Quantum theory ?

The abstract talks like it a start point for the change process between the past and present universal states with respect to equilibrium.

 

Cosmology is discussed as the process of relaxation of vacuum towards the equilibrium state. The

present value of the cosmological constant is very small compared to the Planck scale, because the

present Universe is very old and thus is close to equilibrium.

[Pincho Paxton]

That's exactely my question here for the people that are converse in the Quantum theory and can take a detailed look at how Volovik did it because it is remarkable !

 

Well, his ideas are so limited, I don't believe that Volovik has grasped the physics required for the zero state of the Universe. I believe that Quantum physics are 2 states higher than all physics. With zero physics, and then negative physics propagating Quantum Physics. Science is just touching on Quantum Physics, however I have been using zero physics, and negative physics for 9 years.

 

So being as I can easily go off topic with Volovik, and try to correct him, I can't post any other information on the subject.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Urod]

Well, his ideas are so limited, I don't believe that Volovik has grasped the physics required for the zero state of the Universe. I believe that Quantum physics are 2 states higher than all physics. With zero physics, and then negative physics propagating Quantum Physics. Science is just touching on Quantum Physics, however I have been using zero physics, and negative physics for 9 years.

 

So being as I can easily go off topic with Volovik, and try to correct him, I can't post any other information on the subject.

 

 

Firstly Laurie AG said : " The abstract talks like it a start point for the change process between the past and present universal states with respect to equilibrium . "

 

My reply to Laurie : is this based on what can be called a Speculation of the Age of the Universe ? In other words similar to the speculation of the Big Bang ?

 

 

I have great news , I just found Vilovik's full PDF text entitled " The Superfluid Universe " so Paxton I will ask you a few questions about it later , thanks :

 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.0597.pdf

 

 

So Paxton , how did you Use zero and Negative physiscs ? Can you show what you built/achieved in those nine years out of this type of physics ?

 

From your statement looks like you can tell already far more about the Superfluid Universe so can you also state with confidence that as a result all phenomena in the Universe can only be the type that can happend in a ( super ) Fluid : only Waves , Vortices and their Harmonics ?

[lawcat]

Love this theory, it's intuitive.

[Urod]

 

Love this theory, it's intuitive.

 

 

 

Are you talking about Volovik's theory ? If that's the case I envy you , here is his introduction about Quantum Vacuum , excerpt :

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.0597.pdf

 

 

" ... The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum.

 

The quantum aether is a new form of matter. This substance has a very peculiar properties strikingly different from the other forms of matter (solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, Bose condensates, radiation, etc.)

and from all the old aethers.

 

The new aether has equation of state p = −ǫ; it is Lorentz

invariant; and as follows from the recent cosmological observations its energy density is

about 10−29g/cm3 (i.e. the quantum aether by 29 orders magnitude lighter than water) and

it is actually anti-gravitating.

 

Quantum vacuum can be viewed as a macroscopic many-body system. Characteristic

energy scale in our vacuum (analog of atomic scale in quantum liquids) is Planck energy

EP = (~c5/G)1/2 ∼ 1019 GeV ∼ 1032K. Our present Universe has extremely low energies

and temperatures compared to the Planck scale: even the highest energy in the nowadays

accelerators is extremely small compared to Planck energy: Emax ∼ 10 TeV ∼ 1017K∼ 10−15EP. The temperature of cosmic background radiation is much smaller, TCMBR ∼ 1

K∼ 10−32EP.

Cosmology belongs to ultra-low frequency physics. Expansion of Universe is extremely

slow : .... " ....

 

 

Sorry , I didn't find anything intuitive but that probably because I am not familiar with the Quantum theory , that's why I started this thread , to find explanations .

 

'LawCat' , I would apreciate if you could elaborate on your conclusion , what's intuitive in Volovik's theory ? Thanks !

 

And generally speaking to all , do your best to provided explanations , things like this do not provide explanations : " With zero physics, and then negative physics propagating Quantum Physics. Science is just touching on Quantum Physics, however I have been using zero physics, and negative physics for 9 years . So being as I can easily go off topic with Volovik, and try to correct him, I can't post any other information on the subject ... " .

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.0597.pdf

[Pincho Paxton]

So Paxton , how did you Use zero and Negative physiscs ? Can you show what you built/achieved in those nine years out of this type of physics ?

 

From your statement looks like you can tell already far more about the Superfluid Universe so can you also state with confidence that as a result all phenomena in the Universe can only be the type that can happend in a ( super ) Fluid : only Waves , Vortices and their Harmonics ?

 

Well Volovik is trying to wedge his theory into the standard model. I completely disregard the standard model, and I reverse General relativity. I reverse the Big Bang into a Big Crunch. I disregard attraction, and only allow bump physics. I have lots of reasons to rearrange the standard model, most of them come down to Newton saying 'Attraction', and just that one word messes everything up. When I analysed attraction I found that no pull forces exist, and you don't need them anyway. You can't pull up your trousers, your fingers are behind atoms, and are pushing. You have to analyse everything, from human psychology, to Einstein's belief system. You have to start science from scratch, and remove all physics since Newton. This makes you get the physics right, but also means that nobody can understand you anymore.

 

So what have I done in 9 years? I have reworked as many physics as I can using my own rainbow of physics. The domino effect of having new small physics, and correcting Quantum Physics. I have started programming them into a computer simulation, and I plan on having a demonstration of the new physics creating the Universe very soon. It is a computer program like no other, it creates the universe without formulas, but using simple rules.

 

So what is this super-fluid? It is like water, but none bonded, and also like sand. It is created by infinity, and infinite scalar particles. The physics are merely to scale a container like a bucket. You scale a bucket up, and it can hold another bucket, and you get a Russian doll of buckets. A Russian doll of buckets bumping a Russian doll of buckets = Infinity. The outer buckets, are the membranes of the inner buckets. The physics are better to program than to explain in words. So hard to explain in words, nobody can ever understand what I am saying.

[Urod]

Well Volovik is trying to wedge his theory into the standard model. I completely disregard the standard model, and I reverse General relativity. I reverse the Big Bang into a Big Crunch. I disregard attraction, and only allow bump physics. I have lots of reasons to rearrange the standard model, most of them come down to Newton saying 'Attraction', and just that one word messes everything up. .....

 

.... You have to start science from scratch, and remove all physics since Newton. This makes you get the physics right, but also means that nobody can understand you anymore.

 

So what have I done in 9 years? I have reworked as many physics as I can using my own rainbow of physics. The domino effect of having new small physics, and correcting Quantum Physics. I have started programming them into a computer simulation, and I plan on having a demonstration of the new physics creating the Universe very soon. It is a computer program like no other, it creates the universe without formulas, but using simple rules.

 

 

 

You said ' using Rules ' and I say ' using Properties ' but the same idea : Quantum/Relativity can not explain the phenomenon observed nor they can create Formulas to represent a description of those phenomena .

 

But the formulas in those theories are a better reflection of reality than the theories themselves because they are empirical , i.e. experimental-deduced formulas . A real theory would be able to predict those formulas by Accurately describing the Properties ( rules ) of nature . Why ? Very simple : the Universe is 100 % Logic .

 

So Paxton , do you have a website to show those Rules , thanks !

 

If you are interested you can see my 'Properties' in a Logic Step format in the Unifying Property of Nature , UPN , at

 

http://UPNtheory.WordPress.com

 

 

But until then I am asking all with Quantum knowladge to focus on this thread and translate how Volovik arrives to the conclusion of a Superfluid Universe , thank you all !

 

And , please , touch on the supposed extra conclusion about all being only waves , vortices and their harmonics ...

[Pincho Paxton]

You said ' using Rules ' and I say ' using Properties ' but the same idea : Quantum/Relativity can not explain the phenomenon observed nor they can create Formulas to represent a description of those phenomena .

 

But the formulas in those theories are a better reflection of reality than the theories themselves because they are empirical , i.e. experimental-deduced formulas . A real theory would be able to predict those formulas by Accurately describing the Properties ( rules ) of nature . Why ? Very simple : the Universe is 100 % Logic .

 

So Paxton , do you have a website to show those Rules , thanks !

 

If you are interested you can see my 'Properties' in a Logic Step format in the Unifying Property of Nature , UPN , at

 

http://UPNtheory.WordPress.com

 

 

But until then I am asking all with Quantum knowladge to focus on this thread and translate how Volovik arrives to the conclusion of a Superfluid Universe , thank you all !

 

And , please , touch on the supposed extra conclusion about all being only waves , vortices and their harmonics ...

 

You use the word nothingness, and something. The physics are complimentary 1 + -1 = 0. Where 1 is a membrane, and -1 is a hole inside that membrane. Therefore nothingness is created by two things that oppose one another.

 

Nothingness = 2 opposing forces.

 

Together the two opposing forces flatline, and no sensory equipment can read a flatline state. But at the quantum level you could theoretically divide nothing into two halves, and try to read each individual part.

 

A spider waits for a twitch in its web. It's web becomes nothing when it is not twitching. It becomes positive when it twitches convexedly and it becomes negative when it twitches concavely. Yet the web can flatline, and the spider does not want to recognise the flatline.

 

A fish swims through water. the fish does not want to see the stillness of the water with its eyes. The stillness of the water is flat-lining. The stillness of water to a fish is nothing.

 

Spacetime is the perfect flatline state. It equals zero, but is made from two states of energy. A spacetime curve, a dip, and a bump.

 

When you say nothingness in your link, you are not applying the physics to create nothingness. You actually mean nothing. Pure 100% nothing does not exist.

[Urod]

 

... Pure 100% nothing does not exist.

 

 

 

Amazing , your statement is exactely what my theory ( UPN ) has at its foundation : nothingness doesn't exist so the Universe is filled with somethingness .

 

Let me ask you : for how long , time wise , is Nothingness non-existant ? You can throw in the Big Bang as a reference point in time , just as a scenario .

Edited August 11, 2012 by Urod

[Pincho Paxton]

Let me ask you : for how long , time wise , is Nothingness non-existant ? You can throw in the Big Bang as a reference point in time , just as a scenario .

 

Nothing has never existed. There have always been two states of matter. But combined they are the closest to nothing as you can get. I don't believe in the Big Bang, I have an alternative series of events, and they fix what I call a mistake. Even though I don't believe in the Big Bang, Steven Hawking still uses two states of matter to create nothing, and includes the Big Bang in his version of events (It's possible that he got his version off my old posts, because they are almost identical up until the Big Bang).

Edited August 11, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Urod]

 

Nothing has never existed ...

 

 

 

I agree with your answer which leads to the easy conclusion that if nothingness never existed than Somethingness was around forever , beyond infinity , which also gives us the age of the Universe : infinite .

 

Yet Volovik referes to the age of the Universe as , quote , " The

present value of the cosmological constant is very small compared to the Planck scale, because the

present Universe is very old and thus is close to equilibrium . " .

 

" Very old " is definetly a statement that says " the Universe is Not infinetly old " so I wonder how did Volovik arrived to that conclusion ?

 

So How can we prove that nothingness can not and never existed ?? Because if we can than the opening logic above is correct : the Universe is infinetle old !

[Pincho Paxton]

I agree with your answer which leads to the easy conclusion that if nothingness never existed than Somethingness was around forever , beyond infinity , which also gives us the age of the Universe : infinite .

 

Yet Volovik referes to the age of the Universe as , quote , " The

present value of the cosmological constant is very small compared to the Planck scale, because the

present Universe is very old and thus is close to equilibrium . " .

 

" Very old " is definetly a statement that says " the Universe is Not infinetly old " so I wonder how did Volovik arrived to that conclusion ?

 

So How can we prove that nothingness can not and never existed ?? Because if we can than the opening logic above is correct : the Universe is infinetle old !

 

The universe exists, and that proves that nothingness never existed. It is a test of intelligence. You either understand the answer, or you don't. That is a simple answer to me, but can be complicated for certain people.

 

The Universe is infinitely old. It just keeps repeating Galaxies all over the place. Each Galaxy has its own age. The age of a Galaxy is more important than the age of the Universe. Equilibrium seems to be based on an error in current physics. The error I think is to do with physics having a zero point. Physics are rotational, and so never reach a zero point. Physics turn negative, and negative turns positive, it's not going to wind down.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Pincho Paxton

[Urod]

h;oihj'o

Edited December 1, 2012 by Urod