- Nov 11, 2019
Well, as I note in my comment on the article, it already is (as you later note) but the superfluid physics here is not relevant to our universe ...What if spacetime of our whole universe is a certain kind of superfluid?
... so this is a side topic.The problem is how GR emerges from QM! Which is actually, how spacetime emerges from quantum vacuum!
Again, the paper and the article is not about our universe, despite the click bait title - you likely did not read either and is not interested in the presented science.Apparently helium 3 and helium 4 cannot freeze even at absolute zero kelvin - if this is true then the universe will always have motion and cannot go back to a static motionless state from now on.
I'm not sure what "started to fall" means, though it is true that a classical newtonian gravity model of the expansion derives it as analogous to a thrown mass (for the matter dominated era), c.f. cosmologist Susskind's cosmology lectures at Stanford's open web courses.When the Universe started to fall:
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory on the Formation of the Universe. The Theory: (1) The expansion of the universe is a result of the " heat ' contained therein;
(2) The source of the " heat " is the cosmic microwave radiation background at 3 kelvin,
(3) The microwave electro magnetic-nuclear energy was formed as a result of the
interaction of two different static gravitational vacuum fields, causing gravitational
No, it obviously isn't [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ].That is a summary of the Big Bang Theory. Actually the universe if hot at 3 kelvin for the billion ly + size of it 3 kelvin is impressive. The CERN collider operates at 2 kelvin, my question is when was the last time the universe was at 2 kelvin ? ( Some Big Bang theorist would say never. )
That link, if not the description, takes me to a pseudoscience site, with superstition thrown in for good measure.Here is a completely different cosmological theory
Again, the paper and the article is not about our universe, despite the click bait title - you likely did not read either and is not interested in the presented science.
A quantum particle field, as all the universe forces and matter seem to be constituted of, have always fluctuations even if a perfect vacuum [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state ].
I'm not sure what "started to fall" means, though it is true that a classical newtonian gravity model of the expansion derives it as analogous to a thrown mass (for the matter dominated era), c.f. cosmologist Susskind's cosmology lectures at Stanford's open web courses.
That leads up to that the expansion scale factor as a function of time develops depending on the inner energy state of the universe [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) ; note that the matter dominated era scale factor alpha(t) ~ t^2/3 describes precisely a parabola of a thrown mass].
The radiation dominated era between the hot big bang start and about 50 kyrs, until dilution made the universe enter the matter dominated era for a couple of billion years (we are now in the dark energy dominated era) could be said to be driven by the universe "heat" at temperatures ranging from close to Planck temperature down trending towards the ~ 3,000 K when cosmic background radiation was released at ~ 400 kyrs. (Which now with space expanded by a factor ~ 1,000 has stretched cosmic background photons to a radiation temperature of ~ 3 K.)
That is far from your quantitative description, and any correspondence with reality stops there. E.g. there is only one type of gravity field.
No, it obviously isn't [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ].
And it is better described today as inflationary hot big bang cosmology [View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Q8tS-9hYo
; the manuscript source is the popular astrophysicist Katie Mack]. One of the reasons for that is how the inflation that precedes the hot big bang period explains both the flatness and the homogeneity and isotropy of space, which only an expansion cannot [see the video].
The universe has never before been at 2.7 K, obviously.
That link, if not the description, takes me to a pseudoscience site, with superstition thrown in for good measure.
So no, it isn't "a theory" at a guess. Even if there were some reasonable numbers in a meaningless attempt at quantification of the absurd. it couldn't be published (hence the site).
[Reposting pseudoscience + superstition site text using crackpot font.]
[Reposting a BEC reference from Wikipedia.]
When you references to specific quotes, you may want to use the full reference ("fall into the lowest accessible quantum state") and add the quote. But our universe is obviously not a condensate nor at a lowest accessible state, as evidenced by us writing this.When the universe started to fall; fall in this case means the following:
quote : " Einstein proposed that cooling bosonic atoms to a very low temperature would cause them to fall (or "condense") into the lowest accessible quantum state, resulting in a new form of matter. "