Treating space-time like a superfluid may unify physics

By Graham Templeton Jun. 20, 2014 9:30 am

The irreconcilable differences between quantum and “classical” physics are the subject of immense study and debate within the scientific community, and any attempt to close the gap must invoke seemingly frivolous ideas like superstrings and 12-dimentional space. Now, a movement in physics is suggesting that a new possible insight could explain the contradictions in modern physics: maybe time is a superfluid.

The basic logic behind this idea works like so: the properties of water, the high boiling point and surface tension that help to give it its amazing properties, are not a product of any one water molecule but of the interaction between those molecules. Put differently, the properties of a water molecule are fundamental, while the properties of water overall are emergent. The classical view of space-time is that its properties are fundamental, an intrinsic aspect of space-time as the basic backdrop of existence. The liquid theory of space-time says that its properties are emergent, the product of interaction between units about which we currently know nothing at all.

Now, if this all sounds a bit airy-fairy to be counted as hard science, never fear: while the movement to view space-time as a liquid has existed in some form since the early 1990s, earlier this year we got our first actual data on the subject. A team from the University of Munich has collected high-energy photons incoming from the Crab Nebula, finding none of the energy loss we’d expect if the photons had traveled such a long distance through a fluid. The Crab Nebula photons could only be moving through a fluid space-time if that fluid presented absolutely no resistance to movement. Thus, the researchers conclude that if space-time is a fluid, it must be a superfluid – that is, a fluid like liquid helium, with zero viscosity and a seeming disrespect for principles like gravity and surface tension.

Treating space-time like a fluid may unify physics

Stumbled across this interesting little bit of science news and thought it was worth sharing. This actually strikes me as a very appealing and organic way of interpreting space-time. I'll have to think a bit about the ramifications of this being true, but I have a feeling this could help to solve some important questions.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yes this is one intuitive conclusion. But I would say perhaps a coupling of 'that which allows gravity to exist' (meaning the gravity field), 'that which allows light to exist' (meaning the em field) is 'that which is space', for all areas of space have the potential to contain gravity and light, and light follows the curve of gravity.

I dont know, but something interesting to think about, yes comparing it to liquid is ok, but it could also be a completely foreign conceptually substance/material. Like, solid, liquid, gas, arent so different, just pressures, density, area. Its the same components, like water for example, under different environmental conditions, changes its form. Like wise, if within the universe, space, is a contained manifold of some type of energy/matter, it could be that as all standard particles and fields are ultimately related to one another, the fundamental essence, material, substance, energy, of space is also a deviation of those things.

Is it thought that at every point in space is at least >0 value of radiation? So there are EM field nodes at every single planck length of space, that are jostling against one another, and there are electrons that move through this space, which ultimately cause disturbances that create the effects of light?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Am neither a physicist or mathematician but I absolutely love this conceptual stuff. Makes sense to me.

F&S&

Could another name for this be the Aether?

It makes a bit more sense. If you fire off two high energy photons together (gamma rays), there are the odds that they'll snag something, split apart into an electron and positron. The positron will float around until it encounters an atom, and disappears (either into the nucleus or annihilates another electron).

So it almost like shooting bullets into the ocean and the particles created are really vortices in the superfluid, which would explain how they would cancel each other out.

This is interesting. Like ImaFungi mentioned, we are sort of limited in our understanding. Of course the only way to progress is to find new ideas and work with them but it is hit and miss. This is an educated guess, and number crunching will either immediately show such an idea to be promising or not, but proof will be a long time coming, and work will continue on the idea regardless. The amount of promise an idea shows influences the number of physicists who will work on the idea. Even if something cannot be proven in science it can still be useful. And what we think holds true in regions we cannot observe may not be accurate either. What we think of as laws of physics may not even be correct. It is possible to arrive at a relatively accurate conclusion via an incorrect method.

But like I was saying, we are limited because there are numerous possibilities, and we are basing our hypotheses off of what we already know. What if the nature of space time is foreign to everything we know? Or any other thing that cannot actually be proven? Science itself is based on a certain methodology that is often almost completely useless in the theoretical realm. I am hopeful that an idea like this will pan out, as it would mean sweeping advances.

a reply to: bluemooone2

..certainly sounds like it
throw on some glitter & macaroni maybe..?

"The basic logic behind this idea works like so: the properties of water, the high boiling point and surface tension that help to give it its amazing properties, are not a product of any one water molecule but of the interaction between those molecules. Put differently, the properties of a water molecule are fundamental, while the properties of water overall are emergent. The classical view of space-time is that its properties are fundamental, an intrinsic aspect of space-time as the basic backdrop of existence. The liquid theory of space-time says that its properties are emergent, the product of interaction between units about which we currently know nothing at all."

This part of the article stuck out for me. 1D strings? nah get smaller like 0D points but then if there's no dimensions they become infinitely large as well. What the hell?

a fact, wich is often denied by mainstream science, is that the concept of "aether" IS part of quantum mechanics!
Youll often get a desciption like "ocean of existance" for the underlying structure of spacetime.

What has in fact been (dis)proven is, that the propagation of light in a vaccum isnt affected by any measurable medium.

In case you werent aware, Heisenberg(whos considered "Father of Quantum-Mechanics") was inspired by old Hindu Sanscrit texts and stated:
W. Heisenberg, German Physicist: "After the conversations about Indian philosophy, some of the ideas of Quantum Physics that had seemed so crazy suddenly made much more sense."

And yeah, those old Cultures believed in "Akasha" wich is similar to the above mentioned ocean.
...as well as "Prana" wich ultimatly would translate into onscillation in modern day science.

Sounds like Plasma to me.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Uh, if you actually read the journal article, it's the other way around. Experimental results have ruled out a significant class of models which try to make space-time emergent from more fundamental entitites, and are consistent with the standard model of space-time being fundamental.

journals.aps.org...

The emergence of a classical spacetime from any quantum gravity model is still a subtle and only partially understood issue. If indeed spacetime is arising as some sort of large scale condensate of more fundamental objects, then it is natural to expect that matter, being a collective excitation of the spacetime constituents, will present modified kinematics at sufficiently high energies. We consider here the phenomenology of the dissipative effects necessarily arising in such a picture. Adopting dissipative hydrodynamics as a general framework for the description of the energy exchange between collective excitations and the spacetime fundamental degrees of freedom, we discuss how rates of energy loss for elementary particles can be derived from dispersion relations and used to provide strong constraints on the base of current astrophysical observations of high-energy particles.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Uh, if you actually read the journal article, it's the other way around. Experimental results have ruled out a significant class of models which try to make space-time emergent from more fundamental entitites, and are consistent with the standard model of space-time being fundamental.

journals.aps.org...

The emergence of a classical spacetime from any quantum gravity model is still a subtle and only partially understood issue. If indeed spacetime is arising as some sort of large scale condensate of more fundamental objects, then it is natural to expect that matter, being a collective excitation of the spacetime constituents, will present modified kinematics at sufficiently high energies. We consider here the phenomenology of the dissipative effects necessarily arising in such a picture. Adopting dissipative hydrodynamics as a general framework for the description of the energy exchange between collective excitations and the spacetime fundamental degrees of freedom, we discuss how rates of energy loss for elementary particles can be derived from dispersion relations and used to provide strong constraints on the base of current astrophysical observations of high-energy particles.

'space time being fundamental' .... meaning. What do you mean by 'space-time'? Is that term describing an actual something, or is it describing nothing?

originally posted by: bluemooone2
Could another name for this be the Aether?

That's the original name of Space-Time and the Higgs Field.

They keep on renaming that original notion whenever the renamed notion loses credibility or popularity. Cosmologists are still working with 19th century steampunk fundamentals, like energy-centrism and particles as reality quanta. They'll continue to trot out the aether until someone breaks free of that restriction.

a reply to: NorEaster

Yes, I'm sure that is true, however, I don't really know of a better word for it as there is much that we do not know. And much that we have all wrong, I am sure.
As in , we see a tiny part or idea that seems right , but that is only a tiny part of the whole and we jump to too many conclusions.
Call it quantum flux if you want I guess.......
Perhaps there is such a thing as time particles that, perhaps, will be discovered 20 years from now.

It's the Higgs field pervading space that is already the superfluid. Look at the mathematics of SU(2) or SU(3) monopoles embedded in the symmetry-breaking Higgs field and you will discover the non-abelian counterpart of Abrikosov vortices in superfluid liquid helium:
www.google.com...
That's NO coincidence but all part of the universal, mathematical analogy that connects phenomena at different scales of space-time. It's been recognised by string theorists for several decades and will be studied more seriously now that the Higgs particle has been discovered.

Speaking of unifying quantum and classical physics with fluidity.

This just in - Fluid Tests Hint at Concrete Quantum Reality

In a groundbreaking experiment, the Paris researchers used the droplet setup to demonstrate single- and double-slit interference. They discovered that when a droplet bounces toward a pair of openings in a damlike barrier, it passes through only one slit or the other, while the pilot wave passes through both. Repeated trials show that the overlapping wavefronts of the pilot wave steer the droplets to certain places and never to locations in between — an apparent replication of the interference pattern in the quantum double-slit experiment that Feynman described as “impossible … to explain in any classical way.” And just as measuring the trajectories of particles seems to “collapse” their simultaneous realities, disturbing the pilot wave in the bouncing-droplet experiment destroys the interference pattern.

Not that any of this will topple the Bohr-imposed Copenhagen Interpretation, but it does suggest that there could be other possibilities as it relates to the "mysterious nature" of quantum mechanics.

I was pretty surprised when I didn't find any thread here about this paper. Not that it's definitive, but then how often are there non-definitive "breakthrough" announcements posted here. Pretty often, actually.

originally posted by: NorEaster

I was pretty surprised when I didn't find any thread here about this paper.

its discussed quite frequently.
pretty much every theory i can think of, challanging the standard modell, is built uppon the idea of an "incompressible superfluid" being the underlying mechanic of spacetime.

its quite an ancient idea too, wich can be found in the "vedas" for example, resembling the oldest known written documents afaik.

Cool, let's put a crazy straw in it and blow bubbles. Trip on that thought Science!

originally posted by: Thorneblood
Cool, let's put a crazy straw in it and blow bubbles. Trip on that thought Science!

just posting to get your store-links promoted?
the only really crazy thing i see, is people jumping the redicule train before reading into the topic...

looki, looki, CrAzY math ! zomg, even recognized by the press.
...or the recent "vortex math" models, they all utilize a fluidlike structure.

you wont find any point in history without some models like those being discusses, reaching all the way back to the very first known writings of mankind.
sound crazy? well reality > fiction

but hey, looking up google for 2 minz wouldve proven more difficult than a spampost on the ATS forums, right?