Superfluid – but where and when?

  The persistent idea that everything must be a thing continues to create problems in physics. It seems like I am a singularity myself, claiming the belief in a priori thing-ness is a misconception. No matter how close to reality a theory comes, it falls short of the ToE because of this belief.

It usually goes like this:

There is things we can observe empirically – check
There are smaller things inside big things – check
There are even smaller things inside small things – check
All things move in relation to each other – check
All things have inherent motion – check
Being is particular and massive – check
Motion is wavelike and vibrational – check
What we can observe is particular motion – check
Reality (a) is, and (b) changes – check
Where is reality – ?
When does it change – ?

So we have theories that tries to explain spacetime. We still don’t know how the particular motion of being is carried out, because we can’t seem to find in what media/background it moves. We can clearly observe that things propagate through space, but we have no idea (or too many ideas) what it propagates through. So we look for that “something”.

A popular concept of this media is aether. This is an attractive idea since it implies an existence of something that is spread out everywhere in space. Perhaps it is what constitutes space itself? The other day I found one of these aether theories, Superfluid Vacuum Theory (SVT). This is very close indeed. It could potentially serve as a ToE. Thing is, that goes for most other theories as well, even the soon to crash Standard Model. They are all right, but they have one flaw in common. All assume reality to be of being only. No one seems to know what’s coming in the be-coming of reality.

This comes as no surprise, because scientific method requires “being” as some thing to observe. It cannot investigate the unseen “change”, only what it is that is changed. We must realize the difference between; 1. Observing what changes 2. Observing what changes The first is looking at an object that has motion. The second is trying to see what causes the object to move. One is effect, the other cause. Can you realize this is not irrelevant?

Imagine finding what causes change. Wouldn’t that be great? Perhaps that is the mysterious graviton? Now, when you find it, before you go to Stockholm for the big prize, tell me if this cause of change is inherently still or if it moves. If it is still, tell me how it can cause anything to do anything. If it moves, tell me what makes it move. You see, the first is impossible and the second is infinite regress. Cancel the tickets my friend. You’re not going anywhere by doing this.

The aether we’re looking for is inside the being, not outside. It is the inherent motion that comes with every thing. It is everything inside every thing. It is the cause of vortices in the condensate/superfluid. It is the cause of rotation, orbits, waves and trajectories of things. It is the some of all things. You can never detect the some, only the thing. The thing is never a definite thing of itself. It is always some-thing. It is the formless within form, the Sunyata of Buddhist philosophy.

So to the question of what mediates the motion of things, the answer is – the inherent motion of things. We might just dig up the old Greeks and give the prize to them, or Nagarjuna. They had it right then already, but no condensed matter labs to prove their point. The point is – there is only points, and they cannot be observed. The point is causing contraction and expansion. The points are what makes up the universe. They cause energy, as negative and positive, to travel from point to point creating effects as mass, waves, particles, fluids, gas, tissue etc. There are no objects pushing each other around, only subjective values of contraction/expansion causing effects of space and time as well as “motion”. No thing moves about, but something always moves about. That is everything.

Aether is a valid concept, but it is not spread out everywhere.
The aether is the “with” within every thing.
Everything is exactly what it looks like, but the other way round.
We are the outside of inside the universe.

It starts a singularity and it grows singularities.
Where is the point of space.
When is the change of point value in time.
Motion is not in a superfluid.
Motion is superfluid.
Universe is an ensamble of superfluid singularities generating growth in free space.



The reality of fictitious force

Trying to make sense of reality is not easy for as long as we have faith in fiction and fantasy. One such fantasy is the belief in an observer as who controls variables. It is believed that if we freeze the observer and the background, then we will know the motion/change of an object X. One way to freeze observer/background is to know the nature of both, so if a background factor, for example “spacetime”, is assumed to affect X, the the observer/scientist will adjust its observation accordingly. In doing so, observer and background are known and controlled so observational data will be of object only. The idea is that the inherent property of X should not be confused with properties of background and observer.

Albeit a requirement for scientific method to be practiced, I claim it to be a useful fiction which obscures the nature of reality. We seem to agree that reality is never totally still, but always in various degrees of change. Look at the image below and imagine none of the 3 parts to be still. In the upper inertial frame, the red observer/dot is not fixed to the rotation of the background disc. How the red dot moves, we don’t know, but it is not glued to the motion of background more than the black dot/object is. If the red observer manages to keep a fixed position, the black object will hit it straight in the face. It is funny to imagine an observation to happen that way. Perhaps it does?


By Hubi, German wikipedia.



The lower non-inertial frame is how our human mind, as observers, responds to the scenario. This is how X appears when assuming observer and background to be controlled for. Most likely, this controlling is not only done explicitly is experimental settings, but by default in all “mental” settings. My guess is that psychophysics can answer how this is automated in sensory perception. But I’m looking at reality as it is, without anyone looking at it, so the upper frame is closer to reality, unrelated to the eyes of an observer mind.

For now, I’d just like to correct the misinterpretation of Coriolis and centrifugal as fictitious forces. They are apperances of the singular force there is – Gravity.
Gravity is contractive and rotational. There is no other force, only effects e.g. spin, charge, mass, trajectories, kinetic/potential energy, radiance, space, velocity, exponential growth, uncertainty, particles, time, geometries ad infinitum. All there is comes from rotational gravity.

A way of looking at the discs, behind their apperance to an observer, is to imagine the disc to be either black or empty of objects/parts. It is a rotating singularity that contracts. After 1/4 turn (90 degrees), there is a perturbation of the rotating gravity. That would be a bump on the disc at 6 o’clock as the black object hits the perimeter. Unfortunate for us, the singularity as a “simple system for which a mathematical solution is known” is also an essential singularity which is “especially unmanageable”. So this perturbation is hard to describe by theories of perturbation.

What we see is basically “nothing” as the fundamental cause of “everything”. The singularity does not communicate with observation, because it is causal. As causal, it cannot be affected. A fundamental cause is by definition unaffected by context. Instead it is the cause of context. From this position, it makes perfect sense to say it is mathematically “unmanageable”. It is also reasonable to believe gravity itself to remain the chief hidden variable.

What we do see is how these “bumps” in discrete singularities of rotational gravity generates “waves” along the edges/horizon. There will be vibrations of certain wavelengths, generated at certain frequencies. These vibrations are what we experience as “energy”. This energy is Everything.
This is my theory of it.

Singularity of standard strings

Being the same type of observers, observing the same kind of reality, I find it hard to believe any of our current theories of the universe to be wrong. I am convinced all theories are essentially correct, but accidentally different. What I’m trying to do is getting to the most fundamental roots of these seemingly divergent ideas and look for the common sense beneath the surface.

I have nothing to add when it comes to the specifics of QM, String Theory or Quantum Gravity. What defines one from the other is about their relations to each other. You might say that everything important for the advocates of theories is of less interest to me. I hold on to a singular perspective, and from that specific point of view, everything is included and equally valid. But just as general complexity has a tendency to increase, so does the complexity of theories. My guess is that in 5-10 years we have 20+ theories of the same thing i.e. Singularity. I’m just taking a short cut since I’m rather lazy.

For all of its diversity and complexity, reality needs two properties:

1: Contraction to hold energy restricted as to generate subjective structures/forms. Without contraction there’s no Being.
2. Expansion to allow for energy to move and radiate. Without expansion there’s no Becoming.

The candidate force of contraction is obviously Gravity. Having that covered, we need to add a force responsible for expansion. A universe of only contraction would have problems with expanding anyway whatsoever. So what could expand gravity enough to get the show on the road? Well, if we assume all of contraction/expansion to be present within the initial state, the singularity, this might not be a problem. Then we end up with the Big Bang of what is already there. But everyone is not totally comfortable with this scenarion. In this post I will not dwell into the obvious none sense in the BB-theory. Let’s say I find a universe growing much more likely than one exploding.

Here follows a very simple (that’s the point) comparison of 3 ideas on the fundamental inner workings of reality. Being so simplyfied, no standard or string modelist will accept my crude description of their models, I understand that, but it is enough for me to make my singularity point.

The atom model builds on the idea of contraction being at the center nucleus, where gluons hold the property of gravity, called the Strong Force. Qualitatively different from the nuclei are the electrons which radiates the atom and can escape from it, so there’s the function of expansion. This is a theory of inherent dualism where the basic unit of atom is made of 2 parts. If we break down the atom to the proton, we have 3 quarks and 3 gluons. Quarks are particles and gluons are force carriers. The Standard Model does not change its basic assumption of 2 distinct parts making up the 1 unit.

The string model holds that these 2 parts of the Standard Model are instead 1 and the same i.e. strings of vibrating energy. Instead of seeing dualism, we hereby introduce monism. Reality is not 2 but 1.

In the Singularity model a la Grebäck, we combine these 2 and throw in a hidden constant which we call the fundamental cause of observable effects. I’m not sure if naming it Gravity is a wise move. I’m thinking G-force is more appropriate and less attached with conceptual (mis-)understanding. The G-force can be imagined as “Black Hole”-force as zero radiating. This makes it impossible to observe sice it resists any interaction. There’s no information to get from this G-force in and of itself. Good thing is, there is an effect from this cause. You see, cause –> effect.
There are lots of data suggesting “bosons”, force carriers, having inherent motion that appears vortex-like or rotational. It looks like “gluons” are super contractive up to a specific point when they invert and seem to bounce back and “expand” from center out. This is a good thing because now we have 1 force of 2 opposite qualities – contractive/expansive. One and the same source have two distinct modes of being. Either it contracts as gravity, or it expands as radiance. By this peculiar G-force, we could actually build a universe from scratch. That is, assuming its inherent motion not to require an external source of energy to keep going. As far as I can see, that is not needed. It rather looks like there’s a lot of energy needed to stop the G-force from twisting and bouncing. If we slow it down with laser beams, the outer surface quiets down as electrons seems to stop orbiting. Just as the nanosystem is about to stop completely, it starts rotating in center. This tendency to exhibit inherent torque seems general enough to appear also on macrolevel.

Vortices and Other Topological Solitons, Eto et al. 2013




The point in presenting this idea of Singularity as 1 cause of 2 effects is not to challange contemporary models. It is to suggest a possibility of universal growth as an alternative perspective on an initial state as including all the energy of our universe as we know it. The obvious downside in this model is having to accept a fundamental causation of all observables, and what limit that sets on scientific method based on empirical observation.

A self-generating universe would suggest as a fundamental priciple, governing flow of information, energy transfer and force interaction, to increase efficiency in generating increasing amounts of energy for continued growth. Herein one might find the reason for observed increase in complexity of geometries and why “time” seems irreversible.

A universe that self-generates would have properties of space and energy that exactly correlates with age. That is, time relates to inherent G-force which generates energy for expansion in space. A universe growing from a possibly tiny singularity questions our current understanding of space and time, as it has no external point of reference. The universe is likely to still be a singularity of continously increasing amounts of vortices, generating negentropy on a nanoscale as a cause of entropy on higher levels of complexity.

It could be simple as that.