Talk:Superfluid vacuum theory

Comments
The Superfluid Vacuum Theory is a pirate copy of Hole Vacuum theory by Leshan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.0.201.200 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I started a thread about this article at WikiProject Physics. -- BenRG (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical error?
In the "Curved space-time" section:


 * the degrees of freedom of general relativity are based on may be only approximate

That doesn't read right to me, but I don't know enough to know whether it should be "the degrees of freedom that general relativity are based on..." David (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

History
This bit sounds awkward to me and maybe needs a rewrite:


 * This did not allow them to make an important step - describe the relativistic gravity as one of the small fluctuations of the superfluid vacuum too. This was done subsequently by several authors.

If the line was "this prevented them from making an important step" that would make sense but dunno if that's right. Or maybe "hindered them in making..." Scowie (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The Higgs field / boson exists
It's overdue to update the Higgs contingency section(s) of this article. Danshawen (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)danshawen


 * Update what? This is classic pseudoscience crackpot stuff, lacking meaningful formulas (beyond a duplicated triviality), coherent concepts, or usable references. In particular, the section on the Higgs is "not even wrong"---it is a textbook example of pseudoscience. It comes across as a vanity display of marginal and off-mainstream references, which are likely the raison d' etre of the article. It should have been proposed for deletion in the winter of 2012, but evidently editorial supervision in Wikipedia is broken. 132.248.29.129 (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The same can be said for just about all of the conjecture that attempts to unify gravitation with quantum mechanics. So what you say is true (except that this is one of the more notable hypotheses), if not very objective.  Joys! – Paine EllsworthC LIMAX ! 19:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Is this topic really the subject of intensive studies at this time?
In the overview section it says the following, with no specific references or support: "The microscopic structure of this physical vacuum is currently unknown and is a subject of intensive studies in SVT."

If it is true, could someone add detail in the main article about the intensity of the studies and some references.

If it is false, then the phrase about intensive studies should be removed. J Mark Morris (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Gravitational wave section needs to be fixed and updated
This article has a number of serious problems, but I'd like to focus on the gravitational waves section here. This section is poorly written, so I may be misinterpreting it, but it seems to make the following claims:
 * 1) Gravitational waves might not exist or even make sense under superfluid vacuum theory
 * 2) (1) is the reason that GR doesn't have a gravitational stress energy tensor
 * 3) General relativity can't actually predict gravitational waves ("Therefore, the property (2) cannot..." and "However, such excitations cannot be correctly described..."

I have never specifically studied superfluid vacuum theory (SVT), so I'm not qualified to take a position on claim (1). However, I have studied general relativity, and claims (2) and (3) are completely bogus. Claim (2) is a non-sequitur because GR is a completely separate theory from SVT with its own mathematical basis, so predictions made by SVT cannot explain the existence or lack thereof of a gravitational stress-energy tensor in GR.

Claim (3) is even worse. GR most definitely predicts gravitational waves, as can be seen in any decent GR textbook, such as Gravitation (Misner, Thorne, Wheeler), General Relativity (R.M. Wald), or Spacetime and Geometry (S. Carroll), so this claim is utter nonsense. If this isn't what the article intends to claim then it should be reworded for clarity.

Finally, this section needs to be updated to reflect that gravitational waves have unambiguously been detected numerous times starting in 2016. Thus, if SVT does predict the non-existence of gravitational waves, then it has been directly contradicted by experiment. I would question the notability/suitability of this article in the first place, but I'm not interested in a long debate.

Nnusgart (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)