Superfluid Universe

[hegne]

Hi everybody,

I have been doing research on "analogy of fluid mediums and sub-atomic particles" for a long time. In this context, I examined the behavior of super fluid mediums and vortex, and I compared the behavior of subatomic particles. As a result of my research, I saw an immense analogy between them.

Besides, Einstein was thinking, fields could intensify at a certain point, through a kind of knotting. and knot can behave like a particle. Briefly, the particles can be obtained from fields. This knots are called as soliton.

I supposed the fields of Einstein as super fluid medium. And knotted field as vortex. I got very interesting results. I noticed that fluid mediums has analogy with gravitational, electrical and magnetic fields, molecular orbital theory, black holes .. etc.

The research results are collected in an article and video. I want to share my research with you and get your opinions, comments.

I would be very pleased, if you write your comments.

youtube video :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eawL3WxzkUk

PDF Article :
www.superfluiduniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/superfluiduniverse.pdf

[imatfaal]

1st glance at first couple of pages

 

a. Sounds like the remarkable unsinkable zombie that is the luminiferous aether.

 

b. that's not the acoustic wave equation that one finds elsewhere

 

c. the famous equation is more often shown with the momentum section as well - can you derive that?

 

d. i hate partial differentials and forget them every time I try to learn - but are you sure yours are done correctly? surely d/dp of E/m = 0

 

[Unity+]

Hi everybody,

 

I have been doing research on "analogy of fluid mediums and sub-atomic particles" for a long time. In this context, I examined the behavior of super fluid mediums and vortex, and I compared the behavior of subatomic particles. As a result of my research, I saw an immense analogy between them.

 

Besides, Einstein was thinking, fields could intensify at a certain point, through a kind of knotting. and knot can behave like a particle. Briefly, the particles can be obtained from fields. This knots are called as soliton.

 

I supposed the fields of Einstein as super fluid medium. And knotted field as vortex. I got very interesting results. I noticed that fluid mediums has analogy with gravitational, electrical and magnetic fields, molecular orbital theory, black holes .. etc.

 

The research results are collected in an article and video. I want to share my research with you and get your opinions, comments.

 

I would be very pleased, if you write your comments.

 

youtube video :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eawL3WxzkUk

 

PDF Article :

www.superfluiduniverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/superfluiduniverse.pdf

This is actually pretty interesting, especially with how there are similar principles with energy and the flow of electrons. For example, you describe certain concepts with pressure. That same concept is found if energy, especially with Tesla coils and how the pressure intensifies the strength of the result(maybe obvious, yet still interesting).

[Bignose]

The commonality between fluid flow and electrodynamics has been known for some time. I have seen circuits taught to mechanical engineers with the 'resistors are just like smaller and smaller pipes' method; I have seen fluids taught to electrical engineers with the 'small pipes are like resistors with more ohms' method.

 

If you look at microfluids, really low Reynolds number flows, the analogy is even stronger. Kim & Karrila's book Microhydrodynamics: Principles and Selected Applications develops a significant number of solutions to fluids problem via concepts in electrostatics and dynamics.

 

But, ultimately, while they have a great deal of similarity, fluids and electrodynamics are not the same.

 

Fluids have turbulence, as just one very, very large difference. Another is that fluids require a medium (namely the fluid) whereas electromagnetism does not.

 

Ultimately, these similarities can lead to some good cross-communication between people. And helps one group understand concepts from another via analogy. But, the differences between them are very significant. And, those differences are what lead to the interesting problems.

 

And the really interesting problems are when you have both... e.g. magnetohydrodynamics (a fluid that is also magnetic. Could be as simple as water with iron filings in it to the plasma in a tokamok or the sun).

Edited August 13, 2013 by Bignose

[hegne]

1st glance at first couple of pages

 

a. Sounds like the remarkable unsinkable zombie that is the luminiferous aether.

 

b. that's not the acoustic wave equation that one finds elsewhere

 

c. the famous equation is more often shown with the momentum section as well - can you derive that?

 

d. i hate partial differentials and forget them every time I try to learn - but are you sure yours are done correctly? surely d/dp of E/m = 0

 

 

a ) this is not aether. this is superfluid. they are very different.

 

b,c ) this is acoustic wave equation. look here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_wave_equation

 

d ) yes, I am sure.

 

 

Fluids have turbulence, as just one very, very large difference. Another is that fluids require a medium (namely the fluid) whereas electromagnetism does not.

 

 

I see, you did not read all article.

[imatfaal]

a ) this is not aether. this is superfluid. they are very different.

 

b,c ) this is acoustic wave equation. look here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_wave_equation

 

d ) yes, I am sure.

 

 

I see, you did not read all article.

 

a, Still smells the same.

 

b,c where? your equation does not appear on that page. And before you state that it is about ten lines into the section Derivation you might like to note that Capital C stands for the coefficient of relation between Pressure and density in an adiabatic reaction - NB it does not stand for speed that is small c which is introduced elsewhere.

 

d, could you go through in detail the pertinent few lines of your derivation here so that we could check

 

your dismissal of Bignose's comments - who from what he has written in the past knows a great deal in this area - is a bit shoddy. He made some valid points and they deserve to be addressed here if you want to continue with this topic.

[hegne]

 

a, Still smells the same.

 

b,c where? your equation does not appear on that page. And before you state that it is about ten lines into the section Derivation you might like to note that Capital C stands for the coefficient of relation between Pressure and density in an adiabatic reaction - NB it does not stand for speed that is small c which is introduced elsewhere.

 

d, could you go through in detail the pertinent few lines of your derivation here so that we could check

 

your dismissal of Bignose's comments - who from what he has written in the past knows a great deal in this area - is a bit shoddy. He made some valid points and they deserve to be addressed here if you want to continue with this topic.

 

 

a ) water is liquid. and under high press and low temp., helium becomes a liquid also. so water and liquid are the same? water has viscosity but helium is super fluid. they have different features. aether supposed has viscosity but I talk about super fluid medium.

 

b,c ) is the speed of propagation. B is bulk modulus.

 

 

The adiabatic bulk modulus for a fluid is defined as

we get

 

 

 

 

d )

http://www.fizikportali.com/forum/emc2-t4838.0.html%3bmsg16318%3btopicseen#msg16318

 

 

 

 

I wrote reply to Bignose's comments. He says "Another is that fluids require a medium".. but in my superfluid theory, fluid is medium. and all subatomic particles made from this medium.

 

Besides, Einstein was thinking, fields could intensify at a certain point, through a kind of knotting. and knot can behave like a particle. Briefly, the particles can be obtained from fields. This knots are called as soliton.

I supposed the fields of Einstein as super fluid medium. And knotted field as vortex. I got very interesting results. I noticed that fluid mediums has analogy with gravitational, electrical and magnetic fields, molecular orbital theory, black holes .. etc.

Edited August 27, 2013 by hegne

[Bignose]

I wrote reply to Bignose's comments. He says "Another is that fluids require a medium".. but in my superfluid theory, fluid is medium. and all subatomic particles made from this medium.

Explain how this is different than the concept of a luminiferous aether, and why despite many experiments (starting with Michelson-Morley) this fluid (or aether) hasn't been found? This is why I wrote that electromagnetism does not require a medium -- the equations don't require it and experiments haven't found it.

 

So, if you are going to use fluid mechanics equations -- equations that depend on there being a medium -- you need to explain why that medium hasn't been found yet. Experiments as recent as 2009 found no effect from an aether possibly larger than 1 part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 (10^17). That's a pretty small error bar to try to wiggle around in.

[hegne]

Explain how this is different than the concept of a luminiferous aether, and why despite many experiments (starting with Michelson-Morley) this fluid (or aether) hasn't been found? This is why I wrote that electromagnetism does not require a medium -- the equations don't require it and experiments haven't found it.

 

So, if you are going to use fluid mechanics equations -- equations that depend on there being a medium -- you need to explain why that medium hasn't been found yet. Experiments as recent as 2009 found no effect from an aether possibly larger than 1 part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 (10^17). That's a pretty small error bar to try to wiggle around in.

 

before ask questions, I advise you to read my answers. imatfaal asked the same queastion and I answered this. and watch this video also. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIg1Vh7uPyw

[Bignose]

before ask questions, I advise you to read my answers. imatfaal asked the same queastion and I answered this. and watch this video also. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIg1Vh7uPyw

a ) this is not aether. this is superfluid. they are very different.

Yeah, that really cleared things up, guy.

 

<if you couldn't tell, that was 100% sarcasm>

 

I did read through your pdf, and I have read all your replies in this thread. My question remains. Perhaps, just perhaps, you need to help explain why your idea is not an aether in a little more detail. Because it sure seems like it to me.

[hegne]

First of all, we must understand this; in my theory, all subatomic particles and light made of this superfluid medium. in the first page of my article, I compared speed of light and acoustic wave equation. as known, even if source of wave is moving, speed of wave never change. it is independent from speed of wave source. and now, do you understand why Michelson–Morley experiment will not work and speed of light will not change? so by this experiment you can not prove existance of aether.

in aether theory, it does not say, light and subatomic particles are made of aether. but in my theory I say this. all subatomic particles and light made of this superfluid medium. and explain how this is possible.

[Bignose]

So if light is made up of a medium, that is in direct analogy with fluid mechanics, as fluids are made up of molecules of the fluid.

 

That is fine. But this is what physicists were looking for when the Michelson-Morley experiments were performed. Please explain why MM got a null result, and everyone who has performed far more accurate MM experiments since them have gotten null results. And no, I don't understand why MM wouldn't work.

 

If light is a medium, then the earth must be moving through this medium. The sun is a significant source of light (and hence this medium) after all. MM was set up to detect us moving through this medium. Because of the motion of the earth, we cannot be moving through the medium completely uniformly -- the earth rotates, for example. MM was set up to detect these non uniformities. And yes, MM and all follow up experiments got null results.

 

Remember again here that the error bars on this null result are about 1 in 10^17 now. That's not a lot of room for fluidic effects if they exist. And even if they do exist, their influence but be awfully small.

 

Lastly, regarding your last sentences "all subatomic particles and light made of this superfluid medium. and explain how this is possible." I don't know if that was directed at me, but I don't have to explain anything in YOUR idea. You are the one who has to answer questions about it, it is after all YOUR idea.

Edited September 2, 2013 by Bignose

[hegne]

and explain how this is possible."

 

I meant , I explained how this is possible in my article.

 

I read and try to understand your other comments now. I will give an answer when I understand.

So if light is made up of a medium, that is in direct analogy with fluid mechanics, as fluids are made up of molecules of the fluid.

 

That is fine. But this is what physicists were looking for when the Michelson-Morley experiments were performed. Please explain why MM got a null result, and everyone who has performed far more accurate MM experiments since them have gotten null results. And no, I don't understand why MM wouldn't work.

 

light is a longitudinal wave which moves in one dimension in superfluid medium. The acoustic wave equation is used for longitudinal wave which moves in one dimension. and speed of wave in always constant in a medium. and it is independent from experiment environment. I mean, if wave source moves, the speed of wave does not change. it is always the same. in MM experiment they tried to find difference between speed of two light waves.

but if the speed of wave is not changing, you can not see any difference between two light waves. they are always the same and constant.

in MM experiment they thought "If the Earth is traveling through an aether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of aether would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the aether because the time gained from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind."

 

but if light is a wave in a medium, speed of wave will be independent from this. it will be constant always.

[Bignose]

but if light is a wave in a medium, speed of wave will be independent from this. it will be constant always.

So, you're saying it is a medium that doesn't behave like any other medium we know about. And that this medium apparently has no effect. So, then what's the point in calling it a medium if the effects from it being a medium can't be felt?

[hegne]

So, you're saying it is a medium that doesn't behave like any other medium we know about. And that this medium apparently has no effect. So, then what's the point in calling it a medium if the effects from it being a medium can't be felt?

 

no. you are wrong. speed of a wave in fluid mediums are constant always. this is very common knowledge. I did not discover this. for example, speed of wave in air 340 m/s. this is constant for air.

you, me, everything in universe are made of this medium. so we can not say, we can not feel it. just MM used wrong method for proving.

briefly, sub atomic particles are vortex. the vortexes build atomic nucleus and electron shell.

[Bignose]

no. you are wrong. speed of a wave in fluid mediums are constant always. this is very common knowledge. I did not discover this. for example, speed of wave in air 340 m/s. this is constant for air.

No, the speed of a wave in air is dependent on the air temperature, pressure, etc. In fact, the equation you posted says exactly this!

 

[math]a^2 = \left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial \rho}\right)_s[/math].

 

if you treat air as a perfect gas, the isentropic gas law becomes [math]pv^{\gamma}=constant[/math].

 

You can plug this in to the above equations to yield

 

[math] a = \sqrt{\frac{\gamma p}{\rho}} = \sqrt{\gamma R T}[/math].

 

To more easily see this dependence.

 

And that's only for pressure waves at the speed of sound. Other pressure waves move at different speeds. There are supersonic and subsonic waves, too.

 

Please see Anderson's Modern Compressible Flow for more information.

 

I don't know what 'common knowledge' you are citing here, but it is dead wrong.

 

you, me, everything in universe are made of this medium. so we can not say, we can not feel it. just MM used wrong method for proving.

Then you need to proffer a test where we can feel it. How can we measure its effects?

 

Also, I want more than "MM used wrong method". I want to know details why you think it is wrong. Just stating it does not make it so. Because from my understanding, MM should have be exactly what was needed to determine if there was an electromagnetic medium.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Bignose

[imatfaal]

And that is still not an acoustic wave equation!

 

Please read up on wave equations - you need spatial and temporal variables. Your wave equation is - as big nose has pointed out whilst I was typing this post merely the required relationship of the speed of propagation for the wave equation to tally. Ie all you have is partials for pressure and density - what you need is the change of change of pressure wrto distance and wrto to time and a relationshio between space and time. This is why it is a (second order) partial differential equation - yours is not.

 

You could think of the analogy that the speed of light squared must equal one over the permittivity times the permeability of free space; that is all you have provided. Your equation is correct - however it is just a necessary by-product of the wave equation rather than the equation itself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equation take a read - it is a good introduction to the idea of needing a second order differential equation to represent the phenomenom

Edited September 3, 2013 by imatfaal
to make clear it was second order

[hegne]

No, the speed of a wave in air is dependent on the air temperature, pressure, etc. In fact, the equation you posted says exactly this!

 

[math]a^2 = \left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial \rho}\right)_s[/math].

 

if you treat air as a perfect gas, the isentropic gas law becomes [math]pv^{\gamma}=constant[/math].

 

You can plug this in to the above equations to yield

 

[math] a = \sqrt{\frac{\gamma p}{\rho}} = \sqrt{\gamma R T}[/math].

 

To more easily see this dependence.

 

And that's only for pressure waves at the speed of sound. Other pressure waves move at different speeds. There are supersonic and subsonic waves, too.

 

Please see Anderson's Modern Compressible Flow for more information.

 

I don't know what 'common knowledge' you are citing here, but it is dead wrong.

 

 

Then you need to proffer a test where we can feel it. How can we measure its effects?

 

Also, I want more than "MM used wrong method". I want to know details why you think it is wrong. Just stating it does not make it so. Because from my understanding, MM should have be exactly what was needed to determine if there was an electromagnetic medium.

 

 

the right acoustic wave equation . do you know what is the meaning of "c" in equation? "c" means "constant".

 

why they put "c" to the equation not other letter like "x","y" or "a" ?

 

Because pressure / density is alwasy constant.

 

Now we are talking about MM experiment and superfluid medium. in MM experiment they tried to compare speed of 2 light waves. these 2 light waves were in the same conditions. so pressure and density will be the same for each light waves. so, their speed will be constant and they will have the same speed. so, can you see any difference between speed of 2 light waves?

Answer: NO

 

Edited September 3, 2013 by hegne

[Bignose]

in MM experiment they tried to compare speed of 2 light waves.

correct

 

these 2 light waves were in the same conditions.

incorrect. One of the waves is transverse, the other is longitudinal. If there is really a medium, longitudinal waves behave differently than transverse waves. This is the whole point of MM. If there is really a medium, why wasn't this difference found?

Because pressure / density is alwasy constant.

Come on now, pressure & density are not always constant. Try telling that to the people who live in Florida (sea level) and the people who live in Denver.

 

Also, there is the phenomena called weather that happens.

[hegne]

incorrect. One of the waves is transverse, the other is longitudinal. If there is really a medium, longitudinal waves behave differently than transverse waves. This is the whole point of MM. If there is really a medium, why wasn't this difference found?

 

 

 

in MM experiment there was only one light source. in MM experiment, "white light, through a half-silvered mirror that was used to split it into two beams travelling at right angles to one another. After leaving the splitter, the beams travelled out to the ends of long arms where they were reflected back into the middle by small mirrors.

 

They then recombined on the far side of the splitter in an eyepiece, producing a pattern of constructive and destructive interference whose transverse displacement would depend on the relative time it takes light to transit the longitudinal vs. the transverse arms.

 

MM thought, If the Earth is traveling through an aether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of aether would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the aether because the time gained from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind."

 

in the MM experiment, two light waves that are on transverse and longitudinal arms were in a comoving frame. Because of this, pressure and density is the same for both two light waves. Moving direction of waves has no effect on pressure and density of fluid medium.

 

in the acoustic wave equation , value of "c" will be the same for both two light waves. So, speed of light waves will be the same in a comoving frame.

 

I said "Because pressure / density is alwasy constant."

 

you said "pressure & density are not always constant."

 

we are talking two different things. I talk about pressuse and density proportion

 

I did not discover this equation. it is known equation. no need to discuss it.

suppose that you throwed a stone in a river. river is a moving fluid medium. what will happen? speed of waves will be different for different direction?

if MM is right, wave shape must be an ellipse. if wave shape is circular, MM can not prove aether. river is a comoving frame for waves.

 

if MM were right, waves that move on longitudinal direction must be slower than the waves that move on transverse direction. So wave shape must be an ellipse. have you ever seen an ellipse wave in your life?

Edited September 4, 2013 by hegne

[Bignose]

we are talking two different things. I talk about pressuse and density proportion

 

I did not discover this equation. it is known equation. no need to discuss it.

There is a need to discuss it when you aren't using it right. In many mediums, pressure and density can be varied not in perfect proportion. I can take a piston full of gas and raise the temperature... the pressure will go up but the density won't. In room temperature water, pressure waves go through it with negligible changes in density.

 

And, in fact, that equation is at the heart of the different between longitudinal waves and transverse waves.

 

Because the medium either moves perpendicular to the wave direction or along the wave direction, the density in the medium changes in different ways. In a transverse wave, the density is relatively constant...the medium just moves up and down. But in a longitudinal wave, the density increases and decreases. The medium moves side to side and forms more dense and less dense zones. It is this difference -- as further backed up by the equation above -- that causes transverse and longitudinal waves to move at different speeds.

 

And so now we are back to the MM experiment. If you want to claim that all of light is a medium, then why doesn't it behave like a medium? Why aren't there transverse and longitudinal waves?

 

The MM experiment was set up precisely to shoot transverse waves in one direction and longitudinal ones in the other. It is even in the description you quoted above. Now, without knowing which way is which because of the medium, they repeated the experiment rotating it a little each time. If there was a real medium, eventually one of the orientations would have shown a significant difference between transverse and longitudinal ... when the orientation was aligned with the medium. But this wasn't found.

 

And, since these experiments weren't conducted in the dark, light bulbs provide quite a large number of photons. There should have been plenty of this medium in the room flowing from every light source. There should have been a difference between transverse and longitudinal waves.

 

And lastly, you're right. The fact that MM's experiment came up with a null result was a key bit of evidence that started to make people drop the medium/aether hypothesis. Further the fact that the MM experiment has been redone to extraordinary accuracy and still no effect possibly larger than 1 in 10^-17 really makes it seem unlikely.

 

So, again, how can your idea that light is a medium stand up to these experimental results?

[hegne]

There is a need to discuss it when you aren't using it right. In many mediums, pressure and density can be varied not in perfect proportion. I can take a piston full of gas and raise the temperature... the pressure will go up but the density won't. In room temperature water, pressure waves go through it with negligible changes in density.

 

And, in fact, that equation is at the heart of the different between longitudinal waves and transverse waves.

 

Because the medium either moves perpendicular to the wave direction or along the wave direction, the density in the medium changes in different ways. In a transverse wave, the density is relatively constant...the medium just moves up and down. But in a longitudinal wave, the density increases and decreases. The medium moves side to side and forms more dense and less dense zones. It is this difference -- as further backed up by the equation above -- that causes transverse and longitudinal waves to move at different speeds.

 

And so now we are back to the MM experiment. If you want to claim that all of light is a medium, then why doesn't it behave like a medium? Why aren't there transverse and longitudinal waves?

 

The MM experiment was set up precisely to shoot transverse waves in one direction and longitudinal ones in the other. It is even in the description you quoted above. Now, without knowing which way is which because of the medium, they repeated the experiment rotating it a little each time. If there was a real medium, eventually one of the orientations would have shown a significant difference between transverse and longitudinal ... when the orientation was aligned with the medium. But this wasn't found.

 

And, since these experiments weren't conducted in the dark, light bulbs provide quite a large number of photons. There should have been plenty of this medium in the room flowing from every light source. There should have been a difference between transverse and longitudinal waves.

 

And lastly, you're right. The fact that MM's experiment came up with a null result was a key bit of evidence that started to make people drop the medium/aether hypothesis. Further the fact that the MM experiment has been redone to extraordinary accuracy and still no effect possibly larger than 1 in 10^-17 really makes it seem unlikely.

 

So, again, how can your idea that light is a medium stand up to these experimental results?

 

 

first, you can see transverse waves on surface of a fluid medium. if universe is full of fluid medium, how can you see transverse waves? universe must have a surface.

 

second , MM experiment did not compare transverse and longitudinal waves. They compared two light waves on transverse and longitudinal arms.

I said "light waves which moves in longitudinal direction and transverse direction" I never said "longitudinal waves and transverse waves". you must read carefully.

before discuss with me about MM, you must learn what they did exactly.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html

 

in the link above, it says,

 

In 1895, Lorentz concluded that the "null" result obtained by Michelson and Morley was caused by a effect of contraction made by the ether on their apparatus and introduced the length contraction equation

where L is the contracted length, is the rest length, v is the velocity of the frame of reference, and c is the speed of light.

Briefly, MM experiment is insufficient to prove aether.

not only I say this. Einstein and Lorentz said this also.

 

 

in my theory, universe is full of superfluid medium. But you tried to disprove it by MM experiment.

[Bignose]

Briefly, MM experiment is insufficient to prove aether.

 

not only I say this. Einstein and Lorentz said this also.

I can find quotes, too:

 

"The negative results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, in which the stationary aether concept has no role. The experiment has been referred to as 'the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution'".

 

And it doesn't matter who said them, because citing the who is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. (in other words, just because Einstein or Lorentz said something doesn't guarantee that it is 100% true)

 

You may have never written longitudinal waves and transverse waves, but I did. Because that is how every other medium we know about acts.

 

And the MM experiment, whether intended or not, makes longitudinal and transverse waves, if there was a medium, because the beam gets split at 90*. And the earth has to be moving through this medium at some point in time -- if light is made up of this medium, then the medium is emanating in no small way from the sun. Those interactions should have been seen. I don't see how those interaction couldn't be seen. Because, again, every medium we know about behaves that way.

 

Furthermore, the MM experiment has been repeated numerous times, in many different arrangements. Further furthermore, the success of these repeated MM experiments are also tests of theories of relativity -- also to incredible levels of agreement. And the theories of relativity don't include any effects from a medium.

 

Lastly, please don't include snipes about my having to 'read carefully' -- I have treated you with utmost respect and I don't need you to disrespect me by implying I don't read.

[Nomad46]

Hegne,

I agree with your Super Fluid Universe theory. What other super fluid besides helium are you considering. Could the superfluid helium be also dark matter, seeing both are about 25% of the universe?

[Chicpilot]

Ok boys, If you would stop being petty and listen with an open mind, maybe we could understand this concept.

Hegne, what is a superfluid and as simply as possible, why would a superfluid change the nature of the universe. I ask this as a starting point so that I can get this. Big Nose, be nice.