Superfluid vacuum

theory

Superfluid vacuum theory (SVT),

sometimes known as the BEC vacuum
theory, is an approach in theoretical
physics and quantum mechanics where
the fundamental physical vacuum (non-
removable background) is viewed as
superfluid or as a Bose–Einstein
condensate (BEC).
The microscopic structure of this physical
vacuum is currently unknown and is a
subject of intensive studies in SVT. An
ultimate goal of this approach is to
develop scientific models that unify
quantum mechanics (describing three of
the four known fundamental interactions)
with gravity, making SVT a candidate for
the theory of quantum gravity and
describing all known interactions in the
Universe, at both microscopic and
astronomic scales, as different
manifestations of the same entity,
superfluid vacuum.

History
The concept of a luminiferous aether as a
medium sustaining electromagnetic
waves was discarded after the advent of
the special theory of relativity, as the
presence of the concept alongside special
relativity leads to several contradictions; in
particular, aether having a definite velocity
at each space-time point will exhibit a
preferred direction. This conflicts with the
relativistic requirement that all directions
within a light cone are equivalent.
However, as early as in 1951 P.A.M. Dirac
published two papers where he pointed
out that we should take into account
quantum fluctuations in the flow of the
aether.[1][2] His arguments involve the
application of the uncertainty principle to
the velocity of aether at any space-time
point, implying that the velocity will not be
a well-defined quantity. In fact, it will be
distributed over various possible values. At
best, one could represent the aether by a
wave function representing the perfect
vacuum state for which all aether
velocities are equally probable.

Inspired by the Dirac ideas, K. P. Sinha, C.

Sivaram and E. C. G. Sudarshan published
in 1975 a series of papers that suggested
a new model for the aether according to
which it is a superfluid state of fermion
and anti-fermion pairs, describable by a
macroscopic wave function.[3][4][5] They
noted that particle-like small fluctuations
of superfluid background obey the Lorentz
symmetry, even if the superfluid itself is
non-relativistic. Nevertheless, they decided
to treat the superfluid as the relativistic
matter - by putting it into the stress–
energy tensor of the Einstein field
equations. This did not allow them to
describe the relativistic gravity as a small
fluctuation of the superfluid vacuum, as
subsequent authors have noted.

Since then, several theories have been

proposed within the SVT framework. They
differ in how the structure and properties
of the background superfluid must look. In
absence of observational data which
would rule out some of them, these
theories are being pursued independently.

Relation to other concepts

and theories

Lorentz and Galilean symmetries …

According to the approach, the

background superfluid is assumed to be
essentially non-relativistic whereas the
Lorentz symmetry is not an exact
symmetry of Nature but rather the
approximate description valid only for
small fluctuations. An observer who
resides inside such vacuum and is capable
of creating or measuring the small
fluctuations would observe them as
relativistic objects - unless their energy
and momentum are sufficiently high to
make the Lorentz-breaking corrections
detectable.[6] If the energies and momenta
are below the excitation threshold then the
superfluid background behaves like the
ideal fluid, therefore, the Michelson–
Morley-type experiments would observe
no drag force from such aether.[1][2]

Further, in the theory of relativity the

Galilean symmetry (pertinent to our
macroscopic non-relativistic world) arises
as the approximate one - when particles'
velocities are small compared to speed of
light in vacuum. In SVT one does not need
to go through Lorentz symmetry to obtain
the Galilean one - the dispersion relations
of most non-relativistic superfluids are
known to obey the non-relativistic behavior
at large momenta.[7][8][9]

To summarize, the fluctuations of vacuum

superfluid behave like relativistic objects
at "small"[nb 1] momenta (a.k.a. the
"phononic limit")
and like non-relativistic ones

at large momenta. The yet unknown

nontrivial physics is believed to be located
somewhere between these two regimes.

Relativistic quantum field theory …

In the relativistic quantum field theory the

physical vacuum is also assumed to be
some sort of non-trivial medium to which
one can associate certain energy. This is
because the concept of absolutely empty
space (or "mathematical vacuum")
contradicts the postulates of quantum
mechanics. According to QFT, even in
absence of real particles the background
is always filled by pairs of creating and
annihilating virtual particles. However, a
direct attempt to describe such medium
leads to the so-called ultraviolet
divergences. In some QFT models, such as
quantum electrodynamics, these problems
can be "solved" using the renormalization
technique, namely, replacing the diverging
physical values by their experimentally
measured values. In other theories, such
as the quantum general relativity, this trick
does not work, and reliable perturbation
theory cannot be constructed.
According to SVT, this is because in the
high-energy ("ultraviolet") regime the
Lorentz symmetry starts failing so
dependent theories cannot be regarded
valid for all scales of energies and
momenta. Correspondingly, while the
Lorentz-symmetric quantum field models
are obviously a good approximation below
the vacuum-energy threshold, in its close
vicinity the relativistic description
becomes more and more "effective" and
less and less natural since one will need to
adjust the expressions for the covariant
field-theoretical actions by hand.
Curved space-time …

According to general relativity,

gravitational interaction is described in
terms of space-time curvature using the
mathematical formalism of Riemannian
geometry. This was supported by
numerous experiments and observations
in the regime of low energies. However, the
attempts to quantize general relativity led
to various severe problems, therefore, the
microscopic structure of gravity is still ill-
defined. There may be a fundamental
reason for this—the degrees of freedom of
general relativity are based on what may
be only approximate and effective. The
question of whether general relativity is an
effective theory has been raised for a long
time.[10]

According to SVT, the curved space-time

arises as the small-amplitude collective
excitation mode of the non-relativistic
background condensate.[6][11] The
mathematical description of this is similar
to fluid-gravity analogy which is being
used also in the analog gravity models.[12]
Thus, relativistic gravity is essentially a
long-wavelength theory of the collective
modes whose amplitude is small
compared to the background one. Outside
this requirement the curved-space
description of gravity in terms of the
Riemannian geometry becomes
incomplete or ill-defined.

Cosmological constant …

The notion of the cosmological constant

makes sense in a relativistic theory only,
therefore, within the SVT framework this
constant can refer at most to the energy of
small fluctuations of the vacuum above a
background value, but not to the energy of
the vacuum itself.[13] Thus, in SVT this
constant does not have any fundamental
physical meaning, and related problems
such as the vacuum catastrophe, simply
do not occur in the first place.

Gravitational waves and gravitons …

According to general relativity, the

conventional gravitational wave is:

1. the small fluctuation of curved

spacetime which
2. has been separated from its source
and propagates independently.

Superfluid vacuum theory brings into

question the possibility that a relativistic
object possessing both of these properties
exists in nature.[11] Indeed, according to
the approach, the curved spacetime itself
is the small collective excitation of the
superfluid background, therefore, the
property (1) means that the graviton would
be in fact the "small fluctuation of the
small fluctuation", which does not look like
a physically robust concept (as if
somebody tried to introduce small
fluctuations inside a phonon, for instance).
As a result, it may be not just a
coincidence that in general relativity the
gravitational field alone has no well-
defined stress–energy tensor, only the
pseudotensor one.[14] Therefore, the
property (2) cannot be completely justified
in a theory with exact Lorentz symmetry
which the general relativity is. Though, SVT
does not a priori forbid an existence of the
non-localized wave-like excitations of the
superfluid background which might be
responsible for the astrophysical
phenomena which are currently being
attributed to gravitational waves, such as
the Hulse–Taylor binary. However, such
excitations cannot be correctly described
within the framework of a fully relativistic
theory.

Mass generation and Higgs boson …

Parts of this article (those related to this section)

need to be updated. The reason given is: the more
Learn
The Higgs boson is the spin-0 particle that
has been introduced in electroweak theory
to give mass to the weak bosons. The
origin of mass of the Higgs boson itself is
not explained by electroweak theory.
Instead, this mass is introduced as a free
parameter by means of the Higgs
potential, which thus makes it yet another
free parameter of the Standard Model.[15]
Within the framework of the Standard
Model (or its extensions) the theoretical
estimates of this parameter's value are
possible only indirectly and results differ
from each other significantly.[16] Thus, the
usage of the Higgs boson (or any other
elementary particle with predefined mass)
alone is not the most fundamental
solution of the mass generation problem
but only its reformulation ad infinitum.
Another known issue of the Glashow–
Weinberg–Salam model is the wrong sign
of mass term in the (unbroken) Higgs
sector for energies above the symmetry-
breaking scale.[nb 2]

While SVT does not explicitly forbid the

existence of the electroweak Higgs
particle, it has its own idea of the
fundamental mass generation mechanism
- elementary particles acquire mass due to
the interaction with the vacuum
condensate, similarly to the gap
generation mechanism in superconductors
or superfluids.[11][17] Although this idea is
not entirely new, one could recall the
relativistic Coleman-Weinberg
approach,[18] SVT gives the meaning to the
symmetry-breaking relativistic scalar field
as describing small fluctuations of
background superfluid which can be
interpreted as an elementary particle only
under certain conditions.[19] In general, one
allows two scenarios to happen:

Higgs boson exists: in this case SVT

provides the mass generation
mechanism which underlies the
 electroweak one and explains the origin
of mass of the Higgs boson itself;
Higgs boson does not exist: then the
weak bosons acquire mass by directly
interacting with the vacuum condensate.

Thus, the Higgs boson, even if it exists,

would be a by-product of the fundamental
mass generation phenomenon rather than
its cause.[19]

Also, some versions of SVT favor a wave

equation based on the logarithmic
potential rather than on the quartic one.
The former potential has not only the
Mexican-hat shape, necessary for the
spontaneous symmetry breaking, but also
some other features which make it more
suitable for the vacuum's description.

Logarithmic BEC vacuum

theory
In this model the physical vacuum is
conjectured to be strongly-correlated
quantum Bose liquid whose ground-state
wavefunction is described by the
logarithmic Schrödinger equation. It was
shown that the relativistic gravitational
interaction arises as the small-amplitude
collective excitation mode whereas
relativistic elementary particles can be
described by the particle-like modes in the
limit of low energies and momenta.[17] The
essential difference of this theory from
others is that in the logarithmic superfluid
the maximal velocity of fluctuations is
constant in the leading (classical) order.
This allows to fully recover the relativity
postulates in the "phononic" (linearized)
limit.[11]

The proposed theory has many

observational consequences. They are
based on the fact that at high energies and
momenta the behavior of the particle-like
modes eventually becomes distinct from
the relativistic one - they can reach the
speed of light limit at finite energy.[20]
Among other predicted effects is the
superluminal propagation and vacuum
Cherenkov radiation.[21]

Theory advocates the mass generation

mechanism which is supposed to replace
or alter the electroweak Higgs one. It was
shown that masses of elementary
particles can arise as a result of
interaction with the superfluid vacuum,
similarly to the gap generation mechanism
in superconductors.[11][17] For instance, the
photon propagating in the average
interstellar vacuum acquires a tiny mass
which is estimated to be about 10−35
electronvolt. One can also derive an
effective potential for the Higgs sector
which is different from the one used in the
Glashow–Weinberg–Salam model, yet it
yields the mass generation and it is free of
the imaginary-mass problem[nb 2]
appearing in the conventional Higgs
potential.[19]

See also
Analog gravity
Acoustic metric
Bose–Einstein condensate
Casimir vacuum
Hawking radiation
 Induced gravity
Logarithmic Schrödinger equation
Planck scale
Planck units
Hořava–Lifshitz gravity
Quantum gravity
Quantum realm
Sonic black hole
Vacuum energy
De Broglie–Bohm theory
Hydrodynamic quantum analogs

Notes
 1. The term "small" refers here to the
linearized limit, in practice the values
of these momenta may not be small at
all.
2. If one expands the Higgs potential
then the coefficient at the quadratic
term appears to be negative. This
coefficient has a physical meaning of
squared mass of a scalar particle.

References
1. Dirac, P. A. M. (November 24, 1951). "Is
there an Æther?". Letters to Nature.
Nature. 168 (4282): 906–907.
Bibcode:1951Natur.168..906D .
doi:10.1038/168906a0 .
2. Dirac, P. A. M. (April 26, 1952). "Is there
an Æther?". Nature. 169 (4304): 702.
Bibcode:1952Natur.169..702D .
doi:10.1038/169702b0 .
3. Sinha, K. P.; Sivaram, C.; Sudarshan, E.
C. G. (1976). "Aether as a superfluid
state of particle-antiparticle pairs".
Foundations of Physics. Springer
Nature. 6 (1): 65–70.
doi:10.1007/bf00708664 . ISSN 0015-
9018 .
4. Sinha, K. P.; Sivaram, C.; Sudarshan, E.
C. G. (1976). "The superfluid vacuum
state, time-varying cosmological
constant, and nonsingular
cosmological models". Foundations of
Physics. Springer Nature. 6 (6): 717–
726. doi:10.1007/bf00708950 .
ISSN 0015-9018 .
5. Sinha, K. P.; Sudarshan, E. C. G. (1978).
"The superfluid as a source of all
interactions". Foundations of Physics.
Springer Nature. 8 (11–12): 823–831.
doi:10.1007/bf00715056 . ISSN 0015-
9018 .
 . G. E. Volovik, The Universe in a helium
droplet, Int. Ser. Monogr. Phys. 117
(2003) 1-507.
7. N. N. Bogoliubov, Izv. Acad. Nauk
USSR 11, 77 (1947).
. N.N. Bogoliubov, J. Phys. 11, 23 (1947)
9. V. L. Ginzburg, L. D. Landau, Zh. Eksp.
Teor. Fiz. 20, 1064 (1950).
10. A. D. Sakharov, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 12,
1040 (1968). This paper was reprinted
in Gen. Rel. Grav. 32, 365 (2000) and
commented in: M. Visser, Mod. Phys.
Lett. A 17, 977 (2002).
11. Zloshchastiev, K.G. (2011).
"Spontaneous symmetry breaking and
mass generation as built-in
phenomena in logarithmic nonlinear
quantum theory". Acta Physica
Polonica B. Jagiellonian University. 42
(2): 261-292. arXiv:0912.4139 .
doi:10.5506/aphyspolb.42.261 .
ISSN 0587-4254 .
12. M. Novello, M. Visser, G. Volovik,
Artificial Black Holes, World Scientific,
River Edge, USA, 2002, p391.
13. VOLOVIK, G. E. (2006). "VACUUM
ENERGY: MYTHS AND REALITY".
International Journal of Modern
Physics D. World Scientific Pub Co Pte
Lt. 15 (12): 1987–2010. arXiv:gr-
qc/0604062 .
doi:10.1142/s0218271806009431 .
ISSN 0218-2718 .
14. L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, The
Classical Theory of Fields, (1951),
Pergamon Press, chapter 11.96.
15. Bednyakov, V. A.; Giokaris, N. D.;
Bednyakov, A. V. (2008). "On the Higgs
mass generation mechanism in the
Standard Model". Physics of Particles
and Nuclei. Pleiades Publishing Ltd.
39 (1): 13–36. arXiv:hep-ph/0703280 .
doi:10.1134/s1063779608010024 .
ISSN 1063-7796 .
1 . Schrempp, B; Wimmer, M (1996). "Top
quark and Higgs boson masses:
Interplay between infrared and
ultraviolet physics". Progress in
Particle and Nuclear Physics. Elsevier
BV. 37: 1–90. arXiv:hep-ph/9606386 .
doi:10.1016/0146-6410(96)00059-2 .
ISSN 0146-6410 .
17. Avdeenkov, Alexander V;
Zloshchastiev, Konstantin G
(September 13, 2011). "Quantum Bose
liquids with logarithmic nonlinearity:
self-sustainability and emergence of
spatial extent". Journal of Physics B:
Atomic, Molecular and Optical
Physics. IOP Publishing. 44 (19):
195303. arXiv:1108.0847 .
doi:10.1088/0953-
4075/44/19/195303 . ISSN 0953-
4075 .
1 . Coleman, Sidney; Weinberg, Erick
(March 15, 1973). "Radiative
Corrections as the Origin of
Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking".
Physical Review D. American Physical
Society (APS). 7 (6): 1888–1910.
arXiv:hep-th/0507214 .
doi:10.1103/physrevd.7.1888 .
ISSN 0556-2821 .
19. V. Dzhunushaliev and K.G.
Zloshchastiev (2013). "Singularity-free
model of electric charge in physical
vacuum: Non-zero spatial extent and
mass generation". Cent. Eur. J. Phys.
11 (3): 325–335. arXiv:1204.6380 .
Bibcode:2013CEJPh..11..325D .
doi:10.2478/s11534-012-0159-z .
20. Zloshchastiev, K. G. (2010).
"Logarithmic nonlinearity in theories of
quantum gravity: Origin of time and
observational consequences".
Gravitation and Cosmology. Pleiades
Publishing Ltd. 16 (4): 288–297.
arXiv:0906.4282 .
doi:10.1134/s0202289310040067 .
ISSN 0202-2893 .
 21. Zloshchastiev, Konstantin G. (2011).
"Vacuum Cherenkov effect in
logarithmic nonlinear quantum
theory". Physics Letters A. Elsevier BV.
375 (24): 2305–2308.
arXiv:1003.0657 .
doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2011.05.012 .
ISSN 0375-9601 .

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Superfluid_vacuum_theory&oldid=968648261"

Last edited 1 month ago by AnomieBOT

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.