Cosmic Seeds from Ground State Fluctuations

[Dubbelosix]

I had no dispute this time with myself, over this topic, since this is not against the mainstream, plus I already had an active topic and one pending because I didn't read the rules properly. Anyway, it was Sakarhov who showed how you calculate a ground state fluctuation of a vacuum and you would essentially use the same term, so I sought to see if it implemented into the Friedmann equation accordingly, and was mildly surprised to see it did, quite nicely.

If a vacuum is not truly Newtonian and it does indeed expand (new space appearing) then there will be new fluctuations added to spacetime as well. Fluctuations can also act as the seeds of the universe to explain a primordial gravitational clumping, giving rise to the large scale structure, albeit, this uses the notion of some rapid expansion phase. We too have the same phase characterized by the centrifugal force the universe experienced when it was very young from a furiously fast spin (which I will come to write up about soon). In fact, Wald and Harren have shown it is possible to retrieve the cosmic seeds without inflation.

In their model the inhomogeneities of the universe arises while in the radiation phase – their model also requires that all fluctuation modes would have been in their ground state and that the fluctuations are “born” in the ground state at an appropriate time which is early enough so that their physical length is very small compared to the Hubble radius, in which case, they can “freeze out” when these two lengths become equal.

It has been noted in literature that there is clearly a need for some process that would be responsible for the so called “birth” of the fluctuations. I have a mechanism in my own model, which we will discuss at the end - today I want to show how you can talk about fluctuations within the context of expanding space, which is required within a sensible approach to unify the cosmic seeds with the dynamics of spacetime. It is possible to construct a form of the Friedmann equation with what is called the Sakharov fluctuation term, which is the modes of the zero point fluctuations



When (but not pointlike) then the fluctuations are in their ground state. Though inflation is not required to explain the cosmic seeding, there are alternatives themselves to cosmic inflation such as one particular subject I have investigated with a passion; rotation can mimic dark energy perfectly which is thought to explain the expansion and perhaps even acceleration (if such a thing exists). It is possible to expand the Langrangian of the zero point modes on the background spacetime curvatuture in a power series



Where C is a renormalizing constant which is set to zero for flat space. It had been believed at one point that the forth power over the momenta of the particles would be zero



But interesting things happen in the curvature of spacetime, such a condition doesn't need to hold.The anisotropies may arise in an interesting way when I refer back to equations I investigated in the rotating model. An equation of state with thermodynamic definition can be given as:



The last term calculates the temperature variations that arise, even in the presence of the cosmic seed and we can therefore change the effective density coefficient in the following way:



Simplifying a bit and rearranging



The anisotropies may arise in an interesting way when I refer back to equations I investigated in the rotating model. An equation of state with thermodynamic definition can be given as:



The main equation…



… allows to measure not only the expansion of a universe but also how the temperature varies as it does so. It’s also written in such a way that it satisfies Sakharov’s definition of fluctuations in which the wave number changes through the derivative . Because the creation of long-lived virtual particles from the background curved space as shown by Sakharov, is actually and irreversible particle-production process. In much the same sense, I tend to think of all visible matter coming from a short non-conserved production of particles from a dense region of spacetime. In fact the third derivative present here in the Friedmann equation is essentially non-conserved as shown by Motz in his own work.

[Dubbelosix]

It' also possible to write the equation in such a way that it plays a role similar to the Raychauduri equation, which describes the intuitive notion that gravity attracts; we must use a substitution of the form:



This gives



further, the ratio can be interpreted as the fluid expansion coefficient .

[Reality Check]

I had no dispute this time with myself, over this topic, since this is not against the mainstream, plus I already had an active topic and one pending because I didn't read the rules properly. Anyway, it was Sakarhov who showed how you calculate a ground state fluctuation of a vacuum and you would essentially use the same term, so I sought to see if it implemented into the Friedmann equation accordingly, and was mildly surprised to see it did, quite nicely.

The Friedmann equations are pure general relativity as you know.

The Friedmann equations are a set of equations in physical cosmology that govern the expansion of space in homogeneous and isotropic models of the universe within the context of general relativity. They were first derived by Alexander Friedmann in 1922[1] from Einstein's field equations of gravitation for the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric and a perfect fluid with a given mass density ρ {\displaystyle \rho } \rho and pressure p {\displaystyle p} p. The equations for negative spatial curvature were given by Friedmann in 1924.[2]

Sakarhov showed that there would be fluctuations in the density of matter in the early universe from quantum fluctuations in the equations of motion for matter (not really "a ground state fluctuation of a vacuum"). The Initial Stage of an Expanding Universe and the Appearance of a Nonuniform Distribution of Matter.
Sakharov Oscillations in Cosmology says that the concept is obviously still valid even if some of the details are now wrong. for example this was 1965 so he did not know about dark matter.

There are some missing citations, e.g. what is the mainstream sources for "centrifugal force the universe experienced when it was very young from a furiously fast spin", the Wald and Harren paper and "Motz in his own work"?

[Dubbelosix]

The Friedmann equations are pure general relativity as you know.


Sakarhov showed that there would be fluctuations in the density of matter in the early universe from quantum fluctuations in the equations of motion for matter (not really "a ground state fluctuation of a vacuum"). The Initial Stage of an Expanding Universe and the Appearance of a Nonuniform Distribution of Matter.
Sakharov Oscillations in Cosmology says that the concept is obviously still valid even if some of the details are now wrong. for example this was 1965 so he did not know about dark matter.

There are some missing citations, e.g. what is the mainstream sources for "centrifugal force the universe experienced when it was very young from a furiously fast spin", the Wald and Harren paper and "Motz in his own work"?

This is an even bigger story in fact. There has been considerable amount of work from respectable scientists, like Hawking who has testified that our universe could very well be spinning, but it must be spinning at a very slow rate: This is to ensure there is no significant background axis. You know, there may even be evidence for this in our universe, the existence of dark flow is so slow, that many disputed its existence. However, if the universe did spin when it was very young (and decayed) as it gets larger (according to work by Hoyle and Narlikar) then dark flow is probably what we would expect to be: A residual rotary property of the universe. This is appealing for many reasons, for instance, this would make the universe part of the Full Poincare Group.

As for the ground state, a ground state fluctuation can appear from Sakharovs work. He may not have considered it though for any importance for early cosmology.

[Dubbelosix]

The Friedmann equations are pure general relativity as you know.


Sakarhov showed that there would be fluctuations in the density of matter in the early universe from quantum fluctuations in the equations of motion for matter (not really "a ground state fluctuation of a vacuum"). The Initial Stage of an Expanding Universe and the Appearance of a Nonuniform Distribution of Matter.
Sakharov Oscillations in Cosmology says that the concept is obviously still valid even if some of the details are now wrong. for example this was 1965 so he did not know about dark matter.

There are some missing citations, e.g. what is the mainstream sources for "centrifugal force the universe experienced when it was very young from a furiously fast spin", the Wald and Harren paper and "Motz in his own work"?

In fact, what I will do is talk about it mathematically soon. With references.

[Dubbelosix]

The Friedmann equation with rotation was suggested by Arun (et al.) enters the Friedmann equation like



[1]. see references

It's proposed the correct derivation is not only longer, but in this form, should have a sign change for the triple cross product. Really what is in implied by the centrifugal term is a triple cross product - (this is at least some of my contribution to investigation) as derivations follow.

We will write the Friedmann equation in the following way:



Even though the centrifugal force is written with cross products it is not impossible to show it in a similar form by using the triple cross product rule



Using because of orthogonality we get



which justifies this form of writing it as well. If the last term is the centrifugal acceleration then the acceleration in the two frame is just, while retaining the cross product definition with positive sign,



Expanding we get









Which is the four-component equation of motion which describes the pseudoforces (or at least three, there are four pseudoforces in nature). This gives us an equation of motion as



Or simply as



In the rotating frame we have



Since inertial systems are only a local approximation, the inertial frame of reference here may been seen to go to zero leaving us the general equation of motion for a universe



Using







we get



Where this last equation takes into account all the pseudoforces of nature, including the effects of gravity in which gravity is the forth pseudoforce. The rotary feature will be seen as important to nature since it establishes the full Poincare group of spacetime symmetries.

**REFERENCES**

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...estial_Objects (https://www.researchgate.net/publica...estial_Objects)

Centrifugal force - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force)

1985MNRAS.213..917B Page 917 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985MNRAS.213..917B)

[0902.4575] Is the universe rotating?Collins and Hawking, "The rotation and distortion of the universe," Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 162 (1973) 307 (https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4575)

Hawking, "On the rotation of the universe," Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 142 (1969) 529 (https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4575)

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...-born-spinning (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...-born-spinning)

[Dubbelosix]

Ok so why is rotation important?

1) It suggests the universe preferred matter over antimatter since it has a preferred frame in rotation. This is not in contradiction with relativity, but an added assumption based on more fundamental proposals concerning the symmetries of spacetime.

2) It explains dark flow in a very natural way because there is mathematical evidence to show that linear expansion causes an exponential decrease in a rotary property to a universe.

3) It could explain anomalies of cosmology, such as large voids. It also explains, contrary to popular belief, why the universe [is not exactly] homogeneous. In fact, in our frame of reference, the universe best fits a homogeneity to 1 part in 10,000, which is not even at all. Large scale structure is also expected to be much more complicated on a grander scale and now scientists are thinking that the universe is actually much larger than we anticipated.

4) It helps solve the homogeneity problem. It is either part of the mechanism that causes global homogeneity. Keep in mind, the centrifugal force plays an analagous ''dark energy force'' that will inexorably push all matter away from a common origin. This is more in intuitive notion that what we had come to believe, in which while there is no origin to a universe, it was accepted big bang happened in all places of the universe at once. This is only true if it did not rotate round an axis.

5) The centrifugal force plays a secondary role if the distribution of matter throughout it's expansion is done homogeneously. This may sound trivial, but it isn't: In one model, you have all the energy present during the big bang and space appeared between all matter while most of it clumped to create the first galaxies. An alternative model shows that while the universe expands, matter can be distributed evenly through a ''creation process.'' This is probably what led Hoyle to his imagination of the C-field in the steady state interpretation. Though his theory was applied to observations we have made today to see this creation process between galaxies, the idea is so outdated that it needs revisited since a creation process probably happens only early in the universe when strong gravitational fields are present - so in a sense, the centrifugal field would also be the primary reason for a cut-off in the production density of particles in the universe.

6) Rotation also requires, as shown by a few authors, energy. In a sense, what would happen, is that any bulk energy (in the vacuum) would be used (through conservation laws) into the mechanical primordial spin. We could only conclude this may offer a way to understand why vacuum energy seems so low, though there are of course more lucrative answers because they make more sense. For instance, one facet of fluctuations is that they exist for such a short time, they hardly interact with anything. And if they do, it's a very hard process to measure (but it can be measured nonetheless). In the deep of the vacuum, encompassing the global features, zero point fluctuations for this reason probably do not have the observable contribution to energy as we expected for the vacuum. A reason for this, is because the matter and energy we directly measure on a day-to-day basis are called ''on-shell'' particles which are further described by Hermitian operators (which means they are observable). Virtual particles do not share this mathematical feature... however, it may be we find one day technology has advanced so well, that we can probe near or at the Planck scales where we expect the ''quantum foam'' to be residing.

[Dubbelosix]

Some scientists do not like the concept of vacuum fluctuations... I got into heated debates last year, with an otherwise, big headed physicist, fresh out of university who denied the existence of zero point fields. I explained to him they were in fact a matter of experimental fact, and he still would not concede, even after lengthly discussions on their origins in physics and why we needed them.

Regardless of this physicist, including more notable one's like Unruh, virtual particles are a [standard] prediction of quantum field theory. These virtual particles always exist in the ground states and ground states can never be subjected to zero point temperatures, for the very fact, these fluctuations reside and remain in motion. It is again, an experimental fact no materials can be subject to a total freezing of the system, in which there are close relationships here with the quantum complimentarity of observables (ie. uncertainty principle).

[Dubbelosix]

A crucial question, still not properly answered in physics, is the question of what generates the fluctuation. A common literature is that ''it comes from nothing, aka. the vacuum'' but sometimes scientists are not only bad physicists, they are also terrible philosophers. I can assure you, things do not come from nothing, that statement is a proven oxymoron contradictory to mathematical logic.

There are some good mechanisms to think fluctuations should appear in spacetime. There is experimental evidence from scattering experiments that a spacetime uncertainty principle holds - such a principle was first predicted by string theory and later, we found loop quantum gravity held the same condition. It is a quantum relationship which (as I have shown), in general relativity [at the very least] is related to two non-commuting connections of the gravitational field. In fact, it's even possible the torsion part of Einstein's equations is an antisymmetry related to quantum corrections since it satisfies the Lie algebra of commutative space.

[Dubbelosix]

Also, the fact that both string theory and eventually loop quantum theory agreeing there was evidence for a spacetime uncertainty, may be an indication of a non-trivial relationship.

[Dubbelosix]

My investigation into quantum gravity under the limits I proposed, did suggest to me a gravitational bound in the Hilbert space. That investigation was submitted to the gravitational research foundation. I will write that up here, on another day in the ATM, with respect to not over-flood the subforum with pending thread applications, I will do it in the existing thread on gravity.

[profloater]

I have in my hand Carlo Rovelli's book, the order of time in which he mentions the Wheeler DeWitt equation for quantum gravity, notable for having no time dimension. I have not noticed it yet in your comprehensive references. Is it relevant to your argument?

[Dubbelosix]

I have in my hand Carlo Rovelli's book, the order of time in which he mentions the Wheeler DeWitt equation for quantum gravity, notable for having no time dimension. I have not noticed it yet in your comprehensive references. Is it relevant to your argument?

yes.. it certainly is. Well-mentioned, it's a very relevant topic actually. Give me a moment while I write up some quick resolutions in my investigations concerning this strange equation....

[Dubbelosix]

Ok, so how do you get a wheeler de witt equation? Well, it seems to be a property of quantization Einstein's equations according to history line integrals. Even Bohm trajectory quantization leads to the same thing... a vanishing time derivative, which has led to a timeless interpretation on a global scale. More technically, it is rooted with general relativity not possessing a true time evolution since it is defined under diffeomorphism invariance. A very complicated problem arises from the Friedmann equation because the scale factor '''' which has depedennce on the radius and temperature, is strictly ''time-dependent''... hence, a ''new time problem'' realized in conjuction with Matti (physicist friend).


I have taken this time dependence, more fundamental than the WDW approach, simply because, the WDW equation relies on a more speculative derivation.

[profloater]

Thanks for that. I guess the philosophical take is the reversibility question and then the agency question in any quantum explanation. If you could express the equations without time, it does not specify reversibility but it raises the problem of the second law and as Carlo points out, the problem of perspective , or smoothing, in the analysis of entropy. But I can wait to see where you are going. I hope I did not disturb the flow.

[Dubbelosix]

I don't know what it is, but you seem to be either a step ahead of me, or the audience. Either way, there is more to come on the ''irreversibility'' and in fact, this will present itself as a modern take, on a pre-big bang phase. It's not so much against the mainstream, insomuch, that it denies a big bang happened, which makes this type of ''not-so-well-known'' mainstream ''or alternative'' view to explain the same physics. But this will come in time.

[Dubbelosix]

ok, so in the OP, I explained the third derivative in a Friedmann equation leads to non-conservation. From my studies, let us see where that leads modern possibilities into cosmological models.

This is actually part of a much larger investigation into my cosmology studies, which was related to a richer plethora of ideas that circled around a universal primordial rotation term attached to a Friedmann equation. Those early equations are still the basis of my arguments to explain dark energy and even dark flow, including several other topics of interest, such as an interesting relationship to the antimatter problem. In a later post, I will show that work that attempts to view the universe with the all-important Poincare symmetry: This work is still related to those previous investigations, because we deal with a different kind of de Sitter spacetime, a type only I can classify as a pseudo de Sitter spacetime, but what makes it different? Well, a third in time derivative Friedmann equation does not conserve the energy of an expanding universe.
In this work, we adopt a solution from Motz and Kraft for a reversible isothermal Gibbs-Helmholtz phase change of an all matter liquid degenerate gas into a radiation vapor. It is assumed in our model, that a realistic phase change involves neither reversible or isothermal phase changes.

To help explain a diabatic anisothermal phase change from some super cool pre-big bang phase, we introduce a Friedmann equation which has been rewritten in the style of a Gibbs equation - this specific equation can be argued in a number of different ways: The basic way to view it is that the Friedmann equation is related to the entropy of a universe insomuch that it consists of two parts, a reversible and irreversible particle creation dynamics.



where $S$ has dimensions of $k_B$ in which define an equation of state with temperature variations:



which also justifies the following form as a fully thermodynamic interpretation:



is known as the irreversible pressure, and inside of it, we can talk about the Gibbs-Helmholtz free energy equation for an irreversible phase change from a liquid particle creation phase to vapor for some infinitesimal change in volume,



(which is to note, an entirely different approach to the model Motz and Kraft uses, while I give total rights to this extension to Motz ironically, since he was the first to note correctly, a third derivative in the Friedmann equation marked a non-conservation). In fact, strong interpretations of the wheeler de witt equation suggests that it is itself a wrongly applied conservation law, since the WDW equation predicts no changes happen in spacetime, which is a proven lie.


Where, [tex]n[tex] is the particle number density. The pressure is irreversible because particle production through the phases has happened in this case, in an irreversible way in which we take . The irreversibility of particle creation is expected to happen when the term is large, implying a large cosmological curvature which would have been present during these phase changes; it is a result of particle creation in curved spacetimes that yields possibilities for non-conservation in the universe. Any reversible dynamics in the universe I speculate as probably a post big bang phenomenon, whereas I expect this conversion from the two phase states as related to chaotic and irreversible dynamics.

In this model, the universe is expected to have a cold dominated era (the pre big bang phase) as a degenerate gas of particles in a very high condensed gravity-dominated region with little thermodynamic freedom. Some collapse underwent in the cold dominated region leading to the radiation vapor phase - which can be thought of as the heating of the universe leading to a big bang scenario. We live inexorably, in this vapor phase of the universe.

Let's try and understand how you derive this. The energy of a universe is related to the reversible and irreversible terms:





This last equation is formally similar to the equation of state for a universe.



since





Dividing the volume off, we get



which fits the construction (once you treat it as heat per unit particle)



I spoke about the fluid expansion before, let's quickly cover it. The symbol as we have explained, is related to the particle production of a spacetime, meaning that as a spacetime expands, new particles enter the metric ~



and implies the formation of the fluid expansion in the following form



Again, this is a measure of how particle number is counted as a spacetime expands and the following equivalences also hold in Friedmann cosmology:





(nothing more than conventional notation porn)

Often, equations like the equation of state, can introduce and reassemble the equations to fit different descriptions of an expanding universe, in terms of either the particle number density , the Hubble radius or the scale factor where the final term is associated to temperature. The associates to the strength of the curvature of an early universe which has near isodensity between both phase states, that is, there is little deviation between the curvature states of the two phases of the universe.

To sum up, the left hand side of this equation then explains the local distribution of gravity and curvature when a universe was young - its non-conservation in the form of particle production and fluid expansion coefficient leads nicely to a definition of how non-conserved particle production in spacetime is implied when expansion and large curvature are producing these effects. Let's take a look at the right hand side of the equation now.

This side of the equation was argued from at least, three different articles. It is related to entropy, since it contains reversible and irreversible dynamics. It has elements of Gibbs thermodynamics since the right hand side satisfied a diabatic first law thermodynamic equation for the heat per unit particle (density). The equation can satisfy easily a definition of the Motz-Kraft solution for some irreversible pressure term. The right hand side once again, can accommodate a nice thermodynamic interpretation as well.

**Conclusions**

It is taken from this work that expanding spacetime as an exact solution to non-conservation is linked to the concept of field theory and zero point fields in terms equally of expanding spacetime - in other words, you cannot separate the concept of new energy from the notion of new spacetime since there is no classical Newtonian vacuum; we have given this up for a new concept of spacetime, which is not empty but filled with quantum activity. Sean Carrol has noted a similar argument in his own blog. I also take from this work, that the pre-big bang phase to the phase we live in today, may be an irreversible process.
**REFERENCES**


Copyright infringing website link deleted

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...opic_cosmology (https://www.researchgate.net/publica...opic_cosmology)
updated ref: Unexpected friction found in superfluid helium-3 (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...fluid-helium-3)



*note: even if this is not a true description of reality, it sharpens our intuitive and physical notions and dynamic possibilities behind the Friedmann equation.

[Dubbelosix]

I will make one mention, a superior conclusion to the irreversibility creation... it means that time has to go one-way, which one poster here wisely mention.

[Reality Check]

There has been considerable amount of work from respectable scientists, like Hawking who has testified that our universe could very well be spinning, ....

My comment was about missing citations and now you make another assertion with no citations! Citations for a spinning universe please.
There are some citations in a later post about the hypothetical spinning of the universe.

[Reality Check]

Ok so why is rotation important?

1) The hypothetical rotation would not change the universe being created with equal amounts of matter and antimatter. It would not change the nature of nuclear reactions that is thought to be the source of the matter dominance. (CP violation)

2) Dark flow is as far as we know a linear flow of distant galaxy clusters. It is not a rotational flow.

3) The large voids are explained within standard cosmology.

4) The homogeneity problem is solved by inflation.

5) A speculation that there is "cut-off in the production density of particles in the universe" with a speculation that a centrifugal force causes it?

6) What looks like confusion between the bulk energy of a rotating universe and vacuum energy.

[Reality Check]

A crucial question, still not properly answered in physics, is the question of what generates the fluctuation

Answered in quantum fluctuation.

Citations missing from the rest of your post to support your assertion you have derived the same "spacetime uncertainty principle".

[Dubbelosix]

Answered in quantum fluctuation.

Citations missing from the rest of your post to support your assertion you have derived the same "spacetime uncertainty principle".

I think you need to calm down, or I need another leave. I'll leave that with the overlords, because i see no real logic in your questions, and so I refuse to play.

[Reality Check]

I think you need to calm down, or I need another leave. I'll leave that with the overlords, because i see no real logic in your questions, and so I refuse to play.

I calmly asked you for citations to support your post.
There are maybe thousands of scattering experiments. Which of those thousands of experiment are you referring to?
What is the "spacetime uncertainty principle"?
Where is its prediction by string theory and loop quantum gravity?

[Dubbelosix]

I calmly asked you for citations to support your statement.

While not respecting the fact I went into considerable detail and cited quite a number of significant authors: You asked for some references, I have given you even better ones.

And yet, here you are demanding more, even when you have demonstrated you go to lengths to find relevant material. As I said, I will not play these games, after today, I will not be returning, so if you have anything more to ask, do it now.

[Reality Check]

And yet, here you are demanding more,.

I am asking you for the references that you used for a post with several unsupported assertions. If you do not have any then that is an answer. If you do then support for your assertions will be appreciated.

ETA: In case you are thinking of other posts, this is the post:

There are some good mechanisms to think fluctuations should appear in spacetime. There is experimental evidence from scattering experiments that a spacetime uncertainty principle holds - such a principle was first predicted by string theory and later, we found loop quantum gravity held the same condition. It is a quantum relationship which (as I have shown), in general relativity [at the very least] is related to two non-commuting connections of the gravitational field. In fact, it's even possible the torsion part of Einstein's equations is an antisymmetry related to quantum corrections since it satisfies the Lie algebra of commutative space.

[Dubbelosix]

I am asking you for the references that you used for a post with several unsupported assertions. If you do not have any then that is an answer. If you do then support for your assertions will be appreciated.

You insult my integrity, sir. I could easily give you references, but I am choosing not to. The reason why, is because I find you aggressive and my time here is coming to an end. It wasn't just you.. a few posters here have been aggressive and this isn't how science works. You know fine well, there are papers that support my claims, because you know I would not make such claims without evidence. If by this time, you think I do, then you are not on the same page as me.

But there is... dishonesty in the way you speak with me. You are confrontational, but you are not the only one, so do not feel singled out.

[Reality Check]

You insult my integrity, sir. ....and this isn't how science works

Asking simple questions for citations is not an insult or aggressive. Asking questions and supported assertions is pretty much how science works. For example, ask any PhD candidate about the "interrogation" that they had to pass to defend their thesis. Any scientific paper that neglected to give references to back up assertions would be rejected.

Science does not blindly accept any claims without any evidence. The minimum amount of evidence is citations to the scientific literature. This is a science forum. The standard is relaxed a bit, e.g. Wikipedia is acceptable as a citation.

[tusenfem]

Copyright infringing website link deleted

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...opic_cosmology (https://www.researchgate.net/publica...opic_cosmology)
updated ref: Unexpected friction found in superfluid helium-3 (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...fluid-helium-3)

Dubbelosix please refrain from posting links to a site that infringes on copy right.
CQ cannot condone this from a legal point of view.
You can give links to journals, researchgate, ADS, etc.

[tusenfem]

You insult my integrity, sir. I could easily give you references, but I am choosing not to. The reason why, is because I find you aggressive and my time here is coming to an end. It wasn't just you.. a few posters here have been aggressive and this isn't how science works. You know fine well, there are papers that support my claims, because you know I would not make such claims without evidence. If by this time, you think I do, then you are not on the same page as me.

But there is... dishonesty in the way you speak with me. You are confrontational, but you are not the only one, so do not feel singled out.

I am sorry, but at the moment you are the aggressive one. If someone asks you for references that you may have used to make some of your claims, this person is in their good right to do so. This person may try to find the papers that you used, but as there are many, may not find the one you actually used. So, stop this nonsense and give the information.

This discussion stops here.