![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
In the "Curved space-time" section:
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)
This bit sounds awkward to me and maybe needs a rewrite:
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)
It's overdue to update the Higgs contingency section(s) of this article. Danshawen ( talk) 21:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)danshawen
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)
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:
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.
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
In the "Curved space-time" section:
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)
This bit sounds awkward to me and maybe needs a rewrite:
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)
It's overdue to update the Higgs contingency section(s) of this article. Danshawen ( talk) 21:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)danshawen
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)
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:
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.