Do we live in a perfect liquid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quantumirage
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Liquid
quantumirage
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm a physics newbie, so forgive me if I'm ignorant sometimes, but I've been trying to learn physics on my own and understand things for the past couple of years, and I'm proud to say that I've come a long way - still got a long way to go.

There was an article posted last week about perfect liquids, and the fact that if one stirs a spoon in that liquid, the spoon will keep stirring forever. And it made me think about how everything on the quantum and grand-scale level (planets and stars) is also spinning forever in what is labeled as "angular momentum" in physics. What does that indicate? And what exactly is a perfect liquid and its connection to angular momentum?

There are lots and lots of questions in my head, but I'll start here. Thanks for helping me answer those questions and get to know the real nature of life and everything we live in.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF.

A 'perfect liquid' or superfluid is a liquid(-ish) state of matter that has no viscosity, or 'internal friction'. Which is why it will continue moving in a circular pattern forever when you stir it. (In a similar vein, a superconductor has no 'internal friction' in the form of electrical resistance, and a current set in motion in a closed loop in a superconductor will also continue perpetually)

It's got nothing to do with angular momentum, really, other than the example happened to use that. Angular momentum is a conserved property, as is linear momentum and energy. As long as a physical system isn't exchanging these things with the outside world (it's isolated), then those quantities will remain the same. An ordinary, viscous, fluid will slow down eventually if you stir it, but doesn't lose any angular momentum in the process; it merely became redistributed on the molecular scale. The difference is that this redistribution doesn't happen in a superfluid, not that angular momentum is conserved - that's always the case.


Not to discourage you, but if you've been learning on your own for several years, you might need to find a good curriculum or course plan to follow. The above, save for the specifics of superfluids, is pretty basic classical physics. You need to know that well if you want to have any hope of understanding the more advanced concepts. (There's a reason university-level physics is taught in the order it is!) Reading popular-scientific books about physics and cosmology is fine, but they don't really teach physics any more than reading a restaurant review teaches cooking.
 
Thanks Alxm for your response. The fact that angular momentum exists as a property within each system (whether it's a single atom or a whole planetary system) makes me believe that each of these systems behaves as a perfect liquid on its own.
You're probably right that I need to cover the Physics basics more extensively but I also appreciate the fact that I can think more "outside the box" than what you can find in textbooks.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
I am not sure if this belongs in the biology section, but it appears more of a quantum physics question. Mike Wiest, Associate Professor of Neuroscience at Wellesley College in the US. In 2024 he published the results of an experiment on anaesthesia which purported to point to a role of quantum processes in consciousness; here is a popular exposition: https://neurosciencenews.com/quantum-process-consciousness-27624/ As my expertise in neuroscience doesn't reach up to an ant's ear...
Back
Top