Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T01:40:47.140Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Compressibility in a Variable Generalised Chaplygin Gas

Subject: Physics and Astronomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2020

Manuel Malaver*
Affiliation:
Bijective Physics Institute, Idrija, Slovenia Maritime University of the Caribbean, Department of Basic Sciences, Catia la Mar, Venezuela.
*
*Corresponding author: Email: mmf.umc@gmail.com

Abstract

Considering the Panigrahi and Chatterjee model (2017) for variable generalised Chaplygin gas, in this paper we found for this kind of exotic matter an analytic expression for the adiabatic compressibility βs. It was analyzed the behaviour of the adiabatic compressibility in the limit of high and low pressure. The derived equation for βs was used to deduce the value of the heat capacity at constant pressure Cp for variable generalised Chaplygin gas.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press
Reviewing editor:  Stefano Camera Universita degli Studi di Torino, Physics, Via Pietro Giuria, 1, Torino, Italy, 10124 University of the Western Cape, Physics & Astronomy, Bellville, South Africa, 7535
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and met required revisions.

Review 1: Compressibility in a Variable Generalised Chaplygin Gas

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: This paper has been written very well. My vote to this paper is minor revision. I will accept the paper after doing modifications. The reason is: The paper does not include results and discussion part. Also, it needs to be investigated that there is needed to provide some graphs and tables to show results in tabular and illustrative format. Also, it needs to be explained more about applications of Generalized Chaplygin Gas model in this paper and also its difference with its classic format to analyze results. I hope these comments help the author about improvement of this paper.

Presentation

Overall score 5 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 5 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
5 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
5 out of 5

Review 2: Compressibility in a Variable Generalised Chaplygin Gas

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: Cosmology progress is based on experimental data not on theoretical speculations. “Chaplygin gas” is a theoretical exotic idea, it is not experimental data. Experimental data is that universal space has Euclidean shape which is measured by NASA in 2014. This means the volume of the universal space is infinite. Results of Barbour, Fiscaletti, Sorli confirm that time has no physical existence, time is the numerical sequential order of events running in the universal space, which is the primordial energy of the universe we call today “superfluid quantum vacuum”, see work of Sbitnev, Fedi, Fiscaletti, Sorli. The energy of the vacuum itself is 95% of the missing energy of the universe, see the article published in Scientific Reports in August 2019: “Mass-energy Equivalence Extention on Superfluid Quantum Vacum”. Universal space is time-invariant (as time is the numerical sequential order of change in space). Cosmological principle is time-invariant. The idea of the beginning of the universe from some singularity as proposed by Hawking and Hartle seems is not the best idea because nobody knows how a mathematical point can turn into infinite Euclidean space. Big Bang cosmology calculated the age of the universe is controversial with a measured diameter of the observable universe. According to BB cosmology universe to reach today size should expand with 3,34 of light speed. This does not make sense and I think this article somehow could be accepted 20 years ago. But not today. According to the measured observed universe, CMB could not reach us yet. See the recent article A THREE-DIMENSIONAL NON-LOCAL QUANTUM VACUUM AS THE ORIGIN OF PHOTONS in the Ukrainian Journal of physics (Fiscaletti, Sorli). CMB is the radiation of the existent quantum vacuum. And the gravitational redshift of the light coming from distant galaxies can be seen as a “tired light effect” proposed by Zwicky. Direct reading of data is not in favor of BB cosmology.

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
2 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 2 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
2 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
2 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
2 out of 5