pondělí 27. dubna 2009

AWT and mechanical models of entanglement

By AWT explanation of quantum entanglement is closely related to wave function collapse. Try to imagine, you're a sailor, who is staying at night on the end of floating wharf, to which some boat is attached. Because night sea is stormy, everything (both sailor, wharf and boat) are wobbling up and down, but in different phases. From the perspective of sailor this boat sways randomly.

The observation of quantum particle is analogous to situation, when sailor touches the boat for a moment, thus exchanging some kinetic energy with it. What will happen, after then? The wharf and boat will begin to oscillate at phase. It means, the sailor will keep his relative position with respect to boat, so he cannot detect any boat wobbling anymore, because he moves by the same way. We can say, the wave motion/function of boat has collapsed from local perspective of that sailor. It still remains undulating from perspective of another observer, though - this is the moment, when relativity takes place in quantum mechanics.

In AWT both particles of observer, both particles of observed object are formed by dense nested clusters of another undulating particles, recursively. At the moment, when observed object exchanges some energy with particles of observer during process of observation, the undulations of both systems aren't independent anymore: their internal fluctuations will undulate at phase, too. Briefly speaking, the observer will get entangled with the particle observed. As the particle doesn't undulate independently from this moment, the corresponding part of their mutual undulations will disappear from observation, because the internal motion of both systems has been synchronized.

This is what we are calling a collapse of wave function during process of observation. The observer and object are now undulating like single body - the common center of mass of both objects is forming a private reference frame, a sort of independent island of reality inside of wave ocean - from this idea the concept of many worlds follows. This state isn't permanent, indeed - due the omnipresent random undulations of environment a process called quantum decoherence will take place, thus breaking the entanglement state and synchronization of observer and observed object.

A more close and natural mechanical analogy of entanglement can be demonstrated for undulating droplets levitating in low gravity conditions (i.e. oil droplets inside of lava lamp or water droplets under diamagnetic levitation, for example). When we split such undulating droplet into two halves by thin wire, the resulting parts will remain undulate at phase with respect to the center of their common mass. The smaller droplets will therefore "remember" the state of original droplet in certain extent, so they can serve as a quabit memory. Such pair will create their own "inertial reference frame" and/or "local universe" by many worlds interpretation. But as we can see - nothing "spooky" is on such entanglement, in fact.

Note that even though we can combine the different droplet pairs with the same surface amplitude or even frequency, such reconnection will not restore the surface wave of original droplet, until the phase of the surface waves of both droplets will not remain exactly the same - from this the quantum cryptography follows. We can see, while this model is very trivial and natural, only common disbelief in Aether models prohibited scientists to consider it a long time ago in explanation of various quantum mechanics phenomena.

neděle 19. dubna 2009

AWT and ultra-energetic cosmic rays

This post is an reaction to New Scientist article named "13 things that do not make sense", which was updated recently. Ultra-energetic cosmic rays (UHECR) are exceptional from two reasons:
  1. They're most energetic spouts of energy known so far, i.e. of energy densities which becomes close to upper limit of GUT scale.
  2. They're propagating over whole universe, i.e. at space-time distance scales close to lower limit of GUT scale.
These two properties enable us to observe 2nd order phenomena, which are not just violating the classical theories - but they're even violating some of their corrections. For example, while special relativity considers, light spreads in constant speed, the cosmic rays exhibits a dispersion on CMB field, which results into violation of Lorentz symmetry, because gamma ray photons spreads in lower speed, then the CMB ones. As the result, gamma rays are absorbed in CMB field at 40 MPsc distance scale, which manifests as so called the GZK limit, which protects terresterial life from gamma rays from nearby supernovae explosions. This dispersion can be even detected directly, because gamma ray flash separates from those formed by visible light during explosions of supernovas - compare the MAGIC observation, for example.

The above is valid just from moderate gamma ray flashes, generated in stellar implosion or collisions. UECRS, which are coming from very distant areas of Universe (fortunately) are formed mostly by collisions of galactic black holes (AGN) and as such they're propagating like bullets or solitons through cosmic space - which effectively means, both visible, both gamma ray portion of remote flash arrives to Earth at the single moment again. The photon pulse of UHECR is distorted and breaks up by its own gravity, condensing into one or more gravitationally localised objects, which are propagating through distant space as a single body without dispersion.

This behavior is essentially welcomed by some string theory proponents, because string theory is basically a particle theory, not a field theory, so it can describe nonlinear effects connected to particles by hidden dimensions concept - but it gets into troubles when explaining of nonlinear field phenomena, like Lorentz symmetry violation in vacuum (being Lorentz symmetry based theory). Various quantum gravity theories - the LQG theory in particular - are dual to string theories from certain perspective, so they become a more successful in description of nonlinear properties of vacuum. This is particularly because the quantum gravity theories are based on combination or general relativity and quantum mechanics, not just a special relativity and quantum mechanics, like string theories - so they can become a bit more general in this point. The soliton behavior of UHECR is explained by various mechanisms, like the axion–photon conversion or by gravitino-neutrino coupling.

By AWT the observation of UHECR can be explained by considering of three facts, which follows from AWT rather directly. The first two points explains, why existing mechanism of gamma ray formation may lead to more energetic flashes, then current theory predicts. The third point explains, why such energetic flashes doesn't suffer gradual dispersion, so we can observe them even over whole universe.
  1. The collapse of neutron stars into black holes enables a substantial portion of matter to escape in form of energy
  2. The black hole merging exhibits an hysteresis due the surface tension effects of space-time curvature, similar to merging of mercury droplets.
  3. The short intensive flashes can propagate at long distance in non dispersive way, i.e. like solitons.
From AWT follows, every gradient manifest itself by mass/energy density, even the gradients of gravity field, which is source of spacetime curvature, which surrounds all massive bodies. This behavior leads to supersymmetric phenomena, which manifest itself as a dark matter clouds surrounding massive galaxies. At the case of black holes or large clusters of elementary particles (strangelets) the gradient of gravity field is especially pronounced and it has a character of surface tension of mercury droplets. It means, the merging of black holes isn't so smooth, as follows from unmodified equations of general relativity - black holes tends to form a relatively stable dense clusters, similar to strawberries. We can observe these structures from inside like foamy streaks of dark matter. The same surface tension effects of gravity field curvature are responsible for creation of tetraneutrons, or perhaps pentaquark or more large particle clusters, so called the strangelets during collider experiments.

Merging of black holes considers the formation of thin neck with negative curvature of space, which manifest itself by repulsing antigravity force. By classical theory the antigravity action results into increasing of rotational momentum, which slows down the coalescing of massive bodies into account of gravitational waves (the energy of transversal waves converts into longitudinal ones in process of symmetry breaking). At the moment, when surface tension is overcomed, the black hole coalesce under release of activation energy, which is released in form of longitudinal gravitational waves and transversal waves of gamma radiation.

Even the tiny mercury droplets (which are full of free electrons) exhibits a repulsive force at the distance, which prohibits them in merging due their surface tension. Thus is because their merging requires the formation of thin neck with strong negative curvature, which is always source of repulsive force in nature. At the moment, such droplet will become very close, a suddenly merging occurs, because the negative gradient will change into positive and the repulsive force will change into attractive one. It means, the process of ultra-dense massive bodies proceeds in much more vigorous way (i.e. atemporarily from outer perspective) under radiation of much more energy in both transversal (gamma ray), both longitudinal (i.e. gravity) waves, then relativity theory predicts.

This behavior is in fact the consequence of Aether theory driven by classical mechanics, by which the most pronounced gradient of gravity field remains at the surface, not at the center and it manifests by its own energy density (surface energy). Albeit the mercury droplet behavior of free electrons isn’t very pronounced in metals, it dictates the behavior of chemical bonds between atoms during chemical reactions and charge transfer in semiconductors, which can be interpreted by mercury droplet model in many cases.

pátek 17. dubna 2009

Does gravity change with time?

AWT is fully consistent with ekpyrotic cosmology, while branes are generally considered a density gradients of Aether. Which basically means, observable Universe passes through density gradient of Aether, which results in omnidirectional space-time expansion. Because of fractal foam nature of branes and time dimension, it's probable, this expansion would change it's direction in less or more distant perspective, but it will never repeat in the same way. It means, AWT is somewhere between aperiodic (i.e. Friedman's cosmology, for example) and cyclic cosmology.

Brane cosmology is directly testable both in space, both in time dimension, because it manifests both in foamy structure of dark matter, both in gradient of space-time expansion, i.e. by the Doppler anisotropy of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). From time perspective we should observe a change of gravity constant with time, because observable portion of Universe passes through more and more dense Aether gradually (we can interpret it like fall into giant black hole). This behavior leads to new interpretation of classical theory of expanding Earth, but it can be tested in even more straightforward ways.

Because observable matter has a greater density, then the vacuum, we can consider it as a pieces of pre-collapsed Aether foam. During space-time deforms, these peaces would behave like more stiff and the density difference between Aether foam forming matter and vacuum will cease to zero. Because the gravity force and gravity constant depends on this density difference, it will decrease too with time. We can even observe it in real time for example by gradual decrease of mass of kilogram prototype - as it virtually dissolves in collapsing vacuum (compare the proton decay, as predicted by Standard model).

We should realize, we cannot detect the change in light speed in expanding space-time, until we use measure based on standing waves of light (i.e. laser resonator in contemporary SI system of units) for meter definition. But when we use a solid rod as a reference measure, we could detect change of light speed related to this measure - after then the gravity constant would remain constant, just the light speed will change - so we shouldn't detect any change in fine structure constant anyway. By some theorists change in speed of light is interpreted as a disappearance of time from our Universe, but such interpretation is apparently dual to variable light speed concept and/or accelerated space-rip, as interpreted by other cosmologists.

The more dense vacuum is, the less stable are all material objects in it, the smaller amount matter is sufficient for phase transition of stellar mass. Therefore the decrease of gravity constant is followed by gradual decrease of luminosity of periodic flashes of type Ia supernovae cefeids (so called the standard candles), which would appear more remote and frequent, then those in constant gravity field. From this perspective the speed of Universe expansion would remain constant (i.e. no dark energy should be required) - just the gravity constant or speed of light will change. These insights render our Universe a much more dynamic, then we ever expected before - but we should realize, they're plural and as such they shouldn't be mixed mutually.

The annual motion of Earth in Aether density gradients should manifest by subtle annual changes of gravity constant or light speed, too. This possibility was opened recently and it can be tested easily by correlation of annual changes in gravity constant to spatial orientation toward Virgo cluster and Rubin-Ford anisotropy.

More dense vacuum in direction to Virgo cluster should increase the speed of heavy element decay, because it weakens all attractive forces, not just the gravity. This annual change in decay rate of heavy elements was observed recently at the case of Si-32 and Ra-226 elements, which was correlated to Earth-Sun distance and possibly the catalysis of decay by solar neutrino flux. Again, the correlation of these observations with CMB anisotropy can help us decide, which explanation is more relevant here. As we can see, even quite rough logical approach brings a number of testable predictions and connections here.

čtvrtek 16. dubna 2009

Does string theory link the ultracold with the superhot?

This post is a reaction to popular ScienceNews article about approach of string theory to duality observed inside of quark-gluon condensate, which author Tom Siegfried interprets as a "first testable prediction" of string theory. At first, it's not first testable prediction of string theory at all. String theory has made a number of testable predictions already (cosmic strings, primordial black holes, etc..) - they were just kept in quiet, simply because they weren't confirmed by experiments (1, 2), in which Casimir force was ignored as a gravity force in hidden dimensions.

Under normal situation such theory would be considered disproved already by common criterions of Popper's methodology - but this is indeed not a case of string theory, where too many important people and their money are involved. Nevertheless, even if we admit, Mr. Siegfried is right, string theory approach to description of quark-gluon condensate is just an ex-post interpretation, because the formation of quark-gluon condensate was observed before six years already at RHIC. By another words, it's a fabrication of predictability, which didn't exist before six years. With such approach we can say as well, constant speed of light or wave nature of light belongs the predictions of Aether theory, because Aether concept has existed a well before, it was ever used for interpretation of light spreading, predictions the more. But such manipulation of history isn't apparently enough for some string theory proponents.

By blog post of Lubos Motl, when experimenters studied the quark-gluon plasma formed by collisions of colliding golden nuclei, they "thought it would have to behave as a gas or plasma". The truth is, they didn't, of course - it's not so trivial to prove the formation of quark-gluon condensate (which is an original prediction of Quantum chromodynamics, in fact) in collider experiments and the experimental proof must be carefully planned and prepared in advance - so we should know, what to measure first. It was observed, that the material behaved as a superfluid, despite a trillion of degrees Celsius - which is what, these experiments were planned for. By Lubos, string theorists "already knew, why this thing would be observed" - the only problem is, they were pretty quiet about it before six years (or even ten years, when these experiments were planned actually). Just now some of them have realized suddenly, RHIC results may be interpreted by string theory - which is apparently not, what Mr. Motl wanted to say about it.

Well, the most crucial problem is, it's virtually impossible to explain this behavior by assumption, particles are formed by 1D strings. If you don't trust me, just try to reproduce the string theory based explanation for yourself in reproducible sequence of logical steps. If we cannot do it in logical way, it's apparent, we cannot derive it in formal math way either, because formal math is based on predicate logic - not vice-versa. After then we can say: sorry, but our stance is based on pure religion - no less, no more. While some connection between dualities of string theory and dual behavior of quark-gluon condensate may definitely exist here, the awareness of such connection isn't still a evidence of it, simply because we can expect, inside of our universe everything is connected with everything due the correspondence principle and general causal time arrow.

Fortunately, it's quite trivial to expect the superfluous behavior of quark-gluon condensate in simple and straightforward way without string theory - or even without Standard model - which is why these experiments were made, after all. When these particles are compressed, their repulsive forces will compensate mutually, which effectively leads into free chaotic motion of particles inside of droplet, i.e. into superfluous boson condensate state. And this is a quite common behavior, which is used for example for high pressure shaping of metals or in cumulative warheads, like bazooka, and nothing very surprising is about it - it's an explanation based on classical Newtonian mechanics. If nothing else, every more complex explanation is irrelevant here due the Occam's razor criterion ("pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"). In fact, the formation of superfluid inside of dense particle clusters is one of many trivial predictions of Aether theory - as every little child can understand immediately.

We are facing a too many lies and misinterpretations in this particular case, don't you think? The whole story follows from predictable situation, when after some forty years of development, string theory needs some testable results desperately. Therefore the ScienceNews article is a typical example of fabrication of success of troublesome theory, which doesn't exist in fact. Even more serious problem is, such approach is amoral, as it introduces a religious stance for whole rest of society, which is manipulated in this way. All these article readers are forced to believe in interpretation, which doesn't understand at all - while the most trivial explanation is covered just for easier life of some limited group of people. Which is basically, what every theology was designed for.

And that's the memo.

čtvrtek 9. dubna 2009

Would Boltzmann brain see its universe chaotic?

This post is an reaction to another blog article of Lubos Motl, where he presents a Richard Feynman's lecture about arrow of time. At the beginning of the third part, Feynman explains, why Boltzmann brain is a "ridiculous theory", because it "incorrectly predicts", that the rest of the world should be completely disordered. We can see this as a another demonstration of Popper's methodology symmetry, where every negation of theory becomes new testable theory as well. So that not only validity of theory - but the validity of all arguments against theory must be allways checked carefully. If we consider every logical theory wrong from its very beginning, the objective stance becomes biased quite often.

As I explained previously here and specially to Lubos, Boltzmann brain hypothesis has nothing to do with situation, when 10^{23} particles will get organized suddenly into something like human brain. It describes the situation, when unspecified amount of particles is involved into Boltzmann brain creation. When we consider 10^{23*23} particles, the probability of formation of some particular configuration of just 10^{23} particles will be unitary - so we can say safely, the existence of human brain in every 10^{23*23} particles of matter will become undeniable. This number roughly corresponds the number of particles inside of observable part of Universe and the number of string theory possible solutions, which could serve for falsification of this concept. So we can interpret both Universe, both human brains entities as a product of random fluctuations of hypothetical particle gas - which is basically what the whole AWT is about.

Among other things, this approach explains, why every large group of people tends to check all meaningful answers and theories, before the most relevant one is considered at the very end. This is because the intelligent stance of individuals in every large group of people is compensating mutually, so that such group is behaving like chaotic Boltzmann gas as a whole. This can explain, why Aether theory was recognized so early in human society - but understood and accepted so late.

Every brain can see (i.e. to interact via transversal waves with) just the causal portion of Universe, which corresponds the causality of Boltzmann brain hypothesis - so we can expect, if we find an even more general approach later, it could predict even larger number of states, then the random walk model considers - our causual Universe would expand with time. Because of nested character of density fluctuations of Boltzmann gas - which undergoes a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution - our Boltzmann brains could never see the rest of our environment empty, "completely random" the less - particularly because both Feynman, both Motl didn't realize, their intepretation considers no environment at all. I do believe, virtually every human brain (including this one of average string theorist) could understand the difference between Boltzmann and Feynman approach to random Universe and stop to misinterpret this simple, yet powerful theory.

neděle 5. dubna 2009

AWT and the quest for hidden dimensions

When Neil Armstrong made his first descent to the Moon's surface during Apollo 11 mission in 1969, he spoke his famous line "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind..". Aether Wave Theory can become such a dual step in mankind awareness, too: in many areas of physics, which are covered by formal theories already its contribution may remain infinitesimal, whereas in more fundamental areas it suggests a virtually a deep revolution in thinking. Such revolution may become the understanding of role/scope of hidden dimensions and Lorentz symmetry concepts.

As we have demonstrated already by model of water surface, the problem of hidden dimensions is tightly connected to violation of Lorentz symmetry up to level, every violation of Lorentz symmetry can be considered as a direct manifestation of hidden dimensions. Because Lorentz symmetry for light spreading in vacuum is violated at presence of every dispersion or refraction phenomena, it would mean, the hidden dimensions are very common in Nature. For example, the hydrogen bonds or repulsive forces between atoms are manifestation of short distance forces operating in very high number of dimensions.

How the heck is all this possible? A quite easily - due the symmetry, in AWT energy spreads through every environment under conservation of integral number of dimensions in two dual ways only: via transversal and longitudinal waves. The forces mediated by these waves follows an inverse power law due the shielding LeSage/Casimir/Feynman mechanism represented by supergravity, where the power is always lower by one from the number of environment dimensions. In this way, for 3D space the only force fulfilling the inverse 2nd power law (ISL) should be a Coulomb force mediated by photons and gravity force mediated by gravitons or gravity waves at infinite scope, i.e. of zero rest mass. Every other force is simply manifestation of interaction in hidden dimensions and Lorentz symmetry violation. Note that Casimir force mechanism mediated by gravity waves corresponds Fatio-LeSage mechanism for gravitons and transaction absorber theory for virtual photons promoted by Feynman and Wheeler for QED in 50's of the last century. Easy and trivial, isn't it?

But mainstream physics still persists a deep inconsistency in thinking. While the world is full of short distance interactions - from weak nuclear force and dual Casimir force spreading if five dimensions, strong nuclear force mediated by gluons and so called gravitomagnetism ("fifth force") mediated by gravitophotons in four dimensions and many refraction and dispersive phenomena inside of atom orbital - mainstream physicists still considers these nonlinear forces as a "special forces", "nonlinearities" and/or "2nd order effects" rather then manifestation of hidden dimensions and ISL violation - despite the fact, under inconsistent thinking they can never get consistent conclusion.

As the result, these scientists are spending a lotta money from our taxes in various less or more sagacious searches of "hidden dimensions". Because they know, violation of Lorentz symmetry would manifest by inverse square law and non zero rest mass of photons, one way of experimental evidence is based on thourough tests of ISL for gravity and Coulomb forces (which are unsuccessful so far, especially because theorists are ignoring Casimir force in this extent). The deep inconsistency in mainstream science thinking manifests by the fact, some of these tests are even interpreted like tests of string theory as well - albeit string theory is based on Lorentz symmetry from its very beginning. Next time we will discuss some techniques, by which we can interpret and/or visualize interactions in hidden dimensions by AWT.

středa 1. dubna 2009

Would Galileo pass peer review today?

The case of Galileo Galilei, who was condemned for promotion of heliocentric model is usually interpreted by propaganda of mainstream science as a manifestation of superiority of so called scientific method over reactionary stance of Holy Church up to level, every notion of Galileo in different context is considered a direct manifestation of crackpotism. But under more thorough view we can identify many common points between reactionary stance of Holy Church and approach, which proponents of mainstream science are applying against promoters of Aether concept:
  1. Heliocentrism was as an ancient Greek model by the same way, like Aether concept, so called plenum. It was thrown away later mostly from ideological reasons in both cases.
  2. Holy Church was dominant meritocratic organization in Galileo era by the same way, like mainstream science today. Quantity criterion plays a role in AWT models of sociology, because majority mostly adheres to more conservative stance, then isolated souls due at the beginning of social cycle due the mutual compensation of progressive ideas (mutations) inside of larger groups.
  3. Mr. Galileo has used an intuitive logical arguments without formal math to support heliocentric model (i.e. the order of Venus phases, orientation of lunar craters shadows, etc.), but they were ignored by his opponents on behalf of formal models by the same way, like mainstream science ignores logical arguments of Aether proponents on behalf of formal models - just because of their lack of formal math.
  4. From the above reasons, Galileo was considered a controversial - if not naive - crackpot by the rest of people of his time by the same way, like many proponents of Aether concept today.
  5. Both Holy Church at Galileo era, both mainstream science today have developed a tools for fast classification of renegades and crackpots without deeper analysis of their ideas, for example Malleus maleficarum handbook or famous crackpot index.
  6. Heliocentric model was opposed by lack of stellar parallax regarding to Earth absolute motion, Aether model was opposed by lack of reference frame motion regarding to Earth absolute motion. This connection renders Aether model controversy as a direct analogy of heliocentric model controversy, just at different space-time scale.
  7. While lack of parallax is was quite relevant argument against heliocentrism, the lack of Aether reference frame is result of pure misunderstanding of particle environment concept, as the motion of no environment can be observed by its own waves. This point renders mainstream science even more biased against logic and confused, then the proponents of geocentricism at Galileo time.
  8. Geocentrists have ignored real life physics, the inertial physics in particular, which excludes the motion of heavier Sun around Earth on behalf of epicycles model by the same way, like space-time oriented model of contemporary physics ignores many real life connections of inertial character of vacuum, leading to wave character of light and many other phenomena.
  9. Geocentric model was Platonism based on ad-hoced numerical regression of observation and ad-hoced geometrical constructs (deferents and epicycles) without deeper understanding by the same way, like mainstream physics today, which prefers formal theories based on ad-hoced postulates, abstract geometric constructs (strings, manifolds and branes of M-theory) and overly complex formal regression of reality, which nobody can understand at intuitive level too.
  10. Geocentric model was used for calculations of motion of planets in Galileo times, although we know by now, these observations belongs into dual, i.e. heliocentric model. Analogously, mainstream science is blindly using relativity for interpretations of many phenomena (like gravitational lensing), which belongs into dual models by their very nature. We can consider this paradox a sort of supersymmetry phenomena (a formal model of theory is serving for confirmation of T-dual theory).
  11. Formal models of geocentrists were of infinitesimal practical significance at Galileo times, they served mostly for calculations of horoscopes, based on periods of solar eclipses and planetary conjunctions, which gaved them the sign of authenticity. Many scientists today are using an Aether based models on background and Newtonian physics formalism (the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian calculus in particular) to give the predictability and notion of authenticity to their theories.
  12. Many astronomers earned money like astrologers by bullshitting of layman people by their calculations without deeper understanding of their subject by the same way, like promoters of many scientific theories today, the promoters of string theory in particular.
  13. Background motivation of negativistic stance of promoters of geocentric model was the fear for lost of their informational monopoly for interpretation of reality by mainstream paradigm (a theology in particular). The motivation of the negativism of mainstream scientists toward Aether model is the lost of their monopoly for interpretation of reality by so called scientific method.
  14. The sectarian approach of both mainstream science, both Holy Church and other closed communities is characterized by so called novitiate period, during which new adepts are brainwashed by mainstream approach, before they're allowed to continue in further education and productive work. We can face this in contemporary educational system, where the formal approach to physical lectures prevails instead of more intuitive nonformal one.
It's apparent, history of science just repeats in social cycles at more advanced level of human understanding. Science just switched its progressive role with Holy Church of Galileo era. AWT explains this stance switching by inertial model of nested phase transforms, which is occurring inside of every large particle system during its gradual condensation/compactification.

When such system becomes sufficiently dense, its free-thinking particles will change into correlated, self-censored continuum, i.e. fluid or waves of energy. After then the density fluctuations of this fluid will behave like new generation of particles, while the former generations of particles are behaving like space-time or like energy wave by now. It means, the matter/particles and energy/space will switch their roles gradually and this evolution can repeat many times.

It may be interesting to follow, whether proponents of Aether theory will become such a brake of further evolution of science by the same way, like Holy Church of Galileo era or the proponents of mainstream science today. Thorough understanding of AWT pluralism should prohibit the formation of bias in ideology, though. We'll see. If nothing else, dense Aether concept could define a new era of ethics, tolerance and humanity understanding.