Rachel Bean: GR is probably (98%) wrong

This post is motivated by recent finding of Rachel Bean, who found, various WMAP, 2MASS, SDSS, COSMOS data concerning the Sachs-Wolfe, galaxy distributions, weak lensing shear field, and the cosmic expansion history doesn't fit general theory of relativity (GR for short). The reactions of Sean Carroll and/or Lubos Motl are careful, as someone may expect : "well, this could be challenging - but probably irrelevant, because GR has proved itself so many times, but the science should care about such details, mumbojumbo..."

Jeez - but how GR was derived before eighty years? This theory puts an equivalence between curvature of space and spatial distribution of energy of gravitational potential, as borrowed from Newton's theory (because we really have no better source for function of gravitational potential with distance, then the forty years old gravitational law). So, if we know the mass of object, we can compute the spatial distribution of potential energy, so we can compute the spatial distribution of space-time curvature - end of story (of GR). Or not?

Not at all, because from the very same theory follows, energy density is equivalent to mass density by E=mc^2 formula - so we are facing new distribution of matter in space, which should lead into another distribution of space-time curvature and energy of gravitational potential curvature, which leads to another distribution of matter, and so on - recursively. Such implicit character of GR was never mentioned in classical field theory of GR and corresponding textbooks - so it's nothing strange, it violates all observations available by now. But it's still prediction of GR postulates and it fits well with fractal implicit character of Universe and AWT - it just requires to derive Einstein's field equations more consequently and thoroughly.



Wow, this could be really breakthrough in physics and challenging task for new Einstein - or not? Of course not - and here we come to real problem of contemporary science - because such approach is fifty years old already and its even used in dark matter theory, in fact. Such modification would lead into quantization of gravity and longly awaited quantum gravity - the only problem for formally thinking physmatics is, it brings a quantum chaos into ordered world of formal relativity too, as there is (nearly) infinite number of ways, how to derive it - and all ways are still only approximations of real situation. The names like Cartan, Evans, Heim, Yilmaz, J. Bekenstein or Rudi V. Nieuwenhove are all dealing with this approach in less or more straightforward form - but this cannot change thinking of incompetent, though loudly blogging people, who invested two or more years of their life into learning of GR derivations, until they become "productive" with it (as measured by number of articles published) - so now they simply have no time and/or mental capacity to understand something new, to extrapolate the less.

Of course it's not just a problem of few desoriented bloggers, but inertia of whole mainstream community, the size of which prohibits introduction of new ideas and which has chosen formal approach to classical theories as a salary generator for their safe life. In this way, every new idea or derivation is simply forgotten, until it's revealed again in another, slightly different connection, when everyone appears surprised, how is it possible, GR isn't working properly?

Inconsistency of general relativity

Concerning general relativity (GR), there exists confusion, as evidenced in the literature, regarding the nature of the gravitational field. Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein actually did not agree with due his rivalry to Minkowski in simmilar way, like with existence of black holes and or gravitational waves later (1, 2) . Contemporary interpretation of GR attributed to Einstein by mainstream propaganda surprisingly differs pretty much from GR in Einstein's time, in fact. Einstein once writed, "Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration."

By AWT every theory, which is using more than single postulate (a nonzero rank implication tensor, be more specific) becomes inconsistent insintrically in less or more distant perspective, Peano algebra (K. Gödel, 1940) or general relativity (GR) is no exception. By [Kerr, Kerr & Ruth 1999, 621] textbook GR is using following postulates:

1. Actions of inertia and gravity (i.e. the forces or even every inertial reference frame dependent observations) are indistinguishable each other - so called weak or strong equivalence principle.
2. Four dimensional space-time is curved as a result of the presence of mass (mass-energy equivalence principle is apparently considered on background).
3. Objects take the shortest path between two points in space-time, so called geodesics (principle of least action of Newtonian dynamics extended to 4D space-time).

To cover any connection of GR to Newtonian physics, mainstream propaganda is omitting the fact, without incorporation of gravitational constant via Newton's inverse square law we couldn't derive Einstein's field equation at all. In such way, Newton's gravitational law makes general relativity dependent and derived from Newtonian physics, instead of vice-versa.

Newtonian motivations of GR are collected here. General relativity is AdS-CFT dual to Einstein's original “refractive approach” to gravitational light-bending and various Varying Speed of Light theories (VSL), like quantum mechanics (QM), which represents exsintric perspective of relativity phenomena. Locally GR appears as a very general theory, if we consider energy spreading in transversal waves as the only source of information. Unfortunately, because strictly local and causal perspective is only idealized model of reality, every look into Universe future or history violates the GR undeniably. Although with compare to 2nd-order theories, like quantum gravity or string theory - this violation can be minimized to arbitrary low value by narrowing of observation scope by introduction of De Sitter background dependent Poincare group (Kerr or Cartan's geometry) and/or by introduction of tachyon interactions in hidden dimensions, usually done unconsciously by introduction of "implicit higher order effects" (extended GR of Heim, Yilmaz or Bekenstein). In addition, we should distinguish an inconsistency of GR postulates from inconsistencies of its formal theorems, which are often using an additional approximations on background (for example by ignorance of mass-energy equivalence principle at the case of Einstein's field equations).

The most classical example of above inconsistency is gravitational lensing, which is manifestation of quantum uncertainty, as it splits result of remote object observation into odd number of images. Whereas GR is strictly causal theory in 4D spacetime, it doesn't allow any manifestation of quantum uncertainty or Lorentz symmetry violation, until additional time dimensions are included. This inconsistency manifest most pronouncedly in cosmological constant problem, because prediction of cosmological constant by GR differs from those of QM in two hundred orders of magnitude, thus violating correspondence of GR and QM.

Another source of inconsistencies is local character of equivalence principle. The inertial and gravity action can be always distinguished, if we consider 4D space-time only. Because every gravitating body inside of observable Universe must be of finite size and therefore it has always a center of mass, we can always distinguish a gravity action from acceleration by usage of pair of plummets at nonzero distance. The acceleration force resulting from omni-directional space-time collapse or expansion considers higher dimensions though, so it can exhibit a center of action. By AWT the gravitational field of massive object can be interpreted as a acceleration force, resulting from inhomogeneity in omni-directional Universe expansion. Therefore GR appears OK, only if we consider additional dimensions, thus violating 4D causality again. Here we can read about Kipp Thorne's method to show that GR contradicts its own equivalence principle.

Due the extreme gradient of space-time curvature, the nonlocal character of equivalence is especially pronounced at Planck scale and at the case of black holes, where it manifests by various violations of GR from exsintric perspective. The classical Einstein's field equation suffers by additional inconsistency because of neglecting of mass-energy equivalence during its derivation. It leads into additional supersymmetric phenomena, like precession, Zeeman effect, fragmentation of event horizon and surface tension effects of gravity field gradient, by dark matter and Pioneer spacecraft anomaly in particular.

Limited speed of light and omnidirectional expansion of Universe itself is sufficient for explanation of Pioneer anomaly and Newton law violation. The acelleration of Pioneer anomally agrees well with predictions of MOND theory a = H.c = (8 +- 1)E-10 m/s^2, where H is Hubble law constant. Alternativelly we can consider it as a dragging effect of background CMB photon field, in AWT these explanations are dual mutually. This duality illustrates, how violation of gravitational law at spacecraft scale is related to violation of gravity at Casimir force scale. Because gravitational law remains violated by Casimir force at small distances only, such violation of Newton law for small acelleration means, equivalence principle is violated for general relativity, too.

While relativity bothers with insintric perspective only, it neglects the fact, gravity field inside of each gravitating body is zero, because of zero space-time curvature. Therefore every massive object exhibits an inflexion point of space-time curvature or gravity force at larger distance. Whereas by relativity highest curvature should appear exactly at the center, which leads to Schwartzchild's solution with black hole singularity at center, which is apparently unphysical, though. Kerr's solution is only partial improvement of this problem - it just uses toroidal symmetry of singularity instead of spherical one. We can see, requirement of zero gravity force at center of every gravitating object leads to requirement of weak repulsive gravitation force at distance and dark matter phenomena, which is manifestation of quantum gravity phenomena by its very nature. It's symptomatic for mainstream physics, whole generations of relativists didn't bother by this trivial and apparent paradox.

While the inertial properties of electron and positron are the very same, their behavior in gravitational field suffers by CP symmetry violation - the antiparticles are attracted by weaker force, then particles. Antineutrinos should be even expelled by gravity nearly completely because of their negative curvature. Axions could be even of negative mass, i.e. a product of tachyon condensation, being a solitons - they explode into photons when halted like vortex rings.

Concept of Feinberg's tachyons brings even deeper inconsistency into GR. In sense of classical GR gravity cannot affect itself, so that the gravity field cannot curve the path of gravitational waves. Because path of photons is curved, it would mean, gravitational waves would propagate like tachyons along shorter path, then it's allowed for photons in general, which is consistent with AWT, but not with GR by its classical, i.e. Einstein's formulation, while extended GR allows this by introduction of more general reference frame in hyperspace. As a strictly causal theory in 4D, general relativity doesn't allow a tachyons and/or gravitational geons without introduction of universe expansion into hyperspace, neither formation of gravitational waves, because no environment can generate waves by itself without presence of objects composed of / living in compacted dimensions, which could serve as a source of inertia. In GR such source could serve only gravitational geon, which is stabilized against its collapse by omni-directional expansion of space-time into hidden dimensions. We can see, general relativity requires concept of hidden dimensions on background to be able to work consistently by the same way, like quantum mechanics, which predicts expansion of all wave packets without gravity potential of Universe collapse.

From this perspective is interesting, Einstein refused the concept of both black holes, both gravitational waves obstinately (original source removed?), although he should know about necessity of omni-directional Universe expansion in relativity quite well, if he claimed his cosmological constant as a "biggest blunder of his life".

Is reality classical?

This post is a reflection of recent analysis of Marco Frasca named "Ballentine and the decoherence program", where he disputes the question of "environmental decoherence".

Aether Wave Theory interprets a reality by nested density fluctuations of hypothetical Boltzmann gas, i.e. the Aether. It's a neoclassical local view consistent with neighboring reality, from which follows, when sighting along time dimension into past (cosmic scale) or future (Planck scale) a relativity or quantum mechanics phenomena will emerge. General relativity perspective has its Aether background in correspondence of Einstein's field equation and thermodynamic state equation ΔQ=TdS , which was proven by T.A. Jacobson. For example, AWT intepretes a 1st Newton inertia law and relativistic motion along geodesics in gravity field as a sort of diffusion and gravitational lensing as an optical lensing phenomena.



In dual way, quantum mechanics perspective has its background in Thomas-Fermi approximation, which recovers the semi-classical limit for large QM systems. Hamilton–Jacobi equations for this Hamiltonian are then the same as the geodesics on the Riemann manifold, Hamiltonian flow can be intepreted as a diffusive motion along geodesics as well. In accordance with this, most of quantum mechanics phenomena (like the result of double slit experiment) can be intepreted easily by semi-classical models by AWT, quantum entanglement is no exception.



What we know already, every combination of these two theories (the string theory and quantum gravity theory in particular) leads to landscape of infinite number of solutions, thus reflecting insintric randomness of Aether reality anyway. No relativity, no quantum mechanics based on empirically ad-hoced postulates has it's own intersubjectivelly accepted interpretation with exception of famous dictum “Shut up and calculate” (attributed to Feynman by mistake probably), which basically replaces the understanding of reality by its numeric regression. Does it mean, reality is non-classical, just because it can be described in distant and rare cases by two (or more) mutually inconsistent boundary theories too? Should we ignore paralellistic and holistic approach to reality understanding just because multicomponent systems cannot be handled by consecutive logics of formal math well? Should we replace the local description or reality by its description from distant past or future perspective? Is principal limitation of formal language supposed to become a crucial problem in general understanding? Is the transversal wave motion along single time arrow the only way of information spreading?

Well, I don't think so - nevertheless this question still has a great significance for formally thinking individuals, who doesn't care about consistent description of reality, until it doesn't fit their pet theory. What they're afraiding for is their social credit and further grant support of their theories like ultra-conservative proponents of Holy Church of medieval era. This is by my opinion the main problem of mainstream science with Aether concept as a whole. For the purpose of such people, lack of general & transparent understanding of reality is highly welcomed on background - every deeper understanding may reveal their theories ad-hoced naively and inconsistent.

Such approach is nothing very new in human history, indeed. Scientists are behaving like priests or medicinmanns of modern era from this perspective - adherence on their incomprehensible formal models brings them meritocracy, social respect, safe jobs separated from public control and helps them survive more easily in human society. As the result, contemporary learning system has many connections to novitiate of sectarian communities - high school novices are purposely trained in formal thinking with minimal connection to underlying physical models and they're not allowed to publish, until they don't pass various tests of "compatibility in thinking".

Please note, that this stance is of emergent nature: with exception of rare individuals most of scientists are people, who are "rather" opened further progress in "another" areas, at least proclamativelly. But their competitive behavior and bias toward formal description of reality cumulates through society, thus making a driving force, which becomes a solid brake of the further understanding at large scales. For those, who knows, how slowly magnetic field penetrates the superconductor (Meissner-Ochsenfeld effect) may be understandable, why I consider every rigid sectarian community a boson condensate and/or black hole, as being observed/interacted from outside.

William James: "A great many people think they're thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."

Duality of relativity and quantum mechanics

The dual (invariant to R-1/R transform) character or general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) was expressed in 1997 in form of so called Maldacena duality, based on AdS-CFT correspondence (1). This duality is based on fact, every relativity phenomena can be perceived as quantum mechanics phenomena, when observing from exsintric perspective instead of insintric one. As a classical example can serve the gravitational lens phenomena, which appears like relativistic aberration from perspective of internal observer, while it manifests itself like quantum uncertainty phenomena violating Lorentz symmetry postulate from outside perspective (1, 2).



It can be demonstrated easily, QM is dual to relativity via duality of gravity to omnidirectional universe expansion. It's not so well known (mainstream science covers it), quantum mechanics suffers serious experimental problem in general, because it predicts, every free particle should expand into infinite volume by solution of time dependent Schrödinger equation. This discrepancy can be explained by potential of gravity field, which keeps the particle "at place". The problem is, gravity itself cannot be derived from QM by any way. The omnidirectional collapse of space-time would have the very same effect, though.


GR suffers the very dual problem, as the J.A.Wheeler has demonstrated by geon concept (1) of geometrodynamics. Geon is hypothetical closed artifact, formed just by gravity waves spreading by graviton field. Every particle or black hole can be considered a geon from certain perspective. Albeit from GR follows, such geon should collapse into singularity by its own gravity, which can be prevented by omnidirectional space-time expansion. By such way, validity of GR can be saved by concept of space-time expansion by the same way, like validity of QM depends on space-time collapse.

This apparent paradox can be reconciled by concept of black hole/gravastar (i.e. graviton or "dark energy" star), forming our Universe generation. The gravitational collapse of such object is followed by gradual increasing of its internal density, which manifest itself as a omnidirectional space-time expansion from internal observer perspective, i.e. perspective of observer, which is formed by standing waves of such environment. The single concept can therefore explain the conceptual problems of both GR, both QM at the same moment.



By such way, we can understand the gravity action as an acceleration force in terms of omnidirectional expansion inside of Aether density gradient. Such gradient makes a gradient of expansion speed, i.e. the gravity force. Such approach has even it's own testable predictions, for example in slowing of speed of light or by gradual expansion and dissolving of kilogram/meter prototypes from long-term perspective (1, 2, 3) and its closely related to dark matter and dark energy phenomena.



Now we can understand as well, why numeric prediction of cosmological constant by GR differs by two hundreds orders of magnitude from those predicted by QM. QM follows the model of collapsing universe, while GR considers the concept of expanding universe on background.

Was relativity proved by quantum mechanics phenomena?

The fractal character of nested Aether foam leads to the formation of dualities from human logic perspective. Consecutive logic of human thinking is dual to intuition, which is collective result of many synapses actions at the same time. Therefore by human logic the observable reality is described strictly by surface gradients and transversal wave spreading (so called "gradient driven reality"), while the information mediated by longitudinal waves of many particles is perceived as a "quantum chaos". Therefore Aether appears as composed from layers of causal membranes, surrounded/alternated by gradually more chaotic particle field and vice-versa. Human understanding consists of formal theories dualities, alternated by zones of intuitive understanding / philosophy, which are forming an uncrossable barriers between both theories from formal math perspective due their divergence into landscapes of infinite many solutions. On the other hand, every tendency to describe the universe by formal theory with infinite exactness leads into scrambled perceiving of reality as well, because of mixed inner/outer perspectives during interpretation of individual theories.

The supersymmetric situations, when formal model was used as a logical explanation of dual theory and vice-versa were not so rare in history of physics. The so-called geocentric model of Ptolemy was formalized by introducing of epicycles concept by Tycho de Brahe up to precision, which could serve for astronomical predictions well. Therefore Galileo opponents, the proponents of Holy Church in particular have objected to Galileo by predictability of geocentric model, which could serve as an indirect confirmation of its logical validity. How we know today, this logic was quite weak from observational perspective - but still not quite wrong from more AWT perspective.

The very same situation has repeated in physics at the beginning of 20th century, when Einstein has come with his relativity theory. With respect to relativity, the quantum mechanics is dual theory in many aspects. Therefore is nothing strange, Einstein has opposed quantum mechanics violently, especially its concept of quantum uncertainty ("God does not play dices with the universe.", EPR paradox) by the similar way, like many string theorists are objecting the LQG theory by now. The relativistic aberration (observed first by Eddington, 1921) and gravitational lensing (observed by F. Zwicky 1932) are both considered as iconic phenomena of general relativity. Therefore we can expect, Einstein would be quite surprised by claim, the relativistic aberration or gravitational lensing are quantum mechanics phenomena, not relativity effects. While such stance appears ridiculous (both effects were predicted and computed just by using of relativity) - exactly the opposite appears correct from AWT perspective!

The main problem is, the gravitational lensing was interpreted as a result of space-time curvature, which should manifest itself by time dilatation, which was never measured directly. From strictly causal perspective, only the curvature of light path can be measured due the local character of (special) relativity theory. By special relativity the light is always spreading by constant speed through vacuum, so no refraction phenomena should be observed both at macroscopic scale, both at microscopic scale, if we consider, the elementary particles are pinpoint objects, surrounded by vacuum, too. The observer, falling into black hole would see the speed of light unchanged and straightforward even at the case, he would encircled the black hole together with photons, thus effectively staying at rest from more general perspective. As we can see, every local postulate violates explicit theory from more general perspective less or more lately.

The quantum gravity character of relativistic aberration follows from the fact, the fragmentation of image by gravity lens introduces a multiverse aspect into observation, because it makes the observed object location uncertain, thus violating a single-time arrow causality and Lorentz symmetry. By such way, prof. Einstein succeeded in persuasion of mainstream physics community about validity of relativity theory by using of experiment, which can be interpreted as a direct violation of Lorentz invariance and relativity as such..;-) We can compare it to the "proof" of geocentric model on background of successful prediction of solar eclipses by using of epicycle model of Ptolemy. While lack of exactness is apparent in every theory based on non-formal logic, such doublethink and lack of logic is less or more hidden problem of every formal approach as a manifestation of Gödel uncertainty theorem.

Dual view to Universe expansion by AWT

By AWT both volume of Universe, both dimensionality of that volume is virtually infinite. But the speed of energy spreading is limited and the energy density of light, coming from higher dimensions is limited as well (in fact, we are still looking for gravitational waves). We can compare this situation to the illumination of foggy street by lantern. The street can huge, but we can see just a limited illuminated spherical part from it because of dispersion: the farther the light source is, the more the street appears dim and shifted toward longer wavelengths. At the case of Universe observation, we are interpreting this red shift as a result of omni-directional Universe/space-time expansion). By such way, at the certain distance the light intensity will cease to zero, we will reach the physical limit of the observability of Riemann's Universe sphere. This doesn't mean, the Universe has some limit at the surface of sphere - we just cannot see it by using of light in causal way anymore.

Due the symmetry of time arrow, we are limited by the same way not in cosmic scale, but in micro-scale as well. At the Planck scale the dispersion will take place and the neighborhood will disappear in quantum chaos. Due the Universe expansion we can interpret every look into distance as a look into past, while every observation of microscopic scale we can interpret as a look into distant future of our Universe. And both these views are principally limited not by the physical size of Universe, but by character of causal energy spreading. We are using a transversal light waves for collection of information, but at the distant scale the casual Universe character becomes dim a and blurry because of prevailing longitudinal character of energy waves.

To understand these connection by illustrative way, we can use a simple surface water model. The water surface is serving as a local space-time for surface wave spreading in transversal waves by the same way, like the vacuum is serving for spreading in transversal light waves. But this transversal character is violated by the dispersion of underwater inhomogeneities the more, the more the scale becomes different from characteristic wavelength of surface wave spreading, which has character of material constant.


As we can see from so called celerity curve, the surface waves are spreading by different speed, which depends on their wavelengths: here exists some minimum, during which the transversal character of surface waves becomes most pronounced and the waves will spread by slowest speed - the waves of 1,27 cm in wavelength are called capillary waves and they're not influenced by dispersion very much. From perspective of hypothetical creatures, living at the water surface this surface would appear most large at this wavelength (which corresponds the wavelength of CMB, by the way) - because energy spreads by the lowest speed here.

Because the light dispersion increases both toward lower, both higher wavelengths, our Universe would appear smaller when observed with the light of these wavelengths. We can observe it as a so called GZK limit at the case of gamma rays, for example. This is a natural consequence of the dispersive nature of vacuum, whenever the wavelength of light will shift from the optimal frequency by celerity curve. We should realize, we cannot detect the change in light speed directly in local measurements, because we are using the very same waves both for time, both for space measurements, so that the light speed will remain always very invariant. What we can observe directly is just a red shift in the characteristic spectrum frequencies of distant stars and galaxies.

The main problem in understanding of all these connections remains the fact, the people are observing the wave spreading from nonlocal, outer perspective, i.e. they're using the another, faster waves in observation and description of wave spreading phenomena. For example, when observing a surface wave spreading by using of light waves, the Galileo transform will take the place and everything appears normal from classical physics perspective, i.e. no relativity is here.
While at the vacuum we are used to observe the light wave spreading just by light waves, simply because we haven't no another, faster waves available. This introduces a new observational perspective, in which the relativistic effects are manifesting. The whole relativity is simply a result of classical physics of wave spreading, as being observed from perspective of these waves itself - that's all.

In AWT this local perspective is called an internal perspective, because the observer remains involved in experiment. For example, we can observe a gravitational lensing both from internal perspective, when the space-time becomes curved and the light path remains straight, both from outer perspective, when the space-time remains flat and the light path becomes curved.



It's rather consequence of widespread belief in power of relativity, both these perspective are interpreted by relativity theory, while just the internal perspective remains fully consistent with it, in fact. The outer perspective always violates the Lorentz invariance, because the speed of light spreading in vacuum cannot remain constant, or the light wouldn't spread by curved path. The gravitational lensing, as we are observing it usually is rather sort of quantum mechanics phenomena, the quantum gravity in particular. We cannot prove the curvature of space-time at distance, everything, what we can observe is curved path of light, so that the interpretation of gravitational lensing by relativity is rather sort of conjecture from strictly causal perspective.

Why AWT is more general, then relativity and quantum mechanics?

The general character of AWT is given by its implicit, recursive nature, thus fulfilling the Ouroboros archetype. From AWT follows, whatever theory of your personal preference can be made nearly as general, as AWT simply by introducing of recursion concept into it, so it will obtain a fractal character of nested Aether foam. The so-called double quantization or double relativity can be considered as a first unconscious attempts to give an implicit character to existing formal theories.

But AWT still remains more general, then every fractal version of relativity or quantum mechanics or their combination, because of lower number of ad-hoced postulates required. In addition, the classical (Newtonian) character of AWT makes the Aether most symmetric and as such atemporal description of reality, i.e. stable dual brane in causal space-time of many theories possible. By AWT the character of relativity (the special relativity in particular) is given simply by fact, it describes the wave spreading from internal perspective exclusively - i.e. from perspective of the very same wave, which is serving for information spreading, while being strictly Lorentz invariance based. This introduces a causal bias into interpretation of observation.

With compare to relativity, the quantum mechanics is dual to relativity, i.e. by strictly outer perspective driven, as it always describes the energy wave spreading and space-time deforms from perspective of observer, which stays outside such deforms and it has some reference wave/frame available (i.e. it's Lorentz symmetry violation based). While the classical mechanics still enables us to describe for example the surface wave spreading both from perspective of surface wave (i.e. from relativistic perspective), both from light or sound wave perspective (the quantum mechanics approach). So we can consider the classical physics as a conceptual environment, which enables us to seamlessly reconcile the quantum mechanics and relativity by unique way with respect to correspondence principle without introduction of interpretation bias on background. And this is rather strong point of Aether concept - it can seamlessly connect the relativity and quantum mechanics on all ends of both energetic, both dimensional scales.

From the above follows, the contemporary view of classical mechanics as a special cases of both relativity, both quantum mechanics is fundamentally incorrect, as the exactly the opposite is true here: both relativity, both quantum mechanics are special, biased view of chaotic particle system, as described by classical mechanics, instead.

Aether and Lorentz invariance

The concept of Lorentz invariance is basic postulate of special relativity theory and one of most deeply misunderstood concepts of Aether theory, being considered incompatible with relativity in general. The true is, the light speed invariance can be derived easily from Maxwell's Aether theory of light, based on transversal wave spreading. As I demonstrated already, the ability of luminiferous Aether to spread the light of whatever energy density effectively implies the very dense environment and the transversal character of energy spreading (which is required for casual spreading of information) in it, because the sparse Aether cannot spread the EM waves of whatever energy density. Therefore the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) shouldn't be used for disapproval of Aether theory - but for effective confirmation of it, instead. It shoud be noted, with contrary to widespread belief the negative result of MMX cannot serve as a confirmation of relativity, because the light speed invariance isn't theorem, but a postulate (i.e. sort of axiomatic tautology) in special relativity theory.

Another general source of Aether misunderstanding is the common belief, the concept of particle environment isn't compatible with light speed invariance and the relativistic physics in general. This is nonsense, because the common interpretation of Galileo transform isn't compatible with relativistic Lorentz transform. The spreading of sound wave in air cannot be considered as analogy of light spreading in vacuum, until we consider the sound wave as the only source of information including the time and distance intervals measurement, i.e. by the same way, like during light spreading in vacuum. The common understanding of wave spreading in particle medium usually involves at least TWO kind of waves (the light wave, used for time/distance measurement and the studied/observed wave itself), while during light spreading in vacuum the only kind of energy spreading can be considered (the light wave serves here both as the subject of observation, both the mean of observation). This general inconsistency in experiment interpretation leads to the (false) conclusion, the Newtonian mechanics and the invariance of energy wave speed in particle environment is incompatible with the light speed invariance (and the relativity theory in general). As we can see, it's just a result of fundamental inconsistency of experimental arrangement, instead. Therefore MMX cannot give a positive result, simply because it’s virtually impossible to detect every environment just by it’s waves. If some particle is serving for wave spreading, it cannot be observed just by this wave and nothing very strange is about. No object can serve as a mean of it’s own observation and the inner and outer perspectives cannot be mixed.

The similar mistake consists in widespread belief, the absence of reference frame excludes the existence of luminiferous Aether, the particle environment in general. In fact, no particle in such environment cannot serve as an subject of observation and the mean of observation at the same time, therefore the absence of reference frame is the natural consequence of energy wave spreading inside of such environment, if we make sure, the same kind of wave is serving as object and mean of observation, i.e. by the same way, like during light spreading in vacuum. As the waves in particle environment are mixture of longitudinal and transversal waves in general, we can follow the above rule and the absence of reference frame most efficiently at the cases, when only transversal wave spreading prevails - for example at the case of capillary waves spreading along water surface, which is driven by surface tension (nearly) completely. With respect of these waves the water surface is behaving like thin elastic membrane with (nearly) no underwater (motion/reference frame) at all - so we can see clearly, the transversal wave spreading in particle environment is really background independent and no additional postulates are required to consider here.

By analogous way, we cannot observe the water surface by using of water waves and nothing very strange is about. The water surface will always appear as a void, empty space from surface waves perspective, because it just serves as an environment for these waves. The common observation of water waves by light waves cannot serve as a direct analogy of observation of light waves by using waves in vacuum, simply because in vacuum only one kind of waves can be always involved in experiment - the waves of light. So here’s nothing strange about different results of "classical physics" experiments, which were made in different arrangement(s). This doesn’t mean of course, the classical mechanics differs from reality conceptually - it just means, we aren’t observing wave phenomena by the same way, like during experiments in vacuum - that’s all. The Lorentz invariance (symmetry) of Aether is valid as long the transversal character of wave spreading is retained. Because the transversal wave spreading is the only causal way of information spreading considered for human creatures, the Lorentz invariance follows automatically from unitary time arrow and vice-versa: the quantum uncertainty related to multiplicity of time arrows and longitudinal energy wave spreading is equivalent to Lorentz symmetry violation.

Note that the transversal wave is the case, where the energy spreads by the slowest speed through such environment, i.e. here's a minimum of the celerity / wavelength dependence. This makes the environment as large, as possible from internal observer perspective - so we can say, the Universe appears so large for us just because of transversal character of light spreading. It's somewhat surprising, these fundamental connections were revealed after nearly four hundred years after postulation of particle luminiferous Aether concept by R. Descartes (1644) and Ch. Huygens (1678) on behalf of positivistic, ad-hoced (i.e. belief based) consideration of relativistic postulates.

"All our attempts to make ether real failed. It revealed neither its mechanical construction nor absolute motion. Nothing remained of all the properties of the ether except that for which it was invented, i.e., its ability to transmit electromagnetic waves. Our attempts to discover the properties of the ether led to difficulties and contradictions. After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name."

(The Evolution of Physics Einstein 1938)