Saturday, January 03, 2009

AWT and human scale

By AWT the Universe appears like being formed by infinitely nested field of density fluctuations of Aether. The human brain is one of such fluctuation, due its large time scale it can interact/observe a huge portion of space-time both into past of Universe expansion (the cosmic scale), both into future of it (the Planck scale). Because of symmetry of mutual interaction, human scale appears exactly at the middle of observable space-time scale. The human scale is defined by the average size of neurons inside of human brain (lowest entropy observable inside of our Universe generation) or by wavelength of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) (about 1.7 cm), which is apparently chaotic (highest entropy density observable). Under furthersome conditions, the violation of Lorentz symmetry can be observed by naked eye as a Brownian motion at Planck scale or like gravity lensing at cosmic scale - due CPT symmetry violation the Planck scale appears more close to human scale, then the cosmic one.

The wavelength 1.7 cm is invariant with respect to AdS-CFT duality, because it corresponds the wavelength, when the character of energy spreading changes from longitudinal waves to transversal one. From AWT perspective the CMB corresponds the capillary waves at water surface, which are spreading along it by the lowest speed at wavelength of 1.73 cm from exsintric perspective, enabling to interact with as large space-time, as possible and allowing the most advanced evolution of matter inside it. Classical quantum mechanics cannot handle gravity (phenomena) at all and quantum noise blurs in CMB noise above human scale by the same way, like relativity is limited by CMB noise (GZK limit, CMB Doppler anisotropy, etc.) in its predictions.

From cosmological perspective, the wavelength of CMB (1,7 cm) corresponds the outer diameter of Universe or the wavelength of Hawking radiation of tiny black hole, whose lifespan corresponds the age of our Universe generation (13.7 GYrs) - so we can say, the CMB is Hawking radiation of the black hole, which we are living in, i.e. red-shifted radiation of most distant quasars. The foamy character of energy spreading enables to see the event horizons of our Universe both from inside, both from outside via CMB radiation (i.e. the event horizons of most distant quasars observable). The larger (gravitational waves) or shorter waves (gamma radiation) are of limited scope with compare to CMB due the dispersion (GZK limit) in analogy to capillary waves spreading at water surface (compare the celerity curve bellow). The energy density of 3D space-time (roughly given by third power of Planck constant, i.e. 1oE+96 J/m3) corresponds the mass density of black hole, which is forming it.

From AWT follows, every Aether fluctuation of diameter bellow 1.7 cm will dissolve into photons and neutrinos, while the larger objects will collapse into heavier objects and evaporate by the same way. The black holes of diameter bellow 1.7 cm can evaporate via Hawking radiation during observable Universe lifespan, while these larger ones will evaporate by accretion radiation - so we can say, such objects are the most stable objects inside of observable Universe generation and accretion radiation is AdS-CFT dual to Hawking's one (massive objects bellow 1.7 scale falling into event horizon would appear like tiny quantum fluctuations from distant perspective outside of black hole due the immense space-time compactification around it). The density of largest black holes existing inside of observable Universe (with 10+9 times the mass of the sun, which has a radius of event horizon about 109 km) should be comparable with human scale (1 kg per dm3).

Curvature instability is scale invariant. During Big Bang event, all particles were formed by supersymmetric gravitons, the average size of which corresponded the wavelength of CMB photons. During universe evolution the larger gravitons condensed into particles and objects of observable matter, while the smaller fluctuations have evaporated into antiparticles of matter, which were dispersed by its repulsive gravity into clouds of dark matter, surrounding the objects of normal matter. The same criterion can be applied for planet and planetoids formation or even for predators-prey relationship of biosphere. Only pieces larger then some 1.7 cm can serve as a nuclei for accretion and subsequent gravitational growth, or they would become dispersed by radiation pressure of CMB photons. The smaller pieces of matter tends to condense as a whole in large clusters, instead (large means > 1.7 cm).

From AWT follows, the size of photons is given by interference of light wave with graviton background of Planck length scale, forming the quantum foam background of universe. From interference condition follows, the size of wave packet is equal to their wavelength size exactly at the 1.7 cm scale, which effectivelly means, microwave photons are serving both like particles, both like waves, i.e. by the same way, like gravitons in previous generation of Universe, expanded during inflation or like graviton waves in future generation of Universe before its gravitational collapse. The photons of larger wavelength cannot exist, because they tend to condense spontaneously with these smaller ones into solitons of negative rest mass (axions, or so called tachyon condensate).

Even tiny droplets and bubbles in mixtures tends to shrink and evaporate bellow 1.7 cm scale, while larger droplets and bubbles expands and fragments. The least stable droplets of 1,7 cm diameter (liposomes) could started the evolution of life at shallow places of ancient oceans (i.e. inside of multiphase environment of the largest possible complexity). The repeated breakdown by surf waves enabled them to compete for collection and/or (later) production of surfactants, which enabled them to remain as stable, as possible. Whole evolutionary process lasted whole Universe age, because AWT makes no conceptual difference between evolution of inorganic matter and organic life. Therefore it's nothing very strange, the quantum nature and size of neural standing waves corresponds the size of Universe scope, perceivable just by these waves (i.e. quantum gravity standing wave, forming the observable Universe generation). The increasing density of Universe resulting from vacuum foam collapse corresponds the expansion of the scope of human consiusness, capable to comprehend an increasing space-time portion of Aether chaos complexity during time.

The anthropocentric question, whether 1.7 cm distance scale is adjusted by evolution or it just enables the best visibility of Universe remains a tautology by Aether theory, because from AWT follows, every object which is product of less or more long term evolution has tendency to remain adapted to its environment and vice-versa. The scope of observable Universe always depends on entropy density of observer (i.e. number of time events/mutations involved) - the primitive organisms can see their Universe smaller, the more intelligent larger accordingly.

Lord Byron: "Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction."


Anonymous said...

Here goes a crackpot with an ax to grind (a personal shitty AWT\"theory of aether\")!!

Anonymous said...

I cannot believe that exist such gobbledygook as Aether Wave Theory (AWT):-(

Zephir said...

I'm affraid, the (dis)belief won't help you here - you should propose some relevant and logical counterarguments against such view. The fact, some view is new for you doesn't mean, it's illogical or even wrong.

Whereas stance of yours is completelly logical by AWT, though. By AWT people are rather tiny objects with compare to observable Universe from spatial perspective, but they're rather huge from time dimension perspective, being a product of many nested particles in time (a mutation events, lasted a substantial portion of observable Universe age). By such way, the observable scope of human comprehends a pretty large bit of omnidirectional space-time expansion from past (cosmic scale) to future (Planck scale). We can say, the people are needle-like fluctuations of hyperspace (i.e. strings, if you want) with space-time symmetry broken heavilly.

Such asymmetry brings a biased perspective into human understanding of reality. We are forced to perceive the reality as a sequence of causual events, instead of like result of consecutive action of many parallel interactions. Therefore our thinking is strictly causual events based, we cannot see the particles of gas, just a stringy density fluctuations of gas. The AWT is just trying to bring a space-time symmetry into such view.

Therefore the understanding of parallelized concepts of AWT can become pretty difficult for formally thinking people, experienced in consecutive logic of formal math derivations. They can't see forest through trees, they can see just an alleys (a density gradients) in it. For AWT all massive objects are simply randomly fractal density fluctuations without apparent geometry, their geometry perceived is a product of antropocentric perspective.

Such view is indeed quite different from mainstream theories of observable reality. Only unparticle physics of H. Georgi can be compared with it.

sadunkal said...

Hey Zephir, I'm interested in alternative theories. But although I hadn't yet found the time to look into yours, I recently lost interest in theories like the ones you suggest after I came across this website:

Why God Doesn't Exist

Take a look at it, I think it's pretty significant...

sadunkal said...

That first link is incorrect, it should have been:

Sorry about that.

Zephir said...

Hi, sadunkal, I've read your troubles with string theory concepts..

I believe, I can offer you an explanation of most of miraculous properties of strings by using of nested particle fluctuations based Aether theory.

Ocasionally i write a dedicated article about your paradoxes. You'll see, here's something about string theory, despite of its blindly formal approach.

On the other hand, you'll see, string theorists had no clue, what they started to describe (..and if they have by now, they cover it well before publicity, while still battling with other theorists, who are describing the same things just by slightly different way).

They're playing a role of medicinnemans or priests of modern era, fighting for religion and money - not for understanding of reality.

Anonymous said...

Dear Zephir,

The comments made by this Anonymous and others are completely futile, and they don't deserve to appear in your blog. They don't understand AWT at all, neither are trying to understand it. Therefore, I think you should delete these comments, which are completely misplaced. Moreover, I'd like to say to the others readers of this blog, that the AWT could be the first candidate for TOE in a few decades, when the physicists realise that the currents (more popular) candidates are also explained by AWT. The AWT is the only framework where the quantum mechanics and general relativity can coexist.

The Best.

sadunkal said...

"...I can offer you an explanation of most of miraculous properties of strings by using of nested particle fluctuations based Aether theory."

I suggest you directly contact Bill Gaede. He responds to all serious questions and criticisms as far as I can see, at least when they're in form of Youtube comments:

He sort of redefines physics and science in a more scientific way though, you should clarify that stuff first if you disagree with his definitions.

Anonymous said...

Zephir is grandidiottrottel

Zephir said...

[q]..and they don't deserve to appear in your blog..[/q]
Why not, if they can still be used as an evidence or at least illustration of AWT concept? AWT is extremelly pluralistic theory in its consequences.

Thank You for your classification of AWT as a TOE, but this still doesn't mean, very general TOE can become ever so explicit, it can replace more particular theories in their quantitative predictions.

This is a matter of long term evolution, for example the development of particle simulator computers, capable of simulation of various phenomena in real time. I especially like this site in this connection - it demonstrates, what can be modelled by particle simulationsjust by change of parameters.

Zephir said...

/*..Zephir is grandidiottrottel..*/

It may be still possible (and I have nothing against it) - but the validity of theory doesn't depend on the author, being a completelly invariant to it. At the moment, when postulates of theory are defined, validity of theory can be analyzed independently to the author's original meaning or mental capabilities and I've nothing to say about it furthemore.

By such way, every mention of Zephir is very invariant to AWT subject, so it will be deleted next time - until you prove the oposite. For example, you can try to prove, the postulates of AWT can lead into ambiguous predictions (i.e. some landscape of solutions), or they can be violated by experiment or observation.

After then I should consider your comments with caution, indeed.

Anonymous said...


If you were a gentleman, that you aren't , you would pay for writing such nonsenses. If you have a better theory to describe the nature, then we would be willing to listen. Meanwhile, you must try to understand the theories which already exist before to criticise them. Please, don't insult us, the science doesn't work in this way. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Zeph is student from Prague, perhaps,he must try to understand the theories which already exist before to criticise them.:-P

Zephir said...

Technically not, because I'm able to recognize an aged egg, even when I'm not just a broddy hen...

Of course, it's always usefull to know the subject of criticism better, but for refusal of theory a single argument may be enough.. sometimes...

But in general, I'm not critizing existing theories here, but trying to explain them, their postulates and theorems by more general approach. This is a difference, don't you think?

After all, why not to understand even the well known things from another perspectives? Not saying about boundary theorems, like strings, branes, multiverses, holographic universes, hidden dimensions and other abstract concepts of contemporary physics.

One should be thankfull for every attempt for explanation of such concepts by more illustrative way..? Of course, mainstream priests of science may not be very happy from such explanations, as they can uncover religious nature of their own theories - even when such explanation confirms such theories well.

It's elementary psychology, my dear Watson.

Anonymous said...

AWT is invalid because:
1) It violates the Ives-Stilwell experiment. Zephir, the proponent of AWT would not and could not demonstrate that AWT passes Ives-Stilwell
2) Zephir would not and could not show the calculations how AWT passes:
a) Michelson-Morley
b) Kennedy-Thorndike
c) Pound-Rebka
d) The light bending by massive objects

Anonymous said...


It's easy to see that AWT is more general than General Relativity (GR), and therefore you could explain both GR and Special Relativity (SR) using AWT, too. As the experiments, that you quote, are explained by GR or SR, then, AWT explains them in a simple way ;-).

Anonymous said...

It\'s easy to see that AWT is IDIOCY !!!

Zephir said...

/* ..AWT is invalid because it violates experiments (... an extensive list of experiments proving Lorentz symmetry follows)..*/

You're talking about SPARSE Aether concept of pre-Einsteinian era, not about DENSE Aether of AWT. By AWT no environment can violate Lorentz symmetry from local perspective at all, so it cannot violate any experiment, whose validity is based on Lorentz symmetry. If the scope of experiments would differ from scale of observer, we could detect Lorentz symmetry violations on both microscale (quantum chaos) or macroscale (gravitational lensing, CMB Doppler shift, etc.).

Can we observe for example the water (surface) by using of its own waves? If not, why the hell do you believe, we should observe the vacuum (motion/reference frame) just by using of its waves?

On the contrary - water analogy just explains, why we cannot do it - and no calculation is required for such understanding! Why to make things more difficult, then they can be? Is this a purpose of formal model?

Albert Einstein: “If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.” ...

Despite this, we can talk about ab-initio particle simulations of the above experiments both by computer models, both by experiments with cold plasma or supercritical fluid or other multidimensional particle systems to demonstrate, how AWT is working. But the contribution of such experiments for science will be rather low, because we would demonstrate only trivial geometry aspects of particle environment there.

Zephir said...

/*..It's easy to see that AWT is IDIOCY !!! */

Easy, man. I can say easily, it's an idiocy to pay crowds of scientists, their expensive calculations and attempts to find a Lorentz symmetry violations - just because they cannot comprehend (..or even not willing to do so) a trivial common life analogies.

You're walking on thin ice, because I can understand EXACTLY the main problem of various deniers of new ideas. And this problem didn't changed from Galileo times.

Zephir said...

/*..the calculations how AWT passes .. the light bending by massive objects..*/

Well, this is why we should keep existing formal models of relativity. When we explain its postulates by more general theory, it has no meaning to derive the same in context of more general theory, where it can become just more difficult.

The more general theory, the less postulates it requires but the more difficult may be to derive quantitative predictions. But the more general theory still remains the only way, how to explain axioms of less general theories.

After all, Newton physics based derivations exists for long time - they were just ignored by mainstream science long time due the religious approach to relativity theory.

Anonymous said...


Do you think S. M. Carroll is also a crackpot? I write this, because S.M. Carroll has also proposed an Aether theory. Neither S. M. Carroll's theory, nor Gabriel LaFreniere's theory have nothing to do with AWT. Do you know what we are talking about? Clearly, you don't. There are many aether's theories, but only AWT uses the aether's concept, that was introduced by Descartes, and Descartes is the preferred scientist for Zephir. Well, Zephir shows us that the reality can be explained using only simple concepts, using the dynamics of the aether waves, which are the constituents of the vacuum and the matter, but the big difference with the other aether theories is in the aether's concept. The aether we're talking about is “an inertial particle environment, capable of energy spreading in waves“.
Let me just say, that If you write that Zephir is a crackpot, then you are writing that Descartes is a crackpot, too.

Zephir said...

/*..the material Universe is solely made out of Aether..*/
Yep, this is an idea of Rene Descartes (1642), as quoted already here:

Do you think, I missed some other "crackpot"? I see, Newton belied in Aether as well... Huyghens, Heaviside, Kelvin, Lorentz, Schrodinger, Dirac.. even Einstein of his later times - all these crackpots were aetherists...

Maybe we should learn more about Universe from old physicists. These people hadn't expensive accelerators and telescopes - but they understood reality better then most of contemporary scientists in large extent. Strange, but true - where we made a mistake?

Anonymous said...

Briefly speaking AWT is an illusion of Zephir, his physical model is a illustrative collage, only, no math no theory!

Zephir said...

So far any combination of quantum mechanics and relativity has lead into huge landscape of solutions.

Don't expect too much math from singular AWT concepts living at the phase boundary of these theories. Every formal (sequential math based) model becomes only approximation of real situation here.

Anonymous said...

The comment wrote by anonymous is a perfect example about the situation that we are tackling in our times. The situation can be summarise as follows:

1. Zephir had a great idea about how the nature could work
2. Zephir showed his idea to the theoretical physics community (mainly in the web)
3. Despite his theory could be a very serious candidate for a TOE, very few persons take him seriously.

The key question is why?. Well, almost all say that the reason is, because there is not a math background for this theory. But It is not the truly reason. Let me just remind you. When String Theory (ST) was devised (at the end of 1960s), there was not a math background for it. But, as this theory was a good idea, and the persons, who devised it, belong to the theoretical physics community, ST had a chance. Fifteen years later, ST became the first candidate as TOE.
So the main reason that AWT is ignored by the mainstream physics community is because, Zephir doesn't belong to this community. Clearly, we are living in a dark age to the physics and science.

Zephir said...

(Lack of) math is definitely not problem in acceptation of radical theories. For example, ingenious Heim's theory is full of math and testable predictions about elementary particles, but (nearly) nobody takes care about it. Where is that proclaimed scientific inquisitiveness?

I've no problem with such ignorance though, because it demonstrates, how AWT is working, in fact. The introduction of new ideas is a sort of phase transition, where the bubbles of new phase are expelled from phase interface due their surface tension without mercy.

It just demonstrates, proclaimed conscious aspect of scientific community (and human society as a whole) is rather weak, people doesn't care about new ideas in fact and as a whole they're behaving like any other silly chaotic system, where the IQ of every particle is averaged into zero. Which is maybe sad for some humanists, but it's good to know about it to avoid social crisis better.

Anonymous said...

Hi, uh, as I recall one of the first mathematical 'proofs' was a series of pictorial/physical 'puzzle pieces' that undeniably demonstrated that with a right triangle the squares of the two sides is the same as the square of the hypotenuse. So, I'm just saying I like to be able to 'picture' ideas and that my own personal method of attempting to understand my relationship with 'reality' has caused me to question everything, to try to understand what the founders of scientific thought were picturing and to follow the evolution of ideas so that I can 'see' how new ideas relate to things I already understand. Uh, anyway, another thought was that the Math of Category Theory might be helpful for AWT.
Thanks for presenting your ideas.

Zephir said...

Thank you for your interest, instead.

Formal math is tool for description and extrapolation of ideas, not for explanation of them. Math may be usefull for scientists, but for most people math language is unnatural, the must learn it with compare to watching illustrative analogies. Even in math itself the logics and geometry is the fundamental principle, so we can never understand abstract concept perfectly, until we have logical proof and a god illustration of it.

It's not accidental, main observational evidence of helicentric model was illustration of Venus phases as well. All other evidences were rather indirect and poorly conditioned at Galileo times.

So if some concept can be explained without math, we should always use this way of reasoning first, because complex logical clusters are poorly conditioned. Whenever phase transform occurs, Peano algebra with its 11 postulates doesn't work in continuum, because relations between numbers aren't additive anymore.

I've read about Cathegory theory before some time and it has some connection to AWT or particle physics and/or implicate logics.

Aether particles are analogy of object classes, density gradients or implications defined by time arrows are morphism classes and manifold projection geometry corresponds functor classes.

Jeff Yee said...

The link to posted earlier no longer works. Unfortunately, WSM pioneer Gabriel Lafreniere has passed away and his site is no longer accessible. Thanks to the people at Rhythmodynamics, his site lives on. URL is now: