This post was motivated by recent confrontation between Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Cambridge cops, who were condemned last night by President Barack Obama for acting "stupidly" in arresting the African-American scholar. I personally found the stance of all people involved as somewhat unlucky, because it illustrates emergent character of many serious situations, resultig from high number of small, if not predictable mistakes. By AWT every object of reality is composed of nested density fluctuations and it has a fuzzy character, so we can always observe and interpret things from at least two perspectives: the inner (insintric) and outer (exsintric) one. This is why we are saying, there are two sides to every story and the truth often lies somewhere in between...
For example, we can observe gravitational lensing from outside from place, where space-time is flat, so you will see the path of light curved and Lorentz symmetry violated (quantum mechanics perspective). Or when we stay inside of gravity lens or in Lagrange point, we will become bended by gravity field together with space-time, so you will see the path of light straight and the space-time curved, instead - this is general relativity perspective. It's evident, these perspectives are mutually exclusive, so we can never reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics by using of formal approach, which combines postulates of both theories (like string theory or quantum gravity) and to save money of tax payers for its development.
The main source of uncertainty here is, with compare to above picture every gravity field / lens has a fuzzy boundary, so we can never see the gravitational lensing from single perspective only and your observation remains fuzzy as well. Only pin-point observer can see all things from exsintric (outer) perspective only. Because every real observer is of finite size and it suffers by quantum delocalization, he can observe the same effect or artifact both from inside, both from outside perspective. The mixture of both these perspectives results into insintric uncertainty of every reality observation.
We can use surface wave analogy here, which is more convenient with Aether concept of particle environment. At the water surface every information always comes in two parallel ways: in form of longitudinal (underwater) waves and surface waves, which are of transversal nature. The pure transversal waves are called capillary waves, these pure longitudinal waves are called gravity waves (do not confuse it with gravitational waves, which are of longitudinal character too, but they're spreading through vacuum).
In real case, the surface waves are always of mixed character, which we are calling Rayleigh or Love waves, depending on whether longitudinal or transversal character of the wave prevails. Despite the weakness of underwater waves, this results in quantum uncertainty of every information, which comes to observer at water surface in two independent ways: via surface and underwater waves.
Despite of their insintric character, we cannot exclude surface wave from observation so easily, because energy is spreading in slowest speed at the inflexion point of (water) density gradient, which is forming water surface, thus defining the largest space-time possible ("a cosmic space") for observer, so he can exists in it. As we can see, uncertainty principle is direct manifestation of Lorentz symmetry violation, hidden dimensions and multiple time arrows. Here's no need to spend another money in expensive, but silly (re)search of these artifacts, until we are convenient with existence of quantum uncertainty and AWT approach. AWT can save a lotta money for tax payers here again - but from the very same reason scientists involved aren't very happy about it, because from their insintric perspective such search still has a good meaning.
We can met with uncertainty principle in many places of everyday reality at the moment, when insintric perspective remains mixed with insintric one, as expressed in many proverbs and fables (Mark Twain: "There are two sides of every coin"). When someone describes an accident in real life, he always describes it from perspective of person, which was involved in it, or from perspective of independent remote observer. At the moment, when some persons was both reason, both victim of this accident, their stance becomes fuzzy undeniably.
For example, Germans or Soviet Union nations were both reasons, both victims of WWW II, so their stance to this even remains fuzzy and controversial. As the result, both Russia, both Germany are claiming, the weakest country involved in conflict, i.e. Poland was the true reason of WWW II, which is simply ridiculous - but it illustrates the way, in which uncertainty principle manifest itself in human society.
Here exists an insintric duality between most general and most exact views of reality. Currently it seems, AWT is most general one - but definitely not the best, when it goes to exact numbers. From the same reason, we don't use quantum mechanics for computation of boiling point of water under reduced pressure, but we are using a more specific extrapolations based on thermodynamics. Not because the quantum mechanics couldn't handle it in ab-initio calculations, but because such calculation would be more tedious and sensitive to introductory parameters. Due the uncertainty principle we cannot expect true "theory of everything" and every theory has it's own applicability scope, corresponding to observable part of Universe.
Principle of uncertainty manifests by duality between quantitative and qualitative understanding of reality. Exact theories (like string theory or LQG theory) are poorly conditioned, so they lead into fuzzy landscapes of althernative solutions, whereas these qualitative ones (like AWT) doesn't suffer internal inconsistencies, but they can predict phenomena with limited exactness at the price.
Aesop: "Every truth has two sides; it is as well to look at both, before we commit ourselves to either".
Planck Units: M = R = t
6 days ago