Does gravity not exist on behalf of holografic memory?

This post is a reaction to recent article On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton of dutch theorist Erik P. Verlinde. Albeit Verlinde is string theorist, his finding has basically nothing to do with string theory and it's logical connection to holographic model proposed is extremely vague here. When random gas exhibits entropic behavior, it still doesn't make it a hologram, some memory the less and it requires a huge portion of fantasy to interpret it in such a way.

Maybe string theory or holographic theory are related to entropy quantity in some abstract way (albeit I can see nothing entropic in their postulates with exception of vagueness) - but the connection of Aether gas concept to entropy is still much more straightforward and transparent (entropy quantity original derivation was based on Boltzmann gas concept). This is simply how analogy differs from vague homologies: by absence of additional manifolds in causal space.

"Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic".

If it smells like entropy, and it behaves like entropy, it's probably a Boltzmann gas...;-) We simply cannot have an abstract entropy quantity existing as such without underlying physical system (usually inertial particle gas or fluid), which maintains the laws of statistics. Emergence is just another postmodern word for ancient Aether model, described by gas (thermodynamics) or by fluid (hydrodynamics) models. Eric expressed it unvillingly in interview with the newspaper de Volkskrant:

"On the smallest level Newton's laws don't apply, but they do for apples and planets. You can compare this to pressure of gas. Molecules themselves don't have any pressure, but a barrel of gas has."

The same, just more vague conclusion former string theorist Lubos Motl got on his blog:

"I find it somewhat unlikely that "bulk physics" may be really derived without any "bulk physics".

While Motl's intuition was exceptionally right in this particular case, the above approach is exactly, what the string theory or quantum gravity did all the time (the formal strings or quantum loops, i.e. Aether density fluctuations are the same temporal aspect of dense gas behavior, like entropic character of energy shielding, i.e. the gravity). We should realize, comments of Mr. Motl aren't Aether theory motivated in any way - but by fact, Verlinde's rather insightful work has nothing to do with string theory. Mr. Motl just feels some competition of his pet string theory in the air. But the true insights concerning formal entropy models of elementary particles were achieved before few years in GUITAR theory of Quantoken.

Concerning "Newtonian physics", Newton believed, gravity force is indirectly proportional to distance with compare to R. Hooke, who claimed the inverse square law on background of former Alhacen's work. Just the Aether model of Newton's friend Nicolas Fatio de Duillier convicted Newton to change his opinion on behalf to inverse square law - we can see, Newton's physical intuition was far not so brilliant, as it's believed usually. Duillier's model was later extended by Le Sage and so far we have no other working theory of gravity based on physical, i.e. not completely abstract ad-hoced model, separated from observable reality.

The apparent inability of physicists to distinguish trivial particle system beneath all these noble abstract ideas about thermodynamics, entropy and emergent holographic scenarios is striking. Even worse, it's a sort of modern religion or political decision - supposedly the both. Other extrapolations of this work assigned to Verlinde (?):

"Gravity does not exist. The whole universe is a giant holographic memory that gets more and more filled with data as time evolves. This filling of the cosmic memory we interpret as gravity. What if the memory gets full? Than you find yourself in a black hole."

are bringing logical questions, whether these ideas are really consistent with present model of black hole as a physical singularity or whether gravity doesn't apply to interior of black hole, or whether it can not exist something, which we can measure reliably. After all, such naively abstract ideas separated from reality are typical for both many formal theorists of present era, both their layman interpreters.

Motivations of Aether Wave Theory

AWT isn't based on some mysticism at all - on the contrary. AWT is based on Boltzmann gas model - it's a basic system for definition of thermodynamical energy, instead. Furthermore, this model isn't ad-hoce at all. It's based on the understanding, from sufficiently distant perspective every object appears like pin-point particle. And every complex interactions in such system can be modeled by system of colliding particles. For example, people are complex objects, but if we would observe them from sufficient altitude, they would appear and behave like chaotic 2D gas composed of colliding particles. It's natural reduction of virtually every physical system.

Despite its conceptual simplicity, this system becomes irreducibly complex with increasing of particle density, because it forms fractaly nested density fluctuations composed of density fluctuations. Such behavior can be both simulated by computers, both modeled by dense gas condensation (supercritical fluid at the right picture) and the resulting complexity is limited just by computational power. Which means, AWT principle enables to model systems of arbitrary complexity just by recursive application of trivial mechanism. If nothing else, we should consider this model because of its simplicity and the fact, nobody did propose it for modeling of observable reality, yet.



The main reason for reintroduction of Aether theory back into mainstream physics is better and more consistent and universal understanding of fundamental connections of reality. Most of these motivations weren't never presented by mainstream physics and they're forming the theorems, i.e. testable predictions of AWT at the same moment, because they can be derived from ab-initio simulation of nested density fluctuations of Boltzmann particle gas. This list bellow will be extended by new ideas occasionally.

1. Explanation of energy spreading by light
   The spreading of inertial energy requires inertial environment. We cannot use the energy concept for light waves spreading, while ignoring mass concept, the mass-energy equivalence in particular.
2. Explanation of wave character of light.
   Only system of mutually colliding particles can spread energy in waves, vacuum shouldn't be any exception.
3. Explanation of finite frequency of light.
   Only system of nonzero mass density can spread waves of finite frequency, as follows from wave equation.
4. Explanation of high light energy density/frequency achievable.
   Classical models of luminiferous Aether were based on sparse gas model of Aether, which cannot spread the waves of energy density corresponding to gamma or cosmic radiation frequency.
5. Explanation of light speed invariance.
   Light speed invariance is consequence of Aether concept and the fact, the light speed is the fastest energy spreading observable (if wee neglect the gravity waves, which are too faint to be observable), so we can use only light for observation of reality, the light speed/spreading in particular.
6. Explanation of absence of reference frame for light spreading in vacuum.
   If we use the light for observation of light spreading in luminiferous Aether, it's motion/reference frame can be never locally observed just by using of light waves, because no object can serve as a subject and as a mean of observation at the same moment.
7. Explanation/prediction of transversal character of light waves.
   In particle environment, only transversal waves can remain independent to environment reference frame by the same way, like motion of capillary waves at water surface.
8. Explanation/prediction of foamy structure of vacuum.
   Only foam structure composed of "strings" and "(mem)branes" can spread energy in transversal waves through bulk particle environments (string and brane theories) and/or provide the properties of elastic fluid, composed of "spin loops" vortices (LQG theory).
9. Explanation/prediction of two vector character of transversal light waves.
   Only nested foam structure can promote the light spreading in two mutually perpendicular vectors of electrical and magnetic intensity (1, 2). The formation of nested density fluctuations can be observed experimentally during condensation of supercritical fluid (1).
10. Explanation/prediction of uncertainty principle.
    The transversal character of surface waves is always violated on behalf of underwater waves. Inside of inhomogeneous particle system the energy is always spreading in both transversal, both longitudinal waves, thus violating the predictability/determinism of energy spreading and introducing an indeterminism into phenomena, mediated/observed by using it.
11. Explanation/prediction of particle/wave duality.
    Every isolated energy wave (a soliton) increases the Aether foam density temporarily by the same way, like the soap foam gets dense during shaking due the spontaneous symmetry breaking. As the result, every soliton spreads like less or more pronounced gradient/blob of Aether density and it bounces from internal walls of surface gradient of such blob like standing wave packet, i.e. particle (1).
12. Explanation/prediction of virtual particles.
    The concept of virtual particles, which appear and dissapear temporarily in vacuum is typical behavior of density fluctuations inside of every gas or fluid and physics knows no other way, in which such behavior can be realized.
13. Explanation/definition of time dimension and space-time concept.
    ...

"..People have often tried to figure out ways of getting these new concepts. Some people work on the idea of the axiomatic formulation of the present quantum mechanics. I don't think that will help at all. If you imagine people having worked on the axiomatic formulation of the Bohr orbit theory, they would never have been led to Heisenberg's quantum mechanics. They would never have thought of non-commutative multiplication as one of their axioms which could be challenged. In the same way, any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present, and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation..."

Paul A.M. Dirac, in Development of the Physicist's conception of Nature, In The Physicists conception of Nature ed.Jaghdish Metra, D. Reidel, 1973., pp 1-14.

Happy New Year 2009

Aether and formal mathematics

,A common objection of AWT opponents, which I can met in discussions, is: "Your theory has no math, so it cannot be a physics at all". Well, at first, no such rule really exists, as here exists a number of physical articles without formal math at all. And the AWT isn't (just) about physics, it can describe the sociological or biological phenomena by geometry based approach as well. And at last, I'm using a logic in my derivations, and the logic is (fundamental) part of math, so it's not even true, the AWT uses no math. At the moment, the derivation of my conclusions are reproducible, the formal math is simply not needed.

The physical models often enable to derive the predictions, which are difficult to handle (or even to express) by formal math, for example the order of Venus phases from heliocentric model (after all, how we can express mathematically the simple information, the Earth revolves around Sun and not vice-versa?). At such cases, the picture of geometry is much more illustrative.


From this point of view it's not accidental, the common illustrations of modern physical theories (like string theory) are mostly quite schematic and pathetic. Such drawings illustrate nothing, but the fact, their authors have no true physical insight into real situation - so they cannot imagine/picture even their own models.

But here are more substantial objections against formal approach in physics. The true is, the consecutive ("step-by-step") logic of formal math describes the heavily parallelized physics of multiparticle systems poorly. Even the gravitational system of five bodies is (nearly) impossible to describe by formal math and the resulting description would be so complex, so that nothing useful can be derived from it. This is the reason, why we have no deterministic description of phenomena in multiparticle system, like the turbulence. This forces the formally thinking physicists to use the probabilistic interpretation instead - like at the case of quantum mechanics - although such system remains deterministic apparently - it's just more complex, then the consecutive formal math can handle (while we know already, we can model the quantum mechanics phenomena by discrete particle models, even experimentally).

By such way, the formally thinking physicists are effectively mentally blocked from understanding, our Universe can be interpreted by multiparticle system for last two hundred years. Their formal math and way of thinking is simply incompatible with this trivial idea - even at the case, the illustrative understanding of such system can be quite simple. This is dual approach to philosophy, which cannot describe some connections by using of formal math, even at the case, such description can be quite simple. It's evident, the optimized approach in reality understanding should involve both strategies (the formal and non-formal one) in balanced ratio.

Of course, the above problem just illustrates the limits of math and formal thinking - not the limits of AWT concept. We should simply face the fact, here exists a wide group of phenomena and geometries, the handling of which by formal math is noneffective with respect to their understanding - that's all. This doesn't say, the formal math is nonsense - it's simply inappropriate tool for deterministic / reproducible description of such systems.

From general perspective, the AWT is extrapolation of free fermion models of string field theories to zero dimension. These models are nothing very new in physics, as some physicists have assumed already, the strings are composed from more fundamental particles (so called preons) already. The one-dimensional strings are just the lowest number of dimensions, which the formal math can handle without problem, while avoiding the singularities. The concept of environment composed from zero dimensional particles is naturally singular from formal math perspective, so the formal math cannot use it. It can be replaced by concept of one or more-dimensional strings partially - but here's a technical problem: such approximation leads to landscape of 10E+500 possible solutions (which roughly corresponds the number of 0D particles involved in this model of observable Universe) - so it's unusable from practical reasons. But the system of many particles can be handled without explicit models, for example by computer simulation:



From such particle model is evident, the system enables the only single way of Aether compactification, leading to dynamic foam of higher-dimensional density fluctuations (i.e. "strings" and "branes") naturally - so no giant landscapes of possible solutions, no ad-hoc assumption of strings, no assumption of (unexplained yet) relativity and quantum mechanics postulates is required here at all - and we can derive all these postulates from geometry of simple particle concept instead. By such way, AWT is highly motivated approach, which follows Occam razor criterion, minimizing the number of postulates in theory.

Aether and anthropic principle

By AWT the universe is basically quite random, but it still enables us to see some order in it due the limited speed of information, which restricts the amount of congruent states in it. The fact, we can see only ordered portion of chaos (a density gradients of it) makes the reality driven by gradients. I.e. everything, what we are enabled to see, are just the mass/energy density changes in time and/or space - and nothing else. These gradients are either a subject of observation, either the way, by which the information is mediated, i.e. propagated at distance (by the same way, like the density gradient of Aether forming the water surface is serving for propagation of transversal surface waves at distance). This leads to the sort of optimization problem: which concentration of density gradients enables to see as most, as possible? The sparse system of density fluctuations is transparent, while the dense one suffers the dispersion - so we can propose both optimal geometry, both the optimal density of such geometry with respect to reach information spreading.

Despite the natural character of this model, we should put the question, why is it all so? Why the reality is gradient driven and the transversal waves are forming the only way, by which the causal information is mediated? By my opinion the reason is somewhat anthropic: the character of transversal waves enables the complexity of our world, because it's energy density dependent. The mass density of multicomponent environment, which can serve for transversal wave spreading is proportional to the energy density of that wave. By such way, every transversal wave is behaving like less or more "intelligent creature", because it not just only spreads through environment passively, but it affects it by the way of positive feedback: it collects the other transversal waves from it's neighborhood, while avoids the mass/energy density voids, i.e. obstacles. Even the most trivial transversal wave soliton behaves like living organism, like bacteria (prokaryote), which follows the (chemical) energy density gradients (sugar or proteins), while avoiding the places of low energy density, i.e. exhibiting a sort of rudimentary consciousness. We can observe this behavior on the colony of slime mold Dictyostelium discoideum, which follows the concentration of sugar leaking from the opened tip of pipette.

We can consider the people as an exaggerated example of such behavior, which is the result of both long-term evolution, both the very special and prosperous condition in our special place of galaxy. No wonder, such creatures, formed by highly condensed clusters of transversal waves in many nested dimensions would prefer the transversal waves as the preferred (if not only one..) way of causal reality, while ignoring the other mechanisms of information spreading. Such stance is analogous to belief, the droplet cloud coming from cup of tea is the only form of water vapor, just because it's most apparent. This aspect makes the Aether concept so fairy, volatile , difficult to grasp by many people: the only way, by which the creatures formed by density gradients can interact with its environment are just the density gradients, so they've problem to imagine, the observable density fluctuations are just a visible top of reality iceberg.

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)

Sacred geometry and Aether concept

By AWT all structures inside of our Universe are formed as a "jammed structures" of another structures, recursively. The high degree of nested compactification is the source of complexity of observable reality. One of most remarkable features of AWT is its close connection to sacred geometry, the geometry of mutually cicPlatonic solids in the theory of five elements in particular - which is closely related to the heterosis of Aether foam by gradual compactification /condensation of foam gradients (membranes). During shaking of soap foam, the newly created density gradients are formed in the corners of existing ones and this process is completely reversible, if the foam bubbles are filled just by their own vapor:

The odd/atemporal/male (bosonic) symmetry alternates the even/temporal/female (fermionic) one during mutual heterosis. The most symmetric level of particle compactification possible leads to the solid dodecahedral structure of foam, assigned to Prana in Vedantic philosophy ("Aether" or vacuum). the foam bubbles can be approximated by platonic solids, where the dodecahedron is the most complex one in 3D space. The dark matter foam structure and E8 Lie group exhibits this symmetry too. The five-fold (A5) rotational symmetry of icosahedron serves as a symbol of water in sacred geometry of five elements in accordance to icosahedron symmetry of fluids, the glass and water clusters in particular.

The dodecahedron foam is the most regular lattice, which we can met inside of our 3D Universe generation and the number of condensation steps required for its formation is quite limited. Therefore the geometry of real foam driven by principle of least action remain close to dodecahedron structure. It still doesn't fit the 3D space completely, though - which is the reason, why M-theory operates in 10-dimensional space. The another condensation inside of dodecahedron will lead to cubic structure again and we can achieve the same structure by topological inversion of this structure, which follows to AdS5/CFT4 correspondence. The temperature of CMB (i.e. the interior of Universe) corresponds the Hawking radiation of black hole, whose lifespan corresponds the age of our Universe generation and the mass density of which corresponds energy density of vacuum (i.e. the 3rd power of Planck constant for 3D space perspective).

How the AWT affects expert's thinking in "quiet"..

Before two years a former Harvard professor Lubos Motl well known in biosphere was firmly convinced proponent of anti-aether lobby - but now he's promoting an Aether concept openly, albeit he's working in physics for years and he censored it in his blog comments obstinately.




This example just demonstrates clearly, how scrambled many people (even those most formally "qualified" ones..) can be concerning the trivial Aether concept. From AWT follows, the character of new ideas spreading corresponds a common phase transition inside of multiparticle system as a result of symmetry breaking, for example the character of boiling near water surface.



At the very beginning the new ideas are propagating like tiny isolated islands through society. Most of ideas will not survive negativistic stance of surrounding environment and they will collapse again like bubbles near boiling surface. Their proponents don't understand their common points, so they're repelled by surface tension mutually like tiny bubbles and they're even fighting mutually due energy competetion. Gradually, the number of people understanding new ideas increases and the mainstream community is starting to integrate/steal them into system of existing theories (for example, string and quantum foam, fractal or gradient reality, emergence or unparticle concept of Aether theory adopted by mainstream theories as an example).

At certain moment, an inverse population is reached and the intersubjective thinking will suddenly switch into new conceptual paradigm from distant outer perspective, so such transition appears sharp like surface of black hole event horizon. However, from internal observer perspective such transition often appears seamlessly continuous, because their proponents didn't realize change of intersubjective thinking, being isolated from reality in their ivory towers like tiny isolated black holes or elementary particles due their strong surface gradient of information density (compare the "fuzzball" concept of event horizon). These proponents of old paradigm will become isolated in their stance gradually, so they play a role of rare antiparticles persisting in diaspora inside of new conceptual continuum. And whole evolution can repeat again.

We can observe many other analogies to material world here. For example, active proponents of ideas are often attracted by super-symmetrical particles, which are playing role of opposition by the same way, like antiparticle clouds of dark matter occurs at the presence of massive objects as a result of strong gradient of gravity field. The short-seeing proponents of ideas are often behaving like black holes due total reflection, so they lose ability to exchange their ideas with the rest of society at all. We are saying, such person anticipate their time in relation to omni-directional space-time expansion.



As the result, behavior of biological systems or society and propagation of enthropy density and memes can learn us a lot about energy and matter spreading through Aether - and vice-versa.

And that's the memo. ;-)

Aether Wave Theory Introduction

Aether Wave Theory (AWT) is chaos based model of observable Universe based on luminiferous Aether model of Rene Descartes ("Principia Philosophiae", 1642), who proposed the Aether as an inertial particle environment, capable of energy spreading in waves. It's based on the assumption, the observable reality is recursively formed by scale invariant density gradients of hypothetical particle environment - so called the Aether. It's an extrapolation of "Boltzmann brain" concept: the complexity of density fluctuations in particle system can increase with mass/energy density of this system up to level, they may be able to interact/observe it's own environment by less or more conscious way. AWT follows ideas of discordian monism and pantheistic solipsism.

With compare to other Aether theories, AWT uses the assumption of (supposedly infinitely) high mass/energy density of Aether, which was proposed originally by Olivier J. Lodge ("Electric Theory of Matter", Harper Magazine. 1904), but if was later abandoned on behalf of formal theories, like relativity or quantum mechanics. The dense Aether concept follows from the fact, the light of very short wavelength cannot be mediated by sparse inertial environment in transversal waves.

The physical model of AWT is based on the assumption, the only observable portion of sufficiently dense inertial environment are the density gradients/fluctuations/waves of it - by the same way, like during observation of condensing supercritical fluid.

Inside of dense particle systems these fluctuations are similar to foam or sponge, being formed by heavily compacted density fluctuations of ideal Boltzmann gas. Most of energy is spreading along density gradients of such environment in transversal waves, i.e. by analogous way, like the light is spreading through vacuum.

These fluctuations can form a less or more continuous phase, which can exhibit another level of density fluctuations in the narrow range of conditions, when it behaves like foam or fluid, composed of fluctuations of another fluid. This Lifshitz point, which is used to model the triple point in condensed matter physics has increasing importance in renormalization of quantum gravity and various cosmology models.

The AWT extrapolates such observation to the infinite mass/energy density under assumption, whole Universe is composed by infinite number of recursively nested levels of Aether density fluctuations. By AWT the level, which we are living in, is forming the observable generation of Universe. In certain sense is dual to whole contemporary physics, which is atemporal due its adherence to formal math language: "Physics is not about the 'why' of things but the 'how'". In comparison with physics, AWT is trying to explain origin of observable thing and phenomena in logical way and it doesn't care about formal regressions of reality.

Max Planck: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If it's true, then the another progress in physics just waits for your death impatiently, dear colleagues....;-)  Remember it, while valuing your contribution to contemporary physics..