Aether model of semiconductors

Being particle fluid based, Aether model can simplify even the intuitive understanding of processes, which are notoriously described in common textbooks, for example the behavior of semiconductor junctions. Because movable electrons doesn't penetrate atom interior very much, by AWT metals can be considered as a dense sponge soaked by movable electrons like fluid, the shape of which roughly corresponds to Fermi surface.

Note that such foam exhibits surface of both positive, both negative curvature. Electrons are repulsing mutually, so they're covering both surfaces of this sponge. The wet surface of sponge is responsible for good electrical and thermal conduction of common metals. At presence of hole conductivity the conductive electrons are collected inside of foam cavities preferably. The flat areas of zero curvature cannot keep the conductive electrons due the balance of electrostatic forces, and they correspond the band gap, occurring in common semiconductors. Under situation, when the motion of free electrons remains restricted to sponge cavities in continuous stripes arranged in hyperlattice, which are serving like pipes full of highly compressed electron gas, we can expect high temperature superconductivity in such system.

Another interesting situation may occur, when two pieces of sponge of different surface curvature are connected together. We can model such situation by connecting of two pieces of porous material, the hydrophilic and hydrophobic one, soaked by moderate amount of water. Because hydrophobic surface repels polar molecules of water, the water will collect inside of pores, thus emulating hole conductivity of P-type semiconductors. The hydrophilic material is attracted by water surface, so that water is forming bridges connecting convex surfaces and it represents a N-type of conductor here.



At the moment, when two pieces of such materials are connected together, the portion of fluid from hydrophobic material is soaked into the hydrophilic half of junction, thus removing water from cavities of neighboring part of hydrophobic material. This is a direct analogy of formation of space charge zone / depletion layer of semiconductor junction. Note that suction of liquid from hydrophilic part of junction doesn't improve the water transfer, it just leads to removal of additional amount of water from hydrophobic part, thus leaving it even less conductive for water molecules.



A quite different situation may appear, when we push additional amount of water in hydrophilic part. After soaking the dry portion of hydrophilic junction, the excessive water will fill up the cavities, so it can pass freely through capillary junction. Apparently, a surface tension based "diode" is formed, but we can imagine even much more complex structures analogous to transistor, thyristor and others, based on capillary forces inside of porous materials of different polarity. Nature supposedly uses these principles for controlled osmosis inside of living cells already, because surface of cell membranes is porous and it contains both hydrophilic, both hydrophobic part, formed by phospholipides.

Note that pushing of fluid into our "capillary diode" requires to overcome pressure exerted by capillary repulsion during filling of emptied cavities inside of hydrophobic part of junction. This corresponds the voltage drop in forward bias direction of semiconductor junctions. We can even met with analogy of recombination at the flat portion of porous surface, when water droplets are forced to overcame negative surface tension, so their surfaces are moving in accelerated way. At the case of liquids of extreme surface tension (like the mercury inside of porous glass), such area can even become the source of audible noise, thus mimicking the formation of photons at the recombination centers of PN junction nearly completelly. Such centers can be observed by Lorentz microscopy directly in thin layer of low temperature superconductors (compare the embedded animation bellow).

Isn't it a bit strange, nobody has ever come with such trivial and intuitive models of superconductivity, not saying about semiconductors and semiconductor junction? Well, this is not so strange in contemporary physics, because particle based models cannot be handled easily by consecutive logics of formal math models, so that formal theorists avoids them. The more easily they can become subject of intuitive thinking and computer simulations, though.

AWT and collective guilt

Recently I've read about case of web executive working for TF1, Europe's largest TV network, who sent an email to his Member of Parliament opposing the government's law proposal of Internet disconnections for those who repeatedly infringe online copyrights. His MP forwarded the email to the minister, who forwarded it to TF1. The author of the email soon received a letter saying he is fired for "strong differences with the company's strategy" in a private email sent from a private address (French corporations and government are entangled in ways that people in other countries might find unfamiliar). The point was, MP people were passing the e-mail along for informational purposes reportedly - though if that were true, one wonders, why the identifying information wasn't stripped out of the message. No one "meant" for this to happen - but happened it has, anyway - just because of careless approach of responsible people chaining the sensitive information, which was supported by their own biased stance.

The above case reopens the question of collective guilt. This is subconsciouses emotional reaction, that results among a group of individuals, when it is perceived that the group illegitimately harmed another people. It just illustrates, how sensitive indicator of morality our conscience is - especially in western society, which is "guilt-based" rather then "shame-based". By AWT such morality becomes a manifestation of emergent phenomena in system, when only slightly biased stance of individual components may lead to the fatal results and phase transforms. We can illustrate this situation by large group of people, waiting for opening of discount shop. Even though every member of crowd exerts only weak force to its neighbors, some of people at the head of crowd will get trampled by this crowd.

AWT explains emergence of such action inside of multiparticle field by the assumption, every system of finite sized consists of large number of particles, circumscribed by their surface density gradient, which is manifestation of internal spin in hidden dimensions. In space with even number of spatial dimensions the particle spin is compensated by the same way, like the mutual motion of particles, because of lack of chirality of such system.

But in 3D the situation becomes different. The translation momentum of particles remains compensated at the sufficient distance, whereas the momentum of their internal motion (i.e. the spin) not. Such system behaves like spin field of cellular domains, analogous to Weiss domains of ferromagnetic material. Due the nonzero surface curvature of individual particles the resulting spin of whole system will remain always unbalanced and it undergoes so called spontaneous symmetry breaking. This is because of hairy ball theorem, which states, that there is no nonvanishing continuous tangent vector field on the sphere ("you can't comb a hairy ball flat without creating a cowlick"). From this reason a field formed by system of 3D spherical particles would always exhibit a nonzero vorticity, which would cumulate with distance and it manifest itself in lattice of vorticity cells at the distance. Which basically means, we cannot have a 3D space without black holes separated at distance in less or more regular domains. This is the reason, why our space-time appears filled by black holes even at the most distant view of Hubble ultradepth field without apparent limit. Just the existence of space-time in limited numbers of dimensions is the reason, why its symmetry becomes violated in presence of many higher dimensions undeniably.

The principle of collective guilt has its practical application at the case of particle physics, when mainstream physics insists on safety of LHC experiments , although official safety analysis ignores many apparent risky factors because of biased stance of mainstream physics toward LHC. The subtle bias of physical community can lead to the same result, like carefully planned conspirative activity of mad terrorist just because of cumulative effect of individual ignorance. As another case can serve the politically motivated refusal of Aether theory at the beginning of 20th century, the rise of Nazi party and Nazism in Germany before WW II or the blind adherence to peer review principles, which has lead to ignorance of cold fusion or antigravity experiments. The memo is, we should never underestimate collective ignorance, when more individuals are involved without public feedback by Czech proverb: "A hundred times nothing killed the donkey".

AWT and quintessence concept

In physics, quintessence is a hypothetical form of dark energy postulated as an explanation of observations of an accelerating of universe expansion. Quintessence causes the effect we experience as gravity. Since quintessence exists only in empty space, it does not exist where sub-atomic particles exist. A planet such as the Earth consists of many sub-atomic particles, and between those particles, quintessence exists.



Since Earth's moon consists of fewer sub-atomic particles than those that make up the Earth, there is a smaller volume where quintessence is absent when compared to the Earth. Therefore, the push from quintessence is less restricted by the moon. Hence, the difference in the quintessence push from the volume of space encompassed by the moon versus the volume of space encompassed by the Earth results in what we experience as the pull of gravity.



The quintessence concept follows from diffusion of particles in dense Aether model of AWT and it corresponds the "ultramundane flux" (i.e. flux of tachyons or gravitational waves), which was conjectured by Fatio/Le Sage theory of gravitation (1690) before more than three hundred years.



The usage of new denomination for classical well known concepts of former authors without quotation violates the principles of Occam's razor and scientific priority and it's called a plagiarism. In this case it's rather an another attempt of mainstream proponents to cover the apparent fact, they fighted against Aether concept for many years, while adopting Aether ideas quietly on background - thus fooling the publicity and itself (the usage of Lorentz invariance or Lagrangian and Hamilton mechanics borrowed from Aether theory is the problem of the same category).



In dual way, we can consider introduction of quintessence concept like attempt, how to avoid the censorship of peer-review during presenting of extrapolations of Aether theory. Every sectarian community doesn't allow and tolerate mistakes in the eyes of publicity, which leads to reintroduction of formerly misunderstood ideas under new names. Such behavior is even more stupid and amoral, then the stance of Holy Church, which simply refused scientific ideas - but it didn't stole them for the sake of its theology.


In AWT the dark energy is the mechanism dual to dark matter, i.e. the surface tension of density blobs of vacuum, which are source of gravity field and gravitational lensing phenomena. On the outer sides of every blob the gravity field is of negative curvature, which leads to repulsive force at the distance. The same effect is responsible for weak nuclear force at short distances or for repulsion of mercury droplets at human scale. It means, when massive objects during inflation achieve certain critical distance, they're repelled by repulsive force instead of attraction.

Neither AWT, neither relativity theory are forced to consider quintessence at all, because

1. omnidirectional expansion of space-time is one of implicit consequences of general relativity (a positive or negative cosmological constant)
2. the omnidirectional expansion of space-time in connection of curvature of space-time concept of gravity field in general relativity leads to the very same effect, like the quintessence.
   

Which basically means, quintessence concept is redundant both for aetherists, both for relativists - as both the dark energy, both dark matter phenomena can be explained by existing theories without (re)introduction of ad-hoced concepts and postulates.

AWT and multiverse concept

This post is a reaction to recent NewScientist article, promoting the string theory motivated view of multiverse concept by Brian Greene. The crucial problem here is, the multiverse concept is poorly defined even with respect to other concepts of mainstream physics, the AWT the less. How the scope of multiverse is defined? How is it related to "many worlds" or "parallel universe" concepts?

• "Many worlds" concept was promoted by Hugh Everett originally (1957) and it usually means, different observers would see the same space-time event differently.
• Parallel universe concept usually considers the existence of another, less or more similar - just causally separated - universe at the different place of space-time.
  
• Multiverse in string theory interpretation usually means, at some (if not all) places of our space-time another space-time events may occur in hidden dimensions set alternatively.

If we define our universe like place, where known laws of existing physics remains valid, we can say, our Universe is defined as a place, where some sufficiently general theory of everything remains valid. If string theory is such a theory, for example, we can postulate our Universe as a place, where string theory remains valid and the parallel universe will be place, where string theory isn't valid. Such definition would mean, string theory isn't TOE anymore, or it even contradicts itself, as it predict something, which violates the string theory. Which is probably not, what the string theorists (prof. Brian Greene or Michio Kaku in particular) expects/promote.

OK, we can define a parallel universe as a place, where all existing physical laws remains valid, it just exhibits another configuration or different physical constants. For example, it's the place, where existing particles are creating different structures, then those, which we know from our Universe. For example, in tropic areas electrons and protons are forming rain forests, whereas in Arctic areas they're forming ice only - is that what the multiverse means? Supposedly not. So, we can consider, in multiverse only gravitons (axions or neutrino or black holes..) can exists, all remaining particles or structures are of different nature, stability, etc. As such multiverse could serve the interior of neutron star, after then. Which is still not, what we are looking for.

Another definition of multiverse may be based on relativity phenomena. Each of observer would see a bit different reality, while these realities are still tied together by common radiative time arrow. For example, observer in relative motion would see the same muon less stable or even decomposed, then observer at rest. It seems, such situation still doesn't fulfill the definition of multiverse, as it falls belong realm of predictions of classical relativity.

The uniqueness of radiative time arrow would be violated at the case, when light signals propagates through density gradient of vacuum, so that the gravitational lensing takes place. It means, a single space-time events has a multiple consequences at different places. Is this, what the multiverse means, already? We should realize, the violation of radiative time arrow would mean the violation of Lorentz symmetry as well, which is prohibited in strictly rigorous string theory, because this theory is using special relativity in its derivations and as such it uses Lorentz symmetry as one of its fundamental postulates.



At the case of rotating black hole, the location of event horizon would depend on polarization of light - vacuum exhibits a birefringence and related phenomena, vacuum analogies of Faraday and Kerr effects. It's the another, even deeper manifestation of quantum uncertainty at macroscopic scale. Everett's interpretation of quantum entanglement uses the many worlds concept - is such manifestation of quantum uncertainty what, the multiverse means in string theory? It seems not, as string theory itself is quantum mechanics based already - the prediction of quantum uncertainty in quantum mechanic way would become a trivial conclusion here.

In AWT the existence of multiverse depends solely on observational perspective and the scope of observations. From AWT perspective, which is most general possible one, no real place for multiverse concept can exists, because everything fulfills the very same theory here. If it doesn't, then the AWT cannot predict it in causal way. From the above follows, observational perspective is always defined by observer. Because people are the only known creatures, who can observe the things like electrons, photons and black holes, the observational scope is defined by abilities of people to observe these artifacts. It has no meaning to ask, whether the multiverse can appear differently, because we couldn't see them at all. Which effectively means, no multiverse can exist here, or it would become a part of our Universe.

Because the causal perspective of people is defined by transversal energy wave spreading inside of random system of Aether particles, we would see whole Universe exactly the same. If some newly revealed physical laws would enable us to see a larger portion from our Universe, then the newly revealed portion of Universe would share the same laws with the portion of Universe observed by now. For example, we can consider, if the observable portion of Universe appears like interior of black hole, then the outer Hyper-Universe would appear exactly the same, like the observable generation of Universe - or we could never interact with it, to predict or to see it the less.

Such conclusion fits the Copernican principle in particular, by which every observable portion of Universe doesn't differ significantly from another portions of Universe and our location in Universe is not significant in any way. This theorem corresponds the anthropic principle, in which every product of long term evolution would see its environment as a best place for its life - just because it's a product of long term adaptation to this environment. From this perspective anthropic principle becomes a sort of self-referencing tautology. Which means, you cannot predict nothing very much usefull with using it, but you cannot disprove it so easily as well.

Some positivistic people aren't convenient with antropic view of reality, though - as they believe, the random model of Universe isn't sufficient for explanation of "unique character" of observable reality. They didn't realize, inside of dense random particle environment only transversal energy can propagate at distance, because longitudinal waves compensate mutually even at short distance. To be able to see our Universe sufficiently large, we should become adopted perfectly to observation of Universe in causal way, i.e. with transversal waves, which puts rather strict limit to the possible appearance of universal randomness. And the deeper in space-time perspective we are supposed to see, the stronger such limit should follow.

Four approaches to dark matter

As J. Duffield once pointed out, people often say, gravitational anomalies are evidence for dark matter, but they aren’t. Dark matter is a hypothesis that attempts to explain the evidence. The evidence is the gravitational anomaly, instead. The dark matter phenomena can be explained in context of existing theories at least four ways, which appear nearly equivalent phenomenologically. The another approach, based on dispersion in particle field based is illustrated here:

1. The simplest explanation of dark matter (DM) is based on AWT, by which every gravity field is a result of density gradient of Aether. At the case of massive bodies the highest density gradient exists just at the surface of massive object. This density gradient is a source of additional weak gravity field of negative curvature, which attracts and collects the particles of negative surface too, the particles of antimatter in particular - which is one of the ways, in which such interpretation of DM may be tested.
   
   
   
   From AWT follows, the idea of gravitational singularity of general is conceptually wrong, as every high curvature of Aether density would manifests like another source of matter density, which would balance the singularity at the center. This is a direct consequence of gradient driven reality (i.e. the fact, nature doesn't like jumps and steps).
   
   
   
2. Another explanation may be based on general relativity in connection to mass-energy equivalence. We can consider again, maximal curvature of space-time of every massive object exists at the surface of this object. This curvature is equivalent to energy density of space-time, which is equivalent to mass density by E=mc^2 formula (this approach was formalized by J. Bekenstein and Rudi V. Nieuwenhove recently.) This additional mass density balances the curvature of the space-time, which has caused gravity field originally.
   
   
   
   Note that large space-time curvature at the surface of massive object will lead to violation of buoyancy condition, because mass/energy density may become higher here, then at the center of massive object - which would lead to undulations of space-time and indeterministic quantum mechanics behavior - so it suggests a route, how to implement quantum gravity solution, at least locally.
   
   
3. Another model of dark matter may be based on general relativity and concept of omnidirectional Universe expansion. The Lense-Thirring effect is based on constant speed of energy spreading in curved space-time, which leads to reference frame dragging. If we introduce an omnidirectional space-time expansion, it will be pronounced the more, the more the space-time is curved already. This will gradually lead to freezing of energy spreading in expanding space-time, which will therefore move like single body from distant observer perspective. For example, Pioneer anomaly is based on acceleration, which is proportional to product of Hubble constant and speed of light. It can serve as an indicia, the limited speed of light and omnidirectional expansion of space-time itself is sufficient for explanation of dark matter behavior.
   
   The surface-tension model of AWT is still more intuitive here, though: we can imagine, the gravity field of galaxy behaves like single giant water droplet, the surface of which is behaving like water surface. And energy spreads always slower at the water surface, then through underwater or above the surface. It means, at surface layer of every gradient of gravity field the light or gravity spread in slower speed, then at the bulk. The space-time moves here like more dense and rigid body, which we can observe by rotational curves of individual stars at the galactic boundaries.
   
4. The most abstract explanation of dark matter phenomena may be based on pure geometry of omnidirectional space-time expansion, where the volume of every area of space-time increases faster, then its surface. Because geometry of energy spreading is given by Lagrangian (which follows from diffusional Aether model on background), the energy spreading through bulk (via longitudinal waves) switches itself into surface spreading (via transversal waves) in less or more distant perspective - thus creating a new reference frame, because human creatures can consider only surface transversal waves in causal energy spreading at distance.
   

The problem of math models is, they become poorly conditioned, when large number of parameters or postulates is involved. As we can see, even qualitative models may lead to similar results here - so it may be difficult to distinguish between then. The increasing number of various theories becomes a brake of the intersubjective understanding of reality, after then - which isn't quite accidental here, because dark matter is a quantum gravity phenomena and a manifestation of hidden dimensions of space-time. We cannot have a formal model of gravity based on quantum mechanics, while retaining full determinism of general relativity. Mainstream physics was trapped in determinism of consecutive logics, on which formal math is based.