## Wednesday, July 22, 2009

### AWT and principle of uncertainty principle

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".

Anonymous said...

Oui dr. Faustroll, pataphysicien

Zephir said...

Better to hear

"yes, you pataphysicist"

then

"not, you scientist"

I'd prefer vague truth over sharp mistake and doing agree over degree.

El Cid said...

I don't understand the post, at all. Zephir, I think the aether have nothing to do with WWW II, isn't it? One moment, what is WWW II? The 22 of July is the Fools' Day in Czech Republic?

Zephir said...

I'm using this example to explain, the duality of stance regarding Lorentz invariance violation is analogous to duality of stance in discussion about origin of WWW II.

State boundaries are similar to quantum or soap foam of Aether bubbles: they get more dense, when natural conditions enable higher cumulation of natural sources and people. In both cases many subjects (i.e. "particles") are involved and both phenomena are energy density / probability driven - so we can use the same high level description for both phenomena. From this perspective, the position of state boundary is determined by mutual collisions of gradients of national interests, i.e. by branes and these gradient are defining causal space-times and their observational perspectives.

I can write a dedicated post about it to explain these analogies in deeper and more detailed level, if you want.

El Cid said...

Off topic; Do you know this paper? What do you think? Do you think it's compatible with AWT?

Zephir said...

I presume yes (as I've only article abstract available in this moment) with two comments:

1)wave equation describes universe both from local perspective, both from very global perspective, as we can model it by standing wave in infinite number of dimension, at least conceptually due the 1:N duality principle. The same 1:N relation is valid for every other local models of Universe, for example while we can model the behavior of vacuum by quantum strings, whole universe is behaving like single giant quantum string. While behavior or Universe fulfills relativity equations at local scale, the same equations are valid at global scale.

It means, you can formulate whatever equation or process inside of Universe both locally, both globally. While vacuum appears like quantum foam locally, the dark matter streaks appears like quantum foam as well, just a bit frozen due the large space-time scale.

2)wave equation isn't the only "fundamental" equation describing universe, as I presume, random walk diffusion is another universal principle here and these processes are in mutual duality. The wave creates spatial gradient and it consumes time, while diffusion produces time and it levels spatial gradients, so it consumes space.

Therefore AWT unifies both principles: both stochastic, both causal one in two words "Aether" and "Wave". You cannot reduce Aether behavior just into diffusion or into undulation only, because both these processes are mutually related by emergence principle: a number of wave packets is behaving like chaotic gas, and leveling of gradients inside of chaotic gas has an apparent wave behavior. For example, you can model undulating water surface by particle simulation only.

It's evident, formally thinking people would always tend to describe universe as a system of causal equations in formal way, while nonformal thinkers would describe it by chaotic processes in intuitive way. And both these people will have its own part of truth. Because I'm biased in unbiased description of reality, I would always prefer to consider both approaches at the same moment.

Zephir said...

As you probably realize, AWT concept enables to generalize whatever local model of your particular preference providing it's derived in logical and coherent way.

So if Mr. Motl says, whole Universe is composed of strings or quantum loops (sic!), I can accept such view, I can even propose new ways, in which such paradigm can be applied and tested to make happy him - but I can still demonstrate examples, when such paradigm would remain always violated, too. Because physical theories are sort of causual foam in the same way, like real physical foam, forming human creatures.

From AWT follows, whatever particular theory can become a TOE, providing it would describe reality in implicit fractal way by using of itself. Fractal geometrodynamics or fractal unparticle theory are of same relevance here.

El Cid said...

I can write a dedicated post about it to explain these analogies in deeper and more detailed level if you want.

Well,

If AWT is so useful to explain the sociology and the causes of the wars, why don't you start speaking with sociologists? I think we don't need another post about this topic. Aether has nothing to do with sociology. Don't waste the time, please. Again, the life is too short for such nonsense.

Zephir said...

/*..Aether has nothing to do with sociology...*/
On the contrary: at the moment when behavior of people is driven by gradients of energy density (as expressed in money density), then the human civilization behaves like large multidimensional system of particles - so we can model physical phenomena by human society and vice-versa.

Anonymous said...

It is widely known that the principles of classical mechanics as laid down by Isaac Newton
have certain difficulties related especially to the physical interpretation of the notions of force
and mass. Motivated by the arguments of a recent my article showing that gravitation is an
Archimedic force in the aether, the present work takes a fresh look at the ideas that constitute
the fundaments of Newtonian mechanics. New interpretation of the crucial experiment of free
fall of bodies points to the necessity of changing the views accepted today. The most
significant conclusion is that classical mechanics, essentially a theory addressing the motion of
solid bodies, must have its principles derived from those of fluid mechanics, more specifically
from the behavior of the fluid aether.

Zephir said...

/*..gravitation is an Archimedic force in the aether..*/
This is circular reasoning, as the buoyancy force itself depends on gravitation. Irony isn't so free game, as you probably believe.

El Cid said...

Zephir,

Anonimous is referring to this paper, that sets up a model to explain the motion of bodies in free fall (and gravitation) using the aether concept. This paper could have been a very good response to the problem I've raised some weeks ago. But you was unable to give me an answer, so it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about.

El Cid said...

... you was ... , sorry my English is so bad, I meant ... you were ..., I speak better the Language of Cervantes.

Zephir said...

/*.. you were unable to give me an answer ..*/
I can give you answer in some other areas of my preference. I'm not saying, AWT is real time answer to all questions possible. General theory can only answer general questions in effective and reliable way. "Simillia simillibus observatur" - this is one of main theorems of AWT.

Zephir said...

As eccles pointed out, The duality of "observer-observed" was disputed by Heidegger in his "Being and Time", whose human living essence (soul or "Dasein") was something akin to a traveling energy node on a network of inter-relationships, analogous to Aether foam, represented by solitons traveling along neural network.

El Cid said...

... When we place a light source inside of bucket into foam, we can observe, the light will penetrate whole volume, so that the inner surface of bucket will remain illuminated by the same way, like this outer one - the light spreading will become omnipresent here and we could see our bucket from both sides in simmilar way, ...

Zephir,

One more time, sorry but to explain this behaviour of light, you don't need the Aether concept, at all. From a macroscopic point of view, the light can be explained by a wave model, and the waves are the magnetic field and the electric field, that are also solutions of Maxwell's equations. These equations are the basis of classical electromagnetism. So from a macroscopic point of view, light is a wave. You can show, using mathematical reasoning, that the diffraction,reflexion, and all of this occurs, when the light wave encounters an obstacle. You would need to study linear algebra, vectorial calculus, complex variable, differential equations, classical mechanic, classical electromagnetism, and at the end you should look into the superb book Principles of Optics by Born & Wolf where all of these phenomenons and much more is explained in a rigorous way. By means of math of course. you Looks like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza I.

Zephir said...

/*..the light can be explained by a wave model, and the waves are the magnetic field and the electric field, that are also solutions of Maxwell's equations..*/

OK, but how to explain wave model of light? BTW Maxwell's equations are completelly based on experimental experience, here's no deeper insight, why their fundamental laws (Gauss, Farady and Ampere laws) should work in the way, we are observing. They were simply measured and observed in 19th century and till now we have NO IDEA, why magnetic field precedes electric field by halfperiod in perpendicular direction (whereas AWT explains it by deformation of elastic foam in trivial way).

You're like proponents of Holy Church in medieval era, who were saying, lightning is a "messenger of God" and it has "no meaning" to analyze it in more details. Of course, the idea of God's messenger can explain, why lightning comes from heaven and why it's so powerfull and many other consequences of it - but who will explain the concept of "messenger of God" itself?

The problem of many contemporary people like You is, they couldn't reveal Aether theory in principle, simply because they're brainwashed by mainstream propaganda so much, they even don't realize, it may be possible at all...;-)

Therefore your belief in explanatory power of equations doesn't differ very much from belief of religious people in explanatory power of God and your oposition is based on the stance of the same cathegory.

"Gimme that old time religion
Gimme that old time religion
Gimme that old time religion
It's good enough for me
It was good for the Hebrew children
It was good for the Hebrew children
It was good for the Hebrew children
It's good enough for me
Gimme that old time religion
Gimme that old time religion
Gimme that old time religion
It's good enough for me
..."

Zephir said...

BTW Wasn't Einstein a "Hebrew children", too? Maybe we are facing a novadays version of Christianity here. Jews were always good in manipulation of people just because of their intelligence.

El Cid said...

HOW? YOUR ARE TELLEING ME WHAT? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Sometimes, It's very annoying reading your nonsense. Don't you know classical electromagnetism is a scientific theory with tons of experimental predictions? How many times I have to tell you the same thing? The classical electromagnetism is science not religion. Just the opposite, the aether is a mythological concept. Therefore, AWT is like your new personal religion. An inconsistent set of ideas that is not only useless, but also, a farce. You are wasting your time in your scribbles, when you could be studying the true physics and math. But you can't see this because you think it's possible to be famous with an irrational behaviour. This is called Neurosis. Don't you know the only damaged here is yourself?, You are a fool.

... and till now we have NO IDEA, why magnetic field precedes electric field by halfperiod in perpendicular direction (whereas AWT explains it by deformation of elastic foam in trivial way).

I'm sorry, but you don't have idea of this fact, that is very different of saying the physicists have no idea of ... . From Maxwell's equations in free space can be shown that the electric field is perpendicular to the magnetic field. And both fields are propagating throught the free space with speed c, ie, they form an electromagnetic wave. But the difference the phase between the electric field and the magnetic field is not halfperiod, WTF?

Zephir, Zephir, how much things I have to teach you, yet.

Zephir said...

/*..classical electromagnetism is a scientific theory with tons of experimental predictions...*/
It indeed is - but it doesn't mean, Gauss, Ampere or Faraday laws are NOT empirical laws - despite how naturally they may sound for some theorists - and without idea of dense elastic matter it's impossible to explain them at all.

It seems, you have a rather weak feeling for causality of things, because you're quite trustful (if not religious) personality. I notified this at first moment, when you called me a professor - do you remember it? Now your noncritical admiration for AWT has changed suddenly into noncritical deprecation of it (probably after discussion with some colleagues, who are more authorities for you, them just me) - but you still didn't change your somewhat naive style, in which you're dealing with AWT.

You're not expected to believe in both equations and AWT, but to understand, in which they can be useful for another predictions. It's impossible, until you believe, Maxwell's equations are final explanation of electromagnetism. In Heaviside form they even cannot predict existence of photons and another quantum phenomena - so it's evident, they're forming just certain abstract subset of Aether foam properties.

Zephir said...

/*..from Maxwell's equations in free space can be shown that the electric field is perpendicular to the magnetic field..*/

They even enable to derive constant speed of light in vacuum easily, thus rendering special relativity redundant. Maxwell was aetherist and he demonstrated the way, how relativity can be derived from Aether theory:

Maxwell wrote in Encyclopedia Britannica (1867):

"Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic affluvia, to convey sensations from one part of our bodies to another, and so on, until all space had been filled three or four times over with aethers.... The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light."

So if you believe in power of Maxwell's equations, you should believe in power of Aether hypothesis too, because in relativity constant speed of light is absolutely guessed, i.e. ad-hoced from experiments - and here's no way, how to derive it from another laws. Einstein just pretend, he didn't know about it to maintain priority of light speed invariance for him. In fact he didn't mentioned no previous author in his "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", thus pretending, whole generation of scientists before him simply didn't existed. But Mr. Einstein wasn't original inventor of Voigt's transforms (1887), which were explained by Larmour (1895) and named after Lorentz (1897, 1904) by Poincare (1905).

BTW These guys were all atherists...

Zephir said...

/*..how much things I have to teach you, yet..*/
I'm not pretending, I'm some genius and I'm still opened to new ideas, I hope. But in this case I'm not quite convinced by your stance. The fact, experiment is formulated in formal form doesn't mean, we understood, why such formulation is correct at all - it's just special regression of reality.

El Cid said...

So if you believe in power of Maxwell's equations, you should believe in power of Aether hypothesis too, ...

And what?. Let me remind you that Einstein believed in a static Universe, too. These giants, that you've quoted, were humans so they were also imperfect and fallible men. They made some mistakes, for example using the aether concept. Zephir, open your eyes, open your mind, the aether doesn't exist. You're living in the mess. You should study physics. Learn the truth to leave the nonsense. All your ideas about Nature are wrong. Why can't you see something that is obvious for the rest? What are you looking for? I don't know why you are so interested in your invention AWT, when you have heard from many physicists, that your theory is inconsistent and when you have been banned by them, again and again. You could think I'm like the rest, and perhaps this is. But I can see in your behaviour a very good thing. You are trying to learn how the nature works, like the finest physicists at the world, and that effort deserves recognition.

El Cid said...

In Heaviside form they even cannot predict existence of photons and another quantum phenomena - so it's evident, they're forming just certain abstract subset of Aether foam properties.

Your comment is not more than metaphysical speculations that have nothing to do with real science.

All that you need to study the behaviour of the particles, that interaction through the electromagnetic force, are the following theories:

1. LOW SPEED AND MACROSCOPIC SCALE:
Classical Electromagnetism + Classical Mechanics
(AETHER IS NOT NEEDED)

2. HIGH SPEED AND MACROSCOPIC SCALE:
Classical Electromagnetism + Special Relativity
(AETHER IS NOT NEEDED)

3) LOW SPEED AND MICROSCOPIC SCALE:
Classical Electromagnetism + Quantum Mechanics
(AETHER IS NOT NEEDED)

4) HIGH SPEED AND MICROSCOPIC SCALE:
Quantum Electrodynamics
(AETHER IS NOT NEEDED)

So studying the Maxwell's equations "in the Heavisade form" is a good way to know their limits. At least, give them a chance.

And I'm not a banal reader of your blog, rather the opposite, so you should have some respect, thanks.

Zephir said...

/*...you have heard from many physicists, that your theory is inconsistent...*/
..with their thinking - this is indeed one of AWT predictions. But I can care only about inconsistencies of postulates with reality. I haven't heard about inconsistencies with observable reality. Can you quote some claim about it?

/*...so you should have some respect...*/
Your comment is not more than metaphysical speculation, that has nothing to do with real science.

El Cid said...

You can't explain the spin of the elementary particles using AWT. So, your ideas are inconsistent with reality, too.

Zephir said...

1) AWT indeed does explain spin by surface vorticity of particle fluctuations (1, 2, 3)
2) The fact, some theory (like relativity theory) doesn't explain (well) something (like spin) doesn't mean, it's inconsistent with reality. For example the fact, string theory doesn't explain boiling point of water doesn't mean, it's inconsistent with reality.

El Cid said...

I don't care if relativity can't explain the spin of particles, or it can. Here, we are talking about AWT. This blog can't be a forum of Orthodox Physics because you and me are not expert in the matter, are we?

1) The particles are bubbles of aether but they are more denser that their surroundings. And their surroundings are the vacuum. If I've understand well to you, the vacuum is made of aether, too. But, the aether that forms the vacuum is less denser than the bubbles of aether that generate the particles.
2) You have also written that the spin of a particle can be explained by mean of the vorticity of the aether fluid.

As the vorticity is the tendency for elements of the fluid (aether) to spin, I think the spin of the particles is a consequence of the rotation of those bubbles in the vacuum. What do you think? Am I wrong?

Zephir said...

Yes, in AWT every particle is formed by dense cluster of tiny nested vortices.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/so31.gif

The number of phases done by each level of vortices classifies the particle spin.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/quantum/dirac_trick1.gif

We can model particle spin by thin metal spiral loaded by DC current. Single loop can be rotated by 360º, until its magnetic field becomes oriented in the same direction. But the spiral loop formed by helix requires rotation by 720º to become identical with its template.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/symmetry/loop.gif

Such particles have half-integer spin by definition.

El Cid said...

As today I've had some success with a special girl. I'm very happy ...

The string theorist, Jacques Distler, sometimes writes at his blog,

A Musical Interlude:

So, if you let me, my choice will be a song about the Spin;

You Spin Me Round

Yeah I, I got to know your name
Well and I, could trace your private number baby
All I know is that to me
You look like you're lots of fun
I want some
...

Viva la Fiesta, Viva la Fiesta, Viva Ibiza, Ibiza, Ibiza, sun and girls, Ibiza is the Paradise ...

...

Viva Zephir

Zephir said...

Mentality of nations living near sea is apparently different from those from inlad. Maybe we should buy some island too - at least small one.

Anonymous said...

No math, no valid explanation, just a word salad....

Zephir said...

In which way my explanation violates validity?

El Cid said...

Zephir,

I've been thinking a lot about AWT, and I discovered a great flaw that makes that AWT can't be consistent with Nature.

Zephir said...

/*..I discovered a great flaw that makes that AWT can't be consistent with Nature...*/
I really doubt so, nevertheless go ahead...;-) After all, AWT is just a model of observable Universe, not these unobservable ones.

From AWT follows, every theory must contain logical flaw in it - or it would become tautology in less or more distant perspective. Can AWT itself become such case, to? You decide.

El Cid said...

The flaws are based in an analogy, so if you say that this analogy is wrong the flaws are not appicable in this context.

Well, let’s set the stage with a bit more of detail using AWT:

According to AWT:

1) The vacuum is made of aether, that is very little dense. So it seems to me that vacuum could be a phase of aether, namely the gaseous phase of aether.
2) The elementary particles are also made of aether, but in a different manner. Elementary particles are made by dense cluster of tiny nested vortices. I guess that these vortexes are rotating in the same direction, otherwise the particles haven't got spin. The result is that the elementary particles with spin not equal to zero are rotating. The dense cluster of tiny vortexes is also aether, but in other phase, namely the solid phase of aether. So far, I've described the problem in the AWT framework.

We are ready to describe the analogy. Suppose that:

1) The dynamics of the vacuum, i.e. the gaseous phase of aether, is like the dynamics of the water vapor.
2) The dynamics of the elementary particles, i.e. the solid phase of aether, is like the dynamics of an ice ball that would be rotating if the spin of the elementary particle is not zero and it would be at rest if the spin of the elementary particle is zero.

Now, the flaws:

First, I think the first law of Newton, the law of inertia, can't be explained using AWT, indeed the gaseous phase of aether exerts a force on the solid phase due to the friction between the phases, like the friction that the vapor water would exert on the ice sphere, if the ice sphere was moving through the gas. So a prediction of AWT would be that there are not particles with uniform motion. This prediction is simply wrong.

Second, the bosons have an integer spin, for example, the photon that is the elementary particle of light, have a spin equal to one. So, the photon is rotating with respect to the vacuum. The electron is also rotating as it has a spin equal to 1/2, but more slowly than the photon. Both, the photon and the electron are like ice balls that are rotating with respect to the water vapor, while they are moving through this vapor. Due to the Magnus effect is impossible that the photon or the electron follow a straight line. Another prediction that is wrong

What do you think? Is wrong my analogy?

Zephir said...

/*..gaseous phase of aether exerts a force on the solid phase due to the friction between the phases..*/
Particles are propagating through vacuum like soliton vortices (wave packets) through superfluid. Energy is dissipating during such motion in form of gravitational waves, but its amount is very subtle. And bellow temperature of 3K particles are gaining energy from vacuum CMB instead of further cooling.

Zephir said...

/*...first law of Newton, the law of inertia, can't be explained using AWT..*/
First Newton law has apparently diffusional character. Only diffusion follows along as straight path, as possible.

Zephir said...

/*..Due to the Magnus effect is impossible that the photon or the electron follow a straight line. ..*/
Only in gradient of Aether density. Bullet in zero gravity wouldn't suffer by Magnus effect (why?). In strong gravity field both photons, both electrons would separate by their spin indeed - this effect is responsible for splitting of time arrow near black holes and for formation of double event horizon here (Kerr solution of black hole).

Zephir said...

BTW I do believe, particles leaving black hole in polar jet are separated by their spin. One of jets is often smaller or it's even missing. We can observe CP violation at large scale in the same way, like during emanation of electrons during decay of oriented 60Co atom nuclei.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/images/080110-blackhole-picture.jpg
http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/space/black-hole-3.jpg

El Cid said...

Particles are propagating through vacuum like soliton vortices (wave packets) through superfluid.

If aether is a superfluid then, my analogy is wrong and the flaws doesn't longer apply to AWT. Because the flaws was based in the friction between phases. Nevertheless, I have got an objection. If aether is a superfluid then we could study it using the formalism of Quantum hydrodynamics. Quoting Wikipedia:

The quantum hydrodynamic equation is an equation in Bohmian mechanics, which, it turns out, has a mathematical relationship to classical fluid dynamics.

So, AWT is not more than your intuitive view on Bohmian mechanics.

El Cid said...

Bullet in zero gravity wouldn't suffer by Magnus effect (why?).

Bullet in zero gravity could experiment the Magnus effect. The Magnus effect has nothing to do with gravity. All that you need is a solid body spinning, while is moving through a fluid.

Zephir said...

/*..Bullet in zero gravity could experiment the Magnus effect...*/
Are you sure? In which direction? Without gravity bullet "wouldn't know", which direction would have to choose.

/*..AWT is not more than your intuitive view on Bohmian mechanics..*/
AWT is insintrically multidimensional and more complex in its consequences than Bohmian mechanics, because particles are forming clusters of infinitelly nested level in AWT.