AWT and supersymmetry

This post is motivated by recent New Scientist article about possibility to validate string theory by observation of s-tauons, or another supersymmetric particles. But such interpretation is not exact, as 4D space-time superalgebra was first discovered by soviet physicists Yuri Gol'fand and E. Likhtman, who extended the Poincaré algebra into a superalgebra and discovered supersymmetry in four spacetime dimensions in 1970 (published in 1971) together with Akulov-Volkov (1971/72) independently to string theory. At the same year, in 1971 Pierre Ramond, André Neveu and John Schwarz develop a string theory with fermions and bosons and Gervais and Sakita recognized a version of 2D world-sheet supersymmetry in the new fermionic string theory, i.e. supersymmetry algebra in two dimensions. This led to Wess and Zumino rediscovering 4D supersymmetry in 1973 (consider this concise review of SUSY history). In general, superalgebra is spinor extension of quantum mechanics, which can be incorporated into whatever else quantum field theory including Standard Model and LQG (for example, Lee Smolin promoted it for advanced version of loop quantum gravity LQG II) - which effectively means, it cannot serve as an evidence of whatever particular theory, including large group of various string theories.

In context of AWT, supersymmetry is special stuff, it shouldn't be mixed with symmetry as such. We can observe it at water surface, just in quite limited scope. At the water transversal surface waves (so called capillary waves) are dispersing gradually, thus changing itself into longitudinal waves (so called the gravity waves - don't confuse it with gravitational waves, albeit they've similar nature in AWT). We can see, how undulation in one plane shears in complex way, until it becomes undulation in perpendicular complex plane. This rotation is closely related to Poincaré transforms in relativity and Wick rotation in quantum mechanics and Weyl spinors in Cartan composite geometry.

Whereas waves in one plane could be considered as a bosons, the another waves resulting from dispersion are fermions and vice-versa. Note that the dispersion is symmetric with distance scale around distance scale of CMB wavelength  - the very small waves of Brownian noise are longitudinal too! Therefore we can postulate general gauge group, which transforms bosons into fermions and vice-versa, infinitely on both sides of dimensional scale. In real world SUSY gauge symmetry remains broken heavily due the dispersion and subsequent lost of information, though - so we can observe only few members of it. More illustratively, you wouldn't see very much of longitudinal waves at water surface, while observing it via transversal waves and vice versa. 

If the surface waves couldn't disperse into density fluctuations of water, then the bosons and fermions (energy and matter carriers) would be destined to forever remain distinct. But in 1975 Haag-Lopuszanski-Sohnius theorem named after Rudolf Haag, Jan Lopuszanski, and Martin Sohnius  pointed out, that if one allows anticommuting operators as generators of the symmetry group, then there is possibility of unification of internal and space-time symmetries. Such a symmetry is called supersymmetry by now and it constitutes a large part of current research into particle physics. It means, SUSY is just another case of Aether dispersion phenomena at short scales.

In addition, supersymmetry gauge group is closely connected with E8 Lie group and famous Lissi Garret's E8-theory: Every energy wave, exchanged between pair of particles (i.e. density fluctuations of foam) is behaving like less or more dense blob of foam, i.e. like gauge boson particle. Every boson can exchange its energy with another particles, including other gauge bosons, thus forming the another generation of intercalated s-particles. After then the E8 Lie group solves the nontrivial question: "Which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, exchanged/formed by another particles?".

In AWT supersymmetry could be based on idea, inside of gradient driven reality every gradient has its mass. When we pile a huge amount of lightweight particles, such pile would have a larger mass, then the simple sum of original particles, because it creates more pronounced gradient of mass density/space-time curvature along surface of resulting pile. The difference can be assigned to virtual particles, whose nature depends on the composition of original clusters. For example surface waves on large droplet of neutrinos will be formed by so called neutralinos. If we broke resulting cluster, we wouldn't find them in their individual state, as they evaporate into gravitational waves, i.e. tachyons. 

The same result follows from relativity theory as well, if we think a bit about it. From GR follows, every curvature of space has it's own energy density - this is basically, what Einstein's field equations are about. But as we know from E=mc^2 formula, every energy density can be assigned to its corresponding mass energy density, which should exhibit it's own additional gravitational field and resulting additional curvature of space. This idea can be applied ad infinitum onto resulting solution, which would make relativity recursively nested, implicit theory of geometrodynamics. The supersymmetry concept is just a small distance scale application of the above implicit property of general relativity. It could be demonstrated, analogous recursive principle can be applied to quantum mechanics too - and resulting fractal foam solution would be quite similar and forming general solution of quantum gravity.

Aether is not supposed to replace quantum and/or relativity religion. In addition, there are many concepts and models, which could be derived from Aether concept in a much more straightforward way, then just SUSY concept. It took me some time, when I realized, what the SUSY is all about. In this way, SUSY theory is achievement of mainstream physics - although Aether concept could help in its understanding substantially. SUSY theory has it's analogies even in context of biological sciences. Specialized parazites and predators could be considered as s-particles related to host organisms in process of energy dissipation. Whenever political situation changes, a new social layer of people emerges. These people are following newly formed gradient of energy density, thus blocking its further evolution, as they're playing for himself preferably. These conjunctural zealots have antigravity behavior and their fanaticism discourages another people, who could be interested about new idea - despite of how useful it could be. It's analogy of dark matter particles, which surrounds large particle clusters (strangelets) or galaxies, thus repulsing ordinary matter on behalf of antimatter. 

In AWT supersymmetric particles are surface waves of rather large dense clusters of ordinary particles, which are stabilized by their surface tension. For example, inside of neutron stars neutrons are stabilized against their decay into protons and electrons by huge hydrostatic pressure. But the same pressure exists inside of atom nuclei, which is behaving like tiny dense droplet. It's well known, inside of tiny water droplets high pressure exist due the surface tension of high surface curvature. In this way, the dense clusters of elementary particles can be stabilized against its decay in similar way, like inside of quark stars made of strange matter and they can merge with another particles of ordinary matter into another strangelets via avalanche like mechanism. IMO top quark Yukawa coupling used for Higgs boson detection, nucleons pairing inside of atom nuclei, observation of pentaquarks, glueballs and/or indicia of tetraneutron formation are all stuff of the same category and it could be attributed to SUSY. Recent spooky observation of muon pairs formation well outside of collider tube at FermiLab could serve as an indicia of formation of strangelet and/or s-muons as well. 

For example, dark matter is generally believed to be composed of so called WIMPs, some of which are supposed to be supersymmetric particles, predicted by SUSY. But such s-particles must remain very stable to be able to form dark matter - and we didn't observe them in accelerators yet. This is strange, especially in connection to arguments, LHC is indeed safe, because much more energetic cosmic rays doesn't form s-particles, too. Many people argument the risk of black holes formation in LHC by fact, cosmic rays can be way, way more energetic - and we still didn't find any trace of black hole during cosmic ray events yet. But this argument can be reversed easily. If the long-lived s-tau does exist, it should already have been found in secondary cosmic rays. It hasn't, so it probably does not exist - or the LHC safety argument is wrong...;-) Why we are expecting the formation of s-tau in LHC, after then?

Tauon particle is ultraheavy lepton, composed of pair of strange quarks (1/3 and 2/3 of electron charge). Analogously to muon, it could catalyze high temperature fusion of lithium and beryllium atom nuclei - so it was proposed for explanation of seemingly missing lithium problem in Big Bang model. This prediction means, if we collect sufficient amount of tau particles, the resulting cluster of tauons could survive for minutes, thus becoming strangelet. AWT proposes an explanation, based on dense droplet model of strangelet formation. Cosmic rays are always individual particles, mostly protons - whereas LHC jet is dense stream of particles, enabling pilling of particles and formation of microscopic black holes and strangelets. Energy density isn't the only criterion of strangelet formation here - the particle mass density and their collision geometry plays a significant role here too. BTW IMO there are better adepts for strangelet formation, composed of neutral and more stable particles, then just tauons (compare the recent observation of muon pairs in FermiLab, which could be attributed to s-muons). 

The problem with s-tau s-particle is, its strangelet should be very stable, being formed by heaviest dense leptons known so far - but the precursor (i.e. tauon) is extremelly unstable stuff. The optimal approach should balance the stability of both strangelet, both its precursors. From this perspective s-muon is a better candidate for SUSY detection and in fact it was observed already in form of spooky muon pairs well outside of collider tube on Tevatron before year - i.e. in simmilar way, like top-quark pairs in 2008, which could serve as an evidence of heavy Higgs. As we can see, formal theory is one thing - the understanding, where to look for its confirmation is another one. Interesting point of these extrapolations (predictions of postdictions) is, I'm foreshadowing the future interpretation of the past events. Couldn't it be an example of situation, in which future affects the past - which was predicted by some quantum theorists recently (compare the critique here)?


AWT connection of SUSY to strangelets brings another problem to popular dark matter models: WIMPS particles are forming surface waves of these droplets - so they shouldn't exist independently to these strangelets. If dark matter is full of WIMPS, it should contain many strangelets as well. Such models really exists for example in context of string theory: Randall-Sundrum braneworlds models considers existence of primordial microscopical black holes, which could play a role of strangelets here. But strangelets aren't very stable in general and currently the only stable strangelets known so far are atom nuclei.  So we can expect, dark matter contains atom nuclei in accordance to Alfen's plasma universe model and WIMPS models of dark matter are BS - or strangelets aren't related to AWT model in any way. As we can see, there's still a lotta strange concerns about SUSY. 

SUSY is quite general geometrical concept, which could be expressed in proverbs: "Ne quid nimis" (Nothing in excess) or "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" (El infierno está empedrado de buenas intenciones) and it has many social and political analogies. It means, when we advance in technology too fast, we can surpass our social and moral ability to handle it. After then the technology wouldn't help us - on the contrary. We should always ballance practical pros and negatives. In contemporary level of technology and life environment pollution we should orient into cold fusion or room superconductivity research ASAP, because it can save us from geopolitical crisis resulting from fight for remnants of fossil fuel supplies and consequences of global warming droughts. In this moment, LHC research is expensive and dangerous luxury, which can be achieved in much more safe and effective way in cosmic space. In addition, we could save money for vacuum pumps, refrigerators, magnets keeping particles at curved path, isolation against noise, etc... 

The stance of contemporary science seems to be quite irresponsible for me. Scientists are like children, who want their toy just now - although they've no idea, how to use it and how dangerous it really may be. We already collected large enough list of experimental evidence, we are rather close to point of spontaneous strangelet formation of many particle types from gluons or quarks to neutrons. In this way, the success of human civilization lead by mainstream science in SUSY detection could become its very last achievement in the same moment.

Can Time-travelling Higgs sabotage the LHC?

This post is motivated by recent paper by H. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya and related NewScientist article and New York Times essay, in which organized effort in finding of Higgs boson would be inherently predestined to become unsuccessful in laws of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. Article proposes an explanation, why USA Congress stopped the funding for the USA's SSC in 1993, and why the LHC itself suffered an embarrassing meltdown shortly after starting up last year just by this aspect of time travel behavior. This story illustrates in such way, in contemporary science every nonsense can be promoted, providing its supported by formal math, thus evading the accusation from crackpotism, which obligued some formally thinking bloggers to vindicate this generally accepted difference between speculation and crackpottery. Anyway, as the result of ongoing discussion, arXiv has reclassified related papers to "less serious" General Physics section.

The problem of commonly used reasoning of physical models by abstract math and/or even computer simulations is indeed in violation of causal hierarchy, in which formal models are always based on predicate logics, not vice-versa. Therefore if underlying model is proven logically wrong, then the whole formal derivations based on it becomes wrong as well - as the destiny of some formally brilliant - though logically missunderstood models has demonstrated clearly (hollow Earth theory, geocentric model of epicycles, interpretation of luminiferous Aether model by Michellson-Morley experiments, etc..). In Aether theory Higgs model plays no significant model of casual background, because AWT assumes, there are infinitely many levels of space-time compactification, which manifests in real world by may complex high dimensional interactions inside of complex ecosystems, like Borneo jungle or human society. Constrained string theory models of twelve or twenty six dimensions cannot be considered as ultimate causal background of Universe from practical reasons, Higgs boson background of Standard Model the less, because observable world is apparently more rich and dimensional, then these models are considering.

In addition, Higgs model is too vague to be considered seriously, because it has more then single formulations: Higgs model in classical physics is based on different phenomena, then Higgs-Anderson model in boson condensates and its technical derivation consists in a mere reshuffling of degrees of freedom by transforming the Higgs Lagrangian in a gauge-invariant manner. Well known "hierarchy problem" implies, that quantum corrections can make the mass of the Higgs particle arbitrarily large, since virtual particles with arbitrarily large energies are allowed in quantum mechanics. Therefore in my opinion physicists are just mixing various concepts and mechanisms mutually at each level of physical model derivation from phenomenological to formal one, which leads effectively in prediction of many types of Higgs bosons of different rest mass and behavior, thus making such hypothesis untestable.

We are facing this conceptual confusion clearly at the moment, when mainstream physics presents some discrete predictions about Higgs boson. Each particle that couples to the Higgs field has a Yukawa coupling, too. The mass of a fermion is proportional to its Yukawa coupling, meaning that the Higgs boson will couple to the most massive particle. This means that the most significant corrections to the Higgs mass will originate from the heaviest particles, most prominently the top quark. From Standard model follows, the product of Higgs boson Yukawa coupling to the left- and right-handed top quarks have nearly the same rest mass (173.1±1.3 GeV/c2) like those predicted for Higgs boson (178.0 ± 4.3 GeV/c2). We can compare the way, in which Higgs is supposed to be proved and detected at LHC:

And the way, in which formation of top-quark pairs was evidenced and detected already at Fermilab:

Because the observation agrees well both in Higgs mass, both in decay mechanism expected, it basically means, Higgs boson was observed already as a dilepton channel of top-quark pairs decay and no further research is necessary, investments into LHC experiments the less from perspective of evidence of this particular Higgs boson model - which indeed falsifies the above hypothesis of Nielsen & Ninomiya as well. Of course, conflict of many research interests with needs of society keeps these connections in secret more effectively, then every model of time-traveling Higgs thinkable can do. In another way, physicists didn't recognize the duality of heaviest particle of matter (top quark) and Higgs boson in similar way, in which they didn't recognize the duality of most lightweight photons and gravitational waves at the opposite side of energy density spectrum.

This stance is nothing very new in contemporary physics, which often looks for evidence at incorrect places, while neglecting or even refusing clear evidence from dual view of AWT. We can compare it to search for event horizon during travel into black hole, while it's evident from more distant/general perspective, we crossed it already. The "unsuccessful" research for luminiferous Aether, while ignoring dense Aether model is the iconic case of this confusion, but we can find many other analogies here. For example, scientists are looking for evidence of Lorentz symmetry violation and hidden dimensions by violation of gravitational law, while ignoring Casimir force, or they trying to search for gravitational waves, while filtering out noise from detectors, just because they don't understand their subject at transparent, intuitive level.

Apparently, additional cost of research and general confusion of layman society is the logical consequence of this collective ignorance, while it keeps many scientists in their safe jobs and salaries in the same way, like mysticism of Catholic Church of medieval era - so I don't believe in comprehension and subsequent atonement in real time.

Rachel Bean: GR is probably (98%) wrong

This post is motivated by recent finding of Rachel Bean, who found, various WMAP, 2MASS, SDSS, COSMOS data concerning the Sachs-Wolfe, galaxy distributions, weak lensing shear field, and the cosmic expansion history doesn't fit general theory of relativity (GR for short). The reactions of Sean Carroll and/or Lubos Motl are careful, as someone may expect : "well, this could be challenging - but probably irrelevant, because GR has proved itself so many times, but the science should care about such details, mumbojumbo..."

Jeez - but how GR was derived before eighty years? This theory puts an equivalence between curvature of space and spatial distribution of energy of gravitational potential, as borrowed from Newton's theory (because we really have no better source for function of gravitational potential with distance, then the forty years old gravitational law). So, if we know the mass of object, we can compute the spatial distribution of potential energy, so we can compute the spatial distribution of space-time curvature - end of story (of GR). Or not?

Not at all, because from the very same theory follows, energy density is equivalent to mass density by E=mc^2 formula - so we are facing new distribution of matter in space, which should lead into another distribution of space-time curvature and energy of gravitational potential curvature, which leads to another distribution of matter, and so on - recursively. Such implicit character of GR was never mentioned in classical field theory of GR and corresponding textbooks - so it's nothing strange, it violates all observations available by now. But it's still prediction of GR postulates and it fits well with fractal implicit character of Universe and AWT - it just requires to derive Einstein's field equations more consequently and thoroughly.



Wow, this could be really breakthrough in physics and challenging task for new Einstein - or not? Of course not - and here we come to real problem of contemporary science - because such approach is fifty years old already and its even used in dark matter theory, in fact. Such modification would lead into quantization of gravity and longly awaited quantum gravity - the only problem for formally thinking physmatics is, it brings a quantum chaos into ordered world of formal relativity too, as there is (nearly) infinite number of ways, how to derive it - and all ways are still only approximations of real situation. The names like Cartan, Evans, Heim, Yilmaz, J. Bekenstein or Rudi V. Nieuwenhove are all dealing with this approach in less or more straightforward form - but this cannot change thinking of incompetent, though loudly blogging people, who invested two or more years of their life into learning of GR derivations, until they become "productive" with it (as measured by number of articles published) - so now they simply have no time and/or mental capacity to understand something new, to extrapolate the less.

Of course it's not just a problem of few desoriented bloggers, but inertia of whole mainstream community, the size of which prohibits introduction of new ideas and which has chosen formal approach to classical theories as a salary generator for their safe life. In this way, every new idea or derivation is simply forgotten, until it's revealed again in another, slightly different connection, when everyone appears surprised, how is it possible, GR isn't working properly?

AWT and gravitational waves

Concept of gravitation waves (GWs) belongs into subjects, where AWT can bring a substantial insight and testable predictions immediately even from pure qualitative point of view. This is particularly because GWs were subject of controversy from its very beginning before more then fifty years. Even Albert Einstein didn't believe in both black hole concept, both GWs very much (1, 2) and now, after seventy years we still have no direct observational evidence of both phenomena. Who is responsible for it - or isn't whole truth a bit different? AWT proposes a simple explanation of this paradox, following analogy of vacuum with water surface, where transversal light wave corresponds the surface wave and GW's are corresponding the longitudinal waves spreading through hidden dimensions of underwater. This analogy explains too, why we didn't observe gravitational waves already, while ignoring CMB noise in the role of GW's.

This post was motivated by recent articles, announcing null result in search for primordial GWs at frequencies around 100 hertz on LIGO and VIRGO (1, 2, 3). These GWs should be created during the first instants of the Universe's existence. It's somewhat surprising -but still logical with respect to common disbelief in Aether model - that while microwave photons of cosmic microwave background (CMB) were correctly recognized in famous expanding balloon analogy as a remnant of primordial gamma ray photons, covering surface of our Universe expanded during inflation, the same photons weren't considered primordial GW's collapsed during inflation from supersymmetric perspective of AdS/CFT duality.

Such duality points directly to equivalence of primordial photons and gravitons which was transformed into duality of CMB photons and gravitational waves. It means, primordial gravitational waves searched are just the tiny density fluctuations of vacuum density, responsible for CMB noise, which was laboriously filtered out from signal in LIGO/VIRGO detectors! This is funny situation, indeed. The equivalence of CMB photons and gravitational waves could be understood as a manifestation of GUT too, because Big Bang theory is assuming, during Universe formation all interactions were merged into single one. So it's not so strange, we are observing both primordial gravitons, both primordial gravitational waves like primordial photons, i.e. like microwave background (CMB) - every other result would violate GUT.

There are at least three levels of dumbness:

1. First level is to spend money while trying to find artifacts, which cannot be observed by their very definition. But this is basically, what the research is about by R. Feynman ("Research is what I do when I don′t know what I′m doing".)
   
2. Second level is to spend money while trying to find artifacts, which everyone can detect in his TV antenna (i.e. background noise in GWs detectors).
3. The third level of stupidity is to intentionally ignore / filter / wipe out just these results of observations, which are supposed to be detected.
   

It's not dumbness of scientists involved though, because these scientists aren't spending their money: these money are going from our taxis. It's just our dumbness.

Gravitational waves are deformations of space-time curvature, i.e. they're manifesting like density fluctuations of space. They shouldn't be confused with CMB photons - CMB photon is component of density fluctuation, which propagates in light speed, but in short distance only. Gravitational waves forming CMB noise at human scale are dual to gravitons at Planck scale: we can say, they're gravitons expanded during big bang in similar way, like CMB photons are form of gamma radiation expanded during inflation of early universe. In addition, GWs shouldn't be confused with gravity waves, which are product of gravity and EM interaction coupling in material environment. As a direct analogy of GWs in AWT model of water surface are underwater sound waves, which are spreading in extra-dimensions with respect to surface waves. Due the low compressibility and high density of water such underground waves can be observed at water surface only during the most intensive explosions, like at the case of underwater nuclear explosions (compare YouTube videos 1, 2, 3). Because sound spread in higher number of dimensions, then the surface waves, it suffers by faster dispersion with compare to surface waves.

Inside of vacuum - which is much more dense phase of Aether, then the water - such effects are even much more pronounced and gravitational waves are dispersing there at the distance scale corresponding the wavelength of CMB (~ 2 cm). As an evidence of GWs dispersion can serve Casimir force, which can be detected at micrometer scale and its distance dependence corresponds the longitudinal wave shielding in six dimensions, thus violating equivalence principle of general relativity, being proportional the area, not by inertial mass of objects. Shielding effect of gravitational waves from CMB manifest even at cosmological scale as a anomalous deceleration of Pioneer and other space-probes (1, 2), which violates equivalence principle, too.

From analogy with underwater wave spreading follows, GWs are way way faster, then the light waves: they would be able to cross whole observable Universe in a moment in the same way, like light wave is able to cross black hole of average size. So GWs are violating causality of information spreading mediated by light waves (radiative time arrow) and they're inherently chaotic, so they're interacting with chaotic matter only, i.e. boson condensates (compare the gravitational waves reflection and shielding during Podkletnov anitgravity experiments with rotating superconductors). Being tachyons, gravitational waves are expected to be primarily responsible for entanglement and "action at distance" phenomena of quantum mechanics.

Highly dimensional character of gravity interaction is the main reason, the intensity of gravitational waves decreases a much faster with distance, being dispersed by membranes of quantum foam, because they're spreading across quantum foam bubbles in longitudinal waves. This effectively means, gravitational waves are of dispersive character, so they cannot be observed at distance even et the case of quite energetic events, like at the case of black hole and pulsar merging. This doesn't mean, dispersion of energy doesn't exist here so we can still consider theory of binary pulsar changes relevant to gravitational radiation.

While AWT explanation of GWs is quite simple and intuitive, general disbelief in Aether concept prohibited scientists to think in such straightforward way for many years, until recently some of them changed their opinion in relation to brane world paradigm and so-called holographic principle. Accordingly, some superluminal GWs models were presented in peer-reviewed journals (1, 2) recently together with observation of random changes in level of gravitational noise, which is attributed to holographic model of GWs (so called the holographic noise). Note that holographic projection at Universe scale requires superluminal speed of GWs for to be able to work at all, thus violating general relativity theory of GWs from its very beginning. But it's not quite clear for me, why just the noise was considered here. If we found a harmonic gravitational wave, it could be interpreted as a part of giant holograph as well. In this way, the finding of gravitational noise appears rather invariant to holographic theory for me and it can still have a more robust and consistent explanation in context of AWT.

Steven Weinberg: "An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy."

AWT and Big Bang theory.

In AWT the relevance of Big Bang theory is closely related to the concept of "Observable universe" and the "edge of observable space-time", which depends (as everything in AWT) on duality between insintric and exsintric perspective. According to the theory of cosmic inflation and its founder, Alan Guth, the entire universe could be (at least) 10²³ to 10²⁶ times as large as the observable universe, which roughly correspond the speed of gravitational waves propagation through observable Universe.

From insintric perspective we can apply principle "Similia simillibus observatur" (only things of similar nature can interact mutually in observation) - so we can consider, Universe is composed of many different combinations of Aether states, whereas we are composed from limited number of such states, being only part of Universe. If the probability of occurrence of our particular combination of states decreases with distance, then the probability, we could interact with the rest of Universe decreases with distance as well. Therefore we can observe "edge of space", but we cannot reach it, because we would evaporate first in unfriendly ("hot") vacuum around it.

This is basically anthropocentric "black hole model" of Universe formation, which introduces evolutionary absolute reference frame: if we evolved in certain part of Universe, it's because, the conditions were relatively favorable for us here and if we would travel outside of from this pretty place, we can only face problems there. It's evident, every surface of matter, like hot star or black hole forms such natural boundary of observable Universe for us and it's even possible, matter in remote galaxies evolved into exotic forms of matter, which would annihilate (i.e. explode) less or more completely in direct contact with us.

Exsintric perspective of Universe is less real but more optimistic and it has no apparent boundary: the probability of our particular combination of states decreases, but the number of new combinations increases even faster with distance, so we can always find a some friendly combinations of states there. Until space-time is formed by "friendly combinations" of states, it means, we are observing free space, so we can travel through it without apparent limit and danger - but there's no certainty, we aren't just moving in circles during this, because concept of distance and free space is tautological here. From AWT follows, real appearance of Universe is a formed by nested foam mixture of insintric and exsintric perspective: there are many places, where we can finish in our travel prematurely (planets, stars and black holes) - but in general Universe appears as an empty free space due the Olbers paradox.

Olbers paradox is a consequence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which is behaving like subtle density fluctuations of space (i.e. gravitational waves) violating Lorentz and Poincaré symmetry, which results in gradual dispersion of light into hidden dimensions of space-time in analogy to spreading of splash ripples at the water surface. This analogy follows directly from concept of dense Aether of AWT, but it's not completely new, as it was proposed independently by James Clifford Cranwell between years 2001 and 2007. Mr. Cranvell's concept was bright, but it illustrates clearly, without active (self)promotion no idea has chance to become famous in fast expanding Internet space, if it has no immediate usage for sufficiently large group of people - no matter how brilliant it is. Unfortunately Mr. Cranvell didn't recognize the power of dense Aether concept as such and he turned his attention to derived concept of omni-directional expansion of space-time, which is apparently more abstract and it can be interpreted in dual way by AWT.



For observer of transversal waves at water surface the speed of ripples increases fast with distance (they change into gravitational waves), which can be interpreted from the perspective of this observer as an omni-directional expansion of space-time with distance. The same situation is relevant for observation of distant parts of our Universe via light waves.

At sufficient distance from observer wavelength of transversal waves ceases to zero, which can be interpreted by this observer as an initial singularity of Big Bang theory, or like surface (event horizon) of black hole (cosmic void), which observer occurs. From AWT follows, these models may be of certain relevance from perspective of numerical models - but they're all invariant to observer localtion. We can compare this situation to observation of landscape under haze - visibility scope will be limited by dispersion of light, but it will move accordingly to actual location of observer.

Because this effect is apparently nonlinear, we can explain dark energy phenomena in the same way. From outside we can see, these ripples get more dense gradually, until they disperse completely. The same effect appears at cosmological scale like slowing the speed of light in dense environment, surrounding every source of radiation, so it can be used for explanation of cold portion of dark matter and its connection to Hubble constant as well. Whereas from perspective of insintric observer, Universe appears like we would travel through density gradient, forming event horizon of black hole (some string theorists are talking about "throat of dark brane" in this connection).

From more general view of AWT this evolution is just an illusion, which follows from insintric observational perspective inside of fractal Aether foam, because we are connecting the observation of microscopic scale with the future of Universe expansion, the past with observation of vast cosmic space. Evolution of large objects is the more slow, the larger these objects are and Universe as a whole doesn't really evolve at general scale. The only question is, whether such general perspective is achievable for human creatures by experiments, i.e. by different way then just by pure human imagination.

Nevertheless, from AWT follows, Big Bang theory would suffer by fundamental problems in near future, which are of both of practical, both philosophical (ontological) nature. Observational problem with Big Bang is, we can observe well developed and separated galaxies in the Hubble ultra-deep field, when the Universe was just 2 - 3 billions of years old. And Milky Way galaxy is more then ten billions of years old, so that these ancient galaxies have not enough time to separate and develop. This conclusion was supported by recent observation of well developed galaxies (with very low speed of star formation) in ultradeep field of refurbished Hubble telescope in contrary to standard cosmological model based on Big Bang theory, in which star formation couldn't occur during dark era of universe formation.

Ontological problem of Big Bang theory is, it brings more questions, then answers - not saying about the problem of initial singularity. It can explain red shift, but it cannot explain dark energy. And it requires inflation, which appears like ad-hoced concept from contemporary perspective, although it can be interpreted as a phase transition of Aether easily and it can be reconciled with ekpyrotic cosmology in such way. But from general perspective it seems, all these models are just plural result of dispersive nature of Aether environment. The analogy of Universe evolution with stellar and galactic evolution is just apparent, because from very general and remote perspective Universe behaves like atemporal stuff (perceived mass/energy density of Aether increases ad infinitum).