Aether Wave Theory - a new approach to the contemporary physics understanding

I mean Zeph, a diametric combination moving about, a fish below some kind of wavelike function, and a three-dimensional pool sending out three ripples. But have you really said anything that accounts for these things.... How do you answer for the fish???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The fish isn't important here at all. But the mechanism of the surface wave above the fish is the analogy of that frigging de-Broglie wave for macroscopic system.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How many times did you read about de-Broglie wave, connected with the particle in motion? How many times did you saw the undulations of the water surface above the flowing fish or the fluttering of undulating ribbon dragged through air? As you can see, even piles of math equations cannot help you to connect these concepts together.

Why to develop som friggin' abstract concepts like "shadow particles", "parallel universes", etc., if we haven't checked even these simple analogies? Is the fish beneath water surface so much more fantastic model, then the previous ones?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We know how waves work. But how does this say anything?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The real waves are always a complex phenomena. Even the waves at water surface are complex mixture of transversal and longitudinal waves.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The wave equation is just a local approximation of projection of rotational motion from higher dimensions. It's an abstraction, the real wave are always mixture of many waves due the unharmonic character of undulation, because the energy density is never proportional to (square of) amplitude.

By Aether Wave Theory (AWT) every observable reality is formed by emergent structures of density fluctuations, which are having appearance of nested foam. Therefore the waves in foam are of particular importance in AWT.

Well, lets try to describe the waves in foam.

 

Are Black Holes Creating Antimatter?

Are Black Holes Creating Antimatter?

We should understand first, what the antimatter really is. The vacuum is composed of bubbles with thin membranes, which corresponds the binomial distribution of Aether density fluctuations. The particles of matter/antimatter are forming the dense blobs of such foam, formed by vibrations of foam gradients. The matter particles are formed by vibrations of gradients forming the inner side of foam bubbles, while the antimatter particles are formed by outer gradients with opposite chirality of surface undulations. The inner gradients are always of lower radius, therefore the particles of common matter are always of slightly higher energy density and as such more stable, then the particles of antimatter. But because the walls of bubbles in common vacuum are quite thin, the difference in stability (so called the "CP parity violation") is quite subtle as well.

In strong gravity field the situation is quite different. The vacuum is formed by dense, heavily shaken foam here, with relatively small bubbles of high curvature. Inside of such foam the surface gradients of foam branes are quite separated each other, so here's a strong difference between behavior of matter and antimatter and the CP parity is violate heavily here. Therefore the occasionally fluctuations of density formed by antimatter vibrations will be annihilated by normal ones quite smoothly. And the whole observable matter is just a remnant of the annihilation of giant amount of matter, which is forming our generation of Universe. We should consider the matter as a natural consequence of CPT violation and whole Universe existence: inside of Universe of negative curvature some minute amount of matter of positive curvature should be always formed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What does it mean for antimatter theory? It means, during Universe inflation, the equal portions of matter and antimatter were created from graviton foam, which is supersymmetric (it appears like sponge, where the curvatures of inner and outer gradients are nearly the same). If the graviton foam has cooled slowly until the difference between matter and antimatter behavior was so strong, the antimatter was converted nearly completely into antimatter. We should realize, inside of strong gravitational field the matter can annihilate the antimatter at the distance, via vacuum vibrations or virtual particles, because the scope of weak nuclear force is quite large here. Therefore the matter will recombine into antimatter a quite fast here and this is the reason, why the antimatter is missing inside of our Universe nearly completely.

But if we decrease the gravitational field intensity fast, we can freeze the metastable mixture of matter and antimatter, so that the foam membranes will become thin and the annihilation will occur just under (nearly) direct contact of matter and antimatter. Because all these effects are completely mechanic phenomena, we can illustrate such situation by the water droplet condensation. During such condensation the water droplets aren't never of the same size. In equilibrium mixture the smaller droplets will evaporate due its higher vapor pressure, while the larger ones will grow. Only if we cool this mixture fast, we can achieve the metastable state, where the speed of such mutual matter transfer between matter and antimatter will remain quite low, because of low partial water vapor pressure inside of such mixture.

The giant black holes are behaving like "naked singularities" (so called the quasars), which can emanate both matter, both antimatter via radiation, which will materialize into mixture of matter and antimatter, once it will escape from BH gravitational field. Under normal conditions, the mixture of matter and antimatter will have time to exchange its energy, so just the more stable matter will remain (in strong gravity field, the difference in stability of matter and anti-matter is quite pronounced). But at the case of giant black hole the gravity field gradient will quite strong, so that the mixture will be separated faster, so time doesn't came to its complete recombination. Therefore the small amount of antimatter can cumulate near black hole as a remnant of its hot and radiative quasar history.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This process can be understood easily on the background of common thermodynamics. You can imagine, the curvature of gravitational field of vacuum (i.e. Ricci space curvature tensor, be more specific) is equivalent to temperature gradient. After the fast escaping of matter-antimatter mixture (which is rich to energy) from such gravitational field will correspond the fast cooling of candle flame, which leads to the formation of soot (i.e. unreacted metastable carbon), even at the presence of excessive oxygen. We can see, the Aether theory enables to generalize the LeChatalier principle even for nonequillibrial phenomena: the fast cooling corresponds the traveling in time, which allows even the metastable forms of matter survive (i.e. freeze in past).

Therefore the traces of antimatter are cumulating near giant primordial black holes, which are sitting at the centers of every large galaxy, like the Milky Way. They can be detected by its recombination radiation of typical wavelength, which appears in contact with common matter.

I'm pretty sure, such complex dependencies and connections can be described mathematically, but we could never interpret them completely without Aether foam model. The Aether model makes the understanding of vacuum trivial, so we can explain the baryogenesis to our kids in schools even without any math theory.

Because the antimatter is unstable in contact with ordinary matter and the matter is apparently excessive in out Universe generation, the Starman's claim (which was somewhat carelessly extrapolated from mine claim about antimatter black holes) renders the existence of large amount of antimatter improbable from sufficiently long perspective. P.A.Dirac, the discoverer of positron has called the antiparticles as a particles living in the "opposite time arrow" and this stance is quite right with respect to AWT definition of two-dimensional time at the brane surface. While the normal matter has condensed inside of our Universe into larger objects, the antimatter has evaporated into lightweight particles. A lotta antimatter can remain present in form of weakly interacting anti-neutrinos and possibly the positrons too in the interstellar space.

The formation of antimatter due strong deceleration of particles toward observer by atmosphere can be interpreted as a local time travel of matter toward past, when the antimatter was much more common. The acceleration of particle in the opposite direction should lead to the traveling of it into future (it advances the universe expansion). The rotation of unstable particle around some massive object will prolong its life, the rotation of heavy object around it (so called the "centrifugation of vacuum" - do you remember the strange antigravity machine from Contact movie?) should decrease its life due its local travel into future. You can imagine time dimension as dimension normal to spatial dimensions. While we can move along water surface freely, the movement toward water surface is always connected with acceleration and as such traveling in local time, defined by surface wave spreading.

As we can see, the AWT model supplies a number of testable predictions and with some experience it will enable you to think about motion in time as freely, as about motion in space.

 

Is speed of light fixed?

Is speed of light fixed?

Here's no reason to expect, every constant of our Universe generation must remain the very same. Here some subtle experimental indicia, the speed of light has changed even in historical time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

After all, if the Universe expands, it would be quite strange to consider, such space-time expansion is limited only toward history. If we observe distant galaxy, the light requires some time to pass from center to the outside. During this time the space-time can expand considerably, so that the light/gravity freezes on the perimeter and the whole galaxy will start rotate as a single body - from this the MOND theory follows.

Note, that such effects can be observed even at the scope of our solar system. The Pioneer anomaly deceleration observed is exactly those, which follows from the above mechanism (a = 8E-10 meters/second^2, i.e. Hubble constant multiplied by the speed of light). Therefore the phenomenological description with the 1/r^2 force will change into 1/r, which we can interpret as a flattening (symmetry breaking, followed by decreasing of number of dimensions) of space-time, which will behave like surface of membrane.

But the Universe expansion has even many others, less or more subtle, but experimentally testable consequences, like the dilatation and weight loss of meter and kilogram prototypes, and so on...

The light speed measurements doesn't violate the "slowing speed theory", on the contrary. Of course, we're requiring a more solid proofs. Till now we should consider the acceleration of Universe expansion, observation of weight lost of kilogram prototype, the dilatation of meter prototype and indicia of fine structure constant change in distant quasars and the dimming of standard supernovae candles. The Expanding Earth Theory appears to support this concept, too..

All these phenomena can be related each other in vacuum, which is gradually gaining it's mass/energy density.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Is speed of light fixed?

The expansion of space-time will lead to the exceeding of speed of light undeniable and formation of so called cosmological space-time horizon, which we can consider as as event horizon of black hole, which we are living in. This is a moment, when the light speed spreading wouldn't be able to follow the speed of space-time expansion, so that the spontaneous symmetry breaking and space-time condensation will follow. Such process is quite analogous to the condensation of saturated vapor under increasing pressure, when the speed of energy spreading will not be able to level the density fluctuations, so that the condensate of water dropplets will be formed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Therefore the omni-directional expansion of space-time can be interpreted as a result of gradual collapse of dense star forming our vacuum, during which the density of vacuum increases and the energy is moving more and more slowly. So yes, the slowing of light speed of light can be interpreted as a dilatation or dissolving of time, which is defined by the overall speed of energy spreading inside of such BH.

These perspectives are completely dual and indistinguishable each of other, until we will use the light spreading (for example in laser clock) for time or space intervals measurements. We can say, the space expands by the same way, like the time expands or light speed decreases or the vacuum gets more dense or hot - all these descriptions are completelly equivalent, they just differ by observational perspective.

 

How we can affect the speed of light?

How we can affect the speed of light?

At first, the constant speed is just one of many perspective, which the observation allows. For example, the gravitational lensing at the presence of massive objects can be interpreted both like the constant light speed violation, both like the consequence/confirmation of it. It just depends on the observational perspective, which you can choose arbitrarily.

The Aether theory isn't about learning of some particular theory, but about learning the plurality in physics understanding. We should be always able to explain some phenomena at least two dual ways (i.e. from inner and outer perspective), but the number of possible interpretations isn't limited in fact. Therefore every discussion about light speed has no meaning, until we define the observational perspective.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Here's a theoretical possibility to centrifugate the vacuum, the rotation of giant hollow cylinder should lead to the less vacuum density and the higher speed of light inside it (and to traveling in time and some other ideas). The rotating cylinder can be replaced by laser beams arranged in the ring.

 

Evidence of hidden dimensions

What evidence do we have that the first three dimensions are things that physically exist?

The dimensions are the abstract arbitrary concept. For example, the single space-time can have a different number of dimensions, depending on the character of energy spreading. Such number depends on the observational perspective, too.

From our observation perspective, here are many hidden dimensions. For example, the Casimir force (indirectly proportional to forth power of distance) or Lamb shift are direct evidence of hidden dimensions. The space isn't "just 3D", because for example the light wave has the spin and transfers moment at large distances. The "just 3D" environment cannot undulate in flat 3D Minkowski spacetime metric by such way. Can you imagine, how just 3D elastic material transfers spin at the distance? Me not. The symmetry or electron with respect of its spin is 720º - again, no body in "just 3D space" can have such degree of internal symmetry.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

From my point of view, any violation of ISL in three-dimensional space can serve as an indicia of hidden dimensions. But as I stated previously, the number of dimensions differs by observational perspective and every theory can serve as such observational perspective. .

Therefore, I don't believe in "just 3D Universe" at all, simply because I don't see any reason, why just number three should be so significant in explanation of space-time hierarchy, i.e. the anthropic principle strongly manifests here. The 3D space is most significant with respect of evolution of complex structures, because the system of just 3D hyperspheres is most compact with respect of energy spreading. This difference is quite subtle, but when extrapolated to very high density, it will reshape whole reality into 3D space-time foam for us. But I still believe, every particular view of the above model can be seamlessly converted into another, until we keep its implicit, recursive character.

For example, from heliocentric model perspective the solar system is pretty 3D system, but from Ptolemy epicycle model it's apparent highly dimensional system. After all, this is why it was rejected because of Occam's razor principle. But we can still interpret the Ptolemy models by hidden dimensions as well by applying proper spatial transform into heliocentric model. After then even the Venus phases and Lunar crater shadows will fit even the geocentric model well. It just will remain quite complex, but it's just about imagination of the plural nature of reality.

The AWT describes the Universe as a system of infinitely nested density fluctuations of hypothetical infinitely dense environment, i.e. the Aether. From outside such model could always appear as a low dimensional stuff - it just depends on the number of hierarchy levels nested inside it. Or you can imagine, you're formed by some level of fluctuations in the middle of hierarchy and after then the same model would appear a highly dimensional for you.

The observation of the same situation from both sides becomes significant, when observing the boundary of Universe, because many black holes can be interpreted as manifestation of cosmological event horizon, just being observed from outside. By my understanding the Universe appears like multi-throat Klein bottle or nested foam from very distant perspective, where the outer and inner perspective, future or past, etc appear mutually interchangeable. The understanding of such model is not complex, but its nothing for schematically biased thinkers, who are believing in their "best explanation" of Universe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

How does deuterium interacts with neutrons?

How does deuterium interacts with neutrons?

This can be a quite complex behavior. For example, you can use the mercury droplets model for its understanding. You can imagine, the neutrons are tiny droplets and the deuterium atom nuclei are these large ones. This is because the matter of atom nuclei is behaving like extremely dense fluid and the surface tension effects are heavily pronounced here.

Whenever such droplets collide, the result will depend on the mutual speed. If the speed is considerably low or the neutrons are falling under small angle to sample, the neutrons can bounce from atom nuclei due the weak nuclear interaction and deBroglie wave interference. If the neutrons will be of "proper" intermediate speed, both droplets will merge, thus creating a larger metastable droplet, which will decay less or more readily due the repulsive forces of weak isospin charge. We can expect a sort of inverse beta decay here due the temporal excess of neutrons, which is violating the ideal 1:2 proton-neutron ratio for nuclides.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If the neutrons will be too fast, the spallation of droplets will occur quite quickly instead of fusion. But at the extreme mutual speed somewhat strange behavior will occur: the asymptotically free quarks inside of droplets will behave like solid spheres inside of Newton cradle: the impact of neutrons from one side will release the second neutron from the opposite side of deuterium nuclei, the atom nuclei will remain intact miraculously and so called elastic scattering of neutrons will occur.

This is the reason, why the cross-section of neutrons strongly depends on their energy and why the neutron must be "moderated", before they can be used for nuclear fission. At the case of deuterium the energy of neutrons must be quite high to achieve it, because the deuterium nuclei is lightweight and the neutrons will transfer its momentum into it. This is the reason, why the lightweight atoms can serve as an effective moderators, considering the neutrons aren't absorbed by them too much.

 

Help me out on this. The way I see it is that the universe like a large sphere of gel floating in...whatever. What happens on one side, like a mild ripple, flows through the universe from one side to the other. Its not static rather like current underwater.

 

The observable Universe is random stuff, which appears like foam composed of density fluctuations of another foam... recursively. The energy is spreading through such foam in complex ripples, involving undulations of many nested foam levels at the same time. We cannot see the environment itself, just the density fluctuations of it by the same way, like during vapor condensation just the density fluctuations are visible for us.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

At each level of nested foam hierarchy the energy is propagating by two fundamental ways: in transversal and longitudinal waves. The transversal waves are usually more pronounced, because they're spreading along surface of density gradients (foam membranes) and as we know, the surface waves are usually much more intensive, then the bulk ones. The longitudinal waves are bulk waves, so they're propagating much faster, but they're weak and they're dispersing by foam membranes readily. This is the reason, why we can observe the light waves at the distance, while the gravitational waves not.

The nested foam hierarchy has no apparent outer boundary, but it would be interesting to deduce, how many levels of space-time hierarchy are truly detectable for us and whether after the certain number of Universe generations the foam interior becomes related to the highest generation of foam, it means, whether the universe can become closed and principally limited in size. Until we derive it, we should consider, the Universe is infinite by its true nature, but the randomly distributed giant density fluctuations can form the local Universe generations for us, similar to black holes.

 

AWT approach to Causal Dynamical Triangulation

The AWT approach to Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) of LQG. You can see, this approach is inertia based, in fact.

 

...put pseudoscience in the appropriate forum..

Why not - but what is pseudo-scientific on my models, in fact? In which aspect they violate the reality or at least the theories of contemporary mainstream science? I developed the AWT just to make the understanding of mainstream theories easier and more intuitive. Even the string theory has recently adopted the probability evolution concept, random evolution and random isotropic diffusion for determining the valid solution of string theory landscape.

Just try to define, what the pseudoscience is by reproducible way and your requirement will become feasible. If nothing else, my model can provoke the creative thinking and the discussion, what is wrong and correct on such approach and such discussion could improve the general level of understanding. After all, this is what the discussion forum is supposed to serve for.

You guys, please, don't handle the science as a religion. The science is matter of inter-subjective opinions. Every subjective claim and labeling such claim as pseudoscience violates the scientific method and the status of this forum. And the math approach doesn't mean, the same things cannot be understood by many ways. Be more opened to alternative views to reality.

For example, the Hawking radiation is usually explained by a virtual pairs separation in gravitational field. Technically it takes the virtual particles as a real particles, underlying the gravity. I've nothing against such approach - but is it really the only way, how to interpret such phenomena? Just consider, on how many unexplained yet phenomena such description depends in fact.

For example, we can consider the Hawking radiation as a process of radiative evaporation of dense droplets of matter into photons and maybe some leptons. The lower is the radius of droplet, the higher is the surface pressure of droplet, the higher speed of evaporation is. The analogy is quite evident here.

Or we can consider the Hawking radiation as a total reflection phenomena. The black hole is very dense, so its surface is behaving like surface of fluid sphere with light waves trapped inside due the total reflection. The total reflection is violated by the scratching of and undulation of surface, i.e. by quantum fluctuations of such surface. We can imagine, even the water surface is undulated by quantum fluctuations, so that even the best physical surface can violate the total reflection condition in certain extent.

Furthermore, the smaller glass sphere is, the smaller wavelength can be the waves, which can be kept inside. Such model enables to understand, why the wavelength of Hawking radiation decreases with BH diameter. It enables some predictions, too: if we put a massive body into BH, its fall will undulate the BH event horizon and the BH will release the energy trapped inside. And so on.

Recently the hydraulic jump model of BH was presented. Is it unscientific to think by such way? Apparently not, because without such model is not so easy to understand, why the optical fiber experiments can model the black hole phenomena. The math will not help you in such creative thinking and the understanding, because the math language "doesn't know", what the "hydraulic jump" or "optic fiber" is. Without such non formal models you could never understand the modern science completely.

Why the mainstream science proponents fights so obstinately against the non formal approach in science? Because here's a caveat in strictly formal approach, based on math. With using of math you can never become more insightful, then the author of original math model, simple because the formal rigor is strictly "what you put in, what you get" approach. By such way, the adherence on formal description of physics helps the scientists to keep their intellectual predominance over the rest of layman people - even if they learn the math language perfectly, they could never understand, how the formal models were derived originally. And the consciousness is the source of power or at least grant support.

This approach is nothing very new in the history of human civilization. Even the medicinmans and druids of the ancient era have guarded the pieces of deeper understanding like highest secret. So even the young scientists are fighting against the non formal approach in physics, because they haven't control over its development and every piece of non formal understanding will make their hardly memorized paradigms less significant.

 

Compare the Lubos Motl claim here:

"Also, there are the constantly repeated claims that Lorentz symmetry violation is predicted by string theory. It is certainly not predicted by any of the 10^{500} vacua that are often referred to when someone talks about the landscape. There are many such vacua but all of them uniformly agree about some extremely strong predictions such as the exact microscopic Lorentz symmetry. All constructions in string theory that are fully stringy as well as realistic preserve Lorentz symmetry.

The phenomenologists who write about Lorentz violation only use some string-inspired tools and words but they are not taking all of them into account and they are not doing full-fledged string theory.

The exact microscopic Lorentz symmetry is one of very many general and universal predictions of string theory. In string theory, it is a derivable fact and thus a prediction, not an assumption. So far it is passing all the tests."

By my opinion, no mathematically exact theory can derive by using of Lorentz symmetry postulate exactly the opposite as one of its theorems by rigorous way.

 

You've had it explained to you. You've admitted you don't even know what a global and local symmetry is in a field theory. You don't know how to compute breaking of symmetries. You don't know how any results in mainstream are rigorously developed from their postulates.

So 'your opinion' is nothing but a potent combination of lies, ignorance and stupidity.

Have you learnt what a 'local symmetry' is yet?

/edit

A quick example :

10D space-time, pre-compactification, in string theory has SO(9,1) symmetry. Upon compactification 6 of the spacial directions are no longer the same as the other 3. You now have broken SO(9,1) down to SO(3,1)xSO(6). The 4 space-time dimensions we see have local SO(3,1) symmetry. The 6 compact ones have, at most, SO(6). Throw in supersymmetry and you find you break SO(6) down to SU(3). And that's the definition of a Calabi Yau space.

And this is nothing but considering the shape of space-time. When you start putting objects like branes into space-time you get further breaking. For instance, putting a 2d plane in 3d space breaks the SO(3,1) symmetry down to SO(2,1) because in one of the space-time directions you now have an object which tells you when you rotate about an axis other than one perpendicular to the plane or boost in a direction which isn't parallel to the plane. Thus you have branes breaking Lorentz symmetry.

Precisely that which the multitude of links I provided you last time you piped up with this ignorance talked about. You obviously didn't read them and made no attempt to understand them.

So you continue to repeat your ignorance and lies hoping that if you tell the same lie enough times someone will believe you. And you claim you're interested in intellectual honest in science! You're the Roman Catholic Church telling Galileo "I don't understand it, so you're wrong!". You're just deluded enough to think you're Galileo.

 

If the string theory is able to derive the Lorentz symmetry violation at short distance by using of Lorentz symmetry, which is valid only locally, it basically means, the microscale scope corresponds the global scope of local symmetry, which isn't very convincing for me. How some microscale can make LS global case of local LS? Till now I believed, the microscale scope is more local, then the every other one....

Anyway, despite your offensive babbling, my stance still remains perfectly consistent with those of Motl, so you should explain us, how two string theory experts can differ in such significant point.:shrug: Please consider, the Lorentz symmetry violation at "short distance" was excluded (..uhm, well repeatedly) by thorough experiments already - so your stance isn't relevant even from experimental point of view.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The reality is somewhat different and definitely more fuzzy, then some formally thinking people are maybe willing to realize. Did you remember, I explained the theory formation like sort of phase transition in causal space-time?

Bellow is the scheme of some real phase transition, for example the boiling. It never exhibits a sharp boundary, as the gaseous phase is somewhat mixed with liquid one on the surface in the system of droplet and bubbles mixture. This is pretty pronounced at the case of dense supercritical fluid, where the phase boundary forms a sort of multidimensional phase composed of many intermediate steps, instead. In accordance with this, the scientific theories never appear suddenly: under more thorough investigation of its development history we can reveal a many less or more motivations, which have lead the people to throw out the older ideas and to replace them by new ones gradually.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

For example, while I'm a strong proponent of Aether concept, I didn't invented nothing spectacular in this area, I just collected many idicia for reintroduction of Aether concept back into physics. Most of connections were revealed by nearly one hundred years before in fact, the people just have forgotten them successfully - so they were forced to re-invent them again.

By the same way, Einstein (despite of his undeniable contribution to relativity theory, which was named by his proposal) collected many reasons for introduction of relativity into formal model of physics, but many substantial connections were revealed a many years before by different people, in many cases just on the background of Aether theory. With certain simplification we can say, the Einsteins fundamental work from 1905 contained Lorentz transform, derived from Aether model rewritten - and nothing else. We can be pretty sure, if the Einstein wouldn't introduce special relativity, the Poincaré of Hilbert would do the same a few years (if not months) later instead of him.

By the same way, when I collected the evidences of Aether, I was inspired by many contemporary theory results. So we can see, the theories are forming intersecting semi-continuous phases, and their proponents never disappear completely. We can say, the Aether concept was just sleeping inside heads of many people, but it was still here. You can think about as about sort of generalized uncertainty principle. Therefore the scientific theories are emergent phenomena and they appear (and disappear later) by the same way, like physical phases. The nature makes no sharp steps, only mathematicians can do.

Here are many interesting (and supposedly entertaining) connections of phase transitions with the evolution of science theories and/or evolution of biological paradigms. For example we can observe an apparent hysteresis here. This is because small droplets exhibits a higher surface tension of vapor, so here's some over-saturation/activation energy is required. By the analogous way, most of people don't accept a new concepts smoothly, it often requires a lotta patience to convince them, as the dominant ("mainstream") phase is apparently conservative. I perfectly know, what I'm talking about, as most of my attempts are documented on the web.

For further reading: Origin and Escalation of the Mass-Energy Equation Δ E= Δ mc2

 

Still haven't bothered to look up what 'local' and 'global' symmetries mean.

And yet you make claims about it, when you don't even know what the words mean. Thus proving you are dishonest.

And your evidence doesn't exclude short distance Lorentz violation. It just says "If it is violated, it's violated on a distance shorter than a micrometre". You don't even bother to understand your own sources!

Motl will definitely agree with things like compactification breaking the symmetry of space-time down from SO(9,1) to SO(3,1)xSO(6). I'd give you numerous references to major string theory books which discuss it, thus backing me up, but we both know you won't read them. You didn't even bother to load up Wikipedia to learn what a 'local symmetry' is in field theory.

 

When talking about space-time compactifications in context of string theory, we're still talking about symmetries inside of particles, not in the vacuum.