Duality of relativity and quantum mechanics

The dual (invariant to R-1/R transform) character or general relativity (GR) and quantum mechanics (QM) was expressed in 1997 in form of so called Maldacena duality, based on AdS-CFT correspondence (1). This duality is based on fact, every relativity phenomena can be perceived as quantum mechanics phenomena, when observing from exsintric perspective instead of insintric one. As a classical example can serve the gravitational lens phenomena, which appears like relativistic aberration from perspective of internal observer, while it manifests itself like quantum uncertainty phenomena violating Lorentz symmetry postulate from outside perspective (1, 2).



It can be demonstrated easily, QM is dual to relativity via duality of gravity to omnidirectional universe expansion. It's not so well known (mainstream science covers it), quantum mechanics suffers serious experimental problem in general, because it predicts, every free particle should expand into infinite volume by solution of time dependent Schrödinger equation. This discrepancy can be explained by potential of gravity field, which keeps the particle "at place". The problem is, gravity itself cannot be derived from QM by any way. The omnidirectional collapse of space-time would have the very same effect, though.


GR suffers the very dual problem, as the J.A.Wheeler has demonstrated by geon concept (1) of geometrodynamics. Geon is hypothetical closed artifact, formed just by gravity waves spreading by graviton field. Every particle or black hole can be considered a geon from certain perspective. Albeit from GR follows, such geon should collapse into singularity by its own gravity, which can be prevented by omnidirectional space-time expansion. By such way, validity of GR can be saved by concept of space-time expansion by the same way, like validity of QM depends on space-time collapse.

This apparent paradox can be reconciled by concept of black hole/gravastar (i.e. graviton or "dark energy" star), forming our Universe generation. The gravitational collapse of such object is followed by gradual increasing of its internal density, which manifest itself as a omnidirectional space-time expansion from internal observer perspective, i.e. perspective of observer, which is formed by standing waves of such environment. The single concept can therefore explain the conceptual problems of both GR, both QM at the same moment.



By such way, we can understand the gravity action as an acceleration force in terms of omnidirectional expansion inside of Aether density gradient. Such gradient makes a gradient of expansion speed, i.e. the gravity force. Such approach has even it's own testable predictions, for example in slowing of speed of light or by gradual expansion and dissolving of kilogram/meter prototypes from long-term perspective (1, 2, 3) and its closely related to dark matter and dark energy phenomena.



Now we can understand as well, why numeric prediction of cosmological constant by GR differs by two hundreds orders of magnitude from those predicted by QM. QM follows the model of collapsing universe, while GR considers the concept of expanding universe on background.

Was relativity proved by quantum mechanics phenomena?

The fractal character of nested Aether foam leads to the formation of dualities from human logic perspective. Consecutive logic of human thinking is dual to intuition, which is collective result of many synapses actions at the same time. Therefore by human logic the observable reality is described strictly by surface gradients and transversal wave spreading (so called "gradient driven reality"), while the information mediated by longitudinal waves of many particles is perceived as a "quantum chaos". Therefore Aether appears as composed from layers of causal membranes, surrounded/alternated by gradually more chaotic particle field and vice-versa. Human understanding consists of formal theories dualities, alternated by zones of intuitive understanding / philosophy, which are forming an uncrossable barriers between both theories from formal math perspective due their divergence into landscapes of infinite many solutions. On the other hand, every tendency to describe the universe by formal theory with infinite exactness leads into scrambled perceiving of reality as well, because of mixed inner/outer perspectives during interpretation of individual theories.

The supersymmetric situations, when formal model was used as a logical explanation of dual theory and vice-versa were not so rare in history of physics. The so-called geocentric model of Ptolemy was formalized by introducing of epicycles concept by Tycho de Brahe up to precision, which could serve for astronomical predictions well. Therefore Galileo opponents, the proponents of Holy Church in particular have objected to Galileo by predictability of geocentric model, which could serve as an indirect confirmation of its logical validity. How we know today, this logic was quite weak from observational perspective - but still not quite wrong from more AWT perspective.

The very same situation has repeated in physics at the beginning of 20th century, when Einstein has come with his relativity theory. With respect to relativity, the quantum mechanics is dual theory in many aspects. Therefore is nothing strange, Einstein has opposed quantum mechanics violently, especially its concept of quantum uncertainty ("God does not play dices with the universe.", EPR paradox) by the similar way, like many string theorists are objecting the LQG theory by now. The relativistic aberration (observed first by Eddington, 1921) and gravitational lensing (observed by F. Zwicky 1932) are both considered as iconic phenomena of general relativity. Therefore we can expect, Einstein would be quite surprised by claim, the relativistic aberration or gravitational lensing are quantum mechanics phenomena, not relativity effects. While such stance appears ridiculous (both effects were predicted and computed just by using of relativity) - exactly the opposite appears correct from AWT perspective!

The main problem is, the gravitational lensing was interpreted as a result of space-time curvature, which should manifest itself by time dilatation, which was never measured directly. From strictly causal perspective, only the curvature of light path can be measured due the local character of (special) relativity theory. By special relativity the light is always spreading by constant speed through vacuum, so no refraction phenomena should be observed both at macroscopic scale, both at microscopic scale, if we consider, the elementary particles are pinpoint objects, surrounded by vacuum, too. The observer, falling into black hole would see the speed of light unchanged and straightforward even at the case, he would encircled the black hole together with photons, thus effectively staying at rest from more general perspective. As we can see, every local postulate violates explicit theory from more general perspective less or more lately.

The quantum gravity character of relativistic aberration follows from the fact, the fragmentation of image by gravity lens introduces a multiverse aspect into observation, because it makes the observed object location uncertain, thus violating a single-time arrow causality and Lorentz symmetry. By such way, prof. Einstein succeeded in persuasion of mainstream physics community about validity of relativity theory by using of experiment, which can be interpreted as a direct violation of Lorentz invariance and relativity as such..;-) We can compare it to the "proof" of geocentric model on background of successful prediction of solar eclipses by using of epicycle model of Ptolemy. While lack of exactness is apparent in every theory based on non-formal logic, such doublethink and lack of logic is less or more hidden problem of every formal approach as a manifestation of Gödel uncertainty theorem.

Aether and Lorentz invariance

The concept of Lorentz invariance is basic postulate of special relativity theory and one of most deeply misunderstood concepts of Aether theory, being considered incompatible with relativity in general. The true is, the light speed invariance can be derived easily from Maxwell's Aether theory of light, based on transversal wave spreading. As I demonstrated already, the ability of luminiferous Aether to spread the light of whatever energy density effectively implies the very dense environment and the transversal character of energy spreading (which is required for casual spreading of information) in it, because the sparse Aether cannot spread the EM waves of whatever energy density. Therefore the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) shouldn't be used for disapproval of Aether theory - but for effective confirmation of it, instead. It shoud be noted, with contrary to widespread belief the negative result of MMX cannot serve as a confirmation of relativity, because the light speed invariance isn't theorem, but a postulate (i.e. sort of axiomatic tautology) in special relativity theory.

Another general source of Aether misunderstanding is the common belief, the concept of particle environment isn't compatible with light speed invariance and the relativistic physics in general. This is nonsense, because the common interpretation of Galileo transform isn't compatible with relativistic Lorentz transform. The spreading of sound wave in air cannot be considered as analogy of light spreading in vacuum, until we consider the sound wave as the only source of information including the time and distance intervals measurement, i.e. by the same way, like during light spreading in vacuum. The common understanding of wave spreading in particle medium usually involves at least TWO kind of waves (the light wave, used for time/distance measurement and the studied/observed wave itself), while during light spreading in vacuum the only kind of energy spreading can be considered (the light wave serves here both as the subject of observation, both the mean of observation). This general inconsistency in experiment interpretation leads to the (false) conclusion, the Newtonian mechanics and the invariance of energy wave speed in particle environment is incompatible with the light speed invariance (and the relativity theory in general). As we can see, it's just a result of fundamental inconsistency of experimental arrangement, instead. Therefore MMX cannot give a positive result, simply because it’s virtually impossible to detect every environment just by it’s waves. If some particle is serving for wave spreading, it cannot be observed just by this wave and nothing very strange is about. No object can serve as a mean of it’s own observation and the inner and outer perspectives cannot be mixed.

The similar mistake consists in widespread belief, the absence of reference frame excludes the existence of luminiferous Aether, the particle environment in general. In fact, no particle in such environment cannot serve as an subject of observation and the mean of observation at the same time, therefore the absence of reference frame is the natural consequence of energy wave spreading inside of such environment, if we make sure, the same kind of wave is serving as object and mean of observation, i.e. by the same way, like during light spreading in vacuum. As the waves in particle environment are mixture of longitudinal and transversal waves in general, we can follow the above rule and the absence of reference frame most efficiently at the cases, when only transversal wave spreading prevails - for example at the case of capillary waves spreading along water surface, which is driven by surface tension (nearly) completely. With respect of these waves the water surface is behaving like thin elastic membrane with (nearly) no underwater (motion/reference frame) at all - so we can see clearly, the transversal wave spreading in particle environment is really background independent and no additional postulates are required to consider here.

By analogous way, we cannot observe the water surface by using of water waves and nothing very strange is about. The water surface will always appear as a void, empty space from surface waves perspective, because it just serves as an environment for these waves. The common observation of water waves by light waves cannot serve as a direct analogy of observation of light waves by using waves in vacuum, simply because in vacuum only one kind of waves can be always involved in experiment - the waves of light. So here’s nothing strange about different results of "classical physics" experiments, which were made in different arrangement(s). This doesn’t mean of course, the classical mechanics differs from reality conceptually - it just means, we aren’t observing wave phenomena by the same way, like during experiments in vacuum - that’s all. The Lorentz invariance (symmetry) of Aether is valid as long the transversal character of wave spreading is retained. Because the transversal wave spreading is the only causal way of information spreading considered for human creatures, the Lorentz invariance follows automatically from unitary time arrow and vice-versa: the quantum uncertainty related to multiplicity of time arrows and longitudinal energy wave spreading is equivalent to Lorentz symmetry violation.

Note that the transversal wave is the case, where the energy spreads by the slowest speed through such environment, i.e. here's a minimum of the celerity / wavelength dependence. This makes the environment as large, as possible from internal observer perspective - so we can say, the Universe appears so large for us just because of transversal character of light spreading. It's somewhat surprising, these fundamental connections were revealed after nearly four hundred years after postulation of particle luminiferous Aether concept by R. Descartes (1644) and Ch. Huygens (1678) on behalf of positivistic, ad-hoced (i.e. belief based) consideration of relativistic postulates.

"All our attempts to make ether real failed. It revealed neither its mechanical construction nor absolute motion. Nothing remained of all the properties of the ether except that for which it was invented, i.e., its ability to transmit electromagnetic waves. Our attempts to discover the properties of the ether led to difficulties and contradictions. After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name."

(The Evolution of Physics Einstein 1938)