Red, theory; black, fact
Back to the Aether Theory
This post was inspired by the realization that to progress in physics, we need to accept the Newtonian position that absolute space exists. Not only that, but that absolute space is complicated, like a network, crystal, or condensate.
The Reasons
1) Too many fundamental constants of nature (20, according to Lee Smolin) are required to explain the behaviour of supposedly elementary particles with no internal structures to which such constants could refer.
2) The wave model and the particle model of mass and energy are both very useful in Quantum Mechanics, our best theory of the very small. The wave model demands some kind of medium and thus an absolute frame of reference. The particle model, however, does not demand its absence. For example, observing frictionless motion of a particle could be due to the absolute frame of reference being a region of superfluid. Relativity theory uses the particle model exclusively and denies the existence of an absolute frame of reference, but this conclusion comes at the end of a long and convoluted chain of reasoning and is thus weaker than the claim made by use of the wave model.
3) The importance of the speed of light in Relativity is highly consistent with the wave model: it could be the propagation speed of the waves underlying both matter and energy.
The Medium is Complex
Thus, I assume that the fundamental constants refer to the vacuum between the particles, now more readily understood as a complex medium. Looking at the pattern set by the rest of physics and cosmology, such a medium may more readily be understood as a condensate of myriad "space-forming entities." Matter would be flaws in this condensate, entropy left over from its rapid formation. Energy may have the same relation to time: irregularities in its rate of progression.
The Thought Barrier
To theorize about how space formed and what came before it, we have to give up visualization. I suspect this will be a big deal for most physicists. However, the abstractions of higher math may be an island of understanding already existing on the far side of the spatial thought barrier.
Beyond the Thought Barrier
In other words, sets, integers, categories, mappings, etc., may be concrete things, and not abstractions at all. Presumably, our spatial and temporal reality still bears the properties it had from the very earliest stages of the universe, co-existing with later-developed properties, which have enabled mathematicians throughout history to access the deepest levels of description of reality, deeper than space-time itself.
Set Theory as Physics Beyond the Barrier
Consider set theory. Can the familiar concepts of set, union, intersection, and complement be placed into correspondence with physical processes and objects in today's space-time to make a case that set theory is pre-spatial physics, so primordial as to be unimaginable if thought of as the rules of a real universe?
Development
1) To get started, we have to begin with Leibniz's monads, the "empty set," now considered a real thing. (If you must visualize these, visualize something unpretentious like Cheereos™ floating in milk, when the bowl has reached the single-layer stage.)
2) The physical process of binding is prefigured by the set-theoretical operation of union. In the simplest case, two monads combine to form a second-order set.
3) The physical process of pattern recognition, which is, in essence, energy release, is prefigured by intersection. Note that with intersection, the internal subset structure of the set is important, suggesting that the "operating system" of the universe at this stage must keep track of such structures.
4) We can associate a size measure with a set, namely the total of all the monads inside it once all subsets have been accounted for. The usefulness of numbers in dealing with the world is explained if this size measure is the basis of laws governing what sets may combine as unions and in what frequency (i.e., fraction of all sets extant.)
5) The fact that most of physics seems to be governed by differential equations may be prefigured by a tendency of these combining laws to depend on the difference of two sizes.
6) The set-theoretical operation of complementation may prefigure the existence of positive and negative charge and the Pauli exclusion principle of fermions, on which molecular complementarity interactions depend.



