zotero-db/storage/BGKAAAMF/.zotero-ft-cache

В . А . Atsyukov v s kkoy
General ether dynamics

RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES
V.A. ATSYUKOVSKY
General ether dynamics
MODELING OF MATTER AND FIELD STRUCTURES ON THE
BASIS OF REPRESENTATIONS
ABOUT THE GASLIKE ETHER
Edition 2nd
MOSCOW ENERGOATOMIZDAT
2003

UDC 530.3.
Atsyukovsky V.A. General Ether Dynamics. Modeling of structures of matter and fields on the basis of representations about gas-like ether. Second edition. Moscow: Energoatomizdat, 2003. 584 с.
ISBN 5-283-03229-9
On the basis of ideas about the ether as a real viscous and compressible gas the ether-dynamic interpretation of the basic structures of matter and mechanisms of physical fields of interactions is given. The models of basic stable elementary particles: proton, neutron, electron, photon, as well as atomic nuclei, atoms and some molecules are considered. The ether dynamical bases of the mechanisms of strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions are developed. The ether dynamical interpretation of the basic equations of quantum mechanics is given. The equations of electromagnetic field and gravitation are clarified. The model of the stationary dynamical Universe is developed.
For researchers and university students specializing in applied physics. Table 28, fig. 151. Bibliogr. 517 names.
Orders for the book and CD-ROM should be sent to: 140182 Zhukovsky-2, Moscow region, P.O. Box 285

ISBN

Author, 2003

5-283-03229-9©

3
Table of contents
Preface .........................................................................................7
Introduction ..................................................................................8
Chapter 1: The Methodological Crisis of Modern Physics ..14
1.1. The crisis of physics at the end of the 19th century and the "physical revolution"
early twentieth century .............................................................................14 1.2. The role of Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum theory.
mechanics in preparation for a new crisis of physics........................17 1.3. The crisis of modern theoretical physics.............................................23 1.4. Physical revolutions as major milestones in the development of
natural science ..................................................................................29 1.5. On the significance of militant materialism today.............................40 Conclusions ...............................................................................................43
Chapter 2: A Brief History of the Ether..............................46
2.1. A brief overview of the theories and models of the ether..................46 2.2. Disadvantages of known hypotheses, theories and models of the ether 62 2.3. Etheric Wind. Reality and falsification..............................................64 Conclusions ...............................................................................................71
Chapter 3: Methodological Foundations of Ether Dynamics74
3.1. On some provisions of dialectical materialism..................................74 3.2. Methodology of ether dynamics .........................................................80 3.2.1. General physical invariants.............................................................80 3.2.2. Model (qualitative) representations of structures and processes ....90 3.2.3. Ways to uncover the inner workings of phenomena ......................95 Conclusions .............................................................................................100
Chapter 4. The structure of ether..........................................103
4.1. The structure of ether.......................................................................103 4.2. Determination of numerical values of ether parameters ....................108 4.3. Forms of ether motion .....................................................................116 Conclusions ............................................................................................126
Chapter 5. Structure of gas vortices and their environmental interaction ..........................................127
5.1. A brief history of the theory of vortex motion ................................127

5.2. Formation and structure of a linear gas vortex ................................1314 5.3. Gas vortex energetics .......................................................................139 5.4. The motion of a gas around a linear vortex. Energy paradox..........149 5.5. Formation and structure of toroidal gas vortices. Formation of helical
motion .............................................................................................152 5.6. Gas motion in the vicinity of a toroidal vortex ................................161 5.6.1. Toroidal and annular gas motion in the vicinity of a helical toroidal
vortex ............................................................................................161 5.6.2. Temperature field near the vortex and vortex absorption of the
surrounding gas .............................................................................164 5.7. Vortex diffusion ...............................................................................167 5.8. Force interactions of gas and vortices .............................................170 5.8.1. Essence of force effects of the gas medium
on the bodies.................................................................................170 5.8.2. Frontal impact of gas flow on a body ..........................................171 5.8.3. Lateral effects of gas flow on the body .........................................172 5.8.4. Thermodynamic effect of the medium on the body .....................175 Conclusions .............................................................................................178
Chapter 6. Nucleons and atomic nuclei .............................181
6.1. A brief history of atomic nucleus research ......................................181 6.2. Determination of ether dynamical parameters of the proton .............185 6.3. The physical nature of strong nuclear and
electromagnetic interactions of protons..........................................196 6.4. Neutron formation and structure ......................................................206 6.5. Models of atomic nuclei...................................................................207 6.5.1. Basic etherodynamic principles of structural organization of atomic
nuclei ...............................................................................................207 6.5.2. Some general properties of composite nuclei...............................212 6.5.3. Structure of complex nuclei ..........................................................223 6.6. Excited states of vortex toroids are weak
nuclear interactions ..........................................................................234 6.7. Nuclear isomerism...........................................................................238 Conclusions .............................................................................................241
Chapter 7: Atoms, Molecules, Matter..................................243
7.1. A brief history of the development of atomic physics and the quantum mechanics ..........................................................................243
7.2. On some features of the philosophy of quantum mechanics ...........249 7.3. Hydromechanical treatment of the equations of quantum mechanics
.........................................................................................................253 7.4. Structure of electron shells of atoms and molecules .......................265

7.5. Formation of molecules ...................................................................2735 7.6. Formation of intermolecular bonds...................................................277 7.7. Heat and aggregate states of matter .................................................283 7.8. Physical essence of electrical and thermal conductivity of metals..286 7.9. Aura .................................................................................................290 7.10. Mechanism of catalysis..................................................................292 Conclusions ............................................................................................294
Chapter 8: Electromagnetic Phenomena ...........................297
8.1. A brief history of the development of the theory of electromagnetism 297 8.2. Physical essence of electromagnetism..............................................307 8.2.1. Units of electric and magnetic quantities
in the ISS system ..........................................................................307 8.2.2. Free electron structure...................................................................310 8.2.3. Physical essence of the electric field ..............................................313 8.2.4. Capacitor (capacitance) .................................................................317 8.2.5. Free electron in electric field........................................................319 8.2.6. Physical essence of electric current in metal ................................323 8.2.7. Physical essence of the magnetic field .........................................328 8.2.8. Free electron in a magnetic field ..................................................334 8.2.9. Inductance. Mechanism of the phenomenon of self-induction ......337 8.3. Electromagnetic interactions.............................................................341 8.3.1. Force interaction of conductors with current ................................341 8.3.2. Conductor mutual induction..........................................................346 8.3.3. Electrical transformer....................................................................358 8.3.4. Electromagnetic induction ............................................................364 8.3.5. DC-magnet interaction..................................................................366 8.3.6. Permanent magnet interaction.......................................................368 8.4. Electromagnetic field........................................................................370 8.4.1. Maxwell's equations and their limitations ....................................370 8.4.2. Some refinements of the equations of electrodynamics .................381 8.4.3. Types of electromagnetic radiation ...............................................397 8.4.4. Quasi-static field of stray currents ................................................399 8.4.5. Structure of a transverse electromagnetic wave.............................402 8.4.6. Structure of a longitudinal electromagnetic wave..........................404 Conclusions .............................................................................................408
Chapter 9. Light.....................................................................410
9.1. A brief history of optics...................................................................410 9.2. Photon structure...............................................................................415 9.3. Moving photons in space .................................................................429 9.4. Optical phenomena...........................................................................434 9.4.1. Reflection of light ..........................................................................434

9.4.2. Refraction of light..........................................................................436 9.4.3. Interference....................................................................................438 9.4.4. Diffraction ....................................................................................439 9.4.5. Aberration .....................................................................................441 9.4.6. Interaction of light rays ..................................................................445 Conclusions .............................................................................................446
Chapter 10. Gravitational interactions ..................................448
10.1. Brief history of the development of ideas about gravitation .........448 10.2. Thermodiffusion processes in the ether as a basis for gravitational
interactions of bodies ....................................................................454 10.3. Propagation speed of gravitational interaction ..............................466 10.4. Absorption of ether by gravitational masses ...................................467 10.5. Magnetism of celestial bodies as a consequence of their absorption
of ether...........................................................................................476 Conclusions ............................................................................................479
Chapter 11: Ether and cosmology.........................................481
11.1. Modern cosmology and cosmogony..............................................481 11.2. Circulation of ether in the Universe...............................................483 11.3. Structure of a spiral galaxy .............................................................489 11.4. Ephyrodynamic functional classification
galaxies and extragalactic astronomy.............................................496 11.5. Stars and their evolution.................................................................507 11.6. Solar system as an element of the Galaxy......................................515 11.7. Etheric wind and the structure of the Earth ...................................526 11.8. Resistance of the ether to the motion of celestial bodies...............534 11.9. Comets...........................................................................................536 11.10. Resolution of cosmological paradoxes in ether dynamics ...........547 Conclusions .............................................................................................554
Conclusion ........................................................................................556 Literature ..........................................................................................557

7
Preface
I see the future of physics in the continuation mechanical models.
A.Rey.
There is nothing in the world but ether and its vortices R. Descartes. The beginnings of philosophy. 1650 г.
The present work is a development of the ether-dynamic picture of the world, presented by the author for the first time in the article "Dynamik des Athers" (Ideen des exakten Wissens. Stuttgart 1974. N 2. S. 48-58), further in the book "Introduction to Ether Dynamics. Model representations of structures of matter and fields on the basis of gas-like ether", published by VINITI i n 1980, then in the work "General ether dynamics", published there in 1987, then in the book "General ether dynamics. Modeling of the structures of matter and fields on the basis of the gas-like aether" (M., Energoatomizdat, 1990).
In the time since the books were published, the author has repeatedly had to present these materials to a variety of audiences, including several yearlong cycles of lectures in the Lecture Hall of the Polytechnic Museum, with interest usually shown by applied physicists and practicing engineers. This can be explained by the fact that it is to this circle of persons that new problems arise that cannot be solved by existing and recognized theories alone. The comments received during the discussions of the papers, as well as the comments of numerous readers, were the reason for the appearance of additions and in some cases clarifications of some provisions of ether dynamics.
The materials presented in this book should not be regarded as a solution to the problem of the universe, but rather as a statement of this problem, in the solution of which many researchers of private directions should take part.
The author expresses his deep gratitude to all the persons who have had the opportunity to review this work and whose advice he has benefited from in preparing the manuscript for publication.
* (Lenin V.I. Philosophical Notebooks. PSS, 5th ed. M.: T.29. P. 499)

8
Introduction .
The form of development of natural science, as it thinks, is the hypothesis. Observation discovers some new fact that makes impossible the previous way of explaining facts belonging t o t h e s a m e group. From this point onwards, the need for new ways of explanation arises.
F.Engels. Dialectics of Nature.
In the theory of cognition, as in all other fields of science, one should approach dialectically, i.e. not to assume that our cognition is ready-made and unchangeable, but to analyze how knowledge emerges from ignorance, how incomplete, inaccurate knowledge becomes more and more complete and accurate.
V.I.Lenin. Materialism and Empiriocriticism.
At the end of the twentieth century it became clear to many that modern physics had reached a dead end and its traditional phenomenological, postulative and axiomatic methods could not give anything new for the development of natural science. Attempts "The accumulation of new data in some areas does not practically lead to an understanding of their essence, but on the contrary, increasingly obscures the overall picture of the universe. The accumulation of new data on individual directions practically does not lead to the understanding of their essence, but, on the contrary, increasingly obscures the overall picture of the universe. Theory provides less and less help to practitioners in solving their applied problems. This means that natural science as a whole and its leading branch physics - are in a deep crisis, first of all, in a crisis of methodology.
It should be recalled that natural science in general and physics, in particular, have already been in crisis during the last centuries. It happened at the end of the XVIII century, when the possibility of creating a wide variety of substances from the same initial components was discovered, at the end of the XIX century, when new physical phenomena appeared that did not fit into the usual concepts of "classical" physics, and now, at the crossroads of the XX and XXI centuries, history has repeated itself. This situation should be understood not as a scientific catastrophe, but as exhaustion of the outdated methodology. This means the necessity of revision of all the accumulated experience

9
material, including that which does not fit into the established concepts,
and the need to search for a new methodology capable of covering all this
material on a unified basis and, on this basis, to identify new research
directions and solve the accumulated applied problems. Attention is drawn to the fact that the way out of the crisis state has
always been found in the ways of deepening into the structure of matter, i.e. attracting to the consideration of the building material of already mastered forms of organization of matter. This corresponds to the position put forward by the famous chemist A . M.Butlerov that
"the properties of any system are determined by its composition and structure". When there were many molecules, atoms - the building material
of m o l e c u l e s - were introduced into consideration; molecules turned out to be a combinatorics of atoms. When atoms became many, elementary particles of matter were introduced into consideration - the building material of atoms, atoms turned out to be a combinatorics of
elementary particles. The same way is possible now: elementary particles turned out to be many - from 200 to 2000, depending on what to take for elementary particles. But all of them are able to transform into each other, and this is a direct indication that they have in their basis a common building material, the "bricks" of which are many times smaller than the elementary particles themselves. And since it was possible to create such particles in vacuum by creation of strong fields, it means that in the whole world space there are such bricks, they form a single medium - aether. And now the main tasks are to determine the properties of this world medium and to find out the
mechanism of formation of all these "elementary p a r t i c l e s " of matter, and then of the entire universe.
The present work is an attempt to present the author's ideas about the inner unity of various forms of material entities and physical phenomena.
The necessity of writing this book was caused by the fact that the author has long ago realized the limited capabilities of existing methods of theoretical physics in solving applied problems. Phenomenological, descriptive methods cover the surface of phenomena, external sides and do not allow to reveal their essence. Failure to understand the internal mechanism of phenomena, the essence of material structures leads to the impossibility of finding out the reasons why physical phenomena are the way they are and not other. It also leads to impossibility of prediction of new directions of researches. There appears a closed ring in which science indicates the directions of experiments in a narrow circle of phenomena, and

10
experiments confirm with their results the statements of science that are true for this circle. New ideas do not arise here.
However, modern science needs exactly the inflow of new ideas to solve new practical problems arising before it. This requires an in-depth understanding of processes, penetration into the inner essence of material formations and physical phenomena, revealing the essence of internal motion of the constituent parts of processes. And it means the necessity of application of dynamic methods of researches, search of laws of formation of material structures and internal mechanisms of phenomena. Dynamic methods of research require the attraction of model representations, the study of analogies with known phenomena, and at this stage - the search for common structures of material formations at all levels of organization of matter and common bases of all physical phenomena and interactions.
It is experimentally proved that the "physical vacuum" is able under certain conditions to "give birth" to elementary particles of matter. Hence, firstly, the confirmation of the idea of the monism of nature from the matter of the "physical vacuum" to the Universe as a whole, and secondly, it points to the presence in the "physical vacuum" of parts of "elementary particles" of matter and to the fact that the totality of these parts forms a material medium filling the world space. Such medium should have quite concrete physical properties and be the basis of all material formations, physical fields and phenomena.
Thus, the search for the basis of various forms of material formations and physical phenomena leads to the necessity of using the next, deeper compared to the achieved one, level of matter organization. Since the level of organization of m a t t e r into material particles should be considered as more or less mastered, the element of organization of matter at the new, next level should be a material formation, the size of which is essentially smaller than the size of the smallest of the known ones "elementary particles" of matter. Such a material formation was once called by Democritus a "amer". The aggregate of amers forms aether, a medium that fills the entire world space, is a building material for all kinds of matter and is responsible for all kinds of physical interactions: nuclear strong, nuclear weak, electromagnetic and gravitational, as well as some others, nowadays not yet realized and mastered.
Unlike known theories, hypotheses and models of the ether, the proposed work does not idealize the ether. Logical analysis

11
phenomena of the microcosm and macrocosm showed that the ether has properties of an ordinary real gas - density, pressure, temperature, viscosity, compressibility and other properties of ordinary gases. Such a model has not been considered by anyone before, but it allows us to avoid the mistakes made by the authors of the previous theories, hypotheses and models of the ether, who idealized the ether in one way or another, which inevitably led to the emergence of contradictions within the initial assumptions of these theories, hypotheses and models.
The ideas about the ether as a gas-like medium could appear only on the basis of the analysis of the behavior of "elementary particles" of matter during their interactions, and not only on the basis of the analysis of the properties of the macrocosm, as it was done earlier. Consequently, before the accumulation of data on the behavior of now known microparticles, i.e. before the 60s of the last century, such representations practically could not arise. Therefore, attempts to make a consistent picture of the world on the basis of ideas about the ether could not succeed at that time. However, now such an attempt is quite timely.
The paper shows that at all levels of organization of matter, from the Universe as a whole to elementary particles and ether, the same physical laws operate. This means that for the functional analysis of phenomena the apparatus of ordinary mathematical physics can and should be used, which, of course, does not exclude the use of any other mathematics for individual cases, but there can be no question of any preferential position of mathematics with respect to physics. In the first place should always be the physical essence of phenomena, reflected in the physical model. Mathematics is an auxiliary means of analysis, which can be applied only after the development of a clear physical model.
To analyze the states of the ether as a gas-like body, the apparatus of gasand hydromechanics can be used to a great extent. Unfortunately, in these traditional areas of classical physics there are not only achievements, but also shortcomings, in many respects complicating research. Nevertheless, many provisions developed by the above sections of physics allow us to construct models of various forms of matter and physical interactions and to carry out their investigations.
Attempts to use the apparatus of gas and hydromechanics to explain the structure of material entities and various physical phenomena and to build a unified picture of the world have

12
centuries of history. It is enough to recall the names of Thales of Miletus, Democritus, Anaximander, R.Descartes, I.Newton, M.V.Lomonosov, L.Boltzmann, W.Thomson (Lord Kelvin), M.Faraday, J.K.Maxwell, J.J.Thomson, A.K. Timiryazev, N.P.Kasterin, V.F.Mitkevich and many others to realize that this direction has a solid foundation to which currently there is an unprecedented progress.Timiryazev, N.P.Kasterin, V.F.Mitkevich and many others to realize that this direction has a solid foundation, which is currently undeservedly neglected. The task of the author of the proposed work was to attract and generalize, taking into account the experimental data of the last decades, the disparate results obtained by numerous researchers. As in every generalization, in some cases the ideas about particular phenomena were clarified.
The emergence of ether-dynamics at present is predetermined by the whole course of development of natural science for the whole previous history of natural science. The development of natural science has always proceeded by deepening into hierarchical levels of organization of matter. From nature as a whole (Thales, VI century BC) to substances (Aristotle, IV century BC), then to substances (Paracelsus, XVI century), then to molecules and atoms (corpuscles - Lomonosov, elements - Lavoisier, XVIII century; Dalton, XIX century), then to elementary particles of matter (Faraday, XIX century; Rutherford, XX century). Each such transition marked a physical revolution and led to qualitatively new discoveries and qualitatively new knowledge. Now the next transition to the next, even deeper level of matter organization - ether and its element - amer is ripe.
The material presented below can be divided into two parts according to the degree of reliability. The first, the most reliable, includes everything related to the problem statement and the general methodology of the approach to its solution. This material is presented in the first three chapters and partially in the fourth chapter. To the second part, which requires clarification during the subsequent development of ether dynamics, we should refer all numerical calculations of the ether parameters, presented in the fourth chapter, as well as all structural constructions of models of material formations, interactions and specific physical phenomena. In spite of the logical closedness of the whole material, the presence of numerical calculations, mainly corresponding to the experimental data, the realization of some experiments confirming the initial assumptions, all this, of course, is still in an incomplete form, and some constructions correspond so far only to the level of hypotheses.
It should be specially emphasized that, in spite of the rich prehistory of the question, etherrodynamics makes only the first real steps connected with the engineering approach to the problem

13
of the world order. Undoubtedly, the subsequent development of these provisions will require the intervention of specialists in specific areas, who are likely to change and clarify a lot of things.

14
Chapter 1: The methodological crisis of modern physicists
The history of ideas is the history of struggle and, therefore, the struggle of ideas. V.I.Lenin.
Views on the nature of things must be continuously improved by learning new facts and generalizing them scientifically. August Kekule
1.1. The crisis of physics in the late nineteenth century and the "physical revolution" of the early twentieth century.
As it is known, at the end of XIX - beginning of XX centuries there was a crisis in physics. This crisis was expressed in the fact that in the process of realizing the consequences to which the provisions of the so-called "classical physics", recognized by all, lead, their contradictions with the real reality became clear.
Thus, the extension of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to the whole Universe led to the Neumann-Seliger gravitational paradox, according to which at any point of infinite space the gravitational potential is infinitely large, and this cannot be. The notion of infinite space led to the photometric paradox of Shezo-Olbers, according to which at any point of the firmament a star should be observed and the whole sky should shine, but this is not observed. Finally, the Second Beginning of Thermodynamics led to the Clausius Thermodynamic Paradox, according to which all temperatures in the Universe will one day equalize, all processes will stop, and the "Heat Death of the Universe" will occur. If the first two paradoxes were still somehow tolerable, the third paradox caused a general panic. And it did not occur to anybody that all these consequences are only consequences of incompleteness of the accumulated knowledge.
And when at the end of XIX - beginning of XX century in physics there were a number of discoveries that did not fit into the ideas of "classical" physics - X-rays (K.Röntgen, 1895), radioactivity (A.Becquerel, 1896), electron (J.Thomson, 1897), inconsistency of black body radiation energy distribution with experience (M.Planck, 1900), presence of nucleus in atom (E.Rutherford, 1911), then there was a general confusion. But instead of recognizing the incompleteness of the "generally accepted" theories, physicists followed the way of denying the matter itself and preferring abstract mathematics to it.

15
In 1909, Lenin's book "Materialism and Empiriocriticism" [1] was published. Extensive literature is devoted to the analysis of this widely known work. Let us recall some provisions expressed and substantiated by V.I.Lenin in this book.
The development of science in the 19th century showed the limited nature of the physical picture of the world that existed until then. The revision of a number of concepts developed by the former classical physics began, whose representatives, as a rule, stood on the positions of spontaneous, unconscious, often metaphysical materialism, from the point of view of which new physical discoveries seemed inexplicable. This was b e c a u s e classical physics proceeded from the metaphysical identification of matter with certain and very limited ideas about its structure. When it turned out that these ideas did not correspond to the data obtained by experience, then instead of clarifying their incomplete ideas about the essence of matter, idealist philosophers, as well as individual physicists began to prove the "inconsistency" of materialism, deny the objective value of scientific theories, see the purpose of science only in the description of phenomena, etc.
Lenin pointed out that the possibility of idealistic interpretation of scientific discoveries is contained in the very process of cognition of objective reality, generated by the very progress of science.
The penetration into the depths of the atom, attempts to isolate its elementary parts led to the strengthening of the role of mathematics in the development of physical knowledge, which in itself was a positive phenomenon. However, mathematization of physics, as well as incompleteness, relativity, relativism of our knowledge in the period of radical change of ideas about the physical world contributed to t h e crisis of physics and were epistemological sources "physical" idealism.
In the conditions of crisis situation in physics, idealist philosophers made an attempt to oust materialism from natural science, to impose their explanation of new discoveries on physics, to reconcile science and religion. According to the figurative expression of V.I.Lenin, "the new physics went mad in idealism, mainly b e c a u s e physicists did not know dialectics" [1, pp. 276-2-2]. [1, pp. 276-277], i.e. physicists did not take into account the necessity to clarify their ideas about the structure of matter a n d instead preferred to simply throw matter out of the theory and replace it with abstract mathematics. Physicists, as Lenin rightly noted, "matter has disappeared, only equations remain"[1, p. 326],

16
because scientists have actually abandoned the ideas about the physical essence of phenomena, t h e model ideas about the structure and motions of matter, which constitute the essence of any physical phenomenon.
Lenin pointed out in his work that "modern physics lies in labor. It gives birth to dialectical materialism. The labor is painful. In addition to a living and viable being, they give inevitably some dead products, some garbage, to be sent to the premises for filth. Among these garbage are all physical idealism, all empiriocritical philosophy together with empiriosymbolism, empiriomonism, e t c . " [1, с. 332]. To the great regret, all this turned out to be true also in relation to the state of physics of the late twentieth century. The birth of dialectical materialism by physics was clearly delayed. Physical idealism, empiriocriticism, all the dregs of the "painful genera of physics", about which Lenin warned, blossomed lushly. It can be argued that all of Lenin's criticisms of theoretical physics of t h e late 19th - early 20th centuries h a v e fully retained their significance in relation to modern theoretical physics - the physics of the second half - late 20th century.
What was the philosophical basis of such a situation? Today it can be argued that the philosophical basis of the crisis of physics in the late XIX early XX centuries was the dogmatism of physical theory, the so-called "classical" physics [2, pp. 7-12; 66-71]. It fetishized several "well-studied" "laws" of nature and became deadlocked whenever these "laws" led to obvious incongruities or, as they are commonly called, paradoxes. It did not set itself the task of understanding the inner essence of physical phenomena, but limited itself to their external description, i.e. phenomenology. It practically did not set itself the task of elucidating the structures of matter at the deep levels of organization. This inevitably led to a superficial understanding of phenomena, did not prepare her for the perception of new facts, the appearance of which always turned out to be a complete surprise for her. But most importantly, it had no methodological basis, no philosophical common ground, no clear understanding of the fact that the whole nature is a set of bodies and phenomena of moving self-organizing matter. No one had formulated an approach to the universal physical invariants, i.e. categories inherent to all bodies and phenomena, which, due to their universality, are not subject to any transformations.

17
And vice versa, all specific phenomena and laws derived from specific conditions were given the character of universality, thus excluding the very possibility of their correction. Newton's law of gravitation is "universal", the Principles of thermodynamics are universal, Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics are absolute truth. And the confirmation of the prediction of any particular phenomenon made these "laws" unquestionable.
Meanwhile, any formulaic expression of any phenomena is at best only a first linear approximation to what actually exists, and that only in terms of the set research goal. Deepening into the essence of the phenomenon will inevitably reveal its nonlinearity, and setting a different goal will simply lead to a different form of description of this phenomenon.
Thus, it was the idealistic approach to the development of physical theories that predetermined the crisis of physics at the end of the XIX century. But instead of changing the very essence of methodology, physicists followed the further path of abstraction from reality by introducing postulates, i.e., provisions formulated on the basis of "ingenious conjectures" and infinitely applicable to the whole world and all phenomena. And here a special role was played by Einstein's Theory of Relativity and quantum mechanics.
1.2. The role of Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics in preparing a new crisis of physics
The reasoning of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (STO) is based on the fundamental denial of the ether, recognizing the existence of the ether in nature would make the emergence of the Theory of Relativity impossible [3].
Einstein came to the idea that there is no ether in nature on the basis of comparison of the results of experiments of Fizeau (1851) [4] and Michelson (1881,1887) [5, 6].
As is known, as a result of the experiment Fizeau found that light is partially entrained by a moving medium (water). As a result of experiments on detection of ether wind, conducted in 1881 by Michelson and in 1887 by Michelson and Morley, it turned out that there is no ether wind on the surface of the Earth, at least that is how the results of these experiments were interpreted. In fact, the etheric wind was already detected in Michelson's very first experiment,

18
although its velocity was slower than expected. This was in contradiction with Lorentz's theory of an absolutely stationary ether.
Detailed justification of the principles underlying the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein gave in the article "The principle of relativity and its consequences" (1910) [3, p. 140]. Here he pointed out that the partial entrainment of light by a moving liquid (Fizeau's experiment) "...rejects the hypothesis of complete entrainment of the ether. Consequently, two possibilities remain:
1) the ether is completely motionless, i.e. it takes absolutely no part in the motion of matter (what about Fizeau's experiment, which showed partial entrainment? - V.A.);
2) the ether is carried away by moving matter, but it moves at a different speed from that of matter.
The development of the second hypothesis requires the introduction of any assumptions concerning the relation between the ether and moving matter. The first possibility is very simple (italics is mine - V.A.), and for its development on the basis of Maxwell's theory no additional hypothesis is required, which can complicate the foundations of the theory".
Pointing out further that Lorentz's theory of a fixed ether is not supported by the result of experiment and thus there is a contradiction, Einstein concluded that it was necessary to abandon the medium that fills world space, for, as he believed, "...it is impossible to create a satisfactory theory without rejecting the existence of a medium that fills all space." [3, с. 145-146].
The rejection of the ether gave the author of the Special Theory of Relativity the opportunity to formulate five (and not two, as is usually considered) postulates on which the STO is based:
1. The absence of the ether in nature, which was justified only on the grounds that recognizing the ether leads to a complex theory, while denying the ether allows for a simpler theory;
2. The principle of relativity, stating that all processes in the system, which is in a state of uniform and rectilinear motion, occur according to the same laws as in the resting system (earlier in relation to mechanical processes this principle was formulated by Galileo);
3. The principle of constancy of the speed of light (independence of the speed of light from the speed of the source);
4. Invariance of the four-dimensional interval in which space (coordinates) is related to time through the speed of light;

19
5. The principle of simultaneity, according to which an observer judges the passage of events in time by the light signal reaching him from those events.
In accordance with these postulates, it is asserted that it is fundamentally impossible for any physical experiment conducted inside a laboratory (reference frame) to establish whether this laboratory is at rest or moving uniformly and linearly, as well as the constancy of the speed of light in any inertial system.
It is easy to see that the presence of ether would not allow us to formulate any of the above postulates. If the ether is omnipresent, then the ether wind must be observed inside the moving laboratory, and consequently it is possible to determine the fact of its motion by measuring the velocity of the ether wind inside the laboratory without going outside the laboratory. The presence of the ether would also raise the question of the transient process occurring during the generation of light by the source, as well as the magnitude of the velocity of light relative to the source at the moment of exit in the immediate vicinity of the source, the velocity of light relative to the ether, the displacement of the ether relative to the source, and many other questions. Searching for answers to all these questions would hardly leave the ground for formulation of the listed postulates.
The General Theory of Relativity (GTR) of the same author extended the postulates of STO to gravitation. Thus the speed of light, which is a purely electromagnetic quantity, was interpreted as the speed of propagation of gravitation, although gravitation is a different fundamental interaction than electromagnetism, differing in the interaction constant by 36 (!) orders of magnitude. OTO - General Theory of Relativity added to the previous five more postulates - the extension of all the postulates of STO on gravitation, the dependence of the rate of clocks on the g r a v i t a t i o n a l field, the covariance of coordinate transformations (bringing formulaic expressions in the same form for any reference frame), the equality of the propagation speed of gravity to the speed of light and, finally, the presence (!) in nature of the ether. About the latter, Einstein in the works "Ether and the Theory of Relativity" (1920) [7] and "On Ether" (1924) [8] expressed himself quite definitely: "According to the general theory of relativity, the ether exists. Physical space is inconceivable without ether". That's how it is!
Without examining in detail all the circumstances related to the criticism of the logic of the construction of the postulates underlying Einstein's theory of relativity, and the so-called "experimental-

20
It should be noted only that the logic of both these parts is closed on itself, when the conclusions lead to the initial positions, that both parts of this unified theory contradict each other in the essential for them question of the existence of the ether (STO asserts the absence of the ether in Nature, and OTO its presence) a n d that neither STO nor OTO have any experimental confirmations and never had. All these "confirmations" are either elementary explained at the level of ordinary classical physics, as it takes place, for example, with acceleration of particles in gas pedals, or have always been self-evident, as it was with the problem of equivalence of inert and gravitational masses (classical physics has never distinguished between them), or are a consequence of the directed processing of results, as it took place with the deflection of light near the Sun, when from all methods of extrapolation the one which most corresponds to the theory is chosen, or simply does not correspond to it. (For more details on all this, see [9] ).
The special theory of relativity from the moment of its creation is based on the false idea that in the experiments on ether wind, which were conducted by A.Michelson and his followers in the period from 1880 to 1933 years was not found ether wind, which was to be observed on the surface of the Earth due to its movement in orbit around the Sun. Then the concept of G.Lorentz was checked (this concept was put forward by O.Fresnel in the beginning of XIX century), according to which the all-penetrating ether was absolutely motionless in space. The conducted experiments gave other results, but there was never a "zero" result.
Huge work on the study of the ether wind was done by a student and follower Michelson D.K.Miller, but his results were rejected by the supporters of Einstein's theory of relativity, which thereby committed a scientific forgery. And even when in 1929 Michelson himself with his assistants Pis and Pearson confirmed the existence of the ether wind, it did not change anything: the theory of relativity has already gained supporters who were scorned anyone who dared to contradict them.
All this is not accidental. Recognition of the presence of the ether in nature would immediately destroy the basis of the Special Theory of Relativity, for all its postulates cannot be justified in any way if there is an ether in nature.
Something similar happened in atomic physics, in which quantum mechanics took the dominant position.

21
According to the provisions of quantum mechanics, born when Einstein's theory of relativity was recognized worldwide as the main physical theory, there are "fields" inside the atom, but not a specific material medium, especially not the ether. The field, on the other hand, was ascribed the status of a "special material medium", without any explanation of what this medium is and what its specific parameters are.
All quantum mechanics, which "explains" intraatomic processes and radiation spectra, is based on postulates, the total number of which today is already dozens. The beginning of the postulation process was laid by M. Planck in 1900, who assumed that light is emitted in portions - quanta - and that each quantum carries energy proportional to frequency. This position was soon confirmed by experiments, which gave grounds for the widespread use of new postulates.
E. Rutherford's development in 1911 of the planetary model of the atom, according to which all electrons - elementary particles carrying equal negative charges - revolve around a positively charged nucleus, led to new problems, such as why electrons do not fall on the nucleus, although they move accelerated. The fact that the acceleration is not longitudinal but transverse, in which the rotational energy should not change at all, was not taken into account by anyone. To explain this mysterious phenomenon, N. Bohr put forward a postulate about "allowed" orbits, being on which is possible and without radiation. Then followed a whole chain of postulates, reasoning and inferences, including quantization of parameters of orbits and electrons themselves, quantization of radiation spectra, etc., but without any explanation of reasons of all these positions and phenomena. Nevertheless, all this gave good methods of calculations, which as if confirmed the legitimacy of such approach.
It is curious that Schrödinger, who developed his famous equation, proceeded from the usual mechanical model of the oscillation of a material point in a potential field, i.e., from the model of an ordinary mechanical pendulum, replacing, however, the usual description of the oscillation of a pendulum through amplitude and period by the description of the same oscillation through the change in the difference of total and potential energy. Of course, the ensemble of such points located in space should have been treated as a mass density, which was emphasized by some researchers, for example, by Madelung. However, instead of the physical notion of mass density, a mathematical notion was substituted for it.

22
the probability density of finding an electron at a given point in space. Thus the very possibility of attempts to find the internal structure of the atom and the mechanism of all atomic phenomena was excluded. The absence of the ether in nature also here played an extremely negative role in the possibility of understanding the structure of the atom and the causes of atomic phenomena.
On the question of recognition or denial of the ether in the 30's, and then in the 50's in Soviet science discussions took place, spilling out onto the pages of the party press, first of all on the pages of the journal "Under the Banner of Marxism" (now "Questions of Philosophy") [10]. These discussions touched not only the ether proper, but also the problems of Einstein's theory of relativity, as well as the old problem of "action at a distance", the point of view according to which no intermediate medium is needed at all for the transfer of interaction energy at any distance. The content and course of these discussions are described quite fully, but extremely tendentiously by A.S.Sonin in his book "Physical Idealism" [11], as well as in a large article by V.P.Vizgin [12]. Omitting the numerous vicissitudes of these discussions, we should note some main points.
The point of view of the existence of the ether in nature, the incorrectness of Einstein's theory of relativity and the unsuitability of the principle of the In the 30s, the viewpoint of "action at a distance" without an intermediate medium was defended by professors A.K.Timiryazev and Z.A.Tseytlin of Moscow State University, academician A.A.Maksimov and philosopher E.Kolman (Moscow) and academician-electrotechnician V.F.Mitkevich (Leningrad). The point of view of relativists, i.e. supporters of Einstein's theory of relativity, who categorically denied the ether and recognized the possibility of action at a distance, was expressed by physicists O.D.Khvolson, A.F.Ioffe, V.A.Fok, I.E.Tamm, L.D.Landau, Y.I.Frenkel. The discussion was held on the pages of the journal "Under the Banner of Marxism". The opposing sides in the discussion in the 1950s were represented by Mitkevich (a practicing electrical engineer) and Frenkel (a theoretical physicist).
"For a number of reasons," wrote Mitkevich, "the construction of a physical theory covering all the material accumulated by science is unthinkable without recognizing the special significance of the medium that fills all three-dimensional space. In the language of the past epochs experienced by physics, this universal medium is called aether".
Frenkel objected to him: "I do not deny the validity of the idea of the field as a certain reality. I deny only the validity of the idea that this field corresponds to some material image...". His theoretical scheme accepted

23
the hypothesis of long-range action - the charges or points of interaction acted through an empty medium. "But if," Frenkel continued, "V.F. by the presence of a process called the electromagnetic field is not satisfied, and requires the preservation of the carrier of this process, which is Faraday's and Maxwell's aether, then modern physics responds to this with a decisive - no" [13].
It should be noted with regret that the point of view of the supporters of the theory of relativity and the absence of the ether in nature has won and up to the present time is in domestic and world physics prevailing.
1.3. Crisis of modern theoretical physics
Today, physics is in a deep crisis. In spite of numerous public speeches, statements, popular and special articles aimed at proving the greatness of the edifice of modern physics and the grandiose possibilities awaiting mankind in connection with its achievements, it has to be stated that in fact there is nothing of the kind. Numerous attempts to unite the basic fundamental interactions on the basis of the existing concepts in modern physics were practically unsuccessful. The Great Unification Theory (GUT), about which theoretical physicists have been trumpeting for many years as the main goal of physical understanding of nature, has not been created. And if it had been created, what would have changed from it? Would new directions have been developed, new devices created? Or would physicists just enjoy the "beauty" of the new theory? The number of discovered "elementary particles" of matter has long been out of sync with the complete uncertainty of their structure, and long ago no one is surprised or amused by the discovery of another one "elementary particle." Theoretical physics continues to accumulate contradictions, delicately called "paradoxes", "divergences", which are of fundamental character and are a serious brake in further development of fundamental and applied science. Even in such a mastered field as electrodynamics, there are whole classes of problems that cannot be solved with the help of the existing theory. For example, when two identical charges move, a paradox arises: resting identical charges repel each other according to Coulomb's law, but when they move, they attract each other because

24
are currents. But they are still at rest relative to each other, so why do they attract when they move?
Such difficulties, existing in most areas of physics, are not, as it is commonly believed, objective difficulties in the development of human cognitive activity. Misunderstanding of the essence of processes, preference of phenomenology, i.e. external description of phenomena to the detriment of studies of the internal mechanism, the inner essence of phenomena inevitably gives rise to all these difficulties.
Today it is already clear to many that both the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics in its modern presentation lead researchers away from the clarification of the essence of phenomena, replacing the understanding of the essence of the external, superficial description based on some private postulates and assumptions. It should not be surprising, therefore, that this approach is becoming less and less productive. The limited research directions resulting from such a methodology do not allow to find out the deep processes of nature, naturally leading to the fact that many essential factors in experiments and theoretical studies are not taken into account, and numerous useful opportunities - unused. The phenomenological method, entrenched in science, increasingly shows its helplessness.
"Generally accepted" mathematical dependencies of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics have acquired the status of absolute truth, and all new theories are checked for conformity to them, which are discarded if there is no such conformity.
However, it is not superfluous to recall the trivial fact that every physical phenomenon has innumerable sides and properties and that for a complete description of even a simple phenomenon it is necessary to have an infinitely large number of equations. And in no case can it be assumed t h a t t h e e q u a t i o n s we deal with today describe phenomena in any complete way, be it Schrödinger's equations for the phenomena of the microcosm, Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field, or Newton's "law" of universal gravitation. This means that the refinement of fundamental laws and their mathematical description should become a regular working matter and the halo of infallibility, which today sanctifies a few initial formulas or "principles", should be removed.
In this connection it is appropriate to recall Engels' statement: "Exceptional empiricism, which allows itself to think at best except only in the form of mathematical calculations, imagines,

25
as if it operated only with indisputable facts. In reality, it operates mainly with traditional ideas, mostly outdated products of the thinking of its predecessors... The latter serve as a basis for endless mathematical calculations, in which, because of the rigor of mathematical formulas, the hypothetical nature of the assumptions is easily forgotten. ...This empiricism is no longer able to correctly depict the facts, because in the image of them it is paved with the traditional interpretation of these facts " [14, с. 114].
The current situation in theoretical physics - accumulation of contradictions, disunity and differentiation of its directions, superficiality of description of phenomena, lack of understanding of the deep essence of phenomena and, as a consequence of all this, loss of the leading role in setting and carrying out applied research testify t o a deep methodological crisis that has engulfed theoretical physics. There is no reason to believe that the crisis will be solved on the same paths on which theoretical physics continues to move, or on the paths of creation, as recommended by Niels Bohr, "crazy ideas" (i.e. when everyone has stopped understanding anything at all).
The methods of modern fundamental theoretical science have long been exhausted and have become a brake in the development of productive forces, in the use of the forces of nature by man.
For a long time and a lot has been said about NTR - scientific and technological revolution, about the achievements of science: atomic weapons and nuclear energy have been created, flights to near space have been mastered, numerous materials have been developed, the most complex computing machines, robots, etc. have been created. However, today qualitatively new discoveries are becoming less and less, the development is mainly quantitative, and even in the study of "elementary particles" of matter, not qualitatively new techniques are used, but simply increasing the power of particle gas pedals in the blind faith that the new energy level, maybe, will give something new, although so far it does not give anything qualitatively new.
In applied physics, various solemn promises never come true. Many years have already passed since a "stable" plasma was obtained, which existed for "as little as" 0.01 seconds. Over the years, numerous facilities for thermonuclear reactions have been built to provide mankind with thermonuclear energy forever. However, there are installations, institutes and plants have been created for these purposes, conferences and

26
honoring. There is no only thermonuclear, for which all this was conceived, and a number of thermonuclear programs have already been closed not only
in our country, but also abroad. Same with MHD - magnetic hydrodynamics. It is the same w i t h superconductivity, and the same with all the applied cases. And only in the field of nuclear energy things have somehow moved forward, since nuclear power plants actually exist and continue to be built. But even here the wellknown events that have taken place show the lack of knowledge, which directly affects the safety of their operation. Fundamental research in the physical sciences, based on generally recognized ideas, has become incredibly expensive, and not every state is able to bear such a heavy burden of expenditure on science. This suggests that physics has been hit, if I may say so, by an economic crisis. However, the main sign of the crisis of physics is that the theory and methodology of modern fundamental physical science are becoming less and less able to help applied sciences in solving the problems posed by practice. The presence of "paradoxes", the absence of qualitatively new ideas mean that the ideas existing in physics have already been exhausted and that physics in general and physical theory i n particular are in a deep crisis. Here there is no need to go into details of criticism of the state and methodology of modern theoretical physics, it is to some extent fulfilled by the author in [2], but it is quite possible to recognize that all predictions of V.I.Lenin concerning t h a t physics at the beginning of the century is carried to idealism, were confirmed at the end of the twentieth century completely. It was carried there. The provisions of modern theoretical physics are in flagrant contradiction with the provisions of dialectical materialism. Indeed, in the material world, as dialectical materialism asserts, there is no limit to the divisibility of matter. "The electron is as inexhaustible as the atom", Lenin asserted in his famous work "Materialism and Empiriocriticism" [1]. This means that an electron is obliged to have a structure, the material basis of which is some building material. This building material has motion, its parts interact with each other. The same applies to all "elementary particles" of the microcosm, which can all transform into each other. But it is also a direct indication of nature that they all have the same basis.

27
and the same "building material"! This building material is also contained in the whole space, because experiments have shown that force fields in the "physical vacuum", i.e. in the world space are able to "give birth" to elementary particles. Thus, the results of physical experiments directly indicate the presence of the world medium - aether - in Nature.
Meanwhile, modern theoretical physics does not recognize the existence of such building material in principle. All elementary particles, according to physicists, not only have no structure, but even have no dimensions! All their properties - electric charge, magnetic moment, spin, etc. - come from nowhere, they are innate properties that have no mechanism under them. Thus, there remains only the possibility of phenomenological, i.e. only external description of phenomena, which imposes restrictions on the cognitive ability of man: it is impossible to penetrate into the depths of processes, because these processes themselves do not exist! But then the external description also turns out to be very superficial, for any phenomenon is an external manifestation of the very internal movement of its parts, and if the internal mechanism is not taken into account, the observation of these or those external manifestations turns out to be a matter of chance. Then there remains only phenomenology, an external description of the phenomenon, taking into account only "observable" factors. And since these "observable factors" in physics are connected by mathematical expressions, it turns out that "matter has disappeared, only equations remain" (Lenin).
Dialectical materialism asserts the eternity of the universe, the uncreated and indestructible nature of matter, space, time and motion. Einstein's theory of relativity asserts the existence of "Beginnings" of the universe when it was created as a result of the so-called "Big Bang," with claims that prior to this The "Big Bang" was nothing at all. Dialectical materialism requires a generalization of the accumulated experience of natural science. The theory of relativity considers it possible to "freely invent the axiomatic basis of physics". The theory of relativity demands that the continuity of physical theories be respected: all new theories are obliged to conform to Einstein's theory of relativity, but it itself does not conform in any way to the entire previous history of natural science and prides itself on its "revolutionary thinking".
How, in principle, does materialism in physics differ from idealism? Materialism recognizes nature, matter, as primary, and consciousness, ideas about nature, i.e., in this case, theory, as secondary. If

28
is found any fact that contradicts the theory, then the materialist is forced to change the theory in accordance with the new facts, and the idealist rejects unwanted facts, which happened in the theory of relativity.
"Classical physics" of the XIX century, faced with new facts, had to reconsider its positions, but by no means to abandon the materialistic approach to the theory. But the philosophical insufficiency of physics led to the fact that physicists literally burned down their house - physics, giving everything at the mercy of abstract mathematics, which began to represent itself and physics, and philosophy, and the universe itself. Matter disappeared...
Ignoring the existence of the ether in nature by the supporters of the The "long-range action" today has led to an unjustified absolutization of some formulaic dependencies, which their authors claim to be natural laws. Following such a position fundamentally removes the question about the possibility of any clarification of fundamental laws, which is wrong in principle, since any formulas only approximate the real reality. The idea of "long-range action" ("actio in distance") has been revived, according to which we do not need to know whether the medium through which the interaction is transmitted exists or not. Physics abandoned its role as an investigator of nature and fell into abstraction, which has nothing to do with the real nature....
Thus, modern fundamental science and its basis - theoretical physics have been in a deep crisis for many years. External signs of this crisis are:
- no new discoveries, except for the discovery of many-numbered "elementary particles", the number of which is already several hundred (from 200 to 2000, depending on how you count);
- the high cost of fundamental research, for which such facilities have been built as, for example, the Serpukhov gas pedal, housed in an underground tunnel 22 km long (!), in which 6000 magnets weighing tens of tons each are installed, entangled with pipelines in which liquid helium must be run, or "Tokamaks" designed to produce controlled fusion; however, ramping up the results is envisioned by increasing the capacity of the physical instruments;
- a complete misunderstanding of the structure of matter; - actual cessation of basic science's assistance to researchers in solving practical problems (created sectoral research centers)

29
fields of applied science have not only separated from basic science, but have in many ways outpaced it).
The latter is a decisive circumstance. The signs of this crisis, in addition, are: - the impossibility, within the framework of today's theories, to understand the nature of phenomena that we have long and widely used electricity and magnetism, gravity, nuclear energy and many others; - physicists prefer not to generalize the phenomena of nature, but to postulate them, thus consciousness (idea, postulate) goes ahead of matter (nature, facts), if the facts do not fit into the theory, it is not the theory that is corrected, as materialists would do, but the facts are discarded (what is only the story of discarding the results of the ether wind research discovered by Michelson and his followers); - mathematics, i.e. a way of description, imposes its very superficial models and laws on physics, i.e. nature; all processes, in its opinion, are probabilistic in nature, and they have no internal mechanism; - Theoretical physics justifies concepts that are directly contradictory to dialectical materialism, such as the theory of the "Big Bang", i.e. "the beginning of the creation of the Universe", although it is stated that dialectical materialism itself is obsolete..... All this is not accidental, but predetermined by the very methodology of modern fundamental science and its head field - theoretical physics.

1.4. Physical

revolutions as major

Milestones of development of natural science

The history of the development of natural science and, in particular, physics, shows that such crises in natural science have already happened more than once, and each time they were solved stereotypically - by introducing a new hierarchical level.
In order to find a way out of this impasse, to resolve the accumulated contradictions and to advance in fundamental and applied research, it is necessary to recall that the most important results of classical physics were obtained on the basis of the dynamicapproach in which each structure is assumed to consist o f moving parts and each part of the

30
even smaller ones. The movement of these parts and their interaction in concrete cases is a concrete phenomenon. The description of external sides of the phenomenon in the dynamic approach is only a consequence, not the main content of the phenomenon, as it follows from phenomenology. The dynamic approach implies the possibility of creating illustrative physical models at all levels of the organization of matter.
The dynamic method proceeds from the assumption that each structure is made up of parts, and each part is made up of even smaller parts. The movement of these parts and their interaction in specific cases is a concrete phenomenon.
The dynamic method in natural science has always justified itself. The main line of development of natural science has always been a step-by-step deepening into the structure of matter, transition to deeper and deeper levels of its organization. Each such transition meant a radical breakdown of old ideas, was another physical revolution and provided a way out of the crisis. And each such transition gave much to mankind.
However, each such transition did not occur by itself, but under the pressure of accumulated new facts, the explanation of which turned out to be impossible within the framework of the existing theories. The resulting crisis situation could not be solved within the framework of the mastered hierarchical level of material formations. But it was solved quite simply after a new, deeper hierarchical level of matter organization was introduced into consideration.
It is noteworthy that practically all physical theories up to the beginning of the twentieth century had physical models as their basis. This is understandable, because any phenomenon has countless properties, and it is impossible to describe them all at once. After all, even such a simple device as a weight suspended on a thread makes a complex motion and can be, depending on the purpose, described in a variety of ways - as a pendulum in the field of gravity, as a torsion pendulum or, finally, as a spring pendulum. And this, not yet counting the combination of all the motions, interaction with the environment, internal processes, etc. All this was well understood by physicists of the XVII-XIX centuries.
In fact, the dynamic method has its origins in the deepest antiquity. In his time, the German dialectical philosopher Hegel, in his principal's speech to the gymnasium students, made this comparison:

31
"Just as Antaeus renewed his strength by contact with mother earth, just as every new dawn and increase of science and enlightenment arises by turning to antiquity."
For all his rich imagination, Hegel could not imagine t h e impact of science in the twentieth century on all spheres of life. In the 19th century, interest in antiquity was almost always the domain of the humanities. In our time, natural science itself has become seriously interested in ancient thought, first of all in its leading fields - physics and mathematics.
A s science penetrates more and more deeply into the structure of matter, it is found to be following in the footsteps of the ancient philosophers. It is useful to recall that Dalton, for example, borrowed the word "atom" from Democritus, the ancient Greek materialist philosopher, and from him we now borrow the word "amer" to denote the indivisible part of the atom, which is the molecule of ether. And the word ether itself also came to us from ancient times.
To be fair, although we consider the origin of science to be from the ancient Greeks, in fact this is certainly not the case. Democritus repeatedly emphasized that he was not the originator of atomism, this knowledge he borrowed from the Egypetian priests and Midian magicians (the mighty), from whom he interned for five years. The roots of science lie in the deepest antiquity, of which we know practically nothing. Nevertheless, throughout the history of mankind known to us it has been accompanied by unconventional secret knowledge, which has even received an independent name "esoteric".
However, continuing the tradition, we will start considering the formation of science from Thales of Miletus, who lived in the 6th century B.C. and who already then posed the question: if all of nature is unified, what is the basis of this unity? He believed that nature at the basis of all phenomena has a certain unified medium of "wet" nature - apeiron, otherwise how can they interact and influence each other?
This question has accompanied natural science throughout its history, and only now are we getting the first opportunity to approach an answer to it.
The history of natural science is inextricably linked with the history of the whole society, and each type and development of productive forces, technology corresponds to the corresponding period in the history of natural science.
The first stage of the development of natural science is considered to be preparatory, natural philosophical, and is characteristic of antiquity. In general, technology was still underdeveloped, although there were already some outstanding technical achievements. This stage can be attributed to the period from

32
VI century B.C. to the beginning of the new era, although realistically it can be considered extended to the beginning of the second millennium of the new era.
In the 5th century B.C. Empedocles and in the 4th century B.C. Aristotle proposed to decompose all nature into "substances" - "earth" (solid), "water" (liquid), "air" (gas) and "fire" (energy). In fact, he introduced the aggregate states of matter and energy, which ensures the transition of matter from one state to another. The Chinese added "wood" (life) to these four "substances". On this basis, some analysis of the physical state of substances became possible and philosophy was born. Aristotle's philosophy lasted in Europe for almost 2 thousand years.
This stage is connected with the transition from nature as a whole to substances ("earth" - solid, "water" - liquid, "air" - gas, "fire" - energy). This transition was the first revolution in natural science.
This transition itself was stimulated by the desire to realize the world in which man lived, his desire to understand his place in nature. It was impossible to do this without appropriate analysis. The task to understand the aggregate states of bodies came first. And when philosophers of antiquity singled out this problem, introduced the concepts of substances, then on this basis and began to develop philosophy, and already it allowed the formation of independent branches of knowledge, such as statics, astronomy and mathematics. Alchemy began to form, although it should be recognized that in all this there were also echoes of the most ancient (esoteric) knowledge, about the essence of which we still know almost nothing.
Medicine and physics were in their infancy. All natural-scientific knowledge and views were included in a single undifferentiated science under the aegis of philosophy. The differentiation of sciences for the first time appeared at the end of this period closer to the Middle Ages.
The very transition from a unified nature to substances marked the first revolution in natural science.
The second stage of the development of natural science is also considered preparatory. It can be attributed to the X-XIII centuries A.D., i.e. to the Middle Ages, to the period of development of feudal relations. This stage is characterized by the dominance of theology in Western Europe. Science in the West became an appendage of theology, religion. By this time there was an urgent need to save people from numerous epidemics, which literally mowed down the population of Europe. Paracelsus (Philip von Hohenheim, 1493-1541), a prominent physician of the Middle Ages, believed,

33
that all human processes are chemical processes and that all diseases are related to disturbances in the composition of substances. His method of treatment - the addition of missing chemicals to the sick person's body - laid the foundation for pharmacology, the science of drugs.
These applied tasks required dealing with substances. T h e transition in natural science from substances to substances was the second revolution in natural science.
The progress of technology in the West was extremely slow. Technique did not yet need systematic study of nature, and therefore did not have a noticeable influence on the development of natural scientific knowledge. But even at this time there was already accumulation of new facts that prepared the transition to the next period.
The third stage of development of natural science is called mechanical and metaphysical. The stage lasted from the second half of the XV century and lasted until the end of the XVIII century. This is the time of the establishment of capitalist relations in Western Europe. This stage is associated with the transition from substances to the molecule (small mass). Natural science of this period is revolutionary in its tendencies. Here the natural science of the beginning of the XVII century (Galileo) and the end of the XVII - beginning of the XVIII century (Newton) is distinguished. Metaphysics became the dominant method of thinking. But even then, discoveries were made i n natural science that revealed dialectics, i.e. development. Natural science was connected with production, transforming from a craft into a manufactory, the energy base of which was mechanical motion. Hence the task to study mechanical motion, to find its laws. Natural science was mechanical, because all the processes of nature were applied exclusively to the scale of mechanics.
The introduction of the idea of the minimal particle of matter - molecule contributed to the emergence of mechanics of the material point (Newton), a direct consequence of which was the invention by him and G.Leibniz of the mathematics of the analysis of infinitesimal quantities. To the same time belongs the creation of analytical geometry by R.Descartes, the cosmogonic hypothesis of Kant-Laplace, as well as the ideas of development in biology by W.K.Wolf, which prepared the next stage.
In the early 18th century, Russian scientist M. V. Lomonosov formulated the concept of a "corpuscle", i.e. a minimal amount of substance, which was later called a molecule. This gave rise to the development of chemistry. At the end of the same XVIII century, French chemist A. Lavoisier introduced the concept of elements - the simplest substances from the combination of which any substance can be created.

34
Transition in natural science from substances to molecule (name of the "molecule" - small mass - appeared later) was the third revolution in natural science, this transition gave a powerful impetus to the development of chemistry.
The period of the late 18th - early 19th century is characterized by the beginning of the rapid development of capitalism on the basis of the industrial revolution. There was a need for dyes for fabrics, and so there was an increased interest in chemistry. But the development of chemistry was impossible without the following transition to the depth of matter. Therefore, the transition from the molecule to the minimum particle of simple matter was made, which in 1824 was called an atom by the Englishman Dalton, a name borrowed from Democritus. By atom was meant the minimum amount of an element, further indivisible (from Democritus, indivisible). This transition gave rise to the development of chemistry and electromagnetism. Physics and chemistry came to the fore, studying the interconversion of forms of energy and types of matter.
At the same time, the limitations of water engines became clear, and engines were required that could be used in any terrain and under a wide range of conditions. The invention of the steam engine gave rise to industrial capitalism, and industry entered the phase of large-scale machine production. But the steam engine did not completely satisfy production either. There was a need for a compact engine that could be installed in any room and even on individual machines. This gave impetus to the development of electrical engineering, which had the opportunity to develop using the achievements of chemistry.
At this time, the theory of the slow development of the Earth emerged in geology, while evolutionary theory, paleontology, and embryology were born in biology. The second third of the 19th century saw the emergence of cell theory, the doctrine of energy transformation and Darwinism, which dealt a blow to the old metaphysics, forcing us to consider substances and processes in their development.
The transition to atomism was followed by discoveries that revealed the dialectics of nature - the creation of the theory of chemical structure of organic compounds (A.M.Butlerov, 1861), the Periodic System of Elements (D.I.Mendeleev, 1869), electromagnetism (J.K.Maxwell, 1873).
The transition from the molecule to the atom was the fourth revolution in natural science. From the end of the 19th century, capitalism entered t h e stage of imperialism, which entailed an arms race in which

35
advances in physics, chemistry and emerging electrical engineering were essential.
The stimulating effect of new technical needs on the development of natural science led to the fact that in the mid-1990s new discoveries appeared, mainly in physics - the discovery of electromagnetic waves by H. Hertz, short-wave radiation by K. Roentgen, radioactivity, the electron, the introduction of the idea of the quantum by M. Planck, the creation of the theory of relativity by A. Einstein, the invention of radio by A. Popov. Chemistry (development of the Periodic System of Elements by D.I.Mndeleev) and biology (emergence of genetics) were also significantly advanced.
The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries saw the emergence of the notion of the "elementary particles" of matter. In 1887, English researcher J.J. Thomson proved the existence of the first elementary particle, the electron. In 1911 E. Rutherford put forward the planetary model of the atom, on the basis of which in 1913-1921 appeared the ideas about the atomic nucleus, electrons and quanta. The proton was discovered by him in 1919, and in 1932 the neutron was discovered by J. Chadwick. Further, a wide range of "elementary particles" of matter was obtained, which led to the development of atomic energy. N.Bohr developed Rutherford's model of the atom, and in fact from that moment quantum mechanics began to develop rapidly. The next revolution in natural science was prepared by all this. The fifth revolution in natural science was the introduction of "elementary particles of matter" into consideration, and this led to the advent of atomic energy and semiconductor technology. In the twentieth century, the development of physics (atomic energy, radar, radioelectronics, communications, automation and cybernetics, quantum electronics - lasers, electronic optics, etc.) was accelerated. Physics as the leading branch of all natural science began to play a stimulating role in relation to other branches of natural science, for example, the invention of the electron microscope caused a revolution in all biology, physiology, biochemistry. Physical methods determined the successes of chemistry, geology, astronomy, contributed to the development of space science and space exploration. In biology, deepening of the cell structure led to the creation of genetics and molecular biology, in chemistry - to polymer chemistry. And cybernetics and computer science began to develop on the basis of semiconductors.

36
Thus, the fifth revolution in natural science led to a revolutionary leap in technology, the NTR - the scientific and technological revolution.
The main task of chemistry becomes the synthesis of polymers (rubber, artificial fiber), production of synthetic fuel, light alloys and metal substitutes for aviation and astronautics. The energy base of industry in the twentieth century became increasingly electric (dynamo machine), chemical energy (internal combustion engines), and then, after the Second World War, atomic energy.
The transition to a new deep level of matter organization was also preceded by a crisis expressed in the misunderstanding of the variety of variants of properties of mastered material formations. Introduction of building material of the already mastered level of matter helped to understand the structure of these formations. Thus, the introduction of molecules helped to understand substances, atoms - molecules, elementary particles - atoms. The crisis was overcome, all perplexities were solved, science received a new powerful impetus of development. But the starting point was always applied needs.
Properties and behavior of material formations became clear if material formations of deeper level were introduced into consideration. The transition to a new level always meant a radical breakdown of the established ideas, was another physical revolution and provided a way out of the crisis (Fig. 2.1).
To explain chemical transformations, atoms - the constituent parts of molecules of chemical compounds - were introduced into the theory. And when it became clear that atoms transform into each other, the concept of atoms emerged "elementary particles" of matter, of which atoms are composed. At the same time, the properties of higher levels of matter organization became clear. It turned out that material formations of the senior hierarchical level differed from each other first of all by a set of elements - material formations of the junior hierarchical level. At the same time the younger formations, for example atoms or "elementary particles", were endowed at first with only the simplest, most essential properties, which was even reflected in the name: atom ("indivisible"), "elementary particles", i.e. the simplest particles. With the accumulation of experimental data, the ideas about the inner essence of phenomena changed, and the physical models of these phenomena changed accordingly. The change of models entailed changes in the equations describing the phenomena.

37
Revealing the structures, understanding the internal mechanism created an opportunity for directed actions. Directed research was organized, new methods appeared, the increase in the number of senior level varieties did not scare anyone anymore, a s i t was clear how it all happened and why. Completely new perspectives of theoretical and applied research a n d a p p l i c a t i o n s w e r e opening up. The next physical revolution demonstrated to the world its qualitatively new possibilities. These new possibilities immediately became the property of applied scientists and served mankind.
It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that all physical revolutions fully corresponded to the provisions of dialectical materialism: they proceeded from objective facts, assumed the independence of nature from the methods of its research, implied the inexhaustibility of matter in depth, all processes and phenomena occurred with uncreated and indestructible matter in Euclidean space and uniformly flowing time.
However, at the beginning of the twentieth century there was a fundamental change in physical methodology. Along with deepening into the structure of matter through the use of ideas about "elementary particles of matter" in physics, and after it practically in the whole natural science, there was a refusal from the methods of classical physics in the study of nature. If classical physics reduced a complex phenomenon to a set of simple components, the essence of the phenomenon was determined by the movement of matter at levels deeper than the phenomenon in question, and the explanation of the essence of the phenomenon was reduced to tracing cause-and-effect relations between the parts of the phenomenon, then theoretical physics, born in the early twentieth century, posed the question in a fundamentally different way.
Quantum mechanics and theory of relativity, and after them all fundamental natural sciences refused t o consider internal processes of phenomena. Everything began to be reduced to phenomenology - external description of phenomena and their mathematical description. So-called "postulates" - free assumptions, which, according to the authors of postulates, are supposed to correspond to nature, were massively introduced into practice.
This approach to the study of natural phenomena could not but lead to an increasing divergence of theories from reality, which resulted in the crisis of physics, and with it the whole of natural science.
However, it can be stated that at the present time there is a situation typical for the eve of another revolution in natural science.

38
By the mid-60s, numerous statistical data had been obtained on the "elementary particles" of matter. It turned out that all "elementary particles" consist of " each of all others", i.e. at transformation of any particle as a result of their collisions any particles can be obtained. On the other hand, there is no information about the internal structure of the "elementary particles" themselves, because as a result of the postulative approach in quantum mechanics and in the theory of relativity, the building material of particles - the ether - the world medium - was thrown out of consideration. It appeared the main obstacle for progressive development of natural science. Further advancement in the depth of matter requires a return to the methodology of classical physics, a return to the concept of ether, which was an obligatory attribute of natural science throughout its history up to the beginning of the twentieth century, which allows to solve this crisis.
Thus, natural science is on the eve of the sixth revolution, which will give impetus to a new, extremely powerful development. Today we can only guess about the consequences to which it will lead. Presumably, it may be a complete solution of energy, resource and ecological problems, and possibly health care and much more.
However, it should be noted that, as in all previous revolutions of natural science, the next sixth transition to a new hierarchical level of organization of matter requires revision of the foundations of existing natural science, preservation of everything that corresponds to the new tasks, and rejection of what is superfluous, artificial, not corresponding to the real nature of physical phenomena.
The foregoing shows that the impetus to the development of natural science and the revision of its established ideas is given by the accumulated contradictions, the main of which are the need to solve practical problems arising from social development, or, more precisely, from the needs of social production, and the impossibility to fulfill this within the framework of existing concepts.
The development of natural science occurs in stages. Each stage is connected w i t h mastering of deeper and deeper level of organization of matter, it is the next physical revolution.

39
Figure 1.1. Physical revolutions in natural science Today in science there is a typical situation. Many so-called elementary particles of matter have been obtained in various experiments. All of them are able to transform into each other, which testifies to their common building material. The vacuum is able to, with a certain combination of electromagnetic fields. "give birth" to elementary particles, which testifies that both vacuum and force fields have the same building material in their basis. And since the vacuum is infinite, it means that the whole world space is filled with this building material. This material has always been called ether in natural science, and it should be called ether.

40
get. And the element of ether, aka the indivisible element of the atom, was called a'mer in ancient times, and this name must also be assigned to it.
Should we not now, considering that the number of "elementary particles" of matter is already from 200 to 2000 (depending on how one counts), that all of them are capable of changing into each other, apply the same method, accept Lenin's words that "the electron is as inexhaustible as the atom, nature is infinite" [11, p. 277] as a direct instruction to action and allow the existence of even more elementary particles? the "elementary" particle that makes up all the so-called The "elementary particles" of matter, which are actually complex entities? Such a particle should be called "a'mer" because that is what Democritus called it. In his opinion, a'mer - a particle of an atom - is a truly indivisible particle of matter, and the aggregate of a'mer is aether, a medium that fills the entire world space and is the building material for all kinds of matter. Thus, it is necessary to return to the question of the existence of ether, its structure and role in nature.
By the end of the 19th century, natural science had largely defined its position. Physics, already then considered the basis of natural science, had also defined its positions. Two insignificant moments remained not quite clear - inconsistency of experimental data with calculated curves in the part of black body radiation and non-detection of ether wind in Michelson's experiments. However, it soon became clear that these inconsistencies gave rise to "a complete scientific catastrophe, the collapse of those provisions that formed the basis of classical physics". The result of the proceedings w a s a c h a n g e i n t h e approach to the study of nature, a change in the goals of all natural science.
1.5. On the Meaning of Militant Materialism today
Modern theoretical physics prides itself on its peculiarity, its complexity, its elitism. It is often impossible for a mere mortal to understand what a physical theory states. This allows the physical theory itself to avoid criticism from applied physicists, it also separates it from applied problems and creates conditions for the creation of a special clan of theoretical physicists, to which people from outside are no longer able to join

41
are allowed. Thus, the problem from a scientific one grows into a social one. What is the reason of all this? The reason is in the methodology, which
physical theory adopted at the beginning of the twentieth century, in the counter-revolution (not a "revolution" at all), which took place then in physics and to which Lenin devoted his famous work "Materialism and Empiriocriticism", in the fact that the main methodological technique in physics was the advancement of postulates.
What is a "postulate"? According to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (3rd ed., vol. 20, p. 423), a postulate is "a proposition that, for some reason, is 'accepted' without proof but, as a rule, with justification, and it is this justification that usually serves as an argument in favor of 'accepting' the postulate. ...sparing no arguments designed to convince us of the reasonableness ("validity") of the postulates we propose, we ultimately simply demand this acceptance...". That's it, neither more nor less. We demand it, that's all!
And since 1900, when M. Planck put forward the first postulate, physicists have been inventing postulates to which, in their opinion, nature must conform.
Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on five postulates, of which the main one is the declaration of the absence of ether in nature. This postulate is based on a false understanding of the results of the first experiments of Michelson, who allegedly obtained "zero result" when measuring the ether wind, i.e., nothing, which is false. The general theory of relativity of the same author adds to these five postulates five more, and the last one is a categorical statement of the presence of ether in nature [7, p. 689, 8 p. 160].
Quantum mechanics has taken all the postulates of the theory of relativity and added to them nine more, and quantum field theory - four more [2, p. 2326]. But the total number of postulates that have found a shelter in the physical theory, is counted already many dozens.
And then under the invented and not at all properly substantiated postulates begins to fit the facts, which is the purest idealism, with which Lenin unsuccessfully tried to fight. Theoretical natural science followed the idealistic path, and as a result it led to the modern crisis in natural science.
In recent decades, idealistic ideas about nature of various k i n d s have been gaining strength in natural science. The question of synthesis of science and religion is officially raised.

42
Creationist theories about the creation of nature and the establishment of its "wise" laws by a supreme being, God, are being revived.
In other theories, the concept of God is replaced by the so-called The theories that one of the categories - matter, space or time - should be excluded from consideration at all, because "it is possible to do without them". On the other hand, theories appear that one of the categories - matter, space or time - should be excluded from consideration at all, because "we can do without them". Energeticism - attempts to reduce matter to energy, which in fact has long been done in theoretical physics - and physical idealism, according to which nature can be invented and which has long dominated theoretical p h y s i c s , a r e revived. However, all this testifies not to the correctness of the idealistic trends, subjective or objective, which are being recalled from oblivion, but to the insufficiency of materialistic philosophy, which has not yet succeeded in creating the appropriate methodological foundations for the development of materialistic science.
The exclusion of the ether as a building material of the microcosm deprived physicists of the possibility to analyze the structures of microobjects, to understand the origin of their properties as the results of the internal motion of matter, made them prefer phenomenology, i.e. external description, to the study of internal mechanisms of phenomena. All this led to a complete misunderstanding by physicists of the structure of material entities "elementary particles" of matter, atomic nuclei, atoms and their electron shells, as well as interaction fields. This immediately imposed restrictions on the possibilities of studying the real world and spread to all areas of natural science.
The whole problem of the ether should be treated from these positions. By throwing out of the theory the ether, the medium that fills all world space and is the building material for all kinds of matter, physicists deprived themselves of the possibility to penetrate into the depths of matter, to find out the structure of material formations and the structure of interaction fields. They have fetishized a few postulated mathematical dependencies, declaring that t h e y now know everything. They have been treading on the ground for many years without discovering anything new and increasing the capacity of experimental facilities in the blind hope to get something new at the expense of it. However, nothing new has not arisen for many years, and we can confidently say that it will not arise, because without understanding the internal structures of material formations and internal mechanisms of phenomena, there remains only the method of "scientific poking", which is very unproductive.

43
By rejecting the ether, physicists have robbed themselves, excluding the very possibility of further penetration into the depths of matter.
The problem of recognizing or denying the existence of the ether in nature goes far beyond the formation of a private physical theory. Recognition of the fact of the existence of the ether as a world medium must essentially and inevitably concern all kinds of material formations, all physical phenomena and processes and, consequently, the whole of natural science. However, to no less extent, the recognition or negation of the ether in nature also concerns the entire philosophical basis of natural science, and through this the entire philosophy of science as a whole. And now it is actually a question of restoration of materialistic positions in physics, and through it in the whole natural science.
Lenin attached great importance to the ideological struggle for the introduction of the ideology of materialism and atheism into the masses. "...We must understand," he wrote, "that without a solid philosophical foundation, no natural science, no materialism can withstand the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of the bourgeois worldview" [16] [16]. In the emergence of a materialist theory of natural science and the materialist methodology arising from it, the most interested today are the applied scientists, who face the most important tasks, the solution of which directly affects the future of mankind. These are, of course, the problems of energy, ecology, technology, space security, raw material supply, durability of materials, food supply, health care, and much, much more. These problems can be solved only by understanding the objective laws of nature, the structures of material entities at all hierarchical levels of organization of matter, understanding the internal processes of phenomena. Consequently, applicants need a materialistic theory that reflects objective reality, not the inventions of cabinet "scientists". It is through applications that the main front of the struggle between materialism and idealism passes. And there can be no compromise in this struggle, because too much depends on its outcome.
Conclusions
1. The crisis of physics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was expressed in the failure of physical theory to realize the numerous new experimental data obtained by many researchers in the

44
at the end of the XIX century. This was due to the dogmatic attitude to the physical theories available at that time, to the idealization of the "well-tested" physical laws obtained by that time and to the lack of understanding of the inner physical essence of phenomena. The leading theoretical physicists of that time found a way out of this situation in the increasing abstraction from reality, in the creation of abstract models, in the prevalence of mathematical models over the physical content, in the postulation of initial positions for the construction of theories. The result of this was temporary successes of physics and at the same time preparation of a new crisis.
2. Modern theoretical physics is in a deep crisis, expressed in its increasing inability to assist applicators in solving urgent technological problems and in the ever-increasing cost of research. The reason for this is the entrenched idealistic ideology, according to which it is allowed to put forward postulates, neglect the factual material, replace the physical essence of phenomena with spatial and temporal distortions, i.e. the rejection of materialistic philosophy and the absolutization of a few "laws", and in fact a few mathematical expressions. Change of methodology of theoretical physics in the direction of idealization, wide application of postulates, axiomatics, fitting of experimental data to fashionable theories is not a "revolution" as it is presented by theoretical physicists and philosophers, but a counterrevolution.
3. Real physical revolutions in natural science have always been the generalization of the accumulated experimental data (induction) on the basis of revealing their general properties and on this basis the transition to a deeper hierarchical level of the organization of matter. Involvement of deep levels of matter allowed to consider the matter of this new for the next stage of natural science level as a building material of material formations of the previous senior level. This resolved the accumulated contradictions and opened new directions of research (deduction).
4. The way out of this impasse is possible only through a return to materialist ideology. The goal of natural science as a science of nature should be the understanding of cause-and-effect relations between material objects and phenomena. The means for this is the dynamic method, which implies the presence of structures in any material objects and internal mechanisms in any phenomena, thereby recognizing the inexhaustibility of matter in depth

45
and the fundamental possibility of understanding the internal mechanisms of any interactions and phenomena.
5. Nowadays, there is a necessity of transition to the next level of matter organization after "elementary particles". This transition is a transition to the recognition of the existence in nature of the ether, a medium that fills the entire world space, is a building material for all kinds of material formations, the movements of which are manifested in the form of various interactions of material structures and physical phenomena.
6. As always in a crisis situation, the ideological struggle in theory between materialism and idealism is unfolding. The materialistic direction is supported and developed by those who face actual applied problems, the idealistic direction is associated with attempts to preserve the positions of outdated theories that are not able to help applicants in solving practical problems. However, as always, the idealistic direction is doomed to defeat. Natural science is on the eve of the next physical revolution, which is inevitable.

46

46
Chapter 2. A brief history of ether
The unified ether permeates the entire universe. Ancient Chinese Taoism.
2.1. A brief overview of theories and models ether
The necessity of a critical examination of the numerous pre-existing hypotheses, models and theories of the ether arises from the fact that, despite the correct initial premise that the interaction between bodies must be conditioned by some intermediate medium - the ether, none of the theories of the ether has been able to satisfactorily explain the totality of all known phenomena, on the one hand, and has not allowed to predict any new directions of research, on the other. As a result, not only these theories, models and hypotheses were discarded in the course of the development of physics, but also the very concept of the ether as a "utterly discredited."
Let us consider the main concepts of the ether that existed in natural science and try to analyze their positive sides and disadvantages.
Despite the fact that a number of researchers of the history of the ether and the development of physical concepts attribute the introduction of the idea of the ether into natural science to René Descartes (1596-1650), and the idea of atomism to Democritus (470-380 BC), it should be considered that both the concept of the ether as a world medium and the concept of atoms the elements of matter - were known long before that and accompanied almost the entire known history of human civilization.
First of all, it should be noted that all religions of the world in one form or another recognized the existence of some invisible supernatural sacred Power underlying all the existing world. Belief in the reality of such a power, the desire to cognize it and find a connection with this mysterious and omnipresent force is one of the most important aspects of any religion [1].
Alexander Men, a contemporary Christian theologian, describes this unknown force in the following way [2]:
"...The Algonquin Indians under the name of Manitou honor the supraworldly force. We find ideas of it in the Malayan inhabitants. This power has a certain supernatural character. It is called Mana. In Papuans this mysterious force is called Onim.

47
According to the Australian Aborigines, there is a certain Wangarr - an eternal irresistible impersonal force that manifests itself in the days of creation and continues to have a fruitful influence on life to this day. With the American peoples, too, we find the notion of Mana. In the inhabitants of the Western Sudan her name is Nyala, in the Pygmies - Megbe, in the Zulus Umoya, in the Ugandans - Jok, in the northern Congolese - Elima. The North American Indians have very interesting and deep in meaning ideas about the Supreme Beginning. "The religious beliefs of the Dakotas," writes one researcher, "are not in deities, as such, but in a mysterious unrecognizable Something, of which they are incarnations. The greatest object of worship is Taku Wakan, who is supernatural and mysterious. This power, called Orenda by the Iroquois and Wangarr by the Yulengors, pervades the whole of nature".
This is echoed in many peoples' idea of the Mother Goddess, who gives birth to all living things.
With the Egyptians, Atum is the god of eternity, everything and nothing. He existed when there was nothing but chaos, and will exist in the same praocean after the world has completed its destined path. Atum contains all things. In many peoples, chaos was the foundation of the world, from which everything was reborn.
Hesiod, the famous ancient Greek poet, in his poem "Theogony" describes the creation of the world by the gods as a process of overcoming the chaos of immobility; from the gods came the ether - the upper radiant layer of air. This picture has its source in Eastern cosmogonic schemes.
There is every reason to believe that at least in the VI-IV centuries B.C., and most likely much earlier, the ideas of ether were widespread enough [3]. Thus, the main ancient Indian teachings - Jainism, Lokayata, Vaisheshika, Nyaya, etc., such religions as Brahmanism and Buddhism, originally contained the doctrine of ether (akasha) as a single, eternal and all-permeable physical substance, which is not directly perceived by the senses. The ether is one and eternal. Matter in general (pudgala) consists of tiny particles (anu) forming atoms (paramana), which possess mobility (dharma). All events take place in space and time.
Prakriti, matter in the sankhya doctrine created by the sage Kanada (Gluka), is the unoriginated root cause of all things. It is eternal and omnipresent. It is the most subtle, mysterious and immense force,

48
periodically creating and destroying worlds. Its elements (gunas) simple, indivisible and eternal.
Jainists believe that their teachings were transmitted to them by 24 teachers. The last, Vardhamana, lived in the 6th century B.C., his predecessor Parshvanatha in the 9th century B.C., and the rest in prehistoric times.
In ancient Chinese Taoism (4th century B.C.) in the canon "Tao De Jing" and treatises "Zhuang-tzu" and "Lao-tzu" it is indicated that everything in the world consists of particles of coarse "tsu" and subtle "jing". They form a single "chi" - ether, primordial, one for all things. "The unified ether permeates the entire universe. It consists of "yin" (material") and "yang" (fire, energy). There is not a single thing that is not related to the other, and yin and yang manifest everywhere" [4].
In ancient Japan, philosophers believed that space was filled with mukyoku, an infinite universal supernatural force, devoid of qualities and forms, inaccessible to human perception. The mystical absolute of takyoku is the nature of the ideal primordial "ri" connected with the material primordial "ki". "Ri" is energy, which is eternally connected with "ki" - matter and does not exist without it.
There is every reason to suppose that all world religions - Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. - at an early stage borrowed materialistic ideas of ancient aetherdynamics and at a later stage of development emasculated the doctrine, abandoning materialism in favor of mysticism. - in one form or another at an early stage borrowed materialistic ideas of ancient ether-dynamics, and at a later stage of development emasculated the doctrine, abandoning materialism in favor of mysticism to please the ruling classes that came to power. In Ancient Greece it happened, most likely, after the revolution of VII-VI centuries BC, which put an end to the patrimonial system and led to the victory of slavery.
However, advanced thinkers tried to preserve ancient materialistic knowledge. Thales of Miletus (625-547 B.C.), an ancient Greek philosopher, the founder of ancient and European philosophy and science in general, the founder of the Miletian school of philosophy, raised the question of the necessity of reducing the diversity of phenomena and things to a single basis (the primary or original), which he considered to be liquid ("wet nature") [58].
Anaximander (610-546 B.C.), a student of Thales, introduced into philosophy the concept of the primordial, "apeiron," a single eternal indefinite matter that gives rise to an infinite variety of things.

49
Anaximenes (585-525 B.C.), a disciple of Anaximander, considered this original to be gas ("air"), through the condensation and rarefaction of which all things arise.
The development of the ideas of the "original" was made by Leucippus (V century BC), who put forward the idea of emptiness, dividing all things into many elements, the properties of which depend on their size and form of motion, and further - a student of Leucippus Democritus, whom European science considers the founder of atomism.
According to a number of testimonies, Democritus first learned from the Chaldeans and magicians sent to his father's house, and then in the country of Midian when visiting magicians. Democritus himself did not attribute the authorship of atomism to himself, mentioning that atomism was borrowed by him from the Midians, in particular from the Magi, a priestly caste (tribe, according to Herodotus), one of the six tribes that inhabited Midia (northwestern regions of the Iranian Plateau).
The dominant idea of the magi (mighty) was inner greatness and power, the power of wisdom and knowledge. According to a number of evidences, magicians borrowed their knowledge from the Chaldeans, who were considered to be the founders of stargazing and astronomy. Chaldeans, to whom in ancient Greece and ancient Rome was given great importance, were priests - fortune-tellers, and also naturalists, mathematicians, theosophists. Magicians founded the doctrine - magic, which allowed on the basis of knowledge of secrets of nature to produce extraordinary phenomena. Later this doctrine, unfortunately, was discredited by numerous pseudo-magicians charlatans.
The most detailed atomism of antiquity is reflected in the works of Democritus, to which many literary studies are devoted. It should be noted, however, that some provisions of Democritus' atomism have remained misunderstood until now by almost all researchers of his work. First of all, we are talking about the relationship between atoms and parts of atoms amers.
Democritus pointed out that atoms (α'τομοσ ), the elements of matter, are physically indivisible, not cut by virtue of their density and lack of emptiness. Atoms are endowed with many properties of the bodies of the visible world: curvature, hookedness, pyramidality, etc. In their infinite variety in form, size, and order, atoms form the entire contents of the real world. At the heart of these varying in size and shape, however, atoms are amers (α'μερηζ ) truly indivisible, devoid of parts.
The idea of two kinds of atoms was also mentioned by later explorers, such as Epicurus (342-271 BC).

50
Amers (according to Democritus) or "elements" (according to Epicurus), being parts of atoms, have properties quite different from those of atoms. For example, while atoms have gravity, amers are completely devoid of this property.
The complete misunderstanding for many centuries of this seeming contradiction has led to a significant distortion of the interpretation of the teachings of Democritus. Already Alexander of Aphrodisias reproached Leucippus and Democritus for the fact that the indivisible, which have no parts, comprehended by the mind in atoms and are their parts, are weightless. This misunderstanding continues in our time. Thus, S.Y.Lurie mentions ameres as mathematical quantities. M.D.Akhundov continues to interpret amers as an abstract mathematical concept [9].
The mentioned seeming contradiction is based on the idea that weight (gravity) is an innate property of any matter. Meanwhile, gravitation can be explained as a result of motion and interaction (collisions) of amers. Then an atom as a set of amers, surrounded by amers, can experience attraction from other atoms due to energy impulses transmitted by amers in different ways, depending on which side of the atom there are other atoms, which creates the effect of mutual attraction of atoms. In fact, there is not attraction, but pushing of an atom to other atoms by the amers of the medium. The amers, being carriers of kinetic energy, will not possess any gravity themselves. Consequently, if we suppose gravitation to be a consequence of the manifestation of the motion of the aggregate of amers, and not an innate property of matter (a phenomenon peculiar to the complex and not belonging to its parts), the contradiction is easily solved. The whole aggregate of amers, moving in the void, is a common world medium, apeiron, according to Anaximander, in later Russian - ether.
Later, the Roman poet and materialist philosopher Titus Lucretius Carus (1st century B.C.) in his philosophical poem "On the Nature of Things" set forth in poetic form the materialist ideas of Democritus and Epicurus about the structure of n a t u r e . The elements of the ether were called "primordials", and it is from them that all objects consist, and the ether as a whole practically had the properties of a gas, because "...The primordials of things in the void of the immense mumble" [10] [10].
Thus, the ether has a rather ancient history, going back to the very beginnings of the known history of cultured humanity.
René Descartes (1596-1650), in considerably later times, reopened the question of the existence of matter solidly filling the

51
and responsible for the transport of light waves. Descartes explained the formation of matter in general and planets in particular by the property of vortices of the ether, consisting of many round particles. In some of his works [11] Descartes tried to construct mechanical models of physical phenomena, sometimes contradictory. However, the main distinctive feature of Descartes' works is that he tried to find the inner mechanism of physical phenomena.
Isaac Newton (1643-1727) changed his point of view several times regarding the structure of the ether, as well as the fact of its existence [1214]. However, in the e n d Newton expressed himself quite definitely and in his last works he improved and developed his views on the ether, but did not change them cardinally. Newton considered it possible to "deduce from the principles of mechanics and all other phenomena of nature," believing that "all these phenomena are conditioned and some forces with which the particles of bodies due to causes, still unknown, or aspire to each other and interlock in the correct figures, or mutually repelled and removed f r o m e a c h other. In "Optics or a treatise on Reflections, Refractions, Bends and Colors of Light" [12] Newton develops, in particular, the idea of the possibility of transformation of light into matter and vice versa.
In a letter to R. Boyle on February 28, 1679, Newton clarifies his ideas about the ether in five sentences.
1. It is assumed that there is an etheric substance scattered throughout space, capable of contraction and expansion and extremely elastic, "in a word," says Newton, "similar in every respect to air, but only considerably finer.
2. The ether is supposed to penetrate all bodies, but it is rarer in the pores of bodies than in free space, and the rarer the thinner the pores.
3. It is assumed that the rarefied ether inside bodies and the denser ether outside them pass into each other gradually and are not confined to sharp mathematical surfaces.
4. It is supposed that when two bodies approach each other, the ether between them becomes rarer than before, and a region of gradual rarefaction extends from the surface of one body to the surface of the other. "The reason for this is," Newton writes, "that in the narrow space between bodies the ether can no longer move and travel back and forth so freely.
5. "It follows from the fourth proposition that when bodies come close together, and when the ether between them is rarefied at close proximity, there must appear a resistance to this and a desire of the bodies to move away from each other. Such resistance and endeavor to separate will increase at the

52
But finally, when the bodies come so close together that the excess of pressure of the external ether surrounding the bodies over the rarefied ether between the bodies becomes so great that it prevents the resistance of the bodies to approach, the excess of pressure will force the bodies to forcefully approach each other and to adhere very closely to each other.
It should be noted that Newton anticipated a lot of things at the qualitative level in determining the properties of the ether, although he confused the density of the ether (rarefaction) with the pressure in it.
In 1717, in the 75th year of his life, in the second English edition of the "Optics" Newton, in the form of questions and answers, sets forth his view of the ether. Thus, the gradient of the density of the ether as it passes from body to space is applied to explain gravitation, the ether being implied to be composed of individual particles. "This increase of density," Newton writes, "may be extremely slow at great distances; but if the elastic force of this medium is extremely great, this increase may be sufficient to rush bodies from the denser parts of the medium to the more rarefied ones with all the force which we call gravitation.
Newton again raises the question of the atomistic structure of the ether: "If anyone supposes that the ether (like our air) may perhaps contain particles which tend to repel one from another (I do not know what this ether is), that its particles are extremely small in comparison with those of air and even of light, the extreme smallness of these particles may contribute to the magnitude of the force by which the particles repel one another, making the medium extremely rarefied and elastic in comparison with air, and consequently in a negligible degree capable of resisting the motion of thrown bodies and extremely capable of Thus, Newton himself pointed out the possibility of circumventing the difficulty arising from the resistance of the ether to the motion of celestial bodies. "If this ether be supposed 700,000 times more elastic than our air, and more than 700,000 times more rarefied, its resistance will be 600,000,000 times less than that of water. Such a small resistance would scarcely produce any appreciable change in the motions of the planets in ten thousand years." In the same work, Newton asks whether vision is not the result of aether vibrations in the retina and nerves.

53
Michael Faraday (1791-1867), convinced of the existence of the ether ("world ether"), represented it as a set of force lines. Faraday categorically denied the possibility of action at a distance ("actio in distance") through the void, a point of view held by many physicists of the time. However, Faraday did not reveal the nature and the principle of force lines [15-17].
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) in his works, among which one should first of all note [18-22], draws a conclusion about the propagation of perturbations from point to point in the world ether.
"Indeed," writes Maxwell, "if at all energy is transmitted from one body to another, not instantaneously, but in a finite time, there must exist a medium in which it temporarily resides, leaving the first body and not reaching the second. These theories must therefore lead to the notion of a medium in which this propagation takes place."
Adopting completely Faraday's point of view, Maxwell, like Faraday, does not give any model of the ether and confines himself to a general idea of "force lines". It should, however, still be pointed out that in [21] Maxwell mentions the ether as a liquid and derives his famous equations in [20, 22], relying on the ideas of Helmholtz, Rankin and other hydromechanists about the motion of vortices in an ideal liquid medium.
During the XIX century, several models of the ether were put forward. A considerable part of them did not answer the question about the structure of the ether and the nature of interactions. The authors of these theories tried to attribute to the ether those or other properties with the help of which one could expect at least a fundamental explanation of some phenomena [23-26].
Thus, to explain the annual aberration of starlight, discovered by Bradley in 1728 and reaching 20.5'', Fresnel in 1818 for the first time in a letter to Arago expressed the idea of a fixed ether [27-29], which was later substantially developed and supplemented by Lorentz. [31-33].
According to Fresnel's idea, the ether is a continuous elastic medium in which there is a substance of particles of atoms, in general, in no way connected with this medium. The role of the ether is the transmission of mechanical vibrations and waves. In explaining the aberration Fresnel first proceeded from the simple addition of the velocities of the Earth and light. However, some experiments, in particular, the experiment of Arago (18181819) on the interference of polarized beams of light and the experiment of Voskovich-Eré with a telescope filled with water, showed that the additional deviations of light, which should be, if the aberration of the Earth and the Earth's velocity is not aberrant, are t h e s a m e a s t h e a b e r r a t i o n o f light.

54
if the ether remained stationary, no. To save the hypothesis, Fresnel proposed to introduce a coefficient of entrainment of light by the medium
k = 1 - 1/n²,
where n is the optical refractive index of the medium. The explanation is reduced to the fact that the moving medium with its
atoms tries to entrain light, while the ether, remaining stationary, prevents it. Fresnel himself also did not try to reveal the reason for the entrainment of the ether by this medium. As it turns out, there are three independent physical substances: separately ether, separately optical medium and, finally, separately light with complete obscurity of their physical interaction.
The Fresnel-Lorentz theory, however, contradicts the initial idea of the ether as a carrier of interactions. In f a c t , if the ether does not take any part in the motion of matter, then matter cannot interact with the ether. Consequently, the ether cannot transfer to the substance the energy of its motion. There is a logical contradiction arising from the absence of a qualitative picture of the structure of the ether and the mechanism of its interaction with matter.
Stokes in 1845 suggested the idea of the entrainment of the surrounding aether by the Earth [28]. More detailed calculations have shown, however, that accepting Stokes' idea without any reservations means that there must be an aether velocity potential in the entire space surrounding the Earth. "In order to circumvent this difficulty," writes Lorenz [33, 34], "one could use the fact that the existence of a velocity potential is not necessary in the whole space surrounding the Earth, since we are dealing only with a limited region. However, this assumption would lead us to very artificial and unlikely constructions." Thus, the idea of Stokes did not find further development due to the complexity of the construction, although it certainly contained a rational grain. In addition, Stokes did not make any assumptions about the nature of interaction of the ether with the Earth and the nature of the ether itself.
Planck showed that the difficulties in Stokes' hypothesis could be avoided by assuming that the ether could be compressed and that it was influenced by gravity. No suggestion was made by Planck as to the possible causes of this influence. In his speeches Planck showed that this assumption points to a substantial condensation of the ether in the field of gravity. Near the Earth this condensation compared with open space is

55
60000, near the Sun - even 28 times more. Planck's hypothesis was not further developed.
Fizeau's experiment of light entrainment by a moving medium (water), conducted by him in 1851. [35] and repeated by Zeeman in 1914-1915. [36], numerically corresponded to the Fresnel entrainment coefficient. It should be noted, however, that, although taking into account the entrainment coefficient allowed, in Fizeau's opinion, to obtain a good match between theory and experience, the statistics necessary for such a statement was not collected, many circumstances accompanying the experiment were not taken into account, and on the basis of these experiments, at best, we can speak only of a qualitative confirmation of Fresnel's idea, although even this can be doubted. Despite the fact that numerically the Fresnel entrainment coefficient is calculated with high accuracy for many substances, in fact, the experimental verification of its value has not been carried out by anyone else, and this coefficient itself is not used in any physical device ....
Hertz proposed the idea of a complete capture of the ether by matter [37,38]. Hertz's hypothesis, however, is in contradiction with Fizeau's experiment, since this experiment has shown only partial capture of the ether by matter.
Ritz, by introducing the reduced time into Maxwell's equations and essentially returning to Lorentz's hypothesis, obtained a satisfactory coincidence of Maxwell's equations with the results of optical experiments. As a result, the "ballistic hypothesis" of Ritz [39] was born, from which it followed that a moving light source emits light with a velocity equal in absolute coordinates to the geometric sum of the velocities of light in vacuum and the velocity of the source. In his reasoning Ritz operates only with mathematical calculations and, like Lorentz, does not indicate the nature of the connections between matter and ether, does not consider the nature of light and the structure of the ether. Such a statement, being infinitely common, leads to the position that for double stars there must be moments when a star moving towards the earth must appear to be moving backwards. The observations of De Sitter (1913) [40] showed that there is no such phenomenon.
Thus, the listed hypotheses, models and theories of the ether, which appeared in the XIX century, firstly, considered the ether as a continuous homogeneous medium with constant properties identical for all points of space and any physical conditions, and secondly, did not make any assumptions either about the structure of the ether or about the nature of interactions between matter and the ether. Such a position led to

56
to the impossibility within the framework of these theories, which actually rely on any one particular property of the ether, to satisfy the whole variety of known phenomena. The Fresnel theory, which made the speed of light depend on the properties of the medium in which light propagates, is a certain exception. Fresnel's theory was further developed in the works of Einstein.
In parallel with the descriptive concepts of the ether, some hypotheses were developed that tried to find the structure of the ether. These hypotheses were called "mechanical" because they operate with mechanical concepts displacements and forces.
As already mentioned, the first mechanical models of the ether were proposed by René Descartes and Isaac Newton. Some mechanical theories and models of the ether were developed in the 18th and 19th centuries and later.
The theory of J.L. Lesage, designed to explain the essence of gravitation, is of certain interest. According to Lesage [41, 42], the ether is something similar to gas, with the essential difference that the ether particles practically do not interact with each other, colliding extremely rarely. Weighty matter absorbs particles, so bodies shield the aether particle streams. This leads to the fact that the second body experiences unequal from different sides pushing from the aether particles and begins to aspire to the first body. Lesage's theory did not meet the proper understanding at the moment of its appearance, but a hundred years later it received much attention from Prévost [43], Schramm [44, 45], W. Thomson [46], and Tath [47].
The theory of the ether as an elastic medium was proposed by Navier (1824), Poisson (1828), and Cauchy (1830) [23]. Navier considered the ether as an incompressible fluid possessing viscosity. The viscosity of the ether was considered by him as the cause of interactions between particles of matter and the ether, as well as between the ether and particles of matter, hence, particles of matter among themselves through the ether.
Cauchy considered the ether as a continuous medium and operated with stresses and deformations in each point of space. In works on optics Cauchy gave mathematical development of Fresnel theory and dispersion theory. Later it became clear that this explanation actually leads to the interpretation of the magnetic field as the displacement of aether particles, which contradicted the fact of dielectric displacement.
In his works Neumann [48, 49] proceeded from the assumption of constancy of the aether density in all media. Considering the ether as an elastic medium, Neumann analyzed the processes of light polarization.

57
Green considered the ether [50] as a continuous elastic medium, on the basis of which, based on the law of conservation of energy applied to a deformed elastic body, he considered the reflection and refraction of light in crystalline media. In the above mechanical models the nature of the ether and the reasons that the ether behaves as an elastic body were not elucidated.
In the mathematical works of McCullagh (1809-1847) [51], in which a geometrical study of the surface of a light wave was carried out, the aether was considered as a medium in which the potential function is a quadratic function of rotation angles. McCullagh's aether is continuous. Although McCullagh's theory is a theory of an elastic medium, and there is no mention of any electromagnetism in it, the equations he derived, as Lorentz notes, are essentially the same as those of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. A comparison with other theories of the elastic ether shows that the essential positive feature of McCullagh's theory lies precisely in the presence of the concept of vortex motion. According to Van Guerin's expression, the MacCullagh theory is a vortex theory of the aether.
W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin, 1824-1907) proposed several models of the ether [52-58]. First, Kelvin tried to improve the MacCullagh ether model, then he proposed a model of quasi-labile ether - a homogeneous isotropic medium in which vortices are present. The disadvantage of the model turned out to be the instability of the aether equilibrium, since the potential energy in this model has no minimum anywhere. The model of quasi-labile aether requires fixing of boundary conditions, which contradicts the ideas about the limitless and boundless space of the Universe.
Kelvin hypothesized the velocity of the ether as a magnetic flux and the velocity of rotation of the ether as a value of dielectric displacement. These hypotheses were not properly developed due to mathematical difficulties. Further developments led Kelvin to construct a model of the aether from solid and liquid gyrostats (gyroscopes) to obtain a system resisting only the deformations associated with rotation. Kelvin showed that in this case the resulting equations coincide with the equations of electrodynamics. Such a model also makes it possible to explain the propagation of light waves. In addition, Kelvin tried to consider the ether as a fluid in turbulent motion; he showed that turbulent motion is accompanied by oscillatory motion.

58
The theory was further developed in Kelvin's paper "On Vortex Atoms" (1867) [55], where the ether is presented as a perfect incompressible frictionless fluid. Kelvin showed that atoms are Helmholtz toroidal rings. This idea was somewhat earlier put forward by Runnig in "On Molecular Vortices" (1849- 1850), where the author considered some of the simplest interactions. A possible mechanism of interaction between ether and matter was considered by Larmor [59].
The school of J. J. Thomson (1856-1940) continued this line. In the works "Electricity and Matter", "Matter and Ether", "The Structure of Light", "Faraday's Force Tubes and Maxwell's Equations" and others. [60- 64] J.J.Thomson consistently developed the vortex theory of matter and interactions. He showed that under known simple assumptions, the expression of the quantum vortex ring coincides with the expression of Planck's law E = hν. Thomson, on the basis of the vortex theory of the ether, showed that E = mc². The authorship of this formula is attributed to Einstein, although J.J.Thomson obtained it in 1903 long before Einstein, and, most importantly, from completely different assumptions than Einstein, based, in particular, on the presence of the aether in nature.
J.J.Thomson created a very slender theory, set forth in a number of works published from 1880 to 1928. The only, perhaps, drawback of this theory is the idealization of the properties of the ether, the idea of it as a continuous ideal incompressible fluid, which led this theory to some significant contradictions.
Thus, W.Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and J.J.Thomson considered a single matter - ether, and its different manifestations were conditioned by different forms of its kinetic motion.
It is interesting to note that the vortex theories of the ether did not pass the attention of Engels. In the section "Electricity" (Dialectics of Nature) [65, p. 97] he writes: "Electricity is a movement of ether particles, and the molecules of the body take part in this movement. Different theories portray the nature of this motion in different ways. The theories of Maxwell, Hankel, and Renard, drawing on the latest research on vortex motions, see it, each in its own way, also as a vortex motion. And thus the vortices of old Descartes again find a place of honor in all new fields of knowledge." "The Aether Theory," as Engels puts it, "gives hope of finding out what is the actual material substratum of electrical motion, what is the actual thing that causes electrical phenomena by its motions." Here it is also interesting that Engels paid much attention to the following

59
to elucidate the physical essence of a phenomenon, not just a descriptive abstraction.
A number of theories of the ether were created in Russia. The ideas of Euler (1707-1783) about the properties of the world ether [66-68] influenced Riemann (1826- 1866), who in his lecture "On the Hypotheses Underlying the Foundations of Geometry" (1854) outlined the concept of world space, resolving some of the difficulties encountered by Euler.
M.V.Lomonosov (1711-1765) rejected all specific types of matter - heat, light, recognized only ether, with the help of which he, in particular, explained gravitation as a result of pushing the planets by ether particles due to the pressure difference [69-75]. This idea of Lomonosov was expressed earlier than the similar idea of Lesage, almost forty years earlier.
D.I.Mendeleev's attempt to determine the chemical properties of ether was of great interest [76]. Extensive research on the elasticity of gases at very low pressures was conducted by D.I.Mendeleev in order to experimentally approach the ether. "Already in the 70-ies, - writes Mendeleev, - I persistently got the question: what is the ether in the chemical sense? At first I believed that the ether is the sum of rarefied gases in the limit state. I made experiments at low pressures to get a hint of the answer." "It seems to me conceivable that the world ether is not a perfectly homogeneous gas, but a mixture of several gases close to the limit state, i.e., it is composed like our earthly atmosphere of a mixture of several gases"
Mendeleev included ether in the table of chemical elements in the "zero" line and called "newtonium", this line was later removed from the table.
I.O. Yarkovsky [77] proposed in the 70s of the XIX century the theory of gas-like ether. In his opinion, the aether elements had the innate property of mutually braking each o t h e r at collision, and at elimination of an obstacle to continue their motion in the same way as it was before stopping. The nature of such behavior of ether particles was not considered by Yarkovsky. Relying on the idea of the ether as a gas-like medium, Yarkovsky considered some physical phenomena, in particular, made an attempt to create a model of gravitation. In the 1920s, the model of gas-like aether was considered by P.A. Piotrovsky, but only at the level of a qualitative model of some individual phenomena, mainly gravitation.
In later times, when the theory of relativity was already widely known, some Soviet and foreign scientists defended the mechanical theory of the aether, becoming at the same time on the point of the

60
from the viewpoint of the vortex model. Among these works, it is necessary to note the works of K.E. Tsiolkovsky [78], Z.A. Tseytlin [79, 80], which are mainly of a review nature, the works of Whiteaker [81], N.P. Kasterin [82], V.F. Mitkevich [83-85], and others.
Kasterin [82] shows the analogy between vortex motions of air flows and electromagnetic phenomena and points out the insufficiency of Euler's mathematical conclusions concerning vortex motions, since Euler's conclusions were based on the idea of a continuous medium, while gas consists of individual particles and is not continuous. Kasterin clarified both the equations of aerodynamics mainly with respect to vortex motions and the electromagnetic field equation, and showed their deep analogy.
In the works of the Soviet academician V.F.Mitkevich "Works of W.Thomson" (1930), "Basic views of modern physics" (1933), "Basic physical views" (1934) [81-83] and others not only advocates the necessity of recognizing the fact of the existence of the ether, but also proposes a model in which the ideas of J.J.Thomson are actually embedded, which Mitkevich explicitly says.
Mitkevich advocated a mechanical view of the aether. In one of his works he considered "a ring electron, which can be calculated as an elementary magnetic vortex moving along a rigid orbit and accommodated in the volume normally assigned to the electron". Mitkevich considered "a closed magnetic line detached from the source and shrinking as the energy is given away" and pointed out the similarity of the magnetic flux to Helmholtz vortices. However, the main thing in Mitkevich's works was not this model, which was rather imperfect, but the belief in the existence of the ether.
In "Basic Physical Views," Mitkiewicz writes: "Absolutely empty space, devoid of any physical content, cannot serve as an arena for the propagation of any waves whatsoever... The recognition of an ether in which mechanical motions can take place, i.e., spatial displacements of elementary volumes of this prime matter continuously filling our entire three-dimensional space, is not in itself a sign of a mechanistic point of view... It is necessary, finally, to rehabilitate "mechanical motion" quite definitely, properly modernizing, of course, the content of this ter

61
The struggle against the erroneous scientific and philosophical attitude, which is called the mechanistic point of view, should not be replaced in modern physics by a completely unjustified persecution of legitimate attempts to consider those mechanical motions, which undoubtedly constitute the basis of the structure of any physical process, although in no way exhausting in themselves It is necessary, at last, to stop identifying the terms "mechanical" and "mechanistic" as is unfortunately often the case in contemporary scientific, philosophical and physical literature."
The papers [23-26, 79, 80, 89-91, 92-96] give reviews on the history of development of ether concepts and modern views on the nature of the "physical vacuum".
Along with the development of theories and models of the ether, the view that there is no ether as such in nature was developed.
In 1910 in the work "The principle of relativity and its consequences", Einstein wrote that "it is impossible to create a satisfactory theory without denying the existence of some medium that fills all space. Later, in the works "The Ether and the Theory of Relativity" (1920) and "On the Ether" (1924), Einstein changed his point of view regarding the existence of the ether, but this fact is little known, and it did not affect the attitude to the ether on the part of most theoretical physicists.
Academician Ya.I.Frenkel categorically denied the existence of the world ether, comparing the search for the properties of the ether with "god-seeking and god-building" [89] and defended the principle of long-range action. [89], and defended the principle of long-range action. At present the ideas related to "action at a distance" continue to develop, but along with this, in many works the idea of "physical vacuum", "vacuum liquid", etc. is more and more often used, which actually restores the ideas about the world medium under another name. A number of vacuum effects - the zero-point energy level of fields, virtual states of particles, polarization of vacuum, etc. - have been found, which forces to abandon the ideas about vacuum as a void and to raise again the question about its structure [90, 91].
The discussion described above is actually a dispute about whether it is necessary to search for the material basis of the internal mechanism of phenomena or whether it is enough to find a suitable mathematical apparatus for the external one.

62
to describe phenomena. This is a dispute between dynamics and phenomenology. But for the dynamic approach, the phenomenon is the result of the inner mechanism, the hidden forms of motion of matter, and the external description is just a consequence of this mechanism. Understanding the reasons why a physical phenomenon is the way it is, allows us to take into account many aspects that escape the attention of a researcher who limits himself to phenomenology, to its external description.
2.2. Disadvantages of known hypotheses, theories and models ether
Despite the abundance and variety of various hypotheses, models and theories of the ether, their authors failed to create any complete and consistent picture of the world, covering at least the basic forms of matter and types of interactions. All these hypotheses and models are characterized by some or other fundamental shortcomings that did not allow them to develop. And the main reason for these shortcomings is methodological.
The main drawbacks were three. The first disadvantage was that all hypotheses, models and theories of the ether, from the very first to the last, considered a certain narrow range of phenomena without affecting the rest. The models of Descartes and Newton, of course, could not take into account electromagnetic phenomena, much less intraatomic interactions. The works of Faraday, Maxwell, Lorentz, Hertz and other researchers did not take into account gravitation and did not consider the structure of matter. In their works Stokes and Fresnel tried to explain actually only the phenomena of aberration. In the mechanical models of Navier, McCullagh and further V. Thomson and J. Thomson considered mainly the range of electromagnetic phenomena, however, V. Thomson and J. Thomson tried to penetrate to some extent into the essence of the structure of matter. Thus, no theory of the ether has attempted to answer either the questions of the structure of matter or the basic kinds of interactions, thus disconnecting them from each other. The second major drawback of practically all theories and models of the ether without exception, except the models of Newton and Lesage, is that the ether was considered as a continuous medium. Furthermore, most authors have treated the ether as an ideal fluid or an ideal solid. Such metaphysical idealization of properties

63
The ether, admissible for some physical conditions or phenomena, extended automatically to all conceivable physical conditions and phenomena, which inevitably led to contradictions.
The third disadvantage of many theories, except for the last ones of W. Thomson and J. Thomson, is the separation of the matter of matter of atoms and particles from the matter of ether. The ether appears as an independent substance, perceiving energy from the particles of matter in a completely incomprehensible way and transmitting energy to the particles of matter. In the works of Fresnel and Lorentz there are three actually independent substances: matter, independent of ether; ether, freely penetrating through matter, and light, incomprehensibly created by matter, transmitted by matter to ether and again perceived by matter without any disclosure of the mechanism of all these transmissions and transformations.
Although the authors of the above hypotheses, models and theories of the ether asserted correctly the very fact of existence of the medium - the carrier of energy of interactions and the basis of the structure of matter, the above drawbacks made it practically impossible to use these theories and their development within the framework of the initial assumptions.
However, the main drawback of all theories and models of the ether was the actual postulation of its properties. Practically nobody ever put forward any philosophical or methodological bases for determination of physical parameters of the ether. In this respect the determination of the ether parameters had the same postulative character as the statement about its absence in the nature. The physical properties of the ether were not determined from the known experimental data, which were obviously insufficient in those times, but were postulated based on the tastes of each author of the concept. But they all agreed that the ether was something ideal and absolute, such as an ideal liquid. The aether had the property of allpenetration, and the mechanism of this all-penetration was not substantiated in any way. The idea that when penetrating through a substance the ether flow could be slowed down due to viscosity or other reasons was never even discussed.
The Fresnel ether, as well as the Lorentz ether, is an absolutely stationary ether. Hertz's ether has the property of being absolutely trapped by a moving body. Maxwell's aether is a perfect fluid in which Helmholtz's laws of vortices apply. Maxwell did not pay attention to the fact that, according to Helmholtz, vortices, and Maxwell's magnetic field are vortex formations of the ether, they can neither

64
to form or disappear in an ideal fluid, which is clearly contradicted by experiments. Thus, the idealization of the properties of the ether immediately dooms all such theories to contradictions and to defeat.
The fact that such idealization of the ether was adopted by many authors of various concepts of the ether is methodologically understandable, since the data for more or less correct determination of the properties of the ether did not exist at that time: natural science had not accumulated data on the behavior of elementary particles of matter and their mutual transformations, gas dynamics had not been developed. However, some points were known even then, but they were not given importance. At all stages of development of natural science it was possible to formulate the idea of general physical invariants. Postulating the properties of the ether, it was possible to propose the gas medium as a model, at least on the basis of the fact that the medium should naturally fill the entire world space and not provide any noticeable resistance. However, nothing of this was done, which testifies to the insufficient development of the methodological foundations of physics practically at all stages of the development of natural science. Dialectical materialism filled this gap to a certain extent, but, as experience shows, it never became a working tool for all those who tried to develop theories, hypotheses and models of the ether, and even less became a guide for those who indiscriminately denied and continue to deny its existence in nature.
2.3. Etheric Wind. Reality and falsification
The history of the search for the ether wind [92, 93] is one of the most confusing histories of modern natural science. The significance of ether wind research goes far beyond the research of any particular physical phenomenon: the results of the first works in this direction had a decisive influence on the entire natural science of the twentieth century. The so-called "zero result" of the first experiments of A. Michelson and E. Morley, performed by these researchers in 1881 and 1887, led physicists of the XX century to the idea not only of the absence of ether wind on the Earth's surface, but also to the conviction that the ether - the world medium, filling all space, does not exist in nature. No positive results obtained by these and other researchers in later years have not shaken this confidence. And even when A. Einstein himself in the

65
1920 and 1924 began to claim that "physics is inconceivable without the ether," it didn't change anything.
However, as it is revealed now, in the field of ether wind in due time a number of scientists carried out very solid works. Some of them gave exceptionally rich positive material. To these, of course, we must first of all refer the research conducted by the remarkable American scientist Professor Dayton Clarence Miller of the Case School of Applied Science, who spent practically his entire life on this research. It is not his fault, but his and our misfortune that all the results obtained by him and his group by contemporaries of the scientist and later theoretical physicists are categorized as "unrecognized." By 1933, when the studies of Miller and his group were completed, the school of relativists - followers of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity stood firmly on its feet and vigilantly watched that nothing could not shake its foundations. Such "non-recognition" also contributed to the results of experiments, in which some other authors, without wishing to do so, made mistakes and did not get the desired effect. They should not be blamed for the intentionality of such an outcome: they simply did not realize the nature of the ether, its properties, its interaction with matter, and therefore they made fundamental mistakes in conducting the experiments, which did not allow them to succeed. Today the reasons for these failures have become quite clear.
However, the negative opinion of the so-called "scientific community" still hangs over the problem of the ether wind, and this is a serious obstacle to the restoration of ideas about the ether and the deployment of work in this extremely promising field of natural science. Today it is necessary to critically reconsider the whole history of the search for the ether wind at least in order to understand the true situation in this matter and in the future to avoid the mistakes that were made by various researchers, which was the immediate reason for the rejection of further research in this direction.
The origin of the ether wind problem is the phenomenon of aberration of light in astronomy, which was discovered by J.Bradley in 1728. To explain the aberration, a number of hypotheses were proposed, the most fruitful of which was O.Fresnel's hypothesis of a stationary ether, put forward by him in 1825 and then used by H.Lorentz in his electrodynamics of moving media.
J.C.Maxwell shortly before his death noted [94] that when the Earth moves through the ether, there must be an etheric on its surface

66
wind, which accordingly should change the speed of light propagating in the ether. Unfortunately, noted Maxwell, all methods of measuring the change in the time of passage of light on a segment of the path require the return of light to the starting point, so the difference in time appears to depend on the ratio of the squares of the velocities of the ether wind and the speed of light, and this is a very small value, and it is practically impossible to measure.
Despite this, in 1880 A. Michelson developed a device - an interferometer with two intersecting optical paths, with the help of which such measurements became possible. However, it turned out that the obtained results did not correspond to the expected ones and the deviations were within the error values [95].
Not satisfied with the results of the 1881 experiment and due to the high sensitivity of the interferometer to vibration interference, Michelson 18861887, together with Prof. E. Morley, continued the work, significantly improving the interferometer and placing it on a float immersed in a mercury bath, which got rid of the influence of vibrations [96]. The results were again positive, but they again did not correspond to the expected results, for they gave a value of the velocity of the ether wind a t least 10 times less. The question arose as to the reasons for this discrepancy.
In 1892 J. Fitzgerald and H. Lorentz independently of each other hypothesized that the reason for the absence of displacement of interference fringes could be the contraction of the arms of the interferometer when the substance of the arms moves through the ether: there is a deformation of the field of each charge, and since all the bonds in the substance have an electrical character, the atoms will get closer (the width of the body will increase proportionally). Then it was suggested that different substances would probably undergo different relative contraction, and therefore it would be possible to catch the difference in the contraction of two rods made of different materials (steel and pine wood were used). The testing of this circumstance did not lead to positive results. It was suggested, however, that it was wrong to carry out experiments in basement rooms, since the surface layers of the earth might[25-27] screen the etheric currents, and that it would be advisable to raise the interferometer on a freestanding mountain.

67 In 1905, E. Morley and D. C. Miller continued the experiments at Euclidean heights at a height of 250 m above sea level. The result was firmly fixed: the magnitude of the ether wind was 3-3.5 km/s [97]. The work was then continued by Prof. D.C. Miller, who spent about 40 years conducting the experiments, completing them in 1925, reporting them to the Washington Academy of Sciences [98] and issuing the corresponding report [99] (Fig. 2.1).
Figure 2.1. Fragments of ether wind recordings by D.C. Miller's group at Mount Wilson in 1925.

68
The experiments were conducted at Mount Wilson Observatory at an altitude of 6,000 feet (1,860 m) using a large interferometer. Tremendous statistics were collected by Miller and his group, with over 100,000 counts taken in 1925 alone. As a result, it was discovered that the velocity of the ether wind at this altitude was about 10 km/s, and its direction was not orbital but galactic. Taking into account the variation of the wind velocity by height, it was concluded that the etheric flow was partially captured by the Earth, which is quite consistent with today's ideas of gas dynamics about the regularities of the boundary layer and about the flow of a balloon (the Earth) by a gas flow.
As a result of the works of Miller, who in 1905-1907 and 1921-1925 put in 1905-1907 and 1921-1925 a series of experiments with the interferometer, inherited by him from Michelson and Morley, it became clear that there is a clear dependence of the velocity of the ether wind on height, and on the surface of the Earth, as it was shown in 1881 and 1887, the relative velocity of the ether wind is small and at a height of 250 m above sea level is about 3 km / s, and at a height of 1860 m - from 8 to 10 km / s. Thus, the relative velocity of the ether wind increases with altitude.
As a result of data processing, Miller found that the direction of the etheric wind is as if the Earth in its motion in the stationary ether is moving towards the star of the constellation Dragon (declination +65˚, direct ascension 262˚). The probable error in Miller's experiments did not exceed 2˚.
Miller reported his results to a special conference assembled at Mount Wilson Observatory on February 4-5, 1927 [100], and then published a large review article in 1933. [101].
The results obtained by Miller are in good agreement with the theory of the balloon flowing with a stream of gas.
When flowing around a balloon, gas forms a boundary layer, and the layers nearest to the body surface move together with the body, while the distant ones have some intermediate velocity, and starting from some value, the gas velocity corresponds to its velocity in free space. In other words, the boundary layer has a certain thickness determined by the parameters of both the gas and the ball.
At points with coordinates relative to the central axis of the gas flow φotr = 109.6˚, the boundary layer breaks away. Starting from this coordinate, the gas should be stationary relative to the ball at various distances from it up to the boundary layer that has broken away and passes at some distance from the ball.

69
Work in a similar direction was also carried out by other researchers. At the same conference, R.J.Kennedy reported that, after Miller published his results in 1926, he, Kennedy, invented and developed another device, simpler, but possessing, in his opinion, extremely high sensitivity, which amounted to 0.001 interference fringes (although the blurring of the edges of interference fringes is 10-20%! - V.A.). The device was packed in a hermetically sealed metal box, which was filled with helium. By the beginning of 1927 the device was debugged, and all experiments had already been performed. Kennedy did not get any results, which he reported to the conference. This was interpreted by him not as the unsuitability of his device, which was carefully isolated by a metal box from the penetration of etheric currents, but as the absence of etheric wind in nature. There were other similar attempts, such as the lifting of the interferometer on a stratospheric balloon over Brussels in 1926. Here the researchers A.Piccard and E.Stael also corked the device in a metal box. The results in this case were uncertain [93].
In 1929, A. Michelson, together with F.G. Pease and F. Pearson, repeated experiments on the detection of the e t h e r wind [102, 103], this time quite successfully completed: at the same height in the Mount Wilson Observatory, they obtained a value of wind speed of 6 km/s. The decrease of the velocity in comparison with Miller's data is easily explained by the fact that, unlike Miller, Michelson conducted his experiments in a fundamental house, the walls of which somewhat reduced the velocity of etheric flows.
Thus, there is no reason to consider as "firmly established" the absence of ether in nature on the basis of the results of the experiments carried out in 1881 and 1887. On the contrary, these works, and especially those of Miller, speak definitely in favor of the existence of the ether, and the uncertainty of the brief verifications by other authors can rather be attributed to the careless preparation of the experiments than to any evidence.
It is interesting to note that Miller obtained the direction of the ether wind, which does not coincide with the expected in the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. His results reflect not even so much the motion of the Earth together with the Sun and the Galaxy in the world space, as the motion of etheric flows inside the Galaxy.
Between 1929 and 1933. Michelson and his collaborators (Michelson died in 1931) set up an experiment in a partial vacuum. The speed of light was measured in an iron tube 1600 m long and

70
a 1-meter diameter pipe located on Mount Wilson. The air was pumped out of the pipe. No effect of the ether wind was detected, which is not surprising since metals have a particularly high ether dynamic resistance and iron pipes shield the effect. One might as well try to measure the air wind blowing outside with a device placed in a sealed room.
In 1958-1962, a group of American researcher C. Townes, the inventor of the maser, tried to measure the speed of the ether wind using two masers located on a rotating platform. It was supposed that the ether wind should, by accelerating light, change the frequency of the received radiation. The effect was not obtained, which allowed the authors to declare the absence of ether wind in nature.
This experiment contained a gross error: the ether wind could change the phase of the signal, but not its frequency, since the Doppler effect of mutually stationary sources of oscillations (masers) and the receiver (interference picture) is always and fundamentally equal to zero.
In [93] the listed experiments are described and the question is raised about the necessity of returning to the problem of the existence of the ether wind in nature.
At present, a number of researchers are proactively carrying out work on the study of the ether wind. These works are carried out using the first order effects (the effect is proportional to the first degree of the ratio of the e t h e r wind speed to the speed of light) - measuring the phase of the signal in the radio band and measuring the deviation of the laser beam from its average position. The results of these works confirmed the presence of ether wind even on the surface of the Earth, but they have not yet shaken the supporters of the theory of relativity.
In 1998-2002 in Kharkov at the Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the group of Y.M.Galaev performed a large range of studies on the influence of meteorological conditions on the propagation of radio waves of the 8-millimeter range on the base of 13 km. Daily and annual variations were revealed. Processing of the results showed an almost complete correlation with Miller's 1925 results. [104]. Thus, there are no grounds to consider the absence of ether wind allegedly confirmed experimentally. On the contrary, the conducted experiments clearly showed that the ether wind exists, that it increases with height and that it has a galactic, not orbital direction. It is

71
means that work on the ether wind must continue, particularly with experiments on mountaintops and in space using satellites.
What will ether wind measurements give for science and practice? For science, they will give the possibility of much more complete ideas about the processes occurring in near-Earth space, in the Solar System and in the Galaxy, and, finally, about the structure of the Universe as a whole.
For practical purposes, a systematic study of the ether wind in near-Earth and more distant space will make it possible to timely detect and take into account the influence of cosmic factors on the processes occurring on the Earth. Since all processes without exception are inertial, one can eventually learn to predict future Earth processes by the state of ether parameters - its density, viscosity, temperature, changes in the directions and speed of ether flows in near-Earth space. This, in turn, will significantly reduce many negative consequences of space influence on the Earth, and possibly prevent or even completely avoid them.
Conclusions
1. The concept of ether accompanies the development of natural science from ancient times to the present. The pictures of the world and various physical theories developed by different authors until the beginning of the twentieth century correctly assumed the existence in nature of a world medium - the ether, which is the basis of the structure of matter and the carrier of energy of physical fields and interactions.
2. Failures of numerous authors of theories, models and hypotheses of the ether were predetermined by the erroneous methodical approach of these authors to the problem of the ether. In accordance with this approach, the properties of the ether were not deduced from the results of generalization of observations of real reality, but were postulated and idealized, which inevitably led to contradictions. However, this is explained, first of all, by the fact that natural science had not passed the stage of necessary accumulation of facts, there were no gas dynamics and data on elementary particles. Both appeared only by the middle of the twentieth century, when any research on the aether theory was administratively stopped.

72
3. The phenomenological approach to physical phenomena, rooted in the twentieth century, associated, in particular, with the introduction of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics into theoretical physics, led to the rejection of the concept of ether and, as a consequence, to the neglect of the internal mechanisms of phenomena, to the neglect of the internal motions of matter. Physical phenomena began to be explained as a result of spatial and temporal distortions. Thus some properties of electromagnetic interactions, in particular, quantization of electromagnetic energy, speed of light, were artificially and unjustifiably extended to all without exception physical interactions, including nuclear and gravitational ones. This approach has set a limit in the cognitive capabilities of nature by man.
4. Modern theoretical physics has to indirectly introduce the concept of the world medium under the names "physical vacuum", "field - a special kind of matter", etc., avoiding the name "ether" as supposedly discredited, thus showing inconsistency in its philosophical basis.
5. The coincidence of the obtained experimental results with the calculated results according to the formulas of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics does not mean the validity of these theories, as similar numerical results can be obtained on completely different bases, for example, on the basis of the dependences of gas mechanics, arising from the ideas about the existence in nature of the ether, possessing the properties of ordinary real gas.
6. Experiments on detection of "ether wind", which gave negative results and were the basis for the statement about the absence of ether in nature, were set either methodologically wrong (Ch. Towns, 1958-1962), or instrumentally incorrect (Kennedy, 1925-1927; Illingworth, 1926-1927; Piccard and Stael, 1926). The results of these experiments do not provide grounds for an unequivocal conclusion about the absence of ether in nature.
7. There is direct experimental evidence indicating the presence of an "ether wind" in near-Earth space. These data were obtained by Morley (19011905), Miller (1921- 1925) and Michelson (1929). The results of their investigations testify not only to the fact of the existence of ether in nature, but also to its gas-like structure. At present, new successful attempts to measure the aether wind have been made, and highly sensitive 1st order devices have been created, which allow us to put the research of the aether wind on a qualitatively higher level.

73
8. The need for systematic studies of the ether wind in near-Earth space, in addition to general cognitive purposes, is also connected with practical tasks, since all space influences on the Earth pass through the ether surrounding the Earth. Taking into account the inertia of all processes in general, systematic studies of the state of ether parameters in near-Earth space - density, pressure, viscosity, temperature, velocity and direction of flows, etc. can be used along with already known other methods to create an effective system of forecasting many terrestrial events, the root cause of which are cosmic influences. This will make it possible to minimize the negative consequences of such influences, including many natural and manmade disasters.

74
Chapter 3. Methodological Foundations etherdynamics

...Science, whose task is to understand nature, must proceed on the assumption that this understanding is possible, and according to this assumption must make its conclusions and investigations.
H. Helmholtz [1].

3.1. О certain materialism

provisions dialectical

Before restoring the ideas about the ether, it is necessary to answer the question why all this is needed at all. For this purpose we will have to remember why science is needed in general and, in particular, why natural science is needed. And here we cannot do without analyzing what social production is.
In order to live, man must consume certain objects - consumption items. Nature does not produce consumption items by itself, for this we need means of production. Means of production do not work by themselves, man works on them. In order to produce with the help of means of production the consumer goods needed by man, raw materials and technologies are needed. But in order to create the necessary technologies capable of producing the necessary consumer goods with the help of extracted raw materials, it is necessary to know the structure of nature, to find its objective laws, because only on their basis it is possible to create the necessary technologies and extract the necessary raw materials for them. Thus, it is the creation of technologies that is the ultimate goal of natural science, and this is confirmed by the whole history of science development: the knowledge that is mastered by technologies is preserved, and the knowledge that is not mastered by technologies is sooner or later lost, and then, if there is a need for it, is rediscovered. Hence the famous formulation of science.
Science is a sphere of human activity, the function of which is the development and theoretical systematization of objective knowledge about reality, one of the forms of social consciousness [2]. Accordingly, natural science is a system of sciences about nature, studying various forms of existence, changes of state, motion of matter in nature: their material carriers (substrate), forming a hierarchical ladder of successive levels of structural organization of matter; their interrelations, internal structure and genesis; the main cognized forms of existence - space and time;

75
the regular relationship between the phenomena of nature of both a general nature, covering a number of forms of motion, and of a specific nature, concerning only certain aspects of certain forms of motion, their substrate and structure [3]. "The subject of natural science is moving matter. The cognition of various forms of motion is the main subject of natural science" (Engels) [4].
Hence the task of physics. Physics is a science that studies the simplest and at the same time the most general objective regularities of natural phenomena, properties and structure of matter and laws of its motion. The concepts of physics and its laws are the basis of all natural science. Physics studies functional and quantitative objective regularities of phenomena [5].
The world around us, of which we ourselves are a part, is material. "The real unity of the world, Engels wrote, consists in its materiality, and this latter is proved not by a couple of magical phrases, but by a long and difficult development of philosophy and natural science" [6, p. 39]. [6, c. 39].
It is all a matter of discovering the laws of this movement. The significance of materialism follows directly from the above: materialism shows the necessity of studying the objective laws of nature rather than inventing them. The basic question of philosophy, what comes first - matter or consciousness, i.e., objective reality or our perceptions of it, is solved by materialism in favor of matter, and by idealism in favor of consciousness.
Recognizing the primacy of matter means that it is not created by anyone, but exists eternally, that space and time are objectively existing forms of being matter, that thinking is not separable from the matter that thinks, that the unity of the world consists in its materiality.
The materialist solution of the second side of the main question of philosophy - about the cognizability of the world - means the belief in the adequacy of the reflection of reality in human consciousness, in the cognizability of the world and its regularities. "Our subjective thinking and objective world are subject to the same laws" [7, с. 231].
Dialectical materialism is the science of the most general laws of movement and development of nature, society and consciousness. The initial category for materialist dialectics is the category of matter and forms of its existence - motion, space and time. All objects have external sides, which are directly perceived by sensations. This is the qualitative side of the object, its

76
difference from other objects. Realization of quality precedes cognition of quantitative aspects of the object. Hence, it is immediately obvious that any functional-quantitative description of an object must be preceded by its qualitative model. However, the qualities of an object are determined by its internal content, which is the reason why objects have certain qualities. And that is why cognition goes "from coexistence to causality (causality - V.A.) and from one form of connection and interdependence to another, deeper, more general" [8]. In-depth realization of the relationship between the external and internal is revealed in the categories of form and content.
Dialectical materialism indicates that every object and every phenomenon should be considered in the process of its formation, development and degradation. Development is the transition of an object from one state to a qualitatively different one, from one structure to another. Degradation of an object up to its destruction does not mean the disappearance of matter, but only the transition of matter into a structure of a different quality. "All of nature, from its smallest particles to the greatest bodies, from grains of sand to suns, from the simplest to the human being, is in eternal emergence and disappearance, in a continuous flow, in ceaseless motion and change" [7, p. 15]. [7, с. 15].
It follows directly from all this that the task of the materialist researcher is to study nature as it is, whether one likes it or dislikes it does not matter. Accordingly, the task of materialistic theory is to describe the laws of nature and to discover the reasons why these laws are so. Therefore, if it is found that some facts, previously discovered or new, do not correspond to the theory, the theory should be changed, clarified or even canceled completely as not corresponding to objective reality. And thus all objects should be considered as structural organizations of matter, i.e. having some "building material" organized into a structure, and this structure should be considered in the process of its organization, development, degradation with the transition of this "building material" into another structure.
Materialism admits of no postulation; a materialist theory rests on conclusions from established facts, and these conclusions may be adjusted as new facts accumulate. Mathematics here is a useful complement to qualitative physical ideas about the structure of material objects and about physical processes and phenomena.

77
The same issue is resolved by idealism in favor of consciousness. Here it is considered that the task of science is to create a certain logic based on several initial statements. The criterion of truth is not correspondence to reality, but the "simplicity" or "beauty" of the theory, the possibility of the most "simple" description of the laws of nature. Here the "principle of economy of thinking", once proclaimed by E. Mach, is possible. And if a fact is found in nature that does not fit into the legalized theory, this fact is simply discarded as "unrecognized". Just such a story and happened with the ether wind, which was discovered as a result of many years of experiments, but which turned out to be "unrecognized" b e c a u s e Einstein's theory of relativity did not correspond to these experimental data.
Postulating, i.e., putting forward postulates, i.e., free statements to which reality is supposedly obliged to conform, is one of the main methods of idealistic theories. What is worth such postulates as "the electron in the atom does not fall on the nucleus and does not radiate because it moves along allowed (?! - V.A.) orbits" (N.Bohr) or "the axiomatic basis of physics must be freely invented" (Einstein). Here mathematics is not a supplement to qualitative physical representations, but the basis of nature, and qualitative representations appear to be unnecessary at all. In physical theories, as Lenin rightly noted, "matter has disappeared, only equations remain".
From this we can immediately see the difference between materialist and idealist approaches to scientific theory. Materialists study nature, and if the facts do not fit the theory, they change the theory. Idealists "invent" nature, and if the facts do not fit the theory, they discard the unwanted facts. It has happened with the ether wind: when unambiguous results have been received and it has been defined, where the ether wind blows from, having galactic direction, and with what speed, these results have been "not recognized" by relativistic physicists and thus have committed a scientific forgery, having rejected both the ether wind and the ether itself as a world medium and building material for all kinds of matter and fields. If such a thing happened to the materialistic theory, the authors of the theory would be forced to revise their theory.
The materialist approach is based on the whole experience of natural science, and from it some fundamental points for any materialist theory are directly derived. This experience tells us that any concrete material thing

78
formation has a beginning and an end, but matter does not disappear, it passes into other material formations. T h e universe as a whole has neither beginning n o r e n d , and therefore every material formation must be considered as becoming, arising as a result of some processes, existing for a finite period of time and being destroyed as a result of other processes. At the same time, everything occurs in space and time, which is motion, which also does not arise from nothing, but only passes from one form to another. This circulation of matter in the Universe is eternal.
There can be no immaterial processes in the Universe and at any point of space and at any moment of time. And since both space and time are defined as properties of matter, whatever small fraction of space is to be considered, there must always be matter in it, and whatever smallest segment of time is to be considered, there is always a material process in it.
Recently, some researchers have begun to consider energy-information processes as some fundamental property of matter. Without denying the legitimacy of such an approach, however, it should be noted that the transmission of information requires a material carrier - a signal, which has a certain structure, carries a certain energy and is capable of being not only emitted by a material transmitter, but also received by a material receiver in the form in which it is emitted. And if at least one of these attributes is absent, then any energy-information process is out of the question.
No "action at a distance" ("actio in distance") - the interaction of bodies in the absence of a material carrier of this interaction - exists in nature, and if this material carrier is not taken into account in theoretical constructions, it should be considered not as a device of nature, but as a defect of the theory.
It must not be forgotten that just as innumerable higher-order curves can be drawn through a finite number of points lying in the plane, any finite number of facts can be "explained" by countless theories. Any concrete fact does not confirm a theory, but merely contradicts or does not contradict it. For example, the correspondence of the obtained experimental results to the Lorentz transformations can be interpreted as follows "confirmation" of two mutually exclusive theories - Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which denies the ether, and Lorentz's own theory of the immobile ether.

79
And it is also necessary to note that every process and every phenomenon has an internal mechanism, hidden movements of matter at a deeper hierarchical level, which give rise to this process and phenomenon. But any process and any phenomenon, as well as their internal mechanism cannot be determined with absolute certainty, because the number of properties of each of them is infinitely large. Any object can be cognized with a certain approximation, but this process of cognition must continue, gradually refining the knowledge obtained. This is the problem of relative and absolute truths.
The whole accumulated experience of natural science testifies to the validity of the provisions of dialectical materialism. Modern physical theories, and first of all Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics in its philosophical part, are in flagrant contradiction with the provisions of dialectical materialism. Theoretical physicists recognize this fact, but it is explained by the fact that dialectical materialism itself is obsolete. In fact, the opposite is true, and although the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics have provided many useful methods of calculating concrete phenomena, this does not at all indicate the correctness of the theories themselves. Moreover, putting the main task of physics phenomenology - external description of phenomena, they limited the possibilities of man in the knowledge of nature and led physics and all natural science in a dead end. The task of natural science is to return to materialistic methodology and with its help to solve all the accumulated contradictions.
From all of the above it is quite natural to determine the role of ether dynamics - a section of physics devoted to the study of everything that is related to the ether.
Ether dynamics is a section of physics that studies the structure of material and non-material entities, force and information fields of interactions on the basis of ideas about the ether - a material medium that fills the entire world space and is a building material for all kinds of organization of matter and fields, the movements of which are manifested in the form of certain physical phenomena.
Etherrodynamics is in its infancy. However, we can already see that on its basis new directions of research are being defined, many hypotheses, technologies and even discoveries are appearing. It is natural, as the transition to a new level of matter organization allows to understand the essence of physical phenomena and to make on this basis

80
on the basis of many new conclusions. The introduction of ether dynamics into physics is the next, sixth in the history of natural science, physical revolution. Thus, it is necessary to return to the question of existence of ether, its structure and role in nature. However, it is necessary to make certain warnings here.
Ether-dynamics has materialism in its basis, i.e. it proceeds from the idea of materiality, objectivity and independence from our perceptions of the surrounding reality. But it should be ready to make corrections in any of its provisions, if in the real world there are facts that contradict them. The supporters of ether-dynamics, and there are many of them today, should not forget that every phenomenon is inexhaustible, and therefore everything that is considered by ether-dynamics from the position of the existence of ether in nature is only a model of real processes. These models will be refined and improved by subsequent researchers, and this process of improvement of models - ideas about the essence of physical phenomena - will last as long as natural science will exist.
The introduction of ether-dynamics into physics will be opposed in every possible way by the dominant theoretical schools. Recognition of etherdynamics is ruinous for them, because the question naturally arises, what physical theories have been doing up to now? It is almost senseless to try to re-educate the existing scientific schools. The way out is that independently of them ether-dynamics becomes an independent scientific school. There is no doubt that it will be so.
3.2. Methodology etherdynamics
3.2.1. Universal physical invariants
To determine the basic principles of the methodology of ether-dynamics, it is necessary to answer the question about the purpose of natural science. Clarification of the purpose of natural science is necessary, in particular, because this or that answer determines to a great extent the methodology itself.
There are known statements when the purpose of natural science was declared to be the possibility of applied use of new knowledge. There are opinions about descriptive purposes of science, for example, about obtaining mathematical dependencies extrapolating the obtained knowledge.

81
experimental results and further declared to be laws of the material world. However, there is reason to argue that the above views are, on the one
hand, extreme, on the other - clearly insufficient. In fact, treating the pragmatic goals of science as a whole and its individual directions as primary and only, rather than ultimate, inevitably leads to the fact that the actual knowledge of nature is relegated to the background or removed altogether, as a result of which applied achievements are superficial and incidental. Experience shows that the best practical results lie at the junction of sciences seemingly unrelated to the applied task at hand. This requires additional efforts, and consequently, the real maximization of science is in contradiction with the idea of quick application results.
Mathematical quantitative-functional description of phenomena turns out to be a useful, and in some cases a necessary condition for obtaining applied results, as well as for predicting new effects and phenomena. However, given the infinite variety of qualities and properties of each material body, it can be argued that any mathematical description is a very narrow and one-sided representation of the real reality. In this case: 1) there is no guarantee that the mathematical dependence reflects all essential sides of the phenomenon; 2) there is no guarantee that the setting of new experiments will reveal any new sides of the phenomena, because the very setting of new experiments is based on the same mathematical dependencies, therefore, refers to the same narrow area of phenomena, from which the previously obtained "law" itself follows. Thus, The "law" is confirmed all the time. It is practically extremely difficult to go beyond the "law" once found, since every experiment has errors, deviations from the "well-established law" are written off to them, and qualitatively new experiments are not set up. The search for new areas turns out to be random, and the expected result is uncertain.
As correctly pointed out by Maxwell [9], mathematical formulas are the result of simplification of real phenomena, and the use of mathematical formulas, not supported by physical concepts, leads to the fact that "... we completely lose sight of the phenomena to be explained and therefore cannot come to a broader idea of their internal relationship, although we can calculate the consequences of these laws".

82
Thus, neither the applied nor the descriptive side can be the main goal of natural science.
Such a goal for natural science in general, and physics in particular, at all stages and levels of development should be to uncover the nature of phenomena, to find out the reasons why these phenomena are exactly such and not others, and whether there are any qualities in them that are still unknown. But this approach requires understanding of the internal mechanism of phenomena, analysis of cause-and-effect relations between material entities involved in the studied phenomena and effects. Revealing these connections and relations allows us to explain the phenomena, i.e. to explain why this phenomenon is the way it is and not the other way around. Disclosure of internal connections, internal movements of matter in phenomena makes it possible to reveal the essence of phenomena more fully than when using only external description. At the same time, the areas of distribution of the obtained mathematical dependencies can be taken into account and the assumed approximations can be formulated. This makes it possible, if necessary, to refine the obtained dependencies.
The supreme goal of physics as the basis of natural science should be the identification of a common physical basis for all phenomena, common building material for all kinds of matter, structural organization of material entities at all levels of hierarchical organization of matter and the identification of a common mechanism of the basic fundamental interactions between them. But in order that this can be done, it is necessary first to define universal physical invariants, i.e. those categories that remain unchanged at any transformations of material structures and at any processes.
As is known, the result of any experiment is the relations between physical quantities. Depending on which of these quantities are considered to be constant, independent invariants, the other quantities, which are related to the first relations obtained in the experiment, turn out to be variable. In some cases, the conclusions from such relations turn out to be so important that they essentially influence the development of the whole natural science.
Thus, as a result of experiments to determine the mass of a particle when its velocity approaches the speed of light, a complex dependence is obtained relating the field strength of the capacitor and the magnetic field strength through which the particle flies to its charge, flight velocity, radius of curvature of the trajectory, and mass [10]. Taking as invariants the field and charge strengths

83
of the particle leads to the conclusion about the variability of mass. However if to consider as invariant the mass, the same dependence can be interpreted as a detection of dependence of charge on velocity, which was pointed out by Busch. If we take into account that when the velocity of a particle approaches the velocity of light (the propagation velocity of the electric field) the interaction between the particle and the field should decrease (by analogy with the rotor of an induction motor moving in a running magnetic field), the same dependence should be interpreted as a dependence of the interaction coefficient between a charged particle and the field when the charge and mass are unchanged. There may be other interpretations of this dependence.
In Einstein's theory of relativity, the speed of light and the fourdimensional interval in which the increments of coordinates are related to the increment of time through the same speed of light are taken as universal invariants. This, firstly, made all kinds of interactions dependent on the speed of light, although the speed of light is an electromagnetic quantity and has nothing to do with nuclear or gravitational interactions, and secondly, led to the notions of curvature of space and time dilation. The direct result of this choice of invariants was the variability of mass when the velocity of bodies changes, the change of their sizes, the equivalence of energy and mass, etc. If other quantities were chosen as universal invariants, the result would be quite different, and the theory of relativity would have a completely different form.
It is clear from the above that the choice of invariants should be treated with great caution. Due to the possibility of arbitrariness in the choice o f i n v a r i a n t s , i t i s necessary to develop methodological foundations of this subject. Let us consider the main requirements for general physical invariants.
It is obvious that the role of universal physical invariants can be claimed only by such physical quantities, which are inherent in absolutely all physical phenomena and in one way or another manifest themselves in a significant way in any forms of matter structure at any level and at any types of interactions. These quantities must be present at the level of organization of matter into objects and substances, into molecules, atoms, elementary particles, as well as at the level of planets, stars, galaxies and the Universe as a whole. This requirement is necessary because the basis of each macroprocess is the corresponding micro-process, which conditions the regularities of the macro-process. The unity of nature forces both the microcosm and the macrocosm to search for universal invariants, relative to which it is possible to estimate

84
other quantities present in processes, phenomena and experiments. This approach leads to the necessity to search for physical invariants only among the quantities present at any level of organization of matter and essential for any phenomena.
From this position, such a quantity, for example, as electric charge cannot act as a universal physical invariant, because this category, really present in the microcosm, does not manifest itself significantly at the level of organization of matter into molecules, substances, stars, galaxies. In any case, the presence of charges inside atoms and molecules is not essential for physical interactions at a higher stage of organization. Gravitation, in particular, does without any notion of electric charge at all. Moreover, even at the level of elementary particles the category of electric charge does not always play an essential role, because there are particles that have no charge.
For the same reasons the characteristics of separate physical phenomena or separate forms of matter, for example, the parameters of photons of light (constancy of the photon's shape, constancy of its velocity - the speed of light, straightness of propagation, etc.) cannot act as universal physical invariants.
Considering the most general characteristics of matter at any level of its organization, we can state that for all these levels there are only four really universal physical categories. These categories are matter proper, space, time. The existence of matter in space and time is the movement of matter.
Indeed, any occurring phenomenon can be judged only in connection with the fact that this phenomenon occurs with matter, and not independently o f it (all phenomena are material), in space (nothing happens outside space) and in time (all processes take place in time), which in itself already means the movement of matter. As rightly observed by F. Engels, there is nothing in the world but moving matter.
The categories of matter, space and time and their aggregate - motion are the basis for the entire universe. These categories should always be considered as initial when considering any structures of organization of matter, any processes and any physical phenomena of nature.
Since the categories of matter, space and time and their totality - motion are true for all levels of organization of matter, starting from the Universe as a whole and ending with elementary particles.

85
particles of matter, there is no reason to believe that at a level of organization of matter deeper than the "elementary" particles of matter, these categories would be unjust.
As universal categories for all levels of organization of matter, matter proper, space, time and motion thus act as universal physical invariants, independent of any particular forms of organization, particular types of motion or particular phenomena. Consequently, the universal physical invariants are not postulated, but are determined on the basis of generalization of all experimental data known to natural science, as it should be at materialistic approach to the study of nature.
To use invariants in real dependencies, we need appropriate measures units of measurement. The units of corresponding physical quantities can be taken as units of measurement. For example, the unit of time - second, earlier defined as 1/24-60-60-60 fraction of a day, and later tied to the atomic standard of frequency, acts as a measure of time. The measure of space is the unit of length and its derivatives (measures of area and volume). Various standards have been taken as the unit of length, but the unit currently taken as the meter is 1/ 40,000,000 fraction of the length of the Paris meridian, later also tied to the atomic standard. The fairness of the choice of these quantities as measures of time and space has been confirmed by the whole experience of natural science. As for the measures of the quantity of matter and motion, additional reservations are necessary.
No direct measure of the quantity of matter has been found so far. Mass was considered an indirect but strictly proportional measure of the quantity of matter in classical physics. The theory of relativity, introducing the concept of variability of mass with velocity, thereby questioned the possibility of using mass as a measure of the quantity of matter.
In principle, mass can only be an indirect measure of the quantity of matter and can be related to the quantity of matter not directly, but by a functional dependence, which will include other quantities. However, the probability that the inert mass is an invariant measure of the quantity of matter, i.e. strictly proportional to the quantity of matter, is much higher than the probability that a moving particle has invariant interactions of charge with electric and magnetic fields used in the experiment.
Indeed, the speed of light is the speed of propagation of the electromagnetic field. Charge has an electrical nature.

86
Approaching the velocity of a charged particle to the velocity of propagation of the forces acting on it (and the strengths of the magnetic and electric fields are the forces acting on the charge) will inevitably lead to a change in the magnitude of the interaction. If the particle had a velocity equal to the speed of light, the electric field, at least directed along the trajectory of the particle, could not affect it at all. Consequently, the interaction of charge and intensity as the particle moves must be nonlinear. As for the effect on mass, no direct effect of the electromagnetic field on mass has been found so far. In addition, a strict proportionality between gravitational and inert mass is known and experimentally confirmed. But gravitational interactions differ in magnitude from electromagnetic interactions by many orders of magnitude. This means that the gravitational interaction and, consequently, the mass have a different physical basis.
Thus, to expect that the mass of the particle changes as the velocity of the particle approaches to the velocity of light, i.e. to the velocity of propagation of the electromagnetic field, generally speaking, there are no grounds. If such a change takes place (which does not follow from the experience described above, but can be checked in another way, for example, by determining the kinetic energy of the stopped particle), it is only due to the addition to the particle of matter of the mass of the medium surrounding it. There is a certain analogy to the latter circumstance: a compacted air cushion is formed in front of a flying airplane, which creates for it some attached mass affecting its aerodynamics.
Since the inert mass is an indirect measure of the quantity of matter, it can be assumed, at least in principle, that conditions are possible under which the same quantity of matter will have different inert (much less gravitational) mass under unequal conditions.
As for the measure of motion, we know such traditional measures as the quantity of motion (incorrectly called impulse) and energy, repeatedly confirmed experimentally and valid for all manifestations and interactions, taking into account, of course, the phenomena occurring at all levels of organization of matter. The application of one or another measure to a particular phenomenon depends on the nature of the phenomenon. Here it is necessary to recall Engels' analysis, from which it follows that the quantity of motion is a measure of motion of one hierarchical level, and energy is a measure of motion,

87
irreversibly passing to the deep level of matter organization, for example, at collision of inelastic bodies into heat [7, p. 67-81].
One important property of invariant quantities should be noted. Being initial, these quantities strictly obey the rules of additivity. One cannot speak about these quantities as nonlinear ones, since it is relative to them that all other quantities should be measured and evaluated. Consequently, one cannot consider the curvature of the light beam near gravitational masses as a result of the "curvature" of space, but must consider the physical process of curvature of the trajectory of light photons under the influence of gravitation or as a result of other processes.
One cannot speak about the closedness of space, referring to the optical and gravitational paradoxes, but must look for unaccounted physical factors in the reasoning that led to the appearance of paradoxes and which have an abstract-mathematical idealized character. These phenomena have so far been considered at the most primitive level, although the nature of any phenomenon is considerably more complex.
We cannot speak about discreteness of space and time at the level of microcosm, because discreteness of any quantity can be defined only in relation to another analogous quantity, and for a general invariant quantity, which is initial for all others, such a concept as discreteness cannot exist in principle.
Space and time appear along with matter as objective categories, independent of any conditions and phenomena occurring in them, they reflect the totality of the motion of matter in the entire Universe at all hierarchical levels of the organization of matter and do not depend on any particularities. Everywhere, in any formulaic dependencies, these quantities can only act as arguments and can never be functions of anything. Consequently, the use of the principles of dialectical materialism at all levels of physical cognition inevitably leads to Euclidean space and unidirectional uninterrupted time.
In all cases of seeming "nonlinearities" of space and time one should look for unaccounted for deep processes, including at levels of matter organization deeper than the organization of matter in "elementary" particles of matter.
The existence of universal physical invariants for all levels of organization of matter and the existence of a continuous chain of cause-andeffect relationships.

88

of corollary relations between private phenomena, also covering all levels of

the organization of matter, make us believe that there are no preferred scales

of space and time in nature, and therefore the same physical laws are valid at

all levels of the organization of matter and there are no "special" laws for the

phenomena of the microcosm. Hence the special epistemological significance

of analogies between macro- and microcosm phenomena.

The English physicist J. Relay (1842-1919), attaching special importance

to the issues of analogy and similarity in physical phenomena, said on this

occasion: "I am often surprised at the little attention paid to the great

principle of "similarity" even by major scientists. It often happens that the

results of painstaking research are presented as newly discovered 'laws'

which, nevertheless, can be obtained a priori within a few minutes." Lord

Rayleigh is right in principle, but it is necessary to know which analogy can

be used in which case and which cannot.

The validity of the findings is usually ascertained after the research has

been conducted, not before.

The four universal invariants: motion and its three components, matter,

space and time, have seven basic properties:

- presence in all structures and phenomena;

- preserving it during any transformations;

- of infinite divisibility;

- additivity;

- linearity;

- unrestricted;

- absence

any

preferred

scales

or

preferred cutoffs.

From these properties of invariants, properties of our real world follow with

necessity:

1) the indestructibility and uncreateability of matter, space, time and motion;

2). euclidean space;

3) the evenness of the passage of time;

4) the infinite divisibility of matter, space, time and motion;

5) the presence of matter and motion in any, the smallest volume of

space;

89
6) continuity of material spatial structures (including field structures) and processes in time (the end of some processes gives rise to other processes);
7) hierarchical organization of matter in space and processes in time; 8) the sameness of physical laws at all levels of organization of matter; 9) the sameness of physical laws in all points of space and at any interval of time; 10) Reducing all processes (including all so-called fundamental interactions) to mechanics - the movement of masses of matter in space; 11) The infinity and limitlessness of the universe in space; 12) The infinity and limitlessness of the universe in time; 13) A constant (on average) view of the universe at all times. In principle, for the formulation of general physical invariants and the conclusions arising from them, the material was sufficient at any stage of the development of natural science. But for the stage up to the beginning of the XIX century it was not relevant, in the XIX century the materialistic methodology was already largely lost, and in the XX century all physics turned to idealism. One way or another, this was not done. General physical invariants create a basis for building models of material structures and processes at any stage of development of natural science. It is all the more actual now, during the next crisis experienced by natural science, and this opportunity should be used. The following fundamental position follows from the above. Since there is nothing in the world but moving matter, all physical interactions have an internal mechanism and can be reduced to mechanics, i.e. to the movement of masses of matter in space and time. The well-known position of modern theoretical physics that there are four fundamental interactions - strong and weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational - which are not reducible to each other, is true only in the sense that they are really not reducible to each other. But just as J. Fourier was mistaken in his time, believing that heat belongs to a special kind of motion of matter, not reducible to mechanics (1822), and 50 years later L. Boltzmann showed that heat is a kind of kinetic motion of molecules, so also the modern physical theory is mistaken, believing that these fundamental interactions can not be reduced to a special kind of motion of matter.

90
can be reduced to mechanics. From the general physical invariants considered above, their reducibility to mechanics directly follows, but at a level deeper than these fundamental interactions themselves.
3.2.2. Model (qualitative) representations of structures and processes
Identification of the internal mechanism of any phenomena is possible only if the principle of causality is recognized for the links and interactions of material entities involved in them. Since physical phenomena are the consequence of internal processes, often insensible at the achieved level of physics development, the recognition of the fact of causality is of fundamental importance, because in advance at all stages of cognition asserts the existence of the internal mechanism of phenomena and the fundamental possibility of its disclosure.
It is reasonable in this connection to recall the following statement of Engels: "...but where on the surface there is a play of chance, this chance itself turns out to be subject to internal hidden laws. It is all a matter of discovering these laws" [4, p. 174-175; 5, p. 361].
At present, however, the opposite point of view is much more widespread, believing the structure of the world to be indeterministic and thus imposing fundamental limitations on the possibility of its study and cognition.
The rejection of ideas about the existence in nature of the ether - the world medium, which is the building material of matter, led physics to the rejection of the intra-atomic medium. Quantum mechanics, which appeared in the 20's immediately after the formation of the theory of relativity, began to operate with mathematical abstractions, relying, however, on the planetary model of Rutherford, put forward in 1911, quite clear, but possessing many shortcomings. These shortcomings led to numerous paradoxes, which were treated not by improving the obviously unsatisfactory model, but by introducing postulates and "principles" - free statements like axioms, the justification of which was that some corollaries of them were confirmed. However, the limitless spread of postulates and principles led to new paradoxes, which were treated in the same way. The mechanism of the phenomena itself was not considered. The position expressed at the beginning of the twentieth century in the address of physics by V.I.Lenin was confirmed: "Matter has disappeared, there remained the

91
only equations" [11, p. 326]. [11, p. 326], i.e. exactly physical ideas about the structure of the world were thrown out of physics. But thereby the road to a dead end was paved.
The well-known Heisenberg's uncertainty principle ("indeterminacy principle", according to Bohm's expression) led physicists to the conclusion that in investigations carried out at the quantum-mechanical level, more precisely, at the level of matter division into "elementary" particles of matter, the exact causal laws of detailed behavior of such individual systems cannot be found in principle and that, thus, it is necessary to refuse causality as such in the atomic field. This actually put a barrier in the possibility of cognition of matter and regularities of the real world.
Therefore, some leading physicists do not agree with the principle of indeterminism, they consider randomness as a consequence of not taking into account objectively existing factors. Thus, Bohm in [12] points out that in experiments there are always irrelevant unaccounted factors that distort the results, which manifests itself as randomness. However, it should be noted that Bohm pointed out only one, subjective, side of the manifestation of randomness. No less important is the second, objective, side related to the fact that for the effect to manifest itself at the macro-process level, it is necessary to accumulate sufficient changes at the micro-process level. This circumstance is connected with all kinds of quantum and discrete processes, with all kinds of nonlinearities, zones of insensitivity and feedbacks of internal regulators of phenomena, etc. As an example we can cite an ordinary dry friction: an object lying on some hard surface will not move from a place until the force applied to it reaches a certain value, after which it will move with a jerk, because the value of friction will fall as soon as the object moves from a place. But similar processes can take place in the microcosm. A good example is also the formation of vortices in a fluid flow at a certain ratio between velocity, body size and viscosity of the medium, called the Reynolds number: at small values of the number no vortices are formed, but if the velocity increases and the Reynolds number increases, from a certain point turbulence and then stable vortices begin to appear.
It should also be noted that the occurrence of all processes at the level of the microcosm does not objectively depend on the fact of observability, although many physicists assert a certain solipsism: a phenomenon exists insofar as we observe it, and therefore the distortion of the microcosm does not depend on the fact of observability.

92
the results of measuring instruments are fundamental and do not allow us to draw unambiguous conclusions about the nature of the phenomena. In fact, the measuring technique due to its imperfection can, of course, distort the results of the experiment, if appropriate measures are not taken, but it is necessary to choose or create such measuring instruments that would introduce distortions within acceptable limits, or to apply compensatory methods in which the measured value is not distorted.
From the stated position follows the fundamental possibility of studying the internal mechanisms of phenomena at any level of organization of matter.
Recognizing the fact of causality allows us to reveal the mechanism of the phenomenon and raises the question of elementary interactions within the phenomenon. These elementary interactions can occur between interacting elements only through direct contact in a common point of space, whether it is a direct collision of particles or interaction of particles with a field. The principle The principle of "action at a distance" (actio in distance), which implies the interaction of two elements through empty space, fundamentally cannot reveal the mechanism of phenomena precisely because it means the existence of empty space between the interacting elements. This principle was condemned by physicists back in the 19th century, and there is no need to return to it, although such attempts are still ongoing.
Each elementary interaction is a consequence of another elementary interaction and, in its turn, is the cause of the subsequent interaction of other elements. Thus, there is a continuous chain of causes and effects.
Recognition of the continuity of causal chains of events implies, generally speaking, a single internal mechanism for all elementary phenomena and interactions, at least it does not exclude such a mechanism. It is interesting to note that history shows how, despite the increasing number of diverse phenomena and the seemingly increasing possibility of multiplication of variants of the mechanisms of phenomena, in fact, in the process of development of natural science there was a process of reducing the number of these variants.
In 1922, Fourier concluded [13] that "... however comprehensive mechanical theories may be, they are in no way applicable to thermal effects. Heat belongs to a special category of phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of motion and equilibrium". And already in 1868, i.e. 46 years after the statement of

93
Fourier, Boltzmann showed [14, 15] that thermal motion is a kind of mechanical motion.
This process of reducing the number of varieties of interactions continues. At present it is reduced to four: nuclear strong, nuclear weak, electromagnetic and gravitational. However, the recognition of the closed causal chains of all events leads to the conclusion that there must be a single process at the heart of these four interactions. From the fact that there is nothing in the world but moving matter, it follows with necessity that this single process must be the movement of material masses in space, a n d , consequently, all the so called "fundamental" interactions must be reduced to the mechanical movement of material masses in space.
The principal possibility of uncovering the internal mechanism of phenomena can be realized in various ways. One of them is the method of proposing random hypotheses, the consequences of which are tested and compared with real events. These hypotheses can be of abstract-mathematical character, or they can be of qualitative nature. A positive example is the Schrödinger equation, which was composed rather abstractly, but gave a range of solutions suitable for considering the phenomena of the microcosm, quite satisfactorily coinciding with practical observations. Another example is the same theory of relativity, which allowed not only to describe some known phenomena, but also to predict some new ones.
However, despite the external attractiveness of this method, in many cases it leads away from reality, because it does not reveal the inner essence of phenomena.
Indeed, an arbitrary hypothesis put in the basis of the study of phenomena will yield an equally arbitrary system of corollaries, which just as casually may coincide with some known phenomena, giving the impression of plausibility. There is no certainty, however, that these corollaries will coincide with other facts of reality not yet discovered. And the discovery of new facts will be hindered to the extent that the hypothesis that has gained acceptance proves unsuccessful in predicting them.
Since each private phenomenon can be explained in many, not one, ways, a group of private phenomena can be satisfactorily accommodated in any number of hypotheses and theories generalizing them. Consequently, the way of comparing the consequences arising from hypotheses is quite insufficient.

94
Consideration of the essential aspects of the mechanisms of phenomena can arise only from the notion of their generality, which requires simultaneous consideration of all known phenomena and identification of their common features. However, even in this case any number of theories is possible. Including mutually excluding each other. A good example here is Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which categorically denies the presence of the ether in nature, but uses as a mathematical basis the Lorentz transformations, which derived them from his theory of the immobile ether. Consequently, in order to construct a generalizing theory, the provisions of dialectical materialism must be taken into account in addition to the phenomena, which must be treated as experimentally verified facts reflecting the most general aspects of the real world. In addition, the theory should outline its boundaries and the possibilities of subsequent clarification. The contradiction of the theory to the real fact should be used to clarify the theory, if necessary, its change, not discarding the fact, as did the Special Theory of Relativity with experiments on the ether wind. Finally, the theory should proceed from qualitative representations supported by quantitativefunctional descriptions, thus qualitative representations should allow to find borders and admissible simplifications of functional-quantitative descriptions at the decision of concrete problems.
It should be remembered that every object and every phenomenon has innumerable sides and qualities and therefore can only be fully described by an infinite number of equations with an infinite number of terms.
Thus, any real mathematical description of a subject or phenomenon is partial, approximate, covering only some aspects of the subject or the studied phenomenon, at that, even not always essential for the set research goal. Hence, it follows that ideas about any subject or phenomenon, i.e. their models, can and should be continuously refined, respectively, mathematical dependencies describing these models can and should be refined. The number of such approximations and refinements is infinite.
The method proposed below, proceeding from the objective materiality of phenomena, from their causality at all levels of the organization of matter, from the notion of the unity of all natural phenomena and the need for consistent approximation of models and descriptions to the real reality, does not represent something

95
is particularly new: it is the usual method of materialistic theory of cognition. It is this method that can allow us to construct a generalizing theory of matter, interactions and physical phenomena.
3.2.3. Ways to uncover the internal mechanisms of phenomena
When determining ways to uncover the internal mechanisms of phenomena, there arises a certain fundamental difficulty associated with the fact that the number of properties of each phenomenon and each of its elements is, in principle, infinitely large. Therefore, it becomes especially important to select from the totality of properties those that are essential for the task at hand. At the same time, it is necessary to determine the attitude to the discarded properties, since their failure to take them into account leads to epistemological simplification of the forms of matter and phenomena.
The issues of methodology of simplification of research subjects have been repeatedly considered in the literature. The criterion of "simplicity" has often been used by researchers as one of the main arguments in choosing one or another theory. Therefore, it is reasonable to dwell on this aspect in more detail.
In some works, for example, in [16], it is proposed to use "inductive simplicity" as a criterion of truth when choosing one or another theoretical system, i.e., to prefer that system of representations "...whose premises remain invariant with respect to a wider group of transformations". It should be objected, however, that since the groups of transformations themselves reflect the level of knowledge attained and are necessarily one-sided in this sense, such an approach is subjective.
The preference for a simpler path may eventually lead the researcher to stray from the original goal of seeking truth. For example, it is much easier to abstract from the internal mechanisms of phenomena, to give the mathematical description an independent meaning, which will lead, in the end, to the fact that the true primary ideas will be those that are the most convenient in mathematical terms. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens quite often. An example of this is the whole quantum mechanics, which completely ignored the existence of the intraatomic mechanism, replacing it with probabilistic concepts.
The so-called "simplicity principle" is often found to ignore the real physical picture of the world.
What distant consequences such an approach can lead to is shown by the example of E. Mach's statement. Rejecting the concept of quantity

96
Mach recognizes "the notion of mass as a mathematical quantity satisfying some equations of theoretical physics, which is very convenient for science" [10, 17], i.e. mass here appears not as an objective reality, but as some "convenient" coefficient in the equations for the researcher. [10, 17], i.e. mass here is not an objective reality, but a certain "convenient" for the researcher coefficient in the equations.
Einstein writes [18]: "...Concepts and relations, especially the existence of real objects and, in general, the existence of the The "real world" is justified only insofar as it is related to sense perceptions, between which it forms a mental connection... One of Kant's great merits is that he showed the meaninglessness of asserting the reality of the external world without this cognizability. ...The aim of science is, on the one hand, to cognize as fully as possible the relation between sense perceptions in their totality and, on the other hand, to achieve this aim by applying the minimum of primary concepts and relations (achieving, as far as possible, logical unity in the picture of the world, i.e. striving for the minimum of logical elements)".
It should be noted that for Einstein the criterion of simplicity was a direct guide to action. As mentioned above, in [19] Einstein noted that in order to resolve the contradictions in the conclusions of the results of the experiments of Fizeau and Michelson, he sees two possibilities: 1) the ether is completely motionless; 2) the ether is carried away by moving matter, but it moves at a speed different from the speed of motion of matter. He further writes: "...The development of the second hypothesis requires the introduction of some assumptions concerning the relation between the ether and moving matter. The first possibility is very simple (italics mine, - V.A.) and for its development on the basis of Maxwell's theory does not require any additional hypothesis that could complicate the foundations of the theory". This position led Einstein to r e j e c t t h e ether.
Now we can only wonder what conclusions would have come to Einstein, if he had not been seduced by the "simplicity" of the first position, and would have investigated the second, "more complex". In any case, it is clear that no rejection of the ether here in principle could not be discussed, but also the Special Theory of Relativity would not have been born. Following the first position forced Einstein to spend a lot of time on fruitless attempts to build a unified field theory on this path.
It is clear from these examples that arbitrariness in the application of the of the "principle of simplicity" can have far-reaching consequences. On the other hand, considering matter and phenomena in their entirety

97
of their properties is impossible, since the number of properties of any material object is infinitely large. Hence the methodological importance of the raised problem becomes obvious.
In order to determine how the essential aspects of objects and phenomena can be distinguished, it is useful to consider this issue from a historical perspective.
In philosophical literature it is considered that the requirements for analyzing the essence of natural phenomena were first put forward by Thales of Miletus. If before him nature was considered as something unified, Thales saw in this unity the presence of many differences having a common primary basis, and thus pointed out the complexity of nature and the principal direction of the analysis of natural phenomena on the way of finding some common primary basis. He considered such a primordial basis to be "wet nature," in modern terms, hydromechanics.
Later Empedocles (490-430 B.C.) proposed the four "elements" - earth, water, air, and fire - as such a primordial basis, indicating that every object and every phenomenon consists of a combination of these four elements.
Empedocles' thought is much deeper than it is usually presented to historians. In fact, if we understand the concepts of elements used by Empedocles in a somewhat broader way, for example, "earth" - solid (solid state), " water" - liquid, "air" - gas, and "fire" - energy, then we actually encounter a reference to the three basic states of matter - solid, liquid and gaseous - and the energy inherent in it. It should be noted at the same time that not giving each of these states any additional properties means that the "elements" introduced by Empedocles were meant to be elementary in their basis, endowed with a single quality.
The development of alchemy in the Middle Ages raised the question of another system of elements of which all bodies are composed. The "substances", in particular metals, sulfur and some others, each of which was endowed with a limited group of qualities, were singled out. The idea of the genesis of substances expressed by R. Bacon (1214-1292) is actually an attempt to synthesize the complex from the simple. Thus, even at this stage of development of ideas about the structure of matter, complex substances are implied to consist of simple ones possessing a minimum of qualities [19].
The development of chemistry led to the idea of the smallest particle of matter possessing all the chemical properties of a given substance. Although the official term "molecule" was legitimized by the International Congress in Karlsruhe only in 1860, the term and the

98
its actual meaning had been known to Lavoisier (1743-1794) long before. It is true that Lavoisier made the following admission: "...If by the name of element we want to designate simple bodies and indivisible molecules of which bodies are composed, it is very likely that we do not know them" [21, 22]. [21, 22].
Nevertheless, the logic is preserved here as well: a complex object - a body is assumed to consist of simpler ones - molecules. Moreover, the substances that could not be decomposed, Lavoisier called simple, thus confirming the generality of the method.
Further penetration into the depth of matter is associated with the name of J.Dalton (1766-1844). In [23] Dalton notes: "...I have chosen the word atom to designate these primary particles, preferring it to the words 'particle', 'molecule' or any other diminutive names because this word seems to me considerably more expressive: it includes the idea of indivisibility, which other designations d o not." Dalton suggests: "...All atoms of the same kind, indifferently simple or complex, must necessarily be regarded as identical with each other in form, appearance, and all other features."
And although later studies showed that it was not so, the idea of the sameness of atoms, i.e. metaphysical limitation of properties, giving simplicity to the element-brick of which more complex formations molecules, substances, bodies - are composed, was an absolutely necessary condition for the possibility of analyzing and synthesizing matter at this stage of development of natural science.
The fact of the diversity of atoms, the presence of radiation emanating from some of them, the transformation of atoms of some substances into atoms of other substances, established at the beginning of the twentieth century, showed that atoms are not the simplest and indivisible formations of matter. The planetary model of the atom proposed by Rutherford in 1911 made it possible to formulate the concept of "elementary particles" that make up atoms. Elementary particles were ascribed several limited properties, among which one of the main ones was their indivisibility. Thus, at this stage of development, atoms were recognized as complex entities, and all their diversity was explained by simple combinations of elementary particles. It wasn't until we penetrated deeper into the atomic nucleus that we discovered that the atoms themselves "elementary particles" are not elementary at all.
Summarizing the above, we can note a common methodological approach to the analysis of the structure of matter at all stages of the development of natural science. This methodology consists in the following.