If its anything like the Warp of 40K...
No.
Its very much a moving dynamic frame that fails as a global reference frame on a galactic scale at the very least since warp travel between two equidistant locations through the warp are unlikely to be the same.
And we know even less of Aethyr of WHF so... I guess if Boney says so and otherwise I will assume not.
I assume we're implicitly dropping the whole "light waves propagate through it" otherwise we also need to throw out electromagnetism as we know it and probably wave particle duality.
That's pretty much my point, we don't really know, but assuming it works the same is only sensible on the doylist assumption that the author will just not change it, nevermind it's already changed. (I'm severly annoyed by all the isekai stories where someone gets dropped elsewhere, and his highschool level knowledge somehow is a great revelation and a deep description of this new reality, when that new reality contains magic and shit.)
And yeah, warhammer aether has nearly nothing to do with IRL physics aether theories. That was a rethorical flourish to draw the connection between the two cases. Though we probably need to throw out electromagnitism anyway because of azyr and so on, or at least acccept it as even more of a rough approximation than it already is IRL.
As for the wave-particle duality? That's quantuam mechanics thing (except it actually really isn't, I'll get back to that), and there's no reason to assume quantum mechanics is a thing. We know Newtonian mechanics does a good job describing the world for the most part, because it mostly works like ours on that scale. However, that's human scale happenings don't really tell you a lot about either relativity or quantum mechanics, unless you really make an effort. So unless and until Mathilde has to do very precise orbital mechanics calculation for her space trip with the dragons, we won't know about relativity. And I can't really came up with a semi plausible case where she'd come across quantum effects in a way that would tell us anything.
Physics appendix: I mentioned that wave-particle duality isn't a quantum thing. How can that be, it's super famously a thing for quantum stuff? And yeah, it is. But wave-particle duality isn't a thing about quantum. Neither is the Heisenberg's unsharpness relation (the common english translation is uncertainty principle, but that's a bad translation of the german, so I'm using this more literal one that better captures the character). It's just a thing about waves. Any waves. Water waves, electromagnetic waves, or particle waves in quantum mechanics.
See, you can have a localised wave, just a few ups and downs. That's called a wave packet, and it's the particle in wave-particle duality. But what's the wavelength? Well, just count the distance between the ups and the downs. More ups and downs means you can get a better estimate. But then, if you have more, your wave paket is longer, and so the location of that packet is kind of smeared out. In the extreme case of a infinitely many ups and downs, and therefore an infinitely precise estimate of the wavelength, there's not sensible way to talk about a location, it's just everywhere. Conversely, if you want to have it really precise, you have a single spike (the delta distribution that was mentioned earlier), and there's no ups and downs to measure the wavelength at all, so you can't sensible talk about
that.
If the wave-particle duality is weird, then it's not quatum weirdness.
Quantum weirdness is to a lesser degree that particles are waves/fields (distributed something across space, waves are what the fields are doing) in the first place (lesser because people are happy enough with sonar pulses, which are essentially, mathematically the same), and to a middling degree what kind of fields they are. They're not fields of concentration. There's not 0.1 electron at (0,1,-1). They're probablity of being somewhere, 0.1% chance for an electron to fullly be at (0,1,-1) (well, it's probabilty densities, but let's leave that aside). So that's weird, but not too weird. But the real source of all the quantum weirdness is the way they are the fields they are. Because those probabilities can interfer, and that's extremely fucking weird. And also, we still don't understand who it goes from probability to actual certainty that this the state. That's how weird
that is.
Uncertainty appendix: The discussion above of wave packets suggests that this is a measurement limitation. It's not, it's a mathematical thing, but that's a little less intuitvely clear, and the reasons I gave above are true, they're just not the core thing. If you know the fourier transform, and ever looked at the transform of a dirac spike, and then started broadening it, you've seen it. If not, let me give explaining the issue a shot.
Fundamentally, you're wavepaket needs to be some value in a small region, and zero outside. You can do that by adding pure sine (and cosine) waves together. Figuring out which waves you need is called the fourier transform, and it's astonishingly useful. As it turns out, the tighter the region you want to squueze your signal into (which is the location), the more different types of wave you need. Conversely, the more restricited you want to be on the waves you use (a clearer wavelength), the broader your region will be. The reasoning earlier gives some ways to think on why, but ultimately it's just how it works.
Now, in mechanics (not just quantum) there's some quantities that are related to each other, the way postion and wavelength are for waves. So for all these, you run into the same issue. So if it's not a quantum weirdnes, why do we not see it in Newtonian physics? Well, we do, but it's not a fundamental limit like in quantum mechanics.
Why is it not a fundamental limit? Because Newtonian physics has no minimal size. So you can always have something smaller. If you want to check a thing, you have to interact with it. If you have something sufficently small (small not necessarily in spatial dimension), the original thing isn't going to be distrubed. You can get infintely precise.
But what if you're looking at the smalles possible thing? The quanta of the world? (Yes, that's where the name comes from. This is how they were trying and going to solve some of the problems of newtonian physics.) Well, now you don't have something smaller, and any interaction will change the thing you're looking at. The unsharpness relation is an expression of that.
