Yes, but that’s not what you might expect.
In ancient times the men of the great city gathered together to discuss the nature of the universe. After much deliberation they decided that the universe consists of the earth, the heavens, and a large turtle, which rests on the back ground. Once a child asked: “what does the turtle stand on?”. It was a tough question! Most wise people in the city have spent a lot of time thinking and discussing this issue. After a few days they came to their answer. “The great turtle is in the mud!” (Reminiscent of the big Bang theory?)
Wherever a massive object in our Universe space is “curved” in the neighborhood. After the object leaves this neighborhood — roughly speaking — previously occupied space is returned to its original state of flatness. I.e., the space seems elastic. Elasticity, however, as currently understood, is the result of the electromagnetic interaction, which, in turn, is connected with the material components of atoms. In addition, the propagation of waves in solids, liquids and gases depends on the presence and the electromagnetic properties of atoms. Wavelike behavior is also characteristic of the world. It seems a reasonable assumption that the “atoms of Air” may exist and provide the main substrate, which somehow (at least) implements the resilience required for gravity and light.
There is something like “mind-blowing mind.” Our modern atomic model placed the particles in space. However, Ether is space . Now, if space can move atoms of Air? What the substrate could provide a space for movement of the atoms of the Ether? Is it possible that there is superpotent, which serves as a container space for the atoms of the ether? There are some scholars who think that this may be so.
(Listen to NPR to hear what scientists say. The discussion of this broadcast can be found at: http://www.dejanews.com in the newsgroup: sci.physics.research entitled “the Danger of the collapse of the vacuum”.) (see also the Bible of General relativity: Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, “gravitation”, Chapter “Superpotent”)
Along these lines, one may wonder: “What contains superpotent, and that contains a super-superpotent etc. etc D.?” Then… “Required for each spatial context sub / supercontext?” Or “How many spatial contexts?” Or “Is the universe inherently hierarchical?” Or “the universe is recursive?” …To answer the questions, I took a shortcut and asked the question “Is the universe derived from an existing one (the space-time continuum?) Or it consists of n-asistentul” (Question allows for the possibility of some hierarchy ..) If you look around, it seems quite plausible that there are n-eksistenci.The next step which I have taken was a simple thought experiment: remove all objects from the universe except one. Then ask, “this is an existing border?”. Answer: no.He cannot have boundaries, because that is all there is. There is nothing outside of existence, no other and / or another object that would define the border. If I repeat this thought experiment for any other “type” of an existing — same result.
At fundamental beings has no boundaries.
Now, if you add the second exists, it somehow enters the border?
If there was “outside” of one object, I can’t place the second object on the outside first. They need some way to cross, not including the borders!
I decided to try some dynamic geometry to represent the interaction of these objects.And… well to make a short story short (see: http://www.martinelli.org for the long story)… I derived several equations which have surprising similarities with some of the most fundamental equations known to physics. But the one that is most relevant to the question of the existence of an atom of an Ether, has the form:(const) (frequency) = (parameter) (constant speed) 2 .This equation looks like easily recognizable Einstein hf = mc 2 .The reason it is so convincing, is that in modern physics, Einstein’s equation is taken to be fundamental or “axiomatic”, I.e. Indivisible. In his approach, Einstein reasoned that energy in any form (kinetic, thermodynamic, electrical, etcD.) — it’s just an old old energy, and therefore energy discovered by Planck ( E = hf) must coincide with its expression; E = mc 2 . Here, unlike the Einstein model “of the atom of Ether” gives the equation explicitly.
Another convincing proof is that this existence, when considering the presence of i (and j) others of the same species leads to the equation field. This equation has the form:Force = k1 * i * j / (k2 + k3 * r ^ 2) (1)a Plot of this equation gives soliton form — a wave of causality. In addition, when r is large (for electron “large” means> 10e-15M), the constant k2 becomes insignificant and the equation becomes equivalent to:Force = k4 * i * j / r ^ 2 (2)the Classical form for the field.
Another interesting feature is that at very small r, the equation (1) becomes constant. That is, in a neighborhood of r = 0 in flat space — in this field, there is a singularity, which could serve as a precise geometric point.
Without this point the object has no clearly defined centre in the physical / causal meaning. Therefore, as a physical measuring device (for example, Bouncing off of electrons), this object will give numbers that reflect this lack of precision .
Behavior is consistent with the well-known in the modern physics problem, which is called the measurement problem .
In addition, the application of the principles of this theory in the electrostatic context, again in the presence of several other “Ether atoms” and electrons, leads to an equation which looks exactly the same as the equation of Niels Bohr to atomic spectra.
In other words, the fundamental existence — constituents of empty space behave like photons. That is, we have a theory and physical evidence that are consistent with (and confirming) the theory.
The theory, however, is far from complete.
Among several other missing parts, it does not show how the Aether associated with gravity. If these atoms of the Ether are part of the empty space, they also need some way to incorporate gravity. This part is still under consideration.