Yes, but they are not what you might expect.Wherever a
massive object goes, in our universe, space is "curved" in its neighborhood.
After the object leaves this neighborhood -- loosely speaking -- the space previously
occupied reverts to its original state of flatness. I.e., space seems to have an elastic
property. Elasticity however, as it is currently understood, is a result of
electromagnetic interaction, which in turn is related to the constituents of material
atoms. Additionally, wave propagation in solids, liquids and gasses depends on the
presence, and electromagnetic properties, of atoms. A wavelike behavior is also
characteristic of light. It seems like a reasonable guess that ‘the atoms of
aether’ might exist and provide the underlying substrate that somehow (at the very
least) implements the elasticity required for both gravity and light.

There is something of a "mind-bender" here though. Our current atomic models
place particles *in* space. The aether however, *is space*. Now, if it *is*
space how can the atoms of aether move? What substrate could possibly provide the space
for the aether atoms to move through? Is it possible that there is a superspace that
serves as the container space for aether atoms? There are some scientists that think that
this might be the case. ( listen to NPR to hear what one scientists
says. A discussion of this broadcast can be found at: http://www.dejanews.com in the newsgroup:
sci.physics.research, titled ‘The dangers of vacuum decay’.) (also see the GR
bible: Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, ‘Gravitation’ the chapter on
‘Superspace’)

Along these lines, one might further wonder, "What contains the superspace and
what contains the super-superspace etc. etc…?" . Then… "Does each
spatial context require a sub/super-context?" Or "How many spatial contexts are
there?" Or "Is the universe, fundamentally heirarchical?" Or "Is the
universe recursive?" …

To address this group of questions I took a shortcut and asked the question "Is
the universe derived from one existent (the space-time continuum?) or is it composed of
n-existents" (The question allows the possibility of some kind of hierarchy.. ) If
you look around you it seems fairly plausible that there are n-existents.

The next step I took was to do a simple thought experiment: strip away all objects from
the universe except one. Then ask "does this existent have a boundary?". Answer:
no. It can’t have a boundary since it is all that exists. There is nothing outside of
existence, no other and/or different object that might define a boundary. If I repeat this
thought experiment for any other ‘kind’ of existent – same result
Fundamental existents do not have boundaries.

Now, if you add a second existent, does it somehow introduce a boundary? Ans: no. If
there was no "outside" of one object, I can’t place a second object outside
of the first. They have to intersect in some manner which does not include boundaries! I
decided to try some dynamic geometry to represent the interactions of these objects.
And… well to make a long story short (see: http://www.martinelli.org for the
long story) … I derived a few equations that bear a remarkable similarity to some of
the most fundamental equations known to physics. But, the one that is most relevant to the
question of the existence of the aether atom, has the form:

(const)(frequency)=(parameter)(const velocity)^{2}.

This equation looks like Einstein’s easily recognized *hf=mc*^{2}.
The reason that this is so compelling is that, in modern physics, Einstein's equation is
taken as fundamental or ‘axiomatic’ – i.e., underivable. In his approach,
Einstein reasoned that energy in any form (kinetic, thermodynamic, electric etc. ) is just
plain old energy and so, the energy that Planck had discovered (*E=hf)* must be the
same as his expression; *E=mc*^{2}. Here, in contrast to Einstein’s
method, the model for the ‘aether atom’, yields the equation explicitly.

Another bit of convincing evidence is that this existent, when examined in the presence
of i (and j) others of the same kind, produces a field equation. This equation has the
form:

Force=k1*i*j/(k2 + k3*r^2) (1)

A plot of this equation yields a solitonic form – a wave of causality. In
addition, when r is large (for an 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 a field.

Another characteristic of interest is that with a very small r, equation (1) becomes
constant. That is, in the neighborhood of r=0, space is flat – there is no
singularity in this field that might serve as an *exact* geometric point. Without
this point, the object does not have a well defined center – in a physical/causal
sense. Consequently, as a physical measuring device (e.g., bouncing off of electrons),
this object will yield numbers that reflect this lack of *exactness*. The behavior is
consistent with a well known problem in modern physics called the *measurement problem*.

Furthermore, applying the principles of this theory in an electrostatic context, again
in the presence of several other "aether atoms" and electrons, yields an
equation that looks exactly like Neils Bohr’s equation for atomic spectra.

In other words, these fundamental existents -- the constituents of empty space --
behave like photons. That is, we have a theory and physical evidence consistent with
(and supporting) the theory.