Can someone tell me why this doesn't make sense? I got this far out notion in my head and can't seem to get it out. Based on what I've learned about physics over the years, specifically including theories that suggest our universe may be the equivalent of a black hole in another universe, which would also seem to fit with observations that the universe is made up of significantly more dark energy/mater than observable mater. In addition, this dark energy is suspected to be exerting the negative pressure that causes galaxies to be accelerating away from each other faster than the speed of light. The following occurs to me: What if photons are not particles, but the absence of particles. My understanding of the way electricity travels through a conductor is that the electrons are not actually moving at the speed of light, rather they are moving to fill the holes left by their neighboring electrons as the electro-magnetic wave travels. Wouldn't it make sense that photons operate on the same principle but perhaps at a more fundamental level? -- If the universe is actually the equivalent of a black hole in another universe. Wouldn't it make sense the the vacuum is actually a tightly packed, uniformly ordered substrate of these particles? Part of the reason I can't get this out of my head is that this would seem to have significant implications and potentially explain gravity along with it. I recognize the big leaps here, but if this substrate is related to the dark mater in the universe, gravity might then be explained as a push by the dark energy on the observable mass/energy that displaces the uniform quanta of the vacuum. -- The other reason I can't get it out of my head is that it seems to fit well with everything I know about physics, it's seems much more intuitive, and most of all, it seems to provide a simple and testable explanation. Lastly, it also seems to fit with other significant ideas in physics that challenge our basic human nature --similar to not being the center of the universe, or our reference frame being the single universal reference frame in which all things happen simultaneously, in this case, it's that all the observable mater/energy in the universe is not what makes up the universe, but might instead be what's missing from the universe. -- I've obviously given way more thought to this than anyone who's not a physicist should. If you've read this far, I greatly appreciate it. If you can identify which observations in physics conflict with this line of thinking, I would appreciate it even more so that I can potentially stop thinking about it and focus on what I'm good at. Is it possible I'm just restating what quantum physics already describes in a more naive way here? -- Some notes: I recognize that this echos the theory of the Light Aether which most people seem to think was vanquished by general relativity. However my understanding is it's association with a universal reference frame is what died and Einstein even still pursued the idea of a relativistic aether: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Contemporary_Ideas (yes, I use Wikipedia for most my research on this, forgive me.) Perhaps I'm incorrect, but it's also my understanding that quantum theory basically views the vacuum as a sort of foam bubble surface, from which particles can be extracted with enough energy.