A New Theory of Subatomic Structure and Prediction

(A Layman's Explanation)

David Stafford

As a young man, the most memorable part of school was when a teacher said something was impossible. Whether it was trisecting an angle using a compass and straight edge, or that the square root of -1 was imaginary. Those were the challenges I took to heart. Later in my youth I became interested in the nature of time, gravity and particle-wave duality in subatomic physics. All three have been labeled as “unknowable” by highly respected scientists. That was enough challenge for me. Four decades later, I have a pretty good handle on understanding all three.

The conventional representation of subatomic particles is a sphere. That's very handy for labeling them with P, E, and N for proton, electron, and neutron, and likewise for their heavier cousins. No physicist knows what their actual shape is. They are so small that we cannot know their shape. Really, about all we can know is the maximum size they can be. My theory has to do with their shape in at least four dimensions.

Within the 3 dimensions of space up-down, left-right and to-fro (usually X, Y and Z), particles behave mostly like spheres. Again, conventionally the fourth, time (usually T), does not involve the shape of particles, only a measurement of speed and momentum as they travel hither and yon. This, I believe, is wrong. As a particle travels from place to place, say from Chicago to Pocatello, Idaho, it does not cease to exist at any point along the way. It is continuously in existence every step along the way.

Looking at the particle from sideways in time, it could be said that the X, Y and Z dimensions of it are very tiny. In the T direction however, it's about 1,500 miles long, depending on what tourist destinations it may have visited along the way. My thesis is based on looking at particles in that way. Most particles started their existence at the beginning of the universe, and stretch all the way to whatever fate the universe has in store. Rather than visualizing them as spheres, I suggest viewing them as rods, very thin, very long rods, using all four dimensions.¹

I mentioned that these particles behave mostly like a sphere. All the particles that have mass share what is called ½ spin. What that means is that if you mark a spot on a proton, then rotate it 360 degrees, it is not back to where it started. Indeed, you have to rotate the proton 720 degrees, two full revolutions, in order to get back to where it started. Discovering this property did not make physicists happy either, so don't feel bad. Suddenly our long thin rod has some interesting twists in it!²

Another interesting property of particles is that they vibrate. Even undisturbed they wiggle at a natural frequency. This means that over time they resemble a coiled rod. Now our long thin rod³ looks more like a screen door spring!

And now for the gravity of this theory. Einstein predicted that mass distorts space, a theory proven during a solar eclipse in 1910. I propose that the only evidence of mass is that same distortion of space. Perhaps it is only a circumspect view, but important nonetheless. We are drawn to the earth because the earth distorts space, pulling us toward the center. All the gazillion protons, neutrons and electrons that make up the earth distort space.

The rod we are using as an image has a resistance to bending. Call that momentum; it is a correct description. Even as we switch to a coiled spring, the resistance is there. Bending takes force, a force called acceleration. Now think of the rod as more like a thread, spiraling through time, gathering up “space” and compressing it within its coils, literally changing the shape of space by squeezing it inside. This is perhaps only a reverse way of looking at existing theories and laws of gravity, but it leads to a perspective with potential.

This is my theory: If the coil can be opened up, “space” will be uncompressed. There will be a ripple in space that will appear as “anti-gravity”⁴. I believe I know how to test this theory, how to open up the coil. After decades of study, I believe I have a way to prove if I am right or wrong. If right, the potential of reducing an object’s apparent mass has obvious transportation application.

In working on a way to test this theory, one of my best encouragements was that nature itself does this same operation, albeit randomly. The ability to cause the coil to open on command is not new either. What is new is an approach that doesn't take an atomic accelerator to perform the opening of the coil...

Finally, in working on all the ramifications of this theory, and its proof, I came across a pleasant side effect. In addition to space being released, hence weight lost and a counter push to gravity, energy is released - a whole lot of energy! So much energy is released that the anti-gravity effects get relegated to the “Oh, if you're interested” category. A controlled release of subatomic energy⁵ in a clean, stable and inexpensive manner has very important applications.

Applications of this theory involve distortions of space-time, specifically an “anti-gravity” effect. Objective reduction in mass⁶ results in reduced force to move an object, obviously an idea worth some study. Much more practical is the potential for energy release. Use of deuterium, for example, could release energy without any waste product except hydrogen and possibly helium. Deuterium is plentiful in seawater⁷ and rather easily extracted. Very small quantities contain very large amounts of abundant clean energy.

All of this is predicated on my theory being correct. All the study I have made over all these years leads me to believe I have found a way to test my theory. The test would be in a university-type setting with minimal equipment investment.