[Butch (OP)]

While giving some thought to the standard model several things occurred to me...

1) Any entity with more than one property, must have underlying structure.
2) Fermions and bosons represent very different particles (I will elaborate).
3) If indeed point (1) is valid then consequently at the quantum level there can only be a single field.

You can affect a field by distorting it in two ways, you can shake it (Waves) and you can create an embedment (gravitational well).

I proposed to some colleagues that a true particle was an embedment in a gravitational field and that a photon was a wave propagation in the same field, there immediate objection was that gravity cannot be blocked, my responses was "Can a gravitational wave be blocked, attenuated or reflected?" The only answer to this inquiry was "Good question".

So I went on with my minds exploration of the nature of quanta, it has brought me to what I have dubbed the proto-particle. What seemed a simple idea has taken on monstrous proportion and I find that I will need a great deal of help evolving the model of the proto-particle. I will present it in small digestible pieces and wait for comments. I thank you in advance for your participation.

The proto-particle is a gravity well and nothing more, at a single point its mass density is infinite. We can plot this as gravitational force, however distance as the x axis presents an unknown quantity. I have found it more useful to plot it as escape velocity in units of 'c', 1 on the x axis then being the Schwarzschild radius. I will pause at this time to receive comments.

[evan_au]

The idea of a "most fundamental particle, that cannot be broken down any further" is not new; it dates all the way back to Democritus & Leucippus.

The main problem is that everything we have discovered so far can be broken down into even smaller pieces, if you apply enough energy.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism

There is a theory that at the very early stages of the Big Bang, the 4 forces that we know today would have been unified as a single force, and I guess that the particle which carried this unified force would have been common to all these properties we see today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Cosmology

[Bored chemist]

Any entity with more than one property, must have underlying structure.

Why?
I can imagine a "MadeUpOn" which has a radius, a mass and a charge but is just a homogeneous sphere.
Electrons have a mass and a charge but no structure.

[guest39538]

You can affect a field by distorting it in two ways, you can shake it (Waves) and you can create an embedment (gravitational well).

Hello Butch,

Why do you only consider two ways ? 

[Butch (OP)]

The  electron has no underlying structure that we know of, neither do quarks... At the quantum level a particle really has no shape.

I should have been clearer about fields,  I was referring to non-composite fields..

[Butch (OP)]

My proto-particle is a gravity well, it is not creating the gravity well, can anyone spot the immediate problem with that? Hint: It is what led me to call it a proto-particle.

[Butch (OP)]

You can affect a field by distorting it in two ways, you can shake it (Waves) and you can create an embedment (gravitational well).

Hello Butch,

Why do you only consider two ways ?

I should have been clearer, I am speaking of non-composite fields.

[opportunity]

While giving some thought to the standard model several things occurred to me...

1) Any entity with more than one property, must have underlying structure.
2) Fermions and bosons represent very different particles (I will elaborate).
3) If indeed point (1) is valid then consequently at the quantum level there can only be a single field.

You can affect a field by distorting it in two ways, you can shake it (Waves) and you can create an embedment (gravitational well).

I proposed to some colleagues that a true particle was an embedment in a gravitational field and that a photon was a wave propagation in the same field, there immediate objection was that gravity cannot be blocked, my responses was "Can a gravitational wave be blocked, attenuated or reflected?" The only answer to this inquiry was "Good question".

So I went on with my minds exploration of the nature of quanta, it has brought me to what I have dubbed the proto-particle. What seemed a simple idea has taken on monstrous proportion and I find that I will need a great deal of help evolving the model of the proto-particle. I will present it in small digestible pieces and wait for comments. I thank you in advance for your participation.

The proto-particle is a gravity well and nothing more, at a single point its mass density is infinite. We can plot this as gravitational force, however distance as the x axis presents an unknown quantity. I have found it more useful to plot it as escape velocity in units of 'c', 1 on the x axis then being the Schwarzschild radius. I will pause at this time to receive comments.

What your doing with the current a-priori definitions for time and space is an excellent way to tackle the unknowability of gravity.....define a "proto-particle", as you have. You're essentially labelling a red-herring, gravity, in the quantum world. Its a good idea, yet what do you think the obvious obstacles are? For instance, is not what the "Higgs" particle aimed to offer the same as your proposed "proto-particle"?

[Butch (OP)]

What your doing with the current a-priori definitions for time and space is an excellent way to tackle the unknowability of gravity.....define a "proto-particle", as you have. You're essentially labelling a red-herring, gravity, in the quantum world. Its a good idea, yet what do you think the obvious obstacles are? For instance, is not what the "Higgs" particle aimed to offer the same as your proposed "proto-particle"?

No, this non-particle is very different indeed! I say non-particle because the gravity well without anything producing it would simply evaporate... The solution to this problem is what produces an actual particle...

Two or more of these proto-particles orbiting one another would not only serve to sustain each, but would do so via angular momentum... Spin!

Currently I am thinking the very simplest configuration would be three proto-particles orbiting one another    at a distance where the schwarzchild radius of each intersected the center of its two partners, this is speculative of course, much math to be done... I would appreciate greatly some help here. I have a very abstract mind, my math skills are limited in that I can usually understand math applied to physics, however I am rather weak when it comes to creating the math.

The particle created by the combination of proto-particles has mass, spin and one other property... It is polarized! I have not described charge in this particle yet, but I am beginning to see the path to it.

Understand this particle has all these properties exhibited by a single field... the gravitational field.

[opportunity]

Have you asked anyone who's worked on the Higgs particle theory?

[Butch (OP)]

Have you asked anyone who's worked on the Higgs particle theory?

The Highs particle was found to have color, this would indicate underlying structure.

[opportunity]

I think you have the right attitude.

It works for you and thats the most important thing.

[Butch (OP)]

I should mention that the particle formed by the proto-particles has a discrete mass over a definable area, something the proto particle does not.

[Bogie_smiles]

...... It is polarized! I have not described charge in this particle yet, but I am beginning to see the path to it.

Understand this particle has all these properties exhibited by a single field... the gravitational field.

I suspect you have resolved the math and/or have moved on, or maybe you have been working on the cause of particle charge. Any progress or thoughts you care to share on how a particle gets its charge?

Fellow Tampanian

[mad aetherist]

So we have -- mass tells spacetime how to bend.
Bent spacetime tells mass how to move ( which i think is false, it can only tell mass how to veer).
It was posited that -- a singularity or gravity well in the bending of spacetime makes a (massless) proto-particle.
It was posited that -- 3 orbiting proto-particles make a proper massive particle (ie mass)(paraphrased).

So we have  -- 3 self orbiting singularities of bent space time tells spacetime how to bend (inferred).
Which came first, the spacetime, the bending of spacetime, proto-particles, or proper particles (mass)?

It was posited that -- everything we see & feel is made up of or due to singularities of the bending of spacetime, or waves or ripples in the bending of spacetime (inferred & paraphrased).
It was posited that -- photons are due to GWs.  Are these the same GWs as found by LIGO?

[mad aetherist]

So we have  -- 3 self orbiting singularities of bent space time tells spacetime how to bend (inferred).
Which came first, the spacetime, the bending of spacetime, proto-particles, or proper particles (mass)?

I am an Aetherist, & Einstein is our arch-enemy, however i will have a go at guessing the Einsteinian canonical dogma pertaining to a possible sequence.
I think that Einstein never explained where mass came-comes from or where ST came-comes from (& whether one came first), or where space came from (if space is a separate thing to ST)(Einstein i think reckoned it was separate), not did he explain the sequence. 
ST has a fabric, i guess with a transverse weft of radial distance, & a longitudinal warp of time (which might include distance again)(not sure).  And the warp i suppose must have a 2nd dimension, ie an extra dimension of warp (a thickness).

ST has mass. Or praps ST doesnt have mass, but the bending of ST has mass. And i dont know whether ST has energy or can have, or whether the bending of ST has mass & energy.

Space has nothing (no aether), & no photons & no em radiation, & no GWs, & no matter, no energy (whatever that might be) it is empty. It can have photons or em radiation etc, but in that case it is not empty space.
Einstein had no theory i think re the the creation or existence of em radiation or photons or mass etc, & i think Einstein had no theory re the sequence.

Re sequence, i am thinking that at first there was empty space, then came radiation, & then came photons, & then came particles (ie mass), & then came ST  For sure ST did not come before mass. 
So i wonder where the proto-particles fit in that timeline?