The standard model of the atom is a mathematical model that has many different fundamental particles, some with mass and size, some massless and some with mass but no size, and four different forces.

My model posits three fundamental fortiæ: one-body between gravitinos, two-body between elèctròns, and three-body between quarks. Each body is a mote which is identical with the field, and the body is bounded below by its vis and bounded above by its lifetime. Actions of these motes are ideally immassive waves, identical with standard quanta, but they immediately interfere with other waves and acquire a mass: Thus, the gluòn becomes a mesòn, the fòtòn becomes a polaritòn, and the gravitòn becomes a pressuròn. Thus all massive quanta, like W and Z and H, are subsequent compounds of elementary quanta. Every quantum has a wave size; every source has a lattice size.

There is also no physical structure that can account for the

rules and components of the model.

Wave function of orbitals: sfæric harmonics; exchange interaction of subshells: PT sýmmetry; periods of shells: moment minima.

This hypothesis resurrects a 2500 year old idea of Democritus that there is a smallest possible piece of matter. He called it an atomon later shortened to atom by Daltrey and it remained the smallest possible piece of matter until the beginning of the 20th century when sub-atomic particles were discovered and identified. It is posited that Democritus was indeed correct and that even the fundamental particles of the standard model are in fact composites of a much smaller particle, the smallest piece of matter that can exist. This particle will almost certainly be down on the Planck scale and In order to differentiate from any other particle this particle will referred to as a bead.

The inverse-range laws of Newton, Coulomb, and Yucawa prescribe that the smallest matter must be the heaviest and the interaction statistics prescribe that the heaviest matter must be the most composite. Therefore the most elementary motes are the leihtest and greatest. Dèmocrito only understood size in terms of the lattice spacing, which only applies to condensed matter, whereas dissociate or radical matter like clusters, atoms, and subatoms may take on huge sizes defined by their mean free path in the Stockmayer potential.

Immediately two facts are apparent :-

- The bead is spherical

- The bead is inelastic

To be otherwise would require a dimension to become less than the minimum permitted.

I don't see the Planck scale as fundamental, only the threshold where gravity is stronger than two like charges. The smallest size is determined by the universal vis should it be concentrated in two motes.

The opposite of elastic is plastic which means it loses work to other modes; such a mote must decay when work is added to it; it could make multiples of itself. However a mote could still be elastic at the smallest limit if you assign it a infinite Hooke's constant (or whatever the proper name is).

They will be contra-rotating to prevent the angular momentum causing the string to distort. These strings will form a pattern. They will all align and if all are spinning at the same velocity the pattern will be grid where when triangulated all angles are 60 degrees.

I'll assume these preòns behave like gravity.

These strings will have mutual attraction so a new force must be introduced to keep the strings apart. This is achieved by the strings forming into rings that rotate around a central string.

These rings no longer heed fruit packing.

This process continues and in order to continue to preserve symmetry the string successively discard beads until a composite particle in the shape of a double cone is created.

There's no means to make this shape however; the curvature at the tips would still attract other beads until they make a rod. Quarks don't look like beads and motes don't look like cones.

The electron will physically orbit but the rings will rotate by awakening and killing beads as the energy rotates around the ring much like Christmas lights appear to move but don’t.

Only non-s orbital elèctròns make rings and even so they make loops like a Spirograph but in 3D. They're also at least the same size as each nucleòn.

This signature enables individual atoms to bond with like atoms by resonance but not dissimilar atoms, so tin atoms will readily form with other tin atoms to form a cohesive solid but will have no attraction to lead atoms.

Tin and lead don't care; that's why they alloy so well.

With the central string still in place, surrounded by a rotating ring of 6 beads. This ring continues through the cone. The top layer in the cone will

contain 1 bead. The second layer will contain a central bead surrounded by six beads, the third layer will be 1 bead ,by 6 beads, surrounded by a further 12 beads, subsequent layers will have the same 1 bead, by 6 beads, but by 18,24 30 and so on. If the second layer represents n=1, then each subsequent

layer has n times 6 beads.

The rings should heed 2πn.

This velocity is C and ties in neatly with Clerk-Maxwell’s discovery that C is fixed and absolute.

Snell and Scharnhorst say it's not.

Despite the counter-intuitive nature of entanglement it must exist. If we consider light travelling as quanta, either as a photon or by spinning bead, for there to be a wave the first quanta must somehow know when the second quanta is released, otherwise how can it determine the wavelength between them? The second quanta must be able to communicate with the first and yet the first has already left and is travelling away at the speed of light. The only way is for the second to send information instantly.

Only humans travel. Entanglement doesn't send information; it was already there and each state is determined by a conservation law. You toss a pair of socks in the dark in opposite directions towards two barefooted persons. Person A near you finds the sock and reports his left foot is still cold. Now you know which of Person B's feet is still cold.

Bead theory has the potential to explain gravity. Any theory on gravity must consider the

following :-

- All mass is attracted to all other mass

- The force is very small

- The force is proportional to mass

- It is in the form of a field obeying Clerk-Maxwell’s laws

What is not clear is whether the field is in a wave form. It seems probable that it is not, as attraction would require some form of resonance

All mass is attracted to positive mass and repelled fro negative mass.

If gravity is so slack maybe its waves don't resound often.

The electron ‘spare’ creates a wave form field as it orbits, but both the neutron and proton have ‘spares’ whose centre of spin remain stationery in respect of the atom.

stationary

If bead theory had been proposed before discovery of the dark matter effects it would have to have predicted it. In order to establish whether this interpretation is possible a considerable amount of mathematical analysis would be required.

Don't call it a theory unless it has been proven. Half of your explanations are retrodictive and aren't supported by maths; the others aren't supported by experiments.