Has anyone ever actually seen an atom?
The electron microscope is as close as anyone has gotten to my knowledge, and it operates on a theory that doesn't actually give an image, but recreates an image from electron path deflections. Using one of these to magnify an atom gives you an image of a fuzzy dot. The Discovery Channel show that I watched on this went into all kinds of detail about how the fuzzy edges of the image are "consistent with" the traditional model of the atom, that the orbiting electron "cloud" would move in a way that would make the edges of the image of an atom appear fuzzy in exactly that manner. This sounds to me like self-fulfilling prophecy. It's "consistent with" what we expect, so we assume that we are correct.
Now, I'm no physicist and I'm certainly not a quantum theorist, but I want to challenge the traditional model of the atom. The problem is, even though I have a nice, juicy theory about what an atom really is and what its subatomic structure looks like, I have no idea how to go about proving it.
My theory is actually rather simple, and it's based on another question: what is a force? Physics recognizes the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravitational force, and electromagnetic force. But no one can explain why these forces exist. We do a lot of talking about how they work, but not why they work. So here's my take on it. These are not separate forces. These are different applications of the basic structure of all matter. So what is the structure?
Imagine space as a continuous mass that behaves like a fluid. This is not a collection of particles, but one continuous "particle" that encompasses nothing short of the entire universe. This mass is not stationary, it is moving. The flow of this movement creates eddies, and the eddies eventually begin to create whirlpool-like vortices. These vortices open up, creating "holes" in the mass. Like any other vortex found in nature, the opposite ends of each vortex swirl in opposite directions. Clockwise swirl could be considered positive charge and anti-clockwise swirl is negative charge. The result is a pair of charged sub-atomic particles that are interacting with each other at all times, no matter how much "space" separates them. This accounts for the FTL reactions seen in quantum physics experiments...electrons that have moved a great distance from their positrons.
This accounts for the interaction of positive and negative particles in another way as well. When two clockwiise swirls approach each other, the swirls cannot align, and they repel each other. When clockwise and anti-clockwise approach each other, they attempt to intersect and combine. Sometimes the trajectory and velocity of such a pairing is just a little bit too far out of synch to close the gap, and the open ends orbit each other. This orbit creates a three-dimensional swirl of "fluid" that continuously provides enough eddy current to keep the vortices from colliding and combining. The result is a sub-atomic particle. Swirls inside of swirls create atoms, molecules and so forth.
Note one other detail about this theory. It adequately explains why electromagnetic waves can pass through a vacuum with no matter to support them. It also explains why the speed of light is the maximum velocity of all matter in the universe...any speed greater than that collapses the eddies that separate the subatomic particles, combining the vortices. I suggest that this is where wormholes come from. It would also suggest that a mass could "ride" the swirl of a wormhole to the other end.
You might ask how this explains the ever-elusive Gravitational Force. It's really quite simple. If you get enough vortices in one place, some percentage of them is bound to be connected to far-off places in the universe. The natural result is a sort of negative pressure that pulls other vortices closer. What about "dark matter" or the other theoretical particles needed to explain the lack of mass in the universe? Hm...let me think...still water. Parts of the "fluid" mass that are not currently in motion.
I'm not saying I've got everything figured out here, and I'm not even saying I'm right. I'm just asking the question "If this theory is sound enough to warrant investigation, how would one go about setting up an experiment?"
