In order to go further in this discussion, we must examine atomic structure up even closer than we have yet examined it.
It is a proven fact that a proton has a thousandth the diameter of an electron orbit. The big question is, what does an electron orbit represent?
It could represent any of several things. First, the common model shows an electron as a tiny particle, the same size as a proton, orbiting the nucleus. The problem with this model is that no one knows what keeps the electron in its orbit.
If "electrical force" is the answer, we need a conductor for this force. The currently accepted theory is that two forces called the "strong" and "weak" forces are responsible for holding the atom together. This theory is not complete, and the reason is that the current particle oriented thinking in atomic physics means that we have to have yet another particle responsible for transmitting this force between the particles that are being held together, and these other particles have not been positively identified.
So now let us say that an electron is a wave. This means that there is a wavefront that defines the location of the electron "particle" at all times. Now there are three possibilities for the structure of this wavefront. It could be a point (one-dimensional), a circle (two-dimensional) or a sphere (three-dimensional). As a point is a degenerate sphere and would again place it in the category of a particle, that one doesn't make much sense. As we know the electron does have a unique location within the atom and is not just a wobbly probability field, the sphere is too evenly distributed to give these properties. This leaves us with the circle. A new question comes up now, is the circle full or empty?
It is probably empty, as the electron orbit configurations that have been researched show that electrons do not occur within the nucleus, and that the atom is mostly empty space.
Although the atom appears as solid as the ground we stand on, the proton has been measured to have a diameter a thousand times smaller than an electron orbit, and there are no known forces which occupy the remaining atomic volume. Extending this calculation into three dimensions gives the nucleus a volume of only a billionth of that of an electron orbit, which is why the atom is said to be made up mostly of empty space.
As far as the particulate appearance of the electron, if we use the ring shaped wavefront as a model, we can see that the point on the wave that is moving with maximum speed would manifest the highest inertia and so would appear as the center of what could be construed as particulate mass.
Now, back to the neutron.
The biggest question yet is, how can the neutron, a particle which is just about the size of a proton, hold a proton and an electron and still be so small? Is it really that small?
Here are the facts. The neutron has a mass of 1931/1930 that of the proton and the electron has 1/1836 the mass of the proton, which is enough to account for the difference. However, the electrical charge of the electron and proton is equal and opposite and the size difference between them is about a thousand times. If you care to do some multiplying, the statistics show that when size is multiplied by mass the result is at least of the same order of magnitude, so it can be concluded that increased size makes up for reduced mass when it comes to charge.
The neutron has a zero charge, and so it obviously has both positive and negative charges combined. The best way to show this is as a picture. That will save at least a thousand words, maybe even several books worth of theory.
Current theory states that there are four forces in the universe. The strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity. The strong and weak force are responsible for reactions between nuclear particles. The other two are well known. The strong and weak force have not been positively identified. In fact, gravity has not even been identified. No one knows what makes it work! So it seems that these four forces are not based on a very strong version of reality.
I propose that there are only three forces, and that they are electricity, magnetism, and gravity, and I will now explain where these come from and why there are three and only these three forces in the universe.
There are only four stable particles in the universe. Two of these are the proton and electron, both of which will last forever if undisturbed. The third is the photon. Photons have travelled billions of light years across the universe to arrive in telescopes on Earth, so this has been proven. Finally, the neutrino* is stable enough to travel just as far and long.
There are three major differences between the first two and the last two particles, which have a lot to say about nuclear structure in the universe.
First of all, the first two particles, the proton and the electron, are charged, and the last two, the photon and the neutrino, are electrically neutral. No forces can come about from the interaction of uncharged particles without actual physical contact with them.
Second of all, the last two particles are absorbed and emitted by the first two particles in all cases, so can be looked upon as parts of them and responsible for the transmission of their forces.
Third of all, the photon and the neutrino always travel at the speed of light and in fact are travelling wave versions of the first two particles which are stationary standing wave phenomena that do not naturally move when at rest. Protons and electrons follow Newtons laws. Unless acted upon, they remain at rest. Photons and neutrinos do not!
Now for an explanation of the source of the three universal forces of electricity, magnetism and gravity.
The two particles which are both stable and charged and therefore responsible for wave transmission of forces have three possible combinations.
These are Plus-plus, plus-minus, and minus-minus.
Minus-minus interactions give us electricity. Electricity is composed of photons transmitting the force of electrons.
The Plus-minus interaction gives us magnetism. An atom is a tiny magnet and consists of a positive nucleus being orbited by a negative electron cloud. An electromagnet consists of a nucleus of iron being circled by electrical force. A flow of EM energy ensues, and the polarity of the magnet depends on the direction of the circular flow of charge around the core.
A natural or permanent magnet depends on the wholesale alignment of the magnetic fields of a majority of the individual atoms in the magnetic material.
This leaves us with one force and one reaction left: The Plus-plus reaction and the gravity force. And so we are left with the option that gravity must be the interaction of protons at a large distance. Perhaps transferred by neutrino energy at frequencies too high to measure with current technology.
There is a burning question that has not yet even been officially posed by modern science, and that is, what is charge?
First I will explain more closely how charge and direction affects magnetism. In the electromagnet, the polarity of the magnet is reversed when the direction of charge flow around the core is reversed. The polarity of the magnet depends entirely upon the direction of this flow. The rule for determining the direction is called the "right-hand rule".
If you curl the fingers of your right hand in the direction of the current, your thumb will be pointing in the direction of magnetic flow. A negative flow around a positive core in a clockwise direction causes the north pole to point in one direction. If the flow is counterclockwise, the north pole points in the other direction.
In atoms, the effect is similar. The atom as a whole follows the same right- hand rule. Atomic particles also have magnetic fields, called magnetic moments, based on the fact that they spin, and as spinning charged particles they generate magnetic fields. The proton follows the right-hand rule. The electron follows an opposite "left-hand" rule, as its charge is opposite so is its magnetic field orientation. The neutron follows the same rule as the electron.
In an anti-matter atom, the rules are reversed, but notice that they follow the same rules according to polarity of charge. The anti-proton follows the same rule as the electron. The positron follows the same rule as the proton. The neutron is also reversed and follows the anti-electron.
So far, magnetism has been defined in relation to charge, and is said to be a property of something called spin. It is known that atomic particles spin and this causes magnetism. But it is not defined as to what the charge is.
I propose that the spin is the charge. Considering that a proton is an EM wave, it has an exactly defined frequency. It does not move at the speed of light yet is made of energy which travels at light speed and so it is defined as a standing wave and its wavefront spins in place at the frequency of the particle.
Thus there are two characteristics which make the proton a unique particle. Its wavelength and its direction of spin.
This would be true for every matter or anti-matter particle.