**The theory and models herein are based either directly on Thomas precession, or are logical extensions to Thomas**

**precession. The theory herein is far more than a replacement for a previous theory. The theory herein describes**

**the basis for particle structure, the basis for mass, the physical structural basis for what were previously**

**considered fundamental constants, and the physical structural basis for characteristics such as quantized angular**

**momentum that previously could only be labeled as intrinsic.**

Because a point particle approach was used for decades, it is useful in motivating study of the theory and models

described herein to briefly discuss some failings of the point particle approach. Beyer et. al. write12 "[QED] has

served as a template for all subsequent quantum field theories. A serious conceptual drawback of this

development is not only that our description of nature has become more complicated but also that a parameter was

introduced, the dimensionless fine structure constant α ≈ 137, in order to account for the observed fine structure

of hydrogen spectral lines. Since we do not know any way to calculate fundamental constants, such as α, from

first principles, the additional constant alpha reduces the predictive power of theory." **In contrast with QED, the**

**theory presented herein gives the physical basis for α. Rather than complicating the theory herein, the equations**

**for α give insights that illuminate a single cohesive theory connecting the structure and dynamics of matter from**

**the particle scale to the galactic scale. While α reduces the predictive power of QED, for the model herein α gives**

**deep insights into the electrostatic force.**

Beyer gives an interesting perspective into tests of QED which reveal the "proton size puzzle". For example "A

recent measurement of the 2S-2P3/2 transition frequency in muonic hydrogen is in significant contradiction to the

hydrogen data if QED calculations are assumed to be correct." Beyer describes a discrepancy between

experimental measurement of proton radius and QED prediction, detailing use of a transition frequency in muonic

hydrogen and electron proton scattering experiments. Beyer states "The discrepancy persists and QED is no

longer consistent with experimental data".

**Because QED predictions deviate from experimental data, it can be said that QED, without predictive power, fails**

**as a theory. **Further, if QED served as a template for all subsequent quantum field theories, then those subsequent

theories are likewise flawed. A case in point is QCD. In a paper titled "Puzzles in Hadronic Physics and Novel

Quantum Chromodynamics Phenomenology", Brodsky et. al. describe13 "the proton spin problem". The problem

involves the fact that "empirically, quarks carry only a small fraction of the proton’s spin." Continuing with "The

total spin carried by quarks is reduced from the naive 100% down to ≈ 25% of the total spin of the nucleon. This,

of course, raises the question of where the remaining 75% comes from." QCD does not explain, and did not

predict, the source of 75% of proton angular momentum. In contrast, the theory presented in this article explains

proton angular momentum, and also explains why electron and proton have the same angular momentum. A point

particle approach has "intrinsic" as the basis for electron ħ/2 per axis angular momentum, and is now searching

for a corrective mechanism to QCD to explain proton ħ/2 per axis angular momentum. The theory and model

presented herein gives the basis for each particle's angular momentum, and goes further to explain the

commonality of ħ/2 to both particles.