Thanks for your comment! Here's my quick reply. Mostly it might be wrong. [*]It doesn’t remove the need for a boson[/] of magnetic force (which in the standard model, is the [wiki]photon[/i]). For ?trons to interact, some particle must mediate the interaction. So, rather than replacing the photon, the ?tron adds a new particle, making this hypothesis more, rather than less complicated than the conventional theory to which it’s an alternative. If my hypothesis about magnetism is correct, why need boson/photon? The modern concept of the photon was developed gradually (1905–17) by Albert Einstein to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency dependence of light's energy - same color light produce same photon votage - this can be explained by my ?tron hypothesis as well. Since ?tron dencity in space is a constant, an electron's (empty ?tron ball) radius is a constant, in any case, no matter how strong is the light, there is always a certain amount (maybe 10^20) of ?trons hit the electron at the same time and produce a so called photon votage. [*]There are profound theoretical problems for particles with zero mass that appear at rest relative to an observer. In short, particles with zero mass must move at c, those with nonzero mass, less than c. We know electricity has a speed of C and the electron in the wire is move much slower than C, then what is conducting the current at speed of C in the wire? I am very confused, be back for this. [*]According to the hypothesis, single photon signals would obey the wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law#Light_and_other_electromagnetic_radiation]inverse-square law. Experiments and everyday technology (such as lasers) show that this is not the case. The inverse-square law applies only to large collections of photons radiated from point sources – the energy of a single photon does not vary with distance. In my hypothesis, there is no photon. A force/wave carried by ?trons hit at electron ball in atoms and knock it out with a votage which relate to the frequency of the wave not the strength. The ?tron wave's strength is inverse square to the distance of the source but its frequency is not. The model model says a single photon hit the electron and transfer energy and knock it out, if photon has no mass and move at C speed, E=1/2 MV^2 =0. Where comes the energy? [*]Signals analogous to sound in a solid, liquid, or gas media are observed to have varying velocities by observers with nonzero velocities relative to the media. Light, however, has been theoretically predicted and experimentally shown not to be constant regardless of the velocity of the source or observer. In short, the hypothesis describes an [.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether]aethercontradicting [wiki]Special Relativity, and is contradicted by the large body of evidence supporting this well-accepted and demonstrated theory. These and other problems plague all “naive ether theories”. Such hypotheses and theories, therefore, aren’t accepted or paid much attention by conventional science. If ?trons fill up the space as my hypothesis, then when we travel in space, we against that tiny tiny thing and produce a resistance/force, that force act at every atom in us and our ship (not like air Resistance only act at the surface of a jet). When we speed up, that resistance/force will increase (therefor canceled part of the force in our system in our moving direction. And time relatively slows down). When we keep speeding up till the Resistance force reach infinity strong, we will be pressurized into 0 length. Therefor, motion less and time stops. Wow, maybe when we travel faster then light, we will back in time and be young again. Then we slow down our ship and grow older. Then we speed up again. Repeat that, we can live forever. If Einstein was right, then we have no such hope. Let's all hope he was wrong. Too much to think, I be back soon, thank you again!