Onsons: The particle within a particle

All of matter can be dissected into tiny parts, called atoms. These atoms can be further broken down into parts even smaller, which can be broken into quarks, which can, in turn, be broken into various gears, inner tubes, and other bike parts. Somewhere in between the quarks and the gears, you can find the very mysterious “Onson.”

The “Onson” (pronounced ONS-on) is a rarely seen particle that is an integral part of all matter, and while this particle is much too small to be seen, its effects can be witnessed in our very visible world. The main effect of these tiny pieces of matter is the naming convention that they impart unto larger particles; subatomic particles containing these Onsons all have names ending in -on, such as proton, neutron, boson, photon, electron, onion, etc.

For many years, scientists used these names, but they were never sure why; many suspected something, from the naming convention coincidence, and this inspired some research in the subject, but nothing came of it, until just a few years ago, when physicists in a Massachusetts laboratory discovered the existence of Onsons. This led Dr. Guy Skylar to look further into subatomic particles, and attempt to find smaller things than ever before:

“I figured, if this particle exists, what’s keeping there from being particles for every letter, or every sound? Maybe Onsons can be broken down further, into O-ons and N-ons. And furthermore, if those are O-ons and N-ons, are there Onsons inside of them? Onsons could create a limitless loop of -ons. So, I wanted to look into naming conventions from an atomic standpoint; after all, I was in the same class for my undergraduate degree with Dr. John Goldstein-Schweiss, and I always thought he was a blowhard. Perfect opportunity to rub his nose in it.”

Having these two, very current theories running at the same time is exciting to watch; which is correct? Could it be Goldstein-Schweiss’ genetic nomenclature theory, or Skylar’s theory of atomic lettering? Proper Nouns Monthly had this to say about these two theories, and in some sort of way, put forth their own:

“Maybe both theories are correct. After all, genes are totally made of atoms. Coincidence? I think not.”

(Skylar, upon reading this quote, made a rather firm point about it definitely being a coincidence; this is unconfirmed for now.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s