Every time I try to understand subatomic particles, someone convinces me that I never will.

This is like zooming in on a scale and realizing that between 1 and 2 there is an infinite ammount of numbers. Just when you thought you had it all figured out you realize that you know nothing.

If protons are so diverse and chaotic on the inside, why does every proton appear interchangeable? Why don’t they have unique properties?

Good presentation; well done. I'm a bit older than you & I have been studying & publishing aspects of the Proton for over three decades. What I've learned on my journey is that we don't have a clue. Everyone is guessing, including myself. The Standard Model of Part-Physics is 100-200 years away from a 'final' understanding of what's happening from collisions. My 'best guess' is that we'll eventually conclude that constituent particles don't actually exist. We 'make' them exist by high-energy collisions. If you consider a Proton to be a sheet of glass, we can make more pieces by striking the glass with higher-energy impactors. My guess is that we'll eventually 'confirm' something like I've just described .... But as I said, I'm just guessing

The deeper we dig into the universe the deeper down the rabbit hole we go. The very interaction with quantum objects probably changes their properties without realizing it. I don't think there is a way to probe a proton without changing its properties.

The more you look into Nature, the more you realize that what is left, no matter how tiny we thought it was, represents at least the same complexity and uncertanty that all misteries solved up to that point. Fractal stuff!

The basic virtual particle explanation of Hawking Radiation is the "we know this is wrong, but we use it because it is something the average person can easily grasp" explanation.

I really appreciate people who are a lot smarter than I am, and enjoy learning from them. Vincent Van Gogh described simplification as something very complex, that is, there is nothing simple about simplicity; "breaking complex elements down to their most simplistic forms".

Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .

My postulate is that individual fields of energy are expanding and colliding. Where those collisions approach speed of light, time dilation and space contraction result in areas we observe as particles. There actually aren't any "particles", just the part of the field we can interact with

The uniformity of particles tells us, in itself, that particles don't exist as such, that they belong to vast fields. We don't actually know anything about matter. The little we do know is what we can do to it.

Great video. It makes me think one thing though: I believe there is a real issue with the terminology we use when talking about these things--at least when talking to the general public or non-experts: For example, the term "particle" is used here, describing both protons, as well as some of their components. However, at least outside of "particle"-physics, when we hear this term, we imagine something a kin to a very small ball (or other shape) of physical matter, that we imagine behaves like the physical matter we are used to--something like tiny billiard balls; solid, permanent, located in a specific place in 3D space, with a specific vector of movement and rotation, etc--all things that we cannot help automatically envisioning when we hear the term "particle". However, it is quite obvious, that neither protons, nor quarks or gluons (these even much less so) behave in any way close to such "particles". Even when you say, that a proton "consists" of quarks and gluons, as if these were smaller balls of matter making up the larger one, say like individual lego pieces, making up a structure built from them--this is really misleading. Clearly, when considering that some "particles" are actually heavier than the structure they make up, the fact that they appear and disappear, the fact that they have wave-like properties as well as particle-like properties, etc., we have to admit that they are something entirely different than the word "particle" means in popular language. It may be convenient for "particle-physicists" to call them "particles", because they (hopefully) have the understanding that this is a technical term that has a completely different meaning than it has in popular vernacular, but I believe it may be time to stop using that word when talking to the general public, as it seems highly misleading.

This is the first I have heard that accelerated electrons have shown 'pictures' of 3 quarks in a proton. Sadly, no confirming reference...

Man, at the time we decided the positive charges moved forming the electric current we didn't have any idea of electrons, protons or anything in between, much less any idea of their sizes... great guys those who got it wrong, but that's another story. Hadrons are very interesting little things :)

My guess is that there's some amount of charm inside the proton which only after putting in the energy to detect it does it actually form into a fully realized particle instead of just a small bit of waveyness in that quantum field. Or maybe idk what I'm talking about and I'm just some random person on the internet.

Could this never ending particle zoo phenomenon be related to the idea of the universe not being locally real? (Not having any properties independent of measurement and only being affected by that in its immediate environment i.e. no entanglement)?

what confuses people is ,misnomers like 'larger' when what is really meant is 'stronger' or 'deeper'. Quarks are best understood as looking like a 'pringles' chip if we freeze framed it. the edge being the wave quality and diameter being the strength/energy. then look at the charge as the warping/offset from center-plane which is 0. they are 2-d objects which create 3-d space by their interactions with each other, and that might look like orbiting around a barycenter. we have to correct our terminology from the words created for model that were dis-proven 80 years ago, so physics can advance

I mostly agree with the content of this but the final part. I made my PhD on the contribution of strange quarks to the charge and current distributions in protons. Quarks, as any fundamental particle, are considered, so far, as point-like; but in any case much smaller than a proton. The constantly created-annihilated particle-antiparticle pairs are off-shell (E^2 -p^2 != m^2) and called virtual particles for that reason (the more “virtual”, the shorter their lifetime is). What contributes to the properties of proton (mass, spin, magnetic momentum) are particle-fields not real particles. Understanding this subtlety requires knowledge on Quantum-Field Theory. For instance, electromagnetic interaction between charged particles is described at the fundamental level as the exchange of virtual photons (E^2 -p^2 < 0!). This might seem weird but this is the best description/interpretation we have. And it works marvelously well so far.

Very informative as usual :). Keep it up! Your range of knowledge / ability to cover all of these topics is really cool.

Very enlightening, thank you.

I find it incredibly difficult to understand electrical circuits that use the proton flow schema. I know it's the electrons, and that makes me want to start at that part of the circuit -- the negative terminal. It's really quite sad that we are sticking to an incorrect understanding in order to remain backward compatible with the circuits that were drawn before we figured out the REAL direction of flow. It still amazes me that we had such a fundamentally wrong understanding about something as fundamental as direction of current flow, yet the circuits created under that false understanding all still work(ed) as intended. Normally that is not the case when you get a fundamental fundamentally wrong.

Looking inside the proton and finding more and more baffling detail the more we look reminds me of this quote from Douglas Adams: "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

Nice job on the description, or at least what we think we know of it. There's a video out on how this animation was conceived and produced, and by whom. Well worth a watch. Visualizing the Proton: A Documentary.

I postulate that we will never fully understand matter until we STOP thinking of it as particles. Instead we need to think of EVERYTHING as packets of energy traveling through space-time. Sort of like the words racing along a moving marquee. If you move with the word it becomes stationary, otherwise it is just a ON/OFF pattern passing through the bulbs. Also, a nice analogy to the dance of the three quarks in a proton is a chord in music. If we take a snapshot we see three quarks and a symphony of gluons and such. And, of course, any measurements we make change it. Once we learn how to travel with it, a proton, or really any energy packet (aka. particle) will emerge as a harmonious blend of complex waveforms with chord like transitions between states that we see as quarks, gluons, whatever.

This is the best particle channel I have found on YT so far.

i like this guys cadence and demeanor.... i dont understand everything he is talking about... but i feel like he is generally trying to help me understand it... hes not barking at us and hes not full faced into the camera(i hate that) and he is communicating on a high school senior/college freshmen level.. not a 3rd grade level like alot of these channels... also like im reading the New York Times... not the National Inquirer.... well done my dude... well done

I have never imagined that protons were anything but a mystery item. That they would have all those quarks in different positions was like unthinkable to me. So I guess I was kinda right.

The obstacle that makes particle fizzix so difficult is our false assumption that we have isolated something and can now analyze it. There is no separating any normal matter from the medium of the galaxy, which is the source of energy that imbalances every equation, and unexplained spurious particles in every collision.

I really like you time format of 6-8 mins, I must say. 3:37 is a cool animation (yes, wrong, but still) - did you do it yourself?

The exercise of figuring out protons is frustrated by the fact that they use electrons to probe protons and they still don't really understand electrons either.

A real human, who actually understands (as much as anyone does!) what they are talking about, without spending half the time advertising something that isn't available in my part of the world, and I'd have no interest in even if it was, and doing so in with fake sincerity and enthusiasm. On top of that, it has obviously been carefully prepared but sounds quite spontaneous. Maybe I can get rid of my billiard ball view of atoms and subatomic particles? Certainly makes me want to try to do so.

So basically subatomic particles are like a small self-contained universe.

It's not that they were all wrong, they just got more right.

Protons are legislated by mathematicians wearing physicist’s hat. Protons aren’t necessary for non orbiting electrons, as JJ Thompson expected. Two discrete unit of positively charged nucleus can be coexists bonded by one negatively charged electron in a Symmetry and equilibrium state.

How do protons remain the same over long time differences if it is constantly changing? Why doesn't it decay into something else often?

Well I don't think that we can use our current frame of reference to describe particles that form everything in our current frame of reference

5:28 A thing I never understood about Hawking radiation is why does this process always reduce the mass of the black hole? It seems like if this process was random then it should balance out, both increasing and decreasing the mass/energy of a black hole. I realize there is more going on than the story told in popular science, but this glossed over detail keeps bugging me.

Protons presumably look like nothing, as opposed to other words, due to the unlikelyhood of shifting electron orbitals to absorb and reemit light. "Very small, black to transparent."

Subatomic particles are like a mattress infested with bugs. No matter how many times you smack it with a stick, more bugs always pop out.

Amazing!!! I'm a newcomerb- ib just got this on my feed. I really enjoyed this and you primed us well for subsequent information and it all just works. You're a kiwi too which is even better. Suuubscribed! Good on ya man I'm gonna watch some more.

5:16 If electrons and positrons spontaneously pop into existence and then annihilate then why don’t they release a photon? I keep hearing this explanation, but I feel like another key aspect of this is never explained. How is energy conserved? Instead, it sounds like energy would be created. What balances the energy in this equation?

It bothers me that two ups and a down produce one thing, and two downs and an up produce something so different.

I think there's an ontological issue here. Physicists are in knots because they're putting the cart before the horse. That is, first they said 'a proton is an indivisible, fundamental object'. Ok no it turns out a proton appears to be synonymous with 3 quarks. So now we have to retain our old model and think of quarks 'inside' a proton instead of just saying a proton is 3 quarks. But then it gets worse because come discovery of the charm quarks, whose mass is utterly outside the range physicists were comfortable with in their definition of the proton. To me it makes sense to say, a proton is the name which refers to two possible collections of subatomic particles, and then define a proton solely against the role it plays within an atom, and not against its constituents.

What's on the outside of a proton? The mystery I read about in James Jeans Philosophy and Physics was why the weight/mass ratio of the proton to electron is what it is. They have approximately 1836.111/1 but I think it is exactly 1835.1666.../1. Why? Why not? That's 11011/6 exactly. That's why. And there's 6 protons in the carbon atom the basis of life..

Absolutely fascinating and perplexing !!! This man does a great job in explaining and holding my interest in this incredibly esoteric subject. And yes, these discoveries and future research and discoveries will be vital to our future civilization.

A simple description (falling drop of water) is from Bohr. The 100% elastic lumen stretches away from the massless spin 2 graviton to condense into a solid sphere with only mass. No energy.

The heavier charm + anti-charm quark-pairs in a proton are 'virtual', that is, they may pop in and out in pairs very very quickly. Such pairs may be made 'real' outside the proton by supplying extra energy from the outside to excite/create them (recall E = mc^2). So, the usual picture of the three real/stable quarks (2 up + 1 down) and the gluons they exchange incessantly to keep them bound in a free proton is essentially OK (if one may disregard the 'virtual' pairs).

In an electric current such as that found in transmission lines, the electrons don't flow. They actually move very little, it is the field that is transmitting the current.

4:20 "It appears Nature doesn't like to make things simple."

Actually, they have also observed Top quarks in the proton, which are heavier than the Charm quarks. If you calculate the _pressures_ inside the proton, you quickly realize that it is the same as inside a blackhole (BH), or at least the same as those at the BH's event horizon (EH). That implies the nucleus has gravitational fields in addition to the strong and weak nuclear forces, and that in turn implies that a *cohesive* (determined by Spin alignment) nucleus can exhibit far strong gravitational fields than the one with random sea of gluons. But nuclear physics is too infantile to accept that possibility, just as astronomical physics was too infantile to accept BHs at the center of galaxies when I told the Physicists in the 1990s. Ce la vie.

What it looks like depends on how you look at it. Saying a proton is a hard sphere with charge isn't wrong.

A Proton is the language used to describe the mystery of positive (another word) charge....theres no magic here, right..in a post modern world we just need to name stuff. We have simply replaced the word magic with emergence and then pat ourselves on the back.

I'm starting to get the feeling that particles seem to have many properties in common with knots. Almost like spacetime twists a certain way to create a particle, like waves on a sea, and the twist either untangles when it interacts with another specific set of twists, or becomes more tangled otherwise. When I see the alternating color charges and such, that tells me there's a conserved quantity, and since there can be a near infinite number of knots with the same crossing number for instance, the properties of a particle might be defined by something as simple as a crossing number, that conserved topological quantity. A knot that travels down the medium(spacetime), like a wave on a rope, cannot come undone until it hits something, like the end of the rope, or another wave in the rope. And even electrons seem to behave as if they're tethered to their surroundings, since reorienting them 360 degrees doesn't return them to their original state. The knots might display different symmetries, like how the same exact amino acids in a chain can be reconfigured into a completely different protein with different properties.

Interesting questions come to mind Like How do we know the protons we observe at high speed collisions are the protons in a stable molecule? Maybe all the unexpected findings are result of the high energy collisions changing the proton's qualities or quantities? Just layman's questions

Suggestion that: Neutrons are an Unstable form of Protons. "Free neutrons are unstable, decaying to a proton, electron, and an anti neutrino under 15 minutes." Wiki - Neutron. We know that there are ways that a proton and electron become a neutron, OR a neutron decays to a proton and electron. Beta minus decay of neutron = proton, electron, and an anti neutrino. Beta plus decay of proton = neutron, positron, and a neutrino. Electron Capture, the nucleus absorbs an electron, and one proton changes to a neutron and emits a neutrino. Neutron Star: "Under extraordinary conditions protons do stick to electrons. High pressure in neutron stars forces electrons and protons to form neutrons. Then neutrons decay to form protons and electrons which in turn form an atom of hydrogen. - "Why don't protons stick to electron?" Science Notes Org. Hydrogen atom is a proton plus an electron. Virtually all protons were made in the Big Bang; but neutrons can be made easily now through the processes above. So how can electrons exist in a nucleus? "Electrons in the atom do enter the nucleus. Electrons in S state tend to peak at the nucleus." Christopher Baird / Science Q. We know electrons will only react with a proton in the nucleus via electron capture. Otherwise the electron and proton do not interact with each other. DRAWING: Shows proton plus electron = neutron. Neutron Electrical Properties. This study could support the idea of Composite Neutron with electron on the outside of proton. "Using precise data recently gathered at three different laboratories and some new theoretical tools, Gerald A. Miller, a UW physics professor, has found that the neutron has a negative charge both in its inner core and its outer edge, with a positive charge sandwiched in between to make the particle electrically neutral." www.washington.edu/news/2007/09/17/research-overturns-accepted-notion-of-neutrons-electrical-properties/#:~:text=Miller%2C%20a%20UW%20physics%20professor,make%20the%20particle%20electrically%20neutral. (My further suggestion is that perhaps the proton itself may be a composite of one electron and two positrons.) This post about neutrons, fits the rest of my related ideas. Here is a summary: Singularity of photons (eternal and outside space/time) in Big Bang, creates electron - positron pairs, proton - anti proton pairs, and neutrino-anti neutrino pairs; through pair conversion. Then those particles through different combinations created everything else. Note proton plus electron = neutron, but also Anti proton plus positron = neutron! Thoughts; Building atoms on electrons and protons made in pair conversion, seems more likely than building neutrons from scratch in a separate unrelated way.

Interesting way of explaining electron volts

I suspect that the details that result from the particle collision measurements of increasing energies are only valid for such high-intensity collisions. Meaning that all the extra particles are a by-product of the collisions, and so they only appear to be that way as a result of using that method.

Maybe there are no other participles in the proton that we knew. But the way we investigate this by smashing them in the hadron collider we produce them for a short time and then they despair and come back to the form of known standard particle . Some appear in an intermediate kind that look heavier for a very short time.

The PARTICLE TRAIN! Previously I suggested that eternal photons made electron positron pairs, (as well as all standard model particles). Here's how. Start with a PARTICLE TRAIN, each time you add an electron or positron car to the train, you get a new particle. The only rule is the cars have to alternate from electron to positron. Think of a wave with trough always alternating with crest. Photons as electron positron pairs could make the main parts of an atom in the brief time after the Big Bang under those extreme and never repeated conditions. Charges are the cars on our particle train. Positive positron (+), Negative electron (-). Positron (+) Electron (-) Photon (+) (-) Proton (+) (-) (+) Anti Proton (-) (+) (-) Neutron (+) (-) (+) (-) Anti Neutron (-) (+) (-)(+) . The PROTONS and NEUTRONS are made from ELECTRONS and POSITRONS! When this production of particles was over, most anti particles with charge; positrons, and anti protons, didn't exist on their own. They were LOCKED INTO PROTONS OR NEUTRONS. That way conservation of charge was maintained. That also explains the MISSING ANTI MATTER PROBLEM!

This is interesting that particles are there and not there at the same time. Wonder if that works on the large scale too. Like all of existence in the universe is both there and not there at the same time.

Should really look into Ralph Sansbury / Wal Thornhill's notions on sub-atomic particles. [Wal was enamored of Sansbury's notion of "subtrons" and took the notion a little further, I think? Not too hung up on the name. Call them quarks, or whatever one wants to call such lower-order sub-particles or structures/behaviors of whatever's going on down at that level.] Wherein you've basically got some bound set of charges of some form, and it's basically a function of the amount of energy and how much the charges, or whatever you want to call them, are able to essentially go on more elongated orbits, the more energy they've absorbed, or something along that line. And the "mass" is sort of a function of how stretched the orbit becomes in an external [electric] field, where the more stretched the orbits become, the more that imparted energy extends the orbits rather than accelerating the "particle" [or orbital system] as a whole. And the "resistance to acceleration [as a whole unit] [in favor of elongation of the orbits instead]" is what we'd call "mass," per se. Which may be why you get relativistic "mass" increase as more energy is imparted in the the "particles" [or orbital systems] while being accelerated by and external field of some kind. As more energy is imparted, its orbit deforms more [in the direction of the field] which kind of feed back into its orbit being more likely to deform from further acceleration or influence of a field rather than being accelerated by it, so it appears to get more "mass"-y (resistant to acceleration). I'm sure I've not described it quite as well as Thornhill, but that's kind of the basics of it as I understand it. And, conversely, when energy is emitted as a photon, the orbits of the "particle" may collapse to a lower energy state, until/unless more energy is imparted. Which may be why we see the kind of weird "zoo" of particles with different apparent "masses" as they receive or give up photons/energy or whatnot through collisions or resonant interactions or whatever the actual mechanisms may be. And the different "charges" / spins / colors / whatever may just be due to different numbers of whatever "subtrons" or "quarks" or whatever name one wants to give to the sub-fundamental particles that make up heretofore "fundamental" particles [protons, electrons, etc.], or how they're arranged with respect to each other. There's a bit more to it than that, and possibly some implications for electro-gravity as a sub-fundamental-level analog of the London or Van der Waals force(s). [Basically an extremely weak residual electric field between oscillating weak electric dipoles, due to said elongated orbits and imperfect charge centering / shielding.] Obviously way more theoretical/mathematical development and actual experimental evidence would be needed to validate said notion(s) [which remain hypothetical]. And, sadly Wal Thornhill has since passed away a few years ago...

A proton doesn't "look" like anything. Looking requires imaging using light and that's impossible at the subatomic scale.

Perhaps, rather than think of these as particles, one should be thinking of them as events.

do you think gravitation is intricately connected to atoms??

I deeply hate we still use the incorrect model in circuits. When I try to use it I can't help but think "it's the other way around though...". Damn!!

I get what you're saying about charm quarks being heavier, but what makes you say they're bigger? I didn't think sizes was all that solid for quarks.

A good video. Another video might investigate the half lives of atoms, if protons are such a mystery could they contribute in an unexpected causal way to atomic half lives ? Perhapes the frequency of the emergence of charm quarkes has something to do with how long the atom lasts, for example. If the constuant partcles are larger than the proton is supposed to be perhapes that is a form of physical "stress" and not just a stress in cognition.

Good job, you hit the mark that the title was implying. Well thought out and explained.

So the next time someone says, "The science is settled", keep walking.

Thanks for providing links to your sources. Much appreciated 😊

The answer was given in 1975 when the fractal was discovered. The atom is a fractal of a galaxy. Now, that's what I call both simple and complex. lol!

Determining the mass of an individual quark is by itself a rather involved topic. As quarks are bound inside hadrons, their masses cannot be measured directly and, at least to my knowledge, their values are inferred from the observed properties of the hadron, being to an extent dependent on the theoretical model used to analyze them. That being said, the "standard" value of the charm quark's mass is indeed larger than the proton's rest mass. However, saying that a charm quark is "larger" than a proton might be somewhat nonsensical. The quarks themselves appear point-like at least as far as current observations go. Their mean charge radius is about an order of magnitude smaller than that of a proton.

And what about neutrons? Does this also apply to them as they are basically the same stuff?

Pls review nassim harameins views on protons, & mass & gravity ..you get a more comprehensive understanding not only protons but other particles also...

L Susskind talking about proton "the only thing we know about proton is that there is an electrical charge in a particular spacial coordinate within à radius, and this is what we call proton". And something weird "there is no obvious difference between a particule and a black hole". Smaching together particules at c, is an endless story, there is an infinite potential division in a finite space, what is statisticaly detected could be everything or nothing. What is, has been or will be detected during these energetic colisions are only statisticaly measured, indirectly observed, and highly chalenging. Instead of looking for smallest particule, looking for division organisation and rethinking the model should be more efficient. Nothing of the sort is mine, only physicists.

I discovered, We are the Ones giving the universe the Wrong Information interpretation ,its not the universe giving us the Wrong Information interpretation.

All I know is that a proton doesn't "look like" anything, because it's smaller than the wavelengths of light that our eyes can see . . .

I still don't undeserved how matter-antimatter pairs of particles arrise and annihilate with one another WITHOUT filling all of spacetime with massive, easily measurable, amounts of gamma radiation. I also thought this problem was confined to theories about the Vacuum Energy Density. But now the question of 'where's all the gamma radiation?" extends into theories about protons too. So...answers anyone...Buhler?

in particle physics larger mass particles usually means smaller in dimensions, more condensed energy.

The Irony of saying we were wrong about protons flowing in electricity then making a claim it is electrons, that is also incorrect to some extent, what is actually moving is the propagation of the electromagnetic field, for instance in AC circuits the electrons actually vibrate about their original position, it is only in DC circuits you may see a migration of electrons but this is extremely slow.

Every time I hear someone someone say that something is a fundamental particle, I think, "bulls**t." How many fundamental particles are we going to go through before we finally admit ignorance? Spontaneous creation feels like bunk too. We just don't know all the variables. No effect happens without a cause. God, physicists love their appeals to authority and to assume they know (almost) everything there is to know.

Nice explanation

I used to love physics. Now I just see it as a collection of ad hoc “explanations” and mathematical conventions stacked on top of each other to cover the fact that we actually know very little. I think it’s time for the field to just admit that.

You hit some key points in what I believe is the correct perspective. We have a bias perspective. Viewing stuff as solid matter made of particles is an illusion. Our reality is energy in waveforms. Our ability to see light is due to the differential expansion of matter (radial) and space (spherical). In effect, matter exists in successive positions of radial expansion @c. Within space that is expanding spherically @c. So the function of the proton system is to resist expanding in 3 dimensions whilst it radiates into future positions of quantum expansion. Let's call it the Higgs Tornado. It functions by completing one self referential orbit (Planck Time) as it radiated one Planck Length. This is the basis of the universal constant. So the Higgs Tornados are expanding from a direction of s singularity and existing by a sort of inverted Fibonacci spiral. As they radiate within a spherically expanding space, they maintain their constant. And this Planck size unit is the fine wavelength of the Spacetime matrix. The Higgs Tornados act as if they are gimballed and are always oriented away from the source of expansion...but they create a surrounding field of positive charge. This omnidirectional field (proton/neutron system) is allowing co-moving Higgs Tornados to be able to interact with neighbors without regard to the internal trajectory of the gimballed internal Higgs orientation. In turn, the proton/neutron system is generating an electric field around it. As the proton neutron interact in geometric ways they can vary charge produced. Also external charge or magnetism can vary internal arrangements. Our particle theories are rough simulations of these successive functions of a cycling Higgs Tornado.

if you're up on the latest on the QED scene; you should be really cautious about citing Feynman!

We got rid of the electric current problem by referring to *"holes, the absence of an electron"* moving in the direction of current flow.

I don't think leptons are "Particles" in the way we normally think of particles. I think they are just fluctuations in the quantum field. And "Gravity" is just a property that describes how the fluctuation affects the curvature of the field. And curvature of the field creates an effect that we see as momentum. All these things are just properties in the system that maintains the field. I think we are really just perceiving the operation of the field interactions. Of course that ultimately means all matter is just field fluctuations but I think that's what it is.

Thanks so much. I wish you were my teacher when I was in school. I would have been a different person. :). Hope you will keep posting.

you can make 1 with 2/3+3/2 or 99999/1+1/99999 or whatever equilibrium combination then it is not really surprising that a system with heat and equivalent exchange of interacting energies, could accept any symmetric embedding that doesn't break the system topologically because of that, the region is stable and will maintain itself regardless of constituent components once formed. that region of stability is the proton, it is a mode of the sea rather than a thing separate from the sea

I would suggest to you that none of the quarks or gluons exist at all. Instead, consider that these are figments representing fundamental attributes. Think of those like axes in multidimensional space. Now consider that certain combinations of amplitudes on these axes in combination behave the same. Each of these sets is a “particle”. Some sets have excesses making them unstable and resolvable into multiple less ‘energetic’ sets. These are the fundamental “particles”. But consider this - that our very idea of particles comes from our macro scale experience of “solid” stuff like rocks and sand, and that at the scale of particles that no such thing exists. Our common experience misleads us. Instead, consider a thing oscillating in multiple dimensions simultaneously. But again, our macro world experience misleads us. Instead, start with a two dimensional version and an infinite line. Lift the center up and let it then oscillate up and down like a stretching elastic string. The entire string out to infinity moves. The vast majority of the movement is in the very center. That is the simplest version. Add modes to that and we get higher order oscillations. Think of these like musical notes of ever higher octaves, or like waves on a pond when a rock is thrown into it. But rather than spreading outward dissipating energy, they oscillate standing in place across all of space to infinity. Now, take this one dimensional string version represented in 2D space and shift to thinking of a 2D version in 3D space (the wave in a pond analogy). Next shift that to a 3D version oscillating in 4D space. The fourth dimension doesn’t exist in this case. It is simply used to represent the changing magnitude. Okay now we have a beginning. Now consider that electrons, protons and other elementary particles have multiple attributes like charge, z-spin, etc…. Represent each of these in a different non spatial dimension interwoven with our three spatial dimensions. Does your head hurt yet? Ok, now consider that at the origin of the universe that each of these dimensions had the same size. That a fundamental unit of charge size was the same as a fundamental size in spatial dimensions. Consider then that thought of in one way that the three spatial dimensions began linearly expanding over time. This is our universe. Consider in a different way that they didn’t. Instead consider that what happened is that the three spatial dimensions changed character to support linearly with time an ever increasing oscillation rate, while the other dimensions didn’t. In this later interpretation the entire universe and all of the particles it is composed of is nothing more than the incredibly complex oscillation of this one fundamental object whose size is identical to that of a single electron - whatever that really is. Our entire universe in this model is a single incredibly complex oscillating object. We think of things in the incredibly “small” world of particles as being like what we know in the world on our scale. This horribly misleads us in our thinking. To have any chance of truly understanding we must give up our ideas from the world of the large and think anew - think differently. We can analogise from our macro world. Ultimately though such analogies are wrong and misleading. I would suggest to you that thinking of particles as “particles” is a huge error. And then that “smashing” two or more together to “see” what’s “inside” is even more absurd. The reality is vastly more interesting AND simpler than that.

The vacuum produces electron-positron pairs from nothing, seeming violating the conservation of energy, so yeah why not charm-strange quarks appearing in a proton?

a positive charge is just a negative charge in two diffrent directions intersecting

Try seeing it more as interference of excitations than as creation and annihilation of particles. A sea of waves will occasionally throw you quite a peak. Heard that elsewhere.

There are entire universes within each atom. These universe comtain atoms that contain other universes. Goes on forever

Forgive my uneducated question, but im going to ask anyway. When you add so much energy into the proton while smashing, wouldn't it be normal to expect more particles to follow conservation of energy when energy and mass are essentially interchangeable?

"One theory states that if any lifeform finally figures out what the universe is all about, that being will cause the universe to be destroyed and be replaced with something even more bizarre. A further theory states that, "This may have already happened."" D. Adams :)

So - since a proton is both heavier & lighter than they appear, they must be subatomic TARDISes, because they are probably as big as a living room inside and we don't know it yet. 😀

Obviously some sort of ether and superether forces. These are connected with the decomposition of burnt out globules of dark matter and spent ether forces. Protons are the force centers of the atom that absorb and transmutate dark matter.

Particles don't pop in and out of existence. They don't "disappear" they go into (onto?) a different dimension which We can't observe with out 3D based technology

There is a field in the proton called beingn field which is responsible for control of break up of nucleus without the help of nuclear reactors.