Revealing the Mysterious World Inside Protons

For a long time, we thought of Protons as fundamental particles, but eventually, we determined that they were not and that they were in fact made from particles called quarks and gluons. This dramatically changed how we viewed the fundamental building blocks of everything around us. Now many of us know that protons are made from two up quarks and one down quark that are bound together with gluons. But it turns out that this is a great oversimplification. Matter-antimatter particle pairs constantly form and annihilate all throughout the universe. We have known about this for a long time but what we didn’t understand is the extent to which it was occurring inside protons.

One startling result is that charm-anticharm pairs can sometimes be observed inside of protons. This is surprising because charm quarks are larger and heavier than protons. This is another major departure from the simple 3 quark model of the proton. In this video, I briefly talk about the history of growing our understanding of the proton and the more recent results.

— References —
Only a few references for this work. Both these articles are pretty well written and have additional links in them for the keen reader.

— Social —
You can hit me up on some of my socials or check out my research.

— Equipment —
If you are interested in some of the equipment that I use to make these videos you can find the information below.

[timsmith]

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

[FaceTube]

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.

[waliaphellps]

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!

[Ukraine-is-Corrupt]

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

[Barnaclebeard]

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

[sinebar]

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.

[BainesMkII]

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.

[davidparker]

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".

[MarkusBohunovsky]

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.

[SpotterVideo]

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.
.

[JonathonRiddell]

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

[huepix]

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

[codatheseus]

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.

[ernestuz]

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 :)

[amorosogombe]

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)?

[gregmonks]

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.

[shanejohns]

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.

[jimmurphy]

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.

[batigneguillaume]

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.

[rogerjohnson]

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