Revealing the Mysterious World Inside Protons

[@timsmith2525]

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

[@tylermcnally8232]

Don't feel bad no one does. We just assume based on what the math tells us but we are also not sure the math is complete.

[@ghoraxe9000]

I agree... These scientist are great a naming particles but very bad at understanding them

[@senthilkumaravel1970]

😄

[@floridanews8786]

It's just a standing electromagnetic wave that scientists over complicate. (When you vibrate water a little droplet pops up and bounces around the surface, well when you vibrate a magnetic field like that electrons pop up, a proton is two electrons that made one bigger droplet. The two negatives make a positive charge)

[@5675492]

Simply put - if it's very large , very small , very fast , very slow , very hot , or very cold then the explanation for it is going to be very weird .

[@2FaceTube]

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.

[@metaparcel]

I think its more like zooming in a scale and between 1 and 2 you get a number sometimes bigger than 2 between 1 and 2 and sometimes a number between 1 and 2 depending on when you look.

[@InTrancedState]

Except sometimes a number bigger than 2 is chilling in there as well

[@Dziaji]

The universe is fractal. There is no smallest or largest scale for structures.

[@Cris_the_coder]

I like the mindset. This video sets out. It gives the message that we need to keep searching

[@monhi64]

I had a calculus professor who was going over limits and infinities and stuff. And he’s talking about how you can break any distance down into an infinite number of points, pointing at the wall specifically as a distance that has infinite points. Then out of no where he throws the pen at the wall and goes “but then pen still hit the wall, why?”. It felt more profound at the time but I think the point was that the very same thing can be finite and infinite based on your perspective

[@waliaphellps1745]

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!

[@Barnaclebeard]

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

[@MaxAbramson3]

What they are seeing are not fundamental components of protons, but different interactions inside that sphere.

[@NE-jc9fh]

Every road looks different when being close. Yet driving on a road is always quite the same experience.

[@Kerry-G]

Because they’re not chaotic or diverse. They’re fluctuating to the same degree depending on when you look 👀. Sometimes you observe charm-anti charm pairs, sometimes positron electron pairs.

[@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.

[@MikeLinPA]

It really pissed me off that I got A's in high school science, but when I started college, I found out that what they taught me in high school wasn't right, and everything I thought I understood was bupkis! Why couldn't they teach the real stuff first instead of putting us through that?

[@timjackson3954]

@@MikeLinPA Also because what we know has changed since the high school teachers learned it. When I was a physics undergrad (long ago) the department had a rule that no lecturer could teach the same course for more than 3 years, to keep them fresh. You have to have something that will work adequately for those high school graduates who will only take it that far. Those who do follow the speciality just have to rip it up and start again.

[@BainesMkII]

@Al Coholic It's not the issue of not being able to teach what isn't known, its being taught things that are *known* to be wrong just because it is simpler. I think school curriculum were designed on the idea that it didn't really matter, because the vast majority of kids would never need such information and the minority that did would end up learning the "right" version in higher education. But that's honestly pretty short sighted. First, it assumes that such knowledge won't become more generally important in the future. Second, it doesn't teach kids the "right" way to think. Third, it actually pushes the "wrong" information into "common knowledge. So now we have multiple generations of a general populace that have been (intentionally) taught the wrong ways about things, yet we still seem shocked when the general populace can't grasp the "right" version of some science, or gets easily confused, or keeps perpetuating incorrect information and working from it, or just in general never really learned how to think.

[@redmed10]

Teachers probably don't know themselves what they are teaching is wrong. As long as they agree on the answer it doesn't matter if it's wrong.

[@randomgrinn]

Typical humans. Better to understand something that is wrong than to admit you don't understand. Worthless species.

[@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

[@matthewatwood207]

I just wish he wouldn't go from saying we repeatedly learned that particles once believed to be fundamental are not to saying we know that such and such particle is fundamental. What's your take on spontaneous gluon/antigluon production? Is it random, or are we just missing variables and maybe also missing the ability to admit ignorance among the pop-scientists?

[@davidrandell2224]

A proton is a collection of 1836 expanding electrons and add a bouncing expanding electron makes a hydrogen atom. “G” calculated from first principles- the hydrogen atom- in 2002: “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

[@Ukraine-is-Corrupt]

@@matthewatwood207 That's a difficult question to tackle. I'll answer it by saying that I think the entire field of Particle-Physics needs a shake-up. There are simply too many particles, nature isn't that complicated. Nowadays, we're inventing new Particles hand-over-fist. It just doesn't make any sense. The whole Universe is described by the Standard Model of Cosmology, which is surprisingly simple. But on the small scale, it's so horrendously complex that it's impossible to get your head around .... Something is wrong

[@erickwillum2979]

“We make them” has been my own thought for a long time.

[@stephenphillips4984]

@@erickwillum2979 But we can only make them because God's laws allow it to happen. There are limits on what we can make. It is just that we have not yet discovered where the limit is.

[@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.

[@Mavrik9000]

I suspect that the details which 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.

[@gregorysagegreene]

I think my reaction would also be different if 'probed'. Poor proton.

[@rosieminestocie4312]

@@Mavrik9000wow interesting

[@GauisHelenaMohaim]

I think their property's always change. With or without interaction as the quark pairs appear and disappear as the quantum field fuels them.

[@numbtee8478]

Agreed

[@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.

[@francisoleary7010]

My thoughts exactly.

[@rosieminestocie4312]

I’m new to this stuff but well said 👏

[@pavolusak2488]

You are correct.

[@ReturnofBenjamin]

This is, in fact, the fundamental problem in science communication. Quite often, a bit of terminology has been around so long that it sticks, even after we learn that it's not quite like the everyday English term implies. Every time a physicist tries to update the terminology, they end up using both existing terms and new terms in ways that are simply unintuitive to us normies. As I understand it, it is better to imagine particles as waves in the water that continually interact with each other, with the "virtual particles" being the results of waves crossing over each other either constructively (making the wave interaction larger and "higher") or destructively (cancelling out). In the macro-verse, we only see waves in objects made of particles, like swimming pools or the air, which are eventually stilled by friction, so we have trouble understanding the idea of a quantum field that is massless, not really comprised of "stuff" per se, and therefore never winds down. Complicating things, these waves only "collapse" to points when they interact with an "observer"--and some experiments suggest that a conscious observer somehow influences the "wave-function collapse," while in other experiments, an "observer" is simply any other particle or macro-object that interacts with the particle in any way.

[@Telephonebill51]

SO, it's many unobservable, unprovable theories, over time, that are always disputed and argued over until the next breakthrough "discovery" knocks the current slapfight into a cocked hat, to make way for the NEW one. Right? Also, you talk like a kid counting his words on an essay. Speed it up.

[@davidparker2173]

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".

[@brooklynlotus]

I'm a Van Gogh influenced artist with a strong science background. His art was no moving a brush and feeling an emotion. He weas able to simulates motion ,and energy as normally perceived. He knew composition and color theory. He was emotionally sensitive but far from being an idiot. He also studied composition and was most influenced by Monet. On another issue it will not help the world nor will people understand that reality IS more complex by perhaps looking deeper. Wavicle physics has to dismiss using sense perception, and when trying to educate the public one encounters different brain structures,and I think even physicist have emotional discomfort with this particular branch of science as it doesn't make ''sense''. In the everday world of medicine,mechanical engineering we can use Newtonian physics to a large extent. I have a notion that we create a new view of reality everytime we try to go deeper and deeper,and that we never can get to scientific truths. String theory it seems is a hypothesis that can't be proven. Multiverse theory of course can not be proven directly,since the moment we get data it becomes part of our universe.

[@davidparker2173]

@@brooklynlotus Yes, there is much that blows my mind. Sometimes I just have to admit my own lack of capacity to grasp some concepts; though if I have enough interest, it amazes me sometimes what I can eventually grasp if I attend the subject, so I am never totally intimidated by any subject if I will simply follow its dialogue, and it is one reason why I can appreciate scientific concepts that I am totally ignorant of, whereas they can provide a good mental jog for me, if nothing else.

[@brooklynlotus]

@@davidparker2173 keep the mind active

[@codatheseus5060]

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.

[@elongatedmusk3132]

Whatever the case i like ur style cuz I can relate 😏

[@PaulMarostica]

Your assumption is at least consistent with conservation of mass-energy, making it a much better assumption than many of the assumptions of quantum theory. Search keywords: matter theory marostica.

[@streamofconsciousness5826]

Any Guess is good enough, especially when dealing with Quantum. you suggestion makes sense as the observer influences the observation. That Charm Quark puffs it's self up like it's mating day to impress us. Trying to charm us.....

[@solapowsj25]

Good thinking. The energy is from that exchanged at the antimatter/antiproton.

[@sjsomething4936]

Or perhaps you’re both at the same time 😉

[@amorosogombe9650]

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)?

[@zidbits1528]

I think it's more likely that String Theory is correct; that is, everything, fundamentally, is made of tiny vibrating strings of energy. The way they vibrate is what determines what particle they are. Unfortunately, the tests & experiments which could show us that String Theory is the right direction are still years away as we don't have the technology yet. I know some people claim string theory is untestable but this is inaccurate. It's not testable "with current technology". There's one easy test to prove string theory; build a collider big enough to break open quarks and detect strings. Unfortunately, that would take a collider big as our solar system (with modern technology).

[@jamesbogart]

It is locally real but there are endless locations.

[@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

[@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 :)

[@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. .

[@zane003]

Have you seen @MaterialAtomics ? they describe something similar to what you mentioned. You should watch their 1/2 spin video.. should help with imagining the neutrino. Dark matter, big bang, and the expansion of the universe are THEORIES which are likely workarounds to cover for not accounting for gravity in the existing working models.. I wouldn't worry too much about them since any new description will have its own consequences which may not need any of this

[@SpotterVideo]

@@zane003 Thanks for the tip. If you look at the core of their graphic of the electron you can see the twist cycles of my model. I recently came up with the following simplified version. What do the Twistors of Roger Penrose and the Hopf Fibrations of Eric Weinstein and the "Belt Trick" of Paul Dirac have in common? In Spinors it takes two complete turns to get down the "rabbit hole" (Alpha Funnel 3D--->4D) to produce one twist cycle (1 Quantum unit). Can both Matter and Energy be described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature? (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Mass= 1/Length, with each twist cycle of the 4D Hypertube proportional to Planck’s Constant.

[@JonathonRiddell]

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

[@ScienceDiscussed]

Thanks. Luckily there are some pretty amazing scientific journalists out there that make it easier.

[@shanejohns7901]

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 seemingly 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.

[@0neIntangible]

It sure confused me when trying to grasp electrical theory in high school and later in electrical apprenticeship. I finally had to accept it and continued on using "conventional" current flow as predicated.

[@funkimunky1]

When you find out it had more to do with electromagnetic fields than electron flow.

[@jumboegg5845]

When you get further into electronics you begin to realise that circuits are completely designed around electron flow. Transistors etc. only deal with electrons. It is the earth (negative) that is switched off and on in electronics.

[@Dziaji]

You find it difficult to understand because you still have a lack of understanding of current flow. A surplus of electrons on one end and a shortage of electrons on the other side both propagate their respective branches at the same time, so in terms of circuit diagrams, it doesn't matter which way the current arrow points, as long as you are consistent. There was never a good reason to obsolesce old circuit diagrams by changing them from direction of propagating positive charge to propagating negative charge. It should not effect your understanding of a circuit diagram whatsoever.

[@Dziaji]

The charge sign only matters if you are talking about high voltage, open air electrical discharges, and you are interested in the characteristics of the discharge.

[@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.

[@mmh1922]

Very enlightening, thank you.

[@ScienceDiscussed]

Glad you enjoyed it.

[@EdGreenTO]

And I might add the great info was well paced too (I had to replay several parts to digest but that's on me hehe :)

[@reppich1]

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

[@ddkdkdkdkdkdk1]

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."

[@Trizzer89]

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

[@ulrichturke8964]

There are conservation rules in physics. One of these rules in standard model physics is the conversation of the baryon number (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_number). Note, that the proton is the lightest baryon which exists, thus it is not allowed to decay into something else when baryon number conservation is to be respected.

[@Ikari-5an]

I have a guess... It's because that's the smallest level of the Strong Nuclear Force... Therefore the Strong Force really is really really strong there... So much so that you basically need lightspeed (99.9999%) in order to smash the protons...

[@rogerjohnson2562]

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

[@NoahSpurrier]

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?

[@drdca8263]

I think they do? But the photon may also be virtual. (A photon should also disappear when the electron and positron come into being)

[@thelovertunisia]

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

[@thelovertunisia]

@@billdickson1142 Hh who knows. I'm no physicist or have any expert knowledge but it seems like the most important thing are these 'boundaries' between the different interactions where the influence of each ends. Maybe this explains why tunnelling is possible too. As he said it could help in making fusion easier if they find a catalyst so to say.

[@linusschmutz3985]

They are black holes youll will see.

[@maalikserebryakov]

Lol The fall of Physics. The gullibility of the masses knows no limits. You guys actually believe this 💩

[@linusschmutz3985]

@@maalikserebryakov Bruh it's actually the only logical theory. A singularity in another singularity and everything and also nothing has to be existent.

[@linusschmutz3985]

@@maalikserebryakov it's not that they are know no limits it's about that time and space and matter does not matter everything is now.

[@physicsbutawesome]

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?

[@ScienceDiscussed]

I am glad you enjoy it. It is hard to squeeze everything in but I try. The simulations are from MIT and the Jefferson Lab. They are shown in the quantmagazine article in the discription. So I didn't make them myself. Seems difficult.

[@physicsbutawesome]

@@ScienceDiscussed yeah, I also thought it looks difficult to do, that’s why I asked 😅

[@ScienceDiscussed]

Yeah well above my skill level.

[@stevehopkins2657]

The time is not long enough to fall asleep to : ). 20 min is ideal please and thank you!

[@w.c.orielly9059]

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

[@ershenlin1774]

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

[@ScienceDiscussed]

Glad you enjoy it.

[@enriquegarcia219]

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

[@NoahSpurrier]

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.

[@batigneguillaume3424]

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.

[@ScienceDiscussed]

Thanks for your input. I did study QFT during masters but that is a long way from the deep understand you get from doing a PhD in it. I guess you are say that because the heavier quarks are short lived that make no difference to the fundamental properties of the proton, incluiding its apparent size? I thought that this would work like the lamb shift which would give a small correction factor, albeit probably very small.

[@wewillworld522]

E = M.C3 L'Univers Gyro électrique 3D. L'unification de la relativité générale et de la physique quantique: kzbin.info/www/bejne/npWpdpWJrs6spNk

[@wewillworld522]

THE only particule of everythings : électrons.

[@imnewtothistuff]

Quantum physics is bullshit. There are no such things as quarks, the proton is the fundamental building block of all matter, there is nothing inside, it is a spinning, (super-luminal) blob of dialectic charge which creates its own magnetic shell, because of the spin. Now you don't need electrons either. Particle physics (Greek atomism), was falsified 80+ years ago you clowns! Have you not heard of Nikolai Tesla, CP Steinmetz, Oliver Heavyside, JJ Thompson, James Clerk Maxwell? They have proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that 'field theory' runs the cosmos, A proton is nothing more than high energy light at the highest, most powerful end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Your welcome.

[@wewillworld522]

@@imnewtothistuff ans what about electricity ? Quelque soit la règle et la mesure, la réalité de la Nature rejoindra toujours la vie. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bqiymIOkmLurr8k

[@Cassandra_Johnson]

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.

[@normbeaudoin3635]

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.

[@ScienceDiscussed]

Glad you enjoyed the topic.

[@TomHendricksMusea]

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!

[@gregorygant4242]

Very clever Sir . But what about dark matter and dark energy, what are they made of , can you answer me that? Then I'll give you a Nobel Prize !!!!

[@TomHendricksMusea]

@@gregorygant4242 So throwing out the standard model and most physics from the last century and replacing it with a new paradigm, is not award worthy? Ha ha. Well stay tuned.

[@TomHendricksMusea]

@@gregorygant4242 Gravity = Acceleration? Does the Earth PULL the APPLE to the ground or Does the Sky PUSH the APPLE to the ground? Which is correct: GRAVITY is pulling matter together or ANTI GRAVITY, another name for DARK ENERGY, is pushing it together? Which is correct: GRAVITY, is inside MATTER somewhere, or ANTI GRAVITY is outside everywhere in empty SPACE? DARK ENERGY in physics is defined as a repulsive force that counteracts gravity and causes the universe to expand everywhere at an accelerating rate. My suggestion is that DARK ENERGY is ANTI GRAVITY. Most likely it is ZERO POINT ENERGY, The COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT and VIRTUAL PARTICLES too. My next suggestion is that THERE IS NO GRAVITY! My idea is similar to a universe wide CASIMIR EFFECT on all matter. Here, instead of two metal plates being pushed together, there are "plates" of matter and the expanding space around them, pushing them together. Dr Einstein said his breakthrough came when he imagined an analogy of an elevator in space. As acceleration increases, gravity increases. The person in the elevator can't tell if he is in an elevator traveling in space or one on Earth. BUT WHAT IF WE ARE BOTH RIGHT. Look at the drawing. There are two round elevators. The elevator on the left IS NOT accelerating. No acceleration = No gravity The force of empty space or anti gravity, pushes on all sides equally. The elevator on the right IS accelerating. Acceleration = Gravity. The force of empty space or anti gravity, pushes on all sides, but mostly from the front due to acceleration! The acceleration scrunches up the forces in front. They overlap each other from the elevator accelerating into them. These cumulative, empty space, forces, push back more and more as the elevator accelerates in that forward direction. This causes gravity. Acceleration = Gravity! More exactly the forces of ANTI GRAVITY cause matter to experience what we call gravity. So: acceleration of an object in space causes space to push back. This is what we have been calling gravity but is anti gravity. Some will say: But it's so obvious, the Sun goes around the Earth, and the apple falls to the ground. Yes they seem obvious. But both are wrong! My previous posts, part of a single paper covering all these ideas, suggested that before the Big Bang, there was a singularity of photons, an eternal dimensionless point of energy. Then the force that expanded out of the Big Bang and started the universe, and time space, was DARK ENERGY; a subset of the singularity of photons. So Gravity from stars and planets was never PULLING matter together. The opposite was true: Anti Gravity or DARK ENERGY from empty space was expanding and PUSHING matter together from all sides! THERE IS NO GRAVITY pulling anything together. THERE IS ONLY ANTI GRAVITY or DARK ENERGY expanding and pushing matter on all sides. This can explain acceleration in elevators, rocket propulsion; the rubber sheet analogy, why no light escapes black holes, space expansion, curvature of space, and why there is so little gravity in the quantum world. ... Three Follow Ups. 1. Remember the rubber sheet analogy? The rubber sheet is space pushing on all sides. That's the force I'm talking about that causes what we call gravity. Q. The implication is clear (or at least, it was clear to Einstein): Gravity causes acceleration, and acceleration causes gravity. They are absolutely identical 2. Galileo's experiment, later recreated on the moon shows a hammer and feather dropping and hitting the ground at the same time. This supports space pushing them , not the attraction of their weight. 3. Doppler Effect: Waves emitted by a source traveling towards an observer get compressed. 4. The greatest force in the universe is dark energy, the energy of empty space. Dark energy is 70% of all energy. It has such force that its expanding the universe everywhere all the time, and is now speeding up.

[@clarkelliott5389]

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

[@coachhannah2403]

Science can be settled without being unalterable.

[@Noughtgate]

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.

[@ScienceDiscussed]

I have heard conversations that knot theory is being used to discuss some of these concepts but I have no knowledge of it myself. It could be quite interesting though.

[@gregorysagegreene]

Oh-o. Nooooo! 'Knot Theory'. 🤷‍♂️

[@badhombre4942]

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

[@Mavrik9000]

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.

[@danmiller4725]

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..

[@solapowsj25]

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.

[@bulentkulkuloglu]

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

[@ScienceDiscussed]

There is a lot of technical details that go into answering this question, many of which I am not well versed in. But through the analysis the scientists can rule out other possibilities like the option you mention.

[@pepe6666]

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.

[@MountainTopher]

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.

[@will2see]

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

[@ScienceDiscussed]

Yes, they are very similar. I am not sure we have looked for heavier quarks in neutrons but it is likely they are there.

[@gregorygant4242]

@@ScienceDiscussed No , neutrons are known to decay over time , protons virtually never decay , ever !

[@jimmurphy6095]

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.

[@GIRGHGH]

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.

[@farhadfaisal9410]

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).

[@DavidButler-m4j]

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

[@neithanm]

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!!

[@maalikserebryakov]

Yea but muh convention Lmao

[@torchpitchforkpac1593]

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.

[@kenantahir]

do you think gravitation is intricately connected to atoms??

[@polyvg]

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.

[@melody3741]

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.

[@ianp3112]

Thanks for providing links to your sources. Much appreciated 😊

[@2ndEarth]

Protons are holistically one-directional parallel to our macro iteration of time. However time is constantly being nulled by a micro iterative process that at the tiniest observable distinctions, vibrate back and forth in time, which is why quarks seemingly disappear only to return. So just as electromagnetic fields can be generated by oscillating energy, so does a conscious-time field, only it's a lack of time, that forms the action potential, like a pump taking air out of a vacuum, by setting the base parameters of time to a null state. Because consciousness may be a fractional iterative search in two-direction of entropy to stack information in only one, using microtubules (quantum entanglement) to hold on to the information from an opposite direction of time plane of existence (mirror-universe model with with a twist that dark matter is real, and is that state of backwards entropy. Our minds, modeled on the programming of the universe itself fills this vacuum like air being released, and in this filling or search process, consciousness also stacks information in only one direction of time like crystals in our memories. That's why we have memories dedicated for our awake states but not our dreams states. This idea evokes a type of holography model, and what seems like a stripping of information is actually creating a negative-energy action potential forcing the primal existence of consciousness to catalyze a search to preserve it's state of non-contradiction given it's only holographic makeup incorporates time, so a lack of time would be like seeing a big shadow where there should be light. So quarks are time-travelers in a sense, at lease the ones associate with certain spin configurations, and gluons is the probabilistic infinite field of potential mapped on the imaginary plane and held (glued) together with an iterative real fixed point average function that has and f(a) equivalency to 0 in the presence of a phi, and it's other root (negative phi-conjugate). The field-less baryon state of 36 is because iteratively, this is the cyclical number of iterations it takes to flip a time in inverse entropy, so it's literally in a lesser state of existence, by being more probabilistic than having the parameters to define it. Phi has a negative root, and on the decimal side, an inverse of phi's quadratic equation can accept phi-conjugate, but it's roots, like most other roots occurs in the coefficients, not decimals. It's this peculiar, ofter over-looked phenomenon, that allows phi and it's root to function in both imaginary and real planes of existence simultaneously , And the fact that (2 - [phi-conj]^2 = phi) complicates things, because now phi-conjugate, because it's squared can either be the root of phi, which is -.61803.... or be phi's inverse 1/phi, which is +.61803... This interconnection between different fractional representations or roots and coefficient produces a type of mathematical Einsten-Rosen bridge, to which the two components (roots) can work intangent with each other in two planes of existence: real, and imaginary. The inverse of phi when multiplied by -1 or i^2 becomes it enters a different real of mathematical interpretation. It becomes a type of imaginary form for iterations, fractionalizing themselves while retaining a contextual (depending if function is set to 1 -1 or 0) superposition state of nothing and infinity, held in form by the necessity of both planes (imaginary and real) needing the other to be defined in full. Again, seeking a state of non-contradiction, which this process becomes the anchor, or force itself. While it may approach a 0 equivalency on the real plane, it nonetheless inherits an action potential of near infinite complexity as set by the seemingly infinite spins phi takes on at these chaotic limits of 0, and since iterations care about count, this may actually matter, as negligible as it seems to our algebraic non-iterative mathematical approaches. in other words, the closer we get to what we assume is null, the more chaotic and plentiful the possibilities become (like time dilation) for complexity to be processed given the chaotic nature of phi close to 0. And it's important to note that these possibilities are only set because a one directional multiverse doesn't have a result, if ongoing like a perpetual motion machine, it's only a process. And as we understand, mathematically, I (imaginary complex numbers) are only useful so long as its use happens before a result is processed in algebraic calculations. In other words, if this model of one-directional multiverse holds true, as Penrose has proposed before as viable possibility, by all definitions, i (imaginary) can be thought of as being as real as whole numbers themselves given we never reach a result, excluding nuance behaviors our base perceptual limits doesn't allow us to map in full.

[@monaoconnell5650]

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.

[@ScienceDiscussed]

You are so welcome! I am glad you enjoy the videos.

[@CharlieBergstedt]

I couldn’t believe that he actually said “nucular” at the end of this talk.

[@joeshumo9457]

Get over it. It’s more of an accent than you being smarter than anyone else. Trust me.

[@MGmirkin]

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...

[@jonbold]

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.

[@daemonnice]

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

[@jimkirby1799]

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.

[@romescala_aban3125]

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

[@benmcreynolds8581]

I had a thought experiment💭 "What if black holes are like grand Recycling machines ♻️ of the Cosmo's. (Maybe on the other end of a black hole 🕳️ Is another big bang?) ♻️" So just like some systems with-in nature has a balancing act and abilities to convert and transfer energy. Like a ecosystem that keeps cycling flow so natural systems can function.. *(I'm not saying this could go on forever. Just a hypothetical thought where I thought of a balancing functional system that probably has a limit beyond anything we can ever grasp what it could be with our current perspective?) It's like asking someone to describe the outside of the box, if they are in the box, and the edge of the box rests past the limit of the observable distance that light can travel before hitting a boundary point. It would be pretty darn hard to explain what the outside of that box might be like? Ya know? I don't know? I just happen to think of and imagine how the ecosystem of a forest flourishes due to its symbiotic relationship with Fungi and mold and mycelium. With the help of the fungi the Forest no longer suffocates itself. The Fungi gets to help breakdown and convert the carbon thats locked away in the forest floor through these tube like strings throughout the soil. On top of that it works together with the living plants roots to help them breakdown and absorb nutrients. That plant cant function on its own without the combination of the relationship of the 2 forces of nature that keep the ecosystem functioning. A part of me can't help but look at parts of space like that. Like if certain things in nature work here, then maybe there is a new way we have yet to discover and see how they behave to keep systems functioning throughout nature and space. Some things we are limited to what perspective we can achieve and utilize for further observations but we can still use our imaginations. Then fine tune things from there 👍🏼 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~{Hypothetical idea}~ What if our universe is 1 half of a sorta ying yang ☯️ universe where there's a membrane layer in-between 2 layers. Quantum fields could be entangled with that membrane layer. Which allows for quantum particles to pop in and out of existence and decay from that membrane with the other half. The 2nd half could be our universe but maybe be an anti-universe. Where anti-particles go? Where the anti-matter can create this balancing act with-in the system. (It doesn't mean there is multiple versions of ourselves and all that stuff when people talk about a multiverse. No, not that.) It just seems like a natural way to balance things out, yet also describe the fluctuations we see in quantum mechanics. I just had a random daydream thought and obviously I hope more professional people's minds end up diving into this sorta possible theoretical physics. I think Neil Turok had a similar theory. ⚖️ 🌐🧲🌡️🔆☢️⚛️♻️🌐☯️ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️☯️⚛️ I'm curious if there's more to learn about Gravity ~When it comes to our perspective on observing the Massive scale parts of the Cosmos? Like Entire galaxies/nebula's/filaments & any other diversely complex grand scale objects. They definitely have all sorts of behaviors interacting with-in them. I'm sure those factors need to be improved with how we factor them in to get our calculations of this layer of the Cosmos more accurately accounted for (Maybe it's just "we don't fully understand it yet?")

[@MKSense1]

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.

[@BritishBeachcomber]

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

[@canuckprogressive.3435]

That only applies to current inside a semi conductor.

[@Alienami]

Quasi particles are an interesting topic.

[@FutureAIDev2015]

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.

[@brianhay4024]

I just found your channel and immediately subscribed. Thanks for the video.

[@ScienceDiscussed]

Awesome, thank you!

[@brettgrindlay166]

How do they get this image , is it from taking a photo at collision or from accelerating electrons to get a higher end microscope ? What makes the footage so accurate ?

[@robbs96]

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?

[@billwesley]

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.

[@pectenmaximus231]

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.

[@chaosopher23]

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. 😀

[@gregorygant4242]

Like a red British old school telephone booth , lol !!

[@maalikserebryakov]

Its just bullsht.

[@chaosopher23]

@@maalikserebryakov Even bullshit is made of protons!

[@canisronis2753]

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.

[@Trenjeska]

But if protons sometimes are much larger than average, does that tie in or in any way contribute to the inherent instability of larger atom nuclei? Is an event where in a proton a charm/anti-charm pair materialize the trigger of decay?

[@cozierhoezier4307]

I dont think so because decays are mostly through weak interactions.

[@atomicsmith]

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.

[@garetclaborn]

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

[@peoplesrepublicofunitedear2337]

This was expected and hoped for by me. I truly hope that we, one day would uncover that the the masses of fundamental particles are statistocal averages of other particles.

[@BartAnderson_writer]

Previous descriptions aren't "wrong" - they're incomplete.

[@miinyoo]

Thank you. Put aside fusion. Understanding the binding energy of quarks and how they interact with virtual particles is a prerequisite to understanding fusion. We have tons of guesses. Empirical evidence in the required regimes is tough to come by and expensive.

[@Nobody_114]

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.

[@kevinoboyle8939]

Perhaps some fundamental assumptions are wrong. The only meaningful observation I can make about a proton is that it is a discontinuity in the vibrational media that surrounds it. It is, perhaps, it’s lack of transparency to these waves that accounts for mass. That would imply that mass is a function of wave pressure (displacement or ‘scaler’ wave) from all other protons in range of communication (how fast is gravity? If infinite then the tension between all “matter” (protons) in the universe is the force of gravity). If finite, then there would be a way to measure signal latency and mass would be a variable function of locality - no mass without motion. In this model it should not be surprising that differing harmonics (different “collision” energies) create different vibrational modes in the media which we then misinterpret as transient sub-atomic particles.

[@WorldfreeFreemark]

If you break up particles into "sub-particles" that have lifetimes in nanoseconds, perhaps they are not sub-particles at all.

[@josephcoon5809]

4:30 You know how we consider light a point or a ray depending on what we are discussing when light is ALWAYS an expanding spherical wave front, and that the “ray” is merely the result of an interference pattern caused by multiple wavefronts? What if the “sea of gluons” is really just the result of a self-contained interference pattern of superimposed “particles” that are really just multiple wavefronts interacting with each other to keep themselves mutually self-contained?

[@allenanderson4911]

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?

[@redmed10]

I'm glad I'm not still at school. Kids are taught about quarks. It was hard enough to visualise protons and neutrons and electrons. I just couldn't accept those stick and ball models. Now you've got all these sub particles to contend with. Exam answers must be changing every year.

[@ScienceDiscussed]

You don't really start looking into these particles in any real detail until you are at the end of a Bachelors degree or in Masters. So the school children will be saved... for now :P

[@redmed10]

@@ScienceDiscussed Might be different in UK. Looked at a physics key facts book a few years and quarks were mentioned quite a lot . I was concerned then and even more concerned now. You've got to accept a lot on trust to get on in science at school. A lot of atomic physics did not ring right to me in the 70s but obviously I had nowhere near the knowledge to question anything.

[@eion-stephenson]

I have a question: When an LED is provided energy, the energy is turned into light energy. When that light energy hits a human cell, how has the original energy been transferred?

[@danielalexander799]

If you have a helium atom with 2 protons, don't virtual quarks form both within and between protons? For that matter, don't virtual quarks also form in the space outside the nucleus? How can it be said that virtual quarks are a part of the proton, rather than just passing through the proton? Do virtual quarks interact with gluons?

[@TomHendricksMusea]

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.

[@Frohicky1]

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

[@MERLE1593]

It is a crude model that works well for most experiments.

[@davidhand9721]

Since it seems like you're just starting out, I implore you to avoid the mistakes that so many "science channels" on KZbin make. Regrettably, these mistakes are inherently good for your KZbin channel, and generally popular with the audience of laypeople. Avoid arbitrary time limits. Science topics are deep and complicated, so trying to squeeze all but the most specific topics into a 6 minute video can only give a *false* impression of understanding. This encourages viewers to not bother to seek further details and even act hostile when someone who actually knows what they're talking about tries to smooth out the wrinkles and simplifications. Avoid taking the cartoon explanation seriously. Some irresponsible scientists and many irresponsible science communicators come up with simplifications and analogies that make the theory more palatable to laypersons. That's fine as long as you impress an appreciation of the fact that the map is not the territory. Virtual particles and Feynman diagrams, for example, are mathematical devices, never intended to be presented as a literal interpretation of what is actually happening at the particle level. Any time you use one of these devices, you need to make it clear that it's only a model, not a true depiction of nature. Avoid misleading titles. They can make your videos grab more eyes, but in fact, there are a surprising number of viewers who will take the title seriously even if the video doesn't support it entirely because they didn't really understand the content. Avoid hype. Just because it's in the headlines in science news magazines doesn't mean it's a scientific fact. The institution of science is all about building and testing consensus, and one potentially exciting result does not reflect that consensus. Wait to report on highly hyped headlines until the critiques arrive, and include research to the contrary in how you discuss them. An example of a high quality science channel is PBS SpaceTime (almost always). An example of a bad science channel is... just about every other science channel.

[@ScienceDiscussed]

There is many good point here and there is always a balance to be made. Science communication vs communicating science. I try my best to not mislead anyone or make mistake, but I will from time to time by accident. I take as long as I need to make a video rather than pushing them out. I work full time as a post doc so I can't push them out anyway. If I was a better illustrator/animator (which I am bad at both) I would make better versions. It is hard with my lack of skill in this area. Titles/thumbnails are a hard balance. I want people to watch the video so they learn about something that I think is interesting. But I never want to mislead people. Difficult to get right. I like to talk about hyped topics because they are being discussed by may people with not all the information. It is a hard thing because I am not an expert in many of the topics that I cover but I atleast read the papers and try to formulate something that is correct but not overly technical. PBS spcae time is excellent.

[@Bane_of_the_Moonsea]

Is the quark sea always there, or did it just show up because of the energy released in the collision?

[@tonyf8167]

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

[@AwakenedOne-qu]

An electron is not a particle, a proton is not a particle, a neutron is not a particle. It's all frozen light, pure energy that doesn't dissipate. How does that happen?

[@rharris22222]

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.

[@rharris22222]

Yes! Glad to hear someone else believes this. It's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

[@popaganda919]

is that why sometimes i'm heavier on the scale on some days and lighter on others?

[@jtmediaholdings7877]

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."

[@thegreatveil5699]

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.

[@genome616]

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.

[@TheDennisgrass]

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

[@Markoul11]

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

[@WSmith_1984]

There are no free moving electrons within matter. I use a this analogy to simplify it in my mind..... imagine a line of people a mile long standing (each person represents an atom and sine wave cycle) the first person starts a Mexican wave at one end ( the source ) , as the information propagates along the line you would see an continuous wave of the peoples arms transferring the charge/information back and forth but the atoms and electrons don't actually move....