Proton is NOT Just 3 Quarks and Gluons!!! See What It's REALLY Made of
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 авг 2024
- When we think of the composition of a proton we often think of three quarks and some gluons that mediate the force among them. The reality though is kinda different and it even depends on the energy scale at which you look at the proton. What you will find out is that the proton is not made of just two u and one d quarks but it is made of all the quarks. Quarks of different flavour have different probability density of carrying certain fraction of the proton's total 4-momenta which is captured by the parton distribution functions mentioned in this video
have fun :)
Special thanks to
Image by brgfx on Freepik (Atom)
www.freepik.co...
I really like a way you present topics, something completely different then other popular science channels
thank you :)
I completely agree!!!!!
So interesting video!
Please bring out more intuitive questions like this! 👍🏼⚛️
I really like the direct way you explain particle physics, because you explain it more as if you had a physics undergraduate in front instead of a high school educated peraon. Just think that most of your viewers don't fear mathematics, equations, probability and probably are even familiar with quantum and relativity basics! Thank you!!! You see, you don't need fancy animations, just explaining curves that are real and give us insights of the fearsome weirdiness of standard model, QED and quantum field theory.... i love it because you explain what happens at a particle accelerator, in real experimental physics l, which is the only truth that we can really step on....
This brilliant soul is a gem of RUclips, deserves more views and love ❤
thank you very much :)
Great content my guy. Really like your channel. Excited for more!
thank you :)
You are an effective educator
Your explanation is the best I’ve heard, which means I feel I understand most of it. Can you do a follow up video on protons/quarks and the strong cp problem??? I haven’t seen an explanation I can understand. Why is it a huge problem? What is it? How do we know it exists? What would physicists like to see instead? Is there any hope to solve it? How does it play into the baryon asymmetry? Is it a worse problem than the baryon asymmetry? Is it the same thing? How does it stack up to other mysteries like the horizon problem and initial entropy state and a universe from nothing? Is it a part of these problems??? As you can see, i understand nothing about it, why it’s an issue or what it affects!!!! HELP!!!! THANK YOU.
8:32 don't forget about length contraction too, the protons are flat frozen discs, and that loss of 1 dimension matter in "constituent counting rule". See gamma(d, p)n for example.
This is... amazing. Somehow your explanation makes more intuitive sense than the ways I've heard it described in the past. Which is cool, because if there's one thing quantum physics isnt, it's intuitive.
That Third Quark does WHAT!!!
My other physics posts suggests problems with quark theory. Here's one to consider.
The proton consists of three quarks, two up and one down.
The neutron consists of three quarks, two down and one up.
So both are equal in having 3 quarks
Both are equal in having at least one up and one down quark.
The difference is that third quark:
The proton has it's third quark as an up quark
The neutron has it's third quark as a down quark.
So that means that the third quark is the difference between a proton and neutron.
When that third quark is an up quark, that makes a proton.
When that third quark is a down quark, that makes a neutron.
So that third quark determines
Whether it's a proton that is virtually immortal or
Whether it's a neutron that decays in 15 minutes outside the nucleus!
That is one magical quark!!! Can you explain what's going on?
Can you explain this magic third quark and why it should make such a massive difference?
Reply talks about mass dufference.
My answer: That almost made sense... But, if true the big bang had to make much much more up quarks then down because most of the universe is hydrogen with one proton no neutron. But think about it if so many up quarks were created because of mostly protons and because less energy needed, why would there be enough down quarks made to make all those protons let alone double that number more to get any neutrons.
So what makes us think these collision products are from "inside" the proton and not just created from the energy of the collision.
Great vid. I like your vids, always deep dives and thought provoking, thanks! Most of the Proton mass is from the strong force binding energy of the Gluons - paraphrase of Sean Carroll.
wow your channel is an hidden gem.
can i ask a thing? in the past year cern experiment about gravity and antimatter they use anti hydrogen made of anti proton, but if anti proton and proton are 99% made of "energy" how they can measure the difference of behaviour on the 1% left?
So when we do the hydrogen atom, we can talk about approximate orbitals and a spatial distribution of the electron, and forget the proton. Are the the EM equivalent of partons? Yes. See: the lamb shift. 1/137^2 part of the atom is a virtual proton splitting into a e+ e- pair, and slight changing the energies of S orbitals.
In a proton, those quantum field effects are so strong, the whole concept of a 3 quark wave function completely breaks downs..it just doesn't really mean anything... I mean we have a charge and magnetic momentum distribution from the elastic form factors...but no one talks about quarks in those.
So we simply can't write a spatial wave function psi(u1, u2, d) for a proton (or an equivalent psi(d1, d2, u) for a neutron). It just doesn't work, so instead we have parton distribution function which are about momentum fractions, and from there it just gets more complicated with generalized parton distributions function involving transverse and logitudinal momentum-but those arose after I left the field, so idk.
Since mass can turn to energy or energy to mass I would think that what you get from the collision might represent energy turned to mass. You could end up with more mass in the fragmentary particles than were in the original protons for the simple reason that some of the collision energy from outside or some of the energy inside the protons has turned to mass but that mass was energy before the collision. How do they know for sure that the charm quark they find in the debris after the collision was a charm quark before they smash the proton? Would it not be possible that a proton really is as modeled without charm quarks, but when it gets smashed we get some emergent particles that we did not expect? Such emergence might not say anything about the proton when its not being smashed but only tell us about a proton that is getting smashed.
Are the u u and d quarks the only ones that are stable and always there or are they just typically a bigger fraction of the momenta? Also what does the number density axis of the graph mean?
Fascinating! Thanks for the video!
You are a genius
At 5:37, shouldn't the red line represent the electromagnetic force? It's EMF that keeps the rock holding its shape, after all, not the nuclear force, which has an extremely short range and only holds the nucleons together..
loooove your vids !!
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.
.
The proton may have 2 extra quarks; an charm and anti charm quarks. Thus the proton would be a Pentaquark.
Anakin Skywalker explains about Force. Until it's dark I guess.
Exellent!
The 3 generations of particles are the constituents of solids liquids and gases 🎉
Thanks
thank you very much :)
Genius
Wonderful
How are the parton distribution functions made? Are they fitted from experimental values or are they derived from theoretical principles?
just experiments
@@lukasrafajpps thanks for the reply. It just escapes me how we can be sure this model is a good description of reality if all we are doing is fitting data. The original motivation for the 3 quark model was to fit all particles in nice structures (like for example using strangeness) and to explain the charge and angular momentum of the proton. Then we found out there can't only be 3 quarks but it must be infinite ones and the most prevalent depend on energy, then we also found about the proton spin problem. Yet all that was done was expand on a failed model adding extra free parameters determined by experiment through this parton fitting function. Is that the correct picture or am I missing things?
At 6:21 why did you say that up/down quarks are heavier than the entire proton? Up/down quarks are a few MeV/c^2, while proton has a mass of 938 MeV/c^2, no? Unless you mean something different?
Hi, I was talking about top, bottom and charm quarks not up and down. Although they have confusing names top quark is not up quark and bottom quark is not down quark.
There are nucleons inside an atomic nucleus,, and there are quarks and gluons inside a proton,, are there preons inside a quark or a gluon and so on and so forth?😵💫
The current model says no: quarks and gluons are considered fundamental, like the electron.
Z is said as zet!
I have a theory. Mass is the 4th spacial dimension. Time creates mass in the 3rd dimension. Time is a way for a dimension to experience it's next higher dimension. In a 2D space, with time it experience the 3rd dimension and in the 3rd dimension Time helps us to experience the 4th dimension as mass. And also when Time stops Mass will not exist. That is the reason why a particle traveling at c cannot have mass.
“I have a theory” - Great! Wonderful! Now, write down its equations, show how it precisely reproduces _all, without an exception,_ results of GR, then show how it explains what GR can't (e.g., GR is incompatible with QFT; if your theory is, you're looking at no less than the Nobel prize), then predict a thing or two with the maths of your theory that we should be observing what GR doesn't predict, then we'll be talking seriously.
“Time creates mass in the 3rd dimension” - of space? So that space isn't isotropic in your theory, is it? You have _a lot_ to explain then. How come that we don't observe non-isotropy, in the first place.
@@cykkm I can't explain all in just a comment. Yes I need to work on my theory and I want to work with someone who can help me and also thank you for your sincere reply
Thanks for blowing my mind 💣. Its officially gone. Bye.lol
This is not a Theory, this is a Hypothesis. Big difference.
Did you say fart or fact?😂