There is Something Else Inside the Proton

During the 1960s, everybody came to agree that protons and neutrons contain three quarks. According to the Standard Model, there is no other kind of massive particles inside the proton. A few years later, when it turned out that these quarks carry less than half of the proton’s linear momentum (indicating that there had to be other massive particles inside the proton), QCD fans proclaimed that this missing momentum was actually carried by the gluons. It is important to note here that gluon behavior is very different from that of one other massless particle, the photon, related to the electromagnetic interactions of a particle’s bound state.

In this article we’ll see that there is much more than an additional massive particle in the proton. As modern particle accelerators reach increasingly higher energy levels, this fact becomes more and more obvious.

An impactful quantum mechanical experiment
In 1913, James Franck and Gustav Hertz conducted one of the first experiments showing that the atom could not have any arbitrary energy state, but only specific energy levels. The results of this experiment supported Bohr’s atom model. Bohr’s model was later abandoned, but the results of this experiment gave a major boost for the development of the nascent Quantum Mechanics.

What did Franck and Hertz do? They fired electrons into a tube containing Argon gas or Mercury vapors, and measured the value of the electric current at the other end of the tube. The electrons were accelerated by means of an electric field.

Franck and Hertz could control the electrons’ velocity by changing the electric field. At first, the current increased consistently with the increase of electron speed. But when the electrons’ velocity reached a certain threshold, the current at the other end of the tube suddenly dropped. When they further increased the electric field and the acceleration of the electrons, the current at the end of the tube raised again, until a certain threshold, and then, when electrons’ speed crossed this new threshold, the current level dropped again.

What are the experiment’s conclusions? The atom can only have specific energy levels. When the electrons were moving slowly and their energy was too low to excite the atom, which means, to bring the atom to a higher energy level, the electrons just traveled across the atoms and reached the end of the tube with no energy loss. But when the electrons were accelerated and reached a certain velocity (and kinetic energy), their energy was high enough to excite the atom, and was transferred to the atom. This explains the first drop in current intensity. The second drop in current intensity corresponds to the loss of electrons’ kinetic energy when exciting atoms again, and so forth.

Analogous results are regularly observed in today’s particle accelerators as well, but with energy levels extremely higher than those used a century ago. The analysis of these experimental results are based on what physicists call “the cross section curve”, which refers to particle collision rates and is related to the probability to observe a specific event as a result of the collision. It turns out that the cross section depends not only on the type of particles involved in the collision but on the process energy as well.

The study of the proton structure
In the Franck-Hertz experiment, electrons colliding with atoms interacted with the atomic electrons. Exploring the proton requires much more energetic particle beams, and that for two main reasons. One reason is that in Quantum Theory, a particle’s location is not point-like, the way it had been considered in classical physics, but is described by a wave. A slowly moving particle has a relatively large wavelength. When a particle’s wavelength is larger than that of the proton size, it does not collide with an isolated quark, but rather with the whole proton. In order to study quarks, the incident particle’s wavelength should be significantly smaller than the proton’s size, and this is only possible when the incident particle moves at a very high energy.

And indeed, during the last decades scientists managed to accelerate many different particles, electrons, positrons, muons and protons reaching very high energies which significantly shortened the particle’s wavelength and allowed particles of these beams to interact with a single quark within the proton.

What happens when a proton is bombarded?
When a high energy particle beam hits the proton, there are two possible types of interactions between the incident particle and the proton. One type of collision is called “elastic collision”, where there is exchange of kinetic energy and momentum between the particles. The products of the elastic collision are the same particles which existed before the collision. The second type of collisions, called “inelastic collision”, is characterized by the creation of new particles, such as mesons, composed of a quark-antiquark pair. This phenomenon will be explained to the details in another article, dealing with the question of why there are no free quarks.

Scientists observed that when they raised the energy levels of electron- proton collisions, nearly all the collisions were “inelastic”. In fact, in the high energy range, as energy increases, the relative rate of elastic collisions decreased and reached a tiny fraction of about 1:1000. This was true until experiments in the late 1990s reached unprecedented energy levels.

Late 1990s, DESY laboratories, Germany
The results of experiments conducted at the DESY Labs in Germany were published in 1997. The experiments consisted of bombarding protons with beams of electrons or positrons, with very high energy, higher than ever before. The experiment was done by two different groups of researchers, in 2 different locations of the device. The results obtained from both experiments where similar, and surprising.

One of the fundamental rules admitted since about a century states that in processes obeying electromagnetic laws, the probability of a collision between an electron (and similar particles) and a proton decreases as the incident particle’s energy increases.

For this reason, physicists expected to see a decrease in the cross-section curve for higher energies. But relative to the expected decreasing values, the results showed an unexpected increase in the number of events, which is incoherent with the Standard Model. The discovery was followed by the publication of 2 papers expressing astonishment with regard to these findings [1, 2].

What are the possible explanations for such an increase in the number of events? One possibility would be that in analogy to the Franck-Hertz experiment, there are other entities inside the proton capable of absorbing this energy only above a certain threshold. This explanation obviously contradicts the Standard Model. The groups conducting the experiments concluded, quite reasonably, that their findings may be accidental, because there was not enough data collected.

Early 2000s, the Tevatron particle detector, Illinois
About 10 years ago, an experiment was conducted in the Tevatron Particle Accelerator in the State of Illinois, USA, in which a proton beam collides with another proton (or anti-proton) beam. The energy levels of these beams were higher than those reached at DESY, and the results were clear cut: the cross-section curve does move up when the beam’s energy goes beyond a certain threshold! Furthermore, the rate of elastic collisions increased as well. In other words, a change of tendency was observed both in the total and the elastic cross sections, and their curves changed directions and started increasing [3].

This finding has been known for several years now and is supported by earlier results. It clearly indicated that there are massive particles inside the proton, which get “excited” at this high energy level and produce this tendency change on the curve. In analogy to the Franck-Hertz experiment, these massive particles can only occupy specific energy levels, and react to the collision only when the energy of the incident particle is high enough to excite them and move them to a higher energy level.

Scientists currently prefer ignoring this finding, probably because it contradicts the Standard Model. Very few scientists complain about the fact that the Standard Model does not provide an explanation to this phenomenon [4, 5].

Comay’s model naturally accounts for this finding. Inside the proton there is a core attracting particles to it, whereas moderately high energy experiments could only detect the quarks located in the external shell. But the proton has additional inner quark shells, in analogy to a multi-electron atom, containing filled up inner electron shells. Only incident particles with a sufficiently high kinetic energy would be able to excite the inner shells.

Something more about elastic scattering
The consensus today is that high energy scattering of electrons on protons indicates that the interaction actually takes place between the electron and a single quark inside the proton. As we mentioned above, in such a case, the relative rate of elastic collision should decrease with the increase of the energy, and become negligible for very high energies. This means that if a quark gets heavily hit by an electron, the proton almost always undergoes an inelastic collision. But it turns out that in high energy proton-proton collisions, the proportion of elastic scattering events is about 15% and it does not decrease as energy increases. These results lead to two conclusions:

a. The proton contains a rigid component which is not a quark, and which can resist high energy collisions and maintain the proton’s integrity.

b. This component is electrically neutral and is therefore not revealed in electron- proton scattering.

These conclusions validate the existence of a core inside the proton. This core contains closed quark shells and it contributes to the fact that the proportion of elastic collisions in proton-proton scattering is far from being negligible.

The near future, CERN
The proton beam of the LHC particle collider at CERN reached even higher energy levels, which will allow us to observe the cross section curve as energy goes up. According to Comay [5], if the number of inner shells is small, or if the energy needed to excite quarks in even deeper shells is higher than the experimental energy, than the elastic cross section will start decreasing again. It’s hard to tell if the energy levels obtained during the upcoming CERN experiment will be able to bring out the next zone on the curve in which the elastic scattering cross section goes down.

Most of the proton momentum is not carried by the 3 external quarks. Following the experimental discovery of this fact, QCD provided an unnatural explanation to the phenomenon.
In high energy proton-proton collisions, the elastic collision rate increases with the energy. Standard Model has no explanation for this phenomenon.
Comay’s model provides a straightforward and natural explanation for these phenomena.

[1] C. Adloff et al., Z. Phys C74, 191 (1997)
[2] J. Breitweg et al., Z. Phys C74, 207 (1997)
[3] C. Amsler et al. (Particle Data Group) Physics Letters B667, 1 (2008) see p.12 in
[4] A. A. Arkhipov
[5] E. Comay, Prog. in Phys. 2, 56 2010


5 thoughts on “There is Something Else Inside the Proton

  1. Yes, there is something else inside the proton as we can read below. All is derived from the very strong fact: quarks are composite. Somebody may say now ‘come on, we haven’t seen it’, and the truth is that we have seen several indications of it. The first one was found in 1956 by Hofstadter when he determined the charge distributions of both nucleons. (one can see them around p. 450 (depending on the edition) of the Berkeley Physics Course, vol. 1 (Mechanics)). We clearly see that both nucleons have two layers (shells) of internal constituents. Unfortunately these results were put aside from 1964 on due to the success of the quark model and of QCD later on. From 1985 on we began to see more indications of compositeness, but we were so enthusiastic with the Standard Model that we didn’t pay much attention to them. A partial list of them: 1) in 1983 the European Muon Collaboration (EMC) at CERN found that the quarks of nucleons are slower when the nucleons are inside nuclei; 2) in 1988 the SLAC E143 Collaboration and the Spin Muon Collaboration found that the three quarks of the proton account for only half of its total spin (other subsequent collaborations (EMC in 1989 and Hermes in 2007) have confirmed this result which is called THE PROTON SPIN PUZZLE); 3) in 1995 CDF at Fermilab found hard collisions among quarks indicating that they have constituents (this was not published because CDF didn’t reach a final consensus); 4) Prof. Gerald Miller at Argonne (Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 112001 (2007)) found that close to its center the neutron has a negative charge equal to -1/3e (inside the positive region with +1/2e); 5) new measurements of the EMC effect have been carried out by J. Arrington et al. at Jefferson Lab and they have shown that the effect is much stronger than was previously observed; 6) the ad hoc Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements; 7) the null charge dipole moment of the deuteron and its non-null charge quadrupole moment etc.
    Gerald Miller wrongly attributed to d quarks the -1/3e charge at the neutron center, but as the neutron is a udd system we know (from QCD) that none of the 3 quarks spends much time at the center.
    The relevant paper on this subject is Weak decays of hadrons reveal compositeness of quarks which can be accessed from Google (it is at the top of the lists on the subjects Weak decays of hadrons, Decays of Hadrons and Weak decays).

    Therefore, we should go back and probe further the nucleons in the low energy scale, and carry on Miller’s experiment with the proton.

  2. The hadronic theory described herein relies on the regular charge-monopole theory (RCMT) [1,2]. It assumes that all quarks carry one (negative) elementary unit of monopole that satisfies the laws of RCMT.

    This theory accepts and enjoys the good work done on quarks but denies QCD.

    Actual calculations have not been done, but fortunately, many qualitative arguments support this theory and refute QCD. You can see discussions of QCD failure here [3] and in many places on this site. A list of these points can also be seen [4].

    There is a prediction of the charge radius of the Sigma+ baryon [5]. This prediction disagrees with the corresponding QCD prediction [6]. Let us wait and see. Note also that experiment supports the RCMT predictions stating the nonexistence of the following QCD objects: Pentaquarks, Strange Quark Matter and Glueballs [5].

    [1] E. Comay, Nuovo Cimento, {\bf 80B}, 159 (1984).
    [2] E. Comay, Nuovo Cimento, {\bf 110B}, 1347 (1995).
    [3] See items marked with an asterisk at
    [4] See the discussion and the table here
    [5] E. Comay, Prog. In Phys. 4, 13 (2010).
    [6] Wang P., Leinweber D. B., Thomas A.W. and Young R. D. Phys. Rev. D, 79, 094001-1 (2009).

  3. Sir,
    Do you have the calculation, showing that a hard core theory satisfy the experimental result better than the quark models??
    If yes,where can I find it?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s