The atomic nucleus that was once thought indivisible is now known to consist of protons and neutrons that in turn are made up of quarks. A proton is two up quarks and a down quark and a neutron is two down quarks and an up, so the odd quark charges add nicely to give a positive proton and a neutral neutron (Table 4.4). How do quarks achieve this?
If the free photon “hooks” of one quark insert themselves into the neutral axis of another quark, this gives a sixth of a channel set of processing in both quarks (Table 4.5A). Note that one photon in two adjacent quarks uses all its processing with no remainder. Now let photons from the second quark neutral axis return the favor until the first quark axis is full (Table 4.5B). Both axes are now complete and the positive and negative processing remaining in the neutral axis still cancels to neutral (Table 4.5C). Quark charge is unaffected because the charge axes aren’t involved so free-neutral photon sharing completes the free axis and leaves the neutral axis the same. Photon sharing not only binds quarks but also creates the extra processing needed to stabilize the free axis of the first quark.
This link only completes one quark but the second quark can also complete its free axis by linking to a third quark that can also complete by linking back to the first. Figure 4.13 shows how the triangular structure of quarks lets them share photons in a triangle so that all become stable. The result is a proton or neutron depending on the quark mix, just as current physics asserts, but now what binds the quarks isn’t magical particles from nowhere but photon sharing between quarks.
What then are the gluon “color charges”? That each quark needs a different axis status to link in a triangle suggests that the standard model’s red, blue and green “charges” are quark orientations. A quark as an inert particle might need an agent to change its axis orientation but quarks as dynamic processing swap axes naturally, as every cycle is a new event. Every cycle, photons compete for channels by each trying to occupy any channel they can. If it fails because another got there first, it just tries elsewhere. There is no predefined plan, just a free-for-all that gives different axis outcomes each time, so all that is needed to change a quark axis orientation is another quantum cycle.
An analogy might illustrate how quantum processing fills channels. Imagine a stack of wine glasses upon which water is falling. When the water fills one wine glass, the remaining water just flows from it to the next, until every glass is full. Hence there is no need for any central control to “manage” the allocation of water to glasses. Now suppose there is exactly enough water to fill all the glasses, and when this happens the system restarts, i.e. all the glasses empty and another water pouring cycle begins. In the same way, the quantum processing of a quark fills all the channels of a node plane to trigger a restart that repeats the cycle.
This approach reflects the earlier conclusion that the quantum world tries every option until a stable result occurs, which here means that all the channels of an axis complete. To see matter as an inert thing that must be pushed to change is like thinking a running video has to be “pushed” when actually the processing does that. Likewise, what “pushes” the world to change is quantum processing not invisible particles.
In quantum realism, an electron becomes stable by completing the channels of one axis and three quarks do the same for two axes by sharing photons in a triangle. Protons and neutrons evolved because they filled the channels of two dimensions not because invisible agents forced them together. The strong force arises because quarks have a processing excess while electromagnetism arises because electrons have a processing deficit.