Proton Made From Three Quarks is a White Lie

From Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler's
What is a Proton, Anyway?

You may have heard that a proton is made from three quarks. Indeed here are several pages that say so. This is a lie — a white lie, but a big one. In fact there are zillions of gluons, antiquarks, and quarks in a proton. The standard shorthand, “the proton is made from two up quarksand one down quark”, is really a statement that the proton has two more up quarks than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquarks. To make the glib shorthand correct you need to add the phrase “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all.

This is a useful piece of information even if one doesn't necessarily agree with the notion of isolated particle balls whizzing around and colliding with each other which seems to be the only way particle physicists want to present their ideas. Even in this article Strassler literally draws a picture with symbols to represent the proton!!!! And he thinks this helps???

Matt Strassler's illustration of the Proton.  Is he kidding?? 

Even if we take the above quote at face value the questions are

Where do all these zillions of gluons and quark-antiquark pairs come from?
What are their forms and other properties???
What is their relation to all other protons and neutrons of the Universe?
Do they just appear out of thin space???

Maybe they are threads, like life lines ending on all other protons and neutrons of the Universe and this might be the reason that the motion of the atomic 'center point' is so complex. . . The atom is a centralization, a permanent bundle of gazillions of these fundamental objects with unique properties. These fundamental objects are literally fed from every single other atom of the Universe so that there is a perfect continuity and interconnection between all.  Even Pope Francis said in his recent encyclical, Laudato Si:

It cannot be emphasized enough how everything is interconnected. . . not even atoms or subatomic particles can be considered in isolation.

If every single atom is always taking on a succession of locations(motion) then this would instantaneously influence every single other proton or neutron of the Universe. The proton or neutron has to constantly adjust itself or shift itself or reform itself to maintain its inherent connection to all others via the fundamental object which is probably thread-like. And it uses these inherent constituents as axles of atomic motion.  This is to some degree unpredictable. And its not like these threads are ever going to literally annihilate or be created. They are always there.  Just impossible to detect individually unless there is a collision of protons where all these threads fight for a single location.  When the threads are all bunched and crunched together, superposing to a critical maximum number we have a degeneracy reaction, a push. . . hence the repulsion when protons and neutrons are .7 femtometers from each other.

Modern physicists tend to think too much in an isolated vacuum.  If the atom were isolated from all others perhaps motion would be impossible.  Modern physics is also lost in abstractions.  Look again at the picture above.  We don't need equations of motion, differential geometry, or symbols to understand and appreciate the complexity of the proton and neutron.  As enough data is fed in everyday to last until the Sun explodes, all we need do at this point is stand back and think about it. . .  

Electron Quotes!!!

Have fun parsing this wild list. . . 

* "The electron is a theory we use; it is so useful in understanding the way nature works that we can almost call it real." --- Richard Feynman, From Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman, p. 70

* "Everything is still vague and unclear to me, but it seems as if the electrons will no more move on orbits" ---Heisenberg in a letter to Pauli after conceiving Matrix Mechanics, June 9th 1925

* "There is one simplification at least. Electrons behave ... in exactly the same way as photons; they are both screwy, but in exactly in the same way... — Richard P. Feynman 'Probability abd Uncertainty—the Quantum Mechanical View of Nature', the sixth of his Messenger Lectures (1964), Cornell ------ (I wonder if he intended that pun)

* "… we may think on an electron as always being surrounded by a cloud of virtual photons. If the electron is violently accelerated by some external means, some of this cloud may be shaken loose and given enough energy to become real photons" ---Frank Shu, The Physical Universe, 1982

* "One possibility in this direction is to regard, classically, an electron as the end of a single Faraday line of force. The electric field in this picture from discrete Faraday lines of force, which are to be treated as physical things, like strings. One has then to develop a dynamics for such a string like structure, and quantize it.... In such a theory a bare electron would be inconceivable, since one cannot imagine the end of a piece of string without having the string.  ---Paul Dirac, Bombay Lectures (1955)

* "the electron and proton are not really independent, but just two manifestations of one elementary particle." ---Paul Dirac, (1930)   

* "There was a time when we wanted to be told what an electron is. The question was never answered. No familiar conceptions can be woven around the electron; it belongs to the waiting list." — Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature Of The Physical World (1928), 290

* "For most practical purposes, an electron is a structure-less particle that possesses an intrinsic angular momentum, or spin." ---Frank Wilczek, What is an Electron?

* "Electron degeneracy pressure results from the same underlying mechanism that defines the electron orbital structure of elemental matter. Freeman Dyson showed that the imperviousness of solid matter is due to quantum degeneracy pressure rather than electrostatic repulsion as had been previously assumed." (Wiki Quote, Electron Degeneracy Pressure, citing three of Freeman Dyson's papers)
* "The inner equilibrium of an extended electron becomes . . . an insoluble puzzle from the point of view of electrodynamics.  I hold this puzzle (and the questions related to it) to be a stochastic problem. . . The electrons are not only indivisible physically, but also geometrically.  They have no extension in space at all [so they are a concept???].  Inner forces between the elements of an electron do not exist because such elements are not available.  The electromagnetic interpretation of the mass is thus eliminated."---Yakov Frenkel, 1925

* "As advertising always convinces the sponsor even more than the public, the scientists have become sold, and remain sold, on the idea that they have the key to the Absolute, and that nothing will do for Mr. Average Citizen but to stuff himself full of electrons." — Anthony Standen, In Science is a Sacred Cow (1950), 26. 

* "Firm support has been found for the assertion that electricity occurs at thousands of points where we at most conjectured that it was present. Innumerable electrical particles oscillate in every flame and light source. We can in fact assume that every heat source is filled with electrons which will continue to oscillate ceaselessly and indefinitely. All these electrons leave their impression on the emitted rays." ---Pieter Zeeman, 'Light Radiation in a Magnetic Field', Nobel Lecture, 2 May 1903.)

* "It is structure that we look for whenever we try to understand anything. All science is built upon this search; we investigate how the cell is built of reticular material, cytoplasm, chromosomes; how crystals aggregate; how atoms are fastened together; how electrons constitute a chemical bond between atoms. We like to understand, and to explain, observed facts in terms of structure. A chemist who understands why a diamond has certain properties, or why nylon or hemoglobin have other properties, because of the different ways their atoms are arranged, may ask questions that a geologist would not think of' formulating, unless he had been similarly trained in this way of thinking about the world." — Linus Pauling
‘The Place of Chemistry In the Integration of the Sciences’, Main Currents in Modern Thought (1950), 7, 110. 

* "Most American homes have alternating current, which means that the electricty goes in one direction for a while, then goes in the other direction. This prevents harmful electron buildup in the wires." — Dave Barry, In The Taming of the Screw: How to Sidestep Several Million Homeowner's Problems (1983), 12

* "The chemist in America has in general been content with what I have called a loafer electron theory. He has imagined the electrons sitting around on dry goods boxes at every corner [viz. the cubic atom], ready to shake hands with, or hold on to similar loafer electrons in other atoms." — Robert Andrews Millikan, 'Atomism in Modern Physics', Journal of the Chemical Society (1924), 1411.

* "The energy of a covalent bond is largely the energy of resonance of two electrons between two atoms. The examination of the form of the resonance integral shows that the resonance energy increases in magnitude with increase in the overlapping of the two atomic orbitals involved in the formation of the bond, the word ‘overlapping” signifying the extent to which regions in space in which the two orbital wave functions have large values coincide... Consequently it is expected that of two orbitals in an atom the one which can overlap more with an orbital of another atom will form the stronger bond with that atom, and, moreover, the bond formed by a given orbital will tend to lie in that direction in which the orbital is concentrated." — Linus Pauling, Nature of the Chemical Bond and the Structure of Molecules and Crystals (1939), 76.

* "There can never be two or more equivalent electrons in an atom, for which in a strong field the values of all the quantum numbers n, k1, k2 and m are the same. If an electron is present, for which these quantum numbers (in an external field) have definite values, then this state is ‘occupied.’ — Wolfgang Pauli

* "[The chemical bond] First, it is related to the disposition of two electrons (remember, no one has ever seen an electron!): next, these electrons have their spins pointing in opposite directions (remember, no one can ever measure the spin of a particular electron!): then, the spatial distribution of these electrons is described analytically with some degree of precision (remember, there is no way of distinguishing experimentally the density distribution of one electron from another!): concepts like hybridization, covalent and ionic structures, resonance, all appear, not one of which corresponds to anything that is directly measurable. These concepts make a chemical bond seem so real, so life-like, that I can almost see it. Then I wake with a shock to the realization that a chemical bond does not exist; it is a figment of the imagination that we have invented, and no more real than the square root of - 1." --- — Charles Alfred Coulson, Quoted in his obituary, Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society 1974, 20, 96

* “Although Thompson came to accept the electron as an electromagnetic particle, his view was different from that held by Lorentz and the German electrodynamicists. In a little known work of 1907 he pictured aether as an “ethereal astral body” glued to electrical particles and thought that these were “connected by some invisible universal something which we call aether . . . [and that] this aether must possess mass . . . when the electrified body is brought into motion.” Thomson concluded his 1907 discourse on matter and aether with a formulation that illustrates how little his thoughts had changed since the 1870s when he first encountered The Unseen Universe: “We are led to the conclusion that the invisible universe, and the natural phenomena that we observe are pictures woven on the looms of this invisible universe.” From Histories of the Electron: The Birth of Microphysics by Jed Z. Buchwald p. 212 (J.J. Thomson, “Die Beziehung zwischen Materie un Ather im Lichte der neureren Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Elektrizitat” (This paper was the Adamson lecture of 4 November 1907)

* "Electrons are the final realities of matter, electricity then the material of which the atoms of our elements are constructed. . . But what is electricity itself?  Light ether in a certain state . . . the light ether is thus the universal primary matter." ---Richard Ehrenfeld, (German chemist and historian of science), 1906

* "the electron is to simple of a thing for the question of the laws governing its structure to arise." ---Paul Dirac, Classical Theory of Radiating Electrons, 1938 

* Mists
where the electron behaves and misbehaves as it will,
where the forces tie themselves up into knots of atoms
and come untied;

Mists
of mistiness complicated into knots and clots that barge about
and bump on one another and explode into more mist, or don't,
mist of energy most scientific -
But give us gods!

Look then
where the father of all things swims in a mist of atoms
electrons and energies, quantums and relativities
mists, wreathing mists,
like a wild swan, or a goose, whose honk goes through my bladder. 
---D.H. Lawrence poem titled Give Us Gods

last but not least:
 
* "So, what is an electron? An electron is a particle, and a wave; it is ideally simple, and unimaginably complex; it is precisely understood, and utterly mysterious; it is rigid, and subject to creative disassembly. No single answer does justice to
reality." ---Frank Wilczek, From What is an Electron?, 2013

After reading this we might as well make electron synonymous with God.

Bonus

* "The more I think about the physical portion of Schrödinger's theory, the more repulsive I find it...What Schrödinger writes about the visualizability of his theory 'is probably not quite right,' in other words it's crap. ---(Heisenberg, writing to Pauli, 1926)

Monoculture

Monoculture: use of land for growing one type of crop which results in desertification and disruption of a local ecosystem. Monoculture is a secret destroyer of not only the soil, native plants and animals, but also of human civilizations.

Geoff Lawton, a master of permaculture has an inspired three minute video teaching about monoculture:

Today, monoculture, specifically corn and soy monoculture spreading across the landmasses is a perfect set up for a world wide famine. What else can I possibly say?

Monoculture is not only prevalent in agriculture but also in the sterilized societal relations imposed on us by bank, state, and corporation, the same of which most freely hold onto it. Cultural diversity, uniqueness, symbiotic human relationships, niche creativity, original thinking, small farms, fine arts, artisanship, unbiased and unconventional education, decentralization, independence, and so on are discouraged and ultimately crushed. The human spirit dies like the soil beneath the cloned corn terraformer bathed in toxic sludge. . .  Monoculture forever. . .

Agricultural monoculture is a powerful symbol and reflection of our human spirit in our age.  

Is the Universe Infinite?

The physicists talk about space

Like it was a thing with a body and face

It expands and contracts

(And these are the facts)

Yet no outline of it can be traced

--- Mike Huttner

O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space—were it not that I have bad dreams. 

---From Hamlet by Shakespeare

Infinite

Infinite comes from the word finite. Finite is a relation which describes objects . . . an adjective. Objects have limits or bounds. Finite is almost synonymous with form. All objects have this primal quality called form.  Form relates to what is bounded or contained from an immediate surrounding. All objects necessarily have form. And they are finite. Infinite means without bounds or limits, however strictly speaking infinite serves as an adjective, a modifier of objects. So here we have a linguistic contradiction, or an oxymoron as we say. An object without bounds or limits is impossible.

Concepts on the other hand lack this property called form. Two such concepts are Universe and space. Universe and space refer to a Concept Category. Universe and space have no boundaries or limits but we treat them as if they do anyway. In other words we reify them (convert a concept into an object) and we do this so as to name and consummate higher order abstractions via our brains.

Space refers to that which lacks form. Or we could define space as a static separation between objects, sort of similar to distance. Space has no limits or boundaries because we think space when we relate or compare two or more objects. Space is a brain-work! So we could also describe space as infinite, but strictly speaking this is rhetoric, because infinite is an adjective and space is not an object.

Universe also lacks form. Universe is a high order abstraction nesting together the notions of space and all existing objects (matter). What happened is one day a Greek or a Roman got bored. He related all the stars, and all the trees and the Earth, and all peoples and all animals, and all rocks, all things and space . . . then Eureka! He thought and named Universe or cosmos. Universe is an idea! But in modern times people started to treat Universe as if it were a finite object like a belly of a pregnant woman swelling. But if Universe is an object what contains space? More space? What is the edge of this object made out of and what is outside of it? And how does the belly swell? What object is constantly being added or created so that the belly can swell? And where does that come from?

These problems are easily solved by assuming a fundamental object that mediates light and gravity between all atoms. In this conception both the atoms and the fundamental object have form, are finite, and contain each other. Atoms contain the fundamental objects, and the fundamental objects contain atoms. They set limits or boundaries to one another. The fundamental object has form of itself. It is the finest form and has some singular qualities such as the ability to superpose, intersect or overlap up to a critical density exemplified when two protons collide. This fundamental object doesn't need human ideas such as space to retain its form. It simply is.  It acts and reacts in accord with Newton's Law. It is topologically invariant if you want. This fundamental object never increases in length, width or height. Its just there. It imparts form to the atoms (in other words the atoms derive their form from these fundamental objects).  This is something that space cannot possibly do. And these mediate light and gravity to and from all atoms, again a work which space cannot possibly do.  Concepts, such as space cannot possibly perform causal relations such as containment or impart form or serve as the nexus of gravity or radiation. We need a form, a finite object to do such things. And we need to brainstorm it's qualities.  This is what sanity calls for!The fundamental objects are like life lines beginning and ending on all protons and neutrons of the Universe and this might be the reason that the motion of the atomic 'central point' is so complex. . . If every single atom is always taking on a succession of locations(motion) then this would immediately influence every single other proton or neutron of the Universe. The proton or neutron has to constantly adjust itself or shift itself or reform itself to maintain its inherent connection to all others via the fundamental object which is probably thread-like. Its like hair.  Its not like these threads are ever going to literally annihilate or be created. They are always there, just impossible to detect individually unless there is a collision of protons where all these threads fight for a single location when the threads are all bunched and crunched together. . . hence the repulsion when protons and neutrons are .7 femtometers from each other.

One cannot possibly trace a beginning or an end to a proton or a neutron (or all H atoms) because the fundamental object that converge to impart form to a single proton or neutron . . . weave all protons and neutrons continuously. There is an underlying closed circle of this fundamental object. And this object is finite.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

Where does the CMBR fit into all this? We also need a source and mediator of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Assuming all the atoms of the Universe are connected by these fundamental objects, they would eventually end at the most distant Hydrogen atoms located at the "edges of the Universe" so to speak. These Hydrogen Atoms, call them the Omega Atoms, would assume an exotic form. Their form would not be spherical as an H atom located in the Milky Way Galaxy, since they are not fed fundamental objects from all directions of the sky. They would perhaps assume a sort of shallow angled pyramidal form. In other words these Hydrogen atoms would only have a "line of sight" or direction inwards and not outwards. They would supply fundamental objects to each and every atom located within a sphere which they themselves form. And because of their exotic form, if follows they would behave in a different mode then your run of the mill H atom in the Milky Way.  Perhaps these would emit in exotic electron transitions in a consistent manner.  Following from form, there signals could be more frequent, as if from the surface of a star.  There is nothing dull or prosaic about these hypothesized atoms.  There is nothing like them in the Universe.  So with this basic idea I suggest there is no need to assume a fake black body.

Instead of a dense ball of Hydrogen fog that cools and is expanded by a concept (such as space, dark energy or whatever) we would have a thin fog of exotic H atoms, where all the fundamental objects which mediate light and gravity as well as constitute all the atoms . . . end in all directions.  There are no atoms beyond the Omega Atoms.  Consequently no light can pass this wall, since the nexus object which mediates light is not only inherent to all atoms, but also can only begin and end on all atoms.  Thus the idea that there is a "last scattering surface" is supplanted by simply hypothesizing these exotic Omega Atoms.

These Omega Atoms are more or less evenly distributed, encircling all the stars and galaxies. These could be in a plasma like state because of their exotic form.  They could be emitting in forbidden electron transitions, by way of the fundamental objects which all converge on the Planck Telescope or any other object of the Universe. The distances and density of these Omega Atoms would vary pending direction in the sky. There would still be redshift due to the exceedingly great lengths as well as nature of the unique fundamental objects interconnecting all atoms.  Along these great lengths of EM Rope, the signals are less and less frequent in the way to all atoms of the Universe, including the Omega Atoms on the opposite side.  And there would still be anisotropies.  Galaxies would still move toward and/or away from each other via inertia.

And some of these so called Omega Atoms may be there vibrating for trillions of years.  Who knows?  Atoms are separated at great distances, thus there is (and was) never a threat that they would all contract into a single ball since gravity is clearly a function of distance.  Due to the nature of these fundamental objects, constituting and interconnecting all atoms, gravity forcibly works in an inverse square regime. In terms of a graph there is a steep downward slope to Newton's equations. If stars or interstellar clouds are separated by great distances they will never mutually work enough pull to bring them together in a 'contraction'. It doesn't matter how large their masses are! The so called energy density thins out so to speak.  In terms of gravity, stars separated by great distances work each other as if they were single hydrogen atoms with a net tug of the lowest possible ratio, namely Big G. And this is balanced out by about the same from radially all other directions. Einstein never had to add a hypothetical cosmological constant to maintain equilibrium.  

With the Omega Atoms, perhaps every once in a while some are lead within the conceptual sphere of the stars and galaxies. They would reform from a sort of half spherical form to a full spherical form. And on the same token perhaps every once in a while a group of atoms within the Omega Sphere are pushed out by exotic stars or galaxies, so that they make their way out to help form it, thus becoming Omega Atoms and helping to form what we could call the Omega Wall.  If we mapped out the CMBR billions of years from now perhaps it would look a little different. The so called CMB structure on the maps would appear differently because of unpredictable shifts and reformations of the Omega Wall.  So I put forward this experiment.  13.8 billion years from now, launch another satellite and remeasure the CMBR.  Oops I forgot . . . we won't make it that long.

If you haven't yet noticed my suggestion is like turning the Big Bang concept on its head. Its like we are in an immense spherical wall of exotic H atoms and they supply the web of zillions of these fundamental objects along which the signals are conveyed.  And these converge on the satellites that study CMBR as well as all stars and galaxies, since all are interconnected, each to the other by a single fundamental object (an EM Rope).  So I don't think there is any need to question the validity of the CMBR data, or redshift. All that is needed is a purge and rethinking of basic ideas.

Conclusion

It is like Nietzsche said. We really ought to get over the seduction of words! Infinite is a "god word" Undefined, misunderstood, misconceived, misused, overused, abused, confused, reified, deified, mythologized, etc. Infinite is an ontological contradiction. An oxymoron. We could use it to describe concepts since all concepts lack bounds or limits, but this is cheating and missing the point. One day some guy was fooling around with prefixes and out comes rhetoric and poetry. The physicists from a few hundred years ago pick up on this and start messing around with this word without thinking things through.

Universe is just an high order abstraction. Just an idea. Universe nests together the notions of space and of matter. Its sort of a binary conceptual system used throughout history. Universe refers to a concept category and lacks the primary quality of all objects, namely, form. And Universe, let alone space cannot possibly impart causal relations or undergo change effects such as expand, contract, accelerate, perform, inform, and so on. 

The Principle of Explosion (Critical Thinking Fallacy)

My new favorite critical thinking fallacy.

"The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso quodlibet, "from a falsehood, anything follows", or ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, "from a contradiction, anything follows"), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law of classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction. That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (or its negation) can be inferred from it." (Wiki)

Abstract from Ex Contradictione Sequitir Quodlibet by Walter A. Carnielli , João Marcos

"We summarize here the main arguments, basic research lines, and results on the foundations of the logics of formal inconsistency. These involve, in particular, some classes of well-known paraconsistent systems. We also present their semantical interpretations by way of possible-translations semantics and their applications to human reasoning and machine reasoning. 1 1. Do we need to worry about inconsistency? Classical logic, as we all know, cannot survive contradictions. Among the principles that were gradually incorporated into the “properties of correct reasoning ” since Aristotle, the Principle of Pseudo-Scotus (PPS), also known since medieval times as ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet (and also called the Principle of Explosion by some contemporary logicians), states that in any theory exposed to the enzymatic character of a contradiction A and ÏA one can derive any other arbitrary sentence B, so that the theory would turn out to be trivial."

I think we should apply this one to Big-Bloated-Bang.  

Einstein's Telescope

Above is a picture used in the video from the link.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/62332/einsteins-telescope

All I see in this picture are two inverse square regimes! One inverse square regime originates in the star that goes supernova, and the other originates in the Earth. The only way to reasonably explain an inverse square regime for light is by assuming that all the atoms of the Universe are connected by a tense and rectilinear ray that mediates light. Why else would the rays spread out in a 1/distance squared??? (see: The Inverse Square Law of Light)

All the atoms of the three objects in this picture are already connected by an invisible, tense and rectilinear rays that signal light. When the star explodes these rays enacts signals and these are relayed or reflected by a set of atoms at the edges of the galaxy or of it's halo, rectinlinearly, or straight to the Earth or telescope stationed around Earth. The rays of light never bend, and little balls don't roll around space like in a roulette table. We don't need a concept called gravity, enacting a causal relation BEND on another concept called space which undergoes a change effect and then somehow influences rays of light in order to explain the signals of the star going supernova.

Proof is subjective. They say that this proves Einstein's explanation but to me this proves someone else's explanation.

Brainstorm On Neutrons

A few months ago I had this thought that the neutron must have a tiny charge. Even the standard model of particle physics predicts a tiny charge separation leading to a permanent electric dipole moment. But the value is well below sensitivity of experiments. And besides they say the net electric charge is zero, the net average. Whatever this all would mean in reality.

I think of a neutron as a baby hydrogen atom. A hydrogen atom and a neutron have about the same calculated mass.  But for some reason this baby neutron has not grown out its electron threads to lengths of 53 picometers and beyond.  Or perhaps it's electron threads have been crushed and shortened at the center of a star.  In some decays perhaps it gets a substantial feed of EM Ropes, which work to twist out the electron threads to greater lengths so they would align and superpose with the converging EM Ropes and thus actively charge, effectively making it like a hydrogen atom (which it always was), or in a figurative manner, an adult atom.

But anyway perhaps a neutron has tiny little loops of thread that emanate around a few picometers or maybe even on a fentometer scale. Maybe this is why they are able to fit through or even make pathways between and through some atoms, effectively falling on protons. These tiny loops of electron thread perhaps enable a neutron to sort of clamp onto a proton or cacoon the proton of an 'adult' atom so that they remain bound together rather strongly.

But when I had this thought I tried to find any sort of evidence or information that the neutron might have charge which to me means it has twisted out at least one set of threaded electron signals sideways from the crisscrossing convergence of EM Ropes.

I found this article:
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1167106quotes:

"We have found that a neutron actually carries a negative charge at its inner and outer edges, but has a positive charge in between" said Gerald Miller, a University of Washington (Seattle) physics professor.

The idea that neutrons were actually composed of subatomic layers of charge that cancel to zero can be traced to speculation made in 1947 by Nobel laureate Enrico Fermi. However, Fermi speculated that neutrons had a positive charge at their core, which was offset by a negative charge on its outer surface. The uncertainty of his speculations, however, relegated them to historical footnotes not deemed worthy of including in textbooks.

"We believe this is a clear fact of nature that we didn't know before," said Miller. "It is significant because nobody realized this was the case until now."