January 27, 2013
Proton is smaller than we thought
Hamish Johnston in Physics World:
The radius of the proton is significantly smaller than previously thought, say physicists who have measured it to the best accuracy yet. The surprising result was obtained by studying "muonic" hydrogen in which the electron is replaced by a much heavier muon. The finding could mean that physicists need to rethink how they apply the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) – or even that the theory itself needs a major overhaul.
A proton contains three charged quarks bound by the strong force and its radius is defined as the distance at which the charge density drops below a certain value. The radius has been measured in two main ways – by scattering electrons from hydrogen and by looking very closely at the difference between certain energy levels of the hydrogen atom called the Lamb shift. Until recently the best estimate of the proton radius was 0.877 femtometres with an uncertainty of 0.007 fm
This Lamb shift is a result of the interactions between the electron and the constituent quarks of the proton as described by QED. These interactions are slightly different for electrons occupying the 2S and 2P energy levels and the resulting energy shift depends in part on the radius of the proton.
However, in muonic hydrogen the Lamb shift is much more dependent on the proton radius because the much heavier muon spends more time very near to – and often within – the proton itself.
Now an international team led by Randolf Pohl at the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany has measured the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen for the first time and found the proton radius to be 0.8418 fm with uncertainty 0.0007 fm.
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 04:46 PM | Permalink






















Comments
A very cool and important result! It definitely shows the need to think harder about correlated systematic errors in experiments. We need to have multiple angles of attack on each quantity to reduce the chances of relying on data sets suffering from such correlations.
Posted by: X | Jan 27, 2013 5:16:37 PM
Amazing! What X said is totally spot on!
Thank god, er, science?, darwin?
Anyways, thank humanity that there are people smarter than me out there to figure out this kind of stuff. The implications make my brain hurt. If true (and it seems like it is) this shakes up a lot of the stuff I learned in college.
Posted by: DrunktankDan | Jan 27, 2013 9:41:23 PM
I follow such matters as an interested and educated layman, and I find Quantum Mechanics fascinating, always.
As a social scientist [I am a research psychologist,] this reminds me of the distinctions among various scientific fields. One of those distinctions is the size of the error terms that we encounter. The social sciences are sometimes dismissed because they are not 'exact sciences.' Well, there are no 'exact sciences.' This article is affirmation of that fact.
On a continuum of error terms from small to large, as an example, we have physics on one end, life sciences in the middle, and social sciences on the other end. Within the social sciences, psychology deals with errors terms that are small compared to economics.
I marvel at the human intelligence and ingenuity that engineer the apparatuses and techniques to measure - no, to estimate - the radius of the proton. I know enough about error measurement to understand that the improvement in estimation from 0.877 femtometers with 0.007 fm uncertainty to 0.8418 fm with 0.0007 fm uncertainty deserves an gigantic "WOW!"
Posted by: Norman Costa | Jan 28, 2013 8:59:41 AM
Post a comment