Particle physics: 'Honey, I shrunk the proton'

Jul 07, 2010
In a measuring chamber for protons: the muon beam moves through the ring-shaped electrodes from the left. In the space between the two grey-metallic bars under the pane of glass the muons impact on gaseous hydrogen -- and displace the electrons from some of the atoms. The apparatus registers this process and fires a laser through the hole in the bottom bar onto the muonic hydrogen in order to reveal details of the atomic structure and thus ultimately the radius of the proton. Credit: Image: Randolf Pohl / MPI of Quantum Optics

Scientists lobbed a bombshell into the world of sub-atomic theory on Wednesday by reporting that a primary building block of the visible Universe, the proton, is smaller than previously thought.

Big problems sometimes come in small packages. The problem with which physicists must now concern themselves measures a mere 0.0350 millionth of a millionth of a millimetre. This is precisely the difference between the new, smaller, dimension of the proton, the nucleus of the hydrogen atom, and the value which has been assumed so far. Instead of 0.8768 femtometres it measures only 0.8418 femtometres. At the Paul Scherrer Institute in Switzerland, an international team of researchers including physicists from the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics has now measured this in experiments which are ten times more accurate than all previous ones. They thus present physics with some tough problems: at least one fundamental constant now changes. And physicists have also to check the calculations of quantum electrodynamics. This theory is assumed to be very well proven, but its predictions do not agree with these latest measurements. (Nature, July 8, 2010)

For many years, Randolf Pohl and his colleagues believed their measuring instrument was not accurate enough: they first performed an experiment to determine the size of the proton back in 2003, but they had not discovered the signal which would provide them with the relevant insight. "This was not down to the accuracy of our method, but to the fact that we did not expect such a large deviation," says Randolf Pohl. The researchers had therefore chosen too small a window for their measurements. "It is good, nevertheless, that we have significantly improved our method yet again, otherwise people might not believe us now," continues Pohl.

Randolf Pohl and his colleagues in an international collaboration have measured the charge radius of the proton with an accuracy of better than one thousandth of a femtometre. This is the radius which the charge of the positive hydrogen nucleus assumes. To this end, they have investigated tiny details in the atomic structure, using muonic hydrogen, where it is not an electron but a heavier muon which orbits the nucleus (see 'Background: a ruler for a proton'). Their measurements show that the hydrogen nucleus measures 0.8418 femtometre. A result which is outside the margin of error which physicists had applied to the previous measurements for the proton radius by a factor of five.

Even if the deviation is negligible on a day-to-day scale, it possibly has significant consequences. Researchers are unable to say precisely what these may be, however. What is certain is that this changes the Rydberg constant. Quantum physicists use this constant to calculate which energy packets atoms and molecules absorb and emit when they change their states. These energy packets correspond to the spectral lines of the elements. The calculations for the spectral lines now shift noticeably and no longer match the experimental findings.

The theoreticians are now searching for the error in the calculation

"Since the Rydberg constant is the most accurately determined fundamental constant so far, it is as solid as a rock," says Randolf Pohl. If physicists draw a self-consistent picture of all fundamental constants, the other fundamental constants such as Planck's constant or the mass of the electron can only move around the Rydberg constant. The fact that this rock has been moved slightly will hardly impress the other fundamental constants: they have been determined just as exactly as the Rydberg constant so they will probably not feel the jerk at all. The test for this is still pending, however.

"We also have to be very careful with more far-reaching consequences," says Pohl. Many theoreticians all over the world are now recalculating the predictions of quantum electrodynamics with the new proton radius. This quantum theory describes how atoms, electrons, elementary particles and other players move in this diminutive world and which electromagnetic fields are created in the process. It also provides a value for the proton radius for comparison with experimental data - but this is significantly higher than the one measured now. "I assume that an error has been made somewhere in the calculation, because the theory of quantum electrodynamics is very consistent and has been rigorously proven," says Pohl. If this is not the case, the slightly shifted proton radius would trigger an earthquake in physics, which would at least result in considerable 'fault lines' in this theory.

While theoreticians are now trying to get to the bottom of the mystery of the erroneous proton radius in their models, the Garching researchers and their colleagues are checking the new measurement result with further experiments on the hydrogen atom. They also want to redesign their experimental set-up so that they can also measure the charge radius of the helium nucleus. These investigations are also intended to tell them something about how atomic nuclei are deformed when they interact with a negative charge. In this way the physicists want to discover the exact structure of matter step-by-step - and hope, of course, to come across more mysteries of physics.

Background: A ruler for a proton

In order to measure the charge radius of the proton, the researchers use the electronic interactions in a hydrogen atom and take into account the tiniest details of the atomic structure: the positively charged nucleus attracts the electron, which can move in different shells around the nucleus. The energy of the electron increases when it jumps up to the next highest shell. In the first shell it can only move in one orbital: the s-orbital, which surrounds the atomic nucleus like a sphere. When the electron climbs upwards shell by shell, additional space becomes available to it each time. In the second shell, for example, it can occupy not only the spherical s-orbital but also a p-orbital which forms a dumbbell-shaped structure around the atomic nucleus.

In the simplest model of an atom the electron has the same energy in the s-orbital as it does in the p-orbital. In reality, however, its energy in the p-orbital is slightly higher than in the s-orbital. Physicists call the small energy gap the Lamb shift. The Garching physicists are targeting this small gap. One reason for its existence is that the proton is not an infinitesimally small point, but a tiny sphere. If the electron occupies the p-orbital, the electron does not feel this, because both club-shaped ends of the dumbbell are located outside the atomic nucleus - the electron is therefore never inside the nucleus itself. The situation is quite different in the sphere of the s-orbital: here the electron also repeatedly spends time in the nucleus itself - the charges of nucleus and electron then cancel each other out. This decreases the average attractive force of the nucleus and hence the energy of the electron.

In the conventional hydrogen atom the effect is so small that it is hardly noticeable even in the most accurate measurements. At the Paul Scherrer Institute in the Swiss town of Villingen the Garching physicists have therefore produced muonic hydrogen in which a muon replaces the electron. The muon has the same negative charge as an electron, but is around 200 times heavier. The total diameter of the atom thus shrinks and, on average, the muon spends more time in the nucleus so that the energy of the s-orbital in question also experiences a stronger shift. The researchers measure the energy difference by giving the electron a little energetic nudge with a laser, so that it jumps from the s-orbital of the second shell into the p-orbital.

That is the principle. In order to measure the energy difference, which is still tiny even in muonic hydrogen, the physicists working with Randolf Pohl have to solve some practical problems. They not only need a laser whose wavelength can be set with extreme precision. Little by little they change its energy until it precisely matches the transition between the two orbitals. The laser must also release its pulse in less than one millionth of a second after it has received the command. This is placed as soon as the detectors of the apparatus register a muonic hydrogen atom.

In 99 percent of the cases the muon in the hydrogen atom slips immediately into the s-orbital of the energetically favourable first shell. The laser therefore mainly fires at particles which are no use for the researchers' real purpose. The apparatus registers an atom in which the muon remains in the s-orbital of the second shell only six to seven times per hour. "You can sit for hours in front of the screen and hardly anything happens," says Randolf Pohl. And then it takes only a millionth of a second until the muon falls from the second into the first, energetically more favourable shell. The Garching researchers have used a variety of tricks to teach their laser a reaction time of 900 billionths of a second, thus making the measurement possible in the first place.

After the researchers had spent several months setting up and fine-tuning their apparatus at the Paul Scherrer Institute, they finally measured for three weeks without a break. Only then had they moved muons from the s-orbital into the p-orbital of the second shell so often that a marked peak was visible in their spectrum. Then only calculations remained. "The equation for this is pretty difficult," says Pohl, but, finally, they arrived at their value for the proton radius which is ten times more accurate and which now sets a number of new tasks for quantum theorists.

Explore further: How cloud chambers revealed subatomic particles

More information: Citation: Pohl, R. et al. Nature 466, 213-217 (2010). DOI: 10.1038/nature09250

Provided by Max-Planck-Gesellschaft

4.9 /5 (64 votes)

Related Stories

Picturing the Proton

Mar 31, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Two theoretical physicists in the College of Liberal Art and Sciences and their colleagues are eager for the results of an experiment scheduled next fall at the new Large Hadron Collider (LHC) ...

How does the proton get its spin?

Feb 17, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- At a meeting this week of the American Physical Society in Washington, MIT Associate Professor of Physics Bernd Surrow reported on new results from the STAR experiment at the Relativistic ...

Glasgow scientists predict mass of new particle

Jan 26, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A team of physicists from the University of Glasgow has predicted the mass of a new particle which would help explain one of the fundamental forces of the universe.

Protons - Everything Revolves Around Spin

Dec 17, 2007

Current understanding of the spin structure of protons has been summarised in a single book for the first time. The book examines attempts to solve one of the greatest puzzles of physics. Models and experiments ...

Michigan integral to world's largest physics experiment

Sep 05, 2008

After 20 years of construction, a machine that could either verify or nullify the prevailing theory of particle physics is about to begin its mission. CERN's epic Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project currently involves 25 ...

On the path to metallic hydrogen

Aug 03, 2009

Hydrogen, the most common element in the universe, is normally an insulating gas, but at high pressures it may turn into a superconductor. Now, scientists at the Carnegie Institution in Washington D.C., US, ...

Recommended for you

How cloud chambers revealed subatomic particles

15 hours ago

Atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons. Protons and neutrons are in turn made up of quarks. These are just some of the elementary particles that make up the foundation of modern particle physics. ...

When a doughnut becomes an apple

16 hours ago

In experiments using the wonder material graphene, ETH researchers have been able to demonstrate a phenomenon predicted by a Russian physicist more than 50 years ago. They analyzed a layer structure that ...

Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

Sep 21, 2014

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland have succeeded in observing the "forbidden" infrared spectrum of a charged molecule for the first time. These extremely weak spectra offer perspectives ...

User comments : 42

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

fmfbrestel
4.8 / 5 (15) Jul 07, 2010
Good example of how science advances. Question everything, test everything you can test. I hope this experiment is able to be reproduced by third parties quickly so they can start figuring out the ramifications of this finding.
shavera
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2010
You know, I wonder if the fact that you have anything orbiting it changes its radius. I mean mightn't any negative particle in orbit tug on the positive quarks within the proton and kind of tidally stretch it out somewhat?
El_Nose
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2010
don't know about positive quarks but -- i was thinking something along the same lines -- if the moun is 'heavier' both in mass and electical potential than an electron then it probably sits in a state that is much much lower in energy than the elctron as well. Does .. This closing of distance to the proton also leave the proton in a slightly lower energy state?? If so we might interpret this as a smaller raduis.
fmfbrestel
3.2 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2010
"The trick was to replace the electron in the hydrogen atom with a negative muon, a particle with the same electric charge..."

heavier JUST in mass.
Jigga
1.9 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2010
The difference probably is the effect of compactified extradimensions near proton (the same situation could be observed near black holes, which should appear the smaller, the more we approach to them).

I hope, these guys considered the fact, muon affects the location of center of mass of proton more, then the electron during its motion around proton - it would be a trivial mistake to forget the classical physics here.
Rekar
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2010
It would be a trivial mistake to forget the classical physics here.


Classical physics wouldnt apply here. The Mass of the muon isnt going to matter in this case, since the location of the muon is Dependant on wave principles. The location of the particle can only exist in certain regions around the nucleus of the atom, and plus, you arent going to stretch or change the mass of the proton.
Rekar
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2010
You know, I wonder if the fact that you have anything orbiting it changes its radius. I mean mightn't any negative particle in orbit tug on the positive quarks within the proton and kind of tidally stretch it out somewhat?


Doesnt exactly work like classical physics. If it did, Im sure we would have the universe figured out. We would apply Quantum physics in this situation. Also, even though things in the classical word are affected by gravity, like the tides on the planet, the same principles dont apply in the situation.
omatumr
2 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2010
0.84 F Is A Surprisingly Small Radius For The Proton!

The proton is one of the decay-products of the neutron, and the decay energy depends on the physical size of the proton's positive charge.

The "radius," R, of the positive charge on the proton and other atomic nuclei made by beta-decay is

R = 1.2 F (A)^1/3 where
F = femtometre or 10^-15 m and
A = the atomic mass number

The above results suggest that the radius of the proton, with A = 1, is actually 1.2 F.

This radius of the positive charge on nuclei is defined by 21 nuclear decay data points in Figure 2 and is consistent with decay energies of another 20 nuclei in Figure 5 of the paper ""Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source" [Journal of Fusion Energy 20 (2001) 197-201] - Oliver K Manuel
Jarek
3.3 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2010
This article is the lesson that maybe we should try to focus on the second way.
QM -> QFT way to handle with nonlinearites of potential is indeed mathematically extremely complicated and so allows to handle only with qualitatively simple nonlinearities.

It's not widely know, but there is also different way like Skyrmion models already successfully used to work with mesons, baryons: as in the article start with particle's spatial structure (soliton) and after all (eventually) think about the quantization.
http://en.wikiped...Skyrmion
Thanks of focusing on much simpler: classical field theory first, it allows to WORK ON QUALITATIVELY MUCH MORE COMPLICATED NONLINEARITIES, which finally ALLOWS FOR TOPOLOGICALLY NONTRIVIAL STRUCTURES which seems to be essential for quantum numbers like charge or spin:
http://demonstrat...arities/
sender
not rated yet Jul 08, 2010
Asymmetry between electric charge and mass seems to be growing more complex. Would like to see an assay on magneto-optical resonance in quantum brewster fields.
johanfprins
2.4 / 5 (16) Jul 08, 2010
It is really quite simple: A proton is a holistic matter-wave and the size and energy of such a wave is ALWAYS determined by its boundary conditions (BC's).

The BC's are not known, but are obviously determined by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: After it has been corrected to take instantaneous action over a distance into account, as required by Qunatum Mechanics.

An obvious connection between the mass-energy of a matter wave and its boundary conditions is the fact that a matter wave has inertia: There exists an inertial reference frame within which it is stationary; and "wants" to remain stationary.

The BC's can thus be approximated by a restoring force: The larger this restoring force, the larger the energy (mass) of the matter wave AND the smaller the size of the wave! This can be deduced by solving Schroedinger's wave equation for the harmonic oscillator using different force constants. It is NOT surprising that the proton has smaller size than the electron.
Crackpot
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2010
A shrinking proton could possibly be explained by an alternative model of the proton, where it simply consists of a looping EM wave. By adding energy to the system (by replacing the electron with a muon), the wavelength of the looping wave could be reduced - and so would the diameter of the proton.

Such a proton is elaborated on at http://classicala...ons.html
KBK
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 08, 2010
So the above people ventured forth speculation, which is at the core of the idea of science, and it is THE ONLY, I repeat ~~ONLY~~ thing that actually is science itself -and moves it forward.

Before theory comes proof. Before proof comes test. Before test comes theory. before theory comes speculation/observation.

So to slam theory is not in the interests of science--it is exactly against it.

Some dipshite steps in here and slams them all with a 1/5 score.

Now THAT person is a looser of the worst case and type and definitely needs to be flushed out of the system.

I gave them all a 5 out of 5, as they did exactly as they are supposed to do, they did exactly as thinking people do. They speculate. Science at it's finest.
KBK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2010
My personal thoughts on the matter, in the immediate take, is that they are observing a separation, a Heisenbergian mass/quanta isolation effect...as well as a differential due to the different testing methodology.

The immediate thought is that this 'constant' is not as stable as they think it is. Not even close.

Which means that frameworks/fundamentals/skein are far more capable of differentials than they want you to think!

As a matter of fact, there is a veritable plethora of articles here on physorg, as of recent, that illustrate and indicate this point in totality. One would have to extrapolate and also be able to correlate. So being a smart bean counter, not just a bean counter.

I think that those who have given low scores are in the engineering bean counter end of the intelligence and creativity scale.

They are here to do nothing more than try and hold onto their reality framework..and are essentially bean counting children and suffer from a lack of imagination/skill.
KBK
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2010
Basically put, a 4% differential indicates that you have a manipulable resonant toroidal/torsional multi-dimensional system.

And that all the so-called 'wackos' who say they've done amazing things, for the past several hundred years..and have been dismissed by the less capable and more dogmatic type..well..all those wackos were and are 100%, nay ---120% correct.

Once again...4% is an impossibly huge difference and definitely does allow resonant manipulation and other forms of manipulation of such systems.

So in my estimation, the earlier result was right and this result is right. It is just the observation point and the measurement methodology is different.

It is the 'fundamental' that is shifting. It is not inherently stable.

That is the key that many of you do not want to look at....for everything you have been taught is in deep doo-doo...

And you entire world wobbles.

So, in the end, the problem here (getting people to look at it) comes down to psychology.

Not science.
johanfprins
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2010
They are here to do nothing more than try and hold onto their reality framework..and are essentially bean counting children and suffer from a lack of imagination/skill.


From your confused warbling I conclude that you are saying that physicists who believe that there is a reality to model, lack imagination and skill?
Question
1 / 5 (1) Jul 08, 2010
Could the temperature at which these measurements are made at have any effect on the results?
Jigga
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2010
..classical physics wouldn't apply here. The Mass of the muon isn't going to matter in this case, since the location of the muon is Dependant on wave principles.cc
So in your opinion this effect is impossible at the case of proton-muon system?

http://tinyurl.com/35exmd3

How do you want to explain nuclear magnetic moment of proton, after then?
Jigga
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2010
BTW Just at the case of hydrogen atom the classical Bohr's atom model works pretty well and it gives predictions in agreement with experiment.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2010
BTW Just at the case of hydrogen atom the classical Bohr's atom model works pretty well and it gives predictions in agreement with experiment.

Totally fortuitous: The Bohr model violates elementary physics. Two arguments why:
1. An orbiting electron can NEVER have less energy than a stationary electron which is far away from the proton. This is the same for a planet having the same mass which orbits the sun at different distances. Its TOTAL energy MUST BE the same for each orbit.
2. An electron circling a proton has NO magnetic moment as modelled by the Bohr atom. This is so since both the positive and negative charges orbit an axis symmetrically between them. Thus one has a "current" consisting of both a positive charge AND a negative charge: i.e. NO CURRENT which can cause a magnetric moment as is assumed for the Bohr atom. Also NO Larmor precession!

Bohr atom = Heath Robinson concoction!
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2010
Its TOTAL energy MUST BE the same for each orbit
Learn some physics first: Bohr's model of atom is NOT a mechanistic Rutherford's one, i.e. planetary model. In Bohr's model spectral lines of deuterium differ from those of protium, i.e. motion of atom nuclei around common center of mass is involved here - in sharp agreement with experiment to within three parts in 10E5. Which can serve as an evidence, the motion of atom nuclei is indeed affected by motion of electrons. Without it the spectral lines of protium wouldn't differ from deuterium or tritium - which can serve as an experimental evidence of my claims, which were voted negatively by trolls here. This is all well known textbook physics.

http://physics.ni...les.html

..it is so since both the positive and negative charges orbit an axis symmetrically between them..
but in different distance from axis, represented by common center of mass.
Jigga
1 / 5 (4) Jul 09, 2010
BTW The physics, which was voted negatively by many (at least 7) trolls here (manojendu, frajo, KBK, MorituriMax, Megadeth312, SteveL, DamienS, Rekar), served for spectroscopic discovery of deuterium in 1932:

http://www.marts1...rium.htm

This just illustrates the level of physical education of physorg readers and commenters here.
daywalk3r
3.3 / 5 (14) Jul 09, 2010
BTW The physics, which was voted negatively by many (at least 7) trolls here (manojendu, frajo, KBK, MorituriMax, Megadeth312, SteveL, DamienS, Rekar), served for spectroscopic discovery of deuterium in 1932:

http://www.marts1...rium.htm

This just illustrates the level of physical education of physorg readers and commenters here.
I believe the low scores came mostly for the first paragraph of your comment (5th from top), and not the second one, which you are defending here so wildly..
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2010
The first paragraph could be used for confirmation of string theory, for example. But the more obvious correction to the motion of atom nuclei should be done first.
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2010
Actually I don't know, why physicists should be so impressed by this result (if we neglect the technical part of experiment, which is indeed brilliant) - when they know already, every particle is surrounded by less or more dense coat of virtual quarks (virtual quark-anti-quark pairs). The same effect is responsible for Casimir force at different energy density scale.

johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 09, 2010
Learn some physics first: Bohr's model of atom is NOT a mechanistic Rutherford's one, i.e. planetary model.

When you assume that an electron circles a proton, then the model IS mechanistic JUST LIKE Rutherford's model. If you would at least try and understand elementary physics (Oops, I forgot you never studied it), conservation of energy tells you that each orbiting electron MUST then have the same total energy.

but in different distance from axis, represented by common center of mass

Why choose the centre of mass as a reference frame. Whatever the masses of the electron and proton are, you can choose to observe their motion from a point between them around which they are rotating at the same distance. TRY and get it through your skull: Why choose the rotation axis through the proton and then get a magnetic moment? You can just as well choose it through the electron and get a magnetic moment along the opposite direction. PLEASE, try and THINK! It can be fun!
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2010
..When you assume that an electron circles a proton, then the model IS mechanistic JUST LIKE Rutherford's model...
I don't assume anything - Bohr's model is NOT defined so and I cannot change its definition. You should ask Mr. Bohr for it.
.Why choose the centre of mass as a reference frame...
Why not, it doesn't affect the final result anyway. Just instead of magnetic atom observed you'll get the magnetic observer - that's all.
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2010
There you can find an extensive list of all QED corrections considered in calculation of the rms proton charge radius from Lamb shift measured..

http://www.nature...0-s1.pdf

It seems, they just forget the most trivial / important one. Nevertheless, the supplement is not completely explicit about what has been taken into in the calculations and what might be missing.
MAndrewSprong
not rated yet Jul 09, 2010
The next thing we should do is replace the electron with a tau hadron to see if the proton's size is even smaller. It is a pity the life span is so short though.
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 09, 2010
You're right. Actually, the very same effect, which is causing the proton "shrinkage" (i.e. the cloud of more dense vacuum around proton) could make tauon slightly more stable at the close proximity of proton in similar way, like the neutron becomes stable inside of atom nuclei. It's basically a sort of strangelet formation mechanism.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2010
I don't assume anything - Bohr's model is NOT defined so and I cannot change its definition. You should ask Mr. Bohr for it.

You do not know your physics: Bohr went to work with Rutherfored and accepted that the electrons MUST orbit the nucleus. He then postulated a rule in terms of the orbital momentum which supposedly allows an electron to circle the nucleus in a stable orbit. He could NOT give a reason why this rule works. De Broglie later gave a reason; but unfortunately de Broglie's reason is also wrong since it is not physically possible to have a stable circular wave with nodes along the circle.

Why not, it doesn't affect the final result anyway. Just instead of magnetic atom observed you'll get the magnetic observer - that's all.

OK: the electron and proton then circle the axis at different distances. The overall effect is that their joint centre of charge circles the axis. Guess what is the charge at their centre of charge? ZERO. No magnetic moment!!
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2010
Guess what is the charge at their centre of charge?
Are you absolutely sure, that just at the center of mass of proton-electron or proton-muon system is zero intensity of electrostatic component of EM field? Why just at the center of mass? Because around this center the whole hydrogen atom actually rotates... It doesn't care about place, where positive charge of proton is compensated by negative charge of electron.
it is not physically possible to have a stable circular wave with nodes along the circle
Why not, if this circle is actually a surface slice of sphere and this sphere is formed by gradient of energy density. After then the electron is undulating like floater at the small planet full of water - because water surface is nothing else, but some gradient of energy density, too.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2010
Are you absolutely sure, that just at the center of mass of proton-electron or proton-muon system is zero intensity of electrostatic component of EM field? Why just at the center of mass?

PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES: I wrote that the proton-CHARGE and the electron-CHARGE, has a joint CENTRE OF CHARGE. At this centre the effective charge is ZERO! When the electron and proton rotates jointly around their centre of mass, this CENTRE OF CHARGE IS NOT AT THE CENTRE-OF MASS: IT ROTATES AROUND THE CENTRE OF MASS AND THUS REPRESENTS A ZERO CURRENT!!!! Therefore no magnetic moment.

Why not, .
In this case the wave MUST have a single frequency AND must have polar symmetry around the nucleus. The wave AMPLITUDE is thus the product of an ANGULAR component and a RADIAL one. When solving the radial wave equation it MUST have THE SAME SPATIAL INTENSITY-DISTRIBUTION ALONG ALL RADIAL DIRECTIONS. IF THERE ARE NODES ALONG THE CIRCUMFERENCE, THIS MANDATORY SYMMETRY IS NOT POSSIBLE.

Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2010
..In this case the wave MUST have a single frequency AND must have polar symmetry around the nucleus..
Actually it hasn't. The traces of quantization can be observed even in planetary system as so called gravitational resonance. From this perspective the planets aren't revolving the gravitational field of Sun - they're floating and undulating on it.

http://tinyurl.com/33k2yya
http://en.wikiped...esonance

Note that the rotation of planets is never completely symmetric, as the planets aren't revolving the Sun, but the common center of mass. It means, we can expect the gradual establishing of mutual orbital resonance even in simple binary system. At the quantum scale these effects are just exaggerated in magnitude and time scale.
Jigga
1 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2010
BTW Isn't it just you, who is promoting here all the time, everything is "just a wave"? You should be more consequential with your theory at times...;-)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2010
Jigga,
How about sticking to the subject and using logic? Your postings about "gravitational resonance" etc. are clearly an admission BY YOU that you cannot counter my logic which proves without doubt that:
1. The "Bohr atom" for hydrogen, although claiming that it models the presence of a magnetic moment, does NOT really model it, since an electron and a proton CIRCLING EACH OTHER have NO, AND CAN NEVER HAVE, A JOINT magnetic moment,
AND
2. That a circular wave with nodes along its circumference cannot be a solution of a harmonic wave equation EVER. Any circular harmonic wave MUST ALWAYS have THE SAME INTENSITY DISTRIBUTION ALONG ANY RADIAL DIRECTION.

This is simple undergraduate physics, my man!! Maybe you should at least try and read a book on VERY ELEMENTARY PHYSICS?
wingnut1
not rated yet Jul 10, 2010
If this discovery is not the result of some error or fraud, then it is clearly revolutionary. Kudos to Dr. Pohl and the team for this great work.
It's hilarious that some of you try to suppose you know so certainly why this experiment resulted as such. Please leave the real work to the big boys.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2010
Jigga,
Even the "wing" added to your "new" name does NOT hide the fact that you are a REAL NUT meandering through a field of demented physics!
Shootist
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2010
The difference probably is the effect of compactified extradimensions near proton (the same situation could be observed near black holes, which should appear the smaller, the more we approach to them)


Is that before or after spaghettification?
Jigga
1.9 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2010
For the calculation of proton charge radius from the measured Lamb shift, the paper uses a relation of the form

*Delta E_Lamb = A + B r2 + C r3,

where the coefficients A, B, and C involve various QED calculations, which are explained in the freely available supplement with plenty of references - but is not that specific about what is taken into in the calculations and what might be missing.

Bohr radius of hydrogen atom is 5.3 x 10-11 m, whereas proton diameter is 0.876 x 10-15 m, i.e. 500.000x smaller. The replacement of electron by muon will still keep the proton 30.000x smaller, then the whole atom - the proton cannot shrink by 4% during this. My point simply is, all these corrections apply to stationary proton with fixed center of mass, not the proton, which is moving under influence of relatively heavy muon. I don't expect, this effect could explain whole 4% difference in proton charge radius found, but it should be considered definitely, too.
Jigga
1.9 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2010
Is that before or after spaghettification?
Actually during fall of object into black hole the causal time arrow splits and you can consider different descriptions from both reference frame of observer, both reference frame of object fallen.

http://jakesmith.me/?p=65

We should be prepared for the fact, the reference frame of falling object may disappear, when the object will occasionally evaporate into accretion radiation. Existence of extradimensions is no mystery here - it simply says, the object is affected by short distance forces, which doesn't follow inverse square law. At the proximity of massive objects such inverse square law is violated by Casimir force and various dipole forces, but surprisingly nobody considers it a manifestation of extradimensions - contemporary physics is not apparently prepared to such formalism.

Anyway, the similar effects could manifest at the close proximity of proton.
barakn
1 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2010
OK: the electron and proton then circle the axis at different distances. The overall effect is that their joint centre of charge circles the axis. Guess what is the charge at their centre of charge? ZERO. No magnetic moment!!

A circular wire loop interrupted only by a small power supply has electrons circling along it. The overall effect is that their joint centre of charge circles the axis (at zero radius). Guess what is the charge at their centre of charge? ZERO. No magnetic moment!! Brought to you by the johanfprins School of Physics.