Theory of the strong interaction verified

March 26, 2015, Forschungszentrum Juelich
Supercomputer JUQUEEN. Credit: Forschungszentrum Jülich

The fact that the neutron is slightly more massive than the proton is the reason why atomic nuclei have exactly those properties that make our world and ultimately our existence possible. Eighty years after the discovery of the neutron, a team of physicists from France, Germany, and Hungary headed by Zoltán Fodor, a researcher from Wuppertal, has finally calculated the tiny neutron-proton mass difference. The findings, which have been published in the current edition of Science, are considered a milestone by many physicists and confirm the theory of the strong interaction. As one of the most powerful computers in the world, JUQUEEN at Forschungszentrum Jülich was decisive for the simulation.

The existence and stability of atoms relies heavily on the fact that neutrons are slightly more mas-sive than protons. The experimentally determined masses differ by only around 0.14 percent. A slightly smaller or larger value of the mass difference would have led to a dramatically different universe, with too many neutrons, not enough hydrogen, or too few heavier elements. The tiny mass difference is the reason why free neutrons decay on average after around ten minutes, while protons - the unchanging building blocks of matter - remain stable for a practically unlimited period.

In 1972, about 40 years after the discovery of the neutron by Chadwick in 1932, Harald Fritzsch (Germany), Murray Gell-Mann (USA), and Heinrich Leutwyler (Switzerland) presented a consistent theory of particles and forces that form the neutron and the proton known as quantum chromodynamics. Today, we know that protons and neutrons are composed of "up quarks" and "down quarks". The proton is made of one down and two up quarks, while the neutron is composed of one up and two down quarks.

Illustration of a Rydberg quantum crystal. The atoms (green) are regular arranged on an optical lattice. When laser light couples the ground Rydberg states, all but a few excitations (red) are suppressed due to the strong Rydberg state interactions. These excitations are strongly correlated (illustrated in the blue spheres) and arrange themselves to form Rydberg crystal. Credit: Immanuel Bloch

Simulations on supercomputers over the last few years confirmed that most of the mass of the proton and neutron results from the energy carried by their quark constituents in accordance with Einstein's formula E=mc2. However, a small contribution from the electromagnetic field surrounding the electrically charged proton should make it about 0.1 percent more massive than the neutral neutron. The fact that the mass is measured to be larger is evidently due to the different masses of the quarks, as Fodor and his team have now shown in extremely complex simulations.

For the calculations, the team developed a new class of simulation techniques combining the laws of with those of quantum electrodynamics in order to precisely deter-mine the effects of electromagnetic interactions. By controlling all error sources, the scientists suc-cessfully demonstrated how finely tuned the forces of nature are.

Professor Kurt Binder is Chairman of the Scientific Council of the John von Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC) and member of the German Gauss Centre for Supercomputing. Both organizations allocate computation time on JUQUEEN to users in a competitive process. "Only using world-class computers, such as those available to the science community at Forschungszentrum Jülich, was it possible to achieve this milestone in computer simulation," says Binder. JUQUEEN was supported in the process by its "colleagues" operated by the French science organizations CNRS and GENCI as well as by the computing centres in Garching (LRZ) and Stuttgart (HLRS).

The results of this work by Fodor's team of physicists from Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Centre de Physique Théorique de Marseille, Eötvös University Budapest, and Forschungszentrum Jülich open the door to a new generation of simulations that will be used to determine the properties of , gluons, and nuclear particles. According to Professor Kálmán Szabó from Forschungszentrum Jülich, "In future, we will be able to test the standard model of elementary particle physics with a tenfold increase in precision, which could possibly enable us to identify effects that would help us to uncover new physics beyond the standard model."

Explore further: How CERN's discovery of exotic particles may affect astrophysics

More information: Ab initio calculation of the neutron-proton mass difference, www.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/ … 1126/science.1257050

Related Stories

Hunting the unseen

July 15, 2011

A better knowledge about the composition of sub-atomic particles such as protons and neutrons has sparked conjecture about, as yet, unseen particles. A tool based on theoretical calculations that could aid the search for ...

Explainer: What are fundamental particles?

March 20, 2015

It is often claimed that the Ancient Greeks were the first to identify objects that have no size, yet are able to build up the world around us through their interactions. And as we are able to observe the world in tinier ...

Recommended for you

Magnetoresistance ratio enhancement in Heusler-based alloy

December 18, 2018

Magnetic field sensors can enhance applications that require efficient electric energy management. Improving magnetic field sensors below the picoTesla range could enable a technique to measure brain activity at room temperature ...

33 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FredZ
3 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2015
So does all this explain "cold fusion"/LENR/LANR/CANR/schmener, or what?
Bob one
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2015
It makes it obvious the universe was designed by God.
JoeBlue
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2015
So they did this through simulations, and haven't verified with actual experimentation then...
pmsa_tanpham
1 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2015
the concept of mass cannot exist...it is as if there are physical properties that describe what we normal humans understand as mass...if there is such mass property, then then is physical property...but if there is physical property, then what makes up that physical property? it is therefore, everything in this universe, based on human understanding, is mathematics...
Dethe
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
The mass of neutron and proton can be calculated a way more effectively from entropic balance, if you understand their geometry. Compare also fifty years old calculations of Burkhard Heim and their precision. But the existing way provides more occupation and jobs for physicists involved, so it's not about to be replaced so easily. It's similar principle of ignorance, like at the case of cold fusion - just in the field of theory, not experiments.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2015
the concept of mass cannot exist.....


You obviously haven't met my mother in law.
PhotonX
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2015
It makes it obvious the universe was designed by God.
It makes it even more obvious that there is a multiverse, a near infinite number of universes among which some that allow matter and life to form are a statistical certainty to exist.
.
.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2015
I think the universe might have been designed by a committee working under tight budget and time constraints. All this fine-tuning suggests that it barely hangs together. I think they should start over with a clean sheet of paper.

Be careful what you wish for....
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2015
To all those who keep blabbing about "scientists are invested in the status quo" (are you hearing me, Zeph?): Read the last sentence of the article. Read it again. Read it yet again.

Then realize: you have wasted your life. You have spent years and years fighting an imagined state of affairs that was never real.
Reg Mundy
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2015
According to Professor Kálmán Szabó from Forschungszentrum Jülich, "In future, we will be able to test the standard model of elementary particle physics with a tenfold increase in precision, which could possibly enable us to identify effects that would help us to uncover new physics beyond the standard model."

In the end, I expect we will find that THE elementary particle consists of two or more electrical charges orbiting each other.....
KBK
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2015
To all those who keep blabbing about "scientists are invested in the status quo" (are you hearing me, Zeph?): Read the last sentence of the article. Read it again. Read it yet again.

Then realize: you have wasted your life. You have spent years and years fighting an imagined state of affairs that was never real.


Actually, there ARE gatekeepers and they Do indeed block technology. After WWII, the race of high technology in black ops continued at a breakneck speed. It was never released. It continues to build at a terrific rate, outside of the public sciences.

It is calculated that the black ops physics is at least 2,000 years ahead of what we see today and the rate of change we know today.

So, little zippy gatekeeper dood...what will you do to those who actually investigate what I say? those who turn to check on it...that say that I'm correct and these thing are hidden?

All a person has to do, is go and look. It won't be in the places you know and understand...
rufusgwarren
not rated yet Mar 30, 2015
Are we neglecting that the breakup of a neutron into a proton and an electron and maybe radiation(dq/dt)? So either static of dynamic field that would separate an electron and a proton binding. How many ways may they-be-bound? Separation as a result of boundary conditions elasticity, or a surrounding field, i.e. causal affect of separation. This would also identify the set of minimal energy state of a cluster of electrons and protons identified as protons and neutrons, "confinement."
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
black ops physics is at least 2,000 years ahead
@kbk
not
1- due to human nature, the tech would have gotten out simply by its use and spies
2- you are ASSuming wrong re: black ops
3- Black ops is not some super secret science tech group hiding stuff from the world... they use tech, yes, they use stuff not typically seen... true,
but it is not equipment that is 2000 years (or even 20 years) more advanced than anyone else or anyone in the world, etc

Also, a black op is
a covert operation by a government, a government agency, or a military organization. This can include activities by private companies or groups. Key features of a black operation are that it is clandestine, it has negative overtones, and it is not attributable to the organization carrying it out.[1]
https://en.wikipe...peration
Sigh
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Actually, there ARE gatekeepers and they Do indeed block technology. After WWII, the race of high technology in black ops continued at a breakneck speed. It was never released. It continues to build at a terrific rate, outside of the public sciences.

It is calculated that the black ops physics is at least 2,000 years ahead of what we see today and the rate of change we know today.

Would you let anyone else see that calculation? Does it include how the people who win Nobel prizes today failed to notice that the half of their university classmates who were better than them never publish their research? Because you would have to divert at least the top half of students to get just 20 years advance in 70 years, never mind 2000 years.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
It is calculated that the black ops physics is at least 2,000 years ahead

Wow...you're just pulling random numbers and statements out of thin air, aren't you? (Thinnner than usual, at least)

'black ops physics'? Do you even read what you write?
But yeah: continue wasting your life battling non existent dangers. There's actually a name for your medical condition: Quixotism.
KBK
2 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2015
Nice little gate-keeping job, there, boys. high fives all around.

Keep the ignorant in their 5 minute circular logic limited depth box.

It's a deep series of subjects that requires a deep look. Just like any of the scientific paths considered here.

Those with the curiosity, capacity, and qualities required, will look around and find what I'm speaking about. Or they know about it already.

The rest of the kittens and puppies.... will be chased back into the box.

Psychology 101 as played out in the world of propaganda and human interaction. Some done by propagandists/gatekeepers... and some of it done by the ignorant within their cardboard box of a world.
Dethe
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
you have wasted your life. You have spent years and years fighting an imagined state of affairs that was never real
Just wait few years...;-) But now I'm not promoting my ideas, but the insights of another people, who already developed more efficient methods for calculations of particle properties. These people didn't waste their life - it's the people, who are using less effective methods for it for the sake of their safe jobs. Every sane person would check instead, how/why is it possible, that the Heim's mass formula works so well, instead of development of its own methods - don't you think? Now the scientists are behaving like the medieval shamans, who kept their tribe in dumbness just for to keep their informational monopoly.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2015
Reg Mundy claimed
In the end, I expect we will find that THE elementary particle consists of two or more electrical charges orbiting each other.....
Ok then the charges MUST sum locally and there is NO nett electromagnetic (EM) effect, then gravity has MORE power - obvious isn't it.

Where is your math Reg Mundy, to replace Gravity or prove its wrong, any math at all ?

Any math to counter whats need to stay in orbit or even launch to space, anything please ?

Any math to explain why EM does not affect Earth's orbit around the Sun, any at all please ?

Any math in your vague idea Reg Mundy ?

Any at all ?

You know Forces, Energies, Velocities, Masses etc

Any maths at all - even a little, anything to start to work with, anything PLEASE ?
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2015
@M-M
Generally, I leave the mathematical modelling to furbrain, who can counter any of my arguments with sound high-school algebra based on establishment tenets. But here are some thoughts for you:-
Assuming mass/energy equivalence, two opposite electrical charges each have a small mass component which, as they approach each other, will become more massive as the closer they are the faster they will move until near-light speed. Effectively then, you have converted electrical charges into mass (incidentally, this could be an explanation for DM, as two charges approach each other but at velocities and angles which do not form orbits (i.e. matter) and thus produce transient mass which we cannot detect in our universe which consists solely of matter.). Now, I could trot out equations for all this, but you would quite rightly point out that I am merely paraphasing Einstein, which you could do as well (if not better) than me. Be my guest....
By the way, why should EM affect Earth's orbit?
Hakan1997
1 / 5 (1) Apr 22, 2015
Some insights into black ops physics

https://www.youtu...otth4BJY
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2015
Reg Mundy claimed
Generally, I leave the mathematical modelling to furbrain, who can counter any of my arguments with sound high-school algebra based on establishment tenets
No. Not models, YOUR basic formula pls ?

Reg Mundy asked with contrived assumption
Assuming mass/energy equivalence, two opposite electrical charges each have a small mass component which, as they approach each other, will become more massive as the closer they are the faster they will move until near-light speed
They will ONLY become more massive from external (relativistic) perspective of the energy used to accelerate them from THAT external reference frame, admittedly it is a hard concept to appreciate but, there is evidence for it AND that evidence is consistent with the Lorentz factor re increased mass/energy.

You digress Reg Mundy, in order to make ANY comparative sense re your idea that gravity doesnt exist & evidence it does is to offer any contrary maths, simple equation ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2015
Hakan1997 with a video from a game
Some insights into black ops physics
https://www.youtu...otth4BJY
Huh ?
How is this video relevant - either to the topic of the article or as ANY retort in respect of any comments, the maths or physics or anything to point to an alternative or any value with any sort of useful experimental design etc etc A video game of people killing each other is pretty lame on a Science site !

Science dialectic & communication is NOT a game, please go elsewhere or contribute a useful item.
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2015
@Mike_Mastoid
They will ONLY become more massive from external (relativistic) perspective

So what perspective are YOU viewing them from?
Look, its not my idea that gravity does not exist as a force, its Newton's idea that it does! There is absolutely no proof either way, but my explanation of it does not require the invention of a magical force that you cannot remove, create, deflect, shield against, etc., whereas Newton's does. Even Einstein didn't think gravity was a force, but he invented dimples in the fabric of space/time to explain it. C'mon, why am I considered a crackpot for suggesting a perfectly logical explanation? I cannot provide the conclusive argument here, it requires the whole theory of time itself, as well as expansion theory, etc. But I only ask you to consider things logically without prior assumption that gravity exists as a force, as decide which argument is more likely, magical force or expansion theory.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2015
@Reg Mundy
1.Evidence showns you intend to be offensive because you are impolite re names.
ie.I do NOT call you "Reg Munt brain" or "Reg fuck head" or ANYTHING like that.
Your narrow, impolite nature starts out TRYING to destroy any dialectic, that makes you VERY stupid.

2.Your post, Force is measurable as a Force in Newtons or Kg etc. Anything re what someone wanted is irrelevant, the FACT is Nasa & others deal with it as a FORCE nicely.

FACT you replied without maths doesnt help. Gravity is not magical

Re relativity, TRY to understand it works, eg GPS etc, Voyager, Pioneer re corrections for radio communications etc It exists, is measurable, confirmed at many levels.

Gravity measured, confirmed on empirical basis, Force.

Be polite & get basic education in Physics & Maths then you might get something to converge on an essential true re nature's various forces PROVEN to exist, until then you are a crackpot selling a book evidently without maths, ie Goes NOWHERE !
Reg Mundy
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2015
@M_M
OK, no funny names,seeing as you are so paranoid about it.
2.Your post, Force is measurable as a Force in Newtons or Kg etc. Anything re what someone wanted is irrelevant, the FACT is Nasa & others deal with it as a FORCE nicely.

Exactly the same results are measured without gravity, substituting expansion. For example, in the so-called Cavendish Experiment, the force being measured is that which is required to accelerate the globes apart to keep them at the OBSERVED distance when both expand according to their mass.
Try to think of an example where the force of gravity cannot be replaced by expansion - bet you can't!
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2015
Reg Mundy claimed
OK, no funny names,seeing as you are so paranoid about it
No.
Its called being polite & since you have plenty of room you can paste my full name so it avoids
chance of confusion with anyone else with initials MM, especially so such that google searches are most efficient. Reg Mundy not about you & me, these forums will likely stay for considerable period, please consider others long after we all disappear.

Appropriate to address ONE issue at a time, in that regards your claim
Exactly the same results are measured without gravity, substituting expansion
Can't you see that without any maths you CANNOT have credibility a claim of "Exactly" eg for one, error bars

Eg I can claim

".. my ERPSE 'entropic relational probability spatial exclusion' has 'Exactly' same results as classic F=G0m1m2/d^2 so THERE you see, that means classic formula isn't proof of gravity & mine MUST be better because its exact"

See the immense problem re maths ?

cont
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2015
continued @Reg Mundy,

Anyone can craft ANY interpretive descriptive claim their theory is just as good & Exactly same results, this is NOT part of the Scientific Method as it sidesteps the Discipline of connecting theory with necessary underlying mathematics. Results need math !

To make it really simple as possible use the straightforward high school equations re mass/energy ie need NOT delve into the more complex 1st sem uni items Eg Lorentz, GR or SR etc.

ie. For Earth to start, G.Potential Energy (Pe) equals Mass x G x Height -> units [Kg.m.m/s^2]
https://en.wikipe..._gravity

Eg Mass of 10Kgs, G=9.81m/s^2, Height = 100m;

Pe = 10 x 9.81 x 100 [Kg.m.m/s^2] = 9810 Joules

Units energy, measured, proven for >100yrs obviously with measurement error bars.

What is YOUR formula from YOUR claim "..measured without gravity, substituting expansion" please ?

Without convergence on a math basic, it stops Here !
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2015
....an essential [truth] re nature's various forces PROVEN to exist


Natural forces are catagorically not 'proven to exist'. The concept of 'force' is simply a means of describing a causation; In the present case Newton chose 'force', while general relativity does not make use of the notion of force to descibe gravitation, but rather a metric on space and time components of measure.

RegMundy, is also confused in stating that 'gravity does not exist'. Gravitation is an empirical effect that exists independent of theory.
Noumenon
not rated yet Apr 23, 2015
The expansionist idea (not a theory) produces, an order of magnitude more conceptual problems then it elucidates. This link, is all that needs to be said.
Reg Mundy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2015
@Noumenon
@Mike_Massen
(kindly note the correct use of names....)
N., your link (much quoted by others) says:-
" For example, the expansion interpretation would imply that the acceleration of gravity is strictly dependant only on the size of an object, rather than on it's mass. Also, the expansion interpretation would imply that the acceleration of gravity is independent of distance, rather than varying inversely as the square of the distance. Thus the two most salient features of gravitational acceleration – being proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance – are both inconsistent with the expansion interpretation. In addition, it's clear that orbital motion cannot be accounted for in terms of purely radial expansion of massive objects."
This is typical of woolly thinking quoted as fact.
Acceleration due to expansion is dependent on mass, not size. Imagine(contd..
Reg Mundy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2015
@Noumenon
@Mike_Massen
cont.) Imagine the Earth consists of a hollow sphere, uniform thickness say one mile. When the mass of the material in that shell increases relative to its mass, the sphere expands. Any student of physics will tell you what happens to a hole when the material surrounding it expands (look it up yourself), and you will realise that the first sentence quoted from your link is nonsense when density of material is taken into account. The second sentence is no better, as there is NO acceleration due to gravity, it only seems to us there is. In free-fall, gravity has no effect, but the Erath rushes up to meet us at ever accelerating velocity.
Finally, the old chesnut about orbits. Some idiot drew a diagram showing that when the Moon dropped below the horizon, expansion could no longer explain orbits. The illogic was breathtaking, but it has been quoted a thousand times. If you want an expanation of how expansion causes orbits, you will have to look elsewhere,
Reg Mundy
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2015
@Noumenon
@Mike_Massen
Finally, I would just like to say that the link
http://www.mathpa...h077.htm
you provide points to one of the sloppest pieces of logic it has ever been my misfortune to read, and consists of passages taken from equally stupid prior articles written by people who should have known better. Even his diagram is based on the premise that there is a starting moment in time, whereas it is evident that no moment in time takes precedent over any other, so every moment (or quantum of time) must be considered stand-alone. Why is the moment when his orbiting object is directly above his north pole any different from when it is at ninety degrees?
TehDog
5 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2015
@Mike_Massen, I think Hakan1997 was making fun of the idea of "black-ops physics"
The clip is from a very popular online game, and the engine used (Source) is notorious for these odd effects. To a player, such events are cause for hilarity, for non-gamers, not so much :)
On-topic, keep up the good work :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.