Why a new physics theory could rewrite the textbooks

January 27, 2016
Dyson equation for the nucleon polarization (shaded bubble). For the longitudinal polarization the photon-nucleon vertex is given by the zeroth component of the current operator. Credit: arXiv:1506.05875 [nucl-th]

Scientists are closer to changing everything we know about one of the basic building blocks of the universe, according to an international group of physics experts involving the University of Adelaide.

If the theory is correct, it would force years of experiments to be reinterpreted, and would see the textbooks on rewritten.

In a paper published online in the prestigious journal Physical Review Letters, a team of three physicists from the United States, Japan and Australia have predicted that the structure of could be proven to change inside the nucleus of an atom under certain conditions.

"Atoms contain protons and electrons, but they also have their own internal structure comprised of quarks and gluons – these are what we consider to be the basic building blocks of matter," says co-author Professor Anthony Thomas, Australian Research Council Laureate Fellow and Elder Professor of Physics at the University of Adelaide.

"For many scientists, the idea that the internal structure of protons might change under certain circumstances can seem absurd, even sacrilegious. To others like myself, evidence of this internal change is highly sought after and would help to explain some inconsistencies in theoretical ."

While this theorised change in the of protons has not yet been discovered, it is currently being put to the test at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator facility in the US, in experiments designed by this research team.

"By firing a beam of electrons at an you can measure the difference in energy of the outgoing electrons, representing the changed state. We are making some fairly strong predictions about what the outcomes of those tests will show, and we're hopeful of a definitive measurement," Professor Thomas says.

"While the principle of the experiment itself is relatively simple, making the measurements reliable and accurate is extremely demanding, requiring a state-of-the-art machine like that at Jefferson Lab, and skilled experimenters.

"The ramifications for the scientific world are significant. This is about as high stakes as it gets in science. It could represent a new paradigm for nuclear physics."

Explore further: New method to better understand atomic nuclei

More information: Ian C. Cloët et al. Relativistic and Nuclear Medium Effects on the Coulomb Sum Rule, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.032701 , On Arxiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05875

Related Stories

New method to better understand atomic nuclei

September 24, 2015

The precise structure of atomic nuclei is an old problem that has not been fully solved yet, and it also constitutes a current research focus in the field of natural sciences. Together with colleagues from Bonn University, ...

Jefferson Lab Accelerator delivers its first 12 GeV electrons

December 22, 2015

The newly upgraded accelerator at the U.S. Department of Energy's Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility has delivered full-energy electrons as part of commissioning activities for the ongoing 12 GeV Upgrade project. ...

Calcium-48's 'neutron skin' thinner than previously thought

November 2, 2015

An international team led by Gaute Hagen of the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory used America's most powerful supercomputer, Titan, to compute the neutron distribution and related observables of calcium-48, ...

Recommended for you

New type of electron lens for next-generation colliders

October 18, 2017

Sending bunches of protons speeding around a circular particle collider to meet at one specific point is no easy feat. Many different collider components work keep proton beams on course—and to keep them from becoming unruly.

42 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shavera
4.2 / 5 (12) Jan 27, 2016
I feel like articles like this are how crackpots get started. What's the structure? How does it change? No real science information communicated. Just "Protons have structure, and maybe it's different than we thought, and maybe it changes?"

It doesn't seem all that hard to read an article like this and then fill in the blanks with your vortex dank ether wave plasma.
Azrael
4.1 / 5 (18) Jan 27, 2016
While I agree that the article could have been written "better", there are some educated guesses we could make about what the author was attempting to convey.

1. Author acknowledges that protons have an underlying structure.
2. Author correctly states that protons are composed of quarks.
3. A change in the structure of the proton necessarily will include changes to the arrangement, quantity, types, masses, or charges of quarks.

What that proposed change is... was entirely left out.

I don't think the crackpots really need reasons to believe gobbedygook. They'll believe in their pet theories regardless of the evidence; hence all the "like water strider at waters surface nested black hole quantum foam Brownian noise dense aether everything's plasma made of plasma inside plasma of the neutron star inside the sun and Earth" nonsense.
promile
Jan 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promile
Jan 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
theprocessionist
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2016
Fits in perfectly with my model, called The Big Drag, wherein the multiverse is a multidimensional, scalar wave interference pattern, in causal loop with the fractal of manifold point orbits, or "string orbits." There's a lot to it, but, it comes together to create a quantum semiconductor, and the interference pattern, while not static, does create what one theorist has called, "time crystals." ( The whole structure is a black hole. ;) )
promile
Jan 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
indio007
3 / 5 (6) Jan 27, 2016
"For many scientists, the idea that the internal structure of protons might change under certain circumstances can seem absurd, even sacrilegious."

This guy knows the score.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 27, 2016
I don't think the crackpots really need reasons to believe gobbedygook.


I believe in the infinite self compression of matter under it's own gravity, that 4/5 of the matter in the universe is undetectable, that the CMB is a 13.75 billion year old echo and that I can use redshift as evidence that space itself is expanding. I believe that stable particles are made up of many unstable ones and that the universe underwent a period of faster than light expansion where all of the matter was initially in one "spot" and the spot grew into the universe due to forces I cannot pin down. I can prove all of this with math.

Cool story bro.
promile
Jan 27, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
theprocessionist
1 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2016
I don't think the crackpots really need reasons to believe gobbedygook.


I believe in the infinite self compression of matter under it's own gravity, that 4/5 of the matter in the universe is undetectable, that the CMB is a 13.75 billion year old echo and that I can use redshift as evidence that space itself is expanding. I believe that stable particles are made up of many unstable ones and that the universe underwent a period of faster than light expansion where all of the matter was initially in one "spot" and the spot grew into the universe due to forces I cannot pin down. I can prove all of this with math.

Cool story bro.
Actually, when properly understood, the red shift is evidence against classic expansion and the CMB can be explained in another way - each universe is a photon sphere. By my calculations, the universe is, at a minimum, almost 57 billion years old. The red shift is caused by time dilation, because the universe is in a gravity well.
theprocessionist
1 / 5 (11) Jan 27, 2016
I will agree, though, that matter is becoming smaller - along with space - while time is getting larger. This is how time dilation works. The is why the speed of light is increasing by the extremely slow rate of the 11.4 billionth root of 2 per year. And all of that is caused by gravity.
bschott
3.2 / 5 (10) Jan 27, 2016
I will agree, though, that matter is becoming smaller - along with space - while time is getting larger. This is how time dilation works. The is why the speed of light is increasing by the extremely slow rate of the 11.4 billionth root of 2 per year. And all of that is caused by gravity.


Even cooler story bro!!!
flag
3 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2016
Physicists peering inside the neutron are seeing glimmers of what appears to be an impossible situation. The vexing findings pertain to quarks, which are the main components of neutrons and protons. The quarks, in essence, spin like tops, as do the neutrons and protons themselves. Now, experimenters at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Newport News, Va., have found hints that a single quark can briefly hog most of the energy residing in a neutron, yet spin in the direction opposite to that of the neutron itself, says Science News. The puzzle comes from experiments that aimed to determine how quarks, the building blocks of the proton, are arranged inside that particle. That information is locked inside a quantity that scientists refer to as the proton's electric form factor. https://www.acade...ng_turns
shavera
4.8 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2016
The is why the speed of light is increasing by the extremely slow rate of the 11.4 billionth root of 2 per year.


No... it's not. Maybe you're mistaking a lower bound experiment with the actual rate? Like an experiment that finds *if* it's changing, it can't be changing any faster than _. But it's still far more likely that it's constant over time.
FrankPhys
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2016
I don't know what kind of stuff the author of this piece is on. The idea that you could use an effective chiral quark model (Nambu-Jona-Lasinio applied to quarks in the ArXiv paper) to then debate the fundamental structure of protons is plain silly. That is not what effective quark models are for ... and it is not what the paper is doing! What they do is that they are claiming that of you apply an approximate quark model (because that makes calculations easier than using QCD which is friggin' hard) you find evidence that this improves the explanation of the data relative to models that do not approximate the quark sub-structure. So what the original paper points out is that a full QCD treatment (which will be impossibly difficult) will probably yield even better descriptions of what is actually measured. Which is the opposite of what this sloppy journalist writes in his title.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2016
What that proposed change is... was entirely left out.

You can read the arxiv article here
http://arxiv.org/...06.05875
Hyperfuzzy
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2016
Not likely. There exist evidence, however misinterpreted, that suggest this is not true. Juz say'n

MSEE, controls requirs identification, too much nonessential theoretical BS.
Solon
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2016
"2. Author correctly states that protons are composed of quarks."
According to their models, but they are only models.
Atoms consist of positive and negative electrons. The 'missing' positrons of the standard model are not missing at all.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 27, 2016
They describe a process of "firing a beam of electrons at an atomic nucleus" and measuring "the difference in energy of the outgoing electrons". But they've been firing beams of electrons at nuclei for decades now, presumably with the same effects and the same "differences in energy of the outgoing electrons"! But those were always "explained" by other processes or random effects. Obviously, they can't have been in accordance with conventional theory. They could be considered to fall into the realm of "residuals", effects that defy theory, apparently present in all experiments, that "scientists" regularly throw away rather than admit they were wrong! How many other cases of non agreement with "theory" are they working to keep quiet or deny?
emaalouf
1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2016
This is not new, it hints exactly to spallation theory.

https://www.linke...-maalouf

"Highly excited" neutrinos ejected as by-products of neutron star mergers as the catalysts that instill a change routine into the nucleus of the most abundant element in the universe - Hydrogen isotopes.

Spallation theory challenges the notion that "life" came to earth (or any other planet) in the universe from somewhere else. Instead, highly excited neutrinos reflect some mass (normally mass-less) which when converted equals approximately to the mass of an up quark (2.01 +/- 0.14) MeV.

This research will prove further that all the ingredients for living cell formation exist everywhere in the universe and all that is needed is a catalyst to jump start the process (under the right conditions ofcourse; Goldilocks zones).

The core engine of "life" is the by-product of the most abundant element effected by the strongest force
Phys1
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 28, 2016
Fits in perfectly with my model, called The Big Drag, wherein the multiverse is a multidimensional, scalar wave interference pattern, in causal loop with the fractal of manifold point orbits, or "string orbits." There's a lot to it, but, it comes together to create a quantum semiconductor, and the interference pattern, while not static, does create what one theorist has called, "time crystals." ( The whole structure is a black hole. ;) )

Very funny !
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 28, 2016
Excellent impersonation of a crank.
viko_mx
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2016
The scientists must start from the answer of the question where are recorded physical laws and constants. What ensures the exact quantitative relationship between the fundamental forces? This is the base for the partially understanding of the physical world in which we are living.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2016
Fits in perfectly with my model, called The Big Drag, wherein the multiverse is a multidimensional, scalar wave interference pattern, in causal loop with the fractal of manifold point orbits, or "string orbits." There's a lot to it, but, it comes together to create a quantum semiconductor, and the interference pattern, while not static, does create what one theorist has called, "time crystals." ( The whole structure is a black hole. ;) )


I dare anybody, especially the 1st Semester Physics guy, to prove this is wrong.
bschott
3.1 / 5 (8) Jan 29, 2016
Fits in perfectly with my model, called The Big Drag, wherein the multiverse is a multidimensional, scalar wave interference pattern, in causal loop with the fractal of manifold point orbits, or "string orbits." There's a lot to it, but, it comes together to create a quantum semiconductor, and the interference pattern, while not static, does create what one theorist has called, "time crystals." ( The whole structure is a black hole. ;) )


I dare anybody, especially the 1st Semester Physics guy, to prove this is wrong.


If the processionist has done the math on it than it's a lock.

Bye bye standard model.

Phys1
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2016
@Benni
Here is how your method works. You make a statement without foundation You repeat it. Next you use it in every post as the indisputable truth.
That is not how science works. That is how cranks work.
Phys1
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2016
@bullschitt
Tragic.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2016
@Benni
Here is how your method works. You make a statement without foundation You repeat it. Next you use it in every post as the indisputable truth.
That is not how science works. That is how cranks work.


Awwww, Phys 1, Mr 1st semester physics guy. The first mistake you made was in coming to a science site with sign-on handle of "Phys 1", this simply broadcasts all over the place that you never made it to 2nd semester physics because your grade in 1st semester physics wasn't a high enough qualifying pre-requisite.

Now you imagine your name calling routines raises your IQ about 50 points. Got an equation for that?
Phys1
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 29, 2016
Well if it talks like a crank, I call it a crank. Why be polite with the likes of you ?
Are you begging for respect ? This is priceless.
1 could also mean one apple, or 1 anything.
You are jumping to the conclusion that it means 1 semester and then you started believing that this is true. Alas, assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups.
That is how a crank thinks, Benni. You.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 29, 2016
Well if it talks like a crank, I call it a crank. Why be polite with the likes of you ?


1 could also mean one apple, or 1 anything.
Oh no, not quite, more than you realize, sign-on handles can reveal a lot about the mindset of a person doing the posting and you simply give it away as a target so big it can't be missed.

You are jumping to the conclusion that it means 1 semester and then you started believing that this is true.
The Vote Brigade you harbor for followers on this site tells enough of a tale...........you know, like Ira, Stumpy, etc.

Alas, assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups.
That is how a crank thinks, Benni. You.
So now your IQ is 50 points higher because you've launched yet another foul mouthed profanity routine? Tell me, how does having such a foul mouth make you smarter than myself?
EnsignFlandry
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2016
I feel like articles like this are how crackpots get started. What's the structure? How does it change? No real science information communicated. Just "Protons have structure, and maybe it's different than we thought, and maybe it changes?"

It doesn't seem all that hard to read an article like this and then fill in the blanks with your vortex dank ether wave plasma.


1. How much detail do you think most readers could understand? :-)
2. I've proven the vortex dark ether wave plasma theory. No one will publish my paper!
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016
Well if it talks like a crank, I call it a crank. Why be polite with the likes of you ?
Are you begging for respect ? This is priceless.
1 could also mean one apple, or 1 anything.
You are jumping to the conclusion that it means 1 semester and then you started believing that this is true. Alas, assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups.
That is how a crank thinks, Benni. You.


Stumpy, welcome back from your ban.

Tough getting up in the morning not being able to run your foul mouth all over the place is that it? Well, that's retirement for you when there's nothing else to do.
Phys1
4 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2016
@Benni
You are jumping to conclusions as always.
If you want to impress, you have to come up with something better.
Why don't you start making sense ? Just a friendly suggestion.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016


Stumpy, welcome back from your ban.

Tough getting up in the morning not being able to run your foul mouth all over the place is that it? Well, that's retirement for you when there's nothing else to do.


@Benni

Captain Stumpy has not been banned.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2016
Personally? I think these guys are sayin', "All quarks are created similar, but not exactly equal..."
That's a good start.
And guess what. That's the nature of quantum entities.
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016


Stumpy, welcome back from your ban.

Tough getting up in the morning not being able to run your foul mouth all over the place is that it? Well, that's retirement for you when there's nothing else to do.


@Benni

Captain Stumpy has not been banned.


How do you know that? ........Maybe you've got a Differential Equation for that claim?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2016
Personally? I think these guys are sayin', "All quarks are created similar, but not exactly equal..."

Hmm... sounds like the Commie quark. "All quarks are equal, but some are more equal than others"
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2016

@Benni

Captain Stumpy has not been banned.


How do you know that? ........Maybe you've got a Differential Equation for that claim?


It's all about priorities. Right now dealing with cranks and jerks is not very important to Captain Stumpy.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 02, 2016
Lets all report every message of Benni until this infection is dealt with.
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2016
Captain Stumpy has not been banned.


Perhaps he learned that if you have absolutely nothing intelligent to say, not to say anything.

Follow his lead and stick to the rating system.

It's all about priorities. Right now dealing with cranks and jerks is not very important to Captain Stumpy.


So he did learn. Glad you two have talked...and shared what's really important. When Cranks refer to cranks as cranks it makes my day.

phxmarker
not rated yet Feb 09, 2016
Confirmation of the resolution to the proton radius problem here: https://drive.goo...mp;pli=1
phxmarker
not rated yet Feb 09, 2016
Corrected link: (for proton radius and proton to electron mass ratio)
https://drive.goo...PMC1iNmM

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.