A large team made up of researchers from across the globe has repeated experiments conducted several years ago that showed a different radius for a proton when it was orbited by a muon as opposed to an electron—a finding dubbed the proton radius puzzle—using a deuterium nucleus this time and has found the same puzzle. In their paper published in the journal Science, the team describes the experiments they conducted, what they found and offer a few possible ideas to help dispel the notion that the puzzle indicates that there may be some problems with the Standard Model.
Scientists have been able to calculate the radius of a proton (0.88 ± 0.01 femtometers) for some time using the charge of the electron that orbits around it and doing so has helped confirm theories regarding the Standard Model. But, in trying to improve the accuracy of the measurement by using a negatively charged muon (which orbits closer to the proton), researchers at the Max Planck Institute back in 2010 found a different radius—one that was 7 deviations from what was considered the official value. This proton radius puzzle has had physicists scratching their heads ever since because it suggests there is an error in the Standard Model somewhere. Over the past six years various researchers have offered theories to solve the puzzle, most of which have involved ways to preserve the Standard Model, but to date, the puzzle still remains.
In this latest effort the researchers sought to gain more insight into the problem by adding another piece to the puzzle, a neutron, i.e. by using a deuterium nucleus. Their thinking was that the presence of the neutron would change the way that electrons and muons perceived the proton charge. They report that they found that the measurement they made of the radius of the proton was still different from that found with just an electron and proton, by approximately 7.5 sigma.
The results by the team offer no new explanations for the measurement discrepancies—it remains a puzzle, but they do offer some possible avenues for further investigation, e.g. ways to improve measurements and forcing muons to interact with the protons to see if there might be any evidence of an unknown force at work.
Explore further:
Proton radius puzzle may be solved by quantum gravity
More information: R. Pohl et al, Laser spectroscopy of muonic deuterium, Science (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2468
Abstract
The deuteron is the simplest compound nucleus, composed of one proton and one neutron. Deuteron properties such as the root-mean-square charge radius rd and the polarizability serve as important benchmarks for understanding the nuclear forces and structure. Muonic deuterium μd is the exotic atom formed by a deuteron and a negative muon μ–. We measured three 2S-2P transitions in μd and obtain rd = 2.12562(78) fm, which is 2.7 times more accurate but 7.5σ smaller than the CODATA-2010 value rd = 2.1424(21) fm. The μd value is also 3.5σ smaller than the rd value from electronic deuterium spectroscopy. The smaller rd, when combined with the electronic isotope shift, yields a "small" proton radius rp, similar to the one from muonic hydrogen, amplifying the proton radius puzzle.

shavera
5 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2016It would be interesting if it has something to do with the fact that a muon is very nearly the mass of a pion, and maybe there's some kind of enhancement process there (though by no means am I saying this is the case, or even if it is plausible, it just strikes me as an interesting coincidence).
ReGuess
5 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2016shavera
4.9 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2016But following from your idea, the muon would be even *more* likely to reside within the proton's volume because of its increased mass.
That being said, I'm sure the theorists have already accounted for that changed charge distribution when they speak of what they expect the proton's size to be. What this 'problem' is is that the proton's volume still doesn't match that expectation. (Also the EM force is way way weaker than the strong force, and so maybe it doesn't really affect the size at all)
TheKnowItAll
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2016tinitus
Aug 12, 2016torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2016@daqman: The electron cloud orbitals (or "orbits" in your non-QM model) are decided by EM forces of the particle fields, the masses are negligible and even more mass differences.
There are other sorts of atom radius by the way, but this is the EM one.
@shavera: To nitpick, it is only the low energy S orbital where the electron (or muon) visit the nucleus much. The other orbitals are outside, not that it hinders the electron/muon field ripples (particles) being found inside at very low probability.
@TKIA: http://science.sc...6300/669 (from the Quanta article),
Reg Mundy
1.6 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2016Is the Standard Model worth preserving? There are increasing reasons why it needs a complete rethink.
tinitus
Aug 13, 2016torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2016No, it is very obviously not epicycles. It is self contained, houses the 5 fundamental forces (with the new Higgs boson = interaction), and has 3 generations in both charged and neutral (neutrino) leptons - the same number of neutrino generations predicted by Standard Cosmology. [Planck legacy archive.]
The Standard Model of particles has a lot of non-arbitrary constants that are fitted, and it is unknown why so far.
By the way, the old claim of "epicycles" is philosophical, and rejected by nature: nature insists in being simple. (Say, having just 18 particle fields in Core Theory. [ Low energy quantum physics version of semi-classical physics = Standard Model + graviton; http://www.prepos...-shirts/ ]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2016Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2016just in case you didn't know: you're talking to zephir's latest incarnation/sock
reason, logic and evidence will not be heard, read or considered because it directly contradicts her religious belief in aether/DA etc ... she's only here to proselytize and seek converts
just sayin'
.
.
@regMORON
1- the standard model is based upon empirical evidence and validated physics
2- your own model is based on your personal delusional belief and no evidence (you can't even post valid references or evidence to support your claims)
3- the SM may need adjustment, but all Theories in science likely will need this because we don't have all the info
if anything requires a complete rethink it is your book and pseudoscience beliefs which are proven chronic lies
Captain Stumpy
Aug 13, 2016Reg Mundy
Aug 13, 2016eachus
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2016What do we gain from mapping quarks to magnetic monopoles? It should explain this effect. (Which becomes a test for the theory.) The quantum of magnetic charge will be large compared to the quantum of electric charge, but we already knew that the color force is stronger than the electric part of the electromagnetic force. The fine structure constant then implies a quark has a magnetic charge about 137 times the charge of an electron.
Don't quarks mass much more than this model requires? Not really. Gluons get involved.
Captain Stumpy
Aug 13, 2016Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2016Given only two diametrical spherical fields can be shown as necessary and sufficient to define atoms and space. One should not overestimate to zero the effects of all charge within every space.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2016Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2016I meant the SM is unnecessary and not sufficient.
ThunderDolts
Aug 16, 2016RNP
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2016A bunch of unmitigated rubbish! Scientifically inspired word salad. No basis in any form of reality.
There! I got that off my chest.