Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

The Proton Radius Puzzle

slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2016 1:54:09 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
The first experimental evidence of the radius of the proton was based upon experiments that shot particles at a proton and measured the angle of deflections to develop a radius. The experimental results fit right in the theoretical calculations of the proton radius.

At the lowest energy state possible an electron's wave function indicates an electron spends some of its time in the proton. At a higher level there is zero probablity of being in the proton. If one measures the difference in energy levels between an electron, it is possible to infer the radius of the proton.

A team after a decade took it a step further and replaced an electron with a muon which has the same charge but is much more massive than the electron. It makes the inference more accurace as in the low energy state it would be more likely to be found in the proton.

As mentioned it took 10 years to get the experiment to work, but they found the proton radius to be much much smaller, thus the current proton radius puzzle.

There is a new laser that is 100 more times accurate in measuring the energy levels of an electron quanta shift. It could very well aid in exposing why there are two very different experimental results with the proton radius.

Keep this one in the back pocket as solving this puzzle could uncover some new and exciting directions in particle physics.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...
dee-em
Posts: 6,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 12:13:01 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
Isn't it old thinking to imagine a proton or any other sub-atomic particle as a smooth sphere with a defined radius? A proton is made up of quarks. How can three quarks in combination produce a sphere?
keithprosser
Posts: 2,029
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 10:31:49 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
The puzzle seems be that the radius (for a given definition of radius) of a proton is smaller when it is orbited by a muon than when orbitted by an electron, which runs counter to what theory predicts.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 11:41:24 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/14/2016 12:13:01 AM, dee-em wrote:
Isn't it old thinking to imagine a proton or any other sub-atomic particle as a smooth sphere with a defined radius? A proton is made up of quarks. How can three quarks in combination produce a sphere?

As far as I know about 99% of the mass of a baryon such as a proton is made of gluon particles, according to the standard model. The sphere would then be this 'halo' of gluons perhaps.
wuliheron
Posts: 105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 6:55:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
The problem is the mathematics they are using to formulate current Standard Theory are fundamentally wrong and they know it. They are using classical mathematics which are metaphysical when for over fifty years all the evidence has pointed to quanta being metaphorical rather than metaphysical meaning they are context dependent and have no demonstrable meaning outside of specific contexts. Its an old problem in physics and, for example, someone proposed the theory of Relativity a hundred years before Einstein, but the mathematics to express the theory and the technology to prove it using the photo-electric effect simply did not exist at the time.

The mystery of the proton radius is only a mystery because it defies mathematics they already know are incorrect and finding a plausible sounding explanation will not correct the problem or inspire any new physics. Instead, they'll just keep doing what they've been doing now for a century and adapt the same fundamentally flawed approach until they either come up with a plausible sounding explanation or don't. Neil's Bohr was the first to suggest that explaining quantum mechanics would just have to wait because nobody has the tools and famously yelled at a student one day to, "Shut up and calculate" knowing if they just keep working the problem, sooner or later, the evidence itself will present its own explanation.

Current estimates are within twenty years at the outside the computers will be capable of illuminating the mathematical foundations and, thus, explaining why the brightest minds in the world can't make sense out of quantum mechanics by pounding away at the excluded middle. Sort of lowbrow slapstick, but the history of technology and scientific revolutions are full of such accounts.