¨No Beaker. No!¨
Posted on 07/07/2010 9:06:34 PM PDT by smokingfrog
Sophisticated measurements from experiments indicate the radius is 4% smaller than thought. If true, the finding could have major ramifications for the standard model used in modern physics.
Physicists might have to rethink what they know about, well, everything.
European researchers dropped a potential bombshell on their colleagues around the world Wednesday by reporting that sophisticated new measurements indicate the radius of the proton is 4% smaller than previously believed.
In a world where measurements out to a dozen or more decimal places are routine, a 4% difference in this subatomic particle — found in every atom's nucleus — is phenomenally large, and the finding has left theoreticians scratching their heads in wonderment and confusion.
If the startling results are confirmed, a possibility that at least some physicists think is unlikely because the calculations involved are so difficult, they could have major ramifications for the so-called standard model on which most modern physics is based.
In an editorial accompanying the report in the journal Nature, physicist Jeff Flowers of the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, England, said there were three possibilities: Either the experimenters have made a mistake, the calculations used in determining the size of the proton are wrong or, potentially most exciting and disturbing, the standard model has some kind of problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Lasers require very precise aiming.
I knew it!! I knew it!!! That’s why my proton belt is too short lately.
Well, if you mark it at the axis, it forms a straight line. The closer to the “equator”. the more curvy you make it, the more it hops. At no point does it resemble a sine wave.
(If you rotate the point about the axis from a position FURTHER than the interface surface — completely off the sphere, but revolving about the sphere’s axis — you get loops! Remember “spirograph?”)
You know the old saying, the micrometer may be very tiny, but Porsche is still in business. ;’)
I like the ones that hang like a mobile on a babybed. You know, the one’s you wind up and they go round and round?
You can wind up baby beds and make them go round and round?
Doesn’t that make the babies sick?
Hehe. Nice.
Sweet, so.....that means....I’m almost two kilometers tall!
(I weighed my bags, did you weigh your’n?)
Just like the 'shape' of the proton ( which seems to be of some debate), the orbits of the various components of the atom may not be perfect circles.
The orbit of the planets and their moons are not perfect circles.
If the planets were rotating around their 'host' at the same speed as protons, and we assumed the orbit was a perfect circle, then wouldn't we see the planets showing quantum movement?
They would be in essentially unpredictable spots (states), based on the perfect circle orbit assumption.
I know you are very educated in subjects like this, so I feel you are one of the best qualified to shoot it full of holes.
Yes. And I remember drawing a sine wave with a circle tool and a straight tool.
That was my next question.
No. It just counters the rotation of the Universe, and lets them sleep peacefully.
Electrons make transitions between energy levels not orbits as their “orbits” are really just a convention of speech.
You’ve lost me in all that technical stuff.
An electron (bright green) has just scattered from a nucleus and created a pion (green-skinned particle). This pion's quarks are so tightly packed that they nearly cancel each other's color charge, allowing the pion to slip through the nucleus without interacting, an effect now seen at the lowest possible energies.
You can suppose a large object to be in a pure quantum state, but the quantum number becomes “astronomical”, and conversely the low numbered quantum states are absurdly small - many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom, so you can’t realistically describe planets by pure quantum states. The classical orbits could in principle be described as “wave packets” - that is a spectrum of pure states that results in a classical orbit.
Of course, due to the uncertainty principle ( which is already embodied in the wave packet description, ) the wave packet will slowly disperse over time, showing that the motion can’t be predicted exactly.
If my wife keeps feeding our new pup dog treats every time he does something “cute” he soon will be !
This is the first time I've heard that. LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.