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 ...
I know what those are. :-)
Vuvuzela go down the Holllle.
I do not think that the QED is wrong. The radius of the proton is not derived from first principles, it has to be measured experimentally as it is not clear what the “proton density” is. We have no description of the orbits of quarks.
Sorry, proton density => proton radius
Thanks for the ping. This is big.
For being so small, it is big! ;’)
It’s a feynmann, er, fine mess they’ve gotten themselves in.
Ernest Lawrence, a pure experimentalist... said, "Don't you worry about it -- the theorists will find a way to make them all the same." -- Alvarez by Luis Alvarez (page 184)
I must reiterate my feeling that experimentalists always welcome the suggestions of the theorists. But the present situation is ridiculous... In my considered opinion the peer review system, in which proposals rather than proposers are reviewed, is the greatest disaster to be visited upon the scientific community in this century. No group of peers would have approved my building the 72-inch bubble chamber. Even Ernest Lawrence told me that he thought I was making a big mistake. He supported me because my track record was good. I believe U.S. science could recover from the stultifying effects of decades of misguided peer reviewing if we returned to the tried-and-true method of evaluating experimenters rather than experimental proposals. Many people will say that my ideas are elitist, and I certainly agree. The alternative is the egalitarianism that we now practice and that I've seen nearly kill basic science in the USSR and in the People's Republic of China. -- ibid (pp 200-201)
The fundamental assumptions of spectroscopy, QED, QCD, are in question. I like scientists. :)
Actual scientists disagreeing, it’s great. :)
What do you mean? Please describe what fundamental assumption you are referring to so I can give you an answer.
%4 is huge when measuring the wavelength. Circa 1888 was the initial formula. It makes things ‘not fit’.
The Rydberg constant http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RydbergConstant.html has nothing to do with the radius of the proton. It is calculated from the electron mass, the proton mass, the electron charge, the speed of light, the permittivity of free space, and the Planck´s constant,
Every single “assumption” needs to be measured at this point. Do You disagree?
Sorry, I do not understand your question. You must be more specific, otherwise I can not answer. You may follow the links at the bottom of my about page to get an update on the present status of physics.
That's easy. God told us in Isaiah 40.
Some have the impression that this will have consequences for the theories, but in my opinion that is a misinterpretation of this experiment, QED is still valid. However, scientific theories are valid until proven wrong, then we have to change the theories to get a better description.
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.