Thanks LibWhacker.
· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 02/07/2022 9:56:12 PM PST by LibWhacker
A few years ago, a novel measurement technique showed that protons are probably smaller than had been assumed since the 1990s. The discrepancy surprised the scientific community; some researchers even believed that the Standard Model of particle physics would have to be changed. Physicists at the University of Bonn and the Technical University of Darmstadt have now developed a method that allows them to analyze the results of older and more recent experiments much more comprehensively than before. This also results in a smaller proton radius from the older data. So there is probably no difference between the values - no matter which measurement method they are based on. The study appeared in Physical Review Letters.
Our office chair, the air we breathe, the stars in the night sky: they are all made of atoms, which in turn are composed of electrons, protons and neutrons. Electrons are negatively charged; according to current knowledge, they have no expansion, but are point-like. The positively charged protons are different - according to current measurements, their radius is 0.84 femtometers (a femtometer is a quadrillionth of a meter).
Until a few years ago, however, they were thought to be 0.88 femtometers - a tiny difference that caused quite a stir among experts. Because it was not so easy to explain. Some experts even considered it to be an indication that the Standard Model of particle physics was wrong and needed to be modified. "However, our analyses indicate that this difference between the old and new measured values does not exist at all," explains Prof. Dr. Ulf Meißner from the Helmholtz Institute for Radiation and Nuclear Physics at the University of Bonn. "Instead, the older values were subject to a systematic error that has been significantly underestimated so far."
Playing billiards in the particle cosmos
To determine the radius of a proton, one can bombard it with an electron beam in an accelerator. When an electron collides with the proton, both change their direction of motion - similar to the collision of two billiard balls. In physics, this process is called elastic scattering. The larger the proton, the more frequently such collisions occur. Its expansion can therefore be calculated from the type and extent of the scattering.
The higher the velocity of the electron beam, the more precise the measurements. However, this also increases the risk that the electron and proton will form new particles when they collide. "At high velocities or energies, this happens more and more often," explains Meißner, who is also a member of the Transdisciplinary Research Areas "Mathematics, Modeling and Simulation of Complex Systems" and "Building Blocks of Matter and Fundamental Interactions." "In turn, the elastic scattering events are becoming rarer. Therefore, for measurements of the proton size, one has so far only used accelerator data in which the electrons had a relatively low energy."
In principle, however, collisions that produce other particles also provide important insights into the shape of the proton. The same is true for another phenomenon that occurs at high electron beam velocities - so-called electron-positron annihilation. "We have developed a theoretical basis with which such events can also be used to calculate the proton radius," says Prof. Dr. Hans-Werner Hammer of TU Darmstadt. "This allows us to take into account data that have so far been left out."
Five percent smaller than assumed 20 years
Using this method, the physicists reanalyzed readings from older, as well as very recent, experiments - including those that previously suggested a value of 0.88 femtometers. With their method, however, the researchers arrived at 0.84 femtometers; this is the radius that was also found in new measurements based on a completely different methodology.
So the proton actually appears to be about 5 percent smaller than was assumed in the 1990s and 2000s. At the same time, the researchers' method also allows new insights into the fine structure of protons and their uncharged siblings, neutrons. So it's helping us to understand a little better the structure of the world around us - the chair, the air, but also the stars in the night sky.
Was always suspicious about them weighing a ton as their name implies.
Now to be known as Punytrons
“Electrons are negatively charged; according to current knowledge, they have no expansion, but are point-like.”
I’d surmise that photons, neutrinos, etc. are also point-like. Of course, they are waves ... so “no expansion” works fine.
Maybe
I told them measure twice, cut once, but they wouldn’t listen. Scientists have to much hubris these days.
I’m holding out for Teenytrons… but I’ll accept Microtrons, but only if the name is not licensed from Bill Gates.
Inflation.
First Pluto, and now this. Are they going to say Protons aren’t subatomic particles now?
[ Inflation. ]
Protons just don’t have as much charge as they used to no matter how much they try to 1/2 spin it....
They must have bought a rally tiny scale.
But, but, but… what if a proton wants to identify as an electron or a neutron? Obviously, they can just say they are the particle of their emotional choice (or perhaps the colors and spins choices of their various sub-atomical desires) and then go on their merry way, occupying those gender charge roles? That’s the new politically correct physics of the woke crowd. Just think of the theoretical atomic interactions that could take place under the new, woke physics, of course, you may never see them in reality, but it’s all so awakening to imaging them.
Just think of what new woke elements could do to the Woke chemistry as self-identifying molecules re-arrange themselves according to how they see themselves interacting along co-Valent or perhaps co- or non co-Valentine lines. WHEEEEE! Valentine’s Day will never be the same again!
They still are, but there's a paper still in press regarding the discover of amateurons. They are the same size, but they aren't as good at staying in the nucleus.
But what if they want to identify as non-binary, MEG-Atomic particles? Shouldn’t we let them? Maybe protons should be allowed to self-identify as a Uranium Atom… that would be exciting. Why couldn’t it be all that it wants to be??? Why limit it to being a proton. Perhaps it REALLY wants to be an anti-proton…. Or just an antitron? Damn, these Old, White supremacists Physicsts, forcing oppressed particles into circles they don’t want to occupy!
Same scale, but during the earlier measurements some clod had a thumb on it.
Could they even look at it while they measured it? Or did it flit off somewhere else while they got their measuring tape out? — Heisenberg
Exagerating lengths. Not an heretofore unknown phenomenon.
That was an exceptionally well written science article.
I often get overwhelmed by the professional jargon, but not this time.
They’ve been difficult to find… most physicists have only been looking in the obvious places. You have to look in small towns, little theaters, and obscure play companies to find them. Physicists use their grants to go to Broadway and only find the Pros… and often miss the outstanding offerings one might find by looking for the obscure amateurons in out-of-the-way locales. Also, they suppress those who do find such rising lights, because they’d have to re-write their own textbooks and they’re too lazy to do that. Besides, they’d have to admit they were wrong when they wrote them. Can’t have that, you know.
Naw, they tossed in some magic fairy dust dark matter to make things look bigger… Same guy also told his college dates his male equipment named Richard was bigger than reality. too. She was disappointed with reality.
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.