DOCSLIB.ORG

The Puzzle of the Proton Radius

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Puzzle of the Proton Radius The puzzle of the proton radius A K F Val Baker Torus Tech LLC. San Clemente, California, 92673, USA Hawaii Institute for Unified Physics, Kailua Kona, Hawaii, 96740, USA Email: [email protected] Abstract. The radius of the proton is a topic of debate and has yet to be confirmed. Measurements from different techniques yield conflicting values, with some experimental methods yielding a value in disagreement with the standard model. This review article outlines the current status of the experimental results and summarizes the possible solutions to this puzzle. Keywords: nucleonic parameters: radius – particle physics: proton – fundamental physics: standard model 1. Introduction describe the spatial distributions of electric charge and current inside the nucleon, To understand the workings of the which for the non-relativistic case is given Universe, from the very big to the very in terms of the volume integral small, we need to observe and measure the F()() q2= r eiq . r d 3 r [2]. fundamental characteristics of the material world. Advances in technology enables measurements of greater accuracy and thus The radius of an oscillating electrostatic either confirms theories or leads us in new, field, such as a proton, defines an effective and sometimes unknown, directions. charge boundary in that region of space. This is typically referred to as a ‘charge One of the most important characteristics radius’ and is described by its electric form of the objects we study is their spatial factor. The standard approach to extent. However, when dealing with determining this radius thus relies on subatomic particles, our ability to directly indirect measurements of the energy measure the size is limited by the interaction at the charge surface boundary. instruments we use. For example, Measurements of this energy interaction techniques such as scanning probe are typically done utilizing electron-proton microscopy, although achieving subatomic scattering and/or hydrogen spectroscopy resolutions on the order of 0.1 nm [1], methods. Both these methods have are unable to reveal the spatial extent of consistently yielded similar results, where subatomic particles. We therefore rely on the latest 2014 CODATA value, more indirect methods which instead of rp = 0.8751( 61) fm , is based on a least- measuring the object in co-ordinate space squares approximation between both measures the distribution of changes of methods [3]. However, spectroscopic momentum. This distribution is called the measurements of the Lamb shift were also form factor which, based on theoretical made utilizing muonic hydrogen as oppose assumptions, compensates for irregularity to electronic hydrogen and yielded much in the shape of an object and is essentially smaller values than that of the combined a Fourier transform. For example, the electronic methods as given by CODATA. nucleon electromagnetic form factors The first measurement of muonic hydrogen was made in 2010 and yielded a proton radius, rp = 0.8356(20) fm , similar value of rp = 0.84184(67) fm [4], differing to that found from muonic hydrogen [10]. from the 2010 CODATA value, rp = 0.8775(51) fm , by 7 [5]. These These results suggest that spectroscopic measurements were repeated in 2013 and methods yield smaller values than those found a more precise value of found from scattering techniques, with r= 0.84087(39) fm [6], differing from muonic spectroscopy measurements p yielding the smallest values. the 2010 CODATA value by 7.2 . However, new experiments measuring the The question is, why are these different 22SP− Lamb shift in electronic methods (electronic and muonic) yielding hydrogen found a significantly smaller different results? This is a problem that the value, r= 0.833(10) fm , more in physics community have been trying to p reconcile, and the failure to understand it is agreement with that found by muonic known as the proton radius puzzle. hydrogen and muonic deuterium [12]. Their approach claims to utilize special Due to the high correlation between the techniques to reduce quantum interference, proton radius and the Rydberg constant, from which they conclude yields a more the same spectroscopic experiments are precise and accurate result. If their result used to determine both values, thus any and the previous muonic measurements are change in the charge radius of the proton correct, then what does this tell us about also implies a change in the Rydberg previous electronic measurements and constant. The value for the Rydberg quantum interference correction constant is known with a relative techniques. −12 uncertainty of 1.9 10 and is one of the Furthermore, in another recent study most accurate fundamental constants to carried out at the Jefferson Laboratory, date. Therefore, the electrical size of the Virginia, USA, the measurement of the proton, its charge radius, is now a proton radius was made utilizing high limitation (4− 7 ) to the accuracy of the precision electron-proton scattering Rydberg constant found from this techniques, yielding a value of comparison of theory [7] [8] [9]. r= 0.831(19) fm [13]. This value is 3.2 p In 2016 this discrepancy became even smaller than the most recent high-precision more significant when a measurement of electron-proton scattering measurement of r= 0.879(15) fm [14] and 2.7 smaller the Lamb shift was made utilizing muonic p deuterium, as oppose to electronic than the average of all electron-proton hydrogen, and yielded a value for the scattering measurements [3]. Remarkably, charge radius of deuteron of it is in a significant agreement with both the muonic hydrogen spectroscopy rd = 2.12562(78) fm [10]. This value found from muonic deuterium is smaller measurements and the latest electronic than the 2010 CODATA value of hydrogen measurements. So, it could be that the proton radius puzzle is not a r= 2.1424(21) fm by 7.5 [5] and d puzzle anymore. smaller than the value of rd = 2.1415(45) fm found by electronic In this paper we will outline the two deuterium spectroscopy techniques by methods for measuring and determining 3.5 [11]. This smaller radius for the proton radius and discuss the possible deuteron also yields a smaller value for the sources of error or resolutions to the proton radius puzzle. 2. Measuring the radius of the proton the charge distribution is not static due to recoil effects, and the magnetic and 2.1 Electron scattering experiments electric distributions will be independently effected by the spin, the form factors are 2 Electron scattering was first applied by separated for electric GQE () and Robert McAllister and Robert Hofstadter magnetic GQ()2 distributions. in the 1950’s as a technique for measuring M the charge distribution of the proton, and to this day provides one of the most The multiplicative factor is therefore a powerful tools to investigate nucleonic function of both the magnetic and electric structure [15] [16]. form factors and the solution is given as first order from perturbation theory, known Measurements of the proton radius are as the Rosenbluth formula [17], typically done using elastic electron-proton scattering, in which a beam of electrons is dd 1 2 2 2 2 = GQGQEM()() + fired at a proton source (i.e. liquid dd Mott (1 + ) hydrogen) and the scattering angles are measured. The scattering probability can 2 Q be calculated as a function of proton where = 2 , radius, and thus the proton radius can be 4M 2 −1 found by measuring the scattering angle. =1 + 2(1 + ) tan ( / 2) is the Q2 In the case of electron-proton scattering, kinematic factor and GFFEDP=− 2 the differential scattering cross section 4M dd of the scattered electrons can be and GFFMDP=+ are the electric and described by the Mott scattering formula. magnetic form factors in terms of the This is an extension of low-energy Dirac and Pauli form factors FD and FP , Coulomb scattering (i.e. Rutherford respectively. scattering), which includes the effects of relativistic energies and spin-coupling Similarly, the form factors can be inelastic Coulomb scattering, and is given determined by measuring the differential as, cross section of a variety of Q2 and scattering angles . The electric and 2 2 3 dE4 cos ( / 2) magnetic radius can thus be found as the = 4 d Mott Q E slope of the proton form factor at zero momentum transfer, where is the interaction cross section, is the solid angle, is the fine 6 2 dG() Q2 r 2 =− EM/ structure constant, is the scattering EM/ 2 GEM/ (0) dQ Q2 =0 angle, E is the incoming electron lab energy, E is the outgoing electron lab The precision to which the radius is energy and Q2 is the four-momentum determined is therefore dependent on the transfer. data available at low and the However, for an extended target, which is associated uncertainties. Recent work [14] the assumed case for a proton, the utilising the Mainz Microtron (MAMI) differential scattering cross section has to located at the Johannes Gutenberg be modified by multiplying by the square University in Mainz, Germany, successfully performed high-precision of the form factor FQ()2 . As well, since measurements and significantly expanded The first term defines the fundamental the data set at low . These results were structure of hydrogen as a function of its included in the global examination of principle energy level whereas the second elastic electron–proton scattering data as and third terms account for quantum given by Arrington and Sick [18] and corrections (i.e. relativistic recoil, vacuum Bernauer and Distler [3]. The latest results polarization, nuclear finite-size and recommended by CODATA 2014 are nuclear motion). Specifically, the second found as the weighted mean between these term accounts for relativistic corrections as two values, r= 0.880(11) fm as given by well as contributions coming from the p interactions of the bound-state system with Bernauer and Distler [3] and the quantum vacuum and is given as a rp = 0.879(11) fm as given by Arrington function in terms of the fine structure and Sick [18], yielding a value of constant, and the electron-to-proton rp = 0.879(13) fm .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The MUSE Experiment and the Proton Radius
    Introduction Resolutions to the Puzzle MUSE - MUon Scattering Experiment The MUSE experiment and the Proton Radius Cristina Collicott SPIN 2016 Cristina Collicott SPIN 2016 1/17 Introduction Resolutions to the Puzzle MUSE - MUon Scattering Experiment The Proton Radius Puzzle How big is the proton? Easy question to ask, not so easy to answer! Currently an unanswered problem in physics Cristina Collicott SPIN 2016 2/17 Introduction Resolutions to the Puzzle MUSE - MUon Scattering Experiment The Proton Radius Puzzle What is the proton radius puzzle? The proton charge radius, measured via muonic hydrogen spectroscopy, is 4% smaller than results from hydrogen spectroscopy and elastic electron proton scattering experiments. Cristina Collicott SPIN 2016 3/17 Introduction Resolutions to the Puzzle MUSE - MUon Scattering Experiment The Proton Radius Puzzle - scattering Rosenbluth scattering: 2 2 2 2 dσ dσ GE (Q )+ xGM (Q ) 2 2 2 θ = + 2xGM (Q ) tan dΩ dΩ (point.) 1 + x 2 Sach's form factors (F1,F2 Dirac and Pauli FFs) 2 2 2 GE (Q ) = F1(Q ) − xF2(Q ) 2 2 2 GE (Q ) = F1(Q ) − xF2(Q ) hq 2 x = 2Mc Cristina Collicott SPIN 2016 4/17 Introduction Resolutions to the Puzzle MUSE - MUon Scattering Experiment The Proton Radius Puzzle - scattering Rosenbluth scattering: 2 2 2 2 dσ dσ GE (Q )+ xGM (Q ) 2 2 2 θ = + 2xGM (Q ) tan dΩ dΩ (point.) 1 + x 2 Derivative in the Q2 ! 0 limit 2 2 dGE (Q ) < rE >= −6 2 dQ Q2!0 We expect identical results for hq 2 experiments with ep and µp x = 2Mc scattering..
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2103.17101V1 [Physics.Hist-Ph] 29 Mar 2021 1/2 1/2 Are Equal, While That of 2P3/2 Is Higher by About 40 Μev; This Is the fine Structure (FS), Fig
    April 1, 2021 0:46 WSPC Proceedings - 9in x 6in protonr page 1 1 THE QUEST FOR THE PROTON CHARGE RADIUS ISTVAN´ ANGELI Institute of Experimental Physics, University of Debrecen, Hungary A slight anomaly in optical spectra of the hydrogen atom led Willis E. Lamb to the search for the proton size. As a result, he found the shift of the 2S1/2 level, the first experimental demonstration of quantum electrodynamics (QED). In return, a modern test of QED yielded a new value of the charge radius of the proton. This sounds like Baron M¨unchausen's tale: to pull oneself out from the marsh by seizing his own hair. An independent method was necessary. Muonic hydrogen spectroscopy came to the aid. However, the high-precision result significantly differed from the previous { electronic { values: this is (was?) the proton radius puzzle (2010-2020?). This puzzle produced a decade-long activity both in experimental work and in theory. Even if the puzzle seems to be solved, the precise determination of the proton charge radius requires further efforts in the future. 1. The Dirac equation; anomalies in hydrogen spectra (1928{1938) In 1928, P.A.M. Dirac published his relativistic wave equation implying two important consequences: (1) The electron has an intrinsic magnetic dipole moment µe = 1 × µB (µB: Bohr magneton) in agreement with the experiment (1925: George Uhlenbeck, Samuel Goudsmit). (2) If in the hydrogen atom the electron moves in the field of a Coulomb potential V (r) ∼ 1=r, then its energy E(n; j) is determined by the principal quantum number n and the total angular momentum quan- tum number j, but not by the orbital angular momentum l and spin s, separately.
    [Show full text]
  • The Proton Radius Puzzle Μ
    The proton radius puzzle µ A. Antognini Paul Scherrer Institute ETH, Zurich Switzerland CREMA collaboration Laser spectroscopy of muonic atoms µ 2P 2S-2P Laser excitation Energy 2S 1S μ • 2S-2P p From 2S-2P • 2S-2P μd ꔄ charge radii • 2S-2P μ3He, μ4He Aldo Antognini Rencontres de Moriond 19.03.2017 2 Three ways to the proton radius p p e- H 2 e- µ- e--p scattering H spectroscopy µp spectroscopy 6.7 σ CODATA-2010 µp 2013 scatt. JLab µp 2010 scatt. Mainz H spectroscopy 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.9 Proton charge radius [fm] Pohl et al., Nature 466, 213 (2010) Antognini et al., Science 339, 417 (2013) Pohl et al., Science 353, 669 (2016) Aldo Antognini Rencontres de Moriond 19.03.2017 3 Extracting the proton radius from 훍p Measure 2S-2P splitting (20 ppm) 8.4 meV 2P F=2 and compare with theory 3/2 F=1 2P1/2 F=1 → proton radius F=0 ∆Eth . − . r2 . 2P −2S = 206 0336(15) 5 2275(10) p +00332(20) [meV] 206 meV 50 THz 6 µm fin. size: 3.8 meV F=1 2π(Zα) 2 2 2S ∆Esize = r |Ψnl(0)| 1/2 m ≈ 200m 3 p 23 meV µ e 4 2(Zα) 3 2 F=0 3 m r δl = 3n r p 0 Aldo Antognini Rencontres de Moriond 19.03.2017 4 Principle of the µp 2S-2P experiment Produce many µ− at keV energy − Form µp by stopping µ in 1 mbar H2 gas Fire laser to induce the 2S-2P transition Measure the 2 keV X-rays from 2P-1S decay µp formation Laser excitation Plot number of X-rays vs laser frequency ] n~14 2 P -4 7 Laser 6 1 % 99 % 2 S 5 2 P 4 2 S 3 2 keV 2 keV γ γ 2 delayed / prompt events [10 1 0 1 S 49.75 49.8 49.85 49.9 49.95 1 S laser frequency [THz] Aldo Antognini Rencontres de Moriond 19.03.2017 5 The setup at the Paul Scherrer Institute Aldo Antognini Rencontres de Moriond 19.03.2017 6 The first 훍p resonance (2010) Discrepancy: 5.0 σ ↔ 75 GHz ↔ δν/ν =1.5 × 10−3 ] -4 7 CODATA-06 our value 6 e-p scattering H2O 5 calib.
    [Show full text]
  • Charge Radius of the Short-Lived Ni68 and Correlation with The
    PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 124, 132502 (2020) Charge Radius of the Short-Lived 68Ni and Correlation with the Dipole Polarizability † S. Kaufmann,1 J. Simonis,2 S. Bacca,2,3 J. Billowes,4 M. L. Bissell,4 K. Blaum ,5 B. Cheal,6 R. F. Garcia Ruiz,4,7, W. Gins,8 C. Gorges,1 G. Hagen,9 H. Heylen,5,7 A. Kanellakopoulos ,8 S. Malbrunot-Ettenauer,7 M. Miorelli,10 R. Neugart,5,11 ‡ G. Neyens ,7,8 W. Nörtershäuser ,1,* R. Sánchez ,12 S. Sailer,13 A. Schwenk,1,5,14 T. Ratajczyk,1 L. V. Rodríguez,15, L. Wehner,16 C. Wraith,6 L. Xie,4 Z. Y. Xu,8 X. F. Yang,8,17 and D. T. Yordanov15 1Institut für Kernphysik, Technische Universität Darmstadt, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany 2Institut für Kernphysik and PRISMA+ Cluster of Excellence, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, D-55128 Mainz, Germany 3Helmholtz Institute Mainz, GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, D-64291 Darmstadt, Germany 4School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom 5Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany 6Oliver Lodge Laboratory, Oxford Street, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, United Kingdom 7Experimental Physics Department, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland 8KU Leuven, Instituut voor Kern- en Stralingsfysica, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium 9Physics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831, USA and Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA 10TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 2A3, Canada 11Institut
    [Show full text]
  • The Proton Radius Puzzle-Why We All Should Care
    SNSN-323-63 September 27, 2018 The Proton Radius Puzzle- Why We All Should Care Gerald A. Miller1 Physics Department, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1560, USA The status of the proton radius puzzle (as of the date of the Confer- ence) is reviewed. The most likely potential theoretical and experimental explanations are discussed. Either the electronic hydrogen experiments were not sufficiently accurate to measure the proton radius, the two- photon exchange effect was not properly accounted for, or there is some kind of new physics. I expect that upcoming experiments will resolve this issue within the next year or so. PRESENTED AT Conference on the Intersections between particle and nuclear physics, arXiv:1809.09635v1 [physics.atom-ph] 25 Sep 2018 Indian Wells, USA, May 29{ June 3, 2018 1This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Nuclear Physics under Award Number DE-FG02-97ER-41014,. This title is chosen because understanding of the proton radius puzzle requires knowledge of atomic, nuclear and particle physics. The puzzle began with the pub- lication of the results of the 2010 muon-hydrogen experiment in 2010 [1] and its confirmation [2]. The proton radius (r2 = 1=6G0 (Q2 = 0) was measured to be p − E rp = 0:84184(67) fm, which contrasted with the value obtained from electron spec- troscopy rp = 0:8768(69) fm. This difference of about 4% has become known as the proton radius puzzle [3]. We use the technical terms: the radius 0.87 fm is denoted as large, and the one of 0.84 fm as small.
    [Show full text]
  • Muonic Atoms and Radii of the Lightest Nuclei
    Muonic atoms and radii of the lightest nuclei Randolf Pohl Uni Mainz MPQ Garching Tihany 10 June 2019 Outline ● Muonic hydrogen, deuterium and the Proton Radius Puzzle New results from H spectroscopy, e-p scattering ● Muonic helium-3 and -4 Charge radii and the isotope shift ● Muonic present: HFS in μH, μ3He 10x better (magnetic) Zemach radii ● Muonic future: muonic Li, Be 10-100x better charge radii ● Ongoing: Triton charge radius from atomic T(1S-2S) 400fold improved triton charge radius Nuclear rms charge radii from measurements with electrons values in fm * elastic electron scattering * H/D: laser spectroscopy and QED (a lot!) * He, Li, …. isotope shift for charge radius differences * for medium-high Z (C and above): muonic x-ray spectroscopy sources: * p,d: CODATA-2014 * t: Amroun et al. (Saclay) , NPA 579, 596 (1994) * 3,4He: Sick, J.Phys.Chem.Ref Data 44, 031213 (2015) * Angeli, At. Data Nucl. Data Tab. 99, 69 (2013) The “Proton Radius Puzzle” Measuring Rp using electrons: 0.88 fm ( +- 0.7%) using muons: 0.84 fm ( +- 0.05%) 0.84 fm 0.88 fm 5 μd 2016 CODATA-2014 4 μp 2013 5.6 σ 3 e-p scatt. μp 2010 2 H spectroscopy 1 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.9 Proton charge radius R [fm] ch μd 2016: RP et al (CREMA Coll.) Science 353, 669 (2016) μp 2013: A. Antognini, RP et al (CREMA Coll.) Science 339, 417 (2013) The “Proton Radius Puzzle” Measuring Rp using electrons: 0.88 fm ( +- 0.7%) using muons: 0.84 fm ( +- 0.05%) 0.84 fm 0.88 fm 5 μd 2016 CODATA-2014 4 μp 2013 5.6 σ 3 e-p scatt.
    [Show full text]
  • The Proton Radius Puzzle and the Electro-Strong Interaction
    The Proton Radius Puzzle and the Electro-Strong Interaction The resolution of the Proton Radius Puzzle is the diffraction pattern, giving another wavelength in case of muonic hydrogen oscillation for the proton than it is in case of normal hydrogen because of the different mass rate. Taking into account the Planck Distribution Law of the electromagnetic oscillators, we can explain the electron/proton mass rate and the Weak and Strong Interactions. Lattice QCD gives the same results as the diffraction patterns of the electromagnetic oscillators, explaining the color confinement and the asymptotic freedom of the Strong Interactions. Contents Preface ................................................................................................................................... 2 The Proton Radius Puzzle ......................................................................................................... 2 Asymmetry in the interference occurrences of oscillators ............................................................ 2 Spontaneously broken symmetry in the Planck distribution law .................................................... 4 The structure of the proton ...................................................................................................... 6 The weak interaction ............................................................................................................... 6 The Strong Interaction - QCD .................................................................................................... 7 Confinement
    [Show full text]
  • The MITP Proton Radius Puzzle Workshop
    Report on The MITP Proton Radius Puzzle Workshop June 2–6, 2014 in Waldthausen Castle, Mainz, Germany 1 Description of the Workshop The organizers of the workshop were: • Carl Carlson, William & Mary, [email protected] • Richard Hill, University of Chicago, [email protected] • Savely Karshenboim, MPI fur¨ Quantenoptik & Pulkovo Observatory, [email protected] • Marc Vanderhaeghen, Universitat¨ Mainz, [email protected] The web page of the workshop, which contains all talks, can be found at https://indico.mitp.uni-mainz.de/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=14 . The size of the proton is one of the most fundamental observables in hadron physics. It is measured through an electromagnetic form factor. The latter is directly related to the distribution of charge and magnetization of the baryon and through such imaging provides the basis of nearly all studies of the hadron structure. In very recent years, a very precise knowledge of nucleon form factors has become more and more im- portant as input for precision experiments in several fields of physics. Well known examples are the hydrogen Lamb shift and the hydrogen hyperfine splitting. The atomic physics measurements of energy level splittings reach an impressive accuracy of up to 13 significant digits. Its theoretical understanding however is far less accurate, being at the part-per-million level (ppm). The main theoretical uncertainty lies in proton structure corrections, which limits the search for new physics in these kinds of experiment. In this context, the recent PSI measurement of the proton charge radius from the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen has given a value that is a startling 4%, or 5 standard deviations, lower than the values ob- tained from energy level shifts in electronic hydrogen and from electron-proton scattering experiments, see figure below.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1909.08108V3 [Hep-Ph] 26 Sep 2019 Value Obtained from Muonic Hydrogen Is Re = 0.84087(39) Fm [8], While the Most Recent CODATA P Value Is Re = 0.8751(61) Fm [9]
    The Proton Radius Puzzle Gil Paz Department of Physics and Astronomy, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48201, USA Abstract: In 2010 the proton charge radius was extracted for the first time from muonic hydrogen, a bound state of a muon and a proton. The value obtained was five standard deviations away from the regular hydrogen extraction. Taken at face value, this might be an indication of a new force in nature coupling to muons, but not to electrons. It also forces us to reexamine our understanding of the structure of the proton. Here I describe an ongoing theoretical research effort that seeks to address this \proton radius puzzle". In particular, I will present the development of new effective field theoretical tools that seek to directly connect muonic hydrogen and muon-proton scattering. Talk presented at the 2019 Meeting of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society (DPF2019), July 29{August 2, 2019, Northeastern University, Boston, C1907293. 1 Introduction How big is the proton? To answer such a question one needs to define how the proton size is measured. For example, one can use an electromagnetic probe to determine the proton's size. A \one photon" electromagnetic interaction with an on-shell proton can be described by two form 2 factors: F1 and F2. These form factors are functions of q , the square of the four-momentum transfer. Two different linear combinations of F1 and F2 define the \electric" form factor: GE = 2 2 F1 + q F2=4M , where M is the proton mass, and the \magnetic" form factor: GM = F1 + F2.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics Has a Core Problem
    Physics Has a Core Problem Physicists can solve many puzzles by taking more accurate and careful measurements. Randolf Pohl and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, however, actually created a new problem with their precise measurements of the proton radius, because the value they measured differs significantly from the value previously considered to be valid. The difference could point to gaps in physicists’ picture of matter. Measuring with a light ruler: Randolf Pohl and his team used laser spectroscopy to determine the proton radius – and got a surprising result. PHYSICS & ASTRONOMY_Proton Radius TEXT PETER HERGERSBERG he atmosphere at the scien- tific conferences that Ran- dolf Pohl has attended in the past three years has been very lively. And the T physicist from the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics is a good part of the reason for this liveliness: the commu- nity of experts that gathers there is working together to solve a puzzle that Pohl and his team created with its mea- surements of the proton radius. Time and time again, speakers present possible solutions and substantiate them with mathematically formulated arguments. In the process, they some- times also cast doubt on theories that for decades have been considered veri- fied. Other speakers try to find weak spots in their fellow scientists’ explana- tions, and present their own calcula- tions to refute others’ hypotheses. In the end, everyone goes back to their desks and their labs to come up with subtle new deliberations to fuel the de- bate at the next meeting. In 2010, the Garching-based physi- cists, in collaboration with an interna- tional team, published a new value for the charge radius of the proton – that is, the nucleus at the core of a hydro- gen atom.
    [Show full text]
  • Electron Charge Density: a Clue from Quantum Chemistry for Quantum Foundations
    Electron Charge Density: A Clue from Quantum Chemistry for Quantum Foundations Charles T. Sebens California Institute of Technology arXiv v.2 June 24, 2021 Forthcoming in Foundations of Physics Abstract Within quantum chemistry, the electron clouds that surround nuclei in atoms and molecules are sometimes treated as clouds of probability and sometimes as clouds of charge. These two roles, tracing back to Schr¨odingerand Born, are in tension with one another but are not incompatible. Schr¨odinger'sidea that the nucleus of an atom is surrounded by a spread-out electron charge density is supported by a variety of evidence from quantum chemistry, including two methods that are used to determine atomic and molecular structure: the Hartree-Fock method and density functional theory. Taking this evidence as a clue to the foundations of quantum physics, Schr¨odinger'selectron charge density can be incorporated into many different interpretations of quantum mechanics (and extensions of such interpretations to quantum field theory). Contents 1 Introduction2 2 Probability Density and Charge Density3 3 Charge Density in Quantum Chemistry9 3.1 The Hartree-Fock Method . 10 arXiv:2105.11988v2 [quant-ph] 24 Jun 2021 3.2 Density Functional Theory . 20 3.3 Further Evidence . 25 4 Charge Density in Quantum Foundations 26 4.1 GRW Theory . 26 4.2 The Many-Worlds Interpretation . 29 4.3 Bohmian Mechanics and Other Particle Interpretations . 31 4.4 Quantum Field Theory . 33 5 Conclusion 35 1 1 Introduction Despite the massive progress that has been made in physics, the composition of the atom remains unsettled. J. J. Thomson [1] famously advocated a \plum pudding" model where electrons are seen as tiny negative charges inside a sphere of uniformly distributed positive charge (like the raisins|once called \plums"|suspended in a plum pudding).
    [Show full text]
  • S Ince the Brilliant Insights and Pioneering
    The secret life of quarks ince the brilliant insights and pioneering experiments of Geiger, S Marsden and Rutherford first revealed that atoms contain nuclei [1], nuclear physics has developed into an astoundingly rich and diverse field. We have probed the complexities of protons and nuclei in our laboratories; we have seen how nuclear processes writ large in the cosmos are key to our existence; and we have found a myriad of ways to harness the nuclear realm for energy, medical and security applications. Nevertheless, many open questions still remain in nuclear physics— the mysterious and hidden world that is the domain of quarks and gluons. 44 ) detmold mit physics annual 2017 The secret life by William of quarks Detmold The modern picture of an atom includes multiple layers of structure: atoms are composed of nuclei and electrons; nuclei are composed of protons and neutrons; and protons and neutrons are themselves composed of quarks—matter particles—that are held together by force- carrying particles called gluons. And it is the primary goal of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, Switzerland, to investigate the tantalizing possibility that an even deeper structure exists. Despite this understanding, we are only just beginning to be able to predict the properties and interactions of nuclei from the underlying physics of quarks and gluons, as these fundamental constituents are never seen directly in experiments but always remain confined inside composite particles (hadrons), such as the proton. Recent progress in supercomputing and algorithm development has changed this, and we are rapidly approaching the point where precision calculations of the simplest nuclear processes will be possible.
    [Show full text]