Although there are new attempts using the exotic atoms of hydrogen and deuterium since 2010 to measure the regular radius of the proton, is it legitimate to consider that the value 0.8758fm is until today the experimental value the most accurate for the regular radius of the proton which accords perfectly with the theory of the standard model of particle physics?
It’s an indirect measurement, first of all and its comparison with a calculation, based on the Standard Model, isn’t easy, because the calculation is approximate, also. So, in both cases, the focus is controlling the uncertainties, not the quantity itself. It’s known that the proton is a bound state of quarks and gluons, so its radius isn’t zero. However it’s, also, not the easiest way to probe effects beyond the Standard Model.
Stam Nicolis,
Thank you very much for your quick response. I have a question that I ask everyone. How CODATA takes into consideration an experimental value which has no theoretical accompaniment it is the value 0.8414fm and leaves aside the value 0.8758fm which emerges from an almost perfect theory which is the theory of the standard model of particle physics which proved the existence of the Higgs boson which is currently an ultimate particle? People want to make others believe that the value 0.8414fm, is little affected by measurement errors and want to make believe that it is the value 0.8758fm, which is affected by plenty of measurement errors? Do people realize or don't they realize that there is something wrong with physics since 2010? I find normally CODATA should wait till appear a theory which could explain the experimental result of the value 0.8414fm.
Preston Guynn
Let's leave aside the question of quantum gravity. I believe that in physics there is only the Schwarzschild radius which gives the radii of protons and neutrons. This is almost worth a theorem.
- Badges
- Science topic