‘How big is the proton?"[1] We can similarly ask, “How big is the electron?” “How big is the photon?” CODATA gives the answer [2], proton rms charge radius rp=8.41 x10-16m; classical electron radius, re=2.81x10-15m [6]. However, over a century after its discovery, the proton still keeps physicists busy understanding its basic properties, its radius, mass, stability and the origin of its spin [1][4][7]. Physics still believes that there is a ‘proton-radius puzzle’ [3][4], and does not consider that the size of a photon is related to its wavelength.
Geometrically the radius of a circle is clearly defined, and if an elementary particle is regarded as a energy packet, which is unquestionably the case, whether or not it can be described by a wavefunction, can its energy have a clear boundary like a geometrical shape? Obviously the classical electron radius is not a clear boundary conceptually in the field, because its electric field energy is always extending. When physics uses the term ‘charge radius’, what does it mean when mapped to geometry? If there is really a spherical charge [8][9], how is it maintained and formed*?
----------------------------------------
Notes:
*“Now if we have a sphere of charge, the electrical forces are all repulsive and an electron would tend to fly apart. Because the system has unbalanced forces, we can get all kinds of errors in the laws relating energy and momentum.” [Feynman Lecture C28]
----------------------------------------
References：
[1] Editorial. (2021). Proton puzzles. Nature Reviews Physics, 3(1), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-00268-0
[2] Tiesinga, E. (2021). CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018.
[3] Carlson, C. E. (2015). The proton radius puzzle. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 82, 59-77. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.01.002
[4] Gao, H., Liu, T., Peng, C., Ye, Z., & Zhao, Z. (2015). Proton remains puzzling. The Universe, 3(2).
[5] Karr, J.-P., Marchand, D., & Voutier, E. (2020). The proton size. Nature Reviews Physics, 2(11), 601-614. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-020-0229-x
[6] "also called the Compton radius, by equating the electrostatic potential energy of a sphere of charge e and radius with the rest energy of the electron"; https://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ElectronRadius.html
[7] Gao, H., & Vanderhaeghen, M. (2021). The proton charge radius. https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO44_What_is_an_electric_charge_Can_it_exist_apart_from_electrons_Would_it_be_an_effect ;
[8] What is an electric charge? Can it exist apart from electrons? Would it be an effect? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO44_What_is_an_electric_charge_Can_it_exist_apart_from_electrons_Would_it_be_an_effect ;
[9] Phenomena Related to Electric Charge，and Remembering Nobel Laureate T. D. Lee; https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO46Phenomena_Related_to_Electric_Chargeand_Remembering_Nobel_Laureate_T_D_Lee
A proton has a finite radius, because it's a bound state of quarks. An electron is point-like, because it's not a bound state of other particles.
Really the really scientific answer to
“【NO.51】Is a Particle a Circle with Clear Boundaries? If not, on what Basis should its Radius Range be Determined?”
- is impossible in framework of mainstream physics, since in the mainstream the fundamental phenomenon/notion “Matter” – and so everything in Matter, including particles, is/are fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational; the mainstream really by no means answers the questions “what is” particles”?”, and “why particles are as they are?”, including, say, the question – why concrete type particles are identical?
The scientific answers principally are possible only provided that the fundamental phenomena/notions, besides “Matter” that are [also transcendent/etc. in the mainstream], “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are really scientifically defined, what is possible, and done, only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed
- where it is rigorously proven that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set.
Including, say, one type particles are identical copies of corresponding “texts”, that is quite banal thing in Information.
Though really, as that is quite rationally, i.e., first of all, in complete accordance with all existent reliable experimental data, assumed/postulated in the SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model, which is based on the conception, two main papers are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383127718_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics
- the informational system “Matter” is based on a simple binary reversible logics; and
particles [as everything in Matter at all is/are specific disturbances] are specific cyclic disturbances/cyclic algorithms that run on FLE hardware in the Matter’s ultimate base - (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE],
- which [the lattice] is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.
The algorithms run as sequential “FLE-by-FLE flipping” that proceeds cyclically along corresponding 4D helixes in utmost fundamental 4D space with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z ) with the speeds √2c, so front of a helix moves in the space with 4D velocity, c, [bold means 4D vector], c=lP/tP.
So a particle exists at every time moment as FLE-flipping point on its helix, which moves along 4D momentum P, which created the particle impacting on some the lattice’s FLE; the radius of the helix is λ=ћ/P, that essentially determines the QM uncertainty at particles interactions.
So having rest mass fundamental particle has ~ Planck length size “radius”, as that is observed at leptons interactions [“…An electron is point-like, …”],
- while particles that are composed from fundamental particles, practically that are only hadrons that are composed from “point-like” quarks, have observable radiuses, what, besides, also points on that such particles are some compositions of somethings that are more fundamental and fundamentally are “point-like”.
The post is rather long, so now
Cheers
Since quarks aren't bound states of other particles, their radius is zero.
Let’s continue
- [see SS post above] so, particles are specific close-loop algorithms - disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base - (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense FLE-lattice, which always constantly exist – and interact - in given time instance as ~ FLE’s Planck length size “FLE-flipping point” , Planck length in observable Matter indeed looks as some “point”. However here are a few nuances.
First of all – the flipping point moves, having 4D momentum P, along 4D helix [helix is formed by FLEs’ precession with the algorithm frequency ω, energy of particle is E=ћω], that has quite non-pointlike radius λ=ћ/P, and so corresponding a “particle’s size” isn’t point, and so, say, electron at small speed has radius λ=ћ/mc [Compton length] ~3.9 x 10-13 m, “classical radius” re=2.81x10-15m is in 137 times [λ x fine structure constant α] lesser, though this radius is defined basing on rather questionable assumptions,
- at that the electric charge E-marked FLE “space section” [only FLE of which really interact by E- Force], is (λ x√α), i.e. ~8% of λ, i.e. 3,14 x 10-14m, what also isn’t a point, but that results – at least till now in that pointlike electron interacts as a point inside some observable space volume as “particle-wave”.
In particles, that are composed by fundamental particles, simultaneously the components exist, say, in baryons simultaneously 3 quarks; which constantly move inside a baryon being “ready to electrically interact” randomly in 3D space, so electrons interactions with baryons are observed as that baryons have “electric charge radiuses”, of both, proton and neutron ~ 0.86x10-15m.
Finally here note, that the 4D helix projection on its 4D plane that is orthogonal to P, is a Circle, however, say, if a having rest particle is at rest in 3D space, and so moves with the speed of light only along the cτ-axis, the 3 projection of the helix on planes XY, YZ, XZ simultaneously are identical Circles that are mutually orthogonal, so the, say, “electron Boundaries” are rather complicated. However that isn’t unique reason of the non-clearance, the picture above is now initial one, and the clarification should be made at further development of the SS7VT Planck scale model, the links see SS posts above.
Cheers
More precisely, a proton is point-like, when its constituents can't be resolved. Which occurs at energies less than about 1 GeV. At higher energies it turns out that its constituents can be resolved and they are point-like. Up to the energies probed at the LHC it turns out that quarks and leptons are point-like, if they do have constituents, these can't be resolved.
Generally speaking, real physics development happens as resolving of real fundamental physical problems, which really are practically always as “why and how the postulates of a theory are as they are?”, besides, of course, the standard answer – “the postulates follow from experimental data and so fit the theory with the objective reality”, what, of course, nothing develops.
Including that are postulates in some theories that some things [material objects, the fundamental Forces fields regions, etc.,] are “points” and “pointlike”. What really is fundamentally incorrect, and so really the physics development very essentially happens after a next experimental discoveries that something in current physics pointlike really isn’t pointlike.
Including in recent mainstream physics, classical, the GR, and QM/QFTs, till now there are a lot of “pointlike” somethings, while that is/are essential base of physical theories, what results, including yet now, in that from the theories a lot of some strange consequences follow.
Correspondingly in SS&VT Planck scale informational physical model [links to main papers see 1-st SS post], which is based, including, on the postulate that everything in Matter is/are only disturbances in Matter’s ultimate base – the FLE dense lattice, where FLEs have, though indeed extremely small, but fundamentally not pointlike Planck length size, more 30 really existent in the mainstream fundamental problems are really at least scientifically rationally, solved or clarified,
- first of all when the questions “why and how the postulates of a theory are as they are?” – and in most cases “so what should be really scientific postulates”, are scientifically rationally answered.
As that follows from the model really physics experimentally never will directly observe any “single FLE”, nonetheless FLE parameters, including FLE “size”, though indirectly, but completely rigorously, follow from all reliable experimental data and from that is reliable in recent mainstream physics.
As well as really new fundamental physics development into the Planck scale physics is possible at experiments, first of all in high energy particle physics, where at experiments can be, in principle, real data for solution the utmost fundamental physical problem “what is FLE functional in Matter logical structure?” can be obtained.
That, first of all, can happen at experiments, where the fundamental particles interact, i.e. when the question – “from what particles, and how, all other particles are composed?” can be really answered. Now that are quarks and leptons, rather probably there exist particles that have only Gravity Force charge [it looks as rather rational that are Planck mass particles].
The fundamental particles have rest masses, i.e. created in the FLE lattice by cτ-components of impacting momentums, so, despite that are single algorithms and so have 4D “angular momentums” be equal to ћ , are observed spins be equal to ½ ћ [are fermions].
Besides, in Matter exist other really fundamental items - the fundamental Forces mediators, which aren’t particles, and, at that, the Forces, as that is rigorously scientifically rationally shown in the SS&VT initial models of at least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces mediators , rather probably propagate only in 3DXYZ space;
The mediators, when impacting on particles having marked by a Force FLEs, besides that make their job – this Force interactions, can be specifically impacted “back” by the FLEs so, that are transformed into particles. At least in Gravity and Electric Forces cases that are photons and gravitons, which, though aren’t compositions of something more fundamental, seems really are “ordinary” particles that, though, differ from other now numerous zoo particles principally in that can have arbitrary energies/inertial masses, and propagate only in the 3D space, as that the mediators do, and having spins be equal to ћ [are bosons].
The post is rather long already, so now,
Cheers
Chian Fan,
The answers to your questions in this blog are too far beyond your level to understand.
Let’s continue [see also SS posts on page 1], now a comment to
When physics uses the term ‘charge radius’, what does it mean when mapped to geometry? If there is really a spherical charge [8][9], how is it maintained and formed*?
*“Now if we have a sphere of charge, the electrical forces are all repulsive and an electron would tend to fly apart. Because the system has unbalanced forces, we can get all kinds of errors in the laws relating energy and momentum.” [Feynman Lecture C28]….”
- again, more see SS posts on page 1 [and SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO47What_is_Force_a_Field_Where_is_the_Force_Field_How_does_it_appear_Is_the_Force_Field_a_Regulating_Effect_of_the_Energy-Momentum_Field/2, pages 1,2]
- particles in more than 1-st approximation always and constantly exist as FLE-flipping points , where FLEs are elementary binary “logical gate” in a particle’s algorithm sequence; which [algorithm] runs as sequential cyclic FLE-by-FLE flipping in the FLE-lattice, and in this sequence charges of fundamental Nature forces exist as sections of marked by Forces FLEs.
The FLEs, including marked by a Force ones, so exist and flip, at least practically, completely independently fundamentally without interactions with each other. Correspondingly the typical mainstream physics Feynman Lecture problem in the quote above fundamentally doesn’t exist.
Including so the term any Force ‘charge radius’ has corresponding vague sense – fundamental particles that are single algorithms aren’t some “spheres”, charges occupy some line section on the helix, and, at that, “pointlikely” act. So no fundamental particle charge as a whole radius isn’t detected/observed, only different “charged points in 3D space” along the helix can be. and are, observed, what is observed in the mainstream as the “particle-wave”; what is elaborated in QM.
In the particles that are composed from fundamental particles, now experimentally observed only nucleons, simultaneouslyco-exist really randomly in space “sphere” 3 electrically charged quarks, and at experiments just distribution of quarks’ point-like charged FLEs flippings are detected, what till now in Standard Model is interpreted as “spherical nucleons charges”
Cheers
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication