This might tie in to what Jones has been saying in a number of vortex postings.
Is the radius of a proton wrong? http://phys.org/news/2013-02-textbook-radius-proton-wrong.html Apparently after 3 years now, they still cannot find an error in the data which suggests that the textbooks are wrong about the proton radius. "Usually these updates are to clarify that the problem has been resolved and that, once again, something innocuous was to blame for the unexpected result. Updating three years later to say "it's still broken!" is something of an oddity." "The announcements in question here are about a finding that the radius of the proton differed from the "textbook" value by 4%. This doesn't sound like much, but we thought we knew the radius to within 0.8%, making 4% sort of a big deal. Physicists only count something as a "discovery" if it's five "standard deviations" (5σ) significant. This measurement is now at 7σ and more than ten times more precise than the previous value, with an error of just 0.05%." "What made it all the more important though, was that the radius of the proton wasn't some value that comes from reading it off a ruler. The theory behind the textbook value is quantum electrodynamics (QED), probably the most refined and accurate theory in all of physics." -Mark Iverson
