BTW, is this actually a challenge for QED theory, or does it mean that a closer study of QED theory predicts the new result, i.e. the proton radius will vary with the presence of muons or electrons?
harry On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote: > It will be most interesting if they find through further measurements > the proton radius depends on whether muons or electrons are used in > the measurement. > > harry > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 7:46 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> >>
