Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Proton Radius

Expand Messages
  • peterwolst83
    Recent experiments (Max Plank Institute, Garching) seem to show the proton radius is 0.84184 femtometers ( 10E-15 m). See Scientific American, October 2010 for
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 27, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Recent experiments (Max Plank Institute, Garching) seem to show the proton radius is 0.84184 femtometers ( 10E-15 m). See Scientific American, October 2010 for example. It seems that previously accepted values were 0.8768 fm upwards. And this is causing severe problems for QED. Good!

      My question is, why then does Randell Mills, at the start of Chapter 37 of his book, state that the experimental radius is 1.3 fm (without giving the reference to the experiment). And Mills goes on to calculate a Compton wavelength of 1.3214 fm, which seems to be the same thing. 57% greater than the recently reported experimental value. Am I missing some big difference in the definition of a radius? Quite what radius means when a proton is a group of quarks, and mostly empty space, eludes me, but for Mills it seems to be the radius of an orbitsphere in which the quarks are trapped. A Google search on this topic seems to produce a variety of data.
      Peter W.
    • Randell Mills
      Peter The QED calculation is based on the muon being in the nucleus which is experimentally disproved. I believe that I have correctly solved the muonic H
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 27, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Peter
        The QED calculation is based on the muon being in the nucleus which
        is experimentally disproved. I believe that I have correctly
        solved the muonic H Lamb shift (links from http://
        www.blacklightpower.com/new.shtml).

        Regarding the work in Chp. 37, I'll take a look at the problem as
        soon as I get a chance. Thanks for bringing it up.

        Randy
        On Sep 27, 2010, at 4:26 PM, peterwolst83 wrote:

        > Recent experiments (Max Plank Institute, Garching) seem to show the
        > proton radius is 0.84184 femtometers ( 10E-15 m). See Scientific
        > American, October 2010 for example. It seems that previously
        > accepted values were 0.8768 fm upwards. And this is causing severe
        > problems for QED. Good!
        >
        > My question is, why then does Randell Mills, at the start of
        > Chapter 37 of his book, state that the experimental radius is 1.3
        > fm (without giving the reference to the experiment). And Mills goes
        > on to calculate a Compton wavelength of 1.3214 fm, which seems to
        > be the same thing. 57% greater than the recently reported
        > experimental value. Am I missing some big difference in the
        > definition of a radius? Quite what radius means when a proton is a
        > group of quarks, and mostly empty space, eludes me, but for Mills
        > it seems to be the radius of an orbitsphere in which the quarks are
        > trapped. A Google search on this topic seems to produce a variety
        > of data.
        > Peter W.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.