Quantum electrodynamics: A chink in the armour?

[Peron]

Quantum electrodynamics: A chink in the armour?

 

Jeff Flowers1

Top of page

Abstract

 

A measurement of the size of the proton, obtained using spectroscopy of an exotic atomic system, yields a result of unprecedented accuracy — but in disagreement with values obtained by previous methods.

 

Richard Feynman quipped: “There's a reason physicists are so successful with what they do, and that is they study the hydrogen atom and the helium ion and then they stop.” On page 213 of this issue, Pohl and colleagues1 revisit the hydrogen atom — or, more precisely, an exotic form of it — and come up with a surprise.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7303/full/466195a.html

 

If you don't have a Nature account here is a io9 article. http://io9.com/5581945/protons-are-smaller-than-we-thoughtcould-the-entire-universe-be-wrong

[Farsight]

Huh. I know about this stuff, it’s no big deal, and no sparticles are necessary. See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43128 for another article. Protons don’t really have a size. Measuring their size is like measuring the diameter of a "whirlpool", with an arbitrary cutoff at some charge density. The Lamb shift is where another particle with spin angular momentum changes its path. Use one that’s more massive, and the path is different. All this everything is wrong business is just attention-seeking sensationalism.

[Peron]

Thanks for the link.

[elas]

Huh. I know about this stuff, it’s no big deal, and no sparticles are necessary. See http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43128 for another article. Protons don’t really have a size. Measuring their size is like measuring the diameter of a "whirlpool", with an arbitrary cutoff at some charge density. The Lamb shift is where another particle with spin angular momentum changes its path. Use one that’s more massive, and the path is different. All this everything is wrong business is just attention-seeking sensationalism.

 

This is the reply I was seeking on a different forum where a mathematical case is made to show that the new radius is wrong; it is a question of the relationship between density and radius and this density/radius relationship explains why force is related to bouyancy see:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50623-gravity-inducing-an-anti-gravity-effect/

In order to obtain radii that relate to each other the tool used must be the same for all experiments (i.e. change the target not the tool).

 

The bottom line is SIMPLICITY find the simplest solution and (as both Newton and Einstein said)you have the correct solution.

[Sharapovaphan]

This is the reply I was seeking on a different forum where a mathematical case is made to show that the new radius is wrong; it is a question of the relationship between density and radius and this density/radius relationship explains why force is related to bouyancy see:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/50623-gravity-inducing-an-anti-gravity-effect/

In order to obtain radii that relate to each other the tool used must be the same for all experiments (i.e. change the target not the tool).

 

The bottom line is SIMPLICITY find the simplest solution and (as both Newton and Einstein said)you have the correct solution.

 

Does this relate to Rydberg?

[elas]

Does this relate to Rydberg?

 

Yes, where Rydberg used Balmer's formula I use Quantum Mechanical Compton Radii in the same manner; due to my untrained amateur status I was unaware of Rydberg's work until your reply caused me to look up Rydberg on Wikipedia, but now I can go back to revise and expand my theory to include Rydberg's constant. That should lead onto the unification of the two papers I have written, one on particle structure and one on atomic structure. This is not the place to expand further; but it is suffice to say that in my opinion; this is a classic example of what a science forum should be about i.e. helping each other to make progress, and for that I am truely grateful.