Protons are smaller than we thought...could the entire universe be wrong?

Again , an interesting article for the science bunch of our forum As always I will refrain from commenting until I read some of the more knowledgeable minds of ATS

"
Protons are 0.00000000000000003 meters smaller than we thought. That sounds like nothing, but it means one of these things must be true: Undiscovered particles are lurking, quantum mechanics needs recalculating...or the universe is impossible. (Here's hoping it's the first two.)"

Pretty bold claim regarding the impossibility of the universe

Link: io9.com...

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Thill]

why do you don't post the next sentence in the article?

The measurements find that the proton is actually about 4% smaller than what decades of previous experiments had found.

Sensationalism?

If the universe is impossible, then we are all a hologram I guess.

Maybe if we can figure out how the game works, we can manipulate it?

I wouldn't mind breaking out of the matrix, or at least breaking a few rules, as there is a lot about life right now that I am not pleased with. If I had my way, I'd change a lot of things.

So scientific knowledge not intelligence of these particals is still unknown. 1 has to wonder how has this new updated knowledge effected previous calculations in relation to protons. Impossible??

[edit on 7/8/10 by Ophiuchus 13]

Could the entire universe be wrong?

No.

The human race was wrong, as normal.

The universe can't be wrong...

Double post, sorry my bad.

[edit on 19 8uThursday10 20 by vanhippi]

Originally posted by jessieg
If the universe is impossible, then we are all a hologram I guess.

Maybe if we can figure out how the game works, we can manipulate it?

I wouldn't mind breaking out of the matrix, or at least breaking a few rules, as there is a lot about life right now that I am not pleased with. If I had my way, I'd change a lot of things.

If that were a true statement then who designed it and for what?
2nd

Ahh...
I love i09.
Always the most interesting scientific sh*t around.
Like...a web based Michio Kaku.
Haha.

Originally posted by cushycrux
why do you don't post the next sentence in the article?

The measurements find that the proton is actually about 4% smaller than what decades of previous experiments had found.

Sensationalism?

Quick to jump to conclusions aren't we ?

No i always put only the first paragraph so that people know what the article is about , instead of copy pasting it from the site that I found.

If somebody is interested in reading the whole thing , i provide a link to the rest .

Kind of logical when somebody explains it , isn't it ?

Besides next time You quote , be sure to address all the relevant stuff, like the fact that when dealing on such a micro scale , a discrepancy of 4% is a huge deal with all those super precise calculations



[edit on 8-7-2010 by Thill]

Well I believe in God. I think that life is a chance to learn about love and learn about the creator and then make a choice. It really doesn't matter in the long run to me if I am in a hologram or if everything is "real" or what. I do think there is a reason for everything and something to be learned, so what I learned and believed in the end is what mattered.

Originally posted by jessieg
Well I believe in God. I think that life is a chance to learn about love and learn about the creator and then make a choice. It really doesn't matter in the long run to me if I am in a hologram or if everything is "real" or what. I do think there is a reason for everything and something to be learned, so what I learned and believed in the end is what mattered.

And you know what friend with that type of attitude you will definetly shine all the way, which is a beautiful thing. I also believe in God the creator of all and that yes it doesnt matter what training grounds we are located upon as long as we do our best to reach our positive goals as best we can we will be ok in the BEGINNING

an exercise to quantify infinity would take an infinite amount of time.

Maybe the universe is constantly changing!!! maybe it keeps us on our toes and prevents us from ever working out the meaning of life.

Even a BROKEN universe is right twice a day....
.......................................isnt it?

Originally posted by Thill

Originally posted by cushycrux
why do you don't post the next sentence in the article?

The measurements find that the proton is actually about 4% smaller than what decades of previous experiments had found.

Sensationalism?

Quick to jump to conclusions aren't we

?

No i always put only the first paragraph so that people know what the article is about , instead of copy pasting it from the site that I found.

If somebody is interested in reading the whole thing , i provide a link to the rest .

Kind of logical when somebody explains it , isn't it

?

Besides next time You quote , be sure to address all the relevant stuff, like the fact that when dealing on such a micro scale , a discrepancy of 4% is a huge deal with all those super precise calculations

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Thill]

Okey, so you wanna say 4% on a small scale is more that on a large scale? 4/100 is 4/100 is 4/100......

reply to post by Thill

These findings might mean some of the constant values of quantum mechanics are incorrect, which would entail some fairly major recalculating.

I decided to quote the most relevant part of this finding....


All I can say is HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Just as I've always suspected, the interpretations of QM are wrong and based on faulty maths. Perhaps now that we know this and can get the maths right we can properly describe the interactions going on at the subatomic level without invoking magic.

Science is awesome when it deals with reality!

reply to post by cushycrux


It actually is a big deal at such a small scale. You do realize that many things if slightly different than they are now would mean we wouldn't exist at all?

Originally posted by cushycrux

Okey, so you wanna say 4% on a small scale is more that on a large scale? 4/100 is 4/100 is 4/100......

"The measurement falls so far outside what the scientists expected that it actually took them six years to even notice it. The first two times they ran the experiment, in 2003 and 2007, they didn't find anything in the tiny range in which they thought the proton radius would be founding. They figured there was something wrong with their laser systems, but on the third try in 2009 they decided to expand the range of where they looked. They quickly found the energy signature far, far away from where they figured it would be."

I don't know it seems so from the article ,but it seems You are much more versed in those calculations than me and the scientist so please tell me, does it make any difference on such micro scales or not ?

From my understanding of the article (granted it might be limited) it seems it does make a big difference for the scientists that have been researching that for quiet some time.

But of course I might be interpreting the article totally wrong, in which case I would be more than happy to read why they are making such a big fuss out of this

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Thill]

If you were physicists, you would realize the enormous significance of this discrepancy. Physicists have found a five standard deviation difference between the most accurate measurement up till now of the charge radius of the proton and their calculation of it, based upon measurement of the spectra of muonic atoms. This is too large to be due to experimental error. Its implications are either:
1. something is wrong with quantum electrodynamics, which is used to calculate the Rydberg constant and quantum corrections to it. This is highly unlikely, as the theory is the best one physicists have and it has been tested to hold up to a high level of accuracy;
2. the Rydberg constant itself, calculated from the spectra of atoms, has the wrong value. This would invalidate the work over dozens of years of thousands of physicists, requiring drastic revision - again unthinkable to most of them;
3. the assumption implicit in the calculations used in QED to calculate the charge radius of the proton from its high-energy scattering form factor is that quarks are point-like. This assumption is wrong if quarks are extended bound states of several more fundamental particles. This is what I predicted in 1979 in a research paper published in Physics Letters, vol 84B, p. 133. In fact, I proved that the observed, approximate t^(-2) behaviour of the proton magnetic form factor (t = square of momentum transfer) could be due to Lorentz contraction of both finite-sized proton and quark wavepackets, indicative of composite quarks, which my paper predicted.

In other words, this 4% reduction in the size of the proton is consistent with its constituent quarks being made up of smaller, yet undiscovered particles.

Now do you understood why this discovery is highly significant?

reply to post by micpsi



Glad to have somebody with the scientific knowledge hop in to the discussion , and thank You for trying to form a explanation of the findings.