The Shrinking Proton - Sixty Symbols
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- The proton may be smaller than we thought. Our experts explain why this could be a really big deal for physics. More videos at www.sixtysymbol...
With Tony Padilla, Laurence Eaves and Ed Copeland
Follow us on Twitter at / periodicvideos
Or on Facebook at / 10150109085555564
If you had looked more closely, you would have seen the "dry clean only" tag, and avoided this whole mess.
+PointyTailofSatan For the win! :-)
If Mt. Everest shrank by 4% it would lose 354 m.
354 m=
1,160 ft. or 397 yd. or 17.2 ch. or 17 ch. 13 yd.,
194 ftm.,
5.53 out-thaba or 5 out-thaba 19 lan,
8.85 sen or 8 sen 68 sok,
953 chek,
1,170 chhioh and
3.25 cho or 3 cho 15 ken/hiro.
I just enjoy doing that. But you're right. I'm surprise that it it wasn't caught during filming.
If you know it's obviously not a totally though out question in reference to the size difference in 4% of a thing......
Stfu
and it would be the 5th tallest mountain then
But it did not... Atoms did not shrink
I was thinking about it too, but even shrinking or mistake of 354 m. would be easier to explain then this difference.
Update: Multiple new experiments using different methods found values of ~0.83 fm, with uncertainties around 0.01 fm. The majority of physicists now believe the lower value of ~0.83 to 0.84 fm to be the correct one. However, we don't yet know why the old value of ~0.87 was off by so much, but there's multiple promising theories that are being tested.
So the standard model does predict a slightly different proton size??
it seems there is something going on with muons? im talking about this experiments, and the recent ones
It has been five years any updates on this topic.
Thank you
@@michaelsheffield6852 it has been three years, any updates on this question?
It has been one month, any developments in this area?
@@ozzyzee1770 well theres that vid where theyve detected how extremely round electrons are. not very photon related but it seems the boys at the lab really got a nice and tiny ruler thats doing its job. hopefully.
still i hope some one updates this post in the following months or years.
I'm 4% heavier than when this video was made.
@jonz94 Hi there... I'm assuming you didn't keep watching to 3:24 then, when he makes that exact point!?
It is super misleading to say the proton shrink. Whay dont just say, " it is smaller that we thought"?
Lol is this really a concern
Science is about accuracy, and we dont play around with vague term. By the way, there're a lot of (including me) scientist who play around with these bombastic term to impress/scare people, they are actually not that great...
Yeah but this RUclips vid is not a scientific report. I dont think I need to explain probably why this vid is named "The Shrinking Proton" (Although the subject matter is rather bland so the only people who would watch past 10 sec are scientists)
No, it is not. The proton actually shrinks, both measurements are accurate, the only difference between them is that the new one is made measuring the lamb shift of a muonic hydrogen instead of electron scatering.
I wrote a paper with a personal theory about it, I believe the charge radius is proportional to the proton's wavelenght, therefore it is inversely proportional to it's momentum. Using my equation, (r = 2lambda/pi) the difference in the charge radius is about the rest mass of the muon, which is the only difference between them.
Not sure how to test it, tho...
Wait, I want to hear more about this hydrogen atom made with a muon.
too bad the muon isn't stable or we could have muonic hydrogen, muonic starch, muonic gatorade...
@@nmarbletoe8210 What about a *_MUONIC MOON!!!_* :O
I wanna know more too lol
3:21 not sure why but I couldn't keep myself from laughing after he said quantum mechannus
Life can't be easy if you looked like Rudy Giulliani 10 years ago let alone what starts to happen at 2:00
@Xoder83 Good point - but if I'd thought of that on the spur of the moment no-one would ever believe my questions weren't scripted! :)
I'm tryiing so hard to understand the standard model and I wish you wouldn't say that the proton "got smaller", when I am sure that is has been the same relative size to everything else as is has been all along. I think instead we should make sure to say that the proton is not the size that we "thought it was" ... either way, these videos are great and I do enjoy. This does help me to understand my world. There are many people like me who have not been to university and are building an understanding of the world in our minds. Thank you.
When the professors says "it shrunk " or "got smaller in size ," contextually they do not literally mean that the proton actually isn't getting smaller. The news articles, and title of the video, are just for click bait.
have scientists tried to include the gravitational force between the muon and proton in their equations? I know gravity is normally insignificant in chemistry, but these masses seem to be much larger than normal
So, I'm curious/confused -- if the energy levels of a hydrogen atom depend on the size of the proton, why did we need to use a muon to detect it? Wouldn't the regular hydrogen atom with its regular electron already have showed this discrepancy?
+Luke Palmer I thought the same, but i think as the muon is heavier it needs much more energy to be brought up to the next energy level, so when it emitts its energy you can detect the difference more accurately, because it will be a bigger amount as before with the electrons. Sp I think you could do the same with electrons, but you dont have the devices to measure the diffferences of so small values.
A 4% whoops , well now , let's miss a steller object by 4% . boy would that be 'Hubble need glasses ' grade funny.
Ah yes, professor cricket balls. We meet again.
What is not explained here is what the implications of this result are if it is true. What difference does it make if the proton is 4% smaller? Is this just a more precise measurement, or does it have theoretical implications?
Dark Energy isn't causing the universe to expand, we are just shrinking! Jk
The Muon is two hundred times the mass of an electron. the greater mass of the muon skewed the result as it restrained the protons fuzziness.
6:40 - The crane in the back or the lamp is tilted. Perhaps both.
Also, the stairs behind the dude are white. Perhaps greyish.
The earth is curved! Darned flat earthers with their conspiracy theories, not everything is tilted!
Perhaps our universe exists inside a black hole and the shrinking proton is a measurement of the compression of existence.
Any update on this?
What if the size of the proton isn't fixed? That is, what if it changes based on its environment. It's a little larger with an election and a little smaller with a muon.
You know you're a total geek when you stay up until 4:30 in the morning watching these videos
I am such a person. :D
I'm also really tired.
Are there any updates on this?
It would be nice if they could keep a tau lepton around long enough to see if it would still get 4%... love the videos!
The wavefunction involves probability of being at a given position...
As in a photons wave function dictates it's likelihood of being in a given position.
However, as this "probability field" of sorts can vary in scale...
The probability field isn't how you would obtain the "size" of the particle if it had a size.
I'm not trying to say I know... but I'm just exploring the idea.
@CaptainCrumple You're right, the diameter of a sphere IS twice the radius, but if you reduce it's size by 4% you make ALL of it's linear dimensions 4% smaller, not 8%. Even the circumference would be 4% smaller.
However, a sphere may be non-Euclidean, as is the case with massive objects in 'curved' spacetime, which is what I was saying.
Sorry for poking fun at a schoolboy error - I div'nt realize you were a mathemagician :|
When i first saw this video, i thought it said "The Shrinking Potion."
I guess it was too good to be true...
Muonic Hydrogen. Is it used for anything? Other than measuring protons? Is there any other Muonic matter? And...
If a proton is three quarks - three wave functions, how do they behave in terms of shape? Is the proton sperical?
I don't intend to find a "solid wall" defining the surface of the proton... What is the physical variable that changes at the surface that defines the size of the proton? How abruptly that variable changes?
I think the muon instead of the electron was probably to blame... who knows, though. It's still an open, debated question.
I see Wikipedia has accepted this new value of proton’s radius, but don’t see any consequence on physics because of this “ exciting “ shrinking.
This is actual science: Scientists excited over empirical data contradicting established theory and forcing a rethinking of said theory.
Note the complete absence of appeals to "settled science", denigration of researchers disproving the theory as "deniers", and insistence that proton size has been infallibly declared by some official UN group and therefore should not be questioned.
How many times have we been told that QED is the best theory because it always and everywhere makes extremely accurate predictions. Now we find that all along a basic measurement was off by 4%.
Also, aren't we also told that by the Pauli Exclusion Principle that all electrons in the observable and unobservable universe are at slightly different energy levels? If so, then how come that fact isn't mentioned with regard to measurements like these? Maybe the 4% comes from the fact that the energy state the muon would like to be in has already been taken up by a muon hanging out in some other galaxy?
To get to the conclusion that the proton is 4% smaller than previously calculated, the physicists replaced the orbit of an electron around the nucleus with the orbit of a muon. By calculating the amount of energy released when the muon decayed into a lower energy orbit, they were able to determine the size of the proton. Why would this calculation be any more valid than previous calculations that relied on the energy released when an electron decayed to a lower energy orbit? I have a very limited understanding of this topic in general so perhaps my thinking is fundamentally flawed...
Using the Mount Everest analogy, it would be as if Everest were 354 meters shorter than we thought.
I am left with a question. If the experiment couldn't be made with an electron, but had to be made with a Muon instead. Couldn't the result be from a lack of understanding of the Muon rather than the Proton?
It seems from what we hear that the measurements were made on the interaction of the Muon, so why assume that the Muon is a completely defined yardstick and all measured variables must be in the Proton?
+trefod -- They really didn't explain why the quantum jump indicates the size of a proton either. I'm letting them slide because I think a truly detailed explanation would require the listener understanding some basic material that I'm ignorant of.
The energy levels in an atom are determined by solving the Shrodinger Equation for a given potential field. The size of the proton (which generates this field), slightly effects the distribution of charge and thus the potential field.
Are we sure we understand energy levels in muon orbitals? Could we be confusing the change in proton size with some other effect related to muons?
context, 4% is 4% however 4% of an entire atom is at least a few thousand times larger (actually it is the same ratio as the atom:nucleus ratio) then 4% of a nucleus... for example if the nucleus is 100 units and the atom is 1,000,000 units 4% of the nucleus is only 4 units and 4% of the atom is 40,000, a huge difference. brady was right and you don't know what you are talking about. i doubt you did maths, physics or chemistry in highschool if you think your point is still valid after this...
Could it be that the radius of the proton changes due to the mass and proximity of the muon? I mean, the proton itself should move due to the electron/muon around it, though that motion is normally a small correction on the hydrogen Hamiltonian, so its wave function (and thus the measurable width) should change depending on what is around it. Probably I'm being naive to think the authors didn't thought of that.
i dont care bout your missunderstanding of squares i can prove that if the radius is 4% smaller so will the diameter:
diameter=2(Pi)(r)
diameter+x*diameter=2(Pi)(r+0.04r)
doing the magic of substitution:
2(Pi)(r)+x*(2(Pi)(r))=2(Pi)(r)+0.04(2(Pi)(r))
cross out things which are the same on both sides
x*(2(Pi)(r))=0.04(2(Pi)(r))
x=0.04 (4%)
what i love about maths is that qualifications dont make a wrong claim correct and a lack of such dnt make me wrong
yours sincerely a high school student
Hm, one comment and one question: The comment: for the ground state of the hydrogen atom (as also of the He atom), the angular momentum l of the electron(s) is 0, so not even in the classical picture it would orbit :-) -- it's rather like a breathing mode.
The question: could what is interpreted as a smaller size also just point to the influence of add'l dimensions as suggested by String Theories for small scales?
Why should we send you a mail instead of writing directly here on youtube? The answer would be interesting for others, too. To answer your question: I assume, that the rate with which the universe expands does not fit with the four percent change of the proton. Oh, and it is not a change over time. It was just a new method for meassuring that shows an other size for the proton than predicted by calculations.
The point I think he's trying to get at is the fact that the inaccuracies of the physicists' measurements are more significant and unexplainable unlike the Mt. Everest analogy. If we measured it 354m higher than it appears, faulty equipment or a slight change in the mountain itself could be the reason, but the fact that the methods of testing the radius of protons were so certain for years, to challenge that concept now and change a basic fundamental part of physics by 4% is a huge, scary thing.
I relise that it is arrogant to propose anything but I have a question and I hope it someone adresses it... Could it be that 200 bigger mass of a muon "orbiting" proton can steel momentum from proton, and since proton is made of quarks and is not a single particle, those quarks jiggle certain amount less, making overall proton smaller? Can it be that proton changes size depending on what is circling around it?
so because muon released 4% less energy than they expected, they think proton is exactly 4% smaller? while they don't know what is making electrons release energy at different rate... i think they are measuring wrong again, all what they can say is that size of proton can be around that number but can be +- some percentage until they find exactly what makes different particles release bit different energy when changing to lower orbit
Its Bohrs atom theory that works best on a hydrogen atom (doesnt work very well on poli-electron atoms but its the same principal). Its basicly because the electron itself jumps from one energy level to another. If it absorbs energy it jumps on a higher level while when emitting energy it jumps on lower levels.
Another factor is that the electron itself isnt really a orbiting ball but has wave properties as well so u cant actually determine the exact location of the electron itself.
The acceleration does NOT change, it's the velocity that changes. Circular orbits REQUIRE that the force, and therefore the acceleration, remain constant and perpendicular to the motion of the electrons.
Of course, your explanation is completely wrong since electrons are NOT little 'balls' that go around the nucleus. I think Feynman explained it best in a video when he said, "We cannot picture the atom!"
That's because the electrons are not tiny balls orbiting the nucleus! This classical view was long discarded after the discovery of quantum physics. Electrons can act as a 'fog' around the nucleus, or they can behave as standing waves.
Here's the deal: we don't actually know what an atom looks like since all proposed models of the atom have some flaws. The 'standing wave' and 'fog' model can explain a variety of phenomena, but even that fails to explain things like super fluidity.
This might be a really stupid question or just one of my brain-farts, but why doesn't the electron smash into the proton? They have oposing charges so eventually the electron should collide and "bond" with the proton. But as far as I can remember the atom is 99.9999% vacuum because, relativisticly, it's a huge distance between the proton and the electron. Why is this?
Please answer seriously! :)
"Maybe ... normally distributed"
Of course that's possible. Physics is all about defining the limits of what we don't known rather than stating with certainty what we do.
But the uncertainty in the rest mass of the proton is now down in the 10th decimal place ( see Wikipedia). I'm not sure if that comes from theory (QED) or observation, or both. But I am sure that any Normal distribution would have to be a very very sharp peak or someone would notice.
I watched the movie, What the Bleep do we Know and by my calculations with this new data, the proton's width will be 0.00 by 2677 if a 4% shrinkage rate holds steady per 6 yr period. But life only requires a 10% shrinkage to be unsustainable so that by 2020, all life in the universe will be extinct. Of course, it's significant that in 666 years the universe itself will wink out.
@kevinhr1
They understand the relationship between "the size of the tires" and "the speedometer". I guessing what you are trying to illustrate is not understanding this relationship between the changes you make and the instruments you use to measure those changes?
The point is, that using a more massive particle ("Bigger Tyres?") gave results that were not expected. This gives new information about the Proton AND the Muon. And possibly, a new force.
@rithem412
We don't really know the proton's shape. No one has ever, or likely will ever, see a proton. But it is helpful for most people (including me) to visualize a proton and most particles for that matter, as spherical. The human mind is an analogy machine and the whole solar system comparison is often used.
Being composed of exactly 3 quarks and some gluons, protons could be triangular or even pyramidal. Perhaps something even more mysterious.
Cheers
@525047 "How can you get the measurement wrong the first time and still claim your second "theory" is any better?"
Because it explains more... The reason you don't see any scientists up in arms, threatening to burn the people who discovered this alive, is because we've never claimed to have the absolute Truth. They didn't get the measurement "wrong" the first time, they just didn't have it correct either. Nor do we still have it absolutely correct.
Wait wait wait! There is something REALLY bothering me about this.
How do we know this new calculation of the proton's size is correct? What if this situation was reversed and the ORIGINAL way of measuring the proton size was with the muon, and then a group of physicists came out and measured the proton to be LARGER than originally thought by using the electron?
Perhaps a proton's size is somehow affected by the muon orbiting it?
It just feels like something is left out here
Wouldn't an alternate explanation be that the muon is more massive than previously thought - wouldn't this keep the proton the same?
To be honest with you, I think the point of the analogy was to prove to viewers that this is a rather substantial change, not one that should be ignored or discounted.
Brady's a knowledgeable chap, and I'm sure it was made with the best of intentions to perhaps put the issue into context with something more "worldly".
"Whereas religion will banish anything slightly in disagreement." This is false, and you CANNOT deny that. Criticism of religion is just as worst as ciriticism of atheism. Both parties possess a belief that cannot be verified or proved wrong. Yet, both claim that their view is the right one, to the great displeasure of the other.
It seems to me that a superduper vacuum would need to void of space itself too. Is that two dimensional, or one dimensional, or maybe zero dimensional, I don't know. Here is an idea, I existed in a superduper vacuum up until the date of my conception. Also, what about Everett's ideas in all of this stuff?
This video makes me wonder if the scientists who released the information about their experiment found this as a side result of researching something else, or if instead some other idea or behavior triggered them to make the experiment to test this very thing.
In other words: what was the motivation/goal of the original experiment?
@culwin Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise. What does human error and the current limit of science have to do with atheism?
Do you feel the same way about unsolved crimes? If a detective gets something wrong, or we're unable to solve a crime, do you think that forensics falls short of solving crimes and that there must be a god? That last part would be the non sequitur.
Why are the researchers are sure that the difference is due to the proton size not the muon size/mass? Isn't the propability of error in proton radius is the same propability of error in the muon radius?
Amer Hanna I'm sure there are some consequences of the mass changing other than the ones regarding this result.
Anyone in particle physics who knows if they found there was some of error? Or has this difference been explained since?
It is a massive difference because it relates to the gravity and electromagnetic force of atomic particles whereas the atom bomb is huge, so small differences don't matter as much. The atom bomb was also measured from a video of it happening, so it's a lot harder to calculate accurately.
We know because it affects the curves the make in magnetic fields. For example, the LHC would not work because the heavy protons would fly off outside and the light ones would fall inside.
Also it would change the physics of stars. Perhaps there wouldn't be any stars.
nah, the nucleus is tiny compared to the size of the whole atom (bunch of cricket balls compared to kilometers). you are just taking the height of everest and taking 4% of that which is completely wrong thinking. watch the vid again
So, what would happen if muon experiment came first and then the radius of proton using an electron decay energy was determined to be 4% larger? May be the proton is simply more intimidated by the larger muon than it was by a smaller electron?
lol i dont know who put them comments but it wasnt me i dont do mathematics im studying biology, looks like someone has got hold of my account details sorry about that but yea minus 4% off the radius would make a total of 8% off the diameter.
This is why i love science, the scientists actually get exited when theories are proved wrong, because they know they are getting closer to being right once they solve the new issue. Whereas religion will banish anything slightly in disagreement
It's been over 3 years. Any updates on this? Have they figured out there was an experimental error? Have any new forces been posited to explain this? Did someone figure out that the experiment was flawed in some way?
@sixtysymbols QUESTION: WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING WHEN AN ELECTRON MOVES FROM ONE ORBIT TO ANOTHER. IF AN ELECTRON MOVES FROM P TO S ORBIT AND EMITS LIGHT, IS IT SHEDDING A PARTICLE? EXPLAIN THE MATTER PLEASE. THANK YOU.
Those 31 dislikes are from those who think earth is flat, that they are saggitarious and that pine tree oil cures cancer xd
aaaaaaaaaaaaand the wiki now says that it is 0.8775 fm
+Stat Statakaka
Was it updated by someone that didn't get the news?
+Stat Statakaka Nah to be more precise 2 exp give 2 differents results, and right now scientist still have no idea where the problem comes from.
The calculated value which is at the top of Wikipedia is 0.8751(61) fm. The measured value is 0.84087(39) fm with 7σ accuracy as per "Antognini, Aldo; Nez, François; Schuhmann, Karsten; et al. (25 January 2013). It is an open problem in Physics (as of 2017) as to why the discrepancy exists.
Fun fact: 'François Nez' literally translates as 'Frank Nose'. So I guess ... oh for God's sake ... I guess he Nose what he's talking about.
0.8751 fm
If a photon doesn't have enough energy to promote an electron, it continues passing right through. Transparency means the energy gap is larger than the energy of a photon of visible light.
I don't want to live on this earth anymore .... :/
Radius = ½ Diameter => Radius = Diameter - ½ Diameter
=> Radius = Diameter - Radius => Radius + Radius = Diameter
=> 2 * Radius = Diameter.
Ah, that makes sense. But why isn't the electron slowing down then? Where does the force to keep the electron "circling" the nucleus come from?
It almost seems like the atom is a perpetuum mobile.
How can you get the measurement wrong the first time and still claim your second "theory" is any better?
I just hope the universe doesn't get into the way of the math of quantum mechanics.
@jacksawild I believe God exists, but I usually think of him as a 4 dimensional being. All the things a 4D being could do fits the description of God.
4D beings can see everything at once, create or destroy 3-dimensional objects at will, cause events to happen without directly interacting with the 3rd dimension, etc.
In fact, we can do the same thing with 2D drawings and side scrollers.
@culwin This is why I can't be a theist - it shows that, even though we think we've got it right, a few years later we find out the world is slightly different than we thought. If I were relying upon ancient texts to describe reality, imagine how many discoveries and insights I'd be missing out on, and thus how far from reality my beliefs would be. I think most theists don't understand the difference between "getting it wrong" and "getting it as close as possible until we improve our methods".
Thats got nothing to do with what I was talking about... lol. We're simply talking about scientific acknowledgement from the part of the Church, not if they like condoms or not.
Lol... Sorry but I'm starting to think your flat out ignorant (no offense). The Church has already conceded many things to science, it is not just blindly saying "NO!" to everything..
@Infocollective22 Yes, I get that. My confusion arose from the fact that electrons aren't actually orbiting. But I think I get it now. The electron's probability density cloud changes.
@jonz94 he did say that.... if you listened properly and you have to consider the fact that their kinda of dumbing it down for people like us to understand since well their professors....
How would the LHC not work if just a few Protons would overshoot and some fall short? Maybe their weight is normal distributed? Do we really know enough about them and are we really able to measure their properties sufficiently accurate to support such a blunt theory like them all having exactly the same mass?
@Jalenxx You know, that's a pretty silly response, since I was talking about the fourth spacial dimension, not space-time. You know, as in 2D has x and y, 3D has x, y, and z, and 4D has x, y, z, and w. Look up "hypercube" on your search engine of choice.
Also while you're at it, look up the definition of "ignorant."
If the electrons aren't actually orbiting, why do we say they need x amount of energy to change their orbit. What really happens with those electrons that "change orbit"?
Are we making an assumption when we think of a proton as a tiny spherical ball? Protons probably have volume because they have magnetic moments, but how do we know its shape?
I believe that earlier in the series, or later, I'm not sure, the fact was explained that the allignment of electron orbits creates a magnetic filed. If the electrons are replaced with Muons, can they generate a magnetic field as well? Does that change the strength?
@Sharkness77 I think the idea behind using a muon is that because the muon has a lot more mass than an electron there is a bigger energy difference between the orbits. With this, they get a much larger release of energy and this will be easier to measure accurately.
maybe it is the electron that is getting either larger or more powerful so atoms repel each other more and then that is what we sometimes refer to as dark matter?
Is it that they developed a new measuring technique that gives this new result giving a smaller length of the proton, or did the proton actually get smaller?
@XAttaHabibX I know. Perhaps my word choice could have been slightly clearer, but it still makes sense given that the gods most theists believe in are based (in some way) on the ones of ancient texts and given that most theists are religious.
I don't think it would be very smart of these "eggheads" to start coming up with theories for an experimental result that hasn't been verified yet.
The wording of the video is very misleading. I first though that the proton was actually shrinking whereas in reality it just turned out to be smaller.
Or your brain...it doesn't mean that the size of the proton changed at all, only our ability to measure it more precisely. That is still profound.
@nagualdesign dude wtf im right diameter is radius squared (x2) and im currently doing mathmatical trigonomitry at university :/ get an education man :/
Putting the muon in place of the electron makes me think if other modifications like that to an atom would be stable and make other variants. I'm not sure if this is possible though, but it is a cool idea to think about?
I'm sure interviewers often knowingly ask silly questions in order to clarify the facts and dispense with possible misapprehensions among viewers.
I guess a better analogy would be if say... we discovered sea level was a few centimetres lower. If something more fundamental was different.