Paper detail

Anthropic Estimates of the Charge and Mass of the Proton

By combining a renormalization group argument relating the charge e and mass m of the proton by e^2 ln m ~ 0.1 pi (in Planck units) with the Carter-Carr-Rees anthropic argument that gives an independent approximate relation m ~ e^20 between these two constants, both can be crudely estimated. These equations have the factor of 0.1 pi and the exponent of 20 which depend upon known discrete parameters (e.g., the number of generations of quarks and leptons, and the number of spatial dimensions), but they contain NO continuous observed parameters. Their solution gives the charge of the proton correct to within about 8%, though the mass estimate is off by a factor of about 1000 (16% error on a logarithmic scale). When one adds a fudge factor of 10 previously given by Carr and Rees, the agreement for the charge is within about 2%, and the mass is off by a factor of about 3 (2.4% error on a logarithmic scale). If this 10 were replaced by 15, the charge agrees within 1.1% and the mass itself agrees within 0.7%.

preprint2003arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.