Paper detail

QED confronts the radius of the proton

Recent results on muonic hydrogen [1] and the ones compiled by CODATA on ordinary hydrogen and $ep$-scattering [2] are $5σ$ away from each other. Two reasons justify a further look at this subject: 1) One of the approximations used in [1] is not valid for muonic hydrogen. This amounts to a shift of the proton's radius by $\sim 3$ of the standard deviations of [1], in the "right" direction of data-reconciliation. In field-theory terms, the error is a mismatch of renormalization scales. Once corrected, the proton radius "runs", much as the QCD coupling "constant" does. 2) The result of [1] requires a choice of the "third Zemach moment". Its published independent determination is based on an analysis with a $p$-value --the probability of obtaining data with equal or lesser agreement with the adopted (fit form-factor) hypothesis-- of $3.92\times 10^{-12}$. In this sense, this quantity is not empirically known. Its value would regulate the level of "tension" between muonic- and ordinary-hydrogen results, currently {\it at most} $\sim 4σ$. There is no tension between the results of [1] and the proton radius determined with help of the analyticity of its form factors.

preprint2011arXivOpen 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.