Paper detail

The Proton Radius from Electron Scattering Data

[Background] The proton charge radius extracted from recent muonic hydrogen Lamb shift measurements is significantly smaller than that extracted from atomic hydrogen and electron scattering measurements. [Purpose] In an attempt to understand the discrepancy, we review high-precision electron scattering results from Mainz, Jefferson Lab, Saskatoon and Stanford. [Method] We make use of stepwise regression techniques using the $F$-test as well as the Akaike information criterion to systematically determine the predictive variables to use for a given set and range of electron scattering data as well as to provide multivariate error estimates. [Results] Starting with the precision, low four-momentum transfer ($Q^2$) data from Mainz (1980) and Saskatoon (1974), we find that a stepwise regression of the Maclaurin series using the $F$-test as well as the Akaike information criterion justify using a linear extrapolation which yields a value for the proton radius that is consistent with the result obtained from muonic hydrogen measurements. Applying the same Maclaurin series and statistical criteria to the 2014 Rosenbluth results on $G_E$ from Mainz, we again find that the stepwise regression tends to favor a radius consistent with the muonic hydrogen radius but produces results that are extremely sensitive to the range of data included in the fit. Making use of the high-$Q^2$ data on $G_E$ to select functions which extrapolate to high $Q^2$, we find that a Padé ($N=M=1$) statistical model works remarkably well, as does a dipole function with a 0.84 fm radius, $G_E(Q^2) = ( 1 + Q^2/0.66\,\mathrm{GeV}^2)^{-2}$. [Conclusions] From this statistical analysis, we conclude that the electron scattering result and the muonic hydrogen result are consistent. It is the atomic hydrogen results that are the outliers.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors4 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.