Can the SM accurately calculate the charge radius of a Proton and Neutron?

[Geoff Serpells]

Can someone please provide me with a SM calculation of the RMS charge radius of a Proton and the Neutron MS charge radius using two equations of the same form?

I need a SM calculation matching physical experiment precisely, no approximations - I've seen plenty SM guesstimates which are quite poor actually.

I have seen it done in a non -conventional manner (to umpteen decimal places) and I am attempting to determine if the SM can do it.

So, could an expert please show me how it is done PRECISELY correlating to PDG information and the SELEX Collaboration?

I need:
(1) The RMS charge radius of a Proton precisely matching the experimental result published by the SELEX Collaboration.
(2) The Neutron MS charge radius expressed in NON-NEGATIVE SQUARED form. This can be done, despite convention, I have seen it done.

GS

 

[humanino]

Can someone please provide me with a SM calculation of the RMS charge radius of a Proton and the Neutron MS charge radius using two equations of the same form?

This has never been obtained to the best of my knowledge. Only model calculation exist. Some of them are pretty good. So why do you worry about first principle calculation from QCD anyway ?

 

[Geoff Serpells]

"The Experts" apparently know less than they would have you believe

Actually, they are not "pretty good" at all. In-fact, they are extremely poor compared to what I have seen.

If you like, I can point you to where EXACT solutions exist, well well well beyond anything the SM is capable of achieving.

The frustrating thing is that it "appears" to me that these derivations are gold, yet the "experts" don't seem to have the first clue as to how it works. Not one. It makes a layperson like me wonder if any of these "experts" are qualified at all.

The most ridiculous thing is that they call it "speculative" when it clearly can't be because it's experimentally verified! ... How BIZARRE is that?

I would seriously question the competance of any expert incapable fo reproducing precisely the same degree of experimental accuracy as the "non-standard" solutions I've seen.

In-fact, I challenge PF to explain how "this other" solution is wrong! ... I am not permitted to say what it is or where it is because otherwise PF will hit me with another infraction.

It "seems" to me that the moderators & advisors don't like looking foolish.

GS

 

[Sojourner01]

The frustrating thing is that it "appears" to me that these derivations are gold, yet the "experts" don't seem to have the first clue as to how it works. Not one. It makes a layperson like me wonder if any of these "experts" are qualified at all.

The most ridiculous thing is that they call it "speculative" when it clearly can't be because it's experimentally verified! ... How BIZARRE is that?

If you know better, you provide a justification.

I don't know anything about the models you're talking about, but in general it's 'bad science' to trumpet a great triumph of physics if you can't explain how it's happening. If you have no good explanation of the experimental results you're seeing, there is justification - though by no means a foregone conclusion - to suggest there may be something wrong with the experiment. All possibilities must be examined.

By the way, I haven't seen you on the forums before, but I'd suggest that if you've been having trouble with the mods it may be something to do with your somewhat obnoxious tone.

 

[Geoff Serpells]

"somewhat obnoxious tone"

I don't know any better, that's the whole point ... I am seeking assistance.

I am not trumpeting anything, I am asking for an "expert" to explain it to me. Yet, the mod reply is "speculative".

Would there be any "doubt" in your mind of the experiment was conducted in a Billion Euro accelerator by over 100 Physicists?

You have completely misread what I wrote. Or rather, you didn't read it carefully.

Please define "somewhat obnoxious tone" ...

GS

 

[humanino]

If you like, I can point you to where EXACT solutions exist, well well well beyond anything the SM is capable of achieving.

I would very much appreciate if you provide references to back up your surprising claims.

It "seems" to me that the moderators & advisors don't like looking foolish.

You are playing a dangerous game. You will loose all credibility as soon as it will have been shown that you cannot publish your results.

If you are interested, I can provide you with references of calculations of the energy-momentum tensor of quarks inside the nucleon. Not just FF. From a phenomenological model : the chiral-quark-soliton. Very well known, very efficient, no free parameter.

To proceed further, please back up your claims right now.

 

[Geoff Serpells]

Try this

Sorry, I must have confused the situation. They are not my results, but those of others.

Have a look at the following link & see for yourself:
[link removed]

GS

 

[Geoff Serpells]

You might also want this one too:
[link removed]

Sorry, I forgot to ask ... I would sincerely appreciate you explaining to me how the particle stuff works before you move on to the Cosmology stuff.

Many thanks in advance for all your help ... Much appreciated.

GS

 

[ZapperZ]

Could you please provide exact citations where these are published? If you cannot do so, then please recall your AGREEMENT to our https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374", especially on personal theory that hasn't been published.

If you wish to continue with this, the ONLY place you can do this is the IR forum.

Zz.

 

[Geoff Serpells]

Oops ... Sorry :-(