Pressure in the proton, from gravitational form factors?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a recent paper published in Nature that calculates the pressure distribution inside the proton using gravitational form factors. The methodology involves electron scattering from quarks via two-photon exchange, suggesting a connection between gravitational and electromagnetic form factors. The gravitational form factors, which are matrix elements of the energy momentum tensor, provide insights into the spatial distribution of mass within the proton, specifically focusing on quarks rather than gluons. The paper employs generalized Parton distributions (GPD) and deeply virtual inelastic scattering to indirectly assess the inertial mass distribution, despite the challenges of direct measurement.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of gravitational form factors and their role in particle physics
  • Familiarity with generalized Parton distributions (GPD)
  • Knowledge of deeply virtual inelastic scattering techniques
  • Basic concepts of matrix elements and energy momentum tensors
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of gravitational form factors in quantum chromodynamics (QCD)
  • Study the methodology of deeply virtual inelastic scattering in detail
  • Explore the relationship between gravitational and electromagnetic form factors
  • Investigate the role of quarks and gluons in the proton's structure
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, researchers in particle physics, and students interested in the structure of protons and the interplay between gravitational and electromagnetic interactions.

mitchell porter
Gold Member
Messages
1,522
Reaction score
814
A paper in Nature is getting some press, for having calculated "the pressure distribution inside the proton".

But the theory behind the calculation seems a little odd. Apparently the data pertains to the scattering of an electron from a quark via the exchange of two photons. But each photon has spin 1, so that adds up to spin 2 like a graviton... and then there's talk about gravitational form factors, as if there are sufficient formal similarities with the two-photon electromagnetic form factors (?) that gravitational calculations can be transposed to the electromagnetic context.

I'm not at all saying this is impossible, but I am a little skeptical. Does anyone have an informed opinion on the validity of this work, and its methods?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: BvU
Physics news on Phys.org
So I’m not an expert by any means here, but the paper interested me as well. The theory seems to have been established pretty firmly in the literature. Here’s a short review:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11467-016-0573-6.pdf

My rough understanding of it: The gravitational form factors are matrix elements of the energy momentum tensor. Their Fourier transform gives the spatial distribution of mass (or energy) in the proton—cf. electric form factor, whose Fourier transform gives the spatial charge distribution. For reasons beyond my ken, in the proton, this seems to apply only to the quarks and not the gluons (thus pressure distribution instead of energy distribution). I don’t really get this part and am probably misinterpreting what I am reading.

Anywho, direct measurement of the gravitational form factor requires measuring the graviton-proton interaction, which obviously isn’t experimentally feasible currently. But since gravitational mass and inertial mass are equivalent (according to the equivalence principle), you can indirectly get at the inertial mass distribution via the generalized Parton distribution. Which is what the Nature paper does. They gather information about he GPD using a scattering regime called “deeply virtual inelastic scattering.”

Edit: the GPD gets access to the off-diagonal elements of the gravitational form factor— these are momentum correlations among the quarks. The diagonal elements are related in some simple way to the mass of the quarks.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Craftek_Ana

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K