1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Proton 4% smaller

  1. Aug 5, 2010 #1
    First of all, do you believe the new measurements are accurate and the proton is actually 4% smaller. If you do, What implications do you think this will have?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 5, 2010 #2
    Hmmm, the old "does size matter?" question. Why not ask the electron, since she is his natural mate?
     
  4. Aug 6, 2010 #3
    lol, I don't think she'd notice if he's 4% smaller.
     
  5. Aug 6, 2010 #4
    lmao... nice guys... hey all first post.

    honestly i think its too soon to go around saying the new size is accurate.
     
  6. Aug 8, 2010 #5
    Hm, I've always thought quantum mechanics didn't allow precise lenght measurements.
    If it is hard to define what is the size of an atom, I'm wondering how to define a proton's size.

    Where have you found this news?
     
  7. Aug 8, 2010 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It doesn't allow simultaneous precise measurements of observables that don't commute.
     
  8. Aug 8, 2010 #7
  9. Aug 8, 2010 #8
  10. Aug 8, 2010 #9
    @zhermes
    Thank you! I didn't know such definitions existed - I know very little QM, indeed.
     
  11. Aug 8, 2010 #10
    @Acut
    np. The concept of "boundaries" in general is pretty wild. The table I'm writing on, has no clear boundaries: the surface is just the average location at which the electrons in my hands strongly repel the electrons in the wood. Our E&M fields interact at all distances, and with enough force we could become arbitrarily "close."
    Crazy stuff! :)
     
  12. Aug 8, 2010 #11
    @zhermes
    Yes, there are no sharp boundaries. In one of Feynman's lectures on Physics, a entire section is used to illustrate those blurred definitions.

    By the way, I forgot asking... @ OP: where have you read about those new measurements?
     
  13. Aug 9, 2010 #12
    I'm not the OP (obviously), but I read about it http://www.physorg.com/news197727820.html" [Broken] last month.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  14. Aug 9, 2010 #13

    alxm

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook