Protons Aren't round

drox writes "USA Today reports that protons are ovoid rather than spherical, as most of us learned in school." In related news, thousands of high school science labs have thrown out a bunch of little plastic balls.

Comments

As if

[leviramsey]

...USA Today, the newspaper that specializes in boiling down complex issues into six sentences, knows anything about physics. Yeah, um... right.

Re:How can it have shape?

[rjh]

A related question: a proton doesn't even have a distinct location, so how can it have a shape? The answer is to change what you think "shape" means. When quantum physicists talk about the shape of a proton or an electron or what-have-you, they're actually talking about a probability distribution.

Let's take a very simple probability distribution. (Real physicists will take great umbrage at how I'm simplifying things--so just let me defend myself by saying this is a gross simplification.) Let's say that the proton has a 95% chance of existing within X distance of a given point in space (i.e., within X along all three direction axis). That probability distribution is spherical; the region of 95% probability is spherical in area.

Let's say the proton has a 95% chance of existing within X distance along the x axis, Y distance along the y axis and Z distance along the z axis. Suddenly, you no longer have a spherical probability distribution; the probability distribution is longer along one axis than another.

In the case of the proton, the "shape" of the proton is ovoidal.

Remember, pretty much all of your observations about the macro universe are totally inapplicable at the quantum level. Even the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply at the micro level like it does on the macro. So before you say "it can't have a shape"... make sure that you're not trying to apply your macro concept of "shape" to the micro.

Only one radially symmetry

[bagsc]

The implication that the proton doesnt have three radial symmetries is pretty sweet - we now _know_ that the proton can support two axes of rotation, meaning that they can store rotational energy, that we could only assume if protons were perfectly radially symmetric (and therefore completely indistinguishable from their non-rotating kin). This has thermodynamic implications, the degrees of freedom are increased if the proton can store rotational quanta, and possibly increasing our understanding of plasmas. How can any right-thinking geek find this banal?