Slashdot Mirror
The Proton Is Lighter Than We Thought (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes from a report via Science Magazine: You can't weigh the universe's smallest particles on a bathroom scale. But in a clever new experiment, physicists have found one such particle -- the proton -- is lighter than previously thought. The researchers found the mass to be 1.007276466583 atomic mass units. That's roughly 30 billionths of a percent lower than the average value from past experiments -- a seemingly tiny difference that is actually significant by three standard deviations. The result both creates and clears up mysteries, and could help explain the universe as we know it. The findings have been published in the journal Physical Review Letters.
Don't take it lightly!
Sig?
Sounds like one of the programmers decided to slightly tweak one of the global constants on our program perhaps to make it possible to build a really cool hyperspace wormhole ride.
That's just astonishing. Get the Nobel committee on the phone. It'll be interesting to see what tweaks to the Standard Model come about as a result of this -- one of its 72 unexplained empirical "constants" has suddenly been (drastically) updated.
"You can't weigh the universe's smallest particles on a bathroom scale"
Of course you can, duh. You get a bucket full of them (say, 10 trillion), weigh it on the bathroom scale then subtract the weight of the bucket and divide what's left by 10 trillion. Voila, the weight of 1 proton. Silly scientists, do I have to think of everything?
OTOH, weighing a labrador who doesn't want to stand still on the bathroom scale - now, that's the REAL Nobel-worthy challenge.
How dare you assume their gender without asking them first? This is why I need protonism.
From now on the proton cancer treatments will be 30 billionths of a percent cheaper! And the future proton rifles 30 billionths of a percent lighter.
In physics, we're limited by our environment. I've seen ridiculous things like the sprinklers coming on disrupt gravity constant measurements. Air conditioning, doors opening and closing, trains running a block away... there are so many things that can screw up these kinds of measurements.
A precise measurement is not the same thing as an accurate measurement. These guys went to great lengths to be as accurate as possible, but in situations like this, it's not reasonable to try to use a single apparatus to definitively contradict what people have measured for the last 5-10 years.
So... the mass of the proton isn't changing (by this honestly insignificant amount) until a couple of other groups independently verify this measurement.
That means less black matter/energy to the rest of us... (according to matter-blackmatter balance)
Great news! How's the photon doing?
Garry Knight
Standard model doesn't cover gravity so a change in mass means fuck all. Last I remember it couldn't even explain why neutrinos have mass.
But then what is mass, what actually happens when mass turns to photons? What is energy in photons different from kinetic energy in particles? Why does light travel at C in a vacuum. What's special about C? Even before we get onto the train wreck that is QM.
Can anyone elaborate on implications of the mass change?
Its probably female and dieting :)
The actual value is -
Just take a value that clears up the most mysteries.
(cheaper than building another damn super-collider)
Ha! I knew it. All these years carrying around 'extra' weight. Shaming me. Prodding me to go to the gym. No more..
Fast food's fault.
Googling CODATA values:
proton mass = 1.672 621 898 (21) x 10^-27 kg
Atomic mass unit = 1.660 539 040 (20) x 10^-27 kg
Releative standard deviations: 1.25 x 10^-8
Ratio of codata values: 1.007 276 467 285 (i.e., codata proton mass in terms of atomic units)
New measurement: 1.007 276 466 583
Difference: 7.0198469259707963 x 10^-10
Relative difference: 6.9691362341583399 x 10^-10
How is this three standard deviations?
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
What if the mass of protons is slowly changing now?
The light from most of the stars is thousands and millions of years old. We can't measure their current state from their current light.
What would a 30 billionths of a percent per year decrease mean for "dark universe" as opposed to heat death?
And with that joke, I am whiter then white.
I'd say sorry, but then you'd think I was Canadian.
Was it Russian or American proton?
Does this mean all of my Periodic Tables are wrong???
Proton packs now lighter.
Every time...for the last 20 years..when some article says...could explain the universe..I yawn and move to next article. The writers are dizzy-lazy
You know, cutting down on carbs, drinking water, a little exercise? That'll make a difference....
Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
Electrino
Protino
Neutrino
If you think of speed as distance per unit of time, then you could view that as the photon not having any speed at all, since it does not experience time. `c` is not special at all, it just happens to be the speed at which certain massless effects propagate in the universe. It's a limiting condition, sort of inherent to the idea that space and time can be traversed. You might also think of it as the "clock rate" of the universe.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
But don't worry, they've got the estimate of mass in the universe 100% flawlessly calculated based on observations and dark matter is totally real and not a math mistake.
Still costs the same, though.
I blame that metric system. Toilet rolls, 68p for two. That's over a pound each in the old money.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I understand that there's a good chance that I'm able to access this source for free though one of my state's local libraries, and that's wonderful. I tried and failed to access it through one library card. I still feel as though more this entity would generate more net revenue and have the side effect of more people able to speak intelligently on the subject if the cost of a single paper was $2-$5 each.
In writing out this frustration, I think I'm beginning to understand, and I'm wondering if I might have a possible solution. I believe the average paper out of a scolarly journal produces effectively zero interest from the general public. They are too niche or too complicated or the findings are too unsurprising. For these papers, it doesn't matter if it costs $25 dollars or if it costs $1, you're still selling about the same number of copies. So it makes sense to charge the higher price. Every month or so, a decent journal such as this manages to publish an article that some science-news entity thinks is interesting enough to post a writeup. Every few months, they publish something that interests a number of science-writers, and manages to hit the slashdot level of interest. Once or twice a year, they publish something that gets mainstream attention and shows up on the level of something like SciShow (one of the few entities that makes science friendly and digestible, but also fact-checks and doesn't constantly get details plain wrong like so many other pop-sci media sources). The lower pricing would only make sense on those higher tiers, where greater demand for the original paper is generated. So now I'm wondering, why don't journals re-actively price accordingly? When a paper gets wider attention, slash the price. I suppose the response to this is that this isn't done for fear of it generating bias in publication selection. And I get that; greed is the enemy of integrity; it's why MTV stopped playing music videos long before the days where we could just stream them, it's why History channel and Discovery Networks bailed on quality educational programming. You don't want your academic journals vying to go viral; so you isolate yourself from that business. But in rea
Typing out 1.007276466583 is going to be a real pain. Lets just say an amu is the weight of a proton and not 1/12 the weight of carbon or 1/16 of oxygen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wouldn't a change in our understanding a proton's mass also impact our theories about potential proton decay?
(I hope they don't decay, and we mostly think they don't but we're not totally sure)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Great!
My girlfriend now weighs ~10 billionths of a percent lower than she previously did. Yes, it totally counts! No, it's not a crack about her weight, more of a crack about weight obsession. Which also appears to be an issue with these scientists...
Please, please, can this please lead to discarding the latest "proof" of finding a Higgs Bogon? Tell me yes!
Yes the proton is portly, obese even. But seriously there's no need to fat shame it, I am sure it feels bad as it is.
Speaking as someone who has written several dozen scientific papers and has gone through this process many times, the journal system has become something of a racket.
In an age before computers, they used to have to type set your submitted articles. This involved often retyping the manuscript and physical cutting the text to fit within the scope as needed. This was time consuming and the cost of the journal was real. (this was before my time admittedly.) Since no digital data bases existed, there was also a cost in publishing indexes so that work could be found. Another real cost
Then, computers were invented and soon after sophisticated word processors. The type setting duty fell increasingly to the author, with some modern journals even having you produce the PDF with figures imbedded. The editors of most journals are not paid, but it is run on a sort of mandatory volunteerism. If you want funding, you BETTER be severing on journal and grant committees. Peer review is the same. The editor sends these out to people, who BETTER do the editing and commenting, or more issues with funding etc.
The funny thing is, despite having the cost decrease, most journals have not had their price decrease. In fact, many of the famous journals have a publication fee as well as a subscription fee. Oh, I forgot to mention that of course they are not sponsoring the work, that is also free to the journal.
Unlike many professions, the author receives no compensation. So, if you are fascinated in one of my desulfurization papers and yield to the paywall to get it, I receive nothing. I am actually ok with the idea my science is open for society, but someone else should not gain economic benefit from it if I do not.
So, when you get down to it. There really should not be a paywall in modern times, or it should be much lower. The difference between the prestigious journals and the the low end is not how much care they put into their manuscript preparation or any such thing. It is merely from their reputation of the quality of work published. In principal, this means they could be all PDF download with zero cost. This is not done because some people are making a nice little living out of paywalling something that is pretty much free to produce.
Hope this helps.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.