> The article keeps talking about "the size of the proton", its "radius", etc., but I would like to point out that the proton is not a sphere and does not, in f

> The article keeps talking about "the size of the proton", its "radius", etc., but I would like to point out that the proton is not a sphere and does not, in fact, have a size in the normal sense The "normal sense" for _any_ measured value, in order to be considered a reliable measurement, whether it be length, weight, or number of electrons contained within, must necessarily be established as an average of independent samples sufficient to narrow the measurement error to within the desired precision boundaries. You might as well say that you don't have a height in the normal sense because some days you stand slightly more erect than others, except that would be a misunderstanding of "normal sense" and also "height". If you can only reliably measure protons along a single particular dimensional axis, and then only on average through sampling, then you have no way of saying that it isn't actually, factually, literally a sphere, and using spherical measurement terms is reasonable. If you want, feel free to mentally prepend the word "approximately" any time you read any measurement of anything. It will always be slightly more accurate, even when just counting things. Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow