3 ms·

So to summarize, standard model theory predicted that the radius of the proton would be 0.84 femtometers. High energy electron scattering experiments from the 9

by ummonk 5y ago

So to summarize, standard model theory predicted that the radius of the proton would be 0.84 femtometers. High energy electron scattering experiments from the 90s and 2000s suggested it was more like 0.88 femtometers, which was a large discrepancy that causes some consideration that the standard model would have to be revised. These researchers performed a reanalysis of the data correcting for some confounding phenomena (might have been neutron formation) to suggest that the old experimental data was consistent with the 0.84 femtometers predicted by both theory and by newer lower energy scattering experiments. I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to decide whether the title of the article is clickbait.

ISL 5y ago
It's not clickbait. I've been to oodles of talks on the problem. It has had special sessions at APS meetings and I've watched acquaintances and colleagues expend meaningful fractions of their careers attempting to resolve the Proton Radius Puzzle. If an appeal to authority is required -- Nature gave it the cover. https://www.psi.ch/en/media/our-research/protons-smaller-than-we-thought https://www.psi.ch/en/media/our-research/protons-smaller-tha... Pohl's measurements were incontrovertible, yet they disagreed with decades of work. It has been a big problem in a quiet community for some time. If someone has a reliable angle to resolve the problem, it is big news. Enough really good physicists have tried and failed to resolve the conundrum that one should wait to see if this new approach holds up, too.
- ummonk 5y ago
  The headline gives the impression that the researchers found a new discrepancy where protons are found to be smaller than theory would predict. In actuality, the researchers are proposing a resolution to a preexisting discrepancy. Additionally, I’m not sure why you’re saying we should wait to see whether the results hold up, if you don’t think writing “probably” in the headline is clickbait.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - refulgentis 5y ago
    I can't parse your second question: A) we should wait to see if results hold up & B) supporting probably being in the headline are incompatible? It seems !A & B and A & !B are incompatible because A and B are compatible.
    - ummonk 5y ago
      In general I think that whenever a new theory or analysis is published, “probably” indicates a far greater degree of confidence than is justified until the theory / analysis gains broad acceptance.
- travisgriggs 5y ago
  Your argument seems to be that the topic is relevant, active, and frequent—-ergo, newsworthy. And because the content of the article is newsworthy, the headline for it is not clickbait. My definition of clickbait is a little different than that. It’s not so much the newsworthiness of the item behind the headline (one man’s old news is another man’s new insight), but rather the form of the headline itself. The more the headline plays on my emotions to pull me in, to try and push its relevancy ahead of an otherwise objective cataloging of information, the more clickbaity it is (to me at least). This particular headline is far from the worst, but the air of mystery it elicits seems to waft “psst, you gotta check this out.” So imho, it is slightly clickbaity. (I was going to use an analogy, but a previous HN article today taught me it’s better to use those in non-debate contexts).
bsder 5y ago
This is just like the Millikan Oil drop experiment. It was actually off, but anybody who did experiments that disagreed with Millikan's "adjusted" things a little bit to match better. So, it took a while for the value of the charge of the electron to "settle" to where it belonged. Scientists are people--with all the same failings.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> to summarize, standard model theory predicted that the radius of the proton would be 0.84 femtometers. High energy electron scattering experiments from the 90s and 2000s suggested it was more like 0.88 femtometers I read the wikipedia articles for "proton" and "proton radius puzzle" and the press release we're commenting on. I didn't notice any mention of a theoretical prediction of proton radius - only some older experiments suggesting the larger size, and some newer experiments suggesting the smaller size. Was there ever a theoretical prediction?

by ummonk 5y ago

ISL 5y ago

It's not clickbait. I've been to oodles of talks on the problem. It has had special sessions at APS meetings and I've watched acquaintances and colleagues expend meaningful fractions of their careers attempting to resolve the Proton Radius Puzzle. If an appeal to authority is required -- Nature gave it the cover. https://www.psi.ch/en/media/our-research/protons-smaller-than-we-thought https://www.psi.ch/en/media/our-research/protons-smaller-tha... Pohl's measurements were incontrovertible, yet they disagreed with decades of work. It has been a big problem in a quiet community for some time. If someone has a reliable angle to resolve the problem, it is big news. Enough really good physicists have tried and failed to resolve the conundrum that one should wait to see if this new approach holds up, too.

ummonk 5y ago
The headline gives the impression that the researchers found a new discrepancy where protons are found to be smaller than theory would predict. In actuality, the researchers are proposing a resolution to a preexisting discrepancy. Additionally, I’m not sure why you’re saying we should wait to see whether the results hold up, if you don’t think writing “probably” in the headline is clickbait.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- refulgentis 5y ago
  I can't parse your second question: A) we should wait to see if results hold up & B) supporting probably being in the headline are incompatible? It seems !A & B and A & !B are incompatible because A and B are compatible.
  - ummonk 5y ago
    In general I think that whenever a new theory or analysis is published, “probably” indicates a far greater degree of confidence than is justified until the theory / analysis gains broad acceptance.
travisgriggs 5y ago
Your argument seems to be that the topic is relevant, active, and frequent—-ergo, newsworthy. And because the content of the article is newsworthy, the headline for it is not clickbait. My definition of clickbait is a little different than that. It’s not so much the newsworthiness of the item behind the headline (one man’s old news is another man’s new insight), but rather the form of the headline itself. The more the headline plays on my emotions to pull me in, to try and push its relevancy ahead of an otherwise objective cataloging of information, the more clickbaity it is (to me at least). This particular headline is far from the worst, but the air of mystery it elicits seems to waft “psst, you gotta check this out.” So imho, it is slightly clickbaity. (I was going to use an analogy, but a previous HN article today taught me it’s better to use those in non-debate contexts).

bsder 5y ago

This is just like the Millikan Oil drop experiment. It was actually off, but anybody who did experiments that disagreed with Millikan's "adjusted" things a little bit to match better. So, it took a while for the value of the charge of the electron to "settle" to where it belonged. Scientists are people--with all the same failings.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> to summarize, standard model theory predicted that the radius of the proton would be 0.84 femtometers. High energy electron scattering experiments from the 90s and 2000s suggested it was more like 0.88 femtometers I read the wikipedia articles for "proton" and "proton radius puzzle" and the press release we're commenting on. I didn't notice any mention of a theoretical prediction of proton radius - only some older experiments suggesting the larger size, and some newer experiments suggesting the smaller size. Was there ever a theoretical prediction?