Pure bound field corrections to the atomic energy levels and the proton size puzzle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforcement of the puzzle about the proton charge radius, rE, stimulated by the recent experiment with muonic hydrogen (Antognini et al. Science, 339, 417 (2013)) induced new discussions on the subject, and now some physicists are ready to adopt the exotic properties of the muon, lying beyond the Standard Model, to explain the difference between the results of muonic hydrogen experiments (rE = 0.840 87(39) fm) and the CODATA-2010 value rE = 0.8775(51) fm based on electron–proton scattering and hydrogen spectroscopy. In the present contribution we suggest a way to achieve progress in the entire problem via paying attention on some logical inconsistency of fundamental equations of atomic physics, constructed by analogy with corresponding classical equations without, however, taking into account the purely bound nature of electromagnetic fields generated by the electrically bound particles in stationary energy states. We suggest eliminating this inconsistency via introducing some appropriate correcting factors into these equations, which explicitly involve the requirement of total momentum conservation in the system “bound particles and their fields” in the absence of electromagnetic radiation. We further show that this approach allows us not only to eliminate long-standing discrepancies between theory and experiment in the precise physics of simple atoms, but also yields the same estimation (though with different uncertainties) for the proton size in the classic 2S–2P Lamb shift in hydrogen, 1S Lamb shift in hydrogen, and 2S–2P Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen, with the mean value rE = 0.841 fm. Finally, we suggest the crucial experiment for verification of the validity of pure bound field corrections: the measurement of decay rate of bound moun in various meso-atoms, especially at large Z, where the standard calculations and our predictions essentially deviate from each other, and some of the available experimental results (Yovanovitch. Phys. Rev. 117, 1580 (1960)) strongly support our approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".