Lamb shift in light muonic atoms — Revisited

Borie, E.

doi:10.1016/j.aop.2011.11.017

Cited by 124 publications

(211 citation statements)

References 87 publications

(387 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

199

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the eH case we have taken the CODATA value of the proton radius, Eq. (3a), which is obtained as an weighted average over several hydrogen spectroscopy measurements, and R E(2) = 2.78(14) fm [9]. In the µH case we have taken the values from Ref.…”

Section: Resolving the Puzzlementioning

confidence: 99%

Breakdown of the expansion of finite-size corrections to the hydrogen Lamb shift in moments of charge distribution

Hagelstein

Pascalutsa

2015

Phys. Rev. A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We quantify a limitation in the usual accounting of the finite-size effects, where the leading [(Zα) 4 ] and subleading [(Zα) 5 ] contributions to the Lamb shift are given by the mean-square radius and the third Zemach moment of the charge distribution. In the presence of any non-smooth behaviour of the nuclear form factor at scales comparable to the inverse Bohr radius, the expansion of the Lamb shift in the moments breaks down. This is relevant for some of the explanations of the "proton size puzzle". We find, for instance, that the de Rújula toy model of the proton form factor does not resolve the puzzle as claimed, despite the large value of the third Zemach moment. Without relying on the radii expansion, we show how tiny, milli-percent (pcm) changes in the proton electric form factor at a MeV scale would be able to explain the puzzle. It shows that one needs to know all the soft contributions to proton electric form factor to pcm accuracy for a precision extraction of the proton charge radius from atomic Lamb shifts.

show abstract

Section: Resolving the Puzzlementioning

confidence: 99%

Breakdown of the expansion of finite-size corrections to the hydrogen Lamb shift in moments of charge distribution

Hagelstein

Pascalutsa

2015

Phys. Rev. A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For a cut Q 2 ≤ 0.5 GeV 2 we find r n M = 0.74 +0. 13 −0.06 fm for a bound of 10 and r n M = 0.65 +0.21 −0.07 fm for a bound of 15. For a cut of Q 2 ≤ 1.0 GeV 2 we find r n M = 0.77 +0.17 −0.09 fm for a bound of 10 and r n M = 0.74 +0.20 −0.11 fm for a bound of 15.…”

Section: Neutron Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The discussion has focused on the one hand on recalculation of the theoretical input to the extraction of r p E from muonic hydrogen and on modifications of the theoretical calculation such as proton structure effects, e.g. [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Model independent extraction of the proton magnetic radius from electron scattering

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We combine constraints from analyticity with experimental electron-proton scattering data to determine the proton magnetic radius without model-dependent assumptions on the shape of the form factor. We also study the impact of including electron-neutron scattering data, and ππ → NN data. Using representative datasets we find for a cut of Q 2 ≤ 0.5 GeV 2 , r p M = 0.91 +0.03 −0.06 ± 0.02 fm using just proton scattering data; r p M = 0.87 +0.04 −0.05 ± 0.01 fm adding neutron data; and r p M = 0.87 +0.02 −0.02 fm adding ππ data. We also extract the neutron magnetic radius from these data sets obtaining r n M = 0.89 +0.03 −0.03 fm from the combined proton, neutron, and ππ data.

show abstract

“…Standard theory has been unable to explain this discrepancy in given frameworks. The biggest possible effects due to conventional physics are related to the muon vacuum polarization [9], which have been questioned [10], and due to the proton polarizability contribution to the effect of two-photon exchange, which could be different in size for ep and μp interaction [11][12][13][14][15]. It is controversial whether the size of the proton polarizability effect can be large enough to explain the radius discrepancy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Muon Scattering Experiment (MUSE) at PSI and the proton radius puzzle

Köhl

2014

EPJ Web of Conferences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The unexplained large discrepancy of the proton charge radius measurements with muonic hydrogen Lamb shift and determinations from elastic electron scattering and Lamb shift in regular hydrogen of seven standard deviations is known as the proton radius puzzle. Suggested solutions of the puzzle range from possible errors in the experiments through unexpectedly large hadronic physics effects to new physics beyond the Standard Model. A new approach to verify the radius discrepancy in a systematic manner will be pursued with the Muon Scattering Experiment (MUSE) at PSI. The experiment aims to compare elastic cross sections, the proton elastic form factors, and the extracted proton charge radius with scattering of electrons and muons of either charge and under identical conditions. The difference in the observed radius will be probed with a high precision to verify the discrepancy. An overview of the experiment and the current status will be presented.

show abstract

Lamb shift in light muonic atoms — Revisited

Cited by 124 publications

References 87 publications

Breakdown of the expansion of finite-size corrections to the hydrogen Lamb shift in moments of charge distribution

Breakdown of the expansion of finite-size corrections to the hydrogen Lamb shift in moments of charge distribution

Model independent extraction of the proton magnetic radius from electron scattering

The Muon Scattering Experiment (MUSE) at PSI and the proton radius puzzle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About