Recent progress in determination of fundamental constants and fundamental physics at low energies

Karshenboim, Savely G.

doi:10.1002/andp.201300041

Cited by 22 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have already mentioned a strong discrepancy between muonic-hydrogen R E [1] and the scattering values (see, e.g., [5][6][7][8]). The results on R M are not in a perfect shape as well (see, e.g., [11,28]). However, the discrepancy in determination of R M from MAMI [5] and global data [6] is not that important.…”

Section: A Preliminary Considerationmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recoil correction to the proton finite-size contribution to the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen was measured some time ago to a high accuracy. The theoretical prediction of this value is very sensitive to the proton-finite-size effects. The proton radius extracted from muonic hydrogen is in contradiction with the results extracted from elastic electron-proton scattering. That creates a certain problem for the interpretation of the results from the muonic hydrogen Lamb shift. For the latter we need also to take into account the two-photonexchange contribution with the proton finite size involved. The only way to describe it relies on the data from the scattering, which may produce an internal inconsistency of theory.Recently the leading proton-finite-size contribution to the two-photon exchange was found within the external field approximation. The recoil part of the two-photon-exchange has not been considered. Here we revisit calculation of the external-field part and take the recoil correction to the finite-size effects into account.

show abstract

Section: A Preliminary Considerationmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Since the very mean radius of that distribution is under question because the results from the scattering and the muonic hydrogen are different, we cannot directly apply the scattering results for these corrections (see, e.g., [9][10][11][12]). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recoil correction to the proton finite-size contribution to the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The 1973The , 1986The , 1998The , 2006, and 2010 CODATA updates were jointly published in Reviews of Modern Physics and the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, as will be the 2014 update (in preparation). 78,79 It is important to note the efforts by others who have worked both independently and in cooperation with the NRC and CODATA committees over the years to make recommendations and provide helpful discussions and debate over evaluation of the fundamental constants, including Gorbatesvich and coworkers (1967 and 1970), 80,81 Levyleblond (1977), 82 Pipkin and Ritter (1983), 83 Petley andcoworkers (1989 and2001), 84,85 Delaeter (1994), 86 Uzan (2003), 87 Conroy (2003), 88 and Karshenboim (2005 and2013). 89,90 …”

Section: History Of Evaluations Of the Fundamental Constantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Proceedings of the 2015 Workshop on the Determination of the Fundamental Constants

Burgess

2015

Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The situation with the proton rms charge radius R p is graphically presented in Fig. 1, where the results are plotted following [4], based on the CODATA analysis [5]. For details see [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1, where the results are plotted following [4], based on the CODATA analysis [5]. For details see [4]. * Electronic address: savely.karshenboim@mpq.mpg.de…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of the optical determination of the proton charge radius

Karshenboim

2015

Phys. Rev. A

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determination of the proton charge radius by different methods has produced an inconsistency. The most precise value (from spectroscopy of muonic hydrogen) strongly disagrees with three less accurate values (from spectroscopy of ordinary hydrogen and deuterium, from relative measurements of the cross section of the elastic electron-proton scattering at MAMI and from evaluation of the world data on absolute measurements of e − p cross sections). Here, we question the accuracy of the determination of the proton charge radius by means of spectroscopy of ordinary hydrogen and deuterium and demonstrate that its accuracy was probably overestimated. In particular, we revisit determination from each relevant transition and find that the results of two optical experiments, which are the most statistically important, are not perfectly consistent. The inconsistency is rather a 'tension' between the results than their discrepancy, however, it implies that a more conservative estimation of the uncertainty is needed. With the more realistic estimation of the uncertainty, the results for the proton charge radius from spectroscopy of ordinary and muonic atoms are rather in fair agreement.

show abstract

Recent progress in determination of fundamental constants and fundamental physics at low energies

Abstract: A brief overview on determination of the values of fundamental constants by means of atomic physics is given. Recommended values of CODATA-2010 least square adjustment are discussed as well as the related input data.

Cited by 22 publications

References 79 publications

Recoil correction to the proton finite-size contribution to the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen

Recoil correction to the proton finite-size contribution to the Lamb shift in muonic hydrogen

Editorial: Proceedings of the 2015 Workshop on the Determination of the Fundamental Constants

Accuracy of the optical determination of the proton charge radius

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About