Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
It could be useful to mention that the proton is one of the very few "stable" particles around. Although the proton half life is given in a table, the layman may not realize that the proton and the electron are the definitive "stable particles" of elementary particle physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.12.66.243 (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Whats a proton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.116.83 (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
While grammatically correct and well written, when viewed from the perspective that the goal of an encyclopedia is to impart knowledge to those who have none, this page is a dismal failure. As a layman, I can't understand any of this. A person would have to have a degree in physics or a related field to even understand this highly technical examination of protons- but if one already has that degree, what would they need this page for? Could some one take this piece of mental masturbation and add some explanation that would be of some use to the average reader? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.116.46 (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree ! I have a PhD in engineering, and know something about the history of science, but I object strongly to 'his scintillatin detectors revealed the signiture of hydrogen atoms' (History section). What nonsense - what utter crap! Can hydrogen atoms write ? What does this mean ? Rutherford had some reason for identifying these particles as hydrogen nuclei, but this author clearly has no conception of what it was, yet it is a vital detail. This way of disguising ignorance with a meaningless metaphor just does not wash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.49.157 (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Why doesn't it decay into an up quark? Quantum Burrito 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some information about the magnetic moment of the proton, (numerical value, theoretical understanding, etc.). The only reference to it I've seen in the article is in the section about the antiproton.
This is not a particularly interesting fact....
Interesting fact: the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron is to 2 parts in 100000 equal to 6*pi^5.
I personally think that this is an interesting fact, of course I am almost finished with a physics degree.
No? Well, items relating proton mass to Britney Spears are pretty short on the ground. I guess the fact that the product of the electrical permitivity and magnetic permeability of free space were very close [within experimental precision equal to] to the reciprocal of the square of the speed of light is also exceedingly boring. Except that the notorious crank Maxwell based electromagnetic field theory from this observation. So if the almost non-mentioned fact that the mass of the proton to the electron is to a high degree of precision a simple multiple of a simple power of pi doesn't spark some degree of interest in you, then I guess you're just not cut out to be a physicist. :-)
Roadrunner is correct, and I'm afraid you, 81.86.154.69, are not. Playing with things like N*pi^M, or change pi for e, or whatever, you can get almost any number. This has nothing to do with Maxwell's observation for the "product of the ...", because indeed it is not true, Maxwell was not doing numerology (as you are doing), he explicitly calculated the speed of an electromagnetic wave (= 1/sqrt(mu * epsilon) ) and compared it with the speed of light.
Moreover, today we know that protons are made of quarks, and that their mass is not the sum of the masses of the three quarks, because the binding energy amounts for a lot more. So there is, no relationship foreseen whatsoever.
JBC
Hello.
I´m a young spanish student and i´d like to give you my congratulations for this wonderfull encyclopedia,i´m really surprised of its whole content. Before beginning i´d like to give you my sorries because my english is not so good as i´d like it to be,but i hope i will be able to explain my self. Anyway be sure that i understand whatever in this encyclopedia you´re talking about.
Cause my low knowledge about Quantum mechanics (in comparison whith you but not whith my friends) i imagine that my doubt will not supose you a great work.
I'm confused about what you explain in Proton page. Here i can read that "the charge of proton must be equal to the charge of electron", naturally, to get forcing equilibrium. Some lines down i can read that "the positron has the same magnitud charge as the electron but oposite in sign". My doubt stribes in the following question: if the positron is the antiparticle of the electron and they have the same but oposite charge, and the charge of proton must beequal to the charge of electron (and, naturally, basing my self in the fact that positron, charge +, electron, charge -; that means to me that charges are also oposite), here i have a contradiction for my mental schema. This make me think by any way that protons and positrons are the same particle, what i´m sure is not true.
So, concluding, my answer is: What kind of phenomenon i unknow makes different the behavior of proton and positron front the electron?
Thnks, :)
yikes, this whole article has no mention of the protons role in determining what element a substance is and what it does in chemistry. a proton is positive and an electron is negative and the neutron is negative. The atomic number is the number of protons in the atom and if you change the proton number you basically change the element. if you change the neutron number you can make it radioactive and if you change the election number you can change it electrically and chemically. 72.179.185.73 02:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This page should be a disambiguation page and the stuff should be moved to Proton (physics). Bensaccount 01:20, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You are right. My mistake. Bensaccount 17:32, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm a little confused, why is mass measured in eV?
c=1 is just numerical value with what unit of measurement? c beeing a speed has dimension length/time, so c=1 must have units. If c=1 is adimensionalized other dependent quaantities must be adimensionalized.--84.232.141.38 (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
teleronki: Newly calculated elementary particle of rest mass = 1.15819171.10^-30 kg which in is included as integer value in the rest mass of proton and neutron. (Source: Meissner, R.:Das Teleronki-Modell..., Aachen: Shaker-Verlag 2001.)
I'm removing this:
"Because the electromagnetic force is many orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force, the charge on the proton must be equal and opposite to the charge on the electron. Otherwise, the net repulsion of having an excess of positive or negative charge would cause a noticeable expansion effect on the universe, and indeed any gravitationally aggregated matter (planets, stars, etc.)."
The argument that we must be living in an approximately charge-neutral observable universe is correct. The conclusion that protons and electrons have the same charge makes the assumption that they occur in equal numbers. I see no basis for such an assumption; they could have different charges and occur in correspondingly different numbers. This would not be a "coincidence" cosmologically if there were a good reason for charge neutrality; the particles we end up with would have been constrained by that.
There are good theoretical reasons to believe that the charges of protons and electrons are exactly equal; perhaps such belong on the page about electric charge.
Does anyone know if there are any theories to the possibility that the Down Quark is composed of an Up Quark and an electron? I once heard that when a Proton and Electron mix it produces a neutron. So if this is true then if you mix an Up Quark and an electron it must form a down quark...I am not sure though. - BlackWidower
A proton would repel an electron because of opposite charges. The down quark is an indivisible quanta of matter, therefore it isnt "composed" of anything, it is indivisible.
Eugene Goldstein discovered the proton. Bayerischermann 00:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to reopen this argument. To say that Rutherford "discovered" the proton is misleading and ignores previous scientists who suggested its existence. It is true that from Goldstein's work, it emerged that atoms contain both positive and negative elements, a fact that was confirmed by Thomson's work. The negative part was directly interpreted as a new particle, the electron, from Thomson's work because it produced a single e/m measurement; whereas the positive part (canal rays) did not, and there was a long period (roughly 1897 - 1919) when its precise nature was unknown. Rutherford originally thought it was alpha radiation, ie that all nuclei are multiples of helium nuclei (except hydrogen?); but it became increasingly clear, first van den Broek 1911, then Moseley 1913, that the fundamental positive charge is the hydrogen nucleus. Rutherford`s 1919 "discovery" was only the final nail to the whole line-of-argument, so to speak. By Xerxes' criteria, Rutherford did NOT discover the proton, because he did NOT show the hydrogen nucleus to be small and dense (his experiments were with other nuclei), and he did NOT propose that atomic nuclei contained the hydrogen nucleus (others proposed it but he proved it). --85.232.196.151 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I have now rewritten the History section and tried to put Rutherford in his proper context. For one thing I have followed the historical order - Prout, Goldstein, van den Broek, Moseley, Rutherford. Dirac66 (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but one part in 10-8 seems like an awfully big uncertainty. Shouldn't this be one part in 108?
The following was apparently cut-and-pasted from an AIP news article. In its present form, it is certainly unsuitable for the article; perhaps it would be more suitable (heavily edited) in a HAPPEx article? In addition, the original content author demands a specific form of credit for reposting this content.
-- Xerxes 15:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
This seems a bit silly, and I was a physics major, but... what's the diameter of the proton? We can all recite the characteristic size of the hydrogen atom (1 angstrom, 10^-8 cm, 10^-10 m), and it's said that the proton is not pointlike but has some diameter. So what is it? I found one source that suggested, without attribution, that it was on the order of 10^-15 m. Is this firm? Is it quantum-uncertain? Should it be part of the basic attributes like mass, charge, etc.? Google searches for "proton diameter" were not conclusive.Eh Nonymous 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The propton-diameter mentioned now under properties (1.5*10-15 m.) is half the electron radius mentioned in Mass_of_electron. Unfortunately I don't know what to trust, but probably something is not OK. (Jan-Willem, 21 July 2006)
Charge radius is referenced above. There's no article on it and it isn't defined in the proton article. Somebody needs to do one or the other. 4.249.3.140 (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
It is now July 2010 and today's edits are concerned with whether the best value of the proton charge radius is 0.84184 fm or 0.8768 fm. But in the infobox ... the link to charge radius from the infobox is still RED, which on Wikipedia means that it is a dead-end which does not (yet) lead to an article. Would someone please start an article on Charge radius to explain the meaning of this term, as well as the mathematical definition and its justification (I think root-mean-square is involved, but why), and briefly how it is measured? I suggest a separate article rather than a section of this article, because I presume that the question applies to other particles as well as the proton. Dirac66 (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Some details about the methods of measurement of charge radius should be included.--84.232.141.36 (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Are there available data of proton diameter measured from diffraction of ionic metal hydrides (like sodium hydride)? It would be interesting to compare these data with those from other methods.--86.125.162.153 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
How about HCl crystals? Is the hydrogen ion present?--79.116.77.129 (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to determine the radius of a proton from diffraction measurement data of solid hydronium salts like hydronium perchlorate?--82.137.8.179 (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
These references at Further reading section were deleted as original research:
This author seems to have some peer-review published papers ('Physics Today', 'Journal of Applied Physics', 'American Journal of Physics', 'Physics Letters', 'Hadronic Journal', 'Physics Essays', Physics Education', etc.) and his work is mentioned by other members of the scientific community (as quoted above). And now his work cannot be presented in the related Wikipedia's articles??? What policy is this?! --88.214.171.194 05:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to make the definition simpler to read.......Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.44.215.148 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
What could be simpler than that? This isn't NeanderthalPedia, we expect people who are reading this article to actually be able to read it. But if it's necessary: A proton is a subatomic particle present in the nucleus of atoms (DO NOT ADD THAT TO THE ARTICLE). Slartibartfast1992 00:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Not necessarily, as a proton is equivalent to an atom of hydrogen. Therefore, you must say it is a particle composed of two up quarks and one down quark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.19.77 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
That would imply a proton radius of 1.2 fermi—not one of the values mentioned here. Three significant digits also seems a bit too much. Probably somebody playing with their calculator. Since density is normally not a hot topic with particles, I removed the sentence.
—Herbee 20:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Why the rest mass of a proton is bigger than the mass of 3 free quarks? --Daniel bg 15:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does the lead sentence that says the mass is predictable come from? As far as I can see the Physical Review is full of articles today still trying to do this. Here's an example The Constituent Quark Model Revisited - Quark Masses, New Predictions for Hadron Masses Brews ohare (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Can someone please explain to me How if scientists don't know the mass of an individual quark how can anyone say they know the energy each individual component of the system has??; E=mc^2??? If quarks can't exist as lone particles by definition, how in the world will you ever know what energy each quark possess individually?? What I mean is, Lets say I have some unknown amount of apples, all of the apples must fill up a barrel. Without observing the individual apple and measuring it's volume, how can I be certain 5 apples fill the container? might as well be 6 or 7 or 1000.. I see the same thing with Quarks, Scientists say there are 3 quarks to a proton, yet they can't observe a quark individually; Doesn't make a lot of sense, without being able to observe the individuals how can anyone say how much mass or how much energy a quark has or doesn't have??
If Quarks can't obey gravity because the math doesn't work, Why then do Protons and Neutrons obey gravity??? It's logically inconsistent. If electrons/protons obey general relativity (or even more consistently obey classical mechanics) by definition, Why then do it's component pieces not?? That's also logically inconsistent .. 1 apple + 1 pear a banana don't make..
I think before anyone jumps to the conclusion that quarks exist they need to fix the inconsistencies in their own theories, ----I can't very well go around saying magical toasters sooo small they can't be observed by any known method, and can't exist individually the sum of the magical toasters make up the fundamental particles of our world, and Oh btw the magical toasters don't obey the laws of our Universe yet they create our universe ; and be able to get away with my outrageous claim.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.60.254 (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the ludicrous claim that the Beatles' "I'll be back" is about Eugene Goldstein's work on "canal rays" (just look at the lyrics) - this seems to have been added by a serial vandal at 161.53.73.35. HairyDan 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I edited some obscene language, but it is missing some of the original language in the first part after the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.43.104 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you think it's possible I can create a "topped" proton, by taking a proton and shooting a super-high-energy W plus boson at the down quark and turn it into a top quark, thus making a baryon with quark composition uut, electric charge +2, and spin 3/2?--Mathexpressions 02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it is impossible because the W+ boson doesn't interact via the strong-force, only the weak force. Therefore, there would be no interaction with the proton and boson. Also, the W+ is a boson, which means the spins are different and the W+ does not obey the pauli exclusion principle. Therefore, the W+ would pass through the proton with no interaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.119.103 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
can protons move i think only electrons can move to protons but yea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.233.76 (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Protons move all the time, in fact. Accelerated protons constantly bombard our atmosphere and create second and third generation particles. Besides, all motion is relative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.249.19.77 (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Part —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.250.204 (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I updated the physical properties of the proton using C. Amsler et al., "Review of Particle Physics" Physics Letters B667, 1 (2008). However, I am new at this and do not know how to put in multiple citations to this without creating several entries in the reference list. Someone who knows how should probably insert these citations on the appropriate places (proton mass, proton - or rather elementary - charge, etc.), at least if we want references in the info-box. I took the proton lifetime from the original reference (citet in the article). --Blennow (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Why are there two very different values for the experimental lower bound on the lifetime? First 1035 years without a reference, and then two lines further (and also in the infobox) 2.1 x 1029 years properly referenced. Does this mean that a) the first value comes from a more sensitive experiment and just needs a reference, or b) the first value is wrong and should be deleted? Dirac66 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Question 1. The proton decay article says that the usually expected products are positrons and neutral pions (which decay into two gamma), so does the visible decay value refer to a search for positrons and/or neutral pions and/or gammas?
Q2. Does the lower bound on proton to anything imply some direct measurement of the number of protons remaining, or perhaps their total mass? If so, is this intrinsically less sensitive than detection of visible products? That would explain the difference in the two bounds on lifetime without having to postulate more exotic products. Dirac66 (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there any special reason why we have such a short and rather unreferenced article about the proton, compared to Neutron and Electron? Did just nobody care to expand it? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Proton 10K bytes, neutron 24K, electron 103K. But we don't expand an article just because others are longer. What should be added to the proton article? Dirac66 (talk) 02:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree this article could be expanded and better referenced. What exactly could be added should be debated, but talking more about its role in atomic nuclei and in how many of them there are in a given nuclei determines what chemical element it will form when combined with electrons would certainly be a start, being the dominant chunk of the "chemistry" section, rather than something about acids (not that this should be removed). The history of protons should probably contain more about their discovery, possibly a diagram/schematic of the Geiger-Marsden experiment, and mention the Rutherford model. A discussion about other atomic models / nuclear models would be in order too. The role of the proton related to the other baryons (not only the neutron) could also be mentioned, especially Delta baryons, possibly leading into a discussion of the Eightfold way.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This seems a good list to start. I have now taken the first step by revising the chemistry section as suggested. Dirac66 (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Exposure during flight... here is another study. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/216/4549/939
This may be an obviously newbie question, for which I apologize. Many of the values given in the sidebar have a number in parentheses following the fraction; for example, the mass of the proton is given as "1.672621637(83)×10−27 kg". I've never seen the "(83)" notation before, wonder what it means, and suggest that an explanation be given somewhere. I've looked at the "Notation" article and followed several leads in the "Physics" area, but so far have come up empty. About all I can guess is that the value is known to 83 digits, or there are 83 additional digits known, or something like that. SpiffZarf (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The 83 is the estimated measurement uncertainty in the last digits. 1.672621637(83) is the concise notation for 1.672 621 637 ± 0.000 000 083. See Uncertainty#Measurements. Dirac66 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to read an article which makes a claim about the fundamental particles which actually explains the science behind their claims, Gluons have never been observed to exist yet the article presents an opinion that yes indeed Gluons exist and they hold the proton together.. -- Until there is science to prove the hypothetical Gluon Wikipedia should delete this section from the article since it's only conjecture and not really science.
Also on the topic of the quark building up the proton/neutron and other fundamental particles -- It's my observation that there is little conversation on how scientists KNOW Quarks exist; There are clear inconsistencies in the explanations of how a scientist knows that something exists when they have no proof of it's existence in a laboratory environment ie it's NEVER been observed, especially when there are other theories which don't require these fundamental particles.
To begin, both neutrinos and quarks cannot be directly detected as physical particles in
our spacetime. Consequently, all claims on their existence are indirect, that is, based on the
detection of actual physical particles predicted by the indicated theories
So Someone please edit the Quark section so that it is more moderate and does not say things which cannot be confirmed scientifically..
http://www.i-b-r.org/Neutrinos-Quarks-Inconsis.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.60.254 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
All I see in everything I've ever read about the quark was that 3 is needed for the math to work right,not that a quark has ever been shown to exist, otherwise the data explodes. I do know of what your talking about regarding the nuclear reactor experiment, but I also realize that if you read the link that I posted (In my original question), which has now vanished for whatever reason, that scientists can explain the energy spike in Nuclear reactions without the need for the Quark. Which is why I asked the question in the first place http://www.i-b-r.org/Neutrinos-Quarks-Inconsis.pdf
Now if you could post links for the data, the research maybe a timeline or something of the various theories, regarding the quark, That would greatly help . Maybe even a University lecture or something clearly showing the MATH for the proof of the Quark, and how it explains things better than alternative theories being proposed then I wouldn't be here arguing with you. Thanks
And by the way, sticking my finger in a socket tells me nothing about the existence or nonexistence of "electrons" -- it only shows there's "electricity" (access to an electric field via conductor). The field is the unpleasant part. People were making perfectly good electrical generators, and lighting electric bulbs with them, long before the electron was known. So were Maxwell's equations and primitive radio. If you care to Google, you'll find that the first man died in the electric chair 7 years before the electron was "discovered." What do you think they thought they were were doing to the poor guy? SBHarris 08:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
By the middle of the 20-th century there was no clear experimental evidence acceptable by the scientic community at large confirming the neutrino conjecture beyond doubt, except for experimental claims in 1959 that are known today to be basically flawed on various grounds, as we shall see in the next sections.
(in reference to the Cowan-Reines neutrino experiments which was in 1956 and not 1959 as he wrote), or
To begin, both neutrinos and quarks cannot be directly detected as physical particles in our spacetime. Consequently, all claims on their existence are indirect, that is, based on the detection of actual physical particles predicted by the indicated theories. This occurrence is, per se, controversial.
(in spite of the several dozens of direct neutrino detection experiments, or that the case for quarks is about as solid as it gets even if you'll never see the trace of a single lone quark in a bubble chamber) or
In the 1980s, a large laboratory was built deep into the Gran Sasso mountain in Italy to detect neutrinos coming from the opposite side of Earth since the mountain was used as a shield against cosmic rays. Following the investment of large public funds, the Gran Sasso Laboratory released no evidence of clear detection of neutrino originated events following five years of continuous tests.
(despite the very prolific record of the Grand Sasso Labs, and their several contributions to neutrino science (of the top of my head there was BOREXINO, CUORE, CUORICINO, GNO, GALLEX, MACRO, Heidelberg–Moscow, and many more) is disconnected from reality, either by ignorance or by the same mental disorder as the Flat Earth Society members have with regards to Earth's shape.
According to the article:
1. It says that protons are stable, then goes on to imply that it's not actually known if they are stable.
2. Three different figures are given for the lower bounds on the proton's "half-life", "lifetime", and "mean lifetime". It's not clear what "lifetime" means. As far as I understand it, half-life determines mean lifetime and vice versa, but the article makes it sound like "mean lifetime" is a separate and independent measure. Are the figures for "half-life" and "mean lifetime" mutually consistent?
3. The phrase "In other words" seems misplaced. 86.173.36.118 (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC).
This problem comes up a lot in the area of stable nuclides, where all nuclides of all elements after zirconium (#40) are theoretically unstable. But the lifetimes are so much longer than the lifetime of the universe, that nobody has measured a decay time. So we DEFINE something that is so long that we can't measure it, to be "stable." It means "stable for all intents and purposes, and to all present measurement." It's an empirical/experimental statement, not a philosophical one. It's subject to change with new evidence. See bismuth-209 for an example.
Mean lifetime = lifetime is longer than half life (see that article) by the factor 1/ln2 = 1.4427... This isn't a number large enough that it makes a difference if order-of-magnitude estimates are expressed as mean life or half life. So they can be used as interchangable terms. Pick which one you like. SBHarris 00:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The various different figures in the article are due to various different experimental ways of setting a lower bound for proton half-life (or mean-life which is 44% longer), or calculating it from theory, not due to the difference between half-life and mean-life, which (as discussed) is too small to show in these numbers. One or the other of these should be picked and used throughout, with perhaps the other used just once. This is done in the article on the neutron, for example, where mean-life is used throughout, but half-life is given once. SBHarris 01:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed that the 6.6x1035 yr value is 6.6x1033 in the proton decay article, from the same source. So I checked Phys Rev Letters, and it is 6.6x1033 (for the partial lifetime via antimuon decay). I have now corrected this article - checking sources sometimes helps. Dirac66 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Here I mean "ordinary" as on Earth at STP, not in the cores of neutron stars. No, free protons do not exist in liquids, since they always attach themselves to the electron cloud in the nearest molecule/anion, which is always available. There may exist free "solvated electrons" in liquids (like sodium dissolving in liquid ammonia to give a nice color), but electrons have sqrt(1836) = 43 times longer wavelengths than do protons, at any energy. A proton at room temp has a wavelength of 2 angstroms or so, which is far too small for them to sit in a cage between negatively charged anions and not be able to make a choice of which way to go and which to sit on, like the proverbial donkey starving between piles of hay. Protons have no reason to delocalize at room temperature.
Yes, I know the article on superacids talks about free protons in liquids, but it gives no references, and frankly I don't believe it. Ab initio QM calculations show protons hopping from anion-to-anion in the strongest superacid known, just as they do in water, via the Grotthuss mechanism. See .
So, some editor who claims to know what he's talking about, has reverted me on this point. There's my cite and there's my reasoning. Now, what have YOU got? And by the way, I'm going to go add a [citation needed] to the statement in superacids. SBHarris 00:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Whether a particle is "bound" or "free" is little bit of a semantic quibble, but if a proton is always more closely connected to any one cation or two cations, than it is to any others, it makes sense to say that it's bound to them. It may be free to wander through a liquid, but only by going from one molecule to another, and being passed off from one to another like a prisoner being transferred betwee guards, always handcuffed to at least one at a time (sometimes to two, during a transfer). The article shows that happening in the liquid in which protons are most "free" of all (the strongest acid) so it certainly must be true in all other ordinary liquids at STP. And we can see with anions compounds like FHF- and FHFHF- how badly a hydrogen wants to be connected to, or sandwiched between, fluorines. It doesn't just disconnect from one fluorine and go wandering through the liquid as a naked proton, before it finds another. That's a more "wrong" physical picture than the reality. That kind of thing apparently does happen in hydrogen plasmas, but the temperature there is far higher than the binding energies of electrons to bare-protons (13.6 eV vs. about 0.025 eV at room temp). As for the electric field, and more importantly, the potential, at various distances from a proton, you can calculate it. You tell me the binding energy of an fluorine electron to a fluorine, and I will tell you how close one must get to a proton to exceed that (with a naked proton there is no limit), and THEREFORE how close a proton needs to come to a fluorine before the fluorine must surrender (at least in part) one if its electrons. This is very simple and there's no getting around it. You can think of a proton as having an electron affinity of -13.6 eV, which is far beyond any other chemical bond energy. A proton WILL approach a fluorine until it binds. A proton will approach ANY ion that that has electrons, until it binds. See "The Proton Lewis Acid" in . I'll just stop here and let you answer. SBHarris 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a little clarification. Where it is necessary in chemistry to distinguish between 1H and 2H it is usual to use the terms proton and deuteron, denoted by H and D. I am not aware of any similar name for 3H, T. Petergans (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
To Krebs49, who attempted today to add the magnetic shielding correction value to the infobox and noted in his edit summary that the added value does not appear: I believe the problem is that the infobox is generated using Template:Infobox particle and can only show the parameters listed there. So you could either (1) edit the template to include Magnetic shielding correction (and carefully check that this action does not otherwise affect either this Proton article or the articles for other particles), or (2) leave the infobox alone and put the magnetic shielding correction into the text somewhere. Dirac66 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been poking at the article for neutron of late, with occasional visits to this page. The two articles (and likely others) should have a degree of similarity about them, seems to me. The History section on this article is rather far down in the article, whereas it is at top in the neutron article. I tend to think the history section should be toward the top since this section also serves as an introduction to the topic. In any case, a certain uniformity in article design would likely be helpful. Bdushaw (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The three-balls-held-together-with-springs illustration is, apparently, an oversimplified model of what is inside a proton, which has been outdated since the 1970's. However, a more accurate model would be, apparently, quite complex-- see this illustration: [[File:MyProton|thumbnail|Prof Matt Strassler's illustration of a proton - complex]] and the article from which it comes: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/whats-a-proton-anyway/ I suggest that we put both the simplified, iconic image, and the less-simplified image, suitably captioned.
I don't know if Matt Strassler approves his image for use on Wikipedia or not. Dc3 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The occurence/existence of any compounds which contain bare proton as cation would be a useful addition to article. Is there any awareness of sources with such compounds described?--79.119.209.7 (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The article says that a quantity called classical radius of a charged particle is convenient to be defined. Can also proton have a classical radius defined for for it?--5.2.200.163 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The radius given in the body of the text is given as 0.84–0.87 fm, whereas in the top-right table it is given as 0.8775(51) fm. I understand that the former one is due to a recent discovery of a different radius and the top-right table is based on a table published prior to that study, but it will be confusing to readers. A more recent data table for the proton (2014), from the particle data group rather than CODATA, gives both values: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/listings/rpp2014-list-p.pdf I suggest doing the same in the top-right box, using this as a reference, and maybe add some details on the controversy to the body of the text. MostlyForgettable (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I see above that values of the proton's radius are mentioned. I think it would be useful also that details of measuring methods and their principles be inserted in article.--213.233.84.189 (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The first image on the page INCORRECTLY denotes the quark structure of a proton. The gluon fields binding the the three quarks together should not shown as connecting one quark to another and forming a triangular shape; rather, the gluon fields should be originating from the direct center of the image and extending outward to the quarks to form a Y-like shape. 67.61.85.45 (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Incnis: citing another Wiki article is no justification whatsoever. I have just watched a YouTube video which also explicitly makes the claim that the diagram is wrong, and the person making this claim is, according to the video, Professor Derek Leinweber of Univ. of Adelaide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls&feature=player_embedded This directly and explicitly discusses that diagram and says (3 min 30 second into video) that we now know that it is wrong. The diagram needs to be fixed or removed.72.172.11.140 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I mean, if you really wanted to be accurrate, instead of wavy lines infinitely many quarks and gluons should be drawn. But when you get down to that level of scale any diagram will be inaccurate in some way or another (how would you represent uncertainty, for instance). The one that is currently there works just fine in getting the general point across. ArchPope Sextus VI (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The rest mass of a proton is about 1836 times the rest mass of an electron. This is an experimental fact, and it does not have a theoretical basis.
This very important physical constant had not even been measured before I added it tonight. Also, on the subatomic level, the mass of the electronic is a very important unit of mass, and a fundamental one to the physical Universe.47.215.211.115 (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
A new experiment measured the mass of a proton at 1.007276466583 atomic mass units, see here. --167.58.203.60 (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
This particular picture from Wikipedia is proven wrong mathematically. Details: http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/get-your-protons-right.html 185.20.63.25 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
See also Talk:Proton#Inaccurate information and Talk:Proton#Inaccurate illustration above, as well, for similar discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Theorized by Prout in XIX century?--Agremon (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
As of 20 May 2019, the charge of a proton is exactly 1.602176634e-19 C. This article needs to be updated accordingly. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units David Boyd Hansen (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Antinegatron. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The article says: (the values in parentheses being the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively), except that there aren't parentheses, except around that statement. Gah4 (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I recently noted that the mass listed in the infobox on the deuterium page includes the mass of the electron. (This caused me an hour of puzzlement, but nevermind.). The infobox is frankly confusing since it seems to be an isotope infobox, but then it lists nuclide data, giving the mass of the isotope (which I would take to include the electron, maybe). I'm not sure how to resolve the issue, and my Talk entry on the deuterium page has gone unanswered - further down in the deuterium article the bare mass is given. I write here because it raises a general question on how the masses of nuclides are listed - it seems to me that both the masses of the particle with and without the electron(s) should be listed. This article, for the proton, lists the mass without the electron, but does not give the mass of the proton with the electron. I thought about editing the infobox for the isotope to have it give entries for both nuclide and isotope, but I'm not sure how to do that, or if that is even the correct way of doing it. Or is this issue just particular to hydrogen/deuteron - that is, does the mass of the carbon nuclide include the mass of the 12 electrons? Mass confusion, as I say... Bdushaw (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.