Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Friday July 21 2017, @06:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the what-about-the-antiproton dept.

Your mass just decreased:

[In] recent decades, physicists have combined strong electric and magnetic fields in a device called a Penning trap to measure the proton's mass more and more precisely. In these experiments, an electric field traps the proton while a magnetic field forces it to move in a circle. While it rotates, the proton will vibrate, or oscillate, at a frequency that's related to its mass. Researchers can calculate the proton's mass by measuring these oscillations, and comparing them to those of a reference—typically, the nucleus of a carbon-12 atom, which is defined as 12 atomic mass units.

But no experiment is perfect. Magnetic fields vary in time and space, causing small measurement errors. To reduce the impact of these fluctuations, a group of physicists working in Mainz, Germany, loaded the carbon nucleus and the proton into separate storage traps, then shuttled them quickly into and out of the measurement trap. Although swapping the nucleus and the proton required more than 30 minutes in previous experiments, the German group needed only about 3 minutes—limiting the chances for errors to accumulate. The team also added more motion detectors to their setup, leading to a measurement with an overall precision of 32 parts per trillion.

The researchers found the mass to be 1.007276466583 atomic mass units [DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.033001] [DX]. That's roughly 30 billionths of a percent lower than the average value from past experiments—a seemingly tiny difference that is actually significant by three standard deviations, the team reports this week in Physical Review Letters. (By comparison, scientists typically consider two standard deviations enough for an experimental result to be statistically significant.)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:22PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:22PM (#542405)

    A 99.9% confidence interval is wider than, eg, a 50% confidence interval. It does not indicate "more confidence", whatever it is that "confidence" means in this context (which I assure you is not what you are thinking right now). Honestly, all that significance/confidence stuff is a shell game, I'd just ignore it if I were you. If you asked these researchers they would probably give a wrong interpretation too.