The Proton Radius from Electron Scattering Data

TL;DR

This paper reviews high-precision electron scattering data and applies statistical methods to reconcile the proton radius measurements from electron scattering and muonic hydrogen, finding they are consistent while atomic hydrogen results are outliers.

Contribution

The study introduces a systematic statistical approach using stepwise regression and model selection to analyze electron scattering data for proton radius extraction.

Findings

Electron scattering data and muonic hydrogen measurements are consistent.

The proton radius is approximately 0.84 fm based on statistical analysis.

Atomic hydrogen results remain inconsistent with other measurements.

Abstract

[Background] The proton charge radius extracted from recent muonic hydrogen Lamb shift measurements is significantly smaller than that extracted from atomic hydrogen and electron scattering measurements. [Purpose] In an attempt to understand the discrepancy, we review high-precision electron scattering results from Mainz, Jefferson Lab, Saskatoon and Stanford. [Method] We make use of stepwise regression techniques using the $F$-test as well as the Akaike information criterion to systematically determine the predictive variables to use for a given set and range of electron scattering data as well as to provide multivariate error estimates. [Results] Starting with the precision, low four-momentum transfer ($Q^2$) data from Mainz (1980) and Saskatoon (1974), we find that a stepwise regression of the Maclaurin series using the $F$-test as well as the Akaike information criterion justify using a linear extrapolation which yields a value for the proton radius that is consistent with the result obtained from muonic hydrogen measurements. Applying the same Maclaurin series and statistical criteria to the 2014 Rosenbluth results on $G_E$ from Mainz, we again find that the stepwise regression tends to favor a radius consistent with the muonic hydrogen radius but produces results that are extremely sensitive to the range of data included in the fit. Making use of the high-$Q^2$ data on $G_E$ to select functions which extrapolate to high $Q^2$, we find that a Pad\'e ($N=M=1$) statistical model works remarkably well, as does a dipole function with a 0.84 fm radius, $G_E(Q^2) = ( 1 + Q^2/0.66\,\mathrm{GeV}^2)^{-2}$. [Conclusions] From this statistical analysis, we conclude that the electron scattering result and the muonic hydrogen result are consistent. It is the atomic hydrogen results that are the outliers.