18

I've been studying high-school level physics and I noticed that protons are composed of up-up-down quarks. It is known that fields can be non-uniform due to geometries: Earth's gravity field is not uniform due to different mass distributions (mountains, continents, oceans, etc.). Up and down quarks also have nonidentical charges: 2/3 and -1/3 respectively.

Does this mean that the electrostatic field around a proton is non-uniform in the same manner as the non-uniformity of Earth's gravity field?

  • To detect the charge distribution in a proton you need to probe it with very energetic electrons. The deep inelastic scattering experiments conducted at SLAC used electron beams with energy >1 GeV, i.e., the kinetic energy of the electrons was higher than the proton rest mass-energy. See https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/434985/123208 – PM 2Ring Dec 27 '23 at 14:15
  • @PM2Ring extend that comment into an answer? – Jagerber48 Dec 27 '23 at 22:34

3 Answers3

18

If quarks had been little point charges with definite positions, then their electric fields would have added up to a non-uniform electric field. But due to quantum mechanics their positions are indeterminate: they are in a sense spread out so the total field is the sum of all possible configurations. So that makes the overall field look like a (slightly diffuse) point charge.

...Except that this is not 100% correct. The quarks have probability distributions that don't exactly even out perfectly, especially since the proton has spin. This gives it a tiny dipole moment.

  • 1
    Thanks! This (and the article linked) perfectly answers my question. – 9m113konkurs Dec 26 '23 at 11:47
  • Is your first paragraph really a good description? E.g. in a hydrogen atom, the electron wavefunction is spherically symmetric, and so is the overall probability distribution for the electric field, but the picture is nuanced. If you measure the electric field simultaneously at two (or more) points around the atom, you should not get results consistent with the classical idea of a spherically symmetric field (the expected magnitude of the dipole moment is (quite!) nonzero). Shouldn't the same hold for a proton? (I am not referring to the small "permanent" dipole you mention.) – HTNW Dec 27 '23 at 06:45
  • The linked article is about a magnetic dipole moment. The question is asking about charge distribution making me think an answer about the electric dipole moment would be more relevant. – Jagerber48 Dec 27 '23 at 23:13
  • @9m113konkurs if this answer helped, please accept it by clicking on the checkmark. – Nilay Ghosh Dec 28 '23 at 02:53
1

This is a great question. Of the answers you've gotten so far, the one by Anders Sandberg is wrong, and the one by Sebastiano doesn't actually address the question.

The proton is the simplest nucleus: one proton and zero neutrons. In general it's very common for nuclei to be nonspherical, like an American football. When this happens, the usual way to detect it and measure the amount is through a quantity known as the electric quadrupole moment. Following your analogy, the earth does have a gravitational quadrupole moment because its rotation causes it to be flattened at the poles (the opposite of the type of deformation usually seen in nuclei). This causes the gravitational field close to the earth to be significantly different than the field of a pointlike mass.

However, not all nuclei have a nonvanishing electric quadrupole moment, and the proton is one of the ones that doesn't. This turns out to be because its spin is 1/2, whereas only particles with a spin of at least 2 can have a quadrupole moment. I don't know of a good elementary explanation for this, but here is a technical one that would be above the head of a high school student, sorry :-) https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.502596/page/n49/mode/2up

The answer by Anders Sandberg points out that the proton has a nonvanishing magnetic dipole moment. That's true, but it isn't a correct analogy of the type you're asking about. A perfectly uniform sphere of charge can still have a nonvanishing magnetic dipole moment.

  • Why the focus on electric quadrupole instead of dipole moments? – Jagerber48 Dec 27 '23 at 23:54
  • "However, not all nuclei have a nonvanishing electric quadrupole moment, and the proton is one of the ones that doesn't." This sentence has too many double negatives to understand.. – Jagerber48 Dec 28 '23 at 03:04
  • 1
    Nuclei have definite parity, which forbids non-vanishing dipole moments. The why is explained below eq. 41 in the cited excerpt. In a classical picture this means that the center of the negative and positive charges in the nucleus have to coincide. The lowest inhomogeneity available to a nucleus is then the quadrupole moment. Since mass is never negative, the quadrupole moment is also the lowest multipole available for gravitational bodies, and so it actually is the quadrupole and not the dipole moment which is the simplest of the properties that the original question was about. – tobi_s Dec 28 '23 at 06:31
  • So it seems like this answer claims "Even though protons are made of multiple constituent parts, they are still perfectly spherical". – Jagerber48 Dec 28 '23 at 08:03
1

disclaimer: This post is about a proton electric dipole moment, but it might be the case that the proton electric quadrapole moment is known to be non-zero..

I don't know the physics of quarks and gluons, but I know some basic electric theory and some experimental physics.

The potential from some source charge near the origin can be written as $$ V(r, \theta, \phi) = \sum_{j=1}^{\infty}\sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty}\sum_{m=-\ell}^{+\ell} \frac{D_{\ell, j}^m}{r^j} Y_{\ell}^m(\theta, \phi) $$ By symmetry, if the charge distribution $\rho(r, \theta, \phi)$ is spherically symmetric then the only terms $D_{\ell, j}^m$ with $\ell, m=0$ will contribute. These are the monopole terms. The first order deviation from spherical symmetry would be the inclusion of a dipolar terms with $\ell=1$.

"The storage ring proton EDM experiment" describes an experiment looking for an electric dipole moment of the proton. I do not know how this experiment works, but I can copy and paste this figure and its caption.

enter image description here

This figure shows that we have never observe an electric dipole moment of the proton, but that it has been constrained to be $d<10^{-24}\text{ e}\cdot\text{cm}$.

Here's a comparison I have to put that number into perspective. In atoms the radius of the electron cloud is the Bohr radius $\approx a_0 \approx 50 \text{ pm}$. When electrons in atoms are driven between the $S$ and $P$ orbitals there is an associated dipole moment of a scale $d\approx e\cdot a_0$. That is, the length scale of the dipole moment is as large as the radius of the charge distribution.

Apparently the charge radius of the proton is $\approx 1 \text{ fm} = 10^{-13}\text{ cm}$. The length scale of the proton dipole moment has been constrained be 11 orders of magnitude smaller than this. What that tells me as a naive experimentalist is that if the proton is made of multiple components then, for whatever reason, those components occupy orbitals that are HIGHLY spherical.

Jagerber48
  • 13,887
  • "spherical" is not really the right term. A square with positive charges on two opposing corners and negative charges on the others (all charges equal up to sign) has zero dipole moment. In fact, it is a perfect quadrupole. The dipole moment measures the displacement between the average locations of the positive and negative charges. E.g., a dipole antenna is typically straight. – tobi_s Dec 28 '23 at 06:38
  • @tobi_s not sure what usage of "spherical" you're referring to. I claim that a spherically symmetric charge distribution has only monopole contributions. Then I say the first order deviation from spherical symmetry would include a dipole moment. This is also correct. I don't say or imply that it's impossible to have higher order (e.g. quadrupole) moments while having zero dipole moment.. – Jagerber48 Dec 28 '23 at 06:42
  • Well, your last paragraph says that the small dipole moment implies that the "components occupy orbitals that are HIGHLY spherical". – tobi_s Dec 28 '23 at 06:56
  • @tobi_s gotcha. Right, the assumption there is that the magnitudes of the different moments decreases as the order gets higher. But yeah, as I say in my edited disclaimer at the top, from cursory research it seems like it might be a routine fact (though I'm not 100% sure about this... still researching) that the quadrupole moment is non-zero. I'll consider amending that sentence.. – Jagerber48 Dec 28 '23 at 07:07
  • the lowest order moment is zero (total charge), so your assumption is that of perfect spherical symmetry if taken too literally :-) Still, parity conservation or rather the small role of the parity-violating weak interaction require nuclear dipole moments to be very small. Your assumption may be right for higher order moments, but not for the monopole and the dipole. – tobi_s Dec 28 '23 at 07:36
  • @tobi_s we're talking about protons, right, (I guess the picture shows neutron EDM data, and my figure in my text refers to that so I'll fix that) so total charge is non-zero. I don't understand the constraints parity conservation/parity violating interactions put on dipole moments. I want to understand that better. – Jagerber48 Dec 28 '23 at 07:45
  • Yeah, I got carried away there, of course we're talking about protons :D Check out the reference given by kfjsdflkjh as that's really all there is to why parity conservation implies a zero dipole moment. – tobi_s Dec 28 '23 at 07:54