The discrepancy between the proton charge radius extracted from the muonic hydrogen Lamb shift measurement and the best present value obtained from the elastic scattering experiments, remains unexplained and represents a burning problem of today’s nuclear physics: after more than 50 years of research the radius of a basic constituent of matter is still not understood. This paper presents a summary of the best existing proton radius measurements, followed by an overview of the possible explanations for the observed inconsistency between the hydrogen and the muonic-hydrogen data. In the last part the upcoming experiments, dedicated to remeasuring the proton radius, are described.

1.
R. W.
McAllister
and
R.
Hofstadter
,
Phys. Rev.
102
,
851
(
1956
).
3.
A.
Antognini
 et al,
Science
339
,
417
(
2013
).
4.
M. N.
Rosenbluth
,
Phys. Rev.
79
,
615
(
1950
).
5.
J.
Beringer
 et al (
Particle Data Group
),
Phys. Rev. D
86
,
010001
(
2012
).
6.
M.
Mihovilovič
 et al,
EPJ Web of Conferences
72
,
00017
(
2014
).
7.
J. C.
Bernauer
 et al,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
105
,
242001
(
2010
).
8.
J. C.
Bernauer
 et al,
Phys. Rev. C
90
,
015206
(
2014
).
9.
W.
Lamb
 Jr.
 et al,
Phys. Rev.
72
,
241
(
1947
).
10.
R.
Pohl
 et al,
Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.
63
,
175
(
2013
).
11.
A.
Antognini
 et al,
Annals of Physics
331
,
127
(
2013
).
12.
I.
Kostoulas
 et al,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
32
,
489
(
1974
).
13.
H.
Merkel
 et al,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
112
,
221802
(
2014
).
14.
G. G.
Simon
 et al,
Nucl. Phys. A
333
,
381
(
1980
).
15.
F.
Borkowski
 et al.,
Nucl. Phys. B
93
,
461
(
1975
).
16.
J. J.
Murphy
 et al,
Phys. Rev. C
9
,
2125
(
1974
).
17.
L. E.
Price
 et al,
Phys. Rev. D
4
,
45
(
1971
).
18.
M. A.
Belushkin
 et al,
Phys. Rev. C
75
,
035202
(
2007
).
19.
M.
Vanderhaeghen
 et al,
Phys. Rev. C
62
,
025501
(
2000
).
20.
M.
Meziane
 et al,
AIP Conf. Proc.
1563
,
183
(
2013
).
21.
R.
Gilman
 et al, arXiv:1303.2160 [nucl-ex] (
2013
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.