Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Baryon Form Factors

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Dispersion relations consistently return a small proton charge radius of 0.840 fm and a slightly larger magnetic radius.

desk verdict A clear, honest status review of the Bonn dispersion-theory program for nucleon form factors, but the quoted systematic errors on the radii cover only part of the model dependence in the effective-pole spectral ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12885 v1 pith:3DQ7SSYH submitted 2024-12-17 hep-ph nucl-th

Yong-Hui Lin , Hans-Werner Hammer , Ulf-G. Mei{ss}ner This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th MSC 81V05 PACS 13.40.Gp14.20.Dh
keywords nucleonelectromagneticformfactorsdispersionrelationsradiispectralfunctionsprotonradiuspuzzlevectormesonpolestime-likehyperon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review chapter argues that dispersion-theoretical analysis of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors has matured into a precision tool. The authors report, from a fit to the combined space-like and time-like world data, a proton charge radius of $r_p^E = 0.840^{+0.003}_{-0.002}{}^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$ fm, a proton magnetic radius of $r_p^M = 0.849^{+0.003}_{-0.003}{}^{+0.001}_{-0.004}$ fm, and a neutron magnetic radius of $r_n^M = 0.864^{+0.004}_{-0.004}{}^{+0.006}_{-0.001}$ fm, where the two errors are statistical and systematic. They stress that dispersion relations have consistently found a small proton charge radius, in line with muonic hydrogen spectroscopy, while the magnetic radius comes out slightly larger and is contested by other extractions. If correct, the framework gives one coherent description of electron scattering, polarization-transfer, and $e^+e^-$ annihilation data, and it also reproduces the near-threshold enhancement and oscillations seen in the time-like effective form factor.

What carries the argument

The central object is the unsubtracted dispersion relation $F(t)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{t_0}^{\infty}\frac{\mathrm{Im}\,F(t')}{t'-t-i\epsilon}\,dt'$, which maps the spectral function into the observable form factor and thereby turns radii sum rules into integrals over the imaginary part. The spectral function itself is assembled from unitarity: the isovector part starts with the two-pion continuum, in which the $\rho$ resonance is generated dynamically by pion-nucleon scattering amplitudes rather than inserted by hand, and the isoscalar part starts with the three-pion continuum plus the $K\bar{K}$ and $\rho\pi$ channels. Above these controlled low-mass regions, a few narrow and broad effective poles parameterize the remaining strength, with their number fixed by the stability criterion of using as few poles as possible and by constraints from the known normalizations, superconvergence relations derived from perturbative QCD, and the neutron charge radius squared.

What would settle it

A precise independent determination of the proton magnetic radius--for instance from the hyperfine splitting of muonic hydrogen or a two-photon-corrected reanalysis of electron-deuteron scattering--that disagreed with 0.849 fm by more than the combined uncertainties would put the minimal-pole spectral function in question. A direct numerical check is also available: if increasing the number of effective poles from the best-fit choice shifted $r_p^E$ by more than the quoted 0.002 fm systematic error, the claimed uncertainty band would be too small.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the electromagnetic structure of the nucleon is described by an unsubtracted dispersion relation whose spectral function is built from the light continua fixed by unitarity--the two-pion continuum for the isovector channel and the $3\pi$, $K\bar{K}$, and $\rho\pi$ continua for the isoscalar channel--plus the smallest possible number of narrow and broad effective vector-meson poles for the remaining strength. Fitted to the world data set, this representation yields stable, high-precision radii ($r_p^E\simeq 0.840$ fm, $r_p^M\simeq 0.849$ fm, $r_n^M\simeq 0.864$ fm) with uncertainties estimated by bootstrap resampling for statistical errors and by pole-number variation for systematic errors. The same spectral functions, with broad poles above the nucleon-antinucleon threshold, reproduce the near-threshold enhancement and the oscillatory pattern of the time-like effective form factor, and the combined analysis disfavors a zero crossing of the proton form-factor ratio at accessible space-like momentum transfers.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction relies on the assumption that the true spectral function above the light two- and three-pion and $K\bar{K}$/$\rho\pi$ continua can be represented by a small number of narrow and broad effective vector-meson poles whose parameters are fitted to the same data used for the radii; the paper itself calls the problem ill-posed and deliberately uses as few poles as possible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The proton charge radius is small, $r_p^E \simeq 0.840$ fm, confirming the muonic-hydrogen value and removing the electric part of the old proton radius puzzle.
  • The proton magnetic radius is slightly larger than the electric one, $r_p^M \simeq 0.849$ fm, and the disagreement with smaller values from a high-precision electron-scattering analysis and some lattice calculations constitutes a new magnetic-radius puzzle.
  • The time-like effective form factor's near-threshold enhancement and oscillations between $t=4m^2$ and about $6\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$ are describable by a small set of broad poles above the nucleon-antinucleon threshold, which also generate the physical-region imaginary part.
  • A zero crossing of the ratio $\mu_p G_E^p/G_M^p$ in the space-like region is disfavored by the combined space- and time-like fit.
  • The dispersive framework is positioned to analyze the upcoming muon-proton scattering data and to extend to hyperon form factors as time-like data improve.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's claims: if the dispersive magnetic radius is right, the most economical resolution of the new puzzle would be a systematic underestimate of the magnetic radius in the low-$Q^2$ electron-scattering extraction, a point the paper leaves open.
  • The same pole-plus-continuum machine could be tested by predicting the phase of the time-like form factors; existing data only constrain $|G_{\rm eff}|$, so future polarization measurements in $e^+e^-\to p\bar p$ would discriminate the broad-pole mechanism from triangle-diagram interpretations.
  • A model-selection check the authors do not perform: repeat the fit with a Bayesian evidence calculation over the number of poles; if the evidence favors far more poles than the stability criterion allows, the quoted systematic errors derived from pole-number variation would need revision.
  • For hyperons, the method implies that precise time-like data could predict space-like form factors through crossing, so the planned radiative Dalitz-decay measurements of charged-hyperon radii provide a direct experimental test of the dispersive continuation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper is a review chapter on baryon electromagnetic form factors, with the main body devoted to the nucleon. It derives the spectral decomposition and dispersion relations, lists the experimental observables in the space- and time-like regions, and describes the construction of the isoscalar and isovector spectral functions from the 2π, K\bar K, and ρπ continua plus effective vector-meson poles. It then explains the fit strategy, constraints, and bootstrap/Bayesian error estimation, and presents the resulting form factors and radii, in particular Eq. (39): r_p^E = 0.840(+0.003,-0.002)(+0.002,-0.002) fm, r_p^M = 0.849(+0.003,-0.003)(+0.001,-0.004) fm, r_n^M = 0.864(+0.004,-0.004)(+0.006,-0.001) fm. The conclusions claim that dispersion relations consistently yield r_p^E ≈ 0.84 fm and r_p^M ≈ 0.85 fm, and the chapter closes with a review of hyperon form factors and the scale dependence of the pion cloud.

Significance. If the quoted radii are correct, this chapter documents high-precision dispersion-theoretical determinations of the nucleon electromagnetic radii and provides a useful pedagogic introduction to the method. Its strengths include the explicit derivation of the radius sum rules in Eq. (25), the careful discussion of unitarity and analyticity constraints, the transparent description of the ill-posed nature of spectral reconstruction, and the enumeration of fit parameters and constraints in Sec. 3.2. The chapter is honest about the fact that the 3π continuum is not unitarized and that high-mass strength is represented by effective poles. The main weakness is that the systematic error estimate is obtained by varying the number of poles within one functional form, leaving functional-form uncertainty unexplored; this affects the strength of the precision claim but not the broad historical conclusion that dispersive analyses favor a small proton charge radius.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. 4, Table 1, Eq. (39)] The systematic uncertainties quoted in Eq. (39) are obtained by varying the number of effective isoscalar and isovector poles while the total χ² changes by less than 1% (Sec. 4, Table 1). This scan varies only the number of poles within a fixed functional form: narrow and broad Breit-Wigner poles plus the explicitly computed continua in Eqs. (27)-(28). It does not explore alternative functional forms for the spectral function, such as a non-Breit-Wigner 3π continuum, triangle-diagram threshold structures (mentioned in Sec. 5.3), or a different treatment of the isoscalar strength currently absorbed in the ω pole (Sec. 3.1). Because the radius sum rules Eq. (25) weight the spectral function by 1/t², the low-mass isoscalar and isovector shapes are precisely where such model dependence could shift r_p^E and r_n^M beyond the quoted ±0.002-0.006 fm systematic errors. I recommend adding a robustness test with a genuinely different spectral ansatz or, at minimum, explicitly qualifying the 'reliable uncertainty estimates' claim in the abstract and conclusions to state that the quoted systematics cover pole-count variations within the adopted ansatz but not functional-form uncertainty.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.2.1] The phrase "read off form the reduced cross section" should be "read off from the reduced cross section".
  2. [Sec. 5.4] In the sentence "As a consequence, the the concept of the pion cloud is resolution dependent," the duplicate "the" should be removed.
  3. [Sec. 7] "We have also discuss our present understanding" should read "We have also discussed our present understanding".
  4. [Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 captions] The formulas for the smooth backgrounds and for F_p and F_n appear in the captions without being introduced in the running text; the symbols p, A, B, C, D should be defined in the text or the formulas should be moved to the main body.
  5. [Sec. 4] The sentence "For n simulated data sets, the errors thus scale with 1/√n" is imprecise: this scaling refers to the Monte Carlo error of the bootstrap estimate itself, not to the statistical uncertainty of the extracted radius. Please clarify the wording to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central radii are outputs of a dispersive fit to external world data, not inputs, and the review's self-citations point to reproducible analyses rather than unverified premises.

full rationale

The derivation chain in this chapter is self-contained against external data. The radii in Eq. (39) are obtained from the spectral-function representation of the form factors (Eqs. (23), (27), (28)) with couplings, masses and widths fitted to the world data set of Table 2; the paper explicitly states that 'the nucleon radii, however, are not included as a constraint' (Sec. 3.2), so the extracted r_p^E, r_p^M and r_n^M are fit outputs, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions. The only low-energy quantity imposed externally is the neutron charge radius squared (Eq. (29)), which does not determine the proton radii or r_n^M. The effective-pole ansatz is an acknowledged model assumption motivated by the ill-posedness of the problem ('we are dealing with an ill-posed problem... the strategy has always been to use as few poles as possible'), and varying the number of poles to estimate systematics is a model-uncertainty procedure, not a circular reduction. Citations to the authors' earlier papers [33], [76] and [6] refer to the same data-driven fits; because those fits are externally falsifiable and reproducible, the self-citations are not load-bearing circularity. The review's claims about time-like oscillations and the disfavored zero crossing are likewise descriptions of the fitted spectral function, not theory-defined predictions. Model dependence of the pole functional form is a legitimate correctness risk, but it is not an instance of Eq. X reducing to Eq. Y by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results rest on a dispersive framework with several input assumptions: the convergence of unsubtracted dispersion relations, the spectral decomposition into continua plus effective poles, the two-pion continuum from pion-nucleon scattering, the pQCD/superconvergence constraints, and the external neutron charge radius constraint. The effective pole parameters are free parameters fitted to the same data that later determine the radii, which limits the model independence of the extracted values.

free parameters (4)
  • Effective pole couplings a_i^V (isoscalar and isovector)
    All vector meson coupling constants are fitted to the data (Sec. 3.1, Eq. (27)-(28)).
  • Masses of narrow effective poles
    The masses of all effective poles are fitted to the data (Sec. 3.1).
  • Widths of broad effective poles
    A variable nonzero width is allowed for certain effective poles to mimic the imaginary part at higher t (Sec. 3.1).
  • Normalization constants n_k for MAMI and PRad data sets
    33 additional normalization constants for the spacelike cross section data are fitted (Sec. 5).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Unsubtracted dispersion relations for the nucleon form factors converge.
    Assumed in Sec. 2.3 to write Eq. (23); the paper states 'The convergence of an unsubtracted dispersion relation for the form factors has been assumed.'
  • ad hoc to paper The spectral function can be decomposed into continua plus a finite set of effective vector meson poles.
    Central modeling ansatz of the authors' fits, Eq. (27)-(28); the paper notes the problem is ill-posed (Sec. 3.1).
  • domain assumption The two-pion continuum is reliably calculable from pion-nucleon scattering amplitudes and unitarity, with the rho generated dynamically.
    Underlies the isovector spectral function (Sec. 3.1, Ref. [47]).
  • standard math pQCD power laws and superconvergence relations constrain the spectral functions.
    Used as constraints in Sec. 3.2, Eq. (30)-(32).
  • domain assumption The neutron charge radius squared is fixed to the chiral EFT value -0.105 fm^2.
    Used as a soft or hard constraint in the fits (Sec. 3.2, Eq. (29)).
invented entities (1)
  • Effective narrow and broad vector meson poles above the NN threshold
    purpose: Parameterize the higher-mass strength of the spectral functions and generate the imaginary part in the timelike region
    These are not established resonances but effective degrees of freedom with fitted masses, widths, and couplings (Sec. 3.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Baryon Form Factors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DQ7SSYH

@misc{pith2026241212885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Baryon Form Factors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DQ7SSYH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12885}
}
read the original abstract

We review the status of baryon form factors with a special focus on the nucleon electromagnetic form factors which are known best. First, we give an introduction into the dispersive analyses and emphasize the role of unitarity and analyticity in the construction of the isoscalar and isovector spectral functions. Second, we present the state of the art in our understanding of nucleon form factors and radii including reliable uncertainty estimates from bootstrap and Bayesian methods. Third, we discuss the physics of the time-like form factors and point out further issues to be addressed in this framework. Finally, we review the status of hyperon form factors and comment on the pion cloud.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12885 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The moduli of G p E (left panel) and G p M (right-panel) for space- and time-like momentum transfers based on a recent dispersion￾theoretical analysis of form factor data [33]. The colored area between the two dashed lines at t = 0 and t = 4m 2 is the unphysical region where the form factor cannot be observed. 2.2 Experimental Observables We start by discussing how the nucleon EM form factors can be accessed in expe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spectral decomposition of the matrix element of the electromagnetic current [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Analytic structure of a typical form factor in the complex plane. The start of the lowest continuum cut is indicated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the isoscalar (left) and isovector (right) spectral function in terms of continua and (e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: This points towards consistency between the two-photon corrected cross section data and the ratio data, that are not a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Complete fit to space- and timelike data with bootstrap error (shaded band) compared to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of the proton electric (left) and magnetic (right) radii determined by various dispersion-theoretical extractions. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the proton charge radius extracted in Ref. [33] and other recent determinations. The y-axis indicates the process in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Complete fit to space- and timelike data with bootstrap error (shaded band) compared to data for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Complete fit to space- and timelike data with bootstrap error (shaded band) compared to data for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Implications of exclusive photon leptoproduction measurements for the proton charge-radius puzzle

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    After excluding or cutting low-|t| CLAS 2018 data, BH-dominated EP measurements yield a proton charge radius smaller than the PDG average and consistent with PRad and muonic hydrogen.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [33]

    Meißner, New Insights into the Nucleon’s Electromagnetic Structure, Phys

    Y ong-Hui Lin, Hans-Werner Hammer, Ulf-G. Meißner, New Insights into the Nucleon’s Electromagnetic Structure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (5) (2022) 052002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.052002, 2109.12961

    arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Wilson, Confinement of Quarks, Phys

    Kenneth G. Wilson, Confinement of Quarks, Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 2445–2459, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2445

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.10.2445 1974

  3. [2]

    Frank Wilczek, Origins of Mass, Central Eur. J. Phys. 10 (2012) 1021–1037, doi: 10.2478/s11534-012-0121-0 , 1206.7114

    arXiv 2012

  4. [3]

    Franz Gross, et al., 50 Y ears of Quantum Chromodynamics, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 1125, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2 , 2212. 11107

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11949-2 2023

  5. [4]

    Meißner, Baryon form-factors in chiral perturbation theory, Eur

    Bastian Kubis, Ulf-G. Meißner, Baryon form-factors in chiral perturbation theory, Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2001) 747–756, doi: 10.1007/ s100520100570, hep-ph/0010283

    arXiv 2001

  6. [5]

    Fischer, Baryons as relativistic three-quark bound states, Prog

    Gernot Eichmann, Helios Sanchis-Alepuz, Richard Williams, Reinhard Alkofer, Christian S. Fischer, Baryons as relativistic three-quark bound states, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91 (2016) 1–100, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.07.001, 1606.09602

    arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    Meißner, Dispersion-theoretical analysis of the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon: Past, present and future, Eur

    Y ong-Hui Lin, Hans-Werner Hammer, Ulf-G. Meißner, Dispersion-theoretical analysis of the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleon: Past, present and future, Eur. Phys. J. A 57 (8) (2021) 255, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00562-0 , 2106.06357

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Achim Denig, Giovanni Salme, Nucleon Electromagnetic Form Factors in the Timelike Region, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 68 (2013) 113–157, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2012.09.005, 1210.4689

    arXiv 2013

Show all 122 references
  1. [8]

    Pacetti, R

    S. Pacetti, R. Baldini Ferroli, E. Tomasi-Gustafsson, Proton electromagnetic form factors: Basic notions, present achievements and future perspectives, Phys. Rept. 550-551 (2015) 1–103, doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.005

    2015 doi

  2. [9]

    Punjabi, C

    V. Punjabi, C. F . Perdrisat, M. K. Jones, E. J. Brash, C. E. Carlson, The Structure of the Nucleon: Elastic Electromagnetic Form Factors, Eur. Phys. J. A 51 (2015) 79, doi:10.1140/epja/i2015-15079-x, 1503.01452

    2015 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Randolf Pohl, et al., The size of the proton, Nature 466 (2010) 213–216, doi: 10.1038/nature09250

    2010 doi

  4. [11]

    Axel Beyer, et al., The Rydberg constant and proton size from atomic hydrogen, Science 358 (6359) (2017) 79–85, doi: 10.1126/science. aah6677

    2017 doi

  5. [12]

    H ´el`ene Fleurbaey, Sandrine Galtier, Simon Thomas, Marie Bonnaud, Lucile Julien, Franc ¸ois Biraben, Franc ¸ois Nez, Michel Abgrall, Jocelyne Gu´ena, New Measurement of the 1S− 3S Transition Frequency of Hydrogen: Contribution to the Proton Charge Radius Puzzle, Phys. Rev. L...

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Bezginov, T

    N. Bezginov, T. Valdez, M. Horbatsch, A. Marsman, A. C. Vutha, E. A. Hessels, A measurement of the atomic hydrogen Lamb shift and the proton charge radius, Science 365 (6457) (2019) 1007–1012, doi:10.1126/science.aau7807

    2019 doi

  7. [14]

    D. S. Armstrong, R. D. McKeown, Parity-Violating Electron Scattering and the Electric and Magnetic Strange Form Factors of the Nucleon, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62 (2012) 337–359, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102010-130419 , 1207.5238

    2012 arXiv

  8. [15]

    F . E. Maas, K. D. Paschke, Strange nucleon form-factors, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 95 (2017) 209–244, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2016.11.001

    2017 doi

  9. [16]

    Sonia Bacca, Saori Pastore, Electromagnetic reactions on light nuclei, J. Phys. G 41 (12) (2014) 123002, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/41/12/ 123002, 1407.3490

    2014 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Phillips, Electromagnetic Structure of Two- and Three-Nucleon Systems: An Effective Field Theory Description, Ann

    Daniel R. Phillips, Electromagnetic Structure of Two- and Three-Nucleon Systems: An Effective Field Theory Description, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 66 (2016) 421–447, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102014-022321

    2016 doi

  11. [18]

    Hermann Krebs, Nuclear Currents in Chiral Effective Field Theory, Eur. Phys. J. A 56 (9) (2020) 234, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-020-00230-9 , 2008.00974

    2020 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Gough Eschrich, et al

    Ivo M. Gough Eschrich, et al. (SELEX), Measurement of the Sigma- Charge Radius by Sigma- Electron Elastic Scattering, Phys. Lett. B 522 (2001) 233–239, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(01)01285-0, hep-ex/0106053

    2001 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Meißner, Method for measuring the charge radii of charged hyperons from the time-like region, Phys

    Y ong-Hui Lin, Feng-Kun Guo, Ulf-G. Meißner, Method for measuring the charge radii of charged hyperons from the time-like region, Phys. Lett. B 856 (2024) 138887, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138887, 2309.07850. 16 Baryon Form Factors

    2024

  14. [21]

    Xiaorong Zhou, Liang Y an, Rinaldo Baldini Ferroli, Guangshun Huang, Experimental Review of ΛΛ Production, Symmetry 14 (1) (2022) 144, doi:10.3390/sym14010144

    2022 doi

  15. [22]

    Ablikim, et al

    M. Ablikim, et al. (BESIII), Measurement of the cross section for e+e−→ Λ ¯Λ and evidence of the decay ψ(3770)→ Λ ¯Λ, Phys. Rev. D 104 (9) (2021) L091104, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.L091104, 2108.02410

    2021

  16. [23]

    Matthias Burkardt, Impact parameter dependent parton distributions and off forward parton distributions for zeta — > 0, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 071503, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.071503, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 66, 119903 (2002)], hep-ph/0005108

    2000 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Miller, Charge Density of the Neutron, Phys

    Gerald A. Miller, Charge Density of the Neutron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 112001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.112001, 0705.2409

    2007 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Jaffe, Ambiguities in the definition of local spatial densities in light hadrons, Phys

    Robert L. Jaffe, Ambiguities in the definition of local spatial densities in light hadrons, Phys. Rev. D 103 (1) (2021) 016017, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.103.016017, 2010.15887

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Miller, Transverse Charge Densities, Ann

    Gerald A. Miller, Transverse Charge Densities, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 60 (2010) 1–25, doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.012809.104508, 1002. 0355

    2010

  20. [27]

    Yuxun Guo, Xiangdong Ji, Kyle Shiells, Novel twist-three transverse-spin sum rule for the proton and related generalized parton distribu- tions, Nucl. Phys. B 969 (2021) 115440, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2021.115440, 2101.05243

    2021

  21. [28]

    Panteleeva, Maxim V

    Julia Yu. Panteleeva, Maxim V. Polyakov, Forces inside the nucleon on the light front from 3D Breit frame force distributions: Abel tomography case, Phys. Rev. D 104 (1) (2021) 014008, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.014008, 2102.10902

    2021 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Trawi´nski, Revisiting the mechanical properties of the nucleon, Eur

    C ´edric Lorc´e, Herv ´e Moutarde, Arkadiusz P . Trawi´nski, Revisiting the mechanical properties of the nucleon, Eur. Phys. J. C 79 (1) (2019) 89, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6572-3 , 1810.09837

    2019 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Miller, Forces within hadrons on the light front, Phys

    Adam Freese, Gerald A. Miller, Forces within hadrons on the light front, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 094023, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.094023, 2102.01683

    2021 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Epelbaum, J

    E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia, N. Lange, U.-G. Meißner, M. V. Polyakov, Definition of Local Spatial Densities in Hadrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 (1) (2022) 012001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.012001, 2201.02565

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    J. Yu. Panteleeva, E. Epelbaum, J. Gegelia, U.-G. Meißner, Definition of electromagnetic local spatial densities for composite spin-1/2 systems, Phys. Rev. D 106 (5) (2022) 056019, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.056019, 2205.15061

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. N. Rosenbluth, High Energy Elastic Scattering of Electrons on Protons, Phys. Rev. 79 (1950) 615–619, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.79.615

    1950 doi

  27. [35]

    Arrington, P

    J. Arrington, P . G. Blunden, W. Melnitchouk, Review of two-photon exchange in electron scattering, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66 (2011) 782–833, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2011.07.003, 1105.0951

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    I. T. Lorenz, Ulf-G. Meißner, H.-W. Hammer, Y . B. Dong, Theoretical Constraints and Systematic Effects in the Determination of the Proton Form Factors, Phys. Rev. D 91 (1) (2015) 014023, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.014023, 1411.1704

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Afanasev, P

    A. Afanasev, P . G. Blunden, D. Hasell, B. A. Raue, Two-photon exchange in elastic electron–proton scattering, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 95 (2017) 245–278, doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2017.03.004, 1703.03874

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Jaseer Ahmed, P . G. Blunden, W. Melnitchouk, Two-photon exchange from intermediate state resonances in elastic electron-proton scattering, Phys. Rev. C 102 (4) (2020) 045205, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.102.045205, 2006.12543

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    A. I. Akhiezer, Mikhail. P . Rekalo, Polarization phenomena in electron scattering by protons in the high energy region, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 13 (1968) 572

    1968

  32. [40]

    R. G. Arnold, Carl E. Carlson, Franz Gross, Polarization Transfer in Elastic electron Scattering from Nucleons and Deuterons, Phys. Rev. C 23 (1981) 363, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.23.363

    1981 doi

  33. [41]

    A. Z. Dubnickova, S. Dubnicka, M. P . Rekalo, Investigation of the nucleon electromagnetic structure by polarization effects in e+ e- —> N anti-N processes, Nuovo Cim. A 109 (1996) 241–256, doi:10.1007/BF02731012

    1996 doi

  34. [42]

    John David Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Wiley 1998

    1998

  35. [43]

    Chew, Robert Karplus, Stephen Gasiorowicz, Fredrik Zachariasen, Electromagnetic Structure of the Nucleon in Local-Field Theory, Phys

    Geoffrey F . Chew, Robert Karplus, Stephen Gasiorowicz, Fredrik Zachariasen, Electromagnetic Structure of the Nucleon in Local-Field Theory, Phys. Rev. 110 (1) (1958) 265, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.110.265

    1958 doi

  36. [44]

    Federbush, M

    P . Federbush, M. L. Goldberger, S. B. Treiman, Electromagnetic Structure of the Nucleon, Phys. Rev. 112 (1958) 642–665, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRev.112.642

    1958

  37. [45]

    Drell, F

    S.D. Drell, F . Zachariasen, Electromagnetic Structure of Nucleons, Oxford University Press 1961

    1961

  38. [46]

    H ¨ohler, E

    G. H ¨ohler, E. Pietarinen, Electromagnetic Radii of Nucleon and Pion, Phys. Lett. B 53 (1975) 471–475, doi:10.1016/0370-2693(75)90220-8

    1975 doi

  39. [47]

    Hoferichter, B

    M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, J. Ruiz de Elvira, H.-W. Hammer, U.-G. Meißner, On theππ continuum in the nucleon form factors and the proton radius puzzle, Eur. Phys. J. A 52 (11) (2016) 331, doi:10.1140/epja/i2016-16331-7, 1609.06722

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Frazer, Jose R

    William R. Frazer, Jose R. Fulco, Effect of a pion pion scattering resonance on nucleon structure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2 (1959) 365, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.2.365

    1959 doi

  41. [49]

    H ¨ohler, Pion-Nukleon-Streuung: Methoden und Ergebnisse, in: H

    G. H ¨ohler, Pion-Nukleon-Streuung: Methoden und Ergebnisse, in: H. Schopper (Ed.), Landolt-B ¨ornstein, 9b2, Springer, Berlin 1983

    1983

  42. [50]

    G. J. Gounaris, J. J. Sakurai, Finite width corrections to the vector meson dominance prediction for ρ→ e+e−, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21 (1968) 244–247, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.21.244

    1968 doi

  43. [51]

    Bernard, Norbert Kaiser, Ulf-G

    V. Bernard, Norbert Kaiser, Ulf-G. Meißner, Nucleon electroweak form-factors: Analysis of their spectral functions, Nucl. Phys. A 611 (1996) 429–441, doi:10.1016/S0375-9474(96)00291-6, hep-ph/9607428

    1996 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Kaiser, E

    N. Kaiser, E. Passemar, Spectral functions of nucleon form factors: Three-pion continua at low energies, Eur. Phys. J. A 55 (2) (2019) 16, doi:10.1140/epja/i2019-12680-y, 1901.02865

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hammer, M

    H.-W. Hammer, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, Spectral content of isoscalar nucleon form-factors, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 045205, doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevC.60.045205, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 62, 049903 (2000)], hep-ph/9812261

    1999 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Hammer, M

    H.-W. Hammer, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, K anti-K continuum and isoscalar nucleon form-factors, Phys. Rev. C 60 (1999) 045204, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.60.045204, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 62, 049902 (2000)], hep-ph/9903367

    1999 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Meißner, V

    Ulf-G. Meißner, V. Mull, J. Speth, J. W. van Orden, Strange vector currents and the OZI rule, Phys. Lett. B 408 (1997) 381–386, doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00828-9, hep-ph/9701296

    1997 arXiv

  48. [56]

    M. A. Belushkin, H.-W. Hammer, U.-G. Meißner, Dispersion analysis of the nucleon form-factors including meson continua, Phys. Rev. C 75 (2007) 035202, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.75.035202, hep-ph/0608337

    2007 arXiv

  49. [57]

    ¨Unal, Ulf-G

    Y . ¨Unal, Ulf-G. Meißner, Chiral constraints on the isoscalar electromagnetic spectral functions of the nucleon from leading order vector meson couplings, Phys. Lett. B 794 (2019) 103–108, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.05.029, 1902.03143

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Frazer, Jose R

    William R. Frazer, Jose R. Fulco, Partial-Wave Dispersion Relations for the Process π +π→ N + ¯N, Phys. Rev. 117 (1960) 1603–1609, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.117.1603

    1960 doi

  51. [59]

    Frazer, Jose R

    William R. Frazer, Jose R. Fulco, Effect of a Pion-Pion Scattering Resonance on Nucleon Structure. II, Phys. Rev. 117 (1960) 1609–1614, doi:10.1103/PhysRev.117.1609. Baryon Form Factors 17

    1960 doi

  52. [60]

    Ciulli, C

    S. Ciulli, C. Pomponiu, I. Sabba Stefanescu, Analytic Extrapolation Techniques and Stability Problems in Dispersion Relation Theory, Acta Phys. Austriaca Suppl. 14 (1975) 469–470, doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-8424-0 8

    1975 doi

  53. [61]

    Sabba Stefanescu, On the Stable Analytic Continuation With Rational Functions, J

    I. Sabba Stefanescu, On the Stable Analytic Continuation With Rational Functions, J. Math. Phys. 21 (1980) 175, doi: 10.1063/1.524317

    1980 doi

  54. [62]

    Kopecky, P

    S. Kopecky, P . Riehs, J. A. Harvey, N. W. Hill, New Measurement of the Charge Radius of the Neutron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 2427–2430, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2427

    1995 doi

  55. [63]

    Kopecky, M

    S. Kopecky, M. Krenn, P . Riehs, S. Steiner, John A. Harvey, N. W. Hill, M. Pernicka, Neutron charge radius determined from the energy dependence of the neutron transmission of liquid Pb-208 and Bi-209, Phys. Rev. C 56 (1997) 2229–2237, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.56.2229

    1997 doi

  56. [64]

    A. A. Filin, V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, D. M ¨oller, P . Reinert, Extraction of the neutron charge radius from a precision calculation of the deuteron structure radius, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (8) (2020) 082501, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.082501, 1911.04877

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    A. A. Filin, D. M ¨oller, V. Baru, E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, P . Reinert, High-accuracy calculation of the deuteron charge and quadrupole form factors in chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. C 103 (2) (2021) 024313, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.103.024313, 2009.08911

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Peter Lepage, Stanley J

    G. Peter Lepage, Stanley J. Brodsky, Exclusive Processes in Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2157, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2157

    1980 doi

  59. [67]

    Andrea Bianconi, Egle Tomasi-Gustafsson, Periodic interference structures in the timelike proton form factor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (23) (2015) 232301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.232301, 1503.02140

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    J. P . Lees, et al. (BaBar), Study ofe+e−→ p ¯p via initial-state radiation at BABAR, Phys. Rev. D 87 (9) (2013) 092005, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 87.092005, 1302.0055

    2013 arXiv

  61. [69]

    H ¨ohler, E

    G. H ¨ohler, E. Pietarinen, I. Sabba Stefanescu, F . Borkowski, G. G. Simon, V. H. Walther, R. D. Wendling, Analysis of Electromagnetic Nucleon Form-Factors, Nucl. Phys. B 114 (1976) 505–534, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(76)90449-1

    1976 doi

  62. [70]

    Mergell, Ulf-G

    P . Mergell, Ulf-G. Meißner, D. Drechsel, Dispersion theoretical analysis of the nucleon electromagnetic form-factors, Nucl. Phys. A 596 (1996) 367–396, doi:10.1016/0375-9474(95)00339-8, hep-ph/9506375

    1996 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Hammer, Nucleon form-factors in dispersion theory, Eur

    H.-W. Hammer, Nucleon form-factors in dispersion theory, Eur. Phys. J. A 28 (2006) 49–57, doi: 10.1140/epja/i2006-09-006-5 , hep-ph/ 0602121

    2006 doi

  64. [72]

    James, M

    F . James, M. Roos, Minuit: A System for Function Minimization and Analysis of the Parameter Errors and Correlations, Comput. Phys. Commun. 10 (1975) 343–367, doi:10.1016/0010-4655(75)90039-9

    1975 doi

  65. [73]

    Efron, R

    B. Efron, R. Tibshirani, An introduction to the bootstrap, Statist. Sci. 57 (1) (1986) 54–75

    1986

  66. [74]

    Schindler, Daniel R

    Matthias R. Schindler, Daniel R. Phillips, Bayesian Methods for Parameter Estimation in Effective Field Theories, Annals Phys. 324 (2009) 682–708, doi:10.1016/j.aop.2008.09.003, [Erratum: Annals Phys. 324, 2051–2055 (2009)], 0808.3643

    2009 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Wesolowski, N

    S. Wesolowski, N. Klco, R. J. Furnstahl, D. R. Phillips, A. Thapaliya, Bayesian parameter estimation for effective field theories, J. Phys. G 43 (7) (2016) 074001, doi:10.1088/0954-3899/43/7/074001, 1511.03618

    2016 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Y ong-Hui Lin, Hans-Werner Hammer, Ulf-G Meißner, High-precision determination of the electric and magnetic radius of the proton, Phys. Lett. B 816 (2021) 136254, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136254, 2102.11642

    2021

  69. [77]

    Xiong, et al., A small proton charge radius from an electron–proton scattering experiment, Nature 575 (7781) (2019) 147–150, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1721-2

    W. Xiong, et al., A small proton charge radius from an electron–proton scattering experiment, Nature 575 (7781) (2019) 147–150, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1721-2

    2019 doi

  70. [78]

    J. C. Bernauer, et al. (A1), Electric and magnetic form factors of the proton, Phys. Rev. C 90 (1) (2014) 015206, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90. 015206, 1307.6227

    2014 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Punjabi, et al., Proton elastic form-factor ratios to Q**2 = 3.5-GeV**2 by polarization transfer, Phys

    V. Punjabi, et al., Proton elastic form-factor ratios to Q**2 = 3.5-GeV**2 by polarization transfer, Phys. Rev. C 71 (2005) 055202, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.71.055202, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 71, 069902 (2005)], nucl-ex/0501018

    2005 arXiv

  72. [80]

    A. J. R. Puckett, et al., Recoil Polarization Measurements of the Proton Electromagnetic Form Factor Ratio to Q2 = 8.5 GeV2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 242301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.242301, 1005.3419

    2010 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Meziane, et al

    M. Meziane, et al. (GEp2gamma), Search for effects beyond the Born approximation in polarization transfer observables in ep elastic scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 132501, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.132501, 1012.0339

    2011 arXiv

  74. [82]

    A. J. R. Puckett, et al., Final Analysis of Proton Form Factor Ratio Data at Q2 = 4.0, 4.8 and 5.6 GeV 2, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 045203, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.85.045203, 1102.5737

    2012 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Riordan, et al., Measurements of the Electric Form Factor of the Neutron up to Q2 = 3.4GeV 2 using the Reaction 3 # »He( # »e, e′n)pp, Phys

    S. Riordan, et al., Measurements of the Electric Form Factor of the Neutron up to Q2 = 3.4GeV 2 using the Reaction 3 # »He( # »e, e′n)pp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 262302, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.262302, 1008.1738

    2010 arXiv

  76. [84]

    (BESIII), Measurement of proton electromagnetic form factors in the time-like region using initial state radiation at BESIII, Phys

    Medina Ablikim, et al. (BESIII), Measurement of proton electromagnetic form factors in the time-like region using initial state radiation at BESIII, Phys. Lett. B 817 (2021) 136328, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136328, 2102.10337

    2021

  77. [85]

    (BESIII), Measurement of proton electromagnetic form factors in e+e−→ p ¯p in the energy region 2.00 - 3.08 GeV, Phys

    Medina Ablikim, et al. (BESIII), Measurement of proton electromagnetic form factors in e+e−→ p ¯p in the energy region 2.00 - 3.08 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (4) (2020) 042001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.042001, 1905.09001

    2020

  78. [86]

    Ablikim, et al

    M. Ablikim, et al. (BESIII), Study of the process e+e−→ p ¯p via initial state radiation at BESIII, Phys. Rev. D 99 (9) (2019) 092002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.092002, 1902.00665

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Ablikim, et al

    M. Ablikim, et al. (BESIII), Measurement of the proton form factor by studying e+e−→ p ¯p, Phys. Rev. D 91 (11) (2015) 112004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.112004, 1504.02680

    2015 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Ambrogiani, et al

    M. Ambrogiani, et al. (E835), Measurements of the magnetic form-factor of the proton in the timelike region at large momentum transfer, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 032002, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.60.032002

    1999 doi

  81. [89]

    M Andreotti, et al., Measurements of the magnetic form-factor of the proton for timelike momentum transfers, Phys. Lett. B 559 (2003) 20–25, doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(03)00300-9

    2003 doi

  82. [90]

    (BESIII), Oscillating features in the electromagnetic structure of the neutron, Nature Phys

    Medina Ablikim, et al. (BESIII), Oscillating features in the electromagnetic structure of the neutron, Nature Phys. 17 (11) (2021) 1200– 1204, doi:10.1038/s41567-021-01345-6 , 2103.12486

    2021

  83. [91]

    V. P . Druzhinin, S. I. Serednyakov, Measurement of the e+e−→ n¯n cross section with the SND detector at the VEPP-2000 collider, EPJ Web Conf. 212 (2019) 07007, doi:10.1051/epjconf/201921207007

    2019

  84. [92]

    Perdrisat, Nucleon Form Factors: A Jefferson Lab Perspective, J

    John Arrington, Kees de Jager, Charles F . Perdrisat, Nucleon Form Factors: A Jefferson Lab Perspective, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 299 (2011) 012002, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/299/1/012002, 1102.2463

    2011 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Hammer, D

    H.-W. Hammer, D. Drechsel, Ulf-G. Meißner, On the pion cloud of the nucleon, Phys. Lett. B 586 (2004) 291–296, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb. 2003.12.073, hep-ph/0310240

    2004 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Meißner, The Pion cloud of the nucleon: Facts and popular fantasies, AIP Conf

    Ulf-G. Meißner, The Pion cloud of the nucleon: Facts and popular fantasies, AIP Conf. Proc. 904 (1) (2007) 142–150, doi: 10.1063/1. 2734299, nucl-th/0701094

    2007 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Miller, Krzysztof Pachucki, Muonic hydrogen and the proton radius puzzle, Ann

    Randolf Pohl, Ronald Gilman, Gerald A. Miller, Krzysztof Pachucki, Muonic hydrogen and the proton radius puzzle, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63 (2013) 175–204, doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102212-170627 , 1301.0905

    2013 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Jean-Philippe Karr, Dominique Marchand, Eric Voutier, The proton size, Nature Rev. Phys. 2 (11) (2020) 601–614, doi: 10.1038/ s42254-020-0229-x . 18 Baryon Form Factors

    2020

  89. [97]

    Haiyan Gao, Marc Vanderhaeghen, The proton charge radius, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94 (1) (2022) 015002, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.94.015002, 2105.00571

    2022 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Aldo Antognini, et al., Proton Structure from the Measurement of 2S− 2P Transition Frequencies of Muonic Hydrogen, Science 339 (2013) 417–420, doi:10.1126/science.1230016

    2013 doi

  91. [99]

    Mohr, Barry N

    Peter J. Mohr, Barry N. Taylor, David B. Newell, CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2006, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80 (2008) 633–730, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.80.633, 0801.0028

    2008 arXiv

  92. [100]

    https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp

  93. [101]

    Peter Mohr, David Newell, Barry Taylor, Eite Tiesinga, CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2022 (2024), 2409.03787

    2024 arXiv

  94. [102]

    A. C. Zemach, Proton Structure and the Hyperfine Shift in Hydrogen, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 1771–1781, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.104.1771

    1956 doi

  95. [103]

    J. C. Bernauer, et al. (A1), High-precision determination of the electric and magnetic form factors of the proton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 242001, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.242001, 1007.5076

    2010 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Meyer, Konstantin Ottnad, Miguel Salg, Hartmut Wittig, Precision Calculation of the Electromagnetic Radii of the Proton and Neutron from Lattice QCD, Phys

    Dalibor Djukanovic, Georg von Hippel, Harvey B. Meyer, Konstantin Ottnad, Miguel Salg, Hartmut Wittig, Precision Calculation of the Electromagnetic Radii of the Proton and Neutron from Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (21) (2024) 211901, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132. 211901, 2...

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Ryutaro Tsuji, Y asumichi Aoki, Ken-Ichi Ishikawa, Y oshinobu Kuramashi, Shoichi Sasaki, Kohei Sato, Eigo Shintani, Hiromasa Watanabe, Takeshi Y amazaki (PACS), Nucleon form factors in Nf=2+1 lattice QCD at the physical point: Finite lattice spacing effect on the root-mean- sq...

    2024 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Meißner, The proton magnetic radius: A new puzzle?, Sci

    Y ong-Hui Lin, Hans-Werner Hammer, Ulf-G. Meißner, The proton magnetic radius: A new puzzle?, Sci. Bull. 69 (2024) 419–421, doi: 10.1016/j.scib.2023.12.038, 2312.08694

    2024 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Bardin, et al., Determination of the electric and magnetic form-factors of the proton in the timelike region, Nucl

    G. Bardin, et al., Determination of the electric and magnetic form-factors of the proton in the timelike region, Nucl. Phys. B 411 (1994) 3–32, doi:10.1016/0550-3213(94)90052-3

    1994 doi

  100. [108]

    I. T. Lorenz, H.-W. Hammer, U.-G. Meißner, New structures in the proton-antiproton system, Phys. Rev. D 92 (3) (2015) 034018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.034018, 1506.02282

    2015 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Meißner, New insights into the oscillations of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors, Sci

    Qin-He Y ang, Di Guo, Ling-Yun Dai, Johann Haidenbauer, Xian-Wei Kang, Ulf-G. Meißner, New insights into the oscillations of the nucleon electromagnetic form factors, Sci. Bull. 68 (2023) 2729–2733, doi:10.1016/j.scib.2023.09.036, 2206.01494

    2023 arXiv

  102. [110]

    Ri-Qing Qian, Zhan-Wei Liu, Xu Cao, Xiang Liu, Toy model to understand the oscillatory behavior in timelike nucleon form factors, Phys. Rev. D 107 (9) (2023) L091502, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.L091502, 2211.11555

    2023 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Meißner, Study of the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleons in the timelike region, JHEP 08 (2024) 208, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)208, 2404.12448

    Qin-He Y ang, Di Guo, Ming-Y an Li, Ling-Yun Dai, Johann Haidenbauer, Ulf-G. Meißner, Study of the electromagnetic form factors of the nucleons in the timelike region, JHEP 08 (2024) 208, doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)208, 2404.12448

    2024 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Francesco Rosini, Simone Pacetti, Olga Shekhovtsova, Egle Tomasi-Gustafsson, Microscopic parametrization of the near thresh- old oscillations of the nucleon time-like effective electromagnetic form factors, Eur. Phys. J. A 60 (7) (2024) 144, doi: 10.1140/epja/ s10050-024-01365...

    2024 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Schweber, Hans A

    Silvan S. Schweber, Hans A. Bethe, Frederic de Hoffmann, Mesons and fields. Volume 1: Fields, Peterson and Company, Evanston, Illinois 1955

    1955

  106. [114]

    Hemmert, Ulf-G

    Veronique Bernard, Thomas R. Hemmert, Ulf-G. Meißner, Cutoff schemes in chiral perturbation theory and the quark mass expansion of the nucleon mass, Nucl. Phys. A 732 (2004) 149–170, doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2003.12.011, hep-ph/0307115

    2004 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Karin Sch ¨onning (BESIII), Hyperon Structure at BESIII, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 16 (3) (2023) 14, doi:10.5506/APhysPolBSupp.16.3-A14

    2023 doi

  108. [116]

    Meißner, Electromagnetic form factors of hyperons in the timelike region: A short review (2024), 2412.07543

    Ling-Yun Dai, Johann Haidenbauer, Ulf-G. Meißner, Electromagnetic form factors of hyperons in the timelike region: A short review (2024), 2412.07543

    2024 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Carlos Granados, Stefan Leupold, Elisabetta Perotti, The electromagnetic Sigma-to-Lambda hyperon transition form factors at low ener- gies, Eur. Phys. J. A 53 (6) (2017) 117, doi:10.1140/epja/i2017-12324-4, 1701.09130

    2017 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Meißner, The electromagnetic Sigma-to-Lambda transition form factors with coupled-channel effects in the space-like region, Eur

    Y ong-Hui Lin, Hans-Werner Hammer, Ulf-G. Meißner, The electromagnetic Sigma-to-Lambda transition form factors with coupled-channel effects in the space-like region, Eur. Phys. J. A 59 (3) (2023) 54, doi:10.1140/epja/s10050-023-00973-1 , 2205.00850

    2023 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Olov Junker, Stefan Leupold, Elisabetta Perotti, Timea Vitos, Electromagnetic form factors of the transition from the spin-3/2 Σ to the Λ hyperon, Phys. Rev. C 101 (1) (2020) 015206, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.101.015206, 1910.07396

    2020 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Meißner, Dispersion-theoretical analysis of the electromagnetic form factors of theΛ hyperon, Eur

    Y ong-Hui Lin, Hans-Werner Hammer, Ulf-G. Meißner, Dispersion-theoretical analysis of the electromagnetic form factors of theΛ hyperon, Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (12) (2022) 1091, doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11056-8 , 2208.14802

    2022 arXiv

  113. [121]

    E. J. Downie (MUSE), The MUSE experiment, EPJ Web Conf. 73 (2014) 07005, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20147307005

    2014

  114. [122]

    Adams, et al., Letter of Intent: A New QCD facility at the M2 beam line of the CERN SPS (COMPASS++/AMBER) (2018), 1808.00848

    B. Adams, et al., Letter of Intent: A New QCD facility at the M2 beam line of the CERN SPS (COMPASS++/AMBER) (2018), 1808.00848

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.