Talk:Anomalous magnetic dipole moment

Anomaly?

In the same fashion, an anomaly in physics is a quantum, loop diagram violating a classical symmetry. This doesn't really have anything to do with the anomalous magnetic moment. (Does it?) HEL 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and took out that sentence. HEL 14:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Things to add to this article

It would be very nice to add two sections to this article: Experimental techniques describing how the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron and the muon are actually measured (the two are different), and Uses to contain the comments about using the electron anomalous magnetic moment to measure $\alpha$ and do precision tests of QED, and using the muon anomalous magnetic moment to look for new physics beyond the Standard Model. HEL 14:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mug2.svg

(No, it wouldn't be nescient, dolt.) In first draft, someone wrote antimuòn instead of smuòn. -lysdexia 09:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.173.48 (talk)

Approximation

Someone removed the approximation
${\frac {g}{2}}=1+{\frac {\alpha }{2\pi }}+{\frac {2}{3}}\alpha ^{2}\left({\frac {\alpha }{2\pi }}\right)-{\frac {4}{3}}\left({\frac {\alpha }{2\pi }}\right)^{2}$
because it was unsourced. I thought there was an exception to sourcing for mathematical formulas that can be easily verified by the reader. GimmeAKissSweetie (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the original context, but the formula was very likely misleading: It looks like the result of an actual QED calculation to order alpha^3, but it's not, because it doesn't match the actual QED theoretical calculation. Is it just numerology / coincidence?? What was the description? --Steve (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, though it's not completely impossible that a reader could verify such a result, doing path integrals for dozens of 3-loop Feynman diagrams certainly doesn't qualify as "easy". It needs to be sourced. —Keenan Pepper 23:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the given formula is a direct application of the Poynting Power Theorem using the electron model proposed by Dr. Randell Mills. No, not numerology, but it does make you wonder why the QFT-derived model needs 50 pages of constants and parameters to get the same value. A curious mind would exhibit curiosity. 75.150.239.178 (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

I suggest removing the reference to Feynman diagrams in the opening sentence. They are only a way of describing the AMM formally, and don't add to the actual description of what the AMM is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.102.218 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Tenth-Order QED Contribution

The analytic values have been computed to α⁵. [1], [2]. I can’t find the DOI numbers for these papers, and so can’t cite them. Someone please take care of this. Strebe (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Bottom of the page (1) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.111807 (2) DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.111808 Alphatronic (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Charged current contribution

If mass W+ does not equal W-, and they are not anti-particles, the virtual W+/W- complex oscillates about a centre of mass different from the centre of charge, and as such would display some contribution to this effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.178.220 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Notation

@EfimovSP: This edit uses notation inconsistent with the article. It needs to be corrected. The context and wording are also confusing; it’s not clear from your edit what the cited article is claiming. It appears to be some numerology that yields the anomalous dipole moment. Or something else. I just can’t tell. Please fix. Strebe (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Strebe,

I see your words - "The context and wording are also confusing". So , could you improve English of the passage to remove confusing wording. I reckon- few words will be enough.

And I find the following words in the passage "Approximation": "No, not numerology, but it does make you wonder why the QFT-derived model needs 50 pages of constants and parameters to get the same value. A curious mind would exhibit curiosity." That is the general point of QED methods to be explained.

Thanks a lot

User EfimovSP (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@EfimovSP: Is $\delta \mu _{e}$ the same as $a_{e}$ as used in the article? If so, please use $a_{e}$. Please delete “Here, it is worth pointing out”. Your edit states, “the accuracy of the formula is as follows”. However, the value you give appears to be the value of the anomalous dipole moment, not its accuracy. Please remedy that as well. Strebe (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

OK!

Thanks a lot.

User

EfimovSP (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@EfimovSP: I have tried to clean up the entry but still can’t make sense of it. Inferring from your text, ${\frac {e\hbar }{2c}}=m_{e}$. But what is e? Why is $a_{e}$ “therefore” such-and-such? Strebe (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Strebe,

the first formula is for magnetic moment (physical quantity with dimensionality), the second one is for $a_{e}$, that is the value (number). Therefore, all is correct. I dare to remind:

$\delta \mu _{e}={\frac {eh}{2m_{e}c}}a_{e}$,

where $e$ is the electron charge.

User

EfimovSP (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Strebe,

No reason to remove (see last edition). Where is editor's name? I bring back previous edition. Could you clear the situation.

User

EfimovSP (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion this formula should not be mentioned in this article. It is numerology, not grounded in sensible physics, and has only been included because the author of said paper wrote it in himself. AwkwardWhale (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of crackpot "controversy"

I will probably remove the following line: "Nevertheless, there remains controversy about the calculation accuracy and electron magnetic dipole moment theoretical value agreement with the experimental one." All citations linked are from a single author, and thus this statement does not seem to reflect scientific consensus. Reading through his papers he does not seem to have a full understanding of topics such as renormalisation, and much of his disagreement seems to stem from the fact that he does not realise that "Greens function calculations" and Feynman diagrams are equivalent. As such, this statement is highly misleading. AwkwardWhale (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)