Talk:Anomalous magnetic dipole moment

message: 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)
replies: text: I was  bold and took out that sentence. HEL 14:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anomaly?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Things to add to this article 

message: (No, it wouldn't be nescient, dolt.)  In first draft, someone wrote antimuòn instead of smuòn. -lysdexia 09:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mug2.svg 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Approximation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The analytic values have been computed to α⁵. , . 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)
thread_title: Tenth-Order QED Contribution

message: 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)
thread_title: Charged current contribution

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: \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)
thread_title: Notation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inclusion of crackpot "controversy"