FERMILAB-FN-1129-T Notes on Lepton Gyromagnetic Ratios Chris Quigg∗ Theoretical Physics Department, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory P.O. Box 500, Batavia, Illinois 60510 USA (Dated: June 2, 2021) A compendium for outsiders. I. ORIGINS relativity and the general transformation theory leads to an explanation of all duplexity phenomena without fur- Dirac's quantum theory of the electron tells us what ther assumption [4]. an electron is [1]: a particle that carries half a quan- tum (~=2) of spin angular momentum, −1 unit of elec- tric charge, and magnetic moment µe of minus one Bohr II. MAGNETIC MOMENT AS A DIAGNOSTIC magneton, −µB ≡ −~e=2me. Here ~ is the quantum of action, −e the electron charge, and me the electron mass. The Bohr magneton is defined as the magnitude A. Generalities of the magnetic dipole moment of a point electron orbit- ing an atom with one unit (~) of orbital angular momen- Within quantum electrodynamics (QED), a renormal- tum. [The numerical value is µB = 5:788 381 8060(17) × izable local relativistic quantum field theory of photons −11 −1 10 MeV T [2].] On the classical level, an orbiting and electrons, the gyromagnetic ratio of a lepton, g`, point particle with electric charge e and mass m exhibits emerges unambiguously from the perturbation expan- a magnetic dipole moment given by sion. An extensive and interesting literature explores what makes g` = 2 the \natural value" for a structure- e~ less point particle of spin- 1 [5]. The requirement of good ~µL = L:~ (1) 2 2m high-energy behavior implies that g` − 2 must vanish at Dirac's prediction for the electron magnetic moment is tree level for any well-behaved theory [6]. thus twice the value that would arise for a half unit of Quantum corrections induce a deviation from the Dirac orbital angular momentum, if that were possible. The moment that is traditionally expressed as the magnetic 1 moment anomaly, ratio ge ≡ µe=(− 2 µB) is called the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron; the Dirac equation predicts ge = 2. These properties are precisely what is required to ac- g` − 2 a` ≡ : (2) count for what Dirac calls \duplexity phenomena," the 2 observed number of quantum states for an electron in an atom being twice the number given by the quantum the- The predicted value of a` can be confronted by experi- 1 ment. The model dependence of the magnetic anomaly ory of a spinless point particle. A spin- 2 electron with a magnetic moment of one Bohr magneton matches pre- makes it an incisive test of QED and a sensitive probe cisely what Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit [3] inferred from for new-physics contributions [7]. The interplay between their study of atomic spectra. theory and experiment played a decisive role in the devel- Dirac writes, The question remains as to why Nature opment and validation of quantum electrodynamics [8]. should have chosen this particular model for the elec- Beyond its role in challenging QED and probing for tron instead of being satisfied with the point-charge. One the virtual influence of undiscovered particles and forces, arXiv:2105.07866v2 [hep-ph] 31 May 2021 would like to find some incompleteness in the previous the anomalous magnetic moment provides stringent con- methods of applying quantum mechanics to the point- straints on lepton substructure [9]. For that purpose, we charge electron such that, when removed, the whole of the may examine the magnetic anomaly defect, defined as the duplexity phenomena follow without arbitrary assump- difference between theoretical prediction and experimen- tions. In the present paper it is shown that this is the tal determination, case, the incompleteness of the previous theories lying th exp in their disagreement with relativity, or, alternatetively, δa` ≡ a` − a` : (3) with the general transformation theory of quantum me- chanics. It appears that the simplest Hamiltonian for a A very simple working hypothesis is that no cancellations point-charge electron satisfying the requirements of both or suppression factors due to symmetries in the underly- ing dynamics account for the small mass m` of the com- posite lepton itself. Alternatively, so-called chiral models provide more modest constraints. In either case, it is in- ∗ [email protected]; ORCID: 0000-0002-2728-2445 ∗ formative to relate the compositeness scale M` and the 2 [4:µ] 2 2 radius R` of the lepton to the magnetic anomaly defect, so that ae ≈ 0:000 000 52 (α /π ). A form useful for evaluating fermion bubbles for all values of the mass ratio m` jδa`j = = m`R` no suppression, or (4a) is given in Ref. [15]. M ∗ ` Through heroic work over many decades, the calcula- 2 m` 2 2 tion of the electron's magnetic anomaly has been carried jδa`j = ∗ = m` R` chiral model. (4b) 3 M` out through five loops in QED. The three-loop O(α ) contribution is given in closed form in [16]; evaluated nu- Searches for quark and lepton compositeness in high- merically, it gives energy collisions, reviewed in §92 of Ref. [2], reach above 10 TeV, again assuming no dynamical conspiracies. α3 a[6] = (1:181 241 456 :::) : (10) e π B. The Electron Analytical calculations, reinforced by numerical evalua- tions, exist through four loops, i.e., up to O(α/π)4, or eighth order in the electron charge e. The coefficient of The electron was the focus of Dirac's theory and the (α/π)5 is known from numerical integrations. In addi- test case for the developing theory of quantum electro- tion, the contributions of weak and hadronic interactions dynamics in the late nineteen-forties. It is stable on have been estimated. The predicted value as of 2019 the time scale of any conceivable experiment; the cur- 28 is [17] rent bound on the electron lifetime, τe > 6:6 × 10 yr at 90% C.L. [10], greatly exceeds the age of the uni- th[Cs] −14 ae = 115 965 218 160:6(11)(12)(229) × 10 ; (11) verse. The electron mass is me = (0:510 998 946 1 ± 0:000 000 003 1) MeV. CPT invariance requires that the where the first two uncertainties are from the tenth- gyromagnetic ratios of electron and positron be identical: order QED term and the hadronic term, respectively. ge− = ge+ . The third and largest uncertainty comes from the value The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron was of the fine structure constant obtained from atom- discovered in 1947 by Kusch and Foley [11], who inferred interferometry measurements of the Cs atom, α−1(Cs) = 137:035 999 046(27) [18]. A more recent determination [KF] ae− = 0:001 19(5) (5) using matter-wave interferometry to measure the recoil velocity of a rubidium atom that absorbs a photon, leads from their study of hyperfine structure in gallium atoms. to α−1(Rb20) = 137:035 999 206(11) [19]. These two Julian Schwinger showed that the one-loop (O(e2)) quan- highly precise values differ by approximately 5:4 stan- tum correction to the electron's magnetic moment con- dard deviations [20]. tributes [12] To compare theory and experiment, it is efficient to combine the theoretical uncertainties of Eqn. (11), thus: [2] α ae = ≈ 0:001 162; (6) 2π th[Cs] −14 ae = 115 965 218 161(023) × 10 : (12) where the numerical value reflects the value of the fine- This represents a prediction at the level of 0.23 parts per structure constant as then known, α = 1=137. trillion (ppt) for g . Adopting instead the 2020 value of The two-loop contribution to the gyromagnetic ratio e α−1(Rb) [19], the standard-model prediction is of the electron is also known analytically [13]. It is th[Rb20] −14 α2 197 π2 3 π2 ae = 115 965 218 025:2(95) × 10 ; (13) a[4] = + + ζ(3) − ln 2 (7a) e π2 144 12 4 2 which carries an uncertainty of 0.1 ppt for ge and lies α2 [Cs] −1 = −0:328 ≈ −0:000 001 77: (7b) 5:5σ below ae . A smaller value of α , which is to say π a larger value of α, implies a larger calculated value of P1 −3 ae. The difference is very closely given by the Schwinger Here ζ(3) = i=1 i = 1:202 056 903 ::: is the Riemann zeta function of 3. The sum of Eqn. (6) and Eqn. (7) contribution, yields the theoretical prediction ca. 1957 (for a theory of α(Cs) − α(Rb20) photons and electrons only), ≈ 0:136(25) × 10−11; (14) 2π [2] [4] ae ≈ ae + ae = 0:001 159 6: (8) a shift to which modern measurements of ge are sensitive. An independent numerical evaluation of the O(e10) The contributions of heavier fermion (ff¯) bubbles are contribution of diagrams without lepton loops has been suppressed by mass ratios. The leading contribution carried out by Volkov [21], with a result that differs when the mass ratio (me=mf ) is small is [14] slightly from the result of Ref. [17]. Although the con- tending values differ by 4:8σ, the implications for ae are 2 2 [4:f] 1 α me not significant for current comparisons of theory and ex- ae ≈ 2 ; (9) 45 π mf periment; a resolution will be needed in the near future. 3 Today, experimental determinations of ge have at- The uncertainties are from the tenth-order QED term, tained sub-ppt precision|a stunning achievement. The [H08] hadronic term, and ae− , respectively. The inferred evolution of experimental technique up to 1972 is re- −1 value, α (ae) = 137:035 999 150(33), lies 0:104(43) × viewed in [22], which also contains a thorough historical 10−6 (2:4σ) above α−1(Cs) [18] and 0:056(35) × 10−6 summary of theoretical developments.