Dispersion-theoretic calculation of the lepton magnetic moment and form factors in the gauge theory of weak interactions

1973 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 601-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Z.Z. Aydin ◽  
S.A. Baran ◽  
A.O. Barut
2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (26) ◽  
pp. 1985-1994 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTONIO ACCIOLY ◽  
PATRICIO GAETE ◽  
JOSÉ HELAYËL-NETO ◽  
ESLLEY SCATENA ◽  
RODRIGO TURCATI

We consider the Lee–Wick (LW) electrodynamics, i.e. the U(1) gauge theory where a (gauge-invariant) dimension-6 operator containing higher derivatives is added to the free Lagrangian of the U(1) sector. A quantum bound on the LW heavy particle mass is then estimated by computing the anomalous electron–magnetic moment in the context of the aforementioned model. This limit is not only within the allowed range estimated by LW, it is also of the same order as that considered in early investigations on the possible effects of the LW heavy particle in e-e+ elastic scattering. A comparative study between the LW and the Coulomb potentials is also done.


Atoms ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsumi Aoyama ◽  
Toichiro Kinoshita ◽  
Makiko Nio

The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron a e measured in a Penning trap occupies a unique position among high precision measurements of physical constants in the sense that it can be compared directly with the theoretical calculation based on the renormalized quantum electrodynamics (QED) to high orders of perturbation expansion in the fine structure constant α , with an effective parameter α / π . Both numerical and analytic evaluations of a e up to ( α / π ) 4 are firmly established. The coefficient of ( α / π ) 5 has been obtained recently by an extensive numerical integration. The contributions of hadronic and weak interactions have also been estimated. The sum of all these terms leads to a e ( theory ) = 1 159 652 181.606 ( 11 ) ( 12 ) ( 229 ) × 10 − 12 , where the first two uncertainties are from the tenth-order QED term and the hadronic term, respectively. The third and largest uncertainty comes from the current best value of the fine-structure constant derived from the cesium recoil measurement: α − 1 ( Cs ) = 137.035 999 046 ( 27 ) . The discrepancy between a e ( theory ) and a e ( ( experiment ) ) is 2.4 σ . Assuming that the standard model is valid so that a e (theory) = a e (experiment) holds, we obtain α − 1 ( a e ) = 137.035 999 1496 ( 13 ) ( 14 ) ( 330 ) , which is nearly as accurate as α − 1 ( Cs ) . The uncertainties are from the tenth-order QED term, hadronic term, and the best measurement of a e , in this order.


2019 ◽  
Vol 218 ◽  
pp. 03001
Author(s):  
Bastian Kubis

We discuss status and prospects of a dispersive analysis of the π0, η, and η ′ transition form factors. Particular focus is put on the various pieces of experimental information that serve as input to such a calculation. These can help improve on the precision of an evaluation of the light pseudoscalar pole contributions to hadronic light-by-light scattering in the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.**


2018 ◽  
Vol 175 ◽  
pp. 06033 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-Chull Jang ◽  
Tanmoy Bhattacharya ◽  
Rajan Gupta ◽  
Huey-Wen Lin ◽  
Boram Yoon

We present results for the isovector axial, induced pseudoscalar, electric, and magnetic form factors of the nucleon. The calculations were done using 2 + 1 + 1-flavor HISQ ensembles generated by the MILC collaboration with lattice spacings a ≈ 0.12, 0.09, 0.06 fm and pion masses Mπ ≈ 310, 220, 130 MeV. Excited-states contamination is controlled by using four-state fits to two-point correlators and by comparing two-versus three-states in three-point correlators. The Q2 behavior is analyzed using the model independent z-expansion and the dipole ansatz. Final results for the charge radii and magnetic moment are obtained using a simultaneous fit in Mπ, lattice spacing a and finite volume.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document