Towards a Better Understanding of the Electron’s Magnetic Moment: A Reply to Sanchioni

IF 1.1 3区物理与天体物理 Q3 PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Foundations of Physics Pub Date : 2025-12-29 DOI:10.1007/s10701-025-00909-3

Charles T. Sebens

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this short article, I seek to clarify some of the broader motivations and ambitions guiding my work on electron spin. I respond to Sanchioni (Found. Phys. 55(67), 1–11 2025), who has criticized my recent study of the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment (Sebens Found. Phys. 55(48), 1–28 2025). I argue against viewing quantum field theory instrumentally as merely “an architecture of consistent predictions” and in favor of explaining physical phenomena using descriptions of what is actually out there in nature. I defend the importance of asking how the move from the Dirac equation (with self-interaction) to quantum field theory takes you from a variable to fixed magnetic moment, emphasizing my agreement with Sanchioni that the Dirac equation yields only a flawed model of the electron. I explain that quantum field theory, as it stands, is incomplete, and discuss how we might be able to arrive at a better explanation of the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment.

查看原文本刊更多论文

迈向对电子磁矩的更好理解：对Sanchioni的回复

在这篇简短的文章中，我试图澄清一些指导我在电子自旋方面工作的更广泛的动机和抱负。我回应Sanchioni（发现）。物理学，55(67),1-11 2025)，他批评了我最近对电子异常磁矩的研究（Sebens发现）。物理学报，55(8),1-28 2025)。我反对把量子场论仅仅看作是一种“一致预测的架构”，而赞成用描述自然界中实际存在的东西来解释物理现象。我为从狄拉克方程（带有自相互作用）到量子场论如何将你从一个变量带到固定磁矩的问题辩护，强调我与Sanchioni的一致，即狄拉克方程只产生了一个有缺陷的电子模型。我解释了量子场论，就目前而言，是不完整的，并讨论了我们如何能够更好地解释电子的异常磁矩。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Foundations of Physics 物理-物理：综合

CiteScore

2.70

自引率

6.70%

发文量

104

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The conceptual foundations of physics have been under constant revision from the outset, and remain so today. Discussion of foundational issues has always been a major source of progress in science, on a par with empirical knowledge and mathematics. Examples include the debates on the nature of space and time involving Newton and later Einstein; on the nature of heat and of energy; on irreversibility and probability due to Boltzmann; on the nature of matter and observation measurement during the early days of quantum theory; on the meaning of renormalisation, and many others. Today, insightful reflection on the conceptual structure utilised in our efforts to understand the physical world is of particular value, given the serious unsolved problems that are likely to demand, once again, modifications of the grammar of our scientific description of the physical world. The quantum properties of gravity, the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics, the primary source of irreversibility, the role of information in physics – all these are examples of questions about which science is still confused and whose solution may well demand more than skilled mathematics and new experiments. Foundations of Physics is a privileged forum for discussing such foundational issues, open to physicists, cosmologists, philosophers and mathematicians. It is devoted to the conceptual bases of the fundamental theories of physics and cosmology, to their logical, methodological, and philosophical premises. The journal welcomes papers on issues such as the foundations of special and general relativity, quantum theory, classical and quantum field theory, quantum gravity, unified theories, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, cosmology, and similar.