| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Ross A. Finlayson" |
| Date: |
07 Apr 2006 02:56:01 AM |
| Object: |
Path integral constant? |
Hi,
I think I heard something about an experiment where the expected result
was 1 but for some reason the result was always 1.00018... or something
along those lines, and that it had to do with the path integral, and
that it was an unexpected effect.
I'd like to know more about that, if you know what I'm talking about,
please let me know where to research that situation as I do not recall
where I read of it.
Thanks,
Ross F.
.
|
|
| User: "Henning Makholm" |
|
| Title: Re: Path integral constant? |
07 Apr 2006 06:00:47 AM |
|
|
Scripsit "Ross A. Finlayson" <raf@tiki-lounge.com>
I think I heard something about an experiment where the expected result
was 1 but for some reason the result was always 1.00018... or something
along those lines, and that it had to do with the path integral, and
that it was an unexpected effect.
This sounds vaguely like the story of the electron's magnetic moment.
According to Dirac's electron theory it ought to be exactly 1 given
appropriate units (and I don't know exactly how the appropriate unit
is defined), but experiments showed it to be slightly higher. The
first experimental result quoted by Feynman in _QED_ is 1.00118, oddly
similar to your recollection. The difference became known as the
"anomalous magnetic moment of the electron".
When quantum electrodynamics was later developed, it was one of its
great triumphs of quantum electrodynamics that it lead to a
calculation of the magnetic moment (based on the path integral
formalism) that agrees with modern experimental results to a precision
af about 10^-10.
--
Henning Makholm "We cannot time-travel in this dimension. Everything
is arranged differently, and they use different plugs."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ross A. Finlayson" |
|
| Title: Re: Path integral constant? |
08 Apr 2006 03:05:13 PM |
|
|
Henning Makholm wrote:
Scripsit "Ross A. Finlayson" <raf@tiki-lounge.com>
I think I heard something about an experiment where the expected result
was 1 but for some reason the result was always 1.00018... or something
along those lines, and that it had to do with the path integral, and
that it was an unexpected effect.
This sounds vaguely like the story of the electron's magnetic moment.
According to Dirac's electron theory it ought to be exactly 1 given
appropriate units (and I don't know exactly how the appropriate unit
is defined), but experiments showed it to be slightly higher. The
first experimental result quoted by Feynman in _QED_ is 1.00118, oddly
similar to your recollection. The difference became known as the
"anomalous magnetic moment of the electron".
When quantum electrodynamics was later developed, it was one of its
great triumphs of quantum electrodynamics that it lead to a
calculation of the magnetic moment (based on the path integral
formalism) that agrees with modern experimental results to a precision
af about 10^-10.
--
Henning Makholm "We cannot time-travel in this dimension. Everything
is arranged differently, and they use different plugs."
Thank you, Henning.
That's funny because I thought it had to do with the photon, that the
value was from an experiment with the chargeless photon.
http://www.google.com/search?q=anomalous+magnetic+moment
Then I wonder about the path integral formalisms. Basically I'm
looking for an arbitrary error correction factor or underived constant,
in those formalisms, towards relating it to derived constants. It
appears that in recent years in looking at muons instead of electrons,
the anomaly reappears.
Does that have parastatistics in it? I find the parastatistics rather
interesting for their consideration of geometric mutation in the large
and small, and across. So, I'm looking for a mathematical constant
that can be derived from the number three, basically, or a pair of
successive integers, from hypergeometry, that would encapsulate that
value or express it as a ratio in projection, of real or complex
values.
Are there controlled conditions of experiment under which the formalism
is insufficient to predict the correct answer? How would you
characterize the formalism as addition to standard analysis?
Regards,
Ross F.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
