Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Data-Driven Evaluations of HVP
Data-Driven and Dispersive Approach to HLBL
Conclusions and Outlook
References
All Topics
Physics
Particle Physics

Prospects for precise predictions of $a_\mu$ in the Standard Model

Profile image of Pablo Sanchez PuertasPablo Sanchez Puertas

2022, HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)

https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2203.15810
visibility

…

description

24 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

We discuss the prospects for improving the precision on the hadronic corrections to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, and the plans of the Muon g -2 Theory Initiative to update the Standard Model prediction. Prospects for precise predictions of a µ in the SM Contribution Value ×10 11 References Experiment (E821 + E989) 116 592 061(41) Refs.

Related papers

Improved predictions for of the muon and
Kaoru Hagiwara

Physics Letters B, 2007

We update the Standard Model predictions of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon, a µ ≡ (g − 2)/2, and the value of the QED coupling at the Z-boson mass, incorporating the new e + e − → ππ data obtained by CMD-2 and KLOE, as well as the corrected SND data, and other improvements. The prediction for a µ = 11659180.4(5.1) × 10 −10 is about 3 × 10 −10 lower than before, and has a smaller uncertainty, which corresponds to a 3.4 σ deviation from the measured value. The prediction for the QED coupling is α(M 2 Z) −1 = 128.937 ± 0.030.

View PDFchevron_right
New physics explanations of $a_\mu$ in light of the FNAL muon $g-2$ measurement
Csaba Dr Balázs

arXiv (Cornell University), 2021

The Fermilab Muon g − 2 experiment recently reported its first measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment a FNAL µ , which is in full agreement with the previous BNL measurement and pushes the world average deviation ∆a 2021 µ from the Standard Model to a significance of 4.2σ. Here we provide an extensive survey of its impact on beyond the Standard Model physics. We use state-of-the-art calculations and a sophisticated set of tools to make predictions for a µ , dark matter and LHC searches in a wide range of simple models with up to three new fields, that represent some of the few ways that large ∆a µ can be explained. In addition for the particularly well motivated Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, we exhaustively cover the scenarios where large ∆a µ can be explained while simultaneously satisfying all relevant data from other experiments. Generally, the a µ result can only be explained by rather small masses and/or large couplings and enhanced chirality flips, which can lead to conflicts with limits from LHC and dark matter experiments. Our results show that the new measurement excludes a large number of models and provides crucial constraints on others. Two-Higgs doublet and leptoquark models provide viable explanations of a µ only in specific versions and in specific parameter ranges. Among all models with up to three fields, only models with chirality enhancements can accommodate a µ and dark matter simultaneously. The MSSM can simultaneously explain a µ and dark matter for Bino-like LSP in several coannihilation regions. Allowing under abundance of the dark matter relic density, the Higgsino-and particularly Wino-like LSP scenarios become promising explanations of the a µ result.

View PDFchevron_right
The Muon g—: Status and Perspectives
Fred Jegerlehner

Lecture Notes in Physics, 2008

The muon anomalous magnetic moment is one of the most precisely measured quantities in particle physics. Recent high precision measurements (0.5ppm) at Brookhaven reveal a "discrepancy" by 3 standard deviations from the electroweak Standard Model which could be a hint for an unknown contribution from physics beyond the Standard Model. This triggered numerous speculations about the possible origin of the "missing piece". The remarkable 15-fold improvement of the previous CERN experiment, actually animated a multitude of new theoretical efforts which lead to a substantial improvement of the prediction of a µ . The dominating uncertainty of the prediction, caused by strong interaction effects, could be reduced substantially, due to new hadronic cross section measurements in electron-positron annihilation at low energies. After an introduction and a brief description of the principle of the experiment, I review the status of the theoretical prediction and discuss the role of the hadronic vacuum polarization effects and the hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution. Prospects for the future will be briefly discussed. As, in electroweak precision physics, the muon g − 2 shows the largest established deviation between theory and experiment at present, it will remain one of the hot topics also in future.

View PDFchevron_right
Hadronic Loop Corrections to the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment
Jens Erler

Physical Review Letters, 2001

The dominant theoretical uncertainties in both, the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and the value of the electromagnetic coupling at the Z scale, MZ, arise from their hadronic contributions. Since these will ultimately dominate the experimental errors, we study the correlation between them, as well as with other fundamental parameters. To this end we present analytical formulas for the QCD contribution from higher energies and from heavy quarks. Including these correlations affects the Higgs boson mass extracted from precision data.

View PDFchevron_right
The SM prediction of g − 2 of the muon
Kaoru Hagiwara

Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements, 2003

We calculate (g − 2)/2 of the muon, by improving the determination of the hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution, a had,LO µ , and its uncertainties. The different e + e − data sets for each exclusive (and the inclusive) channel are combined in order to obtain the optimum estimate of the cross sections and their uncertainties. QCD sum rules are evaluated in order to resolve an apparent discrepancy between the inclusive data and the sum of the exclusive channels. We conclude a had,LO µ = (683.1 ± 5.9 exp ± 2.0 rad) × 10 −10 which, when combined with the other contributions to (g − 2)/2, is about 3σ below the present world average measurement.

View PDFchevron_right
No 6 THE MUON g − 2 IN PROGRESS ∗
Fred Jegerlehner

2018

Two next generation muon g − 2 experiments at Fermilab in the USA and at J-PARC in Japan have been designed to reach a four times better precision from 0.54 ppm to 0.14 ppm and the challenge for the theory side is to keep up in precision as far as possible. This has triggered a lot of new research activities. The main motivation is the persisting 3 to 4σ deviation between standard theory and experiment. As the Standard Model predictions almost without exception match perfectly all other experimental information, the deviation in one of the most precisely measured quantities in particle physics remains a mystery and inspires the imagination of model builders. Plenty of speculations are aiming to explain what beyond the Standard Model effects could fill what seems to be missing. Here, very high precision experiments are competing with searches for new physics at the high-energy frontier lead by the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. Actually, the tension is increasing steadily as no new s...

View PDFchevron_right
Impact of the muon anomalous magnetic moment on supersymmetric models
J. Ferrandis

Physical Review D, 2001

The recent measurement of a µ = gµ−2 2 by the E821 Collaboration at Brookhaven deviates from the quoted Standard Model (SM) central value prediction by 2.6σ. The difference between SM theory and experiment may be easily accounted for in a variety of particle physics models employing weak scale supersymmetry (SUSY). Other supersymmetric models are distinctly disfavored. We evaluate a µ for various supersymmetric models, including minimal supergravity (mSUGRA), Yukawa unified SO(10) SUSY GUTs, models with inverted mass hierarchies (IMH), models with non-universal gaugino masses, gauge mediated SUSY breaking models (GMSB), anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking models (AMSB) and models with gaugino mediated SUSY breaking (inoMSB). Models with Yukawa coupling unification or multi-TeV first and second generation scalars are disfavored by the a µ measurement.

View PDFchevron_right
New Measurement of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Positive Muon
Robert Debevec

Physical Review Letters, 1999

The muon anomalous magnetic moment has been measured in a new experiment at Brookhaven. Polarized muons were stored in a superferric ring, and the angular frequency difference, v a , between the spin precession and orbital frequencies was determined by measuring the time distribution of highenergy decay positrons. The ratio R of v a to the Larmor precession frequency of free protons, v p , in the storage-ring magnetic field was measured. We find R 3.707 220͑48͒ 3 10 23 . With m m ͞m p 3.183 345 47͑47͒ this gives a m 1 1 165 925͑15͒ 3 10 29 (613 ppm), in good agreement with the previous CERN measurements for m 1 and m 2 and of approximately the same precision.

View PDFchevron_right
On the measurement of the hadronic contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment
Mario Greco

Nuovo Cimento Della Societa Italiana Di Fisica A-nuclei Particles and Fields - NUOVO CIMENTO A-NUCL PART F, 1988

Summary A new precise measurement of σ (e+e−→ hadrons) at low energy is suggested, of particular relevance for the theoretical prediction ofa μ. The method proposed consists in collidingo((10÷100) MeV) electrons from a superconducting linac witho((1÷2) GeV) positrons of a conventional storage ring.

View PDFchevron_right
Physics beyond the standard model: Focusing on the muon anomaly
Helder Hipolito Chavez Sanchez

We present a model based on the implication of an exceptional E 6-GUT symmetry for the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. We follow a particular chain of breakings with Higgses in the 78 and 351 representations. We analyze the radiative correction contributions to the muon mass and the effects of the breaking of the so-called Weinberg symmetry. We also estimate the range of values of the parameters of our model.

View PDFchevron_right

References (234)

  1. B. Abi et al. (Muon g -2), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 141801 (2021), arXiv:2104.03281 [hep-ex].
  2. T. Albahri et al. (Muon g -2), Phys. Rev. A 103, 042208 (2021), arXiv:2104.03201 [hep-ex].
  3. T. Albahri et al. (Muon g -2), Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24, 044002 (2021), arXiv:2104.03240 [physics.acc-ph].
  4. T. Albahri et al. (Muon g -2), Phys. Rev. D 103, 072002 (2021), arXiv:2104.03247 [hep-ex].
  5. G. W. Bennett et al. (Muon g -2), Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006), arXiv:hep- ex/0602035.
  6. T. Aoyama et al., Phys. Rept. 887, 1 (2020), arXiv:2006.04822 [hep-ph]. Prospects for precise predictions of a µ in the SM
  7. "Muon g -2 Theory Initiative," https://muon-gm2-theory.illinois.edu/.
  8. "First Workshop of the Muon g -2 Theory Initiative," https://indico.fnal.gov/ event/13795/ (2017), held at Fermilab, St. Charles, IL, USA, June 3-6.
  9. "Workshop on Hadronic Vacuum Polarization Contributions to Muon g -2," https: //www-conf.kek.jp/muonHVPws/ (2018), held at KEK, Tsukuba, Japan, February 12-14.
  10. "Muon g -2 Theory Initiative Hadronic Light-by-Light working group workshop," https://indico.phys.uconn.edu/event/1/ (2018), held at University of Con- necticut, Storrs, CT, USA, March 12-14.
  11. "Second Workshop of the Muon g -2 Theory Initiative," https://wwwth.kph. uni-mainz.de/g-2/ (2018), held at the Helmholtz Institute Mainz, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany, June 18-22.
  12. "Hadronic contributions to (g -2) µ ," https://indico.fnal.gov/event/21626/ (2019), held at the Institute for Nuclear Theory, University of Washington, Seat- tle, WA, USA, September 9-13.
  13. J. Grange et al. (Muon g -2), (2015), arXiv:1501.06858 [physics.ins-det].
  14. M. Abe et al., PTEP 2019, 053C02 (2019), arXiv:1901.03047 [physics.ins-det].
  15. M. Aiba et al., (2021), arXiv:2111.05788 [hep-ex].
  16. "Potential Fermilab Muon Campus & Storage Ring Experiments," https://indico. fnal.gov/event/48469/ (2021), virtual workshop hosted at Fermilab, Batavia, IL, May 24-27.
  17. M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 827 (2017), arXiv:1706.09436 [hep-ph].
  18. A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 97, 114025 (2018), arXiv:1802.02995 [hep-ph].
  19. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 02, 006 (2019), arXiv:1810.00007 [hep-ph].
  20. M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, and B. Kubis, JHEP 08, 137 (2019), arXiv:1907.01556 [hep-ph].
  21. M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 241 (2020), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 410 (2020)], arXiv:1908.00921 [hep-ph].
  22. A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura, and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 101, 014029 (2020), arXiv:1911.00367 [hep-ph].
  23. A. Kurz, T. Liu, P. Marquard, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 734, 144 (2014), arXiv:1403.6400 [hep-ph].
  24. B. Chakraborty et al. (Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD, MILC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 152001 (2018), arXiv:1710.11212 [hep-lat].
  25. S. Borsanyi et al. (Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022002 (2018), arXiv:1711.04980 [hep-lat].
  26. T. Blum, P. A. Boyle, V. Gülpers, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, A. Jüttner, C. Lehner, A. Portelli, and J. T. Tsang (RBC, UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 022003 (2018), arXiv:1801.07224 [hep-lat].
  27. D. Giusti, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Sanfilippo, and S. Simula, Phys. Rev. D 99, 114502 (2019), arXiv:1901.10462 [hep-lat].
  28. E. Shintani and Y. Kuramashi (PACS), Phys. Rev. D 100, 034517 (2019), arXiv:1902.00885 [hep-lat].
  29. C. T. H. Davies et al. (Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD, MILC), Phys. Rev. D 101, 034512 (2020), arXiv:1902.04223 [hep-lat].
  30. A. Gérardin, M. Cè, G. von Hippel, B. Hörz, H. B. Meyer, D. Mohler, K. Ottnad, J. Wilhelm, and H. Wittig, Phys. Rev. D 100, 014510 (2019), arXiv:1904.03120 [hep-lat].
  31. C. Aubin, T. Blum, C. Tu, M. Golterman, C. Jung, and S. Peris, Phys. Rev. D 101, 014503 (2020), arXiv:1905.09307 [hep-lat].
  32. D. Giusti and S. Simula, PoS LATTICE2019, 104 (2019), arXiv:1910.03874 [hep- lat].
  33. K. Melnikov and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 113006 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0312226.
  34. P. Masjuan and P. Sánchez-Puertas, Phys. Rev. D 95, 054026 (2017), arXiv:1701.05829 [hep-ph].
  35. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 04, 161 (2017), arXiv:1702.07347 [hep-ph].
  36. M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, and S. P. Schneider, JHEP 10, 141 (2018), arXiv:1808.04823 [hep-ph].
  37. A. Gérardin, H. B. Meyer, and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D 100, 034520 (2019), arXiv:1903.09471 [hep-lat].
  38. J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, Phys. Lett. B 798, 134994 (2019), arXiv:1908.03331 [hep-ph].
  39. G. Colangelo, F. Hagelstein, M. Hoferichter, L. Laub, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 03, 101 (2020), arXiv:1910.13432 [hep-ph].
  40. V. Pauk and M. Vanderhaeghen, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3008 (2014), arXiv:1401.0832 [hep-ph].
  41. I. Danilkin and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D 95, 014019 (2017), arXiv:1611.04646 [hep-ph].
  42. F. Jegerlehner, The Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Muon, Vol. 274 (Springer, Cham, 2017).
  43. M. Knecht, S. Narison, A. Rabemananjara, and D. Rabetiarivony, Phys. Lett. B 787, 111 (2018), arXiv:1808.03848 [hep-ph].
  44. G. Eichmann, C. S. Fischer, and R. Williams, Phys. Rev. D 101, 054015 (2020), arXiv:1910.06795 [hep-ph].
  45. P. Roig and P. Sánchez-Puertas, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074019 (2020), arXiv:1910.02881 [hep-ph].
  46. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, A. Nyffeler, M. Passera, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B 735, 90 (2014), arXiv:1403.7512 [hep-ph].
  47. T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, and C. Lehner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 132002 (2020), arXiv:1911.08123 [hep-lat].
  48. T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 111808 (2012), arXiv:1205.5370 [hep-ph].
  49. T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Atoms 7, 28 (2019).
  50. A. Czarnecki, W. J. Marciano, and A. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 67, 073006 (2003), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 73, 119901 (2006)], arXiv:hep-ph/0212229.
  51. C. Gnendiger, D. Stöckinger, and H. Stöckinger-Kim, Phys. Rev. D 88, 053005 (2013), arXiv:1306.5546 [hep-ph].
  52. J. Z. Bai et al. (BES), Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 594 (2000), arXiv:hep-ex/9908046.
  53. R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2), Phys. Lett. B 476, 33 (2000), arXiv:hep- ex/0002017.
  54. R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2), Phys. Lett. B 489, 125 (2000), arXiv:hep- ex/0009013.
  55. M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Rev. D 63, 072002 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0009036.
  56. J. Z. Bai et al. (BES), Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 101802 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0102003.
  57. M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Rev. D 66, 032001 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0201040. Prospects for precise predictions of a µ in the SM
  58. R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2), Phys. Lett. B 578, 285 (2004), arXiv:hep- ex/0308008.
  59. B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 70, 072004 (2004), arXiv:hep-ex/0408078.
  60. B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 71, 052001 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0502025.
  61. B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 73, 012005 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0512023.
  62. B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 73, 052003 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0602006.
  63. V. M. Aul'chenko et al. (CMD-2), JETP Lett. 82, 743 (2005), arXiv:hep-ex/0603021.
  64. M. N. Achasov et al., J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 103, 380 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0605013.
  65. V. M. Aul'chenko et al., JETP Lett. 84, 413 (2006), arXiv:hep-ex/0610016.
  66. R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2), Phys. Lett. B 648, 28 (2007), arXiv:hep- ex/0610021.
  67. R. R. Akhmetshin et al., Phys. Lett. B 642, 203 (2006).
  68. B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 76, 012008 (2007), arXiv:0704.0630 [hep- ex].
  69. B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 76, 092005 (2007), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 77, 119902 (2008)], arXiv:0708.2461 [hep-ex].
  70. B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 76, 092006 (2007), arXiv:0709.1988 [hep- ex].
  71. B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 77, 092002 (2008), arXiv:0710.4451 [hep- ex].
  72. R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-2), Phys. Lett. B 669, 217 (2008), arXiv:0804.0178 [hep-ex].
  73. F. Ambrosino et al. (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B 670, 285 (2009), arXiv:0809.3950 [hep- ex].
  74. M. Ablikim et al. (BES), Phys. Lett. B 677, 239 (2009), arXiv:0903.0900 [hep-ex].
  75. B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 231801 (2009), arXiv:0908.3589 [hep-ex].
  76. F. Ambrosino et al. (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B 700, 102 (2011), arXiv:1006.5313 [hep- ex].
  77. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 86, 012008 (2012), arXiv:1103.3001 [hep-ex].
  78. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 85, 112009 (2012), arXiv:1201.5677 [hep-ex].
  79. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 86, 032013 (2012), arXiv:1205.2228 [hep-ex].
  80. D. Babusci et al. (KLOE), Phys. Lett. B 720, 336 (2013), arXiv:1212.4524 [hep-ex].
  81. R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-3), Phys. Lett. B 723, 82 (2013), arXiv:1302.0053 [hep-ex].
  82. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 87, 092005 (2013), arXiv:1302.0055 [hep-ex].
  83. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 88, 072009 (2013), arXiv:1308.1795 [hep-ex].
  84. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 89, 092002 (2014), arXiv:1403.7593 [hep-ex].
  85. M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Rev. D 90, 112007 (2014), arXiv:1410.3188 [hep-ex].
  86. V. M. Aulchenko et al. (SND), Phys. Rev. D 91, 052013 (2015), arXiv:1412.1971 [hep-ex].
  87. R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-3), Phys. Lett. B 759, 634 (2016), arXiv:1507.08013 [hep-ex].
  88. M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Lett. B 753, 629 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Lett. B 812, 135982 (2021)], arXiv:1507.08188 [hep-ex].
  89. D. N. Shemyakin et al., Phys. Lett. B 756, 153 (2016), arXiv:1510.00654 [hep-ex].
  90. V. V. Anashin et al., Phys. Lett. B 753, 533 (2016), arXiv:1510.02667 [hep-ex].
  91. M. N. Achasov et al. (SND), Phys. Rev. D 93, 092001 (2016), arXiv:1601.08061 [hep-ex].
  92. M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Rev. D 94, 112006 (2016), arXiv:1608.08757 [hep-ex].
  93. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 95, 092005 (2017), arXiv:1704.05009 [hep- ex].
  94. R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-3), Phys. Lett. B 773, 150 (2017), arXiv:1706.06267 [hep-ex].
  95. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 96, 092009 (2017), arXiv:1709.01171 [hep- ex].
  96. E. A. Kozyrev et al., Phys. Lett. B 779, 64 (2018), arXiv:1710.02989 [hep-ex].
  97. A. Anastasi et al. (KLOE-2), JHEP 03, 173 (2018), arXiv:1711.03085 [hep-ex].
  98. M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 032011 (2018), arXiv:1711.07143 [hep-ex].
  99. T. Xiao, S. Dobbs, A. Tomaradze, K. K. Seth, and G. Bonvicini, Phys. Rev. D 97, 032012 (2018), arXiv:1712.04530 [hep-ex].
  100. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 97, 052007 (2018), arXiv:1801.02960 [hep- ex].
  101. V. V. Anashin et al. (KEDR), Phys. Lett. B 788, 42 (2019), arXiv:1805.06235 [hep- ex].
  102. M. N. Achasov et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 112001 (2018), arXiv:1809.07631 [hep-ex].
  103. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 98, 112015 (2018), arXiv:1810.11962 [hep- ex].
  104. R. R. Akhmetshin et al. (CMD-3), Phys. Lett. B 792, 419 (2019), arXiv:1902.06449 [hep-ex].
  105. H. J. Behrend et al. (CELLO), Z. Phys. C 49, 401 (1991).
  106. J. Gronberg et al. (CLEO), Phys. Rev. D 57, 33 (1998), arXiv:hep-ex/9707031.
  107. M. Acciarri et al. (L3), Phys. Lett. B 418, 399 (1998).
  108. P. Achard et al. (L3), Phys. Lett. B 526, 269 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0110073.
  109. P. Achard et al. (L3), JHEP 03, 018 (2007).
  110. R. Arnaldi et al. (NA60), Phys. Lett. B 677, 260 (2009), arXiv:0902.2547 [hep-ph].
  111. B. Aubert et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 80, 052002 (2009), arXiv:0905.4778 [hep- ex].
  112. P. del Amo Sánchez et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 84, 052001 (2011), arXiv:1101.1142 [hep-ex].
  113. H. Berghäuser et al., Phys. Lett. B 701, 562 (2011).
  114. S. Uehara et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 86, 092007 (2012), arXiv:1205.3249 [hep-ex].
  115. D. Babusci et al. (KLOE-2), JHEP 01, 119 (2013), arXiv:1211.1845 [hep-ex].
  116. P. Aguar-Bartolome et al. (A2), Phys. Rev. C 89, 044608 (2014), arXiv:1309.5648 [hep-ex].
  117. M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Phys. Rev. D 92, 012001 (2015), arXiv:1504.06016 [hep- ex].
  118. M. Masuda et al. (Belle), Phys. Rev. D 93, 032003 (2016), arXiv:1508.06757 [hep- ex].
  119. R. Arnaldi et al. (NA60), Phys. Lett. B 757, 437 (2016), arXiv:1608.07898 [hep-ex].
  120. P. Adlarson et al. (A2), Phys. Rev. C 95, 035208 (2017), arXiv:1609.04503 [hep-ex].
  121. P. Adlarson et al. (A2), Phys. Rev. C 95, 025202 (2017), arXiv:1611.04739 [hep-ex].
  122. C. Lazzeroni et al. (NA62), Phys. Lett. B 768, 38 (2017), arXiv:1612.08162 [hep- ex].
  123. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 98, 112002 (2018), arXiv:1808.08038 [hep- ex].
  124. I. Larin et al. (PrimEx-II), Science 368, 506 (2020).
  125. T. Blum, S. Chowdhury, M. Hayakawa, and T. Izubuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 012001 (2015), arXiv:1407.2923 [hep-lat].
  126. J. Green, N. Asmussen, O. Gryniuk, G. von Hippel, H. B. Meyer, A. Nyffeler, and V. Pascalutsa, PoS LATTICE2015, 109 (2016), arXiv:1510.08384 [hep-lat].
  127. T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, and C. Lehner, Phys. Rev. D 93, 014503 (2016), arXiv:1510.07100 [hep-lat].
  128. T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, and C. Lehner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 022005 (2017), arXiv:1610.04603 [hep-lat].
  129. N. Asmussen, J. Green, H. B. Meyer, and A. Nyffeler, PoS LATTICE2016, 164 (2016), arXiv:1609.08454 [hep-lat].
  130. T. Blum, N. Christ, M. Hayakawa, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, C. Jung, and C. Lehner, Phys. Rev. D 96, 034515 (2017), arXiv:1705.01067 [hep-lat].
  131. N. Asmussen, E.-H. Chao, A. Gérardin, J. R. Green, R. J. Hudspith, H. B. Meyer, and A. Nyffeler, PoS LATTICE2019, 195 (2019), arXiv:1911.05573 [hep-lat].
  132. R. H. Parker, C. Yu, W. Zhong, B. Estey, and H. Müller, Science 360, 191 (2018), arXiv:1812.04130 [physics.atom-ph].
  133. L. Morel, Z. Yao, P. Cladé, and S. Guellati-Khélifa, Nature 588, 61 (2020).
  134. M. Hoferichter and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 112002 (2022), arXiv:2112.06929 [hep-ph].
  135. S. Borsanyi et al., Nature 593, 51 (2021), arXiv:2002.12347 [hep-lat].
  136. A. Crivellin, M. Hoferichter, C. A. Manzari, and M. Montull, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 091801 (2020), arXiv:2003.04886 [hep-ph].
  137. A. Keshavarzi, W. J. Marciano, M. Passera, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 102, 033002 (2020), arXiv:2006.12666 [hep-ph].
  138. B. Malaescu and M. Schott, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 46 (2021), arXiv:2008.08107 [hep- ph].
  139. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B 814, 136073 (2021), arXiv:2010.07943 [hep-ph].
  140. Prospects for precise predictions of a µ in the SM
  141. M. Cè, A. Gérardin, G. von Hippel, H. B. Meyer, K. Miura, K. Ottnad, A. Risch, T. S. José, J. Wilhelm, and H. Wittig, (2022), arXiv:2203.08676 [hep-lat].
  142. J. Prades, E. de Rafael, and A. Vainshtein, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 20, 303 (2009), arXiv:0901.0306 [hep-ph].
  143. A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rev. D 79, 073012 (2009), arXiv:0901.1172 [hep-ph].
  144. F. Jegerlehner and A. Nyffeler, Phys. Rept. 477, 1 (2009), arXiv:0902.3360 [hep- ph].
  145. E.-H. Chao, R. J. Hudspith, A. Gérardin, J. R. Green, H. B. Meyer, and K. Ottnad, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 651 (2021), arXiv:2104.02632 [hep-lat].
  146. M. Benayoun, L. Delbuono, and F. Jegerlehner, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 81 (2020), [Erratum: Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 244 (2020)], arXiv:1903.11034 [hep-ph].
  147. C. Lehner and A. S. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D 101, 074515 (2020), arXiv:2003.04177 [hep-lat].
  148. C. Bouchiat and L. Michel, J. Phys. Radium 22, 121 (1961).
  149. S. J. Brodsky and E. De Rafael, Phys. Rev. 168, 1620 (1968).
  150. B. Ananthanarayan, I. Caprini, and D. Das, Phys. Rev. D 98, 114015 (2018), arXiv:1810.09265 [hep-ph].
  151. F. Campanario, H. Czyż, J. Gluza, T. Jeliński, G. Rodrigo, S. Tracz, and D. Zhuridov, Phys. Rev. D 100, 076004 (2019), arXiv:1903.10197 [hep-ph].
  152. M. N. Achasov et al. (SND), JHEP 01, 113 (2021), arXiv:2004.00263 [hep-ex].
  153. M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), (2019), arXiv:1912.11208 [hep-ex].
  154. J. P. Lees et al. (BaBar), Phys. Rev. D 104, 112003 (2021), arXiv:2110.00520 [hep- ex].
  155. B.-L. Hoid, M. Hoferichter, and B. Kubis, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 988 (2020), arXiv:2007.12696 [hep-ph].
  156. D. Stamen, D. Hariharan, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, and P. Stoffer, (2022), arXiv:2202.11106 [hep-ph].
  157. G. Abbiendi et al., (2022), arXiv:2201.12102 [hep-ph].
  158. S. Actis et al. (Working Group on Radiative Corrections, Monte Carlo Generators for Low Energies), Eur. Phys. J. C 66, 585 (2010), arXiv:0912.0749 [hep-ph].
  159. C. Aubin, T. Blum, M. Golterman, and S. Peris, in 38th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (2021) arXiv:2110.03408 [hep-lat].
  160. D. Giusti and S. Simula, in 38th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (2021) arXiv:2111.15329 [hep-lat].
  161. S. Lahert, C. DeTar, A. X. El-Khadra, E. Gámiz, S. Gottlieb, A. Kronfeld, E. Neil, C. T. Peterson, and R. Van de Water (Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD, MILC), in 38th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (2021) arXiv:2112.11647 [hep-lat].
  162. A. Bazavov et al. (Fermilab Lattice, HPQCD, MILC), in 38th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (2021) arXiv:2112.11339 [hep-lat].
  163. A. Risch and H. Wittig, in 38th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (2021) arXiv:2112.00878 [hep-lat].
  164. F. Erben, J. R. Green, D. Mohler, and H. Wittig, Phys. Rev. D 101, 054504 (2020), arXiv:1910.01083 [hep-lat].
  165. M. Bruno, T. Izubuchi, C. Lehner, and A. S. Meyer, PoS LATTICE2019, 239 (2019), arXiv:1910.11745 [hep-lat].
  166. T. Harris, M. Cè, H. B. Meyer, A. Toniato, and C. Török, PoS LATTICE2021, 572 (2021), arXiv:2111.07948 [hep-lat].
  167. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, M. Niehus, and J. R. de Elvira, Phys. Lett. B 825, 136852 (2022), arXiv:2110.05493 [hep-ph].
  168. D. Boito, M. Golterman, K. Maltman, and S. Peris, (2022), arXiv:2203.05070 [hep- ph].
  169. "Fifth Plenary Workshop of the Muon g -2 The- ory Initiative," https://higgs.ph.ed.ac.uk/workshops/ fifth-plenary-workshop-of-the-muon-g-2-theory-initiative/ (2022), to be held at the Higgs Centre for Theoretical Physics, Edinburgh, UK, September 5-9.
  170. "Fourth Plenary Workshop of the Muon g -2 Theory Initiative," https://www-conf. kek.jp/muong-2theory/ (2021), held virtually at KEK, Tsukuba, Japan, June 28- July 2.
  171. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 09, 091 (2014), arXiv:1402.7081 [hep-ph].
  172. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, B. Kubis, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B 738, 6 (2014), arXiv:1408.2517 [hep-ph].
  173. V. Pauk and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D 90, 113012 (2014), arXiv:1409.0819 [hep-ph].
  174. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, JHEP 09, 074 (2015), arXiv:1506.01386 [hep-ph].
  175. M. Hoferichter, B.-L. Hoid, B. Kubis, S. Leupold, and S. P. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 112002 (2018), arXiv:1805.01471 [hep-ph].
  176. G. Colangelo, M. Hoferichter, M. Procura, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 232001 (2017), arXiv:1701.06554 [hep-ph].
  177. S. Holz, J. Plenter, C. W. Xiao, T. Dato, C. Hanhart, B. Kubis, U.-G. Meißner, and A. Wirzba, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1002 (2021), arXiv:1509.02194 [hep-ph].
  178. S. Holz, C. Hanhart, M. Hoferichter, and B. Kubis, (2022), arXiv:2202.05846 [hep- ph].
  179. S. Burri et al., 38th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, (2021), arXiv:2112.03586 [hep-lat].
  180. A. Gérardin, J. N. Guenther, L. Varnhorst, and W. E. A. Verplanke (Budapest- Marseille-Wuppertal), 38th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, (2021), arXiv:2112.08101 [hep-lat].
  181. A. Miramontes, A. Bashir, K. Raya, and P. Roig, (2021), arXiv:2112.13916 [hep- ph].
  182. G. Colangelo, F. Hagelstein, M. Hoferichter, L. Laub, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Rev. D 101, 051501 (2020), arXiv:1910.11881 [hep-ph].
  183. I. Danilkin, M. Hoferichter, and P. Stoffer, Phys. Lett. B 820, 136502 (2021), arXiv:2105.01666 [hep-ph].
  184. G. Colangelo, F. Hagelstein, M. Hoferichter, L. Laub, and P. Stoffer, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 702 (2021), arXiv:2106.13222 [hep-ph].
  185. J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, L. Laub, and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, JHEP 10, 203 (2020), arXiv:2008.13487 [hep-ph].
  186. J. Bijnens, N. Hermansson-Truedsson, L. Laub, and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, JHEP 04, 240 (2021), arXiv:2101.09169 [hep-ph].
  187. J. Leutgeb and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D 101, 114015 (2020), arXiv:1912.01596 [hep-ph].
  188. L. Cappiello, O. Catà, G. D'Ambrosio, D. Greynat, and A. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 102, 016009 (2020), arXiv:1912.02779 [hep-ph].
  189. P. Masjuan, P. Roig, and P. Sánchez-Puertas, J. Phys. G 49, 015002 (2022), arXiv:2005.11761 [hep-ph].
  190. J. Lüdtke and M. Procura, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 1108 (2020), arXiv:2006.00007 [hep- ph]. Prospects for precise predictions of a µ in the SM
  191. J. Leutgeb and A. Rebhan, Phys. Rev. D 104, 094017 (2021), arXiv:2108.12345 [hep-ph].
  192. M. Hoferichter and P. Stoffer, JHEP 05, 159 (2020), arXiv:2004.06127 [hep-ph].
  193. M. Zanke, M. Hoferichter, and B. Kubis, JHEP 07, 106 (2021), arXiv:2103.09829 [hep-ph].
  194. L. Cappiello, O. Catà, and G. D'Ambrosio, (2021), arXiv:2110.05962 [hep-ph].
  195. P. Achard et al. (L3), JHEP 03, 018 (2007).
  196. P. Achard et al. (L3), Phys. Lett. B 526, 269 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0110073.
  197. M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII), Chin. Phys. C 44, 040001 (2020), arXiv:1912.05983 [hep-ex].
  198. M. Hayakawa and S. Uno, Prog. Theor. Phys. 120, 413 (2008), arXiv:0804.2044 [hep-ph].
  199. E.-H. Chao, A. Gérardin, J. R. Green, R. J. Hudspith, and H. B. Meyer, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 869 (2020), arXiv:2006.16224 [hep-lat].
  200. M. Passera, W. J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 78, 013009 (2008), arXiv:0804.1142 [hep-ph].
  201. C. M. Carloni Calame, M. Passera, L. Trentadue, and G. Venanzoni, Phys. Lett. B 746, 325 (2015), arXiv:1504.02228 [hep-ph].
  202. G. Abbiendi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 139 (2017), arXiv:1609.08987 [hep-ex].
  203. G. Abbiendi et al. (The MUonE Collaboration), Letter of Intent: the MUonE project, Tech. Rep. CERN-SPSC-2019-026. SPSC-I-252 (CERN, Geneva, 2019).
  204. P. Banerjee et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 591 (2020), arXiv:2004.13663 [hep-ph].
  205. G. Ballerini et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 936, 636 (2019).
  206. G. Abbiendi et al., JINST 15, 01 (2020), arXiv:1905.11677 [physics.ins-det].
  207. G. Abbiendi et al., JINST 16, P06005 (2021), arXiv:2102.11111 [hep-ex].
  208. G. Abbiendi, in 10th International Conference on New Frontiers in Physics (2022) arXiv:2201.13177 [physics.ins-det].
  209. P. Mastrolia, M. Passera, A. Primo, and U. Schubert, JHEP 11, 198 (2017), arXiv:1709.07435 [hep-ph].
  210. S. Di Vita, S. Laporta, P. Mastrolia, A. Primo, and U. Schubert, JHEP 09, 016 (2018), arXiv:1806.08241 [hep-ph].
  211. Prospects for precise predictions of a µ in the SM
  212. M. Fael, JHEP 02, 027 (2019), arXiv:1808.08233 [hep-ph].
  213. M. Alacevich, C. M. Carloni Calame, M. Chiesa, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, JHEP 02, 155 (2019), arXiv:1811.06743 [hep-ph].
  214. M. Fael and M. Passera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 192001 (2019), arXiv:1901.03106 [hep-ph].
  215. C. M. Carloni Calame, M. Chiesa, S. M. Hasan, G. Montagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, JHEP 11, 028 (2020), arXiv:2007.01586 [hep-ph].
  216. P. Banerjee, T. Engel, A. Signer, and Y. Ulrich, SciPost Phys. 9, 027 (2020), arXiv:2007.01654 [hep-ph].
  217. R. Bonciani et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 022002 (2022), arXiv:2106.13179 [hep-ph].
  218. E. Budassi, C. M. Carloni Calame, M. Chiesa, C. L. Del Pio, S. M. Hasan, G. Mon- tagna, O. Nicrosini, and F. Piccinini, JHEP 11, 098 (2021), arXiv:2109.14606 [hep- ph].
  219. A. V. Nesterenko, (2021), arXiv:2112.05009 [hep-ph].
  220. E. Balzani, S. Laporta, and M. Passera, (2021), arXiv:2112.05704 [hep-ph].
  221. M. Fael, F. Lange, K. Schönwald, and M. Steinhauser, (2022), arXiv:2202.05276 [hep-ph].
  222. D. Greynat and E. de Rafael, (2022), arXiv:2202.10810 [hep-ph].
  223. E. Budassi, C. M. C. Calame, C. L. Del Pio, and F. Piccinini, (2022), arXiv:2203.01639 [hep-ph].
  224. R. Alemany, M. Davier, and A. Hocker, Eur. Phys. J. C 2, 123 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9703220.
  225. M. Bruno, T. Izubuchi, C. Lehner, and A. Meyer, PoS LATTICE2018, 135 (2018), arXiv:1811.00508 [hep-lat].
  226. "The hadronic vacuum polarization from lattice QCD at high precision," https: //indico.cern.ch/event/956699/ (2020), virtual meeting, November 16-20.
  227. M. S. Albergo, G. Kanwar, S. Racanière, D. J. Rezende, J. M. Urban, D. Boyda, K. Cranmer, D. C. Hackett, and P. E. Shanahan, Phys. Rev. D 104, 114507 (2021), arXiv:2106.05934 [hep-lat].
  228. D. C. Hackett, C.-C. Hsieh, M. S. Albergo, D. Boyda, J.-W. Chen, K.-F. Chen, K. Cran- mer, G. Kanwar, and P. E. Shanahan, (2021), arXiv:2107.00734 [hep-lat].
  229. S. Foreman, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, X.-Y. Jin, J. C. Osborn, and A. Tomiya, in 38th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (2021) arXiv:2112.01586 [cs.LG]. Prospects for precise predictions of a µ in the SM
  230. T. Nguyen, P. Boyle, N. Christ, Y.-C. Jang, and C. Jung, in 38th International Sym- posium on Lattice Field Theory (2021) arXiv:2112.04556 [hep-lat].
  231. D. Boyda et al. (2022) arXiv:2202.05838 [hep-lat].
  232. M. Dalla Brida, L. Giusti, T. Harris, and M. Pepe, Phys. Lett. B 816, 136191 (2021), arXiv:2007.02973 [hep-lat].
  233. W. Detmold, G. Kanwar, H. Lamm, M. L. Wagman, and N. C. Warrington, Phys. Rev. D 103, 094517 (2021), arXiv:2101.12668 [hep-lat].
  234. L. Giusti, M. D. Brida, T. Harris, and M. Pepe, in 38th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (2021) arXiv:2112.02647 [hep-lat].

Related papers

The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon in the Standard Model
Fred Jegerlehner

Physics Reports, 2020

We review the present status of the Standard Model calculation of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. This is performed in a perturbative expansion in the fine-structure constant α and is broken down into pure QED, electroweak, and hadronic contributions. The pure QED contribution is by far the largest and has been evaluated up to and including O(α 5) with negligible numerical uncertainty. The electroweak contribution is suppressed by (m µ /M W) 2 and only shows up at the level of the seventh significant digit. It has been evaluated up to two loops and is known to better than one percent. Hadronic contributions are the most difficult to calculate and are responsible for almost all of the theoretical uncertainty. The leading hadronic contribution appears at O(α 2) and is due to hadronic vacuum polarization, whereas at O(α 3) the hadronic light-by-light scattering contribution appears. Given the low characteristic scale of this observable, these contributions have to be calculated with nonperturbative methods, in particular, dispersion relations and the lattice approach to QCD. The largest part of this review is dedicated to a detailed account of recent efforts to improve the calculation of these two contributions with either a data-driven, dispersive approach, or a first-principle, lattice-QCD approach. The final result reads a SM µ = 116 591 810(43) × 10 −11 and is smaller than the Brookhaven measurement by 3.7σ. The experimental uncertainty will soon be reduced by up to a factor four by the new experiment currently running at Fermilab, and also by the future J-PARC experiment. This and the prospects to further reduce the theoretical uncertainty in the near future-which are also discussed here-make this quantity one of the most promising places to look for evidence of new physics.

View PDFchevron_right
The theoretical prediction for the muon anomalous magnetic moment
Matteo Martini

Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 2004

■ Abstract This article reviews the standard-model prediction for the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and describes recent updates of QED, electroweak, and hadronic contributions. Comparison of theory and experiment suggests a 2.4 σ difference if e + e − → hadrons data are used to evaluate the main hadronic effects, but a smaller discrepancy if hadronic τ decay data are employed. Implications of a deviation for "new physics" contributions, along with an outlook for future improvements in theory and experiment, are briefly discussed. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2004.54:115-140. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by UNIVERSITATSBIBLIOTHEK BIELEFELD on 04/22/05. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 2004.54:115-140. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by UNIVERSITATSBIBLIOTHEK BIELEFELD on 04/22/05. For personal use only.

View PDFchevron_right
New physics explanations of aμ in light of the FNAL muon g − 2 measurement
Csaba Dr Balázs

Journal of High Energy Physics, 2021

The Fermilab Muon g −2 experiment recently reported its first measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment $$ {a}_{\mu}^{\mathrm{FNAL}} $$ a μ FNAL , which is in full agreement with the previous BNL measurement and pushes the world average deviation $$ \Delta {a}_{\mu}^{2021} $$ ∆ a μ 2021 from the Standard Model to a significance of 4.2σ. Here we provide an extensive survey of its impact on beyond the Standard Model physics. We use state-of-the-art calculations and a sophisticated set of tools to make predictions for aμ, dark matter and LHC searches in a wide range of simple models with up to three new fields, that represent some of the few ways that large ∆aμ can be explained. In addition for the particularly well motivated Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, we exhaustively cover the scenarios where large ∆aμ can be explained while simultaneously satisfying all relevant data from other experiments. Generally, the aμ result can only be explained by rather small masses and/or la...

View PDFchevron_right
Higher order hadronic corrections to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon
Jacques Calmet

Physics Letters B, 1976

The contributions to the muon g-factor anomaly, a~z -= 2 (g -2) from higher order virtual hadronic effects have been estimated. Many of these contributions can be still expressed as a convolution integral over the total e+e -~ hadrons cross section OH(t) and are thus reliably estimated. The rest of the contributions, which involve the light by light hadronic amplitude, have been calculated within a SU(3)colo r x SU(4)flavo r scheme. For the total hadronic contribution to a~t, which also includes the dominant hadronic corrections as well as an estimate, using asymptotic freedom, of the induced contribution from the asymptotic behaviour of cr H (x/t > 7.4 GeV) we obtain a~ (hadrons) = (66.4 ~+ 10.2) X 10 -9. A new measurement of the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon was recently published by the CERN Muon Storage Ring Collaboration [1 ]. Their result for/1 + is --1 au =7(g-2) = (1165 895 -+ 27) × 10 .9

View PDFchevron_right
Muon anomalous magnetic moment: A harbinger for “new physics”
Andrzej Czarnecki

Physical Review D, 2001

QED, Hadronic, and Electroweak Standard Model contributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment, a µ ≡ (g µ − 2)/2, and their theoretical uncertainties are scrutinized. The status and implications of the recently reported 2.6 sigma experiment vs. theory deviation a exp µ − a SM µ = 426(165) × 10 −11 are discussed. Possible explanations due to supersymmetric loop effects with m SUSY ≃ 55 √ tan β GeV, radiative mass mechanisms at the 1-2 TeV scale and other "New Physics" scenarios are examined.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Physics
  • Nuclear Physics
  • Particle Physics
  • anomalous magnetic dipole moment
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved