How Anomalous is the Electron's Magnetic Moment?

Charles T. Sebens

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

How Anomalous is the Electron's Magnetic Moment?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Dirac equation, once self-interaction and mass renormalization are included, predicts a state-dependent electron magnetic moment.

desk verdict A conceptually fresh and honest paper: self-interaction plus mass renormalization makes the Dirac-equation magnetic moment state-dependent, and QFT's job becomes fixing the moment; just fix the arithmetic slip and tighten the Gaussian-stability assumptions before quoting Eq. (53). read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21179 v1 pith:V6DWH3GY submitted 2025-04-29 quant-ph hep-thphysics.hist-ph

Charles T. Sebens This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phhep-thphysics.hist-ph PACS 03.65.Pm12.20.-m

keywords electronmagneticmomentanomalousDiracequationself-interactionmassrenormalizationGordondecompositionstatedependencequantumfieldtheory

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks what the Dirac equation really predicts for the electron's spin magnetic moment once the two effects that dominate quantum-field-theoretic calculations—self-interaction and mass renormalization—are taken into account. Standard derivations of the Bohr magneton omit both effects; the paper modifies those derivations and finds that the magnetic moment becomes state-dependent, varying with the size of the electron's wave packet even among purely z-spin-up states. The central result, equation (53), gives the moment for a Gaussian wave packet of width $d$ as $\frac{e\hbar}{2m_e c}[1 + 0.332\, e^2/(m_e c^2 d)]\,\hat{z}$. The paper therefore argues that quantum field theory's distinctive achievement is not explaining a small anomaly in the electron's moment, but explaining why the electron has a fixed magnetic moment at all.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Gordon decomposition of the Dirac current density, which splits the current into polarization, convection, and magnetization terms, plus the vector-potential coupling term $-e^2/(mc)\,\psi^\dagger\gamma^0\psi\,\vec{A}$. The magnetization current $\vec{J}_M = -\frac{e\hbar}{2m}\vec{\nabla}\times(\psi^\dagger\gamma^0\vec{\sigma}\psi)$ gives the familiar Bohr-magneton moment; treating the field $\vec{A}$ it generates as a self-interaction source and adding the electromagnetic field energy to the electron mass produces the state-dependent correction. For the Gaussian state (38), numerical integration of the relevant integrals gives the coefficients $0.403$ (electric self-energy, hence mass renormalization) and $0.071$ (first-order self-interaction correction to the current), which combine to $0.332$ in equation (53). An alternative route through the non-relativistic Pauli limit yields the same first-order correction, showing that the two standard derivations agree once the two effects are included.

What would settle it

Measure the spin magnetic moment of electrons prepared in wave packets of different spatial widths; if the moment is identical across widths, the predicted state-dependence is absent. Alternatively, solve the self-interacting Maxwell–Dirac equations for exact stationary states and check whether their magnetic moment varies with the state's spatial extent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the Dirac equation, when supplemented with self-interaction and mass renormalization, predicts a spin magnetic moment that depends on the electron's state. For the illustrative Gaussian z-spin-up wave packet of width $d$, combining the first-order self-interaction correction ($-0.071\, e^3\hbar/(m_e^2 c^3 d)$) with the mass-renormalization correction ($+0.403\, e^3\hbar/(m_e^2 c^3 d)$) yields equation (53): $\vec{m} = \frac{e\hbar}{2m_e c}[1 + 0.332\, e^2/(m_e c^2 d)]\,\hat{z}$. This matches the first-order quantum-field-theoretic value when $d \approx 2.09\, \hbar/(m_e c)$, just over twice the Compton radius, but that width cannot be imposed by the theory since the wave packet evolves in time. The same first-order correction emerges whether the magnetic moment is derived from the non-relativistic limit of the Dirac equation or from the Gordon decomposition of the current density. Consequently, in this precursor theory the magnetic moment is thoroughly state-dependent, and the paper reframes the anomaly: quantum field theory is needed to explain why the electron's moment is fixed and what its value is.

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation treats the Gaussian wave packet (38) as an approximately stable, magnetostatic state, even though the Dirac equation alone would make it spread, and it assumes a non-relativistic limit valid only for wave-packet widths far larger than the Compton radius while the value reproducing QED is only about twice that radius.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Bohr magneton is not the Dirac equation's full prediction once self-interaction and mass renormalization are included; the prediction becomes state- and size-dependent.
The usual framing of the electron's moment as 'anomalous' relative to the Dirac equation misidentifies the role of quantum field theory—its distinctive contribution is fixing the value of the moment.
The width $d \approx 2.09\,\hbar/(m_e c)$ that reproduces the first-order QED result cannot be selected by the theory, because electron wave packets spread over time and the moment changes as they do.
Both standard derivations (non-relativistic limit and current-density analysis) give the same first-order correction, making the state-dependence a consistent feature of the precursor theory rather than an artifact of one derivation method.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If a more complete version of the self-interacting Dirac theory admits exact stationary states, the magnetic moment of those states could be computed without the stability assumption; that calculation would show whether the state-dependence survives or is an artifact of the Gaussian toy model.
Precision experiments that confine electrons to wave packets of different spatial sizes—for example, different trap geometries—could in principle search for the predicted dependence of the spin magnetic moment on $d$; a null result would favor the QED mechanism that erases state-dependence.
The same strategy of adding self-interaction and mass renormalization to a classical or semiclassical equation of motion might apply to other charged particles with spin, suggesting that their fixed gyromagnetic ratios are likewise established only by the transition to quantum field theory.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read this if you care about what the Dirac equation predicts for the electron's magnetic moment once you stop ignoring the electron's own field. The main conceptual claim is genuinely new and, I think, right: adding self-interaction and mass renormalization to the Dirac equation makes the magnetic moment of a z-spin-up electron depend on the width of its wave packet. On that reading, QFT's real achievement is not merely the small anomaly; it is that the electron ends up with a fixed magnetic moment at all. Sebens frames that as a puzzle for future work, and it is a good puzzle.

The derivation is explicit and mostly easy to follow. He does the Gordon-decomposition version and the Pauli-limit version, and they agree at first order. The comparison with Barut et al. is fair: their self-field correction is cutoff-dependent and state-independent, while a Gaussian ansatz produces a state-dependent one, Eq. (53). The paper also makes a genuine advance over the classical shell model because the Dirac-equation route has a plausible path toward QFT. Credit is due for the honest limitations: footnote 20 admits the Gaussian is not a clean positive-frequency state, and Section 3.1 assumes a magnetostatic stability that the free dynamics do not provide.

Now the soft spots. The arithmetic in Eq. (53) is off by a factor of two. The self-interaction term, as reported after Eq. (43), is m1 ≈ 0.071 e^3ℏ/(m^2 c^3 d), which equals 0.142 in the units used in (53). Subtracting 0.071 instead of 0.142 gives 0.332; the correct coefficient is 0.261. That shifts the matching width to about 1.6 ℏ/mc instead of 2.09. The qualitative story survives, but anyone quoting the coefficient should fix it. Second, the Gaussian is a fictitious configuration, not a solution, and the magnetostatic approximation drops time-dependent and radiation-reaction effects. The paper says the calculation is illustrative, which is fair for a conceptual piece, but it means the state-dependence is a property of the ansatz until a stable state with finite width is shown to exist. Third, the expansion parameter is not small at the d that matches QED: d ≈ 2 ℏ/mc gives (ℏ/mcd)^2 ≈ 0.23, so the quantitative boundary of (53) is not controlled. None of these unsound the central reframing, but they do mean the numerical support should be tightened before the result is treated as more than suggestive.

Who is this for? Philosophers and foundations-minded physicists who care about what the Dirac equation actually predicts, and anyone thinking about self-field heuristics for the electron. It is not a paper about high-precision predictions. The citation pattern is fair, with self-citations to related work on electron structure and spin. I would send it to a serious referee rather than desk-reject it; the referee should ask for the integral evaluation to be made reproducible and for the arithmetic to be corrected.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the standard derivation of the electron's spin magnetic moment from the Dirac equation and asks what happens when two effects normally associated with quantum field theory—self-interaction and mass renormalization—are incorporated already at the level of the Dirac equation. The author derives the usual Bohr magneton by two methods, then modifies them: self-interaction is included through the A·J term in the Gordon decomposition, and mass renormalization through the electromagnetic self-energy of the wave packet. For a z-spin-up Gaussian wave packet of width d, the resulting first-order magnetic moment is Eq. (53): m = (eℏ/2m_e c)[1 + 0.332 e²/(m_e c² d)] ẑ. The central conceptual claim is that the magnetic moment becomes state-dependent, even among purely z-spin-up states, and that quantum field theory's distinctive achievement is not explaining a small anomaly but explaining why the electron has a fixed magnetic moment at all. The paper also compares its approach with earlier work by Barut and collaborators and with classical shell models.

Significance. If the central claim is sustainable, the paper offers a genuinely interesting reframing of the anomalous magnetic moment: the Dirac equation supplemented by self-interaction and mass renormalization already produces state-dependent corrections, and the puzzle shifts to why QED yields a definite, state-independent value. The derivation is explicit and transparent, built on the standard Gordon decomposition, and the author is unusually candid about the limitations of the Gaussian ansatz. The comparison with Barut et al. and with Grandy and Aghazadeh is useful and historically informed. However, the quantitative support for the headline Eq. (53) contains an arithmetic inconsistency, and the physical status of the assumed stable Gaussian state is not established. Both issues bear directly on the paper's main message, so the manuscript needs substantial revision before the central claim can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)

[§3.1, Eq. (38)] The Gaussian in Eq. (38) is not a solution of the free Dirac equation or of the self-interacting Maxwell-Dirac system, and footnote 20 concedes that it is not even formed entirely from positive-frequency modes. The magnetostatic formula (35) requires the current density to be approximately constant, yet no stabilizing potential is specified and a free Gaussian spreads. As written, Eq. (53) computes the magnetic moment of an instantaneous configuration, not of an electron state in the precursor theory. The author should either exhibit a concrete stationary or quasi-stationary solution of the coupled equations, or explicitly restrict the claim to a stipulated toy-model state and explain why that restriction is physically meaningful.
[§3.1 and §3.2, Eqs. (43) and (53)] There is an arithmetic inconsistency in the numerical coefficient of the headline formula. Eq. (43) has the prefactor e³ℏ/(2m²c³d), but the sentence below it reports m1 ≈ 0.071 e³ℏ/(m²c³d), which equals 0.142 e³ℏ/(2m²c³d). Eq. (53) then subtracts 0.071 from 0.403 as though both were in the same units of e³ℏ/(2m²c³d). The corrected coefficient is 0.403 − 0.142 = 0.261, not 0.332. This changes the width needed to match the first-order QED result from d ≈ 2.09 ℏ/(m_e c) to d ≈ 1.64 ℏ/(m_e c), so the quantitative agreement claimed for Eq. (53) is not currently supported.
[§3.1, footnote 21, and Eq. (53)] The non-relativistic limit underlying the approximations is stated to require d much larger than the Compton radius ℏ/(mc), but the value of d needed to match QED—whether 2.09 or the corrected 1.64 Compton radii—lies outside that regime. At d = 2.09 ℏ/(mc), (ℏ/(mcd))² ≈ 0.23, and at d = 1.64 ℏ/(mc) it is ≈ 0.37; these are not small expansion parameters. The state-dependence claim may survive independently of this numerical matching, but the statement that Eq. (53) agrees with QED for a particular d should be removed or heavily qualified, since the derivation is not controlled at that point.

minor comments (5)

[§3.1, after Eq. (43)] The numerical value 0.071 is introduced with 'appears to give roughly' and no uncertainty or method is stated; please report the numerical result with a definite value and an estimate of the numerical error.
[§3.2, Eq. (51)] The notation switches from m in the Dirac equation to m_e for the observed mass without an explicit definition at first use; a short sentence defining m, m_b, m_em, and m_e would improve readability.
[Figure 2 and §3.2] The caption of Figure 2 correctly notes that the arrow sizes in the second plot are not quantitative, but the same issue affects the visual comparison between the two panels; a scale bar or a normalized plot would be more informative.
[§3.2, Eq. (50)] The magnetic self-energy is neglected by arguing that d is large relative to the Compton radius, but this is the same regime assumption that is violated in the QED-matching discussion; the approximation should be restated as an additional limitation of the numerical estimate.
[§5, discussion of Barut et al.] The comparison with Barut et al. would benefit from a table listing the differing approximations (e.g., cut-off dependence, choice of state, treatment of the self-field) so that the reader can see at a glance why the results differ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (53) is a direct perturbative calculation from the Dirac self-field and mass renormalization, with no fitted parameter passed off as a prediction; the main caveats are physical and arithmetic, not circular.

full rationale

I find no significant circularity in the paper's derivation chain. The central result, Eq. (53), is obtained by direct perturbative evaluation: the first-order self-interaction current J1 is constructed from the magnetostatic potential of the Dirac spin current (Eqs. 35-37), its magnetic moment is computed by the standard formula (16), and the mass-renormalization correction is obtained by integrating the classical self-field energy (47) and expanding e hbar / (2 m c) with m = me - mem (46). None of these steps fits a parameter to the QED anomaly. The paper explicitly says that d approximately 2.09 hbar / (me c) cannot simply be put in by hand and is not a prediction of the theory. Self-citations appear in interpretive or supporting contexts: describing the Gaussian state (footnote 20), the elimination of self-repulsion, and field-theoretic interpretations; none is a uniqueness theorem or a prior derivation of Eq. (53) that this paper merely reimports. The main caveats are physical and mathematical, not circular: the Gaussian (38) is not a stationary solution of the self-interacting Dirac-Maxwell equations, the magnetostatic approximation (35) drops retarded-field and radiation-reaction effects, d approximately 2.09 hbar / (me c) lies outside the stated non-relativistic regime d >> hbar / (me c), and the arithmetic joining of (43) and (52) appears inconsistent (0.403 - 0.142 = 0.261, not 0.332). These are correctness risks, not construction-equivalence or fitted-parameter circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on interpretive and modeling assumptions about how to define a magnetic moment in a semiclassical theory and how to treat the self-consistency of the state; the numerical outcome is not fitted to QED, though the theory contains no principle fixing the state width d.

free parameters (2)

Gaussian wave packet width d = illustrative; QED matching requires d ≈ 2.09 ℏ/(m_e c)
The final magnetic moment (53) depends on d, making the result state-dependent. The paper does not derive d from the theory and explicitly says the matching width cannot be put in by hand.
bare mass m_b = m_b = m_e - m_em, state-dependent
Mass renormalization in section 3.2 sets the Dirac mass so that the dressed mass equals the observed electron mass for a particular state; the required bare mass depends on the state.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Dirac field ψ can be interpreted as a spread-out charge distribution with charge and current densities (19)-(20), allowing the classical magnetic moment formula (16) to apply.
This interpretive stance is required to compute m from the current density; the paper acknowledges in footnote 11 that it is incompatible with point-particle interpretations such as Bohmian mechanics.
ad hoc to paper The Gaussian wave packet (38) is an approximately stable, magnetostatic state of the self-interacting theory.
Invoked in section 3.1 before Eq. (38) to justify using the static Green's function (35); the state is not a solution of the coupled Maxwell-Dirac equations and would spread in free space.
domain assumption The energy in the electron's self-field contributes to its mass, and the mass appearing in the Bohr magneton should be the dressed mass m_e = m_b + m_em.
Standard semiclassical mass renormalization from Weisskopf and others, applied here to a non-stationary wave packet; the paper notes the electromagnetic mass is state-dependent and that the procedure cannot be maintained as the state evolves.
domain assumption The first-order perturbative treatment of self-interaction, using only the spin current J_M as the source of A_1, captures the leading correction.
This is a standard order-by-order expansion; contributions from the A-dependent current (34) to the source of A are higher order.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Anomalous is the Electron's Magnetic Moment?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V6DWH3GY

@misc{pith2026250421179,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Anomalous is the Electron's Magnetic Moment?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V6DWH3GY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21179}
}

abstract

The electron's spin magnetic moment is ordinarily described as anomalous in comparison to what one would expect from the Dirac equation. But, what exactly should one expect from the Dirac equation? The standard answer would be the Bohr magneton, which is a simple estimate of the electron's spin magnetic moment that can be derived from the Dirac equation either by taking the non-relativistic limit to arrive at the Pauli equation or by examining the Gordon decomposition of the electron's current density. However, these derivations ignore two effects that are central to quantum field theoretic calculations of the electron's magnetic moment: self-interaction and mass renormalization. Those two effects can and should be incorporated when analyzing the Dirac equation, to better isolate the distinctive improvements of quantum field theory. Either of the two aforementioned derivations can be modified accordingly. Doing so yields a magnetic moment that depends on the electron's state (even among $z$-spin up states). This poses a puzzle for future research: How does the move to quantum field theory take you from a state-dependent magnetic moment to a fixed magnetic moment?

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21179 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The first plot depicts J~M , the current density (39) associated with the original spin magnetic moment term (29) for the example z-spin up wave packet state (38), showing only the xy plane at z = 0. The second plot (generated by numerical integration) shows the first-order self-interaction correction to the spin magnetic moment current density (41), J~ 1, pointing opposite J~M. The correct size for the arrows in th… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** This figure gives a rough illustration of a z-spin up electron’s self-field. The dark cloud is the electron’s charge density. That charge density rotates about the z-axis. The dotted lines show the Coulomb electric field generated by the charge density, pointing towards the electron (a field that decreases to zero at the center of the electron). The solid lines show the magnetic field generated by the flow of charge… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

[1]

(2013) The Standard Model’s Greatest Triumph

Gabrielse, G. (2013) The Standard Model’s Greatest Triumph. Physics Today, 66(12), 64–65

work page 2013
[2]

and Smeenk, C

Koberinski, A. and Smeenk, C. (2020) Q.E.D., QED. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 71, 1–13

work page 2020
[3]

Peskin, M. E. and Schroeder, D. V. (1995) An Introduction to Q uantum Field Theory, Westview Press

work page 1995
[4]

Ryder, L. H. (1996) Quantum Field Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition

work page 1996
[5]

Schwartz, M. D. (2014) Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge University Press

work page 2014
[6]

(1948) On Quantum-Electrodynamics and the Mag netic Moment of the Electron

Schwinger, J. (1948) On Quantum-Electrodynamics and the Mag netic Moment of the Electron. Physical Review, 73, 416–417

work page 1948
[7]

(1949) Quantum Electrodynamics

Schwinger, J. (1949) Quantum Electrodynamics. III. The Elect romagnetic Properties of the Electron—Radiative Corrections to Scattering. Physical Review, 76(6), 790–817

work page 1949
[8]

Luttinger, J. M. (1948) A Note on the Magnetic Moment of the Ele ctron. Physical Review, 74(8), 893–898

work page 1948

Show all 66 references

[9]

Harlander, R. V. and Martinez, J.-P. (2024) The Development of Computational Methods for Feynman Diagrams. The European Physical Journal H, 49, 1–45

2024
[10]

and Lazarovici, D

D¨ urr, D. and Lazarovici, D. (2020) Understanding Quantum Mechanics: The World According to Modern Quantum Foundations, Springer

2020
[11]

Sebens, C. T. (2022) The Fundamentality of Fields. Synthese, 200(5), 380

2022
[12]

(2022) Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Spring er

Tumulka, R. (2022) Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Spring er

2022
[13]

Ohanian, H. C. (1986) What is Spin?. American Journal of Physics, 54(6), 500–505

1986
[14]

Sebens, C. T. (2019) How Electrons Spin. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 68, 40–50

2019
[15]

Sebens, C. T. (2020) Possibility of Small Electron States. Physical Review A, 102, 052225

2020
[16]

Sebens, C. T. (2021) Particles, Fields, and the Measurement o f Electron Spin. Synthese, 198(12), 11943–11975

2021
[17]

(1962) The Present Status of Quantum Electrod ynamics

Feynman, R. (1962) The Present Status of Quantum Electrod ynamics. In Stoops, R., (ed.), The Quantum Theory of Fields, Proceedings of the Twelfth Con ference on Physics at the University of Brussels, October, 1961 , pp. 61–91, Interscience

1962
[18]

MacGregor, M. H. (1989) On the Interpretation of the Electr on Anomalous Magnetic Moment. Foundations of Physics Letters, 2(6), 577–589

1989
[19]

Bjorken, J. D. and Drell, S. D. (1964) Relativistic Quantum Mech anics, McGraw-Hill. 27

1964
[20]

B., Lifshitz, E

Berestetskii, V. B., Lifshitz, E. M., and Pitaevskii, L. P. (1971) R elativistic Quantum Theory, Part 1, Pergamon Press

1971
[21]

(1994) Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Kluwer, 2 nd edition

Shankar, R. (1994) Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Kluwer, 2 nd edition

1994
[22]

(2000) Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, Springer, 3 rd edition

Greiner, W. (2000) Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, Springer, 3 rd edition

2000
[23]

and Napolitano, J

Sakurai, J. and Napolitano, J. (2011) Modern Quantum Mechan ics, Addison-Wesley, 2nd edition

2011
[24]

Dirac, P. A. (1958) The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Oxfor d University Press, 4th edition

1958
[25]

Jackson, J. D. (1999) Classical Electrodynamics, Wiley, 3rd ed ition

1999
[26]

(2012) Modern Electrodynamics, Cambridge Univers ity Press

Zangwill, A. (2012) Modern Electrodynamics, Cambridge Univers ity Press

2012
[27]

Sebens, C. T. (2021) Electron Charge Density: A clue from qua ntum chemistry for quantum foundations. Foundations of Physics, 51, 75

2021
[28]

and Hiley, B

Bohm, D. and Hiley, B. J. (1993) The Undivided Universe: An onto logical interpretation of quantum theory, Routledge

1993
[29]

(1999) Uniqueness of Paths in Quantum Mechanics

Holland, P. (1999) Uniqueness of Paths in Quantum Mechanics. Physical Review A, 60(6), 4326–4330

1999
[30]

and Vrscay, E

Colijn, C. and Vrscay, E. (2002) Spin-Dependent Bohm Trajec tories for Hydrogen Eigenstates. Physics Letters A, 300, 334–340

2002
[31]

(1928) Der strom der Diracschen elektronentheo rie

Gordon, W. (1928) Der strom der Diracschen elektronentheo rie. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik, 50(9), 630–632

1928
[32]

(1934) Wave Mechanics: Advanced General Theor y, Oxford University Press

Frenkel, J. (1934) Wave Mechanics: Advanced General Theor y, Oxford University Press

1934
[33]

Sakurai, J. J. (1967) Advanced Quantum Mechanics, Addison- Wesley

1967
[34]

Darwin, C. G. (1928) On the Magnetic Moment of the Electron. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 120(786), 621–631

1928
[35]

Sebens, C. T. (2023) Eliminating Electron Self-Repulsion. Foundations of Physics, 53(65)

2023
[36]

Griﬃths, D. J. (2013) Introduction to Electrodynamics, Pear son, 4th edition

2013
[37]

(1952) On the Zitterbewegung of the Dirac Electron

Huang, K. (1952) On the Zitterbewegung of the Dirac Electron . American Journal of Physics, 20, 479–484

1952
[38]

Weisskopf, V. F. (1939) On the Self-Energy and the Electroma gnetic Field of the Electron. Physical Review, 56(1), 72–85

1939
[39]

(1956) Self-Energy of Dirac Particles

Huang, K. (1956) Self-Energy of Dirac Particles. Physical Review, 101, 1173–1182

1956
[40]

(1998) Quantum Field Theory: From Operators to Pa th Integrals, Wiley

Huang, K. (1998) Quantum Field Theory: From Operators to Pa th Integrals, Wiley

1998
[41]

(2013) A Critical History of Renormalization

Huang, K. (2013) A Critical History of Renormalization. International Journal of Modern Physics A, 28(29), 1330050

2013
[42]

Schweber, S. S. (1994) QED and the Men Who Made It: Dyson, F eynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga, Princeton University Press. 28

1994
[43]

P., Leighton, R

Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., and Sands, M. (1964) The Feyn man Lectures on Physics, Vol. II, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company

1964
[44]

(2002) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics : Locality, Energy, Fields, and Mass, Blackwell

Lange, M. (2002) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics : Locality, Energy, Fields, and Mass, Blackwell

2002
[45]

Sebens, C. T. (2018) Forces on Fields. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 63, 1–11

2018
[46]

Sebens, C. T. (2022) The Mass of the Gravitational Field. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 73(1), 211–248

2022
[47]

Classically Non-Describable Two -Valuedness

Giulini, D. (2008) Electron Spin or “Classically Non-Describable Two -Valuedness”. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 39(3), 557–578

2008
[48]

(2018) A Classical Approach to the Electron g-F actor

Chalupsky, J. (2018) A Classical Approach to the Electron g-F actor. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.02274,

2018 arXiv
[49]

and Jensen, J

Daboul, J. and Jensen, J. H. D. (1973) Radiation Reaction for a Rotating Sphere with Rigid Surface Charge. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik,265, 455–478

1973
[50]

Grandy, Jr., W. T. and Aghazadeh, A. (1982) Radiative Correc tions for Extended Charged Particles in Classical Electrodynamics. Annals of Physics, 142, 284–298

1982
[51]

Heitler, W. H. (1954) The Quantum Theory of Radiation, Oxford University Press, 3rd edition

1954
[52]

(1992) Quantum Field Theory of Point Particles and S trings, Addison-Wesley, Frontiers in Physics, Volume 75

Hatﬁeld, B. (1992) Quantum Field Theory of Point Particles and S trings, Addison-Wesley, Frontiers in Physics, Volume 75

1992
[53]

(2006) Canonical and Gravitational Stress-Ener gy Tensors

Leclerc, M. (2006) Canonical and Gravitational Stress-Ener gy Tensors. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 15(7), 959–989

2006
[54]

Sebens, C. T. (2022) The Disappearance and Reappearance o f Potential Energy in Classical and Quantum Electrodynamics. Foundations of Physics, 52, 113

2022
[55]

Bjorken, J. D. and Drell, S. D. (1965) Relativistic Quantum Fields , McGraw-Hill

1965
[56]

O., Dowling, J

Barut, A. O., Dowling, J. P., and van Huele, J. F. (1988) Quantum Electrodynamics Based on Self-Fields, without Second Quantization: A Nonrelativistic Calculation of g − 2. Physical Review A, 38(9), 4405–4412

1988
[57]

and Kazes, E

Grotch, H. and Kazes, E. (1977) Nonrelativistic Quantum Mech anics and the Anomalous Part of the Electron g Factor. American Journal of Physics, 45, 618–623

1977
[58]

Barut, A. O. (1988) Quantum-Electrodynamics Based on Self- Energy. Physica Scripta, T21, 18–21

1988
[59]

Barut, A. O. (1989) The Schr¨ odinger and the Dirac Equation - Linear Nonlinear and Integrodiﬀerential. In De Filippo, S., Marinaro, M., Marmo, G., and Vilasi, G., (eds.), Geometrical and Algebraic Aspects of Nonlinear Field Theor y, pp. 37–51, Elsevier. 29

1989
[60]

Barut, A. O. (1991) Foundations of Self-Field Quantum Electro dynamics. In Barut, A. O., (ed.), New Frontiers in Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Optic s, pp. 345–365, Plenum Press

1991
[61]

(2022) Some Classical Models of Particles and Quan tum Gauge Theories

Akhmeteli, A. (2022) Some Classical Models of Particles and Quan tum Gauge Theories. Quantum Reports, 4(4), 486–508

2022
[62]

Barut, A. O. and Dowling, J. P. (1989) QED Based on Self-Fields: A Relativistic Calculation of g − 2. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A, 44(11), 1051–1056

1989
[63]

(1986) Comment on “Quantum Electrodynam ics Based on Self-Energy: Lamb Shift and Spontaneous Emission without Field Qua ntization

Bialynicki-Birula, I. (1986) Comment on “Quantum Electrodynam ics Based on Self-Energy: Lamb Shift and Spontaneous Emission without Field Qua ntization. Physical Review A, 34(4), 3500–3501

1986
[64]

Barut, A. O. (1986) Quantum Electrodynamics Based on Self-E nergy Versus Quantization of Fields: Illustration by a simple model. Physical Review A, 34, 3502–3503

1986
[65]

Grandy, Jr., W. T. (1991) The Explicit Nonlinearity of Quantum Ele ctrodynamics. In Hestenes, D. and Weingartshofer, A., (eds.), The Electron: New theory and experiment, pp. 149–164, Springer

1991
[66]

Grandy, Jr., W. T. (1991) Quantum Theory of Radiation, Spring er. 30

1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

(2013) The Standard Model’s Greatest Triumph

Gabrielse, G. (2013) The Standard Model’s Greatest Triumph. Physics Today, 66(12), 64–65

work page 2013

[2] [2]

and Smeenk, C

Koberinski, A. and Smeenk, C. (2020) Q.E.D., QED. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 71, 1–13

work page 2020

[3] [3]

Peskin, M. E. and Schroeder, D. V. (1995) An Introduction to Q uantum Field Theory, Westview Press

work page 1995

[4] [4]

Ryder, L. H. (1996) Quantum Field Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition

work page 1996

[5] [5]

Schwartz, M. D. (2014) Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model, Cambridge University Press

work page 2014

[6] [6]

(1948) On Quantum-Electrodynamics and the Mag netic Moment of the Electron

Schwinger, J. (1948) On Quantum-Electrodynamics and the Mag netic Moment of the Electron. Physical Review, 73, 416–417

work page 1948

[7] [7]

(1949) Quantum Electrodynamics

Schwinger, J. (1949) Quantum Electrodynamics. III. The Elect romagnetic Properties of the Electron—Radiative Corrections to Scattering. Physical Review, 76(6), 790–817

work page 1949

[8] [8]

Luttinger, J. M. (1948) A Note on the Magnetic Moment of the Ele ctron. Physical Review, 74(8), 893–898

work page 1948