Talk:Neutron magnetic moment/Archive 1

Comparative test of explanatory power of structure models
Given the (apparent) lack of data concerning the magnetic moment of quarks, the quark structure model of the neutron has not much (higher) explanatory power to the magnetic moment of the neutron compared to Rutherford model.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Will you stop ranting about the 'Rutherford model' already? The Rutherford model was a guess made in the 1920s when no one knew of quarks. Neutrons are made of quarks. This is a fact. They are not made of protons and electrons. This is also a fact. Protons and electrons cannot explain the magnetic moment of neutrons. This is also a fact.
 * The only people advocating this nonsense are Ruggero Santilli, Florentin Smarandache, and a handful of people (most of whom will publish results in Hadronic Journal and Progress in Physics, edited by... none other than Santilli and Smarandace!). If you have additional insights, I suggest getting them published in reliable journals (i.e. something like Physical Review D  or Journal of Physics G). See also WP:FORUM and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Please do not claim that this is an established fact until rigorous models testing according to the scientific method are pointed out.


 * Interesting mentioning of those people that I haven't heard before.


 * It couldn't be claimed that Rutherford model is a guess. The same thing can be said about quarks, their explanatory power is rather weak. Please point to a source which proves beyond doubt that Rutherford model cannot account for magnetic moment of the neutron.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not any advocacy, just an application of the scientific method.--193.231.19.53 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of statement about relative proton–deuteron magnetic moments
In Neutron magnetic moment, there is the statement "While the measured values for these particles were only in rough agreement, in both cases the magnetic moment for the proton was unexpectedly large." This does not seem to fit into the logical flow of the paragraph, but I do not have the references for checking. From the context, I would expect it to read "The magnetic moment of the deuteron was unexpectedly found to be significantly less than that of the proton." Comments? —Quondum 00:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see the logical difficulty, but don't deny that the paragraph might be confusing. The essence is that both groups measured mu for both proton and deuteron.  The values varied widely and caused a bit of confusion.  I assume (assume mind you) that the aim was to combine these two measurements to get at the mu for the neutron.  In 1934 no one knew anything about these magnetic moments, so it was all new.  Since d=p+n, the assumption was that one could subtract the measured magnetic moments for d and p to obtain a measure of mu for the n.  There was agreement that, irrespective of the measured values for mu-p by the two groups, the values for mu-p were much larger than expected - expected value would have been the nuclear magneton, I believe, while mu-p was 3 times larger than that.  And from the mu for d and p, the mu for n had to therefore be nonzero with a substantial value and negative, which was shocking everyone.  The article by Breit and Rabi was useful - it commented on the general situation.  Also the link to the Rabi biography is to the relevant pages via google books.  (The Tamm values were a different animal; Breit and Rabi noted errors in some of the numbers they were using.)  Hopefully that helps - feel free to rewrite to clarify what you find confusing.  Bdushaw (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I attempted a slight rewrite of the paragraph; perhaps it helps, perhaps not... Bdushaw (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I follow te meaning now. I've tweaked it slightly as well. —Quondum 04:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sign of gyromagnetic ratio
I am pretty sure gamma is negative for the neutron. I write this here to note that I am overruling NIST on the matter. Bdushaw (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A nitpick about convention and the the label "antiparallel"
The statement "The negative value for the magnetic moment means that the neutron's spin and magnetic moment are antiparallel" has been bothering me. Spin and magnetic moment are geometrically similar quantities (bivectors or pseudovectors), but whether they are regarded as being parallel or antiparallel is determined by the convention for the sign of electric charge, which as we know, is arbitrary. The correct form of this statement would be something like: "The negative value for the magnetic moment means that it is oriented as for a negatively charged elementary charge of the same spin". I am concerned that the existing statement might create the impression that there is something intrinsically antiparallel for the case of the neutron, beyond an arbitrary convention. —Quondum 19:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The statement has bugged me to for a simpler reason - I am not sure antiparallel is very well defined; does "parallel" have a direction? On reflection the sentence does not seem necessary, so I've just removed it and ce'd a little bit.  Bdushaw (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A term such as "parallel" have multiple interpretations; no harm in avoiding it. My objection, while not being addressed, is circumvented by explicitly referring to the vectors representing the quantities rather than to the physical quantities themselves (as per my subsequent ce). —Quondum 13:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

1934-1964: 30 years of puzzlement?
Over on the Talk:Neutron talk page, someone noted the question of what people thought about why the neutron/proton magnetic moments deviated from their expected values during the 30 years until the quark models were developed. I know only a little about this question; enough to know that it is a tricky application of quantum field theory. The main theoretical approach seems to have been to employ such things as virtual pion fields, say, around the nucleons, much like the theory showing how the "bare" electron mass is different from the "effective" electron mass. So the idea was the "bare" nucleon magnetic moments were as expected for a Dirac particle, but the cloud of virtual particles surrounding the nucleons then caused the anomalous magnetic moments. The famous book Bjorken and Drell Relativistic Q.M. has a discussion, which presumably is a summary of the extensive work those guys did on the question. The book on the History of the Nuclear Force by Laurie Brown also touches on this subject. I'm not so sure this article should delve into such a discussion... (even if I knew enough about how it works to write it). It is obvious the question nagged at people for years. Perhaps just something like ''unconvincing attempts were made to derive expressions for magnetic moments using quantum field theory (?) approaches but the moments remained unexplained and a puzzle until the mid 1960s'' Suggestions? Ignore the question? Bdushaw (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(The issue of "bare" vs. "effective" particle properties seems to come up on occasion - explaining this seems a complicated side track for Wikipedia. Must be explained somewhere.) Bdushaw (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * A discussion of the historical uncertainty about the measurement and origin of the neutron magnetic moment would not seem out of place for me, and makes for interesting reading for any WP reader, so I would not discourage distilling something from suitable sources. History is way outside my area of familiarity, though, so good luck. One observation, though: I'd suggest a phrase such as "unconvincing attempts were made": this sounds like editorializing; one should rather be observing that the attempts failed to convince the scientific community at the time. —Quondum 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a note to record that Anomalous magnetic dipole moment may be a starting point for this discussion. QED had a great success in calculating the deviation of the g-factor for electrons from 2.  The idea I was trying to get at above was that theoreticians then tried a similar formalism using the nuclear force and the particles that mediate that force, the pions.  I don't think it worked so well, however.  Bdushaw (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As always, Pais Inward Bound has a discussion of this on p. 483. He calls this theory "a flop".  Nice reference.  Bdushaw (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I wrote the section as best as I could. As I feared, it got rather lengthy.  I was as brief as I could be, but the issue is just rather complicated (and I grossly over simplified as it is!)  Not committed to the section title, which is perhaps too much poetical flourish for an encyclopedia, but it is what came to mind. Bdushaw (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain what you mean by "poetical flourish for an encyclopedia"? --Urdugo (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Merely that the language "thirty years in the wilderness" might not be appropriate for an encyclopedia, where things are supposed to be staid and objective. If no one objects to the title, then that's ok by me!  Thanks for checking in.  Bdushaw (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, until someone finds a title that succeeds in communicating succinctly what the section is about as effectively, perhaps it should remain. —Quondum 14:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that user Bdushaw has removed a chunk of clarifying info about the magnetic moment of undetectable free quarks. It is about matching models to observational data, not the other way around. This link underlies (Carl Witthoft physicist statement) this procedure.--5.15.54.113 (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is an "undetectable free quark"? And what can we say about its magnetic moment? Also, I see no relevance of this link. —Quondum 16:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even I would like to know what means by "undetectable free quark"? --Urdugo (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is obvious: free quarks can not be detected/observed as standalone particles, something called colour confinement.--5.15.23.241 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A question arises in this context: if free quarks cannot be observed, how is their magnetic moment measured or inferred to express the neutron magnetic moment as a function of the quark moments? Magnetic moment of quarks can only be expressed based on moments of observable particles like proton and neutron, not the other way around.--5.15.23.241 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is (mostly) nonsense - the section on this in the article is well cited to undergraduate textbooks on this subject. The quark/magnetic moment table actually goes on and on, with the magnetic moments of all manner of baryons accounted for.  It is true that the magnetic moment of a "free" quark will never be measured...but so what?  Neither will its electric charge.  I leave it to the article on the quark model to handle that.  This anonymous editor, in the guise of wide ranging IP addresses, has introduced challenges to the quark model all over wikipedia - this is his POV.  Bdushaw (talk) 22:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So what if the quark model is challenged?(It is utterly irrelevant if it is challenged by an anonymous editor or different anonymous editors) I think it is normal for a scientific model to be challenged and not to taken as reality by confusion of the map with the territory. Models have a key role in scientific reasoning. Challenges of models are also part of the logic of science. (It seems that the quark model is the pet model of some editors who for some reasons do not take scientific inference very seriously). The real nonsense is to speak of the properties of unobservable entities and to claim that these entities account for the properties of observable particles. This is the normal flow of observational data from neutron to quarks.--5.15.23.241 (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that WP is a forum for advancing science. Challenges to generally understood concepts whether these are correct or not, do not belong in WP. —Quondum 04:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not introduce distracting factors in this discussion by mentioning supposedly forum aspects in order to have an excuse to avoid conceptual clarifications. I see no reason to proceed differently here on Wikipedia than in a usual science/maths seminary when different models are analyzed and their logical consequences are deployed.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the exact meaning of this phrase challenges to generally understood concepts? It seems rather ambiguous. What is the point of using this expression other than an obfuscating one? What are these general understood concepts and what makes the impression that they are generally understood?--5.15.185.197 (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An equality like this μn = 4/3 μd − 1/3 μu from article is meaningless for determining the magnetic moment of the neutron from the unknown moments of up and down quarks.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The quark model is overrated. Is there other reason for not mentioning in the article that quark magnetic moments are unknown? Not mentioning creates misleading impressions which are to be avoided.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 06:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

NONENG sources
Does the WP:NONENG policy applies here? It seems that some wikieditors are not aware of its existence by removing a source that has valuable info on magnetic moment measurement, but it is seemingly available only in Romanian and Russian editions, I'm not aware of the availability of an English translation.--5.15.30.188 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that there isn't an answer here to this aspect.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The page you give has Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. You did not give a citation, but a "Further reading" entry. Citations support particular facts in an Encyclopedia, hence one might need a non-English citation from time to time.  But a non-English "Further reading" entry...nope.   Bdushaw (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a formalist answer. Instead of correcting a misplaced addition of non-eng sources by adding a section like Bibliography (as one all of further reading sources is already cited in the article) you preferred to revert.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The title of the subsection has been adjusted to comply with the use of non-eng sources, which indeed are not advisable in a Further reading section.--5.15.185.197 (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that some user Jonathan A Jones is making tendentious edits to this article by opposing non-English sources to be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.181.104 (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm just following WP:NONENG which has already been explained to you above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Please give more details because it seems that you are opposing to the citation of source not written in English by labeling it extraneous.--5.15.181.104 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." So you have to explain what this non-English source brings to the article which English sources (whether currently included or not) don't bring. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a more appropriate reaction and response than previously that should have been followed in the first place. Indeed the key word is availability. But it matters to whom. If an an English source (or a related English language edition similar to the non-en book intended to be used) is not available to an editor (temporarily or not), then the editor can use what he has to source additions to articles. Anyhow there may relevant info in the non-en older source than in a more recent English similar book by same author.
 * Going from general aspects about availability to specifics about the non-en Vonsovski book, it has to be said that it is a good/comprehensive review/gathering of info on the topic of magnetic moments of particles.--5.15.185.115 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Two Vonsovski
I think that two Vonsovski books must be compared by someone who has access to both and understands at least one of the two non-en languages, namely Romanian or Russian.--5.15.183.125 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why? You have still given no reason why this source should be used at all. Recall that per WP:NONENG the presumption is against its use unless you can explain why it is better suited to being used here than any English source. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? No reason at all? You must be kidding! Haven't you read above the availability reason? There is no explicit presumption at all given the probability of finding infos that might be contained only in the non-eng V and not in the English Vonsovski and even in any other English source.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, you have given no reason at all why this book has any relevance to this article. Unless and until you do then, per WP:NONENG, it has no place here.  Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] You are becoming (both of you including Bdushaw) unreasonable and tendentious. (It may seem that it has no place here is your whim/whish). A user who wants to add some info to an article but he has only a good non-en source available to him source is better than no user adding valuable info to an info even though he has the best English sources. The probabilistic reason is a very strong one. Until know there haven't been too much users having access to the best imaginable English sources to add details here about the measurement of this quantity. You can't stop a user who wants to add info but it has only a non-en source available by saying his source is not good enough.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * For all the lines of (convoluted) text above, I also see no rationale for keeping the non-English reference. Bdushaw (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop the biased and tendentious reasoning against non-en sources. On the other I'll consider the possibility of getting the English V to compare with non-en V to see what is the symmetric difference between them, although I'm not obliged to get the en V to add info to the article. This would be an absurd situation.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All we are doing is giving a clear an accurate statement on policy on the use of non-English sources on the English Wikipedia as described at WP:NONENG. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is your biased impression.You can't force an editor to get the English Vonsovski in order to add info to the article(s).--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bdushaw, you said something about unacceptable behaviour. Don't use WP:IDONTLIKEIT to the proposed content addition to obstruct the improvement of article by conceptual clarifications. And please do not you use terms like gibberish logic in relation to wikieditors who happen to not agree to your preferences. This is very close to personal attack.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * An example about clear an accurate statement about use of NONENG needs to be mentioned. How do you see the History of Lithuania, if I recall correctly, where (almost) exclusively NONENG sources are used?--5.15.29.207 (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * About the waste of time mentioned by Bdushaw, your unreasonable persistence in dismissing NONENG sources is a pretty adequate example.--5.15.29.207 (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Johnathan, you're basically asking to prove there is completely no, in this case, an English reference. But the thing is, you can't prove a negative. That is why I am quite confident the phrase "English sources of equal quality and relevance <...> available" refers to sources available to a particular person, or, to be exact, at least one of people willing to improve the article. An English-language source would be better, yes. If you happen to have access to one, please add it. If not, remember that while a source in English is better than a source in another language for our purposes, a source in a foreign language is better than no source at all (this statement, again, requires applying some common sense).--R8R (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is all beside the point - the policy quoted above twice already is that foreign sources can be used to support particular facts from the article. That is not what happened here - the reference in question supports no fact in the article.  The editor attempted to mindlessly paste in a foreign reference in the "Further Reading" section, a reference that was associated with no fact, a reference unintelligible to most readers of this English encyclopedia.  If there were a fact the reference supported, there would have to be a reasonable case that no English source could be used instead (there is a very low bar there).  The article on the Neutron has several such references.  You guys are playing mind and word games; this behavior is insidious. Bdushaw (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite. There's no problem with a non-English source being used to support a particular statement in the text, though it should be replaced by an English source where possible.  But here there is no statement being supported: just an insistence that a random text book be mentioned. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I comment here as an uninvolved editor: Has it occured to some here that the disputed source will probably or certainly be used in the near future to support a fact after a more detailed reading of the source? I think we should see things in perspective, not just for a day or two.--193.231.20.25 (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Should the book be used to support an edit then its value can be discussed; until then the correct decision is to leave out. But beyond that you might wish to consider the nature of the book, which is clear from this edit : it's a 1956 Romanian translation of a 1952 Russian textbook by an author who later wrote a 1975 English textbook on a similar (and more tightly relevant) subject which we already include.  The argument for including it is, therefore, underwhelming to say the least. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) I really do not see how this remark can be construed as useful. It is pointless introducing a source on the off-chance that it might be useful. If a statement needs referencing, that is the point at which a substantiating reference should be introduced. —Quondum 13:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing games here :) I actually missed that, I was tricked by how the conversation was flowing. In that case, I agree with you. While it is not an obvious choice, I am leaning toward not using foreign-language Further reading (or whatever) books in articles. So few English speakers speak Romanian or even Russian (sadly), it couldn't be a good thing to trick them into reading a book they could not read, since books, like the one in question as you describe it, are not essential for this article, unlike references.--R8R (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk page temporarily protected
I have protected this Talk page from IP editing temporarily in response to the request here complaining of disruptive editing by several geographically co-located IPs. Whether it's one person or several, I can't tell exactly, but the result is the same. If problems continue after protection expires you can ping me directly on my Talk page or at WP:RFPP. 17:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Quark masses
I think the reference is ok, its an AAAS site. There is another link from that article to an article on computing the proton masses. This reference is not a primary source, of course - a science reporter is reporting on the content of a technical article. That said, a better reference could perhaps be found, though these results are fairly recent. I think I was assuming KE was part and parcel with "gluons and virtual quarks", though we could explicitly state "and their KE". Without a better reference...its O.R., however! The cited article makes no mention of KE, though that means nothing. It looks to me like they were solving for the quark masses by adjusting them until the calculation gave physical properties matching other, better defined, quantities. I will poke around for a better reference, but I am likely to be distracted this weekend by more pressing things. Bdushaw (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the Wilczek reference. Bdushaw (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I added the reference and fudged the text to include energy, per the Wilczek citation (he makes no mention of KE in that article, but energy in general). Opening this issue is a HUGE can of worms.  Bdushaw (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is a can of worms. Nucleon has brief and not well referenced description of the various models used to estimate nucleon mass. The lattice QCD calculation is perhaps the most fundamental approach. This paper, although primary, gives a nice breakdown of mass according to quark mass, quark KE, gluon energy and trace anomaly energy. The mass calculation isn't critical for the magnetic moment, so keeping this a brief description is best. Folks have used lattice QCD to calculate the neutron magnetic moment; here is a recent phys.org article on the calculation. This might be considered from first principles. And here is a Phys Lett B article from 1982. Not so new :-)  --Mark viking (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wilczec gets more explicit about this in his Lightness of Being. But yes, we could trim down on shaky detail not needed in the article rather than getting into too much explicit detail and potentially opening a can of worms. —Quondum 21:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

"Good Article" Developments
While not yet claiming a final completion of the GA tasks, I believe that the developments required to bring the article up to GA status are complete, as a first draft, say. We should likely now include citations in the lede, however, yes?. I contemplated adding the simple image of the quark structure of the neutron to the section on the quark model. I think we can remove the OR banner from the meson physics section, yes? I still need to double check some things before claiming we are done. This has been a useful exercise for me; and the article is better off for it! Bdushaw (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice work on all the improvements in the article! I removed the OR banner, the section looks solidly referenced to me. While I am not a great judge of GA status, I don't see any glaring faults with the content. Maybe a ref needed for the antineutron assertion? Generally a lede is supposed to be summary of the article, so doesn't need many references, but if there are any facts there not referenced in the body, then citations for those would be useful. --Mark viking (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A reference for the antineutron is somewhat elusive; I've looked for one before - I don't think it has been measured. The new encyclopedia reference at least states what the article states. Bdushaw (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The antineutron magnetic moment seems to be mostly referenced in the context of neutron-antineutron oscillations...a topic I think I will not delve into... Bdushaw (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The encyclopedia ref for this looks fine to me. Yes, I don't think the antineutron magnetic moment has been measured directly. --Mark viking (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutron g-factor
The g-factor of a particle must be defined in terms of its own magnetic moment, mass, spin and charge; if this is not done, we get a pointless figure – in particular, the anomalous magnetic moment is no longer reflected in the difference from 2. Is it fair to say "The conventional formula is $$ \boldsymbol{\mu} = \frac{g \mu_\mathrm{N}}{\hbar}\boldsymbol{I}$$"? Surely the conventional formula is to use all the own particle's properties, but in the case of a zero-charge particle such as the neutron, some charge must be nominated (e.g. the elementary charge) to produce a pseudo "g-factor"? That is to say, the statement should presumably treat the neutron's g-factor as a special case, rather than suggesting that a standard formula applies to nucleons as is currently given?

The neutron has zero net charge, and we substitute the elementary charge to produce a pseudo-"g-factor". To use the proton's mass instead of the neutron's mass seems inappropriate though. Are the sources unanimous in using the proton's mass in defining the neutron's "g-factor"? —Quondum 21:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the elementary charge (+e) is used in the case of the electron, muon, proton and neutron. With the convention of using the elementary charge instead of the particle's own charge, the neutron does not require special treatment. This makes the question of why the proton's mass is used in the case of the neutron even more appropriate. —Quondum 21:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am somewhat at a loss to properly answer this question. I surmise that the g-factor is defined in terms of a fictive, ideal spin 1/2, charge +1 Dirac particle, with the mass of a proton, hence the mu_N.  If the neutron were defined in terms of its own properties, then the g-factor would be ill-defined...(how to get a finite g-factor from zero).  The answer may require the precise definition for the g-factor; to redress the question may require revising the article to better state the definition of the g-factor. (The g-factor for the proton is similarly not +2.)  Bdushaw (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, the g-factor divided by 2 gives the correct magnetic moment. The g-factor must be defined in reference to this ideal Dirac particle, which has g-factor +2.
 * Alternatively, the g-factor is defined with reference to the standard unit of the nuclear magneton. This unit happens to use the mass of the proton.  I surmise that magnetic moments of other baryons, and their associated g-factors, are similarly defined relative to the nuclear magneton.  Bdushaw (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In the case of the neutron, it is inappropriate to call it a g-factor then, considering the way it is calculated. I'd prefer to simply not mention it as a g-factor in the article, only the neutron magnetic moment, and the magnetic moment to nuclear magneton ratio. —Quondum 04:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I disagree...the citation goes to the formal value for the neutron's g factor. It is a physical constant for the neutron.  It is my understanding that the purpose of this factor, with its definition, is to be able to compare the relative magnitudes of the various baryon magnetic moments.  That is why the spin is taken out, since one can't compare a spin 1/2 particle to a spin 3/2 particle.  The neutron is strange, lacking a charge, but it has a g-factor nonetheless.  (It seems likely, however, that the heavy baryons have a g-factor that is influenced by their mass.)  I speak as no expert, of course - just from what I know, and what makes sense.  Bdushaw (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hard to find a reference for this, though I found this proposal. I often see mu=g*I mentioned, but that isn't quite right since g is dimensionless.  I think g is dimensionless, but linked to the use of the nuclear magneton as the unit for magnetic moment, in the case of baryons.  Bdushaw (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert, but I can identify sloppy use/abuse of concepts. The paper you link juxtaposes the statements "m is often taken to be the proton mass" and "charged point-like spin-1.2 fermions should have g = 2". These two statements are not compatible, unless you strongly qualify it with "roughly speaking".  Only when you use the particle's own mass does the second quoted statement make sense.  The matter of the sign is also omitted in the statement (for an electron we have g ≈ −2).  We are clearly dealing with a sloppy switching between two independent definitions of g, without this being pointed out.  In most cases, what is of interest is simply expressing the magnetic moment in terms of the unit of a nuclear magneton the g, with an adjustment for spin.  In a paper such as this, it hardly matters what they call it; they are not really interested in the exact anomalous magnetic moment (which requires a precise definition of g related to the particle's own mass) as one would be for the leptons. I think it is our job as editors to understand exactly what concept is meant, so that the reader does not end up in the same morass of confusion (we must not confuse incompatible definitions). We should point out that different definitions exist, and that in this article we are using the sloppy version that only serves as a rough guideline (the version that is incompatible with the "ideal" that g = 2).  The alternative is, as I suggested, to sidestep the issue by using only the precise term: the nuclear magnetic moment to nuclear magneton ratio. —Quondum 14:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been looking through the CODATA values for the various g-factors. It is clear that there are two distinct definitions being used, and I find it unfortunate that they use the same term. When the term is applied to a charged lepton, the particle's own mass and the elementary charge (+e) are used. When it is applied to any baryon or atomic nucleus, then it is simply defined as the moment-to-nuclear magneton ratio divided by the particle's spin quantum number. The use of the latter to define an anomalous magnetic moment is a really imprecise concept, but for the lepton definition is an exact concept. —Quondum 15:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree it is confusing, with authors seemingly varying the definition according to their convenience. The distinction seems to be whether they are talking about an elementary particle, or Dirac particle, which demands the strict definition, or whether they are talking about a baryon or nuclei which requires, pretty much, the description in "natural nuclear magnetons".  The origins of the confusion are likely historical - recall the Briet-Rabi paper from 1934 which speaks almost entirely of "g values" (in natural nuclear magnetons is unstated).  Aside from that link to the proposal, I've not been able to find a good reference that defines "g-factor" for baryons, although there are lots of references that use those values, with its unspoken definition.  Some PDF/PPT presentations turn up with the definition.  Bdushaw (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added something to disambiguate which definition is in use here, which should be sufficient (though my word order needs work). My rant really belongs at g-factor (physics), not here. —Quondum 17:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A bit of cross editting there - feel free to revert or adjust text as seems appropriate. I'll keep poking around for a suitable reference. Bdushaw (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A bit of redundant wording has crept in. It definitely could do with polish.  I expect that we can give the merest hint that the g-factor applicable to nucleons and nuclei is in use here, and leave it to the g-factor article to explain the rest (obviously, still to be updated).  But I'll hold off a bit. —Quondum 17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The new reference seems to describe the situation clearly. Note that there are spin g-factors and orbital g-factors...  Bdushaw (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The wording is pretty good now. I can't see the whole reference, but at least I see the definition of the spin g-factor for Dirac particles ($$\mu=g\cdot{e\over 2M}\cdot{\hbar\over 2}$$) and for the proton and the neutron.  Does it give a general definition for baryonic matter?  I cannot see the second page range that is listed. —Quondum 19:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One can fortuitously or unfortunately, depending on your POV, search and find a PDF of the ref...The second page range discusses magnetic moments in general in terms of spin and orbital angular momentum - magnetic moments of the shell model with formulations for g_nucleus as a combination of spin and orbits. Eqn 17.32 of that ref relates mu_nucleus to g_nucleus, nuclear magneton, and spin, which is exactly what this article states. Bdushaw (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, got it. On the last edit, "nuclides, such as the neutron or proton" does not make sense. Nuclides would usually be interpreted as a species of atom (not necessarily ionized), thus not normally including free baryons, and especially not exotic baryons.  In this context, the state of ionization is also critical in the resultant g-factor.  This phrase definitely needs revision. —Quondum 21:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we are ok - nuclide does not refer to an atom, but a "species of nucleus", without regard to the surrounding electrons. I was trying to leave out any mention of baryons - to say or imply nothing on the matter, as straying from relevance to the article (mainly because I could not find a suitable reference for baryon g-factors).  One speaks, I believe, of the magnetic moment of the nitrogen nuclide, which refers to the moment of the nucleus, irrespective of any surrounding electrons (for which the magnetic moment contribution would be relatively huge, I suspect.)  Protons and neutrons are included in the table of nuclides, etc.  That was my prespective, anyways.  Bdushaw (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the lead of the Nuclide article suggests that yours was the original intention (and I guess that it may have remained with this meaning in nuclear physics), but that the meaning has since changed to mean a type of atom, presumably primarily in the arena of chemistry. In any event, the reader referencing that article might be confused, as I was.  And notwithstanding your observation that the magnetic moment of (unpaired!) electrons would dwarf the magnetic moment of the nucleus, it may be worth ruling out the ambiguity at the start.  Perhaps use the phrase "bare nuclide"?  And yes, I'll buy the idea that protons and neutrons are "bare nuclides".  There are references that extend that definition of the g factor to other baryons, but in this context it is not necessary to extend it.  In fact, in this context, should we mention nuclides at all?  All we need is "The convention defining the g-factor for the neutron and proton  a nucleon is ..." (also amply sourced).  There is a second mention of nuclides just a few lines down that would also need replacement.  The question about the convention as applied to more general species (nuclides generally and even baryons) can be left to the article g-factor (physics), with no loss of clarity here.  I apologize for yanking you around in terms of direction; my reaction to inconsistencies tends to be very strong, along the lines of "what sane physicist or mathematician would use such inconsistent and guaranteed-to-confuse terminology?", but I have learned that many (WP) physicists don't bat an eyelash and even seem to get upset at someone suggesting that their ingrained traditional approach might not be consistent or sensible, and mathematicians are frequently annoyingly blind to distinctions between different but related meanings of the same terminology. Mathematicians on WP even refuse edits that disambiguate confusions, along the lines of "Of course by 'a Euclidean space' we mean 'an affine real space' in this context; people will know that we are not intending a space with an associated Euclidean metric." Sorry, just ranting. —Quondum 23:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)