C. Duval / Nuclear Physics B 912 (2016) 450–462 451
term, effectively model-dependent in the considered classical framework, and which was missing
in the above-mentioned model. In his carefully hand-written notes, Stora put forward an inge-
nious Ansatz, presented in Section 4, which proved quite useful to meet the above-mentioned
requirements. We discussed the merits and demerits of this new model which features tw
o,
apriori independent, phenomenological parameters in the definition (4.1) of the presymplec-
tic (Lagrange) two-form σ
RS
. This flexibility finally enabled us to determine these adjustable
parameters, hence the sought after model that would guarantee the BMT equations (in the weak
field limit) with gyromagnetic ratio g, and also provide the standard spin–orbit coefficient, pro-
portional to g − 1, usually deduced from the Dirac–Pauli equation in the quantum mechanical
frame
work. This new construction is patently phenomenological, as is Souriau’s one yielding a
coefficient g, instead of g −1. Now, the obtained fixing (5.21) of the coefficients of our model
should have preferably resulted from another, fully “predictive” model. This difficulty should be
imputed to the fundamental difference between the ph
ysics ruled by quantum mechanics and that
described by (semi-)classical models, even by those with a sound geometric basis. The arduous
quest of this conjectured predictive model has, since then, been placed on standby. After Ray-
mond’s passing, I found it fair and useful to make accessible to our community one of his yet
unanswered queries and to witness his great scientific insights.
2. The BMT equations
Consider a relativistic particle with mass m, spin s, electric charge q, and gyromagnetic ratio
g, under the influence of an external and constant electromagnetic field F in Minkowski space–
time R
3,1
, with metric gof signature −3 +1.
Let P and S denote respecti
vely the linear momentum and spin vectors of our particle at
space–time location X. The celebrated Bargmann–Michel–Telegdi equations governing the clas-
sical motions of the particle with electric charge, q, and gyromagnetic ratio, g, read [1]
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
dX
dτ
= P
dP
dτ
=−qFP
dS
dτ
=−q
g
2
FS +
1 −
g
2
P(
PFS)
P
2
(2.1)
where τ is proportional to proper time.
1
These equations describe the motions of the particle in a weak electromagnetic field. Let us
emphasize that the spin precession featured by the third equation in (2.1) is used by experimental-
ists to measure g − 2 with a very high accuracy; see, e.g., [5] for a survey of the field-theoretical
computations and experimental data concerning the muon gyromagnetic ratio, g
μ
. We recall that
the BMT equations have first been deduced from a semi-classical approximation of the Dirac–
Pauli equation in [8].
1
The bar in the notation P = g(P, · ) denotes g-transposition, and P
2
= PP is used as a shorthand. The two-forms, F ,
are often traded as fields of skewsymmetric endomorphisms of space–time, F =−F , via F(P, S) ≡ PFS. Space–time
is oriented, and time-orientation is also assumed. We will put c =1 throughout the paper.
评论0
最新资源