Angular momentum of the electron: One-loop studies

Bogdan Damski

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Angular momentum of the electron: One-loop studies

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One-loop QED in a general covariant gauge corrects the electron's intrinsic spin by the factor $1-\alpha/(2\pi)$, while the total angular momentum remains exactly $s_z\delta^{i3}$.

desk verdict A careful one-loop decomposition of electron angular momentum in covariant gauge; the spin result matches known light-front numbers, and the real novelty is the imaginary-time machinery and the ghost-subtraction Pauli-Villars scheme. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06054 v3 pith:FXHNEIKZ submitted 2019-08-16 hep-ph hep-thquant-ph

Bogdan Damski This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-thquant-ph PACS 12.20.-m

keywords angularmomentumdecompositionelectronspinone-loopradiativecorrectionsquantumelectrodynamicsimaginarytimeevolutioncovariantgaugePauli-VillarsregularizationSochocki-Plemeljformula

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

Using bare perturbation theory together with imaginary-time evolution, the paper computes one-loop radiative corrections to all five components of the electron's canonical angular momentum in quantum electrodynamics in the general covariant gauge (a family of photon gauges labelled by a parameter $\xi$). Its central result is that the fermionic spin component is corrected to $s_z\delta^{i3}(1-\alpha/(2\pi))+O(\alpha^2)$, while the electromagnetic and gauge-fixing components together supply the compensating $+\alpha/(2\pi)$, so the total angular momentum of the one-electron ground state stays at the tree-level value $s_z\delta^{i3}$. The calculation matters because it shows where the radiative correction to the electron's spin actually resides and because it demonstrates that the textbook delta-function shortcut for the imaginary-time limit gives the wrong fermionic spin answer. It also develops a Pauli-Villars regularization based on subtracting ghost-operator counterparts, which regularizes every component and makes the total independent of the gauge parameter $\xi$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the canonical decomposition of the total angular momentum operator into five pieces: fermionic spin, fermionic orbital, electromagnetic spin, electromagnetic orbital, and a gauge-fixing term (Eq. (12)). The technical engine is the Sochocki-Plemelj formula, $${1\over x-x_0\pm i0}=\mp i\pi\delta(x-x_0)+\mathrm{P}{1\over x-x_0},$$ used to enforce the imaginary-time limit $T\to\infty(1-i0)$ on integrals containing products of $\sin(TP^0)/P^0$ factors. The paper separates the integrals it meets into three types and proves the limit formulas (C8), (C15), and (C21); the load-bearing feature is that overlapping time integrals leave residual pole terms that the naive delta-function replacement misses. Ultraviolet regularization is imposed by subtracting, from each angular momentum operator, the corresponding operator built from Pauli-Villars ghost fields, which reduces to the simple substitution $\langle J_\chi\rangle^{\lambda\Lambda}=\langle J_\chi\rangle^\lambda-\langle J_\chi\rangle^\Lambda$ for every component.

What would settle it

Recompute the one-loop fermionic spin expectation value without relying on the Sochocki-Plemelj step, for instance by keeping $T$ finite, evaluating the time integrals numerically, and extrapolating $T\to\infty$; if the limit differs from $s_z\delta^{i3}(1-\alpha/(2\pi))$ by a nonzero order-$\alpha$ term, the contour prescription is wrong. A sharper check is the sum of Diagrams 2b, 2c, and 3a: the paper predicts that the delta-function shortcut misses the residual term (40b), so evaluating that term and finding it to be zero would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that, within one-loop bare perturbation theory, the expectation value of the fermionic spin angular momentum operator in the one-electron ground state is $$\langle J^i_{\mathrm{spin}\bullet}\rangle_{\Omega_s}=s_z\$delta^{{i3}}$\left(1-\frac{\$\alpha$}{2\pi}\right)+O(\$alpha^{2}$),$$ Eq. (106), while the sum of the remaining four canonical angular-momentum components equals $s_z\delta^{i3}\,\alpha/(2\pi)+O(\alpha^2)$, Eq. (119). The total is therefore exactly the value one would have before any radiative corrections, $s_z\delta^{i3}$. The paper claims that this cancellation is obtained only if the imaginary-time limit $T\to\infty(1-i0)$ is enforced through the Sochocki-Plemelj contour integrals of Appendix C; replacing the limit by the standard delta-function identity drops a residual pole term, Eq. (40b), and changes the fermionic spin result.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the contour evaluations in Appendix C are correct: in the limit $T\to\infty(1-i0)$ the exponential phases vanish uniformly, and the $i0$ pole shifts in Eqs. (C8), (C15), and (C21) are exactly as written; if any of those sign or contour choices is wrong, Diagrams 2b, 2c, and 3a change and the spin result in Eq. (106) does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The fermionic spin angular momentum of the electron at one loop is $\langle J^i_{\mathrm{spin}\bullet}\rangle_{\Omega_s}=s_z\delta^{i3}(1-\alpha/(2\pi))+O(\alpha^2)$, and because this piece is gauge invariant it provides a direct point of comparison with light-front gauge calculations; the paper's value agrees with those earlier results.
The total angular momentum of the one-electron state remains $s_z\delta^{i3}$ after radiative corrections, so the gauge-fixing term, although a quantization artifact, is required for the electron to keep its spin one-half in covariant-gauge QED, including the $\xi\to\infty$ limit.
In bare perturbation theory, expectation values of self-energy-type diagrams cannot be computed by replacing the imaginary-time limit with delta functions; the contour procedure of Appendix C, or an equivalent regulator, is necessary for a correct one-loop result.
The ghost-subtraction Pauli-Villars scheme regularizes all five angular-momentum components and produces a total that is independent of the covariant-gauge parameter $\xi$, offering a consistency test for Pauli-Villars-like regularizations in other calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

The failure of the delta-function shortcut is tied to overlapping time integrals that generate products of $\sin(TP^0)/P^0$; the same Sochocki-Plemelj treatment is likely needed for expectation values of other conserved charges in bare perturbation theory, for example components of the energy-momentum tensor, wherever self-energy-type diagrams contribute.
Because the paper locates $\alpha/(2\pi)$ of the electron's spin in the gauge-fixing and electromagnetic pieces, any gauge-invariant decomposition of angular momentum must move that same $\alpha/(2\pi)$ among its physical pieces while keeping the total fixed at $s_z\delta^{i3}$; checking that bookkeeping in other decompositions would be a direct cross-test of the result.
The ghost-subtraction rule is defined for arbitrary covariant gauges, so it could be applied to observables with worse ultraviolet behaviour, such as energy-momentum tensor components; if gauge independence again selects a unique regularization, that would support the scheme's generality.
A two-loop extension would test the formalism: if the residual pole terms of Appendix C survive at order $\alpha^2$ and the fermionic spin correction remains gauge independent, the method is confirmed rather than accidental.

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 one if you care about angular momentum decompositions in QED or about imaginary-time limits done properly. The paper is solid, but its weight is technical rather than conceptual. The headline number for fermionic spin, -α/2π, is not new; it agrees with Liu-Ma and Ji et al. in light-front gauge. What is new: a general-covariant-gauge computation of all five components, a careful treatment of the T→∞(1-i0) limit using Sochocki-Plemelj instead of the textbook δ-function shortcut, and a ghost-subtraction Pauli-Villars scheme that regularizes the gauge-noninvariant pieces. The author is honest that only the spin component is gauge-invariant and finite; the other four depend on gauge and on the subtraction scheme, which he says plainly.

I checked the stress-test concern about the Type II contour step. It does not bite: the residue at q0=k0+p0+i0 is not silently dropped; it generates the e^{iT}-e^{2iT} term in (C13), and the subsequent shifted poles sit outside the chosen half-planes. The presentation is compressed, though; several steps say “rearranging terms” or “straightforward” where a referee would want one line of residue bookkeeping. If I had to name a soft spot, it is that the whole imaginary-time construction—especially (C15) and (C21)—is load-bearing and should be independently verified. An error in a sign would change Diags. 2b, 2c, and 3a. I do not see an actual error, but this is the place to spend referee time.

The four non-invariant components are infinite after the regularization is removed, so they only make sense as scheme-dependent intermediate quantities; the total angular momentum check (119) is the real physics anchor. The ghost-subtraction trick in Sec. V is neat and probably the most useful transferable piece. The requirement that total J be ξ-independent is a sensible selection principle, and it is stronger than what the ad hoc propagator replacements pass. The citation pattern is fine: the earlier light-front results are credited, and the author’s own previous paper is used for a genuinely related electromagnetic angular momentum result.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. The central spin correction is probably right, the total J check supports it, and the imaginary-time formalism is worth scrutinizing on its own. I would bring it to a reading group and would cite it if I worked on electron spin decompositions.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes one-loop radiative corrections to the five canonical angular-momentum components of a single-electron state in general covariant-gauge QED, using bare perturbation theory combined with imaginary-time evolution. The central results are the fermionic spin expectation value ⟨J^i_spin•⟩_{Ω_s}=s_z δ^{i3}(1−α/(2π))+O(α^2), Eq. (106), and the total-angular-momentum consistency check ⟨J^i_orb•+J^i_spin∼+J^i_orb∼+J^i_ξ⟩=s_z δ^{i3} e_o^2/(8π^2), Eq. (119), which together reproduce the tree-level total spin (29). The paper also develops a Pauli–Villars variant based on subtracting ghost angular-momentum operators, Eq. (98), and argues that the usual textbook delta-function shortcut for the imaginary-time limit fails for self-energy-type diagrams, requiring the Sochocki–Plemelj treatment in Appendix C.

Significance. If the technical steps check out, this is a valuable cross-check of the light-front spin-decomposition literature: the final gauge-invariant spin result (106) agrees with Refs. [12,13], obtained in a different gauge and formalism, and it is not forced by parameter fitting. The total-angular-momentum sum rule (119) is a nontrivial derived consistency condition. The paper also brings a genuinely covariant-gauge perspective to the gauge-non-invariant components and proposes a systematic Pauli–Villars ghost-subtraction scheme. The main weakness is that several load-bearing contour evaluations in Appendix C are asserted rather than demonstrated; until those are supplied, the derivation of (106) is not fully verifiable.

major comments (3)

[Appendix C, Eqs. (C12)–(C15)] The Type II integral is the load-bearing input for Diags. 2b and 2c and hence for the central result (106), but the transition from (C12) to (C13) is not shown. In the second q0 integral of (C12), the pole at q0 = k0+p0+i0 lies in the upper half-plane, and the text says only that after 'joining integrals, rearranging terms' the exponentials vanish. A non-vanishing residue would produce a δ(k0+p0−m0) term in Diag. 2b, change Eq. (53), and invalidate the cancellation with Diag. 3a that leads to (105)–(106). Please give the explicit residue evaluation and the large-T suppression argument for this pole, or an alternative rigorous proof that (C15) follows from (C12).
[Appendix C, Eqs. (C19)–(C21)] The Type III evaluation suffers from the same unstated pole-suppression step, and it is used for Diag. 2a, Diag. 4a, and all electromagnetic and gauge-fixing angular momenta. The sentence after (C20) asserts that poles of factors of the form (C20) 'do not contribute' and that only poles of G contribute, but no contour diagram or decay estimate is given. Because the i0 signs in (C19d)–(C19g) determine which half-planes are used, this is precisely where a sign error would propagate into (49), (63), (76), (87), and (89). Please spell out the contour closings and the exponential suppression for each of the six terms (C19b)–(C19g).
[Sec. V and Appendix D, Eq. (98)] The ghost-subtraction formula (98) is central to the claim that all five angular-momentum components are consistently regularized, but its derivation in Appendix D is compressed. Equations (D3)–(D7) and (D10)–(D14) list Wick contractions, and (D16) is then stated without showing the cancellations of ghost-operator expectation values in detail. This matters because the standard Pauli–Villars replacement (91) fails for J_spin∼, J_orb∼, and J_ξ, so the new scheme must be verified explicitly. Please expand the derivation of (D16), especially for the electromagnetic ghost operators (D13)–(D14).

minor comments (4)

[Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'component s of angular momentum' should be 'components of angular momentum'.
[Secs. IV and VI] The phrase 'straightforward modifications' is used for substantial algebra (e.g., after Eq. (75) in Sec. IV B and after Eq. (85) in Sec. IV C); given the paper's emphasis on reproducibility, including at least one representative intermediate step for those cases would help the reader verify the quoted results.
[Sec. VI A, Eq. (104)] The identification of Eq. (104) with s_z δ^{i3}(Z2−1) is asserted and only numerically checked for general ξ; a direct derivation or a precise reference for the general-gauge Z2 expression would strengthen this useful cross-check.
[Sec. II, Eq. (29)] The statement that ⟨J^i⟩ is the same in |0_s⟩ and |Ω_s⟩ because the total angular momentum commutes with the Hamiltonian should be qualified slightly, since one also needs the state |Ω_s⟩ to be the one-electron ground state connected to |0_s⟩ by the adiabatic evolution; a clarifying sentence would avoid possible confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central fermionic-spin result is obtained from explicit diagrammatic integrals with no fitted parameters; the sole self-citation is for a supporting matrix element, not for the load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, the one-loop fermionic spin result ⟨J^i_spin•⟩_{Ω_s}=s_z δ^{i3}(1−α/2π), is derived in the text by summing the explicitly written Wick-contraction diagrams Diags. 1, 2a–2c, and 3a. Each diagram is evaluated from the displayed propagators and bispinor identities, and no parameter is fitted to produce the final coefficient. The imaginary-time-limit technique of Appendix C is a mathematical method developed inside the paper, and although some contour steps are terse or in need of independent checking, the method is not imported as a pre-formed answer. The final spin result is also compared with the independent light-front calculations of Refs. [12,13], which gives external support rather than circularity. The total-angular-momentum result, Eq. (119), is used as a self-consistency check: Eq. (29) follows from the commutation of the total angular momentum operator with the Hamiltonian and is an exact symmetry, not an ansatz inserted into the loop calculation. The Pauli-Villars variant is motivated by requiring gauge independence of the total, but the individual components are still computed from the regularized integrals and summed; no component value is tuned to obtain the final spin or total. There is one self-citation, Ref. [14] by the same author, used for the fermionic matrix element F^{μν} in Eqs. (71)–(74) and for the comparison result (120). That is a supporting matrix element, not the central derivation, and the fermionic-spin calculation does not depend on it. Thus the paper contains no step in which a prediction reduces to its input by construction, and its circularity burden is limited to a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The computation introduces no fitted parameters and no new physical particles. The main additions are a careful enforcement of the imaginary-time limit and a ghost-subtraction Pauli-Villars scheme tailored to the observables; both are assumed rather than derived from first principles, and the gauge-noninvariant final values depend on them.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The QED Lagrangian (9) with photon mass term and gauge-fixing term defines the theory.
Standard covariant-gauge QED with an IR regulator; all propagators (24)-(25) derive from it. The paper adopts this Lagrangian, and the entire calculation depends on its form.
domain assumption The canonical angular momentum tensor (11) and its decomposition (12) yield the correct spin, orbital, and gauge-fixing angular momentum operators.
Adopted from Greiner-Reinhardt [9]; this produces the Jaffe-Manohar decomposition plus the gauge-fixing term. The physical interpretation of individual components relies on this choice.
standard math The imaginary-time evolution formula (22) with the limit T→∞(1−i0) produces the correct interacting ground-state expectation value.
Standard Gell-Mann-Low type formula; the paper emphasizes that the limit must be imposed carefully rather than by the naive delta-function shortcut.
ad hoc to paper The contour integral evaluations in Appendix C, Eqs. (C8), (C15), (C21), correctly handle the Type I-III integrals, including the subtle non-delta terms.
This is the paper's new technical machinery. The claim that naive enforcement of the imaginary-time limit fails depends on these contour calculations being correct.
ad hoc to paper The Pauli-Villars ghost subtraction (98) yields the correct regularized expectation value for every angular momentum component.
The paper extends PV from Lagrangian modification to observable subtraction; for gauge-noninvariant operators it is not equivalent to standard PV (Sec. V). The gauge-dependent results depend on this construction.
standard math Total angular momentum is conserved and ⟨J^i⟩_{Ω_s} = s_z δ^{i3} (29).
Follows from Poincare symmetry and the definition of the one-electron state; used as the final self-consistency check of the perturbative calculation.

invented entities (2)

Ghost Dirac field ψ̃ and ghost photon field Ã with mass Λ
purpose: Provide Pauli-Villars UV regularization via the modified Lagrangian (92).
Standard PV device, unphysical and decoupling in the Λ→∞ limit; no observable consequences outside the regularization scheme.
Ghost angular momentum operators J̃^i_χ for each component
purpose: Define the regularized operators J^i_χ − J̃^i_χ, leading to subtraction formula (98).
Novel construction in this paper; the ghost expectation values are sz-independent and do not affect physical results, but the regularization of gauge-noninvariant observables depends on them.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Angular momentum of the electron: One-loop studies." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FXHNEIKZ

@misc{pith2026190806054,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Angular momentum of the electron: One-loop studies},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FXHNEIKZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06054}
}

read the original abstract

We combine bare perturbation theory with the imaginary time evolution technique to study one-loop radiative corrections to various components of angular momentum of the electron. Our investigations are based on the canonical decomposition of angular momentum, where spin and orbital components, associated with fermionic and electromagnetic degrees of freedom, are individually approached. We use for this purpose quantum electrodynamics in the general covariant gauge and develop a formalism, based on the repeated use of the Sochocki-Plemelj formula, for proper enforcement of the imaginary time limit. It is then shown that careful implementation of imaginary time evolutions is crucial for getting a correct result for total angular momentum of the electron in the bare perturbative expansion. We also analyze applicability of the Pauli-Villars regularization to our problem, developing a variant of this technique based on modifications of studied observables by subtraction of their ghost operator counterparts. It is then shown that such an approach leads to the consistent regularization of all angular momenta that we compute.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06054 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The (a)–(f) panels illustrate photon-propagator co [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The (a) and (b) panels illustrate photon-propagator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The (a)–(d) panels illustrate photon-propagator co [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Electromagnetic angular momentum of the electron: One-loop studies
hep-ph 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

The electron's field angular momentum is finite at one-loop order in QED, but the computed value depends on the regularization scheme: -s_z α/(3π) with a 3D cutoff versus -s_z α/(2π) with Pauli-Villars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

J. J. Thomson, Cathode rays, Philos. Mag. 44, 293 (1897)

work page
[2]

G. E. Uhlenbeck and S. Goudsmit, Spinning electrons and t he structure of spectra, Nature 117, 264 (1926)

work page 1926
[3]

Preston, Radiation phenomena in a strong magnetic ﬁel d, The Scientiﬁc Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society 6, 385 (1898)

T. Preston, Radiation phenomena in a strong magnetic ﬁel d, The Scientiﬁc Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society 6, 385 (1898)

work page
[4]

P. A. M. Dirac, The quantum theory of the electron, Proc. R . Soc. A 117, 610 (1928)

work page 1928
[5]

Schwinger, On quantum-electrodynamics and the magne tic moment of the electron, Phys

J. Schwinger, On quantum-electrodynamics and the magne tic moment of the electron, Phys. Rev. 73, 416 (1948)

work page 1948
[6]

J. E. Nafe and E. B. Nelson, The hyperﬁne structure of hydr ogen and deuterium, Phys. Rev. 73, 718 (1948)

work page 1948
[7]

H. M. Foley and P. Kusch, On the intrinsic moment of the ele ctron, Phys. Rev. 73, 412 (1948)

work page 1948
[8]

E. D. Commins, Electron spin and its history, Annu. Rev. N ucl. Part. Sci. 62, 133 (2012)

work page 2012

Show all 29 references

[9]

Greiner and J

R. Greiner and J. Reinhardt, Field Quantization (Springer-Verlag, 1996)

1996
[10]

Leader and C

E. Leader and C. Lorcé, The angular momentum controvers y: What’s it all about and does it matter? Phys. Rep. 541, 163 (2014) [Erratum ibid 802, 23 (2019)]

2014
[11]

Burkardt and H

M. Burkardt and H. BC, Angular momentum decomposition f or an electron, Phys. Rev. D 79, 071501(R) (2009). 32

2009
[12]

Liu and B.-Q

T. Liu and B.-Q. Ma, Angular momentum decomposition fro m a QED example, Phys. Rev. D 91, 017501 (2015)

2015
[13]

X. Ji, A. Schäfer, F. Yuan, J.-H. Zhang, and Y. Zhao, Spin decomposition of the electron in QED, Phys. Rev. D 93, 054013 (2016)

2016
[14]

Damski, Electromagnetic angular momentum of the ele ctron: One-loop studies, Nucl

B. Damski, Electromagnetic angular momentum of the ele ctron: One-loop studies, Nucl. Phys. B 949, 114828 (2019)

2019
[15]

A. Deur, S. J. Brodsky, and G. F. de Téramond, The spin str ucture of the nucleon, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82, 076201 (2019)

2019
[16]

Jaﬀe and A

R. Jaﬀe and A. Manohar, The g 1 problem: Deep inelastic electron scattering and the spin of the proton, Nucl. Phys. B 337, 509 (1990)

1990
[17]

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

1995
[18]

B. G.-g. Chen, D. Derbes, D. Griﬃths, B. Hill, R. Sohn, an d Y.-S. Ting, Lectures of Sidney Coleman on Quantum Field Theory (World Scientiﬁc, 2018)

2018
[19]

Rayski, Polarization of the vacuum, Phys

J. Rayski, Polarization of the vacuum, Phys. Rev. 75, 1961 (1949)

1949
[20]

Pauli and F

W. Pauli and F. Villars, On the invariant regularizatio n in relativistic quantum theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 434 (1949)

1949
[21]

N. N. Bogolubov and D. V. Shirkov, Introduction to the Theory of Quantized Fields (Interscience Publishers, 1959)

1959
[22]

M. D. Schwartz, Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

2015
[23]

S. N. Gupta, Quantum Electrodynamics (Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1977)

1977
[24]

Johnson and B

K. Johnson and B. Zumino, Gauge dependence of the wave-f unction renormalization constant in quan- tum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 351 (1959)

1959
[25]

Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , Vol

S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields , Vol. II: Modern Applications (Cambridge University Press, 1996)

1996
[26]

Binosi, J

D. Binosi, J. Collins, C. Kaufhold, and L. Theussl, Jaxo draw: A graphical user interface for drawing Feynman diagrams. Version 2.0 release notes, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 1709 (2009)

2009
[27]

P. B. Pal, Representation-independent manipulations with Dirac matrices and spinors, arXiv:physics/0703214

arXiv
[28]

Arminjon and F

M. Arminjon and F. Reiﬂer, Dirac equation: representat ion independence and tensor transformation, Braz. J. Phys. 38, 248 (2008)

2008
[29]

H. K. Dreiner, H. E. Haber, and S. P. Martin, Two-compone nt spinor techniques and Feynman rules for quantum ﬁeld theory and supersymmetry, Phys. Rep. 494, 1 (2010)

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J. J. Thomson, Cathode rays, Philos. Mag. 44, 293 (1897)

work page

[2] [2]

G. E. Uhlenbeck and S. Goudsmit, Spinning electrons and t he structure of spectra, Nature 117, 264 (1926)

work page 1926

[3] [3]

Preston, Radiation phenomena in a strong magnetic ﬁel d, The Scientiﬁc Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society 6, 385 (1898)

T. Preston, Radiation phenomena in a strong magnetic ﬁel d, The Scientiﬁc Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society 6, 385 (1898)

work page

[4] [4]

P. A. M. Dirac, The quantum theory of the electron, Proc. R . Soc. A 117, 610 (1928)

work page 1928

[5] [5]

Schwinger, On quantum-electrodynamics and the magne tic moment of the electron, Phys

J. Schwinger, On quantum-electrodynamics and the magne tic moment of the electron, Phys. Rev. 73, 416 (1948)

work page 1948

[6] [6]

J. E. Nafe and E. B. Nelson, The hyperﬁne structure of hydr ogen and deuterium, Phys. Rev. 73, 718 (1948)

work page 1948

[7] [7]

H. M. Foley and P. Kusch, On the intrinsic moment of the ele ctron, Phys. Rev. 73, 412 (1948)

work page 1948

[8] [8]

E. D. Commins, Electron spin and its history, Annu. Rev. N ucl. Part. Sci. 62, 133 (2012)

work page 2012