In physics, some numbers are so precise that they become landmarks. The electron’s magnetic moment is one of them. Measured to over ten significant digits, it matches the theoretical prediction of quantum electrodynamics (QED) with uncanny precision. It is, in fact, the most accurately tested prediction in the history of science. The story begins in the 1920s, when the Dirac equation predicted that an electron’s gyromagnetic ratio — the factor g that relates its magnetic moment to its spin — should be exactly 2. This was already a triumph: it linked quantum mechanics, special relativity, and electromagnetism in a single framework. Yet experiments soon found a slight discrepancy: g was not exactly 2, but 2.0023… This tiny difference is called the anomalous magnetic moment. Where did it come from?
In 1947, Julian Schwinger performed the first full quantum calculation of this anomaly. Using QED, he found the constant α = 0.00116. Here, α is the so-called the fine-structure constant, about 1/137. Schwinger’s result matched experiment so well that it became an instant classic. Today, with more loops, more diagrams, and even contributions from the strong and weak nuclear forces, theory and experiment still agree to the last digit. What is striking is not just the number itself, but how it is obtained. In QED, the anomaly is not guessed or fitted; it follows from the structure of the theory: gauge invariance, Lorentz symmetry, renormalization. It is a universal prediction, independent of the electron’s “shape” or internal constitution.
And yet, mechanical pictures of the electron have never completely disappeared. In recent work, philosopher Charles Sebens has proposed a semiclassical model in which the electron is treated as a spatially extended charge distribution interacting with its own electromagnetic field. This yields a value close to Schwinger’s and offers something QED does not: a vivid, intuitive picture. It is easy to see the pedagogical appeal. One can imagine the electron’s charge “spinning,” generating a magnetic field, and interacting with itself. In a world of abstract Feynman diagrams and renormalization constants, such concreteness can feel refreshing.
But here, in my opinion, lies the deeper lesson. In modern physics, explanation is not always about finding a mechanical story you can picture. The semiclassical model gives a number close to the truth — but only for certain states, with certain parameter choices, and without including quantum field effects like vacuum fluctuations. QED, by contrast, offers no picture of an extended charge. Its diagrams are not space-time trajectories but symbolic terms in a perturbation expansion. And yet, QED explains the anomaly more fully because it derives it from principles that hold in all situations, for all electrons, in any state. This is what philosophers of science call structural explanation: the result flows from the architecture of the theory itself, not from a contingent mechanism. The anomalous magnetic moment is fixed not by imagining how the electron “really” spins, but by the interplay of symmetry and quantum dynamics.
It might be tempting to see the semiclassical model as a teaching tool — a way to give students a graspable image. But there is a risk. If students are led to believe that the mechanical picture is the explanation, they may miss the most profound point: modern physics often works by transcending the classical categories of mechanism and visualization. Learning to accept this — that understanding can be structural, not mechanical — is part of becoming fluent in contemporary theoretical physics. It is, in a way, a philosophical shift as much as a technical one.
The anomalous magnetic moment of the electron is not just a precision test of QED; it is a case study in how physics explains. Semiclassical models may be vivid, even inspiring. But the deepest explanations today come from the symmetries and mathematical frameworks that bind our theories together — even when they resist easy visualization. In that sense, the anomaly teaches us something beyond the number itself. It shows that the path to understanding in modern physics often lies not in returning to the mechanical pictures of the past, but in embracing the more abstract, structural ways that quantum field theory makes sense of the world.
📌 For a more in-depth discussion, see here!