format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Leptonic anomalous magnetic moments have traditionally provided precision tests of the Standard Model (SM) and stringent constraints on potential “New Physics” effects. In the case of the electron, comparing the extraordinary measurements of $`𝒂_𝒆\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝒈_𝒆\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ at the University of Washington

$`𝒂_𝒆^{\mathbf{}}^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.001\hspace{0.17em}159\hspace{0.17em}652\hspace{0.17em}188\hspace{0.17em}4}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝒂_{𝒆^\mathbf{+}}^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.001\hspace{0.17em}159\hspace{0.17em}652\hspace{0.17em}187\hspace{0.17em}9}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (1)
with the prediction

$`𝒂_𝒆^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.328\hspace{0.17em}478\hspace{0.17em}444\hspace{0.17em}00}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{1.181\hspace{0.17em}234\hspace{0.17em}017}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ (2)
$`\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.5098}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{1.66}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}\text{(hadronic \& electroweak loops)}`$
currently provides the best determination of the fine structure constant ,

$`𝜶^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒂_𝒆\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{137.035\hspace{0.17em}999\hspace{0.17em}58}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (3)
To test the Standard Model requires comparison with an alternative measurement of $`𝜶`$ with comparable accuracy. Unfortunately, the next best determination of $`𝜶`$, from the quantum Hall effect ,

$`𝜶^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒒𝑯\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{137.036\hspace{0.17em}003\hspace{0.17em}00}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (4)
has a considerably larger error. If one assumes that $`\mathbf{\left|}𝚫𝒂_𝒆^{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}\mathrm{𝐏𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒆^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, where $`𝚲`$ approximates the scale of “New Physics”, then the agreement between $`𝜶^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒂_𝒆\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝜶^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒒𝑯\mathbf{)}`$ currently probes $`𝚲\stackrel{\mathbf{<}}{\mathbf{}}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\text{100 GeV}\mathbf{\right)}`$. To access the much more interesting $`𝚲\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\text{TeV}\mathbf{\right)}`$ region would require an order of magnitude improvement in $`𝒂_𝒆^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ (technically feasible ), an improved calculation of the 4-loop QED contribution to $`𝒂_𝒆^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ and a much better independent measurement of $`𝜶^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ by almost two orders of magnitude. The last requirement, although extremely challenging, is perhaps most likely to come  from combining the already precisely measured Rydberg constant with a much better determination of $`𝒎_𝒆`$.

We should note that for potential “New Physics” (NP) effects linear in the electron mass, $`𝚫𝒂_𝒆^{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒆\mathbf{/}𝚲`$, naively, one is currently probing a much more impressive $`𝚲\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟕}\text{ GeV}\mathbf{\right)}`$ and the possible advances described above would explore $`𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟗}\text{ GeV}\mathbf{\right)}`$! However, we subsequently argue that such linear “New Physics” effects are generally misleading because the associated physics is likely to also give unacceptably large corrections to the electron mass.

Improvements in the measurement of the muon’s anomalous magnetic moment have also been impressive. A series of dedicated experiments at CERN that ended in 1977 found

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{116\hspace{0.17em}592\hspace{0.17em}300}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖𝟒𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\text{(CERN 1977)}\mathbf{.}`$ (5)
More recently, an ongoing experiment (E821) at Brookhaven National Laboratory has been running with much higher statistics and a very stable, well measured magnetic field in its storage ring. Based on $`𝝁^\mathbf{+}`$ data taken through 1998, combined with the earlier CERN result in (5), it reported

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{116\hspace{0.17em}592\hspace{0.17em}050}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒𝟔𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\text{(CERN’77 + BNL’98)}\mathbf{.}`$ (6)
That group has just announced a much higher statistics result based on 1999 data ,

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{116\hspace{0.17em}592\hspace{0.17em}020}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\text{(BNL’99)}\mathbf{.}`$ (7)
Their finding is very consistent with Eq. (6). When simply averaged together, we find

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐀𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{116\hspace{0.17em}592\hspace{0.17em}023}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\text{(CERN’77 + BNL’98 \& ’99)}\mathbf{.}`$ (8)
The ultimate goal of the experiment (which has its final scheduled run with $`𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ during 2001) is $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}`$, about a factor of 20 improvement relative to the classic CERN experiments and a factor of 3.5 better than the average in Eq. (8). Even the inclusion of already existing data from the 2000 run is expected to reduce the error in Eq. (8) by more than a factor of 2 within the coming year.

Although $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ is currently about 350 times less precise than $`𝒂_𝒆^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$, it is much more sensitive to hadronic and electroweak quantum loops as well as “New Physics” effects, since such contributions  are generally proportional to $`𝒎_𝒍^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The $`𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒆^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{40\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ enhancement more than compensates for the reduced experimental precision and makes $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ a much better probe of short-distance phenomena. Indeed, as we later illustrate, a deviation in $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ from the Standard Model prediction, $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$, even at its current level of sensitivity can quite naturally be interpreted as the appearance of “New Physics” such as supersymmetry at 100-450 GeV, or other even higher scale phenomena, exciting prospects. Of course, before making such an interpretation, one must have a reliable theoretical prediction for $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ with which to compare, an issue that we address in the next section.

Before leaving the comparison between $`𝒂_𝒆^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ and $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$, we should remark that for cases where “New Physics” contributions to $`𝒂_𝒍`$ scale as $`𝒎_𝒍\mathbf{/}𝚲`$, roughly equal sensitivity in $`𝚲`$ ($`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟕}\text{ GeV}`$) currently exists for both types of measurements. However, as previously mentioned, such effects are in our view artificial.

## 2 Standard Model Prediction For $`𝒂_𝝁`$

### 2.1 QED Contribution

The QED contribution to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ has been computed (or estimated) through 5 loops

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐐𝐄𝐃}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.765\hspace{0.17em}857\hspace{0.17em}376}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{24.050\hspace{0.17em}508\hspace{0.17em}98}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ (9)
$`\mathbf{+}\mathbf{126.07}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟗𝟑𝟎}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{.}`$
Growing coefficients in the $`𝜶\mathbf{/}𝝅`$ expansion reflect the presence of large $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\frac{𝒎_𝝁}{𝒎_𝒆}\mathbf{}\mathbf{5.3}`$ terms coming from electron loops. Employing the value of $`𝜶`$ from $`𝒂_𝒆`$ in eq. (3) leads to

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐐𝐄𝐃}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{116\hspace{0.17em}584\hspace{0.17em}705.7}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.9}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{.}`$ (10)
The current uncertainty is well below the $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}`$ ultimate experimental error anticipated from E821 and should, therefore, play no essential role in the confrontation between theory and experiment.

### 2.2 Hadronic Loop Corrections

Starting at $`𝓞\mathbf{\left(}𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}`$, hadronic loop effects contribute to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ via vacuum polarization (see Fig. 1). A first principles QCD calculation of that effect does not exist. Fortunately, it is possible to evaluate the leading effect via the dispersion integral

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{(}\text{vac. pol.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}}{\displaystyle \mathbf{}_{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathbf{}}}𝐝𝒔𝑲\mathbf{\left(}𝒔\mathbf{\right)}𝝈^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}_{𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐬}}\mathbf{,}`$ (11)
where $`𝝈^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}_{𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐬}}`$ means QED vacuum polarization and some other extraneous radiative corrections (e.g. initial state radiation) have been subtracted from measured $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}`$ hadrons cross sections, and

$`𝑲\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙}}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒙`$
$`𝒙`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒔}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒔}}}\mathbf{.}`$ (12)
Detailed studies of eq. (11) have been carried out by a number of authors . The most precise published analysis to date, due to Davier and Höcker , found

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{(}\text{vac. pol.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟗𝟐𝟒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{.}`$ (13)
It employed experimental $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ data, hadronic tau decays, perturbative QCD and sum rules to minimize the uncertainty in that result. The contributions coming from various energy regions are illustrated in Table 1.

It is clear from Table 1 that the final result and its uncertainty are dominated by the low energy region. In fact, the $`𝝆\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕𝟕𝟎}\text{ MeV}\mathbf{)}`$ resonance provides about 72% of the total hadronic contribution to $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{(}\text{vac. pol.}\mathbf{)}`$.

To reduce the uncertainty in the $`𝝆`$ resonance region, Davier and Höcker employed $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝝉\mathbf{}𝝂_𝝉𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝝉\mathbf{}𝝂_𝝉\overline{𝝂}_𝒆𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ data to supplement $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ cross-sections. In the $`𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ channel they are related by isospin. Currently, tau decay data is experimentally more precise and in principle has the advantage of being self-normalizing if both $`𝝉\mathbf{}𝝂_𝝉𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝝉\mathbf{}𝝂_𝝉\overline{𝝂}_𝒆𝒆`$ are both measured in the same experiment.

An issue in the use of tau decay data is the magnitude of isospin violating corrections due to QED and the $`𝒎_𝒅\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒖`$ mass difference. A short-distance QED correction  of about $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$ was applied to the hadronic tau decay data and isospin violating effects such as $`𝒎_{𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }}\mathbf{}𝒎_{𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ phase space and $`𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ differences have been accounted for. Other uncorrected differences are estimated to be about $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{\%}`$ and included in the hadronic uncertainty.

Although the $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{\%}`$ error assigned to the use of tau decay data appears reasonable, it has been questioned . More recent preliminary $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ data from Novosibirsk  seems to suggest a potential difference with corrected hadronic tau decays which could compromise the estimated $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}`$ in Eq. (13). It is not clear at this time whether the difference is due to additional isospin violating corrections to hadronic tau decays, normalization issues , or radiative corrections to $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}`$ hadrons data which must be accounted for in any precise comparison . Resolution of this issue is extremely important.

A more conservative approach might be to ignore the tau data and use QCD theory input as little as possible. In an (unpublished) update of earlier work , Jegerlehner found from such an approach

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{(}\text{vac. pol.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟗𝟖𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\text{Jegerlehner 2000, preliminary }\text{[26]}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (14)
Within their quoted errors, Eqs. (13) and (14) agree but the central values differ by $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}`$. The sign of the difference between Eq. (14) and Eq. (13) may be a little misleading, since tau data tends to favor a larger contribution to $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}`$ from the $`𝝆`$ than $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}`$ hadrons . Anticipated new results for $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}`$ hadrons at Novosibirsk should reduce the uncertainty in (14) by nearly a factor of 2 without requiring tau data. It will be interesting to see what happens to its central value.

Evaluation of the 3-loop hadronic vacuum polarization contribution to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ has been updated to

$`𝚫𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{(}\text{vac. pol.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{.}`$ (15)
Light-by-light hadronic diagrams have been evaluated using chiral perturbation theory. An average  of two recent studies  gives

$`𝚫𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{(}\text{light-by-light}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖𝟓}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{.}`$ (16)
Adding those contributions to Eqs. (13) leads to the total hadronic contribution

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟕𝟑𝟗}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔𝟕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\text{(Davier \& Höcker, 1998)}`$ (17)
which we will subsequently use in comparison of theory and experiment. However, we note that a more conservative approach might employ a larger uncertainty such as found using Jegerlehner’s unpublished result in Eq. (14),

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔𝟖𝟎𝟑}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\text{(Jegerlehner 2000, unpublished)}\mathbf{.}`$ (18)
At the very least, one should be mindful of the difference between the two and the need to further justify the use of tau decay data and low-energy perturbative QCD. The uncertainties in those results represent the main theoretical error in $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$. It would be very valuable to supplement the above evaluation of $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}`$ with lattice calculations (for the light-by-light contribution) and further improved $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ data (beyond ongoing experiments). An ultimate goal of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}`$ or smaller appears to be within reach and is well matched to the prospectus of experiment E821 at Brookhaven which aims for a similar level of accuracy.

### 2.3 Electroweak corrections

The one-loop electroweak radiative corrections to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ (see Fig. 2) are predicted in the Standard Model to be

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐩}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐆_𝝁𝐦_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟖}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}`$ (19)
$`\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟓}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_𝑾\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}`$
$`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟓}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}`$
where $`𝑮_𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.16637}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ GeV<sup>-2</sup>, $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_𝑾\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝒁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.223}`$. and $`𝑴\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑾`$ or $`𝑴_{\mathrm{𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐬}}`$. The original goal of E821 at Brookhaven was to measure that predicted effect at about the 5 sigma level (assuming further reduction in the hadronic uncertainty). Subsequently, it was pointed out  that two-loop electroweak contributions are relatively large due to the presence of $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒎_𝒁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{13.5}`$ terms. A full two-loop calculation , including low-energy hadronic electroweak loops , found for $`𝒎_𝑯\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟎}`$ GeV (with little sensitivity to the exact value)

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}\mathbf{(}\text{2 loop}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟑}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{,}`$ (20)
where the quoted error is a conservative estimate of hadronic, Higgs, and higher-order corrections. Combining eqs. (19) and (20) gives the electroweak contribution

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{.}`$ (21)
Higher-order leading logs of the form $`\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒎_𝒁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^𝒏`$, $`𝒏\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$ can be computed via renormalization group techniques . Due to cancellations between the running of $`𝜶`$ and anomalous dimension effects, they give a relatively small $`\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}`$ contribution to $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}`$. It is safely included in the uncertainty of eq. (21).

### 2.4 Comparison with Experiment

The complete Standard Model prediction for $`𝒂_𝝁`$ is

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}\mathbf{=}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐐𝐄𝐃}}\mathbf{+}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐇𝐚𝐝}}\mathbf{+}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}\mathbf{.}`$ (22)
Combining eqs. (10), (17) and (21), one finds

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{116\hspace{0.17em}591\hspace{0.17em}597}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔𝟕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{,}`$ (23)
or, using eqs. (10), along with the more conservative (18) and (21), $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{116\hspace{0.17em}591\hspace{0.17em}661}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}`$. Comparing Eq. (23) with the current experimental average in Eq. (8) gives

$`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒𝟐𝟔}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟓}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{.}`$ (24)
The roughly $`\mathbf{2.6}𝝈`$ difference is very exciting. It may be an indicator or harbinger of contributions from “New Physics” beyond the Standard Model. At 90% CL, one finds

$`\mathrm{𝟐𝟏𝟓}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{}𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}\mathrm{𝐏𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟑𝟕}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{,}`$ (25)
which suggests a relatively large “New Physics” effect, even larger than the predicted electroweak contribution, is starting to be seen. As we show in the next section, several realistic examples of “New Physics” could quite easily lead to $`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}\mathrm{𝐏𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟒𝟐𝟔}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{\right)}`$ and might be responsible for the apparent deviation. If that is the case, the difference in Eq. (24) should increase to a 6 or more sigma effect as E821 is completed and the hadronic uncertainties in $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ are further reduced.

## 3 “New Physics” effects

Since the anomalous magnetic moment comes from a dimension 5 operator, “New Physics” (i.e. beyond the Standard Model expectations) will contribute to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ via induced quantum loop effects (rather than tree level). Whenever a new model or Standard Model extension is proposed, such effects are examined and $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ is often employed to constrain or rule it out.

In this section we describe several examples of interesting “New Physics” probed by $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$. Rather than attempting to be inclusive, we concentrate on two general scenarios: 1) Supersymmetric loop effects which can be substantial and would be heralded as the most likely explanation if the deviation in $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ is confirmed and 2) Models of radiative muon mass generation which predict $`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}\mathrm{𝐏𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ where $`𝑴`$ is the scale of “New Physics”. Either case is capable of explaining the apparent deviation in $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ exhibited in Eq. (24). Other examples of potential “New Physics” contributions to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ are only briefly discussed.

### 3.1 Supersymmetry

The supersymmetric contributions to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ stem from smuon–neutralino and sneutrino-chargino loops (see Fig. 3). They include 2 chargino and 4 neutralino states and could in principle entail slepton mixing and phases. Depending on SUSY masses, mixing and other parameters, the contribution of $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐘}}`$ can span a broad range of possibilities. Studies have been carried out for a variety of models where the parameters are specified. Here we give a generic discussion primarily intended to illustrate the strong likelihood that evidence for supersymmetry can be inferred from $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ and may in fact be the natural explanation for the apparent deviation from SM theory reported by E821.

Early studies of the supersymmetric contributions $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐘}}`$ were carried out in the context of the minimal SUSY standard model (MSSM) , in an $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟔}`$ string-inspired model , and in an extension of the MSSM with an additional singlet . An important observation was made in , namely that some of the contributions are enhanced by the ratio of Higgs’ vacuum expectation values, $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{}𝚽_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}`$, which in some models is large (in some cases of order $`𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}`$). In addition, larger values of $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷\stackrel{\mathbf{>}}{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are generally in better accord with the recent LEP II Higgs mass bound $`𝒎_𝑯\stackrel{\mathbf{>}}{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏𝟑}`$ GeV and, therefore, currently favored. The main contribution is generally due to the chargino-sneutrino diagram (Fig. 3a), which is enhanced by a Yukawa coupling in the muon-sneutrino-Higgsino vertex (charginos are admixtures of Winos and Higgsinos).

The leading effect from Fig. 3a is approximately given in the large $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ limit by

$`\mathbf{\left|}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐘}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒁\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟖}𝝅\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜽_𝑾}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝜶}{𝝅}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}}{𝒎_𝝁}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$ (26)
where $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}\mathbf{=}𝒎_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐘}}`$ represents a typical SUSY loop mass. (Chargino- and sneutrino-masses are actually assumed degenerate in that expression ; otherwise, $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}`$ is approximately the heavier mass scale.) Also, we have included a 7–8% suppression factor due to leading 2-loop EW effects. Like most “New Physics” effects, SUSY loops contribute directly to the dimension 5 magnetic dipole operator. In that case, they are subject to the same EW suppression factor as the $`𝑾`$ loop contribution to $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}`$. From the calculation in Ref. , one finds a leading log suppression factor

$`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝜶}{𝝅}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴}{𝒎_𝝁}}`$ (27)
where $`𝑴`$ is the characteristic “New Physics” scale. For $`𝑴\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}`$ GeV, that factor corresponds to about a 7% reduction.

Numerically, one expects in the large $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ regime (after a small negative contribution from Fig. 3b is included, again assuming degenerate masses)

$`\mathbf{\left|}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐘}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟎}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}}{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷\mathbf{,}`$ (28)
where $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐘}}`$ generally has the same sign as the $`𝝁`$-parameter in SUSY models.

Ref.  found that E821 will be a stringent test of a class of supergravity models. However, in the minimal SU(5) SUGRA model, $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ is already severely constrained by the proton decay lifetime and no significant $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐘}}`$ is possible. Extended models, notably SU(5)$`\mathbf{\times }`$U(1) escape that bound and can induce large effects.

Supersymmetric effects in $`𝒂_𝝁`$ were subsequently computed in a variety of models. Constraints on MSSM were examined in . MSSM with large CP-violating phases was studied in . Ref.  examined models with a superlight gravitino. Detailed studies of $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐘}}`$ were carried out in models constrained by various assumptions on the SUSY-breaking mechanism: gauge-mediated , SUGRA , and anomaly-mediated .

Rather than focusing on a specific model, we simply employ for illustration the large $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ approximate formula in eq. (28) with degenerate SUSY masses and the current constraint in eq. (24). Then we find (for positive sgn$`\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$) from comparison with Eq. (24)

$`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\text{ GeV}}{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{3.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.3}\mathbf{,}`$ (29)
or

$`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓𝟓}\text{ GeV}\mathbf{)}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷}\mathbf{.}`$ (30)
(Of course, in specific models with non-degenerate gauginos and sleptons, a more detailed analysis is required, but here we only want to illustrate roughly the scale of supersymmetry being probed.) Negative $`𝝁`$ models give the opposite sign contribution to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ and are strongly disfavored.

For large $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ in the range $`\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}`$, where the approximate results given above should be valid, one finds (assuming $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}`$ GeV from other experimental constraints)

$`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟓𝟎}\text{ GeV}`$ (31)
precisely the range where SUSY particles are often expected. If supersymmetry in the mass range of Eq. (31) with relatively large $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ is responsible for the apparent $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ difference, it will have many dramatic consequences. Besides expanding the known symmetries of Nature and our fundamental notion of space-time, it will impact other new exploratory experiments. Indeed, for $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟓𝟎}`$ GeV, one can expect a plethora of new SUSY particles to be discovered soon, either at the Fermilab 2 TeV $`𝒑\overline{𝒑}`$ collider or certainly at the LHC 14 TeV $`𝒑𝒑`$ collider which is expected to start running 2006.

Large $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ supersymmetry can also have other interesting loop–induced low energy consequences beyond $`𝒂_𝝁`$. For example, it can affect $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$. Even for the muon, “New Physics” in $`𝒂_𝝁`$ is likely to suggest potentially observable $`𝝁\mathbf{}𝒆𝜸`$, $`𝝁^{\mathbf{}}𝑵\mathbf{}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}𝑵`$ and a muon electric dipole moment (edm), depending on the degree of flavor mixing and $`𝑪𝑷`$ violating phases. Searches for these phenomena are now entering an exciting phase, with a new generation of experiments being proposed or constructed. The decay $`𝝁\mathbf{}𝒆𝜸`$ will be searched for with $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}}`$ single event sensitivity (SES) at the Paul Scherrer Institute . The MECO experiment at BNL  will search for the muon-electron conversion, $`𝝁^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐀𝐥}\mathbf{}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐀𝐥}`$, with $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟕}}`$ SES. A proposal has been made  to search for the muon’s electric dipole moment with sensitivity of about $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}}`$ e$`\mathbf{}`$cm with the BNL muon storage ring. Certainly, the hint of supersymmetry suggested by $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ will provide strong additional motivation to extend such studies both theoretically and experimentally.

### 3.2 Radiative Muon Mass Models

The relatively light masses of the muon and most other known fundamental fermions could suggest that they are radiatively loop induced by “New Physics” beyond the Standard Model. Although no compelling model exists, the concept is very attractive as a natural scenario for explaining the flavor mass hierarchy, i.e. why most fermion masses are so much smaller than the electroweak scale $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓𝟎}`$ GeV.

The basic idea is to start off with a naturally zero bare fermion mass due to an underlying chiral symmetry. The symmetry is broken in the fermion 2-point function by quantum loop effects. They lead to a finite calculable mass which depends on the mass scales, coupling strengths and dynamics of the underlying symmetry breaking mechanism. In such a scenario, one generically expects for the muon

$`𝒎_𝝁\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑴_𝑭\mathbf{,}`$ (32)
where $`𝒈`$ is some new interaction coupling strength and $`𝑴_𝑭\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎}`$ GeV is a heavy scale associated with chiral symmetry breaking and perhaps electroweak symmetry breaking. Of course, there may be other suppression factors at work in Eq. (32) that keep the muon mass small.

Whatever source of chiral symmetry breaking is responsible for generating the muon’s mass will also give rise to non-Standard Model contributions in $`𝒂_𝝁`$. Indeed, fermion masses and anomalous magnetic moments are intimately connected chiral symmetry breaking operators. Remarkably, in such radiative scenarios, the additional contribution to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ is quite generally given by

$`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑪{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}𝑪\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$ (33)
where $`𝑴`$ is some physical high mass scale associated with the “New Physics” and $`𝑪`$ is a model-dependent number roughly of order 1 (it can even be larger). $`𝑴`$ need not be the same scale as $`𝑴_𝑭`$ in eq. (32). In fact, $`𝑴`$ is usually a somewhat larger gauge or scalar boson mass responsible for mediating the chiral symmetry breaking interaction. The result in eq. (33) is remarkably simple in that it is largely independent of coupling strengths, dynamics, etc. Furthermore, rather than exhibiting the usual $`𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ loop suppression factor, $`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}`$ is related to $`𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ by a (model dependent) constant, $`𝑪`$, roughly of $`𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right)}`$.

To demonstrate how the relationship in eq. (33) arises, we first consider a simple toy model example  for muon mass generation which is graphically depicted in Fig. 4.

If the muon is massless in lowest order (i.e. no bare $`𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is possible due to a symmetry), but couples to a heavy fermion $`𝑭`$ via scalar, $`𝑺`$, and pseudoscalar, $`𝑷`$, bosons with couplings $`𝒈`$ and $`𝒈𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}`$ respectively, then the diagrams give rise to

$`𝒎_𝝁`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑴_𝑭\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}`$ (34)
$`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑴_𝑭\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\text{(}𝑴_{𝑺\mathbf{,}𝑷}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑭\text{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (35)
Note that short-distance ultraviolet divergences have canceled and the induced mass vanishes in the chirally symmetric limit $`𝑴_𝑺\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑷`$.

If we attach a photon to the heavy internal fermion, $`𝑭`$, or boson $`𝑺`$ or $`𝑷`$ (assumed to carry fractions $`𝑸_𝑭`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑸_𝑭`$ of the muon charge, respectively), then a new contribution to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ is also induced (see Fig. 5). One finds

$`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\{}𝑸_𝑭\mathbf{[}𝒇_𝑵\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇_𝑵\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑺\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}`$ (36)
$`\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑸_𝑭\mathbf{)}\mathbf{[}𝒇_𝑪\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇_𝑪\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑺\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{,}`$
with

$`𝒇_𝑵\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑿\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝝁𝑴_𝑭}{\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$ (37)
$`𝒇_𝑪\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑿\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝝁𝑴_𝑭}{\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\left(}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$ (38)
In the limit $`𝑴_{𝑺\mathbf{,}𝑷}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑭`$ and $`𝑸_𝑭\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, one finds

$`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟖}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝝁𝑴_𝑭}{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$ (39)
while for $`𝑸_𝑭\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$

$`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟖}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝝁𝑴_𝑭}{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$ (40)
The induced $`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}`$ also vanishes in the $`𝑴_𝑺\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑷`$ chiral symmetry limit. Interestingly, $`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}`$ exhibits a linear rather than quadratic dependence on $`𝒎_𝝁`$ at this point. Recall, that in section 1 we said that such a feature was misleading or artificial. Our subsequent discussion should clarify that point.

Although eqs. (35) and (39) both depend on unknown parameters such as $`𝒈`$ and $`𝑴_𝑭`$, those quantities largely cancel when we combine both expressions. One finds

$`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`𝑪{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑪`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\text{for }𝑸_𝑭\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑪`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\text{for }𝑸_𝑭\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}`$ (41)
where $`𝑪`$ is very roughly $`𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right)}`$. It can actually span a broad range and take on either sign, depending on the $`𝑴_𝑺\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑷`$ ratio and $`𝑸_𝑭`$. A loop produced $`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}`$ effect that started out at $`𝓞\mathbf{\left(}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}`$ has effectively been promoted to $`𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right)}`$ by absorbing the couplings and $`𝑴_𝑭`$ factor into $`𝒎_𝝁`$. Along the way, the linear dependence on $`𝒎_𝝁`$ has been replaced by a more natural quadratic dependence.

An alternative prescription for radiatively generating fermion masses involves new strong dynamics, e.g. extended technicolor. In such scenarios, technifermions acquire, via new strong dynamics, dynamical self-energies

$`𝚺_𝑭\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝑭\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}^{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝜸}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}`$ (42)
where $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{<}𝜸\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is an anomalous dimension, $`𝒎_𝑭\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟎𝟎}\text{ GeV}\mathbf{\right)}`$, and $`𝚲`$ is the new strong interaction scale $`\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\text{ TeV}\mathbf{\right)}`$.

Ordinary fermions such as the muon receive loop induced masses via the diagram in Fig. 6.

The extended gauge boson $`𝑿_𝝁`$ links $`𝝁`$ and $`𝑭`$ via the non-chiral coupling

$`𝒈𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{\left(}𝒂{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}𝒃{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}`$ (43)
and gives rise to a mass

$`𝒎_𝝁\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒂𝒃}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝒎_𝑭\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚲}{𝒎_{𝑿_𝝁}}}\mathbf{\right)}^{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝜸}𝚪\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜸}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}𝚪\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜸}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$ (44)
where $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ is the Gamma function. Notice, the ultraviolet divergence at $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ which corresponds to a non-dynamical $`𝒎_𝑭`$.

If we attach a photon to the internal fermion line in Fig. 6 (assumed here to have charge $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$), an anomalous magnetic moment contribution is induced. One finds

$`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Dynamics}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒂𝒃}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝝁𝒎_𝑭}{𝒎_{𝑿_𝝁}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚲}{𝒎_{𝑿_𝝁}}}\mathbf{\right)}^{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝜸}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚪\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{𝜸}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}𝚪\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝜸}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜸}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}}\mathbf{.}`$ (45)
Again we see only a linear dependence on $`𝒎_𝝁`$. However, when Eq. (44) and (45) are combined, one finds

$`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Dynamics}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝜸}{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝜸}}\mathbf{\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_{𝑿_𝝁}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}`$ (46)
i.e. the generic result $`𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right)}𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ where $`𝑴`$ is the “new physics” scale (here the extended-techniboson mass) emerges.

A similar relationship, $`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑪𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, has been found in more realistic multi-Higgs models , SUSY with soft masses , etc. It is also a natural expectation in composite models  or some models with large extra dimensions , although studies of such cases have not necessarily made that same connection. Basically, the requirement that $`𝒎_𝝁`$ remain relatively small in the presence of new chiral symmetry breaking interactions forces $`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}`$ to effectively exhibit a quadratic $`𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ dependence.

For models of the above variety, where $`\mathbf{\left|}𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}\text{New Physics}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, the current constraint in eq. (25) suggests (very roughly)

$`𝑴\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\text{ TeV}\mathbf{.}`$ (47)
Of course, for a specific model, one must check that the sign of the induced $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐍𝐏}}`$ is in accord with experiment (i.e. it should be positive).

Such a scale of “New Physics” could be quite natural in multi-Higgs radiative mass models and soft SUSY mass scenarios. It would be somewhat low for dynamical symmetry breaking, compositeness and extra dimension models, however, confirmation of an $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ deviation will certainly lead to all possibilities being revisited.

### 3.3 Other “New Physics” Examples

#### 3.3.1 Anomalous $`𝑾`$ Boson Properties

Anomalous $`𝑾`$ boson magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole moments can also lead to a deviation in $`𝒂_𝝁`$ from SM expectations. We generalize the $`𝜸𝑾𝑾`$ coupling such that the $`𝑾`$ boson magnetic dipole moment is given by

$`𝝁_𝑾\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒆}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑾}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜿\mathbf{+}𝝀\mathbf{)}`$ (48)
and electric quadrupole moment by

$`𝑸_𝑾\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒆}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑾}}\mathbf{(}𝜿\mathbf{}𝝀\mathbf{)}`$ (49)
where $`𝜿\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in the Standard Model, i.e. the gyromagnetic ratio $`𝒈_𝑾\mathbf{=}𝜿\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$. For non-standard couplings, one obtains the additional one loop contribution to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ given by

$`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}𝜿\mathbf{,}𝝀\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝝁𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟒}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}𝜿\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝝀\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}`$ (50)
where $`𝚲`$ is the high momentum cutoff required to give a finite result. It presumably corresponds to the onset of “New Physics” such as the $`𝑾`$ compositeness scale, or new strong dynamics. Higher order electroweak loop effects reduce that contribution by roughly the suppression in Eq. (27), i.e. $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗}\mathbf{\%}`$.

For $`𝚲\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ TeV, the deviation in Eq. (24) corresponds to

$`𝜿\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.37}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.14}\mathbf{.}`$ (51)
Such a large deviation from Standard Model expectations, $`𝜿\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, is already ruled out by $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑾^\mathbf{+}𝑾^{\mathbf{}}`$ data at LEP II which gives

$`𝜿\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.04}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.08}\text{(LEP II)}\mathbf{.}`$ (52)
One could reduce the requirement in Eq. (51) somewhat by assuming a much larger $`𝚲`$ cuoff in Eq. (50). However, it is generally felt that $`𝜿\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝚲`$ should be inversely correlated. For example $`𝜿\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝑾\mathbf{/}𝚲`$ or $`\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝑾\mathbf{/}𝚲\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. So, the rather substantial $`𝜿\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ needed to accommodate $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ would argue against a much larger $`𝚲`$. Similarly, the large value of the anomalous $`𝑾`$ electric quadrupole moment $`𝝀\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}`$ needed to reconcile $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ is also ruled out by collider data (which implies $`\mathbf{|}𝝀\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{<}}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{0.1}`$). Hence, it appears that anomalous $`𝑾`$ boson properties cannot be the primary source of the discrepancy in $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$.

#### 3.3.2 New Gauge Bosons

The local $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}_𝑪\mathbf{\times }𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝑳\mathbf{\times }𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}_𝒀`$ symmetry of the Standard Model can be easily expanded to a larger gauge group with additional charged and neutral gauge bosons. Here, we consider effects due to a charged $`𝑾_𝑹^\mathbf{\pm }`$ which couples to right-handed charged currents in generic left-right symmetric models and a neutral gauge boson, $`𝒁^{\mathbf{}}`$, which can naturally arise in higher rank GUT models such as $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ or $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟔}`$. A general analysis of one-loop contributions to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ from extra gauge bosons has been carried out by Leveille  and the specific examples considered here were illustrated in . Here, we will only discuss the likelihood of such bosons being the source of the apparent $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ discrepancy.

For the case of a $`𝑾_𝑹`$ coupled to $`𝝁_𝑹`$ and a (very light) $`𝝂_𝑹`$ with gauge coupling $`𝒈_𝑹`$, one finds

$`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}𝑾_𝑹\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟗𝟎}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈_𝑹^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒈_\mathrm{𝟐}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_{𝑾_𝑹}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{.}`$ (53)
To accommodate the discrepancy in Eq. (24) requires $`𝒎_{𝑾_𝑹}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝑾\mathbf{=}\mathbf{80.4}`$ GeV for $`𝒈_𝑹\mathbf{}𝒈_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, which is clearly ruled out by direct searches and precision measurements which give $`𝒎_{𝑾_𝑹}\stackrel{\mathbf{>}}{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝟕𝟏𝟓}`$ GeV. Hence, $`𝑾_𝑹^\mathbf{\pm }`$ is not a viable candidate for explaining the $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ discrepancy.

Extra neutral gauge bosons (with diagonal $`\overline{𝝁}𝝁`$ couplings) do much worse in trying to explain $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$, partly because they often tend to give a contribution with opposite sign. For example, the $`𝒁_𝝌`$ of $`𝑺𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ leads to

$`𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{(}𝒁_𝝌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝒁^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_{𝒁_𝝌}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$ (54)
Given the collider constraint $`𝒎_{𝒁_𝝌}\stackrel{\mathbf{>}}{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎𝟎}`$ GeV, that effect would be much too small to observe in $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$. Most other $`𝒁^{\mathbf{}}`$ scenarios give similar results.

An exception to the small effects from gauge bosons illustrated above is provided by non-chiral coupled bosons which connect $`𝝁`$ and a heavy fermion $`𝑭`$. In those cases, $`𝚫𝒂_𝝁\mathbf{}\frac{𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\frac{𝒎_𝝁𝒎_𝑭}{𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$, where $`𝑴`$ is the gauge boson mass. However, loop effects then give $`𝜹𝒎_𝝁\mathbf{}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑭`$ (see the discussion in Sect. 3.2) and we have argued that in such scenarios $`𝚫𝒂_𝝁`$ should actually turn out to be $`\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. As previously pointed out in Eq. (47), $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{}𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ then corresponds to $`𝑴\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ TeV.

Many other examples of “New Physics” contributions to $`𝒂_𝝁`$ have been considered in the literature. A general analysis in terms of effective interactions was presented in . Specific other examples include effects due to muon compositeness , extra Higgs  bosons, leptoquarks , bileptons , 2-loop pseudoscalar effects , compact extra dimensions  etc. Given the apparent deviation in experiment from theory, all will certainly be revisited.

## 4 Outlook

After many years of experimental and theoretical toil, studies of the muon anomalous magnetic moment have entered an exciting new phase. Experiment E821 at Brookhaven has reported a 2.6 sigma difference betwen $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ and the Standard Model prediction, $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$. That difference could be a strong hint of supersymmetry in roughly the $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$, $`𝒎_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐘}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}`$ GeV $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}`$, $`𝒎_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐘}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟓𝟎}`$ GeV region or perhaps an indication of radiative muon mass generation from “new physics” in the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ TeV range. Either case represents an exciting prospect with interesting implications for future experiments.

Of course, before the assertion of “new physics” can be taken seriously, the values of $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ and $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ should be further scrutinized and refined. In that regard, it is fortunate that ongoing analysis of existing $`𝝁^\mathbf{+}`$ data should reduce the uncertainty in $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$ by about another factor of 2.5 and similar statistical accuracy is expected from ongoing $`𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ studies. In addition, ongoing analysis of $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ data in the $`𝝆`$ resonance region and future experimental studies at higher energy should significantly reduce the uncertainty in $`𝒂_𝝁^{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ and enhance its credibility. Should a significant difference between theory and experiment persist after these improvements, it will rightfully be heralded as a harbinger of “new physics”. We look forward to the anticipated confrontation.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the DOE under grant number DE-AC02-98CH10886.


text:
# Dynamical Friction in dE Globular Cluster Systems

## 1 Introduction

Dwarf elliptical galaxies (dEs) are small, low mass ($``$ $`10^9`$ $`M_{}`$), low luminosity ($`M_B>16`$), elliptical shaped galaxies with little or no gas and no ongoing star formation. They are the most common type of galaxy in the local universe, outnumbering giant galaxies and dwarf irregulars in nearby clusters (Binggeli, Sandage & Tammann 1985; Ferguson & Sandage 1988) and appearing in roughly the same numbers as dwarf irregulars in low-density environments such as the Local Group (Grebel 1997). In “bottom-up” hierarchical merging scenarios of galaxy formation, dwarf-sized objects are the fundamental building blocks of larger galaxies. If dEs formed via gravitational collapse onto compact dark matter halos, then they may present a fossil record of the seeds of giant galaxy formation. On the other hand, if dEs form from the tidal debris of galaxy collisions (Mirabel, Dottori, & Lutz 1992; Barnes & Hernquist 1992; Hunsberger, Charlton, & Zaritsky 1996), then they are but a side-effect of giant galaxy formation. A better understanding of dE star formation histories and the nature of dE dark matter halos can help distinguish between these different formation scenarios.

The variation of structure and chemical abundance with dE galaxy mass is most simply understood as the result of rapid star-formation within a dark matter halo, terminated by supernova-driven winds (Dekel & Silk 1986). However, the varied star-formation histories of the Local Group dwarf spheroidal (dSph) and dE galaxies suggest that the picture is more complicated, at least for these nearby examples (Grebel 1997). Constraints on the ages and metallicities of the more extensive dE populations in nearby clusters are somewhat ambiguous, although integrated optical and infrared colors and spectral features (Thuan 1985; Caldwell & Bothun 1987; James 1994; Bothun & Mould 1988) suggest that dEs are primarily old, metal-poor populations with a few exceptions. Environmental effects, such as tidal interactions, galaxy harassment, and ram-pressure stripping, may play a large role in the transformation of gas-rich proto-dEs into the gas-poor dEs and regulate their star formation processes (e.g. Moore, Lake & Katz 1998).

Brighter than $`M_B=14`$, over 50% of dEs possess compact stellar nuclei (Sandage, Binggeli & Tammann 1985). The nuclei for the most part appear as unresolved sources (even at HST resolution) projected very near the isophotal center of the galaxy. These could, at least in principle, be the merged conglomeration of globular clusters that have spiraled into the centers of the galaxies (Tremaine, Ostriker, & Spitzer 1975). However, there are reasons to suspect that dE nucleus formation may not be so straight-forward. Within the Virgo and Fornax clusters, the spatial distributions of the dE,N galaxies and dE galaxies brighter than $`M_B=14`$ are significantly different. The dE,N galaxies follow the radial distribution of the early-type (E and S0s) giant galaxies, while the bright dEs (no N) galaxies follow the radial distribution of the spirals and irregulars (Ferguson & Sandage 1989). It is difficult to see how a purely internal process for the formation of dE nuclei such as dynamical friction could mimic such an environmental effect. Also, the dE,N galaxies have a somewhat higher globular cluster specific frequency $`S_N`$ (the number of clusters normalized to galaxy luminosity $`M_V=15`$) than non-nucleated dE, even when the nuclei are not counted as clusters, which also suggests a different origin for the two galaxy types (Miller et al. 1998, 2001). And finally, dynamical friction calculations suggest that if nuclei are formed by the merger of decayed clusters, faint dEs should be more likely to be nucleated because they have shorter cluster decay times for fixed cluster mass; however it is the bright dEs which are more likely to be nucleated (Sandage, Binggeli, & Tammann 1985). An alternative scenario to dynamical friction as the dE nuclear formation mechanism suggests that dE nuclei are the remnants of the last burst of star-formation during the transition from dwarf irregulars (dIs) to dEs (Davies & Phillips 1988).

Globular cluster formation is often associated with periods of vigorous star formation, such as the initial monolithic gravitational collapse of proto-galaxies (Harris 1991) or starbursts sparked by galaxy mergers and interactions (e.g. the Antennae, Whitmore & Schweizer 1995). The characteristics of the resulting cluster system record the time since formation and the properties of the host galaxy. The colors of the clusters reflect their ages and abundances, which constrain the star formation history of the host galaxy. The current number of clusters depends on the globular cluster formation efficiency and the cluster destruction efficiency of the host galaxy, which may vary with Hubble type and galaxy mass. The globular cluster specific frequency SN is a function of Hubble type and may give insight into the formation of the globular cluster system (GCS) and host galaxy. The present spatial distribution of the clusters traces the host galaxy’s gravitational potential and dark matter component as well as constrains the initial radial distribution and kinematics of the cluster population.

In the Local Group, observations of the dSph GCSs have presented some interesting puzzles. Recent observations of the globular cluster systems of the Local Group dwarf spheroidals Sagittarius and Fornax have shown a significant age spread in these systems (Buonanno et al. 1999; Fusi Pecci et al. 1995; Montegriffo et al. 1998). The epoch of globular cluster formation for these two galaxies lasted for least 3-7 Gyr and the youngest globular cluster is $``$ 5-7 Gyr old. These galaxies also have extremely high specific frequencies (S$`{}_{N}{}^{}>25`$) - in other words, they have more clusters than expected for such faint, low mass systems (van den Bergh 1995). Finally, despite their short dynamical friction timescales, both Fornax and Sagittarius have retained extended globular systems (Oh, Lin, & Richer 2000).

We have embarked on a Hubble Space Telescope (HST) snapshot survey of globular cluster systems in dE galaxies in nearby clusters and groups. A primary goal of the study is to determine whether the globular cluster specific frequency is high ($`S_N3`$), like giant ellipticals, or low ($`S_N<1`$), like dwarf irregulars. The relatively high values of $`S_N`$ found in the first half of our survey (Miller et al. 1998) suggest that dEs (and especially nucleated dEs) are not simply the faded remnants of dwarf irregular galaxies that have been stripped of their gas. In this paper, we consider the constraints on dE evolution provided by their nuclear properties and the spatial distributions of their globular clusters and search for evidence of dynamical friction processes.

A globular cluster orbiting a galaxy will experience a drag force due to its gravitational interaction with the surrounding stars and dark matter. Over time, this “dynamical friction” (Chandrasekhar 1943) will cause the globular cluster to lose energy and spiral in toward the bottom of the gravitational well. The timescale over which this happens depends on the mass of the globular cluster, its orbit, and the velocity distribution function of the particles with which it is interacting. In §3 we show that for the simplest assumptions – that the globular clusters began with the same radial distribution as the stars, that their orbits are isotropic, and that the dark matter distribution is an isothermal or King sphere – the dynamical friction timescales are significantly shorter than a Hubble time. In §4 we then examine the radial distribution of globular clusters in the 51 dE galaxies in our HST snapshot survey for evidence of these dynamical friction processes. We find that the bright clusters (excluding the nuclei) show a 4 $`\sigma `$ depletion relative to an exponential radial profile, consistent with the orbital decay of these clusters into the dE centers. In §5 we simulate the formation of dE nuclei via dynamical friction. Our simulations for the fainter dEs predict nuclei several magnitudes brighter than observed. These dEs have high globular cluster specific frequencies and extended globular cluster systems but very short predicted decay timescales. We discuss in §6 the processes which may be working against the orbital decay of the globular clusters into a single bright nucleus in the faintest dEs.

## 2 Observations and Data Analysis

HST WFPC2 snapshot images (HST Cycle 6 6352 and Cycle 7 7377 programs) in F555W (2 $`\times `$ 230 seconds) and F814W (300 seconds) were taken of each galaxy, with the galaxy centered on chip 3. The DAOFIND detection algorithm was run on the F555W image and circular aperture photometry of all detected objects was done using a 3 pixel radius aperture. The average aperture corrections for the WF chips are -0.275 $`\pm `$ 0.014 for F555W and -0.307 $`\pm `$ 0.015 for F814W. The $`VI`$ colors (0.5 $`<VI<`$ 1.5) and size (FWHM $`<`$ 2.5 pixels) were used to select globular cluster candidates. Objects detected on chips 2 and 4 that met our selection criteria were considered background/foreground objects and were used to determine the background/foreground contamination of chip 3. All of the dE nuclei in the sample were compact enough to be considered globular cluster candidates, and, thus, were not well resolved even with the high resolution of HST WFPC2 ($``$ 0.1 ″ per pixel ). We assumed distance moduli of 31.2 for the Virgo Cluster, 31.4 for the Fornax Cluster, and 30.3 for the Leo Group. More details on the data reduction and object selection can be found in Miller et al. (1998).

Assuming that the globular clusters have a luminosity function (LF) similar to the Local Group GCLF, we detect 85-90% of the clusters in Virgo and Fornax (down to $`M_V6`$) (Figure 1a) and 98% of the clusters in Leo. Therefore we multiply the total number of Virgo and Fornax globular cluster candidates by 1.15 to correct for incompleteness. However, because we wish to obtain the radial profiles of the globular cluster systems, we must also determine the completeness as a function of radius from the center of the host galaxy. Dwarf galaxies are generally of low surface brightness, $`\mu _o>`$ 21 V magnitudes/arcsec2 (Binggeli & Cameron 1991), so we expect the globular cluster detection efficiency to worsen significantly only in the central regions of the dE. Simulations of a GCS for a V=15.2 ($`M_V=16`$ at Virgo) dE show that the cluster detection rate is $`70\%`$ for r $`<r_0`$ and is $`>95\%`$ for r $`>3r_0`$ (Figure 1b). It is the faint clusters which are missed and clusters brighter than $`M_V=7.0`$ at the distance of Virgo and Fornax are detected at all radii.

Zero to twenty-five globular cluster candidates were found for each galaxy (Tables 1 and 2). The IRAF task ELLIPSE was used to determine the center, exponential scalelength $`r_0`$, and angle of orientation for each galaxy. The isophotal radial distance (the semi-major axis length of the intersecting galactic isophote) for each globular cluster candidate was calculated. Because each galaxy possesses only a small number of globular cluster candidates, a composite globular cluster radial distribution was created by scaling each globular cluster system by the host galaxy’s exponential scalelength. Before summing the radial profiles of the entire dE sample, the profiles were corrected for background/foreground object contamination by subtracting the estimated number of background objects per radial bin for each dE. The summed profile was then corrected for radial incompleteness effects.

## 3 Dynamical Friction Timescales

The observed radial distribution of a galaxy’s GCS depends on 1) the initial radial distribution; 2) the cumulative effects of dynamical friction (which in turn depend on the host galaxy’s gravitational potential well and dynamical structure, as well as the mass distribution of the clusters); and 3) the efficiency of destruction mechanisms near the galaxy’s center such as bulge and disk shocking. Because dEs are without bulges or disks, we will assume that the destruction of observable globular clusters due such shocks is minimal. However, if dEs possess central densities $`>`$ 1 M pc-3, globular clusters passing through the central regions may experience some tidal stripping. Here we assume that dynamical friction is the dominant destruction mechanism.

The simplest hypothesis for the dE GCSs is that they started out with the same spatial and velocity distributions as the underlying stellar population. Durrell et al. (1996) summed the radial distributions for 11 dE GCS and found that dE GCS systems extended no more than 2.5 kpc from the galaxies’ centers and followed the same distribution as the stellar light. However, an earlier study by Minniti et al. (1996) of the summed GCS of four Local Group dEs found evidence for more extended dE GCS. The GCS of giant galaxies are generally more spatially extended than the stars; no GCS has been found to be more centrally concentrated that the rest of the galaxy (Harris 1991). Because most GCSs are associated with a spatially extended component of galaxies, globular clusters could have formed before the bulk of the galaxy’s star formation during a rapid monolithic collapse of proto-galactic halos. Another scenario predicting initially extended radial distributions suggests that globular clusters form from cool gas in the outer halo shocked by a starburst-driven galactic wind (Taniguichi, Trentham, & Ikeuchi 1999). However, the extended GCSs observed in giant ellipticals may result from the preferential destruction of globular clusters near the galaxy’s center by bulge and disk shocking (Murali & Weinberg 1997; Vesperini 1997). Globular clusters may also form out of tidally shocked gas during galaxy mergers and strong interactions; observations of forming star clusters in nearby mergers show that these clusters have the same radial distribution as the underlying stellar populations (Whitmore et al. 1993; Schweizer et al. 1996). For the purposes of this paper, we will assume that dE GCSs initially had the same spatial distribution as the host galaxy’s stars.

Constraints on the structure of dE gravitational potential wells are particularly hard to come by, given the difficulty in observing such faint, generally low surface-brightness objects. Most studies have been limited to using the central stellar velocity dispersions ($`\sigma `$) of Local Group objects. Peterson & Caldwell (1993) find a tight correlation between the dE luminosity and $`\sigma `$, in agreement with supernovae-driven wind dE formation models (Dekel & Silk 1986). Bright dEs with $`M_V17`$ have $`\sigma `$ $``$ 60 km s-1 and faint dEs with $`M_V12`$ have $`\sigma `$ $``$ 15 km s-1. Mass estimates from these velocity measurements assuming isotropic King profiles suggest that dEs are increasingly dominated by dark matter at fainter magnitudes (Aaronson 1983; Pryor & Kormendy 1990). However, the stellar velocity dispersion for some dEs are not isotropic - measurements of the anisotropy parameter $`(v/\sigma )^{}`$ ($`=\frac{v}{\sigma }/\sqrt{ϵ/(1ϵ)}`$, where $`v`$ is the rotational velocity, $`\sigma `$ is the mean velocity dispersion, and $`ϵ`$ is the ellipticity at the radius where $`v`$ is measured) yield values less than 0.4 (Bender & Nieto 1990). But the Bender & Nieto (1990) sample only contains two dEs and for simplicity we assume that dE dark matter halos are isotropic. Here we calculate the dynamical friction timescales for two isotropic potentials - the isothermal halo and the King model. We assume dEs to have circular velocities ($`v_c=\sqrt{2}\sigma `$ for the isothermal model, $`v_c=\sqrt{3}\sigma `$ for the King model) between 10-100 km s-1 for $`M_V=12`$ to $`17`$.

The time for the orbit of a globular cluster of mass M in an isothermal halo with a circular velocity $`v_c`$ to decay from an initial radius $`r_i`$ to the center is

$`t_{DF}={\displaystyle \frac{2.64\times 10^2}{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_i}{2\mathrm{kpc}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{v_c}{250\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^6\mathrm{M}_{}}{\mathrm{M}}}\right)\mathrm{Gyr}`$ (1)
(Binney & Tremaine 1987). If we assume that the globular cluster distribution generally follows the stellar light, the initial globular cluster radii should be comparable to dE half-light (effective) radii ($``$ 500 pc to 1.5 kpc, Peterson & Caldwell 1993).

The Coulomb logarithm $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{b}_{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{V}^2}{\mathrm{G}(\mathrm{M}+\mathrm{m})}}\right),`$ (2)
where $`b_{max}`$ is the maximum impact parameter between the cluster and interacting particle, V is the typical velocity of the system (for which we assume V $`v_c`$) and $`m`$ is the mass of the particle (star). The value of $`b_{max}`$ for dE galaxies is unknown and may range between 0.5 to 3 kpc. However, this introduces only a 10-15 % uncertainty to the dynamical friction timescale. We assume $`b_{max}`$ = 1 kpc for all of our calculations.

Hernandez & Gilmore (1998) have recently re-addressed the dynamical friction timescales for dwarf galaxies, assuming dwarf dark matter halos are well represented by constant density core region of a King distribution (King 1966). If the dark matter distribution has an approximately constant-density core with radius $`r_k`$, the dynamical friction timescale for clusters with $`r_i=r_k`$ becomes

$`t_{DF}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}v_c\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_k}{\mathrm{kpc}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^5\mathrm{M}_{}}{\mathrm{M}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\right)\mathrm{Gyr}.`$ (3)
(Following Hernandez & Gilmore, here we have defined the “dynamical friction timescale” to be the time for the globular cluster orbit to decay to 1/16th of its initial radius.) The core radius of the King model is defined as $`r_k=(9\sigma ^2/4\pi G\rho )^{1/2}`$. The light profiles of dEs are reasonably well fit by King models, although bright dEs tend to have central excesses (Binggeli & Cameron 1991). Typical stellar King core radii are on the order of 1 kpc. However, dEs are likely to be dark matter dominated and the extent of their dark matter halos is not well known. Pryor & Kormendy (1990) found the best dark matter models for the Draco and Ursa Minor dSphs were either isotropic with similar dark matter and stellar core radii or highly anisotropic with dark matter scale radii $``$ 10 stellar core radii. Dwarf spirals may also be fit with King profiles, but have larger dark matter core radii (2-8 kpc, Burkert 1995) .

In Figure 2, we plot the dynamical friction timescale as a function of circular velocity for dwarf-sized isothermal and King halos assuming different initial/ dark matter core radii and cluster masses. In the isothermal halo, clusters with masses $``$ 3 $`\times `$ $`10^5`$ $`M_{}`$ and initial radii $``$ 1 kpc will spiral into the center in less than 10 Gyr. In the King halo, clusters with masses $``$ 2 $`\times `$ $`10^5`$ $`M_{}`$ in a $`r_k`$ 1 kpc dark matter halo will spiral into the center in less than 10 Gyr. Thus, for simple yet reasonable assumptions, i.e. that dEs are adequately modeled by isotropic isothermal or King profiles, that the dark matter and initial globular cluster distributions follow the stellar profile, and that the clusters have ages similar to Galactic globular clusters ($`>`$ 10 Gyr), the dE GCSs should be significantly affected by dynamical friction processes. The effects are stronger for fainter, lower mass dwarf galaxies.

## 4 Evolution of dE globular cluster radial distributions

As the orbits of globular clusters decay under dynamical friction, the massive clusters will sink into the center more quickly than the smaller clusters. We have run a simple Monte Carlo simulation to trace the evolution of the radial distribution of a typical dE globular cluster system. The simulation uses the analytic expression for radial decay due to dynamical friction in an isothermal sphere (Equation 1). Because dynamical friction decreases energy from a globular cluster at a rate proportional to $`dV^2`$ but decreases angular momentum at a rate proportional to $`dV`$, a globular cluster acting under dynamical friction will decay into orbits of maximum angular momentum (Hernandez & Gilmore 1998). Therefore we assume that the orbits of the globular clusters are circular. The clusters initially follow the exponential profile of the underlying stellar population and have the present day globular cluster mass function, independent of radius. The simulation was run 100,000 times for three cases: $`v_c=`$ 50 km s-1 and $`r_0=`$ 2 kpc; $`v_c=`$30 km s-1 and $`r_0=`$ 1 kpc; and $`v_c=`$15 km s-1 and $`r_0=`$ 0.5 kpc (Figure 3).

The simulated globular cluster radial profiles in Figure 3 demonstrate the increasing impact of dynamical friction on smaller, lower mass dwarfs. For the first two cases, dynamical friction has little effect on the summed profile of the entire GCS and only the massive clusters within the inner scalelengths fall into the galaxy’s core within 10 Gyr. In the 50 km s-1 dE, all clusters with masses $`>5\times 10^5M_{}`$ and radii $`<`$ 1 kpc (1/2 $`r_0`$) merge into the center within 10 Gyr. In the 30 km s-1 dE, all clusters with masses $`>5\times 10^5M_{}`$ and initial radii $`<`$ 2 kpc (2 $`r_0`$) merge into the center within 10 Gyr. As the inner-most massive clusters are destroyed, some of the massive clusters originally found in the outer regions sink into the central few scalelengths. The remaining less massive and more extended clusters sink more slowly inwards and retain the exponential radial distribution in the outer regions of the dE. However, in the 15 km s-1, 0.5 kpc simulation, after 10 Gyr $``$ 85% of all clusters have merged into the center and 99.9% of $`M_V<8.0`$ clusters have been destroyed. In the faintest and smallest dE, most of the globular clusters should merge to form a bright nucleus in less than a Hubble time.

We have examined the summed radial distribution of both the bright ($`M_V<8`$), non-nucleus cluster candidates and the entire GCSs of our dE sample for evidence of these dynamical friction processes. Because our sample includes dEs with $`11.9>M_B>17.3`$, we expect the impact of dynamical friction on our summed radial distribution will be most noticeable in the deficit of massive clusters in the inner regions of dE. For each dE, we typically detect only a few globular cluster candidates in excess of the background. Without radial velocities, it is impossible to determine if a given globular cluster candidate is associated with the dE or is a background galaxy or foreground star. Figure 4 shows the magnitude distribution of globular cluster candidates and background/foreground objects satisfying the same color and compactness criteria. Significant contamination by background objects affects the brightest bins; roughly 30% of the brightest cluster candidates which fall on chip 3 and have $`M_V<8`$ are likely to be background objects. Assuming $`M/L_V`$ = 2, a $`M_V=8`$ cluster has a mass $``$ $`2.5\times 10^5M_{}`$. The dynamical friction timescale for a $`2.5\times 10^5M_{}`$ cluster with an initial radius of 1 kpc in an isothermal halo with $`v_c`$ 40 km s-1 is $``$ 5 Gyr, thus the dynamical friction effects should be apparent for these bright clusters.

We have scaled the entire globular cluster system of each dE by the host galaxy’s exponential scalelength $`r_0`$, subtracted out the background contamination, and summed the radial distributions of our 51 dEs to create a composite globular cluster radial distribution (top half of Figure 5). The nuclei are excluded from this radial distribution. The summed distribution was corrected for radial dependence on incompleteness, as determined in Figure 1b. This composite globular cluster radial profile is well fit by an exponential profile and follows the light profile of dEs:

$$\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{gc}}/\mathrm{area})=(0.97\pm 0.12)\times (\frac{r}{r_\mathit{0}})+(4.76\pm 0.45)(\mathrm{RMS}=0.29).$$
(4)
No deficit below the exponential profile for the entire summed globular cluster distribution is apparent; however, the effect of dynamical friction on the total distribution is likely to be undetectable (Figure 3).

In the bottom of Figure 5, we have plotted the radial distribution of the bright ($`M_V<8.0`$) non-nuclear cluster candidates, corrected for the 30% contamination, scaled by the exponential scalelength of the galaxy and summed over the entire dE sample. We have done no correction for incompleteness because the correction should be very small for clusters brighter than $`M_V=7.0`$, even in the central regions of the dEs. The best linear fit to this profile is $`4\sigma `$ shallower than an exponential profile:

$$\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{N}_{\mathrm{gc}}/\mathrm{area})=(0.68\pm 0.07)\times (\frac{r}{r_\mathit{0}})+(2.93\pm 0.25)(\mathrm{RMS}=0.21).$$
(5)
Thus, it appears that there is a significant deficit of bright, massive globular clusters in the inner regions of our sample dEs.

## 5 Formation of dE nuclei via dynamical friction

Our Monte Carlo simulation of the evolution of dE globular cluster systems’ radial profiles shows that massive clusters quickly spiral into the centers of dE. The brightest globular cluster candidate in a dE is often the nucleus with $`<M_V>=10.3`$ (M $``$ 3 $`\times `$ 106 $`M_{}`$, assuming $`M/L_V`$ =2). Most of the nuclei in our sample lie in a fairly small $`(VI)`$ range between 0.85 and 1.10, consistent with a 12 Gyr stellar population and a metallicity range between 1/100 and 1/5 solar (Figure 6). The fainter nuclei are also found in fainter galaxies, which generally have fewer clusters overall (top of Figure 7). There is a slight color-magnitude relation where the fainter nuclei are bluer. One can imagine a scenario where fainter, less massive galaxies initially have fewer clusters and lower metallicities, and form fainter, bluer nuclei. The nuclei of FCC25 and FCC1714 lie outside of these trends. FCC 25 is $``$ 0.4 magnitudes redder than the other nuclei and could be a background galaxy. FCC 1714 is $``$ 0.3 magnitudes bluer and could also be a background/foreground object or a $`<`$ 1 Gyr old cluster.

We ran another set of Monte Carlo simulations to predict the magnitude of each dE nucleus in our sample of dE,N based on each galaxy’s intrinsic properties (Table 1). Again, the simulation randomly sampled the cluster mass function and an exponential radial distribution and allowed the clusters to orbitally decay for 5 Gyr. Any cluster with a final radius $``$ 0 was merged into the nucleus. The velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ was estimated using the $`\sigma `$ \- luminosity relation for dEs (Dekel & Silk 1987, Peterson & Caldwell 1993) and converted to circular velocity assuming $`v_c=\sqrt{2}\sigma `$. Each galaxy’s exponential scalelength was measured from our HST WFPC2 I image (Table 1). The initial number of clusters was estimated by correcting the present day number of clusters by the dynamical friction destruction efficiency. The globular cluster destruction efficiency due to dynamical friction depends on the host galaxy’s scalelength and circular velocity. dE,N with less than 2 detected clusters were excluded due to the uncertainty in calculating the globular cluster destruction efficiency. After 5 Gyr, $``$ 15% of globular clusters will merge into a nucleus in a $`v_c=`$ 50 km s-1, $`r_0=`$ 2 kpc dE and $``$ 80% of globular clusters will merge into a nucleus in a $`v_c=`$ 15 km s-1, $`r_0=`$ 500 pc dE. Note that, if dynamical friction is as efficient at destroying globular clusters as our simulations suggest, then the faintest dEs initially formed with up to ten times as many clusters as we observe today.

Assuming nuclei form via dynamical friction, we predict a much weaker trend of nuclear magnitude with galaxy magnitude than observed (bottom of Figure 7). While the fainter galaxies generally have fewer globular clusters from which to form nuclei, they should have shorter dynamical friction timescales and thus should be more efficient at destroying clusters and forming nuclei. However, our simulation over-predicts the mass of the nuclei in most of our sample. Figure 8 plots the predicted $`M_V`$ magnitude of the nucleus vs. the observed $`M_V`$ magnitude for each dE,N. Nuclei which fall on or below the solid line may have formed via dynamical friction processes within 5 Gyr. Thus, even the bright nucleus of VCC1254 ($`M_V=12.59\pm 0.02`$) may have been formed from the decayed remnants of massive globular clusters. However, many of the faint nuclei (found primarily in the $`M_V>14`$ galaxies) are several magnitudes fainter than predicted.

Many of these faint galaxies have extremely high $`S_N`$ (Tables 1 and 2) and possess extended GCS. Dynamical friction arguments would suggest that most of the clusters in these diffuse galaxies should have merged into a single bright nucleus and the globular cluster population we observe today is less than a third of the original population. Clearly, dynamical friction is not as effective at destroying globular clusters and forming nuclei in the faint dEs as our simple simulations predict. While the faint nuclei may have been formed via the orbital decay of massive globular clusters, some mechanism seems to have minimized the dynamical decay of the GCSs in these dEs.

## 6 Possible mechanisms working against dynamical friction

We have detected evidence for the action of dynamical friction in the radial distribution of the bright non-nuclear globular clusters in dE galaxies and found that the brightest nuclei are consistent with formation via the orbital decay of massive clusters in the center of the host dE. However, our Monte Carlo simulations of the formation of dE nuclei do not adequately reproduce the strong observed trend of decreasing nuclear luminosity with decreasing galaxy luminosity. In the faint dEs, some mechanism is working against dynamical friction to prevent the collapse of the entire globular cluster system. This result is reminiscent of the observations of the Fornax and Sagittarius dSph GCSs. Both of these $`M_V>14`$ Local Group dSph possess high specific frequencies and extended GCSs, despite extremely short dynamical friction timescales. In this section we consider the mechanisms which may counteract or minimize the dynamical drag on the globular clusters in faint dE.

1) The globular clusters in the faintest dEs could be younger than their dynamical friction timescales ($``$ 5 Gyr). Many Local Group dSph possess significant numbers of intermediate age stars (1-8 Gyr), and several “young” globular clusters (4-8 Gyr) are associated with the Sagittarius and Fornax dSph (Grebel 1997, van den Bergh 2000). Combined with the existence of numerous faint blue galaxies in the field, this suggests that many dwarf galaxies experienced a secondary starburst between z $``$ 0.5 - 1.5. Although the dE globular clusters have colors and luminosities similar to the 12-14 Gyr globular clusters in our Galaxy, the age-metallicity degeneracy prevents us from constraining their ages to better than a few Gyr. However, for the Fornax dSph, where globular cluster ages can be constrained by color magnitude diagrams, the youngest globular cluster is still several Gyr older than its dynamical friction timescale (Oh, Lin, & Richer 2000).

2) dEs may have undergone significant mass loss due to supernovae-driven winds during the formation of their first stars. The fractional mass lost increases with decreasing mass, thus the smallest objects suffered the greatest mass loss (Dekel & Silk 1986). The galaxy’s globular cluster system may have become more extended than the remaining stars as a result of the supernovae-driven wind, and take longer to spiral inward under the influence of dynamical friction. If they formed in the galaxy’s halo before the onset of the wind (McLaughlin 1999) or as the wind shocked the galaxy’s outer halo (Taniguichi et al. 1999), they would initially possess a radial profile more extended than the stellar light. The initial extent of this globular cluster halo may increase with increasing mass loss and decreasing initial mass. However, it is difficult to see how the GCSs could then evolve to match the exponential stellar profile at the present day.

3) The structure of the dark matter halos may be significantly different from the stellar halos. An increase in either the dark matter density or the dark matter core radius relative to the stellar density or core radius will increase the velocity dispersion of the dark matter and the dynamical friction timescale of the globular clusters (Hernandez & Gilmore 1998). The $`M/L`$ estimates for dEs predict that most of the mass is in dark matter; thus the interaction with the dark matter rather than with the stars will dominate the drag on the globular clusters. The faintest dEs may have high dark matter densities (Dekel & Silk 1986; Peterson & Caldwell 1993) which would slow down the orbital decay of the clusters. The Local Group dSph show a trend towards increasing mass to light ratios with decreasing luminosity (Peterson & Caldwell 1993; Mateo 1998). Also, the distribution of dark matter in dEs is very poorly constrained. Dwarf spirals and other LSBs for which HI rotation curves may be measured show dark matter halos which extend several scalelengths beyond the stellar profiles. If dEs are gas-stripped dwarf irregulars and spirals, they too should have extended dark matter halos.

Expressing the dynamical friction time scale of Equation (3) in terms of the density (see also Carollo 1999 for a different derivation) yields for clusters starting with the core radius the relation

$$t_{DF}=\frac{1.26\times 10^2}{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(\frac{r_k}{2\mathrm{kpc}}\right)^3\left(\frac{10^6\mathrm{M}_{}}{\mathrm{M}}\right)\left(\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{pc}^3}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{Gyr},$$
(6)
with the density given by $`\rho _0=0.55(\frac{V_0}{100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1})^2(\frac{1\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}}{r_k})^2\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{pc}^3`$. Our results would imply dE dark matter densities in excess of $`1`$ M pc-3 or dE dark matter core radii $`>`$ 2 kpc for the faintest dE.

Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) offers a possible alternative to dark-matter dominated dEs. MOND has been successful at explaining the velocity rotation curves of low surface brightness disk galaxies; dSph and dEs should also provide a strong test for MOND (McGaugh & de Blok 1998). However, a full derivation of dynamical friction taking into account the effects of MOND is needed to determine if MOND is consistent with our results and that is beyond the scope of this paper.

4) The clusters may be heated in such a way that counters their orbital decay via dynamical friction. Oh, Lin & Richer (2000) recently attempted to identify possible heating mechanisms for the Fornax dSph GCS. One possible mechanism for injecting kinetic energy into the GCS is by scattering of the globular clusters after close encounters with massive black holes ($`M_{BH}M_{GC}`$). Such scattering may also occur once a massive nucleus has formed. However, repeated encounters are likely to destroy the clusters.

Oh et al. (2000) also examine the effects of the tidal disruption of the Fornax dSph by the Galaxy. While the tidal forces increase the globular cluster orbital eccentricities and velocity dispersions, the strong tidal forces can not increase the GCS kinetic energy enough to counter the dynamical friction drag. But, if Fornax has experienced significant mass loss (50-90 %) via tidal stripping over many internal dynamical timescales, the clusters will retain their energy in a shallower gravitational potential well and their orbital radii will increase, countering the drag of dynamical friction.

The dEs in our sample were selected to not be close companions of giant galaxies, for fear that the dE globular cluster candidates would be contaminated by those of the giant companion. However, the tidal field of the entire cluster of galaxies may play a role in heating their GCSs. Oh & Lin (2000) model the effects of the extra-galactic tidal field of the Virgo Cluster on dE GCSs. dEs within the inner regions of Virgo experience a relatively weak external tidal perturbation and therefore their GCSs are able to decay under dynamical friction and coalesce into nuclei. But in the outskirts of Virgo, dEs may be tidally disrupted and suffer significant mass loss as in the Fornax dSph simulation. Less massive galaxies are more likely to be disrupted and thus less likely to form nuclei.

## 7 Conclusions

We have examined high resolution HST WFPC2 V and I images of dE galaxies for evidence of dynamical friction in their globular cluster systems and nuclear properties. We find that, within the inner few scalelengths, our sample appears to be depleted of bright clusters, but there are no other observable effects on the summed profile. Monte Carlo simulations of the evolution of dE globular cluster systems show that the brighter nuclei may have formed via orbital decay into the galaxy’s core. However, the observed trend of fainter nuclei in fainter galaxies is much stronger than expected if the nuclei form via simple dynamical friction processes. In these galaxies, some mechanism must be working against the orbital decay of the globular clusters. Mass loss via supernova-driven winds, high dark matter densities and/or large dark matter cores, the formation of new star clusters, and tidal stripping may all conspire together to counteract the dynamical drag on the faintest dE GCSs and inhibit the formation of bright nuclei. We will obtain Cycle 9 HST WFPC2 observations of $``$ 30 brighter dEs with larger GCS to improve our statistics.

We wish to thank Rosie Wyse and Brad Whitmore for useful discussions about dynamical friction and globular cluster detection. We also thank our referee, Tad Pryor, for his very constructive and helpful comments. Support for this work was provided by NASA through grants GO-06352.01-95A and GO-07377-01-96A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contracted NAS5-26555.