Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The Fermilab Muon g−2 experiment's final result (June 2025) fixes the experimental world average at a_μ^exp = 116592071.5 ± 14.5 (×10⁻¹¹). Against the 2020 Theory Initiative white paper (data-driven hadronic vacuum polarization), the defect was Δ = +261.5 ± 45.4 (×10⁻¹¹) — 5.8σ. Against the 2025 white paper, which replaced the data-driven HVP with the lattice-QCD evaluation, the defect is Δ = +38 ± 63 (×10⁻¹¹) — 0.6σ, nothing. The experiment did not move: both white papers face the same measurement. What moved is one theory input, the leading hadronic vacuum polarization, whose two independent reductions (dispersive (from e⁺e⁻ annihilation data) at 6931 ± 40 and lattice at 7132 ± 61 (×10⁻¹¹)) disagree with each other by 201 ± 73, a 2.76σ theory-versus-theory defect that is now the largest open wound in the quantity. The anomaly's death certificate therefore reads: killed not by a better measurement, and not by new physics, but by a change of theory method that is not itself yet settled — the e⁺e⁻ cross-section datasets behind the dispersive value contradict each other (the stated reason the 2025 paper abandoned them), and the second hadronic contribution, light-by-light, carries a pheno-versus-lattice split of 1.5σ with an error-inflation factor applied in print. Verdict: no case against the Standard Model — the anomaly is retired, and the defect has moved from experiment-versus-theory to theory-versus-theory, at 2.76σ, priced in §4. A discrepancy whose verdict flips with the choice of one input's reduction method was never a measurement of new physics. It was, all along, a measurement of the HVP problem, and the HVP problem is still open.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Alexander Aldred (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: