Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 451

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Revised experimental upper limit on the electric dipole moment of the neutron

Open access
Pendlebury, J. M., Afach, S., Ayres, N. J., Baker, C. A., Ban, G., Bison, G., Bodek, K., Burghoff, M., Geltenbort, P., Green, K., Griffith, W. C., van der Grinten, M., Grujić, Z. D., Harris, P. G., Hélaine, V., Iaydjiev, P., Ivanov, S. N., Kasprzak, M., Kermaidic, Y., Kirch, K., Koch, H.-C., Komposch, S., Kozela, A., Krempel, J., Lauss, B., Lefort, T., Lemière, Y., May, D. J. R., Musgrave, M., Naviliat-Cuncic, O., Piegsa, F. M., Pignol, G., Prashanth, P. N., Quéméner, G., Rawlik, M., Rebreyend, D., Richardson, J. D., Ries, D., Roccia, S., Rozpedzik, D., Schnabel, A., Schmidt-Wellenburg, P., Severijns, N., Shiers, D., Thorne, J. A., Weis, A., Winston, O. J., Wursten, E., Zejma, J., Zsigmond, G.·2015·Physical Review D
DOI 10.1103/physrevd.92.092003
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We present for the first time a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the experimental results that set the current world sensitivity limit on the magnitude of the electric dipole moment (EDM) of the neutron. We have extended and enhanced our earlier analysis to include recent developments in the understanding of the effects of gravity in depolarizing ultracold neutrons; an improved calculation of the spectrum of the neutrons; and conservative estimates of other possible systematic errors, which are also shown to be consistent with more recent measurements undertaken with the apparatus. We obtain a net result of ${d}_{\mathrm{n}}=\ensuremath{-}0.21\ifmmode\pm\else\textpm\fi{}1.82\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}1{0}^{\ensuremath{-}26}\text{ }\text{ }e\text{ }\mathrm{cm}$, which may be interpreted as a slightly revised upper limit on the magnitude of the EDM of $3.0\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}1{0}^{\ensuremath{-}26}\text{ }\text{ }e\text{ }\mathrm{cm}$ (90% C.L.) or $3.6\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}1{0}^{\ensuremath{-}26}\text{ }\text{ }e\text{ }\mathrm{cm}$ (95% C.L.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.92.092003

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 451

Metadata

Authors
Pendlebury, J. M., Afach, S., Ayres, N. J., Baker, C. A., Ban, G., Bison, G., Bodek, K., Burghoff, M., Geltenbort, P., Green, K., Griffith, W. C., van der Grinten, M., Grujić, Z. D., Harris, P. G., Hélaine, V., Iaydjiev, P., Ivanov, S. N., Kasprzak, M., Kermaidic, Y., Kirch, K., Koch, H.-C., Komposch, S., Kozela, A., Krempel, J., Lauss, B., Lefort, T., Lemière, Y., May, D. J. R., Musgrave, M., Naviliat-Cuncic, O., Piegsa, F. M., Pignol, G., Prashanth, P. N., Quéméner, G., Rawlik, M., Rebreyend, D., Richardson, J. D., Ries, D., Roccia, S., Rozpedzik, D., Schnabel, A., Schmidt-Wellenburg, P., Severijns, N., Shiers, D., Thorne, J. A., Weis, A., Winston, O. J., Wursten, E., Zejma, J., & Zsigmond, G.
Venue
Physical Review D
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2015-11-04
Volume
92
Issue
9
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
DOI
10.1103/physrevd.92.092003
OpenAlex
W1879058903
Cited by
451
References
19
FWCI
22.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.