New measurement of the electron magnetic moment and the fine structure constant
Open accessAbstract
A measurement using a one-electron quantum cyclotron gives the electron magnetic moment in Bohr magnetons, g/2=1.001 159 652 180 73 (28) [0.28 ppt], with an uncertainty 2.7 and 15 times smaller than for previous measurements in 2006 and 1987. The electron is used as a magnetometer to allow line shape statistics to accumulate, and its spontaneous emission rate determines the correction for its interaction with a cylindrical trap cavity. The new measurement and QED theory determine the fine structure constant, with alpha{-1}=137.035 999 084 (51) [0.37 ppb], and an uncertainty 20 times smaller than for any independent determination of alpha.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Penning traps are a well-established tool for precision spectroscopy with small numbers of ions.
“Penning traps are a well-established tool for precision spectroscopy with small numbers of ions25–28”
From Penning micro-trap for quantum computing (2024) · cites this paper as [27]
The Abstract and Fig. 2 describe a cylindrical Penning trap confining a single electron, and Fig. 4 shows quantum-jump spectroscopy in that trap. This supports Penning traps as a precision-spectroscopy tool for a single particle, but this paper studies an electron, not small numbers of ions. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe magnetic field reported in Eq. (18) is a gradient-free magnetic bottle, with a curvature about six times smaller than the one used for measuring the g-factor of the free electron and about 20 times smaller than that in the first observation of the continuous Stern-Gerlach effect with a highly charged ion.
“The magnetic field reported in Eq. ( 18) is a gradient-free magnetic bottle, with a curvature about six times smaller than the one used for measuring the g-factor of the free electron 35 and about 20 times smaller than that in the first observation of the continuous Stern-Gerlach effect with a highly charged ion.36”
From Planar, strong magnetic field source for a chip ion trap (2020) · cites this paper as [35]
The paper’s magnetic-bottle discussion (arXiv full-text section; page not given) confirms that a magnetic bottle was used in the free-electron g-factor measurement. It gives no bottle curvature or value establishing the approximately sixfold comparison attributed to citation 35. The highly charged ion comparison is attached to citation 36, not this source. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe methods used to cool an electron's cyclotron motion to its quantum ground state should also work for more trapped electrons.
“Harvard experiments [3, 7] cool an electron's cyclotron motion to its quantum ground state, using methods that should also work for more trapped electrons.”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
The paper’s discussion of quantum-jump spectroscopy (page not available in our copy) says a single trapped electron is prepared in its lowest cyclotron level, n = 0. It does not say that the methods should work for more trapped electrons. Its closing discussion instead proposes future cooling of the axial motion, a different motion, toward its ground state. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAt low temperature in a large magnetic field (100 mK and 6 T), the cyclotron motion of an electron in a Penning trap radiatively cools to the ground state.
“This is possible because at low temperature in a large magnetic field (100 mK and 6 T in Harvard experiments [3]) the cyclotron motion radiatively cools to the ground state.”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
The paper’s discussion of quantum-jump spectroscopy (page unavailable) says the electron is prepared in the cyclotron ground state and that cyclotron excitations undergo spontaneous emission. It also says trap electrodes cool to 0.1 K, but does not specify a 6 T field or state that radiative cooling is how the ground state is reached. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe electrons remain near their equilibrium positions because at 100 mK the cyclotron motion cools to its ground state by synchrotron radiation and the thermal axial excursion is much less than the radial separation x0.
“The electrons remain near their equilibrium positions because at 100 mK, reachable in principle with current dilution refrigerator technology [3], the cyclotron motion cools to its ground state by synchrotron radiation and the thermal axial excursion is much less than the radial separation x 0 .”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
The section on electron–cavity interactions (page unavailable) says the trap electrodes cool to 0.1 K, supporting the feasibility of reaching 100 mK in this apparatus. It does not identify dilution-refrigerator technology as the means of reaching that temperature, which is the specific point attached to this citation. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Quantum control of cyclotron and spin motions was recently achieved with a single electron (but not yet with more).
“Quantum control of cyclotron and spin motions was recently achieved with a single electron (but not yet with more).”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
The paper’s abstract describes a one-electron quantum cyclotron, and its quantum-jump spectroscopy passage describes driving and detecting cyclotron excitations and spin flips in a single electron. These passages support the single-electron part of the claim, but the paper does not establish that such control had not yet been achieved with more than one electron. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredQND methods were used to reveal one-quantum cyclotron and spin transitions between the lowest energy levels of a single electron suspended for months in a Penning trap.
“On the way to measuring the electron's magnetic moment to 3 parts in 10 13 [3], QND methods were used to reveal onequantum cyclotron and spin transitions between the lowest energy levels of a single electron suspended for months in a Penning trap.”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
The main text (page not provided) describes QND detection of one-quantum cyclotron excitations and spin flips between the electron’s lowest levels; Fig. 2 identifies the single-electron Penning trap. The paper reports a magnetic-moment uncertainty of 0.28 parts per trillion, approximately 3 parts in 10¹³. It does not establish that the electron was suspended for months. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe Ramsey method has not been used for the one-particle measurements; instead, a much weaker drive applied over a much longer time was used to drive anomaly transitions at ω′a.
“The Ramsey method has not been used for the oneparticle measurements. Instead, a much weaker drive applied over a much longer time was used to drive anomaly transitions at ω ′ a .”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
The quantum-jump spectroscopy passage (arXiv text, page not given) says an anomaly drive near νa was applied for 2 seconds, and the drive-description passage says low strengths kept transition probabilities below 20%. The copy does not discuss the Ramsey method or establish that this drive was weaker and applied longer than a Ramsey drive. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn an experimental setting, a measurement must be performed in a time shorter than the decoherence time that arises from axial center-of-mass amplitude fluctuations coupled to ω′a via the z^2 term in the magnetic bottle.
“In an experimental setting, we are subject to the requirement that a measurement must be performed in a time shorter than the decoherence time that arises from axial center-of-mass amplitude fluctuations coupled to ω ′ a via the z 2 term in the magnetic bottle [3],”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
The paper’s discussion of QND detection and lineshapes reports that thermal axial motion through the magnetic-bottle gradient affects the anomaly resonance. It does not state that axial-amplitude fluctuations impose a decoherence time or that a measurement must finish before that time; the spectroscopy passage instead describes two-second drives. The supplied passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn Penning trap experiments, typical RF resonators have Q ~ 10^4, so the particle's energy is irreversibly dissipated almost instantly and τ = 1/Ω is the resistive cooling time constant.
“In Penning trap experiments such as in Refs.33-35, typical values of the used RF resonators 36 are Q 10 4 .Thus, in those cases, once delivered to the resonator, the particle's energy is irreversibly dissipated almost instantly 37 and s ¼ 1=X is denoted as the “resistive cooling time constant.””
From Coherent coupling of a trapped electron to a distant superconducting microwave cavity (2020) · cites this paper as [33]
These frequencies, with the measured axial frequency ωz, determine the dimensionless magnetic moment g/2 to an unprecedented level of accuracy.
“These frequencies, with the measured axial frequency ω z , determine the dimensionless magnetic moment g/ 2-the magnetic moment in Bohr magnetons-to an unprecedented level of accuracy.”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
Harvard experiments cool an electron's cyclotron motion to its quantum ground state.
“Harvard experiments [3, 7] cool an electron's cyclotron motion to its quantum ground state, using methods that should also work for more trapped electrons.”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
In this model system, the desired entanglement can be achieved by applying an axial drive at ω′a+∆ in the presence of a magnetic bottle, as in the one-electron experiments.
“In this model system, the desired entanglement can be achieved by applying an axial drive at ω ′ a +∆ in the presence of a magnetic bottle, as in the one-electron experiments [3, 7].”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
Using the parameters from [3], for an axial oscillation z0 of 100 μm, Ω/2π ∼ 10 Hz.
“Using the parameters from [3], for an axial oscillation z 0 of 100 µ m, Ω / 2 π ∼ 10 Hz.”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
At 300 mK, under the conditions realized thus far with one electron, the decoherence time is 2.3 seconds.
“At 300 mK, under the conditions realized thus far with one electron, this decoherence time is 2.3 seconds.”
From Towards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps (2010) · cites this paper as [3]
The paper’s discussion of QND detection describes a single electron, axial cooling to 230 mK, and cavity-inhibited spontaneous emission, but gives no decoherence time. Searches for “2.3 seconds” and single-electron decoherence found no passage stating the claimed value at 300 mK. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Final report of the E821 muon anomalous magnetic moment measurement at BNL
Bennett, G. W., Bousquet, B., Brown, H., Bunce, G. M., Carey, R. M., Cushman, P., Danby, G. T., Debevec, P. T., Deile, M., Deng, H., et al. (2006) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.072003 · Cited by 2,450 · see citing works
New high-precision comparison of electron and positrongfactors
Dyck, R. S. V., Schwinberg, P. B., & DEHMELT, H. G. (1987) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.59.26 · Cited by 660 · see citing works
CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2002
Mohr, P. J., & Taylor, B. N. (2005) · Reviews of Modern Physics · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.77.1 · Cited by 654 · see citing works
New Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment Using a One-Electron Quantum Cyclotron
Odom, B., Hanneke, D., D’Urso, B., & Gabrielse, G. (2006) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.030801 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
Self-citationNew Determination of the Fine Structure Constant from the Electron g Value and QED
Gabrielse, G., Hanneke, D., Kinoshita, T., Nio, M., & Odom, B. (2006) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.030802 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
Self-citationObservation of inhibited spontaneous emission
Gabrielse, G., & Dehmelt, H. (1985) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.55.67 · Cited by 298 · see citing works
Self-citationCladé, P., de Mirandés, E., Cadoret, M., et al. (2006) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.033001 · Cited by 247 · see citing works
Precision spectroscopy of a charged particle in an imperfect Penning trap
Brown, L. S., & Gabrielse, G. (1982) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.25.2423 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
Self-citationPeil, S., & Gabrielse, G. (1999) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.1287 · Cited by 209 · see citing works
Self-citationCylindrical Penning traps with orthogonalized anharmonicity compensation
Gabrielse, G., & Mackintosh, F. C. (1984) · International Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Ion Processes · doi:10.1016/0168-1176(84)85061-2 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
Self-citationGabrielse, G., Hanneke, D., Kinoshita, T., et al. (2007) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.039902 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Self-citationRevised Value of the Eighth-Order Contribution to the Electron g−2
Aoyama, T., Hayakawa, M., Kinoshita, T., et al. (2007) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.110406 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Gerginov, V. P., Calkins, K., Tanner, C. E., et al. (2006) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.73.032504 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Cyclotron motion in a microwave cavity: Possible shifts of the measured electrongfactor
Brown, L. S., Gabrielse, G., Helmerson, K., & Tan, J. N. (1985) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.55.44 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Self-citationBrown, L. S. (1985) · Annals of Physics · doi:10.1016/0003-4916(85)90192-7 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
One electron in an orthogonalized cylindrical Penning trap
Tan, J. N., & Gabrielse, G. (1989) · Applied Physics Letters · doi:10.1063/1.102084 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Self-citationApparatus-dependent contributions tog-2?
Boulware, D. G., Brown, L. S., & Lee, T. (1985) · Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields · doi:10.1103/physrevd.32.729 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Single-Particle Self-Excited Oscillator
D’Urso, B., Van Handel, R., Odom, B., Hanneke, D., & Gabrielse, G. (2005) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.94.113002 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationA new test for dark matter particles of low mass
Bœhm, C., & Silk, J. I. (2008) · Physics Letters B · doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.02.019 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Palmer, F. (1993) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.47.2610 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- [1]1. R. S. Van Dyck, Jr., P. B. Schwinberg, and H. G. Dehmelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 26 (1987).
- [2]2. B. Odom, D. Hanneke, B. D'Urso, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030801 (2006).
- [3]3. S. Peil and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1287 (1999).
- [4]4. G. Gabrielse and F. C. MacKintosh, Intl. J. of Mass Spec. and Ion Proc. 57, 1 (1984).
- [5]5. G. Gabrielse and H. Dehmelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 67 (1985).
- [6]6. B. D'Urso, R. Van Handel, B. Odom, D. Hanneke, and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 113002 (2005).
- [7]7. T. Aoyama, M. Hayakawa, T. Kinoshita, and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 110406 (2007).
- [8]8. C. Boehm and J. Silk, arXiv:0708.2768v1 [hep-ph](2007). · arXiv
- [9]9. L. S. Brown and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. A 25, 2423 (1982).
- [10]10. F. L. Palmer, Phys. Rev. A 47, 2610 (1993).
- [11]11. L. S. Brown, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 159, 62 (1985).
- [12]12. J. N. Tan and G. Gabrielse, Appl. Phys. Lett. 55, 2144 (1989).
- [13]13. D. G. Boulware, L. S. Brown, and T. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 32, 729 (1985).
- [14]14. L. S. Brown, G. Gabrielse, K. Helmerson, and J. Tan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 44 (1985).
- [15]15. G. W. Bennett and et al., Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006).
- [16]16. P. J. Mohr and B. N. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1 (2005).
- [17]17. G. Gabrielse, D. Hanneke, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, and B. Odom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030802 (2006), ibid. 99, 039902 (2007).
- [18]18. P. Cladé, E. de Mirandes, M. Cadoret, S. Guellati- Khélifa, C. Schwob, F. Nez, L. Julien, and F. Biraben, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 033001 (2006), Phys. Rev. A 74, 052109 (2006).
- [19]19. V. Gerginov, K. Calkins, C. E. Tanner, J. J. McFerran, S. Diddams, A. Bartels, and L. Hollberg, Phys. Rev. A 73, 032504 (2006).
- [21]21. D. Hanneke, PhD thesis, Harvard (2007).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Measurement of the fine-structure constant as a test of the Standard Model
Parker, R. H., Yu, C., Zhong, W., Estey, B., & Müller, H. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aap7706 · Cited by 917 · see citing works
Determination of the fine-structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion
Morel, L., Yao, Z., Cladé, P., & Guellati-Khélifa, S. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2964-7 · Cited by 590 · see citing works
High-precision measurement of the atomic mass of the electron
Sturm, S., Köhler, F., Zatorski, J., Wagner, A., Harman, Z., Werth, G., Quint, W., Keitel, C. H., & Blaum, K. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13026 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
Atom interferometry with up to 24-photon-momentum-transfer beam splitters
Müller, H., Chiow, S.-W., Long, Q., Herrmann, S., & Chu, S. (2008) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.180405 · Cited by 290 · see citing works
g Factor of Hydrogenlike Si13+28
(2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.023002 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Direct high-precision measurement of the magnetic moment of the proton
Mooser, A., Ulmer, S., Blaum, K., Franke, K., Kracke, H., Leiteritz, C., Quint, W., Rodegheri, C. C., Smorra, C., & Walz, J. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13388 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Observation of spin flips with a single trapped proton
Ulmer, S., Rodegheri, C. C., Blaum, K., Kracke, H., Mooser, A., Quint, W., & Walz, J. (2011) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.253001 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Precision spectroscopy of helium in a magic wavelength optical dipole trap
Rengelink, R. J., van der Werf, Y., Notermans, R. P. M. J. W., Jannin, R., Eikema, K. S. E., Hoogerland, M. D., & Vassen, W. (2018) · Nature Physics · doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0242-5 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
The quality factor of a superconducting rf resonator in a magnetic field
Ulmer, S., Kracke, H., Blaum, K., Kreim, S., Mooser, A., Quint, W., Rodegheri, C. C., & Walz, J. (2009) · Review of Scientific Instruments · doi:10.1063/1.3271537 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Direct Measurement of the Proton Magnetic Moment
DiSciacca, J., & Gabrielse, G. (2012) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.153001 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Self-citationUlmer, S., Blaum, K., Kracke, H., Mooser, A., Quint, W., Rodegheri, C. C., & Walz, J. (2013) · Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment · doi:10.1016/j.nima.2012.12.071 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Optimized planar Penning traps for quantum-information studies
Goldman, J., & Gabrielse, G. (2010) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.81.052335 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Self-citationRodegheri, C. C., Blaum, K., Kracke, H., Kreim, S., Mooser, A., Quint, W., Ulmer, S., & Walz, J. (2012) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/6/063011 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Experimental and theoretical challenges for the trapped electron quantum computer
Marzoli, I., Tombesi, P., Ciaramicoli, G., Werth, G., Bushev, P., Stahl, S., Schmidt-Kaler, F., Hellwig, M., Henkel, C., Marx, G., et al. (2009) · Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics · doi:10.1088/0953-4075/42/15/154010 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Electron <i>g</i>‐factor determinations in Penning traps
Sturm, S., Werth, G., & Blaum, K. (2013) · Annalen der Physik · doi:10.1002/andp.201300052 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Penning micro-trap for quantum computing
Jain, S., Sägesser, T., Hrmo, P., Torkzaban, C., Stadler, M., Oswald, R., Axline, C., Bautista-Salvador, A., Ospelkaus, C., Kienzler, D., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07111-x · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology
Uzan, J.-P. (2025) · Living Reviews in Relativity · doi:10.1007/s41114-025-00059-y · Cited by 36 · see citing works
<i>g</i>-factor experiments on simple systems in Penning traps
Blaum, K., Kracke, H., Kreim, S., Mooser, A., Mrozik, C., Quint, W., Rodegheri, C. C., Schabinger, B., Sturm, S., Ulmer, S., et al. (2009) · Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics · doi:10.1088/0953-4075/42/15/154021 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Verdú, J., Kreim, S., Blaum, K., Kracke, H., Quint, W., Ulmer, S., & Walz, J. (2008) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/10/10/103009 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
“The electric potential of the cylindrical Penning trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.7.”
InfluentialTowards electron-electron entanglement in Penning traps
Lamata, L., Porras, D., Cirac, J. I., Goldman, J., & Gabrielse, G. (2010) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.81.022301 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationHellwig, M., Bautista-Salvador, A., Singer, K., Werth, G., & Schmidt-Kaler, F. (2010) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065019 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Theory of the coplanar-waveguide Penning trap
Verdú, J. (2011) · New Journal of Physics · doi:10.1088/1367-2630/13/11/113029 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Doppler-cooled ions in a compact reconfigurable Penning trap
McMahon, B. J., Volin, C., Rellergert, W. G., & Sawyer, B. C. (2020) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.101.013408 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
McMahon, B., & Sawyer, B. (2022) · Physical Review Applied · doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.17.014005 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Optimized planar Penning traps for quantum information studies
Goldman, J., & Gabrielse, G. (2011) · Hyperfine Interactions · doi:10.1007/s10751-011-0323-7 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citationThe quantum theory of the Penning trap
Crimin, F., Garraway, B. M., & Verdú, J. (2018) · Journal of Modern Optics · doi:10.1080/09500340.2017.1393570 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Coherent coupling of a trapped electron to a distant superconducting microwave cavity
Cridland Mathad, A., Lacy, J. H., Pinder, J., Uribe, A., Willetts, R., Alvarez, R., & Verdú, J. (2020) · Applied Physics Letters · doi:10.1063/5.0023002 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Planar, strong magnetic field source for a chip ion trap
Pinder, J., Lacy, J. H., Willetts, R., Cridland Mathad, A., Uribe, A., & Verdú, J. (2020) · Review of Scientific Instruments · doi:10.1063/5.0024735 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Quantisation of the elliptical Penning trap
Crimin, F., Garraway, B. M., & Verdú, J. L. (2021) · Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics · doi:10.1088/1361-6455/abfeda · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hanneke, D., Fogwell, S., & Gabrielse, G.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- Physical Review Letters
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 2008-03-26
- Volume
- 100
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 120801-120801
- ISSN
- 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
- 1079-7114
- OpenAlex
- W2105732215
- Semantic Scholar
- f3b69d73af7b976526779334172d1dba077c0a66
- Cited by
- 1,138
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 102 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 68
- FWCI
- 34.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Atomic and Molecular Physics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Particle physics theoretical and experimental studies
- Keywords
- electron magnetic moment, fine-structure constant, spontaneous emission, QED predictions
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
