Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • NEWS AND VIEWS

Nanowire device slips ahead in race to a primary standard for current

A phenomenon known as quantum phase slip has been used to generate a current by moving pairs of electrons through an ultrathin wire. The feat is good news for efforts to pin down the standard unit of current.
  1. Masaya Kataoka

    1. Masaya Kataoka is at the National Physical Laboratory, Teddington TW11 0LW, UK.

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed  Google Scholar

The standard unit of electric current, the ampere, is one of the seven base units in the International System of Units. But measuring a current exactly in amperes is not an easy task. In fact, in 1990, attempts to pin down the ampere were abandoned in favour of using the volt (which measures voltage) and the ohm (which measures electrical resistance) as primary electrical units1 (see go.nature.com/3umryol). Writing in Nature, Shaikhaidarov et al.2 now report a method for producing current in discrete, measurable steps by irradiating a wire that is a few thousand times thinner than a human hair. The approach could be used as a quantum current standard for the ampere — providing a missing piece in electrical metrology.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 608, 40-41 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01994-4

References

  1. Taylor, B. N. & Witt, T. J. Metrologia 26, 47–62 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shaikhaidarov, R. S. et al. Nature 608, 45–49 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kouwenhoven, L. P., Johnson, A. T., van der Vaart, N. C., Harmans, C. J. P. M. & Foxon, C. T. Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1626–1629 (1991).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pothier, H., Lafarge, P., Urbina, C., Esteve, D. & Devoret, M. H. Europhys. Lett. 17, 249–254 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kaestner, B. & Kashcheyevs, V. Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 103901 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stein, F. et al. Metrologia 54, S1–S8 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Keller, M. W. Metrologia 45, 102–109 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Astafiev, O. V. et al. Nature 484, 355–358 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Josephson, B. D. Phys. Lett. 1, 251–253 (1962).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Subjects

Latest on:

Nature Careers

Jobs

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing

Search

Advanced search

Quick links