Abstract
Precise comparisons of the fundamental properties of matter–antimatter conjugates provide sensitive tests of charge–parity–time (CPT) invariance^{1}, which is an important symmetry that rests on basic assumptions of the standard model of particle physics. Experiments on mesons^{2}, leptons^{3,4} and baryons^{5,6} have compared different properties of matter–antimatter conjugates with fractional uncertainties at the partsperbillion level or better. One specific quantity, however, has so far only been known to a fractional uncertainty at the partspermillion level^{7,8}: the magnetic moment of the antiproton, . The extraordinary difficulty in measuring with high precision is caused by its intrinsic smallness; for example, it is 660 times smaller than the magnetic moment of the positron^{3}. Here we report a highprecision measurement of in units of the nuclear magneton μ_{N} with a fractional precision of 1.5 parts per billion (68% confidence level). We use a twoparticle spectroscopy method in an advanced cryogenic multiPenning trap system. Our result = −2.7928473441(42)μ_{N} (where the number in parentheses represents the 68% confidence interval on the last digits of the value) improves the precision of the previous best measurement^{8} by a factor of approximately 350. The measured value is consistent with the proton magnetic moment^{9}, μ_{p} = 2.792847350(9)μ_{N}, and is in agreement with CPT invariance. Consequently, this measurement constrains the magnitude of certain CPTviolating effects^{10} to below 1.8 × 10^{−24} gigaelectronvolts, and a possible splitting of the proton–antiproton magnetic moments by CPTodd dimensionfive interactions to below 6 × 10^{−12} Bohr magnetons^{11}.
Main
Within the physics programme at the Antiproton Decelerator of CERN, the properties of protons and antiprotons^{5,6}, antiprotons and electrons^{12}, and hydrogen^{13} and antihydrogen^{14,15} are compared with high precision. Such experiments, including those described here, provide stringent tests of CPT invariance. Our presented antiproton magnetic moment measurement reaches a fractional precision of 1.5 parts per billion (p.p.b.) at 68% confidence level, enabled by our new measurement scheme. Compared to the doublePenning trap technique^{16} used in the measurement of the proton magnetic moment^{9}, this new method eliminates the need for cyclotron cooling in each measurement cycle and increases the sampling rate.
Our technique uses a hot cyclotron antiproton for measurements of the cyclotron frequency ν_{c}, and a cold Larmor antiproton to determine the Larmor frequency ν_{L}. By evaluating the ratio of the frequencies measured in the same magnetic field, the magnetic moment of the antiproton (in units of the nuclear magneton, the gfactor) is obtained. With this new technique we have improved the precision of the previous best antiproton magnetic moment measurement^{8} by a factor of approximately 350 (Fig. 1a).
Our experiment^{17} is located in the Antiproton Decelerator facility, which provides bunches of 30 million antiprotons at a kinetic energy of 5.3 MeV. These particles can be captured and cooled in Penning traps by using degrader foils, a well timed highvoltage pulse and electron cooling^{17}. The core of our experiment is formed by two central devices; a superconducting magnet operating at a magnetic field of B_{0} = 1.945 T, and an assembly of cylindrical Penningtrap electrodes^{18} (partly shown in Fig. 1b) that is mounted inside the horizontal bore of the magnet. A part of the electrode assembly forms a spinstate analysis trap with an inhomogeneous magnetic field B_{z,AT}(z) = B_{0,AT} + B_{2,AT}z^{2}, at B_{0,AT} = 1.23 T and B_{2,AT} = 272(12) kT m^{−2}, and a precision trap with magnetic field B_{0} that is a factor of approximately 10^{5} more homogeneous. Here, z is the axial coordinate parallel to the magnetic field axis. The distance between the central electrodes of the analysis trap and the precision trap is 48.6 mm. The application of voltage ramps to electrodes that interconnect the traps allows adiabatic shuttling of the particles between the traps. The electrode assembly is placed inside an indiumsealed trap can in which the low pressure enables antiprotons to be stored for years^{19,29}. Each of the traps is equipped with a sensitive tuned circuit for nondestructive image current detection of the particles’ axial oscillation frequencies at ν_{z} ≈ 675 kHz (ref. 20). In addition, a detector with tunable resonance frequency (ν_{r} ≈ 30.0 ± 0.4 MHz) for detection and resistive cooling of the modified cyclotron frequency at ν_{+,PT} ≈ 29.656 MHz is connected to a segmented electrode of the precision trap. The trapped antiprotons are manipulated by radiofrequency drives applied to the trap electrodes, or spinflip coils mounted in close proximity to the trap (Fig. 1b). Quadrupolar drives^{21} at frequencies ν_{rf} = ν_{+} − ν_{z} and ν_{rf} = ν_{z} + ν_{−} allow the measurement of the modified cyclotron frequency ν_{+,PT} as well as the magnetron frequency by coupling the axial and the radial modes. This enables the cyclotron frequency to be determined using the invariance theorem^{22} .
The analysis trap with its strong superimposed magnetic bottle B_{2,AT} is essential for nondestructively determining the spin state of the antiproton. The inhomogeneity couples the spin magnetic moment of the particle to its axial oscillation frequency ν_{z,AT}. A spin transition induces an axial frequency shift ofwhere is the antiproton mass and h is the Planck constant. Consequently, the measurement of the axial frequency ν_{z,AT} = ν_{z,0} ± Δν_{z,SF}/2 in the analysis trap allows the nondestructive identification of the spin state of the single trapped antiproton^{23}. The unambiguous detection of these 0.2 parts per million (p.p.m.) changes in ν_{z,AT} is the major challenge in measuring the antiproton magnetic moment. Only antiprotons with a cyclotron energy E_{+}/k_{B} below the threshold energy (E_{+}/k_{B})_{TH} = 0.2 K, where k_{B} is the Boltzmann constant, have axial frequency fluctuations that are sufficiently small to clearly resolve single antiproton spin transitions^{23,24} (Fig. 1c).
To perform experiments, we load the precision trap with a single antiproton and remove contaminants such as electrons and negatively charged ions with kickout and high power radiofrequency pulses. Subsequently, the magnetron and the modified cyclotron modes of the particle are cooled by sideband drives and direct resistive cooling, respectively. To this end, the resonance frequency of the cyclotron detector is adjusted to ν_{+,PT}, which couples the antiproton to the thermal bath of the detector with T_{d} ≈ 12.8(8) K. The energy E_{+,L}/k_{B} of the modified cyclotron mode after such a thermalization cycle is analysed by measuring the axial frequency in the magnetic bottle B_{2,AT} of the analysis trap^{8}. Once an antiproton with E_{+,L}/k_{B} < 0.05 K has been prepared, we keep it in the analysis trap and detune the resonance frequency of the cyclotron detector by approximately 800 kHz. This is of utmost importance to prevent heating of the modified cyclotron mode of the cold antiproton by interaction with the detector when it later returns to the precision trap. In the next step, another single antiproton is loaded into the precision trap and cleaned from contaminants. Both radial modes are coupled to the axial detector using sideband drives, which cools the radial modes to the sideband limit^{22} , corresponding to E_{+,c}/k_{B} ≈ 350 K and E_{−,c}/k_{B} ≈ 90 mK. This configuration, a cold Larmor particle in the analysis trap and a hot cyclotron particle in the precision trap, constitutes the initial condition of an experiment cycle, which is illustrated in Fig. 2a.
The first step of an actual gfactor measurement cycle k starts with the initialization of the spin state of the Larmor particle in the analysis trap. For this purpose we alternate axial frequency measurements ν_{z,k,j} and spinflip drives and evaluate Δ = ν_{z,k,j+1} − ν_{z,k,j}. Here, j is the index of axial frequency measurements of the spinstate identification sequence, which is repeated until Δ > Δ_{TH} = 190 mHz is observed. At our rootmeansquarebackground axial frequency fluctuation of approximately 65 mHz this corresponds to an identification of the spin state with an initialization fidelity^{23} of >98%. Each of these spinstate initialization attempts requires about 25 min. Afterwards, the cyclotron frequency ν_{c,k,j} of the cyclotron particle in the precision trap is measured three times, j ∈ {1, 2, 3}. Subsequently, this particle is shuttled to a park electrode located upstream (Fig. 1b), and the Larmor particle is moved to the precision trap. Here, a radiofrequency field at drive frequency ν_{rf,k} and spintransition Rabi frequency Ω_{R} is applied for 8 s using the spinflip coil, slightly saturating the Larmor resonance (see Methods). Then the Larmor particle is transported back to the analysis trap and the cyclotron particle to the precision trap, where we perform three additional measurements of the cyclotron frequency ν_{c,k,j}, where j ∈ {4, 5, 6}. Finally, the spin state of the Larmor particle in the analysis trap is identified and compared to the previously identified spin state. With a total of 122 s per cyclotron frequency measurement, and about 8 s and 79 s for the spinflip drive and each individual transport, respectively, a frequency measurement cycle k requires, on average, about 890 s. Together with the initialization of the spin state, an entire experiment cycle takes about 40 min, which is about three times faster than in our 2014 proton magnetic moment measurement^{9}.
By repeating this scheme for different spinflip drive frequencies ν_{rf,k} and normalizing to the measured cyclotron frequencies ν_{c,k}, we obtain a gfactor resonance, which is the spinflip probability as a function of the frequency ratio Γ_{k} = ν_{rf,k}/ν_{c,k}. Here, ν_{c,k} is the average of the six recorded cyclotron frequency measurements ν_{c,k,j,PT} taken in cycle k. Averaging is used to account for the temporal drift in the field of the superconducting magnet, and to reduce the impact of fluctuations induced by residual magnetic field inhomogeneities.
To apply this twoparticle measurement scheme routinely, it is crucial to keep the energy of the Larmor particle below (E_{+,L}/k_{B})_{TH} = 0.2 K. Consequently, we minimize parasitic heating of the ν_{+}mode by disconnecting all radiofrequency supplies whenever possible. Multipleorder filter stages are connected to the high power spinflip drive lines. After optimization of our particle manipulation radiofrequency networks, we achieved the cycletocycle heating rate of the modified cyclotron mode that is shown in Fig. 2b. As expected for quantum oscillators, the heating rate per cycle scales linearly with the mode energy E_{+,L} (refs 24, 25), but remains below 22 mK per cycle for (E_{+,L}/k_{B}) < (E_{+,L}/k_{B})_{TH}. The mean heating rate averaged over the entire measurement campaign is less than 17 mK per cycle, which enables us to conduct about 75 measurement cycles before recooling of the cyclotron mode is required. Figure 2c displays a histogram of energies E_{+,L}/k_{B} measured during the entire measurement campaign. The total mean energy is E_{+,L}/k_{B} = 120 mK, corresponding to an average axial frequency stability of 65 mHz and a final spinstate identification fidelity between 80% and 90% (see ref. 23 and Methods).
The recorded gfactor resonance is shown in Fig. 3. A maximumlikelihood estimate of an appropriate lineshape function to the data, in which we convolve the shape function derived in ref. 26 with measurement and magneticfield fluctuations, yields an experimental antiproton gfactor of , the number in brackets representing the 68% confidence interval of our maximumlikelihood estimate. The linewidth of 13.3(1.0) p.p.b. results from drive saturation (12.7(1.0) p.p.b.) and magnetic field fluctuations (3.9(1) p.p.b.).
Compared to ref. 8, in this work the frequencies ν_{L} and ν_{c} are measured in the 85,000 times more homogeneous magnetic field of the precision trap. This greatly reduces the width of the gfactor resonance and thus enables measurements at a higher precision. In comparison to the double Penningtrap method^{16}, which is performed with a single particle, and in which each measurement of ν_{c} heats the modified cyclotron energy E_{+}, the twoparticle technique does not require cooling of the cyclotron mode in each measurement attempt, which improves the data accumulation rate. However, the two particles are at different mode energies E_{+,c} ≠ E_{+,L} and E_{−,c} ≠E_{−,L}, which induces systematic frequency shifts that need to be corrected.
The dominant systematic uncertainty arises from the uncertainty in the axial temperature during the highprecision frequency measurements. We cannot exclude the possibility that the spinflip drive in the precision trap increases the axial temperature of the Larmor particle by up to 0.68(7) K while the spinflip drive is applied, compared to the axial temperature during the sideband drive of the cyclotron particle. As a consequence, the magnetic field experienced by the Larmor particle while the spinflip drive is applied in the precision trap would be slightly different. Based on measured constraints, we account for this effect by adding a systematic uncertainty of (Δg/g)_{drive} = 0.97 p.p.b. The leading systematic shifts arise from the cyclotron energy difference of the cyclotron and the Larmor particle (E_{+,c} − E_{+,L})/k_{B} ≈ 356(27) K, which induces gfactor shifts of p.p.b. and p.p.b., owing to the linear and quadratic residual magnetic field gradients in the precision trap, B_{1,PT} = 71.2(4) mT m^{−1} and B_{2,PT} = 2.7(3) mT m^{−1}, respectively. All systematic corrections, including contributions of less than 0.1 p.p.b., are summarized in Table 1. For an extended discussion, see Methods.
The corrections to the measured result add up to −0.4(1.0) p.p.b., which leads to the final result for the antiproton gfactor: = 2.7928473441(42) (68% confidence level, CL).
The result has a fractional precision of = 1.5 × 10^{−9}. The 95% confidence interval determined from the analysis of our statistical and systematic uncertainties is = 2.6 × 10^{−9} (95% CL).
The result is consistent with our previously measured value for the proton magnetic moment μp_{} = 2.792847350(9)μ_{N} and supports CPT invariance in this system. By combining both results, we obtain:with a (95% CL). The uncertainty of this gfactor difference enables us to set new constraints to CPTodd b coefficients of the nonminimal standard model extension^{10}, which considers the sensitivity of different experiments with respect to CPTviolating cosmic fields^{27}. With the experiment geometry described in ref. 8 and following the evaluation approach described in ref. 10, we obtain GeV, GeV^{−1} and GeV^{−1} for the proton coefficients, and GeV, GeV^{−1} and GeV^{−1} for the antiproton coefficients. This improves the previous best limits^{8} by more than two orders of magnitude. The energy resolution in the b coefficients for protons/antiprotons reaches a comparable magnitude to the limits for muon^{4} <10^{−23} GeV to <10^{−24} GeV and electron/positron <7 × 10^{−24} GeV to <6 × 10^{−25} GeV b coefficients^{28}. Furthermore, our measurement enables us to derive new limits on a possible magnetic moment splitting for protons/antiprotons , which has been discussed in a recent analysis of CPTodd physics based on dimensionfive interactions^{11}. Using 95% confidence limit on the gfactor difference of the value presented here, we obtain:
where μ_{B} is the Bohr magneton. Our measurement improves on the limit reported in ref. 11 by three orders of magnitude.
Further improvements in the measurement precision of the antiproton magnetic moment using our method are possible. We expect that with a technically revised apparatus, including improved magnetic shielding, an improved resistive cooling system for the cyclotron mode with lower temperature, and a precision trap with a more homogeneous magnetic field, it will be possible to achieve a tenfold improvement in the limit on CPTodd interactions from proton/antiproton magnetic moment comparisons in the future.
Methods
Uncertainties and confidence levels
We chose to use the 68% CL of the measured data as the quoted experimental uncertainty, to facilitate the comparison to our previous proton magnetic moment measurement^{9}, where we also used 68% CL. Our recent statistical antiproton gfactor measurement is quoted at a relative precision of δg/g = 820 p.p.b. (95% CL), and for the 68% CL we reported δg/g = 520 p.p.b.^{8}. The improvement factor quoted in the text compares the 68% confidence levels of the two measurements. Constraints on standard model extension coefficients are usually quoted with 95% confidence levels^{10}, so we quote both values in the text and use the 95% CL to calculate the limits on CPTodd interactions.
Systematic effects in the precision trap
Imperfections of the electric quadrupole potential and the residual magnetic field inhomogeneity in the precision trap give rise to small amplitudedependent frequency shifts of the antiproton’s eigenfrequencies and thereby of the determined gfactor. A comprehensive analysis of amplitudedependent systematic effects can be found in the references^{22,30}. In our case, the dominant systematic uncertainties scale all with the residual magnetic bottle B_{2,PT} and the axial temperature T_{z}.
Determination of the magnetic field gradients
The magnetic field around the centre of the precision trap can be approximated as B_{z,PT}(z) = B_{0,PT} + B_{1,PT}z + B_{2,PT}z^{2}. The magnetic field gradients in the precision trap result mainly from the magnetic ring electrode of the analysis trap. The linear gradient B_{1,PT} can be determined by measuring the cyclotron frequency as a function of the position in the trap. The position of the particle is changed by applying offset voltages dV to one of the correction electrodes, and the particle shift dz/dV is extracted from potential calculations. From several independent measurements carried out during the experiment run, we extracted B_{1,PT} = 71.2(4) mT m^{−1}. The magnetic bottle parameter B_{2,PT} is accessible by measuring the axial frequency ν_{z,i−1} and ν_{z,i} before and after a sideband drive. From the distribution of the values δ_{i} = {ν_{z,i} − ν_{z,i−1}}, we obtain the parameter B_{1,PT}T_{+,PT} = B_{2,PT}(ν_{+,PT}/ν_{z,PT})T_{z} = 976(23) T m^{−2} K. With T_{z} = 8.12(61) K from the temperature measurement discussed below, this yields B_{2,PT} = 2.74(22) T m^{−2}. Within error bars, this result is consistent with the B_{2} parameter extracted from finiteelementmethod simulations, B_{2,PT,F} = 3.1(4) T m^{−2}, which calculates the magnetic field in the precision trap caused by the magnetic bottle in the analysis trap.
Axial temperature determination
We determine T_{z} in the precision trap from the lineshape model of the dip signal on the axial detector. The lineshape χ_{D} of the dip in the frequency spectrum of the axial detector’s signal is given as:where χ(ν,ν_{z},Δν_{z}) denotes the dip lineshape function for a constant axial frequency^{31,32} ν_{z} + Δν_{z}. ν_{z} denotes the unperturbed axial frequency, T_{z} is the temperature of the axial detection system, C_{4} and C_{6} characterize potential perturbations in the trap and give rise to an amplitudedependent axial frequency shift^{22,30} Δν_{z}(E_{z},C_{4},C_{6}). A variation of the voltage ratio that is applied to the correction electrodes V_{ce} and the ring electrode V_{ring}—the tuning ratio TR = V_{ce}/V_{ring}—changes C_{4} and C_{6} and thereby the signaltonoise ratio of the dip. By measuring the change in the signaltonoise ratio of the dip as a function of the tuning ratio, the axial temperature T_{z} can be obtained.
This approach reduces the determination of T_{z} to the knowledge of the trap specific parameter D_{4} = dC_{4}/dTR, which is robust with respect to typical machining errors and offset voltages, and can be reproduced by calculations within an uncertainty of <10%. The scaling dSNR/dTR (SNR, signaltonoise ratio) as a function of temperature is shown in Extended Data Fig. 1. We have measured a scaling of dSNR/dTR = 11.5(4) dB per mUnit in the precision trap (mUnit expresses changes in the tuning ratio; a change by 1 mUnit corresponds to a change of 0.001 in the tuning ratio), and extract an axial temperature T_{z} = 8.12(61) K. The value can be backed up by measurements of the detector signaltonoise ratio and comparisons to the width σ(ν_{z}) of the axial frequency scatter after cyclotron sideband coupling. All obtained values are consistent within errors.
Axial temperature during spinflip and sideband drives
To compare the axial temperature while the spinflip and sideband drives are applied, we have compared fast Fourier transform spectra of the axial detection system in the precision trap without any applied external drive signal and while spinflip and sideband drives were irradiated. The noise level of the detector can be used to calculate the effective temperature of the detection system with the known impedance using the Johnson–Nyquist formula.
Measurements taken while the spinflip drive was applied show an increase of 0.355(36) dB in the detector’s noise signal. On the basis of the available data, we cannot conclude whether the additional noise was added at the input or the output stage of our cryogenic detector. Thus, we cannot exclude the possibility that the increased signal level affected the particle temperature while the spinflip drive was applied. Once coupled to the detector via the input stage, the observed increase in the signal level would correspond to an effective temperature increase of ΔT_{z} = 0.68(7) K. As a consequence, the frequencies ν_{L} and ν_{c} were potentially probed at different axial meansquare amplitudes z^{2} and consequently at different average magnetic fields.
The most conservative approach to considering the potential change in T_{z} in the gfactor evaluation assumes that the related temperature increase occurs only when the spin flip drive is applied, while the sideband drive in cyclotron frequency measurements did not affect T_{z}. From this assumption we extract the dominant systematic uncertainty to the gfactor with (δg/g)_{drive} = 0.97(7) p.p.b. (68% CL). For the 95% CL, the limit on the gfactor shift is calculated on the basis of the noise level shift increased by two s.d., which results in (δg/g)_{drive} = 1.06(8) p.p.b. (95% CL).
Summary of gfactor shifts in the precision trap
In our measurement, we need to consider frequency shifts caused by the octupole perturbation in the trapping potential C_{4}, which affects the cyclotron frequency determined by the invariance theorem, but not the Larmor frequency. The major contribution to the cyclotron frequency shift comes from the axial frequency shift Δν_{z,C4} = 32 × ΔTR × T_{z} mHz per mUnit K (0.032 × ΔTR × T_{z} mHz K^{−1}), where ΔTR = −5 × 10^{−5} is the tuning ratio offset from the optimum working point. This results in a gfactor shift of (δg/g)_{Φ} = −10(1) parts per trillion (p.p.t.). Higherorder perturbations contribute less than 0.1 p.p.t.
The residual magnetic field inhomogeneity B_{2,PT} changes the magnetic field experienced by the antiprotons depending on their axial amplitudes. The frequency shifts in both frequencies ν_{L} and ν_{c} are considered in the gfactor lineshape function, and compensate each other in the frequency ratio.
The second effect that needs to be considered is the temperature difference in the cyclotron mode of the two particles (E_{+,c} − E_{+,L})/k_{B} = 356(27) K. Owing to the magneticfield gradients in our trap, the cyclotron frequency is effectively measured at a lower magnetic field. This results in shifts of the measured gfactor of (δg/g)_{B1} = +0.22(2) p.p.b. owing to the change in the axial equilibrium position, and (δg/g)_{B2} = +0.12(2) p.p.b. owing to the difference in the radial orbit. Further, the cyclotron energy difference causes a relativistic shift of the measured cyclotron frequency, which changes the measured gfactor by (δg/g)_{rel} = +0.033(3) p.p.b. All other amplitudedependent systematic shifts are negligible.
The image charge induced by the antiproton in the trap electrodes interacts back with the particle and modifies cyclotron frequency determined via the invariance theorem. This causes another systematic deviation of the extracted cyclotron frequency and modifies the measured gfactor by (δg/g)_{im} = +0.04 p.p.b., the error of this value being on the subp.p.t. level^{33,34}.
Asymmetric voltage relaxation drifts after the particle transport in the precision trap also affect our measurements. The first measurement of the sideband particle’s axial frequency after the spinflip drive in the precision trap is effectively measured at a lower trapping potential than the sideband frequencies. The required correction of 0.15(2) p.p.b. was included in the determination of Γ_{k}, and is contained in the statistical gfactor evaluation. The voltage drift also means that the axial equilibrium position spinflip particle drifts in the magnetic field gradient B_{1,PT} during the Larmor drive. This systematically shifts the measured gfactor by (δg/g)_{V} = +0.04(2) p.p.b.
Twoparticle comparisons
To ensure that no contaminants were cotrapped with one of the antiprotons, which would induce systematic gfactor shifts, we compared the chargetomass ratios of the two particles^{6} and confirmed that the cyclotron frequencies of the two antiprotons were identical within an uncertainty of 0.28 p.p.b., the value being limited by the statistics of the comparison measurement.
Lineshape of the gfactor resonance
The basic mechanisms giving rise to the lineshape of the Larmor resonance in Penning trap measurements have been discussed^{26}. The residual magnetic bottle in the precision trap and the interaction of the particle’s axial mode with the imagecurrent detector generate a lineshape that is a convolution of the unperturbed Rabi resonance and the Boltzmann distribution of the axial energy. The spinflip probability in the precision trap can be expressed as:with being the angular Rabi frequency of the spinflip drive, where b_{rf} is the magnetic field amplitude of the spinflip drive in the perpendicular direction to the zaxis. t_{rf} = 8 s is the Larmor drive duration, is the probed g/2factor ratio, is the antiproton gfactor, and is the Larmor lineshape function. The latter is obtained from χ_{L}(ω_{L},B_{0}) derived in the analysis in ref. 26 as:with the parameters , . Δω_{L} = 2π0.440(49) s^{−1} is the Larmor linewidth parameter, and γ_{PT} = 1.75 Hz is the damping constant of the axial detector in the precision trap. Δν_{c} is the cyclotronfrequency shift, which is composed of the difference in magnetic field obtained from the cyclotronfrequency measurements to the average magnetic field during the spinflip drive, and the measurement fluctuations caused by the sideband method. The distribution of Δν_{c} is analysed below. The lineshape function used in the gfactor evaluation is the convolution of the cyclotronfrequency shift distribution ρ(ν) and the lineshape function :
Magnetic field model
The average cyclotron frequency shift Δν_{c} and the cyclotron frequency shift distribution ρ(ν) in define the location of the resonance relative to the factor and contribute to the width of the resonance. Therefore, these parameters require a detailed analysis.
The measurement of both frequencies ν_{L} and ν_{c} is carried out in the residual magnetic field inhomogeneity of the precision trap B_{2,PT}. The axial amplitude z^{2} shifts the measured cyclotron frequency by 155(4) mHz compared to the frequency in the trap centre. We consider this effect by adding Δν_{c,B2} to Δν_{c} in the lineshape function . For the Larmor frequency, the detector–particle interaction of the axial motion in the presence of B_{2,PT} is inherently contained in the lineshape function.
Further, the sideband method for the measurement of the modified cyclotron frequency ν_{+} induces fluctuations on ν_{c} because the sideband drive couples the modified cyclotron mode to the axial detector. This results in a measurement of the sideband frequencies ν_{l} and ν_{r} in thermal equilibrium with T_{+} = ν_{+}/ν_{z} × T_{z} and a measurement of the axial frequency with a different energy E_{+} after each drive. Therefore, the measured modified cyclotron frequency is:where (E_{+}/k_{B}) is a state of the Boltzmann distribution of the cyclotron energy with temperature T_{+}. The dominant resulting fluctuation is:which has an expectation value of zero. The contribution of this effect to the cyclotron frequency shift distribution ρ(ν) with six averaged cyclotron frequency measurements is approximated by a normal distribution with a standard deviation of σ(ν_{c,SB})/ν_{c} = 2.17(6) p.p.b.
External magnetic field fluctuations caused by the imperfectly shielded periodic ramps of the antiproton decelerator magnets and randomwalk magneticfield fluctuations of the superconducting magnet cause a magneticfield difference from the one obtained by the cyclotron frequency measurements and the real magnetic field during the spinflip drive. To analyse this effect, we construct a magneticfield model based on our cyclotronfrequency measurements. The model consists of the sideband fluctuations described above, a magneticfield whitenoise component Δν_{c,W} with standard deviation σ_{W}, and a randomwalk component Δν_{c,RW} with standard deviation , with Δt being the time difference between two measurements. Extended Data Fig. 2 shows the measured standard deviations of the cyclotron frequency shifts as function of Δt and the total fluctuations predicted by our magnetic field model. Based on this, we simulate the evolution of the magnetic field for 1,000 measurement cycles, which reproduce the observation shown in Extended Data Fig. 2 within uncertainties. To analyse the impact on the ratios Γ_{k}, we determine the standard deviation of the magneticfield difference that the spinflip particle experiences during the Larmor drive and the effective magnetic field determined from six averaged cyclotron frequencies. From these MonteCarlo simulations, we obtain σ_{B,c}/B_{0} = 3.9(1) p.p.b.
On the basis of the calibration of our external flux gate sensors, we contribute 1.8(4) p.p.b. to stem from imperfectly shielded external magnetic field ramps from the deceleration cycle of the antiproton decelerator.
In total, the magneticfield fluctuations are dominated by white noise, therefore we approximate the cyclotronfrequency shift distribution ρ(ν) by a normal distribution with standard deviation σ_{c} = 3.9(1) p.p.b. In the evaluation, the convolution of the lineshape function with this cyclotron frequency shift distribution is used.
Larmor drive amplitude and saturation
The magnetic field fluctuations σ_{c} smear out the Larmor resonance and reduce the maximum spinflip probability for measurements with unsaturated Larmor drive. Therefore, we deliberately applied a drive amplitude that slightly saturates the Larmor transition to keep the contrast in spinflip probability, that is, the difference in spinflip probability for onresonance to offresonance data pointes, at a stable maximum. Thereby, we avoided an increase in the measurement statistics required to resolve the gfactor resonance. Our choice of the drive amplitude leads to the saturated resonance shown in Fig. 3. The drive saturation is included in our lineshape model and its effect is considered in the statistical evaluation.
Optimization of the spintransition identification procedure
The observation of the spin transitions in the precision trap requires the identification of the initial and the final state of each spinflip attempt in the analysis trap. For this purpose, we drive spintransitions in the analysis trap and analyse the axial frequency shift caused by each drive to identify the spin state^{23,25}. In contrast to the discussion in ref. 23, we determine the probabilities for spin up for the initial state and final state of each spinflip attempt individually based on a recursive formula^{23}, which is reproduced here for convenience:where is a set of measured axial frequency shifts, h_{0} and h_{+} are normal distributions with standard deviation describing the axial frequency shift distributions for spinflip drives, where the spin state remains unchanged and changes to spin up, respectively. P_{SF,AT} ≈ 50% is the spinflip probability of the spinflip drive in the analysis trap. The recursion is initialized with maximum ignorance = 0.5. Note that the order of the set can be reversed to determine the starting state of the sequence.
The fidelity of the spinstate identification, that is, the mean probability to assign the correct spin state, is limited by the axial frequency fluctuations 65 mHz, which are not negligible compared to the frequency shift induced by a spin transition Δν_{SF} ≈ 172 mHz. To increase the contrast of the gfactor resonance, we define the initial state of the precision trap spin transition with high fidelity. For this purpose, we deliberately wait until we drive a spin transition, where the spinflip frequency shift ±Δν_{SF} and the axial frequency shift add up so that ν_{z} > 190 mHz. Depending on the cyclotron energy and the associated frequency fluctuation , this defines the initial spin state with a fidelity higher than 98%.
The determination of the final state requires us to determine the spin state at the beginning of the spinstate identification sequence. Owing to the limited fidelity, information on the spin state at the beginning is lost with each spinflip attempt. The probability to extract the correct spin state from the sequence is defined by the random values of the axial frequency fluctuations and the occurrence of spintransitions during the first spinflip drives in the sequence. This reduces the average final spinstate fidelity to a value between about 80% and about 90%, depending on the cyclotron energy of the antiproton.
Maximum likelihood estimation of the gfactor
The data analysed in the statistical evaluation were recorded in the time period from 5 September 2016 to 28 November 2016. In total, 1,008 measurement sequences with Larmor drive at a fixed amplitude, three preceding and three subsequent cyclotron frequency measurements, spin state initialization and final spin state determination have been carried out. Seventyfive of these measurement sequences are disregarded in the evaluation, as they were perturbed by external magnetic field shifts caused by operations on the overhead crane or other magnets in the environment of our apparatus. These measurement cycles have been identified using our magneticfield monitoring system based on fluxgate, GMR and Hall sensors, which are placed in our experiment zone.
In our analysis procedure, we determine from a direct maximum likelihood estimation based on the frequency ratios Γ_{k} and the preceding and subsequent series of axial frequency shifts and , respectively. These are recorded during the spinstate determination in the analysis trap. The likelihood function can be expressed as:Where P_{SF,PT} is the lineshape function including the convolution with the cyclotron frequency shift distribution. is the probability that a spinflip has occurred in the precision trap based on the axial frequency information in the analysis trap. The spinup probabilities for the initial and final states are given by and , respectively.
The likelihood function in the plane of σ_{c} is shown in Extended Data Fig. 3 as function of the Rabi frequency Ω_{R}/(2π) and the relative difference between the antiproton and proton gfactors, . We determine the confidence intervals for the antiproton gfactor as described^{35}. As a result, we obtain
Ω_{R}/(2π) = 1.11(14) Hz, which is a relative uncertainty of (δg/g)_{stat} = 1.1 p.p.b. in with 68% CL, and (δg/g)_{stat} = 2.3 p.p.b. for the 95% CL.
Fluctuation model dependence
The determination of and require the spinflip probability in the analysis trap P_{SF,AT}, the frequency shift caused by a spin transition Δν_{SF}, and the axial frequency fluctuation without drive as input parameters^{23}. The first two parameters are extracted from an maximum likelihood estimation using all measured frequency shifts with spinflip drive in the analysis trap during the measurement sequence. We obtain Δν_{SF} = 170.4(2.0) mHz, and P_{SF,AT} = 47.29(0.68)%. The variations in the gfactor when changing Δν_{SF} and P_{SF,AT} within their uncertainties are only 12 p.p.t. and 15 p.p.t., respectively. The major contribution of uncertainty from the spinstate analysis comes from the values of the axial frequency fluctuations , which need to be determined for each measurement sequence k individually, since the cyclotron energy E_{+,k} changes for each data point owing to the residual heating effect during the particle transport. At a fixed averaging time, the axial frequency fluctuation scales as:where summarizes the cyclotronenergy independent axial frequency fluctuations, for example, owing to voltage fluctuations and fast Fourier transform averaging, and is the contribution due to cyclotron quantum transitions driven by spurious noise in the analysis trap^{25,36}. We determine E_{+} for each data point, based on the axial frequency , the analysis trap ring voltage , and on the frequency information from the last cyclotron cooling procedure. Each spinstate determination is accompanied by measurements of frequency fluctuations without spinflip drive. The combined information of E_{+,k} and the measured frequency fluctuations is used to determine the parameters of . We account in our model for a slow drift of the voltage reference of our analysis trap ring voltage power supply. This requires us to adjust the values of (E_{+}/k_{B}) at constant ring voltage by 2.7 mK per day. Changing the model parameters and the cyclotron energy E_{+} within their confidence intervals causes a gfactor variation of 133 p.p.t. and 238 p.p.t. for the 68% CL and the 95% CL, respectively. We add the uncertainties of all three parameters in quadrature to the uncertainty of the determined gfactor.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during this study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.
Change history
20 October 2017
This Letter should have contained an associated Creative Commons statement in the Author Information section; this has been corrected in the online version.
References
 1.
Lüders, G. Proof of the TCP theorem. Ann. Phys. 2, 1–15 (1957)
 2.
Schwingenheuer, B. et al. CPT tests in the neutral Kaon system. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4376–4379 (1995)
 3.
Van Dyck, R. S., Schwinberg, P. B. & Dehmelt, H. G. New highprecision comparison of electron and positron gfactors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 26–29 (1987)
 4.
Bennett, G. W. et al. Final report of the E821 muon anomalous magnetic moment measurement at BNL. Phys. Rev. D 73, 072003 (2006)
 5.
Gabrielse, G. et al. Precision mass spectroscopy of the antiproton and proton using simultaneously trapped particles. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3198–3201 (1999)
 6.
Ulmer, S. et al. Highprecision comparison of the antiprotontoproton chargetomass ratio. Nature 524, 196 (2015)
 7.
DiSciacca, J. et al. Oneparticle measurement of the antiproton magnetic moment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 130801 (2013)
 8.
Nagahama, H. et al. Sixfold improved single particle measurement of the magnetic moment of the antiproton. Nat. Commun. 8, 14084 (2017)
 9.
Mooser, A. et al. Highprecision measurement of the magnetic moment of the proton. Nature 509, 596 (2014)
 10.
Ding, Y. & Kostelecky, V. A. Lorentzviolating spinor electrodynamics and Penning traps. Phys. Rev. D 94, 056008 (2016)
 11.
Stadnik, Y. V., Roberts, B. M. & Flambaum, V. V. Tests of CPT and Lorentz symmetry from muon anomalous magnetic dipole moment. Phys. Rev. D 90, 045035 (2014)
 12.
Hori, M. et al. Buffergas cooling of antiprotonic helium to 1.5 to 1.7 K, and antiprotontoelectron mass ratio. Science 354, 610 (2016)
 13.
Parthey, C. G. et al. Improved measurement of the hydrogen 1S–2S transition frequency. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 203001 (2011)
 14.
Kuroda, N. et al. A source of antihydrogen atoms for in flight hyperfine spectroscopy. Nat. Commun. 5, 3089–3092 (2014)
 15.
Amole, C. et al. Resonant quantum transitions in trapped antihydrogen atoms. Nature 483, 439–443 (2012)
 16.
Häffner, H. et al. Double Penning trap technique for precise gfactor determinations in highly charged ions. Eur. Phys. J. D 22, 163–182 (2003)
 17.
Smorra, C. et al. The BASE Experiment. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 224, 3055 (2015)
 18.
Gabrielse, G., Haarsma, L. & Rolston, L. S. Openendcap Penning traps for high precision experiments. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 88, 319–332 (1989)
 19.
Smorra, C. et al. A reservoir trap for antiprotons. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 389, 10 (2015)
 20.
Nagahama, H. et al. Highly sensitive superconducting circuits at 700 kHz with tunable quality factors for imagecurrent detection of single trapped antiprotons. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 113305 (2016)
 21.
Cornell, E. A., Weisskoff, R. M., Boyce, K. R. & Pritchard, D. E. Mode coupling in a Penning trap: Pi pulses and a classical avoided crossing. Phys. Rev. A 41, 312 (1990)
 22.
Brown, L. S. & Gabrielse, G. Geonium theory: physics of a single electron or ion in a Penning trap. Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 233–311 (1986)
 23.
Smorra, C. et al. Observation of individual spin quantum transitions of a single antiproton. Phys. Lett. B 769, 1 (2017)
 24.
Ulmer, S. et al. Observation of spin flips with a single trapped proton. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 253001 (2011)
 25.
Mooser, A. et al. Resolution of single spin flips of a single proton. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 140405 (2013)
 26.
Brown, L. S. Geonium lineshape. Ann. Phys. 159, 62–98 (1985)
 27.
Kostelecký, V. A. & Russell, N. Data table for Lorentz and CPT violation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11 (2011)
 28.
Mittleman, R. K., Ioannou, I. I., Dehmelt, H. G. & Russell, N. Bound on CPT and Lorentz symmetry with a trapped electron. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2116–2119 (1999)
 29.
Sellner, S. et al. Improved limit on the directly measured antiproton lifetime. New J. Phys. 19, 083023 (2017)
 30.
Ketter, J. et al. Firstorder perturbative calculation of the frequencyshifts caused by static cylindricallysymmetric electric and magnetic imperfections of a Penning trap. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 358, 1–16 (2014)
 31.
Wineland, D. J. & Dehmelt, H. G. Stored ion calorimeter. J. Appl. Phys. 46, 919 (1975)
 32.
Feng, X. et al. Tank circuit model applied to particles in a Penning trap. J. Appl. Phys. 79, 8 (1996)
 33.
Porto, J. V. Series solution for the image charge fields in arbitrary cylindrically symmetric Penning traps. Phys. Rev. A 64, 023403 (2001)
 34.
Köhler, F. et al. Isotope dependence of the Zeeman effect in lithiumlike calcium. Nat. Commun. 7, 10246 (2016)
 35.
Patrignani, C. et al. Review of particle physics. Chin. Phys. C 40, 100001 (2016)
 36.
Mooser, A. et al. Demonstration of the double Penning Trap technique with a single proton. Phys. Lett. B 723, 78–81 (2013)
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge technical support from the Antiproton Decelerator group, CERN’s cryolab team, and all other CERN groups which provide support to Antiproton Decelerator experiments. We acknowledge financial support from the RIKEN Initiative Research Unit Program, RIKEN President Funding, RIKEN Pioneering Project Funding, RIKEN FPR Funding, the RIKEN JRA Program, the GrantinAid for Specially Promoted Research (no. 24000008) of MEXT, the MaxPlanck Society, the EU (ERC Advanced Grant No. 290870MEFUCO), the HelmholtzGemeinschaft, and the CERN Fellowship program.
Author information
Affiliations
RIKEN, Ulmer Fundamental Symmetries Laboratory, 21 Hirosawa, Wako, Saitama 3510198, Japan
 C. Smorra
 , S. Sellner
 , M. J. Borchert
 , T. Higuchi
 , H. Nagahama
 , T. Tanaka
 , A. Mooser
 , G. Schneider
 , M. Bohman
 , Y. Yamazaki
 & S. Ulmer
CERN, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
 C. Smorra
Institut für Quantenoptik, Leibniz Universität, Welfengarten 1, D30167 Hannover, Germany
 M. J. Borchert
 & C. Ospelkaus
MaxPlanckInstitut für Kernphysik, Saupfercheckweg 1, D69117 Heidelberg, Germany
 J. A. Harrington
 , M. Bohman
 & K. Blaum
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 1538902, Japan
 T. Higuchi
 , T. Tanaka
 & Y. Matsuda
Institut für Physik, Johannes GutenbergUniversität, D55099 Mainz, Germany
 G. Schneider
 & J. Walz
PhysikalischTechnische Bundesanstalt, D38116 Braunschweig, Germany
 C. Ospelkaus
GSI  Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung GmbH, D64291 Darmstadt, Germany
 W. Quint
HelmholtzInstitut Mainz, D55099 Mainz, Germany
 J. Walz
Authors
Search for C. Smorra in:
Search for S. Sellner in:
Search for M. J. Borchert in:
Search for J. A. Harrington in:
Search for T. Higuchi in:
Search for H. Nagahama in:
Search for T. Tanaka in:
Search for A. Mooser in:
Search for G. Schneider in:
Search for M. Bohman in:
Search for K. Blaum in:
Search for Y. Matsuda in:
Search for C. Ospelkaus in:
Search for W. Quint in:
Search for J. Walz in:
Search for Y. Yamazaki in:
Search for S. Ulmer in:
Contributions
The twoparticle method was invented by S.U. and implemented by C.S. The measurement routine was commissioned by C.S., S.S. and S.U. The data analysis was performed by C.S. and S.U. M.J.B., J.A.H., T.H., H.N., T.T., S.S., C.S. and S.U. contributed to experiment maintenance during the 2015/2016 antiproton run. The manuscript was written by S.U., C.S., A.M. and K.B. and discussed among and approved by all coauthors.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Corresponding authors
Correspondence to C. Smorra or S. Ulmer.
Reviewer Information Nature thanks N. Guise, H. Haeffner and K. Jungmann for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons licence, users will need to obtain permission from the licence holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Further reading

Observation of the 1S–2P Lymanα transition in antihydrogen
Nature (2018)

Characterization of the 1S–2S transition in antihydrogen
Nature (2018)

Progress towards an improved comparison of the protontoantiproton chargetomass ratios
Hyperfine Interactions (2018)

Towards sympathetic cooling of single (anti)protons
Hyperfine Interactions (2018)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.