Abstract
Our current understanding of the Universe comes, among others, from particle physics and cosmology. In particle physics an almost perfect symmetry between matter and antimatter exists. On cosmological scales, however, a striking matter/antimatter imbalance is observed. This contradiction inspires comparisons of the fundamental properties of particles and antiparticles with high precision. Here we report on a measurement of the gfactor of the antiproton with a fractional precision of 0.8 parts per million at 95% confidence level. Our value /2=2.7928465(23) outperforms the previous best measurement by a factor of 6. The result is consistent with our proton gfactor measurement g_{p}/2=2.792847350(9), and therefore agrees with the fundamental charge, parity, time (CPT) invariance of the Standard Model of particle physics. Additionally, our result improves coefficients of the standard model extension which discusses the sensitivity of experiments with respect to CPT violation by up to a factor of 20.
Introduction
Precise tests of charge, parity, time (CPT) invariance^{1} are inspired by the intriguing lack of antimatter in our Universe^{2}. Despite its importance to our understanding of nature, only a few direct precise tests of CPT symmetry are available^{3,4,5,6,7,8,9}. Our experiments contribute such tests by comparing the fundamental properties of protons and antiprotons with high precision. Recently we performed the most precise comparison of the antiprotontoproton chargetomass ratio /(q/m)_{p} with a fractional precision of 69 parts per trillion^{10}. Here, we report an improved measurement of the magnetic moment of the antiproton .
Our comparisons are based on frequency measurements of single particles in cryogenic Penning traps. These traps employ the superposition of a strong magnetic field B_{0} in the axial direction and an electrostatic quadrupole potential^{11}. Under such conditions, a trapped charged particle follows a stable trajectory consisting of three independent harmonic oscillator motions–the modified cyclotron frequency ν_{+}, the magnetron frequency ν_{−}, and the axial frequency ν_{z}. Nondestructive measurements of these frequencies^{12} enable the determination of the cyclotron frequency (ref. 13). Together with a determination of the spinprecession, or Larmor frequency ν_{L}, the magnetic moment can be determined in units of the nuclear magneton μ_{N}, where is the gfactor of the particle. The determination of the Larmor frequency relies on the detection of resonantly driven spin transitions by means of the continuous SternGerlach effect^{14}. An axial magnetic field B_{z}=B_{2}(z^{2}−ρ^{2}/2) is superimposed on the homogeneous magnetic field B_{0} of the trap. This magnetic bottle couples the spin magnetic moment to the axial oscillation frequency ν_{z} of the particle, which is directly accessible by measurement. When a spinflip takes place, ν_{z} is shifted by . This technique has been applied in electron/positron magnetic moment measurements (ref. 3), however, its application to measure the magnetic moments of the proton/antiproton^{15,16} is much more challenging, since . Therefore, to resolve single antiproton spin transitions an ultrastrong magnetic bottle is needed, we use B_{2}=2.88·10^{5} T m^{−2}.
In this article we report a direct measurement of the gfactor of a single antiproton, with a fractional precision of 0.8 p.p.m. Our result is based on six individual gfactor measurements and is 6 times more precise than the current best value^{15}.
Results
Experimental setup
The experiment^{16} is located at the antiproton decelerator (AD)^{17} facility of CERN. We operate a cryogenic multiPenning trap system, see Fig. 1a, which is mounted in the horizontal bore of a superconducting magnet with field strength B_{0}=1.945 T. Each Penning trap consists of a set of five cylindrical goldplated electrodes in a carefully chosen geometry^{18}. The individual traps are interconnected by transport electrodes. Application of voltage ramps to these electrodes enables adiabatic shuttling of the particles between the traps. Resonant superconducting tuned circuits with high quality factors Q (ref. 19) and effective temperatures of ≈8 K connected to specific electrodes enable resistive particlecooling, nondestructive detection^{12} and measurements of the oscillation frequencies of the trapped antiprotons.
The entire trap assembly is mounted in a pinchedoff vacuum chamber with a volume of 1.2l. A stainless steel degrader window, with a thickness of 25 μm, is placed on the vacuum flange, which closes the upstream side of the chamber, being vacuum tight but partly transparent for the 5.3 MeV antiprotons provided by the AD. The chamber is cooled to cryogenic temperatures (6 K), where cryopumping produces a vacuum good enough to reach antiproton storage times of more than 1.2 years^{20}.
We are using three traps, a reservoir trap (RT), a comagnetometer trap (CT) and an analysis trap (AT). The RT with an inner diameter of 9 mm contains a cloud of antiprotons, which has been injected from the AD and supplies single particles to the other traps when needed^{20}. This unique trap enables us to conduct antiproton experiments even during AD machineshutdowns. The CT has the same geometry as the RT and is located 50 mm away from the AT. Single particle cyclotron frequency measurements at ν_{+,CT}≈29.6 MHz allow for continuous sampling of the trap’s magnetic field, with an absolute resolution of a few nanotesla. The AT has the strong superimposed magnetic bottle B_{2}. The inner diameter is 3.6 mm, and the central ring electrode is made out of ferromagnetic Co/Fe material. This distorts the magnetic field in the centre of the trap such that ν_{+,AT}≈18.727 MHz and ν_{L,AT}≈52.337 MHz.
gfactor measurement in the strong magnetic bottle
The strong B_{2} couples the spin magnetic moment as well as the angular magnetic moment of the radial modes to its axial frequency ν_{z,AT} (n_{+}, n_{−}, m_{s})=ν_{z,0}+Δν_{z}(n_{+}, n_{−}, m_{s})≈674 kHz, where
Here, h is Planck’s constant, and n_{+} and n_{−} are the principal quantum numbers of the two radial modes, while characterizes the eigenstate of the spin of the antiproton. A cyclotron quantum jump Δn_{+}=±1 changes the axial frequency by Δν_{z,+}=±65 mHz, a transition Δn_{−}=±1 in the magnetron mode leads to Δν_{z,−}=±42 μHz. A single spin transition, however, changes ν_{z,AT} by 183 mHz, which can be clearly detected if the changes in the quantum numbers of the radial modes are low enough to achieve a frequency stability of Δν_{z}/ν_{z,AT}≈10^{−7}. This is considerably difficult since spurious voltagenoise e_{n} on the electrodes with a power spectrum density of causes heating rates^{21};
in the radial modes, where 1/Λ is a trap specific length. This parasitic heating leads to random walks in the radial modes and continuously changes the axial frequency ν_{z,AT}. Voltagenoise densities of order e_{n}=50 pV/ to 200 pV/ on the electrodes reproduce the observed axial frequency drifts. Note that dn_{+,−}/dt∝n_{+,−}. Therefore, the preparation of a particle with a sufficient axial frequency stability, which allows efficient detection of spin transitions, needs cooling of the cyclotron mode to subthermal energies, E_{+}/k_{B}<1.1 K (ref. 22).
The determination of the gfactor requires precise measurements of ν_{+,AT} and ν_{L,AT}. To resolve these frequencies we apply radiofrequency drives to the trap and measure the axial frequency ν_{z,AT} of the trapped antiproton as a function of time and for different drive frequencies ν_{rf}. Here the axial frequencies are determined as described in ref. 23. Once quantum transitions are resonantly driven, the axial frequency fluctuation Ξ_{z}, defined as the s.d. of the difference of subsequent axial frequency measurements σ(ν_{z,k+1}−ν_{z,k}):=Ξ_{z}, increases drastically, as shown in Fig. 1b,c (ref. 23). The shapes of these resonance lines
reflect the Boltzmann distribution of the axial energy due to the continuous interaction of the particle with the detection system. Here ν_{j} are the modified cyclotron frequency ν_{+,AT}(E_{z}=0)=ν_{+,cut} and the Larmor frequency ν_{L,AT}(E_{z}=0)=ν_{L,cut} at vanishing axial energy E_{z}, respectively, Δν_{j}∝ν_{j}·B_{2}·T_{z} is the linewidth parameter^{24} and Θ(ν_{rf}−ν_{j}) the Heaviside function. The resolution which will eventually be achieved in the determination of the gfactor is consequently limited by the ability to resolve these two frequencies, ν_{+,cut} and ν_{L,cut}.
To extract these frequencies, we scan the resonance lines only in a close range around the cutfrequencies. A random walk ξ(t), predominantly in the magnetron mode, continuously changes the magnetron radius ρ_{−}(t), and as a result, the magnetic field experienced by the particle. This softens the slope of the resonance lines close to ν_{+,cut} and ν_{L,cut}.
Measurement procedure
To prepare the initial conditions of a gfactor measurement, we extract an antiproton from the reservoir and cool its modified cyclotron mode by resistive cooling in the CT. Subsequently we shuttle the particle to the AT. Using sideband coupling^{25} we first cool the energy of the magnetron mode to E_{−}/k_{B}<4 mK, then we determine the cyclotron energy by an axial frequency measurement, see equation (1). This sequence is repeated until E_{+}/k_{B}<1.1 K. For particles at such low cyclotron energies and axial frequency averaging times >90 s we achieve axial frequency fluctuations Ξ_{z,back}<0.120 Hz. Next, we tune the particle to the centre of the magnetic bottle by adjusting offset voltages on the trap electrodes. This is crucial to suppress systematic shifts in the frequency measurements.
Afterwards, we conduct the actual gfactor measurement as illustrated in Fig. 2a. This starts with (0) cooling of the magnetron motion, followed by (1) a measurement of the modified cyclotron frequency ν_{+,AT,1}. Then (2) we scan the Larmor resonance, which typically takes 9–14 h. This is followed (3) by a second measurement of the modified cyclotron frequency ν_{+,AT,2}. The cycle ends by (4) cooling of the magnetron motion.
To determine the modified cyclotron frequency, we apply a drive which induces on resonance a heating rate of dn_{+}/dt(ν_{rf}=ν_{+,AT}(E_{z}=0))≈4 s^{−1}. We start with a background measurement at ν_{rf,0}≈ν_{+,AT}−100 Hz and then scan the drive frequency ν_{rf}, typically in steps of 25 Hz over the resonance. For each individual drive frequency ν_{rf,k} we record ten axial frequency datapoints, each averaged by t=30 s, and evaluate the axial frequency fluctuation Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,k}). We repeat this scheme until the resonance line is clearly resolved, which means that for a resonant excitation frequency ν_{rf,e} the condition (Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,e})−Ξ_{z,back})/σ(ΔΞ_{z}(ν_{rf,e}), ΔΞ_{z,back})>3 is fulfilled. Here ΔΞ_{z}(ν_{rf,k})=Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,k})/(2N−2)^{0.5} is the 68% confidence interval of the measurement, N is the number of accumulated data points per drive frequency ν_{rf,k} and σ(ΔΞ_{z}(ν_{rf,e}), ΔΞ_{z,back}) the propagated s.e. of Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,e})−Ξ_{z,back}. As an example a sequence of 50 axial frequency measurements with applied rf drives at ν_{rf,k} is shown in Fig. 2b. The first two data sets at ν_{rf,1} and ν_{rf,2} are consistent with the undriven background fluctuation. At ν_{rf,3} and ν_{rf,4} the applied rfdrive induces cyclotron quantum transitions which clearly increases the measured axial frequency fluctuation to . Figure 2c displays a projection of measured axial frequencies of an entire measurement sequence to axial frequency fluctuation Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,k}) as a function of the applied rfdrive frequency.
The measured distribution of points Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,k}) constrains the random walk ξ_{−}(t) in the magnetron mode which has taken place during the frequency scan. Each individual measurement can be associated to a gaussian subdistribution w_{k}(ν, ν_{+}(0)+ξ_{−}(t))
where is the measurement time, ɛ a scaling factor, and ν_{+}(0)+ξ_{−}(t) the time dependent modified cyclotron frequency while ν_{rf,k} was irradiated. We reconstruct the distribution of modified cyclotron frequencies during the entire measurement by minimizing with the strength of the walk ξ_{−} as a free parameter. From the reconstructed distribution we evaluate ν_{+,AT,1} and derive the 95% confidence interval based on w. We backup this treatment by MonteCarlo simulations which model the exact measurement sequence. From the measurement shown in Fig. 2c, we extract ν_{+,AT,1}=18,727,467(33) Hz, the mean value is indicated by the red vertical line, the green lines represent the 95% confidence interval of the measured mean, the blue solid line is the unperturbed line convoluted with the reconstructed wdistribution. The cyclotron frequency ν_{c,AT,1} is obtained by approximating , and using the invariance theorem^{13}.
The Larmor frequency ν_{L,AT} is measured as first reported in ref. 23. First we average the axial detector transients for 90 s and determine the axial frequency ν_{z,1}. Subsequently an offresonant radiofrequency drive at frequency ν_{rf,0}<ν_{L}(E_{z}=0) is irradiated and the axial frequency is measured again ν_{z,2}. This scheme is repeated twice, with the rfdrive being tuned to values ν_{rf,1} and ν_{rf,2}. Both frequencies are chosen to be close to the spinresonance ν_{rf,1}≈ν_{rf,2}≈ν_{L}(E_{z}=0). Repetition of this measurement sequence for N times enables us to determine the fluctuations Ξ_{z,back}, Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,1}) and Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,2}) the statistical significance being defined as in the cyclotron measurements. Once spin flips are driven by ν_{rf,k} the 183 mHz axial frequency jumps induced by the spin transitions add up to the background frequency fluctuation Ξ_{z,back}. In this case the axial frequency fluctuation results in , where p_{SF}(ν_{rf,k}) is the spinflip probability^{24}.
Figure 3a shows results of such a measurement. The blue datapoints represent the cumulative axial frequency background fluctuation Ξ_{z,back}. The green data points display Ξ_{z}(N, ν_{rf,1}), measured while an rfdrive at ν_{rf,1}=52,336,800 Hz was applied. The red data points show Ξ_{z}(N, ν_{rf,2}) where the rfdrive was tuned to ν_{rf,2}=52,336,900 Hz. The solid lines represent the 68% confidence intervals of Ξ_{z}(N, ν_{rf,k}). From the measurement shown in Fig. 3a we extract after accumulation of N=93 data points Ξ_{z,back}=0.111(8) Hz, Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,1})=0.116(8) Hz and Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,2})=0.168(13)Hz, which corresponds to a detection of spin transitions with >3.5σ statistical significance. Figure 3b shows the statistical significance (Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf})−Ξ_{z,back})/(σ(ΔΞ_{z}(ν_{rf}), ΔΞ_{z,back})) for three different background fluctuations Ξ_{z,back} and as a function of the number of accumulated measurements. With the conditions of the experiment Ξ_{z,back}<0.120 Hz and spin transitions which are driven at 50% probability we achieve a statistical significance >3.5σ by accumulating at least 80 measurements. In the experiment this is the minimum of data points which has been accumulated per irradiated ν_{rf}.
Based on the above measurement we extract the Larmor frequency ν_{L,AT} as the arithmetic mean of ν_{rf,1} and ν_{rf,2}. To define the 95% confidence interval we run MonteCarlo simulations with defined parameters and ν_{+,1}−ν_{+,2}. The start frequency ν_{+,1} and the strength of the magnetron walk ξ_{−}(t) are varied. We accept random walks which reproduce our result that within the 68% confidence bands Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,1})=Ξ_{z,back}, and (Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,2})−Ξ_{z,back})/σ(Ξ_{z}(ν_{rf,2}), Ξ_{z,back})>3.5. We calculate the mean frequency of the simulated walk <ν_{L}> and compare to the arithmetic mean frequency ν_{L,exp} which would have been extracted from the measurement. By integrating the resulting distribution w(ν_{L,exp}−<ν_{+}>) we determine the 95% confidence level of ν_{L,exp}. For further details we refer to the Supplementary Discussion. From the measurement shown in Fig. 3a we extract ν_{L,AT}=52,336,850(33)Hz.
Using the measured frequencies ν_{c,1}, ν_{L,AT} and ν_{c,2} the gfactor is evaluated by calculating g/2=ν_{L,AT}/<ν_{c}>, where <ν_{c}>=0.5·(ν_{c,1}+ν_{c,2}). This accounts for linear drifts in the magnetic field experienced by the particle during the scan of the Larmor frequency.
Final result
We performed in total six gmeasurements, all of them were carried out during weekend or nightshifts when magnetic field noise in the accelerator hall is small. The results are shown in Fig. 4. The uncertainties of the measurements are defined by the resolution achieved in the individual frequency measurements convolving the effects of magnetic field drift due to the magnetron random walk. To evaluate the final value of the gfactor we calculate the weighted mean of the entire dataset and extract
The first number in brackets represents the 95% confidence interval of the measured mean, the second number in brackets represents the scatter of the error according to ttest statistics.
Systematic errors come from nonlinear drifts of the field of the superconducting magnet, drifts of the voltage source which is used to define the trapping potential and the random walk ξ_{+}(t) in the modified cyclotron mode. From measurements with the comagnetometer particle we estimate Δg/g_{B0}≈0.015 p.p.m. Continuous voltage measurements constrain Δg/g_{V}<0.001 p.p.m., while we obtain for the random walk in the cyclotron mode Δg/g_{+}≈0.020 p.p.m. The nonlinear contribution of the magnetron walk ξ_{−}(t) to a systematic shift of the gfactor is implicitly considered in the primary dataevaluation of the measured resonance lines. We add these errors by standard error propagation and obtain
Discussion
This result is consistent with our recently measured value of the magnetic moment of the proton in units of the nuclear magneton g_{p}/2=2.792847350(9)^{26} and supports CPT invariance.
Our measurement also sets improved limits on parameters of the standard model extension (SME)^{9,27}, which characterizes the sensitivity of a proton/antiproton gfactor comparison with respect to CPT violation. In a very recent comprehensive paper by Ding and Kostelecký^{28} the SME formalism is applied to Penning traps. There a detailed discussion on comparisons of experiments at different orientation and location is described. By adapting this work to our, data we derive for the leading coefficients described in the SME standard frame GeV and GeV, which corresponds to a 11 and 22fold improvement compared with the previously published constraints^{28}. A summary of all upper limits on the SMEcoefficients which are derived from our experiment are displayed in Table 1.
In our evaluation we have assumed that diurnal variations caused by the Earth’s rotation average out. We neglect a potential bias which might be introduced by the fact that, due to maintenance of the apparatus, only a small amount of data was accumulated between noon and early afternoon. More equally distributed data accumulation will be addressed in our planned future experiments. For further details we refer to the Supplementary Discussion.
In summary, we have measured the magnetic moment of a single trapped antiproton in a single Penning trap with a superimposed magnetic bottle. The achieved fractional precision is at 0.8 p.p.m. (95% confidence level) and outperforms the fractional precision quoted in previous measurements by a factor of 6 (ref. 15). The precision of the result is limited by a backgroundnoise driven random walk in the magnetron mode, which causes linebroadening. The measured antiproton gfactor is in agreement with our recent 3.3 p.p.b. proton gfactor measurement and supports CPT invariance. The much more precise proton measurements are based on the application of the challenging double Penning trap technique^{26}. Implementation of this method to further improve the precision in antiproton magnetic moment measurements to the p.p.b. level will be targeted in our future research.
Data availability
The data sets for the current study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.
Additional information
How to cite this article: Nagahama, H. et al. Sixfold improved single particle measurement of the magnetic moment of the antiproton. Nat. Commun. 8, 14084 doi: 10.1038/ncomms14084 (2017).
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Lüders, G. Proof of the TCP theorem. Ann. Phys. 2, 1–15 (1957).
Dine, M. & Kusenko, A. Origin of the matterantimatter asymmetry. Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1–30 (2003).
Van Dyck, R. Jr, Schwinberg, P. & Dehmelt, H. New highprecision comparison of electron and positron g factors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 26–29 (1987).
Schwingenheuer, B. et al. CPT tests in the neutral Kaon system. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4376–4379 (1995).
Miller, J. P., De Rafael, E. & Roberts, B. L. Muon (g2): experiment and theory. Rep. Prog. Phys. 70, 795–881 (2007).
Gabrielse, G. et al. Precision mass spectroscopy of the antiproton and proton using simultaneously trapped particles. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3198–3201 (1999).
Hori, M. et al. Two photon laser spectroscopy of antiprotonic helium and the antiproton to electron mass ratio. Nature 475, 484–488 (2011).
Ahmadi, M. et al. An improved limit on the charge of antihydrogen from stochastic acceleration. Nature 529, 373–376 (2016).
Kostelecky, V. A. & Russell, N. Datatables on Lorentz and CPT Violation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11–31 (2011).
Ulmer, S. et al. Highprecision comparison of the antiprotontoproton chargetomass ratio. Nature 524, 196–199 (2015).
Pierce, J. R. Theory and Design of Electron Beams D. van Nostrand Co. (1949).
Wineland, D. J. & Dehmelt, H. G. Principles of the stored ion calorimeter. J. Appl. Phys. 46, 919–930 (1975).
Brown, L. S. & Gabrielse, G. Precision spectroscopy of a charged particle in an imperfect Penning trap. Phys. Rev. A 25, 2423–2425 (1982).
Dehmelt, H. G. & Ekstroem, P. Continuous SternGerlach effect: principle and idealized apparatus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci 83, 2291–2294 (1986).
DiSciacca, J. et al. Oneparticle measurement of the antiproton magnetic moment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 130801 (2013).
Smorra, C. et al. The BASE experiment. Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 224, 3055–3108 (2015).
Belochitskii, P., Eriksson, T. & Maury, S. The CERN antiproton decelerator (AD) in 2002: status, progress and machine development results. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. B 214, 176–180 (2004).
Gabrielse, G., Haarsma, L. & Rolston, L. S. Openendcap Penning traps for high precision experiments. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 88, 319–332 (1989).
Ulmer, S. et al. A cryogenic detection system at 28.9 MHz for the nondestructive observation of a single proton at low particle energy. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. Phys. Res. A 705, 55–60 (2013).
Smorra, C. et al. A reservoir trap for antiprotons. Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 389, 10–13 (2015).
Savard, T. A., O’Hara, K. M. & Thomas, J. E. Lasernoiseinduced heating in faroff resonance optical traps. Phys. Rev. A 56, R1095–R1098 (1997).
Mooser, A. et al. Resolution of single spin flips of a single proton. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 140405 (2013).
Ulmer, S. et al. Observation of spin flips with a single trapped proton. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 253001 (2011).
Brown, L. S. Geonium lineshape. Ann. Phys. 159, 62–98 (1985).
Cornell, E. A., Weisskoff, R. M., Boyce, K. R. & Pritchard, D. E. Mode coupling in a Penning trap: π pulses and a classical avoided crossing. Phys. Rev. A 41, 312–315 (1990).
Mooser, A. et al. Highprecision measurement of the magnetic moment of the proton. Nature 509, 596–599 (2014).
Bluhm, R. et al. CPT and Lorentz tests in Penning traps. Phys. Rev. D 57, 3932–3943 (1998).
Ding, Y. & Kostelecký, V. A. Lorentzviolating spinor electrodynamics and Penning traps. Phys. Rev. D 94, 056008 (2016).
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge technical support by the Antiproton Decelerator group, CERN’s cryolab team, and all other CERN groups which provide support to Antiproton Decelerator experiments. We acknowledge financial support by 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 CERNfellowship programme.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The experimental apparatus was developed and constructed by S.U., C.S., A.M., H.N., G.S., T.H. and S.S.; The experiment was commissioned by H.N., S.U., C.S. and S.S.; S.U. and C.S. developed the software system and experiment control. S.U., C.S., A.M., S.S., H.N., T.H., M.B., M.J.B. and T.T. participated in the 2015 antiproton run and contributed to the datataking. S.U., H.N. and C.S. discussed and analysed the data. S.U. and H.N. performed the systematic studies and wrote the manuscript, which was then discussed and approved by all authors.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary figures, supplementary discussion and supplementary references. (PDF 1066 kb)
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Nagahama, H., Smorra, C., Sellner, S. et al. Sixfold improved single particle measurement of the magnetic moment of the antiproton. Nat Commun 8, 14084 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14084
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14084
This article is cited by

Semiclassical Approach of Lorentz Symmetry Breaking Effects at a Low Energy Scenario
International Journal of Theoretical Physics (2020)

Optical trapping of antihydrogen towards an atomic anticlock
Hyperfine Interactions (2020)

Direct limits on the interaction of antiprotons with axionlike dark matter
Nature (2019)

350fold improved measurement of the antiproton magnetic moment using a multitrap method
Hyperfine Interactions (2018)

Inbeam measurement of the hydrogen hyperfine splitting and prospects for antihydrogen spectroscopy
Nature Communications (2017)
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.