1. Gabrielse New Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment and the Fine Structure Constant Gerald Gabrielse Leverett Professor of Physics Harvard University Almost finished student: David Hanneke Earlier contributions: Brian Odom, Brian D’Urso, Steve Peil, Dafna Enzer, Kamal Abdullah Ching-hua Tseng Joseph Tan N$F 0.1  m 20 years 6.5 theses 2006 DAMOP Thesis Prize Winner

2. Gabrielse Recent Back-to-Back Papers New Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment B. Odom, D. Hanneke, B. D’Urson and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030801 (2006). New Determination of the Fine Structure Constant G. Gabrielse, D. Hanneke, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, B. Odom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030802 (2006). AIP Physics Story of the Year (Phys. News Update, 5 Dec. 2006) Science 313, 448-449 (2006) Nature 442, 516-517 (2006) Physics Today, 15-17 (August, 2006) Cern Courier (October 2006) New Scientist 2568, 40-43 (2006) Physics World (March 2007)

3. Gabrielse Why Does it take Twenty Years and 6.5 Theses? One-electron quantum cyclotron Resolve lowest cyclotron states as well as spin Quantum jump spectroscopy of spin and cyclotron motions Cavity-controlled spontaneous emission Radiation field controlled by cylindrical trap cavity Cooling away of blackbody photons Synchronized electrons identify cavity radiation modes Trap without nuclear paramagnetism One-particle self-excited oscillator Explanation 1: Van Dyck, Schwinberg, Dehemelt did a good job in 1987! Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 26 (1987) Explanation 2a: We do experiments much too slowly Explanation 2b: Takes time to develop new ideas and methods needed to measure with 7.6 parts in 10 13 uncertainty first measurement with these new methods

4. Gabrielse The New Measurement of Electron g U. Michigan beam of electrons spins precess with respect to cyclotron motion U. Washington one electron observe spin flip thermal cyclotron motion Harvard one electron quantum cyclotron motion resolve lowest quantum levels cavity-controlled radiation field (cylindrical trap) 100 mK self-excited oscillator inhibit spontan. emission cavity shifts Crane, Rich, … Dehmelt, Van Dyck

5. Gabrielse Magnetic Moments, Motivation and Results

6. Gabrielse Magnetic Moments e.g. What is g for identical charge and mass distributions? magnetic moment angular momentum Bohr magneton 

7. Gabrielse Magnetic Moments magnetic moment angular momentum Bohr magneton identical charge and mass distribution spin for Dirac point particle simplest Dirac spin, plus QED (if electron g is different  electron has substructure)

8. Gabrielse Why Measure the Electron Magnetic Moment? 1.Electron g - basic property of simplest of elementary particles 2.Determine fine structure constant – from measured g and QED (May be even more important when we change mass standards) 3.Test QED – requires independent  4.Test CPT – compare g for electron and positron  best lepton test 5.Look for new physics beyond the standard model Is g given by Dirac + QED? If not  electron substructure (new physics) Muon g search needs electron g measurement

9. Gabrielse New Measurement of Electron Magnetic Moment magnetic moment spin Bohr magneton First improved measurement since 1987 Nearly six times smaller uncertainty 1.7 standard deviation shift Likely more accuracy coming 1000 times smaller uncertainty than muon g B. Odom, D. Hanneke, B. D’Urso and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030801 (2006).

10. Gabrielse 085 (76) (more digits coming)

11. Gabrielse Dirac + QED Relates Measured g and Measured  QED CalculationMeasure weak/strong Sensitivity to other physics (weak, strong, new) is low 1. Use measured g and QED to extract fine structure constant 2. Wait for another accurate measurement of    Test QED Kinoshita, Nio, Remiddi, Laporta, etc. Dirac point particle

12. Gabrielse Basking in the Reflected Glow of Theorists KinoshitaRemiddiG.G 2004

13. Gabrielse experimental uncertainty theoretical uncertainties

14. Gabrielse New Determination of the Fine Structure Constant Strength of the electromagnetic interaction Important component of our system of fundamental constants Increased importance for new mass standard First lower uncertainty since 1987 Ten times more accurate than atom-recoil methods G. Gabrielse, D. Hanneke, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, B. Odom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97}, 030802 (2006).

15. Gabrielse Widely Re-Reported Science Nature Physics Today New Scientist Cern Courier … Fox News Moral: what is quoted is not necessarily what was said

16. Gabrielse Next Most Accurate Way to Determine  use Cs example) Now this method is 10 times less accurate We hope that will improve in the future  test QED Combination of measured Rydberg, mass ratios, and atom recoil (Rb measurement is similar except get h/M[Rb] a bit differently) Chu, … Haensch, … Tanner, … Pritchard, … Haensch, … Werthe, Quint, … (also Van Dyck) Biraben, …

17. Gabrielse Earlier Measurements Require Larger Uncertainty Scale ten times larger scale to see larger uncertainties

18. Gabrielse Test of QED Most stringent test of QED: Comparing the measured electron g to the g calculated from QED using an independent  The uncertainty does not comes from g and QED All uncertainty comes from  [Rb] and  [Cs] With a better independent  could do a ten times better test

19. Gabrielse From Freeman Dyson – One Inventor of QED Dear Jerry,... I love your way of doing experiments, and I am happy to congratulate you for this latest triumph. Thank you for sending the two papers. Your statement, that QED is tested far more stringently than its inventors could ever have envisioned, is correct. As one of the inventors, I remember that we thought of QED in 1949 as a temporary and jerry-built structure, with mathematical inconsistencies and renormalized infinities swept under the rug. We did not expect it to last more than ten years before some more solidly built theory would replace it. We expected and hoped that some new experiments would reveal discrepancies that would point the way to a better theory. And now, 57 years have gone by and that ramshackle structure still stands. The theorists … have kept pace with your experiments, pushing their calculations to higher accuracy than we ever imagined. And you still did not find the discrepancy that we hoped for. To me it remains perpetually amazing that Nature dances to the tune that we scribbled so carelessly 57 years ago. And it is amazing that you can measure her dance to one part per trillion and find her still following our beat. With congratulations and good wishes for more such beautiful experiments, yours ever, Freeman.

20. Gabrielse Direct Test for Physics Beyond the Standard Model Does the electron have internal structure? Brodsky, Drell, 1980 limited by the uncertainty in independent  values if our g uncertainty was the only limit LEP contact interaction limit Not bad for an experiment done at 100 mK, but LEP does better Is g given by Dirac + QED? If not  electron substructure

21. Gabrielse Muon Test for Physics Beyond the Standard Model Needs Measured Electron g expected to be bigger than for electron by ~40,000 less accurately measured than we measure electron g by a factor of 1000 big contribution must be subtracted out need  need test the QED calculation of this large contribution  Muon search for new physics needs the measurement of the electron g and 

22. Gabrielse Could We Check the 3  Disagreement between Muon g Measurement and “Calculation”? (m  /m e ) 2 ~ 40,000  muon more sensitive to “new physics” ÷1,000  how much more accurately we measure ÷ 3  3  disagreement is now seen  If we can reduce the electron g uncertainty by 13 times more should be able to have the precision to see the 3  effect (or not) QED and SM calculations improved by factor of ~5 Independent measurement of  improved by factor of 130 Also need: These are large numbers  hard to imagine that this will happen quickly

23. Gabrielse How Does One Measure the Electron g to 7.6 parts in 10 13 ?

24. Gabrielse How to Get an Uncertainty of 7.6 parts in 10 13 One-electron quantum cyclotron Resolve lowest cyclotron as well as spin states Quantum jump spectroscopy of cyclotron and spin motions Cavity-controlled spontaneous emission Radiation field controlled by cylindrical trap cavity Cooling away of blackbody photons Synchronized electrons probe cavity radiation modes Elimination of nuclear paramagnetism One-particle self-excited oscillator first measurement with these new methods  Give introduction to some of the new and novel methods Make a “Fully Quantum Atom” for the electron Challenge: An elementary particle has no internal states to probe or laser-cool

25. Gabrielse Basic Idea of the Measurement Quantum jump spectroscopy of lowest cyclotron and spin levels of an electron in a magnetic field

26. Gabrielse One Electron in a Magnetic Field n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 4 0.1  m 2  0.1  m Need low temperature cyclotron motion T << 7.2 K

27. Gabrielse First Penning Trap Below 4 K  70 mK Need low temperature cyclotron motion T << 7.2 K

28. Gabrielse A Tabletop Experiment … if you have a high ceiling David Hanneke

29. Gabrielse David Hanneke G.G.

30. Gabrielse Electron Cyclotron Motion Comes Into Thermal Equilibrium hot cavity blackbody photons electron spontaneous emission T = 100 mK << 7.2 K  ground state always Prob = 0.99999… cold

31. Gabrielse Electron in Cyclotron Ground State 0.23 0.11 0.03 9 x 10 -39 On a short time scale  in one Fock state or another Averaged over hours  in a thermal state average number of blackbody photons in the cavity QND Measurement of Cyclotron Energy vs. Time S. Peil and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1287 (1999).

32. Gabrielse Spin  Two Cyclotron Ladders of Energy Levels n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 4 n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 4 m s = -1/2m s = 1/2 Cyclotron frequency: Spin frequency:

33. Gabrielse Basic Idea of the Fully-Quantum Measurement n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 4 n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 4 m s = -1/2m s = 1/2 Cyclotron frequency: Spin frequency: Measure a ratio of frequencies: B in free space almost nothing can be measured better than a frequency the magnetic field cancels out (self-magnetometer)

34. Gabrielse Special Relativity Shift the Energy Levels  n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 4 n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 4 m s = -1/2m s = 1/2 Cyclotron frequency: Spin frequency: Not a huge relativistic shift, but important at our accuracy Solution: Simply correct for  if we fully resolve the levels (superposition of cyclotron levels would be a big problem)

35. Gabrielse Cylindrical Penning Trap Electrostatic quadrupole potential  good near trap center Control the radiation field  inhibit spontaneous emission by 200x (Invented for this purpose: G.G. and F. C. MacKintosh; Int. J. Mass Spec. Ion Proc. 57, 1 (1984)

36. Gabrielse One Electron in a Penning Trap very small accelerator designer atom 12 kHz 153 GHz 200 MHz Electrostatic quadrupole potential Magnetic field cool detect need to measure for g/2

37. Gabrielse Frequencies Shift B in Free Space Perfect Electrostatic Quadrupole Trap Imperfect Trap tilted B harmonic distortions to V Problem: not a measurable eigenfrequency in an imperfect Penning trap Solution: Brown-Gabrielse invariance theorem

38. Gabrielse Spectroscopy in an Imperfect Trap one electron in a Penning trap lowest cyclotron and spin states To deduce g  measure only three eigenfrequencies of the imperfect trap expansion for

39. Gabrielse Detecting and Damping Axial Motion V(t) amplitude  feedback measure voltage self-excited oscillator I 2 R damping Axial motion 200 MHz of trapped electron

40. Gabrielse Feedback Cooling of an Oscillator Electronic Amplifier Feedback: Strutt and Van der Ziel (1942) Basic Ideas of Noiseless Feedback and Its Limitations: Kittel (1958) Applications: Milatz, … (1953) -- electrometer Dicke, … (1964) -- torsion balance Forward, … (1979) -- gravity gradiometer Ritter, … (1988) -- laboratory rotor Cohadon, … (1999) -- vibration mode of a mirror Proposal to apply Kittel ideas to ion in an rf trap Dehmelt, Nagourney, … (1986)  never realized Proposal to “stochastically” cool antiprotons in trap Beverini, … (1988) – stochastic cooling  never realized Rolston, Gabrielse (1988) – same as feedback cooling (same limitations) Realization of feedback cooling with a trapped electron (also include noise) D’Urso, Odom, Gabrielse, PRL (2003) D’Urso, Van Handel, Odom, Hanneke, Gabrielse, PRL 94, 11302 (2005) faster damping rate  higher temperature

41. Gabrielse QND Detection of One-Quantum Transitions n=1 n=0 cyclotron ground state n=0 cyclotron ground state n=1 cyclotron excited state one-electron self-excited oscillator time

42. Gabrielse Quantum Non-demolition Measurement B QND H = H cyclotron + H axial + H coupling [ H cyclotron, H coupling ] = 0 QND:Subsequent time evolution of cyclotron motion is not altered by additional QND measurements QND condition

43. Gabrielse Observe Tiny Shifts of the Frequency of a One-Electron Self-Excited Oscillator one quantum cyclotron excitation spin flip Unmistakable changes in the axial frequency signal one quantum changes in cyclotron excitation and spin B "Single-Particle Self-excited Oscillator" B. D'Urso, R. Van Handel, B. Odom and G. Gabrielse Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 113002 (2005).

44. Gabrielse Emboldened by the Great Signal-to-Noise Make a one proton (antiproton) self-excited oscillator  try to detect a proton (and antiproton) spin flip  measure proton spin frequency  we already accurately measure antiproton cyclotron frequencies  get antiproton g value Hard: nuclear magneton is 500 times smaller Experiment underway  Harvard  also Mainz and GSI (without SEO) (build upon bound electron g values) (Improve by factor of a million or more)

45. Gabrielse Need Averaging Time to Observe a One-quantum Transition  Cavity-Inhibited Spontaneous Emission Application of Cavity QED  = 16 s excite, measure time in excited state

46. Gabrielse Cavity-Inhibited Spontaneous Emission Free Space B = 5.3 T Within Trap Cavity frequency cavity modes Inhibited By 210! B = 5.3 T Purcell Kleppner Gabrielse and Dehmelt

47. Gabrielse “In the Dark” Excitation  Narrower Lines 1.Turn FET amplifier off 2.Apply a microwave drive pulse of ~150 GH (i.e. measure “in the dark”) 3.Turn FET amplifier on and check for axial frequency shift 4.Plot a histograms of excitations vs. frequency Good amp heat sinking, amp off during excitation T z = 0.32 K

48. Gabrielse Big Challenge: Magnetic Field Stability n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 m s = -1/2 m s = 1/2 But: problem when B drifts during the measurement Magnetic field cancels out Magnetic field take ~ month to stabilize

49. Gabrielse Self-Shielding Solenoid Helps a Lot Flux conservation  Field conservation Reduces field fluctuations by about a factor > 150 “Self-shielding Superconducting Solenoid Systems”, G. Gabrielse and J. Tan, J. Appl. Phys. 63, 5143 (1988)

50. Gabrielse Eliminate Nuclear Paramagnetism Deadly nuclear magnetism of copper and other “friendly” materials  Had to build new trap out of silver  New vacuum enclosure out of titanium ~ 1 year setback

51. Gabrielse

53. Quantum Jump Spectroscopy one electron in a Penning trap lowest cyclotron and spin states

54. Gabrielse Measurement Cycle n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 m s = -1/2 m s = 1/2 1.Prepare n=0, m=1/2  measure anomaly transition 2.Prepare n=0, m=1/2  measure cyclotron transition 3.Measure relative magnetic field 3 hours 0.75 hour Repeat during magnetically quiet times simplified

55. Gabrielse Precision: Sub-ppb line splitting (i.e. sub-ppb precision of a g-2 measurement) is now “easy” after years of work It all comes together: Low temperature, and high frequency make narrow line shapes A highly stable field allows us to map these lines Measured Line Shapes for g-value Measurement cyclotronanomaly n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 m s = -1/2 m s = 1/2

56. Gabrielse Cavity Shifts of the Cyclotron Frequency n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 n = 3 n = 0 n = 1 n = 2 m s = -1/2 m s = 1/2 Within a Trap Cavity frequency cavity modes spontaneous emission inhibited by 210 B = 5.3 T cyclotron frequency is shifted by interaction with cavity modes

57. Gabrielse Cavity modes and Magnetic Moment Error Operating between modes of cylindrical trap where shift from two cavity modes cancels approximately first measured cavity shift of g use synchronization of electrons to get cavity modes

58. Gabrielse Summary of Uncertainties for g (in ppt = 10 -12 ) Test of cavity shift understanding Measurement of g-value

59. Gabrielse

60. Attempting to Measure g for Proton and Antiproton Improve proton g by more than 10 Improve antiproton g by more than 10 6 Compare g for antiproton and proton – test CPT

61. Gabrielse CODATA 2002: g p =5.585 694 701(56) (10 ppb) Current Proton g Last Measured in 1972 electron g-factor, measured to < 0.001 ppb (Harvard) proton-electron mass ratio, measured to < 1 ppb (Mainz) bound magnetic moment ratio, measured to 10 ppb (MIT: P.F. Winkler, D. Kleppner, T. Myint, F.G. Walther, Phys. Rev. A 5, 83-114 (1972) ) bound / free corrections, calculated to < 1 ppb (Breit, Lamb, Lieb, Grotch, Faustov, Close, Osborn, Hegstrom, Persson, others)

62. Gabrielse History of Measurements of Proton g (from bound measurements of  p /  e, with current values of g e, m e /m p and theory)

63. Gabrielse Antiproton g-factor Antiproton g-factor is known to less than a part per thousand We hope to do roughly one million times better.

64. Gabrielse Apparatus Working Only With Electrons (so far) make spin flip 6 mm inner diameter detect spin flip Nick Guise iron

65. Gabrielse Summary and Conclusion

66. Gabrielse How Does One Measure g to 7.6 Parts in 10 13 ? Summary One-electron quantum cyclotron Resolve lowest cyclotron as well as spin states Quantum jump spectroscopy of lowest quantum states Cavity-controlled spontaneous emission Radiation field controlled by cylindrical trap cavity Cooling away of blackbody photons Synchronized electrons probe cavity radiation modes Trap without nuclear paramagnetism One-particle self-excited oscillator first measurement with these new methods  Use New Methods

67. Gabrielse New Measurement of Electron Magnetic Moment magnetic moment spin Bohr magneton First improved measurement since 1987 Nearly six times smaller uncertainty 1.7 standard deviation shift Likely more accuracy coming 1000 times smaller uncertainty than muon g B. Odom, D. Hanneke, B. D’Urso and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030801 (2006).

68. Gabrielse New Determination of the Fine Structure Constant Strength of the electromagnetic interaction Important component of our system of fundamental constants Increased importance for new mass standard First lower uncertainty since 1987 Ten times more accurate than atom-recoil methods G. Gabrielse, D. Hanneke, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, B. Odom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97}, 030802 (2006).

69. Gabrielse We Intend to do Better Use self-excited antiproton oscillator to measure the antiproton magnetic moment  million-fold improvement? Compare positron and electron g-values to make best test of CPT for leptons Measure the proton-to-electron mass ration directly Stay Tuned – The new methods have just been made to work all together With time we can utilize them better Some new ideas are being tried (e.g. cavity-sideband cooling) Lowering uncertainty by factor of 13  check muon result (hard) Spin-off Experiments

70. Gabrielse Further Reading New Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment B. Odom, D. Hanneke, B. D’Urson and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030801 (2006). New Determination of the Fine Structure Constant G. Gabrielse, D. Hanneke, T. Kinoshita, M. Nio, B. Odom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030802 (2006). AIP Physics Story of the Year (Phys. News Update, 5 Dec. 2006) Science 313, 448-449 (2006) Nature 442, 516-517 (2006) Physics Today, 15-17 (August, 2006) Cern Courier (October 2006) New Scientist 2568, 40-43 (2006) Physics World (March 2007)