You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.
Muon g-2 doubles down with latest measurement, explores uncharted territory in search of new physics
August 10, 2023
Media contact
- Tracy Marc, Fermilab, [email protected] , 224-290-7803
Physicists now have a brand-new measurement of a property of the muon called the anomalous magnetic moment that improves the precision of their previous result by a factor of 2.
An international collaboration of scientists working on the Muon g-2 experiment at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory announced the much-anticipated updated measurement on Aug. 10. This new value bolsters the first result they announced in April 2021 and sets up a showdown between theory and experiment over 20 years in the making.
“We’re really probing new territory. We’re determining the muon magnetic moment at a better precision than it has ever been seen before,” said Brendan Casey, a senior scientist at Fermilab who has worked on the Muon g-2 experiment since 2008.
The announcement on Aug. 10, 2023, is the second result from the experiment at Fermilab, which is twice as precise than the first result announced on April 7, 2021. Photo: Ryan Postel, Fermilab
Physicists describe how the universe works at its most fundamental level with a theory known as the Standard Model . By making predictions based on the Standard Model and comparing them to experimental results, physicists can discern whether the theory is complete — or if there is physics beyond the Standard Model.
Muons are fundamental particles that are similar to electrons but about 200 times as massive. Like electrons, muons have a tiny internal magnet that, in the presence of a magnetic field, precesses or wobbles like the axis of a spinning top. The precession speed in a given magnetic field depends on the muon magnetic moment, typically represented by the letter g ; at the simplest level, theory predicts that g should equal 2.
The difference of g from 2 — or g minus 2 — can be attributed to the muon’s interactions with particles in a quantum foam that surrounds it. These particles blink in and out of existence and, like subatomic “dance partners,” grab the muon’s “hand” and change the way the muon interacts with the magnetic field. The Standard Model incorporates all known “dance partner” particles and predicts how the quantum foam changes g . But there might be more. Physicists are excited about the possible existence of as-yet-undiscovered particles that contribute to the value of g-2 — and would open the window to exploring new physics.
The new experimental result, based on the first three years of data, announced by the Muon g-2 collaboration is: g-2 = 0.00233184110 +/- 0.00000000043 (stat.) +/- 0.00000000019 (syst.)
The measurement of g-2 corresponds to a precision of 0.20 parts per million. The Muon g-2 collaboration describes the result in a paper that they submitted today to Physical Review Letters .
With this measurement, the collaboration has already reached their goal of decreasing one particular type of uncertainty: uncertainty caused by experimental imperfections, known as systematic uncertainties.
“This measurement is an incredible experimental achievement,” said Peter Winter, co-spokesperson for the Muon g-2 collaboration. “Getting the systematic uncertainty down to this level is a big deal and is something we didn’t expect to achieve so soon.”
Due to the large amount of additional data that is going into the 2023 analysis announcement, the Muon g-2 collaboration’s latest result is more than twice as precise as the first result announced in 2021. Image: Muon g-2 collaboration
While the total systematic uncertainty has already surpassed the design goal, the larger aspect of uncertainty — statistical uncertainty — is driven by the amount of data analyzed. The result announced today adds an additional two years of data to their first result. The Fermilab experiment will reach its ultimate statistical uncertainty once scientists incorporate all six years of data in their analysis, which the collaboration aims to complete in the next couple of years.
To make the measurement, the Muon g-2 collaboration repeatedly sent a beam of muons into a 50-foot-diameter superconducting magnetic storage ring, where they circulated about 1,000 times at nearly the speed of light. Detectors lining the ring allowed scientists to determine how rapidly the muons were precessing. Physicists must also precisely measure the strength of the magnetic field to then determine the value of g-2.
The Fermilab experiment reused a storage ring originally built for the predecessor Muon g-2 experiment at DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory that concluded in 2001. In 2013, the collaboration transported the storage ring 3,200 miles from Long Island, New York, to Batavia, Illinois. Over the next four years, the collaboration assembled the experiment with improved techniques, instrumentation and simulations. The main goal of the Fermilab experiment is to reduce the uncertainty of g-2 by a factor of four compared to the Brookhaven result.
“Our new measurement is very exciting because it takes us well beyond Brookhaven’s sensitivity,” said Graziano Venanzoni, professor at the University of Liverpool affiliated with the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Pisa, and co-spokesperson of the Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab.
In addition to the larger data set, this latest g-2 measurement is enhanced by updates to the Fermilab experiment itself. “We improved a lot of things between our first year of taking data and our second and third year,” said Casey, who recently finished his term as co-spokesperson with Venanzoni. “We were constantly making the experiment better.”
The experiment was “really firing on all cylinders” for the final three years of data-taking, which came to an end on July 9, 2023. That’s when the collaboration shut off the muon beam, concluding the experiment after six years of data collection. They reached the goal of collecting a data set that is more than 21 times the size of Brookhaven’s data set.
Physicists can calculate the effects of the known Standard Model “dance partners” on muon g-2 to incredible precision. The calculations consider the electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces, including photons, electrons, quarks, gluons, neutrinos, W and Z bosons, and the Higgs boson. If the Standard Model is correct, this ultra-precise prediction should match the experimental measurement.
Calculating the Standard Model prediction for muon g-2 is very challenging. In 2020, the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative announced the best Standard Model prediction for muon g-2 available at that time. But a new experimental measurement of the data that feeds into the prediction and a new calculation based on a different theoretical approach — lattice gauge theory — are in tension with the 2020 calculation. Scientists of the Muon g-2 Theory Initiative aim to have a new, improved prediction available in the next couple of years that considers both theoretical approaches.
The Muon g-2 collaboration comprises close to 200 scientists from 33 institutions in seven countries and includes nearly 40 students so far who have received their doctorates based on their work on the experiment. Collaborators will now spend the next couple of years analyzing the final three years of data. “We expect another factor of two in precision when we finish,” said Venanzoni.
The collaboration anticipates releasing their final, most precise measurement of the muon magnetic moment in 2025 — setting up the ultimate showdown between Standard Model theory and experiment. Until then, physicists have a new and improved measurement of muon g-2 that is a significant step toward its final physics goal.
The Muon g-2 collaboration submitted this scientific paper for publication.
This seven-minute video provides additional information about muons and the new result by the Muon g-2 collaboration.
Here is the recording of the scientific seminar held on Aug. 10, 2023.
The Muon g-2 experiment is supported by the Department of Energy (US); National Science Foundation (US); Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy); Science and Technology Facilities Council (UK); Royal Society (UK); European Union’s Horizon 2020; National Natural Science Foundation of China; MSIP, NRF and IBS-R017-D1 (Republic of Korea); and German Research Foundation (DFG).
Fermilab is America’s premier national laboratory for particle physics research. A U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science laboratory, Fermilab is located near Chicago, Illinois, and operated under contract by the Fermi Research Alliance LLC. Visit Fermilab’s website at https://www.fnal.gov and follow us on Twitter @Fermilab .
The DOE Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, visit https://science.energy.gov .
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
- View all journals
- Explore content
- About the journal
- Publish with us
- Sign up for alerts
- 10 August 2023
Dreams of new physics fade with latest muon magnetism result
- Davide Castelvecchi
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
The Muon g – 2 experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, Illinois, has made the best measure of the muon’s magnetic moment. Credit: Science History Images/Alamy
The muon’s magnetism is still strong. Its most precise measurement yet is in line with a series of earlier results — and seals an embarrassing discrepancy with decades of theoretical calculations that had predicted a slightly weaker magnetism for the elementary particle.
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
24,99 € / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
185,98 € per year
only 3,65 € per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Nature 620 , 473-474 (2023)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02532-6
Aguillard, D. P. et al. Preprint at https://muon-g-2.fnal.gov/result2023.pdf (2023).
Abi, B. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 , 141801 (2021).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Aoyama, T. et al. Phys. Rep. 887 , 1–166 (2020).
Article Google Scholar
Borsanyi, S. et al. Nature 593 , 51–55 (2021).
Ignatov, F. V. et al. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.08834 (2023).
Download references
Reprints and permissions
Related Articles
Physicists spellbound by deepening mystery of muon particle’s magnetism
- Particle physics
New CERN chief pledges to forge ahead with $17-billion supercollider
News 07 NOV 24
Mysterious form of high-energy radiation spotted in thunderstorms
News 02 OCT 24
Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector
Article 18 SEP 24
Recruitment of Overseas Outstanding Young Scholars
State Key Laboratory of Materials-Oriented Chemical Engineering in the field of materials-oriented chemical engineering.
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
State Key Laboratory of Materials-Oriented Chemical Engineering, Nanjing Tech University
Faculty Positions at SUSTech School of Medicine
SUSTech School of Medicine offers equal opportunities and welcome applicants from the world with all ethnic backgrounds.
Shenzhen, Guangdong, China
Southern University of Science and Technology, School of Medicine
Al Medical Engineering at School of Biomedical Engineering
Tsinghua BME offers faculty positions in the emerging research direction of AI Medical Engineering
Beijing, China
Tsinghua University
Faculty Positions at the Center for Advanced Microbiome Research
Faculty Positions in Microbiome Research at the Center for Advanced Microbiome Research and Innovation, Institute for Genome Sciences, UM SOM
Baltimore, Maryland
Institute for Genome Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine
Senior Publisher
The Senior Publisher will support a portfolio of open access journals including journals in the life, biomedical, and health sciences.
London Heidelberg or Milan – Hybrid working model
Springer Nature Ltd
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.
Quick links
- Explore articles by subject
- Guide to authors
- Editorial policies
August 10, 2023
Muon Mystery Deepens with Latest Measurements
The latest data from the Muon g−2 experiment corroborates previous results, but clashing theoretical predictions leave physicists without a clear conclusion
By Daniel Garisto
The Muon g–2 ring sits in its detector hall at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill.
UPI/Alamy Stock Photo
Muons continue to confound physicists. These unstable subatomic particles are much like familiar electrons, only with 200 times the mass and a fleeting lifetime of just 2.2 microseconds. Unlike electrons, however, muons are at the center of a tangled inquiry into the prevailing theory of particle physics.
For decades, physicists have puzzled over tantalizing hints that muons are more sensitive to magnetic fields than theory says they should be: run muons in circles around a powerful magnet, and they “wobble,” decaying in a different direction than expected. This apparent discrepancy in the muon’s “magnetic moment” has been significant to physicists because it could arise via nudges from undiscovered particles that are unaccounted for by current theory. But the discrepancy could just as well have been a statistical fluke, an experimental uncertainty or a product of various potential errors in theorists’ arcane calculations. Making progress on this vexing problem boils down to better calculations and more precise measurements of the muon’s magnetic moment.
On Thursday researchers announced the latest measurement milestone, which pins down the muon’s magnetic moment to an error of just one part in five million. The paper reporting their results, which has been submitted to the journal Physical Review Letters , was based on two years of data taken at the Muon g−2 experiment, a 50-foot-wide magnetic ring of circulating muons located at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill. (Disclosure: The writer of this story is related to Robert Garisto, managing editor of Physical Review Letters . They had no communications about the story.) The new result confirms and doubles the precision of a previous experimental measurement in 2021 , banishing doubts about the Muon g−2 experiment’s reliability.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
“The experiment has really done its job,” says Dominik Stöckinger, a theorist at the Dresden University of Technology in Germany, who is also part of the Muon g−2 collaboration. He praises his colleagues for the increase in precision, and other scientists agree.
“The g−2 measurement is a fantastic achievement.... It’s very difficult stuff with very high precision,” says Patrick Koppenburg, an experimental physicist at the Dutch National Institute for Subatomic Physics, who was not involved in the research.
Despite the recent experimental success, theory-based problems remain. In the subatomic realm, the Standard Model reigns as the current theory of fundamental particles and their interactions. But the Standard Model leaves physicists unsatisfied; it doesn’t explain phenomena such as dark matter or mysteries such as the surprisingly low mass of the Higgs boson. Such limitations have pushed researchers to hunt for as-yet-undescribed new particles within the Standard Model—ones that could subtly influence the muon’s behavior in ways theory does not predict.
Spotting disagreements between theoretical predictions and the results of experiments like Muon g−2 requires extraordinary precision on both sides. But right now theorists can’t agree on a sufficiently precise prediction for the muon’s magnetic moment because of conflicting (but equally plausible) results from disparate ways to calculate it. And without a consensus, high-precision theoretical prediction, a meaningful comparison with the Muon g−2 experiment’s results is effectively impossible.
“You can only call it an anomaly once there is an agreement on what the Standard Model prediction is,” Koppenburg says. “And presently that seems not to be the case.”
Nearly a century ago the theorist Paul Dirac calculated a value, called g, for how much a charged particle should be affected by a magnetic field. Dirac said g should be exactly 2. (This is where “g−2” comes from.) But over the next two decades, experiments found that the electron’s so-called g-factor was not quite 2—it was off by about a tenth of a percent. The small difference would change the way physicists understood the universe.
In 1947 another eminent theorist, Julian Schwinger, worked out what was happening: the electron was being jostled by the photon. This photon was “virtual”—it was not really there but affected the electron with the photon’s potential to pop into existence, nudge the electron and disappear. The realization transformed particle physics. No longer could the vacuum of space be considered truly empty; instead it was brimming with a dizzying assortment of virtual particles, all of which conveyed a slight influence.
“As they pop into existence, [virtual particles] bounce off the muon. They cause it to wobble a bit more, and then they disappear again,” says Alex Keshavarzi, a theorist and experimentalist at the University of Manchester in England, who is part of the Muon g−2 experiment. “And you basically sum them all up.”
This is easier said than done. Physicists must calculate the remote possibility that the muon interacts not with one but up to five photons popping in and out of existence before continuing on its way. Diagrams of these unlikely events require onerous calculations and resemble abstract art, with arcane loops and squiggles representing hosts of virtual interactions.
Not all calculations of virtual particles can be exactly solved. Although it’s relatively straightforward to compute the influence of virtual photons, muons are also affected by a class of particles called hadrons—clumps of quarks bound together by gluons. Hadrons interact recursively with themselves such that they create what physicists call a “hadronic blob,” which in simulations resemble less abstract art and look more like a tangled ball of yarn. Hadronic blobs defy precise, clean modeling. Stymied researchers have instead tried to refine their models of virtual hadronic blobs with data harvested from real ones produced by collisions of electrons in other experiments. For decades, this data-driven approach has allowed theorists to make predictions about otherwise intractable contributions to the muon’s behavior.
More recently, theorists have begun using a new tool to calculate hadronic blobs: lattice quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Essentially, by plugging the equations of the Standard Model into powerful computers, researchers can numerically approximate the mess of hadronic blobs, cutting through the subatomic Gordian knot. In 2020 about 130 theorists pooled their efforts into the Muon g−2 Theory Initiative and combined parts of both techniques to make the most precise prediction of the muon’s magnetic moment to date—just in time for an experimental update.
Clashing Calculations
To measure the muon’s magnetic moment, physicists at the Muon g−2 experiment begin by funneling a beam of muons into a storage ring around the 50-foot magnet. There, a muon does thousands of laps in the span of a few microseconds before it decays. Recording when and where the decay takes place gave the researchers an experimental answer to how much the muon wobbled because of its interactions with virtual particles such as photons and hadronic blobs.
In 2021 the collaboration measured the muon’s magnetic moment to a precision of one part in two million. At the time, the discrepancy between theory and experiment was, in particle-physics parlance, 4.2 sigma. This means that in one out of every 30,000 runs of the experiment, an effect so large should show up from random chance (assuming it is not caused by “new physics” beyond the Standard Model). That’s roughly equivalent to getting 15 heads in a row on tosses of a fair coin. (This does not mean the result has 30,000-to-one odds of being true; it’s simply a way for physicists to keep track of how much their measurements are ruled by uncertainty.)
Since then the ever shifting landscape of theoretical predictions has been roiled by clashing results and updates. First came a lattice QCD result from the Budapest–Marseille–Wuppertal (BMW) collaboration. Using an enormous amount of computational resources, the BMW team made the most precise calculation of the muon’s magnetic moment—and found it disagreed with all other theoretical predictions. Instead it agreed with the experimental value measured by Muon g−2. If BMW is correct, there’s no real disagreement between theory and experiment, and that anomaly would essentially vanish.
None of the half-dozen other lattice QCD groups have fully corroborated the BMW prediction, but initial signs suggest that they will, according to Aida X. El-Khadra, a physicist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and chair of the Muon g−2 Theory Initiative. “The lattice QCD community is now in agreement on a small piece of the calculation, and I’m confident we’ll get there for the entire calculation,” she says.*
But if it has solved one discrepancy—between theory and experiment—BMW may have created another. There is now a sizable difference between lattice QCD predictions and the data-driven ones derived from empirical experiments.
“A lot of people would look at that and say, ‘Okay, that weakens the new physics case.’ I don't see that at all,” Keshavarzi says. He believes the discrepancy within the theory result—between the lattice and data-driven methods—could be linked to new physics, such as an as-yet-undetected low-mass particle. Other researchers are less gung ho about such heady prospects. Christoph Lehner, a theorist at the University of Regensburg in Germany and a co-chair of the Muon g−2 Theory Initiative, says it is much more likely that the theoretical discrepancy is caused by problems in the data-driven method.
In February another curveball hit the community, this time from the data-driven side: A new analysis of data from an experiment called CMD-3 that is based in Novosibirsk, Russia, agreed with the BMW result and the experimental value. “No one expected that,” Keshavarzi says. If CMD-3 were found to be correct, there would be no discrepancy in theory—or between theory and experiment. But CMD-3 doesn’t agree with any of the previous results, including those of its predecessor, CMD-2. “There is no good understanding for why CMD-3 is so different,” El-Khadra says. Within a year or two, she expects more data-driven and lattice results, which she and her peers hope will sort out some of this increasingly unwieldy mess.
What began a century ago as a nice, even number—g=2—has now spiraled into a task of monstrous precision and fractal complexity. There is not even a clear anomaly between theory and experiment. Instead there is disagreement between the lattice and data-driven theoretical methods. And with the BMW and CMD-3 results, there is further conflict within each method.
For better or worse, this is what a frontier of 21st-century particle physics looks like: a messy back-and-forth as physicists desperately searching for breakthroughs compete to see who can most meticulously measure muons.
*Editor’s Note (8/10/23): This paragraph was edited after posting to better clarify Aida X. El-Khadra’s comments about the Budapest–Marseille–Wuppertal (BMW) collaboration’s lattice quantum chromodynamics (QCD) result.
IMAGES