1: \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,npb,epsfig]{article}
2: %
3: % put your own definitions here:
4: % \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}
5: % \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]
6: % ...
7: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
8: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
9: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
10:
11: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
12: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed ana-lysed}
13:
14: \title{News from the Muon (g-2) Experiment at BNL}
15:
16: \author{M. Deile$^{11}$ for the Muon (g-2) Collaboration:\\
17: G.W. Bennett$^2$, B. Bousquet$^9$, H.N. Brown$^2$, G. Bunce$^2$,
18: R.M. Carey$^1$, P. Cushman$^{9}$, G.T. Danby$^2$,
19: P.T. Debevec$^7$, M. Deile$^{11}$, H. Deng$^{11}$, W. Deninger$^7$,
20: S.K. Dhawan$^{11}$, V.P. Druzhinin$^3$, L. Duong$^{9}$, E.~Efstathiadis$^1$,
21: F.J.M. Farley$^{11}$,
22: G.V. Fedotovich$^3$, S. Giron$^{9}$, F. Gray$^7$, D. Grigoriev$^3$,
23: M.~Gro\ss e-Perdekamp$^{11}$,
24: A. Gro\ss mann$^6$, M.F. Hare$^1$, D.W. Hertzog$^7$, X. Huang$^1$,
25: V.W. Hughes$^{11}$, M.~Iwasaki$^{10}$,
26: K. Jungmann$^5$, D. Kawall$^{11}$, B.I. Khazin$^3$, J. Kindem$^{9}$,
27: F. Krienen$^1$, I. Kronkvist$^{9}$, A.~Lam$^1$, R. Larsen$^2$, Y.Y. Lee$^2$,
28: I. Logashenko$^1$,
29: R. McNabb$^{9}$, W. Meng$^2$, J. Mi$^2$, J.P. Miller$^1$, W.M.~Morse$^2$,
30: D. Nikas$^2$,
31: C. Onderwater$^7$, Y. Orlov$^4$, C.S. \"{O}zben$^2$, J. Paley$^1$, Q. Peng$^2$,
32: C. Polly$^7$, J.~Pretz$^{11}$,
33: R. Prigl$^2$, G.~zu Putlitz$^6$, T. Qian$^9$, S.I. Redin$^{3,11}$,
34: O. Rind$^1$, B.L. Roberts$^1$,
35: N.M. Ryskulov$^3$, Y.K. Semertzidis$^2$, P. Shagin$^9$, Yu.M. Shatunov$^3$,
36: E. Sichtermann$^{11}$, E. Solodov$^3$, M. Sossong$^7$, A.~Steinmetz$^{11}$,
37: L.R. Sulak$^1$,
38: A. Trofimov$^1$, D. Urner$^7$, P. von Walter$^6$, D. Warburton$^2$,
39: A. Yamamoto$^8$.\\
40: {\it $^1$Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA}.\\
41: {\it $^2$Brookhaven National Laboratory, Physics Dept., Upton, NY 11973, USA}.
42: \\
43: {\it $^3$Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk, Russia}.\\
44: {\it $^4$Newman Laboratory, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA}.\\
45: {\it $^5$Kernfysisch Versneller Instituut, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 9747
46: AA Groningen, The Netherlands}.\\
47: {\it $^6$Physikalisches Institut der Universit\"{a}t Heidelberg,
48: 69120 Heidelberg, Germany}.\\
49: {\it $^7$University of Illinois, Physics Dept., Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801,
50: USA}.\\
51: {\it $^8$KEK, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, Tsukuba,
52: Ibaraki 305-0801, Japan}.\\
53: {\it $^{9}$University of Minnesota, Physics Dept., Minneapolis,
54: MN 55455, USA}.\\
55: {\it $^{10}$Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan}.\\
56: {\it $^{11}$Yale University, Physics Dept., New Haven, CT 06520,USA}.}
57: %
58: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
59:
60: \begin{document}
61:
62: \begin{abstract}
63: The magnetic moment anomaly $a_{\mu} = (g_{\mu} - 2) / 2$ of the positive muon
64: has been measured
65: at the Brookhaven Alternating Gradient Synchrotron with an uncertainty of
66: 0.7\,ppm. The new result, based on data taken in 2000, agrees well with
67: previous measurements. Standard Model evaluations currently differ from the
68: experimental result by 1.6 to 3.0 standard deviations.
69: \end{abstract}
70:
71: \maketitle
72:
73: \section{Introduction}
74: According to Dirac's theory, the gyromagnetic ratio $g$ of a lepton
75: is exactly 2. Deviations from this prediction are
76: caused by radiative corrections to the lepton-photon vertex
77: due to quantum field fluctuations.
78: The anomaly of the electron
79: is currently known at the level of 4\,ppb~\cite{dehmelt} and well in
80: agreement with the Standard Model.
81: Since the contribution of heavy virtual particles to the anomaly
82: $a = (g - 2) / 2$ is proportional to the square of the mass scale,
83: the sensitivity of the muon is enhanced by a factor
84: $(m_{\mu}/m_e)^2 \approx 40000$ relative to the electron.
85: At the present level of precision, the muon anomaly $a_{\mu}$ probes
86: QED, weak and hadronic contributions.
87:
88: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------
89:
90: \section{Experimental Setup and Data Analysis}
91: The general technique of the experiment at BNL is the same as that of the
92: precursor experiment at CERN~\cite{CERN3}. Polarised muons are stored in a
93: highly uniform
94: magnetic dipole field with electrostatic quadrupoles~\cite{quads}
95: providing vertical
96: focussing. The muon spin precesses relative to the momentum vector with the
97: angular frequency
98: \begin{equation}
99: \label{eqn_precession}
100: \vec \omega_a = - {e \over m_\mu }\left[ a_{\mu} \vec B -
101: \left( a_{\mu}- {1 \over \gamma_\mu^2 - 1}\right)
102: \vec \beta \times \vec E \right],
103: \end{equation}
104: provided that $\vec \beta \cdot \vec B = 0$.
105: The dependence of $\omega_a$ on the electric field $\vec{E}$ (second term in
106: Eq.~(\ref{eqn_precession}))
107: is eliminated by storing the muons at the ``magic'' $\gamma_{\mu} = 29.3$,
108: corresponding to a momentum $p_{\mu}$ = 3.094\,GeV/$c$.
109: In this case, $a_{\mu}$ is given by simultaneous measurement of $\omega_a$
110: and $\langle B \rangle$, the magnetic field averaged over the spatial
111: muon distribution in the storage region. As explained later, $\omega_a$ is
112: reflected by the rate of decay positrons above a certain energy threshold.
113: The magnetic field $B$ is measured in terms of
114: the free proton precession frequency $\omega_{\mathrm p}$ in this field using
115: nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) probes. Then, $a_\mu$ can be expressed as
116: \begin{equation}
117: \label{eqn_amu}
118: a_\mu=\frac{ \omega_a/\omega_{\mathrm p} }{ \mu_\mu/\mu_{\mathrm p}
119: - \omega_a/\omega_{\mathrm p} } \: ,
120: \end{equation}
121: where $\mu_\mu/\mu_{\mathrm p} = (318\,334\,539 \pm 10) \times 10^{-8}$
122: is the ratio of the magnetic moments of the muon to the proton, which has been
123: measured with a precision of 30\,ppb~\cite{liu}.
124: To avoid experimenter biases, a ``blind analysis'' strategy is pursued,
125: separating the $\omega_{\mathrm a}$ and $\omega_{\mathrm p}$ analyses with
126: secret offsets which are only revealed when both analyses are complete and
127: internally consistent.
128:
129: The beam used for the experiment originates at the Alternating Gradient
130: Synchrotron (AGS) which every 2.5\,s delivers
131: 40--60\,$\times$\,10$^{12}$ protons at 24 GeV/$c$
132: onto a nickel target.
133: Each proton spill is composed of 12 bunches with a width of about 50 ns and a
134: separation of~33\,ms.
135: Downstream of the target, pions at 3.1 GeV/$c$ are selected into a 72\,m long
136: straight
137: beam line where about half of them decay into muons. Because of parity
138: violation in the pion decay, the selection of forward-going muons leads to
139: a polarisation of
140: about 96\,\%. Muons at the magic momentum are selected and
141: injected into the
142: storage ring through a hole in the yoke of the dipole magnet whose 1.45\,T
143: field is locally cancelled by
144: a DC super-conducting inflector magnet~\cite{inflect}.
145: To move the muons onto the central orbit, a kick of about 11\,mrad
146: is given by a pulsed kicker magnet~\cite{kicker}.
147: The continuous superferric `C'-shaped storage ring magnet~\cite{danby}
148: is excited by superconducting coils.
149: The muon storage region has a 9\,cm diameter cross-section and a central
150: radius of 7.112\,m, corresponding to
151: a cyclotron period of 149.2\,ns for muons at $\gamma = 29.3$.
152:
153: A vertical air gap between pole and yoke decouples
154: the yoke and pole pieces, which are fabricated from high quality
155: steel, and allows the insertion of iron wedges to improve the field homogeneity
156: by compensating the quadrupole field components.
157: The four edge shims, 5\,cm wide and about 3\,mm
158: high, are the main tool for reducing field variations over the beam
159: cross-section. Surface coils glued to the pole pieces are used to
160: further reduce the inhomogeneity of the field.
161:
162: The field inside the storage region is mapped twice
163: a week using a hermetically sealed cable-car with a matrix of 17 NMR probes
164: moving on rails in the vacuum beam pipe and measuring a transverse field map
165: about every 5\,mm. The probes
166: in the trolley are calibrated in place relative to a standard H$_{2}$O
167: probe for which the calibration ratio
168: $\omega_{p}({\rm H}_{2}{\rm O})/\omega_{p}({\rm free})$ between the precession
169: frequencies of protons bound in water and free protons is known to
170: 50\,ppb~\cite{fei}.
171:
172: During data taking, an array of 375~NMR probes
173: embedded in the top and bottom plates of the vacuum chamber
174: is used to monitor magnetic field variations between trolley measurements
175: and to stabilise the field with a feed-back
176: loop to the main magnet power supply~\cite{ralf}.
177:
178: Two independent analyses determined $\langle \omega_{p} \rangle$, averaged
179: over the muon distribution. Their results agree within 0.05\,ppm.
180: The systematic uncertainties for $\langle \omega_{p}\rangle $
181: are summarised in Table~\ref{tab_omega_p}.
182: As a final result, the value $\langle \omega_{p}\rangle /(2\pi)
183: = 61\,791\,595(00)(15)$\,Hz (0.2\,ppm) was obtained.
184: The improvement from 0.4\,ppm
185: systematic error in 1999 to 0.24\,ppm in 2000 comes mainly
186: from the better field homogeneity (Figure~\ref{fig_fieldmap}) which was
187: achieved by replacing the old inflector whose super-conducting fringe-field
188: shield had a flux leak.
189: %
190: \begin{figure}[h!]
191: \center
192: \epsfig{file=magfieldmap2.eps,height=5cm}
193: \vspace*{-6mm}
194: \caption{\small Magnetic field map of the storage ring cross-section
195: averaged over azimuth. The contour lines have a distance of 0.5\,ppm.}
196: \label{fig_fieldmap}
197: \vspace*{-5mm}
198: \end{figure}
199:
200: \begin{table}[h!]
201: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5pc}
202: \newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
203: \catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
204: \caption{Systematic uncertainties for the $\omega_{p}$ analysis.}
205: \label{tab_omega_p}
206: \begin{tabular*}{75mm}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}c}
207: \hline
208: Source of errors & Size [ppm] \\
209: \hline
210: Absolute calibration of standard probe & 0.05 \\
211: Calibration of trolley probes & 0.15 \\
212: Trolley measurements of central & \\
213: azimuthal average field & 0.10 \\
214: Interpolation with fixed probes & 0.10 \\
215: Uncertainty from muon distribution & 0.03 \\
216: Others$^{\dag}$ & 0.10 \\
217: \hline
218: Total systematic error on $\omega_{p}$ & 0.24 \\
219: \hline
220: \multicolumn{2}{@{}p{75mm}}{\small $^{\dag}$ higher multipoles, trolley
221: temperature
222: and voltage response, eddy currents from kickers, and time-varying stray
223: fields.}
224: \end{tabular*}
225: \vspace*{-5mm}
226: \end{table}
227:
228: The decay positrons from $\mu^+ \rightarrow \mathrm{e^+ \nu_{e} \bar
229: \nu_{\mu}}$ range in energy from
230: 0 to 3.1\,GeV, and are detected with 24 lead/scintillating-fiber
231: calorimeters~\cite{sedykh}
232: placed symmetrically around the inside of the storage
233: ring. The arrival times and energies of the positrons are determined from the
234: calorimeter pulses whose full shapes are sampled by a 400\,MHz waveform
235: digitiser (WFD). A laser and light-emitting-diode (LED) system is
236: used to monitor potential time and gain shifts.
237:
238: Because of parity violation in the weak muon decay, in the muon rest frame
239: positrons are preferentially emitted along the muon spin direction.
240: Since in the lab frame forward positrons are boosted to high energies,
241: the muon spin precession frequency modulates
242: the decay positron count rate $N(t)$ if a lower energy threshold is applied:
243: \begin{equation}
244: \label{eqn_5parfit}
245: N(t) = N_0\,{\rm e}^{-\frac{t}{\gamma\tau}}
246: \left[1 + A \cos \left(\omega_a t+\phi_{a}\right)\right] \: ,
247: \end{equation}
248: \noindent
249: where $\gamma\tau = 64.4\,\mu$s is the dilated muon lifetime. For an
250: energy threshold of 2\,GeV, the asymmetry $A$ is about 0.4.
251: Figure~\ref{fig_wiggles} shows the sum of the decay positron time spectra
252: observed by all
253: detectors within a time range of 805\,$\mu$s or roughly 12 muon lifetimes.
254: The total number of positrons recorded later than 45\,$\mu$s after injection
255: is about $4 \times 10^{9}$.
256: Error bars are drawn on all points but are only visible at very late times
257: because
258: of the huge statistics of up to $10^{7}$ entries per 149\,ns time bin. Given
259: this high number of events, the simple parametrisation in
260: Eq.~(\ref{eqn_5parfit}) proved not to be adequate for fitting the spectrum
261: which is affected by several significant perturbations.
262: %
263: \begin{figure}[h!]
264: \center
265: \small
266: \vspace*{-5mm}
267: \epsfig{file=wiggles2000.eps,width=75mm}
268: \vspace*{-10mm}
269: \caption{\small Positron time spectrum from the 2000 data set with all
270: detectors combined.}
271: \label{fig_wiggles}
272: \vspace*{-5mm}
273: \end{figure}
274:
275: We shall concentrate here on the leading systematic effect caused by
276: coherent betatron oscillations --
277: oscillations of the beam as a whole. Since the inflector aperture is smaller
278: than the storage ring aperture, the phase space for betatron oscillations is
279: not filled, which leads to a radial modulation of beam width and centroid.
280: Looking from fixed detector positions, these oscillations have a frequency
281: of 466\,kHz, approximately given by
282: $f_{\rm CBO} \approx (1 - \sqrt{1 - n}) f_{c}$ where
283: $f_{c} = 6.7$\,MHz is the
284: cyclotron frequency and $n = 0.136$ is the field index adjusted by the
285: electric quadrupole voltage~\cite{quads}.
286: The value of $n$ was chosen far away from
287: physical resonance conditions which could lead to increased muon losses or
288: spin flips. Since both the calorimeter acceptance and the
289: energy distribution of the detected positrons depend on the radial position
290: of the muon decay, the parameters $N_{0}$, $A$ and $\phi_{a}$ in
291: Eq.~(\ref{eqn_5parfit}) receive a time modulation, e.g.
292: $N_{0}(t) = N_{0} [1 + g_{N}(t) \cos(2 \pi f_{\rm CBO} t + \phi_{\rm CBO})]$,
293: where $g_{N}(t)$ describes the CBO decay due to the muon momentum spread and
294: higher $\vec{E}$ and $\vec{B}$ field multipoles.
295: The time constant is typically 100\,$\mu$s.
296: The modulation $N_{0}(t)$ -- with $g_{N}(0) \approx 1$\,\% --
297: was already observed and included in the analysis of the 1999 data set.
298: Its parameters do not correlate strongly with $\omega_{a}$.
299: The modulations $A(t)$ and $\phi_{a}(t)$ are smaller
300: -- 0.1\,\% and 1\,mrad at $t=0$ respectively -- and were only discovered
301: with the higher
302: statistics of the 2000 data set. Their dangerous effect on the time spectrum
303: is the creation of interference terms with the frequency
304: $f_{\rm CBO} - \omega_{a} / (2\pi)$ which for our choice of $n$ is very
305: close to $\omega_{a}$. This parametric resonance can produce
306: shifts in $\omega_{a}$ of up to 4\,ppm if individual
307: detector time spectra are fitted without including $A(t)$ and $\phi_{a}(t)$.
308: In the sum of all detector spectra, the shifts largely cancel
309: thanks to the circular symmetry of the (g-2) ring.
310: Remaining effects are accounted for by including $A(t)$ into the fit
311: and assigning a systematic error for the impact of $\phi_{a}(t)$. Including
312: $\phi_{a}(t)$ into the fit turned out to be more difficult because this
313: term induces strong correlations between detector gain changes and
314: $\omega_{a}$, entailing further shifts in $\omega_{a}$.
315:
316: Other perturbations were treated
317: like in earlier data sets~\cite{prl2001}. Pulse pileup effects were removed
318: by statistically superimposing recorded pulses from the data themselves and
319: thus constructing an artificial pileup spectrum which was then subtracted from
320: the untreated spectrum. The effects of beam debunching were eliminated by
321: randomizing the start time of each fill over one cyclotron period.
322: Muon losses were taken into account by multiplying the function
323: in Eq.~(\ref{eqn_5parfit}) with an extra loss term.
324: AGS background due
325: to erroneous proton extraction during the muon storage period, which
326: contributed 0.1\,ppm uncertainty to the 1999 result, was largely eliminated
327: by installing a sweeper magnet in the beam line.
328:
329: Four independent $\omega_{a}$ analyses with different approaches to
330: take systematic effects into account were completed.
331: Their results agreed within
332: 0.4\,ppm -- as compared to statistically allowed variations of 0.5\,ppm --
333: and were combined to
334: $\omega_{a}/(2\pi) = 229\,074.11(14)(7)$\,Hz (0.7\,ppm). This number contains a
335: correction of +0.76(3)\,ppm for residual effects of the electric field on
336: muons with $\gamma \ne 29.3$ and for deviations from Eq.~(\ref{eqn_precession})
337: due to vertical beam oscillations (i.e. $\vec \beta \cdot \vec B \ne 0$).
338: The combined systematic
339: errors listed in Table~\ref{tab_omega_a} account for the
340: correlations between the results from the individual analyses.
341:
342: \begin{table}[h!]
343: \vspace*{-5mm}
344: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5pc}
345: \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
346: \catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
347: \caption{Systematic uncertainties for the $\omega_{a}$ analysis.}
348: \label{tab_omega_a}
349: \begin{tabular*}{75mm}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}c}
350: \hline
351: Source of errors & Size [ppm] \\
352: \hline
353: Coherent betatron oscillations & 0.21 \\
354: Pileup & 0.13 \\
355: Detector gain changes & 0.13 \\
356: Lost muons & 0.10 \\
357: Binning and fitting procedure & 0.06 \\
358: Others$^{\dag}$ & 0.06 \\
359: \hline
360: Total systematic error on $\omega_{a}$ & 0.31 \\
361: \hline
362: \multicolumn{2}{@{}p{75mm}}{\small $^{\dag}$ AGS background, timing shifts,
363: E field and vertical oscillations, beam debunching and randomisation.}
364: \end{tabular*}
365: \vspace*{-5mm}
366: \end{table}
367:
368:
369: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------
370:
371: \section{Result from the Data Set of 2000 and Comparison with Theory}
372: \label{sec_result}
373: After completion of the $\omega_{a}$ and $\omega_{p}$ analyses, $a_{\mu}$ was
374: calculated according to Eq.~(\ref{eqn_amu}). The result is
375: $a_{\mu^{+}} = 11\,659\,204\,(7)(5) \times 10^{-10}$ (0.7\,ppm)~\cite{prl2002}.
376: It agrees
377: well with older measurements (Figure~\ref{fig_result}). The new experimental
378: world average,
379: $a_{\mu^{+}} = 11\,659\,203\,(8) \times 10^{-10}$ (0.7\,ppm), is dominated
380: by the new result which has about half the uncertainty of previous
381: measurements.
382: %
383: \begin{figure}[h!]
384: \center
385: \small
386: \vspace*{-5mm}
387: \epsfig{file=g2result2.eps,width=75mm}
388: \vspace*{-1.5cm}
389: \caption{\small Recent experimental and theoretical values of $a_{\mu}$.
390: The labels for the theoretical predictions represent the evaluation of
391: $a_{\mu}({\rm had, 1})$ (see text).}
392: \label{fig_result}
393: \vspace*{-5mm}
394: \end{figure}
395:
396: The Standard Model prediction for $a_{\mu}$~\cite{dehz02} can be written as
397: \begin{equation}
398: a_{\mu}({\rm SM}) = a_{\mu}({\rm QED}) + a_{\mu}({\rm weak}) +
399: a_{\mu}({\rm hadronic})
400: \end{equation}
401: with $a_{\mu}({\rm QED}) = 11\,658\,470.57(0.29) \times 10^{-10}$
402: and $a_{\mu}({\rm weak}) = 15.1(0.4) \times 10^{-10}$.
403: The hadronic contribution cannot be calculated from first principles at
404: this time because it is dominated by low-energy interactions.
405: The first-order hadronic vacuum polarisation contribution,
406: $a_{\mu}({\rm had, 1})$, can be determined from measured $e^{+}e^{-}$
407: annihilation cross-sections over all energies using a dispersion relation.
408: It can also be related to hadronic $\tau$ decay. These calculations are
409: still under theoretical
410: investigation. Higher-order contributions are given by
411: $a_{\mu}({\rm had, 2}) = -10.0(0.6) \times 10^{-10}$
412: and $a_{\mu}$(had, light-by-light)
413: = +8.6(3.2) $\times 10^{-10}$.
414: For the latter, a sign error was recently corrected.
415: Figure~\ref{fig_result} shows the theoretical predictions
416: for $a_{\mu}$ using recent evaluations
417: of $a_{\mu}({\rm had, 1})$. DH'98~\cite{dh98} is the value used for the
418: comparison in our PRL~\cite{prl2002}. In this evaluation,
419: $a_{\mu}({\rm had, 1})$ uses data from both $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation
420: and $\tau$ decay.
421: Later, new $e^{+}e^{-}$
422: data from Novosibirsk~\cite{akhmetshin} gave rise to a new calculation of
423: $a_{\mu}({\rm had, 1})$ which does not agree any more with the
424: value obtained from $\tau$ decay data (DEHZ'02:~\cite{dehz02}).
425: Using the $e^{+}e^{-}$-based result,
426: $a_{\mu}({\rm had, 1}) = 684.7(7.0)\times 10^{-10}$, one obtains a total
427: theory prediction $a_{\mu}({\rm SM}) = 11\,659\,169.1\,(7.8) \times 10^{-10}$
428: (0.7\,ppm). Using the $\tau$-based result,
429: $a_{\mu}({\rm had, 1}) = 701.9(6.1)\times 10^{-10}$, one obtains a total
430: theory prediction $a_{\mu}({\rm SM}) = 11\,659\,186.3\,(7.1) \times 10^{-10}$
431: (0.6\,ppm). The deviations of the two evaluations from the experimental result
432: correspond to 3.0 and 1.6 standard deviations, respectively. Hence, no
433: unambiguous statement about new physics can be made at present.
434:
435: \section{Outlook}
436: In the year 2001, the experiment was performed with negative muons and
437: with different field indices $n$ moving the CBO frequency away from the
438: parametric resonance.
439: The resulting data set of about $3 \times 10^{9}$ electrons is currently being
440: analysed. It will
441: provide a test of CPT invariance and -- if CPT holds --
442: an improved combined value of $a_{\mu^{\pm}}$. However, in order to achieve
443: the design goal of 0.35\,ppm statistical uncertainty, additional
444: $6 \times 10^{9}$ events are needed.
445: A new run is planned, but at present funding is uncertain.
446:
447: \section*{Acknowledgements}
448: This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S.
449: National Science Foundation, the German Bundesminister f\"{u}r Bildung und
450: Forschung, the Russian Ministry of Science, and the US-Japan Agreement in
451: High Energy Physics. Mario Deile acknowledges support by the Alexander von
452: Humboldt Foundation.
453: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
454:
455: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
456: \bibitem{dehmelt} R.S. Van Dyck Jr., P.B. Schwinberg and H.D. Dehmelt,
457: Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 26 (1987).
458: \bibitem{CERN3} J. Bailey et al., Nucl. Phys. B., Vol. B150, No. 1, pp. 1-75,
459: 1979.
460: \bibitem{quads} Y. Semertzidis et al., accepted for publication in
461: Nucl.~Instr.~Meth.~A.
462: \bibitem{liu} W.~Liu et al., Phys.~Rev.~Lett. 82 (1999) 711.
463: \bibitem{inflect} A. Yamamoto et al., Nucl. Instr. Methods A 497 (2002) 23-40.
464: \bibitem{kicker} E. Efstathiadis et al, accepted for publication in
465: Nucl. Instr. Methods A.
466: \bibitem{danby} G.D.~Danby, et al., Nucl.~Instr.~Meth.~A 457 (2001) 151.
467: \bibitem{fei} X. Fei et al., Nucl.~Instr.~Meth.~A. 394 (1997) 349.
468: \bibitem{ralf} R. Prigl et al., Nucl.~Instr.~Meth.~A 374 (1996) 118.
469: \bibitem{sedykh} S.A. Sedykh et al., Nucl.~Instr.~Meth.~A 455, 346 (2000).
470: \bibitem{prl2001} H.N. Brown et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 2227 (2001).
471: \bibitem{prl2002} G.W. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89},
472: 101804 (2002).
473: \bibitem{dh98} M. Davier and A. H\"{o}cker, Phys. Lett. {\bf B435}, 427 (1998).
474: \bibitem{dehz02} M. Davier et al., hep-ph/0208177, and references therein.
475: \bibitem{akhmetshin} R.R. Akhmetshin et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B527}, 161
476: (2002).
477: \end{thebibliography}
478: \end{document}
479:
480: