Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Design and Monte Carlo Simulation of a Phase Grating Moir\'e Neutron Interferometer to Measure the Gravitational Constant

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A three-grating neutron moiré interferometer with a one-tonne lead source mass could measure the gravitational constant to 150 parts per million, using systematic errors independent of pendulum experiments.

desk verdict The new PGMI model and systematic budget are real, but the central 150 ppm claim rests on an inverted statistics formula; the projected sensitivity is off by roughly two orders of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00170 v1 pith:UJTFTBEE submitted 2025-04-30 physics.ins-det quant-ph

C. Kapahi , D. Sarenac , B. Heacock , D. G. Cory , M. G. Huber , J. W. Paster , R. Serrat , D. A. Pushin This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detquant-ph
keywords gravitationalconstantneutroninterferometryphase-gratingmoiréinterferometerMonteCarlosimulationWKBphaseintegrallunartidalforcessystematicuncertaintybudgetcoldneutrons
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a practical neutron interferometer that could measure the gravitational constant $G$ to about 150 parts per million, matching the precision of the 2022 recommended value but with a different set of systematic errors. The key idea is to use a three-grating phase-grating moiré interferometer (PGMI), which accepts a broad spectrum of neutron wavelengths and therefore far more flux than single-crystal neutron interferometers used in past gravity experiments. A new Monte Carlo model computes each neutron's phase along its actual trajectory through the gravitational field of a 1 t lead source mass, and the model is validated against earlier grating-interferometry measurements. The model yields an uncertainty budget dominated by grating period, neutron wavelength, and source-mass positioning, and it also shows that lunar tidal forces contribute roughly 40 ppm of extra uncertainty to a standard torsion-pendulum measurement of $G$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the three-grating phase-grating moiré interferometer (3-PGMI): three nanofabricated phase gratings with heights $\pi/2$, $\pi$, and $\pi/2$ whose overlapping diffraction orders form a moiré fringe at the camera that is independent of incident neutron angle and wavelength. The carrying identity is the first-order WKB phase integral $\gamma_{lmn} = \int_{S_{lmn}} \mathbf{k}(\mathbf{r})\cdot d\mathbf{s}$, expanded as $k \approx k_0\left(1 + m_N U_{\mathrm{tot}}/\hbar^2 k_0^2\right)$, which lets an arbitrary nonlinear potential—including the $1/r$ source-mass potential—be accumulated along each path. A Monte Carlo simulation varies neutron position, angle, and wavelength, sums interfering path pairs incoherently, and produces both the fringe pattern and the averaged expression for $G$ in which phase differences, corrections, and a path-integrated source-mass response factor are wavelength- and path-averaged.

What would settle it

Set up the optimized 3-PGMI geometry (700 nm gratings, separations 80.0, 200.0, 200.9, and 399.1 cm, 4 Å polychromatic beam, 1 t lead source mass) and measure the fringe contrast and the source-mass phase shift. If the contrast falls far below 22.1% or the phase departs from the predicted $13.2\,\mu$rad by more than the model's error budget, the 150 ppm projection fails; matching both would directly support the design.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the claim is that a neutron 3-PGMI with a 1 t rectangular lead source mass can determine $G$ with a total relative uncertainty of 150 ppm (73 ppm systematic, 130 ppm statistical), using 240 days of beam time split equally between source-mass and null runs. The measurable is the phase shift of the interference fringes induced by the source-mass potential; the model projects this phase to $13.2\,\mu$rad at 22.1% fringe contrast. To make the extraction, the paper introduces a Monte Carlo path-integral model in which the WKB phase $\gamma = \int \mathbf{k}(\mathbf{r})\cdot d\mathbf{s}$ is accumulated along every neutron trajectory, with the neutron wavevector depending on the total potential including source mass, Earth rotation, air, and Moon. It uses this model to propagate experimental parameter uncertainties into $G$, and applies the lunar part of the model to a torsion-pendulum G measurement, finding that lunar gravitation adds about 39.5 ppm to that measurement's uncertainty unless corrected.

Load-bearing premise

The budget's load-bearing premise is that the three-grating interferometer with the 1 t lead mass in place will actually show the 22.1% fringe contrast the model predicts; three-grating neutron PGMI experiments to date have shown only low contrast, while the validation data come from two-grating and single-grating setups.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 240 d measurement, split between a source-mass run and a null run, would yield G with a total relative uncertainty of 150 ppm (73 ppm systematic, 130 ppm statistical), comparable to the 2022 recommended value.
  • The same geometry would need more than 800 d to reach 100 ppm, so near-term gains would have to come from higher flux, smaller grating periods, or a stronger source-mass potential.
  • Lunar tidal forces contribute about 39.5 ppm of additional uncertainty to a standard torsion-pendulum measurement, implying published G values may need date- and location-specific tidal corrections.
  • Monitoring grating alignment with x-rays between runs, independent of the gravitational signal, addresses the main experimental risk that the three-grating fringes have low contrast.
  • The broadband PGMI model also points to neutron measurements of magnetic structures and of the neutron electric dipole moment as further applications.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not stated in the paper: the same Monte Carlo model could be inverted to calibrate the instrument in situ, using the fringe phase from a known calibration mass to recover the effective wavelength distribution and shrink the 40 ppm wavelength term.
  • Not stated in the paper: the lunar-tidal calculation generalizes to any G measurement whose test mass has finite extent, so recomputing historical torsion-pendulum results with the exact lunar ephemeris and laboratory coordinates could expose a correction-dependent shift between reported values.
  • Not stated in the paper: because the required beam time scales inversely with the square of the product of phase uncertainty and contrast, doubling the fringe contrast would cut a 240 d campaign to about one quarter of its length, making grating alignment a higher-leverage upgrade than a larger source mass.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a three-grating phase-grating moiré neutron interferometer (3-PGMI) with a 1 t lead source mass as a new way to measure the gravitational constant G. It introduces a Monte Carlo path-integral model that computes phases along all interfering neutron trajectories in arbitrary potentials, validates the model against the van der Zouw single-grating interferometer and against two-grating PGMI data, optimizes a specific interferometer geometry, and compiles an uncertainty budget. The central claim is that a 150 ppm measurement of G is achievable in the near term, with 73 ppm systematic and 130 ppm statistical contributions, along with a separate estimate that lunar tidal forces add 39.5 ppm to the uncertainty of the Luther–Towler torsion-pendulum result.

Significance. If the statistical and systematic estimates were correct, this would be a genuinely new technique for measuring G with systematic effects independent of pendulum and atom-interferometer experiments, and the Monte Carlo tool for nonlinear potentials would be a useful addition to the neutron-interferometry literature. The manuscript has real strengths: the model is validated against published experimental data, the code is made available in a public repository, the systematic catalog is fairly complete, and the lunar-tide calculation for the Luther–Towler experiment is a concrete and checkable result. However, the feasibility claim rests on a phase-fit statistics formula that is inconsistent with the paper's own derivation; the corrected formula changes the statistical uncertainty by roughly two orders of magnitude, so the central 150 ppm claim is not supported by the stated beam parameters.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Eq. (C6)] Equation (C6) inverts the contrast dependence of the phase uncertainty. Equations (C3)–(C5) derive the sum of inverse per-pixel variances as \bar{N}(1 - sqrt(1 - C^2)); by Eq. (C4) the phase variance is the reciprocal of this quantity, so the correct result is (\sigma_\Phi)^2 = 1/[\dot{N} T (1 - sqrt(1 - C^2))], not (1/\dot{N} T)(1 - sqrt(1 - C^2)) as printed. The printed version makes \sigma_\Phi shrink as C → 0, which is unphysical and contradicts the paper's own Eq. (C7). With N ≈ 2.9 × 10^15 counts in 120 d (from the 10^9 cm^-2 s^-1 fluence and 35 mm × 0.8 mm slit) and C = 0.221, the corrected formula gives \sigma_\Phi ≈ 1.2 × 10^-7 rad, about 9000 ppm of the 13.2 µrad gravitational phase, rather than 92.7 ppm; the combined null/source statistical uncertainty is then about 12,700 ppm, not 130 ppm. Even with perfect contrast, a 120 d run would give roughly 2000 ppm per phase measurement. The 150 ppm central claim is therefore not supported by the stated beam parameters.
  2. [Table I, Sec. V.B, and Table II] The source-mass density input in Table I is inconsistent with the budget entry in Table II. Table I lists a density uncertainty of 1.16 µg cm^-3 for lead (ρ = 11,342 kg/m^3), which is about 0.1 ppm and is the value quoted for PbWO4 optical characterization in Sec. IV. A 2.0 ppm contribution, as listed in Table II, would require a density uncertainty of about 23 µg cm^-3 for lead. The paper should either adopt a lead-specific density uncertainty consistent with 2 ppm or reduce the Table II entry to the 0.1 ppm level implied by Table I; as written, the density uncertainty is not traceable to the stated parameter.
  3. [Appendix A and Sec. IV (contrast)] The assumed 22.1% contrast for the optimized 3-PGMI is load-bearing and is not validated by the experiments cited. Appendix A explicitly notes that three-grating PGMI experiments have so far achieved only low contrast [28], and the model validation in Figs. 5 and 6 uses a single-grating NI and two-grating PGMI data, not a 3-PGMI under gravitational loading. Because the statistical precision scales as 1/C in the corrected formula (and in the paper's own Eq. C7), an unvalidated factor of even 2–3 in contrast changes the feasibility conclusion. The authors should present a validated measurement of 3-PGMI contrast in the proposed geometry, or treat the contrast as an unknown and propagate its uncertainty into the final uncertainty budget.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section VI] The phrase "new meteorological devices" should read "new metrological devices."
  2. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4] The dotted lines in Fig. 4 are labeled only as relative ppm values; the caption should state explicitly that the ppm is relative to the 13.2 µrad gravitational phase so that the reader can connect the figure to the uncertainty budget.
  3. [Eq. (15) and Sec. V.A.2] The Sagnac expression uses L/2 as the effective lever arm for the 3-PGMI area, but the derivation of this geometric factor for the three-grating arrangement is not given; a short derivation or reference would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Reference [51]] Reference [51] is a NIST disclaimer rather than a specification for displacement sensors; please cite the specific commercial specifications or replace it with a metrology reference that supports the stated 3 µm and 0.5° uncertainties.
  5. [Table I] The table lists "Mass Surface Variation δLx,δLy,δLz" with values of 5 µm but does not state the units in the table body; the caption should make the units explicit and consistent with the dimension uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the PGMI model is validated against external experiments and the G-uncertainty budget follows from Monte Carlo propagation of independently measured parameters, not from refitting the target quantity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The Monte Carlo PGMI model is validated against independent published measurements, including the van der Zouw phase-grating neutron interferometer gravity experiment [26] and two-grating PGMI contrast data [29,31], with example scripts released publicly. The uncertainty budget for G is then obtained by Monte Carlo propagation of separately measured experimental parameters such as SAXS grating-period metrology, chopper-spectrometer wavelength calibration, displacement sensors, and source-mass density characterization, none of which is fitted to G or to the 150 ppm target. The gravitational phase in Eq. (8) is proportional to an assumed G, and Eq. (9) is the standard sensitivity inversion, not a fit. The 22.1% contrast is a model output for a 3-PGMI geometry that has not yet been demonstrated at high contrast; this is an external-validity risk, and the paper itself notes that the 3-PGMI 'has only been measured with low contrast [28].' Similarly, the apparent inconsistency between Eq. (C6) and Eq. (C7) in Appendix C is a mathematical and correctness concern about the statistical budget, not a step that reduces to its own input by definition. Self-citations to prior PGMI work [28-31] are used as published experimental data and modeling baselines; they are externally falsifiable and do not assume the present 150 ppm result. Under the stated circularity rubric, no circular steps are present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or forces are introduced. The paper's contributions are an instrument design, a simulation model, and an uncertainty analysis. The free parameters are design choices and assumed experimental parameters, not fitted values.

free parameters (5)
  • Grating phase heights = π/2, π, π/2
    Chosen for the 3-PGMI design based on prior x-ray PGMI work; not fitted to data but assumed in the model.
  • Grating period Pg = 700 nm
    Design choice listed in Table I; affects phase shift and contrast.
  • Source mass dimensions and position = Lx,Ly,Lz = 13.0, 13.0, 500 cm; Δx=20 cm, Δy=6.5 cm, Δz=80 cm
    Optimized to maximize C*σ_ΔΦ and minimize beam time; not fitted to data.
  • Grating separations L1..L4 = 80.0, 200.0, 200.9, 399.1 cm
    Optimized along with the source mass position for maximum C*σ_ΔΦ.
  • Assumed neutron flux = 10^9 cm^-2 s^-1
    Beamline parameter from Ref [39]; drives statistical uncertainty. If lower, measurement time increases.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) approximation for computing phase along neutron trajectories
    Used in Eq. 2 and throughout; standard for neutron interferometry but approximate for strong potentials. The source mass potential is weak, so the approximation is justified.
  • domain assumption Incoherent sum over pairs of interfering paths and wavelength distribution (Eq. 10-11)
    The intensity is treated as a sum over two-path interference contributions; assumes different path pairs do not cross-interfere in the detected fringe. This is load-bearing for extracting a single cosine phase.
  • standard math Poisson statistics for detector counts
    Used for the statistical phase uncertainty derivation in Appendix C and Eq. 17.
  • ad hoc to paper The 3-PGMI will produce 22.1% contrast at the optimized geometry
    This is the design assumption from the model, not yet demonstrated experimentally for a 3-PGMI; prior 3-PGMI experiments [28] had low contrast.
  • domain assumption Earth rotation Sagnac phase formula and lunar point-mass tidal potential
    Uses standard formulas for rotating frame and point-mass tides; lunar ephemerides from DE440 are treated as known.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design and Monte Carlo Simulation of a Phase Grating Moir\'e Neutron Interferometer to Measure the Gravitational Constant." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UJTFTBEE

@misc{pith2026250500170,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design and Monte Carlo Simulation of a Phase Grating Moir\'e Neutron Interferometer to Measure the Gravitational Constant},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UJTFTBEE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00170}
}
abstract

The gravitational constant (G) is the least precisely known fundamental constant of nature, with persistent and significant discrepancies between measurement methods. New techniques for measuring G with systematic effects different from commonly applied pendulum methods are required. Neutrons are convenient probes of gravitational forces as they are both massive and electrically neutral, properties that allowed a single-crystal neutron interferometer (NI) to achieve the first experimental demonstration of gravitationally induced quantum interference. Despite this, the limitation of single-crystal NIs to monoenergetic beams significantly reduces neutron flux, making precision gravitational measurements unfeasible. A new NI design called the phase-grating moir\'{e} interferometer (PGMI) has been shown to increase neutron flux by orders of magnitude while allowing grating separation that maintains similar interferometer area to previous NI devices. Here, we propose and describe an experiment to measure G using the PGMI to a precision comparable to measurements from the CODATA 2022 evaluation. A Monte Carlo model for incorporating nonlinear potentials into a PGMI is introduced. This model is used to evaluate sources of systematic uncertainty and quantify the uncertainty in G arising from these effects. The effect of lunar gravitation on a torsion pendulum experiment from CODATA 2022 is calculated, and the need for possible correction factors is demonstrated. This work demonstrates that a neutron PGMI can be used to measure G to $150$ parts-per-million in the near term with the potential to achieve greater precision in future experimental designs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00170 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Difference between experimental results of G and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic showing interfering paths in a three-grating neutron PGMI as red lines. The source neutron slit is shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Model of the apparatus proposed in this work to measure G using a neutron PGMI. This design features an x-ray [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Statistical uncertainty in the phase of an interfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Neutron intensity as a function of grating rotation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (left) Simulated contrast values for two-grating neutron PGMI experiment. Entrance slit to first grating distance, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Fundamental Nuclear and Particle Physics At Neutron Sources

    nucl-ex 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    A community whitepaper makes the case that ESS and neutron sources offer a competitive, complementary route to search for new physics, with proposed experiments in neutron decay, EDM, baryon number violation, neutrino...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [28]

    Matter- Wave Interferometer for Large Molecules,

    B. Brezger, L. Hackerm¨ uller, S. Uttenthaler, J. Petschinka, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, “Matter- Wave Interferometer for Large Molecules,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 88, no. 10, p. 4, 2 2002. [On- line]. Available: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.88.100404

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.88.100404 2002

  2. [1]

    Atmospheric Phase As outlined in chapter 3.4.1 of [22], atmospheric cor- rections depend on pressure, temperature, and humidity. The phase shift due to humidity and air density is ∆γA =−λ∆SLP RT P iNibc,iP iNi , (13) where the sums are over each isotopei in the ambient at- mosphere, ∆S is the path length difference, Ni and bc,i 6 are the number density an...

    work page

  3. [2]

    The phase accumulated by a neutron as the Earth rotates about a vector Ω within an interferometer with an area vector A is ∆γS = 2mN ℏ Ω· A

    Sagnac Phase Non-inertial effects on neutrons have been well- documented, and the effect of the Earth’s rotating ref- erence frame can be computed from elementary mechan- ics [42–45]. The phase accumulated by a neutron as the Earth rotates about a vector Ω within an interferometer with an area vector A is ∆γS = 2mN ℏ Ω· A. (14) If we assume that the inter...

    work page

  4. [3]

    tidal effects

    Lunar Gravitational Phase The phase induced by tidal forces can be computed by treating the Moon as a point mass and calculating the distance from the laboratory reference frame to the lunar center of mass. Note that these tidal forces are due to changes in the position of the Moon and not changes in local gravitational acceleration caused by sea level va...

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    By lowering the gratings below the neutron beam height, the source mass can be translated into the beam, providing an accurate displacement zero in the horizontal direction

    Displacements With an absolute uncertainty of 0 .5 mm in beam-axis (vertical) displacements, the uncertainty in G is 11 ppm (3.5 ppm). By lowering the gratings below the neutron beam height, the source mass can be translated into the beam, providing an accurate displacement zero in the horizontal direction. Displacement sensors, like those of- fered by At...

    work page

  6. [5]

    This uncertainty in the grating period, using the Monte Carlo simulation, leads to an uncertainty in G of 57.7 ppm

    Phase Grating Period Using small-angle x-ray scattering (SAXS) [54], or by imaging the diffracted orders from an x-ray pencil beam, the mean grating period can be measured point-by-point across the gratings to 58 ppm. This uncertainty in the grating period, using the Monte Carlo simulation, leads to an uncertainty in G of 57.7 ppm. Thermal fluctuations du...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Neutron Wavelength The uncertainty in the effective mean wavelength of a polychromatic beam can be calculated by a Monte Carlo error propagation of uncertainties in the wave- length and neutron count of a neutron spectroscopy ex- periment. The error in the neutron count of a spectrome- ter follows Poisson statistics, while the uncertainty in the wavelengt...

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Codata recommended values of the fundamental physical con- stants: 2022,

    P. Mohr, D. Newell, B. Taylor, and E. Tiesinga, “Codata recommended values of the fundamental physical con- stants: 2022,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.03787, 2024

    arXiv 2022

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    I. On the cavendish experiment,

    C. V. Boys, “I. On the cavendish experiment,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, vol. 46, no. 280-285, pp. 253–268, 12 1890

  2. [9]

    P. R. Heyl and P. Chrzanowski, A redetermination of the constant of gravitation. Bureau of Standards. Physics Department, 1930

    1930

  3. [10]

    Determination of the gravitational constant G,

    R. D. Rose, H. M. Parker, R. A. Lowry, A. R. Kuhlthau, and J. W. Beams, “Determination of the gravitational constant G,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 655–658, 9 1969. [Online]. Available: https://journals. aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.655

    1969 doi

  4. [11]

    New technique for measuring New- ton’s constant [Formula presented],

    J. H. Gundlach, E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, and H. E. Swanson, “New technique for measuring New- ton’s constant [Formula presented],” Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. R1256–R1259, 7 1996. [On- line]. Available: https://j...

    1996 doi

  5. [12]

    A rotating torsion balance experiment to measure Newton’s constant,

    J. H. Gundlach, “A rotating torsion balance experiment to measure Newton’s constant,” Measurement Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 454–459, 6 1999. [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/0957-0233/10/6/307https://iopscience.iop.org/ article...

    1999 doi

  6. [13]

    Measure- ment of Newton’s constant using a torsion balance with angular acceleration feedback,

    J. H. Gundlach and S. M. Merkowitz, “Measure- ment of Newton’s constant using a torsion balance with angular acceleration feedback,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 85, no. 14, pp. 2869–2872, 10 2000. [On- line]. Available: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/ 10.1103/PhysRevL...

    doi

  7. [14]

    A new determination of G using two methods,

    T. J. Quinn, C. C. Speake, S. J. Richman, R. S. Davis, and A. Picard, “A new determination of G using two methods,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 87, no. 11, pp. 111 101–111 101, 9 2001. [On- line]. Available: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.111101

    2001 doi

  8. [15]

    Improved determination of G using two methods,

    T. Quinn, H. Parks, C. Speake, and R. Davis, “Improved determination of G using two methods,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 111, no. 10, p. 101102, 9

  9. [16]

    Measurements of the gravitational constant using two independent methods,

    Q. Li, C. Xue, J. P. Liu, J. F. Wu, S. Q. Yang, C. G. Shao, L. D. Quan, W. H. Tan, L. C. Tu, Q. Liu, H. Xu, L. X. Liu, Q. L. Wang, Z. K. Hu, Z. B. Zhou, P. S. Luo, S. C. Wu, V. Milyukov, and J. Luo, “Measurements of the gravitational constant using two independent methods,” Na...

    2018 doi

  10. [17]

    The BIPM measurements of the Newtonian constant of gravitation, G,

    T. Quinn, C. Speake, H. Parks, and R. Davis, “The BIPM measurements of the Newtonian constant of gravitation, G,” 10 2014. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0032

    2014

  11. [18]

    A new method for testing Newton’s gravitational law,

    J. Schurr, N. Klein, H. Meyer, H. Piel, and H. Walesch, “A new method for testing Newton’s gravitational law,” Metrologia, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 397–404, 1 1991. [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 0026-1394/28/5/004https://iopscience.iop.org/article...

    1991 doi

  12. [19]

    Absolute measurement of the Newtonian force and a determination of G,

    U. Kleinevoß, H. Meyer, A. Schumacher, and S. Hart- mann, “Absolute measurement of the Newtonian force and a determination of G,” Measurement Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 492–494, 6 1999. [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/ 10.1088/0957-0233...

    1999 doi

  13. [20]

    Measuring the Newtonian constant of gravitation G with an atomic interferometer,

    M. Prevedelli, L. Cacciapuoti, G. Rosi, F. Sorrentino, and G. M. Tino, “Measuring the Newtonian constant of gravitation G with an atomic interferometer,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, vol. 372, no. 2026, 10 ...

    2026

  14. [21]

    Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant using cold atoms,

    G. Rosi, F. Sorrentino, L. Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli, and G. M. Tino, “Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant using cold atoms,” Nature, vol. 510, no. 7506, pp. 518–521, 6 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13433

    2014

  15. [22]

    Dynamic measure- ment of gravitational coupling between resonating beams in the hertz regime,

    T. Brack, B. Zybach, F. Balabdaoui, S. Kaufmann, F. Palmegiano, J.-C. Tomasina, S. Blunier, D. Schei- willer, J. Fankhauser, and J. Dual, “Dynamic measure- ment of gravitational coupling between resonating beams in the hertz regime,” Nature Physics, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 952–957, 2022

    2022

  16. [23]

    Optics and interferometry with atoms and molecules,

    A. D. Cronin, J. Schmiedmayer, and D. E. Pritchard, “Optics and interferometry with atoms and molecules,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 1051–1129, 8 2009. [Online]. Available: https://journals. 10 aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1051

    2009 doi

  17. [24]

    NSF Ideas Laboratory at NIST: Measuring “Big G

    “NSF Ideas Laboratory at NIST: Measuring “Big G” Challenge — NIST.” [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/events/2016/ 07/nsf-ideas-laboratory-nist-measuring-big-g-challenge

    2016

  18. [25]

    Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant,

    C. Xue, J.-P. Liu, Q. Li, J.-F. Wu, S.-Q. Yang, Q. Liu, C.-G. Shao, L.-C. Tu, Z.-K. Hu, and J. Luo, “Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant,” National Science Review, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 1803–1817, 07 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/ns...

    2020 doi

  19. [26]

    Test of a sin- gle crystal neutron interferometer,

    H. Rauch, W. Treimer, and U. Bonse, “Test of a sin- gle crystal neutron interferometer,” Physics Letters A, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 369–371, 4 1974

    1974

  20. [27]

    High-precision gravity measurements using atom interferometry,

    A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, and S. Chu, “High-precision gravity measurements using atom interferometry,” Metrologia, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 25–61, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 0026-1394/38/1/4https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. 1088/0026-1...

    2001

  21. [29]

    Neutron Interferometry: Lessons in Experimental Quantum Mechanics,

    H. R. Werner and S, “Neutron Interferometry: Lessons in Experimental Quantum Mechanics,” Measurement Science and Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 355–355, 3 2001. [Online]. Available: https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/0957-0233/12/3/707https://iopscience. iop.org/arti...

    2001 doi

  22. [30]

    Angular alignment and fidelity of neutron phase-gratings for improved interferometer fringe visibility,

    B. Heacock, D. Sarenac, D. G. Cory, M. G. Huber, D. S. Hussey, C. Kapahi, H. Miao, H. Wen, and D. A. Pushin, “Angular alignment and fidelity of neutron phase-gratings for improved interferometer fringe visibility,” AIP Advances, vol. 9, no. 8, p. 085115, 8 2019. [Online]. Avai...

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Observation of Gravitationally Induced Quantum Interference,

    R. Colella, A. W. Overhauser, and S. A. Werner, “Observation of Gravitationally Induced Quantum Interference,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 34, no. 23, pp. 1472–1474, 6 1975. [Online]. Available: https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.34.1472

    1975 doi

  24. [32]

    Verification of coherent spinor ro- tation of fermions,

    H. Rauch, A. Zeilinger, G. Badurek, A. Wilfing, W. Baus- piess, and U. Bonse, “Verification of coherent spinor ro- tation of fermions,” Physics Letters A, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 425–427, 10 1975

    1975

  25. [33]

    Aharonov–Bohm and gravity experiments with the very-cold-neutron interferometer,

    G. van der Zouw, M. Weber, J. Felber, R. G¨ ahler, P. Geltenbort, and A. Zeilinger, “Aharonov–Bohm and gravity experiments with the very-cold-neutron interferometer,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Asso...

    2000

  26. [34]

    A universal moir´ e effect and application in X-ray phase-contrast imaging,

    H. Miao, A. Panna, A. A. Gomella, E. E. Bennett, S. Znati, L. Chen, and H. Wen, “A universal moir´ e effect and application in X-ray phase-contrast imaging,” Nature Physics, vol. advance on, no. April, pp. 1–7, 2016. [Online]. Available: http: //dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3734

    2016 doi

  27. [35]

    Three Phase-Grating Moir´ e Neutron Interferometer for Large Interferometer Area Applications,

    D. Sarenac, D. Pushin, M. Huber, D. Hussey, H. Miao, M. Arif, D. Cory, A. Cronin, B. Heacock, D. Jacobson, J. LaManna, and H. Wen, “Three Phase-Grating Moir´ e Neutron Interferometer for Large Interferometer Area Applications,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 120, no. 11, p. 113...

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Far-field interference of a neutron white beam and the applications to noninvasive phase-contrast imaging,

    D. A. Pushin, D. Sarenac, D. S. Hussey, H. Miao, M. Arif, D. G. Cory, M. G. Huber, D. L. Jacobson, J. M. LaManna, J. D. Parker, T. Shinohara, W. Ueno, and H. Wen, “Far-field interference of a neutron white beam and the applications to noninvasive phase-contrast imaging,” Physi...

  29. [37]

    Measurement of the electric polarizability of lithium by atom interferometry,

    A. Miffre, M. Jacquey, M. B¨ uchner, G. Tr´ enec, and J. Vigu´ e, “Measurement of the electric polarizability of lithium by atom interferometry,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 73, no. 1, p. 011603, 2006

    2006

  30. [38]

    Neutron and x-ray tomography (next) system for simultaneous, dual modality tomography,

    J. M. LaManna, D. S. Hussey, E. Baltic, and D. L. Ja- cobson, “Neutron and x-ray tomography (next) system for simultaneous, dual modality tomography,” Review of Scientific Instruments, vol. 88, no. 11, 2017

    2017

  31. [39]

    Cone beam neutron interferom- etry: from modeling to applications,

    D. Sarenac, G. Gorbet, C. Kapahi, C. W. Clark, D. Cory, H. Ekinci, D. Garrad, M. Henderson, M. Hu- ber, D. Hussey et al., “Cone beam neutron interferom- etry: from modeling to applications,” Physical Review Research, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 023260, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Measurement of the electric polarizability of sodium with an atom interfer- ometer,

    C. R. Ekstrom, J. Schmiedmayer, M. S. Chapman, T. D. Hammond, and D. E. Pritchard, “Measurement of the electric polarizability of sodium with an atom interfer- ometer,” Physical Review A, vol. 51, no. 5, p. 3883, 1995

    1995

  33. [41]

    Measurement of atomic diffraction phases induced by material gratings,

    J. D. Perreault and A. D. Cronin, “Measurement of atomic diffraction phases induced by material gratings,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 73, no. 3, p. 033610, 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    Absolute and ratio measurements of the po- larizability of Na, K, and Rb with an atom interfer- ometer,

    W. F. Holmgren, M. C. Revelle, V. P. Lonij, and A. D. Cronin, “Absolute and ratio measurements of the po- larizability of Na, K, and Rb with an atom interfer- ometer,” Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 81, no. 5, p. 053607, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    The gravitational potential and its derivatives for the prism,

    D. Nagy, G. Papp, and J. Benedek, “The gravitational potential and its derivatives for the prism,” Journal of Geodesy, vol. 74, pp. 552–560, 2000

    2000

  36. [44]

    On the two different formulas for the 3d rectangular prism effect in gravimetry,

    R. Karcol and R. Paˇ steka, “On the two different formulas for the 3d rectangular prism effect in gravimetry,” Pure and Applied Geophysics, vol. 176, pp. 257–263, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    Neu- tron phase shift in a rotating two-crystal interferometer,

    D. Atwood, M. Horne, C. Shull, and J. Arthur, “Neu- tron phase shift in a rotating two-crystal interferometer,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 52, no. 19, p. 1673, 1984

    1984

  38. [46]

    The apache point ob- servatory lunar laser-ranging operation (APOLLO): Two years of millimeter-precision measurements of the earth- moon range1,

    J. B. Battat, T. Murphy, E. G. Adelberger, B. Gillespie, C. Hoyle, R. McMillan, E. L. Michelsen, K. Nordtvedt, A. E. Orin, C. W. Stubbs et al., “The apache point ob- servatory lunar laser-ranging operation (APOLLO): Two years of millimeter-precision measurements of the earth- ...

    2009

  39. [47]

    A new cold neutron imaging instrument at nist,

    D. S. Hussey, C. Brocker, J. Cook, D. Jacobson, T. Gen- tile, W. Chen, E. Baltic, D. Baxter, J. Doskow, and M. Arif, “A new cold neutron imaging instrument at nist,” Physics Procedia, vol. 69, pp. 48–54, 2015

    2015

  40. [48]

    Imaging of pbwo4 crystals for g experiment test masses using a laser interferometer,

    K. Assumin-Gyimah, M. Holt, D. Dutta, and W. Snow, “Imaging of pbwo4 crystals for g experiment test masses using a laser interferometer,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 39, no. 16, p. 165001, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Neutron phase contrast imag- ing of PbWO4 crystals for G experiment test masses us- ing a talbot-lau neutron interferometer,

    K. Assumin-Gyimah, D. Dutta, D. Hussey, W. Snow, C. Langlois, and V. Lee, “Neutron phase contrast imag- ing of PbWO4 crystals for G experiment test masses us- ing a talbot-lau neutron interferometer,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 39, no. 24, p. 245014, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Gravity and inertia in quantum mechanics,

    J.-L. Staudenmann, S. Werner, R. Colella, and A. Over- hauser, “Gravity and inertia in quantum mechanics,” Physical Review A, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 1419, 1980

    1980

  43. [51]

    Effect of earth’s rotation in neutron inter- ferometry,

    L. A. Page, “Effect of earth’s rotation in neutron inter- ferometry,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 35, no. 8, p. 543, 1975

    1975

  44. [52]

    Effect of earth’s rotation on the quantum mechanical phase of the neutron,

    S. Werner, J.-L. Staudenmann, and R. Colella, “Effect of earth’s rotation on the quantum mechanical phase of the neutron,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 42, no. 17, p. 1103, 1979

    1979

  45. [53]

    Redetermination of the newtonian gravitational constant G,

    G. G. Luther and W. R. Towler, “Redetermination of the newtonian gravitational constant G,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 48, no. 3, p. 121, 1982

    1982

  46. [54]

    Small angle x- ray scattering metrology for sidewall angle and cross sec- tion of nanometer scale line gratings,

    T. Hu, R. L. Jones, W.-l. Wu, E. K. Lin, Q. Lin, D. Keane, S. Weigand, and J. Quintana, “Small angle x- ray scattering metrology for sidewall angle and cross sec- tion of nanometer scale line gratings,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 96, no. 4, pp. 1983–1987, 2004

    1983

  47. [55]

    The IAU 2009 system of astronomical constants: the report of the iau working group on numerical standards for fundamental astron- omy,

    B. Luzum, N. Capitaine, A. Fienga, W. Folkner, T. Fukushima, J. Hilton, C. Hohenkerk, G. Krasinsky, G. Petit, E. Pitjeva et al., “The IAU 2009 system of astronomical constants: the report of the iau working group on numerical standards for fundamental astron- omy,” Celestial M...

    2009

  48. [56]

    The JPL planetary and lunar ephemerides de440 and de441,

    R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, J. G. Williams, and D. H. Boggs, “The JPL planetary and lunar ephemerides de440 and de441,” The Astronomical Journal, vol. 161, no. 3, p. 105, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    The world’s first gps mooc and worldwide laboratory using smartphones,

    F. Van Diggelen and P. Enge, “The world’s first gps mooc and worldwide laboratory using smartphones,” in Proceedings of the 28th international technical meeting of the satellite division of the institute of navigation (ION GNSS+ 2015), 2015, pp. 361–369. 11

    2015

  50. [58]

    [Online]

    May 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //jewellinstruments.com/products/inertial-tilt-sensors/ ecompass/standard/ecs-ecompass-series/

    2024

  51. [59]

    Certain trade names and company products are men- tioned in the text or identified in an illustration in or- der to adequately specify the experimental procedure and equipment used. In no case does such identification im- ply recommendation or endorsement by the National In- s...

  52. [60]

    Measurement of newton’s gravitational constant,

    S. Schlamminger, E. Holzschuh, W. K¨ undig, F. Nolting, R. Pixley, J. Schurr, and U. Straumann, “Measurement of newton’s gravitational constant,” Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology, vol. 74, no. 8, p. 082001, 2006

    2006

  53. [63]

    Vergara, M

    L. Vergara, M. Arai, R. Woracek, M. Olsson, A. Quin- tanilla, S. Alcock, J. Nilsson, K. Kanaki, P. Kadletz, O. Kirstein et al., “Evaluation of a method for time- of-flight, wavelength and neutron flight path calibra- tion for neutron scattering instruments by means of a mini-c...

    2023

  54. [64]

    Gravity measured with record pre- cision,

    S. Schlamminger, “Gravity measured with record pre- cision,” Nature, vol. 560, no. 7720, pp. 562+, AUG 30 2018

    2018

  55. [65]

    Measurements of newton’s gravitational constant and the length of day,

    J. D. Anderson, G. Schubert, V. Trimble, and M. R. Feld- man, “Measurements of newton’s gravitational constant and the length of day,” Europhysics Letters, vol. 110, no. 1, p. 10002, 2015

    2015

  56. [66]

    Toward a common ground for gravity and optics,

    J. L. Parra, “Toward a common ground for gravity and optics,” Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 1896–1906, 2018. 12 Appendix A: Model Validation FIG. 5. Neutron intensity as a function of grating rotation (alpha) from van der Zouw et al. [26]. Expe...

    1906

  57. [2013]

    Available: https://journals.aps.org/prl/ abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.101102

    [Online]. Available: https://journals.aps.org/prl/ abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.101102

    doi

  58. [2017]

    Available: https://journals.aps.org/pra/ abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.043637

    [Online]. Available: https://journals.aps.org/pra/ abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.043637

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.