Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 50 references

The fine structure constant: a review of measurement results and possible space-time variations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review argues that the two most precise determinations of the fine-structure constant—one from rubidium atom recoil, one from the electron magnetic moment—disagree by more than three standard deviations, so the exact value of the…

desk verdict A readable but already-dated review of α measurements; the 'unresolved matching problem' loses force once CODATA-2022 is included, since the two newest values agree within ~2σ. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.18328 v1 pith:L4VM66CK submitted 2025-06-23 hep-ph

K. A. Bronnikov , V. D. Ivashchuk , V. V. Khruschov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords fine-structureconstantfundamentalconstantsquantumelectrodynamicsatominterferometryg-factoropticalclocksspace-timevariationInternationalSystemofUnits
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

This review of the fine-structure constant $\alpha$ argues that its exact value is currently an open problem: the two most precise recent determinations disagree. A 2020 measurement based on the recoil of rubidium atoms when they absorb photons gives $1/\alpha = 137.035999206(11)$, while a 2023 determination from the electron's magnetic moment gives $137.035999166(15)$, and the paper notes the confidence intervals do not overlap at the $3\sigma$ level. Because $\alpha$ sets the strength of electromagnetism and enters the definitions of the electrical constants in the revised SI, an unresolved spread among the best values has direct metrological consequences. The paper also reviews laboratory and astrophysical searches for space-time variation of $\alpha$, concluding that no long-term variation is experimentally confirmed, although some cosmological data hint at slightly lower $\alpha$ in the remote past.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless constant $\alpha = e^2/(4\pi\varepsilon_0 \hbar c)$, which measures the strength of the electromagnetic interaction. The review's argument rests on the comparison of two independent routes to $\alpha$. In the g-factor route, the electron anomaly $a_e = (g-2)/2$ is measured in a single-electron cyclotron and equated to a QED perturbation series $a_e = A_1(\alpha/\pi) + A_2(\alpha/\pi)^2 + \cdots$, where the coefficients $A_i$ come from evaluating thousands of QED diagrams; solving this equation yields $\alpha$. In the recoil route, the ratio $h/m_X$ for an atom $X$ (rubidium or caesium) is measured with matter-wave interferometry using coherent oscillations in an optical lattice, and $\alpha$ is obtained from $\alpha^2 = 2 R_\infty (m_e/m_X)(h/m_X)/c$. The mismatch between the two routes is the load-bearing discrepancy of the paper.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a joint re-analysis of the two experiments' systematic error budgets: if the 2020 recoil measurement is found to have an overlooked uncertainty of order $10^{-10}$, or if the two results are shown to share a correlated calibration error, the claimed $3\sigma$ mismatch would disappear; conversely, an independent recoil measurement using a different atom that reproduces the 2020 value would confirm that the g-factor route is the one in error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the most accurate values of the fine-structure constant obtained by the two leading methods—one that combines a measured electron g-factor with tenth-order QED calculations, and one that measures $h/m$ for rubidium or caesium atoms and combines it with the Rydberg constant and known mass ratios—are mutually inconsistent. The 2020 recoil value and the 2023 g-factor value differ by roughly $9\times10^{-10}$ in relative terms, shifting $\alpha$ by about $9\times10^{-9}$ in absolute terms, and their $3\sigma$ intervals do not overlap; the authors therefore state that the problem of matching the most highly precision results remains unresolved. On the question of variation, the paper finds that laboratory clock comparisons place only upper bounds on temporal change, at the level of $10^{-18}$ to $10^{-19}$ per year, while astrophysical data—quasar absorption spectra, white dwarfs, primordial nucleosynthesis, and the cosmic microwave background—contain hints, but no confirmed detection, of lower or direction-dependent $\alpha$ in the past.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the best values disagree and form an unresolved matching problem rests on taking the quoted uncertainties of the 2020 recoil measurement, the 2023 g-factor measurement, and the 2018 recommended value as complete and independent; if any of those error budgets is underestimated or shares a common systematic, the claimed $3\sigma$ separation could shrink or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The next internationally recommended adjustment of constants will have to reconcile or average two inputs that do not overlap at $3\sigma$, directly affecting the SI values of $\varepsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$.
  • If the recoil value is correct, something in the g-factor measurement or in the tenth-order QED calculation must be off; if the g-factor value is correct, the recoil experiment has underestimated a systematic effect.
  • The lack of confirmed laboratory variation at the $10^{-19}$ per year level means optical-clock comparisons remain a working test of local position invariance.
  • The quasar-based hints of a spatial dipole in $\alpha$, if confirmed, would require physics beyond the Standard Model and would feed into cosmological models of varying constants.
  • A ytterbium-171 ion optical clock, using transitions with different sensitivity to $\alpha$, is a practical route toward replacing the caesium standard for the second.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A third independent determination of $\alpha$ accurate to below $10^{-10}$, from a method such as the fine structure of hydrogen-like ions or a different atomic recoil species, would decide which of the two error budgets is wrong; the paper does not propose such an experiment.
  • If the discrepancy survives a careful re-analysis, the natural next step is a joint fit that allows for unknown correlated systematics; the paper stops at noting the mismatch.
  • The cosmological hints of lower $\alpha$ in the past and the quasar dipole are separate datasets, but both could be explained by a slowly relaxing scalar field coupling to electromagnetism; the paper reviews the data without endorsing such a model.
  • Comparing clocks at different gravitational potentials could turn the search for spatial variation from quasar statistics into a laboratory test, since the equivalence principle would be directly at stake.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a review of methods for determining the fine-structure constant α, their recent results, α's role in the revised SI, and laboratory and astrophysical searches for variations in α. It reports the CODATA-2018 value, the 2018 Berkeley 133Cs result, the 2020 Paris 87Rb recoil result, and the 2023 Harvard electron g-factor result, and concludes that the most accurate determinations of α cannot currently be matched. It also surveys limits on time and spatial variations of α and proposes a ytterbium-171 optical frequency standard as an application.

Significance. If updated, the review would be a useful and generally accurate synthesis of an active metrology and cosmology topic. The reported numerical values are consistent with the cited literature, and the paper correctly notes the large tension between the Paris-2020 recoil measurement and CODATA-2018; the 3σ non-overlap is arithmetically correct, and the discrepancy is in fact about 5σ. Its coverage of astrophysical constraints, including the Webb dipole and primordial nucleosynthesis bounds, is balanced and appropriately cautious. The review makes no original derivation and contains no fitted parameters; its contribution is organizational rather than novel, but that is appropriate for a review. The main weakness is that the central claim of an unresolved 'matching problem' is argued only against CODATA-2018 and is not tested against the CODATA-2022 adjustment, which postdates the cited value and predates the manuscript's access date.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, final paragraph (Modern results of measurements of the fine structure constant)] The central conclusion that 'there is a problem of matching the obtained most accurate results' is based on a comparison with CODATA-2018 [25] only; the paper never discusses the CODATA-2022 adjustment (Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 025002 (2024)), which was available well before the manuscript's latest access date (19.03.2025) and which incorporates newer data. Because the recommended value may well be compatible with both Paris-2020 and Harvard-2023, the paper must add the CODATA-2022 value and repeat the consistency analysis before the 'unresolved problem' claim can be sustained.
  2. [Section 3, Paris-2020 vs Harvard-2023 comparison] The two independent modern measurements quoted by the authors, α^{-1}=137.035999206(11) [23] and α^{-1}=137.035999166(15) [14], differ by about 40×10^{-9}; their combined uncertainty is about 18.6×10^{-9}, i.e. the discrepancy is about 2.15σ, which is consistent at the conventional 95% level. The paper's own observation that Harvard-2023 is closer to Paris-2020 than to the 2007 value undercuts the statement that the most accurate results cannot be matched. Please report these pairwise significances explicitly and revise the conclusion accordingly.
  3. [Section 3, CODATA-2018 comparison wording] For Paris-2020 vs CODATA-2018 the separation is 122×10^{-9} with combined uncertainty about 23.7×10^{-9}, i.e. about 5.1σ; the phrase 'even the confidence intervals at the 3σ level do not overlap' is an understatement that should be corrected. More importantly, this does not justify treating a 2.15σ agreement as a 'problem' without reference to CODATA-2022.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Page 2, paragraph 3] The sentence 'The value α is also a decomposition parameter in calculations based on perturbation theory in quantum electrodynamics' appears twice in consecutive sentences; delete one copy.
  2. [Throughout the manuscript] Decimal commas (e.g., '137,035 999 084 (21)', '1,5·10–10') should be replaced with decimal points to conform to standard international journal style and avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section 3] 'Harward-2023' is a typo for 'Harvard-2023' and should be corrected.
  4. [Equations (1) and (2), and the definition of α] Several equations are garbled in the rendering; ensure that all equations are typeset correctly in the final files.
  5. [Section 3] The word 'intriguing' in the description of the Paris-2020 result is subjective and should be removed or replaced with a neutral phrase.
  6. [Reference [8]] Reference [8] lacks publication details; provide a journal citation or a stable arXiv identifier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper is a literature review that reports external measurements and does not fit parameters or derive alpha from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain of its own: it surveys published determinations of the fine structure constant and possible variations, quoting values from CODATA-2018, the Paris 2020 rubidium recoil measurement, the Harvard 2023 electron g-factor measurement, and astrophysical/laboratory variation searches. No equation in the paper is derived from an input in a way that makes the conclusion equivalent to the premise. The central claim, that the most accurate recent values are hard to match, is an interpretation of externally quoted uncertainties rather than a quantity computed from fitted parameters. The only self-citations, references [30] and [31], are used for context in the section on laboratory searches for alpha variations: they are said to note that logarithmic derivatives of coupling constants are of interest and that variations could affect the thermal history of the Universe. These citations are not load-bearing for the paper's main claims, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from them. The omission of CODATA-2022 and the moderate statistical tension between Paris 2020 and Harvard 2023 would be matters of completeness or correctness of the review's interpretation, not circularity. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity, with score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new constants, parameters, or entities are introduced. The review relies on standard QED perturbation theory, standard metrological relations, and the Einstein equivalence principle as the interpretative framework for variation searches. All α values are taken from the cited experimental papers.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Einstein equivalence principle: non-gravitational experiments are position and time independent; used as the interpretative framework for α variation searches.
    Section 1, paragraph 4 states that searching for space-time variations of α is simultaneously a test of this principle.
  • standard math QED perturbative expansion of the electron anomaly a_e as a power series in α/π (Eq. 2), with coefficients A_i taken from the literature.
    Section 3 uses this expansion to convert measured g-factor values into α.
  • standard math Recoil-based relation (Eq. 1) connecting α to the Rydberg constant, the atom/electron mass ratio, and h/m_X.
    Section 2 presents this as the basis of the atom interferometry route to α.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The fine structure constant: a review of measurement results and possible space-time variations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4VM66CK

@misc{pith2026250618328,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The fine structure constant: a review of measurement results and possible space-time variations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4VM66CK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.18328}
}
read the original abstract

A brief description of the main methods for determining the fine structure constant is given. It is shown that the exact value of the fine structure constant is important for the new International System of Units (SI) and for fundamental metrology. Recent measurement results and theoretical calculations of the fine structure constant, as well as its possible space-time variations, are presented. The results of laboratory experiments on the search for long-term variations of the fine structure constant are described. The astrophysical and cosmological observational data on possible variability of the fine structure constant are displayed. The possibility of slightly lower values of the fine structure constant in the remote past as compared to its modern value, as well as the existence of unresolved problems related to possible space-time variations of the fine structure constant and the spread of the results of its precise laboratory measurements, are mentioned. Despite the absence of experimentally confirmed long-term variations of the fine structure constant at a high level of accuracy, possible practical applications of the results are noted, namely, the construction of an optical frequency standard with high stability and frequency reproduction accuracy based on the ytterbium-171 ion and a laser frequency synthesizer which may replace the caesium frequency standard.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    J., Newell D

    Tiesinga E., Mohr P. J., Newell D. B. , Taylor B. N. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018 . Reviews of Modern Physics , 93, 025010 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025010

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.93.025010 2021

  2. [23]

    Determination of the fine -structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion

    Morel L., Yao Z., Cladé P., Guellati-Khélifa S. Determination of the fine -structure constant with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion . Nature, 588, 61 –65 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2964-7

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2964-7 2020

  3. [14]

    G., Sukra B

    Fan X., Myers T. G., Sukra B. A. D., Gabrielse G. Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment. Physical Review Letters, 130, 071801 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.071801

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.071801 2023

  4. [1]

    Resolution 1 of the 26th CGPM (2018)

    Bureau International des Poids et Measures [official site]. Resolution 1 of the 26th CGPM (2018). On the revision of the International System of Units (SI). https://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cg/cgpm/26-2018/resolution1 (date of request: 19.03.2025)

    work page 2018

  5. [2]

    M., Mohr P

    Mills I. M., Mohr P. J., Quinn T. J. et al. Redefinition of the kilogram, ampere, kelvin and mole: a proposed approach to implementing CIPM recommendation 1 (CI-2005). Metrologia, 43(3), 227–246 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/0026-1394/43/3/006

    work page doi:10.1088/0026-1394/43/3/006 2006

  6. [3]

    Kononogov S. A. Metrology and fundamental physical constants , Standardinform Publ., Moscow (2008) (in Russian)

    work page 2008

  7. [4]

    Will C. M. The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. Living Reviews in Relativity 9, 3 (2006). https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2006-3

    doi:10.12942/lrr-2006-3 2006

  8. [5]

    Martins C. J. A. P. The status of varying constant: a review of the physics, searches and implications. Reports on Progress in Physics, 80(12), 126902 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/aa860e

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aa860e 2017

Show all 50 references
  1. [6]

    R., Webb J

    Wilczynska M. R., Webb J. K., Bainbridge M. et al. Four direct measurements of the fine- structure constant 13 billion years ago. Science Advances, 6(17), 9672 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aay9672

    2020 doi

  2. [7]

    S., Budker D., DeMille D

    Safronova M. S., Budker D., DeMille D. et al. Search for new physics with atoms and molecules. Reviews of Modern Physics, 90, 025008 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025008

    2018 doi

  3. [8]

    Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology

    Uzan J.-P. Fundamental constants: from measurement to the universe, a window on gravitation and cosmology. Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.07281

    arXiv

  4. [9]

    Zur Quantentheorie der Spektrallinien

    Sommerfeld A. Zur Quantentheorie der Spektrallinien . Annalen der Physik , 366(51), 1–94 (1916). https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19163561702

    1916 doi

  5. [10]

    S., Schwinberg P

    Van Dyck R. S., Schwinberg P. B., Dehmelt H. G. New high -precision comparison of electron and positron g factors. Physical Review Letters , 59(1), 26–29 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.26

    1987 doi

  6. [11]

    , Hanneke D., D’Urso B

    Odom B. , Hanneke D., D’Urso B. et al . New measurement of the electron magnetic moment using a one -electron quantum cyclotron . Physical Review Letters , 97(3), 030801 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.030801

    2006 doi

  7. [12]

    , Hanneke D., Kinoshita T

    Gabrielse G. , Hanneke D., Kinoshita T. et al . New determination of the fine structure constant from the electron g value and QED (Erratum) , Physical Review Letters, 99, 039902 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.039902

    2007 doi

  8. [13]

    New measurement of the elect ron magnetic moment and the fine structure constant

    Hanneke D., Fogwell S., Gabrielse G. New measurement of the elect ron magnetic moment and the fine structure constant . Physical Review Letters , 100, 120801 (2008). 12 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.120801

    2008 doi

  9. [15]

    Improved 4 term of the electron anomalous magnetic moment

    Kinoshita T., Nio М. Improved 4 term of the electron anomalous magnetic moment . Physical Review D, 73, 013003 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.73.013003

    2006 doi

  10. [16]

    Aoyama T., Hayakawa M., Kinoshita T. et al. Revised value of the eighth-order electron g-2, Physical Review Letters, 99, 110406 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.99.110406

    2007 doi

  11. [17]

    , Kinoshita T

    Aoyama T. , Kinoshita T. , Nio M. Revised and improved value of the QED tenth -order electron anomalous magnetic moment . Physical Review D , 97(3), 036001 ( 2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.036001

    2018 doi

  12. [18]

    , Hensley J

    Wicht A. , Hensley J. M., Sarajlic E., Chu S. A preliminary measurement of the fine structure constant based on atom interferometry. Physica Scripta, 2002(T102), 82–88 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1238/Physica.Topical.102a00082

    2002 doi

  13. [19]

    Cadoret M., de Mirandes E., Clade P. et al . Combination of Bloch oscillations with a Ramsey-Bordé interferometer: new determination of the fine structure constant . Physical Review Letters, 101, 230801 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.230801

    2008 doi

  14. [20]

    , Biraben F

    Bouchendira R., Cladé P., Guellati-Khélifa S., Nez F. , Biraben F. New determination of the fine structure constant and test of the quantum electrodynamics . Physical Review Letters , 106, 080801 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.080801

    2011 doi

  15. [21]

    Clade P., de Mirandes E., Cadoret M. et al. Precise measurement of h/mRb using Bloch oscillations in a vertical optical lattice: determination of the fine -structure constant, Physical Review A, 74, 052109 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.74.052109

    2006 doi

  16. [22]

    Parker R. H. , Yu C. , Zhong W. , Estey B. , Müller H. Measurement of the fine -structure constant as a test of the Standard Model . Science, 360(6385), 191 –195 ( 2018). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap7706

    2018 doi

  17. [24]

    Borde Ch. J. Atomic interferometry with internal state labeling. Physics Letters A, 140(1-2), 10–12 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(89)90537-9

    1989 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Redshaw M., Myers E

    Mount B. J., Redshaw M., Myers E. G. Atomic masses of 6Li , 23Na, 39,41K, 85,87Rb, and 133Cs. Physical Review A, 82, 042513 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.042513

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    J., Newell D

    Mohr P. J., Newell D. B. , Taylor B. N. CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2014 . Reviews of Modern Physics , 88, 035009 (2016). 13 https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035009

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    et al., Review in Particle Physics

    Tanabashi M., Hagiwara K., Hikasa K. et al., Review in Particle Physics. Physical Review D, 98, 030001 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    On Quantum -Electrodynamics and the Magnetic Moment of the Electron

    Schwinger J. On Quantum -Electrodynamics and the Magnetic Moment of the Electron . Physical Review Journals Archive, 73, 416 (1948). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.73.416

    1948 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Ivashchuk V

    Bronnikov K. A., Ivashchuk V. D., Khruschov V. V. Fundamental physical constants: search results and descriptions of variations. Measurement Techniques , 65(3), 151 –156 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11018-022-02062-z

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Kalinin M

    Bronnikov K. A., Kalinin M. I., Khruschov V. V. On the thermal history of the early Universe. Legal & Applied Metrology, (1), 11–17 (2024) (in Russian); arXiv: 2312.12883

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    B., Schmidt P

    Rosenband T., Hume D. B., Schmidt P. O. et al. Frequency Ratio of Al+ and Hg+ Single-Ion Optical Clocks; Metrology at the 17th Decimal Place . Science, 319(5871), 1808–1812 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154622

    2008 doi

  25. [33]

    M., Nisbet -Jones P

    Godun R. M., Nisbet -Jones P. B. R., Jones J. M. et al. Frequency ratio of two optical clock transitions in 171Yb+ and constraints on the time variation of fundamental constants . Physical Review Letters, 113, 210801 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.210801

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    A., Ng K-W., Henkel C

    Levshakov S. A., Ng K-W., Henkel C. et al. Testing the weak equivalence principle by differential measurements of fundamental constants in the Magellanic Clouds. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487(4), 5175–5187 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz1628

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Lange R., Huntemann N., Rahm J. M. et al. Improved Limits for Violations of Local Position Invariance from Atomic Clock Comparisons . Physical Review Letters, 126, 011102 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.126.011102

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    V., Dzuba V

    Flambaum V. V., Dzuba V. A. Search for variation of the fundamental constants in atomic, molecular and nuclear spectra. Canadian Journal of Physics ., 87 (1), 25 –33 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1139/p08-072

    2009 doi

  29. [37]

    Filzinger M., Dorscher S., Lange R. et al. Improved Limits on the Coupling of Ultralight Bosonic Dark Matter to Photons from Optical Atomic Clock Comparisons . Physical Review Letters, 130, 2530011 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.253001

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Murphy M. T. , Berke D.A., Liu F. et al. A limit on variations in the fine -structure constant from spectra of nearby Sun -like stars . Science, 378 (6620), 634 –636 (2022) . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi9232

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Constraining fundamental parameters in modified gravity using Gaia - DR2 massive white dwarf observation

    Kalita S., Uniyal A. Constraining fundamental parameters in modified gravity using Gaia - DR2 massive white dwarf observation . The Astrophysical Journal, 949(2), 62 (2023) . https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/accf1c

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Jiang L., Fu S., Wang F. et al. Constraints on the variation of the fine -structure constant at 3 < z < 10 with JWST emission -line galaxies . Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.08977

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Fine structure constant measurements in qu asar absorption systems

    Milakovic D. Fine structure constant measurements in qu asar absorption systems. 14 Methodology (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01071

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Tohfa H., Crump J., Baker E. et al. A cosmic microwave background search for fine- structure constant evolution. Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06768

    2023

  35. [43]

    Ch., Meyer H

    Meisner U.-G., Metsch B. Ch., Meyer H. The electromagnetic fine-structure constant in primordial nucleosynthesis revisited. High Energy Physics – Theory (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.15849

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Variation of the fine structure constant in the light of recent helium abundance measurement

    Seto O., Takahashi T., Toda Y. Variation of the fine structure constant in the light of recent helium abundance measurement. Physical Review D, 108 , 023525 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.023525

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    , Ouchi M., Nakajima K

    Matsumoto A. , Ouchi M., Nakajima K. et al., EMPRESS. VIII. A new determination of primordial He abundance with extremely metal -poor galaxies: a suggestion of the lepton asymmetry and implications for the Hubble tension . The Astrophysical Journal, 941(2), 167 (2022). https:/...

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    K., Murphy M

    Webb J. K., Murphy M. T., Flambaum V. V. et al . Further evidence for cosmological evolution of the fine structure constant . Physical Review Letters , 87, 091301 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.091301

    2001 doi

  39. [47]

    K., King J.A., Murphy M

    Webb J. K., King J.A., Murphy M. T. et al. Indications of a Spatial Variation of the Fine Structure Constant. Physical Review Letters, 107, 191101 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.191101

    2011 doi

  40. [48]

    Levshakov S. A. , Combes F., Boone F. et al., An upper limit to the variation in the fundamental constants at redshift z=5.2. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 540, L9 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201219042

    2012 doi

  41. [49]

    B., Murphy M

    Whitmore J. B., Murphy M. T., Impact of instrumental systematic errors on fine -structure constant measurements with quasar spectra . Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 447(1), 446–462 (2015) . https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu2420

    2015 doi

  42. [50]

    K., Milaković D., Carswell R

    Lee C.-C., Webb J. K., Milaković D., Carswell R. F. Non-uniqueness in quasar absorption models and implications for measurements of the fine structure constant, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 507 (1), 27–42 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2005

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.