Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Muonium fine structure: theory update, tests of Lorentz violation and experimental prospects

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Muonium's $2S_{1/2}-2P_{3/2}$ frequency is now computed to 9874.357(1) MHz, 300 times sharper than the 1990 value — and the same line can probe muon Lorentz violation nowhere else tested.

desk verdict Solid theory update and genuinely new SME application, but the paper fumbles the connection between the quoted 9874.357 MHz centroid and the hyperfine-resolved transition it plans to measure. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19580 v1 pith:ML36MZZR submitted 2024-12-27 hep-ph physics.atom-ph

Philipp Blumer , Svenja Geissmann , Arnaldo J. Vargas , Gianluca Janka , Ben Ohayon , Paolo Crivelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phphysics.atom-ph PACS 36.10.Dr11.30.Cp32.30.Bv
keywords muoniumfinestructureLambshiftspectroscopyStandardModelExtensionseparatedoscillatingfieldLorentzviolationCPTsymmetry
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 establishes a new theory target for the muonium fine-structure transition $2S_{1/2}-2P_{3/2}$: 9874.357(1) MHz, a three-hundredfold tightening of the only prior value, which dated from 1990. At this precision the transition becomes a discriminating test of bound-state QED, because radiative-recoil and nuclear self-energy corrections that are tiny in hydrogen are amplified in muonium by the light muon mass. The paper further adapts the Standard Model Extension (SME), the systematic low-energy framework for Lorentz and CPT violation, to this transition and shows it is sensitive to spin-independent $j=2$ muon coefficients that are currently unconstrained. Finally, Monte Carlo simulations of the separate-oscillatory-fields technique indicate that about 10 kHz statistical precision on the isolated $F=0$ to $F'=1$ line is reachable with the planned High-Intensity Muon Beam. If these pieces hold together, a single microwave experiment would simultaneously test QED, place first limits on new muon Lorentz-violating couplings, and check the new prediction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the two frequency formulas. The QED value is the sum of tabulated contributions (Table 1) — Dirac term, one-loop self-energy, vacuum polarization, two- and three-photon corrections, recoil and radiative-recoil terms, and nuclear self-energy — where the updated $(Z\alpha)^6$ recoil soft terms and the two-loop electron factor enter from recent calculations, with correlations handled through the standard uncertainty prescription for the fundamental constants. The SME shift rests on the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian results for hydrogen, transferred to muonium by replacing proton coefficients with antimuon coefficients; the resulting shifts (Eqs. (8), (10), (13)) show that V-type (spin-independent) $j=2$ coefficients enter the $2P_{3/2}$ shift but not the $2P_{1/2}$ shift, which is precisely why this transition is uniquely sensitive to them, while T-type (spin-dependent) $j=3$ coefficients appear only for $F=2$ sublevels. The experimental mechanism is the separate-oscillatory-fields technique: two microwave zones separated by a field-free region produce an interference fringe far narrower than the 99.7 MHz natural width, and fitting that fringe in the Monte Carlo yields the 10 kHz precision estimate.

What would settle it

Measure the $2S_{1/2},F=0 \to 2P_{3/2},F=1$ muonium transition at about 10 kHz precision with the proposed separate-oscillatory-field setup: a frequency differing from 9874.357(1) MHz by more than the combined uncertainty would invalidate the theory update, and agreement would confirm the recoil and nuclear self-energy contributions. For the Lorentz-violation claim, the model predicts either a sidereal modulation of the resonance (field-on scenario) or the appearance of two or three resolved peaks instead of one (field-off scenario); the absence of both signatures at kHz resolution would place the $j=2$ coefficients below the claimed sensitivity, while observing either would confirm them.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the theory side, the paper assembles the QED contributions to the muonium $n=2$ fine-structure interval — the Dirac eigenvalue at finite nuclear mass, electron self-energy, vacuum polarization, two- and three-photon corrections, recoil terms through order $(Z\alpha)^6$, radiative recoil, and nuclear self-energy — using the 2022 recommended values of the fundamental constants, and obtains 9874.357(1) MHz for the $2S_{1/2}-2P_{3/2}$ centroid with a total uncertainty of 1 kHz; radiative-recoil terms for the $P$ states are not directly included and are absorbed as an order-of-magnitude uncertainty. On the symmetry-testing side, it adapts the nonrelativistic SME energy shifts derived for hydrogen by substituting proton coefficients with antimuon coefficients, deriving the Lorentz-violating frequency shift for the transition both with and without a weak external magnetic field. The key finding is that the $2S_{1/2}-2P_{3/2}$ transition, unlike the $2S_{1/2}-2P_{1/2}$ Lamb shift, receives contributions from spin-independent SME coefficients with $j=2$ — the CPT-odd $a$-type and CPT-even $c$-type muon coefficients — because the selection rule $(j+1)/2 \le J$ admits them for $J=3/2$ but not $J=1/2$; transitions through the $F=2$ hyperfine sublevel additionally admit $j=3$ spin-dependent coefficients. On the experimental side, Bloch-equation Monte Carlo simulations validated against the recent precision muonium Lamb-shift measurement show that separate-oscillatory-field spectroscopy on the isolated $2S_{1/2},F=0 \to 2P_{3/2},F=1$ line can reach about 10 kHz statistical precision within roughly ten days of beam time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the nonrelativistic SME Hamiltonian derived for hydrogen transfers to muonium by simply replacing the proton coefficients with antimuon coefficients; the paper does not re-derive the two-fermion reduction for the muon–electron mass ratio, so if that re-derivation produced additional terms, the predicted Lorentz-violating frequency shifts would be incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A kHz-level theory value gives future microwave spectroscopy a concrete target: agreement at 10 kHz would confirm the radiative-recoil and nuclear self-energy corrections the table isolates.
  • A measurement of the $2S_{1/2}-2P_{3/2}$ interval can set first bounds on the spin-independent $j=2$ muon SME coefficients (CPT-odd $a$-type and CPT-even $c$-type), which are currently unconstrained.
  • Transitions involving the $F=2$ hyperfine sublevel of $2P_{3/2}$ open access to $j=3$ spin-dependent coefficients that are invisible in the $F=1$ line.
  • With a weak magnetic field, Lorentz violation would appear as a sidereal ($23^{\rm h}56^{\rm m}$-period) modulation of the resonance frequency; with no field, it would appear as two or three resolved resonance peaks instead of a single line.
  • With the High-Intensity Muon Beam and its muon-cooling stage, the simulation places about 10 kHz statistical precision on the isolated $F=0 \to F'=1$ transition within roughly ten days of beam time.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the new theory value is three hundred times sharper, even a first kHz-level measurement would almost immediately confirm or break the muon-mass amplification of the recoil and nuclear self-energy terms — the difference between the hydrogen and muonium columns of Table 1.
  • The zero-field signature is a background-free test: the same data that fixes the line center would bound the $j=2$ coefficients from the observed lineshape alone, without requiring the sidereal-time tracking that the field-on scenario needs.
  • The same hydrogen-to-muonium substitution logic should extend to antimuonium and to other muonium intervals; because CPT-odd coefficients change sign with the antimuon, comparing fine-structure lines in muonium and antimuonium could separate CPT-odd from CPT-even contributions.
  • The substitution assumption itself is checkable: re-deriving the nonrelativistic SME reduction directly for the muon–electron mass ratio would either validate Eq. (6) or expose additional terms, and that re-derivation is the natural next step before a high-precision campaign.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript compiles current QED contributions to the muonium 2S1/2-2P3/2 fine-structure interval, obtaining the updated value 9874.357(1) MHz for the hyperfine centroid defined in Eq. (1). It adapts the nonrelativistic SME Hamiltonian previously derived for hydrogen to muonium by substituting proton coefficients with antimuon coefficients, and derives Lorentz-violating frequency shifts in weak-field and zero-field scenarios. The paper then presents Monte Carlo simulations of single-field and Ramsey separated-oscillatory-field microwave spectroscopy, and estimates that with the upcoming HiMB beamline and muCool a statistical precision of about 10 kHz could be reached for the isolated 2S1/2,F=0 to 2P3/2,F=1 transition.

Significance. If correct, the updated theory value is a significant improvement over the 1990 value 9874.3(3) MHz and provides a kHz-level target for future microwave spectroscopy. The SME analysis identifies sensitivity to previously unconstrained j=2 antimuon coefficients, which is a genuine new application of the framework. The paper's strengths are its transparent uncertainty budget based on published calculations, the absence of fitted parameters, and the use of simulations validated against the Mu-MASS Lamb-shift measurement. However, the mismatch between the quoted hyperfine centroid and the specific hyperfine transition that the experiment would actually measure must be resolved before the theory target can be used as claimed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (6)] The quoted value 9874.357(1) MHz is defined as the hyperfine centroid of the 2S1/2-2P3/2 interval through Eq. (1), and Table 1 labels it 'This work without EHFS'. In contrast, Section 4 and Fig. 3 simulate the isolated 2S1/2,F=0 to 2P3/2,F=1 transition, while the abstract states 2S1/2,F=1 to 2P3/2,F=1. These are not the same observable: the 2S1/2 hyperfine splitting in muonium is about 558 MHz, and the simulated resonance in Fig. 3 lies near 10.25 GHz rather than 9.874 GHz. The 10 kHz EHFS row in Table 1 is a residual centroid correction and cannot bridge this gap. Please specify precisely which transition the theory value refers to, provide the corresponding hyperfine-corrected transition frequency, and reconcile the abstract and the main text.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (6)] The Lorentz-violating shifts in Eqs. (8) and (10) are obtained by transferring the hydrogen result of Ref. [39] to muonium through the substitution in Eq. (6). The manuscript does not demonstrate that the muon/electron mass ratio does not introduce additional nonrelativistic SME coefficients or higher-order terms beyond those appearing in the hydrogen derivation. Please either cite a general derivation that explicitly covers muonium or provide the leading steps of the nonrelativistic SME Hamiltonian for this two-fermion system, so that the completeness of the resulting frequency shifts is established.
  3. [Section 4, Figs. 3-4] The 10 kHz precision estimate depends on several assumed or extrapolated parameters: the muonium production rate with HiMB+muCool, the 10(3)% 2S formation fraction, the detection efficiency of 16%, and the phase-space properties entering the gas-cell conversion. These are plausible and partly referenced, but the paper should clearly distinguish measured values from assumptions and should indicate how the final statistical precision would change under plausible variations of the most sensitive inputs, in particular the 2S formation fraction and the muCool rate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] In the sentence 'Collecting the required statics will become feasible', 'statics' should be 'statistics'.
  2. [Keywords] The keyword 'Standard Model Extension' appears twice; the duplicate should be removed.
  3. [Figure 3 caption] The caption should state explicitly which hyperfine transition is being simulated (2S1/2,F=0 to 2P3/2,F=1) so that the horizontal scale around 10.25 GHz is clear to the reader.
  4. [Section 4, text near Fig. 4] The sentence 'The total amount of M atoms, N = sum_i n_i, in the 2S1/2, F=0 state' would read better as 'The total number of M atoms in the 2S1/2, F=0 state'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the theory value is an external compilation and the SME analysis is a stated application of an independently derived formalism.

full rationale

The paper's central theory value, 9874.357(1) MHz, is a compilation of published QED contributions: the Dirac eigenvalue, self-energy, vacuum polarization, recoil terms, and nuclear self-energy are taken from CODATA 2022 and from the cited calculations of Refs. [30,31,33,34,36,37,38]. No parameter is fitted to the target transition, and the uncertainty is propagated from CODATA constants and stated theoretical uncertainties. The updated value is therefore a bookkeeping and summation result, not a prediction that reduces to an input by construction. The SME section adapts the hydrogen results of Ref. [39] to muonium by the substitution in Eq. (6). Although Ref. [39] is co-authored by one of the present authors, it is an independent, peer-reviewed derivation of Lorentz-violating energy shifts for hydrogen that does not assume the muonium fine-structure result; the present paper applies it to a new system with an explicit substitution. This is a stated modeling assumption and a potential correctness risk, but it is not circular. The feasibility estimate uses externally measured rates and efficiencies, and the Monte Carlo simulation is validated against the Mu-MASS Lamb-shift measurement, an external benchmark. The abstract/body inconsistency over whether the simulated transition is 2S1/2,F=1 to 2P3/2,F=1 or 2S1/2,F=0 to 2P3/2,F=1, and the difference between the hyperfine centroid quoted in Table 1 and the specific hyperfine transition shown in Fig. 3, are internal-consistency and interpretation concerns, not circularity. No derivation step in the paper is equivalent to its input by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory value introduces no fitted parameters; all inputs are CODATA constants and published QED corrections. The feasibility estimate depends on assumed beam and detection parameters, listed above. The SME model does not introduce new entities. The main axioms are the transferability of the hydrogen SME results and the completeness of the cited QED calculations.

free parameters (7)
  • kinetic energy of muonium atoms = 10 keV
    Chosen for the simulation; affects transit time and resonance width. Not fitted to data.
  • electric field amplitude E0 = 60 V/cm (single field and SOF); 25 V/cm in Fig. 2
    Chosen for the simulation; affects transition probability and lineshape.
  • cavity and field-free region length = 20 mm
    Chosen for the SOF geometry; sets the Ramsey fringe width.
  • detection efficiency = 16%
    Taken from Ref. [46], used to convert muonium production rate to detected events.
  • fraction of muonium formed in 2S state = 10 (3) %
    Taken from Ref. [27]; a key scaling factor for the statistical reach.
  • fraction populating 2S, F=0 state = 1/4
    Statistical population of the hyperfine sublevel.
  • muonium production rate with HiMB+muCool = 5 x 10^5 Hz
    Assumed from Ref. [29]; determines the feasibility of the 10 kHz precision in 10 days.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The QED calculations in Refs [30-34] are correct and complete to the stated order.
    The updated value is a compilation; the paper does not re-derive these contributions, and any error in these references would propagate to the central value.
  • domain assumption The nonrelativistic SME Hamiltonian for hydrogen (Ref [39]) applies to muonium under the substitution in Eq. (6).
    The paper assumes the structural similarity between hydrogen and muonium is sufficient to transfer the SME energy shifts without modification. This is the load-bearing assumption for the SME model.
  • domain assumption The two-level Bloch equation model with the stated experimental geometry captures the resonance lineshape, and the sqrt(N) counting-statistics noise model is valid.
    The precision estimate relies on these modeling choices; unmodeled systematics (field inhomogeneities, stray magnetic fields, state preparation imperfections) could degrade the projected precision.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Muonium fine structure: theory update, tests of Lorentz violation and experimental prospects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ML36MZZR

@misc{pith2026241219580,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Muonium fine structure: theory update, tests of Lorentz violation and experimental prospects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ML36MZZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19580}
}
abstract

We review the status of the QED calculations for the muonium $2S_{1/2}-2P_{3/2}$ energy interval and provide the updated theoretical value of $9874.357\pm0.001\,\mathrm{MHz}$. Additionally, we present a model for probing Lorentz-violating coefficients within the Standard Model Extension framework using the fine structure measurement in the presence and absence of a weak external magnetic field, enabling novel tests of CPT and Lorentz symmetry. Using Monte Carlo simulations, we estimate that a precision of $\sim 10\,\mathrm{kHz}$ on the isolated $2S_{1/2}, F=1 - 2P_{3/2}, F=1$ transition could be achievable employing Ramsey's separate oscillatory fields (SOF) technique. Collecting the required statics will become feasible with the upcoming High-Intensity Muon Beam (HiMB) at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) in Switzerland. These advancements will enable precise tests of radiative QED corrections and nuclear self-energy contributions, while also providing tests of new physics and sensitivity to unconstrained coefficients for Lorentz violation within the Standard Model Extension framework.

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. One more radiative-recoil correction to the Lamb shift in muonium

    physics.atom-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The muon-line radiative-recoil correction to the muonium Lamb shift at order α^6(m/M)^2 m is found to be π² times the common prefactor, replacing a previously quoted (139/32−2 ln2) coefficient.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [39]

    Kosteleck´ y, V.A., Vargas, A.J.: Lorentz and CP T tests with hydrogen, antihydro- gen, and related systems. Phys. Rev. D 92, 056002 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.92.056002

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    Physics Reports 422(1), 1–63 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.physrep.2005.08.008

    Karshenboim, S.G.: Precision physics of sim- ple atoms: QED tests, nuclear structure and fundamental constants. Physics Reports 422(1), 1–63 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.physrep.2005.08.008

    work page 2005

  3. [2]

    Hughes, V.W., McColm, D.W., Ziock, K., Prepost, R.: Formation of muonium and observation of its Larmor precession. Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 63–65 (1960) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.5.63

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.5.63 1960

  4. [3]

    Willmann, L., Schmidt, P.V., Wirtz, H.P., et al.: New bounds from a search for muo- nium to antimuonium conversion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 49–52 (1999) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.82.49

    work page 1999

  5. [4]

    Meyer, V., others.: Measurement of the 1 S − 2S energy interval in muonium. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1136–1139 (2000) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1136

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.84.1136 2000

  6. [5]

    Physical Review Letters 128(1) (2022) https: //doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.128.011802

    Ohayon, B., Janka, G., Cortinovis, I., Burkley, Z., Borges, L.d.S., Depero, E., Golovizin, A., Ni, X., Salman, Z., Suter, A., Vigo, C., Prokscha, T., Crivelli, P.: Precision measurement of the Lamb shift in muonium. Physical Review Letters 128(1) (2022) https: //doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.128.011802

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.011802 2022

  7. [6]

    Nature Communications 13, 7273 (2022) https://doi

    Janka, G., Ohayon, B., Cortinovis, I., Burkley, Z., Sousa Borges, L., Depero, E., Golovizin, A., Ni, X., Salman, Z., Suter, A., Prokscha, T., Crivelli, P.: Measurement of the transition frequency from 2 S1/2, F = 0 to 2 P1/2, F= 1 states in muonium. Nature Communications 13, 7273 (2022) https://doi. org/10.1038/s41467-022-34672-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-022-34672-0 2022

  8. [7]

    Physics Reports 477(1), 1–110 (2009) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.04.003

    Jegerlehner, F., Nyffeler, A.: The muon g − 2. Physics Reports 477(1), 1–110 (2009) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.04.003

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.04.003 2009

Show all 45 references
  1. [8]

    Delaunay, C., Ohayon, B., Soreq, Y.: Towards an independent determination of muon g − 2 from muonium spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 251801 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.127.251801

    2021

  2. [9]

    Balkin, R., Delaunay, C., Geller, M., Kajo- movitz, E., Perez, G., Shpilman, Y., Soreq, Y.: Custodial symmetry for muon g−2. Phys. Rev. D 104, 053009 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.053009

    2021 doi

  3. [10]

    Fadeev, P., Stadnik, Y.V., Ficek, F., Kozlov, M.G., Flambaum, V.V., Budker, D.: Revis- iting spin-dependent forces mediated by new bosons: Potentials in the coordinate- space representation for macroscopic- and atomic-scale experiments. Phys. Rev. A 99, 022113 (2019) https://d...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Stadnik, Y.V.: Searching for Ultralight Scalar Dark Matter with Muonium and Muonic Atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 131(1), 011001 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.131.011001 arXiv:2206.10808 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hyperfine Inter- act 239(49) (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10751-018-1525-z

    Crivelli, P.: The Mu-MASS (muonium laser spectroscopy) experiment. Hyperfine Inter- act 239(49) (2018) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10751-018-1525-z

    2018

  6. [14]

    : New precise mea- surements of muonium hyperfine struc- ture at J-PARC MUSE

    Strasser, P., et al. : New precise mea- surements of muonium hyperfine struc- ture at J-PARC MUSE. EPJ Web Conf. 198, 00003 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/ epjconf/201919800003

    2019

  7. [15]

    https://arxiv

    Bai, A.-Y., Cai, H., et al.: Conceptual Design of the Muonium-to-Antimuonium Conversion 11 Experiment (MACE) (2024). https://arxiv. org/abs/2410.18817

    2024

  8. [16]

    In: Snowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013)

    Kaplan, D.M., Mancini, D.C., Phillips, T.J., Roberts, T.J., Terry, J., Gustafson, R., Kirch, K.: Measuring Antimatter Gravity with Muo- nium. In: Snowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Sci- Post Phys

    Soter, A., Knecht, A.: Development of a cold atomic muonium beam for next generation atomic physics and gravity experiments. Sci- Post Phys. Proc., 031 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.21468/SciPostPhysProc.5.031

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Colladay, D., Kosteleck´ y, V.A.: CPT viola- tion and the standard model. Phys. Rev. D 55, 6760–6774 (1997) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.55.6760

    1997

  11. [19]

    Colladay, D., Kosteleck´ y, V.A.: Lorentz- violating extension of the standard model. Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998) https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.58.116002

    1998 doi

  12. [20]

    Kosteleck´ y, V.A., Samuel, S.: Spontaneous breaking of Lorentz symmetry in string the- ory. Phys. Rev. D 39, 683–685 (1989) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.39.683

    1989 doi

  13. [21]

    Nuclear Physics B 359(2), 545–570 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0550-3213(91)90071-5

    Alan Kosteleck´ y, V., Potting, R.: CPT and strings. Nuclear Physics B 359(2), 545–570 (1991) https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0550-3213(91)90071-5

    1991

  14. [22]

    Kosteleck´ y, V.A., Potting, R.: CPT, strings, and meson factories. Phys. Rev. D 51, 3923–3935 (1995) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.51.3923

    1995

  15. [23]

    Hughes, V.W., Perdekamp, M.G., Kawall, D., Liu, W., Jungmann, K., Putlitz, G.: Test of CPT and Lorentz invariance from muonium spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 111804 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.87.111804

    2001

  16. [24]

    Bluhm, R., Kosteleck´ y, V.A., Lane, C.D.: CPT and Lorentz tests with muons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1098–1101 (2000) https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1098

    2000 doi

  17. [25]

    Gomes, A.H., Kosteleck´ y, V.A., Vargas, A.J.: Laboratory tests of Lorentz and CP T symmetry with muons. Phys. Rev. D 90, 076009 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.90.076009

    2014

  18. [26]

    PhD thesis, Yale University (1990)

    Kettell, S.H.: Measurement of the 2 2S1/2 − 22P3/2 fine structure interval in muonium. PhD thesis, Yale University (1990). https: //doi.org/10.2172/6849854

    1990 doi

  19. [27]

    The European Physical Journal C 80 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-020-8400-1

    Janka, G., et al.: Intense beam of metastable muonium. The European Physical Journal C 80 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-020-8400-1

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.05788

    Aiba, M., et al.: Science Case for the new High-Intensity Muon Beams HIMB at PSI (2021). https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.05788

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sci- Post Phys

    Antognini, A., Taqqu, D.: muCool: muon cooling for high-brightness µ+ beams. Sci- Post Phys. Proc., 030 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.21468/SciPostPhysProc.5.030

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03787

    Mohr, P., Newell, D., Taylor, B., Tiesinga, E.: CODATA Recommended Values of the Fun- damental Physical Constants: 2022 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03787

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Horbatsch, M., Hessels, E.A.: Tabulation of the bound-state energies of atomic hydrogen. Phys. Rev. A 93, 022513 (2016) https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.022513

    2016 doi

  24. [32]

    EPJ Web of Conferences 262, 01001 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1051/ epjconf/202226201001

    Janka, G., Ohayon, B., Crivelli, P.: Muo- nium Lamb shift: theory update and exper- imental prospects. EPJ Web of Conferences 262, 01001 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1051/ epjconf/202226201001

    2022

  25. [33]

    Adkins, G.S., Gomprecht, J., Li, Y., Shinn, E.: Recoil corrections to the energy lev- els of hydrogenic atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 023004 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.130.023004

    2023

  26. [34]

    Physics Letters B 844, 138087 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.physletb.2023.138087 12

    Eides, M.I., Shelyuto, V.A.: Two-loop elec- tron factor contribution to Lamb shift in muonium and positronium. Physics Letters B 844, 138087 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.physletb.2023.138087 12

    2023

  27. [35]

    Blokland, I., Czarnecki, A., Melnikov, K.: Expansion of bound-state energies in pow- ers of m/M and (1 − m/M). Phys. Rev. D 65, 073015 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.65.073015

    2002

  28. [36]

    Patk´ oˇ s, V., Yerokhin, V.A., Pachucki, K.: Two-body P -state energies at order α6. Phys. Rev. A 109, 022819 (2024) https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.109.022819

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Patk´ oˇ s, V., , Pachucki, K.: Radiative cor- rections of the order α(Zα)6 for rotational states of two-body systems. Phys. Rev. A 110, 022813 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.110.022813

    2024

  30. [38]

    The European Physical Journal D 77, 66 (2023) https://doi

    Cortinovis, I., et al.: Update of muonium 1S–2S transition frequency. The European Physical Journal D 77, 66 (2023) https://doi. org/10.1140/epjd/s10053-023-00639-z

    2023 doi

  31. [40]

    Kosteleck´ y, V.A., Mewes, M.: Fermions with Lorentz-violating operators of arbi- trary dimension. Phys. Rev. D 88, 096006 (2013) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 88.096006

    2013 doi

  32. [41]

    Kosteleck´ y, V.A., Russell, N.: Data tables for Lorentz and CP T violation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11–31 (2011) https://doi.org/10. 1103/RevModPhys.83.11

    2011

  33. [42]

    Kosteleck´ y, V.A., Mewes, M.: Signals for Lorentz violation in electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. D 66, 056005 (2002) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.66.056005

    2002

  34. [43]

    Marsman, A., Horbatsch, M., Corriveau, Z.A., Hessels, E.A.: Systematic effects important to separated-oscillatory-field measurements of the n = 2 Lamb shift in atomic hydrogen. Phys. Rev. A 98, 012509 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA. 98.012509

    2018 doi

  35. [44]

    Ramsey, N.F.: A new molecular beam reso- nance method. Phys. Rev. 76, 996–996 (1949) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.76.996

    1949 doi

  36. [45]

    Sci- ence 365(6457), 1007–1012 (2019) https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.aau7807

    Bezginov, N., Valdez, T., Horbatsch, M., Marsman, A., Vutha, A.C., Hessels, E.A.: A measurement of the atomic hydrogen Lamb shift and the proton charge radius. Sci- ence 365(6457), 1007–1012 (2019) https:// doi.org/10.1126/science.aau7807

    2019 doi

  37. [46]

    PhD thesis, ETH Zurich (2022)

    Janka, G.: Lamb Shift of Exotic Atoms: Precision Measurement in Muonium and Progress Towards the First Direct Deter- mination in Antihydrogen. PhD thesis, ETH Zurich (2022). https://doi.org/10.3929/ ethz-b-000536696 13

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.