Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Towards Precision Spectroscopy of Antiprotonic Atoms for Probing Strong-field QED

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Precision X-ray spectroscopy of antiprotonic atoms could reveal second-order QED for the first time.

desk verdict A credible and specific experimental proposal with a solid physics case, but the advertised 10^-5–10^-6 accuracy rests on an unsupported calibration scheme and unquantified cascade systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08893 v1 pith:B4XMG3PK submitted 2025-01-15 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Gonçalo Baptista , Shikha Rathi , Michael Roosa , Quentin Senetaire , Jonas Sommerfeldt , Toshiyuki Azuma , Daniel Becker , Francois Butin
show 21 more authors
Ofir Eizenberg Joseph Fowler Hiroyuki Fujioka Davide Gamba Nabil Garroum Mauro Guerra Tadashi Hashimoto Takashi Higuchi Paul Indelicato Jorge Machado Kelsey Morgan Francois Nez Jason Nobles Ben Ohayon Shinji Okada Daniel Schmidt Daniel Swetz Joel Ullom Pauline Yzombard Marco Zito Nancy Paul
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords antiprotonicatomsstrong-fieldQEDvacuumpolarizationTESmicrocalorimetercircularRydbergstatesbound-statequantumelectrodynamicsprecisionX-rayspectroscopylow-energyantiprotons
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 paper argues that precision X-ray spectroscopy of antiprotonic atoms can test quantum electrodynamics (QED) in a regime inaccessible to other atomic systems. The key claim is that transitions between circular Rydberg states in antiprotonic atoms have finite nuclear size corrections smaller than second-order QED corrections, so a measurement at $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-6}$ relative accuracy would isolate second-order QED for the first time. The proposed PAX experiment would use a transition-edge-sensor microcalorimeter and a low-energy antiproton beam to measure these transitions with two orders of magnitude better accuracy than previous germanium-detector studies. If successful, this would probe electric fields up to two orders of magnitude above the Schwinger limit and provide the strongest test yet of bound-state QED.

What carries the argument

The enabling object is the circular Rydberg state in an antiprotonic atom (a state with principal quantum number n and maximum angular momentum l = n-1), whose wavefunction is spatially localized but has minimal overlap with the nucleus. Because the antiproton is about 1836 times heavier than an electron, these states have very small Bohr radii and experience Coulomb fields orders of magnitude above those in electronic atoms, boosting QED effects. The small nuclear overlap suppresses the finite nuclear size correction to below the second-order QED contribution, so the transition energy between two circular Rydberg states becomes a clean probe of QED.

What would settle it

Measure the 40Ar 6h11/2→5g9/2 transition with the planned detector array: if the line centroid cannot be determined to better than about 1 eV, or if the measured energy disagrees with the theoretical prediction (which includes a 5.2 eV second-order QED term) by more than the combined uncertainties, then the claimed isolation of second-order QED in antiprotonic atoms is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that antiprotonic atoms, composed of a nucleus and a bound antiproton, offer a unique window to second-order QED because their circular Rydberg transitions combine enhanced QED effects with suppressed finite nuclear size (FNS) uncertainties. In highly charged ions such as H-like uranium, the FNS correction is comparable to the first-order QED contribution, preventing precise QED tests; in contrast, for antiprotonic transitions such as 40Ar 6h→5g, the second-order QED contribution (5.2 eV) exceeds the FNS correction (1.1 eV). This inversion means a sub-eV measurement could isolate second-order QED without the nuclear-structure background that hampers other strong-field systems.

Load-bearing premise

The entire scheme depends on a TES microcalorimeter reaching $10^{-5}$–$10^{-6}$ relative accuracy at 50–250 keV photon energies, a performance level not yet demonstrated in that energy range.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measurement at 10^-5–10^-6 relative accuracy would, for the first time, extract second-order QED corrections in a bound-state system with field strengths well above the Schwinger limit.
  • The approach sidesteps the nuclear-size uncertainty that has limited precision tests in highly charged ions, enabling purely QED-focused comparisons with theory.
  • The PAX results would complement ongoing muonic-atom and highly charged ion programs by providing an independent test of vacuum polarization and self-energy calculations.
  • At the highest accuracy, the measurements could constrain new interactions with decays to the dark sector, extending searches beyond the Standard Model.
  • The same detector and beam infrastructure could later supply antiprotonic cascade data relevant to nuclear structure studies, such as neutron-skin measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the transition-energy measurement reaches the targeted accuracy, the same technique could be applied to other exotic atoms (muonic, pionic) to separate QED corrections from nuclear size contributions, or to use the known QED to extract nuclear charge radii.
  • The inversion that makes FNS smaller than second-order QED for antiprotonic Rydberg transitions may hold for a broader class of high-n, high-l transitions across the periodic table; a systematic survey could identify optimal cases for future experiments.
  • The claimed accuracy depends on detector calibration and on cascade modeling in gas targets; if either fails, the bottleneck would shift to systematics, so the QED isolation would need to be re-demonstrated under realistic beam conditions.
  • If the population of high-n circular states in gas targets proves inefficient, the experiment might need to fall back to lower-n states, where QED effects are larger but FNS and strong-interaction corrections reappear, changing the balance of the measurement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the PAX experiment at CERN's ELENA ring, which would use a large-area transition-edge-sensor (TES) microcalorimeter to measure x-ray transitions between circular Rydberg states in antiprotonic atoms formed in gaseous targets. The central claim is that such measurements can reach 10^{-5} to 10^{-6} relative accuracy, roughly two orders of magnitude better than earlier germanium-detector experiments, and that this would isolate second-order QED effects because in these systems the finite-nuclear-size (FNS) corrections are smaller than the second-order QED contributions. The manuscript presents a theoretical comparison (Tables 1 and 2) based on the MCDFGME code and the authors' earlier treatment in Ref. [11], a simulated TES spectrum showing fine-structure resolution, a detector and beam-line design, a proof-of-principle 'waterfall' extraction measurement at ELENA, and a discussion of gas-target cascade considerations. The paper contains no measured QED result; it is an experimental proposal with preliminary simulations and one beam-dynamics demonstration.

Significance. If the claimed accuracy and the theoretical error budget can be substantiated, PAX would address a genuinely important problem: strong-field bound-state QED in the strongest-field atomic systems producible in the laboratory. The comparison in Table 1 is illustrative and useful: for antiprotonic Xe the second-order QED contribution is larger than the FNS contribution, in contrast to H-like uranium, so a sub-eV measurement could, in principle, isolate second-order QED. The paper also benefits from concrete positive elements: a proof-of-principle demonstration of the novel waterfall extraction at ELENA, a simulated TES spectrum showing that fine-structure and parallel transitions are resolvable in principle, and explicit references to the detector-development and muonic-atom literature. However, the central accuracy claim is currently unsupported: the calibration plan uses only two calibration lines, no detector nonlinearity characterization or energy-scale systematic budget is given, and the theoretical transition energies in Tables 1 and 2 are quoted without uncertainties.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Fig. 2] The 10^{-5}–10^{-6} relative accuracy claim is the load-bearing enabler for isolating second-order QED, but the calibration scheme in Section 3 and Fig. 2 is insufficient to support it. The only calibration lines cited are the 57Co gamma rays at 122.06065(12) keV and 136.47356(29) keV; for the key 40Ar 6h→5g transition at 97.002 keV, the nearest reference point is about 25 keV away, and the next is about 39 keV away. Two widely spaced lines cannot constrain a microcalorimeter's integral nonlinearity to the 0.1–1 eV level over the 50–250 keV range, especially without a measurement of the detector's nonlinear response, a dense calibration source, or a systematic error budget for the energy scale. The manuscript needs an explicit calibration strategy with demonstrated residuals, not just an assumed 'proper calibration scheme.'
  2. [Section 2, Tables 1 and 2] The theoretical transition energies in Tables 1 and 2 are presented as single numbers with no uncertainty budget. The text says the values come from MCDFGME calculations and the QED treatment of Ref. [11], but it does not quantify uncalculated contributions such as higher-order vacuum-polarization terms, mixed self-energy/vacuum-polarization corrections, nuclear polarization, antiproton finite-size effects, or numerical convergence errors. Since the experimental goal is sub-eV accuracy and the second-order QED contributions in Table 2 are only 1.0–9.3 eV, the theoretical predictions need an accompanying error estimate that is at least as small as the intended experimental uncertainty; otherwise the proposed 'QED-focused' test is not well defined.
  3. [Sections 1.1 and 3 (gas-target cascade)] The final physics program relies on mbar-range gaseous targets, with the statement that gas targets minimize electron refilling and reduce uncertainties [13], but the paper provides no quantitative cascade or atomic-physics simulation. In particular, there is no estimate of the population of high-n circular states, the possible role of Stark mixing or collision-induced transitions in the gas cell, or the resulting line-shape and centroid systematics. These are necessary to establish that the targeted circular Rydberg transitions can be observed with the claimed accuracy and that the extracted line energies are unperturbed by the cascade environment.
  4. [Section 4] The waterfall-extraction proof-of-principle demonstrates that microbunches can be delivered to the experimental zone, but it does not quantify the intensity per microbunch, the reduction factor relative to the standard 10^7-antiproton bunch, or the timing stability. The Geant4 pile-up study is said to require at least a factor-of-100 rate reduction, yet the displayed measurement shows only relative counts versus time. Without a demonstrated rate reduction and a measured intensity distribution, the claim that the PAX detector will not be overwhelmed by pile-up remains an assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.1] The phrase 'in-beam detector resolution of ΔE/E = 0.04' is ambiguous because the subscript or transition specification is missing; please specify which antiprotonic transition and dataset this refers to.
  2. [Figure 1] The axis labels contain rendering artifacts such as '10□6'; these should be corrected to proper superscript notation.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5] The phrase 'up to two orders of magnitude improved accuracy over previous studies' should be stated quantitatively with a specific reference baseline and a specific accuracy metric, rather than a factor alone.
  4. [Section 2] The sign convention for the first-order QED values in Table 1 differs between the antiprotonic and electronic columns; a sentence defining the sign convention (e.g., attractive vs repulsive vacuum-polarization contribution) would prevent misinterpretation.
  5. [References] Reference [11] is the source of the QED treatment and is appropriately cited, but the text should make clear which QED contributions are already implemented in that reference and which are 'being adapted'; as written, the reader cannot tell which entries in Tables 1 and 2 include which terms.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the theoretical transition energies are independent QED calculations, and the experimental accuracy claim is a falsifiable proposal rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative inputs are the theoretical transition energies in Tables 1 and 2, computed with the MCDFGME code and the QED treatment of Ref. [11]. Although Ref. [11] shares authors with the present proposal, the paper does not fit these values to any PAX measurement or to the detector calibration; they are parameter-free bound-state QED predictions. The load-bearing physical assertion is that finite nuclear size contributions are smaller than second-order QED contributions in high-n antiprotonic Rydberg transitions, e.g., 1.1 eV versus 5.2 eV for 40Ar. This is a magnitude comparison obtained from independent calculations, not a definition or a fit. The experimental claim that a sub-eV measurement would isolate second-order QED is a falsifiable projection; its feasibility depends on detector resolution and calibration, which the paper presents as a plan with stated assumptions rather than as a completed derivation. The unsupported 10^-5 to 10^-6 accuracy estimate is a correctness and feasibility risk, not a circularity. Self-citations to the group's own MCDFGME code, the antiprotonic QED paper, and prior muonic-atom TES work are contextual; none of them is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or used to define the predicted quantity in terms of the measurement. No equation in the paper reduces a predicted output to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces, so the invented_entities ledger is empty. The free parameters are mostly inherited from prior nuclear data and the MCDFGME calculation; the real cost of the proposal is the assumption that the QED calculations in Ref. [11] are accurate enough at the 10^-5 level and that the cascade behavior in gas targets is as benign as cited.

free parameters (2)
  • per-element nuclear charge density parameters = not given
    The nuclear charge distribution in Figure 1 and the FNS corrections in Tables 1 and 2 come from previous electron scattering experiments [12]; the paper uses these as input, but no values or uncertainties are listed in this paper.
  • global energy scale of simulated TES spectra = not given
    Figure 2 is a theoretical spectrum simulation with the TES resolution assumed at 50 eV, and Ge resolution at 1.03 keV from a 1977 reference; the simulation parameters are not detailed.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption MCDFGME code produces accurate bound-state energies for antiprotonic atoms including QED corrections.
    Theoretical values in Tables 1 and 2 are stated to come from MCDFGME [32-35] and Ref. [11], but the accuracy of the QED treatment for antiprotonic systems is not demonstrated in this paper.
  • domain assumption QED scaling from Ref. [11]: antiprotonic Rydberg transitions have first- and second-order QED contributions enhanced relative to electronic systems, and FNS corrections suppressed.
    Used in the abstract and Section 1.1, Table 1, to argue that second-order QED becomes accessible. The paper refers to Ref. [11] for details rather than deriving it here.
  • domain assumption Gaseous targets minimize electron refilling and spectral complexity.
    Section 1.1 states this and cites [13]; no cascade model or quantitative estimate is provided in this paper, yet the whole gas-target strategy depends on it.
  • standard math Standard QED perturbation theory in the Coulomb field of the antiproton-nucleus system is valid at these field strengths.
    The whole comparison of first- and second-order QED corrections assumes the standard bound-state QED expansion; the paper does not question this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Precision Spectroscopy of Antiprotonic Atoms for Probing Strong-field QED." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B4XMG3PK

@misc{pith2026250108893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Precision Spectroscopy of Antiprotonic Atoms for Probing Strong-field QED},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B4XMG3PK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08893}
}
read the original abstract

PAX (antiProtonic Atom X-ray spectroscopy) is a new experiment with the aim to test strong-field quantum electrodynamics (QED) effects by performing high-precision x-ray spectroscopy of antiprotonic atoms. By utilizing advanced microcalorimeter detection techniques and a low-energy antiproton beam provided by the ELENA ring at CERN, gaseous targets will be used for the creation of antiprotonic atoms, and the measurement of transitions between circular Rydberg states will be conducted with up to two orders of magnitude improved accuracy over previous studies using high-purity germanium detectors. Our approach eliminates the longstanding issue of nuclear uncertainties that have hindered prior studies using highly charged ions, thus enabling direct and purely QED-focused measurements. By precisely probing atomic systems with electric fields up to two orders of magnitude above the Schwinger limit, PAX will test vacuum polarization and second-order QED corrections, opening new frontiers in fundamental physics and uncovering potential pathways to physics beyond the Standard Model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The radial part of selected electronic (blue) and antiprotonic (red) wavefunctions (large component) in 40Ar are shown. The dashed line represents the nuclear charge distribution, with parameters obtained from previous electron scattering experiments [12], and has been normalized for visualization purposes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Theoretical spectrum of antiprotonic 40Zr x rays. The black and red lines represents the expected measurement when performed with a TES (50 eV resolution) and a Ge detector (1.03 keV resolution at 123 keV [30]), respectively, of antiprotonic x rays. The better resolution of a TES allows for the identification of the fine structure splittings in the (𝑛 = 9, 𝑙 = 8) → (𝑛 = 8, 𝑙 = 7) transitions, as well as observing pa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the experimental setup for the PAX test beam for solid targets. (Left) The z-axis depicts the vertical. 100 keV antiprotons arrive along the z direction onto solid targets attached to a ladder. The target holder is connected to a motion feedthrought assembly made of a 20 cm stroke linear translator along with a rotary feedthrough, allowing a 45 degrees orientation of the target with respect to the z-x pl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Renderings of the absorber array of one PAX microsnout (Left) and single-pixel (Right) are shown. The chip holding the absorber array is 2 cm × 2 cm. The Sn absorber is drawn in light grey, and the Mo readout wires are in blue. The dark grey and yellow correspond to Si…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) Waterfall acquisition of the longitudinal beam profile evolution in ELENA at extraction energy during proof-of-principle tests for creating a low-intensity bunch: A single bunch is partially de￾bunched and then rebunched at the revolution frequency harmonic 2. T…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Antiprotonic atoms with nonperturbative inclusion of vacuum polarization and finite nuclear mass

    physics.atom-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Energy levels for l > 1 states of antiprotonic atoms are computed to order (Z alpha)^6 with nonperturbative vacuum polarization, giving the most accurate theoretical transition energies to date.

  2. Hydrogenic rotational levels with spin-0 or spin-1/2 constituent particles

    physics.atom-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5 of 10

    NRQED with nonperturbative vacuum polarization supplies controlled, mass-exact energy levels for L>1 states of muonic, kaonic and antiprotonic atoms, with clear paths to two-order accuracy gains for nuclear-property e...

  3. Precision Spectroscopy of Antiprotonic Atoms for Investigation of Low-energy Antinucleon-nucleus Interactions

    nucl-ex 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The authors propose using a TES microcalorimeter and calcium isotopes with well-known nucleon densities to measure the isovector part of the antiproton-nucleus optical potential.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [11]

    N.Paul,G.Bian,T.Azuma,S.Okada,andP.Indelicato,PhysicalReviewLetters 126,173001 (2021), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.173001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.173001 2021

  2. [13]

    Gotta, K

    D. Gotta, K. Rashid, B. Fricke, P. Indelicato, and L. M. Simons, The European Physical Journal D - Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics47, 11 (2008), URL http: //doi.org/10.1140/epjd/e2008-00025-3

    work page doi:10.1140/epjd/e2008-00025-3 2008

  3. [1]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025008 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.90.025008. 8 Towards Precision Spectroscopy of Antiprotonic Atoms for Probing Strong-field QED

    work page 2018

  4. [2]

    Abgrall, etal., Physical ReviewLetters110, 230801(2013), URLhttp: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.230801

    A.Matveev, C.G.Parthey, K.Predehl, J.Alnis, A.Beyer, R.Holzwarth, T.Udem, T.Wilken, N.Kolachevsky, M. Abgrall, etal., Physical ReviewLetters110, 230801(2013), URLhttp: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.230801

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.230801 2013

  5. [3]

    Fleurbaey, S

    H. Fleurbaey, S. Galtier, S. Thomas, M. Bonnaud, L. Julien, F. Biraben, F. Nez, M. Abgrall, and J. Guéna, Physical Review Letters120, 183001 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.183001

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.183001 2018

  6. [4]

    P.Indelicato,JournalofPhysicsB:Atomic,MolecularandOpticalPhysics 52,232001(2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6455/ab42c9

    doi:10.1088/1361-6455/ab42c9 2019

  7. [5]

    Machado, N

    J. Machado, N. Paul, G. Soum-Sidikov, L. Duval, S. Macé, R. Loetzsch, M. Trassinelli, and P. Indelicato, Phys. Rev. A107, 032821 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.107.032821

    work page 2023

  8. [6]

    Duval, E

    L. Duval, E. Lamour, S. Macé, J. Machado, M. Maxton, N. Paul, C. Prigent, M. Trassinelli, and P. Indelicato, The European Physical Journal D78, 116 (2024), ISSN 1434-6079, URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjd/s10053-024-00910-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epjd/s10053-024-00910-x 2024

Show all 45 references
  1. [7]

    Trotsenko, A

    S. Trotsenko, A. Kumar, A. V. Volotka, D. Banaś, H. F. Beyer, H. Bräuning, S. Fritzsche, A. Gumberidze, S. Hagmann, S. Hess, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 033001 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.033001

    2010 doi

  2. [8]

    Gumberidze, T

    A. Gumberidze, T. Stöhlker, D. Banaś, K. Beckert, P. Beller, H. F. Beyer, F. Bosch, X. Cai, S.Hagmann,C.Kozhuharov,etal.,JournalofPhysics: ConferenceSeries 58,87(2007),URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/58/1/013

    2007 doi

  3. [9]

    Loetzsch, H

    R. Loetzsch, H. F. Beyer, L. Duval, U. Spillmann, D. Banaś, P. Dergham, F. M. Kröger, J. Glorius, R. E. Grisenti, M. Guerra, et al., Nature625, 673 (2024), ISSN 1476-4687, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06910-y

    2024 doi

  4. [10]

    Kozhuharov, D

    A.Gumberidze,T.Stöhlker,D.Banaś,K.Beckert,P.Beller,H.F.Beyer,F.Bosch,S.Hagmann, C. Kozhuharov, D. Liesen, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 223001 (2005), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.223001

    2005 doi

  5. [12]

    De Vries, C

    H. De Vries, C. De Jager, and C. De Vries, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables36, 495 (1987), ISSN 0092-640X, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0092640X87900131

    1987

  6. [14]

    Kreissl, A

    A. Kreissl, A. D. Hancock, H. Koch, T. Köhler, H. Poth, U. Raich, D. Rohmann, a. Wolf, L. Tauscher, A. Nilsson, et al., Zeitschrift für Physik C Particles and Fields37, 557 (1988), ISSN 1431-5858, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF01549714. 9 Towards Precision Spectroscopy of Antip...

    1988 doi

  7. [15]

    Kreissl, A

    A. Kreissl, A. D. Hancock, H. Koch, T. Köhler, H. Poth, U. Raich, D. Rohmann, A. Wolf, L.Tauscher, A. Nilsson, etal., Zeitschriftfür PhysikAAtomic Nuclei329, 235(1988), ISSN 0939-7922, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF01283780

    1988 doi

  8. [16]

    Poth, and D

    H.Daniel,F.J.Hartmann,W.Kanert,H.Plendl,T.vonEgidy,J.J.Reidy,H.Koch,A.Kreissl, H. Poth, and D. Rohmann, Zeitschrift für Physik A Atomic Nuclei326, 523 (1987), ISSN 0939-7922, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF01289558

    1987 doi

  9. [17]

    Redmond, H

    S.Wycech,F.Hartmann,H.Daniel,W.Kanert,H.Plendl,T.vonEgidy,J.Reidy,M.Nicholas, L. Redmond, H. Koch, et al., Nuclear Physics A561, 607 (1993), ISSN 0375-9474, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0375947493900689

    1993

  10. [18]

    org/10.1007/BF00567270

    L.M.Simons,HyperfineInteractions 81,253(1993),ISSN1572-9540,URL https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00567270

    1993 doi

  11. [19]

    Ohayon, A

    B. Ohayon, A. Abeln, S. Bara, T. E. Cocolios, O. Eizenberg, A. Fleischmann, L. Gastaldo, C. Godinho, M. Heines, D. Hengstler, et al., Physics6, 206 (2024), ISSN 2624-8174, URL https://www.mdpi.com/2624-8174/6/1/15

    2024

  12. [20]

    Unger, A

    D. Unger, A. Abeln, T. E. Cocolios, O. Eizenberg, C. Enss, A. Fleischmann, L. Gastaldo, C. Godinho, M. Heines, D. Hengstler, et al., Journal of Low Temperature Physics216, 344 (2024), ISSN 1573-7357, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-024-03141-x

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Okada, T

    S. Okada, T. Azuma, D. A. Bennett, P. Caradonna, W. B. Doriese, M. S. Durkin, J. W. Fowler, J. D. Gard, T. Hashimoto, R. Hayakawa, et al., Journal of Low Temperature Physics 200, 445–451 (2020), URL http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/ s10909-020-02476-5

    2020

  14. [22]

    Okumura, T

    T. Okumura, T. Azuma, D. A. Bennett, P. Caradonna, I. Chiu, W. B. Doriese, M. S. Durkin, J. W. Fowler, J. D. Gard, T. Hashimoto, et al., Physical Review Letters127, 053001 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.053001

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Okumura, T

    T. Okumura, T. Azuma, D. A. Bennett, I. Chiu, W. B. Doriese, M. S. Durkin, J. W. Fowler, J. D. Gard, T. Hashimoto, R. Hayakawa, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 173001 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.173001

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Okumura, T

    T. Okumura, T. Azuma, D. A. Bennett, W. B. Doriese, M. S. Durkin, J. W. Fowler, J. D. Gard, T. Hashimoto, R. Hayakawa, Y. Ichinohe, et al. (2024),2407.07977, URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2407.07977

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    T. Y. Saito, S. Okada, Y. Toyama, T. Azuma, G. Baptista, D. T. Becker, D. Bennett, W. B. Doriese, J. Fowler, J. D. Gard, et al., IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity pp. 1–5 (2025), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1109/TASC.2024.3525445

    2025

  18. [26]

    J. N. Ullom and D. A. Bennett, Superconductor Science and Technology28, 084003 (2015), ISSN0953-20481361-6668,URL http://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/28/8/084003. 10 Towards Precision Spectroscopy of Antiprotonic Atoms for Probing Strong-field QED

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    W. B. Doriese, P. Abbamonte, B. K. Alpert, D. A. Bennett, E. V. Denison, Y. Fang, D. A. Fischer, C. P. Fitzgerald, J. W. Fowler, J. D. Gard, et al., Review of Scientific Instruments88, 053108 (2017), ISSN 0034-6748, URLhttp://doi.org/10.1063/1.4983316

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    C. Pies, S. Schäfer, S. Heuser, S. Kempf, A. Pabinger, J. P. Porst, P. Ranitsch, N. Foerster, D. Hengstler, A. Kampkötter, et al., Journal of Low Temperature Physics167, 269 (2012), ISSN 0022-2291, URLhttp://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-012-0557-z

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    Fleischmann, C

    A. Fleischmann, C. Enss, and G. Seidel,Metallic Magnetic Calorimeters(Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Berlin,Heidelberg,2005),pp.151–216,ISBN978-3-540-31478-3,URL https: //doi.org/10.1007/10933596_4

    2005 doi

  22. [30]

    Roberson, T

    P. Roberson, T. King, R. Kunselman, J. Miller, R. J. Powers, P. D. Barnes, R. A. Eisenstein, R. B. Sutton, W. C. Lam, C. R. Cox, et al., Phys. Rev. C16, 1945 (1977), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.16.1945

    1977 doi

  23. [31]

    R. G. Helmer and C. van der Leun, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment450, 35 (2000), ISSN 0168-9002, URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0168900200002527

    2000

  24. [32]

    J.Desclaux,ComputerPhysicsCommunications 9,31(1975),ISSN0010-4655,URL https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010465575900545

    1975

  25. [33]

    Indelicato and J

    P. Indelicato and J. P. Desclaux, Phys. Rev. A42, 5139 (1990), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.42.5139

    1990 doi

  26. [34]

    Indelicato and J.-P

    P. Indelicato and J.-P. Desclaux,Mcdfgme, a multiconfiguration dirac fock and general ma- trixelementsprogram(release2005) (2005),URL http://dirac.spectro.jussieu.fr/ mcdf

    2005

  27. [35]

    Indelicato, Phys

    P. Indelicato, Phys. Rev. A87, 022501 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.87.022501

    2013

  28. [36]

    Nordlund, M

    K. Nordlund, M. Hori, and D. Sundholm, Physical Review A106, 012803 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.012803

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    B. M. Latacz, B. P. Arndt, J. A. Devlin, S. R. Erlewein, M. Fleck, J. I. Jäger, P. Micke, G. Umbrazunas, E. Wursten, F. Abbass, et al., Review of Scientific Instruments94, 103310 (2023), ISSN 0034-6748, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0167262

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    J.A.B.Mates,G.C.Hilton,K.D.Irwin,L.R.Vale,andK.W.Lehnert,AppliedPhysicsLetters 92,023514(2008),URL https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.2803852

    2008 doi

  31. [39]

    11 Towards Precision Spectroscopy of Antiprotonic Atoms for Probing Strong-field QED

    S.Kempf,L.Gastaldo,A.Fleischmann,andC.Enss,JournalofLowTemperaturePhysics 175, 850 (2014), ISSN 1573-7357, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10909-014-1153-1. 11 Towards Precision Spectroscopy of Antiprotonic Atoms for Probing Strong-field QED

    2014 doi

  32. [40]

    J. A. B. Mates, D. T. Becker, D. A. Bennett, B. J. Dober, J. D. Gard, J. P. Hays-Wehle, J. W. Fowler, G. C. Hilton, C. D. Reintsema, D. R. Schmidt, et al., Applied Physics Letters111, 062601 (2017), URLhttps://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4986222

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, P. Arce, M. Asai, T. Aso, E. Bagli, A. Bagulya, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 835, 186 (2016), ISSN 0168-9002...

    2016

  34. [42]

    Allison, K

    J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce Dubois, M. Asai, G. Barrand, R. Capra, S. Chauvie, R. Chytracek, et al., IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science53, 270 (2006), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.2006.869826

    2006

  35. [43]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 506, 250 (2003), ISSN 016...

    2003

  36. [44]

    Obertelli, Report, CERN (2018), URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2622466

    A. Obertelli, Report, CERN (2018), URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2622466

    2018

  37. [45]

    Aumann, W

    T. Aumann, W. Bartmann, O. Boine-Frankenheim, A. Bouvard, A. Broche, F. Butin, D. Calvet, J. Carbonell, P. Chiggiato, H. De Gersem, et al., The European Physical Journal A 58, 88 (2022), ISSN 1434-601X, URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/ s10050-022-00713-x. 12

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.