Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 32 references

An analytic model for description of muonic oxygen X-ray time distribution in muonic experiments

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An analytic model of muonic hydrogen kinetics reproduces the measured muonic oxygen X-ray time distribution after about 150 ns, and pinpoints a minimum-uncertainty time window for experiment planning.

desk verdict A useful but not decisive modeling paper: the per-parameter uncertainty budget and the time-of-minimum-RSD idea are genuinely practical, but the validation leans on the same experiment that fixed the initial condition and on amplitude normalization. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19035 v1 pith:BCAYPQBK submitted 2025-04-26 physics.atom-ph

P. Danev , I. Boradjiev , H. Tonchev This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords muonichydrogenmuontransferoxygenX-raytimedistributionkinetic-energyhyperfinespinstatesMonteCarlouncertaintypropagationrelativestandarddeviation
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 proposes a master-equation model for the time evolution of muonic hydrogen atoms in a hydrogen–oxygen gas mixture, tracking both kinetic energy and hyperfine spin state. The paper's goal is to establish that, with measured input rates, this model reproduces the observed time distribution of muonic oxygen X-ray emission for times above roughly 150 ns. It also identifies the relative standard deviation of the predicted muon transfer rate as a time-dependent quantity with a distinct minimum, usable for experiment planning and calibration. The stakes are practical: high-precision muonic hydrogen spectroscopy depends on knowing when muons transfer to heavier nuclei such as oxygen, and a validated forward model separates reliable predictions from the regime where the input rates are uncertain.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $2n$-dimensional state vector $N(E_i,F_\alpha,t)$ of muonic hydrogen populations over kinetic-energy bins and the singlet/triplet hyperfine states, evolved by the rate-matrix exponential $N(t)=e^{Lt}N(0)$. The matrix $L=L_d+L_s$ splits into a diagonal part describing muon decay, $\mathrm{pp}\mu$ and $\mathrm{d}\mu$ formation, and muon transfer to oxygen, and a dense part describing elastic and inelastic scattering of muonic hydrogen on hydrogen molecules, including spin-flip transitions. The observable is the muon transfer rate $dN_{\mathrm{p}\mu\to\mathrm{O}\mu}/dt=\varphi c_{\mathrm{O}}\mathbf{1}^T\Lambda_{\mathrm{pO}}N(t)$, equated with the X-ray emission rate because muonic oxygen de-excites within about $10^{-13}$ s. The machinery also includes Monte Carlo sampling of parameter uncertainties and the estimator $\mathrm{RSD}(X;t)=\sigma/\mu$ for the relative standard deviation of the transfer rate at each time bin.

What would settle it

Measure the muonic oxygen X-ray time profile with high time resolution in the first 100 ns after muon stop in an H2+O2 mixture at the same pressure and temperature as the reference experiment, and compare the early-time slope with the model's prediction under both uncertainty scenarios; a slope outside the conservative 1$\sigma$ band would rule out the current high-energy extrapolation or the 40%-at-20-eV initial distribution. A direct measurement of the muon transfer rate as a function of collision energy above 0.1 eV during the pre-thermalization stage would settle the same question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the time-dependent muonic hydrogen population, discretized over $n$ kinetic-energy bins and the two hyperfine spin states $F=0,1$, can be evolved by the exponential of a rate matrix, $N(t)=e^{Lt}N(0)$, and that the muonic oxygen X-ray emission rate, taken as proportional to the muon-transfer rate $dN_{\mathrm{p}\mu\to\mathrm{O}\mu}/dt=\varphi c_{\mathrm{O}}\,\mathbf{1}^T\Lambda_{\mathrm{pO}}N(t)$, matches the experimental data for $t\gtrsim 150$ ns. Monte Carlo propagation of uncertainties in physical constants, gas pressure and temperature, oxygen concentration, the initial two-component energy distribution, and the transfer rate $\lambda_{\mathrm{pO}}(E)$ yields a relative standard deviation of the predicted transfer rate that has a well-defined time minimum. The paper concludes that the model provides a realistic description of processes involving muonic hydrogen, and that the discrepancy in the first hundred nanoseconds suggests the energy-dependent transfer rate $\lambda_{\mathrm{pO}}(E)$ for $E>0.1$ eV could be higher than currently assumed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the energy-dependent muon transfer rate from muonic hydrogen to oxygen, measured only up to about 0.1 eV, can be extrapolated with a guessed uncertainty to the roughly 20 eV atoms in the initial distribution; if that extrapolation is wrong, the early-time X-ray prediction fails, as the observed discrepancy suggests.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For experiments on muonic hydrogen, the model gives a reliable forward prediction of the muonic oxygen X-ray event rate for times after about 150 ns, where it matches the measured data.
  • The time of minimum relative standard deviation, $t_0$, can serve as a benchmark for comparing simulations with experiment and for calibration, because parameter uncertainties have least leverage there.
  • The uncertainty budget identifies pressure, temperature, oxygen concentration, the initial high-energy fraction, and the transfer rate $\lambda_{\mathrm{pO}}(E)$ as the dominant error sources, so these are the quantities to control most tightly in future measurements.
  • Under the conservative uncertainty scenario for $\lambda_{\mathrm{pO}}(E)$ above 0.1 eV, all experimental points lie inside or close to the 1$\sigma$ band, indicating that the stated uncertainties are realistic.
  • The minimum-uncertainty time shifts with gas pressure, from about 500 ns at 5 bar to about 150 ns at 20 bar, which can be exploited when choosing observation conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the high-energy transfer rate $\lambda_{\mathrm{pO}}(E>0.1\,\mathrm{eV})$ is indeed higher than the current extrapolation, then the two-component initial distribution that puts 40% of atoms near 20 eV would have to be revisited, and the first roughly 100 ns of the X-ray profile becomes a direct probe of that rate.
  • The same rate-matrix construction could be adapted to other acceptor molecules, such as sulfur compounds, or extended to include muonic hydrogen diffusion, connecting the model to the broader program of muonic atom spectroscopy.
  • A pressure scan would provide a clean test of the model: the predicted shift of the minimum-uncertainty time from about 500 ns at 5 bar to about 150 ns at 20 bar is a signature that could be checked with existing experimental setups.
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 paper proposes an analytic model, implemented numerically, for the time distribution of muonic oxygen X-ray emission following muon transfer from muonic hydrogen to oxygen in a H2+O2 gas mixture. The model represents the muonic hydrogen state by kinetic-energy bins and hyperfine spin states, and evolves it through a master equation that includes muon decay, nuclear capture, ppμ and dμ formation, elastic and inelastic scattering, and the energy-dependent transfer rate to oxygen. Uncertainties in physical constants, experimental parameters, the initial kinetic-energy distribution, and the transfer rate λ_pO(E) are propagated through Monte Carlo runs, and the relative standard deviation (RSD) of the transfer rate is studied as a function of time. The simulations are compared with the Werthmüller et al. data [15], showing good agreement for times above roughly 150 ns, a discrepancy at early times, and a time-dependent RSD that exhibits a minimum, proposed as a useful benchmark for experiment planning and calibration.

Significance. If the model is correct, it provides a useful forward-simulation tool for muonic hydrogen experiments, with a quantitative uncertainty budget and a practical criterion (the time of minimum RSD) for comparing experiments and simulations. The master-equation framework is transparent, and the Monte Carlo uncertainty propagation is careful, with convergence checks (Fig. 1) and scaling tests (Fig. 6). The use of independently published scattering rates [19] and the recent transfer-rate determination [18] is a strength. However, the validation against experimental data is weakened by amplitude normalization and by the use of an initial distribution tied to the same experiment, and the unexplained early-time discrepancy limits the strength of the central claim that the model provides a realistic description.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI, Fig. 9] The validation is not fully independent. The simulated curves are vertically normalized to the data at t = 170 ns (or 110 ns) to remove the unknown overall scaling, and the initial two-component energy distribution is taken from the same experiment [15] used for comparison (with κ from [26]). Therefore, the agreement for t > 150 ns tests only the shape of the late-time tail, not the absolute predictive power of the model. The paper should either present an absolute prediction using independently known detector efficiencies and initial muon stopping distribution, or explicitly state that the comparison is a shape test and that the initial-condition dependence is an inherited limitation. As written, the claim of 'verification against available experimental data' in the abstract and Section VI is overstated.
  2. [Section VI, Fig. 9] The early-time discrepancy (t < 100 ns) is left unresolved. The paper speculates that λ_pO(E) for E > 0.1 eV could be higher than currently assumed, but provides no quantitative sensitivity study to support this claim. This regime is precisely where the model relies on the assumed high-energy fraction κ = 0.4 at ~20 eV and on an extrapolated transfer rate, so the discrepancy could stem from either the initial distribution or the rate. The conclusion should be qualified to the thermalized regime unless the authors add a test that varies λ_pO(E) at high energies and shows the data can be matched within a reasonable uncertainty band.
  3. [Section III.H, Section VI] The assumption λ_1_pO = λ_0_pO (triplet and singlet transfer rates equal) is stated without justification and is said to affect only the first few tens of nanoseconds. This is exactly the time window where the model disagrees with data. The authors should either provide a quantitative estimate of the effect of this approximation on the early-time curve or relax the assumption and show the resulting uncertainty band.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (7)] The notation RSD(X) is used without explicitly listing all arguments in every equation; e.g., in Eq. (9) the dependence on {X} is clear, but in the text 'RSD(λ_pO)' sometimes refers to the uncertainty scenario and sometimes to the time-dependent curve. The notation could be made consistent.
  2. [Section III.D] The uncertainty in the high-energy component energy is given as E_0^high = (20 ± 2) eV in Fig. 4, but in the text it is introduced as ΔE_0^high = 2 eV, 'approximately matching the width of an energy bin.' This is a heuristic choice; a brief justification or a sensitivity test would strengthen the presentation.
  3. [Section V, Fig. 2] The RSD for λ_pO is reported to exceed 70% by t = 1000 ns, but the middle panels of Fig. 5 show the mean rate on a logarithmic scale without error bars on the data; adding the experimental uncertainties to Fig. 9 would help the reader judge the agreement.
  4. [General] There are several typos and spacing inconsistencies in the text and equations (e.g., 'tim e' in the title, 'pannels' in Section V.D, 'distibution' in Section III.H). A careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Validation is partly circular: the initial two-component distribution is inherited from the same [15] dataset used for comparison, and the simulated amplitude is normalized at t=170 ns.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI, scaling-factor definition (paragraph after Fig. 9 discussion)]
    "This scaling factor is determined by matching the average value of dNO/dt from the simulation to the experimental data fit at t=170ns for λpO and at 110ns for λ′pO, as these times correspond to periods where the relative standard uncertainty in the muon transfer event rate is approximately minimal."

    The simulated X-ray rate is vertically fitted to the experimental data at one time point before the agreement is displayed. Because Eq. (5) identifies dNO/dt with the measured X-ray rate up to an unspecified scale, normalizing at t=170 ns removes the absolute normalization from the comparison. The reported late-time agreement (t>150 ns) therefore tests only the shape of dNO/dt after a one-point fit, not the model's absolute predictive power. The model's predictive content is reduced to the temporal slope in the region away from the normalization point.

  2. other [Section III.D (initial distribution) and Section VI (validation against [15])]
    "we adopt the 'Two Component Model', proposed in [15]"

    The initial kinetic-energy distribution is a load-bearing input of the master equation (Eq. (1)) and is taken from the same Werthmüller [15] experiment whose data are used in Fig. 9 for validation. Since the two-component model was itself proposed in [15] to describe those data, the comparison does not provide an independent test of the model: the initial condition is not derived from first principles but inherited from the very dataset used as the benchmark. The early-time disagreement (t<100 ns) is the only region not obscured by this shared input, and the paper leaves it unresolved.

full rationale

The central derivation—the master-equation evolution of the muonic hydrogen energy and spin distribution, with scattering rates from Adamczak [19] and the energy-dependent transfer rate from Stoilov et al. [18]—is a self-contained forward simulation. The Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis is also independent of the validation data. The circularity is confined to the validation step: the initial two-component distribution is taken from [15], the same experiment whose data are plotted for comparison, and the simulated amplitude is normalized at one experimental time point. These choices weaken the claim that the late-time agreement confirms the model's predictive power; they do not make the master-equation derivation tautological. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, and the model's shape prediction retains independent content. Hence a score of 4, not higher.

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

The model's novelty lies in the master-equation evolution and uncertainty propagation, but the physics content is almost entirely supplied by prior references: scattering rates, transfer rate, initial energy distribution. The only fitted quantity in the validation is the overall amplitude.

free parameters (3)
  • κ (high-energy fraction) = 0.4 ± 0.1
    Chosen from prior work [26] to approximate the two-component initial energy distribution; strongly influences early-time transfer rate and its uncertainty.
  • E_high (initial high-energy component energy) = 20 ± 2 eV
    Adopted from the two-component model [15,26]; affects the early-time shape before thermalization.
  • Normalization scaling factor A = not reported in paper (matched at t=170 ns moderate, 110 ns conservative)
    Used in Section VI to match simulated rate to experimental event counts; its value is data-dependent and not predicted.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Initial pμ distribution is a two-component model: 40% at 20 eV, 60% Maxwellian.
    Equation (1) starts from this distribution; if wrong, early-time predictions change.
  • domain assumption Triplet and singlet transfer rates to oxygen are equal.
    Section III H sets λ^1_pO = λ^0_pO; the paper states it may deviate in the first tens of nanoseconds.
  • domain assumption Oxygen molecules follow a Maxwellian distribution and remain time-independent during thermalization.
    Used in Eq. (6) to average the transfer rate; the paper acknowledges it is an approximation.
  • domain assumption X-ray emission is instantaneous relative to muon transfer.
    Eq. (5) equates X-ray rate with transfer rate, justified by the 10^-13 s X-ray timescale.
  • domain assumption The gas mixture obeys the ideal gas law.
    Section III C uses φ(P/T) ≈ 0.3408 P/T; the paper quotes deviations under 1%.
  • domain assumption Adamczak's scattering rates at 300 K are accurate for this experiment.
    Section III G takes λ_ij^{αβ} from [19] without independent verification; the gas temperature in the experiment is 297.15 K.
  • domain assumption The transfer rate λ_pO(E) from Stoilov et al. [18] is correct for E ≤ 0.1 eV and its uncertainty can be extrapolated above that.
    Section III H and the discrepancy analysis in Section VI depend on this input; the paper itself questions the high-energy part.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An analytic model for description of muonic oxygen X-ray time distribution in muonic experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BCAYPQBK

@misc{pith2026250419035,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An analytic model for description of muonic oxygen X-ray time distribution in muonic experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BCAYPQBK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19035}
}
abstract

We propose an analytical model and perform numerical simulations to study the time distribution of the characteristic muonic oxygen X-ray emission following muon transfer from muonic hydrogen to oxygen in a $H_2+O_2$ gas mixture. The model accounts for all fundamental processes that alter the kinetic energy and spin distribution of muonic hydrogen atoms. The impact of the uncertainties in various experimental parameters on the precision of the computed results is studied in detail by means of Monte Carlo method. Verification against available experimental data reveals the potential of this approach for both description and parameter optimization in planning and analysis of muonic experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19035 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Left) Distribution of the relative deviation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Relative standard deviation of muon transfer rate de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Relative standard deviation of muon transfer rate de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Relative standard deviation of muon transfer time di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The energy dependence of the muon transfer rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Relative standard deviation of the muon transfer rat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Distributions of the relative deviation of the muon t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Relative standard deviation of the muon transfer rat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Simulations of the X-ray emission event rate (solid p [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    C Pizzolotto, A Adamczak, D Bakalov et al., The F AMU experiment: muonic hydrogen high precision spectr oscopy studies, E PJ A 56 (2020) 1-15

    work page 2020

  2. [19]

    Mocchiutti et al., First F AMU observation of muon transfer from µp atoms to higher-Z elements , J INST 13 (2018) P02019

    E. Mocchiutti et al., First F AMU observation of muon transfer from µp atoms to higher-Z elements , J INST 13 (2018) P02019

    work page 2018

  3. [18]

    Danev et al., Low-energy negative muon interaction with matter , J INST, 11 (2016) 3

    P. Danev et al., Low-energy negative muon interaction with matter , J INST, 11 (2016) 3

    work page 2016

  4. [26]

    Nuber et al., Diffusion of muonic hydrogen in hydrogen gas and the measureme nt of the 1s hyperfine splitting of muonic hydrogen, SciPost Phys

    J. Nuber et al., Diffusion of muonic hydrogen in hydrogen gas and the measureme nt of the 1s hyperfine splitting of muonic hydrogen, SciPost Phys. Core 6 (2023) 057

    work page 2023

  5. [1]

    3408 × P/T , where P is in units of bars. Since the hydrogen constitutes the predominant portion of the gas mixture, and at the temperature of interest only a small portion of the gas p articles engage in inelastic scattering processes, this approximation is sufficiently accurate for our study. For the se t of the experimental parameters used in our simulat...

    work page

  6. [2]

    × 10-9 2.5 × 10-9 × 10-9 t, ns RSD(mp ) mp = (1043.927647±0.000023) × 106 eV/c2 FIG. 2. Relative standard deviation of muon transfer rate de termined by uncertainties in various physical constants us ed in the simulations, plotted as a function of time. The relative standard deviation in the muon transfer rate to oxyge n, arising from the assumptions rega...

    work page arXiv 2000

  7. [3]

    Alighanbari et al., Precise test of quantum electrodynamics and determination of fundamental constants with HD

    S. Alighanbari et al., Precise test of quantum electrodynamics and determination of fundamental constants with HD. + ions, N ature, 581, no. 7807, (2020) 152

    work page 2020

  8. [4]

    J. Ph. Karr, & J. C. J. Koelemeij, Extraction of spin-averaged rovibrational transition fre quencies in HD+ for the deter- mination of fundamental constants , M ol. Phys., 121 (2023) 17–18

    work page 2023

Show all 32 references
  1. [5]

    × 10-6 0.000010 0.000015 t, ns RSD( o) FIG. 1. (Left) Distribution of the relative deviation of the muon transfer rate to oxygen, δ(λ 0i) = [d N λ 0 O / dt(λ 0i) − dN λ 0 O / dt(µ (λ 0))]/ [dN λ 0 O / dt(µ (λ 0))], at t = 1000ns, caused by the uncertainty in λ 0, for Nrun = 10...

  2. [6]

    × 10-6 t, ns RSD(mO2 ) mO2 = (29806 ± 2) × 106 eV/c2 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0

  3. [7]

    Anderson, C.J

    E.K. Anderson, C.J. Baker, W. Bertsche et al., Observation of the effect of gravity on the motion of antimatte r, N ature 621 (2023) 716–722

    2023

  4. [8]

    × 10-6 0.000010 0.000012 0.000014 t, ns RSD(λ0) λ0 = (4.66501 ± 0.00014) × 105 s-1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 0.0012 t, ns RSD(λppμ) λppμ = (2.01 ± 0.07) × 106 s-1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015 0.0020 t, ns RSD(λ d μ) ...

  5. [9]

    Schenkel, S

    M.R. Schenkel, S. Alighanbari & S. Schiller, Laser spectroscopy of a rovibrational transition in the mol ecular hydrogen ion , N at. Phys. (2024) 383-388

    2024

  6. [10]

    R. Pohl, A. Antognini, F. Nez, et al., The size of the proton , N ature 466 (2010) 213–216

    2010

  7. [11]

    Dupays et al., Proton Zemach radius from measurements of the hyperfine split ting of hydrogen and muonic hydrogen , P RA 68, (2003) 052502

    A. Dupays et al., Proton Zemach radius from measurements of the hyperfine split ting of hydrogen and muonic hydrogen , P RA 68, (2003) 052502

    2003

  8. [12]

    Bakalov et al., Proton Zemach radius and the hyperfine splitting of the ground state of muonic hydrogen , C an

    D. Bakalov et al., Proton Zemach radius and the hyperfine splitting of the ground state of muonic hydrogen , C an. J. Phys. 83 (2005) 351-356

    2005

  9. [13]

    Volotka et al., Zemach and magnetic radius of the proton from the hyperfine spl itting in hydrogen , E ur

    A.V. Volotka et al., Zemach and magnetic radius of the proton from the hyperfine spl itting in hydrogen , E ur. Phys. J. D 33 (2005) 23-27

    2005

  10. [14]

    Friar, I

    J.L. Friar, I. Sick, Zemach moments for hydrogen and deuterium , P hys. Lett. B 579 (2004) 285-289

    2004

  11. [16]

    Antognini, F

    A. Antognini, F. Hagelstein and V. Pascalutsa, The Proton Structure in and out of Muonic Hydrogen , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. 72 (2022) 389-418

    2022

  12. [17]

    Kanda et al., Measurement of the proton Zemach radius from the hyperfine spl itting in muonic hydrogen atom , J

    S. Kanda et al., Measurement of the proton Zemach radius from the hyperfine spl itting in muonic hydrogen atom , J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1138 (2018) 012009

    2018

  13. [20]

    Werthm¨ uller A et al., Energy dependence of the charge exchange reaction from muon ic hydrogen to oxygen , H yperfine interact

    A. Werthm¨ uller A et al., Energy dependence of the charge exchange reaction from muon ic hydrogen to oxygen , H yperfine interact. 116 (1998) 1-16

    1998

  14. [21]

    Mulhauser and H

    F. Mulhauser and H. Schneuwly, Muon transfer to sulphur dioxide , J. Phys. B 26 (1993) 4307

    1993

  15. [22]

    Pizzolotto, A

    C. Pizzolotto, A. Sbrizzi, A. Adamczak, D. Bakalov et al ., Measurement of the muon transfer rate from muonic hydrogen to oxygen in the range 70-336 K , P hys. Lett. A (2021) 127401

    2021

  16. [23]

    M. Stoilov et al., Experimental determination of the energy dependence of the rate of the muon transfer reaction from muonic hydrogen to oxygen for collision energies up to 0.1 eV P hys. Rev. A 107 (2023) 032823

    2023

  17. [24]

    Adamczak, Differential cross sections for muonic atom scattering from h ydrogenic molecules, P hys

    A. Adamczak, Differential cross sections for muonic atom scattering from h ydrogenic molecules, P hys. Rev. A 74 (1996) 042718

    1996

  18. [25]

    Mocchiutti et al., First measurement of the temperature dependence of muon tra nsfer rate from muonic hydrogen atoms to oxygen , P hys

    E. Mocchiutti et al., First measurement of the temperature dependence of muon tra nsfer rate from muonic hydrogen atoms to oxygen , P hys. Lett. A 384 (2020) 126667

    2020

  19. [27]

    Danev et al., Numerical study of the ”two components” model and backgroun d effects in muonic hydrogen experiments , J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 2701 (2024) 012040

    2024

  20. [28]

    Andreev et al, Measurement of the Formation Rate of Muonic Hydrogen Molecu les, P hys

    MuCap collaboration, V.A. Andreev et al, Measurement of the Formation Rate of Muonic Hydrogen Molecu les, P hys. Rev. C 91 (2015) 055502 [arXiv:1502.00913]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Tiesinga, CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Cons tants: 2018 , J Phys Chem Ref Data 50 (2021) 033105

    E. Tiesinga, CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Cons tants: 2018 , J Phys Chem Ref Data 50 (2021) 033105

    2021

  22. [30]

    Hydrogen - Density and Specific Wei ght vs

    The Engineering ToolBox. Hydrogen - Density and Specific Wei ght vs. Temperature and Pressure (2018) [online] Available at: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/hydrogen-H2-d ensity-specific-weight-temperature-pressure-d 2044.html

    2018

  23. [31]

    V. E. Markushin, Atomic cascade in muonic hydrogen and the problem of kinetic -energy distribution in the ground state , P hys. Rev. A, 50 (1994) 1137

    1994

  24. [32]

    Measday, The nuclear physics of muon capture , P hys

    D.F. Measday, The nuclear physics of muon capture , P hys. Rep. (2001) 243-409

    2001

Pith tools

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