Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Two-Photon Optical Ramsey-Doppler Spectroscopy of Positronium and Muonium

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two-photon Ramsey-Doppler spectroscopy could improve 1S-2S measurements in positronium and muonium by more than two orders of magnitude.

desk verdict Novel Ramsey-Doppler proposal for Ps and Muonium, but the central velocity-reconstruction claim looks wrong by orders of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19872 v2 pith:B7AI6VP4 submitted 2024-11-29 physics.atom-ph hep-ex

Evans Javary , Edward Thorpe-Woods , Irene Cortinovis , Marcus Mähring , Lucas de Sousa Borges , Paolo Crivelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phhep-ex PACS 36.10.Dr32.30.Jc
keywords positroniummuoniumtwo-photonRamseyspectroscopysecond-orderDopplereffect1S-2Stransitionbound-stateQEDprecisionRydbergfieldionization
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 way to measure the 1S-2S transition in positronium and muonium far more precisely than existing experiments. The idea is to combine two-photon Ramsey spectroscopy, which narrows the line by letting the atom evolve freely between two laser zones, with a per-atom correction of the second-order Doppler shift. A position- and time-sensitive detector reconstructs each atom's velocity, so each event can be referred to the detuning the atom actually felt; this also lets the thermal velocity spread act as the frequency scan. Monte Carlo simulations predict total systematic uncertainties of about 20 kHz for positronium and 1.7 kHz for muonium, more than two orders of magnitude better than the current best measurements of these transitions.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a twice-folded Fabry-Perot cavity producing two phase-coherent standing-wave interaction regions separated by a free-evolution distance (15 mm for positronium, 10 mm for muonium). Because the 1S-2S transition is driven by two photons in a standing wave, the field phase is space-independent, so the Ramsey fringes survive. After the second zone, 2S atoms are promoted to a Rydberg state, field-ionised, and detected on a position-sensitive microchannel plate; combining the detected coordinates and time with the assumed formation parameters gives the velocity of each atom, which is used to shift every event to its own detuning. This both corrects the second-order Doppler shift and converts the thermal velocity distribution into a frequency scan. The AC Stark shift is suppressed in the Ramsey configuration because the excitation phase is accumulated mostly in the field-free region between the two interaction zones.

What would settle it

A direct test is to measure the emission-time distribution of positronium from the porous silica target with sub-10 ns resolution and of muonium with sub-100 ns resolution; if the real jitter in formation time exceeds the assumed effective values, the reconstructed velocities inherit errors larger than 0.01% for positronium and 0.02% for muonium, pushing the residual second-order Doppler systematic above the 17.4 kHz and 1.4 kHz budget and erasing the projected two-order gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that velocity-resolved two-photon Ramsey spectroscopy can extract the 1S-2S frequency from a thermal beam of short-lived leptonic atoms without scanning the laser. Reconstructing each atom's velocity from its assumed formation position and time plus its detected hit position and time removes the second-order Doppler broadening that otherwise washes out the Ramsey fringes, and the residual Doppler uncertainty is only 17.4 kHz for positronium and 1.4 kHz for muonium. The simulated central-peak fits give 79 ± 23 kHz for positronium and -20 ± 9 kHz for muonium, with combined systematic budgets of 20 kHz and 1.7 kHz respectively.

Load-bearing premise

The whole gain rests on reconstructing each atom's velocity accurately enough from its assumed formation time and position plus its detected hit time and position; if real formation-time jitter is larger than the assumed 10 ns for positronium or 100 ns for muonium, the Doppler correction degrades and the projected precision collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the simulation is right, positronium 1S-2S spectroscopy would reach a total systematic uncertainty near 20 kHz, about two orders of magnitude below the 1993 measurement and competitive with the current QED prediction uncertainty.
  • Muonium 1S-2S spectroscopy would reach about 1.7 kHz total systematics, and with a superfluid-helium source the line center could be determined to roughly 1 kHz in ten days of beamtime.
  • The AC Stark shift, normally a leading systematic in two-photon spectroscopy, drops to about 10 kHz for positronium and 0.2 kHz for muonium because the phase is acquired mostly in the laser-free region.
  • The method removes the need to scan the laser frequency: the thermal velocity spread itself provides the detuning scan, and the central fringe is identified by overlaying spectra taken at different laboratory detunings.
  • Successful implementation would provide sharper tests of bound-state QED and tighter constraints on exotic forces, dark sectors, Lorentz and CPT violation, and possible antimatter gravity effects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the same velocity-reconstruction trick should transfer to other short-lived light atoms or molecules whose formation position and time can be tagged, provided the timing jitter stays within the fractional-velocity budget.
  • Inference: if emission-time jitter from porous silica is larger than the assumed effective 10 ns for positronium or 100 ns for muonium, the projected gain collapses, so measuring that jitter directly is the most informative next experiment.
  • Inference: scanning the line by Doppler spread rather than by laser frequency shifts the systematic burden from laser-frequency control onto calibration of the reconstructed velocity scale, which may prove simpler in practice.
  • Inference: combining the scheme with one-dimensional laser cooling, as the paper notes, would multiply the signal rate; the simulation suggests this matters more for muonium, where three-dimensional cooling is impractical.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a two-photon optical Ramsey spectroscopy scheme for the 1S-2S transition in positronium and muonium, in which the second-order Doppler shift is corrected atom-by-atom using velocity information reconstructed from a position- and time-sensitive MCP detector. The authors present Monte Carlo simulations based on optical Bloch equations, including atomic decays, AC Stark shifts, photoionization, and detector smearing. They report simulated Ramsey-Doppler fringes, a systematic uncertainty budget summarized in Table 1, and fitted central-peak positions with statistical uncertainties of 79 ± 23 kHz for Ps and -20 ± 9 kHz for M. From these results they claim a potential improvement of more than two orders of magnitude over current 1S-2S measurements. A separate section discusses a superfluid-helium muonium source as an alternative that avoids per-atom velocity reconstruction.

Significance. If the projected sensitivity were realized, the experiment would represent a major step in leptonic-atom spectroscopy, enabling more stringent bound-state QED tests and improved determinations of fundamental constants such as the muon mass. The simulation is commendably detailed: it includes optical Bloch equation integration, decay channels, AC Stark shifts, and detector response, and it provides a quantitative systematic uncertainty table. The SFHe muonium extension is also a valuable forward-looking contribution. However, the central feasibility claim hinges on a per-atom velocity reconstruction accuracy of 0.01% (Ps) and 0.02% (M) that is asserted rather than derived, and that appears inconsistent with the stated timing resolution and geometry. Because the projected two-order gain rests directly on this assumption, the significance of the central claim is currently conditional on a reconstruction analysis that is not presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.3, Table 1] The claimed per-atom velocity reconstruction accuracy of 0.01% for Ps and 0.02% for M is the load-bearing input for the residual second-order Doppler entries (17.4 kHz Ps, 1.4 kHz M), but it is not derived and appears inconsistent with the stated detector and geometry parameters. For a 500 K Ps atom with v_rms ~ 1.0e5 m/s, the source-to-ionization distance implied by the scheme (2 mm to the first zone, 15 mm free evolution, and a few mm to the Rydberg zone) gives an atom flight time of roughly 0.2-0.3 µs; a 10 ns timing uncertainty alone is a 3-5% velocity error, two orders of magnitude above the claimed 0.01%. The 1 mm formation-spot sigma adds a comparable transverse-velocity error through x0/T. For M, 100 ns timing over the analogous several-µs flight gives an error of order 1-2%, far above the claimed 0.02%. The paper does not provide the reconstruction formula or a flight-time budget, so the residual-Doppler systematics -- and with them the projected two-order precision gain -- are unsupported.
  2. [Section 3.3, Figs. 4-5, Section 4.5] The reconstruction algorithm is never specified. Section 3.3 states that MCP time and position resolutions 'introduce a maximal error' without giving the estimator (for example, v_z = (z_f - z0)/(T_f - T0) or a more sophisticated fit), and the right-hand panels of Figs. 4 and 5, which display the difference between simulated and reconstructed velocity, are not accompanied by a quoted RMS, bias, or axis units. Section 4.5 then uses these reconstructed velocities to compute the residual Doppler shift (0.1 ± 17.0) kHz and Table 1's entries, but a reader cannot reproduce or assess these numbers. A quantitative description of the reconstruction, including the assumed source-to-detector distance and the timing budget, must be supplied for the central claim to be testable.
  3. [Section 4.4] The statistical uncertainties quoted for the 10-day simulations (79 ± 23 kHz for Ps and -20 ± 9 kHz for M) are not backed by a count-rate budget. The text gives detection efficiencies of 0.2% for Ps and 0.6% for M, but for Ps no beam intensity, no accepted solid angle, and no total number of detected events entering the central-peak fit are stated, and there is no analogue of Table 2 for the positron beam. Without these numbers, the claimed statistical gain cannot be checked. The authors should state the assumed Ps production rate, the detection solid angle, and the number of events used in the fits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6] The muonium improvement is described as 'four orders of magnitude' over Meyer et al., but the quoted 9 kHz statistical and 1.7 kHz systematic uncertainties against the current 9.8 MHz measurement give roughly three orders of magnitude; the wording should be corrected.
  2. [Section 1 and Eq. (1)] The second-order Doppler shift is defined with a minus sign, delta_nu_2DS = -(v^2/2c^2) nu_0, in the introduction but enters Eq. (1) as a positive term; the sign convention should be made consistent and clearly defined.
  3. [Section 3.3] The sentence 'These parameters introduce a maximal error of 0.01% ... (see Figure 1)' points to a schematic rather than to an error analysis; this reference should be corrected or replaced with a derivation.
  4. [Section 4.5] The text quotes a residual Doppler shift of (0.1 ± 17.0) kHz and then states that including an additional fringe still gives about 17.4 kHz, but the derivation of the Table 1 entries, especially the 1.4 kHz muonium value, is not shown explicitly.
  5. [References] Reference [41] is cited as 'in preparation' and is used for Table 2 and Fig. 9; a published or preprint version should be cited to make those projections reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the projected precision is a forward-model output, not a re-derivation of its inputs; minor self-citations and one under-derived velocity-error input are flagged.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a Monte Carlo forward model: assumed velocity/angular/spatial distributions, laser parameters, and MCP resolutions are inputs; optical Bloch equations are integrated; the outputs are simulated Ramsey spectra, central-peak fit uncertainties (79 +/- 23 kHz for Ps and -20 +/- 9 kHz for M), and a systematic budget (Table 1). No quantity advertised as a prediction is set equal to an input by definition, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The residual second-order Doppler entries in Table 1 are error-propagation results from the assumed per-atom velocity reconstruction accuracy stated in Section 3.3, but the paper presents that accuracy as an assumed detector capability, not as a measured transition frequency; this is input-dependence, not circularity. Self-citations ([15], [17], [29], [41]) provide beamline parameters, the field-ionization detection method, and current experimental uncertainties; these are evidentiary inputs, and the central Ramsey-Doppler feasibility claim does not reduce to any of them. One flagged correctness risk, not a circularity finding: Section 3.3 states that the assumed 10 ns (Ps) / 100 ns (M) timing and 100 x 100 um^2 spatial resolution 'introduce a maximal error of 0.01% for Ps and 0.02% for M in the velocity reconstruction' without giving the reconstruction formula or flight-path geometry; if that number is not attainable, the residual Doppler systematics and the two-order-of-magnitude gain projection are unsupported. That is an unverified input assumption, not a circular derivation. The score of 2 reflects the presence of minor self-citations and unvalidated inputs, not an identified circular step.

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

The simulation relies on many inputs from prior experiments and planned beamline upgrades. None are fitted to the target transition frequency, so circularity is low. However, the load-bearing parameters, velocity reconstruction fidelity, free evolution lengths, temperatures, MCP timing, and beamline rates, are assumed or optimized rather than independently measured in this paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Free evolution length L_free (Ps) = 15 mm
    Chosen in Section 4.2 by minimizing FOM = linewidth / sqrt(max probability). Directly sets the Ramsey central fringe width and projected precision. A design optimization, not an externally fixed quantity.
  • Free evolution length L_free (M) = 10 mm (8 mm for SFHe)
    Same FOM optimization for muonium in Sections 4.2 and 5. The simulated precision depends on this choice.
  • Velocity reconstruction fidelity = 0.01% (Ps), 0.02% (M) error
    Assumed achievable from MCP spatial and time resolution plus known formation position and time, stated in Section 3.3. Determines the residual Doppler systematic in Table 1 and is central to the claimed improvement. Not validated experimentally.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The two-photon 1S-2S dynamics of Ps and M are described by optical Bloch equations with AC Stark and photoionization, using hydrogen AC Stark coefficients rescaled by S = (me/mu)^3.
    Invoked in Sections 3 and 4.5. Plausible from reference [35] but not independently verified for leptonic atoms.
  • domain assumption Ps and M emission follows Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distributions at 500 K and 300 K, a cosine angular distribution, and Gaussian spatial and temporal profiles.
    Used as simulation inputs in Section 3.1, based on prior experiments [17,21,22,30,32].
  • domain assumption The two interaction regions are phase-coherent, produced by a folded Fabry-Perot cavity.
    Required for Ramsey fringes. Treated as an experimental design goal, not demonstrated in this paper (Section 2).
  • standard math First-order Doppler effect cancels and only the second-order Doppler shift remains in two-photon standing-wave excitation.
    Standard result for two-photon transitions in a standing wave, used in Eq. (1) and Section 1.
  • domain assumption The AC Stark shift in Ramsey spectroscopy is suppressed by a factor w0/D, with w0 the beam waist and D the free evolution distance.
    Taken from reference [20] and corroborated by the simulation in Section 4.5. The Table 1 systematic budget depends on this suppression.
  • domain assumption Planned PSI upgrades (HIMB delivering 10^10 mu+/s and MuCool) and the SFHe muonium source (2175 m/s, velocity spread below 100 m/s) will be realized.
    Used for rate projections in Table 2 and the SFHe simulation in Section 5. These capabilities do not yet exist.
  • domain assumption MCP spatial resolution of 100 um, time resolution of 10 ns for Ps and 100 ns for M, and 50 percent detection efficiency are achievable.
    Assumed in Section 3.3. These parameters set the velocity reconstruction error and the event rate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-Photon Optical Ramsey-Doppler Spectroscopy of Positronium and Muonium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B7AI6VP4

@misc{pith2026241119872,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-Photon Optical Ramsey-Doppler Spectroscopy of Positronium and Muonium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B7AI6VP4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19872}
}
read the original abstract

Positronium and muonium, as purely leptonic atoms without internal structure, provide ideal systems for high-precision tests of quantum electrodynamics (QED) and measurements of fundamental constants. However, the high velocities of these lightweight atoms complicate precision spectroscopy, particularly in the 1S-2S transition, due to transit time broadening and second-order Doppler shifts. To overcome these challenges, we propose a novel method combining two-photon Ramsey spectroscopy with a technique to correct the second-order Doppler shifts on an atom-by-atom basis. Additionally, this approach suppresses systematic effects of the AC Stark shift to a negligible level compared to the target precision. Simulations predict that for both positronium and muonium, this method could improve the measurement precision of the 1S-2S transition by more than two orders of magnitude compared to the current state of the art. This approach opens up new avenues for rigorous bound-state QED tests and searches for physics beyond the Standard Model.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Karshenboim

    Savely G. Karshenboim. Precision physics of simple atoms: QED tests, nuclear struc- ture and fundamental constants.Phys. Rept., 422:1–63, 2005

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    Precision spectroscopy of positronium: Test- ing bound-state qed theory and the search for physics beyond the standard model.Physics Reports, 975:1–61, 2022

    GS Adkins, DB Cassidy, and J Pérez-Ríos. Precision spectroscopy of positronium: Test- ing bound-state qed theory and the search for physics beyond the standard model.Physics Reports, 975:1–61, 2022. Article Title 13

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Spin-dependent exotic inter- actions

    Lei Cong et al. Spin-dependent exotic inter- actions. 8 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Current and future perspectives of positronium and muonium spectroscopy as dark sectors probe

    Claudia Frugiuele, Jesús Pérez-Ríos, and Clara Peset. Current and future perspectives of positronium and muonium spectroscopy as dark sectors probe. Physical Review D, 100(1), July 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Yevgeny V. Stadnik. Searching for Ultra- light Scalar Dark Matter with Muonium and Muonic Atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 131(1):011001, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Gomes, Alan Kostelecký, and Arnaldo J

    André H. Gomes, Alan Kostelecký, and Arnaldo J. Vargas. Laboratory tests of Lorentz and CPT symmetry with muons. Phys. Rev. D, 90(7):076009, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Karshenboim

    Savely G. Karshenboim. A Constraint on antigravity of antimatter from precision spec- troscopy of simple atoms. Astron. Lett., 35:663, 2009

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    High precision measure- ments of the ground state hyperfine structure interval of muonium and of the muon mag- netic moment

    Weiwen Liu et al. High precision measure- ments of the ground state hyperfine structure interval of muonium and of the muon mag- netic moment. Phys. Rev. Lett., 82:711–714, 1999

    work page 1999

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Strasser et al

    P. Strasser et al. New precise measurements of muonium hyperfine structure at J-PARC MUSE. EPJ Web Conf., 198:00003, 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    Nishimura et al

    S. Nishimura et al. Rabi-oscillation spec- troscopy of the hyperfine structure of muo- nium atoms. Phys. Rev. A, 104(2):L020801, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    R. E. Sheldon, T. J. Babij, S. H. Reeder, S. D. Hogan, and D. B. Cassidy. Precision microwave spectroscopy of the positronium 2 3S1 → 2 3P2 interval. Phys. Rev. Lett., 131:043001, Jul 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Ohayon et al

    B. Ohayon et al. Precision Measurement of theLambShiftinMuonium. Phys. Rev. Lett., 128(1):011802, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    M. S. Fee, A. P. Mills, S. Chu, E. D. Shaw, K. Danzmann, R. J. Chichester, and D. M. Zuckerman. Measurement of the positron- ium 1s-2s interval by continuous-wave two- photon excitation. Physical Review Letters, 70(10):1397–1400, March 1993

    1993

  6. [14]

    Meyer et al

    V. Meyer et al. Measurement of the 1s - 2s energy interval in muonium.Phys. Rev. Lett., 84:1136, 2000

    2000

  7. [15]

    Update of muonium 1 s–2 s transition frequency

    Irene Cortinovis, Ben Ohayon, Lucas de Sousa Borges, Gianluca Janka, Artem Golovizin, Nikita Zhadnov, and Paolo Criv- elli. Update of muonium 1 s–2 s transition frequency. The European Physical Journal D, 77(4):66, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Norman F. Ramsey. A molecular beam resonance method with separated oscillating fields. Phys. Rev., 78:695–699, Jun 1950

    1950

  9. [17]

    Heiss, Lucas de Sousa Borges, Artem Golovizin, and Paolo Crivelli

    Michael W. Heiss, Lucas de Sousa Borges, Artem Golovizin, and Paolo Crivelli. Mea- surement of the 1 3S1 → 23S1 interval in positronium using field-ionization of Rydberg states. 7 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Huber, Brian Gross, Martin Weitz, and Theodor W

    A. Huber, Brian Gross, Martin Weitz, and Theodor W. Hänsch. Two-photon optical ramsey spectroscopy of the 1s-2s transition in atomic hydrogen. Physical Review A, 58, 1998

    1998

  11. [19]

    High-precisionramsey-comb spectroscopy at deep ultraviolet wavelengths

    R.K.Altmann,S.Galtier,L.S.Dreissen,and K.S.E.Eikema. High-precisionramsey-comb spectroscopy at deep ultraviolet wavelengths. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:173201, Oct 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Density matrix equations and diagrams for high resolution non-linear laser spectroscopy: application to ramsey fringes in the optical domain

    Christian J Bordé. Density matrix equations and diagrams for high resolution non-linear laser spectroscopy: application to ramsey fringes in the optical domain. In Advances in laser spectroscopy, pages 1–70. Springer, 1983

    1983

  13. [21]

    Crivelli, U

    P. Crivelli, U. Gendotti, A. Rubbia, L. Liszkay, P. Perez, and C. Corbel. Measure- ment of the orthopositronium confinement energy in mesoporous thin films.Phys. Rev. A, 81:052703, May 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Antognini et al

    A. Antognini et al. Muonium emission into vacuum from mesoporous thin films at 14 Article Title cryogenic temperatures. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:143401, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    Crivelli

    P. Crivelli. The Mu-MASS (MuoniuM lAser SpectroScopy) experiment. Hyperfine Inter- act., 239(1):49, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Improving the beam quality of the low-energy muon beamline at paul scherrer institute: Characterization of ultrathin carbon foils

    Gianluca Janka, Zaher Salman, Andreas Suter,ThomasProkscha,MariaMendesMar- tins, and Xiaojie Ni. Improving the beam quality of the low-energy muon beamline at paul scherrer institute: Characterization of ultrathin carbon foils. Physical Review Accelerators and Beams, 27(5):054...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Stable high power deep- uv enhancement cavity in ultra-high vac- uum with fluoride coatings

    Zakary Burkley, Lucas de Sousa Borges, Ben Ohayon, Artem Golovizin, Jesse Zhang, and Paolo Crivelli. Stable high power deep- uv enhancement cavity in ultra-high vac- uum with fluoride coatings. Opt. Express, 29(17):27450–27459, Aug 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Pulsed cw laser for long-term spec- troscopic measurements at high power in deep-uv

    Nikita Zhadnov, Artem Golovizin, Irene Cortinovis, Ben Ohayon, Lucas de Sousa Borges, Gianluca Janka, and Paolo Crivelli. Pulsed cw laser for long-term spec- troscopic measurements at high power in deep-uv. Opt. Express, 31(17):28470–28479, Aug 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Future facilities at PSI, the high-intensity muon beams (HIMB) project

    Giovanni Dal Maso, Alexander Gabard, Malek Haj Tahar, Peter-Raymond Kettle, Klaus Kirch, Daniela Kiselev, Alexander Koschik, Andreas Knecht, Daniel Laube, Angela Papa, et al. Future facilities at PSI, the high-intensity muon beams (HIMB) project. In EPJ Web of Conferences, vol...

    2023

  20. [28]

    muCool: muon cooling for high-brightnessµ+ beams

    Aldo Antognini and David Taqqu. muCool: muon cooling for high-brightnessµ+ beams. SciPost Phys. Proc., 5:030, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Precision Spec- troscopy of Positronium Using a Pulsed Slow Positron Beam

    Michael Wolfgang Heiss. Precision Spec- troscopy of Positronium Using a Pulsed Slow Positron Beam. PhD thesis, Zurich, ETH, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    D. B. Cassidy, P. Crivelli, T. H. Hisakado, L. Liszkay, V. E. Meligne, P. Perez, H. W. K. Tom, and A. P. Mills. Positronium cool- ing in porous silica measured via Doppler spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. A, 81:012715, Jan 2010

    2010

  23. [31]

    Deller, B

    A. Deller, B. S. Cooper, T. E. Wall, and D. B. Cassidy. Positronium emission from mesoporous silica studied by laser-enhanced time-of-flight spectroscopy. New Journal of Physics, 17(4):043059, apr 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    D. B. Cassidy, P. Crivelli, T. H. Hisakado, L. Liszkay, V. E. Meligne, P. Perez, H. W. K. Tom, and A. P. Mills. Positronium cool- ing in porous silica measured via doppler spectroscopy. Phys. Rev. A, 81:012715, Jan 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Obser- vation of positronium annihilation in the 2s state: towards a new measurement of the 1s-2s transition frequency.Hyperfine Interac- tions, 233:67–73, 2015

    David A Cooke, Paolo Crivelli, Janis Alnis, Aldo Antognini, B Brown, Susanne Friedre- ich, Alexander Gabard, Theodor W Hänsch, Klaus Kirch, André Rubbia, et al. Obser- vation of positronium annihilation in the 2s state: towards a new measurement of the 1s-2s transition frequen...

    2015

  26. [34]

    K. S. Khaw, A. Antognini, T. Prokscha, K. Kirch, L. Liszkay, Z. Salman, and P. Criv- elli. Spatial confinement of muonium atoms. Phys. Rev. A, 94:022716, Aug 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Keitel, Nikolai Kolachevsky, Maximilian Georg Herrmann, Peter Fendel, Marc Fischer, Thomas Udem, Ronald Holzwarth, Theodor W

    Martin Haas, Ulrich David Jentschura, Christoph H. Keitel, Nikolai Kolachevsky, Maximilian Georg Herrmann, Peter Fendel, Marc Fischer, Thomas Udem, Ronald Holzwarth, Theodor W. Hänsch, Marlan O. Scully, and Girish S. Agarwal. Two-photon excitation dynamics in bound two-body co...

    2006

  28. [36]

    Research toward laser spectroscopy of trapped atomic hydrogen

    Jon Carl Sandberg. Research toward laser spectroscopy of trapped atomic hydrogen. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, 1993

    1993

  29. [37]

    SI-traceable fre- quency dissemination at 1572.06 nm in a stabilized fiber network with ring topology

    Dominik Husmann et al. SI-traceable fre- quency dissemination at 1572.06 nm in a stabilized fiber network with ring topology. Opt. Express, 29(16):24592–24605, 2021. Article Title 15

    2021

  30. [38]

    A cold muonium beam for spectroscopy and gravity experiments

    Anna Soter. A cold muonium beam for spectroscopy and gravity experiments. Presentation at the 2024 International Con- ferenceonPrecisionPhysicsofSimpleAtomic Systems (PSAS 2024), June 2024. Available at: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1329533/ contributions/5917750/attachments/ ...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Develop- ment of a cold atomic muonium beam for next generation atomic physics and gravity experiments

    Anna Soter and Andreas Knecht. Develop- ment of a cold atomic muonium beam for next generation atomic physics and gravity experiments. SciPost Phys. Proc., page 031, 2021

    2021

  32. [40]

    Hydrogen iso- tope and [sup 3]he impurities in liquid [sup 4]he

    M Saarela and E Krotscheck. Hydrogen iso- tope and [sup 3]he impurities in liquid [sup 4]he. Journal of Low Temperature Physics; (United States), 90, 3 1993

    1993

  33. [41]

    Towards the first CW Laser Spectroscopy of the Muonium 1S-2S Transition

    Irene Cortinovis. Towards the first CW Laser Spectroscopy of the Muonium 1S-2S Transition. Publication by ETH Zürich in preparation, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    K. Shu, Y. Tajima, R. Uozumi, N. Miyamoto, S. Shiraishi, T. Kobayashi, A. Ishida, K. Yamada, R. W. Gladen, T. Namba, S. Asai, K. Wada, I. Mochizuki, T. Hyodo, K. Ito, K. Michishio, B. E. O’Rourke, N.Oshima,andK.Yoshioka. Coolingpositro- nium to ultralow velocities with a chirp...

    2024

  35. [43]

    L. T. Glöggler, N. Gusakova, B. Rienäcker, A. Camper, R. Caravita, S. Huck, M. Volponi, T. Wolz, L. Penasa, V. Kru- mins, F. P. Gustafsson, D. Comparat, M. Auzins, B. Bergmann, P. Burian, R. S. Brusa, F. Castelli, G. Cerchiari, R. Ciuryło, G. Consolati, M. Doser, Ł. Graczykows...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.