LAPTH-021/21

Towards an independent determination of g-2 from spectroscopy

C´edricDelaunay,1, ∗ Ben Ohayon,2, † and Yotam Soreq3, ‡ 1Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique Th´eoriqueLAPTh, CNRS – USMB, BP 110 Annecy-le-Vieux, F-74941 Annecy, France 2Institute for Particle Physics and Astrophysics, ETH Z¨urich,CH-8093 Z¨urich,Switzerland 3Physics Department, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003, Israel We show that muonium spectroscopy in the coming years can reach a precision high enough to determine the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon below one part per million (ppm). Such an independent determination of muon g − 2, which is not limited by hadronic uncertainties, would certainly shed light on the ∼ 2 ppm difference currently observed between spin-precession measurements and (R-ratio based) predictions. The magnetic dipole interaction between and (anti) bound in muonium gives rise to a hyperfine splitting (HFS) of the ground state which is sensitive to the muon anomalous magnetic moment. A direct comparison of the muonium frequency measurements of the HFS at J-PARC and the 1S-2S transition at PSI with theory predictions will allow to extract muon g −2 with high precision. Improving the accuracy of QED calculations of these transitions by about one order of magnitude is also required. Moreover, the good agreement between theory and experiment for the g −2 indicates that new physics interactions are unlikely to affect muonium spectroscopy down to the envisaged precision.

I. INTRODUCTION W , Z and Higgs bosons. Its evaluation was recently re- viewed by the international theory community, finding [8] The long and winding road that leads to the discovery aSM = 116 591 810(43) × 10−11 , (3) of physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) may well go µ through loops. The magnetic moments of the electron where the theory uncertainty is dominated by uncertain- and the muon ties in the (nonperturbative) hadronic vacuum polarisa-   tion (HVP) and hadronic light-by-light (HLbL) contribu- q` ~µ` = g` S~` , (1) tions. This result is 4.2 standard deviation smaller than 2m` the experimental average, suggesting a possible contribu- tion from new physics (NP) with a magnitude of (` = e, µ) are shining examples. Indeed, quantum fluctu- exp SM −11 ations in the vacuum of all known and unknown fields in- ∆aµ ≡ aµ − aµ = (251 ± 59) × 10 , (4) evitably causes their Land´e g`-factors to deviate from the prediction of the Dirac equation by an “anomalous” part which is about 2 ppm. The SM prediction in Eq. (3) a` ≡ (g` −2)/2 [1]. Therefore, any accurate measurement relies on a leading-order (LO) HVP contribution of HVP−LO + − −11 of the latter, together with equally accurate theoretical aµ (e e ) = 6 931(40) × 10 [8,9] derived from predictions, open the door to new physics phenomena. experimental e+e− → hadrons data (the so-called R-ratio The Muon g-2 collaboration at the Fermi National method) at low-energy using dispersion relations [10–12]. Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) recently determined [2– An alternative determination of the LO-HVP 4] the muon anomalous magnetic moment to 46 parts- contribution stems from an ab-initio calculation per-billion (ppb) from spin-precession measurements. in lattice QCD [13]. The latest result from the The central value is in good agreement with an earlier Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal (BMW) collaboration HVP−LO −11 measurement [5] at the Brookhaven National Labora- aµ (lattice) = 7 075(55) × 10 [14], consistent with previous calculations [15–19] but with a three-fold arXiv:2106.11998v1 [hep-ph] 22 Jun 2021 tory (BNL), leading to a new experimental world aver- age [2] reduced uncertainty, is about 1 ppm larger than the R-ratio value and agrees with the experimental average exp −11 in Eq. (2) within two standard deviations. aµ = 116 592 061(41) × 10 , (2)

to 0.35 parts-per-million (ppm). The present status of muon g − 2 is therefore puzzling. Imagining that the discrepancy holds either between The SM prediction for aµ includes contributions from electromagnetic [6,7], strong and weak interactions in- experiment and a converged theory (currently 2 ppm), volving virtual exchange of photons, leptons, hadrons and or between the two theoretical calculations (currently 1 ppm), then an independent determination of aµ to this level, demanding as it would be, is of immense impor- tance. ∗Electronic address: [email protected] An alternative strategy for determining aµ would be †Electronic address: [email protected] probing magnetic properties of muons bound in atoms ‡Electronic address: [email protected] instead of free particles. Muonium (M ≡ µ+e−) is the 2

νi quantity ur Refs. state νHFS at 12 ppb [30]. The HFS originates from the (unit) current ongoing ultimate interaction of the electron spin with the magnetic field QED 8.1 5.7 0.7 [21, 22] sourced by the magnetic dipole moment of the (static) HVP O(10−2) [23] antimuon. For electronic states without orbital momen- 1S-2S R∞ 1.9 0.65 [22, 24] tum, the leading-order Hamiltonian is simply a Fermi (ppt) α O(10−3) [24] 3 contact interaction between the electron and muon mag- exp 3.99 × 10 4.1 1.6 [21, 25] netic moments [32] QED 16 2.2 0.2 [26, 27] HVP 0.33 0.18 [24, 28] 2µ0 3 HFS α 0.30 0.16 [24, 29] HHFS = − ~µe · ~µµ δ (r) , (5) −3 3 (ppb) R∞ O(10 ) [24] exp 12 2.2 0.90 [30, 31] 2 where µ0 = 2αh/(e c) is the vacuum permeability. As it involves explicitly the magnetic moment of the muon, it TABLE I: Uncertainty budget for the 1S-2S transition (in ppt) and 1S HFS (in ppb) in muonium. The first column is in principle sensitive to its anomalous part. summarizes the current status of the relative uncertainties Besides the fine-structure constant, α, and the Ryd- 2 ur(x) = u(x)/x. The second one (ongoing) indicates the berg constant R∞ = α mec/(2h), two parameters are milestone set by the Mu-MASS and MuSEUM experiments. endemic to muonic physics at low energy: the muon mass The last one presents the foreseeable improvements necessary (more precisely the electron-muon mass ratio) and its for a muonium determination of aµ at sub-ppm level. Blank magnetic moment. Hydrogen spectroscopy determines entries correspond to quantities that do not need further im- R∞ at 1.9 parts-per-trillion (ppt) [24], making it the provement. most accurately known constant in physics.1 Combining R∞ with accurate measurements of the electron and parameter quantity ur rubidium atomic masses and the h/mRb ratio gives (unit) current ongoing ultimate the currently best determination of α at 81 ppt [29].2 ν1S−2S(exp) 825 0.84 0.34 The muonic constants, however must be extracted from me/mµ QED(1S-2S) 1.7 1.2 0.1 (at least) two other independent observables. The (ppb) R∞ 0.40 0.13 electron-muon mass ratio me/mµ is known at 19 ppb total 825 1.5 0.37 from directly comparing the measured ground-state HFS ν (exp) 708 0.73 0.29 1S−2S of muonium [30] with the SM prediction [36]. Since we νHFS(exp) 10 1.9 0.77 QED(1S-2S) 1.4 1.0 0.07 envisage to use this observable to extract aµ, me/mµ must be obtained by other means. The current second aµ QED(HFS) 14 1.9 0.2 (ppm) HVP(HFS) 0.29 0.16 best determination of the electron-muon mass ratio is R∞ 0.35 0.13 at 120 ppb, coming from a measurement of the (total) α 0.26 0.14 muon magnetic moment µµ [30]. However, this cannot total 708 3.0 0.88 be used either as it clearly depends on aµ. Another way to extract me/mµ is to measure a muonium line that is TABLE II: Uncertainty budget for the determination of (mostly) independent of the magnetic moment. To date, me/mµ and aµ from precision muonium spectroscopy. Same the only possibility is the Lyman-α line between the 1S as TableI. and 2S states.

The theory prediction for the 1S-2S transition fre- bound state of an antimuon and an electron. It is a quency in muonium is purely leptonic bound state, free of nuclear structure ef- fects usually hampering the theoretical accuracy in ordi- 3 R∞c nary atoms, for which high-order QED calculations are ν1S−2S = [1 + δ1S−2S] , (6) available. In contrast, muonium spectroscopy is currently 4 (1 + me/mµ) limited by experimental uncertainties, being mostly of where the muon mass enters as a recoil contribution of statistical origin [20]. In this letter, we show that by ∼ 0.5% and subleading corrections in δ ∼ O(α2) pushing muonium spectroscopy to its limits, both theo- 1S−2S retical and experimental, a determination of aµ is possi- ble with O(1 ppm) precision. This completely different approach would shed a new light on the current puzzle. 1 A more recent 1S-3S frequency measurement [33] provides an- other determination of R∞ at 3.5 ppt consistent with the CO- DATA value. II. MUON g − 2 FROM MUONIUM 2 This value disagrees with the previous best determination of α SPECTROSCOPY (at 0.12 ppb based on cesium measurements [34]) by 5.4σ [29], possibly due to a difference in correcting for systematic er- rors [35]. While puzzling, this discrepancy is too small (relative One of the most precisely measured spectral line in to uncertainties in muonium) to affect significantly present and muonium is the hyperfine splitting (HFS) of its 1S ground future determinations of aµ. 3 are known up to three-loop QED with 20 kHz uncer- III. EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS IN tainty [21]. MUONIUM PHYSICS For the ground-state HFS the theory prediction reads Clearly, the present data is lacking precision to provide 16 m R cα2 a competitive determination of muon g − 2. However the ν = (1 + a ) e ∞ [1 + δ ] , (7) HFS 3 µ m (1 + m /m )3 HFS situation is expected to dramatically improve in the near µ e µ future thanks to new experimental techniques and more accurate QED calculations. We summarize here the where δHFS ∼ O(α/π) gathers corrections [37] beyond developments planned at the next round of experiments the Hamiltonian in Eq. (5) from relativistic, radiative at PSI and J-PARC and show that, together with the (including the anomalous magnetic moment ae of the ongoing theory improvement, they will allow for an electron), recoil, radiative-recoil, weak and hadronic extraction of aµ at few ppm. Moreover, we outline and contributions. The theory uncertainty δHFS is about argue on the feasibility of the refinements necessary to 70 Hz [26, 36], dominated by unknown three-loop QED bring ur(aµ) below the ppm-level. contributions to the radiative-recoil term in δHFS [36]. Since the δHFS,1S−2S corrections above only weakly de- a. 1S-2S transition The first necessary ingredient is pend on fundamental constants, the leading contribu- to improve the electron-muon mass ratio from muonium tions to νHFS and ν1S−2S are sufficient to estimate the 1S-2S spectroscopy. Spectroscopy of the 1S-2S transition sensitivity of muonium spectroscopy to muon g−2. Com- in hydrogenic atoms relies on two-photon excitation with bining Eqs. (6) and (7) allows to separately determine a UV laser, operating at a 244 nm wavelength for muo- me/mµ and aµ, providing a simple estimate of their un- nium. The very high transition frequency makes possible certainties measurements at ppt precision, with a 145 kHz natural linewidth due to the ∼ 2.2 µs lifetime of the muon. 2 2 2 u (me/mµ) ' ur(R∞) + ur(ν1S−2S) One of the main challenges in such measurements is 2 2 the low excitation efficiency, as the 1S-2S transition is a +δ u (δ1S-2S) , (8) 1S−2S r two-photon transition. In order to increase the transi- 2 2 2 2 u (aµ) ' ur(me/mµ) + 4ur(α) + ur(νHFS) tion probability, previous 1S-2S measurements utilized a 2 2 +δHFSur(δHFS) , (9) high-power pulsed laser. This however came at the cost of broadening the linewidth to 20 MHz associated with the laser pulse-width. Another main systematic uncer- where ur(x) ≡ u(x)/x and u(x) is one standard devia- tainty of 10 MHz also originated from the pulsed inter- tion of the observable x, and ur(δi) denotes the relative theory uncertainty of the observable i that is not asso- action. A high-power pulsed laser changes its frequency during every pulse, an effect known as chirping which is ciated with the R∞, α and me/mµ parameters. The −9 notoriously difficult to compensate for. current uncertainty ur(ν1S−2S) = 4.0 × 10 [21] of the 1S-2S frequency measurement strongly limits the muon To circumvent the limitations of pulsed laser excita- −4 tion, the MuoniuM lAser SpectroScopy (Mu-MASS) ex- g − 2 accuracy to ur(aµ) ' 7 × 10 , which is clearly not competitive with spin-precession measurements directly periment [25] at PSI utilizes a cavity-enhanced continu- ous wave (CW) excitation [38]. The reduced excitation sensitive to aµ. efficiency in CW operation is compensated by the use of A least-square adjustment (see supplementary mate- the low-energy-muon (LEM) beamline [39] paired with rial) using 2018 CODATA recommended values for R ∞ new methods to obtain slow muonium atoms emitted and α, and including the state-of-the-art calculation (see into vacuum after production in mesoporous thin SiO Ref. [24] and references therein) of δ and δ , 2 1S−2S HFS films [40]. With such techniques the Mu-MASS uncer- yields tainty goal was set to 10 kHz (4 ppt) [25].

M −8 On the theory side the ν1S−2S uncertainty was quoted aµ = 116 637(82) × 10 , (10) at 20 kHz in Ref. [21]. To the best of our knowl- edge this figure has not been updated, despite the re- −9 [and me/mµ = 4 836 329(4) × 10 ] which is larger cent improvement in QED calculations for hydrogen-like M exp −7 (aµ − aµ ' 4.5 × 10 ) but consistent with both the atoms [22, 41]. By rescaling the theory uncertainties experimental value in Eq. (2) and the theoretical result for hydrogen [24] to the muon mass (discarding nuclear −7 in Eq. (3), given the large uncertainty u(aµ) = 8.2×10 finite-size and polarizability contributions) we assess the dominated by the experimental ur(ν1S−2S). Note that current theory uncertainty of ν1S−2S to be at 14 kHz this determination of aµ assumes that muonium theory (5.7 ppt). follows SM predictions. As shown below, contributions The Rydberg constant is also expected to improve in beyond the SM ones related to an hypothetical NP the next few years, anticipating a full resolution of the so- coupling to electrons are sufficiently constrained not to called proton radius puzzle [42]. The very precise deter- affect the least-square adjustment. mination of the proton radius from muonic hydrogen [43, 44] improves the theoretical precision in hydrogen by 4 about one order-of-magnitude, which then becomes lim- From the experimental point of view, an improve- ited by bound-state QED calculations. The current QED ment on the 1S-2S frequency determination from the uncertainty in hydrogen is roughly 1 kHz [22], allowing in Mu-MASS goal of 10 kHz to few kHz is expected [25]. principle a three-fold [45] more precise determination of Since final systematic uncertainties are estimated at the R∞ relative to the latest CODATA [24]. kHz-level [25], this precision could be accommodated by Using Eq. (8) the above values (referred to as “ongo- an order-of-magnitude increase in statistics. Such an in- ing” in TablesI andII) yield an expected precision on crease could either come from an improved high-energy me/mµ at 1.5 ppb. muon beam rate, as considered in the High-intensity Muon Beam (HIMB) upgrade [52–54] at PSI, and/or a b. Ground state HFS The major improvement to higher efficiency in muon moderation, as is pursued by the electron-muon mass ratio considered above opens up the MuCool collaboration [55–57]. A 1S-2S measurement at 4 kHz would be sufficient to make the m /m uncer- the possibility to obtain a value for aµ with few ppm un- e µ certainty, comparable to the current difference in Eq. (4) tainty on νHFS subdominant. between the experimental average and the theoretical Such an improved experimental precision must be value based on R-ratio calculations, granted that the supplemented by higher accuracy calculations, especially ground state HFS is improved as well. The current best the radiative-recoil corrections to the 1S Lamb shift. measurement of νHFS was done with a chopped beam This is currently a progressing field [22, 41], motivated at LAMPF and limited by statistics [30]. The Muo- by the recent convergence on the proton radius [42, 58– nium Spectroscopy Experiment Using Microwave (Mu- 62] which makes similar QED contributions in hydrogen SEUM) experiment will improve the statistical uncer- a limiting factor to further reduce the Rydberg constant tainty by using the high-intensity pulsed muon beam uncertainty. Improving QED calculations by about one at J-PARC [46, 47] as well as Rabi-oscillation spec- order-of-magnitude would suffice for the 1S-2S transition troscopy [48]. Moreover, recently a thorough optimiza- to be limited by experiment. tion of the microwave cavity has been done to drive down the systematic uncertainties to the ppb level [31]. Regarding the ground state HFS, a further improve- This will allow for more precise HFS measurements by ment upon the ongoing efforts, both in experiment and about one order-of-magnitude [31] compared to previous theory, is more demanding. Experimentally the muon- LAMPF measurements. We take 10 Hz (2.2 ppb) as a lifetime constraint on the linewidth already poses a major reasonable estimate for the uncertainty goal of the Mu- challenge. A measurement at 10 Hz precision already re- SEUM experiment. Such an estimation is compatible quires to resolve the line center to 10−4 of the linewidth, with the ‘several ppb’ indicated in Ref. [31]. (See also an achievement similar to the recent 2S-4P frequency Refs. [49, 50] and references therein.) Another important measurement in hydrogen [63]. Further improving the systematic uncertainty, which probably requires improve- precision with better line-shape modeling would consti- ment at this level, is due to the pressure shift from the tute a premiere in spectroscopy. An complementary ap- finite gas density environment [51] in which HFS mea- proach consists in converting extremely high statistics surement are performed. A possibility to overcome this into narrower linewidths by post-selecting so-called ‘old limitation is to measure HFS in vacuum using a low- muonium’ atoms [30, 64], namely muons which have not energy muon beam. decayed after several lifetimes. Therefore, despite the Excluding the muon mass uncertainty, the theoreti- challenges, we imagine that HFS measurements could be cal ground state HFS calculation is currently limited by done at the ppb-level (' 4 Hz). bound-state QED to around 70 Hz accuracy [36] coming As regards systematic uncertainty, down to the ppb- from uncalculated sets of three-loop diagrams. Efforts to level the main one is still considered to be the quadratic improve this calculation are ongoing, quoting a goal of pressure shift [30], which could be reduced with lower 10 Hz [26]. pressures, relying on higher statistics. The needed high Collecting the theoretical and experimental values rates could be accommodated by the HIMB upgrade at discussed above we estimate with Eq. (9) the expected PSI that will deliver ∼ 1010 antimuons per second, which uncertainty for extracting aµ from the ongoing effort in is three orders of magnitude higher than the CW muon muonium spectroscopy as about 3 ppm (shown in blue beam used for the HFS measurement at LAMPF. Lever- on Fig.1). Such rousing prospects, comparable to the aging the technical advancements by the MuSEUM col- difference in Eq. (4), would already contribute to the laboration [31, 48], together with a ∼ 100-days beam- muon g − 2 puzzle. time, we conclude that a sub-ppb experimental uncer- tainty in νHFS could be envisioned. c. Further improvements Next, we ask the question The corresponding theory prediction to the level whether it is possible to reduce this uncertainty further, of 4 Hz accuracy is demanding as well. However, and by how much. In the remainder of this section, we as long as the uncertainty from HVP contributions address it based on known experimental techniques, ar- (presently about 0.8 Hz [28]) is subdominant, completing guing that the necessary theoretical improvements can the required bound-state QED calculations in the same be reasonably achieved along the way. timescale as experimental milestones could be reasonably 5

potential (see e.g.Ref. [70]) ( ) 1 8π(S~ ·S~ ) m2  Muonium ongoing V (r)= α e−mr + e µ −δ3(r) , NP NP r 3m m 4πr ultimate e µ (11) 1+s where αNP ≡ (−1) yeyµ/(4π) and Se (Sµ) is the elec- tron (muon) spin operator. The spin-dependent interac- tion only applies to S levels in the vector case. (For con- BNL+FNAL 2021 venience, natural units where c = ~ = 1 are understood SM(lattice) throughout this section.) SM(R-ratio) To first-order in αNP the NP contribution to the 1S-2S frequency correction δ1S−2S is Z ∞ NP 8aM αNP −mr  2 2 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 δ1S−2S = drre R20(r) −R10(r) , 3α 0 9 aμ×10 -1165900 (12) where Rnl(r) are non-relativistic radial hydrogen-like FIG. 1: Anomalous magnetic moment of the muon de- wavefunctions in terms of aM ≡ a0(1 + me/mµ) being −1 termined from spin-precession measurements at BNL and the Bohr radius a0 = (αme) corrected for the reduced FNAL (red) [2], Standard Model calculations with leading- mass of muonium. In the vector case, NP also contributes order hadronic vacuum polarization evaluated from e+e− → to the ground state HFS, as hadrons data (green) [8] or lattice QCD (gray) [14] and the 3  Z ∞  projected sensitivities in muonium (dashed) with the cur- NP aM αNP 2 2 −mr 2 δHFS = −R10(0) + m drre R10(r) . rently planned spectroscopy improvements (blue) and its ul- 4α 0 timate improvement (magenta), centered around the current (13) experimental average. The orange band shows the four-fold Both contributions vanish for large masses, with the improved FNAL standard deviation expected in the near fu- NP 2 asymptotic behavior δ1S−2S ' −28αNP/[3α(maM ) ] and ture. NP −1 δHFS ' −4αNP/(αmaM ) for m  aM ' 3.7 keV. Note that the 1/m scaling of the HFS contribution envisaged [27]. Here as well, one order-of-magnitude in the short-range regime is at odds with expectations from effective field theory predicting δNP ∝ 1/m2. We improvement would make νHFS limited by experiment. HFS argue that this 1/m behavior is spurious. It stems from Assuming that the 1S-2S transition and ground state the fact that the non-relativistic limit approximates HFS in muonium are pushed to the aforementioned lim- the spin-spin interaction by a contact interaction, which is only valid for interaction ranges longer than its would bring down the aµ uncertainty to u(aµ) ' 103×10−11 (0.88 ppm) which is about half of the current the Compton wavelengths of the electron and the difference between theory and experiment. muon. A proper treatment of the short-range regime requires a fully-relativistic bound-state theory (like the Bethe-Salpeter formalism [71]) which is beyond the scope of this work. Rather, we use here Eq. (13) up to IV. NEW PHYSICS CONTRIBUTIONS √ m ∼ memµ ' 7 MeV [the characteristic scale of the δ-function in Eq. (11)]. The above determination of aµ assumes that muonium theory is dominated by the SM. It is therefore important To what extent NP could contaminate muonium ob- to evaluate to what extent putative NP interactions can servables given the discrepancy currently observed in contaminate muonium observables. This question is es- muon g − 2? In order to address this question, we fix the pecially relevant given the current difference between the muon coupling yµ, assuming the NP contribution at one- SM prediction for aµ in Eq. (3) and direct measurements loop to the anomalous magnetic moment of leptons [67] leading to Eq. (2). We address it here by considering a 2 Z 1 2 simple NP model consisting of a single field coupled to NP y` (1 − z) ζ(z) ∆a` = 2 dz 2 2 , (14) muons and electrons. Motivated by the muon g − 2 puz- 8π 0 (1 − z) + z(m/m`) zle, we limit ourselves to scalar and vector states with in- [ζ(z) ≡ (1 + z) for scalars and 2z for vectors] saturates dependent couplings y to ` = e, µ. Indeed, while effects ` Eq. (4). The electron counterpart is constrained by the of pseudoscalars [65] and pseudovectors [66] in muonium good agreement between the measured electron g −2 [72] are comparable to the vector case, both of them yield and the QED prediction [7] based on α determined from ∆a < 0 [67] which strongly constrains their coupling to µ the recent h/m measurement at LKB [29], yielding muons [68]. (See also Ref. [69] for a recent reevaluation.) Rb [29] Exchanging a NP state of mass m and spin s between exp SM −13 the electron and muon lines leads to the non-relativistic ∆ae ≡ ae − ae (αLKB) = (4.8 ± 3.0) × 10 , (15) 6

exp where the uncertainty is dominated by ae . The max- imal possible NP contributions (as function of m) to 100 NP −13 δ1S−2S and δHFS, assuming ∆ae ≤ 10.8 × 10 and 2-loop NDA ∆aNP = 259 × 10−11 are shown as blue lines in Fig.2. electrong-2 exclusion µ vector The NP contribution to the 1S-2S transition is sup- scalar −1 2 NP [ ppb ] 1 pressed above aM , due to the 1/m scaling of δ1S−2S, and goes below 10 kHz at about m ∼ 1 MeV. At lower stellar cooling exclusion masses, below m ∼ 300 keV, the electron coupling is NP 1S - 2S δ 0.01 strongly constrained (gray lines) by stellar cooling con- Mu-MASS 10kHz siderations [73]. The remaining gap can be covered by the 1kHz order-of-magnitude improvement on aexp [74, 75]. This e 10-4 shows that the forthcoming 1S-2S frequency measure- 0.01 1 100 104 106 108 ment at Mu-Mass will be typically safe from NP con- tamination, thus allowing a determination me/mµ at the m[keV] ppb level. Similar conclusion holds for the 10 Hz accuracy 100 goal on measuring the ground state HFS at MuSEUM. 50 Note that, with additional assumptions on the electrong-2 scalar/vector decays, fixed-target experiments constrain exclusion the electron coupling more stringently up to one order stellar cooling exclusion of magnitude below the GeV-scale e.g. [76, 77]. Taking 10 [ ppb ] these bounds at face value further excludes NP contri- 5 2-loop NDA butions to δ1S−2S and δHFS below the ultimate precision NP HFS

δ MuSEUM 10Hz goal envisaged in the previous section. New physics could also enter indirectly through a 1 4Hz modification of the Rydberg constant (and in turn also α). Since R∞ is determined from hydrogen spectroscopy, 0.5 this is only possible assuming an additional coupling to 0.01 0.10 1 10 100 1000 protons. However, the overall consistency among several m[keV] highly-precise hydrogen measurements strongly restricts NP interactions between electrons and protons, still FIG. 2: New physics contributions to δ (top) and δ allowing to extract R with an uncertainty comparable 1S−2S HFS ∞ (bottom). Solid red lines indicate the expected accuracy of to that of assuming the SM [78]. the ongoing Mu-Mass (10 kHz) and MuSEUM (10 Hz) exper- iments. The blue (gray) shaded area is excluded by the elec- Hence we conclude that a reliable determination of aµ tron g − 2 measurement [72] (stellar cooling constraints [73]). from a comparison of future muonium spectroscopy mea- The dotted green line denotes the NP contribution from the surements with their SM predictions is expected. relation ye = (α/π) × yµ naively expected from kinetic mix- ing at one-loop in the vector case. The bottom plot is cut at √ m = memµ ' 7 MeV, which is the validity range of the spin dependent effetive potentail in Eq. (11). V. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

We proposed an alternative strategy to extract the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon based on to reach ∼ 0.1 ppm accuracy in a few years [2, 79]. highly-precise measurements and theoretical QED However it would most certainly help interpreting the calculations in muonium. Current data on the 1S-2S current difference between these measurements and the transition and ground state HFS frequencies allows (R-ratio based) SM prediction, were it to persist over to determine aµ at ∼ 700 ppm, largely limited by the same timescale. A muonium value of aµ favoring statistics in the 1S-2S measurement. A new program, today’s experimental average, along with δ1S−2S and partly motivated by the present muon g − 2 puzzle, δHFS consistent with the SM, would strengthen the of highly-precise muonium spectroscopy and theory evidence of NP dominantly coupled to muons (assuming will significantly improve the situation in the coming the R-ratio determination of the HVP contribution is decade, reducing the aµ uncertainty to about 3 ppm, a faithfully figure of the SM prediction). Conversely, and even below the ppm-level at a future stage. Given a value consistent with the current R-ratio prediction present constraints on exotic forces coupled to electrons, would indicate a potential unknown systematic with the this indirect determination which relies on bound-state BNL/FNAL measurements, or point to a non-trivial NP QED calculation is unlikely to be affected by new physics. dynamics. In the latter case, precision measurements of additional muonium lines, like the 2S-2P Lamb shift [80] Such an independent value of aµ cannot be competitive planned at PSI, would help discriminating among with spin-precession measurements that are expected different possibilities. Either way, this highly motivates 7 to push the frontier of precision muonium physics as zon 2020 research and innovation program under the much as possible. Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 101019414. YS is supported by the United States-Israel Binational Acknowledgements We thank Michael Eides and Science Foundation (BSF) (NSF-BSF program grant Yevgeny Stadnik for useful discussions and Paolo Criv- No. 2018683), by the Israel Science Foundation (grant elli, Michael Eides, Gilad Perez and in particular Klaus No. 482/20) and by the Azrieli foundation. YS is Taub Jungmann for valuable comments on the manuscript. BO fellow (supported by the Taub Family Foundation). acknowledges support from the European Union’s Hori-

[1] Julian S. Schwinger. On and Phys. Rev. D, 100(1):014510, 2019. the magnetic moment of the electron. Phys. Rev., 73:416– [16] C. T. H. Davies et al. Hadronic-vacuum-polarization 417, 1948. contribution to the muon’s anomalous magnetic mo- [2] B. Abi et al. Measurement of the Positive Muon Anoma- ment from four-flavor lattice QCD. Phys. Rev. D, lous Magnetic Moment to 0.46 ppm. Phys. Rev. Lett., 101(3):034512, 2020. 126(14):141801, 2021. [17] D. Giusti, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Sanfilippo, and [3] T. Albahri et al. Magnetic-field measurement and anal- S. Simula. Electromagnetic and strong isospin-breaking ysis for the Muon g − 2 Experiment at Fermilab. Phys. corrections to the muon g − 2 from Lattice QCD+QED. Rev. A, 103(4):042208, 2021. Phys. Rev. D, 99(11):114502, 2019. [4] T. Albahri et al. Measurement of the anomalous preces- [18] T. Blum, P. A. Boyle, V. G¨ulpers, T. Izubuchi, L. Jin, sion frequency of the muon in the Fermilab Muon g − 2 C. Jung, A. J¨uttner,C. Lehner, A. Portelli, and J. T. Experiment. Phys. Rev. D, 103(7):072002, 2021. Tsang. Calculation of the hadronic vacuum polarization [5] G. W. Bennett et al. Final Report of the Muon E821 contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment. Anomalous Magnetic Moment Measurement at BNL. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(2):022003, 2018. Phys. Rev. D, 73:072003, 2006. [19] Sz. Borsanyi et al. Hadronic vacuum polarization con- [6] Tatsumi Aoyama, Masashi Hayakawa, Toichiro Ki- tribution to the anomalous magnetic moments of leptons noshita, and Makiko Nio. Complete Tenth-Order QED from first principles. Phys. Rev. Lett., 121(2):022002, Contribution to the Muon g-2. Phys. Rev. Lett., 2018. 109:111808, 2012. [20] Klaus P. Jungmann. Precision Muonium Spectroscopy. [7] Tatsumi Aoyama, Toichiro Kinoshita, and Makiko Nio. J. Phys. Soc. Jap., 85(9):091004, 2016. Theory of the Anomalous Magnetic Moment of the Elec- [21] V. Meyer et al. Measurement of the 1s - 2s energy interval tron. Atoms, 7(1):28, 2019. in muonium. Phys. Rev. Lett., 84:1136, 2000. [8] T. Aoyama et al. The anomalous magnetic moment of [22] Savely G. Karshenboim, Akira Ozawa, Valery A. She- the muon in the Standard Model. Phys. Rept., 887:1–166, lyuto, Robert Szafron, and Vladimir G. Ivanov. The 2020. Lamb shift of the 1s state in hydrogen: Two-loop and [9] M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu, and Z. Zhang. A three-loop contributions. Phys. Lett. B, 795:432–437, new evaluation of the hadronic vacuum polarisation con- 2019. tributions to the muon anomalous magnetic moment and [23] James Lewis Friar, J. Martorell, and D. W. L. Sprung. 2 to α(mZ). Eur. Phys. J. C, 80(3):241, 2020. [Erratum: Hadronic vacuum polarization and the Lamb shift. Phys. Eur.Phys.J.C 80, 410 (2020)]. Rev. A, 59:4061–4063, 1999. [10] Claude Bouchiat and Louis Michel. La r´esonancedans la [24] Eite Tiesinga, Peter J Mohr, David B Newell, and diffusion m´eson π— m´eson π et le moment magn´etique Barry N Taylor. The 2018 codata recommended values anormal du m´eson µ. J. Phys. Radium, 22(2):121–121, of the fundamental physical constants. Web Version, 8, 1961. 2019. [11] Stanley J. Brodsky and Eduardo De Rafael. SUG- [25] P. Crivelli. The Mu-MASS (MuoniuM lAser Spec- GESTED BOSON - LEPTON PAIR COUPLINGS AND troScopy) experiment. Hyperfine Interact., 239(1):49, THE ANOMALOUS MAGNETIC MOMENT OF THE 2018. MUON. Phys. Rev., 168:1620–1622, 1968. [26] Michael I Eides and Valery A Shelyuto. Hyperfine split- [12] M. Gourdin and E. De Rafael. Hadronic contributions to ting in muonium and . International Journal the muon g-factor. Nucl. Phys. B, 10:667–674, 1969. of Modern Physics A, 31(28n29):1645034, 2016. [13] T. Blum. Lattice calculation of the lowest order hadronic [27] Michael I Eides. Hyperfine splitting in muonium: The- contribution to the muon anomalous magnetic moment. ory meets experiment, talk presented at the international Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:052001, 2003. workshop on physics of muonium and related topics. [14] Sz. Borsanyi et al. Leading hadronic contribution to the 2018. muon 2 magnetic moment from lattice QCD. Nature, [28] Alexander Keshavarzi, Daisuke Nomura, and Thomas 2 593(7857):51–55, 2021. Teubner. g−2 of charged leptons, α(MZ ) , and the hyper- [15] Antoine G´erardin, Marco C`e, Georg von Hippel, Ben fine splitting of muonium. Phys. Rev. D, 101(1):014029, H¨orz,Harvey B. Meyer, Daniel Mohler, Konstantin Ot- 2020. tnad, Jonas Wilhelm, and Hartmut Wittig. The leading [29] L´eoMorel, Zhibin Yao, Pierre Clad´e,and Sa¨ıdaGuellati- hadronic contribution to (g − 2)µ from lattice QCD with Kh´elifa. Determination of the fine-structure constant Nf = 2 + 1 flavours of O(a) improved Wilson quarks. with an accuracy of 81 parts per trillion. Nature, 8

588(7836):61–65, 2020. T Higuchi, H Iinuma, Y Ikedo, K Ishida, M Iwasaki, [30] Weiwen Liu et al. High precision measurements of the et al. Precise measurement of muonium hfs at j-parc ground state hyperfine structure interval of muonium and muse. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium of the muon magnetic moment. Phys. Rev. Lett., 82:711– on Science at J-PARC—Unlocking the Mysteries of Life, 714, 1999. Matter and the Universe—, page 025018, 2015. [31] K. S. Tanaka, M. Iwasaki, O. Kamigaito, S. Kanda, [47] Yasuhiro Ueno et al. New Precision Measurement of N. Kawamura, Y. Matsuda, T. Mibe, S. Nishimura, Muonium Hyperfine Structure. PoS, ICHEP2018:466, N. Saito, N. Sakamoto, S. Seo, K. Shimomura, 2019. P. Strasser, K. Suda, T. Tanaka, H. A. Torii, A. Toyoda, [48] S. Nishimura, H. A. Torii, Y. Fukao, T. U. Ito, Y. Ueno, and M. Yoshida. Development of microwave M. Iwasaki, S. Kanda, K. Kawagoe, D. Kawall, N. Kawa- cavities for measurement of muonium hyperfine structure mura, N. Kurosawa, Y. Matsuda, T. Mibe, Y. Miyake, at j-parc, 2021. N. Saito, K. Sasaki, Y. Sato, S. Seo, P. Strasser, [32] Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Bernard Diu, and Franck T. Suehara, K. S. Tanaka, T. Tanaka, J. Tojo, A. Toy- Lalo¨e. Quantum mechanics; 1st ed. Wiley, New York, oda, Y. Ueno, T. Yamanaka, T. Yamazaki, H. Yasuda, NY, 1977. Trans. of : M´ecaniquequantique. Paris : Her- T. Yoshioka, and K. Shimomura. Rabi-oscillation spec- mann, 1973. troscopy of the hyperfine structure of muonium atoms, [33] Alexey Grinin, Arthur Matveev, Dylan C. Yost, Lothar 2021. Maisenbacher, Vitaly Wirthl, Randolf Pohl, Theodor W. [49] T Asaka, M Tanaka, K Tsumura, and M Yoshimura. Pre- H¨ansch, and Thomas Udem. Two-photon frequency cision electroweak shift of muonium hyperfine splitting. comb spectroscopy of atomic hydrogen. Science, arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.05429, 2018. 370(6520):1061–1066, 2020. [50] Alex Keshavarzi, Kim Siang Khaw, and Tamaki Yosh- [34] Richard H. Parker, Chenghui Yu, Weicheng Zhong, Brian ioka. Muon g − 2: current status. 6 2021. Estey, and Holger M¨uller. Measurement of the fine- [51] S. Kanda et al. New precise spectroscopy of the hyperfine structure constant as a test of the Standard Model. Sci- structure in muonium with a high-intensity pulsed muon ence, 360:191, 2018. beam. Phys. Lett. B, 815:136154, 2021. [35] Holger M¨uller. Standard model of particle physics [52] D Kiselev, P Baumann, P Duperrex, S Jollet, P-R Kettle, tested by the fine-structure constant. Nature (London) , A Knecht, D Laube, C Nyfeler, A Papa, D Reggiani, 588(7836):37–38, January 2020. et al. Progress and challenges of the psi meson targets [36] Michael I. Eides. Hyperfine Splitting in Muonium: Ac- and relevant systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd J-PARC curacy of the Theoretical Prediction. Phys. Lett. B, Symposium (J-PARC2019), page 011102, 2021. 795:113–116, 2019. [53] Daniela Kiselev, Christian Baumgarten, Rudolf D¨olling, [37] Peter J. Mohr, David B. Newell, and Barry N. Taylor. Pierre Duperrex, Dietmar G¨otz,Joachim Grillenberger, Codata recommended values of the fundamental physical Davide Reggiani, Markus Schneider, Marco Schippers, constants: 2014. Rev. Mod. Phys., 88:035009, Sep 2016. Mike Seidel, et al. Status and future projects of the psi [38] Zakary Burkley, Lucas de Sousa Borges, Ben Ohayon, high intensity proton accelerator. In Proceedings of the Artem Golovozin, Jesse Zhang, and Paolo Crivelli. Sta- 3rd J-PARC Symposium (J-PARC2019), page 011004, ble high power deep-uv enhancement cavity in ultra high 2021. vacuum with fluoride coatings, 2021. [54] A Knecht. The high intensity muon beam line (himb) [39] E. Morenzoni, F. Kottmann, D. Maden, B. Matthias, project at psi. In The 19th International Workshop on M. Meyberg, Th. Prokscha, Th. Wutzke, and U. Zimmer- Neutrinos from Accelerators (NUFACT2017). Uppsala, mann. Generation of very slow polarized positive muons. 2017. Phys. Rev. Lett., 72:2793–2796, Apr 1994. [55] Ivana Belosevic, Aldo Antognini, Y Bao, Andreas Eggen- [40] A. Antognini, P. Crivelli, T. Prokscha, K. S. Khaw, berger, Malte Hildebrandt, Ryoto Iwai, DM Kaplan, B. Barbiellini, L. Liszkay, K. Kirch, K. Kwuida, Kim S Khaw, Klaus Kirch, Andreas Knecht, et al. mu- E. Morenzoni, F. M. Piegsa, Z. Salman, and A. Suter. cool: a next step towards efficient muon beam compres- Muonium emission into vacuum from mesoporous thin sion. The European Physical Journal C, 79(5):1–9, 2019. films at cryogenic temperatures. Phys. Rev. Lett., [56] A. Antognini, N. J. Ayres, I. Belosevic, V. Bondar, 108:143401, Apr 2012. A. Eggenberger, M. Hildebrandt, R. Iwai, D. M. Kaplan, [41] Vladimir A. Yerokhin, Krzysztof Pachucki, and Vojtech K. S. Khaw, K. Kirch, A. Knecht, A. Papa, C. Petit- Patkos. Theory of the Lamb Shift in Hydrogen and Light jean, T. J. Phillips, F. M. Piegsa, N. Ritjoho, A. Stoykov, Hydrogen-Like Ions. Annalen Phys., 531(5):1800324, D. Taqqu, and G. Wichmann. Demonstration of muon- 2019. beam transverse phase-space compression. Phys. Rev. [42] Jean-Philippe Karr, Dominique Marchand, and Eric Lett., 125:164802, Oct 2020. Voutier. The proton size. Nature Reviews Physics, [57] A Antognini and D Taqqu. mucool: muon cooling for 2(11):601–614, 2020. high-brightness µ beams. SciPost Physics Proceedings, [43] Randolf Pohl et al. The size of the proton. Nature, 2021. 466:213–216, 2010. [58] Alexey Grinin, Arthur Matveev, Dylan C Yost, Lothar [44] Aldo Antognini et al. Proton Structure from the Mea- Maisenbacher, Vitaly Wirthl, Randolf Pohl, Theodor W surement of 2S − 2P Transition Frequencies of Muonic H¨ansch, and Thomas Udem. Two-photon frequency Hydrogen. Science, 339:417–420, 2013. comb spectroscopy of atomic hydrogen. Science, [45] M. Horbatsch and E. A. Hessels. Tabulation of the 370(6520):1061–1066, 2020. bound-state energies of atomic hydrogen. Phys. Rev. A, [59] Wim Ubachs. Crisis and catharsis in atomic physics. 93:022513, Feb 2016. Science, 370(6520):1033–1033, 2020. [46] Hiroyuki A Torii, HA Torii, M Aoki, Y Fukao, Y Higashi, [60] N. Bezginov, T. Valdez, M. Horbatsch, A. Marsman, 9

A. C. Vutha, and E. A. Hessels. A measurement of the [82] F. G. Mariam et al. HIGHER PRECISION MEASURE- atomic hydrogen lamb shift and the proton charge radius. MENT OF THE HFS INTERVAL OF MUONIUM AND Science, 365(6457):1007–1012, 2019. OF THE MUON MAGNETIC MOMENT. Phys. Rev. [61] Hans-Werner Hammer and Ulf-G. Meißner. The pro- Lett., 49:993–996, 1982. ton radius: from a puzzle to precision. Science Bulletin, [83] Savely G. Karshenboim and Valery A. Shelyuto. 65(4):257–258, 2020. Hadronic vacuum-polarization contribution to various [62] Zhu-Fang Cui, Daniele Binosi, Craig D. Roberts, and QED observables. Eur. Phys. J. D, 75(2):49, 2021. Sebastian M. Schmidt. Fresh extraction of the proton [84] Michael I. Eides and Valery A. Shelyuto. Three-Loop charge radius from electron scattering, 2021. Contributions to Hyperfine Splitting: Muon Loop Light- [63] Axel Beyer et al. The Rydberg constant and proton size by-Light Insertion and Other Closed Lepton Loops. Phys. from atomic hydrogen. Science, 358(6359):79–85, 2017. Rev. D, 90(11):113002, 2014. [64] Weiwen Liu et al. Observation of resonance line narrow- [85] Albert Messiah. Quantum mechanics. Dover Publica- ing for old muonium. Phys. Rev. A, 52:1948–1953, 1995. tions, 2014. [65] Claudia Frugiuele, Jes´usP´erez-R´ıos, and Clara Peset. Current and future perspectives of positronium and muo- nium spectroscopy as dark sectors probe. Phys. Rev. D, 100(1):015010, 2019. [66] S. G. Karshenboim. Precision physics of simple atoms and constraints on a light boson with ultraweak coupling. Phys. Rev. Lett., 104:220406, 2010. [67] R. Jackiw and Steven Weinberg. Weak interaction cor- rections to the muon magnetic moment and to muonic atom energy levels. Phys. Rev. D, 5:2396–2398, 1972. [68] Fred Jegerlehner and Andreas Nyffeler. The Muon g-2. Phys. Rept., 477:1–110, 2009. [69] Reuven Balkin, C´edricDelaunay, Michael Geller, En- rique Kajomovitz, Gilad Perez, Yogev Shpilman, and Yotam Soreq. A Custodial Symmetry for Muon g-2. 4 2021. [70] Pavel Fadeev, Yevgeny V. Stadnik, Filip Ficek, Mikhail G. Kozlov, Victor V. Flambaum, and Dmitry Budker. Revisiting spin-dependent forces mediated by new bosons: Potentials in the coordinate-space repre- sentation for macroscopic- and atomic-scale experiments. Phys. Rev. A, 99(2):022113, 2019. [71] E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe. A Relativistic equa- tion for bound state problems. Phys. Rev., 84:1232–1242, 1951. [72] D. Hanneke, S. Fogwell, and G. Gabrielse. New Mea- surement of the Electron Magnetic Moment and the Fine Structure Constant. Phys. Rev. Lett., 100:120801, 2008. [73] Edward Hardy and Robert Lasenby. Stellar cooling bounds on new light particles: plasma mixing effects. JHEP, 02:033, 2017. [74] X. Fan and G. Gabrielse. Driven One-Particle Quantum Cyclotron. Phys. Rev. A, 103(2):022824, 2021. [75] G. Gabrielse, S. E. Fayer, T. G. Myers, and X. Fan. To- wards an Improved Test of the Standard Model’s Most Precise Prediction. Atoms, 7(2):45, 2019. [76] Philip Ilten, Yotam Soreq, Mike Williams, and Wei Xue. Serendipity in dark photon searches. JHEP, 06:004, 2018. [77] Yu. M. Andreev et al. Constraints on New Physics in Electron g − 2 from a Search for Invisible Decays of a Scalar, Pseudoscalar, Vector, and Axial Vector. Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(21):211802, 2021. [78] C. Delaunay et al. work in progress. [79] M. Abe et al. A New Approach for Measuring the Muon Anomalous Magnetic Moment and Electric Dipole Mo- ment. PTEP, 2019(5):053C02, 2019. [80] G. Janka et al. Intense beam of metastable Muonium. Eur. Phys. J. C, 80(9):804, 2020. [81] P. J. Mohr and B. N. Taylor. CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 1998. Rev. Mod. Phys., 72:351–495, 2000. 1

Towards an independent determination of muon g-2 from muonium spectroscopy Supplemental Material C´edricDelaunay, Ben Ohayon and Yotam Soreq

I. LEAST-SQUARE ADJUSTMENT

The electron-to-muon mass ratio me/mµ and the muon anomalous magnetic moment aµ are extracted from muonium data through a least-square adjustment. We follow the method and notation used by the CODATA collaboration, as described in their 1998 review [81]. Our adjustment is based on the 1999 [21] measurement of the 1S-2S transition frequency at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL), the 1982 [82] and 1999 [30] measurements of the ground state HFS at the Clinton P. Anderson Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF). It includes also inputs δE(1S), δE(2S) and δE(HFS) representing additive corrections to the 1S, 2S energies EM and the 1S HFS, respectively, associated to unknown high-order QED contributions. They are assigned zero values and an uncertainty given by the theory uncertainty of the energy level calculations. Input data are summarized in Table S1.

input datum value relative uncertainty identification reference −9 ν1S−2S 2 455 528 941.0(9.8) MHz 4.0 × 10 RAL-99 [21] −8 νHFS 4 463 302 776(51) Hz 1.2 × 10 LAMPF-99 [30] −8 νHFS 4 463 302.88(16)kHz 3.6 × 10 LAMPF-82 [82] δE(1S)/h 0.000(14) MHz 4.3 × 10−12 theory [24] δE(2S)/h 0.0(1.8) kHz 2.2 × 10−12 theory [24] δE(HFS)/h 0.000(70) kHz 1.6 × 10−8 theory [36]

TABLE S1: Input data for the determination of me/mµ and aµ from muonium spectroscopy. For the additive corrections δE(1S) and δE(2S) the quoted ur are relative to the corresponding state energies, and to the 1S HFS frequency for δE(HFS)/h.

The data is compared to the best available theory predictions for ν1S−2S and νHFS. The full expressions in terms of R∞, α, me/mµ and aµ (including latest developments in the nS levels energies [41] and the 1S HFS [83, 84]) are nicely summarized in the 2018 CODATA review [24]. (The muonium energies are obtained from hydrogen ones upon changing the reduced mass and discarding the nuclear finite-size and polarizability contributions.) Given their very small uncertainty compared to those in muonium, we assume R∞ and α are exactly known constants fixed −1 to their 2018 CODATA recommended values [24]: R∞c = 3 289 841 960 250.8 kHz and α = 137.035 999 084. The observational equations relating the input data in Table S1 and the remaining adjusted constants including me/mµ, th th th aµ and the additive corrections δ1S, δ2S, δHFS are given in Table S2.

input datum observational equation . th th ν1S−2S ν1S−2S = [EM (2S; me/mµ) + δ2S − EM (1S; me/mµ) − δ1S]/h . th th νHFS νHFS = νHFS(me/mµ, aµ) + δHFS/h . th δE(1S)/h δE(1S) = δ1S . th δE(2S)/h δE(2S) = δ2S . th δE(HFS)/h δE(HFS) = δHFS

TABLE S2: Observational equations used for the determination of me/mµ and aµ from muonium spectroscopy.

The theory uncertainty of the nS energy calculation is dominated by the unknown higher-order terms in the relativistic-recoil QED contribution. Reference [21] quotes a QED uncertainty of 20 kHz for the overall 1S-2S transition frequency. To our knowledge there is no updated value published in the literature. Following Ref. [24], we reevaluated the muonium 1S and 2S energy uncertainties using the latest developments in hydrogen calculations, yielding a total uncertainty of u[δE(1S)/h] ' 14 kHz and u[δE(2S)/h] ' 1.8 kHz, with a 99% correlation between them. After two iterations, the least-square adjustment described above converged to the values reported in the main text: −9 −8 me/mµ = 4 836 329(4) × 10 and aµ = 116 637(82) × 10 , the former reproducing the value derived in Ref. [21]. The Birge ratio Rb = 0.68 and all normalized residuals are found to be below unity, showing self-consistency of the input data. The least-square adjustment presented above can be straightforwardly improved to include future more precise measurements and theory calculations (including other muonium transitions). Possible new physics contributions (as 2 discussed below) can be accounted for by additional adjusted constants for the associated mass scale and couplings to electrons and muons.

II. NEW PHYSICS CONTRIBUTIONS TO MUONIUM ENERGY LEVELS

The new physics (NP) contributions from the exchange of a scalar or vector of mass m is given in first-order perturbation theory by the overlap of the non-relativistic potential

" ~ ~  2 # −mr 1 8π(Se · Sµ) m 3 VNP(r) = αNPe + − δ (r) , (S1) r 3memµ 4πr with the modulus square of the Schr¨odingerwavefunction for hydrogen-like atoms [85]

m ψnlm(r, θ, φ) = Rnl(r)Yl (θ, φ) , (S2)

m R 1 R 2π m m0 where Yl (θ, φ) are spherical harmonics (normalized as −1 d cos θ 0 dφ Yl (θ, φ)Yl0 (θ, φ) = δll0 δmm0 ) and s  3 2 (n − l − 1)! −ρ/2 l 2l+1 2r Rnl(r) = e ρ Ln−l+1(ρ) , with ρ ≡ , (S3) naM 2n(n + l)! naM is the radial wavefunction expressed in terms of the reduced Bohr radius aM = (1+me/mµ)/(αme) and the generalized 2l+1 Laguerre polynomials of degree n − l + 1, Ln−l+1(x). The NP contribution to the 1S-2S frequency shift (arising from the spin-independent part of VNP) is 8α δNP = NP I (ma ) , (S4) 1S−2S 3α 12 M where Z −mr Z ∞ 3 e  2 2 2 2 −mr  2 2 I12(maM ) ≡ aM d r |ψ200(r, θ, φ)| − |ψ100(r, θ, φ)| = aM drre R20(r) − R10(r) r 0 2 1 + 2(maM ) 4 = 4 − 2 , (S5) 4(1 + maM ) (2 + maM )

2 with the asymptotic behaviors I12(x → 0) = −3/4 and I12(x → ∞) ' −7/(2x ). Similarly, its counterpart to the 1S HFS shift (arising from the spin-spin interaction part of the potential) is α δNP = NP J (ma ) , (S6) HFS 4α 1 M where Z  2   Z ∞  3 3 −mr m 3 2 3 2 2 −mr 2 J1(maM ) ≡ aM d r e − 4πδ (r) |ψ100(r, θ, φ)| = aM −R10(0) + m drre R10(r) r 0 1 + maM = −16 2 , (S7) (2 + maM ) with J1(x → 0) = −4 and J1(x → ∞) ' −16/x.

−1 Note that the large mass (m  aM ) behavior of J1 is at odds with naive expectations from effective field theory which predicts a decoupling of the HFS contribution like 1/m2 (or faster). The 1/m scaling is a spurious artefact of the non-relativistic approximation used to obtain the potential in Eq. (S1). While this approximation is certainly valid for long-range interactions, it breaks down for new spin-dependent forces whose range is shorter than the Compton wavelength of the electron. This is manifest from the appearance of a δ-function term in Eq. (S1) characterized by √ the scale memµ. This δ-function stems from the assumption that the electron couples to the magnetic field created by a static muon located at r = 0. For scalar/vector masses above that scale, the short-distance dynamics is not 2 properly resolved, yielding a spurious 1/m scaling. The expected 1/m -asymptotic of J1 should be recovered within a bound-state theory, like the Bethe-Salpeter formalism [71], where both the electron and the antimuon are relativistic.