Quantum Electrodynamics in Strong Electromagnetic Fields:
Substate Resolved KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α Transition Energies in Helium-like Uranium

Ph. PfĂ€fflein p.pfaefflein@hi-jena.gsi.de Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany Institute of Optics and Quantum Electronics,
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany
   G. Weber Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    S. Allgeier Kirchhoff Institute for Physics, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany    Z. Andelkovic GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    S. Bernitt Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    A. I. Bondarev Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    A. Borovik, Jr I. Physikalisches Institut, Justus-Liebig-UniversitĂ€t Gießen, 35392 Gießen, Germany Helmholtz Forschungsakademie Hessen fĂŒr FAIR (HFHF), Campus Gießen, 35392 Gießen, Germany    L. Duval Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, Sorbonne UniversitĂ©, 75005 Paris, France    A. Fleischmann Kirchhoff Institute for Physics, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany    O. Forstner Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany Institute of Optics and Quantum Electronics,
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany
   M. Friedrich Kirchhoff Institute for Physics, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany    J. Glorius GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    A. Gumberidze GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    Ch. Hahn Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    F. Herfurth GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    D. Hengstler Kirchhoff Institute for Physics, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany    M. O. Herdrich Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany Institute of Optics and Quantum Electronics,
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany
   P.-M. Hillenbrand GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany I. Physikalisches Institut, Justus-Liebig-UniversitĂ€t Gießen, 35392 Gießen, Germany Helmholtz Forschungsakademie Hessen fĂŒr FAIR (HFHF), Campus Gießen, 35392 Gießen, Germany    A. Kalinin GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    M. Kiffer Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany Institute of Optics and Quantum Electronics,
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany
   F. M. Kröger Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany Institute of Optics and Quantum Electronics,
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany
   M. Kubullek Institute of Optics and Quantum Electronics,
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany
   P. Kuntz Kirchhoff Institute for Physics, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany    M. Lestinsky GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    B. Löher GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    E. B. Menz Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany Institute of Optics and Quantum Electronics,
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany
   T. Over Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany Institute of Optics and Quantum Electronics,
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany
   N. Petridis GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    S. Ringleb Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany Institute of Optics and Quantum Electronics,
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany
   R. S. Sidhu GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Edinburgh, EH9 3FD Edinburgh, UK    U. Spillmann GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    S. Trotsenko GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany    A. Warczak Marian Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, 30-348 KrakĂłw, Poland    B. Zhu School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Chuzhou University, 239000 Chuzhou, China    Ch. Enss Kirchhoff Institute for Physics, Heidelberg University, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany    Th. Stöhlker Helmholtz Institute Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany GSI Helmholtzzentrum fĂŒr Schwerionenforschung GmbH, 64291 Darmstadt, Germany Institute of Optics and Quantum Electronics,
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07743 Jena, Germany
(July 4, 2024)
Abstract

We recorded X-ray spectra of stored and electron cooled helium-like uranium (U90+) with an unmatched spectral resolution of close to 90909090 eV, using novel metallic magnetic calorimeter detectors at CRYRING@ESR. This allowed for an accurate determination of the energies of all four components of the KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transitions in U90+. We find good agreement with state-of-the-art bound-state QED calculations for the strong-field regime. Our results do not support any systematic deviation between experiment and theory in helium-like systems, the presence of which was subject of intense debates in recent years.

The study of electrons in extreme electromagnetic fields, as present in heavy highly-charged ions (HCI), is one of the frontiers in exploring quantum electrodynamics (QED). At high atomic numbers Z𝑍Zitalic_Z, the electron–nucleus coupling constant α⁹Zđ›Œđ‘\alpha Zitalic_α italic_Z approaches unity, where α≈1/137đ›Œ1137\alpha\approx 1/137italic_α ≈ 1 / 137 is the fine structure constant. Therefore, for heavy HCI, perturbative treatments in α⁹Zđ›Œđ‘\alpha Zitalic_α italic_Z that enable highly accurate QED predictions for hydrogen and other light systems are no longer applicable [1]. Nowadays, challenging non-perturbative calculations in α⁹Zđ›Œđ‘\alpha Zitalic_α italic_Z can be performed up to the second order of the expansion in Î±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α, including one-electron two-loop contributions as well as two-electron QED effects [2, 3, 4, 5].

The most stringent experimental tests of bound-state QED in the presence of strong electromagnetic fields are provided by measurements of transition energies [6], hyperfine structure [7, 8] and bound electron g-factors [9]. For the heaviest HCI, up until now, measurements of transition energies have delivered the most sensitive tests of various QED contributions. For hydrogen-like and lithium-like systems, several high-precision measurements have already been performed, as summarized by Beiersdorfer [10] and Indelicato [11]. In contrast, precision spectroscopy of helium-like ions heavier than xenon (Z=54𝑍54Z=54italic_Z = 54) have been virtually non-existent until very recently. It is important to emphasize that helium-like ions represent the simplest multi-electron systems where a complex interplay between relativistic, electron–electron correlation and QED effects can be explored. QED calculations of the binding energies in helium-like ions for principal quantum numbers n= 1𝑛1n\,=\,1italic_n = 1 and n= 2𝑛2n\,=\,2italic_n = 2 have been accomplished for Z=12ⁱ–ⁱ 100𝑍12–100Z=12\,\text{--}\,100italic_Z = 12 – 100 by Artemyev et al. [3]. Refinements of these calculations have recently been reported for specific nuclei by Malyshev et al. [4] and Kozhedub et al. [5]. Furthermore, a successful validation of QED predictions in this regime of very strong coupling may provide novel opportunities for tests of fundamental physics and searches for physics beyond the Standard Model [12, 13, 14]. Recently, groundbreaking results on the intra-shell transition 1⁹s⁹2⁹p 3⁹P2⁹ â†’ âą1⁹s⁹2⁹s 3⁹S1→1s2superscriptp 3subscriptP2  1s2superscripts 3subscriptS11\text{s}2\text{p}\text{ }^{3}\text{P}_{2}\text{ }\rightarrow\text{ }1\text{s}% 2\text{s}\text{ }^{3}\text{S}_{1}1 s 2 roman_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 1 s 2 roman_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (close to 4.5 keV) were reported by Loetzsch et al. [6], confirming theoretical predictions of the screened and two-loop one-electron QED contributions in helium-like heavy ions for the first time.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Level scheme of helium-like uranium, where the most prominent radiative transitions are depicted. The KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transitions studied in this work are drawn in red and blue.

However, a similar test is still missing for the KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transitions (n= 2→n= 1𝑛2→𝑛1n\,=\,2\rightarrow n\,=\,1italic_n = 2 → italic_n = 1) which provide access to the most strongly bound states being most affected by QED effects. In the heaviest systems, precision spectroscopy of this radiation is particular demanding due to the high X-ray energies close to 100 keV in combination with the presence of closely spaced L-shell sublevels, as presented in Fig. 1. Disentangling the individual transitions that form the KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α peaks, called w, x, y and z according to Gabriel’s notation [15], is hardly possible, due to the limited spectral resolution of commonly used semiconductor detectors. In U90+, the closest lines w and x are separated by 74 eV compared to a typical energy resolution of a few 100 eV full width at half maximum (FWHM). Consequently, precision spectroscopy of KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transitions has so far been performed only up to xenon [16]. The need for accurate measurements in high-Z𝑍Zitalic_Z systems is particular pressing as possible Z𝑍Zitalic_Z-dependent deviations between experiment and theory have been intensely discussed [17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 11].

In this Letter, we present a study using novel high-resolution detectors on helium-like uranium (U90+) at the GSI/FAIR facility in Darmstadt, Germany. So far, the most precise studies of these transitions were performed using semiconductor detectors [26, 27]. The limited resolution provided by this detector technology hindered accurate comparison of the observed transition energies with theoretical predictions. In contrast, in the present work we used an alternative detector technology featuring a superior spectral performance, similarly to the study of helium-like xenon [16]. At the electron cooler of the recently installed CRYRING@ESR [28], we employed two maXs-type detectors (Micro-Calorimeter Arrays for High Resolution X-ray Spectroscopy) [29, 30]. A spectral resolution of ≀90absent90\leq 90≀ 90 eV FWHM over a wide energy range from a few keV to above 100 keV was achieved. This enabled to disentangle all four components of the KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α radiation of U90+, resulting in an accurate determination of their transition energies, without relying on assumptions about the relative line intensities. As a cross-check, we also obtained an accurate value of the U90+ ground-state ionization energy. While a comprehensive description of the experimental setup and its operation is provided in [31], in the following we briefly highlight key features of the experiment before proceeding to the discussion of the obtained results.

Excited U90+ ions were produced from a primary beam of hydrogen-like U91+ ions via radiative recombination in the electron cooler of CRYRING@ESR. Starting with a beam of U91+ at a kinetic energy of 296 MeV/u, in the ESR successive electron cooling and deceleration steps were applied. At an energy of 10.225 MeV/u the ions were transferred to the low-energy storage ring CRYRING@ESR. This multi-staged preparation procedure resulted in one injection every 55 s. The experiment was conducted with an average of about 1×1061superscript1061\times 10^{6}1 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT U91+ ions per injection over a week of continuous measurement time.

In CRYRING@ESR, the stored ions were continuously electron-cooled with a voltage of 5634.5 V applied to the cooler. At an electron current of 30.5 mA an electron density of approximately 1.2× 107⁹cm−31.2superscript107superscriptcm31.2\,\times\,10^{7}\,\text{cm}^{-3}1.2 × 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 7 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT cm start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT was reached. The repulsive force by the space charge of the electron beam reduced the acceleration potential to 5609.4 V. We assume an uncertainty of ± 2plus-or-minus2\pm\,2± 2 V to account for the unknown contact potential between the cathode and collector electrode of the electron cooler. This translates to an expected ion beam velocity of ÎČ=0.14695⁹(3)đ›œ0.146953\beta=0.14695(3)italic_ÎČ = 0.14695 ( 3 ).

At relative velocities between electrons and ions close to zero, as is the case during electron cooling, the recombination process predominantly captures electrons into Rydberg states. The excited ions subsequently decay to the ground state via radiative cascades. Thus, each recombination event typically results in the emission of numerous characteristic photons in addition to the radiative recombination photon, as discussed in detail for example by Zhu et al. [32]. The U90+ ions were separated from the main beam in the next dipole magnet and then registered by a particle detector.

The cooler section features view ports located at 0∘ and 180∘ with respect to the ion beam axis, that are equipped with 50 ”m thin beryllium X-ray windows. At these angles the Doppler shift gets virtually independent of the observation angle. Therefore the influence of a slight detector misalignment on the recorded photon energy is negligible, see [33] for details. This is in sharp contrast to crystal spectrometer setups with detection perpendicular to the ion beam axis [34, 6], which require a precise knowledge of the geometry. At both view ports a maXs-type microcalorimeter was placed. The resulting distance between the detectors and the center of the interaction zone of stored ions and cooler electrons was approximately 3.5 m.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Spectral distribution of the KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transitions in U90+, with photon energies transformed into the emitter frame. Dark blue: Data of the present study with the spectra of both microcalorimeters added up, counts on left y-axis. As shown in the inset, the lines z and y have been resolved for the first time. Light grey: Spectrum recorded with a germanium detector (data from [27]), counts according to right y-axis.

The detectors are based on the metallic magnetic calorimeter (MMC) technology. The energy of an incident particle is converted into thermal energy in a small absorber. The resulting temperature rise leads to a decrease of the magnetization of a thermally coupled paramagnetic sensor made of sputtered Ag:Er. The changing magnetization is in turn measured by a low-noise, high-bandwidth superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer. The necessary temperatures for operating these quantum sensors of below 20 mK can be achieved using 3He/4He dilution refrigerator cryostats. This technology allows for a unique combination of a high spectral resolution with a broad bandwidth acceptance [35].

In the present study, two identical prototypes of the maXs-100 design were employed. They feature an 8×8888\times 88 × 8 array of absorbers made of gold. Each absorber has an area of 1.25 mm ×\times× 1.25 mm and a thickness of 50 ”m. These detectors are tailored for a spectral resolution of ΔⁱEFWHM< 50Δsubscript𝐾FWHM50\Delta E_{\text{FWHM}}\,<\,50roman_Δ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT FWHM end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < 50 eV in a broad photon energy range from a few keV to above 100 keV. The design provides a photopeak efficiency of higher than 10 % up to 130 keV photon energy. Furthermore, the maXs detectors’ fast signal rise time was exploited for the first time in this measurement to extract timing information. Setting a coincidence condition on the simultaneous detection of photons and down-charged U90+ ions suppressed the background by two orders of magnitude [36]. This procedure yielded almost background-free spectra of the radiation emitted in association with the recombination of cooler electrons with the stored U91+ ions.

The lifetime of the ion beam in CRYRING@ESR was (7−8)78(7-8)( 7 - 8 ) s, leaving the ring virtually empty after 25 s. The remaining 30 s period of the accelerator cycle was used for energy calibration of the detectors. The isotopes 241Am, 57Co, 109Cd, and 153Gd were selected as reference sources. They offer a range of well-known Îłđ›Ÿ\gammaitalic_Îł lines in the energy range of interest. The intensity of the sources was chosen low enough so that a potential input power dependent shift as observed by Thorn et al. [16] was negligible. A second-order polynomial function was used to translate pulse amplitudes to incident photon energies, in accordance with the expected gain behaviour of MMC detectors [37]. For the 0∘ detector the lines near 26 keV and 60 keV of 241Am and the lines near 122 keV and 136 keV of 57Co were used for calibration. In case of the 180∘ detector the lines close to 60 keV of 241Am, close to 88 keV in 109Cd and close to 122 keV in 57Co were chosen. The energy values of the lines were taken as reported by Helmer and van der Leun [38].

The use of reference lines that are tens of keV away from the lines of interest is likely to cause a sizable uncertainty in the determination of their positions. To quantify this effect, we selected the 97 keV and 103 keV lines of 153Gd that are sufficiently close to the energy region of interest in both detectors as a benchmark. The difference between the measured line positions and the literature values are 0.24±0.99plus-or-minus0.240.990.24\pm 0.990.24 ± 0.99 eV and 2.0±1.3plus-or-minus2.01.32.0\pm 1.32.0 ± 1.3 eV for the 0∘ detector and −1.32±0.40plus-or-minus1.320.40-1.32\pm 0.40- 1.32 ± 0.40 eV and −2.51±0.50plus-or-minus2.510.50-2.51\pm 0.50- 2.51 ± 0.50 eV for the 180∘ detector. From this, we inferred a conservative estimate of ±plus-or-minus\pm±2.5 eV for the systematic uncertainty of energy determination in our region of interest.

For the reference lines we measured instrumental line widths between 65 eV and 90 eV FWHM. This degradation in resolution compared to the design value of the detectors is partly attributed to the coupling of electromagnetic interferences into the SQUID readout electronics during the beamtime. Furthermore, mechanical vibrations can introduce an additional heat load into the cryostats and therefore deteriorate the resolution. Nevertheless, demonstrating a spectral resolution of ≀90absent90\leq 90≀ 90 eV over a wide energy range up to 150 keV is a major breakthrough for precision spectroscopy of heavy ions at storage rings.

Table 1: Energies of the KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transitions in U90+ obtained in this work (Eexpsubscript𝐾expE_{\text{exp}}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT exp end_POSTSUBSCRIPT) in comparison with theory (Ethsubscript𝐾thE_{\text{th}}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT th end_POSTSUBSCRIPT[5]. The lines are referred to by their initial states as well as by Gabriel’s notation [15] in parentheses. Furthermore, the natural line widths ΔⁱEn⁹a⁹tΔsubscript𝐾𝑛𝑎𝑡\Delta E_{nat}roman_Δ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n italic_a italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the initial states are shown. All energies are given in units of eV. Experimental results are given as “value ±plus-or-minus\pm± statistical uncertainty”. An additional systematic uncertainty due to the calibration is estimated to be 2.5 eV for all transitions.
Transition ΔⁱEnatΔsubscript𝐾nat\Delta E_{\text{nat}}roman_Δ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT nat end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Ethsubscript𝐾thE_{\text{th}}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT th end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Eexpsubscript𝐾expE_{\text{exp}}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT exp end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
1⁹s⁹2⁹p 1⁹P11s2superscriptp 1subscriptP11\text{s}2\text{p}\text{ }^{1}\text{P}_{1}1 s 2 roman_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (w) 33.833.833.833.8 100610.68100610.68100610.68100610.68 (54) 100609100609100609100609 ±plus-or-minus\pm± 13131313
1⁹s⁹2⁹p 3⁹P21s2superscriptp 3subscriptP21\text{s}2\text{p}\text{ }^{3}\text{P}_{2}1 s 2 roman_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (x) 0.20.20.20.2 100536.95100536.95100536.95100536.95 (54) 100543.1100543.1100543.1100543.1 ±plus-or-minus\pm± 7.67.67.67.6
1⁹s⁹2⁹p 3⁹P11s2superscriptp 3subscriptP11\text{s}2\text{p}\text{ }^{3}\text{P}_{1}1 s 2 roman_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (y) 20.120.120.120.1 96169.4396169.4396169.4396169.43 (54) 96161.096161.096161.096161.0 ±plus-or-minus\pm± 6.76.76.76.7
1⁹s⁹2⁹s 3⁹S11s2superscripts 3subscriptS11\text{s}2\text{s}\text{ }^{3}\text{S}_{1}1 s 2 roman_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (z) 0.10.10.10.1 96027.0796027.0796027.0796027.07 (54) 96027.996027.996027.996027.9 ±plus-or-minus\pm± 5.05.05.05.0
Refer to caption
Figure 3: Left part: Overview of available experimental data of the four KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transitions in helium-like systems, taken from [11] and references therein. Shown is the normalized difference between measured energies and theoretical predictions [3]. The results of the present work (shown by green symbols) provide the first accurate data for systems heavier than xenon (Z=54𝑍54Z=54italic_Z = 54). Right part: expanded view of our data points for He-like uranium.

In the following, we focus on the KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transitions in U90+. Each detector recorded about 150 KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α photons, whose energies were Doppler shifted to the region between 111 keV and 117 keV at 0∘ and 82.5 keV to 87 keV at 180∘, respectively. The predicted energy splittings of their components, x and w in case of Kα1subscriptđ›Œ1\alpha_{1}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and z and y for Kα2subscriptđ›Œ2\alpha_{2}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, are of similar size as the detector resolution. Fig. 2 shows the combined spectral data in the KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α region from both microcalorimeters, with the photon energies transformed into the emitter frame. To highlight the improvement in resolution a spectrum previously recorded with a germanium detector (data from [27]) is shown as well. The achieved detector resolution proved suitable for separating the contributions of the z and y lines to the Kα2subscriptđ›Œ2\alpha_{2}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT peak. The w and x transitions are superimposed and form a single peak (Kα1subscriptđ›Œ1\alpha_{1}italic_α start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT). However, the peak shape clearly shows that it is formed by two individual lines.

To obtain the transition energies, four Voigt-shaped peaks were matched to the spectra recorded by each detector, applying an unbinned maximum-likelihood adjustment using the iminuit package [39, 40]. The width parameters of the peaks were fixed: The natural line widths of up to 34 eV, being not negligible compared to the detector resolution, were taken from theory as listed in Tab. 1. The detectors’ response function was assumed to be Gaussian-shaped, with width determined from the nearest Îłđ›Ÿ\gammaitalic_Îł reference lines to values of 81 eV for the 0∘superscript00^{\circ}0 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT detector and 90 eV for the 180∘superscript180180^{\circ}180 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT detector. The relative intensities and the centroid positions were used as free parameters for the adjustment, together with the ion beam velocity to account for the Doppler shift. The adjustment yields ÎČ=0.146987⁹(34)đ›œ0.14698734\beta=0.146987(34)italic_ÎČ = 0.146987 ( 34 ), in good agreement with the value estimated from the electron cooler settings. This also serves as a consistency check for the energy calibration of both detectors.

Our experimental values for the transition energies are given in Tab. 1, together with theory values taken from [5]. Experimental uncertainties are dominated by counting statistics and given for 1âąÏƒ1𝜎1\sigma1 italic_σ confidence intervals. Our measurement provides values for all four components of the KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transitions in U90+ for the first time. An overview of the existing experimental data for all the KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transition energies for atomic numbers Z=12ⁱ–ⁱ92𝑍12–92Z=12\text{--}92italic_Z = 12 – 92 is given in Fig. 3. Plotted is the differences between theoretical and experimental values normalized to Z2superscript𝑍2Z^{2}italic_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. While the low- to medium-Z𝑍Zitalic_Z range was extensively studied, our measurement is the first one at Z>54𝑍54Z>54italic_Z > 54 to achieve the necessary accuracy for a meaningful test of theory. We acknowledge that published data exist also for KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transitions in Z=59𝑍59Z=59italic_Z = 59 [41] and Z=92𝑍92Z=92italic_Z = 92 [26, 42]. However, in these studies the determination of the line position either relied on an assumption about the population of the excited states and the resulting relative line intensities or used theory values for some KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transitions as an energy reference for the others. For the case of U90+, our measurement constitutes an improvement of up to one order of magnitude of the uncertainty compared to these previous studies. Our findings are in good agreement with theory and do not suggest any systematic deviation scaling with 4thth{}^{\text{th}}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT th end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT or higher powers of Z𝑍Zitalic_Z as proposed in [19, 22].

As a consistency check, we also determined the ground-state ionization energy Eionsubscript𝐾ionE_{\text{ion}}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ion end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for U90+, by assuming that the L-shell ionization energies are accurately known from theory [5]. This assumption is supported by a recent high-precision measurement of the intra-shell transition 1⁹s⁹2⁹p 3⁹P2⁹ â†’ âą1⁹s⁹2⁹s 3⁹S1→1s2superscriptp 3subscriptP2  1s2superscripts 3subscriptS11\text{s}2\text{p}\text{ }^{3}\text{P}_{2}\text{ }\rightarrow\text{ }1\text{s}% 2\text{s}\text{ }^{3}\text{S}_{1}1 s 2 roman_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT P start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → 1 s 2 roman_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in U90+ [6], showing an agreement with theory on the level of 0.170.170.170.17 eV. With the binding energies of the L shell states being fixed, an adjustment was performed with the ground-state ionization energy as a free parameter Et=Eion−EL⁹isubscript𝐾𝑡subscript𝐾ionsubscript𝐾L𝑖E_{t}=E_{\text{ion}}-E_{\text{L}i}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ion end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT L italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (here Etsubscript𝐾𝑡E_{t}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with t∈x, y, w, z𝑡x, y, w, zt\in\text{x, y, w, z}italic_t ∈ x, y, w, z is the transition energy and EL⁹isubscript𝐾L𝑖E_{\text{L}i}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT L italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the ionization energy of the corresponding initial L substate, compare Fig. 1). This evaluation yields Eion=129570.0±4.2±2.5subscript𝐾ionplus-or-minus129570.04.22.5E_{\text{ion}}=129570.0\pm 4.2\pm 2.5italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ion end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 129570.0 ± 4.2 ± 2.5 eV, which is in good agreement with the theoretical value of 129570.09⁹(53)129570.0953129570.09(53)129570.09 ( 53 ) eV taken from [5]. Previously, the only experimental determination of this quantity was a relative measurement to the ground-state binding-energy of U91+ [27]. Combining the relative value of 2248±9plus-or-minus224892248\pm 92248 ± 9 eV reported there with the measured ground-state ionization energy of the hydrogen-like system of 131819.8±4.6plus-or-minus131819.84.6131819.8\pm 4.6131819.8 ± 4.6 eV [43] results in a value of Eion=129571±10subscript𝐾ionplus-or-minus12957110E_{\text{ion}}=129571\pm 10italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ion end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 129571 ± 10 eV, which is also in agreement with our value.

In summary, we performed a spectral study of X-ray transitions in helium-like uranium using novel MMC detectors at the electron cooler of the CRYRING@ESR. Achieving a resolution of close to 90 eV FWHM for photon energies of up to 150 keV allowed to disentangle the components of the KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α lines in U90+ for the first time. The measured transition energies are in good agreement with state-of-the-art bound-state QED calculations. This finding does not support any systematic deviation that scales with 4thth{}^{\text{th}}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT th end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT or higher powers of Z𝑍Zitalic_Z, as was recently proposed and intensely debated within the community.

We like to highlight that when combining MMC detectors with the beneficial experimental conditions at the CRYRING@ESR electron cooler, the only significant systematic uncertainty is the quality of the energy calibration. By optimizing the calibration procedure and using a broader set of gamma reference lines, a significant reduction of this uncertainty to below 1 eV is possible. In the present experiment, the statistical uncertainty even for the most intense KÎ±đ›Œ\alphaitalic_α transition is close to 5 eV, as the number of ions injected into the recently commissioned CRYRING@ESR was about an order of magnitude below the design value. In future measurements we expect a significant boost in ion intensity and thus counting statistics. Combined with other already planned incremental improvements, such as thicker absorber pixels to achieve a higher quantum efficiency, the presented approach clearly has the potential to reach the 1 eV accuracy level necessary to test higher-order QED contributions in the heaviest atomic systems.

Acknowledgements.
The authors are indebted to the local teams at GSI, in particular of ESR and CRYRING@ESR, for making this study possible. We also would like to thank C. E. DĂŒllmann and D. Renisch for providing us with gamma sources for detector calibration. This research has been conducted in the framework of the SPARC collaboration, experiment E138 of FAIR Phase-0 supported by GSI, Darmstadt (Germany). It is further supported the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research as well as by the innovation program (Grant No. 824109 “EMP”). B. Zhu acknowledges CSC Doctoral Fellowship 2018.9 - 2022.2 (Grant No. 201806180051). We also acknowledge the support provided by ErUM FSP T05 - “Aufbau von APPA bei FAIR” (BMBF n° 05P19SJFAA and n° 05P19VHFA1).

References

  • Shabaev et al. [2018] V. M. Shabaev, A. I. Bondarev, D. A. Glazov, M. Y. Kaygorodov, Y. S. Kozhedub, I. A. Maltsev, A. V. Malyshev, R. V. Popov, I. I. Tupitsyn, and N. A. Zubova, Hyperfine Interactions 239, 60 (2018).
  • Yerokhin and Shabaev [2015] V. A. Yerokhin and V. M. Shabaev, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 44, 033103 (2015).
  • Artemyev et al. [2005] A. N. Artemyev, V. M. Shabaev, V. A. Yerokhin, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. A 71, 062104 (2005).
  • Malyshev et al. [2019] A. V. Malyshev, Y. S. Kozhedub, D. A. Glazov, I. I. Tupitsyn, and V. M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. A 99, 010501(R) (2019).
  • Kozhedub et al. [2019] Y. S. Kozhedub, A. V. Malyshev, D. A. Glazov, V. M. Shabaev, and I. I. Tupitsyn, Phys. Rev. A 100, 062506 (2019).
  • Loetzsch et al. [2024] R. Loetzsch, H. F. Beyer, L. Duval, U. Spillmann, D. Banaƛ, P. Dergham, F. M. Kröger, J. Glorius, R. E. Grisenti, M. Guerra, A. Gumberidze, R. Heß, P.-M. Hillenbrand, P. Indelicato, P. Jagodzinski, E. Lamour, B. Lorentz, S. Litvinov, Y. A. Litvinov, J. Machado, N. Paul, G. G. Paulus, N. Petridis, J. P. Santos, M. Scheidel, R. S. Sidhu, M. Steck, S. Steydli, K. Szary, S. Trotsenko, I. Uschmann, G. Weber, T. Stöhlker, and M. Trassinelli, Nature 625, 673 (2024).
  • Ullmann et al. [2017] J. Ullmann, Z. Andelkovic, C. Brandau, A. Dax, W. Geithner, C. Geppert, C. Gorges, M. Hammen, V. Hannen, S. Kaufmann, K. König, Y. A. Litvinov, M. Lochmann, B. Maaß, J. Meisner, T. Murböck, R. SĂĄnchez, M. Schmidt, S. Schmidt, M. Steck, Th. Stöhlker, R. C. Thompson, C. Trageser, J. Vollbrecht, C. Weinheimer, and W. NörtershĂ€user, Nat Commun 8, 15484 (2017).
  • Skripnikov et al. [2018] L. V. Skripnikov, S. Schmidt, J. Ullmann, C. Geppert, F. Kraus, B. Kresse, W. NörtershĂ€user, A. F. Privalov, B. Scheibe, V. M. Shabaev, M. Vogel, and A. V. Volotka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 093001 (2018).
  • Morgner et al. [2023] J. Morgner, B. Tu, C. M. König, T. Sailer, F. Heiße, H. Bekker, B. Sikora, C. Lyu, V. A. Yerokhin, Z. Harman, J. R. Crespo LĂłpez-Urrutia, C. H. Keitel, S. Sturm, and K. Blaum, Nature 622, 53 (2023).
  • Beiersdorfer [2010] P. Beiersdorfer, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 43, 074032 (2010).
  • Indelicato [2019] P. Indelicato, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 52, 232001 (2019).
  • Kozlov et al. [2018] M. G. Kozlov, M. S. Safronova, J. R. Crespo LĂłpez-Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045005 (2018).
  • Safronova et al. [2018] M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018).
  • Safronova [2019] M. S. Safronova, Annalen der Physik 531, 1800364 (2019).
  • Gabriel [1972] A. H. Gabriel, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 160, 99 (1972).
  • Thorn et al. [2009] D. B. Thorn, M. F. Gu, G. V. Brown, P. Beiersdorfer, F. S. Porter, C. A. Kilbourne, and R. L. Kelley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 163001 (2009).
  • Chantler et al. [2012] C. T. Chantler, M. N. Kinnane, J. D. Gillaspy, L. T. Hudson, A. T. Payne, L. F. Smale, A. Henins, J. M. Pomeroy, J. N. Tan, J. A. Kimpton, E. Takacs, and K. Makonyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 153001 (2012).
  • Epp [2013] S. W. Epp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 159301 (2013).
  • Chantler et al. [2013] C. T. Chantler, M. N. Kinnane, J. D. Gillaspy, L. T. Hudson, A. T. Payne, L. F. Smale, A. Henins, J. M. Pomeroy, J. A. Kimpton, E. Takacs, and K. Makonyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 159302 (2013).
  • Payne et al. [2014] A. T. Payne, C. T. Chantler, M. N. Kinnane, J. D. Gillaspy, L. T. Hudson, L. F. Smale, A. Henins, J. A. Kimpton, and E. Takacs, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 47, 185001 (2014).
  • Kubiček et al. [2014] K. Kubiček, P. H. Mokler, V. MĂ€ckel, J. Ullrich, and J. R. Crespo LĂłpez-Urrutia, Phys. Rev. A 90, 032508 (2014).
  • Chantler et al. [2014] C. T. Chantler, A. T. Payne, J. D. Gillaspy, L. T. Hudson, L. F. Smale, A. Henins, J. A. Kimpton, and E. Takacs, New J. Phys. 16, 123037 (2014).
  • Epp et al. [2015] S. W. Epp, R. SteinbrĂŒgge, S. Bernitt, J. K. Rudolph, C. Beilmann, H. Bekker, A. MĂŒller, O. O. Versolato, H.-C. Wille, H. YavaƟ, J. Ullrich, and J. R. Crespo LĂłpez-Urrutia, Phys. Rev. A 92, 020502(R) (2015).
  • Beiersdorfer and Brown [2015] P. Beiersdorfer and G. V. Brown, Phys. Rev. A 91, 032514 (2015).
  • Machado et al. [2018] J. Machado, C. I. Szabo, J. P. Santos, P. Amaro, M. Guerra, A. Gumberidze, G. Bian, J. M. Isac, and P. Indelicato, Phys. Rev. A 97, 032517 (2018).
  • Briand et al. [1990] J. P. Briand, P. Chevallier, P. Indelicato, K. P. Ziock, and D. D. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2761 (1990).
  • Gumberidze et al. [2004] A. Gumberidze, Th. Stöhlker, D. Banaƛ, K. Beckert, P. Beller, H. F. Beyer, F. Bosch, X. Cai, S. Hagmann, C. Kozhuharov, D. Liesen, F. Nolden, X. Ma, P. H. Mokler, A. OrĆĄi Ä‡ Muthig, M. Steck, D. Sierpowski, S. Tashenov, A. Warczak, and Y. Zou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 203004 (2004).
  • Lestinsky et al. [2022] M. Lestinsky, E. B. Menz, H. Danared, C. Krantz, E. Lindroth, Z. Andelkovic, C. Brandau, A. BrĂ€uning-Demian, S. Fedotova, W. Geithner, F. Herfurth, A. Kalinin, I. Kraus, U. Spillmann, G. Vorobyev, and Th. Stöhlker, Atoms 10, 141 (2022).
  • Pies et al. [2012] C. Pies, S. SchĂ€fer, S. Heuser, S. Kempf, A. Pabinger, J. P. Porst, P. Ranitsch, N. Foerster, D. Hengstler, A. Kampkötter, T. Wolf, L. Gastaldo, A. Fleischmann, and C. Enss, J. Low Temp. Phys. 167, 269 (2012).
  • Hengstler et al. [2015] D. Hengstler, M. Keller, C. Schötz, J. Geist, M. Krantz, S. Kempf, L. Gastaldo, A. Fleischmann, T. Gassner, G. Weber, R. MĂ€rtin, Th. Stöhlker, and C. Enss, Phys. Scr. T166, 014054 (2015).
  • PfĂ€fflein et al. [2022a] Ph. PfĂ€fflein, S. Allgeier, S. Bernitt, A. Fleischmann, M. Friedrich, C. Hahn, D. Hengstler, M. O. Herdrich, A. Kalinin, F. M. Kröger, P. Kuntz, M. Lestinsky, B. Löher, E. B. Menz, T. Over, U. Spillmann, G. Weber, B. Zhu, C. Enss, and Th. Stöhlker, Physica Scripta 97, 114005 (2022a).
  • Zhu et al. [2022] B. Zhu, A. Gumberidze, T. Over, G. Weber, Z. Andelkovic, A. BrĂ€uning-Demian, R. J. Chen, D. Dmytriiev, O. Forstner, C. Hahn, F. Herfurth, M. O. Herdrich, P.-M. Hillenbrand, A. Kalinin, F. M. Kröger, M. Lestinsky, Y. A. Litvinov, E. B. Menz, W. Middents, T. Morgenroth, N. Petridis, Ph. PfĂ€fflein, M. S. Sanjari, R. S. Sidhu, U. Spillmann, R. Schuch, S. Schippers, S. Trotsenko, L. Varga, G. Vorobyev, and T. Stöhlker, Phys. Rev. A 105, 052804 (2022).
  • Kröger et al. [2023] F. M. Kröger, G. Weber, S. Allgeier, Z. Andelkovic, S. Bernitt, A. Borovik, L. Duval, A. Fleischmann, O. Forstner, M. Friedrich, J. Glorius, A. Gumberidze, C. Hahn, F. Herfurth, D. Hengstler, M. O. Herdrich, P.-M. Hillenbrand, A. Kalinin, M. Kiffer, M. Kubullek, P. Kuntz, M. Lestinsky, B. Löher, E. B. Menz, T. Over, N. Petridis, Ph. PfĂ€fflein, S. Ringleb, R. S. Sidhu, U. Spillmann, S. Trotsenko, A. Warczak, B. Zhu, C. Enss, and Th. Stöhlker, Atoms 1110.3390/atoms11020022 (2023).
  • Gassner et al. [2018] T. Gassner, M. Trassinelli, R. Heß, U. Spillmann, D. Banaƛ, K. H. Blumenhagen, F. Bosch, C. Brandau, W. Chen, D. Chr, E. Förster, R. E. Grisenti, A. Gumberidze, S. Hagmann, P. M. Hillenbrand, P. Indelicato, P. Jagodzinski, T. KĂ€mpfer, K. Chr, M. Lestinsky, D. Liesen, A. L. Yu, R. Loetzsch, B. Manil, R. MĂ€rtin, F. Nolden, N. Petridis, M. S. Sanjari, K. S. Schulze, M. Schwemlein, A. Simionovici, M. Steck, Th. Stöhlker, C. I. Szabo, S. Trotsenko, I. Uschmann, G. Weber, O. Wehrhan, N. Winckler, D. F. A. Winters, N. Winters, E. Ziegler, and H. F. Beyer, New J. Phys. 20, 073033 (2018).
  • Kempf et al. [2018] S. Kempf, A. Fleischmann, L. Gastaldo, and C. Enss, J. Low Temp. Phys. 193, 365 (2018).
  • PfĂ€fflein et al. [2022b] Ph. PfĂ€fflein, G. Weber, S. Allgeier, S. Bernitt, A. Fleischmann, M. Friedrich, C. Hahn, D. Hengstler, M. O. Herdrich, A. Kalinin, F. M. Kröger, P. Kuntz, M. Lestinsky, B. Löher, E. B. Menz, U. Spillmann, B. Zhu, C. Enss, and Th. Stöhlker, Atoms 11, 5 (2022b).
  • Bates et al. [2016] C. R. Bates, C. Pies, S. Kempf, D. Hengstler, A. Fleischmann, L. Gastaldo, C. Enss, and S. Friedrich, Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 023513 (2016).
  • Helmer and van der Leun [2000] R. Helmer and C. van der Leun, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 450, 35 (2000).
  • James and Roos [1975] F. James and M. Roos, Comput. Phys. Commun. 10, 343 (1975).
  • Dembinski and et al. [2020] H. Dembinski and P. O. et al. 10.5281/zenodo.3949207 (2020).
  • Thorn et al. [2008] D. B. Thorn, G. V. Brown, J. H. Clementson, H. Chen, M. Chen, P. Beiersdorfer, K. R. Boyce, C. A. Kilbourne, F. S. Porter, and R. L. Kelley, Canadian Journal of Physics 86, 241 (2008).
  • Lupton et al. [1994] J. H. Lupton, D. D. Dietrich, C. J. Hailey, R. E. Stewart, and K. P. Ziock, Phys. Rev. A 50, 2150 (1994).
  • Gumberidze et al. [2005] A. Gumberidze, Th. Stöhlker, D. Banas, K. Beckert, P. Beller, H. F. Beyer, F. Bosch, S. Hagmann, C. Kozhuharov, D. Liesen, F. Nolden, X. Ma, P. H. Mokler, M. Steck, D. Sierpowski, and S. Tashenov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 223001 (2005).