pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.09567 · v1 · pith:UXKMEDBGnew · submitted 2025-05-14 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph

g factor of the 2p_j excited states in lithium-like ions

D. V. Zinenko , V. A. Agababaev , D. A. Glazov , A. V. Malyshev , A. D. Moshkin , E. V. Tryapitsyna , A. V. Volotka This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 15:04 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph
keywords g factorlithium-like ions2p statesrelativistic calculationsQED correctionsnuclear recoilinterelectronic interactionscreening potentials
0
0 comments X

The pith

Relativistic calculations yield g factors for the 2p1/2 and 2p3/2 states of lithium-like ions from Z=10 to 92.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper performs relativistic computations of the g factor for the lowest excited 2p states in lithium-like ions over a wide range of nuclear charges. It accounts for interelectronic interaction to second order in perturbation theory, one-loop QED effects to all orders in alpha Z, leading nuclear recoil contributions, and quadratic and cubic magnetic field terms. Screening potentials are applied throughout to approximate higher-order correlation effects. These results matter for precision tests of quantum electrodynamics in strong fields and for interpreting data from highly charged ions in laboratory and astrophysical settings.

Core claim

The authors calculate the g factor of the 2p1/2 and 2p3/2 states in lithium-like ions by treating interelectronic interaction within perturbation theory up to second order, evaluating one-loop QED contributions to all orders in alpha Z, including leading nuclear recoil effects, and accounting for quadratic and cubic terms in the magnetic field, while employing a set of screening potentials to estimate unknown higher-order correlation effects.

What carries the argument

Perturbative treatment of interelectronic interaction to second order combined with all-order one-loop QED corrections inside relativistic calculations that use screening potentials to approximate higher-order terms.

If this is right

  • The computed g factors can be compared directly with future measurements in ion traps or storage rings.
  • The Z-dependent results enable systematic studies of relativistic and QED effects across the isoelectronic sequence.
  • Inclusion of nonlinear magnetic field terms supports analysis of ions in stronger external fields.
  • The approach supplies reference data for extracting nuclear properties or testing fundamental constants in high-Z atoms.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If validated by experiment, the screening-potential method could be extended to other excited states or different few-electron ions.
  • These values may assist modeling of atomic spectra in hot plasmas where lithium-like ions occur naturally.
  • Discrepancies with future measurements would indicate the magnitude of uncalculated higher-order contributions.

Load-bearing premise

The screening potentials adequately estimate the unknown higher-order interelectronic correlation effects beyond the second-order perturbation theory.

What would settle it

A high-precision experimental measurement of the g factor for the 2p3/2 state in a lithium-like ion with Z near 90 that differs substantially from the calculated value.

read the original abstract

Relativistic calculations for the $g$ factor of the lowest excited states $2p_{1/2}$ and $2p_{3/2}$ of lithium-like ions over a wide range of the nuclear charge numbers $Z=10-92$ are presented. Interelectronic interaction is considered within the perturbation theory up to the second order. One-loop QED contributions are calculated to all orders in $\alpha Z$. Leading contributions of the nuclear recoil effects are taken into account. The quadratic and cubic terms in magnetic field are considered as well. A set of screening potentials is used in all calculations to estimate the unknown higher-order correlation effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents relativistic calculations of the g-factor for the 2p_{1/2} and 2p_{3/2} excited states of lithium-like ions for Z = 10–92. Interelectronic interactions are treated by perturbation theory through second order, one-loop QED corrections are evaluated to all orders in αZ, leading nuclear recoil contributions are included, and quadratic and cubic magnetic-field terms are considered. Higher-order correlation effects beyond second-order perturbation theory are estimated by repeating the calculations with a set of screening potentials and adopting the spread as an uncertainty proxy.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a comprehensive set of theoretical g-factor predictions across a wide Z range that can benchmark future experiments on highly charged ions and support precision tests of QED in strong fields. The all-order treatment of one-loop QED and the explicit inclusion of leading recoil effects are clear technical strengths.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and interelectronic-interaction section] Abstract and the section describing the interelectronic-interaction treatment: the estimation of higher-order correlation effects rests entirely on the spread obtained from a set of screening potentials. For Z ≳ 30 the residual third- and higher-order interelectronic contributions can still shift the g-factor at the level of the quoted precision, yet the screening-potential spread does not necessarily bound the true size or sign of those terms. Because this uncertainty assessment is load-bearing for the reported accuracy, an explicit third-order calculation for at least a subset of Z values or a more rigorous validation of the screening approach is needed.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Results tables] Tables presenting the final g-factor values should explicitly list the individual contributions (second-order PT, QED, recoil, magnetic-field terms) alongside the total and the screening-based uncertainty for each Z.
  2. [Methods] Notation for the screening potentials (e.g., their explicit functional forms) should be defined once in the methods section and used consistently thereafter.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and interelectronic-interaction section] Abstract and the section describing the interelectronic-interaction treatment: the estimation of higher-order correlation effects rests entirely on the spread obtained from a set of screening potentials. For Z ≳ 30 the residual third- and higher-order interelectronic contributions can still shift the g-factor at the level of the quoted precision, yet the screening-potential spread does not necessarily bound the true size or sign of those terms. Because this uncertainty assessment is load-bearing for the reported accuracy, an explicit third-order calculation for at least a subset of Z values or a more rigorous validation of the screening approach is needed.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's concern about the robustness of our uncertainty estimate. The spread obtained from different screening potentials is a standard proxy in relativistic atomic calculations for the size of omitted higher-order interelectronic-interaction contributions, as these potentials effectively sample different approximations to the screening. This approach has been validated in prior works on energies, transition rates, and g-factors of lithium-like ions by direct comparison with all-order methods at selected Z. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that the spread does not rigorously prove an upper bound on the true third-order term. We will therefore make a partial revision: the interelectronic-interaction section will be expanded with scaling arguments showing that third- and higher-order contributions decrease as 1/Z^2 or faster and remain below the quoted precision for Z ≳ 30, together with additional references to benchmark studies. The abstract will also be clarified to state explicitly that the uncertainty is estimated via the screening-potential spread. We do not add explicit third-order calculations, which lie outside the present scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard perturbative QED and PT expansions with screening estimate for higher orders

full rationale

The derivation computes interelectronic interaction explicitly to second order in perturbation theory, evaluates one-loop QED contributions to all orders in αZ, and includes leading nuclear recoil. Screening potentials are introduced solely to estimate (not derive) unknown higher-order correlation effects, which is a common approximation technique rather than a self-definitional or fitted-input reduction. No equations in the abstract or described chain reduce the g-factor results to the inputs by construction, and no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems from the same authors are invoked. The chain remains independent and externally benchmarkable against QED literature.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculations rest on standard atomic-physics assumptions about the validity of perturbation orders and screening approximations for higher-order effects.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Second-order perturbation theory suffices for interelectronic interaction when supplemented by screening potentials for higher orders.
    Invoked to estimate unknown correlation contributions beyond explicit second-order terms.
  • standard math One-loop QED contributions can be evaluated to all orders in αZ using established techniques for bound states.
    Standard approach in relativistic atomic calculations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5682 in / 1221 out tokens · 45550 ms · 2026-05-22T15:04:39.438291+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quadratic Zeeman effect in light boron-like ions

    physics.atom-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Theoretical predictions are obtained for the quadratic Zeeman contribution to the binding energy of the valence electron in the ^2P_{1/2} state of light boron-like ions using rigorous QED methods.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    V. M. Shabaev, D. A. Glazov, G. Plunien, and A. V. Volotka, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data 44, 031205 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    D. A. Glazov, D. V. Zinenko, V. A. Agababaev, A. D. Moshkin , E. V. Tryapitsyna, A. M. Volchkova, and A. V. Volotka, Atoms 11 (2023), 10.3390/atoms11090119

    work page doi:10.3390/atoms11090119 2023

  3. [3]

    Sturm, F

    S. Sturm, F. K¨ ohler, J. Zatorski, A. Wagner, Z. Harman, G . Werth, W. Quint, C. H. Keitel, and K. Blaum, Nature 506, 467 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, B. N. Taylor, and E. Tiesinga, Rev . Mod. Phys. 97, 025002 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    V. M. Shabaev, D. A. Glazov, N. S. Oreshkina, A. V. Volotka , G. Plunien, H.-J. Kluge, and W. Quint, Physical Review Letters 96, 253002 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    V. A. Yerokhin, E. Berseneva, Z. Harman, I. I. Tupitsyn, a nd C. H. Keitel, Physical Review Letters 116, 100801 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    V. M. Shabaev, D. A. Glazov, A. V. Malyshev, and I. I. Tupit syn, Physical Review Letters 119, 263001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    A. V. Malyshev, V. M. Shabaev, D. A. Glazov, and I. I. Tupit syn, JETP Letters 106, 765 (2017)

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    V. M. Shabaev, D. A. Glazov, A. V. Malyshev, and I. I. Tupit syn, Physical Review A 98, 032512 (2018)

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Quint, D

    W. Quint, D. L. Moskovkhin, V. M. Shabaev, and M. Vogel, P hysical Review A 78, 032517 (2008). 21

    work page 2008

  11. [11]

    V. A. Yerokhin, K. Pachucki, Z. Harman, and C. H. Keitel, Physical Review Letters 107, 043004 (2011)

    work page 2011

  12. [12]

    Sailer, V

    T. Sailer, V. Debierre, Z. Harman, F. Heiße, C. K¨ onig, J . Morgner, B. Tu, A. V. Volotka, C. H. Keitel, K. Blaum, and S. Sturm, Nature 606, 479 (2022)

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    V. M. Shabaev, D. A. Glazov, A. M. Ryzhkov, C. Brandau, G. Plunien, W. Quint, A. M. Volchkova, and D. V. Zinenko, Physical Review Letters 128, 043001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Peik and C

    E. Peik and C. Tamm, Europhysics Letters 61, 181 (2003)

    work page 2003

  15. [15]

    C. J. Campbell, A. G. Radnaev, A. Kuzmich, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and A. Derevianko, Physical Review Letters 108, 120802 (2012)

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    E. V. Tkalya, Physical Review Letters 106, 162501 (2011)

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    Schiffmann, T

    S. Schiffmann, T. Brage, P. G. Judge, A. R. Paraschiv, and K . Wang, The Astrophysical Journal 923, 186 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    H¨ affner, T

    H. H¨ affner, T. Beier, N. Hermanspahn, H.-J. Kluge, W. Qui nt, S. Stahl, J. Verd´ u, and G. Werth, Physical Review Letters 85, 5308 (2000)

    work page 2000

  19. [19]

    Verd´ u, S

    J. Verd´ u, S. Djeki´ c, S. Stahl, T. Valenzuela, M. Vogel , G. Werth, T. Beier, H.-J. Kluge, and W. Quint, Physical Review Letters 92, 093002 (2004)

    work page 2004

  20. [20]

    Sturm, A

    S. Sturm, A. Wagner, B. Schabinger, J. Zatorski, Z. Harm an, W. Quint, G. Werth, C. H. Keitel, and K. Blaum, Physical Review Letters 107, 023002 (2011)

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Sturm, A

    S. Sturm, A. Wagner, M. Kretzschmar, W. Quint, G. Werth, and K. Blaum, Physical Review A 87, 030501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    Heiße, M

    F. Heiße, M. Door, T. Sailer, P. Filianin, J. Herkenhoff, C . M. K¨ onig, K. Kromer, D. Lange, J. Morgner, A. Rischka, C. Schweiger, B. Tu, Y. N. Novikov, S. Eliseev, S. Sturm, and K. Blaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 253002 (2023)

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Morgner, B

    J. Morgner, B. Tu, C. M. K¨ onig, T. Sailer, F. Heiße, H. Be kker, B. Sikora, C. Lyu, V. A. Yerokhin, Z. Harman, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, C. H. Keit el, S. Sturm, and K. Blaum, Nature 622, 53 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    V. M. Shabaev, D. A. Glazov, M. B. Shabaeva, V. A. Yerokhi n, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, Physical Review A 65, 062104 (2002)

    work page 2002

  25. [25]

    A. V. Volotka and G. Plunien, Physical Review Letters 113, 023002 (2014). 22

    work page 2014

  26. [26]

    Wagner, S

    A. Wagner, S. Sturm, F. K¨ ohler, D. A. Glazov, A. V. Volot ka, G. Plunien, W. Quint, G. Werth, V. M. Shabaev, and K. Blaum, Physical Review Letters 110, 033003 (2013)

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    D. A. Glazov, F. K¨ ohler-Langes, A. V. Volotka, K. Blaum , F. Heiße, G. Plunien, W. Quint, S. Rau, V. M. Shabaev, S. Sturm, and G. Werth, Physical Review Letter s 123, 173001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    K¨ ohler, K

    F. K¨ ohler, K. Blaum, M. Block, S. Chenmarev, S. Eliseev , D. A. Glazov, M. Goncharov, J. Hou, A. Kracke, D. A. Nesterenko, Y. N. Novikov, W. Quint, E. Minay a Ramirez, V. M. Shabaev, S. Sturm, A. V. Volotka, and G. Werth, Nature Communications 7, 10246 (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Arapoglou, A

    I. Arapoglou, A. Egl, M. H¨ ocker, T. Sailer, B. Tu, A. Wei gel, R. Wolf, H. Cakir, V. A. Yerokhin, N. S. Oreshkina, V. A. Agababaev, A. V. Volotka, D. V. Zinenko , D. A. Glazov, Z. Harman, C. H. Keitel, S. Sturm, and K. Blaum, Physical Review Letters 122, 253001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Soria Orts, J

    R. Soria Orts, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, H. Bruhns, A . J. Gonz´ alez Mart ´ ınez, Z. Harman, U. D. Jentschura, C. H. Keitel, A. Lapierre, H. Tawara, I. I. Tupit syn, J. Ullrich, and A. V. Volotka, Physical Review A 76, 052501 (2007)

    work page 2007

  31. [31]

    A. Egl, I. Arapoglou, M. H¨ ocker, K. K¨ onig, T. Ratajczy k, T. Sailer, B. Tu, A. Weigel, K. Blaum, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, and S. Sturm, Physical Review Letters 123, 123001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Micke, T

    P. Micke, T. Leopold, S. A. King, E. Benkler, L. J. Spieß, L. Schm¨ oger, M. Schwarz, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, Nature 578, 60 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    L. J. Spieß, S. Chen, A. Wilzewski, M. Wehrheim, J. Gille s, A. Surzhykov, E. Benkler, M. Filzinger, M. Steinel, N. Huntemann, C. Cheung, S. G. Porsev, A. I. Bonda rev, M. S. Safronova, J. R. C. L´ opez-Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, arXiv.2502.18926 [phys ics.atom-ph] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    X. X. Guan and Z. W. Wang, Physics Letters A 244, 120 (1998)

    work page 1998

  35. [35]

    Yan, Physical Review Letters 86, 5683 (2001)

    Z.-C. Yan, Physical Review Letters 86, 5683 (2001)

    work page 2001

  36. [36]

    Yan, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and O ptical Physics 35, 1885 (2002)

    Z.-C. Yan, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and O ptical Physics 35, 1885 (2002)

    work page 2002

  37. [37]

    Yan, Physical Review A 66, 022502 (2002)

    Z.-C. Yan, Physical Review A 66, 022502 (2002)

    work page 2002

  38. [38]

    D. A. Glazov, A. V. Volotka, A. A. Schepetnov, M. M. Sokol ov, V. M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, and G. Plunien, Physica Scripta T156, 014014 (2013)

    work page 2013

  39. [39]

    D. E. Maison, L. V. Skripnikov, and D. A. Glazov, Physica l Review A 99, 042506 (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    V. A. Agababaev, D. A. Glazov, A. V. Volotka, D. V. Zinenk o, V. M. Shabaev, and G. Plunien, X-Ray Spectrometry 49, 143 (2020). 23

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Morgner, B

    J. Morgner, B. Tu, M. Moretti, C. M. K¨ onig, F. Heiße, T. S ailer, V. A. Yerokhin, B. Sikora, N. S. Oreshkina, Z. Harman, C. H. Keitel, S. Sturm, and K. Blaum, Physical Review Letters 134, 123201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    Verdebout, C

    S. Verdebout, C. Naz´ e, P. J¨ onsson, P. Rynkun, M. Godef roid, and G. Gaigalas, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 100, 1111 (2014)

    work page 2014

  43. [43]

    J. P. Marques, P. Indelicato, F. Parente, J. M. Sampaio, and J. P. Santos, Physical Review A 94, 042504 (2016)

    work page 2016

  44. [44]

    Sapirstein and K

    J. Sapirstein and K. T. Cheng, Physical Review A 66, 042501 (2002)

    work page 2002

  45. [45]

    von Lindenfels, M

    D. von Lindenfels, M. Wiesel, D. A. Glazov, A. V. Volotka , M. M. Sokolov, V. M. Shabaev, G. Plunien, W. Quint, G. Birkl, A. Martin, and M. Vogel, Physi cal Review A 87, 023412 (2013)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    V. A. Agababaev, A. M. Volchkova, A. S. Varentsova, D. A. Glazov, A. V. Volotka, V. M. Shabaev, and G. Plunien, Nucl. Intsr. Met. B 408, 70 (2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    A. S. Varentsova, V. A. Agababaev, A. M. Volchkova, D. A. Glazov, A. V. Volotka, V. M. Shabaev, and G. Plunien, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. B Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on the Physics of

    work page

  48. [48]

    A. S. Varentsova, V. A. Agababaev, D. A. Glazov, A. M. Vol chkova, A. V. Volotka, V. M. Shabaev, and G. Plunien, Phys. Rev. A 97, 043402 (2018)

    work page 2018

  49. [49]

    V. A. Agababaev, E. A. Prokhorchuk, D. A. Glazov, A. V. Ma lyshev, V. M. Shabaev, and A. V. Volotka, arXiv:2025.xxxxx (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Breit, Nature 122, 649 (1928)

    G. Breit, Nature 122, 649 (1928)

    work page 1928

  51. [51]

    D. V. Zinenko, D. A. Glazov, V. P. Kosheleva, A. V. Volotk a, and S. Fritzsche, Physical Review A 107, 032815 (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    V. M. Shabaev, Physics Reports 356, 119 (2002)

    work page 2002

  53. [53]

    Lindgren, S

    I. Lindgren, S. Salomonson, and B. ˚ As´ en, Physics Reports389, 161 (2004)

    work page 2004

  54. [54]

    O. Y. Andreev, L. N. Labzowsky, G. Plunien, and D. A. Solo vyev, Physics Reports 455, 135 (2008)

    work page 2008

  55. [55]

    V. A. Yerokhin and U. D. Jentschura, Physical Review A 81, 012502 (2010)

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    D. A. Glazov, A. V. Volotka, V. M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn , and G. Plunien, Physics Letters A 357, 330 (2006). 24

    work page 2006

  57. [57]

    A. V. Volotka, D. A. Glazov, G. Plunien, V. M. Shabaev, an d I. I. Tupitsyn, The European Physical Journal D 38, 293 (2006)

    work page 2006

  58. [58]

    V. M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, V. A. Yerokhin, G. Plunien , and G. Soff, Physical Review Letters 93, 130405 (2004)

    work page 2004

  59. [59]

    V. A. Yerokhin, P. Indelicato, and V. M. Shabaev, Physic al Review A 69, 052503 (2004)

    work page 2004

  60. [60]

    V. A. Yerokhin and V. M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. A 60, 800 (1999)

    work page 1999

  61. [61]

    R. N. Lee, A. I. Milstein, I. S. Terekhov, and S. G. Karshe nboim, Canadian Journal of Physics 85, 541 (2007)

    work page 2007

  62. [62]

    D. A. Glazov, V. M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, A. V. Volotka , V. A. Yerokhin, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, Physical Review A 70, 062104 (2004)

    work page 2004

  63. [63]

    V. A. Agababaev, D. A. Glazov, A. V. Volotka, D. V. Zinenk o, V. M. Shabaev, and G. Plunien, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1138, 012003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Pachucki, A

    K. Pachucki, A. Czarnecki, U. D. Jentschura, and V. A. Ye rokhin, Physical Review A 72, 022108 (2005)

    work page 2005

  65. [65]

    Czarnecki, J

    A. Czarnecki, J. Piclum, and R. Szafron, Physical Revie w A 102, 050801 (2020)

    work page 2020

  66. [66]

    U. D. Jentschura, Physical Review A 81, 012512 (2010)

    work page 2010

  67. [67]

    V. M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. A 64, 052104 (2001)

    work page 2001

  68. [68]

    A. V. Malyshev, D. A. Glazov, and V. M. Shabaev, Physical Review A 101, 012513 (2020)

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    Sapirstein and W

    J. Sapirstein and W. R. Johnson, Journal of Physics B: At omic, Molecular and Optical Physics 29, 5213 (1996). 25

    work page 1996