Relativistic many body theory of the electric dipole moment of $^{129}$Xe and its implications for probing new physics beyond the Standard Model

Akitada Sakurai; B. K. Sahoo; B. P. Das; K. Asahi

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Relativistic many body theory of the electric dipole moment of $^{129}$Xe and its implications for probing new physics beyond the Standard Model

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 129Xe EDM sensitivity coefficients are computed to sub-percent accuracy.

desk verdict A credible, careful RCC calculation of 129Xe EDM coefficients whose central values are fine, but the claimed 0.2%/0.7% uncertainties are not supported by the 2-6% spread across methods and earlier work. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04151 v1 pith:UNB3ESJE submitted 2019-08-12 physics.atom-ph hep-phnucl-th

Akitada Sakurai , B. K. Sahoo , K. Asahi , B. P. Das This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phhep-phnucl-th

keywords xenon-129electricdipolemomentSchifftensor-pseudotensorinteractionrelativisticcoupledclusterCPviolationtime-reversaldiamagneticatom

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to establish that the electric dipole moment (EDM) of 129Xe can be calculated accurately enough from relativistic many-body theory that future measurements become sharp tests of time-reversal and parity violation. It reports sensitivity coefficients for the two dominant sources—the nuclear Schiff moment and the electron–nucleus tensor-pseudotensor interaction—using self-consistent and normal coupled-cluster variants, and estimates the remaining theoretical error at 0.7% and 0.2%. If those uncertainties hold, combining the coefficients with improved Xe EDM measurements would tighten limits on hadronic CP violation and help identify new physics beyond the Standard Model. The authors also argue that 129Xe, unlike 199Hg, has both reliable atomic and nuclear theory, making it a leading candidate among stable diamagnetic atoms.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relativistic normal coupled-cluster singles-and-doubles (RNCCSD) expectation value, in which the bra state is replaced by $\langle\widetilde{\Psi}| = \langle\Phi_0|(1+\widetilde{T})e^{-T}$, so the EDM expression terminates and is stationary with respect to the bra amplitudes. This gives the finite sum $d_a/\lambda = \langle\Phi_0|\widetilde{T}^{(1)}H_{\mathrm{PTV}} + (1+\widetilde{T}^{(0)})H_{\mathrm{PTV}}T^{(1)}|\Phi_0\rangle_c$, avoiding the non-terminating series of ordinary coupled cluster. The companion RCCSD(SC) calculation sums powers of $T^{(0)}$ and $T^{(0)\dagger}$ self-consistently; agreement between the two variants is the paper's evidence that higher-order many-body effects have converged. The Gaussian-type orbital basis and the perturbed-triples and Breit-interaction error estimates come from the authors' earlier polarizability study of the same atom.

What would settle it

Perform an independent all-order calculation with a different basis set that includes all connected triple excitations and the Breit interaction; if $\eta$ moves by more than about 0.001 (0.2% of 0.49) or $\zeta$ by more than about 0.002 (0.7% of 0.32), the claimed error budget is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the P,T-odd sensitivity of 129Xe is converged at the relativistic coupled-cluster singles-and-doubles level: the self-consistent and normal (RNCCSD) methods give $\eta = d_a/(\langle\sigma_N\rangle C_T) \times 10^{20}\,|e|\mathrm{cm}$ values of 0.48 and 0.49, respectively, and identical $\zeta = d_a/S \times 10^{17}\,|e|\mathrm{cm}/(|e|\,\mathrm{fm}^3)$ values of 0.32. Including estimated corrections from partial triple excitations and the Breit interaction, the paper quotes $d_a = 0.49\times10^{-20}\langle\sigma_N\rangle C_T\,e\,\mathrm{cm}$ for the T-PT channel and $d_a = 0.32\times10^{-17} S/(|e|\,\mathrm{fm}^3)\,|e|\,\mathrm{cm}$ for the Schiff-moment channel, with estimated errors of 0.2% and 0.7%. Combining these with the current experimental limit $|d_a|<1.5\times10^{-27}\,|e|\mathrm{cm}$, and assuming a single source, yields $|S|<4.7\times10^{-10}\,|e|\mathrm{fm}^3$ and $|C_T|<6.1\times10^{-7}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that partial triple excitations plus the Breit interaction account for all omitted correlation and relativity, so the RNCCSD results are converged to 0.2% and 0.7%; this is asserted even though the two coupled-cluster variants differ by 2% for the T-PT coefficient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the computed coefficients are correct, an improved 129Xe EDM measurement directly bounds the tensor-pseudotensor coupling $C_T$ and the nuclear Schiff moment, assuming one dominant source.
Planned 129Xe runs aiming for sensitivity near $10^{-30}\,e\,\mathrm{cm}$ would bring xenon's reach to the level of, or beyond, the current mercury limit.
The small 2% spread between RCCSD(SC) and RNCCSD for the T-PT channel, and exact agreement for the Schiff channel, indicates rapid convergence of higher-order many-body effects.
With QCD input, sharper Schiff-moment and T-PT limits translate into tighter constraints on the QCD theta term and quark chromo-EDMs.

Reading between the lines

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

The quoted 0.2% and 0.7% are atomic-structure errors; the nuclear Schiff-moment calculation carries its own uncertainty, so the total physics reach may be set by nuclear theory rather than these atomic coefficients.
The same terminating expectation-value machinery, already validated on the electric dipole polarizability, could be applied to other noble-gas EDMs to cross-check systematics.
The single-source bounds from the paper would need a two-parameter analysis if both T-PT and Schiff contributions contribute comparably to a future measured Xe EDM.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, this is a genuine new calculation: the authors apply RCCSD(SC) and RNCCSD to the 129Xe EDM and give a transparent term-by-term breakdown. The central coefficients, eta=0.49, zeta=0.32, sit close to earlier values, which is reassuring. Second, don't take the error bars at face value. The 0.2% and 0.7% estimates come from adding partial triples and Breit corrections only, and they are an order of magnitude smaller than the internal spread: RCCSD(SC) gives eta=0.48, about 2% below the RNCCSD value, and the earlier RCCSD of Ref. [28] gives zeta=0.34, about 6% above the adopted 0.32. That doesn't make the calculation wrong, but it does make the precision claim as written unsupported.

What is genuinely good: the work is methodologically careful. The equations follow standard coupled-cluster practice, the DF and CPDF results reproduce prior numbers, and the polarizability benchmark (27.51 vs experimental 27.815) is an independent check on the basis and correlation treatment. No EDM data or fitted constants enter the calculation; the coefficients are ab initio. The term decompositions in Tables II and III are useful and allow readers to see where the physics sits.

The soft spot is exactly the error budget. The paragraph beginning 'We have evaluated the numerical error...' treats triples and Breit as if they exhausted the omitted effects, but no calculation shows that these corrections account for the 2% eta gap or the 6% zeta gap. The earlier RCCSD value of 0.34 is described as being in good agreement, which is fair at the 6% level, but that sits in tension with a claimed 0.7% uncertainty. Part of the spread may be basis-set incompleteness, since the earlier calculations used different GTO bases, but the paper does not estimate that. The derived limits (|S|<4.7e-10, |C_T|<6.1e-7) inherit the understated uncertainty.

For a reader in the EDM subfield, this is a useful independent determination of Xe sensitivity coefficients, and the broader case that Xe could rival Hg is reasonable, though not new. But the headline accuracy should be revised from sub-percent to a few percent unless the authors can reconcile the method spread. I would send this to peer review; it's a credible calculation with a fixable but real discrepancy in the error analysis.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports relativistic coupled-cluster calculations of the 129Xe EDM sensitivity coefficients eta = d_a/(<sigma_N> C_T 10^20 |e| cm) and zeta = d_a/(S 10^17 |e| cm/(|e| fm^3)), using both the self-consistent RCCSD method and the normal RCCSD (RNCCSD) method with Gaussian-type orbitals. It reports RNCCSD values eta = 0.49 and zeta = 0.32, adds corrections for the Breit interaction and partial triple excitations, and estimates final uncertainties of 0.2% for the T-PT channel and 0.7% for the NSM channel. Combining these coefficients with the recent 129Xe EDM limit from Ref. [19] yields |C_T| < 6.1e-7 and |S| < 4.7e-10 |e| fm^3. The paper also highlights the good agreement of its computed electric dipole polarizability with experiment and argues that 129Xe is a particularly promising EDM probe.

Significance. If the quoted accuracy is justified, the calculated coefficients are valuable: they are ab initio in the sense that no EDM data are used to adjust parameters, and the polarizability benchmark from Ref. [29] provides an independent check of the many-body treatment. The comparison between RCCSD(SC) and RNCCSD, and the explicit tabulation of leading correlation terms, are also useful. However, the central claim is the quoted 0.2% and 0.7% uncertainties, because the limits in Eqs. (25)-(26) scale directly with eta and zeta. The manuscript does not currently reconcile those error bars with the 2% method spread for eta and the 6% difference from the earlier RCCSD zeta in Table I.

major comments (3)

[Table I and the paragraph beginning 'We have evaluated the numerical error in our RCC calculations...'] The central accuracy claim is not supported by the spread of methods reported in Table I. RCCSD(SC) gives eta = 0.48 versus RNCCSD eta = 0.49, a 2% difference, while the earlier RCCSD result zeta = 0.34 from Ref. [28] differs from the adopted RNCCSD value zeta = 0.32 by about 6%. The error paragraph attributes the omitted effects entirely to partial triples and the Breit interaction, but no calculation is shown demonstrating that these two corrections account for either of those differences. The quoted uncertainties of 0.2% and 0.7% are roughly an order of magnitude smaller than the observed method/basis spread, so the derived limits in Eqs. (25) and (26) inherit an underestimation of uncertainty. The authors should either demonstrate convergence across the two methods with a detailed accounting of the RCCSD(SC)-RNCCSD and Ref. [28] differences, or quote more conservative uncertainties that reflect the actual spread.
[Paragraph beginning 'In this work, the Breit interaction contributions were found to be...'] The text states that the Breit contributions were 0.6% and 0.9% of the total Dirac-Coulomb contributions in the CPDF and RCCSD approximations, respectively, but Table I lists only Delta_CPDF^Breit = -0.001 for eta and -0.002 for zeta; the RCCSD-level Breit values are neither tabulated nor sufficiently described. Since the Breit estimate enters the final error budget directly, the missing values and the definition of the percentages should be provided, and the relation between these percentages and the final absolute uncertainties in eta and zeta should be made explicit.
[Concluding discussion and Eqs. (25)-(26)] The paper uses the quoted uncertainties to assert that the results are 'more accurate and reliable' than those for 199Hg and to argue that 129Xe is the most promising stable diamagnetic EDM probe. This conclusion is load-bearing for the paper's stated implications. Because the uncertainty budget is not yet reconciled with the method spread, the statement that the estimated errors are 0.2% and 0.7% is premature, and the derived bounds on S and C_T should be presented with error bars that reflect the unresolved spread until the convergence question is settled.

minor comments (5)

[Title and abstract] There is a typo in the title as displayed: 'Standard Mo del' should be 'Standard Model'; also 'Schiﬀ moment' appears with a nonstandard spacing in several places.
[Table I] The triples corrections are listed as '~ 0' in Table I, while the text reports absolute contributions of 3.9e-5 for eta and 1.3e-4 for zeta; these numbers should be included in the table and their relative sizes compared explicitly with the final errors.
[Equation (19)] The notation in Eq. (19), '<Phi_0(1 + ~T)O|Phi_0>_c', is missing the bra bar and should be written as '<Phi_0|(1 + ~T)O|Phi_0>_c' for consistency with the other equations.
[Introduction] The phrase 'improving by factors of one-and-half and five times' should read 'by factors of 1.5 and 5'.
[Table II caption] The caption refers to 'RCCSD(SC)' but the table lists terms with 'h.c.'; it would be helpful to state explicitly which terms are the hermitian conjugates and whether the listed numerical values include them or not.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: η and ζ are computed ab initio from explicit P,T-violating Hamiltonians, with an independent external polarizability benchmark; the uncertainty caveat is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

No circularity found. The coefficients η and ζ are obtained by solving the coupled-cluster equations (13), (14), (22), and (23) and evaluating the matrix elements in Eqs. (15) and (24) for the explicit P,T-violating operators of Eqs. (1) and (2); no measured 129Xe EDM or fitted coupling constant enters these calculations. The RCCSD(SC)/RNCCSD method comparison is an internal consistency check, not a fitted input, and the polarizability α_d results in Table I are checked against the independent experimental value 27.815(27) [36], which externally validates the basis and many-body procedure. The self-citations to refs. [26], [28], [29], and [37] supply method and basis provenance, and the RNCC method is re-derived in the paper's Eqs. (16)–(24), so the argument does not reduce to those citations. The final uncertainty estimate (0.2% for T-PT, 0.7% for NSM) is a convergence assertion about omitted triples and Breit contributions; if that estimate is too optimistic given the 2% RCCSD(SC)-RNCCSD difference in η or the 6% difference from the earlier ζ of ref. [28], that is a correctness and accuracy concern, not a circular reduction of the prediction to its inputs. The derived limits in Eqs. (25) and (26) use the experimental |d_a| upper bound only after the coefficients have been computed, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical constants are fitted in this work. The only hand-chosen numerical input is the technical GTO basis from the prior polarizability paper. The central assumption is that the effective Hamiltonians and first-order perturbation theory are the correct description, plus the unverified premise that RNCCSD is the converged solution.

free parameters (1)

GTO basis parameters = not stated (from Ref. [29])
The Gaussian-type orbital basis was optimized in the authors' prior polarizability study; the EDM results inherit any tuning in those parameters, though the small method-to-method spread suggests low sensitivity.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption First-order perturbation theory in the P,T-violating interaction is valid.
Invoked in Eq. (3) through Eq. (7); assumes λH_PTV is a small perturbation on the Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian.
domain assumption The effective Hamiltonians in Eqs. (1) and (2) correctly describe the T-PT interaction and the nuclear Schiff moment.
Taken from Refs. [30-32]; not rederived or tested against a wider set of nuclear models in this paper.
domain assumption The nucleus can be treated as a static spin-1/2 charge distribution ρ_N(r).
Used to evaluate matrix elements; neglects nuclear dynamics beyond the static density.
domain assumption Truncation at singles and doubles plus perturbative triples captures the dominant correlation.
The RCC and RNCC cluster operators are restricted to T1 and T2, with triples estimated perturbatively rather than solved self-consistently.
ad hoc to paper The RNCC bra-state ansatz is more accurate than the standard RCC bra-state for the EDM expectation value.
The paper infers this from Hellmann-Feynman satisfaction and termination of the series, but provides no external benchmark for η or ζ.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic many body theory of the electric dipole moment of $^{129}$Xe and its implications for probing new physics beyond the Standard Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UNB3ESJE

@misc{pith2026190804151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic many body theory of the electric dipole moment of $^129$Xe and its implications for probing new physics beyond the Standard Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UNB3ESJE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04151}
}

abstract

We report the results of our theoretical studies of the time-reversal and parity violating electric dipole moment (EDM) of $^{129}$Xe arising from the nuclear Schiff moment (NSM) and the electron-nucleus tensor-pseudotensor (T-PT) interaction based on the self-consistent and the normal relativistic coupled-cluster methods. The important many-body effects are highlighted and their contributions are explicitly presented. The uncertainties in the calculations of the correlation and relativistic effects are determined by estimating the contributions of the triples excitations, and the Breit interaction respectively, which together amount to about 0.7% for the NSM and 0.2% for the T-PT interactions. The results of our present work in combination with improved experimental limits for $^{129}$Xe EDM in the future would tighten the constraints on the hadronic CP violating quantities, and this could provide important insights into new physics beyond the Standard Model of elementary particles.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[28]

Singh, B

Y. Singh, B. K. Sahoo, and B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 89, 030502(R) (2014)

2014
[19]

Kuchler et al., Hyperﬁne Interact

F. Kuchler et al., Hyperﬁne Interact. 237, 95 (2016)

work page 2016
[29]

9 × 10−5 and 1

and the absolute values of this contribution for η and ζ in the present study is 3 . 9 × 10−5 and 1 . 3 × 10−4, respectively. In this work, the Breit interaction contribu- tions were found to be 0 . 6% and 0 . 9% of the total Dirac Coulomb contributions in the CPDF and RCCSD ap- proximations respectively. Our net estimate of the error TABLE II. Contributi...

work page
[1]

As for the 129Xe diamagnetic atom, three experiments on its EDM are currently under way [13–15]

4×10−23e·cm (95% C.L.). As for the 129Xe diamagnetic atom, three experiments on its EDM are currently under way [13–15]. Among the above three diamagnetic species, 225Ra is radioactive with a half life of 14.9 d, while 199Hg and 129Xe are stable. Of the two stable atoms 199Hg and 129Xe, the latter is characterized by its exceptionally long transverse-spin...

work page 1984
[2]

N. F. Ramsey, Phys. Rev. 109, 822 (1958)

work page 1958
[3]

7 × 10−10 |e|fm3 (25) and |CT| < 6

32 × 10−17 S/ (|e| fm3) |e|cm, and assuming that the EDM is due to a single source of either the NSM or the T-PT interaction, we obtain, respectively, the following upper limits |S| < 4. 7 × 10−10 |e|fm3 (25) and |CT| < 6. 1 × 10−7. (26) for the value ⟨σN⟩ = 1/ 2. It is important to notice here that the status of nuclear structure calculations for 129Xe i...

work page
[4]

M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloﬀ and O. Pene, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9, 795 (1994)

work page 1994
[5]

L. D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JETP 5, 336 (1957)

work page 1957

Show all 50 references

[6]

Results of this calculation are of the same sign and of the same order of magnitude as the previous calculation, unlike the case of 199Hg [8, 11]

has been reported. Results of this calculation are of the same sign and of the same order of magnitude as the previous calculation, unlike the case of 199Hg [8, 11]. Thus, both the atomic and the nuclear calculations are now more reliable for 129Xe than those for 199Hg. Turn- ...
[7]

Luders, Ann

G. Luders, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 281, 1004 (2000)

2000
[8]

Yamanaka, B

N. Yamanaka, B. K. Sahoo, N. Yoshinaga, T. Sato, K. Asahi, and B. P. Das, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 54 (2017)

2017
[9]

Cirigliano, S

V. Cirigliano, S. Profumo and M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, JHEP 07, 002 (2006)

2006
[10]

Teruya, N

E. Teruya, N. Yoshinaga, K. Higashiyama, and K. Asahi, Phys. Rev. C 96, 015501 (2017)

2017
[11]

DeMille, J

D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, and A. O. Sushkov, Science 357, 990 (2017)

2017
[12]

R. H. Parker, M. R. Dietrich, M. R. Kalita, N. D. Lemke, K. G. Bailey, M. Bishof, J. P. Greene, R. J. Holt, W. Korsch, Z. T. Lu, P. Mueller, T. P. OConnor, J. T. Singh, Phys. Rev. Letts. 114, 233002 (2015)

2015
[13]

S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 45, 4148 (1992)

1992
[14]

Graner, Y

B. Graner, Y. Chen, E. G. Lindahl, and B. R. Heckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 161601 (2016)

2016
[15]

Engel, M

J. Engel, M. Bender, J. Dobaczewski, J. H. de Jesus, and P. Olbratowski, Phys. Rev. C 68, 025501 (2003)

2003
[16]

Gemmel, W

C. Gemmel, W. Heil, S. Karpuk, K. Lenz, Y. Sobolev, K. Tullney, M. Burghoﬀ, W. Kilian, S. Knappe-Gruneberg, W. Muller, A. Schnabel, F. Seifert, L. Trahms, U. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 82, 111901(R) (2010)

2010
[17]

Heil et al

W. Heil et al. , Ann. Phys. 255, 539 (2013)

2013
[18]

Sato et al

T. Sato et al. , Phys. Lett. A 382, 588 (2018)

2018
[20]

M. A. Rosenberry and T. E. Chupp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 6 22 (2001)

2001
[21]

T. G. Vold, F. J. Raab, B. Heckel, and E. N. Fortson Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 2229 (1984)

1984
[22]

Sachdeva, I

N. Sachdeva, I. Fan, E. Babcock, M. Burghoﬀ, T. E. Chupp, S. Degenkolb, P. Fierlinger, E. Kraegeloh, W. Kilian, S. Knappe-Gr¨ uneberg, F. Kuchler, T. Liu, M. Marino, J. Meinel, Z. Salhi, A. Schnabel, J. T. Singh, S. Stuiber, W. A. Terrano, L. Trahms, and J. Voigt, arXiv:1902.02864

1902 arXiv
[23]

Allmendinger, I

F. Allmendinger, I. Engin, W. Heil, S. Karpuk, H.-J. Krause, B. Nieder ¨lander,A. Oﬀenhausser, M. Repetto, U. Schmidt, and S. Zimmer, arXiv: 1904.12295

1904 arXiv
[24]

Flambaum, I.B

V.V. Flambaum, I.B. Khriplovich, O.P. Sushkov. Nucl. Phys. A 449(4), 750-760 (1986)

1986
[25]

Sushkov, V.V

O.P. Sushkov, V.V. Flambaum, I.B. Khriplovich. JETP 60(5), 873, 1984; ZhETF 87(5), 1521 (1984)

1984
[26]

Flambaum, I.B

V.V. Flambaum, I.B. Khriplovich, O.P. Sushkov. Phys. Lett. B 162(4), 213 (1985)

1985
[27]

Flambaum, I.B

V.V. Flambaum, I.B. Khriplovich. ZhETF 89(5), 1505,
[30]

Singh and B

Y. Singh and B. K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. A 91, 030501(R) (2015)

2015
[31]

B. K. Sahoo, B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. Letts. 120, 203001 (2018)

2018
[32]

H. S. Nataraj, B. K. Sahoo, B. P. Das, and D. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. Letts. 101, 033002 (2008)

2008
[33]

Shavitt, and R.J Bartlett, Many-Body Methods in Chemistry And Physics , Cambridge University (2009)

I. Shavitt, and R.J Bartlett, Many-Body Methods in Chemistry And Physics , Cambridge University (2009)

2009
[34]

Sakurai, B

A. Sakurai, B. K. Sahoo and B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062510 (2018)

2018
[35]

E. A. Hinds and P. G. H. Sandars, Phys. Rev. A 21, 471 (1980)

1980
[36]

V. V. Flambaum and J. S. M. Ginges, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032113 (2002)

2002
[37]

V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and S. G. Porsev, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032120 (2009)

2009
[38]

I. P. Grant, Relativistic Quantum Theory of Atoms and Molecules, Springer, New York, pp. 339-340 (2007)

2007
[39]

R. F. Bishop, Quantum Many-Body Theories and their Applications, Chap. 1, pp1-70 (Springer, Berlin, 1997)

1997
[40]

K. V. P. Latha and P. R. Amjith, Phys. Rev. A 87, 022509 (2013)

2013
[41]

Hohm and K

U. Hohm and K. Kerl, Mol. Phys, 69, 819 (1990)

1990
[42]

B. K. Sahoo and B. P. Das, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1041, 012014 (2018)

2018
[43]

Dekens et al., JHEP 1407, 069 (2014)

W. Dekens et al., JHEP 1407, 069 (2014)

2014
[44]

V. F. Dmitriev, R. A. Sen’kov and N. Auerbach, Phys. Rev. C 71, 035501 (2005)

2005
[45]

Chupp, M

T. Chupp, M. Ramsey-Musolf, Phys. Rev. C 91, 035502 (2015)

2015
[46]

Asahi, T

K. Asahi, T. Sato and Y. Ichikawa, Asian Jour. Phys., vol.25, No.10 (2016)

2016
[47]

Pospelov, Phys

M. Pospelov, Phys. Lett. B 530, 123 (2002)

2002
[49]

de Vries, E

J. de Vries, E. Mereghetti, and A. Walker-Loud, Phys. Rev. C 92, 045201 (2015)

2015
[50]

B. K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. D 95, 013002 (2017)

2017
[1985]

Sov. Phys. JETP 62, 872 (1985)

1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [28]

Singh, B

Y. Singh, B. K. Sahoo, and B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 89, 030502(R) (2014)

2014

[2] [19]

Kuchler et al., Hyperﬁne Interact

F. Kuchler et al., Hyperﬁne Interact. 237, 95 (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [29]

9 × 10−5 and 1

and the absolute values of this contribution for η and ζ in the present study is 3 . 9 × 10−5 and 1 . 3 × 10−4, respectively. In this work, the Breit interaction contribu- tions were found to be 0 . 6% and 0 . 9% of the total Dirac Coulomb contributions in the CPDF and RCCSD ap- proximations respectively. Our net estimate of the error TABLE II. Contributi...

work page

[4] [1]

As for the 129Xe diamagnetic atom, three experiments on its EDM are currently under way [13–15]

4×10−23e·cm (95% C.L.). As for the 129Xe diamagnetic atom, three experiments on its EDM are currently under way [13–15]. Among the above three diamagnetic species, 225Ra is radioactive with a half life of 14.9 d, while 199Hg and 129Xe are stable. Of the two stable atoms 199Hg and 129Xe, the latter is characterized by its exceptionally long transverse-spin...

work page 1984

[5] [2]

N. F. Ramsey, Phys. Rev. 109, 822 (1958)

work page 1958

[6] [3]

7 × 10−10 |e|fm3 (25) and |CT| < 6

32 × 10−17 S/ (|e| fm3) |e|cm, and assuming that the EDM is due to a single source of either the NSM or the T-PT interaction, we obtain, respectively, the following upper limits |S| < 4. 7 × 10−10 |e|fm3 (25) and |CT| < 6. 1 × 10−7. (26) for the value ⟨σN⟩ = 1/ 2. It is important to notice here that the status of nuclear structure calculations for 129Xe i...

work page

[7] [4]

M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez, J. Orloﬀ and O. Pene, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 9, 795 (1994)

work page 1994

[8] [5]

L. D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JETP 5, 336 (1957)

work page 1957