Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Electron electric dipole moment searches using clock transitions in ultracold molecules

T0 review · 1 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 Driving hyperfine clock states in ultracold polar molecules with oscillating electric and magnetic fields can measure the electron EDM at 10^-31 e cm, two orders beyond current limits.

desk verdict A genuinely new EDM measurement scheme built on clock states, with a clean central derivation; the 10^-31 e cm projection is a well-labeled extrapolation from unmeasured YbAg constants, not a result. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02650 v4 pith:U6JQHI2H submitted 2019-09-05 physics.atom-ph

Mohit Verma , Andrew M. Jayich , Amar C. Vutha This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords electronelectricdipolemomentPTviolationhyperfineclocktransitionsultracoldmoleculesYbAgRabiinterferometrymolecularorientationbeyondStandardModelphysics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes an electron electric dipole moment (EDM) measurement that uses magnetically insensitive hyperfine clock transitions in ultracold polar molecules, rather than the spin-precession scheme used in current experiments. The idea is to drive the two clock states with an oscillating magnetic field while an oscillating electric field modulates the molecule's orientation; the $P,T$-violating electron EDM then contributes a Rabi amplitude proportional to the orientation amplitude. Because the two amplitudes interfere with a relative phase $\beta$, the EDM signal can be switched and separated from backgrounds. For the example molecule $^{174}\mathrm{Yb}^{107}\mathrm{Ag}$, the authors estimate a sensitivity of $\delta d_e = 10^{-31}\,e\,\text{cm}$, two orders of magnitude beyond current limits, which would probe new physics at energy scales beyond 100 TeV.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of hyperfine clock states in the $^2\Sigma$ ground state of a polar molecule, defined as the $|F=0,m_F=0\rangle$ and $|F=1,m_F=0\rangle$ levels whose splitting is first-order insensitive to magnetic fields. The second ingredient is the oscillating molecular orientation $\zeta(t)$ induced by an rf electric field: because $\zeta$ responds nonlinearly to the field, it acquires a first-harmonic component $\zeta_0$ that couples the electron spin to the laboratory axis through the $P,T$-violating Hamiltonian $W_{PT}\,\vec{S}\cdot\hat{n}$. When the electric and magnetic drives share a frequency $\omega$ and a relative phase $\beta$, the rotating-wave Hamiltonian in the clock subspace is $H_{\text{eff}} = (\Omega_B/2)\sigma_x + (\Omega_{PT}/2)(\cos\beta\,\sigma_x + \sin\beta\,\sigma_y) + (\Delta/2)\sigma_z$, and the resulting Rabi interference produces the measured $\sin^2$ lineshape. This identity converts a static EDM observable into an rf interferometric readout.

What would settle it

An experiment on $^{174}\mathrm{Yb}^{107}\mathrm{Ag}$ clock states with $\Omega_B\tau = \pi/2$ that measures $\rho_{ee}$ for $\beta = 0$ and $\beta = \pi$ would settle the claim: a null difference at the $\delta\Omega_{PT} \approx 2\pi\times 0.5\,\mu\text{Hz}$ level would falsify the $P,T$-interference mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the transition probability between the hyperfine clock states $|F=0,m_F=0\rangle$ and $|F=1,m_F=0\rangle$, driven on resonance by an oscillating magnetic field and an oscillating polarizing electric field at the same frequency, is $\rho_{ee}(\tau) = \sin^2[(\Omega_B + \Omega_{PT}\cos\beta)\tau/2]$, where $\Omega_B$ is the Zeeman Rabi frequency and $\Omega_{PT} = W_{PT}\zeta_0/2$ is the $P,T$-violating Rabi amplitude set by the electron EDM coupling $W_{PT}$ and the amplitude $\zeta_0$ of the oscillating molecular orientation. The relative phase $\beta$ controls whether the two amplitudes add or subtract. On resonance, this interference makes the excited-state population linearly sensitive to $\Omega_{PT}$ at the operating point $\Omega_B\tau = \pm\pi/2$, giving a projection-noise-limited electron EDM precision of $\delta d_e = 10^{-31}\,e\,\text{cm}$ for $10^4$ molecules, 10 s coherence, and 10 days of integration. The authors argue this removes the main obstacle—magnetic field sensitivity—that had disfavored ultracold assembled $^2\Sigma$ molecules for EDM searches.

Load-bearing premise

The projected sensitivity depends on the unmeasured molecular constants of $^{174}\mathrm{Yb}^{107}\mathrm{Ag}$ matching estimates scaled from YbF, and on assembling and confining $10^4$ molecules for 10 s; if either fails, the quoted $\delta d_e = 10^{-31}\,e\,\text{cm}$ precision changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A projection-noise-limited measurement with $10^4$ YbAg molecules, 10 s coherence, and 10 days of integration would reach $\delta d_e = 10^{-31}\,e\,\text{cm}$, two orders below the current electron EDM limit.
  • Simple $^2\Sigma$ molecules assembled from ultracold atoms—previously set aside because their electron spins couple strongly to magnetic field noise—become viable EDM candidates.
  • Switching the relative phase $\beta$ between $0$ and $\pi$ (or setting $\beta = \pm\pi/2$) provides null tests and a clean separation between genuine $P,T$-violating signals and systematics.
  • Driving the electric field at a subharmonic of the clock frequency pushes electric-field-linear systematic effects off resonance, giving a built-in diagnostic for spurious signals.
  • The same clock-state readout applies to nuclear EDM searches in radioactive molecules and to molecular ions, widening the set of species available for $P,T$-violation searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, applying the same phase-switched readout to molecular ions could yield even longer interrogation times than neutral traps, since ion confinement is not limited by optical-trap lifetimes.
  • A first demonstration of the $\sin^2$ interference formula in a molecule with fully measured constants, such as YbF, would separate the technique's performance from the uncertainties in YbAg's predicted constants.
  • The subharmonic-drive diagnostic should generalize to other precision measurements needing to isolate a weak resonant signal from electric-field-linear backgrounds, for example searches for axion-like dark matter coupled to electron spins.
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.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a new technique for electron EDM searches using hyperfine clock transitions in ultracold polar molecules, illustrated with 174Yb107Ag. In the scheme, an oscillating polarizing electric field and an oscillating magnetic field at the same frequency drive the transition between the magnetically insensitive clock states |F=0,mF=0> and |F=1,mF=0>. The P,T-violating interaction WPT S·n produces an additional Rabi amplitude ΩPT = WPT ζ0/2 that interferes with the Zeeman amplitude ΩB, yielding an excited-state population ρee(τ)=sin²[(ΩB+ΩPT cos β)τ/2]. The authors derive this result from a rotating-wave-approximation Hamiltonian, analyze systematic errors from displacement B-fields, E1-M1 mixing, and differential Stark shifts, and estimate an electron EDM sensitivity of 10^-31 e cm for YbAg, about two orders of magnitude beyond current limits. The paper also proposes sub-harmonic modulation as a diagnostic for systematics and lists a broad menu of molecules to which the method applies.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism works, it would substantially expand the class of molecules usable for EDM searches, overcoming the magnetic-field sensitivity that has limited ultracold assembled 2Σ molecules. The central Rabi derivation is transparent and internally consistent, and the systematic-error analysis is unusually thorough for a proposal, including analytical estimates, numerical checks, and concrete suppression strategies. The sub-harmonic modulation idea is a valuable new diagnostic. The projected sensitivity is clearly an estimate and depends on unmeasured YbAg spectroscopic constants and undemonstrated experimental parameters, but this is disclosed and does not undermine the physical mechanism, which is the main contribution.

major comments (1)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The factor (10 s/τ) in Eq. (4) is inconsistent with the projection-noise formula δWPT = 2/(ζ0 τ √Ntot) stated in the text. If Ntot is the total number of molecules used over the integration time T, with N molecules per cycle and cycle duration τ, then Ntot = N T/τ and δWPT = 2/(ζ0 √(N T τ)). The corresponding sensitivity therefore scales as (10 s/τ)^{1/2}, not (10 s/τ). As written, the equation overstates the improvement from longer interaction times by a factor √(τ/10 s). The numerical value at the nominal parameters (N=10^4, τ=10 s, T=10 d) is unchanged, but the scaling law should be corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4) and Supplementary Section A] The main text should explicitly state, in the paragraph introducing Eq. (4), that the 10^-31 e cm figure is contingent on the estimated YbAg constants (Brot, γ, b, c, D), the assumed E_eff ≈ 20 GV/cm, and the projected experimental parameters N=10^4, τ=10 s. The Supplement discloses this, but a one-sentence caveat in the main text would help readers distinguish the robust interference mechanism from the uncertain sensitivity projection.
  2. [References [24] and [30]] The reliance on private communications for the enhanced EDM sensitivity of YbAg and for E_eff ≈ 20 GV/cm is understandable for a proposal, but the authors should cite any peer-reviewed calculations that support these values, or explicitly note that these are preliminary estimates.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The nuclear g-factor gI in Eq. (1) should be explicitly defined as the nuclear g-factor expressed in units of μB, since the Hamiltonian uses μB(gS S + gI I); this will avoid confusion about the relative size of the electron and nuclear terms.
  4. [Figure 1] The caption of Figure 1 would be clearer if the axes were labeled with the physical quantities being plotted and the relationship between the first harmonic of ζ(t) and the transition drive were stated explicitly.
  5. [Supplementary Section B] The notation for the dressed states |~0> and |~1> in the analytical two-level model is typographically awkward; using |\tilde{0}> and |\tilde{1}> would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

The central interference derivation is self-contained; the only soft spot is disclosed reliance on unmeasured YbAg molecular constants scaled from YbF, which is an input assumption rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is internally self-contained. Starting from the effective spin Hamiltonian in Eq. (2), it computes the Rabi frequencies for the clock transition: Omega_B = -(1/2)(gS-gI) mu_B B0 from the Zeeman term and Omega_PT = (1/2) W_PT zeta0 from the P,T-violating term, and then obtains rho_ee(tau) = sin^2[(Omega_B + Omega_PT cos beta) tau / 2] in the rotating wave approximation (Eq. (3) and following text). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no quantity in this derivation is defined in terms of the result it is used to predict. The projected sensitivity in Eq. (4) is a standard projection-noise expression delta_d_e = 1/(zeta0 E_eff tau sqrt(N_tot)) combined with external inputs: E_eff ~ 20 GV/cm is imported from the closely related YbF molecule, and the molecular constants needed to compute zeta0 are explicitly stated to be unmeasured and scaled from YbF in Supplementary Section A. These are honest input assumptions, disclosed in the manuscript, not circular redefinitions; they would affect the numerical projection but do not make the physical mechanism equivalent to its inputs. The only self-citation involving an author of this paper, Ref. [39] for HgF-family molecules, appears in the supplementary menu of candidate molecules and is not load-bearing for the central claim. No uniqueness theorem is invoked to forbid alternatives, and no ansatz is smuggled in through a self-citation. The dependence on unmeasured YbAg constants and untested 10^4-molecule, 10-s-coherence assumptions is a correctness/feasibility risk rather than a circularity, and the manuscript flags this limitation itself.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism is derived from standard quantum mechanics with no fitted parameters. The quoted sensitivity depends on several unmeasured YbAg properties assumed from YbF and on chosen experimental parameters, which are the main uncertainty. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • YbAg molecular constants (Brot, γ, b, c, D) = scaled from 174Yb19F
    Unmeasured; estimated by scaling YbF values by reduced mass and nuclear magnetic moment ratios. Used to compute Epol ≈ 2 kV/cm and the orientation model ζ(t). Supplement Sec. A.
  • Effective EDM field E_eff = 20 GV/cm
    Assumed equal to YbF value from refs [30,31]; not measured for YbAg. Enters Eq. (4) sensitivity projection.
  • Orientation amplitude ζ0 = ≈ 1 (model-dependent)
    Amplitude of oscillating molecular orientation for E0 ≈ 3 Epol; obtained from a model with estimated YbAg constants. Appears in Eq. (4) as 1/ζ0.
  • Experimental projection parameters (N, τ, T) = N=10^4, τ=10 s, T=10 d
    Chosen as illustrative ultracold-molecule experiment parameters to state the sensitivity in Eq. (4); not fitted, but determine the headline number.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Rotating wave approximation (RWA) is valid for the driven two-level system with detuning and Rabi frequencies small compared to drive frequency.
    Used to derive the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) from Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption The effective spin Hamiltonian Heff in Eq. (2) captures the electron and nuclear spin dynamics, including the PT-violating term WPT S_z ζ(t).
    Standard low-energy description for EDM searches, assumed throughout the derivation.
  • domain assumption The molecular orientation follows the electric field quasi-statically (adiabatic approximation, ω << ω01).
    Used in Supplement Sec. B to justify the algebraic ζ(E) expression and the harmonics analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper YbAg spectroscopic constants can be obtained by scaling YbF values.
    Supplement Sec. A: 'we estimated the values... using the measured values for the structurally very similar molecule 174Yb19F.' This is an assumption specific to this paper.
  • domain assumption Ultracold YbAg molecules can be assembled from laser-cooled atoms and trapped in an optical trap in sufficient numbers.
    Invoked in the introduction and in Eq. (4) for the sensitivity projection; it is a feasibility premise for the proposed experiment.
  • domain assumption The electron EDM is the only source of P,T violation in the molecule, so δWPT converts to δde via E_eff.
    Stated before Eq. (4): 'assuming that the electron EDM is the only source of P,T-violation'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electron electric dipole moment searches using clock transitions in ultracold molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U6JQHI2H

@misc{pith2026190902650,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electron electric dipole moment searches using clock transitions in ultracold molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U6JQHI2H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02650}
}
read the original abstract

Permanent electric dipole moments (EDMs) of fundamental particles such as the electron are signatures of parity and time-reversal violation due to physics beyond the standard model. EDM measurements probe new physics at energy scales well beyond the reach of present-day colliders. Recent advances in assembling molecules from ultracold atoms have opened up new opportunities for improving the reach of EDM experiments. But better measurement techniques, that are not limited by the magnetic field sensitivity of such molecules, are necessary before these opportunities can be fully exploited. We present a technique that takes advantage of magnetically-insensitive hyperfine clock transitions in polar molecules, and offers new ways to improve both the precision and accuracy of EDM searches with ultracold assembled molecules.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02650 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The population transfer is shown on a Bloch [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The population in the excited clock state, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Molecular orientation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Molecular orientation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    DeMille, J

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

    2017

  2. [2]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    J. J. Hudson, D. M. Kara, I. Smallman, B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbutt, and E. A. Hinds, Nature 473, 493 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Baron et al

    ACME Collaboration: J. Baron et al. , Science 343, 269 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    W. B. Cairncross, D. N. Gresh, M. Grau, K. C. Cossel, T. S. Roussy, Y. Ni, Y. Zhou, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 153001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Andreev et al., Nature 562, 355 (2018)

    ACME Collaboration: V. Andreev et al., Nature 562, 355 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    J. L. Feng, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 351 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    P. S. Julienne, Nature Physics 14, 873 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Truppe, H

    S. Truppe, H. Williams, M. Hambach, L. Caldwell, N. Fitch, E. Hinds, B. Sauer, and M. Tarbutt, Nat. Phys. 13, 1173 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    A. L. Collopy, S. Ding, Y. Wu, I. A. Finneran, L. An- deregg, B. L. Augenbraun, J. M. Doyle, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 213201 (2018). 5

    2018

  3. [11]

    L. W. Cheuk, L. Anderegg, B. L. Augenbraun, Y. Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterle, and J. M. Doyle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 083201 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    P. K. Molony, P. D. Gregory, Z. Ji, B. Lu, M. P. K¨ oppinger, C. R. Le Sueur, C. L. Blackley, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 255301 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Takekoshi, L

    T. Takekoshi, L. Reichs¨ ollner, A. Schindewolf, J. M. Hut- son, C. R. Le Sueur, O. Dulieu, F. Ferlaino, R. Grimm, and H.-C. N¨ agerl, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 205301 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    J. W. Park, S. A. Will, and M. W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 205302 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    M. Guo, B. Zhu, B. Lu, X. Ye, F. Wang, R. Vex- iau, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, G. Qu´ em´ ener, O. Dulieu, and D. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 205303 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    T. M. Rvachov, H. Son, A. T. Sommer, S. Ebadi, J. J. Park, M. W. Zwierlein, W. Ketterle, and A. O. Jamison, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 143001 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Barb´ e, A

    V. Barb´ e, A. Ciamei, B. Pasquiou, L. Reichs¨ ollner, F. Schreck, P. S. ˙Zuchowski, and J. M. Hutson, Nature Phys. 14, 881 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Guttridge, S

    A. Guttridge, S. A. Hopkins, M. D. Frye, J. J. McFerran, J. M. Hutson, and S. L. Cornish, Phys. Rev. A 97, 063414 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Green, J

    A. Green, J. H. See Toh, R. Roy, M. Li, S. Kotochigova, and S. Gupta, PRA 99, 063416 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    M.-G. Hu, Y. Liu, D. Grimes, Y.-W. Lin, A. Gheorghe, R. Vexiau, N. Bouloufa-Maafa, O. Dulieu, T. Rosenband, and K.-K. Ni, Science 366, 1111 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    De Marco, G

    L. De Marco, G. Valtolina, K. Matsuda, W. G. Tobias, J. P. Covey, and J. Ye, Science 363, 853 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Sunaga, V

    A. Sunaga, V. S. Prasannaa, M. Abe, M. Hada, and B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 99, 040501 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    J. Lim, J. R. Almond, M. A. Trigatzis, J. A. Devlin, N. J. Fitch, B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbutt, and E. A. Hinds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 123201 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Fleig and D

    T. Fleig and D. DeMille, private communication (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    E. B. Norrgard, E. R. Edwards, D. J. McCarron, M. H. Steinecker, D. DeMille, S. S. Alam, S. K. Peck, N. S. Wadia, and L. R. Hunter, Phys. Rev. A 95, 062506 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Kozyryev and N

    I. Kozyryev and N. R. Hutzler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 133002 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    J. W. Park, Z. Z. Yan, H. Loh, S. A. Will, and M. f. Zwierlein, Science 357, 372 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    See Supplementary Material

  21. [29]

    E. R. Meyer and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A 80, 042508 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Fleig, private communication (2020)

    T. Fleig, private communication (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    M. Abe, G. Gopakumar, M. Hada, B. P. Das, H. Tatewaki, and D. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. A 90, 022501 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Our method can also be easily applied to a large class of molecular ions ([28], Sec

    or 229Pa [33]), but where there may only be a limited range of molecular species that can be efficiently produced from rare isotope sources. Our method can also be easily applied to a large class of molecular ions ([28], Sec. E), since ion traps can be engineered to make their s...

  25. [33]

    Bishof, R

    M. Bishof, R. H. Parker, K. G. Bailey, J. P. Greene, R. J. Holt, M. R. Kalita, W. Korsch, N. D. Lemke, Z.-T. Lu, P. Mueller, T. P. O’Connor, J. T. Singh, and M. R. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. C 94, 025501 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    J. T. Singh, Hyperfine Interactions 240, 29 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Sauer, J

    B. Sauer, J. Wang, and E. Hinds, J. Chem. Phys. 105, 7412 (1996)

    1996

  28. [36]

    I. B. Khriplovich and S. K. Lamoreaux, CP violation without strangeness: electric dipole moments of particles, atoms, and molecules (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    J. J. Hudson, B. E. Sauer, M. R. Tarbutt, and E. A. Hinds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 023003 (2002)

    2002

  30. [38]

    DeMille, F

    D. DeMille, F. Bay, S. Bickman, D. Kawall, D. Krause, S. E. Maxwell, and L. R. Hunter, Phys. Rev. A 61, 052507 (2000)

    2000

  31. [39]

    M. W. Noel, W. M. Griffith, and T. F. Gallagher, Phys. Rev. A 58, 2265 (1998)

    1998

  32. [40]

    V. S. Prasannaa, A. C. Vutha, M. Abe, and B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 183001 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    T. A. Isaev, S. Hoekstra, and R. Berger, Phys. Rev. A 82, 052521 (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    Aggarwal et al

    NL-eEDM collaboration: P. Aggarwal et al. , Eur. Phys. J. D 72, 197 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Abe, private communication (2018)

    M. Abe, private communication (2018). 6 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL A. Molecular orientation in an electric field The field-free Hamiltonian for the electronic ( 2Σ) and vibrational ( v = 0) ground state of a molecule such as 174Yb107Ag is H0 =BrotN(N + 1) +γ⃗S· ⃗N +b⃗S·⃗I +cSzIz, (5...

    2018

Pith tools

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