Lifetime of the $^2F_{7/2}$ level in Yb$^+$ for spontaneous emission of electric octupole radiation

A. A. Peshkov; A. Surzhykov; Chr. Tamm; E. Peik; N. Huntemann; R. Lange

arxiv: 2107.11229 · v2 · pith:M7FYZWKNnew · submitted 2021-07-23 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph · quant-ph

Lifetime of the ²F_(7/2) level in Yb^+ for spontaneous emission of electric octupole radiation

R. Lange , A. A. Peshkov , N. Huntemann , Chr. Tamm , A. Surzhykov , E. Peik This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 13:17 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph quant-ph

keywords ytterbium ionelectric octupole transitionradiative lifetimeRabi frequencyStark shiftatomic clockhyperfine structure

0 comments

The pith

The radiative lifetime of the ^2F_{7/2} level in ^{171}Yb+ is 9.96(50)×10^7 s.

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

This paper reports a measurement of the radiative lifetime of the ^2F_{7/2} level in ^{171}Yb+ ions, which couples to the ground state by an electric octupole transition. The lifetime is found to be 9.96(50)×10^7 s, equivalent to 3.16(16) years, with the relative uncertainty lowered by an order of magnitude from earlier values. The method excites the transition coherently and determines the transition matrix element by recording both the resonant Rabi frequency and the quadratic Stark shift at the same time, removing direct dependence on laser intensity before folding in the known dynamic differential polarizability.

Core claim

The radiative lifetime of the ^2F_{7/2} level is determined to be 9.96(50)×10^7 s by measuring the resonant Rabi frequency and the induced quadratic Stark shift simultaneously on the electric octupole transition to the ^2S_{1/2} ground state, eliminating explicit laser-intensity dependence, and combining with dynamic differential polarizability to infer the transition matrix element.

What carries the argument

Simultaneous measurement of resonant Rabi frequency and induced quadratic Stark shift on the octupole transition, combined with independent dynamic differential polarizability, to determine the transition matrix element without explicit laser intensity.

Load-bearing premise

The dynamic differential polarizability of the transition is known independently and with sufficient accuracy to convert the measured Rabi frequency and Stark shift into a reliable transition matrix element.

What would settle it

An independent experimental determination of the octupole transition matrix element or lifetime that differs from the value inferred here by more than the stated uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2107.11229 by A. A. Peshkov, A. Surzhykov, Chr. Tamm, E. Peik, N. Huntemann, R. Lange.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Investigation of the relative excitation strength of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

We report a measurement of the radiative lifetime of the $^2F_{7/2}$ level of $^{171}$Yb$^+$ that is coupled to the $^2S_{1/2}$ ground state via an electric octupole transition. The radiative lifetime is determined to be $9.96(50)\times 10^7$~s, corresponding to 3.16(16) years. The result reduces the relative uncertainty in this exceptionally long excited state lifetime by one order of magnitude with respect to previous experimental estimates. Our method is based on the coherent excitation of the corresponding transition and avoids limitations through competing decay processes. The explicit dependence on the laser intensity is eliminated by simultaneously measuring the resonant Rabi frequency and the induced quadratic Stark shift. Combining the result with information on the dynamic differential polarizability permits a calculation of the transition matrix element to infer the radiative lifetime.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

New 5% lifetime for Yb+ E3 state via intensity-canceling ratio, but final precision rests on external polarizability input.

read the letter

The main takeaway is a new experimental lifetime for the ^2F_{7/2} level in ^{171}Yb+ of 9.96(50)×10^7 s, or about 3.16 years, with uncertainty cut by roughly a factor of ten. The work targets the E3 matrix element between this state and the ground state, which matters for optical clocks and quantum memory schemes that use this transition. The method is straightforward: they drive the transition coherently and record both the resonant Rabi frequency and the quadratic Stark shift in the same run. Because both scale with laser intensity, their ratio removes the explicit intensity dependence and gives a quantity proportional to the square of the matrix element. That step is practical and directly tackles the usual difficulty with these very weak lines. The lifetime then follows after scaling by the dynamic differential polarizability at the transition frequency. The abstract states they combine the ratio with “information on” that polarizability, so the external datum becomes the dominant remaining input. If its uncertainty or the conditions under which it was measured are not fully compatible, the claimed 5% total error could be affected. The paper would need to document the provenance, uncertainty, and any wavelength or temperature adjustments for that value. No internal cross-check appears to be described that would catch a bias there. This is a specialized experimental result aimed at the trapped-ion precision-metrology group. People who already work with Yb+ clocks or similar octupole transitions will use the number; others will not. The approach is incremental but cleanly executed on the intensity problem, and the datum itself is new. It deserves peer review so referees can examine the polarizability reference and the raw data tables.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports a measurement of the radiative lifetime of the $^2F_{7/2}$ level in $^{171}$Yb$^+$ (which decays to the $^2S_{1/2}$ ground state via an E3 transition) as 9.96(50)×10^7 s. The method uses coherent excitation, simultaneously measuring the resonant Rabi frequency Ω and the induced quadratic Stark shift ΔE (both ∝ laser intensity I) to form a ratio that cancels explicit I dependence, then scales by the dynamic differential polarizability α_diff(ω) to recover the E3 matrix element and hence the lifetime τ ∝ 1/|⟨S|Q|F⟩|^2.

Significance. If the result holds, the order-of-magnitude improvement in precision on this exceptionally long lifetime is significant for optical atomic clocks, tests of fundamental symmetries, and atomic structure calculations. The intensity-cancellation technique via the Ω/ΔE ratio is a clear methodological strength that directly addresses a common systematic in precision measurements.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract (final sentence) and the corresponding derivation in the main text: the reported 5% total uncertainty on τ is obtained only after scaling the measured Ω/ΔE ratio by an external value of the dynamic differential polarizability α_diff(ω). The manuscript must explicitly quote the numerical value adopted for α_diff(ω), its reference, and the separate contribution of its uncertainty to the final error budget; without this, the central claim cannot be verified at the stated precision.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract states the lifetime reduces relative uncertainty by one order of magnitude; the introduction or results section should cite the previous experimental values and their uncertainties for direct comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of the work's significance and methodological approach. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (final sentence) and the corresponding derivation in the main text: the reported 5% total uncertainty on τ is obtained only after scaling the measured Ω/ΔE ratio by an external value of the dynamic differential polarizability α_diff(ω). The manuscript must explicitly quote the numerical value adopted for α_diff(ω), its reference, and the separate contribution of its uncertainty to the final error budget; without this, the central claim cannot be verified at the stated precision.

Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not explicitly quote the numerical value of α_diff(ω), its reference, or the separate uncertainty contribution in the abstract or main-text derivation. In the revised manuscript we will add the adopted value of α_diff(ω), cite its source, and include its uncertainty in the error budget (showing its contribution to the total uncertainty on τ). These additions will be made to both the abstract and the relevant section of the main text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental ratio scaled by external polarizability datum

full rationale

The derivation forms the ratio of measured resonant Rabi frequency to quadratic Stark shift (both proportional to intensity) to cancel explicit laser-intensity dependence, then scales the result by an independently known dynamic differential polarizability to recover the E3 matrix element and lifetime. The abstract explicitly states the combination with external information on polarizability; no equation reduces the lifetime back to a fitted parameter defined by the same data, no self-citation chain is load-bearing, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled in. The result is therefore not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on one external domain assumption (accurate independent polarizability) and no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The dynamic differential polarizability is known independently and with sufficient accuracy to convert the measured Rabi frequency and Stark shift into a reliable transition matrix element.
Invoked in the final sentence of the abstract to obtain the lifetime from the measured quantities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5714 in / 1218 out tokens · 20858 ms · 2026-05-24T13:17:58.023582+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

[1]

S. M. Brewer, J.-S. Chen, A. M. Hankin, E. R. Clements, C. W. Chou, D. J. Wineland, D. B. Hume, and D. R. Leibrandt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 033201 (2019)

work page 2019
[2]

Olmschenk, D

S. Olmschenk, D. Hayes, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, D. L. Moehring, K. C. Younge, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. A 80, 022502 (2009)

work page 2009
[3]

Beloy, J

K. Beloy, J. A. Sherman, N. D. Lemke, N. Hinkley, C. W. Oates, and A. D. Ludlow, Phys. Rev. A 86, 051404(R) (2012)

work page 2012
[4]

S. L. Woods, M. E. Hanni, S. R. Lundeen, and E. L. Snow, Phys. Rev. A 82, 012506 (2010)

work page 2010
[5]

Hettrich, T

M. Hettrich, T. Ruster, H. Kaufmann, C. F. Roos, C. T. Schmiegelow, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. G. Poschinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 143003 (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Blatt and C

R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Nature Physics 8, 277 (2012)

work page 2012
[8]

P. A. Barton, C. J. S. Donald, D. M. Lucas, D. A. Stevens, A. M. Steane, and D. N. Stacey, Phys. Rev. A 62, 032503 (2000)

work page 2000
[9]

Rosenband, P

T. Rosenband, P. O. Schmidt, D. B. Hume, W. M. Itano, T. M. Fortier, J. E. Stalnaker, K. Kim, S. A. Diddams, J. C. J. Koelemeij, J. C. Bergquist, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 220801 (2007)

work page 2007
[10]

H. Shao, Y. Huang, H. Guan, Y. Qian, and K. Gao, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042507 (2016)

work page 2016
[11]

Yasuda and H

M. Yasuda and H. Katori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 153004 (2004)

work page 2004
[12]

Jenke, P

T. Jenke, P. Geltenbort, H. Lemmel, and H. Abele, Na- ture Physics 7, 468 (2011)

work page 2011
[13]

S. S. Hodgman, R. G. Dall, L. J. Byron, K. G. H. Bald- win, S. J. Buckman, and A. G. Truscott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 053002 (2009)

work page 2009
[14]

Roberts, P

M. Roberts, P. Taylor, G. P. Barwood, P. Gill, H. A. Klein, and W. R. C. Rowley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1876 (1997)

work page 1997
[15]

Roberts, P

M. Roberts, P. Taylor, G. P. Barwood, W. R. C. Rowley, and P. Gill, Phys. Rev. A 62, 020501 (2000)

work page 2000
[16]

Lehmitz, J

H. Lehmitz, J. Hattendorf-Ledwoch, R. Blatt, and H. Harde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2108 (1989)

work page 1989
[17]

B. C. Fawcett and M. Wilson, Electron. Lett. 22, 795 (1986)

work page 1986
[18]

Bi´ emont and P

E. Bi´ emont and P. Quinet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3345 (1998)

work page 1998
[19]

V. A. Dzuba and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 93, 052517 (2016)

work page 2016
[20]

R. M. Godun, P. B. R. Nisbet-Jones, J. M. Jones, S. A. King, L. A. M. Johnson, H. S. Margolis, K. Szymaniec, S. N. Lea, K. Bongs, and P. Gill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 210801 (2014)

work page 2014
[21]

Sanner, N

C. Sanner, N. Huntemann, R. Lange, C. Tamm, E. Peik, M. S. Safronova, and S. G. Porsev, Nature 567, 204 (2019)

work page 2019
[22]

Lange, N

R. Lange, N. Huntemann, J. M. Rahm, C. Sanner, H. Shao, B. Lipphardt, C. Tamm, S. Weyers, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 011102 (2021)

work page 2021
[23]

Safronova, D

M. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. Jackson Kim- ball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018)

work page 2018
[24]

Counts, J

I. Counts, J. Hur, D. P. L. Aude Craik, H. Jeon, C. Le- ung, J. C. Berengut, A. Geddes, A. Kawasaki, W. Jhe, and V. Vuleti´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 123002 (2020)

work page 2020
[25]

S. O. Allehabi, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and A. V. Afanasjev, Phys. Rev. A 103, L030801 (2021)

work page 2021
[26]

Monroe, W

C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021). 5

work page 2021
[27]

C. L. Edmunds, T. R. Tan, A. R. Milne, A. Singh, M. J. Biercuk, and C. Hempel, Phys. Rev. A 104, 012606 (2021)

work page 2021
[28]

Kaufmann, T

P. Kaufmann, T. F. Gloger, D. Kaufmann, M. Johanning, and C. Wunderlich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 010501 (2018)

work page 2018
[29]

McMillin, T

P. McMillin, T. Dellaert, A. Ransford, C. Roman, and W. Campbell, Metastable Qubit in 171Yb+, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 65, No. 4, Abstract E01.00072 (2020)

work page 2020
[30]

D. G. Matei, T. Legero, S. H¨ afner, C. Grebing, R. Weyrich, W. Zhang, L. Sonderhouse, J. M. Robin- son, J. Ye, F. Riehle, and U. Sterr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 263202 (2017)

work page 2017
[31]

D. J. Seidel and L. Maleki, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2699 (1995)

work page 1995
[32]

Y.-Y. Jau, J. D. Hunker, and P. D. D. Schwindt, AIP Advances 5, 117209 (2015)

work page 2015
[33]

S. A.-L. Schulz, A. A. Peshkov, R. A. M¨ uller, R. Lange, N. Huntemann, Chr. Tamm, E. Peik, and A. Surzhykov, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012812 (2020)

work page 2020
[34]

D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof, J. Res. Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol. 103, 259 (1998)

work page 1998
[35]

W. M. Itano, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 105, 829 (2000), also see erratum: J. Res. NIST 11, 255 (2006)

work page 2000
[36]

Huntemann, C

N. Huntemann, C. Sanner, B. Lipphardt, C. Tamm, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 063001 (2016)

work page 2016
[37]

M. E. Rose, Elementary Theory of Angular Momentum (J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1957)

work page 1957
[38]

W. R. Johnson, Atomic Structure Theory (Springer, New York, 2007)

work page 2007
[39]

Diedrich, J

F. Diedrich, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 403 (1989)

work page 1989
[40]

Dub´ e, A

P. Dub´ e, A. A. Madej, Z. Zhou, and J. E. Bernard, Phys. Rev. A 87, 023806 (2013)

work page 2013
[41]

Huang, H

Y. Huang, H. Guan, M. Zeng, L. Tang, and K. Gao, Phys. Rev. A 99, 011401 (2019)

work page 2019
[42]

M. D. Barrett, K. J. Arnold, and M. S. Safronova, Phys. Rev. A 100, 043418 (2019)

work page 2019
[43]

Roman, Expanding the 171Yb+ toolbox: the 2Fo 7/2 state as resource for quantum information science , Ph.D

C. Roman, Expanding the 171Yb+ toolbox: the 2Fo 7/2 state as resource for quantum information science , Ph.D. the- sis, University of California (2021)

work page 2021
[44]

K. J. Arnold, R. Kaewuam, A. Roy, E. Paez, S. Wang, and M. D. Barrett, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052512 (2016)

work page 2016
[45]

Beloy, Phys

K. Beloy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 013201 (2021)

work page 2021
[46]

Derevianko, Phys

A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 023002 (2001)

work page 2001
[47]

Bekker, A

H. Bekker, A. Borschevsky, Z. Harman, C. H. Keitel, T. Pfeifer, P. O. Schmidt, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and J. C. Berengut, Nature Com. 10, 5651 (2019)

work page 2019

[1] [1]

S. M. Brewer, J.-S. Chen, A. M. Hankin, E. R. Clements, C. W. Chou, D. J. Wineland, D. B. Hume, and D. R. Leibrandt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 033201 (2019)

work page 2019

[2] [2]

Olmschenk, D

S. Olmschenk, D. Hayes, D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, D. L. Moehring, K. C. Younge, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. A 80, 022502 (2009)

work page 2009

[3] [3]

Beloy, J

K. Beloy, J. A. Sherman, N. D. Lemke, N. Hinkley, C. W. Oates, and A. D. Ludlow, Phys. Rev. A 86, 051404(R) (2012)

work page 2012

[4] [4]

S. L. Woods, M. E. Hanni, S. R. Lundeen, and E. L. Snow, Phys. Rev. A 82, 012506 (2010)

work page 2010

[5] [5]

Hettrich, T

M. Hettrich, T. Ruster, H. Kaufmann, C. F. Roos, C. T. Schmiegelow, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and U. G. Poschinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 143003 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [6]

A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Blatt and C

R. Blatt and C. F. Roos, Nature Physics 8, 277 (2012)

work page 2012

[8] [8]

P. A. Barton, C. J. S. Donald, D. M. Lucas, D. A. Stevens, A. M. Steane, and D. N. Stacey, Phys. Rev. A 62, 032503 (2000)

work page 2000

[9] [9]

Rosenband, P

T. Rosenband, P. O. Schmidt, D. B. Hume, W. M. Itano, T. M. Fortier, J. E. Stalnaker, K. Kim, S. A. Diddams, J. C. J. Koelemeij, J. C. Bergquist, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 220801 (2007)

work page 2007

[10] [10]

H. Shao, Y. Huang, H. Guan, Y. Qian, and K. Gao, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042507 (2016)

work page 2016

[11] [11]

Yasuda and H

M. Yasuda and H. Katori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 153004 (2004)

work page 2004

[12] [12]

Jenke, P

T. Jenke, P. Geltenbort, H. Lemmel, and H. Abele, Na- ture Physics 7, 468 (2011)

work page 2011

[13] [13]

S. S. Hodgman, R. G. Dall, L. J. Byron, K. G. H. Bald- win, S. J. Buckman, and A. G. Truscott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 053002 (2009)

work page 2009

[14] [14]

Roberts, P

M. Roberts, P. Taylor, G. P. Barwood, P. Gill, H. A. Klein, and W. R. C. Rowley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1876 (1997)

work page 1997

[15] [15]

Roberts, P

M. Roberts, P. Taylor, G. P. Barwood, W. R. C. Rowley, and P. Gill, Phys. Rev. A 62, 020501 (2000)

work page 2000

[16] [16]

Lehmitz, J

H. Lehmitz, J. Hattendorf-Ledwoch, R. Blatt, and H. Harde, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2108 (1989)

work page 1989

[17] [17]

B. C. Fawcett and M. Wilson, Electron. Lett. 22, 795 (1986)

work page 1986

[18] [18]

Bi´ emont and P

E. Bi´ emont and P. Quinet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3345 (1998)

work page 1998

[19] [19]

V. A. Dzuba and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 93, 052517 (2016)

work page 2016

[20] [20]

R. M. Godun, P. B. R. Nisbet-Jones, J. M. Jones, S. A. King, L. A. M. Johnson, H. S. Margolis, K. Szymaniec, S. N. Lea, K. Bongs, and P. Gill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 210801 (2014)

work page 2014

[21] [21]

Sanner, N

C. Sanner, N. Huntemann, R. Lange, C. Tamm, E. Peik, M. S. Safronova, and S. G. Porsev, Nature 567, 204 (2019)

work page 2019

[22] [22]

Lange, N

R. Lange, N. Huntemann, J. M. Rahm, C. Sanner, H. Shao, B. Lipphardt, C. Tamm, S. Weyers, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 011102 (2021)

work page 2021

[23] [23]

Safronova, D

M. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. Jackson Kim- ball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018)

work page 2018

[24] [24]

Counts, J

I. Counts, J. Hur, D. P. L. Aude Craik, H. Jeon, C. Le- ung, J. C. Berengut, A. Geddes, A. Kawasaki, W. Jhe, and V. Vuleti´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 123002 (2020)

work page 2020

[25] [25]

S. O. Allehabi, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and A. V. Afanasjev, Phys. Rev. A 103, L030801 (2021)

work page 2021

[26] [26]

Monroe, W

C. Monroe, W. C. Campbell, L.-M. Duan, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, P. W. Hess, R. Islam, K. Kim, N. M. Linke, G. Pagano, P. Richerme, C. Senko, and N. Y. Yao, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025001 (2021). 5

work page 2021

[27] [27]

C. L. Edmunds, T. R. Tan, A. R. Milne, A. Singh, M. J. Biercuk, and C. Hempel, Phys. Rev. A 104, 012606 (2021)

work page 2021

[28] [28]

Kaufmann, T

P. Kaufmann, T. F. Gloger, D. Kaufmann, M. Johanning, and C. Wunderlich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 010501 (2018)

work page 2018

[29] [29]

McMillin, T

P. McMillin, T. Dellaert, A. Ransford, C. Roman, and W. Campbell, Metastable Qubit in 171Yb+, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 65, No. 4, Abstract E01.00072 (2020)

work page 2020

[30] [30]

D. G. Matei, T. Legero, S. H¨ afner, C. Grebing, R. Weyrich, W. Zhang, L. Sonderhouse, J. M. Robin- son, J. Ye, F. Riehle, and U. Sterr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 263202 (2017)

work page 2017

[31] [31]

D. J. Seidel and L. Maleki, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2699 (1995)

work page 1995

[32] [32]

Y.-Y. Jau, J. D. Hunker, and P. D. D. Schwindt, AIP Advances 5, 117209 (2015)

work page 2015

[33] [33]

S. A.-L. Schulz, A. A. Peshkov, R. A. M¨ uller, R. Lange, N. Huntemann, Chr. Tamm, E. Peik, and A. Surzhykov, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012812 (2020)

work page 2020

[34] [34]

D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof, J. Res. Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol. 103, 259 (1998)

work page 1998

[35] [35]

W. M. Itano, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 105, 829 (2000), also see erratum: J. Res. NIST 11, 255 (2006)

work page 2000

[36] [36]

Huntemann, C

N. Huntemann, C. Sanner, B. Lipphardt, C. Tamm, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 063001 (2016)

work page 2016

[37] [37]

M. E. Rose, Elementary Theory of Angular Momentum (J. Wiley and Sons, New York, 1957)

work page 1957

[38] [38]

W. R. Johnson, Atomic Structure Theory (Springer, New York, 2007)

work page 2007

[39] [39]

Diedrich, J

F. Diedrich, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 403 (1989)

work page 1989

[40] [40]

Dub´ e, A

P. Dub´ e, A. A. Madej, Z. Zhou, and J. E. Bernard, Phys. Rev. A 87, 023806 (2013)

work page 2013

[41] [41]

Huang, H

Y. Huang, H. Guan, M. Zeng, L. Tang, and K. Gao, Phys. Rev. A 99, 011401 (2019)

work page 2019

[42] [42]

M. D. Barrett, K. J. Arnold, and M. S. Safronova, Phys. Rev. A 100, 043418 (2019)

work page 2019

[43] [43]

Roman, Expanding the 171Yb+ toolbox: the 2Fo 7/2 state as resource for quantum information science , Ph.D

C. Roman, Expanding the 171Yb+ toolbox: the 2Fo 7/2 state as resource for quantum information science , Ph.D. the- sis, University of California (2021)

work page 2021

[44] [44]

K. J. Arnold, R. Kaewuam, A. Roy, E. Paez, S. Wang, and M. D. Barrett, Phys. Rev. A 94, 052512 (2016)

work page 2016

[45] [45]

Beloy, Phys

K. Beloy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 013201 (2021)

work page 2021

[46] [46]

Derevianko, Phys

A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 023002 (2001)

work page 2001

[47] [47]

Bekker, A

H. Bekker, A. Borschevsky, Z. Harman, C. H. Keitel, T. Pfeifer, P. O. Schmidt, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and J. C. Berengut, Nature Com. 10, 5651 (2019)

work page 2019