Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 44 references

High-precision measurements of electric-dipole-transition amplitudes in excited states of $^{208}$Pb using Faraday rotation spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports two electric-dipole transition amplitudes in 208Pb measured to sub-1% precision by Faraday rotation spectroscopy, with values that match the latest ab initio calculations.

desk verdict Careful, high-precision E1 measurements in 208Pb that are new and useful, but the absolute scale leans on a temperature assumption that may push the quoted sub-1% claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18408 v2 pith:PLJ6GVCQ submitted 2025-01-30 physics.atom-ph

John H. Lacy , Abby C. Kinney , P. K. Majumder This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords electric-dipoletransitionamplitudeFaradayrotationspectroscopylead-208reducedmatrixelementM1normalizationBoltzmannthermalpopulationCI+all-ordertheorybenchmarklaser
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 reports laser-spectroscopy measurements of two electric-dipole transition amplitudes in the heavy multi-valence atom $^{208}$Pb, using the well-known 1279 nm magnetic-dipole transition inside the same vapor cell as a reference. The final values are $\langle \|E1\| \rangle_{368}=1.897(11)$ atomic units for the 368.3 nm $^{3}P_1 \to {}^{3}P_0$ transition and $\langle \|E1\| \rangle_{406}=3.008(22)$ atomic units for the 405.8 nm $^{3}P_2 \to {}^{3}P_1$ transition, each determined to sub-1% precision. Both agree with the latest ab initio calculations, making them new benchmarks for theory in four-valence electronic systems. Precise transition amplitudes in heavy atoms sharpen tests of the atomic-structure calculations used in parity-nonconservation and electric-dipole-moment searches.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the ratio of Faraday rotation line shapes for the E1 transition and the 1279 nm M1 transition, scanned sequentially through the same $^{208}$Pb vapor under the same magnetic field and temperature. Both line shapes are modeled as Voigt convolutions of dispersion curves with Zeeman subcomponents; the M1/E1 comparison cancels path length, vapor density, and most calibration factors, leaving the ratio of reduced matrix elements times $\sqrt{C_{E1}/C_{M1}}$, $\omega_{M1}/\omega_{E1}$, and $e^{\Delta E/2 k_B T}$. For the 406 nm $J=2\to J=1$ transition, the model includes six Zeeman components weighted by Clebsch-Gordan coefficients (6/10, 3/10, 1/10) and effective g-factors. The absolute scale is set by the theoretical M1 reduced matrix element.

What would settle it

A measurement that did not depend on the Boltzmann factor, such as a lifetime measurement of the $^{3}P_1$ and $^{3}P_2$ states combined with known branching fractions, or an in situ temperature measurement via Doppler or two-line thermometry, would settle the claim if it disagreed with 1.897(11) and 3.008(22) a.u. by more than the combined uncertainties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that Faraday rotation spectroscopy can measure excited-state E1 amplitudes in a hot vapor cell at sub-1% accuracy by normalizing each E1 Faraday spectrum against the ground-state M1 Faraday spectrum taken under identical conditions. Because the M1 amplitude is known to 1.293(1) a.u. from theory and is nearly wavefunction-independent, the ratio of line-shape amplitudes gives the E1 reduced matrix element once the Boltzmann population factor $e^{-\Delta E/k_B T}$ is applied. Direct transmission absorption spectra at higher temperatures confirm the Faraday results. The paper's final values $\langle \|E1\| \rangle_{368}=1.897(11)$ a.u. and $\langle \|E1\| \rangle_{406}=3.008(22)$ a.u., with ratio $1.586(9)$, agree with the theory values and improve on older plasma-lifetime measurements by nearly an order of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the thermocouple reading used as nominal cell temperature equals the actual temperature of the atoms that populate the excited states, so that the Boltzmann factor $e^{-\Delta E/k_B T}$ in Eqs. 4 and 8 is correct; an error beyond about 1.5 °C, or non-thermal excited-state populations, would shift both absolute E1 values by roughly 0.5-0.6%.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two amplitudes become sub-1% experimental benchmarks that CI+all-order calculations for four-valence Pb should reproduce; current theory values of 1.92(6) and 2.99(9) a.u. are consistent with them.
  • The ratio $\langle \|E1\| \rangle_{406}/\langle \|E1\| \rangle_{368}=1.586(9)$ has a much smaller temperature sensitivity than either amplitude, so it serves as a check on the temperature determination and as a sharper test for theory.
  • The same E1-versus-M1 Faraday rotation strategy can be applied to other heavy elements with a well-known ground-state M1 line, such as thallium, to produce comparable sub-1% amplitudes.
  • The 368 nm transition is identified as an optical-cycling candidate, so the measured amplitude supports planning for transverse laser cooling of a lead atomic beam, a step toward cold lead-containing molecules for EDM searches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if these values are adopted as fixed benchmarks, theory groups could use them to tune residual parameters of CI+all-order calculations for Pb and, by analogy, for neighboring heavy atoms where parity-nonconservation amplitudes are computed.
  • Beyond the paper, because the two measurements share a common-mode temperature uncertainty, a future independent measurement of either amplitude could partially separate thermal error from other systematics; a disagreement in the ratio would point specifically to non-thermal excited-state populations.
  • Beyond the paper, a natural extension would be to test the temperature assumption directly using two-line absorption thermometry or Doppler-width thermometry on the same vapor cell, which could reduce the dominant 0.46-0.58% uncertainty below the statistical floor.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports measurements of two electric-dipole reduced matrix elements in 208Pb: the 368 nm (6s2 6p2)3P1 -> (6s2 6p7s)3P0 transition and the 406 nm (6s2 6p2)3P2 -> (6s2 6p7s)3P1 transition. The method compares Faraday rotation spectra and, where feasible, direct transmission spectra of each E1 transition with the 1279 nm ground-state M1 transition under identical conditions, then converts the measured E1/M1 line-strength ratios to absolute E1 values using the theoretical M1 matrix element and a Boltzmann thermal-population factor. Final quoted values are ⟨||E1||⟩368 = 1.897(11) a.u. and ⟨||E1||⟩406 = 3.008(22) a.u., with sub-1% fractional uncertainties and claimed agreement with the CI+all-order calculations of the same collaboration. The paper includes a detailed systematic-error budget, checks over temperature, magnetic field, laser power, and scan direction, and an E1/E1 ratio of 1.586(9).

Significance. If the absolute temperature normalization is accepted, these are the first sub-1% measurements of excited-state E1 amplitudes in a four-valence heavy atom and provide valuable benchmarks for CI+all-order theory. The experimental methodology is careful: more than 500 scan pairs per transition, mutually consistent Faraday and transmission analyses, multiple parameter-variation checks, and a detailed error budget. The E1/E1 ratio, 1.586(9), is a particularly clean experimental quantity because it is nearly independent of the common-mode temperature uncertainty. The absolute E1 values, however, are less independent than the abstract suggests: they are normalized by the same collaboration's theoretical M1 value and compared with the same collaboration's E1 predictions. The dominant unresolved risk is absolute cell-temperature calibration, which is also the largest systematic in Table I.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.A and IV.C; Table I; Eqs. (4) and (8)] The dominant systematic is the Boltzmann-factor temperature uncertainty. The paper assigns an uncertainty of ΔT/√3 ≈ 0.9°C by treating the three S-type thermocouples as independent, but these thermocouples share the same stainless-steel enclosure, the same reader, and the same furnace environment, and were calibrated only against ice and boiling water (Sec. III.A). They cannot detect a common-mode offset in the 700–850°C operating range, so the √3 reduction is not justified. At the full ±1.5°C limit, the induced shifts are ≈0.73% for the 368 nm amplitude and ≈0.96% for the 406 nm amplitude, which by itself exceeds the quoted total uncertainty of the 406 nm result. The paper should provide an in-situ absolute temperature validation (e.g., Doppler-width thermometry against an independent standard, or a vapor-density comparison with known Pb vapor pressure) or assign a conservative common-mode uncertainty. The E1/E1 ratio (Eq. 10) does not constrain this offset, as the paper itself notes.
  2. [Sec. V and Eqs. (4), (8), (10)] The absolute E1 scale is set by multiplying the measured E1/M1 ratios by the theoretical M1 matrix element ⟨||M1||⟩ = 1.293(1) a.u. from Ref. [10], and the 'excellent agreement with theory' is assessed against the same collaboration's E1 predictions (Refs. [11] and [26]). This does not invalidate the ratio measurements, but it means the claimed sub-1% absolute values are sub-1% only relative to an adopted theoretical normalization. The manuscript should state this caveat explicitly and separate the purely experimental E1/E1 ratio, which is the most robust benchmark, from the absolutely normalized values.
  3. [Sec. V, Ref. [26]] The 406 nm theory value used for the agreement claim is attributed to a private communication (Ref. [26]) and is not publicly available. Since the central 'excellent agreement' statement rests on this value, the authors should provide the calculation in a citable form, in a preprint, or as a supplementary table so that readers can assess the comparison.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. III.A] The phrase 'thermocouple accuracy was confirmed (at least at lower temperatures)' should be expanded, because the relevant range for this experiment is 700–850°C and the sentence currently undersells the limitation.
  2. [Sec. IV.A] Please quantify how often the three thermocouple readings were not mutually consistent and how much weight those runs carried; the current description ('in most cases', 'in a few cases') is vague.
  3. [Sec. IV.C] The transmission-based uncertainties for the 406 nm dataset, which was collected at only one temperature (850°C), should be reported explicitly rather than only described as 'sufficient for useful statistical comparison'.
  4. [Sec. V and figures] There are several typos: 'transiton' (Sec. V), 'matris element' (Fig. 6 caption), 'unixial' (Sec. III.A), 'uncertanties' (Table I note), and a stray vertical bar in the matrix-element notation in Appendix A.
  5. [Fig. 8] The figure would benefit from a numerical legend stating the quoted theory values and uncertainties, since the 'excellent agreement' claim is the paper's headline result.
  6. [Appendix B] The magnetic field calibration is described as accurate at the '1% level', but Sec. IV.C quotes a 0.05% amplitude uncertainty from the field; the connection between these two numbers should be made explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the E1/M1 ratio measurements are independent, the M1 normalization is an externally benchmarked theoretical input rather than a fitted parameter, and the cited E1 theory values serve only as comparison benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central measurements are extracted from ratios of fitted Faraday/transmission amplitudes (CE1/CM1 or αE1/αM1) combined with a theoretical M1 reduced matrix element, ⟨||M1||⟩ = 1.293(1) a.u., taken from Ref. [10]. This M1 value is not derived from the present experiment and is not the quantity being predicted; it is an independent theory input that the paper supports with external benchmarks in other multi-valence systems (Refs. [27,28]), where similar M1 calculations agree with experiment at the 0.1% level. The quoted ab initio E1 values (Refs. [11,26]) are used only as comparison targets after the experimental values are obtained, not as inputs to the extraction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the fitted amplitudes are experimental observables, and the E1/M1 ratio is measured, not imposed. The Boltzmann-factor temperature dependence is an explicitly estimated systematic uncertainty, not a fitted quantity, and it does not make the derived E1 amplitudes equivalent to the temperature input by construction. The only self-citations (e.g., Refs. [11,31]) concern prior apparatus, calibration methods, or previous benchmark comparisons, and none carries the load of the central derivation. The experiment is self-contained against external benchmarks, and no equation reduces to its input by definition. The dominant temperature uncertainty is a correctness risk rather than evidence of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard angular momentum algebra, thermal population statistics, and two external inputs: the theoretical M1 matrix element and a thermocouple-based temperature. No free parameters are adjusted to force agreement with theory; the fitted amplitudes are data measurements.

free parameters (3)
  • Faraday line shape amplitude C (E1 and M1) = per-spectrum fitted values, not tabulated
    Extracted by fitting the dispersion line shape (Eq. 7); the ratio C_E1/C_M1 is the core measured quantity.
  • Peak optical depth alpha0 (E1 and M1) = per-spectrum fitted values, not tabulated
    Used in transmission analysis (Eq. 1); provides the independent cross-check on the Faraday result.
  • Homogeneous width Gamma = ~30 MHz for M1; E1 values vary
    Floated in Voigt fits; correlated with the amplitude extraction.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Wigner-Eckart theorem and angular momentum sum rule (Appendix A, Eqs. A.1 and A.2)
    Used to relate measured matrix elements to reduced matrix elements for each transition.
  • domain assumption Thermal equilibrium Boltzmann population of magnetic sublevels
    All sublevels are assumed equally populated according to e^{-ΔE/kT}; low laser intensity and power-dependence checks support this.
  • domain assumption Theoretical M1 reduced matrix element 1.293(1) a.u. from Ref. [10] is accurate
    Used as normalization for all absolute E1 values; the authors argue M1 is insensitive to wavefunction details and has been benchmarked in other systems.
  • domain assumption Thermocouple temperature equals vapor temperature in the laser path
    Boltzmann factor depends on this; assigned as the largest systematic uncertainty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-precision measurements of electric-dipole-transition amplitudes in excited states of $^{208}$Pb using Faraday rotation spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PLJ6GVCQ

@misc{pith2026250118408,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-precision measurements of electric-dipole-transition amplitudes in excited states of $^208$Pb using Faraday rotation spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PLJ6GVCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18408}
}
abstract

We have completed measurements of two low-lying excited-state electric-dipole (E1) transition amplitudes in lead. Our measured reduced matrix elements of the $(6s^2 6p^2)^3P_1 \to (6s^2 6p7s)^3P_0$ transition at 368.3 nm and the 405.8 nm $(6s^2 6p^2)^3P_2 \to (6s^2 6p7s)^3P_1$ transition are 1.90(1) a.u. and 3.01(2) a.u. respectively, both measured to sub-1 % precision and both in excellent agreement with the latest $ab \ initio$ lead wavefunction calculations. These measurements were completed by comparing the low-field Faraday optical rotation spectra of each E1 transition in turn with that of the ground-state $^{3}P_0 \to ^{3}P_1$ M1 transition under identical experimental conditions. Our spectroscopy technique involves polarization modulation and lock-in detection yielding microradian-level optical rotation resolution. At temperatures where direct absorption was significant for both E1 and M1 transitions, we also extracted matrix element values from a direct optical absorption depth comparison. As part of this work we designed an interaction region within our furnace which allowed precise determination of our quartz vapor cell sample temperature to provide accurate determination of the Boltzmann thermal population of the low-lying excited states that were studied.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.18408 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Low-lying energy levels and transitions in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The three σ+ contributions to the 406 nm spectral feature showing appropriate weightings and Zeeman split￾tings. Experimental [29, 30] and theoretical [10] values for g ′ and g ′′ can be found in the literature. For clarity, the three corresponding σ− transitions are not shown. the transition frequency ratio, and the Boltzmann fac￾tor as follows: ⟨∥E1∥⟩ = r CE1 CM1 ωM1 ωE1 e ∆E/2kBT  µB/c ea0  ⟨∥M1∥⟩. (8) We note … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cross-sectional schematic of the experimental apparatus. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Sample data (blue markers) for single (field on - field off) Faraday rotation scans for all three transitions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sample single transmission data scans (blue mark [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Measured E1 matrix elements for different temper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Response of extracted ⟨∥E1∥⟩ values to changes in several experimental parameters. Values are derived for Faraday spectroscopy for the case of each comparison ex￾periment. The left hand panel shows comparisons of laser upscans (U) vs. downscans (D). The middle panel sh…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Final measurements of ⟨∥E1∥⟩ values (red) show￾ing excellent agreement with the latest theory work from Porsev and Safronova [11, 26] (blue). Older experimental values from Alonso-Medina [25] are also shown in green. by roughly 2σ, where σ is the combined standard devi…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: A schematic of the in situ magnetic field mea￾surement (see text). The insert show sequential scans of the 368 nm (second-step) laser for several different solenoid cur￾rents. the 1279 nm and 368 nm transitions, and so there is a ‘Doppler enhancement’ of the observed f…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    M. S. Safronova, M. G. Kozlov, W. R. Johnson, and Danshia Jiang, Phys. Rev. A80, 012516 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [11]

    D. L. Maser, E. Hoenig, B.-Y. Wang, P. M. Rupasinghe, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, and P. K. Majumder, Phys. Rev. A100, 052506 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [26]

    T. S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, T. Wright, W. B. Cairncross, Y. Shagam, K. B. Ng, N. Schlossberger, S. Y. Park, A. Wang, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, Science381, 46 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [1]

    4 and 8), and would potentially bias both Faraday and transmission data in the same direction

    We note that the final two entries in the table (in red text) are factors which directly scale the extracted E1 amplitude (see Eqs. 4 and 8), and would potentially bias both Faraday and transmission data in the same direction. We therefore took the approach of analyzing statistical and all relevant systematic contributions for Faraday data and transmissio...

    work page

  5. [2]

    Calibration uncertainties As discussed in Sec. III, the 1f /2f lock-in signal was calibrated in units of milliradians via a computer control of a precision differential micrometer which in turn produced very small polarizer rotations via a lever mechanism [31]. Calibration was performed before and aftereachcollecteddataset. Inestimatingpotentialsys- temat...

    work page

  6. [3]

    Line shape model and fits As we have done in all recent spectroscopy work [9, 11] we explored potential line shape related sys- tematics by refitting subsets of data with higher-order polynomials to account for laser scan non-linearity, and exploring the effect of small calibration errors due to Fabry-Pérot FSR uncertanties (see Table 1). Line shape fits ...

    work page

  7. [4]

    M. S. Safronova, U. I. Safronova, and S. G. Porsev, Phys. Rev. A87, 032513 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [5]

    Kozlov, Sergey G

    Charles Cheung, Mikhail G. Kozlov, Sergey G. Porsev, Marianna S. Safronova, Ilya I. Tupitsyn, and Andrey I. Bondarev, Comp. Phys. Comm.,308, 109463 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 44 references
  1. [6]

    A sample of comparisons of data subsets for both transi- tion ratio experiments is shown in Fig

    Experimental conditions We explored potential dependence of extracted ⟨∥E1∥⟩ values on several key experimental parameters including cell temperature, magnetic field, laser power, and laser scan direction by repeating data sets with a single parameter altered, holding all othe...

    2001

  2. [7]

    Referring to the labels a, b, and c in Fig

    to include six terms with individual weighting fac- tors and g-factors. Referring to the labels a, b, and c in Fig. 2, these weighting factors (which sum to unity) are: wa = 6 /10, wb = 3 /10, wc = 1 /10 and the corre- sponding ‘effective’ g-factors are: ga = (2g′ − g′′), gb =...

  3. [8]

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

    2018

  4. [9]

    DeMille, J

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

    2017

  5. [12]

    M. S. Safronova and P. K. Majumder, Phys. Rev. A87, 042502 (2013)

    2013

  6. [13]

    Ranjit, N

    G. Ranjit, N. A. Schine, A. T. Lorenzo, A. E. Schneider, and P. K. Majumder, Phys. Rev. A87, 032506 (2013)

    2013

  7. [14]

    B. L. Augenbraun, A. Carter, P. M. Rupasinghe, and P. K. Majumder, Phys. Rev. A94, 022515 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    N. B. Vilas, B.-Y. Wang, P. M. Rupasinghe, D. L. Maser, M. S. Safronova, U. I. Safronova, and P. K. Ma- jumder, Phys. Rev. A97, 022507 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    S. G. Porsev, M. G. Kozlov, M. S. Safronova, and I. I. Tupitsyn, Phys. Rev. A93, 012501 (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    V. A. Dzuba, J. C. Berengut, V. V. Flambaum, B. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 203003 (2012)

    2012

  11. [18]

    D. M. Meekhof, P. A. Vetter, P. K. Majumder, S. K. Lamoreaux, andE.N.Fortson, Phys.Rev.Let. 71, 3442 (1993). 13

    1993

  12. [19]

    S. J. Phipp, N. H. Edwards, P. E. G. Baird, and S. A. Nakayuma, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys.29, 1861 (1996)

    1996

  13. [20]

    P. A. Vetter, D. M. Meekhof, P. K. Majumder, S. K. Lamoreaux, E. N. Fortson, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 2658- 2661 (1995)

    1995

  14. [21]

    C. S. Wood, S. C. Bennett, D. Cho, B. P. Masterson, J. L. Roberts, C. E. Tanner, and C. E. Wieman, Science 275, 1759 (1997)

    1997

  15. [22]

    Porsev, K

    S.G. Porsev, K. Beloy, and A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 1759, (2009)

    2009

  16. [23]

    K. I. Baklanov, A. N. Petrov, A. V. Titov, and M. G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. A,82, 060501(R) (2010)

    2010

  17. [24]

    Chupp, P

    T.E. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf, and J.T. Singh, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015001 (2019)

    2019

  18. [25]

    Andreev, D

    The ACME Collaboration: V. Andreev, D. G. Ang, D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, G. Gabrielse, J. Haefner, N. R. Hutzler, Z. Lasner, C. Meisenhelder, B. R. O’Leary, C. D. Panda, A. D. West, E. P. West and X. Wu., Nature 562, 355 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    DeMille, F

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

    2000

  20. [28]

    N. E. Shafer-Ray, Phys. Rev. A,73, 034102 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    D. R. Wood and K. L. Andrew, JOSA,58, 830 (1968)

    1968

  22. [30]

    K. C. Stuntz, K. L. Rice, L. Cheng, and B. L. Augen- braun, Phys. Rev. A110, 042807 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    for further details). To explore possible correla- tions of this ellipticity with Faraday amplitude and eventually matrix element determination, we compared fits of a representative batch at 800◦C both with and without an ellipticity fit parameter and found changes at the 0.1%...

  24. [32]

    Alonso-Medina, C

    A. Alonso-Medina, C. Colón, C. Herran-Martinez, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf.68, 351 (2001)

    2001

  25. [33]

    Porsev and M.S

    S.G. Porsev and M.S. Safronova, private communica- tion

  26. [34]

    S. M. Brewer, J. -S. Chen, K. Beloy, A. M. Hankin, E. R. Clements, C. W. Chou, W. F. McGrew, X. Zhang, R. J. Fasano, D. Nicolodi, H. Leopardi, T. M. Fortier, S. A. Diddams, A. D. Ludlow, D. J. Wineland, D. R. Liebrandt, and D. B. Hume, Phys. Rev. A,100, 013409 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Bothwell, B

    T. Bothwell, B. D. Hunt, J. L. Siegel, Y. S. Hassan, T. Grogan, T. Kobayashi, K. Gibble, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, R. C. Brown, K. Beloy, and A. D. Ludlow, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 033201 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Lurio and D

    A. Lurio and D. A. Landman, JOSA60, 759 (1970)

    1970

  29. [37]

    J. H. Lacy, G. E. Patenotte, A. C. Kinney, and P. K. Majumder, Photonics11, 304 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    D. M. Meekhof, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washing- ton, (1994)

    1994

  31. [39]

    N.P.PenkinandYu.Slavenas, Opt.Spectrosc.(USSR), 15, 83 (1963)

    1963

  32. [40]

    E. B. Salomann, W. Happer, Phys. Rev.,144, 7 (1966)

    1966

  33. [41]

    Lotrian, Y

    J. Lotrian, Y. Guern, J. Cariou, and A. Johannin-Giles, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf.,21, 143 (1979)

    1979

  34. [42]

    Alonso-Medina, J

    A. Alonso-Medina, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf.,55, 151 (1996)

    1996

  35. [43]

    Doret, P.D

    S.C. Doret, P.D. Friedberg, A.J. Speck, D.S. Richard- son, and P.K. Majumder, Phys. Rev. A 66, 052504 (2002). Appendix: A: Reduced matrix elements In all cases, our lasers are linearly polarized perpen- dicular to the quantization axis defined by the prop- agation direction an...

    2002

  36. [368]

    For the(6p2)3P1 level gJ = 1.501(2), and the magnetic field can thus be inferred from B = h∆f 2gJ µB 1 + λ1279 λ368

    Ultimately, the observed frequencysplittingisconveniently‘amplified’morethan fourfold without loss of accuracy via this two-step tech- nique and can be expressed in terms of the Landég- factor, gJ, the Bohr magneton, µB, the applied field, B, and Planck’s constant,h, as ∆f = (...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.