Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Investigating the $4D_{3/2}|3,\pm2\rangle$--$4D_{5/2}|3,\pm2\rangle$ transition in Nb$^{4+}$ for a THz atomic clock

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 56.0224 THz magnetic-dipole transition in 93Nb4+ is proposed as a THz atomic clock with the electric quadrupole shift exactly nulled.

desk verdict A plausible THz clock proposal in Nb4+ with a clean quadrupole-nulling level choice, but the headline BBR-Zeeman shift rests on M1 polarizabilities that appear twice with different values. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15493 v1 pith:5QUOZF42 submitted 2025-04-21 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Jyoti , A. Chakraborty , Zhiyang Wang , Jia Zhang , Jingbiao Chen , Bindiya Arora , B. K. Sahoo This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords THzatomicclockniobiumionmagneticdipoletransitionhyperfinestructureblackbodyradiationshiftpolarizabilityrelativisticcoupledclusterquantumthermometry
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 that the magnetic-dipole transition between the $4D_{3/2}|3,\pm2\rangle$ and $4D_{5/2}|3,\pm2\rangle$ hyperfine levels of $^{93}$Nb$^{4+}$ at 56.0224 THz can serve as a terahertz atomic clock. The excited state's 12.65-second lifetime is long enough for interrogation, and the choice of the $|3,\pm2\rangle$ hyperfine levels makes the electric quadrupole shift vanish exactly. The authors use relativistic coupled-cluster calculations of electric and magnetic dipole polarizabilities to estimate the systematic shifts. They find a dominant blackbody-radiation Zeeman shift of $-6.5402\times10^{-15}$ in fractional frequency at 300 K, with all other listed shifts below $10^{-17}$. This makes the proposed clock a candidate for quantum thermometry as well as frequency metrology.

What carries the argument

The carrying machinery is the relativistic coupled-cluster singles-and-doubles (RCCSD) many-body method, used with a Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian plus Breit and QED corrections to build wave functions, matrix elements, and hyperfine constants. From these the authors evaluate scalar and tensor electric-dipole polarizabilities and magnetic-dipole polarizabilities of the clock levels. The shift-suppression device is the hyperfine-level choice $|F,M_F\rangle=|3,\pm2\rangle$, for which the quadrupole moment combination $3M_F^2-F(F+1)$ is zero. The BBR Zeeman shift is computed from the differential magnetic-dipole polarizability, whose energy denominators come from the calculated hyperfine constants in Eqs. (17)--(19).

What would settle it

Measure the hyperfine constants $A_{\rm hf}$ and $B_{\rm hf}$ of the $4D_{3/2}$ and $4D_{5/2}$ states of $^{93}$Nb$^{4+}$ spectroscopically, or measure the transition frequency as a function of trap temperature from about 200 K to 400 K; the predicted BBR Zeeman shift is $-0.3664$ Hz at 300 K, so an observed thermal slope differing by more than the stated few-percent uncertainty would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $4D_{3/2}|3,\pm2\rangle \to 4D_{5/2}|3,\pm2\rangle$ transition in $^{93}$Nb$^{4+}$ is a workable THz clock transition. The transition sits at 56.0224 THz (5.355 $\mu$m), is driven mainly by the magnetic-dipole decay channel, and its upper state lives about 12.65 seconds. Because $^{93}$Nb has nuclear spin $I=9/2$, hyperfine levels with $F=3$ and $M_F=\pm2$ satisfy $3M_F^2=F(F+1)$, which zeroes the electric quadrupole shift. The systematic budget is dominated by the blackbody-radiation Zeeman shift, estimated at $-0.3664$ Hz ($-6.5402\times10^{-15}$ fractional) at 300 K; BBR Stark, quadratic Zeeman, and second-order Doppler shifts all come in below $10^{-17}$ fractional. The paper concludes the ion is a promising THz frequency standard and a sensitive magnetic-field and quantum-thermometry probe.

Load-bearing premise

The entire error budget for the leading shift rests on magnetic-dipole polarizabilities computed from hyperfine constants that have never been measured for Nb$^{4+}$, so a few-percent error in those constants would shift the headline BBR Zeeman number by the same few percent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A THz clock at 56.0224 THz could be operated with quantum-logic readout by co-trapping $^{93}$Nb$^{4+}$ with Mg$^+$ or Al$^+$, whose mass-to-charge ratios are similar.
  • With pump and detection lasers off during interrogation, the scheme avoids AC Stark shifts, and the chosen hyperfine levels avoid electric quadrupole shifts.
  • The dominant BBR Zeeman shift at $-6.5402\times10^{-15}$ (300 K) means the clock frequency is a sensitive, reproducible thermometer; stabilizing or measuring the trap temperature controls the largest systematic.
  • All other estimated shifts sit below $10^{-17}$ fractional, so once the M1 polarizability is pinned down, the clock could compete with microwave standards in accuracy while operating at THz frequencies.
  • The 12.65 s upper-state lifetime implies a sub-0.02 Hz natural linewidth, which would give the transition an extremely high quality factor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the M1 polarizability were measured directly, the same transition could serve as a traceable secondary thermometer: the $-0.3664$ Hz shift at 300 K is large enough to map local blackbody fields in an ion trap.
  • The quadrupole-nulling condition $3M_F^2=F(F+1)$ is not specific to niobium; a survey of other $d$-shell ions with $I=9/2$ could yield more THz clock candidates with the same built-in shift suppression.
  • A two-temperature measurement of the clock frequency (for example 200 K and 400 K) should reproduce the predicted $T^2$ BBR Zeeman scaling; because no experimental hyperfine data for Nb$^{4+}$ exist, this would test the hyperfine constants that dominate the polarizability uncertainty.
  • The fractional BBR Zeeman shift of $10^{-15}$ is orders of magnitude larger than the other systematics, so the same setup can be repurposed as a sensitive magnetometer or magnetic-field-noise monitor.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the 4D3/2|3,±2> – 4D5/2|3,±2> transition in 93Nb4+ at 56.0224 THz as a THz atomic clock. Using relativistic coupled-cluster (RCCSD) wavefunctions, the authors compute E1 and M1 polarizabilities and estimate systematic shifts: BBR Zeeman (dominant, -6.54×10^-15), BBR Stark (-1.18×10^-18), quadratic Zeeman (-9.14×10^-20), second-order Doppler (-4.48×10^-28), and a nulled electric quadrupole shift. The chosen hyperfine levels |3,±2> null the quadrupole and tensor Stark shifts. The paper argues that the large BBRZ sensitivity enables quantum thermometry.

Significance. If the systematic estimates are correct, this would be a valuable proposal: the fully analytic nulling of the quadrupole and tensor Stark shifts via the |3,±2> choice is elegant, the RCCSD framework is sophisticated, and the BBRZ-dominated budget is a concrete, falsifiable prediction. However, the central BBRZ shift depends on M1 polarizabilities that are internally inconsistent between Sec. V.B and Sec. VI.B, and the quoted uncertainties are not true uncertainty estimates. The core result is therefore not yet uniquely determined.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.B vs Sec. VI.B] Section V.B reports α_M1(4D3/2|F=3>) = 2.6836×10^-23 JT^-2 and α_M1(4D5/2|F=3>) = 9.0125×10^-23 JT^-2, while Section VI.B uses 2.6336×10^-23 and 9.4223×10^-23 JT^-2 for the quadratic Zeeman shift. The resulting differential M1 polarizabilities differ by about 7%, which changes the BBRZ shift in Sec. VI.A from -0.3664 Hz to approximately -0.392 Hz, a fractional change of ~5×10^-16. This is an order of magnitude larger than the quoted uncertainty of -5.18×10^-17. The manuscript must identify which set of values is correct, explain the discrepancy, and consistently propagate the chosen values through Table IV.
  2. [Sec. V.B, Eqs. (17)-(22)] The M1 polarizabilities are computed from hyperfine constants via Eqs. (17)-(19) and the M1 matrix elements via Eq. (22), but the numerical values of A_hf, B_hf, the nuclear g-factor and quadrupole moment are not tabulated. Without these inputs, the central systematic estimate cannot be reproduced or checked. Moreover, the paper cites no experimental hyperfine data for Nb4+ and gives no comparison with other theoretical methods for these particular hyperfine constants. Because the BBRZ shift is proportional to Δα_M1, which is extremely sensitive to the hyperfine splittings (which are of order MHz), the claim that the BBRZ shift is known to -5.18×10^-17 is unsupported. Please provide the hyperfine constants, the nuclear moments, and a sensitivity study of Δα_M1 to these parameters.
  3. [Sec. VI.A] The uncertainty quoted for the BBRZ shift is given as 'with an uncertainty of -0.0029 Hz' and 'resulting in an estimated uncertainty of -5.1765×10^-17'. Uncertainties should be positive; this appears to be a misstatement of the percent deviations reported in Sec. V.B (1.86% and 4.55%) as if they were uncertainties. Those deviations are differences between RCC+Breit+QED and RCC-only results, which cannot be equated to the total theory error. A realistic uncertainty for Δα_M1 must include the sensitivity to the calculated hyperfine constants and the RCCSD truncation error, and should be propagated through Eq. (24) to give a defensible uncertainty for the dominant systematic.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VI.D, Eq. (30)] The Doppler cooling limit should be determined by the natural linewidth of the cooling transition (e.g., the 5P1/2 state), not the 4D5/2 clock-state lifetime of 12.65 s. The resulting 0.302 pK value is therefore not the actual Doppler limit; however, the second-order Doppler shift is still negligible, so this does not affect the conclusions.
  2. [Sec. IV] The statement that 'we find about 0.5% variation between our calculated energies and NIST data' is misleading because the clock states 4D3/2 and 4D5/2 agree to better than 0.003%; the 0.5% deviation is only for the 4F states.
  3. [Table III] The definitions of δ1 and δ2 in the text are inconsistent: the text says δ1 is with respect to RCC and δ2 with respect to RMBPT3, but the table rows are interleaved and ambiguous. Please clarify.
  4. [Sec. II] The cooling scheme uses the 4D3/2–5S1/2 and 5S1/2–5P1/2 transitions, but the detection laser is also at 131.87 nm; the branching ratio of 5P1/2 to 4D3/2 is 83%, and the fate of the remaining 17% is not discussed. This may affect the closed-cycle assumption.
  5. [Sec. II and Table II] The transition frequency 56.0224 THz is taken from Ref. [26] without comparison to the NIST energy difference; the NIST levels in Table II give a fine-structure splitting of 1867.40 cm^-1, corresponding to 55.99 THz, which differs from the quoted value by about 0.03 THz. The authors should clarify which value is used in the systematic-shift formulas and note this discrepancy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: systematic-shift estimates are independent calculations, and the self-cited clock frequency is corroborated by NIST energies in the paper itself.

full rationale

The paper's central systematic estimates are not derived from the quantity they predict. The BBR Stark and BBR Zeeman shifts use standard formulas (Eqs. (23)-(24)) with independently calculated E1 and M1 polarizabilities; the quadratic Zeeman shift uses Eq. (25) with the same M1 polarizabilities. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no target frequency or shift is inserted into the input data. The clock frequency 56.0224 THz is attributed to the authors' earlier calculation [26], but the same paper tabulates NIST energies giving the 4D3/2-4D5/2 splitting of 1867.40 cm^-1, which yields the same 5.355 um / 56.0224 THz value; the frequency is therefore externally grounded and not circular. The electric-quadrupole null is a deliberate choice of hyperfine quantum numbers satisfying 3M_F^2 = F(F+1), a cancellation rather than a fitted result. The internal inconsistency between the M1 polarizability values in Sec. V.B (2.6836e-23 and 9.0125e-23 JT^-2) and Sec. VI.B (2.6336e-23 and 9.4223e-23 JT^-2) is a numerical/correctness concern that should be resolved, but it does not amount to circularity: the values are computed from RCC hyperfine constants and matrix elements, not from the BBRZ shift they are used to predict. No uniqueness theorem from prior work is invoked to forbid alternatives, and no ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation. Accordingly, no circular step meets the evidence threshold.

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

The central results rest on standard atomic structure theory and standard systematic-shift formulas. No new entities are introduced. The main unvalidated input is the set of RCC-calculated polarizabilities and hyperfine constants, for which no experimental benchmark exists.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian with Breit and QED corrections accurately describes Nb4+.
    Invoked in Sec. III as the starting point of the RCC method; no independent verification for Nb4+ is provided.
  • domain assumption Neglecting contributions from negative-energy states is valid at the stated precision.
    Stated in Sec. III; supported by references but not quantified for this ion.
  • domain assumption The RCCSD truncation (single and double excitations) is sufficient for the target accuracy.
    The method is truncated at singles and doubles (Eq. 5); no triples or convergence study is reported.
  • domain assumption Hyperfine energies computed from Eq. (17) with RCC hyperfine constants are accurate enough for M1 polarizabilities.
    Used in Sec. V.B to evaluate the M1 polarizabilities that drive the dominant BBR Zeeman shift; no experimental hyperfine data for Nb4+ is cited.
  • ad hoc to paper The Doppler cooling limit is determined by the clock-state lifetime.
    Sec. VI.D uses tau=12.65 s for the 4D5/2 clock state in Eq. (30), although the Doppler limit should be set by the cooling transition linewidth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the $4D_{3/2}|3,\pm2\rangle$--$4D_{5/2}|3,\pm2\rangle$ transition in Nb$^{4+}$ for a THz atomic clock." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5QUOZF42

@misc{pith2026250415493,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the $4D_3/2|3,\pm2\rangle$--$4D_5/2|3,\pm2\rangle$ transition in Nb$^4+$ for a THz atomic clock},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5QUOZF42}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15493}
}
abstract

In this work, the $4D_{3/2}|3,\pm2\rangle \rightarrow 4D_{5/2}|3,\pm2\rangle$ transition in the Nb$^{4+}$ ion is identified as a promising candidate for a terahertz (THz) atomic clock, with the transition frequency occurring at 56.0224 THz. This transition is primarily driven by the magnetic dipole decay channel, which can easily be accessed by a laser. We focus on the stable $^{93}$Nb isotope, which has 100\% natural abundance and a nuclear spin of $I=9/2$ for experimental advantage. Our data analysis allows us to estimate potential systematic shifts in the proposed clock system, including those due to blackbody radiation, electric quadrupole, second-order Zeeman, and second-order Doppler {shifts}. {The scheme presented in this study can help suppress the AC Stark and electric quadrupole shifts in the clock frequency measurement.} {All these analyses} suggest that the proposed THz atomic clock using Nb$^{4+}$ could be valuable in both quantum thermometry and frequency metrology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15493 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of clock frequency measurement set-up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Derevianko and M

    A. Derevianko and M. Pospelov, Nature Physics 10, 933 (2014), URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ nphys3137

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Rosenband, D

    T. Rosenband, D. Hume, P. Schmidt, C.-W. Chou, A. Br- usch, L. Lorini, W. Oskay, R. E. Drullinger, T. M. Fortier, J. E. Stalnaker, et al., Science 319, 1808 (2008)

    2008

  3. [3]

    T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, G. Grosche, C. Lisdat, P. O. Schmidt, and H. Denker, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 064401 (2018), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6633/aab409

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    McGrew, X

    W. McGrew, X. Zhang, R. Fasano, S. Sch¨ affer, K. Be- loy, D. Nicolodi, R. Brown, N. Hinkley, G. Milani, M. Schioppo, et al., Nature 564, 87 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Kolkowitz, I

    S. Kolkowitz, I. Pikovski, N. Langellier, M. D. Lukin, R. L. Walsworth, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. D 94, 124043 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.94.124043

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Loeb and D

    A. Loeb and D. Maoz, arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.00996 (2015)

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Ra- jendran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 171102 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Dzuba, V

    V. Dzuba, V. Flambaum, and S. Schiller, Phys. Rev. A 98, 022501 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Tonouchi, Nature photonics 1, 97 (2007)

    M. Tonouchi, Nature photonics 1, 97 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Kulesa, IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology 1, 232 (2011)

    C. Kulesa, IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology 1, 232 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    E. B. Norrgard, S. P. Eckel, C. L. Holloway, and E. L. Shirley, New Journal of Physics 23, 033037 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    M. Kim, C. Wang, Z. Hu, and R. Han, IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology 9, 349 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Yasui, S

    T. Yasui, S. Yokoyama, H. Inaba, K. Minoshima, T. Na- gatsuma, and T. Araki, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 17, 191 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Consolino, S

    L. Consolino, S. Bartalini, and P. De Natale, Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves 38, 1289 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Bellini, P

    M. Bellini, P. De Natale, G. Di Lonardo, L. Fusina, M. In- guscio, and M. Prevedelli, Journal of Molecular Spec- troscopy 152, 256 (1992)

    1992

  8. [16]

    Strumia, Metrologia 8, 85 (1972)

    F. Strumia, Metrologia 8, 85 (1972)

    1972

  9. [17]

    Yamamoto, H

    T. Yamamoto, H. Takara, and S. Kawanishi, in Proc. Int. Topical Meeting Microwave Photonics (2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    Champenois, G

    C. Champenois, G. Hagel, M. Houssin, M. Knoop, C. Zumsteg, and F. Vedel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 013001 (2007), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.99.013001

    2007

  11. [19]

    X. Zhou, X. Xu, X. Chen, and J. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 81, 012115 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Yu, Y.-G

    G.-H. Yu, Y.-G. Geng, L. Li, C. Zhou, C.-B. Duan, R.- P. Chai, and Y.-M. Yang, Chinese Physics B 24, 103201 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    C. Wang, X. Yi, J. Mawdsley, M. Kim, Z. Wang, and R. Han, Nature Electronics 1, 421 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    T. E. Drake, T. C. Briles, J. R. Stone, D. T. Spencer, D. R. Carlson, D. D. Hickstein, Q. Li, D. Westly, K. Srini- vasan, S. A. Diddams, et al., Phys. Rev. X 9, 031023 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    C. Wang, X. Yi, M. Kim, Q. B. Yang, and R. Han, IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 56, 566 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    K. H. Leung, B. Iritani, E. Tiberi, I. Majewska, M. Borkowski, R. Moszynski, and T. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011047 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011047

    2023 doi

  17. [26]

    J. , M. Kaur, B. Arora, and B. K. Sa- hoo, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society 507, 4030 (2021), ISSN 0035- 8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/507/3/4030/40566583/stab2364.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stab2364

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    A. Das, A. Bhowmik, N. N. Dutta, and S. Majumder, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 025001 (2017)

    2017

  19. [28]

    J. R. de Laeter, J. K. B¨ ohlke, P. D. Bi` evre, H. Hidaka, H. S. Peiser, K. J. R. Rosman, and P. D. P. Taylor, Pure and Applied Chemistry 75, 683 (2003), URL https:// doi.org/10.1351/pac200375060683

    2003 doi

  20. [29]

    Silver, A

    J. Silver, A. Varney, H. Margolis, P. Baird, I. Grant, P. Groves, W. Hallett, A. Handford, P. Hirst, A. Holmes, et al., Review of scientific instruments 65, 1072 (1994)

    1994

  21. [30]

    Nakamura, H

    N. Nakamura, H. Kikuchi, H. A. Sakaue, and T. Watan- abe, Review of Scientific Instruments 79, 063104 (2008)

    2008

  22. [31]

    Agnihotri, A

    A. Agnihotri, A. Kelkar, S. Kasthurirangan, K. Thu- lasiram, C. Desai, W. Fernandez, and L. Tribedi, Physica Scripta 2011, 014038 (2011)

    2011

  23. [32]

    C. W. Chou, D. B. Hume, J. C. J. Koelemeij, D. J. Wineland, and T. Rosenband, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 070802 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.104.070802

    2010

  24. [33]

    Hannig, L

    S. Hannig, L. Pelzer, N. Scharnhorst, J. Kramer, M. Stepanova, Z. T. Xu, N. Spethmann, I. D. Leroux, T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, and P. O. Schmidt, Review of Scientific Instruments 90 (2019), ISSN 0034-6748, 053204, https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5090583/146...

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    Micalizio, F

    S. Micalizio, F. Levi, C. Calosso, M. Gozzelino, and A. Godone, GPS Solutions 25, 94 (2021)

    2021

  26. [35]

    N. Wen, N. Zong, F.-F. Zhang, F. Yang, Z.-M. Wang, S.- J. Zhang, Y. Bo, Q.-J. Peng, D.-F. Cui, Z.-Y. Xu, et al., Laser Physics Letters 17, 105001 (2020), URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/1612-202X/abac13

    2020 doi

  27. [36]

    Singh, M

    M. Singh, M. A. Fareed, R. G. Shirinabadi, R. Marcelino, F. Zhu, F. L´ egar´ e, and T. Ozaki, Fundamen- tal Plasma Physics 10, 100043 (2024), ISSN 2772- 8285, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2772828524000086

    2024

  28. [37]

    Merkel, K

    B. Merkel, K. Thirumalai, J. Tarlton, V. Sch¨ afer, C. Bal- lance, T. Harty, and D. Lucas, Review of Scientific In- struments 90, 044702 (2019)

    2019

  29. [38]

    S. A. Blundell, W. R. Johnson, and J. Sapirstein, Phys. Rev. A 43, 3407 (1991), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.43.3407

    1991 doi

  30. [39]

    E. E. (Ilyabaev), U. Kaldor, and Y. Ishikawa, Chem. Phys. Lett. 222, 82 (1994), ISSN 0009- 2614, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0009261494003173

    1994

  31. [40]

    Lindroth and A

    E. Lindroth and A. Ynnerman, Phys. Rev. A 47, 961 (1993), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevA.47.961

    1993

  32. [41]

    B. K. Sahoo, S. Majumder, R. K. Chaudhuri, B. Das, and D. Mukherjee, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 37, 3409 (2004)

    2004

  33. [42]

    D. K. Nandy and B. K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. A 90, 050503 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.90.050503

    2014

  34. [43]

    J. S. M. Ginges and J. C. Berengut, Phys. Rev. A 93, 052509 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.052509

    2016 doi

  35. [44]

    B. K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. A 93, 022503 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 93.022503

    2016 doi

  36. [45]

    V. V. Flambaum and J. S. M. Ginges, Phys. Rev. A 72, 052115 (2005), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.052115

    2005 doi

  37. [46]

    C.-B. Li, Y. Yu, and B. K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. A 97, 022512 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.97.022512

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

    ˇC´ ıˇ zek, Adv

    J. ˇC´ ıˇ zek, Adv. Chem. Phys. pp. 35–89 (1969)

    1969

  39. [48]

    Lindgren and J

    I. Lindgren and J. Morrison, Atomic many-body theory, vol. 3 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  40. [49]

    B. K. Sahoo, Ph.D. Thesis (2005)

    2005

  41. [50]

    S. F. Boys, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 200, 542 (1950)

    1950

  42. [51]

    Wilson, in Problem Solving in Computational Molecular Science: Molecules in Different Environments (Springer, 1997), pp

    S. Wilson, in Problem Solving in Computational Molecular Science: Molecules in Different Environments (Springer, 1997), pp. 109–158

    1997

  43. [52]

    A. K. Mohanty and E. Clementi, Chemical physics letters 157, 348 (1989)

    1989

  44. [53]

    Kramida, Yu

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and NIST ASD Team, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.8), [On- line]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2021, February 24]. National Institute of Standards and Tech- nology, Gaithersburg, MD. (2020)

    2020

  45. [54]

    N. L. Manakov, V. D. Ovsiannikov, and L. P. Rapoport, Physics Reports 141, 320 (1986), URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ abs/pii/S0370157386800011

    1986

  46. [55]

    Singh, K

    S. Singh, K. Kaur, B. Sahoo, and B. Arora, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 145005 (2016), URL https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/0953-4075/49/14/145005/meta

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    S. A. Sch¨ affer, B. T. R. Christensen, S. M. Rathmann, M. H. Appel, M. R. Henriksen, and J. W. Thomsen (IOP Publishing, 2017), vol. 810, p. 012002, URL https://dx. doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/810/1/012002

    2017 doi

  48. [57]

    K. D. Bonin and V. V. Kresin, Electric-Dipole Polarizabilities of Atoms, Molecules, and Clusters (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 1997)

    1997

  49. [58]

    J. Kaur, D. K. Nandy, B. Arora, and B. K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. A 91, 012705 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.012705

    2015 doi

  50. [59]

    Safronova, A

    U. Safronova, A. Safronova, and P. Beiersdorfer, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 39, 4491 (2006)

    2006

  51. [60]

    Johnson, D

    W. Johnson, D. Plante, and J. Sapirstein, in Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics (Elsevier, 1995), vol. 35, pp. 255–329

    1995

  52. [61]

    D. Pan, B. Arora, Y. Yu, B. K. Sahoo, and J. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 102, 041101 (2020), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.041101

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    B. K. Sahoo, D. K. Nandy, B. P. Das, and Y. Sakemi, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042507 (2015), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.91.042507

    2015 doi

  54. [63]

    Schwartz, Phys

    C. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. 97, 380 (1955), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.97.380

    1955 doi

  55. [64]

    I. I. Sobelman, in Atomic Spectra and Radiative Transitions (Springer, 1979), pp. 53–88, URL https://link. springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-04589-3_ 11 4

    1979 doi

  56. [65]

    Indelicato, Phys

    P. Indelicato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3323 (1996), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77. 3323

    1996 doi

  57. [66]

    J. W. Farley and W. H. Wing, Phys. Rev. A 23, 2397 (1981), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.23.2397

    1981

  58. [67]

    Yu and B

    Y.-m. Yu and B. K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. A 97, 041403 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.97.041403

    2018

  59. [68]

    Arora, M

    B. Arora, M. Safronova, and C. W. Clark, Phys. Rev. A 76, 064501 (2007), URL https://journals.aps.org/ pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.064501

    2007 doi

  60. [69]

    Arora, D

    B. Arora, D. K. Nandy, and B. K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. A 85, 012506 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.012506

    2012 doi

  61. [70]

    C. J. Campbell, A. G. Radnaev, A. Kuzmich, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 120802 (2012), URL https://journals.aps. org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.120802

    2012 doi

  62. [71]

    Dzuba, S

    V. Dzuba, S. O. Allehabi, V. Flambaum, J. Li, and S. Schiller, Phys. Rev. A 103, 022822 (2021), URL https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/ PhysRevA.103.022822

    2021

  63. [72]

    Takamoto, F.-L

    M. Takamoto, F.-L. Hong, R. Higashi, Y. Fujii, M. Imae, and H. Katori, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 75, 104302 (2006), URL https://journals.jps.jp/ doi/abs/10.1143/JPSJ.75.104302

    2006 doi

  64. [73]

    S. G. Porsev and M. S. Safronova, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012811 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.102.012811

    2020

  65. [74]

    W. M. Itano, Journal of research of the Na- tional Institute of Standards and Technology 105, 829 (2000), URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC4877145/

    2000

  66. [75]

    Porsev, U

    S. Porsev, U. Safronova, M. Safronova, P. Schmidt, A. Bondarev, M. Kozlov, I. Tupitsyn, and C. Che- ung, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012802 (2020), URL https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/ PhysRevA.102.012802

    2020

  67. [76]

    B. K. Sahoo, Handbook of Relativistic Quantum Chem- istry; Liu, W., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Ger- many pp. 611–655 (2015)

    2015

  68. [77]

    Gu´ ena, R

    J. Gu´ ena, R. Li, K. Gibble, S. Bize, and A. Clairon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 130801 (2011), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.130801

    2011 doi

  69. [78]

    D. J. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1103 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.85. 1103

    2013 doi

  70. [79]

    Zhang, K

    J. Zhang, K. Deng, J. Luo, and Z.-H. Lu, Chi- nese Physics Letters 34, 050601 (2017), URL https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/ 0256-307X/34/5/050601/meta

    2017

  71. [80]

    Huang, B

    Y. Huang, B. Zhang, M. Zeng, Y. Hao, Z. Ma, H. Zhang, H. Guan, Z. Chen, M. Wang, and K. Gao, Phys. Rev. Applied 17, 034041 (2022)

    2022

  72. [81]

    W. D. Phillips, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 721 (1998), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.70. 721

    1998 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.