Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 54 references

$g$ Factor of Boron-like Tin

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A heavy boron-like ion's g factor now meets QED theory at 0.5 parts per billion.

desk verdict A clean first measurement of the boron-like tin g factor opens a new Z regime; the paper is honest about the theory lag and deserves publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24272 v1 pith:7CUXZWUQ submitted 2025-05-30 physics.atom-ph

J. Morgner (1) , B. Tu (1 , 2) , M. Moretti (1) , C. M. König (1) , F. Hei{ss}e (1) , T. Sailer (1) , V. A. Yerokhin (1)
show 13 more authors
B. Sikora (1) N. S. Oreshkina (1) Z. Harman (1) C. H. Keitel (1) S. Sturm (1) K. Blaum (1) ((1) Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik Heidelberg Germany (2) Shanghai EBIT laboratory Institute of Modern Physics Fudan University Shanghai China)
This is my paper
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 31.30.jr32.10.Dk06.20.Jr
keywords boron-likeionsgfactorhighlychargedbound-stateQEDPenningtrapcontinuousStern-Gerlacheffectfine-structureconstanttin-118
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

Using a double Penning-trap setup, the authors measure the ground-state g factor of boron-like $^{118}\mathrm{Sn}^{45+}$ as $0.644\,703\,826\,5(4)$, a relative uncertainty of 0.5 parts per billion. At $Z=50$, this is the first high-precision g factor of a heavy boron-like ion, extending tests of bound-state quantum electrodynamics from the only earlier case, $^{40}\mathrm{Ar}^{13+}$, into a regime where electron correlation and QED screening effects are much stronger. The measured value agrees with their ab initio calculation $0.644\,702\,9(8)$ at the 1.2-$\sigma$ level, so the paper argues that current bound-state QED theory stays accurate in this previously unexplored medium-to-high-$Z$ range. The authors further point out that combining this result with the hydrogen-like tin g factor, or moving to nearby elements such as xenon, could supply a competitive independent determination of the fine-structure constant $\alpha$.

What carries the argument

The measurement is carried by the double-trap Penning-trap method with continuous Stern-Gerlach spin detection: the $g$ factor is obtained from the measured frequency ratio $\Gamma_0 = \nu_L/\nu_c$ through $g = 2\Gamma_0 (q/e)(m_e/m_{\rm ion})$, which eliminates the magnetic field. The spin state is read out non-destructively from the roughly $105$ mHz axial-frequency shift in a magnetic-bottle trap, and microwave-driven spin flips near $36.3$ GHz build the resonance shown in the paper. On the theory side, the prediction combines a one-photon-exchange QED calculation on a B-spline basis with dual kinetic balance, a Dirac-Fock-Sturmian relativistic configuration-interaction treatment of electron correlation, finite-nuclear-size and nuclear-recoil corrections, and one- and two-loop QED terms.

What would settle it

Compute the missing many-photon exchange and self-energy screening contributions to the $2p_{1/2}$ $g$ factor of boron-like tin. If their combined correction shifts $g_{\rm theo}$ by more than about $1\times10^{-6}$ relative to the quoted value, the 1.2-$\sigma$ agreement would be fortuitous rather than a genuine confirmation of QED at this $Z$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the $g$ factor of the $1s^2 2s^2 2p\, ^2P_{1/2}$ ground state of boron-like $^{118}\mathrm{Sn}^{45+}$ can be measured at the $0.5$ parts-per-billion level, and that the measured value $g_{\rm exp}=0.644\,703\,826\,493(155)_{\rm stat}(16)_{\rm sys}(307)_{\rm ext}$ is consistent with the ab initio value $g_{\rm theo}=0.644\,702\,9(8)$. The dominant experimental uncertainty is external, coming from the ratio of the electron mass to the tin ion mass; the theoretical uncertainty is split about equally between the many-photon exchange electron-electron interaction and the self-energy screening contribution. This is the first high-precision heavy boron-like $g$ factor, and the paper presents it as a decisive data point between light and very heavy boron-like systems, one that can benchmark future advances in bound-state QED.

Load-bearing premise

The agreement rests on the assumption that the two largest uncalculated theory terms, the many-photon exchange electron-electron interaction and the self-energy screening contribution, are no larger than the quoted $8\times10^{-7}$ theory uncertainty; if either were much bigger, the measured and predicted values could match by coincidence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The $0.5$ ppb measurement provides the first high-precision boron-like $g$ factor at $Z=50$, testing QED and many-electron interactions in a regime previously probed only at $Z=18$.
  • The experimental precision exceeds the theoretical precision by roughly $2000$ times, making this value a benchmark for future bound-state QED calculations.
  • Combining this result with the hydrogen-like tin $g$ factor through the specific-difference scheme would yield the fine-structure constant $\alpha$ with a relative uncertainty of about $7$ ppb, and near $0.4$ ppb if the relevant frequency and mass measurements reach the projected sub-$30$ ppt level.
  • The demonstrated storage time and high-fidelity spin-flip detection indicate that $g$-factor measurements of hydrogen-like, lithium-like, and boron-like systems with $Z \geq 82$ are feasible in the same apparatus.
  • The near-cancellation of finite-nuclear-size terms in medium-$Z$ boron-like ions, especially near xenon, makes such ions prime candidates for an independent determination of $\alpha$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two neglected theory terms are truly as small as the quoted $8\times10^{-7}$ uncertainty, the natural next step is to compute the two-photon exchange and QED screening diagrams for the $2p$ valence orbital in boron-like ions, extending the methods already applied to lithium-like ions.
  • Because the spin-flip detection already runs at $100\%$ fidelity with a $105$ mHz axial shift, reducing the Rabi linewidth and obtaining an independent high-precision mass of $^{118}\mathrm{Sn}$ should push the experimental uncertainty below the current $0.5$ ppb, at which point theory, not experiment, would limit the comparison.
  • The finite-nuclear-size cancellation near $Z=54$ suggests that isotope-shift measurements of boron-like $g$ factors could become a clean probe of nuclear recoil, an extension the paper only hints at through its neon comparison.
  • A same-apparatus measurement of the hydrogen-like and boron-like tin $g$ factors would share many systematics in the specific difference, which could make the proposed $\alpha$ extraction more robust than combining results from different experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first high-precision g-factor measurement of a heavy boron-like ion: the ground state of 118Sn45+ (Z=50) measured in the ALPHATRAP Penning-trap apparatus. The authors obtain Γ0 = 1539.242042354(370)(37) for the Larmor-to-cyclotron frequency ratio, which, combined with external mass data, gives g_exp = 0.644703826493(155)(16)(307) (stat, sys, ext). A dedicated ab initio calculation yields g_theo = 0.6447029(8), and the two values agree at the 1.2σ level. The paper also outlines how a specific difference of this g factor with a hydrogen-like tin measurement could be used for a determination of the fine-structure constant.

Significance. The central claim is well supported. The experiment is a substantial extension of high-precision g-factor measurements to the boron-like isoelectronic sequence at medium-high Z, with a 0.5 ppb measurement that is about 2000 times more precise than the current theory. The experimental error budget (Table I) is detailed, with image-charge and relativistic corrections applied and remaining systematics below 1 ppt. The theory (Table II) is state-of-the-art, but its precision is dominated by the uncalculated many-photon exchange and SE-screening contributions, as the authors explicitly acknowledge after Eq. (4); this limits the strength of the QED test but does not affect the validity of the measured value. No fitted parameters or circularity are evident. The result is a useful benchmark for future bound-state QED calculations.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The phrase 'the phase of the axial motion is determined from the peak in the FFT spectrum spectrum shown in c' contains a duplicated 'spectrum', and '115 ◦ degree' is redundant; both should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] The sentence 'The three cluster represent the three cases' should read 'The three clusters represent the three cases'.
  3. [Eq. (3) and Table I] Since the three uncertainties in Eq. (3) are quoted separately, stating the combined absolute or relative uncertainty of g_exp would help the reader connect the value with the abstract's '0.5 ppb' claim; the current presentation requires the reader to perform the quadrature.
  4. [Theory section] The theory section is very condensed; a supplemental derivation or a few explicit formulas for the one-photon exchange, recoil, and screening contributions would improve reproducibility and make the uncertainty estimate in Table II easier to assess.
  5. [Alpha-determination outlook] In the discussion after Eq. (6), the role of the 118Sn mass uncertainty in the specific difference should be clarified, since the statement that the 7 ppb alpha uncertainty is 'limited by the 118Sn mass' could be misread as meaning that the mass uncertainty does not largely cancel in the difference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured g factor and the ab initio theory value are independent; no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The experimental g factor is obtained from the measured frequency ratio Γ0 through Eq. (1), combined with literature values for the electron mass and the ion mass; no parameter is fitted to the boron-like g factor or to the theory value. The theory value in Eq. (4) is assembled from independent QED contributions listed in Table II, each evaluated with published methods and external inputs such as the nuclear charge radius; none of these contributions is adjusted to reproduce the measurement. The comparison at the 1.2-sigma level is therefore a genuine test, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that uncalculated many-photon exchange and self-energy screening contributions limit the theory precision and require further work. Citations to earlier work by the same group provide methods, prior mass measurements, and published calculations, but these are independent published results rather than inputs defined in terms of the present target, so no circular reduction is present.

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

The experimental g factor is derived from measured frequency ratios and literature values for the electron and ion masses; no fitted constant is used to bring theory and experiment into agreement. The theoretical g factor uses established QED methods and literature inputs. The fit parameters of the spin-flip resonance are part of the measurement, not adjustable constants imposed to match theory.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The invariance theorem nu_c^2 = nu_+^2 + nu_z^2 + nu_-^2 relates the measured trap eigenfrequencies to the free-space cyclotron frequency.
    Invoked in the methods section to determine the cyclotron frequency from the three harmonic motions; standard result from Brown and Gabrielse (1986).
  • domain assumption The QED and many-body methods (B-spline basis, dual kinetic balance, CI-DFS, effective screening potential) correctly account for the one-loop, two-loop, recoil, and correlation contributions to the g factor.
    Assumed in the theory section and Table II; the Letter references the detailed calculations rather than re-deriving them.
  • domain assumption The ion is in the 1s2 2s2 2p 2P1/2 ground state, and the spin-flip signal in the analysis trap corresponds to Mj = ±1 transitions.
    This is the basis for identifying the Larmor frequency and extracting g; the continuous Stern-Gerlach readout is relied on for spin-state detection.
  • domain assumption The nuclear charge radius of 118Sn is 4.6519(21) fm and the homogeneous sphere model describes the finite nuclear size.
    Used for the finite nuclear size correction to the theoretical g factor; taken from Angeli and Marinova (2013).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $g$ Factor of Boron-like Tin." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7CUXZWUQ

@misc{pith2026250524272,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $g$ Factor of Boron-like Tin},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7CUXZWUQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24272}
}
abstract

In the ALPHATRAP experiment, the $g$ factor of boron-like $^{118}\mathrm{Sn}^{45+}$ has been measured with a $0.5$ parts-per-billion uncertainty. This is the first high-precision measurement of a heavy boron-like $g$ factor. The measured value of $0.644\,703\,826\,5(4)$ is consistent with the presented \textit{ab initio} state-of-the-art theory calculations, which predict a value of $0.644\,702\,9(8)$. So far, the only boron-like $g$ factor measured with high precision has been $^{40}\mathrm{Ar}^{13+}$. The measurement presented here therefore tests quantum electrodynamics as well as many-electron interactions at much higher $Z$. Furthermore, we discuss the potential for an independent determination of the fine-structure constant $\alpha$, which can be achieved with a specific difference of $g$ factors, combining the presented results with the recent electron $g$-factor measurement of hydrogen-like tin.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24272 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Spin-flip resonance of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    U. D. Jentschura, Physical Review A 56, 1739 (1997)

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    P. J. Mohr, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, Physics Reports 293, 227 (1998)

    1998

  3. [3]

    Beier, Physics Reports 339, 79 (2000)

    T. Beier, Physics Reports 339, 79 (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    M. G. Kozlov, M. S. Safronova, J. R. Crespo L´ opez- Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 045005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Gumberidze, Th

    A. Gumberidze, Th. St¨ ohlker, D. Bana´ s, K. Beck- ert, P. Beller, H. F. Beyer, F. Bosch, S. Hagmann, C. Kozhuharov, D. Liesen, F. Nolden, X. Ma, P. H. Mok- ler, M. Steck, D. Sierpowski, and S. Tashenov, Physical Review Letters 94, 223001 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Ullmann, Z

    J. Ullmann, Z. Andelkovic, C. Brandau, A. Dax, W. Gei- thner, C. Geppert, C. Gorges, M. Hammen, V. Hannen, S. Kaufmann, K. K¨ onig, Y. A. Litvinov, M. Lochmann, B. Maaß, J. Meisner, T. Murb¨ ock, R. S´ anchez, M. Schmidt, S. Schmidt, M. Steck, T. St¨ ohlker, R. C. Thompson, C. Trageser, J. Vollbrecht, C. Weinheimer, and W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, Nature Commun...

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Morgner, B

    J. Morgner, B. Tu, C. M. K¨ onig, T. Sailer, F. Heiße, H. Bekker, B. Sikora, C. Lyu, V. A. Yerokhin, Z. Harman, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, C. H. Keitel, S. Sturm, and K. Blaum, Nature 622, 53 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Gould, Physical Review Letters 33, 676 (1974)

    H. Gould, Physical Review Letters 33, 676 (1974)

    work page 1974

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    A. E. Livingston, K. W. Kukla, C. M. Vogel Vogt, H. G. Berry, R. W. Dunford, D. S. Gemmell, E. P. Kanter, J. Suleiman, R. Ali, S. Cheng, and L. J. Curtis, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms The Physics ...

    1995

  2. [10]

    Beier, S

    T. Beier, S. Djekic, H. H¨ affner, P. Indelicato, H. J. Kluge, W. Quint, V. M. Shabaev, J. Verd´ u, T. Valenzuela, G. Werth, and V. A. Yerokhin, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam In- teractions with Materials and Atoms 11th International Confe...

    2003

  3. [11]

    Beiersdorfer, H

    P. Beiersdorfer, H. Chen, D. B. Thorn, and E. Tr¨ abert, Physical Review Letters 95, 233003 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Arapoglou, A

    I. Arapoglou, A. Egl, M. H¨ ocker, T. Sailer, B. Tu, A. Weigel, R. Wolf, H. Cakir, V. Yerokhin, N. Oreshk- ina, V. Agababaev, A. Volotka, D. Zinenko, D. Glazov, 6 Z. Harman, C. Keitel, S. Sturm, and K. Blaum, Physical Review Letters 122, 253001 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Silwal, D

    R. Silwal, D. Dipti, E. Takacs, J. M. Dreiling, S. C. Sanders, A. C. Gall, H. R. B, J. D. Gillaspy, and Y. Ralchenko, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics (2021), 10.1088/1361-6455/ac44e1

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Loetzsch, H

    R. Loetzsch, H. F. Beyer, L. Duval, U. Spillmann, D. Bana´ s, P. Dergham, F. M. Kr¨ oger, J. Glorius, R. E. Grisenti, M. Guerra, A. Gumberidze, R. Heß, P.-M. Hillenbrand, P. Indelicato, P. Jagodzinski, E. Lamour, B. Lorentz, S. Litvinov, Y. A. Litvinov, J. Machado, N. Paul, G....

    2024

  7. [15]

    Micke, T

    P. Micke, T. Leopold, S. A. King, E. Benkler, L. J. Spieß, L. Schm¨ oger, M. Schwarz, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, Nature 578, 60 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Sturm, I

    S. Sturm, I. Arapoglou, A. Egl, M. H¨ ocker, S. Kraemer, T. Sailer, B. Tu, A. Weigel, R. Wolf, J. C. L´ opez-Urrutia, and K. Blaum, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 227, 1425 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Kravis, H

    S. Kravis, H. Saitoh, K. Okuno, K. Soejima, M. Kimura, I. Shimamura, Y. Awaya, Y. Kaneko, M. Oura, and N. Shimakura, Physical Review A 52, 1206 (1995)

    1995

  10. [18]

    L. S. Brown and G. Gabrielse, Reviews of Modern Physics 58, 233 (1986)

    1986

  11. [19]

    Tiesinga, P

    E. Tiesinga, P. J. Mohr, D. B. Newell, and B. N. Taylor, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 025010 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 5.9),

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and N. A. Team, “NIST Atomic Spectra Database (version 5.9),” (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Ketter, T

    J. Ketter, T. Eronen, M. H¨ ocker, S. Streubel, and K. Blaum, International Journal of Mass Spectrometry 358, 1 (2014), arXiv:1305.4861

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. J. Wineland and H. G. Dehmelt, Journal of Applied Physics 46, 919 (1975)

    1975

  15. [23]

    Sturm, A

    S. Sturm, A. Wagner, B. Schabinger, and K. Blaum, Physical Review Letters 107, 143003 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Dehmelt, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 83, 2291 (1986)

    H. Dehmelt, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 83, 2291 (1986)

    1986

  17. [25]

    Stahl, J

    S. Stahl, J. Alonso, S. Djekic, H.-J. Kluge, W. Quint, J. Verdu, M. Vogel, and G. Werth, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 38, 297 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    Ketter, T

    J. Ketter, T. Eronen, M. H¨ ocker, M. Schuh, S. Streubel, and K. Blaum, International Journal of Mass Spectrom- etry 361, 34 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Schuh, F

    M. Schuh, F. Heiße, T. Eronen, J. Ketter, F. K¨ ohler- Langes, S. Rau, T. Segal, W. Quint, S. Sturm, and K. Blaum, Physical Review A 100, 023411 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Codata internationally recommended 2022 values of the fundamental physical constants,

    P. J. Mohr, E. Tiesinga, D. B. Newell, and B. N. Taylor, “Codata internationally recommended 2022 values of the fundamental physical constants,” (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    A. S. Varentsova, V. A. Agababaev, D. A. Glazov, A. M. Volchkova, A. V. Volotka, V. M. Shabaev, and G. Plu- nien, Physical Review A 97, 043402 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    V. M. Shabaev, D. A. Glazov, M. B. Shabaeva, V. A. Yerokhin, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. A 65, 062104 (2002)

    2002

  23. [31]

    V. M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, V. A. Yerokhin, G. Plu- nien, and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 130405 (2004)

    2004

  24. [32]

    Cakir, V

    H. Cakir, V. A. Yerokhin, N. S. Oreshkina, B. Sikora, I. I. Tupitsyn, C. H. Keitel, and Z. Harman, Phys. Rev. A 101, 062513 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    A. A. Shchepetnov, D. A. Glazov, A. V. Volotka, V. M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, and G. Plunien, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 583, 012001 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. P. Marinova, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Pachucki, U

    K. Pachucki, U. D. Jentschura, and V. A. Yerokhin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 150401 (2004)

    2004

  28. [36]

    Sapirstein and K

    J. Sapirstein and K. T. Cheng, Physical Review A 64, 022502 (2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    Quantum electrodynamics,

    J. R. Sapirstein, “Quantum electrodynamics,” in Springer Handbook of Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, edited by G. W. F. Drake (Springer International Pub- lishing, Cham, 2023) pp. 415–431

    2023

  30. [38]

    Yerokhin, C

    V. Yerokhin, C. H. Keitel, and Z. Harman, J. Phys. B 46, 245002 (2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Sikora, H

    B. Sikora, H. Cakir, N. Michel, V. Debierre, N. S. Ore- shkina, N. A. Belov, V. A. Yerokhin, C. H. Keitel, and Z. Harman, Phys. Rev. D 97, 111301 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    R. N. Lee, A. I. Milstein, I. S. Terekhov, and S. G. Karshenboim, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052501 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Dizer and Z

    E. Dizer and Z. Harman, Phys. Rev. A 108, 042808 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    S. J. Brodsky and R. G. Parsons, Phys. Rev. 163, 134 (1967)

    1967

  35. [43]

    Grotch and R

    H. Grotch and R. Kashuba, Phys. Rev. A 7, 78 (1973)

    1973

  36. [44]

    D. A. Glazov, A. V. Malyshev, V. M. Shabaev, and I. I. Tupitsyn, Opt. Spectrosc. 124, 457 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    V. M. Shabaev, D. A. Glazov, N. S. Oreshkina, A. V. Volotka, G. Plunien, H.-J. Kluge, and W. Quint, Physi- cal Review Letters 96, 253002 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    A. V. Volotka and G. Plunien, Physical Review Letters 113, 023002 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Sturm, F

    S. Sturm, F. K¨ ohler, J. Zatorski, A. Wagner, Z. Harman, G. Werth, W. Quint, C. H. Keitel, and K. Blaum, Nature 506, 467 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Heiße, M

    F. Heiße, M. Door, T. Sailer, P. Filianin, J. Herkenhoff, C. K¨ onig, K. Kromer, D. Lange, J. Morgner, A. Rischka, C. Schweiger, B. Tu, Y. Novikov, S. Eliseev, S. Sturm, and K. Blaum, Physical Review Letters 131, 253002 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, Physical Review Letters 130, 071801 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    V. A. Yerokhin, K. Pachucki, M. Puchalski, C. H. Keitel, and Z. Harman, Phys. Rev. A 102, 022815 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    V. A. Yerokhin, C. H. Keitel, and Z. Harman, Phys. Rev. A 104, 022814 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    V. P. Kosheleva, A. V. Volotka, D. A. Glazov, D. V. Zinenko, and S. Fritzsche, Physical Review Letters 128, 103001 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Sikora, V

    B. Sikora, V. A. Yerokhin, C. H. Keitel, and Z. Harman, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10421 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Sailer, V

    T. Sailer, V. Debierre, Z. Harman, F. Heiße, C. K¨ onig, J. Morgner, B. Tu, A. V. Volotka, C. H. Keitel, K. Blaum, and S. Sturm, Nature 606, 479 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.