Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Dual Magnetic and Electric Dipole Symmetry: Pseudo Angular Momentum in Parity Space and the Electric Land\'e $g$-Factor

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that induced electric dipole moments, including hydrogen's Stark doublet, can be described as the exact electric dual of magnetic dipole moments, with a pseudo-angular momentum in parity space and an electric Landé factor

desk verdict A clear but non-novel reformulation of the hydrogen Stark effect; the central dual-Ohanian equivalence has a sign error in the body and the Bohr-EDM unit is tuned, so there's nothing here to build on. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.07692 v3 pith:LPWZ6ENC submitted 2025-11-10 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Michael E. Tobar This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords electricdipolemomentStarkeffectZeemanelectromagneticdualityRunge-Lenzvectorpseudo-angularmomentumLandég-factorparitymixing
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 attempts to place electric and magnetic dipole physics on the same footing by constructing an electromagnetic-duality operator framework. Its central claim is that an induced electric dipole, such as the one generated by the linear Stark effect in hydrogen, is governed by a pseudo-angular momentum J_p built from the scaled Runge-Lenz vector, with a dipole operator d_orb = g_E d_B J_p/ℏ featuring an electric Landé factor g_E(n) = 3n/2 and a natural unit d_B = e a0. This reproduces the known Stark doublet (e.g., || = 3d_B for the 2s–2p_m=0 mixing) and yields a unified formula for total EDM that includes spin-aligned intrinsic pieces. If correct, the framework would supply a common symmetry language connecting induced atomic EDMs, intrinsic CP-violating EDMs, and condensed-matter polarization.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the scaled Runge-Lenz operator A_sc = (ℏn/κ) A, redefined as a pseudo-angular momentum J_p acting in parity space rather than position space. It carries the argument because the Stark coupling within a degenerate n manifold acts exactly through this operator, giving a conserved z-projection quantized as J_p,z = ℏk (k = n1 - n2) and hence a Landé-like linear splitting. The electric Landé factor g_E(n) = 3n/2 and the natural unit d_B = e a0 convert this pseudo-angular momentum into an induced dipole. The dual effective-current construction — a microscopic polarization whose curl defines an effective magnetic probability current — supplies a semiclassical picture of the

What would settle it

Measure the linear Stark shifts of hydrogen at n=4 (or higher) in a field regime where first-order perturbation theory is valid, and compare the level spacings and dipole moments with the Landé-like predictions ΔE_S = (3n/2) k e a0 E_z and ⟨d_z⟩ = (3n/2) k e a0. Any deviation from uniformly spaced levels indexed by k = n1-n2, or a value of the spacing inconsistent with g_E(n)=3n/2, would falsify the claim that the scaled Runge-Lenz operator alone organizes the Stark manifold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The author establishes a dual, Zeeman-analogue operator framework for electric dipole moments. Defining a pseudo-angular-momentum operator J_p as the scaled Runge-Lenz vector, the orbital electric dipole operator takes the form d_orb = g_E d_B J_p/ℏ, with d_B = e a0 (the 'Bohr EDM') and g_E(n) = 3n/2 an electric Landé factor. Within a fixed principal quantum number n, a static electric field couples through the scaled Runge-Lenz structure, preserving an SO(2)×SO(2) symmetry and yielding the Stark energy shift ΔE_S = g_E k d_B E_z with k = n1 - n2. The paper also constructs the electric dual of the effective-current picture: a polarization field P with non-zero curl defines an effective magne

Load-bearing premise

The paper's overarching duality rests on a semiclassical toy model in which two fictitious magnetic charges ±h/e, with an assumed effective mass m* ~ m_e/2 and quantization a0 m* v ~ ℏ, generate the 'Bohr EDM' d_B = e a0; if that analogy is not physically legitimate, d_B reduces to a product of known constants and the magnetic-current mechanism loses its explanatory power, leaving the Stark result unchanged but the duality claim weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The linear Stark effect in any hydrogenic n manifold is exactly captured by the compact formula ΔE_S = g_E k d_B E_z with g_E(n) = 3n/2, giving uniformly spaced levels indexed by k = n1 - n2; the paper demonstrates n=2 and n=3 explicitly.
  • The total EDM of an atom separates cleanly into an induced orbital term (d_B g_E ⟨J_p⟩/ℏ) and an intrinsic spin-aligned term (d_B g_E^e ⟨S⟩/ℏ), so precision EDM experiments can in principle disentangle the two contributions by their dependence on external field and parity mixing.
  • The 'Bohr EDM' d_B = e a0 = 2μ_B/(cα) provides a natural atomic scale for electric dipoles, directly analogous to the Bohr magneton for magnetic moments.
  • The duality gives a concrete semiclassical picture: an induced EDM corresponds to a circulating effective magnetic probability current, mirroring how a magnetic moment arises from a circulating electric current.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: the formula ΔE_S = g_E k d_B E_z should hold for all hydrogenic n manifolds; measuring Stark shifts in Rydberg or high-n states at low fields could confirm whether the Landé-like pattern persists exactly as predicted, though higher-order terms will eventually break it.
  • The paper lists graphene sublattice pseudospin, valley pseudospin, and bilayer layer pseudospin as analogous electric-sector two-level systems; a quantitative extension would derive an effective electric Landé g-factor for those systems from their specific Hamiltonians.
  • If the duality is taken as more than a formal analogy, the effective magnetic current J_m = -ε_0^{-1} ∇×P might be probed indirectly through the magnetic field it would generate; a calculation of that field and a search for it in Stark-aligned atoms would offer an experimental handle on the 'circulating magnetic current' picture.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a formal electromagnetic duality between magnetic and electric dipole moments. It defines a 'Bohr EDM' d_B = e a_0, a pseudo-angular-momentum operator J_p built from the scaled Runge-Lenz vector, an electric Landé factor g_E = 3n/2, and a dual-Ohanian representation in which the EDM expectation value is expressed through an effective magnetic probability current J_m = -epsilon_0^{-1} curl P. The formalism is applied to the hydrogenic linear Stark effect, with explicit n = 2 and n = 3 calculations. The paper claims that the Stark doublet is organized by the scaled Runge-Lenz operator and that induced EDMs arise from circulating magnetic probability currents, mirroring Ohanian's treatment of spin.

Significance. If the claims were established, the paper would offer a useful Zeeman-analogue notation for EDMs and a unified treatment of orbital and intrinsic electric dipole moments. The manuscript has some genuine strengths: the n = 2 Stark calculation is correct, the n = 3 matrix elements are standard, and the Runge-Lenz/parabolic-coordinate description of the linear Stark effect is a well-founded algebraic approach. However, the distinctive new claims are not currently supported. There is a sign error in the central field-equivalence relation, the 'dual-current' representation reduces to a trivial vector identity once the sign is corrected, the Bohr-EDM unit is derived from a tuned toy model, and the intrinsic electric g-factor is a definition rather than a prediction. The correct Stark physics is textbook material, so the paper's added value depends entirely on the new duality layer, which is internally inconsistent and largely tautological as presented.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III.B.1, Eq. (23)] The sign in the body is inconsistent with Eq. (21) and with the abstract. With J_m defined by Eq. (20) as -epsilon_0^{-1} curl P, the body's Eq. (23) gives (epsilon_0/2)∫ r×J_m = -(1/2)∫ r×(curl P) = -∫P, using the vector identity ∫ r×(curl P)d^3r = 2∫P d^3r for localized P. Thus Eq. (23) evaluates to -d_B, not +d_B. The abstract's version with prefactor -epsilon_0/2 yields +∫P and is consistent. Consequently, the statement in Sec. IV.B that substitution of Eq. (54) into Eq. (23) confirms d_2 = 3d_B is not correct as written: with the printed Eq. (23) one obtains -3d_B. This is a load-bearing sign error in the central 'field-equivalence' relation.
  2. [Table I, n=3 row] The n=3 entries contradict Eq. (61). For n=3, g_E = 3n/2 = 9/2, so Eq. (61) gives ⟨d_z⟩ = (9/2)d_B k. For k = 2,1,0,-1,-2 the correct values are 9d_B, (9/2)d_B, 0, -(9/2)d_B, -9d_B. The table lists (9/2)d_B, (9/4)d_B, 0, -(9/4)d_B, -(9/2)d_B, which are uniformly a factor of two too small. This internal inconsistency affects the paper's benchmark claim that the electric g-factor relation applies at n=3.
  3. [Secs. III.B.1, VI] The dual-Ohanian equivalence is an algebraic identity, not a physical derivation. Since P is defined by Eq. (18) and J_m is then defined by Eq. (20) as (minus) the curl of P, the corrected relation (23) reduces for any localized P to ∫ r×(curl P)=2∫P, i.e. to the same statement as Eq. (21). The claim in Sec. VI that induced EDMs arise from circulating magnetic probability currents is therefore a repackaging of the definition of J_m, not a prediction. A substantive mechanism would require an independent definition of J_m or a calculable consequence that does not reduce to the standard dipole expectation.
  4. [Sec. III.A, Eqs. (14)-(17)] The derivation of the 'Bohr EDM' d_B = e a_0 is tuned by the choice of effective mass m*. Repeating the same logic with m* = m_e rather than m* = m_e/2 in Eqs. (14)-(15) gives d_B = e a_0/2. The parameters m*, A_eff = πa_0^2, and the magnetic-charge assignment q_m = h/e are all selected so that the final combination equals e a_0. The toy model therefore does not independently establish d_B; it merely re-labels the product of existing constants. This is a load-bearing issue because the duality claim rests on the analogy between the Bohr magneton and the 'Bohr EDM'.
  5. [Eqs. (24)-(25), (62)] The intrinsic electric Landé factor g_E^e = 2d_int/d_B is introduced to make the operator identity hold; it is a definition, not a prediction. Inserting the current experimental bound on d_int merely restates that bound in different units. Thus the unified form in Eq. (62) does not yet provide a testable relation between the intrinsic dipole moment and the induced orbital dipole; its content is a choice of units.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typography and grammar errors: 'calassical' (Sec. II.A), 'appnedix' (Sec. V), 'represenatation' (Sec. IV), 'alined' (Sec. V.A).
  2. [Reference [23]] The citation should be to R. F. Harrington, not R. E. Harrington, for 'Introduction to Electromagnetic Engineering.'
  3. [Fig. 1(c)] The caption refers to 'two point charges ±e separated by a distance of the Bohr radius,' but the model in Sec. III.A uses fictitious magnetic charges ±h/e. Please clarify whether the caption describes Fig. 1(b) or Fig. 1(c) and avoid conflating the electric-charge picture with the magnetic-current picture.
  4. [Sec. V, Eq. (57)] The notation J_p is used for both the operator A_sc (Eq. A8) and its expectation value (Eq. 57); the text should distinguish operators from expectation values more carefully, especially when defining the 'quantized' values k.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The dual-current 'derivation' is a self-defined vector identity (with a sign error in the body), the Bohr-EDM unit is fixed by a tuned effective mass, and the intrinsic-sector electric Landé factor is defined into existence; the independent Stark integral is then repackaged as the R-L/g_E framework.

  1. self definitional [Section III.B.1, Eqs. (20), (21), (23); cf. abstract]
    "Adopting the dual (Weber) convention for magnetic current, the curl of ⃗P defines an effective probability magnetic current density, ⃗Jm = −1/ϵ0 ∇×⃗P ... the expectation value of the electric dipole moment is then ⟨⃗d⟩= ∫ ⃗P(⃗r)d3r=d_B ... ⟨⃗d⟩= ϵ0/2 ∫ ⃗r×⃗Jm d3r."

    J_m is defined as −ε0^−1∇×P. Inserting this definition, Eq. (23) becomes (ε0/2)∫r×(−ε0^−1∇×P)=−(1/2)∫r×(∇×P)=−∫P (since ∫r×(∇×P)=2∫P for localized P). Thus Eq. (23) is the same dipole moment as Eq. (21) up to a sign, and the body's sign contradicts Eq. (21) (the abstract's added minus would fix it). The advertised conclusion that EDMs arise from circulating magnetic currents is therefore a restatement of the definition of J_m, not a derived prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section III.A, Eqs. (14)–(15)]
    "Assuming the total mass per unit cell (Fig.1(c)) is equivalent to the effective mass of the electron, then we assume m∗ ∼ me/2 (two magnetic charged particles), and equating a0m∗v∼ℏ, as in the derivation of the Bohr magneton in (5), then the magnetic current becomes ... Thus, we can define the 'Bohr EDM' ... dB =−ϵ0Imπa2 0 = 2µB/cα = ea0."

    The 'derivation' of d_B imposes m*=m_e/2; with the natural choice m*=m_e, Eqs. (14)–(15) give d_B=e a0/2. The toy magnetic-charge model therefore does not determine d_B independently—the desired value e a0 is inserted through the effective-mass assumption. It is a fitted input presented as a semiclassical derivation of a fundamental unit.

2 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section III.B.2 Eq. (25); Section V.A Eq. (62); abstract]
    "consistent with d̂e = ge_EdB/ℏ Ŝ, g e_E = 2dint/dB ... To include an intrinsic dipole moment with the induced orbital effects one can combine (25) and (60) to obtain, d̂tot = dB( gE Ĵp/ℏ + g e_E ⟨Ŝ⟩/ℏ ), g e_E = 2dint/dB."

    g_E^e is defined in Eq. (25) as 2d_int/d_B; substituting that definition into Eq. (62) makes the spin term d_B g_E^e ⟨S⟩/ℏ = 2d_int ⟨S⟩/ℏ. The 'electric Landé factor' for the spin sector is a relabeling of the input d_int. The unified total-EDM formula is a parametrization, not a derivation.

  2. renaming known result [Section V, Eqs. (56)–(61); Appendix B]
    "gE(n)=3/2 n is the electric Land´e factor and dB = ea0 from (15) ... ⟨dz⟩= gE dB/ℏ ⟨Jp,z⟩=gE dB k, ∆ES =gE kdB Ez ... ⟨z⟩= 3/2 n a0 k and ⟨Asc,z⟩=ℏk."

    J_p is defined as the scaled Runge–Lenz operator, and g_E is fixed to 3n/2; Eq. (61) then reads ΔE_S=(3/2)n e a0 k E_z and ⟨d_z⟩=(3/2)n e a0 k, which is numerically the textbook parabolic-coordinate Stark formula. The compact Landé-like 'prediction' |⟨d_orb⟩|=3d_B is a relabeling of the standard matrix element (computed independently in Sec. IV.A), not a new derivation.

full rationale

The paper is not wholly circular: the n=2 Stark doublet is obtained by direct wavefunction integrals (Eqs. 37–50) and matches the known result, so that benchmark is legitimate. The self-citations [12–14,25] are used only for the classical analogy in the Discussion and are not load-bearing for the main algebra. However, the central dual-Ohanian claim reduces to a definition: Eq. (20) defines J_m as (minus) the curl of P, so Eq. (23)'s moment-of-current formula is the vector identity ∫r×(∇×P)=2∫P; it inherits all content from ∫P and, as printed, has the wrong sign relative to Eq. (21). Likewise, the Bohr-EDM 'derivation' chooses m*=m_e/2 to arrive at e a0, so the unit is fitted, and g_E^e=2d_int/d_B is a definition inserted into Eq. (62), making the spin sector tautological. The g_E(n)=3n/2 R-L description repackages the standard parabolic Stark formula. The sign inconsistency of Eq. (23) is an additional correctness problem that reinforces that the equivalence is an unverified recasting rather than a derived result. Overall the claimed symmetry framework contains independent benchmark content, but several of its advertised predictions reduce by construction.

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

The only externally anchored content is the standard hydrogen Stark/Runge–Lenz calculation. The new unit, the magnetic-current duality, and the intrinsic-spin electric g-factor are definitions or toy-model choices; the ledger is dominated by notational and geometric choices rather than fitted data.

free parameters (4)
  • effective mass m* of the magnetic-charge pair = m_e/2
    Assumed in Section III.A so that a0 m* v ~ hbar makes the toy model yield d_B = e a0; no independent derivation.
  • Bohr quantization condition a0 m* v ~ hbar = hbar
    Imposed on the fictitious magnetic-charge orbit by analogy with the Bohr magneton derivation; chosen to reproduce d_B.
  • effective cell cross-section A_eff = pi a0^2
    Eq. (17) sets the quasi-1D cell cross-section to pi a0^2 so that integral Delta P_z d^3r = e a0.
  • intrinsic EDM d_int = 0 (assumed)
    The paper sets d_int approximately 0 because no EDM has been observed; the definition g_E^e = 2 d_int / d_B is then a placeholder, not a prediction.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math O(4)/Runge–Lenz hidden symmetry of the Coulomb problem
    Used in Section V and Appendix A to define A, A_sc, and <A_sc,z> = hbar k; standard hydrogenic quantum mechanics.
  • domain assumption Standard CP-violating EDM operator L_EDM = -1/2 d_int psi_bar sigma^{mu nu} gamma_5 psi F_{mu nu}
    Borrowed from QFT as the conventional intrinsic-EDM interaction; used in Eq. (1) and Section III.B.2.
  • ad hoc to paper Spin operator S = hbar sigma/2 can represent both position-space spin and parity-space pseudo-spin
    Eqs. (18)–(19) and (62) identify the Pauli spin operator with the parity-space two-level operator; this identification is asserted, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Effective magnetic current J_m = -epsilon_0^{-1} curl P is the electric dual of Ohanian's magnetization current
    Eq. (20) postulates the dual construction; it is a mathematical definition with no independent physical evidence.
invented entities (3)
  • Magnetic monopole charges +-q_m = +-h/e
    purpose: Toy model for the Bohr EDM: rotating magnetic charges generate an effective magnetic current whose left-hand rule yields d_B (Fig. 1a).
    The charges are introduced as a toy model; no monopoles are claimed to exist and no experimental handle is provided. The value q_m = h/e is chosen to make d_B = e a0.
  • Pseudo-angular momentum J_p in parity space independent evidence
    purpose: Operator organizing induced orbital dipole moments via d = g_E d_B J_p/hbar.
    It is the scaled Runge–Lenz vector, whose eigenvalues k label the observable Stark states; this entity is a repackaging of known conserved quantities with internal consistency.
  • Effective probability magnetic current J_m
    purpose: Claims that induced EDM originates from circulating magnetic probability current.
    Defined as -epsilon_0^{-1} curl P; the dipole formula (23) is a vector identity, so this 'current' is not independently measurable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dual Magnetic and Electric Dipole Symmetry: Pseudo Angular Momentum in Parity Space and the Electric Land\'e $g$-Factor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LPWZ6ENC

@misc{pith2026251107692,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dual Magnetic and Electric Dipole Symmetry: Pseudo Angular Momentum in Parity Space and the Electric Land\'e $g$-Factor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LPWZ6ENC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.07692}
}
abstract

Electric dipole moments (EDMs) are sensitive probes of fundamental symmetries and central to searches for physics beyond the Standard Model. We present a symmetry-based, Zeeman-analogue operator framework that places magnetic and electric dipole physics on parallel footing under electromagnetic duality, and introduce a polar-sector pseudo-angular-momentum degree of freedom in parity space together with an associated electric Land\'e factor that organizes induced orbital dipoles. Following Ohanian's effective-current formulation of the Zeeman effect, we construct its electric dual: the wavefunction's microscopic polarization admits an equivalent effective magnetic probability-current representation, providing a field-equivalence description of parity-mixed charge displacement. In this notation the total EDM expectation takes the unified form $\langle \hat{\vec d}_{\rm tot}\rangle= d_B(g_E\,\frac{\langle \hat{\vec J}_p\rangle}{\hbar}+ g_E^{e}\,\frac{\langle \hat{\vec S}\rangle}{\hbar})$, with $g_E^{e}=\frac{2d_{\rm int}}{d_B}$, where $\hat{\vec J}_p$ captures Stark-induced pseudo-angular momentum and $\hat{\vec S}$ encodes any intrinsic (spin-aligned) EDM $d_{\rm int}$ from symmetry-violating interactions. We define a natural electric dipole unit (the ``Bohr EDM'') as $d_B \equiv e a_0=\frac{2\mu_B}{c\alpha}$ ($a_0$ the Bohr radius and $\mu_B$ the Bohr magneton). As a canonical analytic benchmark, we show in the hydrogenic problem that a static electric field couples within a fixed $n$ manifold through the scaled Runge--Lenz structure, yielding a compact Land\'e-like description and reproducing the Stark doublet (e.g.\ $|\langle d_{\rm orb}\rangle|=3d_B$ for the $2s$--$2p_{m=0}$ mixing).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.07692 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Semi-classical representations of the Bohr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Density plot of the Stark state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5: The Runge-Lenz vector density, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Magnetic current vector-field , [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Bohr Electric Dipole Moment from Spin As discussed previously, In Ohanian’s semi- nal work, the intrinsic magnetic moment of the electron was interpreted semiclassically as aris- ing from an effective circulating energy flow of the electron wavefunction, generating an angu- lar momentum and associated magnetic dipole [17]. The effective magnetization dens...

  2. [2]

    To understand how the electron behaves in an electric field we consider the interaction term in (1)

    Intrinsic and Orbital Polarization If the electron carries an intrinsic electric dipole moment,d int, the local microscopic po- larization density of the electron wavefunction would be of the form, ⃗Pe(⃗ r) =dint ψ†(⃗ r)Σψ(⃗ r)≈2dint ℏ ⃗ s(⃗ r), (24) consistent with ˆ⃗de = ge EdB ℏ ˆ⃗S g e E = 2dint dB ,(25) where⃗ s(⃗ r) =ψ†(⃗ r)ℏ 2 σψ(⃗ r) is the nonrel...

  3. [3]

    J. Stark. Observations of the effect of the elec- tric field on spectral lines i. transverse effect. Annalen der Physik, 43:965–983, 1914

    1914

  4. [4]

    Feynman, Frank L

    Richard P. Feynman, Frank L. Vernon, and Robert W. Hellwarth. Geometrical represen- tation of the schr¨ odinger equation for solving maser problems.Journal of Applied Physics, 28(1):49–52, 1957

    1957

  5. [5]

    Khriplovich and Steve K

    Iosif B. Khriplovich and Steve K. Lamore- aux.CP Violation Without Strangeness, Elec- tric Dipole Moments of Particles, Atoms, and Molecules. Texts and Monographs in Physics. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1997

    1997

  6. [6]

    P.G.H. Sandars. The electric dipole moment of an atom.Physics Letters, 14(3):194–196, 1965

    1965

  7. [7]

    Ramsey-Musolf, and U

    Jonathan Engel, Michael J. Ramsey-Musolf, and U. van Kolck. Electric dipole moments of nucleons, nuclei, and atoms: The standard model and beyond.Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 71:21–74, 2013. Fundamental Symmetries in the Era of the LHC

    2013

  8. [8]

    Doyle, and Alexan- der O

    David DeMille, John M. Doyle, and Alexan- der O. Sushkov. Probing the frontiers of par- ticle physics with tabletop-scale experiments. 14 Science, 357(6355):990–994, 2017

    2017

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    T. E. Chupp, P. Fierlinger, M. J. Ramsey- Musolf, and J. T. Singh. Electric dipole mo- ments of atoms, molecules, nuclei, and parti- cles.Rev. Mod. Phys., 91:015001, Jan 2019

    2019

  2. [10]

    B. C. Regan, Eugene D. Commins, Christian J. Schmidt, and David DeMille. New limit on the electron electric dipole moment.Phys. Rev. Lett., 88:071805, Feb 2002

    2002

  3. [11]

    Macroscopic polarization in crystalline dielectrics: the geometric phase ap- proach.Rev

    Raffaele Resta. Macroscopic polarization in crystalline dielectrics: the geometric phase ap- proach.Rev. Mod. Phys., 66:899–915, Jul 1994

    1994

  4. [12]

    Cambridge University Press, 2018

    David Vanderbilt.Berry Phase in Electronic Structure Theory, Electric Polarization, Or- bital Magnetization and Topological Insulators. Cambridge University Press, 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Electric polariza- tion as a nonquantized topological response and boundary luttinger theorem.Phys

    Xue-Yang Song, Yin-Chen He, Ashvin Vish- wanath, and Chong Wang. Electric polariza- tion as a nonquantized topological response and boundary luttinger theorem.Phys. Rev. Research, 3:023011, Apr 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Tobar, Raymond Y

    Michael E. Tobar, Raymond Y. Chiao, and Maxim Goryachev. Active electric dipole en- ergy sources: Transduction via electric scalar and vector potentials.Sensors, 22(18), 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Tobar, Ben T

    Michael E. Tobar, Ben T. McAllister, and Maxim Goryachev. Electrodynamics of free- and bound-charge electricity generators us- ing impressed sources.Phys. Rev. Applied, 15:014007, Jan 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Tobar, Ben T

    Michael E. Tobar, Ben T. McAllister, and Maxim Goryachev. Modified axion electrody- namics as impressed electromagnetic sources through oscillating background polarization and magnetization.Physics of the Dark Uni- verse, 26:100339, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    H. Y. Hwang, Y. Iwasa, M. Kawasaki, B. Keimer, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura. Emer- gent phenomena at oxide interfaces.Nature Materials, 11(2):103–113, 2012

    2012

  10. [18]

    Liu, Z.X

    X.Z. Liu, Z.X. Tang, Q.H. Li, Q.H. Zhang, X.Q. Yu, and L. Gu. Symmetry-induced emer- gent electrochemical properties for recharge- able batteries.Cell Reports Physical Science, 1(6):100066, 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Hans C. Ohanian. What is spin?American Journal of Physics, 54(6):500–505, 06 1986

    1986

  12. [20]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim. The elec- tronic properties of graphene.Reviews of Mod- ern Physics, 81(1):109–162, 2009

    2009

  13. [21]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Moro- zov, D. Jiang, M. I. Katsnelson, I. V. Grig- orieva, S. V. Dubonos, and A. A. Firsov. Two- dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene.Nature, 438:197–200, 2005

    2005

  14. [22]

    Schaibley, Hongyi Yu, Genevieve Clark, Pasqual Rivera, Jason S

    John R. Schaibley, Hongyi Yu, Genevieve Clark, Pasqual Rivera, Jason S. Ross, Kyle L. Seyler, Wang Yao, and Xiaodong Xu. Val- leytronics in 2d materials.Nature Reviews Ma- terials, 1:16055, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Edward McCann and Vladimir I. Fal’ko. Landau-level degeneracy and quantum hall ef- fect in a graphite bilayer.Physical Review Let- ters, 96:086805, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    Many-body physics with ultracold gases.Reviews of Modern Physics, 80(3):885– 964, 2008

    Immanuel Bloch, Jean Dalibard, and Wilhelm Zwerger. Many-body physics with ultracold gases.Reviews of Modern Physics, 80(3):885– 964, 2008

    2008

  17. [25]

    R. E. Harrington.Introduction to Electromag- netic Engineering. Dover Publications, Inc., 31 East 2nd Street, Mineola, NY 11501, 2nd edi- tion, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    C. A. Balanis.Advanced Engineering Electro- magnetics. John Wiley,, 2012

    2012

  19. [27]

    M. E. Tobar, B. T. McAllister, M. Goryachev. Broadband electrical action sensing techniques with conducting wires for low-mass dark mat- ter axion detection.Physics of the Dark Uni- verse, 30:100624, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    J. W. B. Hughes. Stark states and O(4) sym- metry of hydrogenic atoms.Proceedings of the Physical Society, 91(4):810, 1967

    1967

  21. [29]

    P. J. Redmond. Generalization of the runge- lenz vector in the presence of an electric field. Phys. Rev., 133:B1352–B1353, Mar 1964

    1964

  22. [30]

    J.-C. Pain. On invariant vectors in the presence of electric and magnetic fields.Atoms, 11(7), 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Berm´ udez-Monta˜ na, M

    M. Berm´ udez-Monta˜ na, M. Rodr ´ ıguez-Arcos, R. Lemus, J. M. Arias, J. G´ omez-Camacho, E. Orgaz. Algebraic dvr approaches applied to describe the stark effect.Symmetry, 12(10), 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.