Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Bound-state beta decay of tritium: Path to first observation and novel approach to direct neutrino mass measurement

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Tritium bound-state beta decay can be seen in helium light, and the Doppler edges of those lines encode neutrino mass with two-body kinematics.

desk verdict Solid conceptual proposal for optical tritium BSBD and Doppler-edge neutrino mass; kinematics and (m/Q)² counting are clean for resolved edges, but active-neutrino reach is unresolved and systematics-limited as the authors largely admit. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24928 v1 pith:RBKEWZGX submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ph hep-exnucl-exphysics.atom-ph

Evgeny Akhmedov , Thierry Lasserre , Ferenc Glück , Alejandro Saenz This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exnucl-exphysics.atom-ph
keywords bound-statebetadecaytritiumneutrinomasssterileneutrinosDopplerbroadeningheliumspectroscopytwo-bodykinematicsatomic
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

Bound-state beta decay of tritium has never been seen, even though theory predicts a sizable branching ratio into neutral helium. This paper argues it can be observed by catching the characteristic red, near-infrared, or extreme-ultraviolet photons from low-lying excited states of the produced helium-3 atoms. Because that decay is two-body, each neutrino mass fixes a single helium speed, so the emission lines are Doppler-broadened into nearly rectangular profiles whose edges and kinks shift with mass. The fraction of photons that sit in the mass-sensitive part of the line scales as the square of the neutrino mass over the Q-value, not the cube, which is a large kinematic gain over ordinary continuum beta-decay endpoint experiments. The same photon lines therefore offer both a first observation path and a spectroscopy-based route to direct neutrino-mass and sterile-neutrino searches, provided temperature, natural widths, and backgrounds can be controlled.

What carries the argument

Two-body recoil kinematics: the helium speed is vk ≈ v0 (1 − mk²/(2Q²)), so the maximum Doppler shift of an emission line moves by an amount proportional to mk²; averaging isotropic recoil directions turns a fixed-speed Lorentzian into a nearly rectangular Doppler profile whose edges and steps carry the mass information, with the useful event fraction scaling as mν²/(2Q²).

What would settle it

Detect the predicted red or near-infrared helium photons from an atomic tritium source at the rates implied by the calculated bound-state branching fractions, and show that the high-frequency Doppler edge of the line moves or develops a kink at the frequency shift fixed by a chosen neutrino-mass hypothesis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that tritium bound-state beta decay populates low-lying excited states of neutral helium-3 at known branching fractions, so radiative de-excitation photons (especially the red 1s3s to 1s2p lines and the triplet near-infrared cascade) give a clean experimental signature. They further claim that accurate measurement of the Doppler-broadened profiles of those lines determines the helium recoil speed and thereby the neutrino mass, because two-body kinematics make the speed monoenergetic for each mass eigenstate and produce characteristic kinks when several masses contribute.

Load-bearing premise

That parent tritium can be cold enough, and natural atomic linewidths narrow enough, that the tiny mass-induced shifts of the Doppler edges remain measurable after thermal and natural broadening.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • First laboratory observation of tritium bound-state beta decay becomes possible via standard optical or XUV photon detection rather than ion or continuum-electron counting.
  • Sterile neutrinos at the keV scale with mixing around 10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴ become statistically accessible with photon samples that are large but far smaller than the corresponding continuum-endpoint samples.
  • The fractional mass-sensitive yield improves by roughly Q/mν relative to ordinary tritium beta-decay endpoint experiments.
  • The same Doppler edge, in the massless limit, can be used to extract the channel Q-value from optical frequency metrology.
  • Mixed atomic/molecular tritium sources can separate bound-state signal from continuum-induced irreducible backgrounds by scanning the atomic fraction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If optical frequency-comb and Doppler-edge techniques continue to improve, the method may eventually compete with calorimetric electron-capture experiments on a spectroscopy rather than energy-calorimetry footing.
  • The extreme millikelvin temperature demand for active-neutrino masses points toward hybrid schemes that tag or cool parent atoms before decay, or that switch to longer-lived helium transitions with narrower natural widths.
  • Success on the red-line channel would simultaneously deliver the first direct observation of two-photon decay of singlet metastable helium if that path is also instrumented.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes (i) a path to the first observation of bound-state beta decay (BSBD) of atomic tritium by detecting optical/XUV photons from radiative de-excitation of the low-lying excited states of neutral 3He that BSBD populates with sizable branching fractions, and (ii) a novel direct neutrino-mass method based on the two-body kinematics of BSBD: the 3He recoil speed is fixed up to m_k^2/(2Q^2) corrections (eq. 4.2), so neutrino masses appear as edge displacements and kinks in the Doppler-broadened photon emission lines. The authors estimate event rates for a 10^8 Bq atomic source, analyze irreducible backgrounds from CSBD of molecular tritium and 3He+ recombination, propose an atomic-fraction scan to measure the molecular background yield r in situ (App. B), and derive statistical requirements for neutrino-mass sensitivity via a box-counting estimator (Sec. 4.3) and a Fisher-integral estimator with finite natural linewidths (Sec. 4.5) and thermal broadening (Sec. 4.6). They find keV-scale sterile neutrinos accessible with ~10^10-10^16 detected photons, while active-neutrino masses require ~2 x 10^21 photons (88 g atomic tritium, T <= 1.2 mK) in the idealized fixed-nuisance limit. The two-body kinematics (App. A), the Doppler-averaged arctan lineshape (eq. 4.6), and the branching-fraction inputs from Harston & Pyper are standard and internally consistent.

Significance. If the analysis holds, the paper delivers two things of real value. First, a concrete and apparently feasible route to the first observation of tritium BSBD — a standard-theory process with an O(1%) branching ratio that has never been seen — via the well-known helium red/NIR lines, with a credible background budget (inner bremsstrahlung, 3He+ recombination, molecular CSBD excitation) and an in-situ method (the atomic-fraction k-scan of Sec. 3.1 and App. B, complete with a nuisance-parameter fit) to separate the irreducible molecular background from the BSBD signal. Second, it works out the lineshape theory of Doppler-edge velocimetry for this process with unusual care: the arctan profile of eq. (4.6), box-counting versus Fisher-integral estimators, and honest idealized statistical requirements (N ~ 10^10 detected photons for a 1 keV sterile benchmark; ~10^21 for active neutrinos, with explicit tritium-inventory and temperature figures) give the community well-defined, falsifiable targets rather than vague sensitivity claims. The manuscript is also commendably candid that its event counts are statistical lower bounds and that detector response, calibration, and backgrounds are setup

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, eq. (4.10); Sec. 4.5; Sec. 5] The advertised statistical advantage — the useful-photon fraction scaling as m_nu^2/(2Q^2), a gain of Q/m_nu over CSBD, stated in Sec. 1, eq. (4.10), and repeated in Sec. 5 as holding 'especially for light neutrinos' — is valid only in the resolved-edge regime, i.e. when the natural width satisfies Gamma << a0 - ak (eq. 4.19). In the unresolved regime that governs the active-neutrino case (edge shifts (43, 44, 1.7) x 10^-18 eV in Sec. 4.5 versus Gamma = 2.5 x 10^-8 eV in eq. 4.20), expanding F(Delta; a0 - delta_a, Gamma) of eq. (4.6) shows the spectral deformation is first order in delta_a, so the Fisher information of eq. (4.25) scales as I ~ delta_a^2 ~ m_nu^4, not m_nu^2. The paper's own Sec. 4.5 numbers reflect this: N_Gamma = 1.9 x 10^21 for active neutrinos versus N ~ 10^16 from the zero-width box estimate (eqs. 4.16-4.17), a 10^5 degradation. The m_nu^2 scaling therefore survives
  2. [Secs. 2.1, 4.4-4.5; Table 2; footnote 1] The lineshape model F(Delta; a, Gamma) underlying the entire neutrino-mass inference treats each transition as a single Lorentzian, but 3He has nuclear spin I = 1/2 and both the 1s3s and 1s2p triplet states carry hyperfine splittings that can exceed the natural width Gamma = 2.5 x 10^-8 eV and are ~12 orders of magnitude larger than the active-neutrino edge displacements. Footnote 1 addresses fine structure (~10^-4 eV) and asserts it 'will not hinder the neutrino mass measurements,' but hyperfine structure is not mentioned anywhere. Because the Fisher-integral requirements (eqs. 4.22-4.25; N_Gamma = 1.9 x 10^21, N_{Gamma+T} = 2.3 x 10^21) are derived for a single-component profile, they do not describe the physical 3He line. At minimum the paper should quote the relevant 3He hyperfine splittings, fold the multiplet into eq. (4.22), and show how the statistical requirements change; if the
  3. [Sec. 4.5, eqs. (4.24)-(4.25); Sec. 4.6] The Fisher estimator of eq. (4.25) compares F_mix against a null spectrum F0 in which a0, Gamma, omega0, and (in Sec. 4.6) the temperature are treated as exactly known. The neutrino-mass signal is a displacement of the edge position, delta_a = a0 m_k^2/(2Q^2); any uncertainty in a0 (equivalently in Q or in the absolute frequency calibration omega0) or in Gamma enters at first order in the same way as delta_a and is therefore directly degenerate with the signal, not merely a source of extra variance. The quoted counts N_req = 1.72 x 10^10 (1 keV sterile) and N_Gamma = 1.9 x 10^21 (active) are fixed-nuisance lower bounds, as the authors note, but the central feasibility claim rests on whether the edge displacement survives profiling over these nuisance parameters. A schematic profiled analysis — e.g. exploiting the antisymmetry of the two Doppler edges, or sideband regions far from the edg
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 5 (paragraph on relativistic Doppler corrections)] The statement that relativistic corrections are 'completely straightforward and [do] not lead to any loss of neutrino mass sensitivity' needs quantification. The second-order (transverse) Doppler shift is ~ (v0^2/2c^2) omega0 ~ 4 x 10^-11 eV, vastly larger than sub-eV edge displacements. It is calculable and mass-dependent through v_k, so it plausibly shifts both hypotheses coherently, but for a method whose entire signal is an edge displacement this should be shown explicitly in the profile, not asserted.
  2. [Footnote 1 (p. 5)] The assertion that fine-structure splitting (~10^-4 eV) 'will not hinder the neutrino mass measurements' is plausible only if the fine-structure intervals are known and modeled to better than the edge displacement (~10^-17 eV for active neutrinos). The sentence should be qualified accordingly. Also a typo in this footnote: 'It will will not hinder'.
  3. [Sec. 2.2, eq. (2.6) vs. Sec. 4.6 inventory estimate] The collisional de-excitation and broadening estimates (t_c2 ~ 10 us) assume n_T = 5.6 x 10^13 cm^-3 from a 10^8 Bq source in a 10 cm cell. The active-neutrino benchmark requires ~1.8 x 10^25 atoms (88 g); at the implied densities pressure/collisional broadening of the red line could exceed the natural width. A remark on how the density scaling affects the line model would close this gap.
  4. [Notation throughout] The symbol Gamma is overloaded: Gamma_1, Gamma_2 are decay/production rates while Gamma is a photon linewidth (eq. 4.4). Distinct notation would avoid confusion, particularly in Sec. 4.4 where both usages appear together.
  5. [References] Ref. [23] (a commercial Fabry-Perot tutorial) is a weak citation for the quoted 10^-4 - 10^-11 lineshape-accuracy range; a metrology or spectroscopy reference would be more appropriate.
  6. [Sec. 5 (Q-value paragraph, delta_Q estimates)] The edge-based Q-value estimate converting 10^-11 relative optical precision into O(100 meV) Q sensitivity should note that the same fixed-nuisance caveat applies: the Doppler edge is not a resolved frequency feature at that level once Gamma and thermal broadening are included.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: kinematics, branching ratios, and lineshapes are external inputs or standard two-body/Doppler physics, not fitted or self-defined predictions.

full rationale

This is a conceptual experimental proposal. Load-bearing inputs are taken from external literature (BSBD branching fractions from Harston & Pyper [7]; atomic levels/lifetimes from NIST [32]; Q-value and masses from standard nuclear data) or derived from textbook two-body decay kinematics (Appendix A, eqs. 4.1–4.3) and first-order Doppler averaging (eqs. 4.4–4.8). The claimed mν²/2Q² useful-fraction scaling (eq. 4.10) follows directly from the rectangular zero-width edge geometry once vk(m) is fixed; it is not a fit relabeled as a prediction. Statistical Nreq estimates (box-counting and Fisher integral) are forward calculations from those profiles under stated idealizations, not closed loops. Appendix B’s mixed-source scan treats r, ε_tot, and σ_k as illustrative nuisance inputs for a fit methodology and explicitly disclaims them as experimental forecasts. Self-citations (e.g. Glück [38] for IB background; Saenz [33,34] for molecular dissociation channels) supply supporting numbers and are not uniqueness theorems forcing the central claim. No step reduces a claimed first-principles result to its own fitted input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard weak-interaction BSBD theory, published atomic branching fractions and lifetimes, two-body kinematics, and linear Doppler optics. Feasibility numbers further depend on hand-chosen experimental scales (source activity, cell size, collisional cross section, efficiency η, temperature, and the unknown molecular CSBD feed-down fraction r). No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • collisional de-excitation cross section σ_c = ≃10^{-14} cm^2 (assumed)
    Taken as a conservative ~10^10 b to argue radiative decay wins for 1s3s states; not measured in this setup and controls whether metastable channels are usable (Sec. 2.2).
  • molecular CSBD yield r into 1s3s neutral 3He = illustrative 10^{-3} in App. B
    Unknown irreducible background fraction; App. B treats r as a fit parameter in atomic-fraction scans. Observation strategy in molecular sources hinges on r being small or measurable.
  • overall photon detection efficiency 1/η or ε_tot = ε_tot=2.4×10^{-3} (benchmark); η free in Sec. 4.3
    Converts production rates into running times and App. B photoelectron yields; chosen for illustration, not measured.
  • molecular BSBD modifier δ = O(1), often δ→0 approximation
    Parameterizes unknown molecular vs atomic BSBD partial rates; set O(1) and often neglected relative to r (Sec. 3.1, App. B).
  • source temperature T and activity/inventory = benchmarks 1 K, 1.2 mK; activities 10^8–10^12 Bq
    T enters thermal Gaussian width; mass reach for light neutrinos assumes T~mK and inventories up to tens of grams in idealized counting (Secs. 4.3, 4.6).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard electroweak theory predicts tritium BSBD with Γ_BSBD/Γ_CSBD≈0.55% and state fractions as in Harston & Pyper (Table 1).
    Load-bearing for both observation rates and which optical lines are populated; taken from cited theory, not re-derived here.
  • standard math In the parent rest frame, BSBD is two-body so 3He speed is monoenergetic and given by eq. (A.1)/(4.2).
    Foundation of the Doppler-edge mass method (Sec. 4.1).
  • standard math Isotropic recoil plus linear Doppler shift yields the arctan-averaged lineshape F(Δ;a,Γ); natural and thermal broadenings convolve without shifting edge reference positions.
    Secs. 4.2, 4.4, 4.6; used for all sensitivity estimates.
  • domain assumption For atomic tritium sources, collisional quenching of 1s3s is negligible compared with radiative lifetimes under the assumed density and σ_c.
    Sec. 2.2; required so photon counts track BSBD production.
  • ad hoc to paper Setup-specific systematics (detector response, frequency calibration, acceptance, wall adsorption, time-dependent k) can be controlled or are deferred without overturning the conceptual method.
    Stated repeatedly as out of scope (Intro, Secs. 3.1, 4.5–5); mass and observation claims as experimental paths depend on this.
  • domain assumption Inner bremsstrahlung and other accidentals in the red window are small (~10^{-5} of CSBD) and subtractable or filterable.
    Sec. 3.2 numerical claim from standard IB theory; supports clean observation of red lines.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bound-state beta decay of tritium: Path to first observation and novel approach to direct neutrino mass measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RBKEWZGX

@misc{pith2026260724928,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bound-state beta decay of tritium: Path to first observation and novel approach to direct neutrino mass measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RBKEWZGX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24928}
}
abstract

Bound-state $\beta$-decay of tritium, the process, in which the final-state electron is created in a bound atomic state of the produced ${\rm ^3He}$ atom instead of freely flying away, is predicted by the standard theory of weak interactions but has not been observed so far. We study the possibility of its experimental observation through the detection of photons from radiative decay of the excited atomic states of neutral ${\rm ^3He}$ populated by this process. We also propose a novel approach to direct neutrino mass measurement and sterile neutrino search based on accurate determination of the speed of the produced ${\rm ^3He}$ atoms through Doppler broadening of the emitted photon lines.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Daudel, M

    R. Daudel, M. Jean and M. Lecoin,Sur la possibilité d’existence d’un type particulier de radioactivité phénomène de création e,Journal de Physique et le Radium8(1947) 238

    1947

  2. [2]

    Sherk,Bound electron creation in the decay of tritium,Phys

    P. Sherk,Bound electron creation in the decay of tritium,Phys. Rev.75(1949) 789

    1949

  3. [3]

    Bahcall,Theory of bound-state beta decay,Phys

    J.N. Bahcall,Theory of bound-state beta decay,Phys. Rev.124(1961) 495. – 26 –

    1961

  4. [4]

    Takahashi and K

    K. Takahashi and K. Yokoi,Nuclearβ-decays of highly ionized heavy atoms in stellar interiors,Nucl. Phys. A404(1983) 578

    1983

  5. [5]

    Budick,Atomic effects on the tritium ft value,Phys

    B. Budick,Atomic effects on the tritium ft value,Phys. Rev. Lett.51(1983) 1034

    1983

  6. [6]

    Cohen, D

    S. Cohen, D. Murnick and R. Raghavan,Bound-state beta-decay and kinematic search for neutrino mass,Hyperfine Interactions33(1987) 1

    1987

  7. [7]

    Harston and N

    M. Harston and N. Pyper,Atomic effects on theftvalue for tritiumβdecay,Phys. Rev. A 48(1993) 268

    1993

  8. [8]

    Kouzakov and A.I

    K.A. Kouzakov and A.I. Studenikin,Bound-state beta-decay of neutron in strong magnetic field,Phys. Rev. C72(2005) 015502 [hep-ph/0412134]

    arXiv 2005

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Akhmedov, J

    E.K. Akhmedov, J. Kopp and M. Lindner,Oscillations of Mössbauer neutrinos,JHEP05 (2008) 005 [0802.2513]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Faber, A.N

    M. Faber, A.N. Ivanov, V.A. Ivanova, J. Marton, M. Pitschmann, A.P. Serebrov et al.,On continuum-state and bound-stateβ− decay rates of the neutron,Phys. Rev. C80(2009) 035503 [0906.0959]

    2009 arXiv

  3. [11]

    McAndrew, S

    J. McAndrew, S. Paul, R. Engels, P. Fierlinger, E. Gutsmiedl, J. Schön et al.,Bound beta-decay of the free neutron: BoB,Phys. Procedia51(2014) 37

    2014

  4. [12]

    Gupta, C

    A. Gupta, C. Lahiri and S. Sarkar,Bound and continuum stateβ− decay of bare atoms: enhancement of decay rate and changes inβ− decay branching,Phys. Rev. C100(2019) 064313 [1808.09717]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S. Liu, C. Gao and C. Xu,Investigation of bound stateβ− decay half-lives of bare atoms, Phys. Rev. C104(2021) 024304

    2021

  6. [14]

    Xiao and L.-J

    Y. Xiao and L.-J. Wang,Calculations of bound-stateβ−-decay half-lives of highly ionized 163Dy66+, 187Re75+ and 205Tl81+,Phys. Rev. C110(2024) 054308 [2404.15897]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Jung et al.,First observation of bound state beta-decay,Phys

    M. Jung et al.,First observation of bound state beta-decay,Phys. Rev. Lett.69(1992) 2164

    1992

  8. [16]

    Bosch et al.,Observation of bound-state beta-decay of fully ionized187Re: 187Re− 187 Os cosmochronometry,Phys

    F. Bosch et al.,Observation of bound-state beta-decay of fully ionized187Re: 187Re− 187 Os cosmochronometry,Phys. Rev. Lett.77(1996) 5190

    1996

  9. [17]

    Ohtsubo et al.,Simultaneous measurement ofβ− decay to bound and continuum electron states,Phys

    T. Ohtsubo et al.,Simultaneous measurement ofβ− decay to bound and continuum electron states,Phys. Rev. Lett.95(2005) 052501

    2005

  10. [18]

    Sidhu et al.,Bound-state beta decay of205Tl81+ ions and the LOREX Project,Phys

    R.S. Sidhu et al.,Bound-state beta decay of205Tl81+ ions and the LOREX Project,Phys. Rev. Lett.133(2024) 232701 [2501.06029]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kawasaki,Quantum sensing using atomic clocks for nuclear and particle physics,Appl

    A. Kawasaki,Quantum sensing using atomic clocks for nuclear and particle physics,Appl. Phys. Rev.12(2025) 041331 [2411.19424]

    2025

  12. [20]

    Marshall et al.,High-stability single-ion clock with5.5×10 −19 systematic uncertainty, Phys

    M.C. Marshall et al.,High-stability single-ion clock with5.5×10 −19 systematic uncertainty, Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 033201 [2504.13071]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bekker, A

    H. Bekker, A. Borschevsky, Z. Harman, C.H. Keitel, T. Pfeifer, P.O. Schmidt et al., Detection of the 5p – 4f orbital crossing and its optical clock transition in Pr9+,Nature Commun.10(2019) 5651 [1910.09010]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Fredrick, F

    C. Fredrick, F. Olsen, R. Terrien, S. Mahadevan, F. Quinlan and S.A. Diddams, Thermal-light heterodyne spectroscopy with frequency comb calibration,Optica9(2022) 221

    2022

  15. [23]

    Fabry - Perot Interferometer Tutorial

    Thorlabs, “Fabry - Perot Interferometer Tutorial.”https://www.thorlabs.com/ fabry-perot-interferometer-tutorial?tabName=Fabry-Perot%20Tutorial, 2026. – 27 –

    2026

  16. [24]

    Formaggio, A.L.C

    J.A. Formaggio, A.L.C. de Gouvêa and R.G.H. Robertson,Direct measurements of neutrino mass,Phys. Rept.914(2021) 1 [2102.00594]. [25]KATRINcollaboration,Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data,Science388(2025) 180 [2406.13516]. [26]PTOLEMYcollaboration...

    2021 arXiv

  17. [28]

    Amad et al.,Determining absolute neutrino mass using quantum technologies,New J

    A.A.S. Amad et al.,Determining absolute neutrino mass using quantum technologies,New J. Phys.27(2025) 105006 [2412.06338]

    2025

  18. [29]

    Gastaldo et al.,The Electron Capture163Ho experiment ECHo: an overview,J

    L. Gastaldo et al.,The Electron Capture163Ho experiment ECHo: an overview,J. Low Temp. Phys.176(2014) 876 [1309.5214]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [30]

    Alpert et al.,HOLMES - The electron capture decay of163Ho to measure the electron neutrino mass with sub-eV sensitivity,Eur

    B. Alpert et al.,HOLMES - The electron capture decay of163Ho to measure the electron neutrino mass with sub-eV sensitivity,Eur. Phys. J. C75(2015) 112 [1412.5060]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [31]

    Martoff et al.,HUNTER: precision massive-neutrino search based on a laser cooled atomic source,Quantum Sci

    C.J. Martoff et al.,HUNTER: precision massive-neutrino search based on a laser cooled atomic source,Quantum Sci. Technol.6(2021) 024008

    2021

  21. [32]

    NIST atomic spectra database (ver. 5.12)

    A. Kramida, Y. Ralchenko, J. Reader and N.A. Team, “NIST atomic spectra database (ver. 5.12).” [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd, 2024. 10.18434/T4W30F

    2024 doi

  22. [33]

    Jonsell, A

    S. Jonsell, A. Saenz and P. Froelich,Neutrino-mass determination from tritium beta decay: Corrections to and prospects of experimental verification of the final-state spectrum,Phys. Rev. C60(1999) 034601

    1999

  23. [34]

    Saenz, S

    A. Saenz, S. Jonsell and P. Froelich,Improved molecular final-state distribution ofHeT+ for theβ-decay Process ofT 2,Phys. Rev. Lett.84(2000) 242

    2000

  24. [35]

    Bodine, D.S

    L.I. Bodine, D.S. Parno and R.G.H. Robertson,Assessment of molecular effects on neutrino mass measurements from tritiumβdecay,Phys. Rev. C91(2015) 035505 [1502.03497]. [36]TRIMScollaboration,Beta decay of molecular tritium,Phys. Rev. Lett.124(2020) 222502 [2001.11671]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [37]

    Kotelnikov and A.I

    I.A. Kotelnikov and A.I. Milstein,Electron radiative recombination with a hydrogen-like ion, Physica Scripta94(2019) 055403 [1810.08071]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [38]

    Gluck,Order-αradiative correction calculations for unoriented allowed nuclear, neutron and pion beta decays,Comput

    F. Gluck,Order-αradiative correction calculations for unoriented allowed nuclear, neutron and pion beta decays,Comput. Phys. Commun.101(1997) 223

    1997

  27. [39]

    Gentry and C.L

    B.M. Gentry and C.L. Korb,Edge technique for high-accuracy Doppler velocimetry,Applied Optics33(1994) 5770

    1994

  28. [40]

    McKay,Modeling of direct detection Doppler wind lidar

    J.A. McKay,Modeling of direct detection Doppler wind lidar. I. The edge technique,Applied Optics37(1998) 6480

    1998

  29. [41]

    McGill and J.D

    M.J. McGill and J.D. Spinhirne,Comparison of two direct-detection Doppler lidar techniques,Optical Engineering37(1998) 2675

    1998

  30. [42]

    Wang, W.J

    M. Wang, W.J. Huang, F.G. Kondev, G. Audi and S. Naimi,The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references,Chin. Phys. C45(2021) 030003

    2020

  31. [43]

    Thomas, J

    K. Thomas, J. Ross, B. Henson, D. Shin, K.G.H. Baldwin, S.S. Hodgman et al.,Direct – 28 – measurement of the forbidden23S1 →3 3S1 atomic transition in helium,Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 013002 [2002.04811]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [44]

    Cancio Pastor, L

    P. Cancio Pastor, L. Consolino, G. Giusfredi, P. De Natale, M. Inguscio, V.A. Yerokhin et al.,Frequency metrology of helium around 1083 nm and determination of the nuclear charge radius,Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 143001 [1201.1362]. – 29 –

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.