Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 35 references

On Demand magnetic-Doppler nuclear frequency comb memory for hard X-ray photons

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a magnetic-Doppler nuclear frequency comb built from three 57FeBO3 absorbers that supports on-demand retrieval of stored hard X-ray photons by simultaneously reversing the absorber velocities and the internal hyperfine…

desk verdict On-demand hard X-ray memory via a Doppler+hyperfine comb in 57FeBO3: the idea is new and the static comb results are solid, but the on-demand efficiencies rest on unmodeled instantaneous switching that the paper itself does not justify. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08271 v1 pith:5ZYHWRVZ submitted 2026-08-08 quant-ph

Yanli Shi , Xiwen Zhang , Yuri Shvyd'ko , Olga Kocharovskaya This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords nuclearfrequencycombMössbauerspectroscopyhardX-rayquantummemoryon-demandretrievalDoppler57FeBO3time-reversalecho
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 proposes a quantum memory for hard X-ray photons that can be read out on demand, not just at a pre-determined echo time. The memory is a nuclear frequency comb assembled from three 57FeBO3 Mössbauer absorbers: two move at equal and opposite velocities, the third is stationary, and the strong internal hyperfine field doubles the number of comb teeth per absorber. Retrieval is triggered by simultaneously reversing the absorber velocities and the hyperfine field direction at a chosen time $T_{\rm sw}$, which inverts the phase evolution of the collective polarization and produces an echo at $2T_{\rm sw}$. Simulations yield on-demand retrieval efficiencies of 45%, 38%, and 34% for storage times of 14, 30, and 42 ns, and up to 57.65% with 96.87% fidelity for a very short storage case. The point is to reduce the mechanical complexity of Doppler-comb memories, which otherwise require synchronous motion of many moving absorbers.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is time-reversed phase evolution: at $t = T_{\rm sw}$ the sign of every detuning in the Maxwell-Bloch equations is inverted by flipping both the hyperfine field $B_{\rm hf}$ and the absorber velocities $v_n$, so the phases acquired before and after the switch cancel and the echo fires at $2T_{\rm sw}$. The comb itself is characterized by the number of teeth $NK$, finesse $F = \Delta\omega/\Gamma$, and optical thickness $\xi$; the two configurations place the hyperfine and Doppler teeth either stacked (C-NFC, spacing $\Delta\omega_Z$) or interleaved (S-NFC, spacing $\Delta\omega_D$). The detuning of each transition is $\Delta^{(n)} = -[n-(N+1)/2]\Delta\omega_D - M_<\Delta\omega_Z$, whose sign reversal under switching produces the time-reversed dynamics.

What would settle it

Build the proposed three-absorber 57FeBO3 setup and measure the on-demand echo at $T_{\rm sw} = 7\,{\rm ns}$ (predicted C-NFC efficiency near 45% at 14 ns) while independently monitoring the actual mechanical reversal time of the piezoelectric actuators; if the echo amplitude collapses when the mechanical reversal exceeds a few nanoseconds, or if no echo appears at $2T_{\rm sw}$, the instantaneous-reversal approximation underlying the predicted efficiencies is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a hybrid magnetic-Doppler nuclear frequency comb, using the internal hyperfine splitting of 57FeBO3 together with Doppler shifts from just two moving absorbers and one stationary absorber, forms a six-tooth comb whose phase evolution can be time-reversed by switching the direction of both the external alignment field (hence the internal hyperfine field) and the absorber velocities. Because the reversal is applied at $T_{\rm sw}$, the polarization waves rephase at $2T_{\rm sw}$ instead of at the comb period $T_0$, giving true on-demand retrieval with storage time up to $2T_0$. In the cascaded configuration the comb spacing is set by the hyperfine splitting $\Delta\omega_Z$, in the staggered configuration by the Doppler splitting $\Delta\omega_D$; both are simulated with Maxwell-Bloch equations and achieve comparable efficiencies. The maximum simulated on-demand efficiency for the cascaded configuration is 57.65% at $T_{\rm sw} = 2\,{\rm ns}$, exceeding the static-comb limit of about 54%.

Load-bearing premise

The scheme requires that the direction of the absorber velocities and the internal magnetic field be flipped essentially instantly (within the comb period of roughly 30 ns), because the retrieval relies on perfectly time-reversed phase evolution; a slower mechanical flip would spoil the echo.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With only three absorbers (two moving oppositely, one static), on-demand hard X-ray storage can be achieved at 14, 30, and 42 ns with simulated C-NFC efficiencies of 45%, 38%, and 34%.
  • The magnetic-Doppler comb roughly doubles the number of comb teeth per absorber compared to Doppler-only combs, so six spectral teeth are formed with three absorbers instead of six.
  • On-demand retrieval extends the storage time up to $2T_0$ by choosing $T_{\rm sw} < T_0$, whereas static combs have a fixed echo time $T_0$ and a maximum efficiency near 54%.
  • The cascaded and staggered configurations allow the comb spacing and bandwidth to be tuned by the mechanical velocity spacing, offering a factor-of-$N$ adjustment of the echo time without changing the hyperfine field.
  • The concept extends to other Mössbauer nuclei such as 181Ta, which supports eight non-degenerate transitions per absorber and could reduce hardware requirements further.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A realistic finite-switching-time model, not treated in the paper, would quantify how much of the quoted efficiency survives when the velocity reversal takes a few nanoseconds; the 14 ns storage case with $T_{\rm sw}=7\,{\rm ns}$ is likely the most sensitive to this.
  • The same simultaneous-reversal principle could be tested in other Mössbauer isotopes with larger spin multiplicity, where external-field-only Zeeman combs replace internal hyperfine fields; the detailed noise and bandwidth trade-off for such alternatives is not analyzed.
  • Including the photoelectric attenuation factor the authors state they neglected, $\exp(-N\sigma_{\rm ph}NL)$, would lower every quoted efficiency; the relative ordering of C-NFC versus S-NFC should remain, but the absolute numbers are optimistic.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a hybrid magnetic-hyperfine/Doppler nuclear frequency comb for hard X-ray photon storage. With three 57FeBO3 absorbers, two moving at equal and opposite velocities and one stationary, the internal hyperfine splitting doubles the number of comb teeth, so that a six-tooth comb can be realized with only three absorbers. In the static case the first echo appears at the comb period T0 = 2π/Δω, and the authors use the standard AFC expression Eq. (5) to describe retrieval efficiency. For on-demand retrieval, the absorber velocities and the external magnetic field (and hence the hyperfine field direction) are reversed at time Tsw as Heaviside steps, which is claimed to reverse the phase evolution and produce an echo at 2Tsw. Simulations give static efficiencies up to 50% for a 6-tooth C-NFC and on-demand efficiencies of 45%, 38%, and 34% for storage times of 14 ns, 30 ns, and 42 ns, respectively, with an inset showing 57.65% efficiency for a very short storage time Tsw = 2 ns. The paper argues that this scheme substantially reduces the mechanical synchronization burden compared with a Doppler-only comb.

Significance. If the on-demand protocol performs as claimed, this would be a useful step toward practical hard X-ray quantum memories: it reduces the number of moving absorbers by a factor K = 2 relative to a Doppler-only comb, avoids the need for large external magnetic fields, and builds on the previously demonstrated field-reversal time-reversal effect. The static analysis is internally consistent: Eq. (5) reproduces the standard AFC efficiency limit of 54%, and the C-NFC/S-NFC tuning argument is physically reasonable. A clear strength is that the comb spacing is constructed directly from measured hyperfine splittings and Doppler shifts rather than fitted to the simulation output. However, the central on-demand claim rests on ideal instantaneous switching of both velocities and magnetic fields, and the paper provides no quantitative error model for finite switching times or for synchronization jitter. In addition, the derivation of the 2Tsw echo and the efficiency/fidelity definitions are deferred to the supplementary material. These gaps must be addressed before the headline efficiencies can be considered established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV and Fig. 3] The on-demand efficiencies, including 45%, 38%, 34% and the 57.65% inset, are computed with the Heaviside step reversal defined in Section II for both the absorber velocities and the hyperfine field direction. The manuscript cites a ~4 ns experimental field-reversal time (Ref. [6]) but does not model a finite switching ramp or timing jitter between the velocity reversal and the field reversal. For the main F = 30 comb, Δω = 30Γ ≈ 2.1×10^8 rad/s, so even a 4 ns ramp leaves a residual phase of order Δωτ ≈ 0.85 rad, and the inset's Tsw = 2 ns is shorter than the cited 4 ns field-reversal time. To support the central claim, the authors should provide a quantitative switching-error model with realistic ramp shapes and jitter, and state which of the reported switching times are experimentally accessible.
  2. [Section IV and Eq. (5)] The derivation of the on-demand echo at 2Tsw and of the efficiency/fidelity formulas is relegated to Ref. [35] (the supplementary material), with only a qualitative time-reversal argument in the main text. Because this is the central new claim, the main text or an accessible supplement should present the key analytical steps showing why simultaneous reversal of both Doppler and hyperfine detunings refocuses the polarization at 2Tsw, and should specify the conditions under which the static comb's 54% limit is exceeded. Without this material, the reported efficiencies and fidelities, and the comparison with the SGE protocol in Fig. 4, cannot be independently verified.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section III] The phrase "varnishing decoherence" should be "vanishing decoherence".
  2. [Section II and Conclusion] The word "adjancent" appears as a typo and should be "adjacent" in both places.
  3. [Section I] The word "retrival" appears in the introduction and should be "retrieval".
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states "black and while crosses" and should read "black and white crosses".
  5. [Section II] The text contains the duplicated phrase "Throughout this this work" and should be corrected.
  6. [Section IV and Conclusion] The claim of "minimal—or even absent—requirement for mechanical synchronization" is overstated, because on-demand operation still requires synchronization between the piezoelectric velocity reversal and the magnetic-field reversal; the text should clarify this point.
  7. [Introduction, Ref. [32]] Since Ref. [32] already proposed using hyperfine structure to reduce the number of absorbers, the novelty of the present work relative to Ref. [32] should be stated more explicitly in the introduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnetic-Doppler comb, echo times, and efficiencies follow from the stated hyperfine and Doppler splittings and from numerical integration of the Maxwell-Bloch equations, not from fitting the target result.

full rationale

The manuscript's derivation chain is self-contained at the level of the claimed on-demand memory physics. The comb spacing is assembled from two independently defined physical inputs, Delta_omega_D = (Delta v / c) omega_0 and Delta_omega_Z = (gamma_g - gamma_e) B_hf, and the six-tooth spectrum is constructed from these definitions. The static echo at T0 and the on-demand echo at 2Tsw follow from integrating Eqs. (3)-(4) with the stated Heaviside reversals; the 2Tsw rephasing is the standard time-reversal mechanism of gradient-echo memory and is derived from the sign change of the detunings, not assumed as the output. The analytic first-echo formula, Eq. (5), is the standard comb/AFC efficiency expression with the effective optical thickness and finesse as inputs, and it is not refit to the simulated efficiencies; the quoted values (45%, 38%, 34%, and the 57.65% inset) are numerical solutions for the stated parameters. The citations to Refs. [6,8,30,31,32] involve overlapping authors, but they are prior experimental or theoretical results (4-ns hyperfine-field reversal, time-reversed quantum beats, DFC proposal and demonstration, spectral control via hyperfine levels) that serve as external input or motivation; none is an unverified assertion whose acceptance is required to make the present derivation work. The Heaviside-switching idealization and the absence of a quantitative model of finite piezo velocity-reversal time are genuine feasibility limitations and should be weighed as correctness risk, but they are not circular because the simulation does not define its predictions in terms of those switching times. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no new 'uniqueness' theorem is imported to force the chosen configuration.

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

The central claim depends on design parameters (comb finesse, hyperfine field, velocity spacing, optical thickness, switching time) that are chosen rather than derived from experiment, and on several idealizations: instantaneous switching, negligible quadrupole effects, and factorable off-resonant losses. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Comb finesse F = 30 = 30Γ (Δω = 30Γ)
    Chosen to give a comb period T0 ≈ 29.5 ns, within the useful range of the storage-time examples and the hyperfine field tuning range.
  • Hyperfine field Bhf = 15.6 T = 15.6 T
    Set by requiring ΔωZ = 30Γ for the C-NFC configuration; lies in the available 15-55 T range of 57FeBO3.
  • Velocity spacing Δv = 5.83 mm/s (C-NFC) or 0.972 mm/s (S-NFC) = 5.83 mm/s / 0.972 mm/s
    Determined by the Doppler detuning needed to realize the comb spacings ΔωD = KΔω (C-NFC) or ΔωD = ΔωZ/N (S-NFC).
  • Total resonant optical thickness ξ = 180 = 180
    Chosen to give high efficiency with the stated individual effective thickness ξ0_eff near the optimum of 4/π, while respecting the practical constraint ξ ≲ 200.
  • Effective optical thickness ξeff = 6 = 6
    Corresponds to ξ0_eff = 1 for a six-tooth comb, near the efficiency optimum of the static AFC formula.
  • Switching time Tsw = 2, 7, 14 ns = 2 ns, 7 ns, 14 ns
    Used in the on-demand examples to illustrate different controllable retrieval times; the efficiency depends strongly on Tsw.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Maxwell-Bloch equations describe nuclear resonant X-ray propagation in the absorbers.
    Used in Section II, Eqs (3-4), as the underlying dynamical model; a well-established approach in nuclear resonant scattering.
  • domain assumption The internal hyperfine field in 57FeBO3 can be reversed within ~4 ns by flipping a weak external field.
    Invoked in Sections II and IV for the on-demand switching; based on the experimental work cited as Ref [6].
  • domain assumption Quadrupole interaction can be neglected for the ΔM=0 transitions used in the comb.
    Stated in Section II: the quadrupole coupling Cq = -8.71 MHz is 'one-third of the excited-state Larmor frequency' and claimed negligible at room temperature; both ΔM=0 transitions share the same quadrupole shift, preserving comb spacing.
  • ad hoc to paper Velocity and magnetic-field switching are instantaneous (Heaviside step functions).
    The model uses v_n(t) = (n-2)Δv[1-2Θ(t-Tsw)] and Bex = B0[1-2Θ(t-Tsw)]; finite switching response is not included in the Maxwell-Bloch integration.
  • domain assumption Off-resonant photoelectric losses can be factored as an overall attenuation exp(-NσphNL).
    Stated in Section II: the intrinsic memory performance is computed without photoelectric losses, and they are later added as a multiplicative factor.
  • standard math The standard AFC first-echo efficiency formula (Eq 5) applies to the magnetic-Doppler comb.
    Equation (5) is the textbook AFC amplitude echo formula with the individual effective optical thickness ξ0_eff; the paper references the supplementary for the derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Demand magnetic-Doppler nuclear frequency comb memory for hard X-ray photons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ZYHWRVZ

@misc{pith2026260808271,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Demand magnetic-Doppler nuclear frequency comb memory for hard X-ray photons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ZYHWRVZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08271}
}
read the original abstract

Nuclear quantum memories in the hard X-ray regime offer some key advantages over their optical counterparts, such as broader bandwidth and lower background noise. A Doppler frequency comb protocol has been theoretically proposed [X. Zhang \textit{et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{123}, 250504 (2019)] and recently demonstrated experimentally [S. Velten \textit{et al.}, Sci. Adv. \textbf{10}, eadn9825 (2024)] for the storage and retrieval of X-ray photons. However, achieving on-demand retrieval remains challenging because of the requirement for precise and synchronous mechanical motion of multiple absorbers. We propose a hybrid, magnetic-Doppler nuclear frequency comb composed of Doppler-shifted resonant absorbers with lifted nuclear spin degeneracy, which expands the Doppler comb structure. By synchronously reversing the directions of both the magnetic fields and absorber velocities, the system achieves time-reversed phase evolution dynamics that allows for efficient on-demand photon retrieval with significantly reduced mechanical complexity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08271 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the magnetic-Doppler hybrid NFC. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Hard X-ray quantum memory by static nuclear frequency combs. (a,b) QM efficiencies as functions of effective optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. On-demand echo retrieval for C-NFC (pink dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Performance of on-demand hard X-ray quantum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    Y. V. Shvyd’ko, A. I. Chumakov, G. V. Smirnov, T. Her- trich, U. van B¨ urck, H. D. R¨ uter, O. Leupold, J. Metge, and E. Gerdau, Europhysics Letters26, 215 (1994)

    work page 1994

  2. [35]

    See Supplemental Material at URL-will-be-inserted-by- publisher for a detailed analysis of the mathematical model and the obtained analytical and numerical results

    work page

  3. [1]

    Y. Lei, F. Kimiaee Asadi, T. Zhong, A. Kuzmich, C. Si- mon, and M. Hosseini, Optica10, 1511 (2023)

    2023

  4. [2]

    G. K. Wertheim,M¨ ossbauer Effect: Principles and Appli- cations(Academic Press, New York and London, 1964)

    work page 1964

  5. [3]

    Helist¨ o, I

    P. Helist¨ o, I. Tittonen, M. Lippmaa, and T. Katila, Physical Review Letters66, 2037 (1991)

    work page 1991

  6. [4]

    Y. V. Shvyd’ko and G. V. Smirnov, Journal of Physics- Condensed Matter4, 2663 (1992)

    work page 1992

  7. [5]

    Y. V. Shvyd’ko, S. L. Popov, and G. V. Smirnov, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter5, 1557 (1993)

    work page 1993

  8. [7]

    Yu. V. Shvyd’ko, T. Hertrich, U. van B¨ urck, E. Gerdau, O. Leupold, J. Metge, H. D. R¨ uter, S. Schwendy, G. V. Smirnov, W. Potzel, and P. Schindelmann, Physical Re- view Letters77, 3232 (1996)

    work page 1996

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    Shvyd’ko, T

    Yu.V. Shvyd’ko, T. Hertrich, J. Metge, O. Leupold, E. Gerdau, and H. R¨ uter, Physical Review B52, R711 (1995)

    1995

  2. [9]

    Lippmaa, I

    M. Lippmaa, I. Tittonen, J. Linden, and T. Katila, Phys- ical Review B52, 10268 (1995)

    1995

  3. [10]

    Y. V. Shvyd’ko, G. V. Smirnov, S. L. Popov, and T. Her- trich, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [JETP Lett.]53, 69 (1991)

    1991

  4. [11]

    Vagizov, V

    F. Vagizov, V. Antonov, Y. V. Radeonychev, R. N. Shakhmuratov, and O. Kocharovskaya, Nature508, 80 (2014)

    2014

  5. [12]

    R. N. Shakhmuratov, F. G. Vagizov, V. A. Antonov, Y. V. Radeonychev, M. O. Scully, and O. Kocharovskaya, Physical Review A92, 023836 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    Y. V. Radeonychev, I. R. Khairulin, F. G. Vagizov, M. Scully, and O. Kocharovskaya, Physical Review Let- ters124, 163602 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    R. N. Shakhmuratov, F. Vagizov, and O. Kocharovskaya, Physical Review A84, 043820 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    R. N. Shakhmuratov, F. Vagizov, and O. Kocharovskaya, Physical Review A87, 013807 (2013)

    2013

  9. [16]

    K. P. Heeg, A. Kaldun, C. Strohm, C. Ott, R. Subrama- nian, D. Lentrodt, J. Haber, H.-C. Wille, S. Goerttler, R. R¨ uffer, C. H. Keitel, R. R¨ ohlsberger, T. Pfeifer, and J. Evers, Nature590, 401 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Zhang and A

    X. Zhang and A. A. Svidzinsky, Physical Review A88, 033854 (2013)

    2013

  11. [18]

    Haber, K

    J. Haber, K. S. Schulze, K. Schlage, R. Loetzsch, L. Bock- lage, T. Gurieva, H. Bernhardt, H.-C. Wille, R. R¨ uffer, I. Uschmann, G. G. Paulus, and R. R¨ ohlsberger, Nature Photonics10, 445 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    Haber, X

    J. Haber, X. Kong, C. Strohm, S. Willing, J. Gollwitzer, L. Bocklage, R. R¨ uffer, A. P´ alffy, and R. R¨ ohlsberger, Nature Photonics11, 720 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    W.-T. Liao, A. P´ alffy, and C. H. Keitel, Physical Review Letters109, 197403 (2012)

    2012

  14. [21]

    Wang and W.-T

    G.-Y. Wang and W.-T. Liao, Physical Review Applied 10, 014003 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    Adams, P

    B. Adams, P. Fernandez, W.-K. Lee, G. Materlik, D. M. Mills, and D. V. Novikov, Journal of Synchrotron Radi- ation7, 81 (2000)

    2000

  16. [23]

    Shwartz, R

    S. Shwartz, R. N. Coffee, J. M. Feldkamp, Y. Feng, J. B. Hastings, G. Y. Yin, and S. E. Harris, Physical Review Letters109, 013602 (2012)

    2012

  17. [24]

    Shwartz, M

    S. Shwartz, M. Fuchs, J. B. Hastings, Y. Inubushi, T. Ishikawa, T. Katayama, D. A. Reis, T. Sato, K. Tono, M. Yabashi, S. Yudovich, and S. E. Harris, Physical Re- view Letters112, 163901 (2014)

    2014

  18. [25]

    Y. V. Shvyd’ko and G. V. Smirnov, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter1, 10563 (1989)

    1989

  19. [26]

    Smirnov, Hyperfine Interactions123, 31 (1999)

    G. Smirnov, Hyperfine Interactions123, 31 (1999)

    1999

  20. [27]

    Kagan, Hyperfine Interactions123, 83 (1999)

    Yu. Kagan, Hyperfine Interactions123, 83 (1999)

    1999

  21. [28]

    Y. V. Shvyd’ko, Physical Review B59, 9132 (1999)

    1999

  22. [29]

    Kuznetsova and O

    E. Kuznetsova and O. Kocharovskaya, Nature Photonics 11, 685 (2017)

    2017

  23. [30]

    Zhang, W.-T

    X. Zhang, W.-T. Liao, A. Kalachev, R. Shakhmuratov, M. Scully, and O. Kocharovskaya, Physical Review Let- ters123, 250504 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Velten, L

    S. Velten, L. Bocklage, X. Zhang, K. Schlage, A. Panch- wanee, S. Sadashivaiah, I. Sergeev, O. Leupold, A. I. Chumakov, O. Kocharovskaya, and R. R¨ ohlsberger, Sci- ence Advances10, eadn9825 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    Spectral control over$\gamma$- ray echo using a nuclear frequency comb sys- tem,

    C.-J. Yeh, P.-H. Lin, X. Zhang, O. Kocharovskaya, and W.-T. Liao, “Spectral control over$\gamma$- ray echo using a nuclear frequency comb sys- tem,” (2019), arXiv:1907.02672 [nucl-th, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph]. 9

    2019 arXiv

  26. [33]

    N. J. Stone,Table of Nuclear Magnetic Dipole and Elec- tric Quadrupole Moments, Tech. Rep. INDC(NDS)-0658 (2014)

    2014

  27. [34]

    I. S. Lyubutin, N. I. Snegirev, M. A. Chuev, S. S. Starchikov, E. S. Smirnova, M. V. Lyubutina, S. V. Yagupov, M. B. Strugatsky, and O. A. Alekseeva, Jour- nal of Alloys and Compounds906, 164348 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.