Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Reassessment of line profile asymmetry in measurements of the 1s-2s energy interval in hydrogen

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 1s–2s hydrogen line is measurably asymmetric, and the asymmetry shifts the transition frequency by up to ~15 Hz.

desk verdict Genuine analytic extension of QIE to 1s-2s, but the headline 0.9–14.8 Hz shift rides on a 44 kHz width that is ~44× the observed line, so the quantitative claim doesn't hold as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21097 v1 pith:3YMWTZIF submitted 2026-07-23 physics.atom-ph

D. Solovyev , A. Anikin , T. Zalialiutdinov , L. Labzowsky This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords hydrogen1s-2stransitionlineprofileasymmetryFanoquantuminterference2s-2pmixingfrequencyshiftLambRydbergconstant
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 argues that the line profile observed in the most precise hydrogen 1s–2s two-photon experiments is asymmetric, not Lorentzian, because the applied electric field mixes the 2s and 2p states and creates quantum interference. This asymmetry displaces the extracted transition frequency by 0.9–14.8 Hz for field strengths of 10–20 V/cm, which sits right at the level of current experimental accuracy of about 10 Hz. If correct, fitting the data with the asymmetric Fano-type profile would revise the reported frequency and shrink the line-shape systematic in the error budget. The paper also claims that the same 2s–2p mixing, including non-adiabatic field switching, can account for the roughly 200 Hz gap between the theoretical and experimental linewidths reported previously.

What carries the argument

The central object is the asymmetric Fano-type line profile of Eq. (8), where the resonance denominator is modified by a detuning-dependent shift Δ(x) built from the coefficients a, b, and C. The asymmetry arises from quantum interference between the resonant 2s pathway and the field-mixed 2p pathway, with the 2p natural width Γ2p retained in the mixing coefficient η = (ΔEL + iΓ2p/2)⁻¹. A second machinery element is the non-adiabatic field-switching model of Appendix D, which replaces the constant mixed-state width Γ2̃s with a time-dependent Γ2̃s(t) = Γ2s + 2(1 − cos[(t − τ)ΔEL])Γ2̃s, and the profile of Eq. (15) integrates this over a Maxwellian velocity distribution with time delay τ. The w

What would settle it

Fit the raw 1s–2s line shapes from the 2011/2013 experiments with the asymmetric profile of Eq. (8) and with a plain Lorentzian, and compare the residuals and the extracted frequencies; if the asymmetric fit gives residuals no better than the Lorentzian and the fitted frequency shift is below 0.5 Hz at 10 V/cm, the paper's central claim would be falsified. A second falsifier is to measure the line shift as a function of field strength between 5 and 20 V/cm and check the predicted quadratic-in-width scaling (shift ∝ Γ²2̃s).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Starting from finite-time QED, the authors derive the emission line profile for the 1s–2s two-photon absorption followed by delayed Lyman-α decay in an external electric field. They show that the observed profile is the asymmetric Fano-type contour of Eq. (8), with the frequency-dependent shift Δ(x) controlled by the coefficients a, b, and C. At the line maximum and half-maximum, the shift reduces to Δ(±Γ2̃s/2) = bΓ²2̃s/(4C) = [0.9; 14.8] Hz for fields of 10 and 20 V/cm. The key new ingredient is keeping the 2p natural width in the 2s–2p mixing coefficients, which produces a non-vanishing interference term; earlier estimates omitted this width and found no effect. The same mixing, treated as

Load-bearing premise

The size of the frequency shift is controlled by the effective width Γ2̃s of the field-mixed 2s state, and the paper's numerical estimates use a constant-uniform-field value (about 44 kHz at 10 V/cm) that is roughly 44 times larger than the experimentally measured linewidth of about 1 kHz; the non-adiabatic model provides a time-dependent width, but its velocity-averaged effect on the shift is never calculated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the asymmetric profile is the correct fitting function, reanalyzing the existing 1s–2s datasets would shift the reported transition frequency by a fraction of a hertz to several hertz, depending on field strength and fit region.
  • The line-shape uncertainty in the experimental error budget could be reduced after accounting for the asymmetry, potentially improving the precision of the 1s–2s frequency.
  • The 2s–2p mixing shift is additive to the previously computed off-resonant (2s–ns) interference shift, so the total correction to the frequency is the sum of both.
  • The non-adiabatic switching model predicts that the linewidth depends on the time delay τ and the field strength, which is testable against data with varying delay.
  • Because the 1s–2s frequency anchors the Rydberg constant, a corrected frequency would propagate into the determination of the proton charge radius.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The velocity-averaged frequency shift under the non-adiabatic model is not explicitly computed in the paper; a natural next step is to evaluate Eq. (16) with the full velocity distribution to see whether the few-Hz shift survives the averaging or averages to zero.
  • Inference: The same Fano-type asymmetry mechanism should apply to other two-photon transitions in hydrogen (e.g., 1S–3S or 2S–nS), and the shift should scale as Γ²/(ΔE), so it is likely to matter in those measurements too.
  • Inference: A decisive experiment could measure the line shape at multiple field strengths (say 5, 10, 20 V/cm); if the asymmetry shift follows the predicted Γ²2̃s scaling, that would confirm the mechanism, while a null result would rule it out.
  • Inference: If the asymmetry is confirmed, the standard Lorentzian-fitting codes used in precision spectroscopy would need to be replaced by asymmetric profiles (e.g., Fano–Voigt) for any transition with a nearby opposite-parity state.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives an asymmetric (Fano-type) line profile for the two-photon 1s–2s excitation of hydrogen followed by delayed Lyman-α detection in an external electric field, taking into account 2s–2p mixing. The central claim is that the asymmetry produces a frequency shift Δ(±Γ₂s̃/2) = bΓ₂s̃²/(4C) = [0.9; 14.8] Hz for field strengths [10; 20] V/cm (Eq. 12), comparable to the ~10 Hz experimental accuracy of [1–3]. The manuscript also proposes a non-adiabatic field-switching model (Eqs. 14–16) to reconcile the large constant-field mixed-state width with the observed ~1 kHz linewidth and to explain a ~200 Hz discrepancy between theory and experiment in [32].

Significance. If the numerical claim could be substantiated, the paper would identify a previously neglected line-shape systematic in the most precise hydrogen 1s–2s frequency measurements, with implications for the Rydberg constant and proton radius determinations. The analytic machinery is substantial: the derivation in Appendices A–C is detailed, and the leading ratio b/2C in Eq. (C19) is parameter-free after angular cancellation, which is a genuine strength. However, the headline numerical estimates are not supported as they stand, because they rest on a width choice the paper itself acknowledges to be inconsistent with the measured linewidth, and because the non-adiabatic generalization never computes the actual detected-line shift after velocity averaging.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eqs. (8)–(12)] The numerical values [0.9; 14.8] Hz are obtained with Γ₂s̃ = (E/475)²Γ₂p ≈ 44 kHz at 10 V/cm, a width the paper itself states is ~44 times larger than the ~1 kHz width established in [2,3]. Since the shift is quadratic in Γ₂s̃, replacing the constant-field width with the observed width lowers the estimate by roughly (1/44)² ≈ 5×10⁻⁴, i.e. to ≲10⁻³ Hz. Calling the 44 kHz result an 'upper limit' does not establish a real effect at the 0.9 Hz level; the width discrepancy is load-bearing for the central claim and must be resolved before Eq. (12) can be used.
  2. [§III, Eqs. (15)–(16), Figs. 7–8] The non-adiabatic model replaces Γ₂s̃ by a time-dependent Γ₂s̃(t), but the asymmetry shift Δ(x,t) of Eq. (16) is never inserted into the line profile ϕτ(x) of Eq. (15). No velocity-averaged or delay-selected shift is computed; Figs. 7 and 8 display pointwise values of Δ(x,v) and quote maxima, not the shift of the detected line after convolution with the Maxwellian distribution and the τ selection. The sentence in §III that the shift 'can still manifest through the ensemble of detected emission' is therefore an assertion, not a demonstrated result. A comparison of fits with and without Δ in Eq. (15) is required.
  3. [§III, Fig. 6 and Ref. [32]] The claim that the model 'can eliminate the ≈200 Hz disagreement' is contradicted by the model's own line width. For the T=5 K, τ=1210 μs case, Eq. (15) gives FWHM ≈ 200 Hz (Fig. 6), whereas Ref. [32] reports a theoretical FWHM of 550(5) Hz and an experimental FWHM of 775(20) Hz. The model's width is narrower, not wider, than the target; it does not explain the excess width. This point needs to be corrected or removed.
  4. [§IV, Discussion] The discussion states that 'b, C and level width included in Eq. (8) can be used as fitting parameters.' If these quantities are treated as free fits, Eq. (12) is not a first-principles prediction but a particular choice of parameters. The paper should state clearly whether the 0.9–14.8 Hz values are meant as ab initio estimates (in which case the width must be independently justified) or as illustrations of a fitting profile (in which case they cannot be cited as a discovered shift).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Several typographical errors should be corrected: 'coeffients' should be 'coefficients', 'invloved' should be 'involved', 'indistinctable' should be 'indistinguishable'. The notation Γ₂s̃ is used for both the constant-field width and the time-dependent function Γ₂s̃(t); this should be made explicit.
  2. [Appendix D, Eq. (D10)] The text says Ref. [32] obtained 550 Hz and the experiment is 775 Hz, but the main text refers to '≈200 Hz disagreement'; the relation between these numbers should be stated consistently. Also, the numerical integration error of ≲10% near the peak (mentioned after Fig. 6) is large enough to affect the FWHM estimate and should be quantified.
  3. [§II, Fig. 2 caption] The caption says the shifts at maximum and FWHM are 'indistinctable to the naked eye' but the inserts presumably show them; please clarify what the inserts display and how the shift is marked.
  4. [References] Reference [20] appears to have an inconsistent volume/page format; please verify. Also, some references (e.g., [41,42]) are cited in the context of two-photon widths without a clear statement of their relevance; a sentence of context would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the asymmetry shift follows from a QED line-shape derivation with externally supplied atomic inputs; the admitted width discrepancy is a validity issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The Fano contour Eq. (8) and the coefficients a, b, C are obtained from the S-matrix amplitude for 1s-2s two-photon excitation with field-induced 2s-2p mixing (Appendices A-D), using an expansion in x/Delta_EL; no fitted target frequency enters the derivation. The ratio b/2C in Eq. (C19) is computed analytically after the A1A3* interference terms vanish, and the field-strength and angular factors cancel, leaving an expression in Delta_EL, Gamma_2p, and Gamma_2s-tilde. The numerical shift then depends quadratically on Gamma_2s-tilde. Gamma_2s-tilde ~ (E/475 V/cm)^2 Gamma_2p is imported from the authors' prior work [30,31], but as an independent atomic-physics estimate with stated assumptions, not as a definition of the target shift; the paper itself flags the discrepancy with the ~1 kHz experimental linewidth and characterizes Eq. (12) as an upper limit. The non-adiabatic treatment (Eqs. 13-16) is incomplete and possibly internally inconsistent (it reports a ~200 Hz FWHM in Fig. 6 while claiming to explain a 200 Hz excess over the 550 Hz theoretical width, and it never computes the velocity-averaged shift), but these are correctness or modeling shortcomings, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citations to force the choice, and no target quantity is defined in terms of itself. Hence no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central shift estimate Δ ≈ Γ²₂s̃/(2ΔEL) is parameter-light only because the angular amplitudes cancel (A1A3* = 0); the entire burden sits on (i) the self-cited field-width relation Γ₂s̃ = (E/475)²Γ₂p from [30,31], (ii) the truncation of the manifold to 2s₁/₂/2p₁/₂, and (iii) the resonance-regularization scheme. No new entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced. The main unquantified model choice is the ensemble-averaged width under non-adiabatic switching: the paper presents contour plots of Δ(x,v) but never the velocity-averaged shift that would apply to the real beam.

free parameters (2)
  • Mixed-state width Γ₂s̃ (constant-field model) = ≈44 kHz at 10 V/cm; ≈177 kHz at 20 V/cm
    The entire predicted shift scales as Γ²₂s̃/ΔEL. The quadratic-in-field scaling (E/475 V/cm)²Γ₂p is taken from the authors' own [30,31] and is ~44× larger than the ~1 kHz linewidth observed in [2,3], a discrepancy the paper acknowledges (Sec. II).
  • Ratio |A3|²/(|A1|²|η|²) = 0.73 (dimensionless)
    Appendix E estimate used to dismiss the aΓ⁴ term (7×10⁻¹⁰ Hz); assembled from literature decay rates and radial matrix elements with rough equality estimates (Eqs. E1–E2).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Only 2s₁/₂ and 2p₁/₂ states contribute to mixing and interference; all other states neglected
    Sec. II: weak-field mixing and the Lamb-shift separation justify keeping only 2s, 2p₁/₂; 2p₃/₂ is separated by fine structure ~10× the Lamb shift. If other channels contributed at percent level the asymmetry estimate would change.
  • domain assumption Negative-energy (positron) part of the FGS propagator Eq. (1) is neglected via orthogonality; nonrelativistic limit applied
    Sec. II and Appendix A: 'we neglect the second term in (1), referring to the orthogonality property of the wave functions' — standard for hydrogen but load-bearing for the amplitude decomposition.
  • domain assumption Anti-collinear photon geometry ν1 = −ν2 with invariant linear polarizations makes the A1A3* interference terms vanish
    Appendix C: 'it could be shown ... that the contribution of A1A*3 vanishes.' If this cancellation failed, b would acquire additional terms and the shift would depend on angles and polarizations.
  • domain assumption Resonance denominators are regularized by geometric series of one-loop self-energy insertions on the field-dressed 2s̃ line only; off-diagonal self-energy is zero in the dipole approximation
    Appendix A, Eqs. (A16)–(A19): diagonal insertions give the Lamb/Stark shift and width Γ₂s̃; the alternative two-loop embedding [41] is discussed but not used.
  • domain assumption Stark shifts and the Lamb shift inside the δ-function of Eq. (A8) are neglected (E_m̃ − E_n → 0)
    Appendix A: 'we neglect the difference E_m̃ − E_n in the argument of the δ-function' and Stark shifts are neglected in the weak-field limit.
  • domain assumption Non-adiabatic switching is modeled as a step-function V(t) = A·θ(t−τ) in the 2s/2p subspace; atoms have a Maxwellian velocity distribution with l = 10 cm flight distance
    Sec. III and Appendix D, Eq. (D1) and (D9): the actual spatial dependence E(r) in the detection region is not modeled; the velocity distribution is taken from [32,33].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reassessment of line profile asymmetry in measurements of the 1s-2s energy interval in hydrogen." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3YMWTZIF

@misc{pith2026260721097,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reassessment of line profile asymmetry in measurements of the 1s-2s energy interval in hydrogen},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3YMWTZIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21097}
}
abstract

Experiments to determine transition frequencies in the hydrogen atom represent some of the most precise spectroscopic measurements and are at a higher level among simple atomic systems. The most persistent measured value in hydrogen is the energy interval corresponding to the $1s-2s$ two-photon transition. The achieved experimental precision is several parts of $10^{-15}$ and has not changed over the last two decades. Although repeated experiments in 2011 and 2013 have improved the accuracy by several times, the frequency value has not changed significantly. On this basis, the frequency of the $1s-2s$ transition holds pivotal for determining physical quantities such as the Rydberg constant and the proton charge radius. Theoretical efforts to study in detail the effects that might influence such precise measurements have not revealed significant contributions. The present work revises the theoretical analysis of the line contour asymmetry and its influence on the determination of the two-photon absorption transition frequency, taking into account the theoretical achievements of recent years in this direction. It is shown that the asymmetry of the observed profile can lead to a $1s-2s$ transition frequency shift at the level of modern experimental accuracy. The found frequency shift is consistent with the line shape model contribution that forms the error budget of the experimental measurements. Adjustment can be carried out on the basis of the asymmetric profile that has become standard in recent years.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21097 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 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Solovyev and E

    D. Solovyev and E. Solovyeva, Phys. Rev. A 91, 042506 (2015)

    2015

  2. [1]

    Niering, R

    M. Niering, R. Holzwarth, and J. e. a. Reichert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5496 (2000)

    2000

  3. [2]

    Parthey, A

    C. Parthey, A. Matveev, J. Alnis, and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 203001 (2011)

    2011

  4. [3]

    Matveev, C

    A. Matveev, C. Parthey, K. Predehl, and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 230801 (2013)

    2013

  5. [4]

    Tiesinga, P

    E. Tiesinga, P. Mohr, D. Newell, and B. Taylor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025010 (2021)

    2021

  6. [5]

    Pohl and et al., Nature 466, 213 (2010)

    R. Pohl and et al., Nature 466, 213 (2010)

    2010

  7. [6]

    Antognini, F

    A. Antognini, F. Nez, K. Schuhmann, and et al., Science 339, 417 (2013)

    2013

  8. [7]

    Beyer, L

    A. Beyer, L. Maisenbacher, A. Matveev, and et al., Sci- ence 358, 79 (2017)

    2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Brandt, S

    A. Brandt, S. Cooper, C. Rasor, and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 023001 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    C. E. Carlson, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 82, 59 (2015)

    2015

  3. [10]

    Gao and M

    H. Gao and M. Vanderhaeghen, Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 015002 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    Jentschura and P

    U. Jentschura and P. Mohr, Can. J. Phys. 80, 633 (2002)

    2002

  5. [12]

    Amaro, J

    P. Amaro, J. Santos, F. Parente, A. Surzhykov, and P. In- delicato, Phys. Rev. A 79, 062504 (2009)

    2009

  6. [13]

    D. Yost, A. Matveev, E. Peters, and et al., Phys. Rev. A 90, 012512 (2014)

    2014

  7. [14]

    Amaro, F

    P. Amaro, F. Fratini, L. Safari, and et al., Phys. Rev. A 92, 062506 (2015)

    2015

  8. [15]

    Amaro, B

    P. Amaro, B. Franke, J. Krauth, and et al., Phys. Rev. A 92, 022514 (2015)

    2015

  9. [16]

    One should bear in mind the approximate character of the theoretical ap- proach adopted for describing experiments like those in [1–3]

    does not depend on the electric field orientation, nor on the laser direction and polarization. One should bear in mind the approximate character of the theoretical ap- proach adopted for describing experiments like those in [1–3]. First of all, in the present paper we conside...

  10. [17]

    T. Udem, L. Maisenbacher, A. Matveev, and et al., An- nalen der Physik 531, 1900044 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Solovyev, A

    D. Solovyev, A. Anikin, T. Zalialiutdinov, and L. Lab- zowsky, Phys. Rev. A 109, 022806 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    Solovyev, T

    D. Solovyev, T. Zalialiutdinov, A. Anikin, and L. Lab- zowsky, Phys. Rev. A 109, 052802 (2024) . 8

    2024

  13. [20]

    Labzowsky, G

    L. Labzowsky, G. Schedrin, D. Solovyev, and G. Plunien, Can. J. Phys. 85, 585 (2007) , 10.1139/p07-014

    2007 doi

  14. [21]

    Labzowsky, G

    L. Labzowsky, G. Schedrin, D. Solovyev, and G. Plunien, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 2030032 (2007)

    2007

  15. [22]

    E. S. Fradkin, D. M. Gitman, and S. M. Shvarts- man, Quantum electrodynamics with unstable vacuum (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1991)

    1991

  16. [23]

    Andreev, L

    O. Andreev, L. Labzowsky, G. Plunien, and D. Solovyev, Phys. Rep. 455, 135 (2008)

    2008

  17. [24]

    Azimov, A

    V. Azimov, A. Ansel’m, A. Moskalev, and R. Ryndin, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 67, 17 (1974)

    1974

  18. [25]

    Mohr, Phys

    P. Mohr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 854 (1978)

    1978

  19. [26]

    Labzowsky, G

    L. Labzowsky, G. Schedrin, D. Solovyev, and et al., Phys. Rev. A 79, 052506 (2009)

    2009

  20. [27]

    Akhiezer and V

    A. Akhiezer and V. Berestetskii, Quantum Electrody- namics (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1965)

    1965

  21. [28]

    Labzowsky, D

    L. Labzowsky, D. Solovyev, and G. Plunien, Phys. Rev. A 80, 062514 (2009)

    2009

  22. [29]

    Anikin, T

    A. Anikin, T. Zalialiutdinov, and D. Solovyev, Physica Scripta 98, 045407 (2023)

    2023

  23. [30]

    Labzowsky, A

    L. Labzowsky, A. Shonin, and D. Solovyev, J. Phys. B: At., Mol. and Opt. Phys. 38, 265 (2005)

    2005

  24. [31]

    Solovyev, V

    D. Solovyev, V. Sharipov, L. Labzowsky, and G. Plunien, J. Phys. B: At., Mol. and Opt. Phys. 43, 074005 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Kolachevsky, M

    N. Kolachevsky, M. Haas, U. Jentschura, M. Herrmann, P. Fendel, M. Fischer, R. Holzwarth, T. Udem, C. Keitel, and T. Hänsch, Phys. Rev. A 74, 052504 (2006)

    2006

  26. [34]

    Huber, B

    A. Huber, B. Gross, M. Weitz, and T. Hänsch, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1844 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    Sobel’man, Introduction to the Theory of Atomic Spec- tra (Pergamon, 1972)

    I. Sobel’man, Introduction to the Theory of Atomic Spec- tra (Pergamon, 1972)

    1972

  28. [36]

    Riehle, Frequency Standards: Basics and Applications (Wiley Verlag, Weinheim, 2004)

    F. Riehle, Frequency Standards: Basics and Applications (Wiley Verlag, Weinheim, 2004)

    2004

  29. [37]

    D. A. Solovyev, T. A. Zalialiutdinov, A. A. Anikin, and L. N. Labzowsky, Phys. Rep. 1114, 1 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Labzowsky, D

    L. Labzowsky, D. Solovyev, V. Sharipov, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 36, L227 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    Solovyev, L

    D. Solovyev, L. Labzowsky, and V. Sharipov, Optics and Spectroscopy 107, 16 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Low, Phys

    F. Low, Phys. Rev. 88, 53 (1952)

    1952

  33. [41]

    Labzowsky, G

    L. Labzowsky, G. Klimchitskaya, and Y. Dmitriev, Rel- ativistic Effects in the Spectra of Atomic Systems (Insti- tute of Physics Publishing, 1993)

    1993

  34. [42]

    Jentschura, Phys

    U. Jentschura, Phys. Rev. A 79, 022510 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Jentschura and A

    U. Jentschura and A. Surzhykov, Phys. Rev. A 77, 042507 (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    Zalialiutdinov, D

    T. Zalialiutdinov, D. Solovyev, L. Labzowsky, and G. Plunien, Phys. Rev. A 89, 052502 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Zalialiutdinov, Y

    T. Zalialiutdinov, Y. Baukina, D. Solovyev, and L. Lab- zowsky, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 47, 115007 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Varshalovich, A

    D. Varshalovich, A. Moskalev, and V. Khersonskii, Quan- tum Theory of Angular Momentum (World Scientific, Singapore, 1988)

    1988

  39. [47]

    ηA1 x − i 2 Γ2˜s A∗ 3 ∆EL −x − ηA∗ 4 ∆EL −x # +

    L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non- Relativistic Theory (Pergamon Press, 1965). Appendix A: Derivation of the two-photon absorption amplitude with delayed decay in an external electric field To obtain an expression for the amplitude of two-photon absorption foll...

    1965

  40. [48]

    of the photon wave function, Eq. ( A2). This procedure corresponds to replacing Dirac wave functions in the 14 matrix element with Pauli ones and replacing the radiation operator by the following expressions: (eα)eikr → (ep − i(e[k × s]))eikr ≈ i[ ˆH, (er)] − 1 2 [ ˆH, (er)(kr...

  41. [49]

    ( B12), that will cancel itself in the nominator and denominator

    We additionally note that since contribution of A1A∗ 3 vanishes, expression for the frequency shift will contain only |A1|2 in b and C coefficients from Eq. ( B12), that will cancel itself in the nominator and denominator. The resulting asymmetry shift can be expressed as b 2C ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.