Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Nonlinear calcium King plot constrains new bosons and nuclear properties

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 900-sigma nonlinearity in the calcium King plot is Standard Model, not a new boson.

desk verdict A precision-measurement tour de force that delivers a ~900σ King-plot nonlinearity in calcium; the boson bounds are real but rest on a factorizability assumption for nuclear polarization that the authors flag but cannot prove. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10277 v1 pith:7R7BEQHY submitted 2024-12-13 physics.atom-ph

A. Wilzewski , L. I. Huber , M. Door , J. Richter , A. Mariotti , L. J. Spie{ss} , M. Wehrheim , S. Chen
show 34 more authors
S. A. King P. Micke M. Filzinger M. R. Steinel N. Huntemann E. Benkler P. O. Schmidt J. Flannery R. Matt M. Stadler R. Oswald F. Schmid D. Kienzler J. Home D. P. L. Aude Craik S. Eliseev P. Filianin J. Herkenhoff K. Kromer K. Blaum V. A. Yerokhin I. A. Valuev N. S. Oreshkina C. Lyu S. Banerjee C. H. Keitel Z. Harman J. C. Berengut A. Viatkina J. Gilles A. Surzhykov M. K. Rosner J. R. Crespo López-Urrutia E. Fuchs
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords Kingplotnonlinearityisotopeshiftscalciumionshighlychargednewbosonsearchnuclearpolarizationgeneralizedprecisionspectroscopy
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 claims that the calcium isotope-shift King plot—the leading-order linear relationship between the isotope shifts of two atomic transitions—shows a nonlinearity at roughly 900 $\sigma$ significance, the largest such deviation seen in a King plot. It argues that this nonlinearity is not evidence for a new boson: the expected largest Standard Model correction, the second-order mass shift, accounts for only part of it, and the remainder is compatible with nuclear polarization, a little-studied Standard Model effect. The paper then uses a generalized King plot with three calcium transitions to eliminate one higher-order Standard Model source, subtracts the calculated second-order mass shift, and finds the residual relation linear below 1 $\sigma$. From that linearized plot it derives the most stringent King-plot-based bounds to date on a hypothetical Yukawa boson coupling electrons and neutrons for most boson masses between $10~\mathrm{eV}/c^2$ and $10^7~\mathrm{eV}/c^2$. The sympathetic reader should take away that an extremely large King-plot nonlinearity can still be fully Standard Model, and that the same data sharpen exclusions on new physics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the generalized King plot (GKP): a higher-dimensional version of the King relation in which an additional measured transition lets one unknown nuclear parameter be eliminated without knowing its value. Here the GKP uses three calcium transitions and four isotope pairs, so one higher-order Standard Model contribution is removed by construction. The second-order mass shift is subtracted using freshly calculated electronic coefficients $K^{(2)}_i$ (with 10% uncertainty in Ca$^{14+}$ and 100% in Ca$^+$), and the residual nonlinearity is decomposed along two out-of-plane vectors ($\Lambda_+$ and $\Lambda_-$) in isotope-pair space, so that each physical source—new boson, second-order mass shift, or nuclear polarization—has a characteristic direction in the residual pattern. The nuclear-polarization calculation, based on the Coulomb approximation with contributions from the lowest nuclear rotational transition and giant resonances, supplies the magnitude and direction of that Standard Model candidate.

What would settle it

Measure the $^2D_{3/2} \rightarrow {}^2D_{5/2}$ transition in Ca$^+$ at sub-hertz precision for all five stable even isotopes and re-run the second-order-mass-shift-subtracted generalized King plot: if the residual nonlinearity is not below 1 $\sigma$ at the improved precision, the factorization assumption fails. A second falsifier is to compute the nuclear polarization with a full ab initio nuclear model and check whether its predicted direction in the $\Lambda_+/\Lambda_-$ residual decomposition overlaps the measured residual after second-order-mass-shift subtraction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports sub-hertz-precision isotope-shift measurements of the $^3P_0 \rightarrow {}^3P_1$ transition in Ca$^{14+}$ (uncertainty below 150 mHz) and the $^2S_{1/2} \rightarrow {}^2D_{5/2}$ transition in Ca$^+$ (below 70 mHz), together with Penning-trap nuclear mass ratios at relative uncertainties below $4\times10^{-11}$ for the five stable even calcium isotopes 40, 42, 44, 46, and 48. Combining these data yields a King-plot nonlinearity of about 900 $\sigma$. Precision calculations show that the second-order mass shift alone cannot explain the residual, and the paper identifies nuclear polarization as the only remaining Standard Model contribution large enough to account for it. After subtracting the calculated second-order mass shift and applying a generalized King plot that includes the $^2D_{3/2} \rightarrow {}^2D_{5/2}$ fine-structure transition, the remaining nonlinearity is below 1 $\sigma$, so the observed nonlinearity is attributed to Standard Model physics and improved bounds on a new electron–neutron Yukawa interaction follow.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that the residual nonlinearity is Standard Model and that the generalized King plot yields valid boson bounds depends on the residual being dominated by a single factorizable nuclear-polarization term; if nuclear polarization is non-factorizable, or if an uncalculated higher-order effect contributes with a different nuclear dependence, the elimination step could misattribute the nonlinearity and bias the new-physics limits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The 900-sigma nonlinearity does not require new physics; under the paper's Standard Model explanation it becomes a probe of nuclear polarization in a light, spherical nucleus.
  • The generalized King plot bounds on the electron–neutron Yukawa coupling $y_e y_n$ are improved for most masses from $10~\mathrm{eV}/c^2$ to $10^7~\mathrm{eV}/c^2$, including a previously problematic region near $m_\phi \approx 10^4~\mathrm{eV}/c^2$.
  • A sub-hertz measurement of the $^2D_{3/2} \rightarrow {}^2D_{5/2}$ transition in Ca$^+$ would test the factorization assumption directly: if the MS$^{(2)}$-subtracted GKP stays linear at reduced uncertainty, nuclear polarization is dominated by one factorizable term and the bounds could breach the $(g-2)_e \cdot n$ constraint in a further mass range.
  • The new nuclear mass ratios and electron binding-energy calculations for calcium ions are stand-alone precision results for atomic mass metrology and nuclear structure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the method transfers to other light, spherical isotopic chains: in elements such as strontium or magnesium the nuclear polarization is expected to be smaller, so the same three-transition GKP strategy could isolate the second-order mass shift and produce even cleaner new-boson limits, provided isotope shifts with comparable sub-hertz precision can be measured.
  • The paper's own uncertainty budget implies that the 900-sigma significance is dominated by the quality of the mass-ratio and isotope-shift data, not by the computed second-order mass shift; if an independent experiment reproduced the King-plot curvature with different transitions, the Standard Model attribution would be considerably hardened.
  • A non-factorizable nuclear polarization would show up as a residual in the GKP that cannot be removed by any single extra transition; testing the GKP with a fourth transition would either confirm factorization or reveal an unmodeled Standard Model effect.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports isotope-shift measurements of the 3P0→3P1 transition in Ca14+ (uncertainties below 150 mHz) and of the 2S1/2→2D5/2 transition in Ca+ (uncertainties below 70 mHz via two-ion correlation spectroscopy) for the five stable even calcium isotopes, together with Penning-trap nuclear mass ratios with relative uncertainties below 4×10−11. Combining these yields a calcium King-plot nonlinearity of roughly 900σ (Supplemental Table IX). The authors' calculation of the second-order mass shift cannot fully account for the nonlinearity, and a phenomenological nuclear-polarization calculation is shown to be compatible with the residual. Using the literature 2D3/2→2D5/2 transition, the authors construct a three-transition generalized King plot, subtract the theoretical second-order mass shift, and obtain a linear GKP at the 0.6σ level, from which they set improved bounds on a Yukawa boson coupling electrons and neutrons for most boson masses between 10 eV/c^2 and 10^7 eV/c^2.

Significance. At face value this is a landmark precision-measurement result: a roughly 900σ King-plot nonlinearity in a light, spherical nuclear chain, obtained through an unusual combination of HCI quantum-logic spectroscopy, entangled-state correlation spectroscopy, and Penning-trap mass metrology. The paper is strong on experimental credibility: detailed uncertainty budgets (Supplemental Tables II and III), a repeated 40Ca campaign spanning eight months, and an independent 42Ca–48Ca substitution test that agrees with the direct 40Ca–42Ca measurement to below 1.9σ. The analysis is non-circular: the second-order mass-shift, nuclear-polarization, and BSM electronic coefficients all come from independent calculations rather than from fits to the observed nonlinearity, and the Conclusion states falsifiable tests (sub-Hz νDD data and improved Ca+ MS(2) calculations) that would verify the key assumption behind the boson bounds. The main caveat is the model dependence of the nuclear-polarization identification and the factorizability assumption on which the generalized-King-plot bounds rest; these need to be made explicit or quantified.

major comments (2)
  1. [Constraints on new bosons; Eq. (5); Supplemental Sec. IV A] The red bound in Fig. 3, and the abstract's claim of improved KP-based constraints, rests on the assumption that the nonlinearity remaining after the second-order mass-shift subtraction is a single factorizable term (nuclear polarization) that the three-transition generalized King plot eliminates. The paper states that nuclear polarization 'is not a priori factorizable' (main text, Nonlinearity decomposition; Supplemental Sec. III C), and the evidence offered for factorizability is the sub-1σ linearity of the MS(2)-subtracted GKP (Supplemental Table IX, last row). That single residual cannot distinguish a factorizable nuclear-polarization term from a non-factorizable pattern whose projection onto the GKP hyperplane is small; the Conclusion's inference that the residual 'is dominated by one factorizable term' is a consistency argument, not a test. The isotope dependence of the calculated g-functions in Supplemental Table VII (variations of order 5%, with different patterns for Ca14+ and Ca+) provides a concrete non-factorizable component; propagating it through Eq. (S17) would bound the induced bias on y_e y_n. I recommend that the authors either add such a sensitivity estimate or explicitly present the Fig. 3 bounds as conditional on the factorizability assumption.
  2. [Nonlinearity decomposition; Fig. 2; Supplemental Sec. III C] The compatibility of the residual nonlinearity with nuclear polarization (green dot versus orange dot in Fig. 2) depends on the assumed uncertainty and correlation structure of the phenomenological nuclear-polarization calculation. The paper assigns a 50% uncertainty to the ratio functions g_ab and treats it as 'correlated across the two transitions, but uncorrelated across isotope pairs' (main text); the ellipse overlap with the measured residual would shift under different, equally plausible correlation assumptions, and the 50% figure is an estimate rather than a benchmarked error. Because the identification of nuclear polarization as the residual source is a central new claim, the manuscript should state more precisely what the measurement constrains: it currently establishes consistency with the nuclear model at an ad hoc 50% level, and the title's phrase 'constrains ... nuclear properties' overstates the present constraint. The Conclusion's own proposed tests (improved MS(2) calculations and sub-Hz νDD data) should be presented as required to make this identification quantitative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Precision measurements (Ca14+ paragraph)] The sentence 'The Ca14+ transition was sequentially robed with a laser ...' is duplicated in the next line (with 'probed' correctly spelled); retain only one instance and fix the 'robed' typo.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The axis labels in Fig. 2 appear as garbled symbol strings in the manuscript version; please ensure the λ+ and λ− axes and the transition-pair annotations render correctly in the published version.
  3. [Supplemental Table VII] The g^A_ab values are tabulated without uncertainties; given the stated electron-correlation spread of less than 1–2% and the nuclear-model uncertainties of 20% (single-isotope) and 50% (isotope differences), a footnote or an additional column giving the estimated uncertainty would make the isotope dependence used later in the analysis transparent.
  4. [Constraints on new bosons] The sentence 'Our bound is limited only by the uncertainty on the second-order MS coefficients of Ca+ and by the measurement precision of δνDD' states 'only' more strongly than the body of the paper warrants; the factorizability assumption discussed above is an additional limitation, and the wording should be softened accordingly.
  5. [Conclusion] Typo: 'confirm the factorizablity of nuclear polarization' should read 'factorizability'.
  6. [Acknowledgments] Typo: 'This project reveived funding' should read 'received'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 900-sigma King-plot nonlinearity is a measured quantity, and the Standard-Model and BSM decompositions rely on independent theoretical calculations rather than on fitting the observed residual.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental: sub-Hz isotope shifts in Ca14+ and Ca+, nuclear mass ratios below 4e-11, and a resulting King-plot nonlinearity at ~900 sigma. None of these quantities is derived from a fitted parameter; they come directly from frequency-ratio and Penning-trap measurements with detailed uncertainty budgets. The theoretical ingredients are also independent: the second-order mass-shift coefficient for Ca14+ is computed here with a stated 10% uncertainty, the Ca+ value is taken from a prior published calculation and assigned a conservative 100% uncertainty, and the nuclear-polarization estimate is obtained from a nuclear model rather than adjusted to the data. The generalized King-plot method is imported from the published literature (Ref. [72]) and is applied as an algebraic elimination procedure, not as a fit. The only step that could superficially resemble circularity is the inference that nuclear polarization is 'dominated by one factorizable term' based on the linearity of the GKP after second-order-mass-shift subtraction. The paper itself states that nuclear polarization 'is not a priori factorizable,' and the conclusion is explicitly framed as an indication ('probably nuclear polarization') with future measurements proposed to confirm factorizability. That is a model-consistency argument under a stated assumption, not a reduction of a predicted quantity to an input by construction. No parameter is fitted to the residual to produce the boson bounds; the bounds follow from the GKP determinant formula using measured shifts and independently computed electronic coefficients. The fragility of the factorizability assumption is a legitimate correctness risk, but it is not circularity under the definitions used here. Therefore the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks and receives a score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central analysis rests on standard atomic-physics factorization assumptions, the GKP method, and a phenomenological nuclear-polarization model. The only assumption introduced specifically for this analysis is that the residual nonlinearity is dominated by one factorizable term; the paper flags this as an inference. No new particles or entities are introduced by this work.

free parameters (3)
  • King plot intercept Kji = best fit from data (not listed explicitly)
    In Eq. (4), the linear King relation intercept is fitted to the measured modified isotope shifts; it absorbs unknown combinations of electronic coefficients and defines the zero-nonlinearity baseline.
  • King plot slope Fji = best fit from data (Fig. 1)
    The ratio of field-shift factors is fitted in the orthogonal-distance regression to define the linear baseline; residuals from this fit constitute the observed nonlinearity.
  • High-mass rescaling of BSM electronic coefficients X_j/X_i = rescaled to match experimental field-shift ratio F_j/F_i
    Supplement Sec. IV E: the ratio X_j/X_i is adjusted to approach the measured field-shift ratio in the high-mass limit, affecting the high-mass behavior of the bounds. This is a model choice rather than a data fit, but it is a free parameter in deriving the limits.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard King relation factorization: isotope shift = mass shift + field shift with factorizable electronic and nuclear parts.
    Invoked in Eq. (3) of the main text; this is the standard low-order King theory, valid to leading order, and is the starting point for defining the nonlinearity.
  • domain assumption Factorization of higher-order mass-shift terms into electronic and nuclear parts (Eq. 5).
    Eq. (5) generalizes the King relation by summing factorizable higher-order terms; the paper notes nuclear polarization is the possible exception.
  • standard math Generalized King plot framework (Berengut et al. 2020).
    Used to eliminate higher-order SM nonlinearity sources; assumption that m transitions eliminate m-1 nuclear parameters (Supplement Sec. IV A).
  • domain assumption Nuclear polarization model: Coulomb approximation with dominant nuclear rotational transition and giant resonances up to octupole order.
    Supplement Sec. III C; the model is phenomenological and the paper assigns 50% uncertainty to isotope-shift differences.
  • ad hoc to paper Factorizability of the residual nonlinearity after subtracting second-order mass shift.
    The GKP bound relies on the observed linearity of the GKP to infer that the remaining NL, presumably nuclear polarization, is dominated by one factorizable term; the paper states this is not a priori factorizable.
  • domain assumption BSM model: scalar boson with Yukawa potential V = -alpha_BSM (A-Z) e^{-m r}/r.
    Eq. (7) in the main text; the search is for a new boson coupling electrons and neutrons, a standard benchmark model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear calcium King plot constrains new bosons and nuclear properties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7R7BEQHY

@misc{pith2026241210277,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear calcium King plot constrains new bosons and nuclear properties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7R7BEQHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10277}
}
abstract

Nonlinearities in King plots (KP) of isotope shifts (IS) can reveal the existence of beyond-Standard-Model (BSM) interactions that couple electrons and neutrons. However, it is crucial to distinguish higher-order Standard Model (SM) effects from BSM physics. We measure the IS of the transitions ${{}^{3}P_{0}~\rightarrow~{}^{3}P_{1}}$ in $\mathrm{Ca}^{14+}$ and ${{}^{2}S_{1/2} \rightarrow {}^{2}D_{5/2}}$ in $\mathrm{Ca}^{+}$ with sub-Hz precision as well as the nuclear mass ratios with relative uncertainties below $4\times10^{-11}$ for the five stable, even isotopes of calcium (${}^{40,42,44,46,48}\mathrm{Ca}$). Combined, these measurements yield a calcium KP nonlinearity with a significance of $\sim 900 \sigma$. Precision calculations show that the nonlinearity cannot be fully accounted for by the expected largest higher-order SM effect, the second-order mass shift, and identify the little-studied nuclear polarization as the only remaining SM contribution that may be large enough to explain it. Despite the observed nonlinearity, we improve existing KP-based constraints on a hypothetical Yukawa interaction for most of the new boson masses between $10~\mathrm{eV/c^2}$ and $10^7~\mathrm{eV/c^2}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10277 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A nonlinearity with a significance of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Decomposition plot comparing the measured NL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Laboratory bounds on the BSM coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards a Global Search for New Physics with Isotope Shifts

    physics.atom-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    kifit, a new fit framework, combines isotope shift data from multiple elements into global constraints on new boson couplings to electrons and neutrons.

  2. Recoil corrections with finite nuclear size in hydrogenic systems

    physics.atom-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    New QED formulas for (Zα)^5 and (Zα)^6 nuclear-recoil finite-size corrections in hydrogenic atoms, valid for all nuclear radii and removing a spurious linear-radius term from the Breit approximation.

  3. Spectroscopy of light atoms and bounds on physics beyond the standard model

    physics.atom-ph 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New upper bounds on electron-proton and electron-neutron fifth-force couplings are derived from hydrogen, deuterium, and helium spectroscopy, including the effect on muonic atoms.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Indices 1 and 2 refer to the two different isotopes, one of them being 40Ca+ and the other one being 42Ca+, 44Ca+, 46Ca+ or 48Ca+

    Correlation Spectroscopy In the following, we denote the selected Zeeman state in the S1/2-manifold with g and the selected state in the D5/2-manifold with e. Indices 1 and 2 refer to the two different isotopes, one of them being 40Ca+ and the other one being 42Ca+, 44Ca+, 46Ca+ or 48Ca+. We denote the four possible Bell states as: |Φ±⟩ = 1√ 2(|g1g2⟩±| e1...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Two-tone addressing The expressionPeven = 1 2(1−cos(ωISτ)) is strictly cor- rect only if both ions have the same reference laser fre- quency. As described earlier, we address the two ions in practice with different tones: ωL andωL +ωsynth, where ωL is the laser frequency of the first tone andωsynth is the frequency of the MW synthesizer. Importantly, the ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Additionally, we perform all measurements in both ion crystal configu- rations, by swapping the positions of the two ions

    Averaging over transitions and ion crystal configurations To eliminate the influence of the differential first-order Zeeman shift on the isotope shift measurement, we av- erage over two transitions with opposite magnetic sensi- tivities: |S1/2,mJ =−1/2⟩→| D5/2,mJ =−1/2⟩ and |S1/2,mJ = +1/2⟩→| D5/2,mJ = +1/2⟩ . Additionally, we perform all measurements in ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    frozen core

    Consistency checks While isotope shift measurements between 40Ca+ and 44,46,48Ca+ show good agreement with a previous mea- surement in the literature [36], we find significant devia- tion for the pair40Ca+-42Ca+. In order to test the consis- tency of our results, we additionally measured the isotope shift of the pair 42Ca+-48Ca+. This allows for an addi- ...

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    S. A. King, L. J. Spieß, P. Micke, A. Wilzewski, T. Leopold, E. Benkler, R. Lange, N. Huntemann, A. Surzhykov, V. A. Yerokhin, J. R. Crespo L´ opez- Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, An optical atomic clock based on a highly charged ion, Nature 611, 43 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Micke, S

    P. Micke, S. K¨ uhn, L. Buchauer, J. R. Harries, T. M. B¨ ucking, K. Blaum, A. Cieluch, A. Egl, D. Hollain, S. Kraemer, T. Pfeifer, P. O. Schmidt, R. X. Sch¨ ussler, C. Schweiger, T. St¨ ohlker, S. Sturm, R. N. Wolf, S. Bernitt, and J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, The Hei- delberg compact electron beam ion traps, Review of Sci- entific Instruments 89, 063109 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Leopold, S

    T. Leopold, S. A. King, P. Micke, A. Bautista-Salvador, J. C. Heip, C. Ospelkaus, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, A cryogenic radio-frequency ion trap for quantum logic spectroscopy of highly charged ions, Review of Scientific Instruments 90, 073201 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Schm¨ oger, M

    L. Schm¨ oger, M. Schwarz, T. M. Baumann, O. O. Ver- solato, B. Piest, T. Pfeifer, J. Ullrich, P. O. Schmidt, and J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, Deceleration, precool- ing, and multi-pass stopping of highly charged ions in Be+ Coulomb crystals, Review of Scientific Instruments 86, 103111 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Schm¨ oger, O

    L. Schm¨ oger, O. O. Versolato, M. Schwarz, M. Kohnen, A. Windberger, B. Piest, S. Feuchtenbeiner, J. Pedregosa-Gutierrez, T. Leopold, P. Micke, A. K. Hansen, T. M. Baumann, M. Drewsen, J. Ullrich, P. O. Schmidt, and J. R. C. L´ opez-Urrutia, Coulomb crystallization of highly ...

    2015

  2. [10]

    Micke, T

    P. Micke, T. Leopold, S. A. King, E. Benkler, L. J. Spieß, L. Schm¨ oger, M. Schwarz, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, Coherent laser spectroscopy of highly charged ions using quantum logic, Nature578, 60 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Wilzewski, Isotope shift measurements in highly charged calcium, Ph.D

    A. Wilzewski, Isotope shift measurements in highly charged calcium, Ph.D. thesis, Hannover : Institutionelles Repositorium der Leibniz Universit¨ at Hannover (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Schweiger, C

    C. Schweiger, C. M. K¨ onig, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, M. Door, H. Dorrer, C. E. D¨ ullmann, S. Eliseev, P. Fil- ianin, W. Huang, K. Kromer, P. Micke, M. M¨ uller, D. Renisch, A. Rischka, R. X. Sch¨ ussler, and K. Blaum, Production of highly charged ions of rare species by...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Webster and P

    S. Webster and P. Gill, Force-insensitive optical cavity, Optics Letters 36, 3572 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Dawel, A

    F. Dawel, A. Wilzewski, S. Herbers, L. Pelzer, J. Kramer, M. B. Hild, K. Dietze, L. Krinner, N. C. H. Spethmann, and P. O. Schmidt, Coherent photo-thermal noise can- cellation in a dual-wavelength optical cavity for narrow- linewidth laser frequency stabilisation, Optics Expre...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Leopold, L

    T. Leopold, L. Schm¨ oger, S. Feuchtenbeiner, C. Grebing, P. Micke, N. Scharnhorst, I. D. Leroux, J. R. C. L´ opez- Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, A tunable low-drift laser stabilized to an atomic reference, Applied Physics B122, 236 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    D. G. Matei, T. Legero, S. H¨ afner, C. Grebing, R. Weyrich, W. Zhang, L. Sonderhouse, J. M. Robinson, J. Ye, F. Riehle, and U. Sterr, 1 .5µm Lasers with Sub- 10 mHz Linewidth, Physical Review Letters 118, 263202 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    E. Peik, T. Schneider, and C. Tamm, Laser frequency stabilization to a single ion, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, 17 Molecular and Optical Physics 39, 145 (2005)

    2005

  10. [18]

    Monroe, D

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, S. R. Jefferts, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and P. Gould, Resolved- Sideband Raman Cooling of a Bound Atom to the 3D Zero-Point Energy, Physical Review Letters 75, 4011 (1995)

    1995

  11. [19]

    S. A. King, L. J. Spieß, P. Micke, A. Wilzewski, T. Leopold, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, Algorithmic Ground-State Cooling of Weakly Coupled Oscillators Using Quantum Logic, Physical Re- view X 11, 041049 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Lange, N

    R. Lange, N. Huntemann, J. M. Rahm, C. Sanner, H. Shao, B. Lipphardt, C. Tamm, S. Weyers, and E. Peik, Improved Limits for Violations of Local Position Invari- ance from Atomic Clock Comparisons, Physical Review Letters 126, 011102 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Sanner, N

    C. Sanner, N. Huntemann, R. Lange, C. Tamm, E. Peik, M. S. Safronova, and S. G. Porsev, Optical clock com- parison for Lorentz symmetry testing, Nature 567, 204 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Keller, H

    J. Keller, H. L. Partner, T. Burgermeister, and T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, Precise determination of micromotion for trapped-ion optical clocks, Journal of Applied Physics 118, 104501 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    D. J. Berkeland, J. D. Miller, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Minimization of ion micro- motion in a Paul trap, Journal of Applied Physics 83, 5025 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    Yu and B

    Y.-m. Yu and B. K. Sahoo, Investigating ground-state fine-structure properties to explore suitability of boron- like S11+− K14+ and galliumlike Nb 14+− Ru13+ ions as possible atomic clocks, Physical Review A 99, 022513 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Kramida, Y

    A. Kramida, Y. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and N. A. Team, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.11)

  18. [26]

    J¨ onsson, P

    P. J¨ onsson, P. Rynkun, and G. Gaigalas, Energies, E1, M1, and E2 transition rates, hyperfine structures, and Land´ egj factors for states of the 2s22p2, 2s2p3, and 2p4 configurations in carbon-like ions between F IV and Ni XXIII, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 97, 648 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Gilles, S

    J. Gilles, S. Fritzsche, L. J. Spieß, P. O. Schmidt, and A. Surzhykov, Quadratic Zeeman and electric quadrupole shifts in highly charged ions, Physical Review A 110, 052812 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    L. J. Spieß, S. Chen, A. Wilzewski, M. Wehrheim, J. Gilles, A. Surzhykov, E. Benkler, M. Filzinger, M. Steinel, N. Huntemann, C. Cheung, S. G. Porsev, A. I. Bondarev, M. S. Safronova, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, and P. O. Schmidt, Excited-state magnetic properties of carbon-...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Denker and L

    H. Denker and L. Timmen, Ergebnisse des Nivellements an der PTB am 12.07.2022., Internal Report (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    C. F. Roos, Precision frequency measurements with entangled states (2005), 10.48550/arXiv.quant- ph/0508148

    2005 doi

  23. [31]

    Manovitz, R

    T. Manovitz, R. Shaniv, Y. Shapira, R. Ozeri, and N. Ak- erman, Precision Measurement of Atomic Isotope Shifts Using a Two-Isotope Entangled State, Physical Review Letters 123, 203001 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Chwalla, K

    M. Chwalla, K. Kim, T. Monz, P. Schindler, M. Riebe, C. Roos, and R. Blatt, Precision spectroscopy with two correlated atoms, Applied Physics B 89, 483 (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    Matt, Parallel control of a dual-isotope trapped ion register, Ph.D

    R. Matt, Parallel control of a dual-isotope trapped ion register, Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zurich (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    D. M. Lucas, A. Ramos, J. P. Home, M. J. McDon- nell, S. Nakayama, J. P. Stacey, S. C. Webster, D. N. Stacey, and A. M. Steane, Isotope-selective photoion- ization for calcium ion trapping, Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 69, 13 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    Schmidt, D

    J. Schmidt, D. H¨ onig, P. Weckesser, F. Thielemann, T. Schaetz, and L. Karpa, Mass-selective removal of ions from Paul traps using parametric excitation, Applied Physics B 126, 176 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Splatt, M

    F. Splatt, M. Harlander, M. Brownnutt, F. Z¨ ahringer, R. Blatt, and W. H¨ ansel, Deterministic reordering of 40Ca+ ions in a linear segmented Paul trap, New Journal of Physics 11, 103008 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    58503B GPS Time and Frequency Reference Receiver , Tech. Rep. (Symmetricom, Inc., 2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Chwalla, J

    M. Chwalla, J. Benhelm, K. Kim, G. Kirchmair, T. Monz, M. Riebe, P. Schindler, A. S. Villar, W. H¨ ansel, C. F. Roos, R. Blatt, M. Abgrall, G. Santarelli, G. D. Rovera, and P. Laurent, Absolute Frequency Measure- ment of the 40Ca+ 4s2S1/2− 3d2D5/2 Clock Transition, Physical Re...

    2009

  31. [39]

    C. F. Roos, M. Chwalla, K. Kim, M. Riebe, and R. Blatt, ‘Designer atoms’ for quantum metrology, Nature 443, 316 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    F. W. Knollmann, A. N. Patel, and S. C. Doret, Part- per-billion measurement of the 42S1/2→ 32D5/2 electric- quadrupole-transition isotope shifts between 42,44,48Ca+ and 40Ca+, Physical Review A 100, 022514 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    I. P. Grant, Relativistic calculation of atomic structures, Adv. Phys. 19, 747 (1970)

    1970

  34. [42]

    J. P. Desclaux, D. F. Mayers, and F. O’Brien, Relativistic atomic wave functions, J. Phys. B 4, 631 (1971)

    1971

  35. [43]

    I. P. Grant, Relativistic quantum theory of atoms and molecules: theory and computation, Springer Series on Atomic, Optical, and Plasma Physics, Vol. 40 (Springer, Berlin, 2007)

    2007

  36. [44]

    Froese-Fischer, G

    C. Froese-Fischer, G. Gaigalas, P. J¨ onsson, and J. Biero´ n, Grasp2018 – a fortran 95 version of the general relativis- tic atomic structure package, Comput. Phys. Commun. 237, 184 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    J¨ onsson, M

    P. J¨ onsson, M. Godefroid, G. Gaigalas, J. Ekman, J. Grumer, W. Li, J. Li, T. Brage, I. Grant, J. Biero´ n, and C. Froese Fischer, An introduction to relativistic theory as implemented in grasp, Atoms 11, 7 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    A. V. Malyshev, A. V. Volotka, D. A. Glazov, I. I. Tupit- syn, V. M. Shabaev, and G. Plunien, Qed calculation of the ground-state energy of berylliumlike ions, Phys. Rev. A 90, 062517 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    A. V. Malyshev, D. A. Glazov, Y. S. Kozhedub, I. S. Anisimova, M. Y. Kaygorodov, V. M. Shabaev, and I. I. Tupitsyn, Ab initio calculations of energy levels in be-like xenon: Strong interference between electron-correlation and qed effects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 183001 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    J¨ onsson, G

    P. J¨ onsson, G. Gaigalas, C. Froese Fischer, J. Biero´ n, I. Grant, T. Brage, J. Ekman, M. Godefroid, J. Grumer, J. Li, and W. Li, Grasp manual for users, Atoms 11, 68 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    C. Lyu, B. Sikora, Z. Harman, and C. H. Keitel, Ex- treme field calculations for Penning ion traps and corre- sponding strong laser field scenarios, Molecular Physics 0, e2252105. 18

  42. [50]

    V. A. Yerokhin, Hyperfine structure of Li and Be+, Phys- ical Review A 78, 012513 (2008)

    2008

  43. [51]

    V. A. Yerokhin, R. A. M¨ uller, A. Surzhykov, P. Micke, and P. O. Schmidt, Nonlinear isotope-shift effects in be- like, B-like, and C-like argon, Physical Review A 101, 012502 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Naz´ e, S

    C. Naz´ e, S. Verdebout, P. Rynkun, G. Gaigalas, M. Godefroid, and P. J¨ onsson, Isotope shifts in beryllium- , boron-, carbon-, and nitrogen-like ions from relativistic configuration interaction calculations, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 100, 1197 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    A. V. Viatkina, V. A. Yerokhin, and A. Surzhykov, Cal- culation of isotope shifts and King-plot nonlinearities in Ca+, Physical Review A 108, 022802 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Plunien, B

    G. Plunien, B. M¨ uller, W. Greiner, and G. Soff, Nuclear polarization in heavy atoms and superheavy quasiatoms, Physical Review A 43, 5853 (1991)

    1991

  47. [55]

    A. V. Nefiodov, L. N. Labzowsky, G. Plunien, and G. Soff, Nuclear polarization effects in spectra of multicharged ions, Physics Letters A 222, 227 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    Kahl and J

    E. Kahl and J. Berengut, AMBIT: A programme for high- precision relativistic atomic structure calculations, Com- puter Physics Communications 238, 232 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Z. Sun, I. A. Valuev, and N. S. Oreshkina, Nuclear de- formation effects in the spectra of highly charged ions, Physical Review Research 6, 023327 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    J. C. Berengut, C. Delaunay, A. Geddes, and Y. Soreq, Generalized King linearity and new physics searches with isotope shifts, Physical Review Research 2, 043444 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Gebert, Y

    F. Gebert, Y. Wan, F. Wolf, C. N. Angstmann, J. C. Berengut, and P. O. Schmidt, Precision Isotope Shift Measurements in Calcium Ions Using Quantum Logic De- tection Schemes, Physical Review Letters 115, 053003 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Solaro, S

    C. Solaro, S. Meyer, K. Fisher, J. C. Berengut, E. Fuchs, and M. Drewsen, Improved Isotope-Shift-Based Bounds on Bosons beyond the Standard Model through Measure- ments of the 2D3/2− 2D5/2 Interval in Ca+, Physical Re- view Letters 125, 123003 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    T. T. Chang, B. B. Awazi, J. C. Berengut, E. Fuchs, and S. C. Doret, Systematic-free limit on new light scalar bosons via isotope shift spectroscopy in Ca + (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2311.17337

    2024 doi arXiv

  54. [62]

    Door, C.-H

    M. Door, C.-H. Yeh, M. Heinz, F. Kirk, C. Lyu, T. Miyagi, J. C. Berengut, J. Biero´ n, K. Blaum, L. S. Dreissen, S. Eliseev, P. Filianin, M. Filzinger, E. Fuchs, H. A. F¨ urst, G. Gaigalas, Z. Harman, J. Herkenhoff, N. Huntemann, C. H. Keitel, K. Kromer, D. Lange, A. Rischka, ...

    2024

  55. [63]

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment, Physical Review Letters 130, 071801 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Leeb and J

    H. Leeb and J. Schmiedmayer, Constraint on hypotheti- cal light interacting bosons from low-energy neutron ex- periments, Physical Review Letters 68, 1472 (1992)

    1992

  57. [65]

    V. V. Nesvizhevsky, G. Pignol, and K. V. Protasov, Neu- tron scattering and extra-short-range interactions, Phys- ical Review D 77, 034020 (2008)

    2008

  58. [66]

    Y. N. Pokotilovski, Constraints on new interactions from neutron scattering experiments, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, 924 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    Barbieri and T

    R. Barbieri and T. E. O. Ericson, Evidence against the existence of a low mass scalar boson from neutron-nucleus scattering, Physics Letters B 57, 270 (1975)

    1975

  60. [68]

    Raffelt, Limits on a CP-violating scalar axion-nucleon interaction, Physical Review D 86, 015001 (2012)

    G. Raffelt, Limits on a CP-violating scalar axion-nucleon interaction, Physical Review D 86, 015001 (2012)

    2012

  61. [69]

    Michael Bordag, Galina Leonidovna Klimchitskaya, Umar Mohideen, and Vladimir Mikhaylovich Mostepa- nenko, Advances in the Casimir Effect (Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2009)

    2009

  62. [70]

    J. A. Grifols and E. Mass´ o, Constraints on finite- range baryonic and leptonic forces from stellar evolution, Physics Letters B 173, 237 (1986)

    1986

  63. [71]

    J. A. Grifols, E. Mass´ o, and S. Peris, Constraint on the Higgs-boson mass from nuclear scattering data, Physical Review Letters 63, 1346 (1989)

    1989

  64. [72]

    Delaunay, C

    C. Delaunay, C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, and Y. Soreq, Prob- ing new spin-independent interactions through precision spectroscopy in atoms with few electrons, Phys. Rev. D 96, 115002 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    M. Wang, W. J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references, Chinese Physics C 45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    J. C. Berengut, D. Budker, C. Delaunay, V. V. Flam- baum, C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, C. Grojean, R. Harnik, R. Ozeri, G. Perez, and Y. Soreq, Probing New Long- Range Interactions by Isotope Shift Spectroscopy, Phys- ical Review Letters 120, 091801 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    Frugiuele, E

    C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, G. Perez, and M. Schlaffer, Con- straining New Physics Models with Isotope Shift Spec- troscopy, Phys. Rev. D 96, 015011 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.