Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Toroidal Transitions in Hydrogenic and Alkali Atoms

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 This paper shows that the previously proposed observation of toroidal optical transitions in hydrogen via high-lying Rydberg states at about 5 tesla fails once diamagnetic level mixing is accounted for, and that the best target is the 1S→2P

desk verdict The paper correctly kills the Rydberg route to toroidal transitions, but the 886 T headline numbers rest on an unquantified truncation. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19832 v1 pith:GJ4JHDPM submitted 2026-07-22 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Kai Xiang Lee , Vincent Mancois , Kelvin Lim , David Wilkowski This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords toroidaldipoleatomicspectroscopyhydrogendiamagneticcouplingspin-orbitdecouplingFoldy-Wouthuysenelectricsuppressiontransitionrates
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 revisits the proposal to observe toroidal optical transitions in hydrogen-like atoms in a strong magnetic field that decouples spin and orbital motion. It shows that the earlier suggestion to use a high-lying Rydberg state (n′ = 51) as the target, at about 5 T, fails once the diamagnetic term is included in the Hamiltonian: diamagnetic mixing re-introduces electric-dipole admixture that dwarfs the toroidal signal. The optimum moves to the low-lying 1S→2P transition at roughly 886 T, where the spin-orbit decoupling reaches 1−T² ≈ 2.7×10⁻⁷, and the remaining E1 background can, in principle, be removed by a differential measurement that flips the magnetic field, light polarization, and spin state. The practical consequence is that toroidal atomic spectroscopy should target low principal quantum numbers with very high fields, not Rydberg states at moderate fields.

What carries the argument

The Foldy-Wouthuysen Hamiltonian truncated at second order, whose angular magnetoelectric term e²ℏ/(4m²c²) σ·(E×A) gives the spin-toroidal dipole coupling −(μ_B²/ec)(Zα/r³)(i/ω)E₀·(r×σ). The argument turns on the competition between this weak T1 term, the spin-orbit term ∝ Zα/r³ that supplies the unwanted E1 admixture, and the diamagnetic term e²B²r²/(12m) that re-mixes ℓ and n at high fields; the paper quantifies the decoupling quality by the trace distance 1−T² = 1−|⟨ψ|n′,ℓ,mℓ,ms⟩|².

What would settle it

Perform the same trace-distance calculation for 1S→2P at B = 886 T with the neglected quartic kinetic term (p+eA)⁴ and sixth-order Foldy–Wouthuysen corrections included; if 1−T² moves above ~10⁻⁶, the headline optimum is not reliable. A measurable proxy would be the differential E1/T1 fluorescence asymmetry on the Lyman-alpha line: if it departs from the predicted scale by more than an order of magnitude, the model is incomplete.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the diamagnetic term ∝ B²r², previously neglected in toroidal-transition proposals, imposes a hard floor on how cleanly spin-orbit coupling can be quenched in hydrogenic atoms. Because diamagnetic mixing scales as n¹¹B² and the degeneracy of the n-manifold grows as n², high-lying Rydberg states are driven into the ℓ- and n-mixing regimes at fields far below those needed to separate the toroidal line from the electric-dipole line; for n′ = 51 the best achievable trace distance is 1−T² ≈ 2.9×10⁻³ at 0.483 mT. For low-n states, ℓ-mixing is forbidden until n-mixing sets in, so the optimum is found at n′ = 2, B ≈ 886 T, with 1−T² ≈ 2.7×10⁻⁷. At that field the toroidal co

Load-bearing premise

The calculation truncates the Foldy-Wouthuysen expansion at second order and drops the quartic (p+eA)⁴ and sixth-order terms; the claimed optimum at 886 T assumes those neglected terms are 'highly suppressed in the low-energy limit' but the paper gives no numerical estimate at that field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Search for toroidal optical transitions should target low principal quantum numbers, with 1S→2P in hydrogen at ~886 T as the current benchmark, not Rydberg states.
  • The earlier Balmer n=2→51 prediction at ~5 T is ruled out: at its optimum the E1 contamination is 1−T² ≈ 2.9×10⁻³, still four orders above what clean spectroscopy needs.
  • A differential measurement—simultaneously flipping the static field, the photon polarization, and the initial spin state—can isolate the T1 contribution because T1 flips sign while E1 does not.
  • Lithium's 2S→2P transition in the red is identified as the most practical atomic target for an attempt.
  • At 886 T, fields are extreme but not imaginary; implosion-type generators reach megatesla levels, and the required stability for differential detection remains the key experimental bottleneck.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same trace-distance criterion could be used to screen other proposed T1 targets (e.g., alkali atoms, ions, or even microwave transitions between Rydberg states) and might rule out many of them; the Z-independence of the T1/E1 ratio implies highly charged ions do not help, so any viable target must be low-n.
  • The failure mode here is generic: any weak, parity-odd atomic amplitude that relies on spin-orbit decoupling in a magnetic field will be contaminated by diamagnetic ℓ-mixing in exactly the same way, so the conclusions likely carry over to proposals for anapole or other toroidal observables in atoms.
  • If a differential asymmetry at the predicted ~10⁻⁷ level were measured on Lyman-alpha, it would constitute the first direct electronic toroidal transition and could be used as a sensitive probe of the angular magnetoelectric coupling itself, potentially constraining the fine-structure constant at high field.
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 revisits toroidal dipole transitions in hydrogenic and alkali atoms, arguing that a recent proposal by Kuprov et al. ([21]) underestimated the difficulty of observing T1 transitions against E1 background because it neglected diamagnetic level mixing. Starting from a second-order Foldy–Wouthuysen Hamiltonian, the authors include the diamagnetic term, the fine-structure terms, and the angular magnetoelectric (toroidal) term, and compute for each n'P state the trace distance 1−T² between the magnetic-field-dressed eigenstate and the spin–orbit-decoupled basis. They find that for n'=51 the optimum decoupling is only 1−T²∼2.9×10⁻³ at B∼0.483 mT, far worse than the earlier estimate; the best overall decoupling occurs at n'=2, B∼886 T, with 1−T²∼2.7×10⁻⁷. A differential measurement based on time-reversal selection rules is proposed to extract the residual T1 signal.

Significance. If the numerical results are correct, the paper delivers an important qualitative correction to the experimental strategy for observing toroidal transitions in atoms: high-lying Rydberg states are not a viable route because of diamagnetic n¹¹B² scaling, and low-n transitions at very high field are preferable. The manuscript is largely parameter-free, uses standard textbook inputs, and the Appendix A cross-check of the two forms of the toroidal operator is a genuine strength. The qualitative conclusion—that the n'=51 route is destroyed by diamagnetic mixing—is robust, since it follows from well-known scaling. The quantitative headline numbers, however, are not yet supported by a demonstrated numerical error budget, so the paper should be revised before archival publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, after Eq. (13)] The neglect of field-dependent parts of (p+eA)^4 and of sixth-order Foldy–Wouthuysen terms is asserted as 'highly suppressed in the low-energy limit' without a numerical estimate at the proposed operating point B≈886 T. At this field, μ_B B/mc² ≈ 1×10⁻⁷, which is the same order as the quoted trace distance 1−T² ≈ 2.7×10⁻⁷, and (eA)/p for a 2P state is of order 10⁻³. The omitted quartic terms contain p³(eA) and p²(eA)² pieces whose coherent effect on ℓ- and m_s-admixtures is not estimated. The central quantitative claim for n'=2 therefore needs either a perturbative bound on these omitted terms or a diagonalization including them, and an error bar on 1−T².
  2. [Section IV, near 'We compute the best trace distance for up to n=70'] The manuscript reports the optima 1−T² ≈ 2.7×10⁻⁷ at 886 T for n'=2 and 1−T² ≈ 2.9×10⁻³ at 0.483 mT for n'=51 without any specification of the basis used for the diagonalization. There is no stated radial cutoff, angular momentum cutoff, number of coupled states, or convergence test. Since these numbers depend on how many n-manifolds are included (the text itself notes n-mixing and level crossings for high n), the results are not reproducible from the text. Please provide the basis parameters and a convergence table, with numerical uncertainties on the quoted trace distances.
  3. [Section I vs. Section IV / Figure 5] The experimental target for the n'=51 comparison is stated inconsistently. Section I and the Introduction describe Kuprov's proposal as the 'Balmer series n=2→n'=51 transition', while Section IV and Figure 5 analyze the '1S→51P' transition (λ≈91 nm, i.e. a Lyman-series transition from the ground state). These are different initial states and different transitions. If the earlier proposal concerned an initial n=2 state, the calculation starting from the 1S ground state does not directly address it. This must be clarified and the two calculations aligned or explicitly distinguished.
  4. [Section IV, spectroscopy numbers] The relationship between the optimization criterion 1−T² and the quoted scattering corrections is not explained. For 1S→2P at 886 T the text reports a 'toroidal term' correction of ∼5.7×10⁻⁴ to the on-resonant E1 scattering, yet the trace distance for the same transition is 1−T²≈2.7×10⁻⁷. These numbers differ by three orders of magnitude, so the reader cannot verify which quantity is actually optimized, or why 1−T² is the right visibility proxy. Please state the definition of the plotted T1 scattering rate, its relation to 1−T², and how the optimum in Figure 4 maps to the experimentally observable ratio.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Figure 5 paragraph] In the paragraph discussing the 51P orbital, the text uses '∆2P' where the context is the 51P fine-structure splitting; this is a typo and should be corrected to '∆51P'.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The upper panel is called 'Inverse trace distance', but the text defines 1−T²; please clarify whether the plotted quantity is 1/(1−T²) or 1−T², and label the axis accordingly.
  3. [Section IV, visibility criterion] The choice '1−T² ∼ 10⁻¹¹' as the visibility threshold is introduced without derivation. Since this criterion is central to the phrase 'above the threshold by four orders-of-magnitude', a one-sentence justification or a reference would improve clarity.
  4. [Section II, text after Table I] The sentence 'the Electric Toroidal gives the weakest contribution and, thus, will be disregarded in the rest of the paper' lacks a quantitative estimate supporting that it is weaker than the magnetic toroidal term at relevant optical transitions; a brief scaling argument would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the T1 operator is cross-checked against an independent retardation expansion, and the headline n'=2 optimum is a parameter-free output of a fixed Hamiltonian; the cited prior proposal is the corrected baseline, not a load-bearing premise.

full rationale

The claimed correction of the Kuprov et al. proposal is not circular. The central quantity 1−T^2 is defined as 1−|<ψ|n',ℓ,m_l,m_s>|^2 from eigenstates of the Hamiltonian in Eqs. (6)–(13), and the optimal field B≈886 T for n'=2 is found by scanning B, not by fitting to a target trace distance; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The T1 operator in Eq. (13) is not merely imported from Ref. [21] (which shares an author): Appendix A re-derives it from Marian's independent Pauli-equation retardation expansion [25] using the known radial identity [41], returning to Eq. (13) as a consistency check. The citation to [21] is used mainly as the baseline being corrected and, together with [33], to justify the second-order Foldy–Wouthuysen truncation, so it is not a self-citation chain that forces the new result. The only flagged weakness is a model-completeness limitation, not circularity: after Eq. (13) the paper states that quartic (p+eA)^4 field terms and sixth-order FW terms are 'highly suppressed in the low-energy limit' without a numerical estimate at 886 T, and no basis size or numerical error bars are given. That is an unquantified truncation/robustness risk that could affect the quantitative 1−T^2≈2.7×10^-7, but the neglected terms are not derived from, nor equivalent to, the predicted optimum. The qualitative destruction of the n'=51 route follows from textbook n^11 B^2 diamagnetic scaling and is independent of the correction. No step in the claimed derivation reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation has no fitted parameters: it uses standard constants, hydrogenic radial integrals, and the FW Hamiltonian. The load-bearing choices are the truncation of the relativistic expansion, the use of an uncoupled n,ℓ,mℓ,ms basis with trace distance as visibility proxy, and a hand-set visibility threshold; none of these are fitted to data. No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Second-order Foldy-Wouthuysen truncation is sufficient; (p+eA)^4 and sixth-order FW terms are negligible.
    Section III, after Eq. 13: 'Additional field-related terms ... are neglected, being highly suppressed in the low-energy limit.' No quantitative bound is given at B≈886 T, the regime of the headline result.
  • domain assumption Optical driving field treated in dipole approximation e^{ikz}≈1.
    Section III, Eqs. 4-11; standard for optical transitions but an approximation to the full field coupling.
  • domain assumption M1 transitions are far-detuned and can be neglected.
    Sections II and III; justifies considering only the E1 vs T1 competition.
  • domain assumption Hydrogenic potential Z e/r with no nuclear-spin coupling; states in uncoupled n, ℓ, mℓ, ms basis.
    Section III, paragraph 'We consider an electron bound to a hydrogenic potential...'; underpins the factorization in Eq. 1.
  • ad hoc to paper Visibility criterion: good visibility requires 1−T² ~ 10^-11, same order as T1/E1 strength.
    Section IV, first paragraph; a chosen threshold for when spin-orbit mixing is small enough, not derived from a signal-to-noise model.
  • standard math Radial matrix-element identity (A6) from [41] is valid for n≠n', ℓ'=ℓ±1.
    Appendix A, Eq. A6; cited prior identity used to show equivalence of toroidal operators.
  • domain assumption Lithium P-orbital quantum defects are small enough that the hydrogenic diamagnetic analysis transfers.
    Sections IV and V, citing [26,27,34,36]; no quantitative trace-distance calculation for Li is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toroidal Transitions in Hydrogenic and Alkali Atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJ4JHDPM

@misc{pith2026260719832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toroidal Transitions in Hydrogenic and Alkali Atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJ4JHDPM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19832}
}
abstract

In addition to electric and magnetic multipoles, the expansion of current density also yields toroidal terms, a lesser-known family of multipoles. A recent proposal, I. Kuprov $\textit{et al.}$, Science Adv. 8 abq6751 (2022), explores the possibility of a direct observation of optical toroidal transitions in hydrogen and alkali atoms in the presence of a large magnetic field that decouples the spin and the angular momentum of the electron. However, the difficulty of observing these transitions against the nearby electric dipole (E1) transitions were underestimated because of extra admixture coming from diamagnetic coupling. Here, we revisit the toroidal coupling in atoms, taking diamagnetic contribution into account, and discuss the technical challenges of observing toroidal coupling in atomic physics. We show that toroidal transition should be searched in transitions with low principal quantum numbers. The remaining strong electric-dipole contribution could be removed using an appropriate differential measurement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19832 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Electric dipole (blue) and spin toroidal dipole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Dipoles from each multipole family, along with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Upper: Inverse trace distance of the nearest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Spectroscopy of T1 scattering rates (relative to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references

  1. [21]

    Toroidal optical transitions in hydrogen-like atoms.Sci

    Ilya Kuprov, David Wilkowski, and Nikolay Zheludev. Toroidal optical transitions in hydrogen-like atoms.Sci. Adv., 8(45), November 2022

    2022

  2. [1]

    Ia. B. Zel’dovich. Electromagnetic interaction with parity violation.J. Exp. Theor. Phys+.+, 33:1531–1533, December 1957

    1957

  3. [2]

    C. S. Wood, S. C. Bennett, D. Cho, B. P. Masterson, J. L. Roberts, C. E. Tanner, and C. E. Wieman. Measurement of parity nonconservation and an anapole moment in cesium.Science, 275(5307):1759–1763, March 1997

    1997

  4. [3]

    Gomez, S

    E. Gomez, S. Aubin, G. D. Sprouse, L. A. Orozco, and D. P. DeMille. Measurement method for the nuclear anapole moment of laser-trapped alkali-metal atoms. Phys. Rev. A, 75(3):033418, March 2007

    2007

  5. [4]

    Preliminary studies for anapole moment measurements in rubidium and francium.J

    D Sheng, L A Orozco, and E Gomez. Preliminary studies for anapole moment measurements in rubidium and francium.J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 43(7):074004, March 2010

    2010

  6. [5]

    Studies of the weak interaction in atomic systems: towards measurements of atomic parity non-conservation in francium.Quantum Sci

    G Gwinner and L A Orozco. Studies of the weak interaction in atomic systems: towards measurements of atomic parity non-conservation in francium.Quantum Sci. Technol., 7(2):024001, January 2022

    2022

  7. [6]

    Quirk, Carol E

    Amy Damitz, Jonah A. Quirk, Carol E. Tanner, and D. S. Elliott. Technique for a direct measurement of the cesium anapole moment using coherent rf and raman interactions.Phys. Rev. A, 109(3):032810, March 2024

    2024

  8. [7]

    Tsigutkin, D

    K. Tsigutkin, D. Dounas-Frazer, A. Family, J. E. Stalnaker, V. V. Yashchuk, and D. Budker. Observation of a large atomic parity violation effect in ytterbium. Phys. Rev. Lett., 103(7):071601, August 2009

    2009

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Dynamic toroid polarizability of atomic hydrogen.Ann

    A Costescu and E.E Radescu. Dynamic toroid polarizability of atomic hydrogen.Ann. Phys-new. York., 209(1):13–74, July 1991

    1991

  2. [9]

    Lewis and S

    Robert R. Lewis and S. M. Blinder. Stark-induced anapole magnetic fields in atoms.Phys. Rev. A, 52(6):4439–4446, December 1995

    1995

  3. [10]

    Stark-induced anapole magnetic fields inn= 2 hydrogen.J

    Robert R Lewis and A Góngora-T. Stark-induced anapole magnetic fields inn= 2 hydrogen.J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 31(16):3565–3574, August 1998

    1998

  4. [11]

    Bhattacharya and B

    A. Bhattacharya and B. Talukdar. Anapole moments and magnetic fields in alkali-metal atoms from stark mixing. Phys. Rev. A, 61(2):022112, January 2000

    2000

  5. [12]

    Krzysztof Mielewczyk and Radosław Szmytkowski. Stark-induced magnetic anapole moment in the ground stateof therelativistic hydrogenlikeatom: Application of the sturmian expansion of the generalized dirac-coulomb green function.Phys. Rev. A, 73(2):022511, February 2006

    2006

  6. [13]

    Dynamic toroidizability as ubiquitous property of atoms and molecules in optical electric fields.J

    Francesco Ferdinando Summa, Guglielmo Monaco, Riccardo Zanasi, and Paolo Lazzeretti. Dynamic toroidizability as ubiquitous property of atoms and molecules in optical electric fields.J. Chem. Phys., 156(5), February 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    Zurita-Sánchez

    Jorge R. Zurita-Sánchez. Anapole due to a tangentially polarized dipole near a subwavelength sphere: Inhibition and enhancement of spontaneous emission.Phys. Rev. A, 104(5):053524, November 2021

    2021

  8. [15]

    Costescu, P

    A. Costescu, P. M. Bergstrom, C. Dinu, and R. H. Pratt. Retardation and multipole effects in rayleigh scattering by hydrogenlike ions at low and x-ray photon energies. Phys. Rev. A, 50(2):1390–1398, August 1994

    1994

  9. [16]

    The anapole moments of hydrogenic atoms.J

    E R Boston and P G H Sandars. The anapole moments of hydrogenic atoms.J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 23(15):2663–2672, August 1990

    1990

  10. [17]

    Parity non-conservation and anapoles.J

    S M Apenko and Yu E Lozovik. Parity non-conservation and anapoles.J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys., 15(3):L57–L62, February 1982

    1982

  11. [18]

    Bhattacharya, M

    A. Bhattacharya, M. M. Panja, and B. Talukdar. Atomic anapole moments in the electroweak theory.Phys. Rev. A, 52(6):4963–4965, December 1995

    1995

  12. [19]

    Robert R. Lewis. Anapole moments of atoms.Phys. Rev. A, 48(6):4107–4112, December 1993

    1993

  13. [20]

    K. E. Ballantine and J. Ruostekoski. Radiative toroidal dipole and anapole excitations in collectively responding arrays of atoms.Phys. Rev. Lett., 125(6):063201, August 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Dubovik and V.V

    V.M. Dubovik and V.V. Tugushev. Toroid moments in electrodynamics and solid-state physics.Phys. Rep., 187(4):145–202, March 1990

    1990

  15. [23]

    V. M. Dubovik, L. A. Tosunyan, and V. V. Tugushev. Axial toroidal moments in electrodynamics and solid- state physics.J. Exp. Theor. Phys+.+, 63(2):344, February 1986

    1986

  16. [24]

    Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2016

    Stefan Nanz.Toroidal Multipole Moments in Classical Electrodynamics. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2016

    2016

  17. [25]

    Tudor A. Marian. Higher-order multipole expansion in the dirac equation.Phys. Rev. A, 53(4):1992–1999, April 1996

    1992

  18. [26]

    Gallagher.Rydberg Atoms

    Thomas F. Gallagher.Rydberg Atoms. Cambridge University Press, September 1994

    1994

  19. [27]

    Core-induced chaos in diamagnetic lithium.Phys

    Michael Courtney and Daniel Kleppner. Core-induced chaos in diamagnetic lithium.Phys. Rev. A, 53:178–191, Jan 1996

    1996

  20. [28]

    The hydrogen atom in a uniform magnetic field — an example of chaos

    Harald Friedrich and Hieter Wintgen. The hydrogen atom in a uniform magnetic field — an example of chaos. Phys. Rep., 183(2):37–79, November 1989

    1989

  21. [29]

    L.Sánchez, B.Moreno, andA.LópezPiñeiro

    M. L.Sánchez, B.Moreno, andA.LópezPiñeiro. Matrix- element calculations for hydrogenlike atoms.Phys. Rev. A, 46(11):6908–6913, December 1992

    1992

  22. [30]

    Generalized laguerre polynomials

    Wolfram Research. Generalized laguerre polynomials. definite integration. Last visited on 10/8/2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Calculation of rydberg interaction potentials.J

    Sebastian Weber, Christoph Tresp, Henri Menke, Alban Urvoy, Ofer Firstenberg, Hans Peter Büchler, and Sebastian Hofferberth. Calculation of rydberg interaction potentials.J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys., 50(13):133001, June 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Foldy and Siegfried A

    Leslie L. Foldy and Siegfried A. Wouthuysen. On the dirac theory of spin 1/2 particles and its non-relativistic limit.Phys. Rev., 78(1):29–36, April 1950

    1950

  25. [33]

    Oppeneer, and L

    Ritwik Mondal, Marco Berritta, Charles Paillard, Surendra Singh, Brahim Dkhil, Peter M. Oppeneer, and L. Bellaiche. Relativistic interaction hamiltonian 9 coupling the angular momentum of light and the electron spin.Phys. Rev. B, 92(10):100402, September 2015

    2015

  26. [34]

    Michael Courtney.Rydberg Atoms in Strong Fields: a Testing Ground for Quantum Chaos.PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, January 1995

    1995

  27. [35]

    Zagoskin, Arkadi Chipouline, Evgeni Il’ichev, J

    Alexandre M. Zagoskin, Arkadi Chipouline, Evgeni Il’ichev, J. Robert Johansson, and Franco Nori. Toroidal qubits: naturally-decoupled quiet artificial atoms.Sci. Rep., 5(1), November 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    P. Goy, J. Liang, M. Gross, and S. Haroche. Quantum defectsandspecific-isotopic-shiftmeasurementsinnsand np highly excited states of lithium: Exchange effects between rydberg and core electrons.Phys. Rev. A, 34:2889–2896, Oct 1986

    1986

  29. [37]

    Murakami, J

    M. Murakami, J. J. Honrubia, K. Weichman, A. V. Arefiev, and S. V. Bulanov. Generation of megatesla magnetic fields by intense-laser-driven microtube implosions.Sci. Rep., 10(1), October 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Zhou and J

    C. Zhou and J. Tang. Analysis on the operation parameters of cooling water system in 45.22t hybrid magnet experiment.Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 44:102868, April 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Kaspi and Andrei M

    Victoria M. Kaspi and Andrei M. Beloborodov. Magnetars.Annu. Rev. Astron. Astr., 55(1):261–301, August 2017

    2017

  32. [40]

    Huntemann, M

    N. Huntemann, M. Okhapkin, B. Lipphardt, S. Weyers, Chr. Tamm, and E. Peik. High-accuracy optical clock based on the octupole transition in171Yb+.Phys. Rev. Lett., 108:090801, Feb 2012

    2012

  33. [41]

    Bruno Blaive and Michel Cadilhac. A comparison of the hydrogenlike dipole radial matrix elements with overlap integrals and a step toward explicit expressions of the multipole matrix elements.Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, 42(16):165002, jul 2009

    2009

Pith tools

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