Isotope shifts in $^{20,22}$Ne -- Precision measurements and global analysis in the framework of intermediate coupling

A. J. Geddes; B. Ohayon; G. Ron; H. Rahangdale; J. C. Berengut

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 127 references

Isotope shifts in $^{20,22}$Ne -- Precision measurements and global analysis in the framework of intermediate coupling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Twenty-one effective parameters account for 145 neon isotope shifts.

desk verdict Reference-quality neon isotope-shift data and a clean global fit, but the theory-reconciliation claim is oversold by a hand-picked replacement of the Breit correction. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01991 v1 pith:LXZQABVN submitted 2019-09-04 physics.atom-ph

B. Ohayon , H. Rahangdale , A. J. Geddes , J. C. Berengut , G. Ron This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-ph

keywords isotopeshiftsneonspecificmassshiftfieldintermediatecouplingglobalfitnuclearchargeradiisaturatedabsorptionspectroscopy

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 sets out to show that the full body of $^{20}$Ne--$^{22}$Ne isotope-shift measurements, accumulated over roughly ninety years, can be described by a small set of effective parameters rather than by line-by-line empiricism. Its central claim is that 145 average transition isotope shifts, after subtracting the normal mass shift, reduce to 21 parameters tied to the electronic structure of neon, and that these parameters reproduce the shifts of all fifty low-lying levels with useful precision. If the claim holds, the historical discrepancies between measured neon isotope shifts and ab initio calculations largely dissolve once field shifts and relativistic core effects are handled properly. The paper also reports new precision measurements and updated field-shift factors, which change the deduced charge-radius differences of neon isotopes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the intermediate-coupling expansion of the $2p^5 nl$ wavefunctions over LS-coupled and $jj$-coupled bases, summarized as parentage coefficients. To each configuration the paper assigns effective isotope-shift parameters that share the angular coefficients of fine-structure parameters: $f_0(nl)$ offset shifts, $g_1(2p,nl)$ first-order specific mass shift (analogous to the exchange integral $G_1$), $z_{2p}$ core relativistic shift (analogous to the hole spin-orbit parameter $\zeta_{2p}$), and $T(^{2S+1}L)$ terms for second-order mass shift. The identity relating $g_1$ ratios to $G_1$ ratios is what reduces the 30-parameter fit to 21 parameters; the whole construction is fitted directly to transition shifts through a linear design matrix.

What would settle it

Compute the isotope shift of the 614 nm line with an independent fully relativistic method that includes the complete Breit interaction (no core-only replacement) and compare with the measured $1663.8(2)$ MHz; a residual beyond a few MHz would falsify the core-confinement assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is that the isotope-shift problem in neon is effectively low-dimensional. A global least-squares fit to 145 averaged transition isotope shifts yields residual level shifts for 55 levels with good consistency ($\chi^2/\nu = 0.987$). Expanding the wavefunctions in an intermediate-coupling basis and exploiting the analogy between specific mass shift and fine-structure operators, the same data are then described by 30 effective parameters, and by 21 parameters when the first-order shift parameters are assumed to scale like the fine-structure exchange integrals, $g_1(2p,nl)/g_1(2p,3l) = G_1(2p,nl)/G_1(2p,3l)$, with $\chi^2/\nu = 0.930$. Recalculating level shifts from these parameters improves precision substantially, and reinterpreting earlier mass-shift calculations as calculations of these effective parameters removes most of the previously reported disagreement with experiment; for the 614 nm line, replacing the full Breit correction with the measured core shift brings the MCDHF result to agreement with the new value $1663.8(2)$ MHz.

Load-bearing premise

The reconciliation rests on the assumption that relativistic isotope-shift corrections are confined to the 2p core, which lets the paper replace the full Breit correction in the 614 nm calculation with a much smaller core shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

All 145 averaged transition isotope shifts can be reproduced from 21 effective parameters, and line shifts recalculated from the parameter fit show an average 27-fold gain in precision over the historical line-by-line averages.
The updated field-shift factor for the 614 nm transition changes the deduced RMS charge-radius differences $\delta\langle r^2\rangle^{20,A}$ for neon isotopes 17--28 and brings them into better agreement with x-ray and coupled-cluster values.
Most historical theory-experiment discrepancies for neon isotope shifts disappear when earlier calculations are read as predictions of the effective mass-shift parameters and when the new field shifts are included.
The measured core relativistic shift $z_{2p}=23.72(16)$ MHz combines with the normal mass shift to give a total $2p$ fine-structure isotope shift of $82.07(16)$ MHz, consistent with fourth-order many-body perturbation theory at $93(14)$ MHz.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: the same intermediate-coupling parametric scheme should transfer to other noble gases with a $2p$ hole; a concrete testable prediction is that the ratio $g_1(nl)/g_1(3l)$ continues to equal $G_1(nl)/G_1(3l)$ in argon, krypton, or xenon.
Editorial extension: the core-confinement replacement of the Breit correction in the 614 nm calculation is an assumption, not a derivation; a fully relativistic calculation that keeps the complete Breit operator would decide whether the reconciliation survives.
Editorial extension: because the 21-parameter model is linear, it could be fitted directly to isotope-shift data for radioactive neon isotopes, yielding predicted shifts for unmeasured lines and a nuclear-model-independent separation of field and mass shifts in collinear-beam experiments.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is the reference-quality neon isotope-shift data paper—seven new DSAS measurements, a careful compilation and averaging of 145 lines, a clean global fit to 21 effective parameters, and updated field-shift factors that sharpen charge-radius differences. The experimental and fit work is solid and worth citing.

The theory-reconciliation section is the soft spot. In Sec. X the authors take the only direct MCDHF calculation of the 614 nm transition, find 30–110 MHz discrepancies, then replace the calculated 9 GHz u Breit correction with 0.57 GHz u, saying it corresponds to an 11% × z2p core shift. z2p is an empirical parameter from their fit, not a calculated Breit contribution. No derivation is given. Without that substitution the corrected theory misses by about 28 MHz. That is load-bearing for the 'remarkable agreement' line in the abstract, and the claim is too strong as it stands. Table VII also shows several parameters outside 1 sigma, so 'agreement' is more like 'reasonable after adjustment.'

Minor soft spots: the model is fit to the same 145 lines it reproduces, so the recalculated level shifts are a compression/interpolation, not independent validation. That is fine as a framework, but the paper should not imply the fit validates the model. The absolute residual shift of the reference level is estimated crudely (210(20) MHz); that propagates to absolute ground-state shifts, so those numbers should be read loosely.

What is genuinely good: the averaging procedure is careful (Birge-ratio inflation, Chauvenet outliers), the global fit is internally consistent (chi2/df near 0.93), and the field-shift factors come from a reproducible CI+MBPT calculation. The charge-radius updates for 17–28Ne look useful and likely correct.

Recommendation: peer review it, but the referee should push for a derivation (or at least a proper bounding) of the Breit replacement, and for the abstract's 'remarkable agreement' to be toned down.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports new precision measurements of 20Ne-22Ne isotope shifts for seven transitions using dual-sideband saturated absorption spectroscopy, combines them with historical data into 145 averaged transition isotope shifts, and extracts residual isotope shifts of fifty low-lying neon levels through a linear global fit. It then develops intra- and interconfiguration parametric models based on intermediate coupling, with 30 and 21 effective parameters respectively, that reproduce the averaged line shifts with chi2/df near unity and improve the precision of recalculated level shifts. The paper also presents ab initio CI+MBPT field-shift calculations, uses them to update neon charge-radius differences, and reinterprets previous mass-shift calculations, claiming a remarkable agreement between experiment and theory after replacing the Breit correction in a prior MCDHF calculation of the 614 nm transition.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a valuable high-precision isotope-shift database for neon, a transparent global-fitting framework that connects measured line shifts to effective atomic parameters, and an update of neon charge-radius differences from new field-shift factors. The strengths include the careful statistical treatment of historical data with Birge-ratio inflation, the explicit reporting of covariance matrices, the ab initio field-shift calculations with stated uncertainty estimates, and the demonstration that a small number of effective parameters can describe 145 averaged line shifts. However, the paper's headline claim of remarkable experiment-theory agreement rests on a single unquantified substitution in Sec. X, and that claim is not yet supported by the evidence as presented.

major comments (3)

[Sec. X (final paragraph) and Table VII] The claimed agreement for the 614 nm transition is obtained by replacing the MCDHF Breit correction of 9 GHz u (27 MHz for 20,22Ne) from Table 3 of [41] with a value of 0.57 GHz u = 2.6 MHz, described as '11% x z2p core shift'. This replacement is not derived: z2p is an empirical parameter of the global fit (Table VI), not a calculated Breit contribution, and the stated 89% jc=3/2 parentage of the 3p[3/2]2 level only rescales that empirical value; it does not justify removing 24.4 MHz of a many-body relativistic contribution. Retaining the original Breit value would place the corrected theory near 1692 MHz, about 28 MHz above the measured 1663.8(2) MHz. The agreement quoted in the abstract and in Table VII is therefore conditional on an unquantified post-hoc substitution, and the authors should either derive this replacement, bound its uncertainty, or soften the claim.
[Secs. VIII-IX, Eqs. (8)-(9), Table X] The 21-parameter interconfiguration model is fitted to the same 145 averaged line shifts that it is later used to reproduce, so the recalculated level shifts and reduced uncertainties in Table X are internal to the parametrization rather than an independent validation. The improved chi2/df and AIC values demonstrate internal consistency, but the paper should state explicitly that the level shifts predicted from the parametric model inherit the fit by construction; the physical interpretation is supported only through the stability of the parameters and their comparison with independent theoretical values, not through the quality of the recalculated level shifts themselves.
[Sec. III, Table I and text] There is an inconsistency in the reported field-shift factor for the 614 nm transition: Table I lists -30.5(1.1) MHz/fm2, while the text states a weighted value of -31.4(0.9) MHz/fm2. Since this value is used for the updated charge-radius differences and for the theory comparison, the discrepancy must be explained and the two numbers made consistent.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'analougous' in the Table V caption, 'assymetry' and 'asymmetry' in Sec. IV, 'Fabri-P´erot' with inconsistent accent spacing, and 'preform' in the conclusion.
[Eq. (2)] The displayed formula for the normal mass shift is typeset in a way that is hard to parse; the fraction should be written with an unambiguous numerator and denominator.
[Sec. VI and Table X] The paper refers to the covariance matrix of Table XI as 'more diagonal' for the chosen reference level, but the table shows many correlations close to unity for highly excited levels; a brief explanation of why the reference choice improves conditioning would be helpful.
[Fig. 2] The vertical axis label is very long and could be split for readability; also, the caption refers to 'Basar' while the main text uses 'Basar et. al.', and the spelling should be consistent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 614-nm 'agreement' with [41] is constructed by replacing the ab initio Breit correction with 11% of the fitted z2p parameter; the global fit itself is descriptive, not predictive.

fitted input called prediction [Sec. X, final paragraph (Comparison with Theory, 614 nm reanalysis)]
"We thus exchange the Breit correction of 9 GHz u (27 MHz for 20,22Ne) of table 3 in [41], with the much smaller value of 0.57 GHz u, corresponding to a 11% × z(2p) = 2.6 MHz for 20,22Ne core shift. After application of both corrections, and assessing the theoretical uncertainty as at least the last presented digit, an agreement between experiment and theory is achieved for all neon isotopes."

z2p is the empirical core-shift parameter fitted to the 145 averaged line RIS (Table VI: z2p = 23.7(2) MHz), and the 614.3 nm line is part of that dataset. The corrected theory therefore replaces an ab initio Breit contribution with a fitted parameter drawn from the same observable it is compared with, removing most of the 30-110 MHz discrepancy by construction. The cited cancellation [80] is not evaluated in the MCDHF framework, and the 89% jc=3/2 parentage merely fixes the projection of the empirical parameter. Retaining the original Breit value would leave the corrected 614 nm value roughly 28 MHz above experiment, so the reported 'remarkable agreement' with [41] is not an independent test of that calculation.

full rationale

The global parametric analysis (Secs. VI-IX) is not circular in the narrow sense: the 21-parameter model is fitted to the 145 line shifts, so the resulting recalculated level and line shifts are descriptive outputs of the fit, not independent predictions, and the paper does not present them as ab initio forecasts. The problematic step is the theory comparison in Sec. X. For the only direct ab initio calculation of a measured transition ([41], 614.3 nm), the authors replace the calculated 9 GHz u Breit correction with 0.57 GHz u, which they identify as 11% of the empirical core-shift parameter z2p from their global fit. Since z2p was obtained by fitting the same 20,22Ne dataset that includes the 614.3 nm line, the 'corrected theory' value 1668(5) MHz is not an ab initio prediction; it inherits the fit. The cited cancellation [80] is not evaluated in the MCDHF framework, and the 89% jc=3/2 parentage only projects the fitted parameter. Without this substitution, the residual would be about 28 MHz, so the claimed 'remarkable agreement' with [41] is partly constructed. This is a partial circularity, not a complete one: the independent ab initio field-shift calculations, the DSAS measurements, and the comparisons with other MBPT/MCHF values for g1 and configuration offsets are external evidence and do not reduce to the fit.

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

The reported level shifts rest on the measured/historical lineshift dataset plus the linear model Eq. 5. The 21-parameter description pulls its angular structure from a fine-structure fit (Table IV) and its field-shift content from AMBiT; the theory-agreement section additionally introduces an ad hoc Breit-correction value. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)

Interconfiguration effective IS parameters (Table VI): global z2p, six f0, two g1, ten T(2S+1L), c = See Table VI (z2p=23.7(2) MHz, c=4.6(6) MHz)
Fitted to the 145 average transition isotope shifts via Eq. 9; central parameter set of the paper. Values: z2p 23.7(2); f0 419.4(7), 144(2), 244(2), 283(3), 186(1), 233(7); g1 -726(1), -110(3); T values for 3p and 4p as in Table VI; c 4.6(6) MHz.
Intraconfiguration effective IS parameters (Table V), 30 values = See Table V (MHz)
Intermediate fit to the same line-shift data; used to verify reduction from 30 to 21 parameters.
Fine-structure parameters per configuration (Table IV) = See Table IV (cm^-1)
Fitted to known neon level energies; determines the intermediate-coupling angular coefficients (Table XII) used in the IS parametric model.
Replacement Breit correction for the 614 nm MCDHF calculation = 0.57 GHz u (replaces 9 GHz u)
Ad hoc value chosen in Sec. X to make the MCDHF calculation agree with measurement; no derivation is supplied.
Absolute residual isotope shift of the reference level 3s[3/2]2 = 210(20) MHz
Crude extrapolation to the ionization limit (Sec. X); used only for the absolute ground-state SMS estimate.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Isotope shift separates into normal mass shift, specific mass shift, and first-order field shift with FSF linear in delta<r2> (Eqs. 2-3).
Standard atomic-physics model; higher-order field shifts and cross terms are neglected.
domain assumption Mass-shift operators have the same angular structure as fine-structure operators (Stone analogy).
Basis for using fine-structure angular coefficients from Table XII as the design matrix for IS parameters (Secs. VII-IX).
domain assumption Configuration interaction is negligible in the low-lying configurations except for the 3p [1/2]1 level, where a single effective parameter c is added.
Sec. VII states CI is negligible for n<=4; Sec. VIII adds one CI parameter for the most mixed 3p levels.
ad hoc to paper Relativistic isotope-shift corrections are confined to the 2p core, so the core shift z2p can be transferred to other transitions.
Used in Sec. X to replace the Breit correction in [41] with a small value; this is the load-bearing premise for the claimed theory agreement.
domain assumption The muonic X-ray value delta<r2>20,22 = -0.31[3] fm^2 [52] and its nuclear-model uncertainty are accepted.
Used to convert field-shift factors to transition field shifts and to calibrate the King-plot for charge radii table II.
standard math Chauvenet's criterion with p=0.05/n and Birge-ratio inflation give an unbiased treatment of historical outliers.
Statistical procedure in Sec. V; the choice of p-value is conventional but somewhat arbitrary.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isotope shifts in $^{20,22}$Ne -- Precision measurements and global analysis in the framework of intermediate coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXZQABVN

@misc{pith2026190901991,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isotope shifts in $^20,22$Ne -- Precision measurements and global analysis in the framework of intermediate coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXZQABVN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01991}
}

abstract

We report new precision measurements of the $^{20}$Ne--$^{22}$Ne isotope shift for several transitions, as well as state-of-the-art, \textit{ab initio} field-shift calculations. Our results are combined with historical measurements in a global fit to obtain the isotope shifts of all fifty low-lying neon levels with high precision. These level shifts show a wealth of electronic, nuclear, and relativistic phenomena. Relying on the analogy between mass shift and fine-structure operators, we explain this plethora of neon level-shifts utilizing a small number of effective parameters in a global parametric investigation. This investigation provides a birds-eye view on the isotope shift phenomena in noble gasses. From this vantage point, we reinterpret every effort made to calculate neon mass-shifts \textit{ab initio}, and show that a remarkable agreement between experiment and theory is obtained.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01991 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

[41]

J. Li, M. Godefroid, and J. Wang, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 115002 (2016)

2016
[1]

J. J. Thomson, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 24, 209 (1912)

1912
[2]

Thomson, F

J. Thomson, F. Aston, F. Soddy, T. Merton, and F. Lindemann, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 99, 87 (1921)

1921
[3]

Huber, T

A. Huber, T. Udem, B. Gross, J. Reichert, M. Kourogi, K. Pachucki, M. Weitz, and T. W. H¨ ansch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 468 (1998)

1998
[4]

U. D. Jentschura, A. Matveev, C. G. Parthey, J. Alnis, R. Pohl, T. Udem, N. Kolachevsky, and T. W. H¨ ansch, Phys. Rev. A 83, 042505 (2011)

2011
[5]

H. J. Monkhorst, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 49, 877 (1994), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qua.560490609

work page doi:10.1002/qua.560490609 1994
[6]

Pachucki and V

K. Pachucki and V. A. Yerokhin, Journal of Physi- cal and Chemical Reference Data 44, 031206 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4921428

work page doi:10.1063/1.4921428 2015
[7]

Pachucki, V

K. Pachucki, V. Patk´ os, and V. A. Yerokhin, Phys. Rev. A 95, 062510 (2017)

2017

Show all 127 references

[8]

Yan and G

Z.-C. Yan and G. W. Drake, Physical Review A 61, 022504 (2000)

2000
[9]

N¨ ortersh¨ auser, R

W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, R. S´ anchez, G. Ewald, A. Dax, J. Behr, P. Bricault, B. A. Bushaw, J. Dilling, M. Domb- sky, G. W. F. Drake, S. G¨ otte, H.-J. Kluge, T. K¨ uhl, J. Lassen, C. D. P. Levy, K. Pachucki, M. Pearson, M. Puchalski, A. Wojtaszek, Z.-C. Yan, and C. Zim- mermann...

2011
[10]

Dragani´ c, J

I. Dragani´ c, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, R. DuBois, S. Fritzsche, V. M. Shabaev, R. S. Orts, I. I. Tupitsyn, Y. Zou, and J. Ullrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 183001 (2003)

2003
[11]

R. S. Orts, Z. Harman, J. R. Crespo L´ opez-Urrutia, A. N. Artemyev, H. Bruhns, A. J. G. Mart´ ınez, U. D. Jentschura, C. H. Keitel, A. Lapierre, V. Mironov, V. M. Shabaev, H. Tawara, I. I. Tupitsyn, J. Ullrich, and A. V. Volotka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 103002 (2006)

2006
[12]

Z.-T. Lu, P. Mueller, G. Drake, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, S. C. Pieper, and Z.-C. Yan, Reviews of Modern Physics 85, 1383 (2013)

2013
[13]

N¨ ortersh¨ auser, C

W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, C. Geppert, A. Krieger, K. Pachucki, M. Puchalski, K. Blaum, M. L. Bissell, N. Fr¨ ommgen, M. Hammen, M. Kowalska, et al. , Physical review let- ters 115, 033002 (2015)

2015
[14]

Ashenfelter, G

T. Ashenfelter, G. J. Mathews, and K. A. Olive, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 041102 (2004)

2004
[15]

V. A. Korol and M. G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. A 76, 022103 (2007)

2007
[16]

J. C. Berengut, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, J. A. King, M. G. Kozlov, M. T. Murphy, and J. K. Webb, in From Varying Couplings to Fundamental Physics , edited by C. Martins and P. Molaro (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011) pp. 9–16

2011
[17]

Delaunay, R

C. Delaunay, R. Ozeri, G. Perez, and Y. Soreq, Phys. Rev. D 96, 093001 (2017)

2017
[18]

Frugiuele, E

C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, G. Perez, and M. Schlaﬀer, Phys. Rev. D 96, 015011 (2017)

2017
[19]

Brix and H

P. Brix and H. Kopfermann, Reviews of Modern Physics 30, 517 (1958)

1958
[20]

E. W. Otten, in Treatise on heavy ion science (Springer,
[21]

Palﬀy, Contemporary Physics 51, 471 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2010.493325

A. Palﬀy, Contemporary Physics 51, 471 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2010.493325

2010
[22]

Campbell, I

P. Campbell, I. Moore, and M. Pearson, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 86, 127 (2016)

2016
[23]

Freer, H

M. Freer, H. Horiuchi, Y. Kanada-En’yo, D. Lee, and U.-G. Meißner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 035004 (2018)

2018
[24]

Tanihata, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 22, 157 (1996)

I. Tanihata, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 22, 157 (1996)

1996
[25]

L.-B. Wang, P. Mueller, K. Bailey, G. Drake, J. Greene, D. Henderson, R. Holt, R. Janssens, C. Jiang, Z.-T. Lu, et al. , Physical review letters 93, 142501 (2004)

2004
[26]

Sanchez, W

R. Sanchez, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, G. Ewald, D. Albers, J. Behr, P. Bricault, B. A. Bushaw, A. Dax, J. Dilling, M. Dombsky, et al. , Physical review letters 96, 033002 (2006)

2006
[27]

Mueller, I

P. Mueller, I. Sulai, A. Villari, J. Alcantara-Nunez, R. Alves-Cond´ e, K. Bailey, G. Drake, M. Dubois, C. El´ eon, G. Gaubert,et al., Physical review letters 99, 252501 (2007)

2007
[28]

N¨ ortersh¨ auser, D

W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, D. Tiedemann, M.ˇZ´ akov´ a, Z. And- jelkovic, K. Blaum, M. Bissell, R. Cazan, G. Drake, C. Geppert, M. Kowalska, et al. , Physical review let- ters 102, 062503 (2009)

2009
[29]

Ohayon, G

B. Ohayon, G. Gumpel, and G. Ron, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 50, 055401 (2017)

2017
[30]

Hughes and C

D. Hughes and C. Eckart, Physical Review 36, 694 (1930)

1930
[31]

W. H. King, Isotope shifts in atomic spectra (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

2013
[32]

Geithner, T

W. Geithner, T. Neﬀ, G. Audi, K. Blaum, P. Dela- haye, H. Feldmeier, S. George, C. Gu´ enaut, F. Herfurth, A. Herlert, et al. , Physical review letters 101, 252502 (2008)

2008
[33]

E. B. Saloman and C. J. Sansonetti, Journal of Phys- ical and Chemical Reference Data 33, 1113 (2004), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1797771

2004 doi
[34]

Nagaoka, Institute Phys

H. Nagaoka, Institute Phys. Chem. Research (Tokyo) 13, 293 (1930)

1930
[35]

Bauche and R.-J

J. Bauche and R.-J. Champeau, in Advances in atomic and molecular physics , Vol. 12 (Elsevier, 1976) pp. 39– 86

1976
[36]

Puchalski, J

M. Puchalski, J. Komasa, and K. Pachucki, Physical Review A 92, 062501 (2015)

2015
[37]

B. Maaß, T. H¨ uther, J. Krause, J. Kr¨ amer, K. K¨ onig, A. Lovato, P. M¨ uller, M. Puchalski, K. Pachucki, R. Roth, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.06323 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[38]

Geithner, K

W. Geithner, K. Hilligsoe, S. Kappertz, G. Katko, M. Keim, S. Kloos, G. Kotrotsios, P. Lievens, K. Mari- nova, R. Neugart, L. Vermeeren, S. Wilbert, and the ISOLDE Collaboration, Hyperﬁne Interactions127, 117 (2000)

2000
[39]

J. E. Rosenthal and G. Breit, Physical Review 41, 459 (1932)

1932
[40]

Naz´ e, Relativistic ab initio calculations of isotope shifts, Ph.D

C. Naz´ e, Relativistic ab initio calculations of isotope shifts, Ph.D. thesis (2012)

2012
[42]

Marinova, Journal of Physical and Chemical Refer- 18 ence Data 44, 031214 (2015)

K. Marinova, Journal of Physical and Chemical Refer- 18 ence Data 44, 031214 (2015)

2015
[43]

E. V. Kahl and J. C. Berengut, Computer Physics Com- munications (2019), 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.12.014

2019 doi
[44]

J. C. Berengut, Phys. Rev. A 94, 012502 (2016)

2016
[45]

ﬁnite ﬁeld

has been implemented in AMBiT using the diagram- matical technique described in [49]. The neon calculation included one, two and three body core-valence diagrams at the second order of perturbation theory using a virtual basis set of 30spdfg. The Coulomb potential in AMBiT inc...

1930
[46]

V. M. Shabaev, I. I. Tupitsyn, V. A. Yerokhin, G. Plu- nien, and G. Soﬀ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 130405 (2004)

2004
[47]

W. R. Johnson, S. A. Blundell, and J. Sapirstein, Phys. Rev. A 37, 307 (1988)

1988
[48]

V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and M. G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3948 (1996)

1996
[49]

J. C. Berengut, V. V. Flambaum, and M. G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012504 (2006)

2006
[50]

Marinova, W

K. Marinova, W. Geithner, M. Kowalska, K. Blaum, S. Kappertz, M. Keim, S. Kloos, G. Kotrotsios, P. Lievens, R. Neugart, et al. , Physical Review C 84, 034313 (2011)

2011
[51]

A. J. Geddes, D. A. Czapski, E. V. Kahl, and J. C. Berengut, Phys. Rev. A 98, 042508 (2018)

2018
[52]

Fricke, C

G. Fricke, C. Bernhardt, K. Heilig, L. Schaller, L. Schel- lenberg, E. Shera, and C. Dejager, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 60, 177 (1995)

1995
[53]

G. R. Jansen, M. D. Schuster, A. Signoracci, G. Hagen, and P. Navr´ atil, Phys. Rev. C94, 011301 (2016)

2016
[54]

J. C. Berengut, V. A. Dzuba, and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022502 (2003)

2003
[55]

P. J. Leo, D. F. T. Mullamphy, G. Peach, V. Venturi, and I. B. Whittingham, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 29, 4573 (1996)

1996
[56]

Sasso, G

A. Sasso, G. M. Tino, M. Inguscio, N. Beverini, and M. Francesconi, Il Nuovo Cimento D 10, 941 (1988)

1988
[57]

S. N. Jabr and W. R. Bennett Jr, Physical Review A 21, 1518 (1980)

1980
[58]

The weighted mean is recalcu- lated after removal of outliers and appears in tables VIII and IX

may indicate an unaccounted-for systematic in that measurement campaign. The weighted mean is recalcu- lated after removal of outliers and appears in tables VIII and IX. To account for inconsistencies in the data, which were not removed along with the outliers, we inﬂate the s...
[59]

R. T. Birge, Phys. Rev. 40, 207 (1932)

1932
[60]

W. Chauvenet, A Manual of Spherical and Practical As- tronomy: Embracing the General Problems of Spherical Astronomy, the Special Applications to Nautical Astron- omy, and the Theory and Use of Fixed and Portable Astronomical Instruments, with an Appendix on the Method of Leas...
[61]

E. Konz, T. Kraft, and H.-G. Rubahn, Appl. Opt. 31, 4995 (1992)

1992
[62]

M˚ artensson-Pendrill, Canadian Journal of Physics 86, 99 (2008)

A.-M. M˚ artensson-Pendrill, Canadian Journal of Physics 86, 99 (2008)

2008
[63]

Basar, G

G. Basar, G. Basar, S. B¨ uttgenbach, S. Kr¨ oger, and H.- D. Kronfeldt, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D Atoms, Molecules and Clusters 39, 283 (1997)

1997
[64]

Pendrill, Physica Scripta 1997, 151 (1997)

L. Pendrill, Physica Scripta 1997, 151 (1997)

1997
[65]

Saprykin, Optics and Spectroscopy 122, 549 (2017)

E. Saprykin, Optics and Spectroscopy 122, 549 (2017)

2017
[66]

Chatﬁeld, J

C. Chatﬁeld, J. Zidek, and J. Lindsey, An introduction to generalized linear models (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2010)

2010
[67]

Saprykin, V

E. Saprykin, V. A. Sorokin, and A. M. Shalagin, Quan- tum Electronics 45, 672 (2015)

2015
[68]

R. D. Cowan, JOSA 58, 808 (1968)

1968
[69]

A. P. Stone, Proceedings of the Physical Society 74, 424 (1959)

1959
[70]

E. U. Condon and G. H. Shortley, The theory of atomic spectra (Cambridge University Press, 1951)

1951
[71]

Trees, Phys

R. Trees, Phys. Rev. 83, 756 (1951)

1951
[72]

R. D. Cowan, The theory of atomic structure and spec- tra, 3 (Univ of California Press, 1981)

1981
[73]

Feneuille, M

S. Feneuille, M. Klapisch, E. Koenig, and S. Liberman, Physica 48, 571 (1970)

1970
[74]

A. E. Kramida and G. Nave, The European Physical Journal D - Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics 39, 331 (2006)

2006
[75]

Racah, Physical Review 85, 381 (1952)

G. Racah, Physical Review 85, 381 (1952)

1952
[76]

B. G. Wybourne, The Journal of Chemical Physics 48, 2596 (1968), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1669488

1968 doi
[77]

E. G. Saprykin, Optics and Spectroscopy 120, 212 (2016)

2016
[78]

Keller, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 6, 1771 (1973)

J. Keller, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 6, 1771 (1973)

1973
[79]

K. S. E. Eikema, W. Ubachs, and W. Hogervorst, Phys- ical Review A 49, 803 (1994)

1994
[80]

Veseth, Phys

L. Veseth, Phys. Rev. A 32, 1328 (1985)

1985
[81]

Bauche and J.-C

J. Bauche and J.-C. Keller, Physics Letters A 36, 211 (1971)

1971
[82]

calculated 3 s− 3p isotope shifts assuming no ap- preciable FS, which from table I is 9 .5(1.0) MHz, and negligible diﬀerences within the 3 p conﬁguration, where from table X, the diﬀerences are up to 200 MHz. For comparison purposes, we compute the center of gravity of the 3 ...
[83]

Stone, Proceedings of the Physical Society 81, 868 (1963)

A. Stone, Proceedings of the Physical Society 81, 868 (1963)

1963
[84]

Odintsov, Optics and Spectroscopy 18, 205 (1965)

V. Odintsov, Optics and Spectroscopy 18, 205 (1965)

1965
[85]

Ahmad, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 18, 3457 (1985)

S. Ahmad, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 18, 3457 (1985)

1985
[86]

Stone, Proceedings of the Physical Society 77, 786 (1961)

A. Stone, Proceedings of the Physical Society 77, 786 (1961)

1961
[87]

Liberman, Physica 69, 598 (1973)

S. Liberman, Physica 69, 598 (1973)

1973
[88]

J. H. Bartlett and J. J. Gibbons, Phys. Rev. 44, 538 (1933)

1933
[89]

Keller and J

J. Keller and J. Lesprit, Physica 64, 202 (1973)

1973
[90]

D. R. Hartree, W. Hartree, and B. Swirles, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 238, 229 (1939)

1939
[91]

C. F. Fischer, Computer Physics Communications 1, 151 (1970)

1970
[92]

Giacobino, F

E. Giacobino, F. Biraben, E. De Clercq, K. Wohrer- Beroﬀ, and G. Grynberg, Journal de Physique 40, 1139 (1979)

1979
[93]

Veseth, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 18, 3463 (1985)

L. Veseth, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 18, 3463 (1985)

1985
[94]

Geithner, T

W. Geithner, T. Neﬀ, G. Audi, K. Blaum, P. Dela- haye, H. Feldmeier, S. George, C. Gu´ enaut, F. Herfurth, A. Herlert, S. Kappertz, M. Keim, A. Kellerbauer, H.-J. Kluge, M. Kowalska, P. Lievens, D. Lunney, K. Mari- nova, R. Neugart, L. Schweikhard, S. Wilbert, and C. Yazidjian...

2008
[95]

Fricke, K

G. Fricke, K. Heilig, and H. F. Schopper, Nuclear charge radii (Springer Berlin, 2004)

2004
[96]

Ohayon, E

B. Ohayon, E. W˚ ahlin, and G. Ron, Journal of Instru- mentation 10, P03009 (2015)

2015
[97]

Ohayon, J

B. Ohayon, J. Chocron, T. Hirsh, A. Glick-Magid, Y. Mishnayot, I. Mukul, H. Rahangdale, S. Vaintraub, O. Heber, D. Gazit, and G. Ron, Hyperﬁne Interactions 239, 57 (2018)

2018
[98]

Mardor, O

I. Mardor, O. Aviv, M. Avrigeanu, D. Berkovits, A. Da- han, T. Dickel, I. Eliyahu, M. Gai, I. Gavish-Segev, S. Halfon, M. Hass, T. Hirsh, B. Kaiser, D. Ki- jel, A. Kreisel, Y. Mishnayot, I. Mukul, B. Ohayon, M. Paul, A. Perry, H. Rahangdale, J. Rodnizki, G. Ron, R. Sasson-Zukr...

2018
[99]

Gebert, Y

F. Gebert, Y. Wan, F. Wolf, C. N. Angstmann, J. C. Berengut, and P. O. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 053003 (2015)

2015
[100]

Ritschl, Physik

R. Ritschl, Physik. Zeits. 38, 6 (1937)

1937
[101]

Biraben, E

F. Biraben, E. Giacobino, and G. Grynberg, Physical Review A 12, 2444 (1975)

1975
[102]

Rupper and F

P. Rupper and F. Merkt, Review of scientiﬁc instru- 19 ments 75, 613 (2004)

2004
[103]

Schober, Physik

H. Schober, Physik. Zeits. 40, 77 (1939)

1939
[104]

T. Wik, W. R. Bennett Jr, and W. Lichten, Physical Review Letters 40, 1080 (1978)

1978
[105]

Belfrage, P

C. Belfrage, P. Grafstr¨ om, S. Kr¨ oll, and S. Svanberg, Physica Scripta 27, 367 (1983)

1983
[106]

Lindsay, J

A. Lindsay, J. Nicol, and D. Stacey, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 24, 4901 (1991)

1991
[107]

Delsart and J.-C

C. Delsart and J.-C. Keller, Optics Communications 15, 91 (1975)

1975
[108]

Bergquist, Neon Isotope and Hyperﬁne Studies(PhD thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1978)

J. Bergquist, Neon Isotope and Hyperﬁne Studies(PhD thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1978)

1978
[109]

Gerstenberger, A

D. Gerstenberger, A. Drobshoﬀ, and S. Sheng, IEEE journal of quantum electronics 24, 501 (1988)

1988
[110]

Bielski, S

A. Bielski, S. Brym, J. Szudy, R. Trawinski, and J. Wol- nikowski, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 24, 4909 (1991)

1991
[111]

Cheng and J.-T

W.-Y. Cheng and J.-T. Shy, Applied Physics B 70, 889 (2000)

2000
[112]

Guth¨ ohrlein and L

G. Guth¨ ohrlein and L. Windholz, in Summer School and International Symposium on the Physics of Ionized Gases (Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 1995)

1995
[113]

St˚ ahlberg, P

B. St˚ ahlberg, P. Jungner, and T. Fellman, Applied spectroscopy 43, 654 (1989)

1989
[114]

Cordover, T

R. Cordover, T. Jaseja, and A. Javan, Applied Physics Letters 7, 322 (1965)

1965
[115]

Zory, Journal of Applied Physics 37, 3643 (1966)

P. Zory, Journal of Applied Physics 37, 3643 (1966)

1966
[116]

W. G. Schweitzer Jr, Applied Physics Letters 13, 367 (1968)

1968
[117]

Julien, M

L. Julien, M. Pinard, and F. Lalo¨ e, Journal de Physique Lettres 41, 479 (1980)

1980
[118]

Ballik, Canadian Journal of Physics 50, 47 (1972)

E. Ballik, Canadian Journal of Physics 50, 47 (1972)

1972
[119]

Kotlikov and V

E. Kotlikov and V. Tokarev, Optics and Spectroscopy 49, 486 (1980)

1980
[120]

Vernyi and E

E. Vernyi and E. Y. Sokolova, Journal of Applied Spec- troscopy 6, 172 (1967)

1967
[121]

Ducas, M

T. Ducas, M. Feld, L. Ryan Jr, N. Skribanowitz, and A. Javan, Physical Review A 5, 1036 (1972)

1972
[122]

Zhao, JOSA B 4, 644 (1987)

P. Zhao, JOSA B 4, 644 (1987)

1987
[123]

Sz¨ oke and A

A. Sz¨ oke and A. Javan, Physical Review Letters10, 521 (1963)

1963
[124]

Sakurai, Y

K. Sakurai, Y. Ueda, M. Takami, and K. Shimoda, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 21, 2090 (1966)

1966
[125]

Cordover, P

R. Cordover, P. Bonczyk, and A. Javan, Physical Re- view Letters 18, 730 (1967)

1967
[126]

Ohi, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 12, 1377 (1973)

M. Ohi, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 12, 1377 (1973)

1973
[127]

Sasada and O

H. Sasada and O. Kubota, Applied Physics B 55, 186 (1992)

1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [41]

J. Li, M. Godefroid, and J. Wang, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 115002 (2016)

2016

[2] [1]

J. J. Thomson, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 24, 209 (1912)

1912

[3] [2]

Thomson, F

J. Thomson, F. Aston, F. Soddy, T. Merton, and F. Lindemann, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 99, 87 (1921)

1921

[4] [3]

Huber, T

A. Huber, T. Udem, B. Gross, J. Reichert, M. Kourogi, K. Pachucki, M. Weitz, and T. W. H¨ ansch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 468 (1998)

1998

[5] [4]

U. D. Jentschura, A. Matveev, C. G. Parthey, J. Alnis, R. Pohl, T. Udem, N. Kolachevsky, and T. W. H¨ ansch, Phys. Rev. A 83, 042505 (2011)

2011

[6] [5]

H. J. Monkhorst, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 49, 877 (1994), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qua.560490609

work page doi:10.1002/qua.560490609 1994

[7] [6]

Pachucki and V

K. Pachucki and V. A. Yerokhin, Journal of Physi- cal and Chemical Reference Data 44, 031206 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4921428

work page doi:10.1063/1.4921428 2015

[8] [7]

Pachucki, V

K. Pachucki, V. Patk´ os, and V. A. Yerokhin, Phys. Rev. A 95, 062510 (2017)

2017