Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 1 cited by

The 8.36-eV thorium transition is a uniquely sensitive probe of fundamental constants and dark matter.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 10:03 UTC pith:GULHG3BU

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful survey of the 229Th literature, honest about what is and isn't known; the sensitivity numbers are programmatic scaling estimates, not a derived result, and the paper mostly says so itself.

arxiv 2606.26600 v2 pith:GULHG3BU submitted 2026-06-25 nucl-th

The ²²⁹Th Isomer: Nuclear Structure, Clocks, and Tests of Fundamental Physics

Xiao Lu , Rui Zhao , Shan-Gui Zhou This is my paper
classification nucl-th MSC 81V3581V45
keywords thorium-229 isomernuclear clockoctupole correlationsNilsson orbitalsfundamental constant variationultralight dark matterSchiff momentvacuum-ultraviolet spectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This review argues that the 229Th nucleus, whose isomeric state sits only about 8.36 eV above the ground state, is the only nuclear transition directly addressable by laser light, and that its very existence encodes a near-cancellation between MeV-scale Coulomb and strong-interaction energy differences. The paper claims that this near-cancellation amplifies the transition frequency's response to changes in the fine-structure constant and hadronic parameters by factors of order 10^4–10^5, making a 229Th nuclear clock a powerful laboratory probe of ultralight dark matter and of possible variation of fundamental constants. From the nuclear-structure side, the review argues that the near-degeneracy of the 5/2+[633] and 3/2+[631] neutron orbits, plus Coriolis mixing and octupole correlations, underlies the transition; octupole correlations appear in every successful model, yet no current model reproduces the eV-scale splitting as a genuine prediction. The stakes are a new class of clocks with fractional instability near 10^-19 and the first direct nuclear-physics handle on hadronic dark matter.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the anomalously low 8.36 eV transition energy of 229mTh is not a lucky accident but the residual of a near-cancellation between large, competing energy contributions: the Coulomb energy difference ΔV_C and the strong-interaction difference ΔV_N between the isomer and ground state both lie at the MeV scale, and their difference is ~8 eV. Because the transition frequency is the small difference of two large terms, the fractional frequency response to variations of α and of the hadronic parameter X_q = m_q/Λ_QCD is amplified by the ratios ΔV_C/ℏω and ΔV_N/ℏω, i.e., by factors of order 10^4–10^5. The review further claims that, on the structure side, the near-de

What carries the argument

The central object is the near-degenerate pair of neutron Nilsson orbitals 5/2+[633] (ground state) and 3/2+[631] (isomer), whose M1 transition is forbidden in the axially symmetric limit, so that Coriolis mixing between their rotational bands and octupole-deformation-induced parity mixing carry the transition amplitude. The amplifying mechanism is the ratio identity K_α ≈ ΔV_C/ℏω and K_q ≈ ΔV_N/ℏω, which converts MeV-scale cancellations into 10^4–10^5 enhancement of the fractional frequency response.

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity enhancement argument assumes that the MeV-scale Coulomb and strong-interaction contributions to the transition energy are sufficiently independent that their near-cancellation leaves fractional response coefficients K_α ≈ ΔV_C/ℏω and K_q ≈ ΔV_N/ℏω at the 10^4–10^5 level; if the two contributions are correlated, or the nuclear matrix element is suppressed, the amplification could be far smaller. The paper itself flags that the precise coefficient is model depen

What would settle it

A long-term frequency comparison between a 229Th nuclear clock and multiple atomic clocks that yields a null drift at a level inconsistent with K_α~10^4 would falsify the large-enhancement claim; a more direct falsifier would be an ab initio many-body calculation that reproduces the 8.36 eV splitting and shows ΔV_C and ΔV_N are strongly correlated, thereby collapsing K_α to order unity.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A 229Th nuclear clock could bound or detect time variation of α and of the light-quark mass/QCD scale at levels beyond current atomic-clock limits, and probe hadronic ultralight dark matter couplings in the 10^-21–10^-19 eV mass range.
  • Closed-loop solid-state Th:CaF2 clocks have reached fractional instability ~10^-12/√(τ/s), with projected accuracy near 10^-19 for trapped-ion platforms, enabling relativistic geodesy and equivalence-principle tests.
  • Nuclear-structure models that omit octupole correlations systematically fail to reproduce the isomeric magnetic moment and B(M1); including them is necessary but not sufficient, since the predicted μ_IS still varies by a factor of several across models.
  • If the predicted low-lying 5/2− parity partner near 15 keV exists, the Schiff moment of 229Th would be enhanced by about an order of magnitude, strengthening T-violation searches.
  • The long radiative lifetime (~10^3 s) and shielding of nuclear spins imply a quality factor Q~10^19–10^20, motivating nuclear quantum information architectures based on trapped 229Th ions or doped crystals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the cancellation mechanism is generic rather than accidental, other heavy deformed nuclei with near-degenerate Nilsson partners could host additional few-eV transitions; a systematic survey of Nilsson level crossings near the Fermi surface might identify candidate nuclides for future nuclear clocks.
  • The pseudospin-partner relation between 3/2+[631] and 5/2+[633] suggests the near-degeneracy might be rooted in a dynamical symmetry of the mean field; if confirmed, it would guide the search for other low-energy transitions.
  • The enhancement factors K_α and K_q could be measured directly by comparing a 229Th nuclear clock against a suite of atomic clocks over years; such a measurement would also test whether the assumed independence of ΔV_C and ΔV_N holds in nature.
  • A resonant electronic-bridge or highly charged ion experiment that observes the isomer decay in different charge states could indirectly measure the bare nuclear transition matrix element, testing the model-dependent B(M1) spread now spanning 0.005–0.024 W.u.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This review surveys the 229Th isomeric transition from three angles: experimental spectroscopy and clock development, nuclear-structure theory, and applications to fundamental-physics searches. It traces the measurement history from indirect gamma-ray estimates to the 2024 VUV frequency-comb value and the 2026 closed-loop solid-state clocks, compares the main clock platforms (trapped ions, highly charged ions, solid-state hosts, thin films), and reviews nuclear models ranging from Nilsson-plus-Coriolis to CQOM-DSM, PSM, Skyrme HFBCS, MR-DFT, MR-CDFT, and RDFT particle-rotor calculations. The final sections discuss enhanced sensitivity to variations of alpha and quark masses, ultralight dark matter, Schiff moments, Lorentz/equivalence-principle tests, and nuclear quantum information ideas. The paper is explicitly transparent that no current nuclear model reproduces the ~8 eV isomer energy as a genuine prediction and that the observed energy is treated as an experimental constraint.

Significance. If judged as a review, this is a timely and valuable synthesis of a fast-moving field. Its main strengths are completeness (covering 2024–2026 milestones), balanced comparison of models in Table III and Fig. 6, and honesty about limitations: Sec. III.H states plainly that the ~8 eV energy is not predicted by any model and that CQOM-DSM takes experimental energies as input. The fundamental-physics section is also appropriately hedged in the main text, noting that the 10^4–10^5 enhancement factors are model dependent and subject to cancellations. The inclusion of an original MDC-RMF consistency check (Fig. 5) is a useful cross-check. The review will serve as a useful entry point for nuclear-structure and precision-metrology readers, even though several model agreements rely on adjusted parameters rather than parameter-free predictions.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV.A, Eq. (12)] The abstract's phrase 'MeV-scale nuclear contributions' is stronger than what the body supports. Sec. III.H concedes that no current model reproduces the ~8 eV splitting, and Eq. (12) is a heuristic estimate. A simple uniform-sphere estimate using the measured δ⟨r²⟩ = 0.0097(26) fm² [53] gives ΔV_C ≈ 0.1–0.3 MeV, implying K_α ≈ 1–3×10^4 rather than 10^5. I suggest adding one sentence near Eq. (12) that presents this estimate and labels 10^5 as a naive upper bound, and softening 'MeV-scale' to 'sub-MeV-to-MeV-scale' in the abstract.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (12)–(13)] The derivation of K_α and K_q assumes that the strong-interaction contribution is α-independent and that ΔV_C and ΔV_N add linearly. This is an assumption of the heuristic scaling argument, not an output of the nuclear-structure models reviewed in Sec. III. Although Ref. [39] is the original source and the text mentions model dependence, the assumptions underlying Eqs. (12)–(13) should be stated explicitly as assumptions, especially because the models in Sec. III do not reproduce the eV-scale energy.
  3. [Table III and Sec. III.H] Several entries in Table III are not parameter-free: CQOM-DSM uses q_R = 0.6–0.8, the RAT-PRM calculation uses ξ = 0.4 and an adjusted g_n = −0.062, and the PSM uses slightly adjusted Nilsson and pairing parameters. The text discloses these choices, but a one-sentence caption warning that 'several theoretical entries involve adjusted parameters and should be compared as model benchmarks rather than parameter-free predictions' would help prevent over-interpretation by readers.
  4. [Sec. II.A heading] The heading 'F rom Indirect Measurement to Laser Excitation' contains a typographical artifact: 'F rom' should be 'From'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the 8 eV energy is explicitly treated as an experimental constraint, and the sensitivity estimate is a flagged scaling heuristic rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper makes no pretense of deriving the 8 eV isomer energy; it states 'no current theoretical framework can predict this ~8 eV transition energy with the required accuracy' and 'the observed isomer energy should therefore be regarded as an experimental constraint rather than as a benchmark already explained by nuclear-structure theory.' The sensitivity amplification in Eqs. (11)-(13) is introduced as 'a simple scaling argument' and immediately qualified: 'the precise coefficient is model dependent and can be affected by cancellations among nuclear contributions.' No parameter is fitted to the 8 eV energy and then renamed a prediction; Delta_V_C and Delta_V_N are assumed to be MeV-scale rather than extracted from the observable being 'predicted.' The model comparisons in Sec. III are benchmarked against external measurements (B(M1)=0.022 W.u., mu_IS=-0.378(8) mu_N, quadrupole moments), and adjusted inputs such as q_R, xi=0.4, and g_n=-0.062 are disclosed rather than presented as parameter-free predictions. Self-citations (MDC-RMF method, pseudospin reviews, trapped-ion proposals) are methodological or peripheral and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The PSM and CQOM-DSM statements about reproducing band-head energies are transparent fitting descriptions, not disguised predictions. No equation reduces by construction to its own input, so per the required standard there is no circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review's central claims inherit several domain assumptions from the cited literature: the Nilsson assignments, the presence of octupole correlations, the independence of the MeV-scale contributions that cancel to 8 eV, and the use of electromagnetic observables as wave-function benchmarks. The paper is honest about the largest gap—no model predicts the 8 eV energy—but the fundamental-physics amplification factor still depends on a model-dependent scaling estimate rather than a parameter-free derivation.

free parameters (5)
  • CQOM-DSM gyromagnetic quenching factor q_R = 0.6–0.8
    Introduced to bring calculated μ_IS into agreement with experiment (Sec. III B); the review's model-comparison conclusion depends on this phenomenological adjustment.
  • RAT-PRM Coriolis attenuation factor ξ = 0.4
    Ad hoc factor used to reproduce the observed signature splitting in the RDFT+particle-rotor calculation (Sec. III G).
  • RAT-PRM valence neutron g-factor g_n = -0.062
    Adjusted to reproduce the experimental ground-state magnetic moment (Sec. III G).
  • PSM pairing strengths G1/G2 and Nilsson (κ, μ) adjustments = G1=16.32 MeV, G2=11.81 MeV; neutron N=6 (κ, μ) slightly adjusted
    Tuned to reproduce 229Th band-head energies (Sec. III C); affects the B(M1)=0.024 W.u. comparison.
  • Coulomb energy difference ΔV_C entering K_α = ≈ MeV (model-dependent)
    The sensitivity estimate Eq. (12) uses a MeV-scale ΔV_C; no ab initio value is computed in the review, so the 1e4–1e5 enhancement is an input scale rather than a derived result.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The 229Th ground and isomeric states are predominantly the deformed Nilsson orbitals 5/2+[633] and 3/2+[631].
    Underlies all structural interpretation and M1/E2 matrix-element comparisons (Sec. III, Fig. 4); based on alpha/gamma decay assignments from the literature.
  • domain assumption Octupole deformation/correlations are present in 229Th and are required to reproduce the ordering and electromagnetic properties.
    Claimed as the common ingredient across CQOM-DSM, PSM, HFBCS, MR-DFT, MR-CDFT, and RDFT-PRM (Sec. III B–H); the original PES check (Fig. 5) also assumes a static octupole minimum.
  • domain assumption The eV-scale isomer energy results from a near-cancellation of independent MeV-scale Coulomb and strong interaction contributions, so fractional sensitivity to α and X_q is enhanced by ΔV/ω.
    Basis of the fundamental-physics section (Sec. IV A, Eqs. 11–13); the review notes the coefficients are model-dependent and could be altered by cancellations.
  • domain assumption Electromagnetic observables (B(M1), μ, Q_s) are valid benchmarks for nuclear wave functions even when the 8 eV energy is not reproduced.
    Methodological stance of Sec. III H used to rank models; if the energy-scale failure signals a deeper structural problem, these benchmarks might also be misleading.
  • standard math The standard many-body tools used in the reviewed calculations (Nilsson mean field, BCS pairing, angular-momentum and parity projection, Hill-Wheeler mixing) are reliable enough for 229Th.
    Assumed in all microscopic calculations discussed in Sec. III C–F; not re-derived in the review.
  • domain assumption The measured transition energy 8.355733554021(8) eV is accepted as the reference value for sensitivity estimates and model comparisons.
    Taken from Ref. [19] and used throughout Secs. II and IV; the review does not critically re-evaluate the measurement.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 34639 in / 14947 out tokens · 170293 ms · 2026-08-02T10:03:07.891821+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The $^{229}$Th nucleus possesses an isomeric state at an excitation energy of $\sim 8$ eV, the lowest known nuclear transition energy, placing its frequency in the vacuum-ultraviolet range and making it directly accessible to laser spectroscopy. In this review, we discuss the $^{229}$Th isomer from three connected perspectives: experimental spectroscopy and clock development, nuclear structure theory, and applications to precision tests of fundamental physics. We first trace the experimental progress from indirect $\gamma$-ray energy inference to resonant laser excitation, absolute frequency comparison with an atomic clock, and feedback-loop operation of a solid-state nuclear clock, and discuss trapped-ion, highly charged ion, and solid-state platforms together with mechanisms for nuclear-state manipulation and readout. We then review, from the nuclear-structure perspective, how the near-degeneracy of the $5/2^+[633]$ and $3/2^+[631]$ neutron Nilsson configurations, together with Coriolis mixing and octupole correlations, underlies the anomalously low transition energy and its electromagnetic properties. Comparisons among different phenomenological and microscopic models show that octupole correlations are a common structural ingredient, while magnetic moments and transition strengths remain sensitive tests of the calculated wave functions. Finally, we discuss how the near-cancellation of MeV-scale nuclear contributions into an eV-scale transition can enhance sensitivity to variations of fundamental constants, signatures of ultralight dark matter, CP-violating interactions, Lorentz-invariance violation, and possible nuclear quantum technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.26600 by Rui Zhao, Shan-Gui Zhou, Xiao Lu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: population through radioactive decay or nuclear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of representative pathways for populating the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Historical evolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Nilsson single neutron energy levels for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Low-energy level scheme of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Potential energy surface of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of theoretical predictions (blue circles with error bars) and experimental values (green vertical lines with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A First Bound on the Moffat Energy and Thorium--229 Clock as a Probe of the Nonlocal Time-Energy Structure

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    First bounds on the nonlocality scale E_M from 229Th nuclear clock data: E_M > 22.3 MeV directly, > 1.72 GeV with nuclear enhancement, and TeV-scale for assumed nuclear reference energies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

157 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    G. D. Dracoulis, P. M. Walker, and F. G. Kondev, Rep. Prog. Phys.79, 076301 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    Walker and Z

    P. Walker and Z. Podoly´ ak, Phys. Scr.95, 044004 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    G. W. Misch, T. M. Sprouse, M. R. Mumpower, A. J. Couture, C. L. Fryer, B. S. Meyer, and Y. Sun, Symme- try13, 1831 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    F. G. Kondev, M. Wang, W. J. Huang, S. Naimi, and G. Audi, Chin. Phys. C45, 030001 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    S. Garg, B. Maheshwari, B. Singh, Y. Sun, A. Goel, and A. K. Jain, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables150, 101546 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Aprahamian and Y

    A. Aprahamian and Y. Sun, Nature Phys.1, 81 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    Seiferle, L

    B. Seiferle, L. von der Wense, P. V. Bilous, I. Amers- dorffer, C. Lemell, F. Libisch, S. Stellmer, T. Schumm, C. E. D¨ ullmann, A. P´ alffy, and P. G. Thirolf, Nature 573, 243 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    U. C. Perera, H. W. T. Morgan, E. R. Hudson, and A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 123001 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    E. V. Tkalya, JETP Lett.55, 211 (1992)

    1992

  10. [10]

    Peik and C

    E. Peik and C. Tamm, Europhys. Lett.61, 181 (2003)

    2003

  11. [11]

    Sikorsky, J

    T. Sikorsky, J. Geist, D. Hengstler, S. Kempf, L. Gastaldo, C. Enss, C. Mokry, J. Runke, C. E. D¨ ullmann, P. Wobrauschek, K. Beeks, V. Rosecker, J. H. Sterba, G. Kazakov, T. Schumm, and A. Fleis- chmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 142503 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    C. J. Campbell, A. G. Radnaev, A. Kuzmich, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 120802 (2012)

    2012

  13. [13]

    E. Peik, T. Schumm, M. S. Safronova, A. P´ alffy, J. Weit- enberg, and P. G. Thirolf, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 034002 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    L. A. Kroger and C. W. Reich, Nucl. Phys. A259, 29 (1976)

    1976

  15. [15]

    B. R. Beck, J. A. Becker, P. Beiersdorfer, G. V. Brown, K. J. Moody, J. B. Wilhelmy, F. S. Porter, C. A. Kil- bourne, and R. L. Kelley, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 142501 (2007)

    2007

  16. [16]

    Tiedau, M

    J. Tiedau, M. V. Okhapkin, K. Zhang, J. Thielk- ing, G. Zitzer, E. Peik, F. Schaden, T. Pronebner, I. Morawetz, L. T. De Col, F. Schneider, A. Leitner, M. Pressler, G. A. Kazakov, K. Beeks, T. Sikorsky, and T. Schumm, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 182501 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Elwell, C

    R. Elwell, C. Schneider, J. Jeet, J. E. S. Terhune, H. W. T. Morgan, A. N. Alexandrova, H. B. Tran Tan, A. Derevianko, and E. R. Hudson, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 013201 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Zhang, L

    C. Zhang, L. von der Wense, J. F. Doyle, J. S. Higgins, T. Ooi, H. U. Friebel, J. Ye, R. Elwell, J. E. S. Ter- hune, H. W. T. Morgan, A. N. Alexandrova, H. B. Tran Tan, A. Derevianko, and E. R. Hudson, Nature636, 603 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    Zhang, T

    C. Zhang, T. Ooi, J. S. Higgins, J. F. Doyle, L. von der Wense, K. Beeks, A. Leitner, G. A. Kazakov, P. Li, P. G. Thirolf, T. Schumm, and J. Ye, Nature633, 63 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    W. G. Rellergert, D. DeMille, R. R. Greco, M. P. Hehlen, J. R. Torgerson, and E. R. Hudson, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 200802 (2010)

    2010

  21. [21]

    von der Wense, B

    L. von der Wense, B. Seiferle, S. Stellmer, J. Weiten- berg, G. Kazakov, A. P´ alffy, and P. G. Thirolf, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 132503 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    G. A. Kazakov, A. N. Litvinov, V. I. Romanenko, L. P. Yatsenko, A. V. Romanenko, M. Schreitl, G. Winkler, and T. Schumm, New J. Phys.14, 083019 (2012)

    2012

  23. [23]

    W. Wang, F. Zou, S. Fritzsche, and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 223001 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Hiraki, K

    T. Hiraki, K. Okai, M. Bartokos, K. Beeks, H. Fuji- moto, Y. Fukunaga, H. Haba, Y. Kasamatsu, S. Ki- tao, A. Leitner, T. Masuda, M. Guan, N. Nagasawa, R. Ogake, M. Pimon, M. Pressler, N. Sasao, F. Schaden, T. Schumm, M. Seto, Y. Shigekawa, K. Shimizu, T. Sikorsky, K. Tamasaku, S. Takatori, T. Watanabe, A. Yamaguchi, Y. Yoda, A. Yoshimi, and K. Yoshimura, ...

    2024

  25. [25]

    Schaden, T

    F. Schaden, T. Riebner, I. Morawetz, L. T. De Col, G. A. Kazakov, K. Beeks, T. Sikorsky, T. Schumm, K. Zhang, V. Lal, G. Zitzer, J. Tiedau, M. V. Okhapkin, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L022036 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    L. T. De Col, T. Riebner, I. Morawetz, F. Schnei- der, N. Sempelmann, J. Schlachet-L´ epinay, F. Schaden, M. Bartokos, G. A. Kazakov, K. Beeks, B. Gerstenecker, M. Pimon, S. Lahs, A. Hellerschmied, T. Lercher, J. Premper, A. Niessner, M. Matus, H. Denker, 20 M. Cizek, O. Cip, V. Lal, G. Zitzer, V. Petrov, J. Tiedau, M. V. Okhapkin, E. Peik, and T. Schumm,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Yan, Q. Xiao, W. Bu, Z. Zhang, C. Zhao, C. Yan, Z.-A. Chen, P. Zhang, G. Penyazkov, Z. Zhan, L. Yan, Y. Wang, L. Li, S. Li, X. Qian, X. Liu, Q. He, T. Sun, H. Tian, B. Lu, N. Ma, J. Li, Y. Wu, Q. Gong, Y. Li, H. Shi, X. Li, L. Ma, S. Zhu, Y. Mo, J. Lin, L. You, Y. Lin, X. Zhang, Y. Hang, L. Su, and S. Ding, A nuclear clock based on 229th (202...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    B. R. Mottelson and S. G. Nilsson, Phys. Rev.99, 1615 (1955)

    1955

  29. [29]

    Barci, G

    V. Barci, G. Ardisson, G. Barci-Funel, B. Weiss, O. El Samad, and R. K. Sheline, Phys. Rev. C68, 034329 (2003)

    2003

  30. [30]

    A. M. Dykhne and E. V. Tkalya, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. Lett.67, 251 (1998)

    1998

  31. [31]

    P. A. Butler and W. Nazarewicz, Rev. Mod. Phys.68, 349 (1996)

    1996

  32. [32]

    Minkov and A

    N. Minkov and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 212501 (2017)

    2017

  33. [33]

    Minkov and A

    N. Minkov and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 162502 (2019)

    2019

  34. [34]

    Chen, L.-J

    Z.-R. Chen, L.-J. Wang, and Y. Wu, Phys. Lett. B869, 139858 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Minkov, A

    N. Minkov, A. P´ alffy, P. Quentin, and L. Bonneau, Phys. Rev. C110, 034327 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    Restrepo-Giraldo, J

    A. Restrepo-Giraldo, J. Dobaczewski, J. Bonnard, and X. Sun, Radiative decay and electromagnetic mo- ments in 229th determined within nuclear DFT (2026), arXiv:2602.02429 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    E. F. Zhou and J. M. Yao, Microscopic study of low- lying states in odd-mass nuclei for atomic electric dipole moment searches (2025), arXiv:2511.05984 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Wang and P.-W

    Y.-Y. Wang and P.-W. Zhao, Chin. Phys. B35, 020603 (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 092502 (2006)

    2006

  40. [40]

    Fuchs, F

    E. Fuchs, F. Kirk, E. Madge, C. Paranjape, E. Peik, G. Perez, W. Ratzinger, and J. Tiedau, Phys. Rev. X 15, 021055 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Caputo, D

    A. Caputo, D. Gazit, H. W. Hammer, J. Kopp, G. Paz, G. Perez, and K. Springmann, Phys. Rev. C112, L031302 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. C99, 035501 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 072501 (2016)

    2016

  44. [44]

    V. A. Dzuba and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A111, 053109 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    W. Wang, K. Zhang, K.-M. Xu, and S.-G. Zhou, Hyperfine-resolved laser excitation and detection of nuclear isomer in trapped 229th3+ ions (2026), arXiv:2604.27614 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    S.-C. Yu, X. Hua, X. Tong, C.-B. Li, and L. She, Chin. Phys. Lett.42, 120302 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    J. Wang, H. Miao, S. Ding, and D. E. Liu, Direct nuclear-level qubits using trapped th-229 ions: A plat- form for entanglement and universal quantum informa- tion processing (2025), arXiv:2508.10626 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    W.-T. Gan, Z. Li, C. Wang, X. Hua, and X. Tong, Chin. Phys. B35, 023703 (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    C.-C. Zhao, L. Li, S.-M. Li, Q.-R. Gong, P.-X. Zhang, Y. Hang, L.-S. Ma, and S.-N. Zhu, Chin. Phys. B35, 020602 (2026)

    2026

  50. [50]

    Yu, C.-B

    S.-C. Yu, C.-B. Li, and L. She, Chin. Phys. B35, 023701 (2026)

    2026

  51. [51]

    D. G. Burke, P. E. Garrett, T. Qu, and R. A. Naumann, Phys. Rev. C42, R499 (1990)

    1990

  52. [52]

    Von Der Wense, B

    L. Von Der Wense, B. Seiferle, M. Laatiaoui, J. B. Neu- mayr, H.-J. Maier, H.-F. Wirth, C. Mokry, J. Runke, K. Eberhardt, C. E. D¨ ullmann, N. G. Trautmann, and P. G. Thirolf, Nature533, 47 (2016)

    2016

  53. [53]

    Yamaguchi, Y

    A. Yamaguchi, Y. Shigekawa, H. Haba, H. Kikunaga, K. Shirasaki, M. Wada, and H. Katori, Nature629, 62 (2024)

    2024

  54. [54]

    Ruchowska, W

    E. Ruchowska, W. A. P l´ ociennik, J. ˙Zylicz, H. Mach, J. Kvasil, A. Algora, N. Amzal, T. B¨ ack, M. J. G. Borge, R. Boutami, P. A. Butler, J. Cederk¨ all, B. Cederwall, B. Fogelberg, L. M. Fraile, H. O. U. Fynbo, E. Hagebø, P. Hoff, H. Gausemel, A. Jungclaus, R. Kaczarowski, A. Kerek, W. Kurcewicz, K. Lagergren, E. Nacher, B. Rubio, A. Syntfeld, O. Teng...

    2006

  55. [55]

    Kraemer, J

    S. Kraemer, J. Moens, M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, S. Bara, K. Beeks, P. Chhetri, K. Chrysalidis, A. Claessens, T. E. Cocolios, J. G. M. Correia, H. Witte, R. Ferrer, S. Geldhof, R. Heinke, N. Hosseini, M. Huyse, U. Koster, Y. Kudryavtsev, M. Laatiaoui, R. Lica, G. Magchiels, V. Manea, C. Merckling, L. M. C. Pereira, S. Raeder, T. Schumm, S. Sels, P. G. T...

    2023

  56. [56]

    Masuda, A

    T. Masuda, A. Yoshimi, A. Fujieda, H. Fujimoto, H. Haba, H. Hara, T. Hiraki, H. Kaino, Y. Kasamatsu, S. Kitao, K. Konashi, Y. Miyamoto, K. Okai, S. Okubo, N. Sasao, M. Seto, T. Schumm, Y. Shigekawa, K. Suzuki, S. Stellmer, K. Tamasaku, S. Uetake, M. Watanabe, T. Watanabe, Y. Yasuda, A. Yam- aguchi, Y. Yoda, T. Yokokita, M. Yoshimura, and K. Yoshimura, Nat...

    2019

  57. [57]

    Wang, Z.-R

    Y. Wang, Z.-R. Xiao, H.-Z. Zhang, L.-Q. Hua, and X.-J. Liu, Chin. Phys. B35, 020601 (2026)

    2026

  58. [58]

    H.-Y. Lan, D. Wu, M.-Z. Wang, Z.-Y. Chen, J.-F. Lv, Y.-H. Xia, Z.-N. Wang, W. Luo, X.-L. Xu, and X.-Q. Yan, Adv. Sci.13, e23384 (2026)

    2026

  59. [59]

    Ahmad, J

    I. Ahmad, J. E. Gindler, R. R. Betts, R. R. Chasman, and A. M. Friedman, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1758 (1982)

    1982

  60. [60]

    R. G. Helmer and C. W. Reich, Phys. Rev. C49, 1845 (1994)

    1994

  61. [61]

    G. M. Irwin and K. H. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 990 (1997)

    1997

  62. [62]

    R. W. Shaw, J. P. Young, S. P. Cooper, and O. F. Webb, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 1109 (1999)

    1999

  63. [63]

    X. Zhao, Y. N. Martinez de Escobar, R. Rundberg, E. M. Bond, A. Moody, and D. J. Vieira, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 160801 (2012)

    2012

  64. [64]

    Peik and K

    E. Peik and K. Zimmermann, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 018901 (2013)

    2013

  65. [65]

    Thielking, M

    J. Thielking, M. V. Okhapkin, P. G lowacki, D. M. Meier, L. Von Der Wense, B. Seiferle, C. E. D¨ ullmann, P. G. Thirolf, and E. Peik, Nature556, 321 (2018)

    2018

  66. [66]

    Yamaguchi, H

    A. Yamaguchi, H. Muramatsu, T. Hayashi, N. Yuasa, K. Nakamura, M. Takimoto, H. Haba, K. Konashi, M. Watanabe, H. Kikunaga, K. Maehata, N. Y. Ya- masaki, and K. Mitsuda, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 222501 21 (2019)

    2019

  67. [67]

    Shigekawa, A

    Y. Shigekawa, A. Yamaguchi, K. Tokoi, N. Sato, H. Kikunaga, K. Shirasaki, Y. Kasamatsu, M. Wada, and H. Haba, Nat. Phys. 10.1038/s41567-026-03251-1 (2026)

    doi:10.1038/s41567-026-03251-1 2026

  68. [68]

    C. W. Reich and R. G. Helmer, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 271 (1990)

    1990

  69. [69]

    H. Ton, S. Roodbergen, J. Brasz, and J. Blok, Nucl. Phys. A155, 245 (1970)

    1970

  70. [70]

    Gerstenkorn, P

    S. Gerstenkorn, P. Luc, J. Verges, D. W. Englekemeir, J. E. Gindler, and F. S. Tomkins, J. Phys. France35, 483 (1974)

    1974

  71. [71]

    C. E. Bemis, F. K. McGowan, J. Ford, J. L. C., W. T. Milner, R. L. Robinson, P. H. Stelson, G. A. Leander, and C. W. Reich, Phys. Scr.38, 657 (1988)

    1988

  72. [72]

    C. J. Campbell, A. G. Radnaev, and A. Kuzmich, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 223001 (2011)

    2011

  73. [73]

    Seiferle, L

    B. Seiferle, L. Von Der Wense, and P. G. Thirolf, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 042501 (2017)

    2017

  74. [74]

    Shigekawa, A

    Y. Shigekawa, A. Yamaguchi, K. Suzuki, H. Haba, T. Hiraki, H. Kikunaga, T. Masuda, S. Nishimura, N. Sasao, A. Yoshimi, and K. Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. C104, 024306 (2021)

    2021

  75. [75]

    J. C. Berengut, V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and S. G. Porsev, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 210801 (2009)

    2009

  76. [76]

    von der Wense and B

    L. von der Wense and B. Seiferle, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 277 (2020)

    2020

  77. [77]

    P. V. Bilous, H. Bekker, J. C. Berengut, B. Seiferle, L. von der Wense, P. G. Thirolf, T. Pfeifer, J. R. C. L´ opez-Urrutia, and A. P´ alffy, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 192502 (2020)

    2020

  78. [78]

    Zitzer, J

    G. Zitzer, J. Tiedau, C. E. D¨ ullmann, M. V. Okhapkin, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. A111, L050802 (2025)

    2025

  79. [79]

    V. F. Strizhov and E. V. Tkalya, Sov. Phys. JETP72, 387 (1991)

    1991

  80. [80]

    X. Ma, W. Q. Wen, Z. K. Huang, H. B. Wang, Y. J. Yuan, M. Wang, Z. Y. Sun, L. J. Mao, J. C. Yang, H. S. Xu, G. Q. Xiao, and W. L. Zhan, Phys. Scr.T166, 014012 (2015)

    2015

Showing first 80 references.