Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Revisiting the hyperfine interval for the $2s2p$ $^3\!P_{J}$ state in $^9$Be

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reanalysis of the 2s2p 3P hyperfine structure in 9Be raises the electric-quadrupole hyperfine constant B of the 3P2 state to 1.4542(67) MHz, about 1.7% above the previous value, and sets the nuclear quadrupole moment at 0.05320(50) b.

desk verdict Useful reanalysis of the 9Be quadrupole-moment discrepancy, but the uncertainty budget has a missing specification that affects the central value beyond the quoted error. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13013 v1 pith:NO57E6BO submitted 2024-11-20 physics.atom-ph

Yu-Shan Zhang , Wei Dang , Kai Wang , Yong-Bo Tang This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 32.10.Fn21.10.Ky
keywords hyperfinestructureelectricquadrupolemomentberyllium-9MCDF/RCIsecond-orderperturbationcorrectionsatomic-beammagneticresonancenuclear
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

This paper reanalyzes a 1967 atomic-beam measurement of the hyperfine splitting of the $2s2p$ $^3P$ state in beryllium-9 using relativistic multiconfiguration atomic-structure calculations. The authors show that second-order hyperfine mixing among the close-lying $^3P_0$, $^3P_1$, and $^3P_2$ fine-structure levels is large, and that including it raises the extracted electric-quadrupole hyperfine constant $B$ of the $^3P_2$ state by about 1.7%, to $B = 1.4542(67)$ MHz. Combining this with their calculated electric field gradient gives a nuclear electric quadrupole moment $Q = 0.05320(50)$ b, in agreement with the best available few-body calculation and about 0.6% above the currently recommended value. The result matters because $Q$ quantifies the deformation of the $^9$Be nucleus, and atomic-physics extractions of it had diverged between many-body and few-body methods; the paper attributes that split mainly to the old $B$ value.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the perturbation expansion of the hyperfine-interaction Hamiltonian, truncated at third order. Because the fine-structure interval between the $2s2p$ $^3P_0$, $^3P_1$, and $^3P_2$ levels is only about 20 cm$^{-1}$, the second-order terms connecting $J$ and $J\pm1$ through magnetic-dipole (M1) and electric-quadrupole (E2) operators have small energy denominators and contribute at the same level as the first-order terms. The load-bearing inputs are the off-diagonal reduced matrix elements such as $\langle ^3P_1\|T^{(1)}\|^3P_0\rangle$, $\langle ^3P_2\|T^{(1)}\|^3P_1\rangle$, and $\langle ^3P_2\|T^{(2)}\|^3P_1\rangle$, computed with the relativistic multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock plus configuration-interaction (MCDF/RCI) method. Their products, divided by the fine-structure energy differences, enter the correction parameters $\eta$, $\zeta$, $\chi$, and $\eta_1$; a 1% error in the $^3P_1$--$^3P_0$ M1 matrix element changes the extracted $B$ of $^3P_1$ by roughly 7%, which is why the authors warn against using the $J=1$ state as a route to $Q$.

What would settle it

Recompute the off-diagonal M1 and E2 matrix elements connecting $^3P_2$ and $^3P_1$ (and $^3P_1$ and $^3P_0$) with an independent few-body wavefunction method and feed them into the same perturbation equations; if the resulting $B$ of $^3P_2$ differs from $1.4542(67)$ MHz by more than the stated $0.5\%$ matrix-element accuracy, the MCDF/RCI matrix elements carry a systematic error. A direct sub-kHz measurement of the $^3P_2$ hyperfine interval would provide the same discrimination without relying on computed field gradients.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock and relativistic configuration-interaction wavefunctions, the authors calculate the first-order hyperfine parameters of the $2s2p$ $^3P_J$ levels of $^9$Be together with the second- and third-order corrections that arise from hyperfine mixing among those levels. For the $^3P_2$ state, the second-order correction to $B$ has the same sign and nearly the same magnitude as the first-order value, so the corrected constant $B = 1.4542(67)$ MHz is about 1.7% above the previously reported $1.429(8)$ MHz. They also find that the magnetic octupole constant $C$ of $^3P_2$ becomes extractable only after including second- and third-order corrections, which nearly cancel the first-order value, and that $B$ of $^3P_1$ is so dominated by the second-order correction that it should not be used to determine $Q$. Combining the updated $B$ with their calculated $B/Q = 27.333$ MHz yields $Q = 0.05320(50)$ b, consistent with the few-body precision value of $0.05350(14)$ b; the authors conclude that the old $B$ value, not the many-body atomic calculations, was the main source of the earlier $Q$ discrepancy.

Load-bearing premise

The extracted constants assume the MCDF/RCI off-diagonal M1 and E2 matrix elements are accurate to about 0.5%; since the second-order corrections are comparable to or larger than the first-order $B$ values, any systematic error in those matrix elements propagates directly into $B$ and $Q$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Extractions of the $^9$Be electric quadrupole moment that used the old $B = 1.429(8)$ MHz should be rescaled; with the updated $B$ and any accurate field gradient they converge near $0.0535$ b.
  • The $^3P_1$ state should be avoided as a route to $Q$: its extracted $B$ is dominated by the second-order correction and shifts by 7% for a 1% change in the $^3P_1$--$^3P_0$ matrix element.
  • Any precision determination of the magnetic octupole constant $C$ of $^3P_2$ must include both second- and third-order corrections, which together overwhelm the first-order value and reverse its sign.
  • The discrepancy between old many-body $Q$ values and the few-body value is traced to the old $B$ rather than to the many-body atomic methods, so those methods remain adequate for this system once the measured constant is corrected.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the updated $B$ is correct, the currently recommended $Q = 0.05288(38)$ b is low by roughly 0.6%; an independent measurement of the $^3P_2$ electric field gradient would decide whether the MCDF/RCI gradient or the few-body gradient is more reliable.
  • The paper's own $B/Q = 27.333$ MHz differs from the few-body benchmark by 0.69%, slightly more than its estimated 0.5% matrix-element accuracy; an error at that level would shift $Q$ by about 0.0004 b, comparable to the quoted uncertainty.
  • The same perturbation treatment could be applied to other beryllium isotopes or to isoelectronic ions, where hyperfine mixing among closely spaced $^3P_J$ levels is similarly large; the needed ingredients are the same off-diagonal M1 and E2 matrix elements.
  • A practical check on the method would be to compute the off-diagonal E2 matrix element with an independent coupled-cluster or explicitly correlated calculation, since that matrix element is the least constrained by the measured hyperfine intervals and directly controls the upward shift of $B$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. Zhang et al. present relativistic multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock (MCDF/RCI) calculations of the first-, second-, and third-order hyperfine-structure corrections for the 2s2p 3PJ manifold of 9Be, and use them to reanalyze the 1967 Blachman-Lurio atomic-beam hyperfine-interval measurements. They report updated hyperfine constants, in particular B(3P2)=1.4542(67) MHz, about 1.7% larger than the earlier value, and they extract the electric quadrupole moment Q(9Be)=0.05320(50) b using their calculated B/Q=27.333 MHz. The paper argues that the earlier HFS B value, not the many-body electronic-structure calculations, was the main source of the disagreement with the few-body value Q=0.05350(14) b.

Significance. The paper addresses a real and currently debated discrepancy between many-body and few-body determinations of the 9Be quadrupole moment. Its most useful contribution is the observation that rescaling earlier many-body electric-field-gradient results with an updated B(3P2) brings all Q values to about 0.0535 b, consistent with the few-body calculation. The extraction formulas are presented in a transparent form, and the reported constants are internally consistent when the Table VII parameters are inserted into Eqs. (10)-(14). The main weaknesses are the incomplete specification of the fine-structure energy denominators used in the second- and third-order corrections and an uncertainty estimate that is not fully supported by the paper's own B/Q benchmark. If these issues are resolved, the paper would provide a credible updated HFS constant and quadrupole moment for 9Be.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B / Appendix A, Eq. (A1) and Table IV] The energy denominators entering the second-order parameters η, ζ, χ, and η1 are never specified as either MCDF theoretical values or experimental fine-structure intervals. This is load-bearing because η is inversely proportional to E(3P2)-E(3P1), and Table IV shows that the MCDF interval is 2.52 cm−1 whereas the NIST value is 2.33 cm−1, a difference of about 8%. Since Eq. (13) contains the term +2/75 η, using the MCDF denominator lowers B(3P2) by roughly 2/75 × 25.0315 × (2.33/2.52 − 1) ≈ −0.054 MHz, about 3.7% of the central value and eight times the quoted 0.0067 MHz uncertainty. The final consistency of Q=0.05320(50) b with the few-body value suggests that experimental intervals may have been used, but the manuscript never says so, and the presentation of MCDF energies in Table IV invites the opposite inference. Please state explicitly which intervals are used, provide their values, and propagate the associated uncertainty. The same issue affects the 3P1 second-order parameter η1 through E(3P1)-E(3P0), where the MCDF/NIST difference is about 11%.
  2. [Section III.C, paragraph comparing with few-body B/Q] The paper states that the accuracy of the M1 and E2 reduced matrix elements is 'conservatively estimated' as 0.5%, but this is inconsistent with the immediately preceding benchmark: the calculated B/Q=27.333 MHz deviates from the few-body value 27.14887(3) MHz by 0.69%. If the 0.5% is intended as a standard uncertainty, it is smaller than the observed deviation without any correction; if the 0.69% deviation is treated as a known systematic, it should be included in the uncertainties of B and Q. Since the second-order correction contributes roughly 0.676 MHz to B(3P2), an error in the off-diagonal M1 matrix element propagates directly into the extracted B and Q. The authors should either incorporate the benchmark discrepancy as a systematic uncertainty in quadrature or provide a specific quantitative justification for the 0.5% figure.
  3. [Eqs. (12)-(13) and Table VI] The central claim of a 1.7% increase in B(3P2) depends on the comparison value. The abstract quotes the previous value as 1.427(9) MHz, whereas Table VI and Section III.D quote the same literature value as 1.429(8) MHz. The source of this discrepancy must be identified and the two numbers reconciled, because the magnitude of the claimed update changes by a non-negligible fraction of the quoted uncertainty.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The name of the experimental author is written as 'Luris' in the introduction but as 'Lurio' in the reference list and elsewhere; please correct this.
  2. [Table V caption] The caption contains the typo 'Modle' instead of 'Model'.
  3. [Table VII] The entry for W(3)_{5/2}(3P2) is printed as '-000772' and is missing a decimal point; it should presumably be '-0.000772'.
  4. [Section III.D and Section IV] The word 'undated' appears where 'updated' is intended, in the phrases 'undated HFS B' and 'undated HFS B of the 3P2 state'.
  5. [Table V] Table V lists an E2 reduced matrix element for 3P2 → 3P0, but the stated second- and third-order formulas in Appendix A do not appear to use this quantity (they use 3P2 → 3P1 and 3P1 → 3P0). Please clarify whether this matrix element enters any correction term or should be removed from the table.
  6. [Table VIII] The label 'Experiment[16]' appears in the source column for a value that is not an experiment; please relabel this row for consistency with the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hyperfine constants are extracted from measured splittings using independently benchmarked matrix elements, and the only input/output overlap (literature Q in small second-order terms) is explicitly shown to be negligible.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) MCDF/RCI wavefunctions yield M1/E2 reduced matrix elements; (ii) these enter second/third-order corrections η, ζ, χ, η1 via standard perturbation theory (Eqs. A1-A2, Table VII); (iii) the measured hyperfine splittings of Blachman-Lurio [16] are inverted with Eqs. (10)-(14) to extract A, B, C; (iv) Q is obtained from B using the computed B/Q = 27.333 MHz. No step defines a prediction in terms of the target. The only quantity that appears both as input and output is the literature Q used in the ζ and χ corrections; the paper explicitly states that a 2% variation in Q has negligible impact ('Our calculations indicate that a 2% variation in the electric quadrupole moment Q has a negligible impact on the second-order and third-order corrections and can be safely ignored'), and numerically the Q-dependent ζ contributes only ~0.007 MHz to B(3P2) against a 0.0067 MHz uncertainty, so no self-referential fixed-point loop is load-bearing. The extracted Q is not fed back into the corrections. The self-citations (refs. [29,30]) supply standard perturbative formulas that are re-derived in Appendix A and do not carry the argument. External benchmarks are used: calculated A agrees with the extracted A to 0.12-0.13%, and B/Q is compared with the few-body value 27.14887(3) MHz. A missing specification is flagged for correctness, not circularity: Appendix A1 defines η with denominator E(3P2)-E(3P1) but the manuscript never states whether the MCDF interval (Table IV, 2.52 cm-1 for 3P2-3P1) or the NIST interval (2.33 cm-1) is used; this can shift B by several times the quoted uncertainty. That is an uncertainty-budget issue, not a self-referential derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the standard perturbation treatment of the hyperfine interaction, the restriction of the intermediate-state sums to the 2s2p 3PJ manifold, the accuracy of the MCDF/RCI wavefunctions, and the reliability of the 1967 experimental splittings. The paper does not introduce new entities or fit parameters; the only free-ish input is the literature value of Q used in the weak second-order cross terms, which is shown to have negligible effect.

free parameters (1)
  • Nuclear electric quadrupole moment Q used in second/third-order corrections = 0.05288(38) b (recommended) or 0.05350(14) b (few-body)
    Used to compute the zeta and chi correction terms in Table VII. The paper states a 2% variation changes results negligibly, so the final Q is not fitted to this input; nevertheless, the correction terms carry a weak Q dependence.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hyperfine interaction can be treated perturbatively up to third order, with dominant intermediate states in the 2s2p 3PJ manifold (J' = J +/- 1).
    Used in Eqs. (8)-(9) and Appendix A; justified by the small fine-structure energy denominators (~0.7-2.5 cm^-1) versus large separations to other configurations (>10^4 cm^-1).
  • domain assumption The hyperfine expansion is truncated at k <= 3 (magnetic octupole).
    Used in Eq. (4); higher-rank nuclear moments are assumed negligible. The paper tests the M3 contribution to B(3P2) and finds 0.65%.
  • domain assumption MCDF/RCI wavefunctions with the stated active space are converged: SD to {9s,9p,9d,8f,7g,7h,7i} and SDTQ to {6s,6p,6d,6f,6g,6h}.
    Used for all matrix elements in Table V; convergence is demonstrated to three significant figures for M1 and five for E2, but the 0.69% deviation from the few-body B/Q benchmark indicates residual error.
  • domain assumption The experimental hyperfine splittings from Blachman and Lurio (1967) are correct and free of unknown systematic shifts.
    Input data in Table I; reanalysis assumes these values are exact except for quoted uncertainties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting the hyperfine interval for the $2s2p$ $^3\!P_{J}$ state in $^9$Be." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NO57E6BO

@misc{pith2026241113013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting the hyperfine interval for the $2s2p$ $^3\!P_J$ state in $^9$Be},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NO57E6BO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13013}
}
abstract

Using relativistic multiconfiguration Dirac-Hartree-Fock method, we calculate the hyperfine-structure properties of the $2s2p$ $^3\!P_{J}$ state in $^9$Be. The hyperfine-structure properties encompass first-order hyperfine-structure parameters, as well as second-order and third-order corrections arising from the hyperfine mixing of different $2s2p$ $^3\!P_{J}$ levels. Based on our theoretical results, we reanalyze the previously reported measurement of the hyperfine interval for the $2s2p$ $^3\!P$ state in $^9$Be [A. G. Blachman and A. Lurio, Phys. Rev. 153, 164(1967)], yielding updated hyperfine-structure constants. Our results show that the hyperfine-structure constant $B$ of $2s2p$ $^3\!P_{1}$ is notably sensitive to second-order correction. Conversely, accurately determining the hyperfine-structure constant $B$ of $2s2p$ $^3\!P_{2}$ necessitates consideration of the hyperfine-structure constant $C$ in the first-order hyperfine interaction equation. The updated hyperfine-structure constant $B$ of the $2s2p$ $^3\!P_{2}$ state is found to be $1.4542(67)$~MHz, which is approximately $1.7\%$ larger than the previous value of $1.427(9)$~MHz. By combining our theoretical results with the updated hyperfine-structure constant for the $2s2p$ $^3\!P_{2}$ state, we extract the electric quadrupole moment $Q$ of $^9$Be nucleus to be $0.05320(50)$~b. This value is consistent with the most recent determination using the few-body precision calculation method. Additional, we also discuss the reasons for the discrepancy between the $Q$ values obtained through few-body and previous many-body calculations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. E. Cocolios, A. N. Andreyev, B. Bastin, N. Bree, J. B¨ uscher, J. Elseviers, J. Gentens, M. Huyse, Y. Kudryavtsev, D. Pauwels, T. Sonoda, P. Van den Bergh, and P. Van Duppen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 102501 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    D. T. Yordanov, D. L. Balabanski, J. Biero´ n, M. L. Bis- sell, K. Blaum, I. Budinˇ cevi´ c, S. Fritzsche, N. Fr¨ ommgen, G. Georgiev, C. Geppert, M. Hammen, M. Kowalska, K. Kreim, A. Krieger, R. Neugart, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, J. Papuga, and S. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 192501 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Papuga, M

    J. Papuga, M. L. Bissell, K. Kreim, K. Blaum, B. A. Brown, M. De Rydt, R. F. Garcia Ruiz, H. Heylen, M. Kowalska, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. N¨ ortersh¨ auser, T. Otsuka, M. M. Rajabali, R. S´ anchez, Y. Utsuno, and D. T. Yordanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 172503 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    N. J. Stone, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 90, 75 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [5]

    Pyykk¨ o, Mol

    P. Pyykk¨ o, Mol. Phy. 116, 1328 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Singh, D

    Y. Singh, D. K. Nandy, and B. K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. A 86, 032509 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    B. K. Sahoo, M. D. Barrett, and B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042506 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Biero´ n, L

    J. Biero´ n, L. Filippin, G. Gaigalas, M. Godefroid, P. J¨ onsson, and P. Pyykk¨ o, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062505 (2018)

    2018

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    B. Lu, T. Zhang, H. Chang, J. Li, Y. Wu, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 100, 012504 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Li, H.-X

    F.-C. Li, H.-X. Qiao, Y.-B. Tang, and T.-Y. Shi, Phys. Rev. A 104, 062808 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Li, Y.-B

    F.-C. Li, Y.-B. Tang, H.-X. Qiao, and T.-Y. Shi, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 54, 145004 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, and M. G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 253001 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Papoulia, S

    A. Papoulia, S. Schiffmann, J. Biero´ n, G. Gaigalas, M. Godefroid, Z. Harman, P. J¨ onsson, N. S. Oreshkina, P. Pyykk¨ o, and I. I. Tupitsyn, Phys. Rev. A 103, 022815 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    L. V. Skripnikov, A. V. Oleynichenko, A. V. Zaitsevskii , D. E. Maison, and A. E. Barzakh, Phys. Rev. C 104, 034316 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    L. V. Skripnikov and A. E. Barzakh, Phys. Rev. C 109, 024315 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    A. G. Blachman and A. Lurio, Phys. Rev. 153, 164 (1967)

    1967

  9. [17]

    S. N. Ray, T. Lee, and T. P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 8, 1748 (1973)

    1973

  10. [18]

    Sinanoˇ glu and D

    O. Sinanoˇ glu and D. R. Beck, Chem. Phys. Letters 20, 221 (1973)

    1973

  11. [19]

    D. R. Beck and C. A. Nicolaides, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 26, 467 (1984)

    1984

  12. [20]

    Sundholm and J

    D. Sundholm and J. Olsen, Chem. Phys. Letters 177, 91 (1991)

    1991

  13. [21]

    J¨ onsson and C

    P. J¨ onsson and C. F. Fischer, Phys. Rev. A 48, 4113 (1993)

    1993

  14. [22]

    Nemouchi, P

    M. Nemouchi, P. J¨ onsson, J. Pinard, and M. Godefroid, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 36, 2189 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Beloy, A

    K. Beloy, A. Derevianko, and W. R. Johnson, Phys. Rev. A 77, 012512 (2008)

    2008

  16. [24]

    Puchalski, J

    M. Puchalski, J. Komasa, and K. Pachucki, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 013293 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Qi, P.-P

    X.-Q. Qi, P.-P. Zhang, Z.-C. Yan, T.-Y. Shi, G. W. F. Drake, A.-X. Chen, and Z.-X. Zhong, Phys. Rev. A 107, L010802 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Qi, P.-P

    X.-Q. Qi, P.-P. Zhang, Z.-C. Yan, G. W. F. Drake, A.-X. Chen, Z.-X. Zhong, and T.-Y. Shi, Phys. Rev. A 110, 012810 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    D. M. Fairbank, A. L. Banducci, R. W. Gunkelman, J. B. VanArsdale, and S. M. Brewer, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012809 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Dickopf, B

    S. Dickopf, B. Sikora, A. Kaiser, M. M¨ uller, S. Ulmer, V. A. Yerokhin, Z. Harman, C. H. Keitel, A. Mooser, and K. Blaum, Nature (London) 632, 757 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Li and Y.-B

    F.-C. Li and Y.-B. Tang, Phys. Rev. A 107, 052807 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Li and Y.-B

    F.-C. Li and Y.-B. Tang, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042824 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    I. P. Grant, Relativistic quantum theory of atoms and molecules: theory and computation (Springer, 2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    J¨ onsson, F

    P. J¨ onsson, F. A. Parpia, and C. F. Fischer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 96, 301 (1996)

    1996

  25. [33]

    Kramida, Yu

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and and NIST ASD Team, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.8), [Online]. Available: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2021, April 25]. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.