Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Enhanced nuclear Schiff and electric dipole moments in nuclei with an octupole deformation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Pear-shaped (octupole-deformed) nuclei can carry laboratory-frame electric dipole and Schiff moments that exceed single-particle valence-nucleon estimates by one to three orders of magnitude, and these collective moments can be extracted…

desk verdict Useful semiempirical survey with honest caveats, but the 2–3 order enhancement headline is unevenly supported by the paper's own numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18943 v3 pith:AS35ABQY submitted 2024-11-28 nucl-th hep-phphysics.atom-ph

V. V. Flambaum , A. J. Mansour This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-phphysics.atom-ph PACS 21.10.Ky24.80.+y11.30.Er
keywords octupoledeformationSchiffmomentelectricdipoletime-reversalviolationparitypear-shapednucleiE1transitionsnuclear
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

Pear-shaped (octupole-deformed) nuclei are argued to be natural amplifiers of time-reversal- and parity-violating nuclear moments, which are among the most sensitive probes of new physics beyond the Standard Model and of axion dark matter. In the rotating nuclear frame these nuclei carry large collective electric dipole and Schiff moments, but rotation would normally average them to zero in the laboratory; the paper shows that weak T,P-violating forces mix close opposite-parity rotational doublets, polarising the nuclear axis along the spin and making the moments observable. Using E1 transition half-lives from the NuDat database, the authors extract the intrinsic electric dipole moment $d_{\text{int}}$ for a dozen candidate nuclei, then convert it into independent estimates of the intrinsic Schiff moment $S_{\text{int}}$ and the octupole deformation parameter $\beta_3$. Comparing the laboratory-frame collective moments with single-particle valence-nucleon estimates, they find enhancements of up to one order of magnitude for the nuclear EDM and 2-3 orders of magnitude for the Schiff moment, with an overall uncertainty that may exceed a factor of 10.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the intrinsic electric dipole moment $d_{\text{int}}$ of the body-fixed nuclear frame, connected to the measured E1 decay by the rotational identity $B(E1)=(3/4\pi)d_{\text{int}}^2\langle J_iK_i10|J_fK_f\rangle^2$, and to the intrinsic Schiff moment by the liquid-drop ratio $d_{\text{int}}/S_{\text{int}}=5A\alpha/(14CR_0^3)$. The mechanism that makes these intrinsic moments observable is the T,P-violating mixing of the opposite-parity rotational doublet states $|I^+\rangle$ and $|I^-\rangle$, with mixing coefficient $\alpha_m=\langle I^-|W|I^+\rangle/(E_+-E_-)$, which polarises the nuclear axis along the spin and produces laboratory-frame moments $d=2\alpha_m I/(I+1)d_{\text{int}}$ and $S=2\alpha_m I/(I+1)S_{\text{int}}$.

What would settle it

A laboratory limit on the 225Ra Schiff moment more than a factor of 10 below the collective prediction (about 1.2 $\bar\theta$ e fm$^3$) would falsify the enhancement estimate; conversely, a convergent many-body calculation of 225Ra that reproduces the E1-extracted $d_{\text{int}}$ would confirm the hydrodynamic relations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the 'octupole mechanism' makes the nuclear Schiff moment and EDM in pear-shaped nuclei collective rather than single-particle: in the intrinsic frame, $d_{\text{int}}$ and $S_{\text{int}}$ are dominated by the $\beta_2\beta_3$ term, and the T,P-violating mixing adds another factor of $\beta_3$, so the lab-frame moments grow like $\beta_2\beta_3^2$. The paper derives $d_{\text{int}}$ directly from measured E1 half-lives via the rotational-model formula $B(E1)=(3/4\pi)d_{\text{int}}^2\langle J_iK_i10|J_fK_f\rangle^2$, then uses the liquid-drop ratio $d_{\text{int}}/S_{\text{int}}=5A\alpha/(14CR_0^3)$ to obtain $S_{\text{int}}$ and a similar inversion to obtain $\beta_3$, for isotopes such as $^{153}$Eu, $^{225}$Ra, $^{225}$Ac, and $^{229}$Pa. It reports that the collective lab-frame Schiff moments are larger than the valence-nucleon estimates by approximately 2-3 orders of magnitude, and the nuclear EDM by up to one order, expressing results in units of the QCD $\bar\theta$ parameter.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes the rotational-model relation between E1 transition half-lives and the intrinsic dipole moment holds even for nuclei the paper classifies as soft octupole vibrators, where the authors concede it gives only an upper limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The tabulated nuclei, including 153Eu, 153Sm, 155Gd, 161Dy, 165Er, 221,223Fr, 225,227Ac, 225Ra, 229Pa, and 237Np, become prioritized targets for atomic, molecular, and solid-state searches for T,P-violating effects.
  • For nuclei classified as soft octupole vibrators, such as 153Gd, 161Dy, 165Er, 227Ac, and 229Pa, the extracted values should be read as upper limits on the moments, and experiments that reach below them could distinguish static deformation from vibrational enhancement.
  • In molecules containing these nuclei, the T,P-odd energy splitting between nuclear-spin states is enhanced by the same 2-3 orders of magnitude as the Schiff moment, making molecular experiments more sensitive probes of CP violation.
  • Inserting an oscillating axion field in place of the constant $\bar\theta$ converts the tabulated moments into predictions for axion-dark-matter-induced oscillating nuclear EDMs and Schiff moments, directly relevant to CASPEr-type searches.
  • The estimates motivate full many-body nuclear calculations beyond 225Ra and 153Eu, since the semi-empirical values are intended as order-of-magnitude guides rather than final predictions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's upper-limit caveat for soft octupole vibrators is taken literally, future measurements that find smaller moments in those nuclei would not refute the octupole mechanism but would bound the true rotational-model coupling, so a natural next step is to re-run the extraction with $\beta_3^2$ replaced by its vibrational average $\langle\beta_3^2\rangle$.
  • The ratio identity $d_{\text{int}}/S_{\text{int}}=5A\alpha/(14CR_0^3)$ is directly testable by future many-body calculations in 225Ra, since both moments should scale together if the liquid-drop assumption is correct.
  • Extending the same half-life-based extraction to other actinide isotopes with measured E1 transitions, including 229Th and 233,235U once better NuDat data become available, would immediately enlarge the candidate list.
  • Because polar molecules and ferroelectric crystals can align the nuclear axis without relying solely on rotational mixing, solid-state and molecular platforms using these pear-shaped isotopes may be the most promising near-term route to seeing the collective moments.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This paper estimates intrinsic and laboratory-frame time-reversal- and parity-violating nuclear electric dipole moments and Schiff moments for a set of nuclei with static octupole deformation or soft octupole vibration. The intrinsic dipole moment d_int is extracted from experimental E1 half-lives taken from the NuDat database using the rotational-model formula B(E1) = (3/4 pi) d_int^2 <J_i K_i 1 0|J_f K_f>^2 (Eq. (16)), then converted to an intrinsic Schiff moment and beta_3 via liquid-drop formulas. The lab-frame moments are obtained by mixing opposite-parity doublet states through a T,P-violating interaction whose matrix element is estimated by Eq. (25). The results are compared with single-particle valence-nucleon estimates, and the paper claims an enhancement of the collective Schiff moment by roughly 2-3 orders of magnitude for some candidates, with an honest warning that the overall uncertainty may exceed a factor of 10.

Significance. The paper provides a systematic, experimentally anchored survey of candidate nuclei for future EDM and Schiff-moment searches, including applications to axion dark matter experiments. Its main value lies in the breadth of the candidate list and the explicit, transparently stated estimates of beta_3 and the enhancement factors, which can serve as motivation and guidance for more sophisticated many-body calculations. The derivation chain from Eq. (15) to Eq. (17) is standard and dimensionally consistent, and the paper explicitly flags the factor-of-10 uncertainty and the upper-limit nature of results for soft octupole vibrators. The comparison with valence-nucleon contributions is a useful baseline. However, the central quantitative claim as phrased in the Summary is not uniformly supported by the tabulated results, and the missing input data for the d_int extraction reduce the paper's immediate reproducibility.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (15)-(17) and Table I] The extraction of d_int from measured half-lives uses t_1/2 in Eq. (15) without clarifying whether this is the partial E1 gamma half-life or the total level half-life. NuDat half-lives are total level half-lives, and for E1 transitions in heavy nuclei internal conversion and branching corrections are often sizeable; if the total half-life is used, d_int is overestimated by roughly sqrt(1+alpha_total) or more. Since the paper does not list the level energies, spins, E_gamma values, half-lives, conversion coefficients, or branching ratios used for each row of Table I, the d_int column is not independently checkable or reproducible. Please supply a full input-data table or explicitly justify the omission of these corrections.
  2. [Section III, paragraph after Eq. (22), and Summary] The text states that when the rotational frequency is smaller than the octupole vibration frequency, Eq. (16) provides only an upper limit for the EDM and Schiff moments. Several nuclei in Table I (including 153Eu, 153Sm, 155Gd, 161Dy, 165Er, 227Ac, and 237Np) fall in this category, yet Table I lists definite beta_3 and lab-frame moments for them, and the Summary claims an enhancement of approximately 2-3 orders of magnitude without carrying this caveat. For several listed nuclei the actual enhancement is below one order (e.g., 155Gd and 237Np), so the stated range is not representative of the whole sample. Please propagate the upper-limit status through Table I and restrict or rephrase the summary claim to the subset of nuclei for which it holds.
  3. [Table I, row 229Pa and accompanying footnote] The largest lab-frame Schiff moment in Table I (S_lab = 56 theta e fm^3 for 229Pa) depends on d_int taken from Ref. [58] rather than from the NuDat half-life extraction, and on the very small doublet energy difference ΔE about 60 eV, which is mentioned only in a footnote. This entry heavily influences the upper end of the claimed 2-3 order enhancement. The special status of this result should be discussed in the main text (Section III or the Summary) so that readers do not weight it equally with the NuDat-based entries.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The expression 'AZ e3' should be typeset as A Z e^3; the present rendering obscures the meaning.
  2. [Eq. (15)] The notation B(E M l_gamma; Ji -> Jf) is ambiguous; please use separate symbols for electric and magnetic reduced transition probabilities, e.g., B(E l) and B(M l).
  3. [Section IV, after Eq. (33)] The phrase 'ans1/2' appears to be a typo and should read 'an s_1/2'.
  4. [Section III, after Eq. (24)] The text lists '153Gd' among isotopes with small beta_3, but Table I contains no 153Gd row; presumably this should refer to 155Gd or another tabulated isotope.
  5. [Section IV and Summary] The Summary says 'approximately 2-3 orders of magnitude' for the Schiff moment enhancement, while Section IV says 'one order of magnitude to the nuclear EDM and three orders of magnitude to the Schiff moment'; these statements should be reconciled and stated per nucleus or per subset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central moments are extracted from external NuDat E1 half-life data, and the model formulas and self-citations are not used to fit the target enhancement.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from external E1 half-life data (NuDat). Equation (17) converts a measured half-life into d_int via the standard rotational-model B(E1) relation; S_int and beta_3 are then algebraic rearrangements (Eqs. (18)-(19)) of the same hydrodynamic formulas, so they are derived estimates rather than predictions fitted to the target observable. The lab-frame moments use the doublet-mixing formalism of Refs. [13,14], with the matrix element estimate Eq. (25) taken from Ref. [14]; this is a parameter-free prior estimate that does not contain the target lab-frame moment, and the paper explicitly compares its 153Eu result with independent many-body calculations (Refs. [31,54]). Although several cited formulas come from the authors' earlier work, none of the load-bearing steps reduces to a self-citation: the input data are external, the enhancement ratio is not used to fit any parameter, and the paper disclaims precision ('uncertainty ... may exceed a factor of 10') and states that for soft octupole vibrators Eq. (16) provides only an upper limit. Those are correctness caveats, not circularity. No circular step meeting the quoted-evidence bar was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are invented. The paper's output depends on five modeling axioms, most importantly the rotational-adiabatic extraction in Eq (16) and the order-of-magnitude matrix element in Eq (25), both of which are flagged as approximations in the text.

free parameters (2)
  • C (volume symmetry-energy coefficient) = ~20-35 MeV
    Used in Eqs (13), (18), (19) to convert d_int to S_int and beta_3; exact value uncertain and central results for S_int, beta_3, and lab moments scale with C (S_int proportional to C, beta_3 inversely proportional to C).
  • beta_2 (quadrupole deformation parameter) = from Moeller et al. (Ref [17])
    Taken per nucleus from literature; appears in Eq (18) where beta_3 is inversely proportional to beta_2. Not tabulated in the paper, so exact reproduction requires access to Ref [17].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Liquid-drop/hydrodynamic model with volume conservation and small-deformation expansion (Eqs 3-13)
    The intrinsic dipole and Schiff moments are derived in this model; shell corrections are of the same order as d_int (stated near Eq 14).
  • domain assumption Static equilibrium relation between proton and neutron densities, Eq (7)
    The paper notes this 'may lead to significant error' for octupole vibrations with frequency ~1 MeV or higher.
  • domain assumption Rotational model adiabatic relation B(E1) = (3/4 pi) d_int^2 <JiKi10|JfKf>^2 (Eq 16)
    Load-bearing for extracting d_int from half-lives; the paper states it gives only an upper limit when the rotational frequency is smaller than the octupole vibration frequency.
  • ad hoc to paper T,P-violating matrix element <I-|W|I+> approximately beta_3 eta / A^(1/3) eV (Eq 25), from Ref [14]
    Order-of-magnitude estimate from the authors' prior work; lab-frame moments scale linearly with it.
  • standard math Relation eta_n = -eta_p = 4 x 10^5 theta-bar (Eq 28) from meson-exchange theory and the relation to theta-bar
    Used to quote lab moments in units of theta-bar; standard in the field, with references [50-52].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced nuclear Schiff and electric dipole moments in nuclei with an octupole deformation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AS35ABQY

@misc{pith2026241118943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced nuclear Schiff and electric dipole moments in nuclei with an octupole deformation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AS35ABQY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18943}
}
abstract

Deformed nuclei exhibit enhanced moments that violate time-reversal invariance ($T$) and parity ($P$). This paper focuses on the enhanced nuclear electric dipole moment (EDM) and Schiff moment present in nuclei with octupole deformation (pear-shaped nuclei). These moments, which are proportional to the octupole deformation, have a collective nature and are large in the intrinsic frame that rotates with the nucleus. However, in a state with definite angular momentum and parity, $T$ and $P$ conservation forbid their expectation values in the laboratory frame, as nuclear rotation causes them to vanish. In nuclei with octupole deformation, close opposite-parity rotational states with identical spin are mixed by $T$,$P$-violating nuclear forces. This mixing polarises the nuclear axis along the nuclear spin, allowing moments from the intrinsic frame to manifest in the laboratory frame, provided the nuclear spin $I$ is sufficiently large. Using half-life data for $E1$ transitions from the NuDat database, we calculate the intrinsic nuclear EDM $d_{\text{int}}$ for a range of nuclei theorised to exhibit octupole deformation. From these values, we independently estimate the intrinsic nuclear Schiff moment $S_{\text{int}}$ and the octupole deformation parameter $\beta_{3}$. Finally, we compare the magnitude of these collective moments in the laboratory frame with the contributions from valence nucleons, providing an estimate of the nuclear EDM and Schiff moment components unrelated to octupole deformation. The uncertainty of our estimates may exceed a factor of 10.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [58]

    Levon, J

    A. Levon, J. de Boer, G. Graw, R. Hertenberger, D. Hofer, J. Kvasil, A. Losch, E. Muller-Zanotti, M. Wurkner, H. Baltzer, V. Grafen, and C. Gunther, Nuclear Physics A 576, 267 (1994)

    work page 1994

  2. [1]

    Pospelov and A

    M. Pospelov and A. Ritz, Annals of Physics 318, 119 (2005), special Issue

    work page 2005

  3. [2]

    Engel, M

    J. Engel, M. J. Ramsey-Musolf, and U. van Kolck, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 71, 21 (2013), fundamental Symmetries in the Era of the LHC

    work page 2013

  4. [3]

    I. B. Khriplovich, Parity Nonconservation in Atomic Phenomena (Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 1991)

    work page 1991

  5. [4]

    Ginges and V

    J. Ginges and V. Flambaum, Physics Reports 397, 63 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [5]

    I. B. Khriplovich and S. K. Lamoreaux, CP violation without strangeness (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [6]

    L. I. Schiff, Phys. Rev. 132, 2194 (1963)

    work page 1963

  8. [7]

    P. G. H. Sandars, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1396 (1967)

    work page 1967

Show all 71 references
  1. [8]

    E. A. Hinds and P. G. H. Sandars, Phys. Rev. A 21, 471 (1980)

    1980

  2. [9]

    Flambaum, O

    V. Flambaum, O. Sushkov, and I. Khriplovich, Sov. Phys. JETP 60 (1984)

    1984

  3. [10]

    Flambaum, I

    V. Flambaum, I. Khriplovich, and O. Sushkov, Physics Letters B 162, 213 (1985)

    1985

  4. [11]

    Flambaum, I

    V. Flambaum, I. Khriplovich, and O. Sushkov, Nuclear Physics A 449, 750 (1986)

    1986

  5. [12]

    V. V. Flambaum and J. S. M. Ginges, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032113 (2002)

    2002

  6. [13]

    Auerbach, V

    N. Auerbach, V. V. Flambaum, and V. Spevak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4316 (1996)

    1996

  7. [14]

    Spevak, N

    V. Spevak, N. Auerbach, and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. C 56, 1357 (1997)

    1997

  8. [15]

    Spevak and N

    V. Spevak and N. Auerbach, Physics Letters B 359, 254 (1995)

    1995

  9. [16]

    Sushkov and V

    O. Sushkov and V. Flambaum, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys 31, 28 (1980)

    1980

  10. [17]

    M¨ oller, A

    P. M¨ oller, A. Sierk, T. Ichikawa, and H. Sagawa, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 109-110, 1 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    Ebata and T

    S. Ebata and T. Nakatsukasa, Physica Scripta92, 064005 (2017)

    2017

  12. [19]

    Nazarewicz, P

    W. Nazarewicz, P. Olanders, N. Ragnarsson, J. Dudek, G. Leander, P. M¨ oller, and E. Ruchowska, Nuclear Physics A 429, 269 (1984)

    1984

  13. [20]

    Engel, J

    J. Engel, J. L. Friar, and A. C. Hayes, Phys. Rev. C 61, 035502 (2000)

    2000

  14. [21]

    V. V. Flambaum and V. G. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rev. C 68, 035502 (2003)

    2003

  15. [22]

    Auerbach, V

    N. Auerbach, V. F. Dmitriev, V. V. Flambaum, A. Liset- skiy, R. A. Sen’kov, and V. G. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rev. C 74, 025502 (2006)

    2006

  16. [23]

    Engel, M

    J. Engel, M. Bender, J. Dobaczewski, J. H. d. Jesus, and P. Olbratowski, Phys. Rev. C 68, 025501 (2003)

    2003

  17. [24]

    Dobaczewski, J

    J. Dobaczewski, J. Engel, M. Kortelainen, and P. Becker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 232501 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    R. H. Parker, M. R. Dietrich, M. R. Kalita, N. D. Lemke, K. G. Bailey, M. Bishof, J. P. Greene, R. J. Holt, W. Ko- rsch, Z.-T. Lu, P. Mueller, T. P. O’Connor, and J. T. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 233002 (2015)

    2015

  19. [26]

    Bishof, R

    M. Bishof, R. H. Parker, K. G. Bailey, J. P. Greene, R. J. Holt, M. R. Kalita, W. Korsch, N. D. Lemke, Z.-T. Lu, P. Mueller, T. P. O’Connor, J. T. Singh, and M. R. Di- etrich, Phys. Rev. C 94, 025501 (2016)

    2016

  20. [27]

    E. R. Tardiff, J. A. Behr, T. E. Chupp, K. Gulyuz, R. S. Lefferts, W. Lorenzon, S. R. Nuss-Warren, M. R. Pear- son, N. Pietralla, G. Rainovski, J. F. Sell, and G. D. Sprouse, Phys. Rev. C 77, 052501 (2008)

    2008

  21. [28]

    Graner, Y

    B. Graner, Y. Chen, E. G. Lindahl, and B. R. Heckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 161601 (2016)

    2016

  22. [29]

    V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. C 99, 035501 (2019)

    2019

  23. [30]

    V. V. Flambaum and H. Feldmeier, Phys. Rev. C 101, 015502 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    Arvanitaki, J

    A. Arvanitaki, J. Engel, A. A. Geraci, A. Madden, A. Hepburn, and K. V. Tilburg, The ferroaxionic force (2024), arXiv:2411.10516 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    P. W. Graham and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D 84, 055013 (2011)

    2011

  26. [33]

    Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. D 89, 043522 (2014)

    2014

  27. [34]

    J. I. Read, J. Phys. G 41, 063101 (2014)

    2014

  28. [35]

    Aybas, J

    D. Aybas, J. Adam, E. Blumenthal, A. V. Gramolin, D. Johnson, A. Kleyheeg, S. Afach, J. W. Blanchard, G. P. Centers, A. Garcon, M. Engler, N. L. Figueroa, M. G. Sendra, A. Wickenbrock, M. Lawson, T. Wang, T. Wu, H. Luo, H. Mani, P. Mauskopf, P. W. Graham, S. Rajendran, D. F. J...

    2021

  29. [36]

    T. S. Roussy, D. A. Palken, W. B. Cairncross, B. M. Brubaker, D. N. Gresh, M. Grau, K. C. Cossel, K. B. Ng, Y. Shagam, Y. Zhou, V. V. Flambaum, K. W. Lehnert, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 171301 (2021)

    2021

  30. [37]

    V. V. Flambaum, M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and Y. V. Stad- nik, Phys. Rev. D 102, 035001 (2020)

    2020

  31. [38]

    V. V. Flambaum, I. B. Samsonov, and H. B. Tran Tan, J. High Energ. Phys. 77

  32. [39]

    V. V. Flambaum, I. B. Samsonov, and H. B. Tran Tan, Phys. Rev. D 102, 115036 (2020)

    2020

  33. [40]

    M. Fan, B. Nima, A. Radak, G. Alonso- ´Alvarez, and A. Vutha, First results from a search for axionlike dark matter using octupole-deformed nuclei in a crystal (2024), arXiv:2410.02218 [physics.atom-ph]

    2024

  34. [41]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure (World Scientific Publishing Company, 1998)

    1998

  35. [42]

    V. M. Strutinsky, At. Energ. 1, 150 (1956)

    1956

  36. [43]

    V. M. Strutinsky, J. Nucl. Energy 1, 611 (1956)

    1956

  37. [44]

    C. O. Dorso, W. D. Myers, and W. J. Swiatecki, Nucl. Phys. A451, 189 (1986)

    1986

  38. [45]

    Leander, W

    G. Leander, W. Nazarewicz, G. Bertsch, and J. Dudek, Nuclear Physics A 453, 58 (1986)

    1986

  39. [46]

    W. D. Myers and W. Swiatecki, Annals of Physics 55, 395 (1969)

    1969

  40. [47]

    Butler and W

    P. Butler and W. Nazarewicz, Nuclear Physics A 533, 249 (1991). 9

    1991

  41. [48]

    The NUDAT/PCNUDAT program for nuclear data - https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat3/ (2022)

    2022

  42. [49]

    V. V. Flambaum and O. P. Sushkov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 75, 1208 (1978)

    1978

  43. [50]

    V. V. Flambaum, D. DeMille, and M. G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 103003 (2014)

    2014

  44. [51]

    Bsaisou, J

    J. Bsaisou, J. De Vries, C. Hanhart, S. Liebig, U. G. Meissner, D. Minossi, A. Nogga, and J. Wirzba, J. High Energy Physics 03, 104 (2015)

    2015

  45. [52]

    K., Yoshinaga, N., Sato, T., Asahi, K., and Das, B

    Yamanaka, N., Sahoo, B. K., Yoshinaga, N., Sato, T., Asahi, K., and Das, B. P., Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 54 (2017)

    2017

  46. [53]

    V. V. Flambaum and V. A. Dzuba, Phys. Rev. A 101, 042504 (2020)

    2020

  47. [54]

    O. P. Sushkov, Phys. Rev. C 110, 015501 (2024)

    2024

  48. [55]

    Kurcewicz, G

    W. Kurcewicz, G. Løvhøiden, T. Thorsteinsen, M. Borge, D. Burke, M. Cronqvist, H. Gabelmann, H. Gietz, P. Hill, N. Kaffrell, R. Naumann, K. Nybø, G. Nyman, and J. Ro- gowski, Nuclear Physics A 539, 451 (1992)

    1992

  49. [56]

    R. K. Sheline, C. F. Liang, P. Paris, J. Kvasil, and D. Nosek, Phys. Rev. C 51, 1708 (1995)

    1995

  50. [57]

    Burke, W

    D. Burke, W. Kurcewicz, G. Løvhøiden, M. Borge, M. Cronqvist, H. Gabelmann, H. Gietz, P. Hill, N. Kaf- frell, S. Mattsson, R. Naumann, K. Nybø, G. Nyman, J. Rogowski, G. Struble, and T. Thorsteinsen, Nuclear Physics A 612, 91 (1997)

    1997

  51. [59]

    The calculation for 229Pa is presented with the caveat that the existence of the very close nuclear energy doublet ∆E± ≈ 60 eV in 229Pa is confirmed

  52. [60]

    W. C. Haxton and E. M. Henley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1937 (1983)

    1983

  53. [61]

    T. A. Collaboration, J. Baron, W. C. Campbell, D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, G. Gabrielse, Y. V. Gurevich, P. W. Hess, N. R. Hutzler, E. Kir- ilov, I. Kozyryev, B. R. O’Leary, C. D. Panda, M. F. Parsons, E. S. Petrik, B. Spaun, A. C. Vutha, and A. D. West, Science 343, 269 (2014), ...

    2014 doi

  54. [62]

    T. S. Roussy, L. Caldwell, T. Wright, W. B. Cairncross, Y. Shagam, K. B. Ng, N. Schloss- berger, S. Y. Park, A. Wang, J. Ye, and E. A. Cornell, Science 381, 46 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.adg4084

    2023 doi

  55. [63]

    A. N. Petrov, N. S. Mosyagin, T. A. Isaev, A. V. Titov, V. F. Ezhov, E. Eliav, and U. Kaldor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 073001 (2002)

    2002

  56. [64]

    A. D. Kudashov, A. N. Petrov, L. V. Skripnikov, N. S. Mosyagin, A. V. Titov, and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 87, 020102 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    L. V. Skripnikov and A. V. Titov, The Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 054115 (2016), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4959973/15516816/054115 1 online.pdf

    2016 doi

  58. [66]

    A. O. Sushkov, Eucl 3 · 6h2o as the solid-state plat- form for searches for new p,t-odd physics (2023), arXiv:2304.12105 [cond-mat.other]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    L. V. Skripnikov, N. S. Mosyagin, A. V. Titov, and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 22, 18374 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    A. V. Oleynichenko, L. V. Skripnikov, A. V. Zaitsevskii, and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 105, 022825 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Arrowsmith-Kron, M

    G. Arrowsmith-Kron, M. Athanasakis-Kaklamanakis, M. Au, J. Ballof, R. Berger, A. Borschevsky, A. A. Breier, F. Buchinger, D. Budker, L. Caldwell, et al., Reports on Progress in Physics 87, 084301 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    S. G. Porsev, J. S. M. Ginges, and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 83, 042507 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    V. V. Flambaum and A. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. A85, 022505 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

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