Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

New physics constraints from atomic parity violation in Cs133

B. K. Sahoo1,*, B. P. Das2,3, and H. Spiesberger4

  • 1Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics Division, Physical Research Laboratory, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009, India
  • 2Department of Physics, School of Science, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-1-2-1-H86 Ookayama Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8550, Japan
  • 3Centre for Quantum Engineering Research and Education, TCG Centres for Research in Science and Technology, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata 70091, India
  • 4PRISMA+ Cluster of Excellence, Institut für Physik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, D-55099 Mainz, Germany

  • *bijaya@prl.res.in

Phys. Rev. D 103, L111303 – Published 25 June, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L111303

Abstract

Our improved calculation of the nuclear spin-independent parity violating electric dipole transition amplitude (E1PV) for 6sS21/2−7sS21/2 in Cs133 in combination with the most accurate (0.3%) measurement of this quantity yields a new value for the nuclear weak charge QW=−73.71(26)ex(23)th against the Standard Model (SM) prediction QWSM=−73.23(1). The advances in our calculation of E1PV have been achieved by using a variant of the perturbed relativistic coupled-cluster theory, which treats the contributions of the core, valence, and excited states to E1PV on the same footing unlike the previous high precision calculations. Furthermore, this approach resolves the controversy regarding the sign of the core correlation effects. We discuss the implications of the deviation of our result for QW from the SM value by considering different scenarios of new physics.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Comments & Replies

Comment on “New physics constraints from atomic parity violation in Cs133”

B. M. Roberts and J. S. M. Ginges
Phys. Rev. D 105, 018301 (2022)

Reply to “Comment on ‘New physics constraints from atomic parity violation in Cs133’”

B. K. Sahoo, B. P. Das, and H. Spiesberger
Phys. Rev. D 105, 018302 (2022)

Article Text

References (55)

  1. M.-A. Bouchiat and C. Bouchiat, Phys. Lett. 48B, 111 (1974); J. Phys. II (France) 35, 899 (1974).
  2. P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. 96B, 83 (1980).
  3. C. S. Wood, S. C. Bennet, D. Cho, B. P. Masterson, J. L. Roberts, C. E. Tanner, and C. E. Wieman, Science 275, 1759 (1997).
  4. J. Choi and D. S. Elliott, Phys. Rev. A 93, 023432 (2016).
  5. A. Kastberg, T. Aoki, B. K. Sahoo, Y. Sakemi, and B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 100, 050101(R) (2019).
  6. M.-A. Bouchiat and C. Bouchiat, Rep. Prog. Phys. 60, 1351 (1997).
  7. P. A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020).
  8. J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012).
  9. S. J. Pollock, E. N. Fortson, and L. Wilets, Phys. Rev. C 46, 2587 (1992).
  10. T. Sil, M. Centelles, X. Vinas, and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 71, 045502 (2005).
  11. W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 27, 552 (1983).
  12. J. Erler and S. Su, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 71, 119 (2013).
  13. C. Bouchiat and C. A. Piketty, Phys. Lett. B 128, 73 (1983).
  14. D. London and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 34, 1530 (1986).
  15. W. J. Marciano and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2963 (1990); 68, 898(E) (1992).
  16. M. E. Peskin and T. Takeuchi, Phys. Rev. D 46, 381 (1992).
  17. C. Bouchiat and P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 608, 87 (2005).
  18. H. Davoudiasl, H. S. Lee, and W. J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D 89, 095006 (2014).
  19. H. Davoudiasl, H. S. Lee, and W. J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D 92, 055005 (2015).
  20. P. Fayet, Phys. Rev. D 103, 035034 (2021).
  21. B. K. Sahoo and B. P. Das, arXiv:2008.0891.
  22. S. G. Porsev, K. Beloy, and A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 181601 (2009); Phys. Rev. D 82, 036008 (2010).
  23. V. A. Dzuba, J. C. Berengut, V. V. Flambaum, and B. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 203003 (2012).
  24. B. M. Roberts, V. A. Dzuba, and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 88, 042507 (2013).
  25. B. K. Sahoo, R. K. Chaudhuri, B. P. Das, and D. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 163003 (2006).
  26. L. Wansbeek, B. K. Sahoo, R. G. E. Timmermans, K. Jungmann, B. P. Das, and D. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. A 78, 050501(R) (2008).
  27. B. K. Sahoo and B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 84, 010502(R) (2011).
  28. M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008 (2018).
  29. C. Wieman and A. Derevianko, arXiv:1904.00281.
  30. C. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. 97, 380 (1955).
  31. A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and NIST ASD Team, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.6.1) (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2018).
  32. E. Arimondo, M. Inguscio, and P. Violino, Rev. Mod. Phys. 49, 31 (1977).
  33. D. Das and V. Natarajan, J. Phys. B 39, 2013 (2006).
  34. G. Yang, J. Wang, B. Yang, and J. Wang, Laser Phys. Lett. 13, 085702 (2016).
  35. W. D. Williams, M. T. Herd, and W. B. Hawkins, Laser Phys. Lett. 15, 095702 (2018).
  36. W. Happer, Atomic Physics 4, edited by G. zu Putlitz, E. W. Weber, and A. Winnacker (Plenum Press, New York, 1974), pp. 651–682.
  37. L. Young, W. T. Hill III, S. J. Sibener, S. D. Price, C. E. Tanner, C. E. Wieman, and S. R. Leone, Phys. Rev. A 50, 2174 (1994).
  38. R. J. Rafac, C. E. Tanner, A. E. Livingston, and H. G. Berry, Phys. Rev. A 60, 3648 (1999).
  39. B. M. Patterson, J. F. Sell, T. Ehrenreich, M. A. Gearba, G. M. Brooke, J. Scoville, and R. J. Knize, Phys. Rev. A 91, 012506 (2015).
  40. M. D. Gregoire, I. Hromada, W. F. Holmgren, R. Trubko, and A. D. Cronin, Phys. Rev. A 92, 052513 (2015).
  41. A. A. Vasilyev, I. M. Savukov, M. S. Safronova, and H. G. Berry, Phys. Rev. A 66, 020101 (2002).
  42. D. Antypas and D. S. Elliott, Phys. Rev. A 88, 052516 (2013).
  43. A. Damitz, G. Toh, E. Putney, C. E. Tanner, and D. S. Elliott, Phys. Rev. A 99, 062510 (2019).
  44. M.-A. Bouchiat, J. Guena, and L. Pottier, J. Phys. (Paris), Lett. 45, 523 (1984).
  45. G. Toh, A. Damitz, N. Glotzbach, J. Quirk, I. C. Stevenson, J. Choi, M. S. Safronova, and D. S. Elliot, Phys. Rev. A 99, 032504 (2019).
  46. S. C. Bennett, J. L. Roberts, and C. E. Wieman, Phys. Rev. A 59, R16 (1999).
  47. V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and J. S. M. Ginges, Phys. Rev. D 66, 076013 (2002).
  48. S. A. Blundell, W. R. Johnson, and J. Sapirstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1411 (1990); Phys. Rev. D 45, 1602 (1992).
  49. V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and O. P. Sushkov, Phys. Lett. A 141, 147 (1989).
  50. M. Yu. Kuchiev and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 283002 (2002); J. Phys. B 36, R191 (2003).
  51. A. I. Milstein, O. P. Sushkov, and I. S. Terekhov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 283003 (2002).
  52. E. N. Fortson, Y. Pang, and L. Wilets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 2857 (1990).
  53. B. A. Brown, A. Derevianko, and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. C 79, 035501 (2009).
  54. G. Toh, A. Damitz, C. E. Tanner, W. R. Johnson, and D. S. Elliott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 073002 (2019).
  55. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 98, 092008 (2018).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation