论文标题
回复评论“ $^{133} $ cs中原子均等违规的新物理约束”
Reply to Comment on "New physics constraints from atomic parity violation in $^{133}$Cs"
论文作者
论文摘要
在物理中。 Rev. D 103，L111303（2021），我们报告了$ 6S〜 ^2S_ {1/2s_ {1/2} -7S〜 ^2S〜 ^2S_ {1/2S_ {1/2S_ {1/2S_ {1/2S_ {1/2S_ {1/2s $ tiver in $ 6S〜 ^2S_ {1/2s $ intition in $ 6S〜 ^2S_ {1/2s $ intities $ 6S〜 ^2S_ {1/1/133 $ 133333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333年3月133耦合群集（RCC）理论。在最近的评论中，B。M。Roberts和J. S. M. Ginges提出了有关我们计算所谓核心贡献$ e1_ {pv} $的问题。我们对此贡献的结果与他们的贡献不一致，而与以前计算的结果一致，在该计算中明确给出了这种贡献。在我们的答复中，我们详细解释了对核心贡献评估的有效性。我们强调的是，与总计计算不同，我们的工作中的主要，核心和尾部贡献在我们的工作中得到了平等的治疗。我们还解决了他们对QED校正贡献的大致待遇的担忧，这不是我们工作的目的，而是为了完整而进行。但是，如果我们通过早期估计，我们上述论文的结论将不会影响$ e1_ {pv} $，将不会影响。
In Phys. Rev. D 103, L111303 (2021), we had reported an improved calculation of the nuclear spin-independent parity violating electric dipole transition amplitude ($E1_{PV}$) for the $6s ~ ^2S_{1/2} - 7s ~ ^2S_{1/2}$ transition in $^{133}$Cs by employing a relativistic coupled-cluster (RCC) theory. In a recent Comment, B. M. Roberts and J. S. M. Ginges have raised questions about our calculation of the so-called Core contribution to $E1_{PV}$. Our result for this contribution does not agree with theirs, but is in agreement with results from previous calculations where this contribution is given explicitly. In our reply, we explain in detail the validity of the evaluation of our core contribution. We emphasize that the Main, Core and Tail contributions have been treated on an equal footing in our work unlike the sum-over-states calculations. We also address their concerns about our approximate treatment of the contributions from the QED corrections, which was not the aim of our work, but was carried out for completeness. Nonetheless, conclusion of our above mentioned paper is not going to affect if we replace our estimated QED contribution to $E1_{PV}$ by earlier estimation.
