observation of an atomic electric dipole moment would signal the violation of time - reversal ( t ) symmetry@xcite , which kaon decay tells us is present at some level@xcite .
so far all measurements , whether on elementary particles or atoms and despite rather high sensitivity , have been statistically zero , but experiments continue to improve@xcite .
the level at which dipole moments are finally seen will help decide among a number of candidates for the fundamental source of t violation .
several theorists have proposed that the light actinides would be the best elements in which to detect a small dipole moment@xcite .
most recently , the authors of refs .
@xcite have argued that the existence of octupole ( pear - shaped ) deformation in the nuclei of these atoms enhances the sensitivity of atomic dipole moments to nuclear parity ( p ) and t violation by factors of 100 to 1000 ( typically about 400 in the later reference ) over the sensitivity in the atom with the best current experimental limit , @xmath0hg .
this level of enhancement is due in large part to the existence of close - lying parity doublets and favorable atomic structure in the light actinides , but also to fact that it is not the dipole moment of the nucleus that induces a dipole moment in the surrounding electrons , but rather the `` schiff moment '' , a quantity that reflects the mean - square radius of the nuclear dipole distribution .
asymmetric nuclei have large intrinsic schiff moments even though their intrinsic dipole moments are very small , in the same way that a neutral particle can have a finite charge radius .    the arguments of refs .
@xcite warrant careful investigation . in this paper
, we give a pedagogical derivation of the schiff operator , explore its action on nuclear ground states , and address the role of octupole correlations in generating ground - state schiff moments .
the discussion is organized as follows : section i contains a derivation of the nucleus - electron interaction responsible for atomic - dipole moments and introduces the schiff operator .
the section concludes with an evaluation of the nuclear schiff moment under the assumption that the dominant source of time - reversal invariance is a nucleon electric dipole moment .
section ii reveals important differences between the dipole and schiff operators , showing that in the goldhaber - teller model no schiff strength is produced by the giant dipole resonance . in section iii , we look at schiff moments in light nuclei , particularly @xmath1f , confirming the near absence of schiff strength in the giant resonance and pointing out a strong component of strength correlated with low - lying octupole excitations .
the first excited state provides the largest contribution to the schiff moment .
section iv takes up octupole correlations in heavy nuclei , focusing on octupole deformation .
we find no flaw in the argument that moments in such nuclei are collective and enhanced , but point to physics that may make the enhancement less dramatic than claimed in refs .
@xcite ( more detailed microscopic calculations of both the octupole - deformed nuclei and those that are currently used in experiments should resolve the uncertainty ) .
in section v we argue that the collective schiff moments do not depend on the delicate and sometimes unanswerable question of whether a nucleus is octupole deformed .
low - lying octupole vibrations generate them in the same way as static octupole deformation , increasing the number of atoms in which one can expect large effects .
section vi summarizes our findings .
we begin by deriving the nucleus - electron interaction responsible for generating atomic dipole moments . though the result is well known@xcite
, a complete derivation has never appeared in one place , and our derivation differs in its details from the others .    in 1939
feynman@xcite developed a quantum theory of molecular forces as part of what is now called the hellmann - feynman theorem , or sometimes the parameter theorem .
this charming relative of the virial theorem@xcite allows insight into how forces in a complex quantum system are balanced against one another , just as they are in a classical system . in a molecule , for example
, internal coulomb forces between electrons and nuclei counter each other so that there is no net force on the molecule ( or it would move ) . in the system we consider here , a neutral atom in a uniform electric field , there is no net charge so there is no net force on the system . to achieve this
the electrons rearrange themselves @xcite so that there is no net electric field at the nucleus ( or it would move ) .
this shielding effect has dramatic and unfortunate implications for experiments that would probe the atom - nucleus system .
because nuclei are of finite extent , however , the shielding of the electrons varies over the nuclear volume , and this makes probing the nuclear interior possible , as shown originally by schiff@xcite .
we present next a variant of schiff s derivation that uses modern effective - field - theory techniques@xcite to produce the simpler approximate result that has been obtained more recently@xcite .
we assume a neutral ( nonrelativistic , for simplicity ) atom containing an extremely heavy nucleus with non - vanishing spin sitting in a uniform electric field , @xmath2 .
the atom contains @xmath3 electrons , each with charge @xmath4 , while the nuclear charge is @xmath5 , where @xmath6 is the proton charge , and in our units the fine - structure constant is given by @xmath7 .
the nucleus has both an electric monopole distribution and a tiny electric dipole distribution leading to an electric dipole moment @xmath8 ; other moments can be easily added . in electric - field gauge
the atomic - plus - interacting - nucleus hamiltonian can be written in the form @xmath9
-e_p \vec{e}_0 \cdot \vec{d}_0 \ \ , \ ] ] where @xmath10 is the kinetic energy of the i@xmath11 electron ( @xmath12 in the nonrelativistic approximation ) , @xmath13 and @xmath14 are that electron s coordinate and momentum relative to the nuclear center - of - mass ( cm ) , @xmath15 is the electron mass , @xmath16 is the electron - electron coulomb interaction , and @xmath17 is the electrostatic potential due to the complete nuclear charge distribution @xmath18 ( with dimensions @xmath19 , and normalized to @xmath3 ) .    to explore the physics of eq .
( [ eq : atom ] ) we employ a trick to remove the last term in that equation . because @xmath20 is tiny even on nuclear scales , it is sufficient to manipulate eq .
( 1 ) to first order in that quantity , ignoring all higher - order terms .
for example , performing a first - order unitary transformation on @xmath21 produces @xmath22,$ ] where @xmath23 in our case is the hermitian operator @xmath24 performing the commutator generates two terms , one from the last bracketed term in eq .
( 1 ) that cancels the interaction of the nucleus and the external field ( @xmath25 was constructed to do this ) , and a second that takes its place : @xmath26 the difference , @xmath27 , between eq .
( 5 ) and eq .  ( 1 ) , which can not lead to an energy shift to first order in @xmath28 , is given by @xmath29 this type of relationship , generated by obvious equalities such as @xmath30 \rangle \equiv 0 $ ] , is often called a hypervirial theorem@xcite and can be derived from the hellmann - feynman theorem@xcite .
if one neglects the finite extent of the nucleus and replaces @xmath31 by @xmath32 , eq .
( 6 ) can be rearranged into the form @xmath33 where @xmath34 is the electric field at the nucleus caused by the electrons .
this simple result states that exact screening holds in the point - nucleus approximation , and highlights how a nonzero nuclear volume leads to a small but significant breakdown of screening .
screening is now directly incorporated into @xmath35 .
we next separate @xmath35 into a part independent of dipole moments @xmath46 and @xmath45 and another time - reversal- and parity - violating part proportional to these moments : @xmath52 expanding @xmath18 as in eq .
( [ eq : expansion ] ) , we get @xmath53 @xmath54 @xmath55 writing out the explicit expansions for @xmath56 and @xmath57 leads to the general result for @xmath58 expressed in terms of the schiff moment@xcite , @xmath59 : @xmath60 \ \ . \end{aligned}\ ] ] thus , the coupling of the nuclear dipole distribution to the atomic electrons is through the schiff moment in the first of eqs .
[ eq : def ] is often @xcite incorporated in the definition of @xmath59 . ] .
the result ( [ eq : def ] ) depends in leading order on terms of order @xmath61 , because eq .  ( [ eq : point ] ) mandates the cancellation of terms of order @xmath62 .
one can make contact with schiff s paper@xcite by defining quantities @xmath63 and @xmath64 such that @xmath65 and @xmath66 .
equation ( 10 ) of ref .
@xcite then follows from eq .
( [ eq : del ] ) above : @xmath67 this result is exact but not particularly useful .
expanding @xmath68 and @xmath69 in the form of eq .
( [ eq : expand ] ) leads to the approximate result @xmath70 from which we deduce his form should be @xmath28 times a typical nuclear size ; this need not be the case . ] of @xmath45 : @xmath71    finally , the hypervirial ( or hellmann - feynman ) quantity @xmath72 in eq .
( 6 ) can be written using eq .
( 12 ) in the form @xmath73 where @xmath34 is the electrons electric field at the nuclear cm , and the last term arises from averaging that electric field over the nuclear volume .
because it is the averaged field that cancels the external field at the nuclear cm , we see explicitly how nuclear finite size affects screening .
moreover , because that last term is equivalent to @xmath74 we can see that it produces the @xmath46 term in the schiff moment in eq.([eq : def ] ) ( via the second term in eq .
( [ eq : del ] ) ) . the @xmath45 term in eq .
( [ eq : def ] ) arises from the first term in eq .
( [ eq : del ] ) .    having formulated expressions for nuclear schiff moments ,
we want to use them together with assumptions about the dominant source of p and t violation to evaluate schiff moments in real nuclei .
in the rest of this paper we will assume that a p , t - violating component of the nucleon - nucleon interaction causes a schiff moment in the distribution of protons , but we conclude this section by briefly describing another possibility : that dipole moments of individual nucleons are responsible for the nuclear schiff moment .
we introduce proton and neutron ( isotopic ) projection operators , @xmath75 and @xmath76 , for the i@xmath11 nucleon .
the dipole moment must point along the spin , @xmath77 , of the nucleon , leading to the impulse - approximation result@xcite @xmath78 where @xmath79 and @xmath80 are the proton and neutron electric dipole densities ( normalized to 1 ) associated with @xmath81 and @xmath82 .
this yields @xmath83 which depends only on the ground - state expectation value of nucleon spin and isospin operators .
the schiff moment can be obtained by evaluating @xmath45 with eq .
( [ eq : nucleon ] ) , producing @xmath84 where @xmath85 and @xmath86 are the mean - square radii of the densities @xmath79 and @xmath87 and @xmath88 we expect @xmath89 to be comparable to nuclear sizes , and thus much larger than @xmath90 , which should be comparable to nucleon sizes .
for our considerations , as we have said , the most important mechanism for a nuclear ground - state electric dipole or schiff moment is the action of a pseudoscalar t - violating nucleon - nucleon potential , @xmath91 .
this induces a schiff moment given by second - order perturbation theory : @xmath92 where the state @xmath93 has @xmath94 and @xmath95 is the @xmath96-component of the schiff - moment operator @xmath59 .
the distribution of schiff strength to the excited states @xmath97 is therefore a crucial ingredient in the ground - state moment . at first sight
, one might think that this distribution should resemble that of the electric dipole operator @xmath98 , but the two are remarkably different .
most of the electric dipole strength is in a broad resonance at 10 to 20 mev of excitation energy .
almost none of the schiff strength , however , goes to the states in the giant resonance .
in fact , in the simple but venerable goldhaber - teller ( gt ) model , in which the giant dipole resonance corresponds to the @xmath99 oscillation of all the protons with respect to all the neutrons , the schiff strength to the resonance is identically zero .    to see this , we start by assuming@xcite rigid distributions for the @xmath3 protons and for the @xmath100 neutrons , which oscillate harmonically about their cm with frequency @xmath101 .
the separation of the two rigid spherical ( for simplicity ) distributions is denoted @xmath102 and the distance of the proton cm from the overall cm is @xmath103 .
the charge distribution is then given by @xmath104 where @xmath105 is the `` bare '' nuclear - ground - state charge distribution normalized to @xmath3 protons .
expanding this equation , one finds components of @xmath106 proportional to @xmath107 , @xmath108 , @xmath109 , @xmath110 , or equivalently ( because @xmath102 oscillates harmonically ) , @xmath111 , @xmath112 and @xmath113 , @xmath114 and @xmath115 , etc .
in particular one finds that the @xmath116-term renormalizes the ground - state charge distribution through `` vacuum fluctuations '' ( viz . , the _ net _ 0@xmath117 part , where the nucleus is excited 1 @xmath117 and then deexcited by the same amount ) , a result that we will neglect for the moment since it does nt affect the basic physics . ignoring all but the monopole and dipole parts in eq .
( [ eq : rhogt ] ) , we have @xmath118 we perform the usual decomposition of @xmath102 in terms of normalized ( cartesian ) creation and destruction operators @xmath119 with @xmath120 = \delta_{i j } \ \ , \ ] ] where @xmath121^{-1 } + [ n m]^{-1}$ ] is the inverse reduced mass of the ( rigid ) protons - neutrons system , and @xmath122 is the nucleon mass .
we discuss the effects of vacuum fluctuations under ref .
@xcite in the reference list .
the only modification they produce is the replacement of @xmath105 in eq .
( [ eq : rhogtexp ] ) by the complete ground - state charge density of the model , @xmath123 .
this `` renormalization '' ( removal of the vacuum fluctuations ) has for example shifted the 1@xmath117 component of the operator @xmath124 ( the last term in eq .
( [ eq : rhogtexp ] ) ) to the second term of that equation , and only true 3@xmath117 excitations remain from that operator .
the modified eq .  ( [ eq : rhogtexp ] ) then expresses the nuclear charge - density operator in terms of the ground - state charge density , the 1@xmath117 transition charge density , the 3@xmath117 ( dipole ) transition density , etc .
the contribution of the 1@xmath117 excitations to the nuclear moments @xmath46 , and @xmath45 are now easy to obtain . to evaluate the matrix element of the schiff operator in eq .
( [ eq : sm ] ) we need these two moments of the transition charge density , defined by the second term in eq .
( [ eq : rhogtexp ] ) ( @xmath125\ , \vec{q } \cdot \vec{\nabla } \rho_{\rm ch } ( x)$ ] when vacuum fluctuations are included ) , expressed in terms of @xmath102 , which contains the nuclear raising and lowering operators .
one determines the 1@xmath117 components of these moments from eqs .
( 8 - 11 ) : @xmath126 @xmath127 the electron - nucleus coupling is defined by @xmath128 in eq .
( [ eq : del ] ) . recalling that @xmath56 in that equation is just @xmath123 here , and using eq .
( [ eq : d ] ) in @xmath57 , we immediately obtain @xmath129 implying that @xmath130 the last conclusion also follows directly from eqs .
( [ eq : o ] ) and ( [ eq : def ] ) .
equation ( [ eq : h=0 ] ) is more general than eq .
( [ eq : s=0 ] ) , however , because it is true to all orders in @xmath40 .
thus , despite the fact that it contains all the dipole strength , the goldhaber - teller giant resonance generates no contribution to the schiff moment and therefore to the atomic dipole moment . in the next section
we will see that the same is nearly true in real nuclei .
to understand in greater detail the distribution of schiff strength and the resulting ground - state schiff moment , we first examine the situation in light nuclei .
although the small radii and charges of light nuclei mean that their schiff moments will not be large compared to those of heavy nuclei , they have the advantage that their structure can be calculated at a detailed microscopic level .    what kinds of excitations will carry the schiff strength ?
we describe elementary excitations in terms of harmonic - oscillator shell - model quanta ( @xmath117 ) ; these are not exactly the same as the @xmath117 of the goldhaber - teller model , but the two are related .
as shown by brink@xcite , the electric dipole operator @xmath46 can excite only those components of the harmonic - oscillator shell - model hamiltonian ( with no residual interactions ) corresponding to the giant resonance .
that is , the simple 1@xmath117 electric dipole excitations in the harmonic oscillator are exactly the same as in the goldhaber - teller model .
the operator @xmath45 , on the other hand , can excite other shell - model modes  isoscalar 1@xmath117 and all kinds of 3@xmath117  that are not a part of the gt model . the gt part of the 1@xmath117 excitations will cancel in @xmath59 as shown above ; the isoscalar 1@xmath117 and all 3@xmath117 excitations , by contrast , will contribute to @xmath59 .
octupole modes are important because the e3 and @xmath45 operators are in some sense the @xmath131 and @xmath132 angular - momentum projections of the same operator .
the _ isoscalar _
@xmath133 and e3 strengths , which contain both 1@xmath117 and 3@xmath117 components , are pulled down into low - lying @xmath134 and @xmath135 states ( in even - even nuclei ) with similar structure . in combination with the suppression of the schiff strength in the giant - resonance region ,
this similarity in structure results in most of the available schiff strength being strongly correlated with octupole excitations .
the correlation can be seen in the closed - shell nucleus @xmath136o even without much calculation . the lowest 3@xmath137(6.05 mev ; t=0 ) state in @xmath136o has an enhanced e3 transition to the ground state , b(e3)=13.5@xmath1380.7 weisskopf units ( w.u . ) .
the lowest 1@xmath137(7.12 mev;t=0 ) state decays to this 3@xmath137 state through an enhanced e2 transition , b(e2)=@xmath139 w.u . , suggesting that the two states are of similar structure ( i.e.  that the @xmath134 state is a quadrupole phonon coupled to the 3@xmath137 state ) .
the @xmath134 state shows an enhanced isospin - forbidden e1 transition to the ground state , b(e1)=@xmath140 w.u .
although isospin mixing obviously contributes to the transition , a significant portion of the isospin - forbidden e1 strength appears to come from a large isoscalar matrix element of @xmath45 , a part of the e1 operator that is normally masked@xcite .
shell - model calculations reflect the strong correlation between the lowest isoscalar @xmath135 and @xmath134 states @xcite .
furthermore , the @xmath141 ground - state correlations in such calculations have a large overlap with the state formed by acting on the closed shell with two successive e3 operators . these higher-@xmath142 correlations in the ground - state wave function
enhance the excitation of octupole - like @xmath143 components in the 1@xmath137 and 3@xmath137 states , leading to larger low - lying isoscalar e3 and @xmath45 matrix elements .
let us see how this physics works out in @xmath1f , which has odd a and is therefore able to have a ground - state schiff moment .
the ground state of @xmath1f is the @xmath144 head of a @xmath145 rotational band , while the first excited state ( a 1/2@xmath137 state at 110 kev ) is the basis for a 4p-1h ( @xmath146 ) @xmath147 band .
su(3)-basis shell - model calculations@xcite for these two bands indicate that the @xmath148 band is an octupole excitation of the ground - state band ( in fact @xmath1f is considered the closest thing among light nuclei@xcite to an octupole - deformed system , though a nonnegligible part of the @xmath148 state is an isovector excitation ) .
though this relation in itself implies large e3 and schiff matrix elements between these two bands , we have to go beyond these old restricted calculations to get the full picture , for two reasons .
first , the just - mentioned octupole ground - state correlations that further enhance the schiff strength were omitted .
second , we need to ensure realistic behavior for the strength distribution of the p , t - violating nn interaction , which according to eq.([eq : sm ] ) is as important as the schiff - strength distribution in determining the ground - state schiff moment .
fortunately , its behavior is much simpler . for the sake of pedagogy
, we consider in this section a simple but often accurate@xcite one - body approximation to @xmath91 : @xmath149 in both isovector and isoscalar channels ( we will use a more sophisticated one - body approximation later ) . the @xmath150 e1 and @xmath91 operators then differ only in their effect on spin ( they are in the same su(4 ) multiplet ) .
the strength from the isovector @xmath151 is therefore concentrated in an su(4 ) analog of the giant dipole resonance , and to first approximation lies at the same energy .
the isoscalar strength is also mostly in a resonance at a similar energy , so that low - lying p , t - violating strength is depleted@xcite .
there will be some strength at low energies where the schiff strength is concentrated , just as there is some e1 strength , but it will represent the tail of a resonance .
this tail was not included in the calculations of ref .
@xcite .
figures 1 - 3 display the results of a complete ( 0 + 1)@xmath142 shell - model calculation for @xmath1f , with the center - of - mass motion fully eliminated . in these calculations contributions to the schiff moment from 2 and 3@xmath142 excitations have been included through the use of an effective charge and @xmath143 excitations consistently in the low - lying states . however , the concept of an effective charge for e3 transitions works well throughout this mass region .
the results of very truncated ( 0 + 1 + 2 + 3)@xmath142 calculations suggest a similar prescription for the @xmath45 operator , and in our @xmath150 calculations we applied octupole effective charges to @xmath45 .
reference @xcite makes a case for this same kind of renormalization . ] .
figure 1 shows the isovector @xmath152 distribution , and above it the isovector @xmath153 strength .
the extent of the cancellation suggested by the goldhaber - teller model is remarkable .
also displayed is the isoscalar schiff strength , which is uncancelled and has a significant low - lying component ( again correlated with the e3 distribution ) .
figure 2 displays the calculated @xmath151 strength , and the giant resonances ( including tails ) are evident in both the isovector and isoscalar channels . finally , in fig
.  3 we graph the terms in eq .
( [ eq : sm ] ) as a function of excitation energy , assuming that the isoscalar and isovector potentials have equal strength ; from this it is clear that the lowest @xmath148 state almost completely determines the schiff moment , which is given by the sum of all the lines in the plot .
we expect the gross features of the schiff and @xmath154 distributions to be general .
the schiff strength will be correlated with the e3 strength and lie low in energy .
nuclei with octupole deformation , where the e3 strength lies as low as @xmath15550 kev and is particularly concentrated , will show the most - enhanced schiff moments .
nuclei with strong low - lying octupole vibrations should also show enhancement . as the e3 strength moves up in energy ( and/or the octupole collectivity is diluted )
, so should the dominant contribution to the schiff strength , and the schiff moments will become smaller . in the remainder of this paper we examine the extent to which these statements are true in heavy nuclei , where shell - model calculations are not possible .
we begin our discussion with a short review of the arguments of ref.@xcite , the crux of which is related to what we have already discussed : the ground - state schiff moment need not be directly related to the dipole moment , and in the case of octupole - deformed nuclei is considerably more enhanced .
the authors adopted the particle - rotor model , which is not fully microscopic and omits a certain amount of valence - space physics .
the arguments are based on collective octupole correlations , however , and this model represents them clearly and efficiently .    in the particle - rotor model the nucleus is described as a single particle coupled to a collective core , the shape of which can be specified through a function that describes the dependence of its radius on angle : @xmath156 where @xmath157 . in the intrinsic frame of a deformed nucleus three of the @xmath158 variables
are no longer independent ; they are replaced by three euler angles @xmath159 ( @xmath160 ) that specify the orientation with respect to the laboratory .
we will assume axial symmetry so that all intrinsic @xmath158 s vanish except for the @xmath161 s , which we denote by @xmath162 .
the valence particle , in the `` strong - coupling '' version of the model , moves in a potential that is deformed to match the shape of the core .
the full nuclear wave function ( for a state with angular momentum quantum numbers @xmath163 and @xmath164 , intrinsic magnetic quantum number @xmath165 , and parity @xmath166 ) thus depends on the euler angles , the intrinsic deformation parameters @xmath162 , and the intrinsic space ( @xmath167 ) and spin ( @xmath168 ) coordinates of the odd particle : @xmath169 d^{j*}_{mk}(\theta_i )   \left[1+p\hat{p}\right ] \langle \beta_l,\vec{r},s |\psi_{\rm int } \rangle ~,\ ] ] where the intrinsic particle - core state factorizes as of total angular momentum along the symmetry axis is equal to that of the particle s angular momentum ( sometimes denoted @xmath170 ) . ] @xmath171 here @xmath172 is a normalization constant , @xmath173 rotates the @xmath174-functions and the intrinsic wave function by 180 degrees around the @xmath175-axis , and @xmath176 changes the sign of @xmath167 and of the odd - multipole @xmath177 s in the intrinsic wave function . as long as we do not allow nonaxial core vibrations to be excited ,
we can , for the purposes of this paper , write the schiff operator @xmath178 as @xmath179 where @xmath180 is the intrinsic - frame operator , with only the @xmath181 component relevant because others do not generate collective excitations in the absence of nonaxial deformation or vibration .
[ for @xmath91 , the transformation to the intrinsic frame is trivial because that operator is invariant under rotation .
] we have placed hats on the @xmath182 s and ( on @xmath183 ) because at the quantum level they are operators that act on the wave functions @xmath184 in eq .
( [ eq : intwf ] ) .
all of this formalism can be justified at least in part through projected mean - field calculations , in which the state is a function of all @xmath185 nucleon coordinates ; we will argue shortly that such calculations are necessary to answer questions that arise in the simpler description .    in the simple particle - rotor model , matrix elements of one - body operators like @xmath95 are straightforward to calculate .
the coordinates of the individual nucleons in the core are integrated over in the intrinsic frame to give an operator that is a function of the collective coordinates and those of the odd particle , and can be applied to wave functions of these same coordinates . when one does the integration for the schiff operator , assuming a nuclear charge density proportional to the mass density ( so that the intrinsic dipole moment is zero ) , the result is @xmath186 where the last term is the contribution of the valence particle , which in this case can be neglected compared to the collective piece . without the hats , the first term in eq .
( [ eq : sop ] ) is just the classical schiff moment of a deformed drop .
interesting things happen when a core is both quadrupole and octupole deformed ( i.e.  when @xmath184 is peaked around nonzero values of @xmath187 and @xmath188 ) .
[ for a comprehensive review of the subject , see ref .
the reflection asymmetry implies a double - well potential in the coordinate @xmath188 , which in turn means that the wave functions with good parity will be linear combinations of functions peaked around some @xmath188 and its negative .
if the barrier between the two wells is high enough , the result will be parity - doubling ; low - lying states will have partners nearby with the same angular momentum but opposite parity .
this means , for one thing , that there will be an intermediate state in ( [ eq : sm ] ) that enters with a small energy denominator and therefore a large amplitude .
in fact , it is often reasonable to ignore all other states in the sum ( see the shell - model result for @xmath1f in fig .
3 ) , mainly because of the energy denominator , but also because if the deformation is strong enough the matrix element of the schiff operator to that state is likely to be large .
the reason for that is that the doublets can be viewed as the projection onto positive and negative parity of the same reflection - asymmetric intrinsic state @xmath189 .
the existence of more than one state with the same intrinsic structure is exactly the same phenomenon as the rotational bands associated with ordinary reflection - symmetric deformation .
the matrix element of an operator between the two states of the same doublet is proportional to the diagonal intrinsic - state matrix element of the intrinsic operator , just as it is for states within a rotational band . for the operator @xmath180 ,
this diagonal matrix element is large ; it is given roughly by the expression in eq .
( [ eq : sop ] ) with the operators @xmath190 replaced by the values around which the wave function @xmath184 is peaked ( i.e.  by the classical schiff moment of the deformed asymmetric core ) , with coherent contributions from all the nucleons in it .
thus , from eq.([eq : sm ] ) , the physical ground - state schiff moment @xmath153 that determines the atomic electric dipole moment should be approximately @xmath191 where @xmath192 is the opposite - parity partner of the ground state @xmath193 , @xmath194 is the energy difference between the two states , and @xmath183 is the intrinsic schiff moment ( the @xmath163-dependent factor is from the euler - angle integration ) .
the conclusion from all this is that large intrinsic schiff moments and small energy denominators should make atoms with octupole - deformed nuclei especially sensitive tests of p , t - violation in the nucleon - nucleon interaction .
just how sensitive the tests will be depends on the matrix element of the interaction @xmath91 , to which we now turn .
we will supply more detail in addressing this subject because the treatment of ref .
@xcite is incomplete and not entirely accurate .
we assume that the pion is responsible for transmitting most of the t - violating force from one nucleon to another @xcite .
the nucleon - nucleon interaction produced by one - pion exchange then has the general form@xcite @xmath195
\\                           +   c_1 ( \vec{\sigma_1}+\vec{\sigma_2 } )                            \cdot ( \vec{r_1}-\vec{r_2 } )                           ( \tau_{1z}-\tau_{2z } ) \end{array }   \right\ }                              \nonumber \\ & \times & \frac{{\rm exp}(-m_{\pi } |\vec{r_1}-\vec{r_2}|)}{m_{\pi }    \right]~,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the @xmath196 s label isoscalar , isovector , and isotensor contributions .
as long as we excite no particles out of the core , p , t - violating interactions between these particles sum to zero ( see ref .
@xcite for discussion ) , and we need worry only about the interactions between the valence particle and those in the core . in what follows ,
we take the total mass density to be proportional to the charge density , and in fact _ from now on use the symbol @xmath51 to represent the mass density_. this assumption means that the terms with different isospin structure in eq .
( [ eq : pion ] ) enter in similar ways .
taking the range of the pion to be very short ( a decent approximation@xcite ) , summing eq .
( [ eq : pion ] ) over the particles in the core , and assuming the neutron and proton densities to be equal gives the effective nucleon - core interaction @xmath197 where ( again ) @xmath198 is the core mass - density operator , @xmath199 is the fermi constant , and @xmath122 is the nucleon mass ( these factors are inserted to follow convention ) .
the dimensionless parameter @xmath200 then depends on the coupling strengths @xmath196 of the two - body interactions and the isospin of the nucleus . despite its slight dependence on nuclear structure
, this parameter is often taken as a `` heuristic '' fundamental quantity . the one - body approximation given by eq .
( [ eq : sppot ] ) is slightly different from the simpler and more phenomenological one we used in our discussion of light nuclei .
the form of eq .
( [ eq : sppot ] ) makes the schiff moment unpleasantly sensitive to the distribution of spin near the nuclear surface , where @xmath201 is largest .
the results of ref .
@xcite sometimes differ by factors of several from those of ref .
@xcite , primarily because of differences in the valence single - particle wave function , which carries all the nuclear spin @xmath202 in the particle - rotor model . only a significantly more sophisticated calculation ( which we advocate ) will reduce this uncertainty .
we therefore do not present our own complete `` particle - rotor - model - with - octupole - deformation '' calculations in this section , but instead use that model in its simplest form , together with qualitative arguments , to identify a few systematic effects overlooked in the existing calculations .
our estimate of the size of these effects is obviously uncertain , but indicates what can be expected in more sophisticated calculations .
the new physics always tends to lessen the enhancement .    to see the what was neglected in refs .
@xcite we follow ref .   @xcite and expand the density in the deformation parameters : @xmath203 where now @xmath204 is the bare ( spherical ) ground - state mass density of the core , a constant up to radius @xmath205 in the simplest version of the liquid - drop picture .
the operator @xmath206 in @xmath207 therefore depends on the @xmath208 s , and , contrary to the statements in ref .
@xcite , can not be broken up into pseudoscalar pieces that act separately on the core and particle .
in fact , from eq .
( [ eq : density ] ) we have @xmath209^l_0 - \sqrt{\frac{l}{2l+1 } }   \left ( \frac{d}{dr } +   \frac{l+1}{r } \right ) \rho_0 ' [ y_{l-1 } \sigma]^l_0 \right ]   \nonumber \\ & - & 1/2 r_0 ^ 2 \sum_{l , l',l } \hat{\beta}_l \hat{\beta}_{l ' } \sqrt{\frac{(2l+1)(2l'+1)}{4\pi ( 2l+1)^2}}\langle l0,l'0 | l0 \rangle   \nonumber \\ & & \times \left[\sqrt{l+1 } \left(\frac{d}{dr}-\frac{l}{r}\right )   \rho_0 '' [ y_{l+1}\sigma]^l_0 -\sqrt{l } \left ( \frac{d}{dr}+\frac{l+1}{r } \right ) \rho_0 '' [ y_{l-1}\sigma]^l_0 \right ] ~,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the small square brackets indicate angular - momentum coupling .
reference @xcite considers only the first term in this expression , which changes the parity of the single particle and leaves the core alone .
the terms with odd powers of @xmath210 can do the opposite , however .    including these other terms
is important because in the strong - coupling limit of the particle - rotor model they tend to cancel the first term . the reason is hinted at in ref .
@xcite , where it is argued that schiff moments between close - lying states are suppressed when deformation is rigid and symmetric .
following ref .
@xcite , the authors note that to the extent that the density is proportional to the strong one - body potential @xmath211 felt by the odd particle and that the spin - orbit force is negligible , matrix elements of @xmath206 between two states should be proportional to the energy difference between those states , and therefore very small for close - lying doublets .
the reason is that under these circumstances @xmath212 = i [ \vec{\sigma } \cdot \vec{p},\hat{h}(\rm s.p . ) ] ~,\ ] ] so that for two opposite - parity states labeled @xmath213 and @xmath214 with the same core structure , @xmath215 where the @xmath216 s are single - particle energies .
the authors then argue that complications associated with asymmetric deformation eliminate this effect , but in the strong - coupling limit the situation is even worse because now the two states @xmath217 and @xmath218 have the same intrinsic structure .
as mentioned above , the matrix element of any operator between two such states is proportional in the strong - coupling limit to the intrinsic - state expectation value of the operator . in nuclei with strong octupole deformation
, we therefore have @xmath219 which , according to the argument above , should vanish . the estimates of refs .
@xcite apparently neglect the terms in @xmath51 containing the @xmath182 s that make the shapes of the density distribution and the potential similar , and so do not take this effect into account .
of course the spin - orbit force is not negligible and the intrinsic density is not exactly proportional to the mean field , so the cancellation will not be complete . to get a handle on how much the terms containing the @xmath182 s affect the matrix element of @xmath207 , we consider the ratio of the matrix element in eq .
( [ eq : spexp ] ) with the terms included to that without them ( the latter being the a simplified version of the quantity calculated in refs .
@xcite ) for a large number of single - particle orbits .
we use a deformed harmonic oscillator as a potential , @xmath220 with deformations @xmath187 , @xmath188 , and @xmath221 equal to those from table i of ref .
@xcite ( we ignore higher multipoles and neglect pairing ) .
we take the density to be constant inside the liquid drop and zero outside , a distribution that has the same angular shape as the potential , but a significantly different radial dependence .
figure 4 shows the absolute value of the ratio of @xmath222 to the same matrix element without the @xmath182-dependent terms , for all @xmath223 and @xmath224 single - particle levels in @xmath225ra below 8 @xmath142 of single - particle energy .
the new terms generally have the opposite sign from that of the @xmath182-independent term , and the sum is usually less than the first term by itself .
the average cancellation is less for @xmath226 states than for states with larger spin .
whether the decrease will be stronger or weaker in realistic calculations is an open question . in self - consistent mean - field calculations , though , there is obviously a correlation between the density and the spin - independent part of the field , and we could well see a significant effect .     to @xmath227 ( see text ) for all @xmath223 ( boxes ) and 3/2 ( crosses ) states in a deformed asymmetric potential for @xmath225ra .
the ratio is usually less than one.,width=529,height=453 ]    other physics neglected in the earlier work will also have an effect . the first term in eq .
( [ eq : expansion ] ) ( @xmath228 ) is the spin - flip analog of the electric dipole operator ( with a difference only in radial form and isospin ) .
we refer to fig .  2 , where the strength of the related operator @xmath229 in the isovector and isoscalar channels is plotted for @xmath1f . as noted in section iii , the strength is clearly concentrated in resonances at about the same energy as the giant dipole resonance .
a simple argument@xcite with a schematic residual interaction in rpa shows that the existence of the giant dipole resonance of the core suppresses e1 transitions between low - lying single - particle states by a factor of 3 or 4 that depends only on the energy of the resonance and the energy at which strength would be centered if there were no resonance .
the low - lying transitions induced by @xmath230 should be suppressed by roughly the same amount because the operator @xmath231 is so much like @xmath167 ( again , see fig .  2 ) .
in many - body perturbation theory , this effect can be understood as core polarization : the residual strong interaction can create a collective @xmath232 p - h pair , at the same time changing the parity of the valence particle .
the contribution to the schiff moment coming from the annihilation of the pair by @xmath207 nearly cancels the contribution coming from the direct action of @xmath207 on the valence particle itself . in any event ,
the resonances were completely neglected in refs.@xcite , and the single - particle matrix elements in those papers should therefore probably be three or four times smaller .
the very large schiff moments may be saved , however , by the _ combination _ of the two new effects , even though each reduces schiff moments when added to the calculations of refs .
@xcite in isolation .
the spin - flip giant resonance should not affect those parts of @xmath207 that contain @xmath188 and operators like @xmath233 ^ 3_0 $ ] that do not change the parity of the valence particle .
the suppression by the residual interaction of one part of the schiff moment by a factor of three without any effect on another part may upset any balance between the two at the mean - field level produced by the similarity between the density and the potential
. we will need accurate microscopic calculations to test the existence of both effects and the extent to which they offset one another .
such calculations are within the range of today s mean - field technology , and in even - even nuclei they have already been carried out@xcite , confirming the large intrinsic schiff moments in the radium isotopes@xcite . in self - consistent ( e.g.  skyrme - hfb ) calculations the effects of the residual interaction on the ground state are minimized .
therefore , not only is the relationship between the mean field and the density likely to be most accurate in this case , but it is also least likely to be vitiated by corrections to the single - particle picture . in odd nuclei ,
the first - order core polarization , which has to be treated as a correction to particle - rotor / nilsson models , is built into the mean - field ; 1-particle-1-hole excitations of the core do not mix with the ground state . this fact , together with a realistic two - body interaction that contains all multipole - multipole terms , has implications for corrections to low - lying transitions from resonances , as well as for the density .
the incorporation of core polarization means that the interplay between collective excitations and low - lying states is already apparent at the mean - field level , or in other words that the usual first - order particle - phonon mixing that reduces low - lying single - particle transitions need not be treated by other means ( e.g.  the rpa ) .
we should therefore be able at the mean - field level to go a long way towards quantifying the influence of shape and resonances on schiff moments in octupole - deformed nuclei .
the question of whether the light actinides are octupole deformed has a long history .
in fact the question is not entirely physical  it s really about the economy of one collective - model basis versus another  and it should not matter so much whether the low - lying states in a nucleus are best described as the rotation of an octupole - deformed shape or as a strong low - lying octupole vibration around a rotating quadrupole shape .
collective schiff moments arise in either scheme .
this fact should not be surprising in light of our calculations in @xmath1f . to see how it falls out of the collective picture
, we assume that the nuclear core has no equilibrium octupole deformation ( i.e.  @xmath234 ) and write the operator @xmath210 in terms of creation and annihilation operators : @xmath235 where @xmath236 creates an octupole phonon with ( intrinsic ) magnetic quantum number @xmath237 .
it is then clear from eq .
( [ eq : sop ] ) that the schiff operator acting on a quadrupole - deformed state with no octupole phonons will create an excited state with one phonon .
the terms in @xmath207 ( see eq .
( [ eq : expansion ] ) ) that are proportional to @xmath210 can then destroy the phonon , reconnecting the one - phonon state to the ground state and generating a collective schiff moment through eq .
( [ eq : sm ] ) .    to see how big such a moment would be we need to know the matrix element of @xmath210 between states with zero and one phonons . as can be seen from eq .
( [ eq : phonon ] ) , this quantity is just the zero - point root - mean - square deformation , ( @xmath238 ) , which we will call @xmath239 .
[ in other words , @xmath239 measures the spread in @xmath188 of the intrinsic core wave function @xmath184 .
] this quantity can be estimated from the collective ( vibrational ) b(e3 ) transition in an even - even neighbor .
using eq .
( [ eq : density ] ) to lowest order in @xmath239 one finds@xcite @xmath240 the important point is that if a collective vibration is soft the r.m.s.deformation @xmath239 can be as large as the value around which the wave - function is peaked in octupole - deformed nuclei , and the intrinsic schiff moment can therefore be just as large as well . in the laboratory ( physical )
schiff moment , there is an additional factor of @xmath239 coming from the annihilation of the phonon by @xmath207 , so that naively we expect the moment to depend on the deformation parameters in the combination @xmath241 , where an unbarred @xmath182 is the value around which the deformed wave function is peaked .
the relevant quantity for octupole - deformed nuclei is @xmath242 ( see ref .
@xcite for a discussion of why ) , so that if the r.m.s .
octupole deformation @xmath239 in a vibrational nucleus is comparable to the static value @xmath188 of the deformation in an octupole - deformed nucleus , any differences in schiff moments come from the energy denominator , single - particle structure , or other core excitations , not from the difference between deformation and vibration .
we will refine this statement shortly .
first , however , we note that the terms in @xmath207 that do nt contain @xmath210 are usually even more important than those just discussed , even though they do nt alter the number of phonons , because the zero- and one - phonon states mix through the residual strong particle - core interaction .
the approximate form of this coupling can be derived in many ways ; one is to examine the change in energy under a small deformation of the core .
not surprisingly , for an oscillator single - particle potential this leads to the same interaction that appears in the octupole - deformed potential of the strong - coupling scheme ( see eq .
( [ eq : defho ] ) : @xmath243 where @xmath101 is the oscillator energy of the ( symmetric ) potential , @xmath244 acts on the core , and @xmath245 acts on the particle . denoting a state with @xmath246 phonons and a particle in orbit @xmath247 by @xmath248
, we have for the matrix element of the interaction @xmath249 between excited states with one phonon and the unperturbed ground state ( assuming just for illustration that the ground state has positive parity ) : @xmath250    with a value for @xmath239 from an appropriate @xmath251 , we can use the `` intermediate''-coupling scheme of ref .
@xcite to diagonalize @xmath252 separately in positive- and negative - parity bases ( @xmath253 just contains the diagonal vibrational energies of the zero- and one - phonon states ) , so that the ground state has the form @xmath254 and the excited states of opposite parity have the form @xmath255 label single - particle states around the fermi surface , and we are still ignoring nonaxial vibrations . the terms in @xmath207 that are independent of @xmath210
connect the first terms in eq .
( [ eq : gs ] ) to the second in eq .
( [ eq : excited ] ) and vice versa .
the schiff operator affects the core , connecting the first term in eq .
( [ eq : gs ] ) to the first in eq.([eq : excited ] ) , and the second to the second , effectively replacing @xmath210 in eq .
( [ eq : sop ] ) by @xmath239 . in this way
the spherical @xmath210-independent part of @xmath207 ( the only part considered in refs .
@xcite ) can also generate a collective schiff moment .
it is possible to use the intermediate - coupling scheme even as the phonon energy goes to zero and octupole deformation sets in . in that case , because the single - particle hamiltonians in the two schemes are the same , energies and matrix elements should not depend strongly on which scheme is used .
one implication ( which is a stronger version of a remark made above ) is that if the dynamic @xmath239 associated with the vibration is comparable to the static @xmath188 in an octupole - deformed nucleus , and if the energy of the octupole phonon is small compared to typical single - particle splittings or nonaxial core - excitation energies , the _ only _ major difference between schiff moments in the two cases is the energy denominator in eq .
( [ eq : sm ] ) . to see this
, one can imagine treating the phonon as a `` decoupling '' perturbation ( along with the coriolis interaction ) in the strong - coupling scheme , as is done in ref .  @xcite .
although the diagonal matrix elements of the perturbation cause energy shifts , wave functions are only affected by the off - diagonal matrix elements with bands built on higher single - particle states or other kinds of vibrations .
thus wave functions , transition amplitudes , etc . , will not undergo large changes until the energy of the phonon approaches those of other excitations . for the intermediate - coupling scheme
, this means that the matrix elements of @xmath153 and @xmath91 connecting ground states to low - energy octupole phonons should not undergo radical change once the phonon is low enough in energy , and that nothing special will happen in the limit that the phonons have zero energy and the core develops static deformation .
of course if the phonon lies high in the spectrum , the matrix elements can be very different from the static limit , and one must carry out the intermediate - coupling calculation to get a handle on the size of the schiff moment induced by vibrations .
we have done just that in several quadrupole - deformed nuclei , taking vibrational @xmath239 s and phonon energies from tabulations of nearby even - even nuclei@xcite , and again neglecting pairing . in @xmath0hg ,
the most accurately measured isotope at present , we use @xmath239 = .09 , a phonon energy of 3 mev ( both taken from an e3 transition in @xmath256hg , which may have a larger @xmath239 than @xmath0hg ) , and quadrupole and hexadecupole parameters from ref .
@xcite ( for this simple estimate we ignore the fact that this nucleus is probably very soft ) .
the resulting schiff moment is @xmath257 e @xmath258 , about half of the estimate from ref
.  @xcite that includes no nuclear correlations of any kind . in a nucleus like this ,
moreover , with a relatively high - energy phonon , the nonaxial octupole vibrations will lie nearby in energy and can be expected to contribute comparable amounts .
when all is said and done , vibrations may turn out to be the dominant contribution to the schiff moment in @xmath0hg , and they clearly should be included in any realistic calculation .
such a calculation has never been done , but is crucial if we want a reliable assessment of the advantages offered by nuclei with strong octupole correlations . here
we need a good microscopic treatment of all kinds of vibrations , including the very soft @xmath259 quadrupole mode , and must obviously go beyond mean - field theory . a shell - model calculation may be possible .
an example of a large vibrational schiff moment is in the nucleus @xmath260pu .
this isotope has several features that make it attractive for experiment , in particular a spin-1/2 ground state ( to eliminate quadrupole effects in a magnetic field ) and a long half - life compared to the light actinides [ the drawback is in its electronic structure , which is more complicated than that of radium ] .
the collective e3 in @xmath261pu gives @xmath262 , and the nucleus has large quadrupole and hexadecupole deformations ( @xmath263 , @xmath264 ) .
together with the high value of @xmath3 , this makes the intrinsic schiff moment very large .
the phonon lies at 470 kev , about 8 times higher than the lowest state in @xmath225ra , but the large intrinsic schiff moment compensates in part . our calculations , with only the @xmath208-independent terms included in @xmath198 ( as in ref.@xcite ) give a laboratory schiff moment of @xmath265 , a value a few times smaller than the results of ref .
@xcite for most of the light actinides .
when we include the @xmath208-dependent terms , this number goes up to @xmath266 , which is 300 times the estimate for hg in ref .
@xcite and comparable to the results of ref .
@xcite for @xmath225ra .
these calculations are far from perfect ; we had to push the energy of the octupole phonon well above the value from @xmath261pu to get the energy of the first excited state in @xmath260pu right .
the uncertainty in the results is therefore quite large and we need microscopic calculations here too . but the intrinsic schiff moments will of nuclei with low - lying octupole vibrations will clearly be collective , and some may of these nuclides may be easier to investigate experimentally than the short - lived radium isotopes .
the size of schiff moments in nuclei with octupole correlations is determined by three factors : intrinsic schiff moments , energy denominators , and the matrix elements of @xmath91 . in their discussion of the first two of these , refs .
@xcite are on rather firm ground ; it is hard to imagine , for example , that the matrix elements between parity doublets of the schiff operator are radically different from those estimates , and as we have pointed out , even nuclei without asymmetrically deformed cores can benefit from the same mechanism .
the third factor is far trickier , however .
the particle - core calculations reported both here and in earlier work can only supply a gross estimate of the matrix element of @xmath91 .
the mixing that that interaction induces depends sensitively on the valence single - particle wave function at the nuclear surface , where @xmath267 is largest .
truly microscopic calculations will give better valence wave functions and , if they are self - consistent , will also better represent the correlation between density and mean field , and incorporate the effects of resonances caused by the residual interaction . in vibrational nuclei it will be necessary to go a little further , but even there mean - field calculations will shed light on the issues we ve discussed .    finally , for experimentalists to draw strong conclusions about enhancements over @xmath268hg , better calculations in that nucleus must be done as well .
it is conceivable that the atomic dipole moment of @xmath225ra is 400 or more times larger than that of @xmath0hg ( this is the figure reported in ref.@xcite ) , but we have pointed to physical effects that could make the schiff moment in @xmath268hg a few times larger than earlier calculations indicate and the schiff moments in the light actinides somewhat smaller than suggested by the calculations of refs .
@xcite , even within the same model .
the machinery of modern nuclear structure theory , which is powerful enough to provide reasonably accurate estimates of the moments in both kinds of nuclei , should be used as soon as possible to provide experimentalists firm predictions for the enhancement they can expect in difficult experiments with radioactive nuclei .
we thank j.l .  egido for useful calculations of schiff moments in the even - even light actinides .
we are grateful to w.  nazarewicz , i.b.khriplovich , p.  herczeg , and s.  lamoreaux for helpful comments about the manuscript .
the work of j.e .  was supported by the u.s .
department of energy under grant de  fg0297er41019 , and the work of j.l.f .  and a.c.h .
was performed under the auspices of the united states department of energy .
feynman , phys .
rev .  * 56 * , 340 ( 1939 ) ; h. hellmann , _ einfuhrung in die quantumchemie _
( franz deuticke , leipzig , 1937 ) , p.   285 . the usual statement of the theorem is that if a hamiltonian @xmath269 depends on a parameter @xmath270 , the energy shift @xmath271 for that hamiltonian satisfies @xmath272 .
if one performs a unitary transformation so that @xmath273 , uses the theorem and then sets @xmath270 to zero , one finds @xmath274 \rangle$ ] , since there can be no energy shift from a unitary transformation . our quantity @xmath27 in eqs .
( [ eq : delta ] ) and ( [ eq : fh ] ) is given by this relationship .
j.l .  friar and s.  fallieros , phys .
* 114b * , 403 ( 1982 ) .
although no consensus notation for retarded electric multipoles exists , we adopt the nomenclature of this reference , which has seen considerable use .
wilcox , j.  math .
* 8 * , 962 ( 1967 ) derives and discusses various forms of the baker - campbell - hausdorff ( bch ) formula ( including eq .
( 4.15 ) that we require ) .
fourier transforming eq.([eq : rhogt ] ) leads to @xmath275 , where @xmath276 and @xmath277 is the fourier transform of @xmath105 . because @xmath278 = n^2 \hbar k^2/ 2 \mu \omega a^2 $ ] is a c - number , one obtains the exact bch result , @xmath279 , where the exact ground - state charge form factor for the gt model is given by @xmath280 , since @xmath281 follows from latexmath:[$\xi