Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Neutron Star Matter as a Relativistic Fermi Liquid

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that neutron-star cores can be described as a relativistic Fermi liquid of nucleon quasiparticles, with chiral symmetry restoration pushed above the densities reached in typical neutron-star cores.

desk verdict A clean, self-aware Fermi-liquid reinterpretation of the chiral FRG EoS: the sound-speed crossing is robust, but the individual Landau parameters rest on an ansatz and are not fixed by the EoS. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09722 v2 pith:5DDK6KTI submitted 2019-08-26 nucl-th astro-ph.HEhep-ph

Bengt Friman , Wolfram Weise This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords neutronstarmatterrelativisticFermiliquidLandauparameterschiralsymmetryrestorationfunctionalrenormalizationgroupequationofstatequasiparticlessoundspeed
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

The paper sets out to show that the matter in neutron-star cores—matter at several times nuclear saturation density, constrained by two-solar-mass pulsars and gravitational-wave observations—can be treated as a relativistic Fermi liquid: a dense system of nucleon quasiparticles dressed by strong correlations, with no quark or hyperon degrees of freedom. Its starting point is the chiral nucleon-meson functional-renormalization-group equation of state, in which the transition to chiral symmetry restoration is pushed above the densities reached in the core, beyond roughly five times $\rho_0$. From that equation of state the paper derives the leading Landau parameters $F_0$ and $F_1$ and extracts the speed of first sound, $c_1^2 = p_F^2/(3\mu^2)\,(1+F_0)/(1+F_1/3)$, which rises above the free ultrarelativistic value $1/3$ for baryon densities above about $4\rho_0$. If the claim is right, the bulk behavior of neutron-star matter—stiffness, sound speed, and response to tidal forces—can be captured by a few quasiparticle interaction parameters, in the same style as the description of liquid $^3$He.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relativistic quasiparticle ansatz $\varepsilon_p=\sqrt{p^2+M(\rho)^2}+U(\rho)$, in which the nucleon self-energy is compressed into a density-dependent scalar mass $M(\rho)$ and an effective vector potential $U(\rho)$; the Landau parameters follow by varying this quasiparticle energy with respect to occupation numbers. This ansatz produces the relations $F_0 = (p_F/\pi^2)[M\,\partial M/\partial\rho + \sqrt{p_F^2+M^2}\,\partial V_0/\partial\rho]$ and $1+F_1/3 = m^*/\mu$ with $F_1 = -3V_0/\mu$, so it is the mechanism that converts the chiral FRG equation of state into quasiparticle language. The same formalism yields the relativistic sound-speed formula $c_1^2 = \partial P/\partial E = p_F^2/(3\mu^2)\,(1+F_0)/(1+F_1/3)$, which is the main quantitative output linking the Fermi-liquid parameters to observable neutron-star structure.

What would settle it

A concrete way to settle the claim would be a direct calculation of the chiral condensate in beta-equilibrated neutron-star matter at zero temperature: if the transition to restored chiral symmetry is found below roughly five times nuclear saturation density, or if observations require a softening of the equation of state before that density (for example, a mass-radius point or tidal-deformability measurement incompatible with the stiff chiral FRG curve), the Fermi-liquid picture of purely nucleonic quasiparticles would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of the paper is that the chiral FRG equation of state for neutron-star matter supports a relativistic Fermi-liquid description in terms of nucleon quasiparticles, with the transition to chiral symmetry restoration set at densities well above five times $\rho_0$, beyond the central densities reached in typical two-solar-mass stars. In that regime the core contains only nucleonic and pionic degrees of freedom, so Landau's theory applies to the neutron quasiparticles, with the small proton fraction neglected for the spin-independent properties. The leading Landau parameters are derived from the EoS: $F_0 = (p_F/\pi^2)[M(\rho)\,\partial M/\partial\rho + \sqrt{p_F^2+M^2}\,\partial V_0/\partial\rho]$ and $F_1 = -3V_0/\mu$, where $M(\rho)$ is the density-dependent scalar mass and $V_0(\rho)$ is the effective vector potential. The combination that the EoS fixes is the squared sound speed $c_1^2 = p_F^2/(3\mu^2)\,(1+F_0)/(1+F_1/3)$, which the paper finds exceeds $1/3$ for $\rho \gtrsim 4\rho_0$, a signature of dominant repulsive vector correlations. This behavior is contrasted with liquid $^3$He, a nonrelativistic Fermi liquid with a different interaction structure.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the chiral nucleon-meson FRG equation of state remains trustworthy in the neutron-star core up to about five times nuclear saturation density, and specifically that the transition to restored chiral symmetry sits above that density; if quark or hyperonic matter appeared in the core, the description in terms of nucleon quasiparticles would not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For densities above about $4\rho_0$, the squared sound speed exceeds $1/3$, meaning the core is stiffer than a noninteracting ultrarelativistic gas; this is the microscopic mechanism that allows the EoS to support stars with masses near and above $2\,M_\odot$.
  • The two leading Landau parameters give a compact characterization of the core: $F_0$ controls the density derivative of the chemical potential, while $F_1$ sets the quasiparticle effective mass through $m^*/\mu = 1+F_1/3$.
  • Within this description, the neutron-star core contains no hyperons or quarks up to the central densities of typical two-solar-mass stars; the repulsive correlations keep the EoS stiff enough to satisfy the observed maximum-mass bound.
  • The sign change of $F_0$ from attractive (negative) at low density to repulsive (positive) at high density translates directly into the crossing of $c_1^2$ through $1/3$, making that crossover a diagnostic of scalar-vector competition in the microscopic EoS.
  • Because the same relativistic Fermi-liquid formalism applies to other Fermi systems, the results provide a quantitative contrast with liquid $^3$He, where the quasiparticle interactions are nonrelativistic and have a different density dependence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Fermi-liquid picture is correct, the Landau parameters could be used to estimate transport properties of the core—shear and bulk viscosities, thermal conductivity, and neutrino mean free paths—connecting the static EoS to damping of neutron-star oscillations and post-merger signals; the paper does not compute these.
  • A natural two-component extension would restore the small proton fraction and the electron-muon background, adding isospin-asymmetric Landau parameters; the tiny proton fraction suggests only modest shifts in $c_1^2$, but charged-current weak processes would be affected.
  • The predicted sound-speed crossover above $1/3$ near $4\rho_0$ provides an observational handle: future radius and tidal-deformability measurements from gravitational-wave events or X-ray timing could distinguish this stiff, vector-dominated equation of state from softer equations of state with quark cores.
  • Because the low-density part of the EoS is matched to a Skyrme-type crust parametrization, the inferred Landau parameters inherit model dependence below about $0.3\rho_0$; carrying the FRG calculation to lower densities would sharpen the quasiparticle extraction.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the chiral nucleon-meson functional-renormalization-group (ChNM-FRG) equation of state for neutron star matter within relativistic Landau Fermi-liquid theory. After reviewing nonrelativistic and relativistic Fermi-liquid formalism, it derives the leading spin-independent Landau parameters F0 and F1 by assuming a quasiparticle spectrum of the form epsilon_p = sqrt(p^2+M(rho)^2)+U(rho), with the scalar mass and vector potential evaluated at the Fermi surface. The resulting sound speed in the ChNM-FRG EoS exceeds the conformal value c_s^2 = 1/3 for baryon densities above about 4 rho0, which the authors attribute to repulsive vector correlations. The paper explicitly restricts to zero temperature, neglects pairing, noncentral forces, and the small proton fraction, and contrasts the results with liquid ^3He.

Significance. The paper is a transparent and cleanly written exercise in mapping a modern, observationally constrained EoS onto Fermi-liquid language. The algebraic derivations in Sections II and III are internally consistent, and the explicit statement of approximations (T=0, no pairing, neglect of noncentral forces and proton fraction) is a strength. The c_s^2 > 1/3 crossing is a robust property of the input EoS and is not affected by the quasiparticle ansatz. However, the advertised new output — the individual Landau parameters F0 and F1 — is not uniquely determined by the EoS alone; it depends on an unquantified scalar/vector decomposition. The paper is therefore more convincing as an illustrative Fermi-liquid reinterpretation than as a derivation of Landau parameters. Its significance for the neutron-star community would be substantially increased by a quantitative sensitivity analysis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III B, Eq. (61) and Eqs. (52)-(57)] The individual Landau parameters are not fixed by the equation of state. Equations (52), (53), (56), and (57) show that the thermodynamic EoS determines only mu(rho) and d mu/d rho, i.e. the sound-speed combination of Eq. (26), but not the separate scalar and vector pieces. The decomposition epsilon_p = sqrt(p^2+M(rho)^2)+U(rho) in Eq. (61) is an ansatz, and the same P(E) is compatible with a family of (M(rho), U(rho)) choices. Consequently F1 = -3U/mu and F0 from Eq. (56) carry a model ambiguity that is not quantified. The paper flags this issue and refers to Section IV, but it provides no independent extraction of M and U from the ChNM-FRG self-energies and no sensitivity estimate. Since the central claim is the derivation of the leading Landau parameters, this is a load-bearing gap. The authors should either compute the self-energy decomposition within the model or explicitly reframe the results as an illustrative reconstruction with a quantified uncertainty band.
  2. [Section III A / III B] The analysis maps a beta-equilibrated EoS with about 5% protons and with electrons and muons onto pure-neutron-matter formulas with degeneracy nu=2 and rho = pF^3/(3 pi^2). The proton fraction is asserted to be of minor importance, but no numerical estimate of its effect is given. The extracted pF and mu enter directly into Eqs. (56) and (57), so a small but nonzero proton fraction and the presence of leptons could shift the reported F0 and F1. A quantitative assessment of this mismatch is needed before the numerical values can be taken as predictions for neutron star matter, as opposed to pure neutron matter.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (62)] Equation (62) appears inconsistent with Eq. (25). Since Eq. (25) states m*/mu = 1 + F1/3 and vF is defined by vF = pF/m*, the correct relation is vF = pF/[mu(1+F1/3)], not vF = pF/mu (1+F1/3) as printed. Please correct this formula and check whether it is used elsewhere.
  2. [Introduction] There is a typo: 'alltogether' should be 'altogether'.
  3. [Eq. (24)] The word 'definiton' should be 'definition'.
  4. [After Eq. (62)] The manuscript contains a long passage and a figure discussing tidal deformability-radius correlations, references [10], and LIGO/Virgo constraints, which are not connected to the Fermi-liquid analysis. This extraneous material should be removed or explicitly integrated into the discussion, as it currently breaks the flow and is unrelated to the derivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the Landau parameters are a conditional reinterpretation of an imported EoS, with the scalar/vector split of the quasiparticle spectrum explicitly flagged as an ansatz rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive the ChNM-FRG equation of state from Fermi-liquid theory; it explicitly takes that EoS as input from Refs. [19,20]. The derivation chain is: (1) import P(E) from the chiral FRG calculation; (2) use standard relativistic Landau identities, Eqs. (24)-(26) and (52)-(57), to express the thermodynamic response in terms of Landau parameters; (3) close the underdetermined system with the explicit quasiparticle ansatz, Eq. (61), which the authors themselves label an ansatz and defer discussion of its implications to Sec. IV. The squared sound speed c_s^2 > 1/3 near 4 rho0 is presented as a direct derivative property of the imported EoS, not as a prediction produced by the Landau parameters. The individual values of F0 and F1 do depend on the scalar/vector decomposition of Eq. (61), but this is an acknowledged model assumption, not a tautology or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation concern is that the premise that chiral symmetry restoration is shifted above five times rho0 comes from the same group's prior FRG work and is not independently re-derived here; that is a load-bearing input assumption, but the Landau analysis itself does not reduce to that premise by construction. Separating the underdetermination of the M-U split from genuine circularity, no step of the paper is self-definitional, and no fitted quantity is presented as an independent prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim inherits the ChNM-FRG EoS from Refs. [19,20] rather than deriving it here. The free parameters are the previously fixed model couplings and the asymmetry energy A_S, which sets the reference EoS and its uncertainty band. The main axioms are the validity of that EoS at densities up to about 5 rho0, the quasiparticle energy ansatz separating scalar mass and vector potential, and the normal-Fermi-liquid approximations. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Nuclear asymmetry energy A_S = 32 MeV for the prototype, varied 30-34 MeV for the uncertainty band
    Selected inside the empirical asymmetry energy range to define the reference chiral FRG EoS; the EoS and hence the extracted Landau parameters depend on it, as shown in Section III A and Fig. 1.
  • ChNM model parameters, couplings and effective potential coefficients = From Refs. [19,20], not tabulated in this paper
    The parameters of the chiral nucleon-meson Lagrangian are fixed in the earlier ChNM-FRG work to reproduce nuclear saturation, compressibility, and other constraints; the present Landau parameters inherit that parameterization.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The ChNM-FRG equation of state is valid up to about 5 rho0, and chiral symmetry restoration is shifted above that density.
    Stated in the Introduction and Section III A as a result of Refs. [19,20]; the Fermi-liquid picture depends on this property, which is not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper Quasiparticle energy ansatz epsilon_p = sqrt(p^2 + M(rho)^2) + U(rho), with self-energies evaluated at the Fermi surface.
    Introduced in Section III B, Eq. (61), as a tractable scheme to separate F0 and F1 from the EoS; the quantitative error is deferred to Section IV.
  • domain assumption Normal Fermi liquid conditions: zero temperature, no pairing, no noncentral forces, and negligible proton fraction.
    Stated in Sections II A and III B; required for the spin-independent Landau parameter reduction and for neglecting the proton contribution.
  • domain assumption The vector field has the mean-field form V_mu = h(j^2) j_mu.
    This ansatz in Section II C generates the vector contribution and yields F1 = -3 V0 / mu; it is a standard relativistic mean-field modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutron Star Matter as a Relativistic Fermi Liquid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DDK6KTI

@misc{pith2026190809722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutron Star Matter as a Relativistic Fermi Liquid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DDK6KTI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09722}
}
abstract

The equation of state (EoS) of neutron star matter, constrained by the existence of two-solar-mass stars and gravitational wave signals from neutron star mergers, is analysed using the Landau theory of relativistic Fermi liquids. While the phase diagram of dense and cold QCD matter is still open for scenarios ranging from hadronic to quark matter in the center of neutron stars, a Fermi-liquid treatment is motivated by a microscopic approach starting from a chiral nucleon-meson field theory combined with nonperturbative functional renormalization group methods. In this scheme effects of multipionic fluctuations and repulsive nuclear many-body correlations suggest that the transition to chiral symmetry restoration is shifted to densities above those typically encountered in the neutron star core. Under such conditions a Fermi-liquid description in terms of nucleon quasiparticles appears to be justified. The leading Landau parameters are derived and discussed. Our results are contrasted with a well-known Fermi liquid, namely liquid $^3$He.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09722 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The equation of state of neutron star matter in beta equilibrium (pressure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The squared speed of sound, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Energy density of neutron star matter from chiral FRG calculations [19, 20] as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Energy per particle deduced from the chiral FRG equation of state as a function of baryon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Chemical potential of neutron matter from ChNM-FRG calculations [19, 20] as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Neutron quasiparticle mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Landau effective mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Landau Fermi liquid parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The effective vector potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Landau parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Transport coefficients of dense nucleon matter at low temperature

    nucl-th 2024-12 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper expresses the bulk and shear viscosities of cold dense nucleon matter through derivatives of the thermodynamic potential, and claims that the positivity of bulk viscosity imposes an independent stability con...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Watts et al

    A.L. Watts et al. , Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54, 401 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Fonseca et al

    E. Fonseca et al. , Astroph. J. 832, 167 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Antoniadis et al

    J. Antoniadis et al. , Science 340, 6131 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Cromartie et al., Nat

    H.T. Cromartie et al., Nat. Astron. (2019) doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 (arXiv:1904.06759)

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Abbott et al

    B.P. Abbott et al. (LIGO & Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Most, L.R

    E.R. Most, L.R. Weih, L. Rezzolla, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 261103 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    S. De, D. Finstad, J.M. Lattimer, D.A. Brown, E. Berger, and C.M. Biwer, Phys. Rev Lett. 121, 091102 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Akmal, V.R

    A. Akmal, V.R. Pandharipande, and D.G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C58, 1804 (1998)

    1998

  3. [11]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P.D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 056902 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    McLerran and S

    L. McLerran and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 122701 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    L. D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JETP 3, 920 (1957)

    1957

  6. [14]

    L. D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JETP 5, 101 (1957)

    1957

  7. [15]

    L. D. Landau, Sov. Phys. JETP 8, 70 (1959)

    1959

  8. [16]

    Abrikosov and I.M

    A.A. Abrikosov and I.M. Khalatnikov, Rep. Prog. Phys. 22, 329 (1959)

    1959

  9. [17]

    Baym and Ch

    G. Baym and Ch. Pethick, Landau Fermi-Liquid Theory , Wiley, New York (1991)

    1991

  10. [18]

    Baym and S.A

    G. Baym and S.A. Chin, Nucl. Phys. A262, 527 (1976)

    1976

  11. [19]

    Drews and W

    M. Drews and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C91, 035802 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Drews, and W

    M. Drews, and W. Weise, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 69 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Douchin and P

    F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astron. & Astrophys. 380, 151 (2001). 35

    2001

  14. [22]

    Djapo, B

    H. Djapo, B. J. Schaefer and J. Wambach, Phys. Rev. C 81, 035803 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Lonardoni, A

    D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 092301 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Haidenbauer, U.-G

    J. Haidenbauer, U.-G. Meißner, N. Kaiser and W. Weise, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 121 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Elliot, P.T

    J.B. Elliot, P.T. Lake, L.G. Moretto, and L. Phair, Phys. Rev. C87, 054622 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Gandolfi, J

    S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, S. Reddy, A.W. Steiner, and R.B. Wiringa, Eur Phys. J. A50, 10 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Hebeler, J.M

    K. Hebeler, J.M. Lattimer, C.J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, Astrophys. J. 773, 11 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Holt and N

    J.W. Holt and N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C95, 034326 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Lim and J.W

    Y. Lim and J.W. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 062701 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Drischler, K

    C. Drischler, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 042501 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Baldo and C.F

    M. Baldo and C.F. Burgo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 91, 203 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120,172703 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Vuorinen, Nucl

    A. Vuorinen, Nucl. Phys. A982, 36 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Abbott et al

    B.P. Abbott et al. (LIGO & Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, and K. Murase, arXiv:1903.03400 [nucl-th]

    1903 arXiv

  28. [36]

    I. Tews, J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, and S. Reddy, Astrophys. J. 860, 149 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Matsui, Nucl

    T. Matsui, Nucl. Phys. A370, 365 (1981)

    1981

  30. [38]

    Wetterich, Phys

    Ch. Wetterich, Phys. Lett. B301 (1993) 90

    1993

  31. [39]

    Brockmann and R

    R. Brockmann and R. Machleidt, Int. Rev. Nucl. Phys. 8, 121 (1999)

    1999

  32. [40]

    E. N. E. van Dalen, C. Fuchs and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 022302 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    J.W. Holt, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C87, 014338 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Mahaux, B.F

    C. Mahaux, B.F. Bortignon, R.A. Broglia, and C.H. Dasso, Phys. Reports 120, 1 (1985)

    1985

  35. [43]

    Ismail, M

    N. Ismail, M. Buraczynski and A. Gezerlis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 152701 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Lindhard, Kgl

    J. Lindhard, Kgl. Dansk Vidensk. Sellsk., Mat. Phys. Medd. 28, no. 8 (1954)

    1954

  37. [45]

    Vollhardt, Rev

    D. Vollhardt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 56, 99 (1984)

    1984

  38. [46]

    Leggett, Rep

    A.J. Leggett, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 054501 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Wheatley, Rev

    J.C. Wheatley, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 415 (1975)

    1975

  40. [48]

    Greywall, Phys

    D.S. Greywall, Phys. Rev. B33, 7520 (1986)

    1986

  41. [49]

    Babu and G.E

    S. Babu and G.E. Brown, Ann. Phys. 78, 1 (1973)

    1973

  42. [50]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, Vol. I , Ch. 2-5b, Benjamin, New York (1969)

    1969

  43. [51]

    J. W. Holt, N. Kaiser and W. Weise, Nucl. Phys. A 876, 61 (2012). 36

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.