Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Normal and intruder configurations in $^{34}$Si populated in the $\beta^-$ decay of $^{34}$Mg and $^{34}$Al

T0 review · 3 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 This paper refutes triaxial deformation in $^{34}$Si and adds 11 new levels to its level scheme up to 7.5 MeV.

desk verdict Solid extended level scheme and B(E2) for 34Si, but the triaxiality refutation assumes pure E2 on a ΔJ=0 transition and is weaker than claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11626 v1 pith:ID6GAG54 submitted 2019-08-30 nucl-ex

R. Lica , F. Rotaru , M.J.G. Borge , S. Grevy , F. Negoita , A. Poves , O. Sorlin , A.N. Andreyev
show 48 more authors
R. Borcea C. Costache H. De Witte L.M. Fraile P.T. Greenlees M. Huyse A. Ionescu S. Kisyov J. Konki I. Lazarus M. Madurga N. Marginean R. Marginean C. Mihai R. E. Mihai A. Negret F. Nowacki R.D. Page J. Pakarinen V. Pucknell P. Rahkila E. Rapisarda A. Serban C.O. Sotty L. Stan M. Stanoiu O. Tengblad A. Turturica P. Van Duppen N. Warr Ph. Dessagne T. Stora C. Borcea S. Calinescu J.M. Daugas D. Filipescu I. Kuti S. Franchoo I. Gheorghe P. Morfouace P. Morel J. Mrazek D. Pietreanu D. Sohler I. Stefan R. Suvaila S. Toma C.A. Ur
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-ex PACS 21.10.-k21.10.Tg23.20.Lv
keywords 34Mg34Al34Siβ−decayγ-γcoincidencesN=20shellgapislandofinversiontriaxiality
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 separates the two $\beta$-decay paths that populate $^{34}$Si: the $\beta^-$ decay of $^{34}$Mg feeds the nucleus mostly through the $1^+$ intruder state of $^{34}$Al, while the $\beta^-$ decay of $^{34}$Al itself feeds it mainly from the $4^-$ normal state. This gives independent access to low-spin positive-parity and high-spin negative-parity states, and the paper uses it to add 11 new levels and 26 transitions to the known $^{34}$Si level scheme up to the neutron separation energy. The central result is a refutation: the measured 3$\sigma$ lower limit $\mathrm{Br}(1193/1800) > 70$ on the branching ratio of the $2^+_2$ state is incompatible with the values 14 and 33 predicted by two triaxial models, so the data do not support triaxially deformed structures in $^{34}$Si. The paper also sharpens the $B(E2;2^+_1\to 0^+_2)$ value to $47(19)\ e^2\mathrm{fm}^4$ and estimates the $N=20$ shell gap at about 4 MeV, benchmarks for theories of shape coexistence at the border of the island of inversion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is the independent population of the two $\beta$-decaying states of $^{34}$Al: the $4^-$ ground state, dominated by the normal configuration $\pi(d_{5/2})^{-1}\otimes\nu(f_{7/2})$, and the $1^+$ isomer, dominated by the intruder configuration $\pi(d_{5/2})^{-1}\otimes\nu(d_{3/2})^{-1}(f_{7/2})^{2}$. These act as spin-parity filters that deliver the negative-parity and positive-parity parts of the $^{34}$Si level scheme separately. Around them, the analysis uses $\beta$-gated $\gamma$-$\gamma$ coincidences, $\log(ft)$ values for spin assignments, and the detection of $E0$ internal-pair events to tag the $0^+_2$ state and measure the weak 606.8-keV branch. The decisive observable for triaxiality is the branching ratio $\mathrm{Br}(1193/1800)$ of the $2^+_2$ decays, compared against shell-model and mean-field predictions. The interpretive engine is the sdpf-u-mix effective interaction, a large-scale shell-model interaction that includes 2p-2h and higher neutron intruder excitations across the $N=20$ gap.

What would settle it

A direct test is to search for the 1800-keV transition with higher statistics: if a clean peak at 1800 keV appears in coincidence with the 2957- and 2588-keV feeding transitions and pushes the branching ratio $\mathrm{Br}(1193/1800)$ below 70 at 3$\sigma$ or better, the present refutation of triaxiality would fail. A remeasured Coulomb-excitation $B(E2;0^+_1\to 2^+_1)$ that moves the derived $B(E2;2^+_1\to 0^+_2)$ beyond the quoted uncertainty would likewise test the mixing interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that $^{34}$Si, a nucleus sitting at the edge of the island of inversion (the region near $N=20$ where deformed intruder configurations invade spherical ground states), behaves as a doubly magic spherical system with a large but not exaggerated $N=20$ gap and with no evidence for rigid triaxiality in its low-lying spectrum. The experimental basis is a background-subtracted $\gamma$-ray spectrum in coincidence with the 2957- and 2588-keV feeding transitions of the 4519-keV $2^+_2$ state: the 1193-keV decay branch is strong, while the 1800-keV branch claimed in the triaxiality paper is absent, giving $\mathrm{Br}(1193/1800)>70$ at 3$\sigma$ against model predictions of 14 and 33. The same data set yields 11 new levels and 26 transitions, tentative $J^\pi$ assignments from $\log(ft)$ values and branching patterns, a cleaner $B(E2;2^+_1\to 0^+_2)=47(19)\ e^2\mathrm{fm}^4$, and a shell-gap estimate of about 4 MeV obtained by correcting the measured $4^-$ energy for 420 keV of configuration mixing. Shell-model calculations with the sdpf-u-mix interaction reproduce the positive-parity normal/intruder pattern but place the negative-parity states about 1 MeV too high, a known limitation that the paper ties to the overestimated $N=20$ gap.

Load-bearing premise

The whole normal-versus-intruder interpretation rests on the spin-parity assignments of the two $\beta$-decaying states in $^{34}$Al (a $4^-$ ground state and a $1^+$ isomer) and on the measured 89(3)%:11(3)% ratio in which the $^{34}$Al beam contains them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the anti-triaxiality conclusion holds, the 4519-keV $2^+_2$ state should not be cited as evidence for a triaxial $\gamma$ band in $^{34}$Si; the prior interpretation needs to be revisited.
  • The $N=20$ shell gap sits near 4 MeV, about 1 MeV smaller than the correlated gap of sdpf-u-mix, which explains the systematic upward shift of the calculated negative-parity states.
  • The 11 newly identified levels, particularly the five $2^+$ candidates and the $0^+$ candidate at 7475.8 keV, become benchmarks that any effective interaction for the $sd$-$pf$ space must reproduce.
  • A remeasurement of the Coulomb-excitation $B(E2;0^+_1\to 2^+_1)$ is needed to reduce the 39% uncertainty that dominates the derived $B(E2;2^+_1\to 0^+_2)$, and to check whether the 2023-keV transition contaminates the earlier measurement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to measure the same $2^+_2$ branching ratio in neighbouring $N=20$ isotones; if the pattern of an absent 1800-keV-like branch repeats, $\gamma$-softness rather than rigid triaxiality would appear to be a general feature near the island of inversion.
  • The conclusions rest on the $^{34}$Al spin-parity assignments from an earlier study; an independent confirmation of the $4^-$/$1^+$ ordering, for example through transfer or charge-exchange reactions, would place the normal-versus-intruder interpretation on firmer ground.
  • The sdpf-u-mix offset in negative-parity states suggests a testable adjustment of the $sd$-$pf$ monopole gap; one could search for a modification that lowers the $1p$-$1h$ states by about 1 MeV without pulling the $2p$-$2h$ intruder states below their measured energies.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a beta-gamma spectroscopy study of 34Si populated in the beta decays of 34Mg and 34Al at the ISOLDE Decay Station. The authors extend the known level scheme of 34Si to 7.5 MeV with 11 newly identified levels and 26 transitions, assign tentative spins and parities from log(ft) values and gamma-ray decay patterns, measure the half-life of the 0+2 state, and derive a revised B(E2; 2+1 -> 0+2) value. They compare the results with sdpf-u-mix shell-model calculations, estimate the N=20 shell gap at about 4 MeV, and conclude that the data do not support the recently proposed triaxial deformation of 34Si.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a valuable new experimental anchor for the N=20 island-of-inversion region: an extended 34Si level scheme, independent population of normal and intruder configurations, a more precise B(E2) connecting the 0+2 and 2+1 states, and a quantitative benchmark for the sdpf-u-mix interaction. The experimental work is careful: the efficiency calibration uses 152Eu and GEANT4, the beta efficiency of 90(5)% is explicitly determined, and absolute intensities are checked through the full decay chains. These strengths make the data set a useful reference for future shell-model and collective-model studies, provided the more interpretative claims are appropriately qualified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.F, Fig. 10] The conclusion that the data exclude triaxial deformation is not established by the branching-ratio comparison. The predicted ratios Br(1193/1800) = 14 (Gogny) and 33 (SDPF-M) are derived from B(E2) ratios using an E_gamma^5 scaling and the explicit assumption of pure E2 transitions. However, the 1193-keV 2+2 -> 2+1 transition is Delta J = 0, Delta pi = 0, so M1 radiation is allowed and could contribute substantially to this branch. A modest M1/E2 intensity ratio, of order unity for the SDPF-M case, would raise the predicted branching ratio above the experimental lower limit Br > 70, making the non-observation of the 1800-keV transition consistent with the very models used to argue against triaxiality. The paper reports no shell-model B(M1) and no experimental mixing-ratio limit; the additional arguments based on Kumar invariants and occupancies are model-dependent and do not by themselves constitute an experimental refutation. The claim should be rephrased as a limit under the pure-E2 assumption, or supplemented by a quantitative M1 estimate.
  2. [Sec. III.D] The estimate of the N=20 shell gap at about 4 MeV is not an experimental determination. The procedure subtracts a 420-keV mixing shift computed with sdpf-u-mix from the experimental 4- excitation energy, and the same interaction is stated in Sec. III.A to shift negative-parity states upward by about 1 MeV and to have a correlated sd-pf gap near 5 MeV. The 4-MeV value is therefore strongly model-dependent, yet the abstract and conclusions present it without an uncertainty or an explicit caveat. The authors should label this value as a model-dependent estimate and discuss how the known shortcomings of the interaction affect the subtraction.
  3. [Sec. II.A and Fig. 4] The separation of the data into normal and intruder feeding paths relies on the spin-parity assignments of the two 34Al beta-decaying states, 4- and 1+, and on the 89(3)%:11(3)% ground-to-isomer ratio in the 34Al beam, all taken from Ref. [28]. These inputs underpin the log(ft)-based tentative spin-parity assignments of the newly observed 34Si levels and the normal-versus-intruder interpretation that is central to the title and to the shell-gap discussion. The paper should state explicitly that these assignments and the beam ratio are adopted from previous work, and it should indicate how sensitive the extracted conclusions are to plausible changes in the isomer fraction or in the parent-state assignments.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption gives the half-life of the 0+2 state as T1/2 = 19.4(5) ms, but the text and context require 19.4(5) ns; this typo should be corrected.
  2. [Introduction, Sec. I] The word 'trixiality' appears in the sentence about the possible existence of triaxiality; it should be 'triaxiality'.
  3. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption contains a leftover analysis histogram name, 'Tp Clov Beta R31_124sum929.l4', which should be removed and replaced with a proper description of the fit.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The statement that 'the levels indicated in red are assumed to have negative parity' is hard to use in a printed paper if color is not preserved; a symbol-based marker would be more robust.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Experimental level scheme and B(E2) are independent; mild circularity in using sdpf-u-mix to guide spin assignments and then claiming the same model's predictive power.

  1. other [Sec. II.A (Level Scheme of 34Si) and Sec. III.C (Negative parity states in 34Si)]
    "The assignment of tentative spins and parities in the level scheme is based on log(ft) values for allowed Gamow-Teller (GT) transitions, as well as from γ-ray branching ratios decaying from or to levels with known spins and parities. Comparison to shell-model calculations with the sdpf-u-mix interaction will be used as an additional guidance."

    The same sdpf-u-mix interaction is later presented as validated: 'As seen in Fig. 4, all the calculated negative parity states below 7 MeV have their experimental counterparts, demonstrating both the predicting power of the sdpf-u-mix interaction and the sensitivity of the present experiment.' Because the tentative spin-parity assignments that define these 'experimental counterparts' were chosen with sdpf-u-mix as 'additional guidance' (e.g., the 4378.4-keV level is assigned (4-) partly because 'a 4- state is predicted close in energy to the 3- level by the present shell model calculations'), the claimed agreement is partly by construction. The measured gamma-ray energies, intensities, and log(ft) values are not derived from the model, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The paper's core experimental results—11 new levels, 26 transitions, lifetimes, branching ratios, and the derived B(E2; 2+1 -> 0+2) = 47(19) e2fm4—are measured quantities that do not reduce to the model inputs. The Br(1193/1800) > 70 lower limit and the no-triaxiality conclusion come from the experimental gamma-ray spectra, although the comparison to Gogny/SDPF-M relies on the explicitly stated 'pure E2' assumption. The N=20 shell-gap estimate uses sdpf-u-mix to compute a 420-keV mixing correction; this is model-dependent but not circular, and the paper itself notes the interaction's known ~1-MeV deficiency in negative-parity states. The 34Al parent spin-parity assignments are taken from previous work by the same collaboration (Ref. [28]); because those are independent experimental determinations rather than conclusions derived in this paper, they do not by themselves constitute circularity. The one genuine soft spot is the benchmarking loop: sdpf-u-mix is used as 'additional guidance' for tentative spin-parity assignments, and those same assignments are then cited as demonstrating the interaction's 'predicting power.' This inflates the apparent agreement but does not affect the measured energies, branching ratios, or the experimental lower limit. Overall score 3.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The 11 new levels are measured states, not postulated entities. The free parameters are inherited effective-interaction inputs and effective charges from prior work; the only hand-adjusted quantities are the shell-gap offsets used in a sensitivity study, not to fit the data. The main model dependence enters through the sdpf-u-mix interaction and the external Coulomb-excitation B(E2) input.

free parameters (3)
  • sdpf-u-mix effective interaction = not specified (inherited from Ref [33])
    Two-body matrix elements fitted to sd-pf data in prior work; all shell-model predictions (B(E2), occupation numbers, log(ft)) in the paper depend on it.
  • Dufour-Zuker effective charges and effective mass = e_p=0.46, e_n=1.31, m_eff=1.77
    Used to convert shell-model quadrupole matrix elements into B(E2) values in Table V and Fig. 9; inherited from Ref [41].
  • sdpf-u-mix shell-gap offsets = +0.5, -0.25, -0.5 MeV
    Hand-chosen shifts applied in Fig. 9 to test sensitivity of predicted B(E2) values to the N=20 gap; not fitted to the data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 34Al beta-decaying ground state has Jpi=4- and the isomer has Jpi=1+, with the stated decay ratios.
    Taken from Ref [28] (largely overlapping authorship); the whole separation of normal vs intruder feeding into 34Si rests on it (Sec. II.A).
  • domain assumption sdpf-u-mix is a valid effective interaction for the N=20 region and can treat higher-order intruder configurations.
    Used to predict levels, log(ft), and B(E2) values and as additional guidance for tentative spin assignments (Sec. II.A, III.A).
  • domain assumption Valence space: 6 protons in the sd shell, 14 neutrons in the sd-pf space, with neutron 2p-2h excitations allowed.
    Truncation underlying all sdpf-u-mix results quoted in Sec. III.A; different truncations could change the comparison.
  • domain assumption B(E2; 0+1 -> 2+1) = 85(33) e2fm4 from Coulomb excitation (Ref [18]).
    Used with the new branching ratio to derive B(E2; 2+1 -> 0+2); its 39% uncertainty dominates the final error.
  • domain assumption Allowed Gamow-Teller decay dominates when log(ft) is low, so spin-parity limits can be drawn from log(ft) values.
    Standard nuclear physics input used throughout Sec. III for the tentative assignments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Normal and intruder configurations in $^{34}$Si populated in the $\beta^-$ decay of $^{34}$Mg and $^{34}$Al." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ID6GAG54

@misc{pith2026190811626,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Normal and intruder configurations in $^34$Si populated in the $\beta^-$ decay of $^34$Mg and $^34$Al},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ID6GAG54}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11626}
}
abstract

The structure of $^{34}$Si was studied through $\gamma$ spectroscopy separately in the $\beta^-$ decays of $^{34}$Mg and $^{34}$Al at the ISOLDE facility of CERN. Different configurations in $^{34}$Si were populated independently from the two recently identified $\beta$-decaying states in $^{34}$Al having spin-parity assignments $J^\pi = 4^-$ dominated by the normal configuration $\pi (d_{5/2})^{-1} \otimes \nu (f_{7/2})$ and $J^\pi = 1^+$ by the intruder configuration $\pi (d_{5/2})^{-1} \otimes \nu (d_{3/2})^{-1}(f_{7/2})^{2}$. The paper reports on spectroscopic properties of $^{34}$Si such as an extended level scheme, spin and parity assignments based on log($ft$) values and $\gamma$-ray branching ratios, absolute $\beta$ feeding intensities and neutron emission probabilities. A total of 11 newly identified levels and 26 transitions were added to the previously known level scheme of $^{34}$Si. Large scale shell-model calculations using the {\sc sdpf-u-mix} interaction, able to treat higher order intruder configurations, are compared with the new results and conclusions are drawn concerning the predictive power of {\sc sdpf-u-mix}, the $N=20$ shell gap, the level of mixing between normal and intruder configurations for the 0$_1^+$, 0$_2^+$ and 2$_1^+$ states and the absence of triaxial deformation in $^{34}$Si.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11626 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Graphical representation of the high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Background-subtracted, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color Online) Level schemes of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The present values are more precise, but consis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color Online) Time difference distribution of double [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (Color Online) Energy spectra of HPGe detectors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The present 40% relative uncertainty results from the 39% uncertainty of the B(E2; 0+ 1 → 2 + 1 ) and the 10% un￾certainty for Br value. Significant improvement for the uncertainties of the experimental values can be achieved only by remeasuring the B(E2; 0+ 1 → 2 + 1 …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Therefore we can only extract a lower limit of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (Color Online) Comparison between shell-model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (Color Online) Background-subtracted, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Lica et al

    R. Lica et al. (IDS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C 95, 021301 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [1]

    Heyde and J

    K. Heyde and J. L. Wood, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1467 (2011)

    2011

  3. [2]

    Poves and J

    A. Poves and J. Retamosa, Physics Letters B 184, 311 (1987)

    work page 1987

  4. [3]

    E. K. Warburton, J. A. Becker, and B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 41, 1147 (1990)

    work page 1990

  5. [4]

    Heyde and J

    K. Heyde and J. L. Wood, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 17, 135 (1991)

    work page 1991

  6. [5]

    Fukunishi, T

    N. Fukunishi, T. Otsuka, and T. Sebe, Physics Letters B 296, 279 (1992)

    work page 1992

  7. [6]

    Sorlin and M.-G

    O. Sorlin and M.-G. Porquet, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 61, 602 (2008)

    2008

  8. [7]

    Caurier, G

    E. Caurier, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and A. P. Zuker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 427 (2005)

    2005

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Sorlin and M.-G

    O. Sorlin and M.-G. Porquet, Physica Scripta 2013, 014003 (2013)

    2013

  2. [9]

    Poves, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 44, 084002 (2017)

    A. Poves, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 44, 084002 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    N. A. Smirnova, K. Heyde, B. Bally, F. Nowacki, and K. Sieja, Phys. Rev. C 86, 034314 (2012)

    2012

  4. [11]

    Nummela et al., Phys

    S. Nummela et al., Phys. Rev. C 63, 044316 (2001)

    2001

  5. [12]

    Baumann et al., Physics Letters B 228, 458 (1989)

    P. Baumann et al., Physics Letters B 228, 458 (1989)

    1989

  6. [13]

    R. G. T. Zegers et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 212504 (2010)

    2010

  7. [14]

    Enders et al., Phys

    J. Enders et al., Phys. Rev. C 65, 034318 (2002)

    2002

  8. [15]

    Fornal et al., Phys

    B. Fornal et al., Phys. Rev. C 49, 2413 (1994)

    1994

  9. [16]

    Fifield et al., Nucl

    L. Fifield et al., Nucl. Phys. A 440, 531 (1985)

    1985

  10. [17]

    Iwasa et al., Phys

    N. Iwasa et al., Phys. Rev. C 67, 064315 (2003)

    2003

  11. [18]

    R. W. Ibbotson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2081 (1998)

    1998

  12. [19]

    Rotaru et al., Phys

    F. Rotaru et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 092503 (2012)

    2012

  13. [20]

    Han et al., Physics Letters B 772, 529 (2017)

    R. Han et al., Physics Letters B 772, 529 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    Wimmer et al., Phys

    K. Wimmer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 252501 (2010)

    2010

  15. [22]

    Utsuno, T

    Y. Utsuno, T. Otsuka, B. A. Brown, M. Honma, T. Mizusaki, and N. Shimizu, Phys. Rev. C 86, 051301 (2012)

    2012

  16. [23]

    Borrajo, T

    M. Borrajo, T. R. Rodriguez, and J. L. Egido, Physics Letters B 746, 341 (2015)

    2015

  17. [24]

    Mutschler et al., Nature Physics 13, 152 (2016)

    A. Mutschler et al., Nature Physics 13, 152 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    Fedoseyev et al

    V. Fedoseyev et al. , Hyperfine Interactions 127, 409 (2000)

    2000

  19. [26]

    K¨ osteret al., NIM B 266, 4229 (2008)

    U. K¨ osteret al., NIM B 266, 4229 (2008)

    2008

  20. [27]

    http://isolde-ids.web.cern.ch/

  21. [29]

    Duchˆ eneet al., NIM A 432, 90 (1999)

    G. Duchˆ eneet al., NIM A 432, 90 (1999)

    1999

  22. [30]

    Agostinelli et al., NIM A 506, 250 (2003)

    S. Agostinelli et al., NIM A 506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    I. H. Lazarus et al., IEEE Transactions in Nuclear Science 48, 567 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Centros de Excelencia Severo Ochoa

    was used when deriving the log(ft) values, consider- ing also the 46.7 keV excitation energy of the β decaying isomeric state in 34Al [28]. The number of implanted 34Mg and 34Al nuclei is de- rived from singles γ-ray spectra, using the transitions corresponding to the last pop...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Wang et al

    M. Wang et al. , Chinese Physics. C, High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics 41 (2017), 10.1088/1674- 1137/41/3/030003

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Caurier, F

    E. Caurier, F. Nowacki, and A. Poves, Phys. Rev. C 90, 014302 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    J. C. Ang´ eliqueet al., AIP Conference Proceedings 831, 134 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    Reeder et al

    P. Reeder et al. , Proc.Intern.Conf on Exotic Nuclei and Atomic Masses, Arles, France, June 19-23, 1995 , 587 (1995)

    1995

  29. [37]

    Tripathi et al., Phys

    V. Tripathi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 142504 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    Himpe et al., Physics Letters B 658, 203 (2008)

    P. Himpe et al., Physics Letters B 658, 203 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Caurier, F

    E. Caurier, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and J. Retamosa, Phys. Rev. C 58, 2033 (1998)

    1998

  32. [40]

    Lic˘ aet al

    R. Lic˘ aet al. , AIP Conference Proceedings 1645, 363 (2015)

    2015

  33. [41]

    Davydov and G

    A. Davydov and G. Filippov, Nuclear Physics 8, 237 (1958)

    1958

  34. [42]

    Poves, F

    A. Poves, F. Nowacki, and Y. Alhassid, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1906.07542 (2019), arXiv:1906.07542 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kumar, Phys

    K. Kumar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 249 (1972)

    1972

Pith tools

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