Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 107 references

Large quadrupole deformation in $^{20}$Ne challenges rotor model and modern theory: urging for $\alpha$ clusters in nuclei

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A precise reorientation-effect measurement sets Q_S(2+_1) = -0.22(2) e b in 20Ne, a value nearly 3σ larger than the ideal rotor model and larger than modern ab initio and density-functional predictions, implying that explicit alpha…

desk verdict Solid reorientation-effect measurement gives a precise Q_S(2+1) for 20Ne that sharpens a real discrepancy; the alpha-cluster narrative is plausible but not proven, and a nuclear-interference estimate is needed. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10598 v1 pith:YUUXCEML submitted 2024-11-15 nucl-ex hep-exnucl-th

C. V. Mehl , J. N. Orce , C. Ngwetsheni , P. Marević , B. A. Brown , J. D. Holt , M. Kumar Raju , E. A. Lawrie
show 26 more authors
K. J. Abrahams P. Adsley E. H. Akakpo R. A. Bark N. Bernier T. D. Bucher W. Yahia-Cherif T. S. Dinoko J.-P. Ebran N. Erasmus P. M. Jones E. Khan N. Y. Kheswa N. A. Khumalo J. J. Lawrie S. N. T. Majola K. L. Malatji D. L. Mavela M. J. Mokgolobotho T. Nikšić S. S. Ntshangase V. Pesudo B. Rebeiro O. Shirinda D. Vretenar M. Wiedeking
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exhep-exnucl-th PACS 21.10.Ky25.70.De27.20.+n
keywords spectroscopicquadrupolemomentreorientationeffectsafeCoulombexcitationnucleardipolepolarizabilityB(E2)valuesαclusters20Neabinitioshellmodel
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

Using the reorientation effect in safe-energy Coulomb excitation of a $^{194}$Pt target, this paper determines the spectroscopic quadrupole moment of the first excited state in $^{20}$Ne to be $Q_S(2^+_1) = -0.22(2)$ e b. That value is about 2.7 standard deviations larger in magnitude than the ideal axial-rotor value derived from the measured $B(E2)$, and it also exceeds the predictions of state-of-the-art ab initio and relativistic energy-density-functional calculations. The paper argues this is the largest rotor-model discrepancy seen in the nuclear chart and that the missing ingredient is $\alpha$ clustering, which appears as a pronounced 'bowling pin' $^{16}$O+$\alpha$ density in the model. If the result holds, it would mean that current many-body frameworks need to include cluster degrees of freedom explicitly to describe quadrupole collectivity in light nuclei.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the reorientation effect: the diagonal (static) quadrupole moment of the excited $2^+_1$ state affects the sub-barrier Coulomb-excitation cross section through higher-order E2 processes, making the yield sensitive to $Q_S$ rather than only to the $B(E2)$. Two auxiliary conditions carry the extraction: the safe-distance criterion $S \geq 6.5$ fm (with $S(\theta)$ defined in Eq.~3), which the experiment treats as ensuring that nuclear forces do not contaminate the Coulomb excitation at closest approaches of about 6.9–7.5 fm, and the E1 polarizability parameter $\kappa(2^+_1)=0.6$ obtained from a $1\hbar\omega$ shell-model calculation, which corrects second-order dipole contributions. The paper also uses the dimensionless ratio $r_q = |Q_S / Q_S^{B(E2)}|$ to quantify deviation from rigid-rotor behaviour, where $r_q = 1$ is the ideal rotor and $r_q = 0$ the ideal vibrator.

What would settle it

Repeat the $^{20}$Ne reorientation-effect Coulomb-excitation measurement on two targets of very different charge at the same safe geometry, or at a beam energy that pushes the minimum distance of closest approach above 8 fm; if the extracted $Q_S(2^+_1)$ moves by more than the quoted uncertainty, the safe-energy assumption is the weak link.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At backward scattering angles in the $^{20}$Ne + $^{194}$Pt reaction at 71.3 MeV, with closest distances of approach around 6.9–7.5 fm, the reorientation effect changes the Coulomb-excitation yields enough to fix the diagonal E2 matrix element. Combining those yields in a GOSIA/GOSIA2 analysis with the adopted transitional matrix element and with the shell-model E1 polarizability parameter $\kappa(2^+_1)=0.6$, the authors extract $Q_S(2^+_1) = -0.22(2)$ e b. This agrees with the only prior safe-energy measurement but is 2.735$\sigma$ away from the rotor-model expectation, $Q_S^{B(E2)} = \pm 0.165(4)$ e b, giving $r_q = 1.33(12)$. VS-IMSRG calculations based on chiral interactions give about $-0.12$ e b and the MR-EDF calculation about $-0.15$ e b, both less deformed than experiment, while the MR-EDF intrinsic density shows a clustered $^{16}$O+$\alpha$ structure. The paper's conclusion is that the large deformation signals a missing $\alpha$-cluster degree of freedom in the theoretical descriptions and that explicit inclusion of clusters is required for convergence of E2 collective properties.

Load-bearing premise

The extraction assumes that the safe-distance criterion, with closest approach around 6.9 fm just above the 6.5 fm threshold, guarantees negligible nuclear interference; if residual short-range nuclear forces contribute at this distance, the reorientation-derived $Q_S$ could be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the measured value stands, the ground-state band of 20Ne cannot be described by the ideal axial rotor, so intrinsic deformation cannot be inferred from B(E2) alone in this nucleus.
  • Modern ab initio (VS-IMSRG) and MR-EDF calculations underpredict the quadrupole moment, implying that the missing E2 strength found in ab initio calculations is at least partly a missing cluster-correlation effect.
  • Explicitly including α clustering in calculations should move predicted $Q_S(2^+_1)$ toward -0.22 e b; the paper cites an unpublished calculation that already does so.
  • The $r_q$ ratio becomes a discriminating observable for shell edges: deviations from 1 in self-conjugate sd-shell nuclei signal a missing collective ingredient that cluster degrees of freedom could supply.
  • Future high-energy light-ion collision studies using 20Ne projectiles should adopt the larger measured deformation as the initial nuclear geometry when simulating cluster-sensitive observables.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Assuming the α-cluster interpretation is right, one would expect the quadrupole moment to be sensitive to the 16O+α separation energy; measuring neighbouring isotopes or isotones with similar cluster thresholds could reveal a correlated trend in $Q_S$ deviations.
  • A direct experimental constraint on $\kappa(2^+_1)$, for example from reorientation measurements at more than one beam energy, would isolate the polarizability correction and remove the main theory input from the extraction; this is a testable extension of the present work.
  • If the safe-distance criterion is the limiting assumption, a measurement on a lighter target (reduced Z) or at a lower beam energy that pushes S above 8 fm would either confirm the result or reveal a systematic bias; this is within reach of current facilities.
  • The same reorientation technique applied to other clustered light nuclei, such as 24Mg or 28Si, at safe distances would establish whether the large $r_q$ values at the sd-shell edges are a general cluster phenomenon rather than specific to 20Ne.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a new measurement of the spectroscopic quadrupole moment of the 2+1 state in 20Ne using the reorientation effect in safe-energy Coulomb excitation with a 194Pt target. Particle-γ coincidence data collected with AFRODITE and an annular silicon detector are analyzed with GOSIA/GOSIA2, yielding Q_S(2+1) = -0.22(2) eb. The result is consistent with, but a factor of four more precise than, the only previous safe-energy measurement (Q_S = -0.23(8) eb). The authors compare this value with the ideal rotor model and with VS-IMSRG and MR-EDF calculations, finding discrepancies of roughly 3σ and larger, and attribute the missing deformation to α clustering.

Significance. If the result stands, it provides the most precise determination of the 2+1 quadrupole moment in 20Ne to date and sharpens a long-standing discrepancy between the reorientation effect and the rotational model. The measurement uses a modern setup with high statistics and a careful normalization to the target excitation, and it agrees with the earlier safe-energy measurement. The paper also includes a useful treatment of the E1 polarizability correction, using measured photo-absorption data for the ground state and shell-model results for the 2+1 state. However, the central claim of a 2.7σ deviation from the rotor model relies on two assumptions—the absence of nuclear interference at the most backward angles and the adopted value of the polarizability parameter κ(2+1)—neither of which is quantitatively bounded in the present manuscript. The theoretical interpretation in terms of α clustering is suggestive but not fully supported by the calculations shown.

major comments (3)
  1. [Coulomb-excitation measurements, Eq. (3)] The most backward-angle bins in the present experiment have S≈6.9 fm, only 0.4 fm above Spear's safe-distance criterion of 6.5 fm quoted in Eq. (3). Because the reorientation sensitivity is largest at backward angles, residual nuclear interference could systematically bias the extracted diagonal matrix element ⟨2+1||E2||2+1⟩. GOSIA/GOSIA2 treat only electromagnetic excitation, and the paper provides no quantitative estimate of the nuclear-interference correction (e.g., from a coupled-channels calculation with a short-range nuclear potential, or from a comparison of results obtained with different angular cuts). Given that the claimed 2.7σ discrepancy is the central physical result, the authors should demonstrate that nuclear interference at S≈6.9 fm is negligible for this reaction.
  2. [Polarizability parameter, Fig. 3] The adopted value κ(2+1)=0.6 is taken from a shell-model calculation (Ref. [66]) with no quoted uncertainty, and the final uncertainty of Q_S includes only a 3% 'quantal effects' systematic. The right panel of Fig. 3 shows that changing κ from 1.7 to 0.6 shifts Q_S by 0.01 eb, which is comparable to the statistical error of 0.02 eb. The absence of a κ-induced systematic in the quoted uncertainty could make the 2.7σ discrepancy appear larger than warranted. The authors should either provide an uncertainty estimate for κ(2+1) and propagate it, or argue explicitly why the shift is negligible.
  3. [Theoretical comparison, Figs. 4 and 5] The paper concludes that α clustering is the missing ingredient needed to reproduce the measured Q_S, but the MR-EDF calculation presented in Fig. 4 already includes α clustering (the density in Fig. 5 shows a bowling-pin structure) and still underestimates Q_S by ~0.07 eb, by about the same margin as the VS-IMSRG and shell-model results. The only quantitative support for the cluster explanation appears to be a private communication (Ref. [107]) from D. Lee. As written, the conclusion is not directly supported by the shown calculations; the authors should either include the Lee calculation or provide a quantitative argument for why the current MR-EDF clusters are insufficient to explain the full deformation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] Several typographical errors appear in the figures: the x-axis label in Fig. 2 reads 'degress' and the legend in Fig. 4 uses 'WPB' while the text uses 'WBP'; please correct these.
  2. [References] References [84] and [85] are identical (De Groote et al., Nature Physics 16, 620 (2020)); one should be removed or replaced.
  3. [Abstract and text] The abstract states a discrepancy of 'almost 3σ' while the text quotes '2.735σ'; please use a consistent number.
  4. [Notation in Fig. 3] The caption of Fig. 3 uses 'k(2+1)' and 'k(g.s.)' while the text uses the symbol κ; please unify the notation.
  5. [Introductory claim] The statement that 20Ne presents 'the largest quadrupole deformations in the nuclear chart' is supported only by a comparison in the sd shell; please qualify or provide a broader survey.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reorientation Q_S extraction is an independent fit to measured yields, and the only same-group input (κ(2+1)=0.6) is explicitly shown not to force the result.

full rationale

The central claim is an experimentally determined spectroscopic quadrupole moment, Q_S(2+1)=-0.22(2) eb, extracted by χ2 minimization of measured particle-γ yields with GOSIA/GOSIA2. The diagonal matrix element <2+1||E2||2+1> is the fitted quantity, not an assumed prediction; it is benchmarked against, not derived from, the rotor model and modern theory. The only same-group self-citation entering the extraction is the adopted polarizability parameter κ(2+1)=0.6 from Orce & Ngwetsheni [66]. This is not load-bearing: the paper shows that using κ(2+1)=1.7 changes Q_S only from -0.22(2) to -0.21(2) eb, well within the quoted uncertainty. The VS-IMSRG and MR-EDF calculations are first-principles predictions (the VS-IMSRG uses no effective charges), and their disagreement with the measured Q_S is the reported finding, not an input. The rotor-model comparison uses an independent accepted B(E2) value and standard textbook relations, so the rq ratio is a test, not a tautology. Two caveats are noted but are not circularity: the safe-distance criterion S_min≥6.5 fm is an external empirical threshold and any residual nuclear interference would be a systematic bias; and the α-cluster interpretation leans in part on a private communication by D. Lee [107], which is missing public support. Neither makes the derivation reduce to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement itself rests on standard Coulomb-excitation assumptions and one adopted polarizability parameter, kappa(2+1)=0.6, whose effect on Q_S is small. The broader alpha-cluster interpretation rests on an additional ad hoc premise supported mainly by the authors' own MR-EDF calculation and an unpublished calculation. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Polarizability parameter kappa(2+1) = 0.6
    Adopted from 1-hbar-omega shell-model calculations by the same group (ref. [66]); enters the GOSIA2 analysis of second-order effects. The authors also test kappa=1.7 and find Q_S shifts by only 0.01 eb, so the central value is robust to this choice.
  • Ground-state polarizability kappa(g.s.) = 1.7(3)
    Determined from experimental photoabsorption cross sections and shell-model calculations as a consistency check. It is not directly used in the final extraction of Q_S(2+1).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Semi-classical coupled-channels Coulomb excitation (GOSIA/GOSIA2) accurately models the reaction at 71.3 MeV with the given detector geometry.
    Used for all yield calculations and chi-square minimization; standard in Coulomb-excitation analyses but assumes the validity of the semi-classical approximation and the input matrix elements.
  • domain assumption Spear's safe-distance criterion S(ϑ)min >= 6.5 fm guarantees negligible nuclear interference.
    Justifies treating the interaction as pure Coulomb excitation; the closest approach here is approximately 6.9 fm, just above the threshold.
  • domain assumption The accepted 0+ to 2+ transition matrix element <0+||E2||2+> = 0.1825(44) eb from NNDC and lifetime data is correct.
    Used for normalization and to convert results into Q_S; an error in this input propagates directly into the extracted moment.
  • standard math The ideal-rotor relations Q0 = sqrt(16*pi/5 * B(E2)) and Q_S = -2/7 Q0 define the rotor-model prediction.
    Used to compute the rotor-model Q_S and the ratio rq; this is an idealized benchmark, not a dynamical prediction.
  • domain assumption The MR-EDF calculation with the DD-PC1 functional and generator-coordinate mixing describes the intrinsic density of the 2+1 state.
    The bowling-pin alpha-cluster picture comes from this calculation; EDF model uncertainties are acknowledged but not quantified.
  • domain assumption The VS-IMSRG decoupled E2 operator with no effective charges gives a trustworthy ab initio estimate of Q_S.
    Underpins the theoretical benchmark of approximately -0.12 eb; the authors note that ab initio E2 rates tend to be too small.
  • ad hoc to paper Alpha clustering is the missing ingredient that would reconcile theory with the measured Q_S.
    This premise connects the MR-EDF density and the private communication from D. Lee to the conclusion; no detailed calculation is included in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large quadrupole deformation in $^{20}$Ne challenges rotor model and modern theory: urging for $\alpha$ clusters in nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YUUXCEML

@misc{pith2026241110598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large quadrupole deformation in $^20$Ne challenges rotor model and modern theory: urging for $\alpha$ clusters in nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YUUXCEML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10598}
}
abstract

The spectroscopic quadrupole moment of the first excited state, $Q_{_S}(2^{+}_{1})$, at 1.634 MeV in $^{20}$Ne was determined from sensitive reorientation-effect Coulomb-excitation measurements using a heavy target and safe energies well below the Coulomb barrier. Particle-$\gamma$ coincidence measurements were collected at iThemba LABS with a digital data-acquisition system using the {\sc AFRODITE} array coupled to an annular, doubled-sided silicon detector. A precise value of $Q_{_S}(2^{+}_{1})=-0.22(2)$ eb was determined at backward angles in agreement with the only safe-energy measurement prior to this work, $Q_{_S}(2^{+}_{1})=-0.23(8)$ eb. This result adopts 1$\hbar\omega$ shell-model calculations of the nuclear dipole polarizability of the 2$^+_1$ state that contributes to the effective quadrupole interaction and determination of $Q_{_S}(2^{+}_{1})$. It disagrees, however, with the ideal rotor model for axially-symmetric nuclei by almost $3\sigma$. Larger discrepancies are computed by modern state-of-the-art calculations performed in this and prior work, including {\it ab initio} shell model with chiral effective interactions and the multi-reference relativistic energy density functional ({\sc MR-EDF}) model. The intrinsic nucleon density of the 2$^+_1$ state in $^{20}$Ne calculated with the {\sc MR-EDF} model illustrates the presence of $\alpha$ clustering, which explains the largest discrepancy with the rotor model found in the nuclear chart and motivates the explicit inclusion of $\alpha$ clustering for full convergence of $E2$ collective properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10598 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Doppler (black) and non-Doppler (brown) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Minimization of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The left panel shows experimental (rotational model, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Characteristic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [66]

    Warburton and B

    E. Warburton and B. A. Brown, Physical Review C46, 923 (1992)

    work page 1992

  2. [107]

    M.Frosini, T.Duguet, J.-P.Ebran, B.Bally, H.Hergert, T.R.Rodríguez, R.Roth, J.M.Yao, andV.Somà,Eur. Phys. J. A58, 64 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Light ion collisions at the LHC,

    “Light ion collisions at the LHC,” https://indico. cern.ch/event/1436085 (Workshop at CERN, Novem- ber 2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [2]

    EM1.8/2.0

    proton emission being the predominant decay mode in A = 4n self-conjugate nuclei [60]. A similar value of σ(γ, p) = 160(80) MeV·mb has been observed [61]. The proton-neutron yield ratio,rpn = σ(γ, p)/σ(γ, n) ≈ 165(25)/115(20) = 1.4(3), is in agreement with predic- tions based on the evaporation model of Blatt and Weis- skopf [62], rpn = 1.3 [60]. The resu...

  5. [3]

    R. Aaij, C. A. Beteta, T. Ackernley, B. Adeva, M. Adi- nolfi, H. Afsharnia, C. A. Aidala, S. Aiola, Z. Ajaltouni, S. Akar,et al., Journal of Instrumentation17, P05009 (2022)

    2022

  6. [4]

    Brewer, A

    J. Brewer, A. Mazeliauskas, and W. van der Schee, arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.01939 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  7. [5]

    Giacalone, B

    G. Giacalone, B. Bally, G. Nijs, S. Shen, T. Duguet, J.- P. Ebran, S. Elhatisari, M. Frosini, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05995 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  8. [6]

    Shen, URL https://cds

    C. Shen, URL https://cds. cern. ch/record/2751277

    work page arXiv

Show all 107 references
  1. [7]

    Ebran, E

    J.-P. Ebran, E. Khan, T. Nikšić, and D. Vretenar, Na- ture 487, 341 (2012)

    2012

  2. [8]

    Mäntysaari, B

    H. Mäntysaari, B. Schenke, C. Shen, and W. Zhao, Physical Review Letters131, 062301 (2023)

    2023

  3. [9]

    J. J. Thompson, Proc. Royal Society A89, 1 (1913)

    1913

  4. [10]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson,Nuclear Structure V. II (World Scientific Publishing Company, 1998)

    1998

  5. [11]

    R. H. Spear, Phys. Rep.73, 369 (1981)

    1981

  6. [12]

    Carchidi, B

    M. Carchidi, B. H. Wildenthal, and B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 34, 2280 (1986)

    1986

  7. [13]

    R. R. Rodríguez-Guzmán, J. L. Egido, and L. M. Rob- ledo, Eur. Phys. J. A.17, 37–47 (2003)

    2003

  8. [14]

    E. F. Zhou, J. M. Yao, Z. P. Li, J. Meng, and P. Ring, Phys. Lett. B753, 227 (2016)

    2016

  9. [15]

    Marević, J

    P. Marević, J. P. Ebran, E. Khan, T. Nikšić, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C97, 024334 (2018)

    2018

  10. [16]

    Matsuse, M

    T. Matsuse, M. Kamimura, and Y. Fukushima, Prog. Theor. Phys. 53, 706 (1975)

    1975

  11. [17]

    Le Bloas, N

    J. Le Bloas, N. Pillet, M. Dupuis, J. M. Daugas, L. M. Robledo, C. Robin, and V. G. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rev. C 89, 011306 (2014)

    2014

  12. [18]

    Hamamoto, Nucl

    I. Hamamoto, Nucl. Phys.73, 225 (1965)

    1965

  13. [19]

    Cerny,Nuclear Spectroscopy and Reactions, Nuclear Spectroscopy and Reactions No

    J. Cerny,Nuclear Spectroscopy and Reactions, Nuclear Spectroscopy and Reactions No. pt. 2 (Academic Press, 1974)

    1974

  14. [20]

    de Boer and J

    J. de Boer and J. Eichler, inAdv. Nucl. Phys.(Springer,

  15. [21]

    J. N. Orce, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E29, 2030002 (2020)

    2020

  16. [22]

    Häusser, B

    O. Häusser, B. W. Hooton, D. Pelte, T. K. Alexan- der, and H. C. Evans, Physical Review Letters22, 359 (1969)

    1969

  17. [23]

    Christy and O

    A. Christy and O. Häusser, Nuclear Data Tables11, 281 (1973)

    1973

  18. [24]

    M. P. Fewell, S. Hinds, D. C. Kean, and T. H. Zabel, Nuclear Physics A319, 214 (1979)

    1979

  19. [25]

    Nakai, F

    K. Nakai, F. S. Stephens, and R. M. Diamond, Nucl. Phys. A 150, 114 (1970)

    1970

  20. [26]

    Schwalm, A

    D. Schwalm, A. Bamberger, P. G. Bizzeti, B. Povh, G. A. P. Engelbertink, J. W. Olness, and E. K. War- burton, Nucl. Phys. A192, 449 (1972)

    1972

  21. [27]

    D. K. Olsen, A. R. Barnett, S. F. Biagi, N. H. Merrill, and W. R. Phillips, Nucl. Phys. A220, 541 (1974)

    1974

  22. [28]

    S. J. Q. Robinson, A. Escuderos, L. Zamick, P. v. Neumann-Cosel, A. Richter, and R. W. Fearick, Phys. Rev. C 73, 037306 (2006)

    2006

  23. [29]

    Yeager and L

    S. Yeager and L. Zamick, arXiv preprint arXiv:0807.4679 (2008)

    2008 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Y. Y. Sharon, N. Benczer-Koller, G. J. Kumbartzki, L. Zamick, and R. F. Casten, Nucl. Phys. A980, 131 (2018)

    2018

  25. [31]

    Raman, C

    S. Raman, C. W. Nestor, and P. Tikkanen, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables78, 1 (2001)

    2001

  26. [32]

    Schwalm, private communication (2000)

    D. Schwalm, private communication (2000)

    2000

  27. [33]

    Leske, K

    J. Leske, K. H. Speidel, O. Kenn, S. Schielke, G. Müller, J. Gerber, N. Benczer-Koller, G. Kumbartzki, and P. Maier-Komor, Phys. Lett. B551, 249 (2003)

    2003

  28. [34]

    “XIA,” Available online from:https://xia.com (2024)

    2024

  29. [35]

    Micron semiconductors,

    “Micron semiconductors,” https: //www.micronsemiconductor.co.uk/ multi-element-detectors-double-sided (2024)

    2024

  30. [36]

    A. N. Ostrowski, S. Cherubini, T. Davinson, D. Groom- bridge, A. M. Laird, A. Musumarra, A. Ninane, A. C. Shotter, and P. J. Woods, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A.480, 448 (2002)

    2002

  31. [37]

    J. F. Sharpey-Schafer, Nucl. Phys. News14, 3 (2004)

    2004

  32. [38]

    Czosnyka, D

    T. Czosnyka, D. Cline, and C. Wu, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc 28, 745 (1983)

    1983

  33. [39]

    Zielińska, L

    M. Zielińska, L. P. Gaffney, K. Wrzosek-Lipska, E. Clé- ment, T. Grahn, N. Kesteloot, P. Napiorkowski, J. Pakarinen, P. Van Duppen, and W. N., Eur. J. Phys. A 52, 1 (2016)

    2016

  34. [40]

    J. F. Ziegler, M. D. Ziegler, and J. P. Biersack, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms268, 1818 (2010), 19th International Conference on Ion Beam Analysis

    2010

  35. [41]

    D. R. Tilley, H. R. Weller, and G. M. Hale, Nucl. Phys. A 541, 1 (1992)

    1992

  36. [42]

    C. Y. Wu, D. Cline, T. Czosnyka, A. Backlin, C. Bak- tash, R. M. Diamond, G. D. Dracoulis, L. Hasselgren, H. Kluge, B. Kotlinski,et al., Nucl. Phys. A607, 178 (1996)

    1996

  37. [43]

    https://bricc.anu.edu.au/ (2020)

    2020

  38. [44]

    Ekström, J

    A. Ekström, J. Cederkäll, D. D. DiJulio, C. Fahlander, M. Hjorth-Jensen, A. Blazhev, B. Bruyneel, P. A. But- ler, T. Davinson, J. Eberth, C. Fransen, K. Geibel, H. Hess, O. Ivanov, J. Iwanicki, O. Kester, J. Kow- nacki, U. Köster, B. A. Marsh, P. Reiter, M. Scheck, B. Siebeck,...

    2009

  39. [45]

    Pritychenko, M

    B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, B. Singh, and M. Horoi, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables107, 1 (2016)

    2016

  40. [46]

    Petkov, C

    P. Petkov, C. Müller-Gatermann, D. Werner, A. De- wald, A. Blazhev, C. Fransen, J. Jolie, S. Ohkubo, and K. O. Zell, Phys. Rev. C100, 024312 (2019)

    2019

  41. [47]

    Eichler, Phys

    J. Eichler, Phys. Rev133, B1162 (1964)

    1964

  42. [48]

    Alder and A

    K. Alder and A. Winter, Electromagnetic excita- tion (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam- 7 Oxford, 1975)

    1975

  43. [49]

    J. N. Orce, T. E. Drake, M. K. Djongolov, P. Navrátil, S. Triambak, G. C. Ball, H. Al Falou, R. Churchman, D. S. Cross, P. Finlay, C. Forssén, A. B. Garnsworthy, P. E. Garrett, G. Hackman, A. B. Hayes, R. Kshetri, J.Lassen, K.G.Leach, R.Li, J.Meissner, C.J.Pearson, E. T. Rand,...

    2012

  44. [50]

    B. L. Berman and S. C. Fultz, Rev. Mod. Phys.47, 713 (1975)

    1975

  45. [51]

    Brown and M

    G. Brown and M. Bolsterli, Physical Review Letters3, 472 (1959)

    1959

  46. [52]

    J. S. Levinger, Nuclear Photo-Disintegration (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1960)

    1960

  47. [53]

    Migdal, J

    A. Migdal, J. Phys. Acad. Sci. USSR8, 331 (1944)

    1944

  48. [54]

    J. S. Levinger, Phys. Rev.107, 554 (1957)

    1957

  49. [55]

    Winther-de boer coulomb-excitation code,

    T. E. Drake, “Winther-de boer coulomb-excitation code,” unpublished (1991)

    1991

  50. [56]

    Ngwetsheni and J

    C. Ngwetsheni and J. N. Orce, Phys. Lett. B792, 335 (2019)

    2019

  51. [57]

    Ngwetsheni and J

    C. Ngwetsheni and J. N. Orce, Hyp. Int.24, 94 (2019)

    2019

  52. [58]

    Ngwetsheni and J

    C. Ngwetsheni and J. N. Orce, EPJ Web of Conferences 223 (2019)

    2019

  53. [59]

    A. N. Gorbunov, V. A. Dubrovina, V. A. Osipova, V. S. Silaeva, and P. A. Cerenkov, SOVIET PHYSICS JETP 15 (1962)

    1962

  54. [60]

    Costa, C

    S. Costa, C. Schaerf, and E. M. I. C. for Scientific Cul- ture, Photonuclear Reactions: Proceedings of the First Course of the International School on Electro and Pho- tonuclear Reactions, Erice, 2-17 June 1976, Lecture notes in physics No. v. 2 (Springer-Verlag, 1977)

    1976

  55. [61]

    J. N. Orce, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables146, 101511 (2022)

    2022

  56. [62]

    A. P. Komar, J. Exptl. Theoret. Phys. USSR32, 614 (1957)

    1957

  57. [63]

    J. M. Blatt and V. F. Weisskopf,Theoretical nuclear physics (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  58. [64]

    J. N. Orce, C. Ngwetsheni, and B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 108, 044309 (2023)

    2023

  59. [65]

    B. A. Brown, A. Etchegoyen, W. D. M. Rae, and N. S. Godwin, MSU-NSCL Report524 (1988)

    1988

  60. [67]

    J. N. Orce and C. Ngwetsheni, J. Phys. G51, 075105 (2023)

    2023

  61. [68]

    Häusser, A

    O. Häusser, A. McDonald, T. Alexander, A. Ferguson, and R. Warner, Nucl. Phys. A212, 613 (1973)

    1973

  62. [69]

    F. C. Barker, Aust. J. Phys.35, 291 (1982)

    1982

  63. [70]

    M. K. Raju, J. N. Orce, P. Navrátil, G. C. Ball, T. E. Drake, S. Triambak, G. Hackman, C. J. Pearson, K. J. Abrahams, E. H. Akakpo,et al., Phys. Lett. B777, 250 (2018)

    2018

  64. [71]

    W. A. Richter, S. Mkhize, and B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 78, 064302 (2008)

    2008

  65. [72]

    J. Orce, E. M. Montes, K. Abrahams, C. Ngwetsheni, B. Brown, M. K. Raju, C. Mehl, M. Mokgolobotho, E. Akakpo, D. Mavela,et al., Physical Review C104, L061305 (2021)

    2021

  66. [73]

    Hergert, S

    H. Hergert, S. Bogner, T. Morris, A. Schwenk, and K. Tsukiyama, Physics Reports621, 165 (2016), memo- rial Volume in Honor of Gerald E. Brown

    2016

  67. [74]

    S. R. Stroberg, H. Hergert, S. K. Bogner, and J. D. Holt, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 69, 307 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-nucl- 101917-021120

    2019 doi

  68. [75]

    Tsukiyama, S

    K. Tsukiyama, S. K. Bogner, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C 85, 061304 (2012)

    2012

  69. [76]

    S. K. Bogner, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, S. Binder, A. Calci, J. Langhammer, and R. Roth, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 142501 (2014)

    2014

  70. [77]

    S. R. Stroberg, A. Calci, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, S. K. Bogner, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 032502 (2017)

    2017

  71. [78]

    Hebeler, S

    K. Hebeler, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C83, 031301 (2011)

    2011

  72. [79]

    Simonis, K

    J. Simonis, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, J. Menéndez, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C93, 011302 (2016)

    2016

  73. [80]

    Simonis, S

    J. Simonis, S. R. Stroberg, K. Hebeler, J. D. Holt, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C96, 014303 (2017)

    2017

  74. [81]

    T. D. Morris, J. Simonis, S. R. Stroberg, C. Stumpf, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. Papenbrock, R. Roth, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 152503 (2018)

    2018

  75. [82]

    S. R. Stroberg, J. D. Holt, A. Schwenk, and J. Simonis, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 022501 (2021)

    2021

  76. [83]

    Ekström, G

    A. Ekström, G. R. Jansen, K. A. Wendt, G. Hagen, T. Papenbrock, B. D. Carlsson, C. Forssen, M. Hjorth- Jensen, P. Navratil, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 91, 051301 (2015)

    2015

  77. [84]

    Leistenschneider, M

    E. Leistenschneider, M. P. Reiter, S. Ayet San An- drés, B. Kootte, J. D. Holt, P. Navrátil, C. Babcock, C. Barbieri, B. R. Barquest, J. Bergmann, J. Bollig, T. Brunner, E. Dunling, A. Finlay, H. Geissel, L. Gra- ham, F. Greiner, H. Hergert, C. Hornung, C. Jesch, R. Klawitter,...

    2018

  78. [86]

    R. P. De Groote, J. Billowes, C. L. Binnersley, M. L. Bissell, T. E. Cocolios, T. Day Goodacre, G. J. Farooq- Smith, D. V. Fedorov, K. T. Flanagan, S. Franchoo, et al., Nature Physics16, 620 (2020)

    2020

  79. [87]

    N. M. Parzuchowski, S. R. Stroberg, P. Navrátil, H. Hergert, and S. K. Bogner, Phys. Rev. C96, 034324 (2017)

    2017

  80. [88]

    R. F. Garcia Ruiz, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, N. Frömm- gen, M. Hammen, J. D. Holt, M. Kowalska, K. Kreim, J. Menéndez, R. Neugart, G. Neyens, W. Nörtershäuser, F. Nowacki, J. Papuga, A. Poves, A. Schwenk, J. Simo- nis, and D. T. Yordanov, Phys. Rev. C 91, 041304 (2015)

    2015

  81. [89]

    Henderson, G

    J. Henderson, G. Hackman, P. Ruotsalainen, S. Stroberg, K. Launey, J. Holt, F. Ali, N. Bernier, M. Bentley, M. Bowry,et al., Physics Letters B 782, 468 (2018)

    2018

  82. [90]

    Klose, K

    A. Klose, K. Minamisono, A. J. Miller, B. A. Brown, D. Garand, J. D. Holt, J. D. Lantis, Y. Liu, B. Maaß, W. Nörtershäuser, S. V. Pineda, D. M. Rossi, A. Schwenk, F. Sommer, C. Sumithrarachchi, A. Teigel- höfer, and J. Watkins, Phys. Rev. C99, 061301 (2019)

    2019

  83. [91]

    S. Heil, M. Petri, K. Vobig, D. Bazin, J. Belarge, 8 P. Bender, B. Brown, R. Elder, B. Elman, A. Gade, T. Haylett, J. Holt, T. Hüther, A. Hufnagel, H. Iwasaki, N. Kobayashi, C. Loelius, B. Longfellow, E. Lunder- berg, M. Mathy, J. Menéndez, S. Paschalis, R. Roth, A. Schwenk, J...

    2020

  84. [92]

    Sarma and P

    C. Sarma and P. C. Srivastava, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics50, 045105 (2023)

    2023

  85. [93]

    Henderson, G

    J. Henderson, G. Hackman, P. Ruotsalainen, J. D. Holt, S. R. Stroberg, C. Andreoiu, G. C. Ball, N. Bernier, M. Bowry, R. Caballero-Folch, S. Cruz, A. Diaz Varela, L. J. Evitts, R. Frederick, A. B. Garnsworthy, M. Holl, J. Lassen, J. Measures, B. Olaizola, E. O’Sullivan, O. Pae...

    2022 doi

  86. [94]

    Magilligan and B

    A. Magilligan and B. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 101, 064312 (2020)

    2020

  87. [95]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 121 (2003)

    2003

  88. [96]

    Nikšić, D

    T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66, 519 (2011)

    2011

  89. [97]

    L. M. Robledo, T. R. Rodríguez, and R. R. Rodríguez- Guzmán, J. Phys. G: Nuclear and Particle Physics46, 013001 (2018)

    2018

  90. [98]

    Schunck, ed.,Energy Density Functional Methods for Atomic Nuclei, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2019)

    N. Schunck, ed.,Energy Density Functional Methods for Atomic Nuclei, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2019)

    2019

  91. [99]

    G. A. Lalazissis, T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C71, 024312 (2005)

    2005

  92. [100]

    J. Meng, H. Toki, S.-G. Zhou, S. Q. Zhang, W. H. Long, and L. S. Geng, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.57, 470 (2006)

    2006

  93. [101]

    Nikšić, D

    T. Nikšić, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C78, 034318 (2008)

    2008

  94. [102]

    Y. Tian, Z. Y. Ma, and P. Ring, Phys. Lett. B676, 44 (2009)

    2009

  95. [103]

    D. L. Hill and J. . A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 89, 1102 (1953)

    1953

  96. [104]

    P. Marević,Towards a unified description of quantum liquid and cluster states in atomic nuclei within the rel- ativistic energy density functional framework, Theses, Université Paris Saclay (COmUE) (2018)

    2018

  97. [105]

    Dobaczewski, W

    J. Dobaczewski, W. Nazarewicz, and P. G. Reinhard, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics41, 074001 (2014)

    2014

  98. [106]

    J. D. McDonnell, N. Schunck, D. Higdon, J. Sarich, S. M. Wild, and W. Nazarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 122501 (2015)

    2015

  99. [108]

    Lee, private communication (2024)

    D. Lee, private communication (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.