Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Photon Emission from Nucleon-Nucleon Bremsstrahlung in Fermi-energy Heavy-Ion Collisions

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hard photons in Fermi-energy heavy-ion collisions are emitted mostly in the first ~100 fm/c by primordial nucleon-nucleon collisions carrying the initial collective beam motion, not by the thermalized fireball.

desk verdict Solid first application of QFT-based bremsstrahlung rates to Fermi-energy hard photons; the primordial-dominance claim holds, but the magnitude of the early-time enhancement is not tightly pinned down. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16865 v2 pith:RHYK6EEC submitted 2025-06-20 nucl-th

Thomas Onyango , Ralf Rapp This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords directphotonemissionnucleon-nucleonBremsstrahlungFermi-energyheavy-ioncollisionscoarse-grainingoff-equilibriummomentumdistributionsPauliblockingsoft-photonapproximationhardphotons
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

This paper asks where direct hard photons come from in heavy-ion collisions at Fermi energies, around 35-40 MeV per nucleon. It combines a coarse-graining of transport simulations, which reconstructs the local temperature, density, and momentum-space structure of the collision from impact to freeze-out, with a quantum-field-theoretical rate for photon emission from nucleon-nucleon Bremsstrahlung. The central answer is that most hard photons are produced in the primordial phase, within roughly the first 100 fm/c, by nucleon-nucleon collisions that still carry the incoming collective motion of the two nuclei. Emission from the later, more thermalized fireball is sub-dominant. If this is right, hard-photon spectra in this energy range are a direct diagnostic of the early non-equilibrium collision dynamics rather than of thermal fireball properties.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a two-centroid Fermi-Dirac distribution function for the longitudinal nucleon momentum: a weighted sum of two thermal Fermi functions centered at momenta $\pm p_0$, with effective longitudinal temperatures set by thermal stretch parameters $\xi_1,\xi_2$. It captures the two incoming nuclei as partially overlapping momentum blobs and, through its central dip, relieves Pauli blocking at low momentum. The photon rate is the field-theoretic Bremsstrahlung rate coupling elastic nucleon-nucleon scattering to photon emission through electric-dipole (proton-neutron) and quadrupole (proton-proton) currents, with final-state Pauli blocking included and the photon energy kept in energy conservation rather than invoking the soft-photon approximation. The paper convolves this rate over the coarse-grained space-time evolution and applies laboratory boosts and detector acceptance cuts before comparing to data.

What would settle it

Run the same photon-emission rate directly on the full nucleon momentum distributions from the transport code, without fitting the two-centroid ansatz, at 35A MeV for central Ca+Ca, and compare the E_gamma > 40 MeV yield; alternatively, measure hard-photon spectra from a symmetric 40Ca+40Ca collision at 35A MeV with full 4pi acceptance. If the un-fitted yield does not reproduce the enhancement, or if the measured symmetric-system yield does not show the predicted early, hard component, the primordial-dominance claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the initial collective nuclear motion, not the thermalized medium, is the dominant source of hard photons in Fermi-energy heavy-ion collisions. During the early compressed phase, the longitudinal nucleon momentum distribution develops a two-hump structure with a dip near zero momentum; the paper models this with a two-centroid Fermi-Dirac distribution and shows that this dip opens phase space for colliding nucleons to be stopped, converting nearly all of their kinetic energy into photons. This mechanism enhances high-energy photon emission by two to four orders of magnitude relative to a purely thermal calculation. A layer-by-layer and time-window decomposition shows the enhancement comes almost entirely from the first two spatial layers and the earliest time windows, before the centroid motion dissipates. In the most realistic implementation, including the narrower longitudinal momentum tails, the calculated spectrum reproduces the measured slope but underestimates the data by a factor of roughly three to four at photon energies above about 40 MeV, a gap the paper attributes to mechanisms not yet included, such as internal meson-exchange radiation.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the two-centroid Fermi ansatz fitted to transport output faithfully represents the true early-time nucleon momentum distribution, especially the low-momentum dip that lets nucleons stop and radiate; if the real distribution fills that dip, the hard-photon enhancement from primordial collisions is biased upward.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Above roughly 30-40 MeV, measured photon spectra primarily encode the first ~100 fm/c of the collision, when nucleons still move with the initial collective beam direction.
  • Inferring fireball temperatures from hard-photon slopes in this energy regime is indirect at best, since the high-energy part of the spectrum is dominated by primordial, off-equilibrium collisions rather than by thermal emission.
  • Pauli blocking and the exact photon energy in energy conservation are quantitatively essential at Fermi energies: using the soft-photon approximation would overestimate the emissivity by up to a factor of several at the temperatures and densities considered, because the final-state phase space is heavily degenerate.
  • Hard-photon production is almost entirely from neutron-proton collisions (proton-proton Bremsstrahlung contributes less than 4%), so the mechanism is a selective probe of isospin-dependent nucleon-nucleon dynamics.
  • The enhancement from centroid motion predicts a strong early-time, high-energy component; comparisons that omit the initial collective motion underestimate the measured spectrum by a large factor, while including it brings the calculation close to the data in slope and magnitude.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If primordial-dominance holds, hard-photon yields become a tunable probe of nuclear stopping and of the early momentum-space structure at first contact, quantities that are hard to access through hadronic observables.
  • The residual factor 3-4 deficit at the highest photon energies is a plausible smoking-gun for internal (meson-exchange) Bremsstrahlung, whose leading-order monopole contribution is not included here and would grow near the kinematic endpoint.
  • A direct testable extension is an isospin scan: switching to neutron-rich projectiles or targets should raise the hard-photon yield per participant, because the pn channel dominates and its dipole coupling is much stronger than pp or nn quadrupole emission.
  • Recomputing the rate without the analytic two-centroid fit, using the raw event-averaged momentum distribution from the transport code, would show whether the low-momentum dip is a genuine feature of the early phase space or an artifact of the fit; this is a falsifiable check of the paper's enhancement mechanism.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes photon emission from nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung in Fermi-energy heavy-ion collisions by combining a quantum-field-theoretical emission rate with nucleon distribution functions extracted from a coarse-grained Constrained Molecular Dynamics simulation of central 40Ca+40Ca collisions at 35 A MeV. The transverse momentum distributions are described by thermal Fermi-Dirac functions, while the longitudinal distributions use a two-centroid anisotropic ansatz with thermal stretch parameters, allowing the authors to treat the early off-equilibrium collective motion and its gradual thermalization. The emission rates include final-state Pauli blocking, retain the photon energy in energy conservation rather than using the soft-photon approximation, and are benchmarked against the Rrapaj-Reddy emissivity. Three versions of the calculation are presented: purely thermal, including centroid motion, and including both centroid motion and longitudinal temperature anisotropy. The central finding is that hard photons are produced predominantly in the first two coarse-graining layers during the earliest time windows, i.e., from primordial collisions carrying the initial collective nuclear motion, with later quasi-thermal emission sub-dominant.

Significance. If correct, the paper's central claim redirects the interpretation of hard photons at Fermi energies: rather than reflecting the hottest thermal fireball stage, the hard-photon tail would be a direct probe of the early, non-equilibrium collective motion of the projectile and target nucleons. This is a significant conceptual point for the field. The study is also careful in several respects: the emissivity is benchmarked against an established calculation, the soft-photon approximation is deliberately avoided because Pauli blocking makes it inaccurate, and the authors present three model variants so that the role of each effect is visible rather than hidden in a single tuned curve. The honest comparison with data, including its acknowledged underprediction, strengthens the credibility of the framework. The main risk is not internal circularity but the unphysical behavior of the fitted distribution function in the early stage, which directly enters the primordial-emission mechanism that underlies the central claim.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (6) and Eq. (19)] The authors state in the paragraph following Fig. 19 that the two-centroid fit of Eq. (6) can exceed unity during the initial high-density, strongly anisotropic stages, and they handle the problem only by inserting theta functions on the final-state blocking factors in Eq. (19). This corrects negative values of (1-f3) and (1-f4), but it does not cap f1 or f2, so the production factor f1f2 in Eq. (19) can still exceed unity. Because the claimed enhancement of primordial emission is produced precisely by the configurations with large centroid momentum and large stretch parameter that make Eq. (6) exceed unity (the same low-momentum dip that reduces final-state blocking), the early-time yields in Figs. 28, 29, and 33, and hence the central conclusion that primordial collisions dominate hard photons, may be overestimated by an uncontrolled amount. Please either normalize the two-centroid function so that the fitted occupancy never exceeds unity, or cap f1 and f2 in the rate and show how the layer/time decompositions change. In either case, a direct comparison of the fit to the CoMD histograms in the low-pz and low-p_perp region of Fig. 4 should be shown, since that is the phase-space region that drives the reported hard-photon enhancement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III C, after Fig. 12] The sentence "dominated by radiation from thermal sources." following Fig. 12 is an incomplete orphan fragment and should be removed or integrated into a surrounding sentence.
  2. [References [16] and [58]] References [16] and [58] are cited as "letter (1988?)" and "email (2023)", respectively; these are not archival citations and should be replaced by complete published references.
  3. [Fig. 34] The experimental data in Fig. 34 are shown as dots without visible statistical error bars; please include the error bars or state explicitly that they are smaller than the symbol size.
  4. [Sec. VI A, Eqs. (27)-(28)] The participant rescaling factor (123/77)^(4/3) is a strong assumption, and the exponent 4/3 is motivated by a geometric early-time argument; a sensitivity test, for example comparing A_participant scaling with A_participant^(4/3) scaling, would make the quantitative comparison in Fig. 34 more robust.
  5. [App. A, Eq. (A14)] The isotropic S-wave assumption for the elastic NN differential cross section is a simplification that may affect the hard-photon slope; since internal bremsstrahlung is already identified in Sec. IX as a likely missing mechanism, a brief estimate of the sensitivity to the angular form of dσ/dΩ would strengthen the quantitative conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the photon spectra are genuine forward predictions from transport-derived phase-space distributions plus an externally benchmarked rate.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. The photon emission rate in Eq. (19) is derived from the standard Low soft-photon theorem and external-leg electromagnetic currents, and the underlying cross sections in Eqs. (20) and (22) are parameterizations of external NN scattering data, not of photon spectra. The rate is benchmarked against the independent emissivity calculation of Rrapaj and Reddy (Table I, Figs. 13--14), and the observed disagreement at Fermi-energy conditions is presented as a physical consequence of Pauli blocking and going beyond the soft-photon approximation, not as a fitted adjustment. The nucleon distribution functions entering the rate are extracted from CoMD transport via coarse-graining (Eqs. (3)--(6)); the parameters T, mu_N, p_01, p_02, xi_1, xi_2, and w are fitted to transport output, not to the Ar+Mo photon data. The comparison to the measured 36Ar+98Mo spectrum (Fig. 34) is therefore a genuine forward prediction, with no parameter adjusted to the photon yields. The central conclusion that primordial collisions dominate hard-photon emission follows from convolving the rate with the transport-derived early-time distributions; although it is sensitive to the two-centroid ansatz of Eq. (6), that ansatz is not defined in terms of, or fitted to, the photon observable. The only author self-citation is Ref. [33] for the coarse-graining framework, which supplies independent transport-model input rather than a fitted target or an unverified uniqueness claim. The concern that Eq. (6) can exceed unity during the initial stages and is not capped in the production term is a physical-consistency and correctness risk for the model input, not a circularity in the prediction, since it does not amount to re-inserting the predicted spectrum into the model. On this basis, no circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on empirical NN cross-section parameterizations, thermodynamic and off-equilibrium parameters fitted to CoMD transport output, and a geometric participant rescaling. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main assumptions are the external-leg-only emission rate, S-wave angular symmetry, the two-centroid distribution ansatz, and the A^(4/3) scaling to the comparison system.

free parameters (5)
  • r_np(T_CM) piecewise parameterization = 5-piece form in Eq. (20), e.g., 9.04065*T^-0.354978 for 0<T<8 MeV
    Hard-sphere neutron-proton radius fitted to experimental np cross-section data from Refs. [41,48]; enters the photon rate through dsigma/dOmega = r^2/4.
  • r_pp(T_CM) piecewise parameterization = 7.1873*T^-0.5267 for T<52 MeV and 0.999341*T^-0.0286 above, Eq. (22)
    Hard-sphere proton-proton radius fitted to experimental pp cross-section data from Ref. [49]; enters the quadrupole pp rate.
  • Local temperature T and nucleon chemical potential mu_N = Time and cell dependent, extracted from Fermi-Dirac fits to transverse momentum distributions
    Thermodynamic inputs to the photon rate, fitted to CoMD transport output; not tuned to photon data.
  • Centroid momenta p01, p02 and thermal stretch parameters xi1, xi2, weight w = Time and cell dependent, extracted from two-centroid Fermi fits to longitudinal momentum distributions, Eq. (6)
    Off-equilibrium parameters governing collective beam motion and longitudinal temperature anisotropy; central to the hard-photon enhancement and the paper's main conclusion.
  • Participant-number rescaling factor for Ar-Mo comparison = (123/77)^(4/3) ≈ 1.87 applied to the Ca-Ca spectrum
    Geometric estimate of participant nucleons in central Ar-Mo (123) versus Ca-Ca captured in the grid (77), with an A^(4/3) collision-scaling assumption. If wrong, the overall normalization of the data comparison changes.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Photon emission from the external nucleon lines can be related to elastic NN scattering via the soft-photon expansion (Low theorem), and internal meson-exchange bremsstrahlung is neglected.
    Sec. III A, Eq. (16); the authors note in Sec. IX that the meson-exchange contribution may be important at high E_gamma.
  • domain assumption The NN elastic cross sections are angularly symmetric (S-wave only), so dsigma/dOmega = r^2/(4 pi).
    Sec. III B and App. A, Eq. (A14); higher partial waves and angular dependence are not included.
  • domain assumption Nucleon momentum distributions are well described by a thermal Fermi-Dirac form in the transverse direction and a two-centroid Fermi form in the longitudinal direction, with negative Pauli blocking factors clipped by theta functions.
    Sec. II, Eqs. (3)-(6), and Sec. V near Fig. 19; the fit function can exceed unity, which the authors handle by manual clipping.
  • domain assumption Coarse-grained local cells are approximately in thermal rest frames, and photon emission is isotropic in each cell rest frame; cell collective velocities are combined with the lab boost.
    Sec. VI B, Eq. (36) and surrounding text; the boost is applied as a single step using a Galilean sum of velocities.
  • ad hoc to paper Central 40Ca+40Ca results can be rescaled to the 36Ar+98Mo data by a participant-number factor (123/77)^(4/3).
    Sec. VI A, Eqs. (25)-(28) and following text; the 4/3 exponent is justified by a geometric collision-scaling argument rather than derived from data or a first-principles calculation.
  • standard math Nonrelativistic nucleon kinematics, E_nucleon approx M, and neglect of the photon 3-momentum in the energy-conserving delta function while retaining E_gamma.
    App. A, Eq. (A4) onward; valid for the small beam velocity beta approx 0.136c but still an approximation used throughout the rate derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photon Emission from Nucleon-Nucleon Bremsstrahlung in Fermi-energy Heavy-Ion Collisions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RHYK6EEC

@misc{pith2026250616865,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photon Emission from Nucleon-Nucleon Bremsstrahlung in Fermi-energy Heavy-Ion Collisions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RHYK6EEC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16865}
}
abstract

The emission of direct (hard and thermal) photons from nucleon-nucleon Bremsstrahlung in heavy-ion collisions at Fermi energies is analyzed. We utilize a photon emission rate based on a quantum-field-theoretical model together with nucleon distribution functions extracted from a coarse-graining method of transport model simulations. The latter accounts for off-equilibrium effects during the early stages of nuclear collisions primarily occurring in the beam direction while the transverse-momentum distributions are amenable to a thermal description. With this setup, we quantify the contributions from first-chance nucleon-nucleon collisions and the subsequent transition to a thermal source to the photon energy spectrum measured from Ca-Ca collisions at 35 A$\cdot$MeV bombarding energy. We find that most of the hard photons are produced in the initial stages of heavy-ion collisions from primordial collisions where nucleons move with the initial collective nuclear motion while the emission from the later stages plays a sub-dominant role. We compare our calculations to experimental measurements of a differential photon-energy spectrum from a collision system of similar size and beam energy, thereby including acceptance cuts as applied in the detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16865 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Representation of the first (and innermost) layer of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Representation of the spatial configuration of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Transverse-momentum distributions along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (29 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Time evolution of the thermodynamic properties of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison of Fermi fit functions for the longitudinal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Evolution of the weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Time evolution of the two centroid momentum pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Diagrams of nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Diagram of nucleon-nucleon Bremsstrahlung where a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Experimental data for total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Ratio of thermal photon rates with SPA over thermal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Ratios of emissivities of a partially degenerate de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Comparison of photon emission rates within nuclear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Comparison of photon emission rates in thermal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: Temperature dependence of the thermal stretch pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_18.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Photon emission rate at various values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_16.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: Photon emission rates at 1.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: Contour plots of the spatial density as a function of time in the reaction plane for impact parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21: Diagram of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22: Contour plots of the spatial density as a function of time in the reaction plane for impact parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23: Illustration of the geometry of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24: Comparison between the calculated momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25: MEDEA detector arrangement from Ref. [57]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26: Photon momentum-differential spectra calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_26.png]
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: The energy spectrum calculated using the ther [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_34.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: FIG. 27: Photon momentum-differential spectra calculated using thermodynamic properties extracted from the transverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28: Comparison of photon momentum-differential spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29: Photon momentum-differential spectra accounting for the presence of centroid motion for different time slices for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_29.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: FIG. 32: Comparison of photon momentum-differential spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_32.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: FIG. 31: Time evolution of approximate thermal anisotropy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_31.png]
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: FIG. 33: Photon momentum-differential spectrum calculated including thermal anisotropy, centroid motion, and thermody [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_33.png]
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: FIG. 35: Schematic 3-component fit (blue lines) to experimen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_35.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bauer, G

    W. Bauer, G. F. Bertsch, W. Cassing, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 34, 2127 (1986)

    work page 1986

  2. [2]

    Rapp and J

    R. Rapp and J. Wambach, Adv. Nucl. Phys.25, 1 (2000), hep-ph/9909229

    arXiv 2000

  3. [3]

    Photon Production in Hot and Dense Strongly Interacting Matter

    C. Gale, Landolt-Bornstein 23, 445 (2010), 0904.2184

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    Bonasera, R

    A. Bonasera, R. Coniglione, and P. Sapienza, Eur. Phys. J. A 30, 47 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Rapp and H

    R. Rapp and H. van Hees, Phys. Lett. B 753, 586 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Ko and J

    C.-M. Ko and J. Aichelin, Phys. Rev. C 35, 1976 (1987)

    work page 1987

  7. [7]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, 1998), ISBN 978-0-471-30932-1

    1998

  8. [8]

    Cassing, T

    W. Cassing, T. Biro, U. Mosel, M. Tohyama, and W. Bauer, Phys. Lett. B 181, 217 (1986)

    work page 1986

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    P. F. M. Koehler, K. W. Rothe, and E. H. Thorndike, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 933 (1967), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.933

    1967 doi

  2. [10]

    Neuhauser and S

    D. Neuhauser and S. E. Koonin, Nucl. Phys. A 462, 163 (1987)

    1987

  3. [11]

    Edgington and B

    J. Edgington and B. Rose, Nuclear Physics 89, 523 (1966), ISSN 0029-5582, URL https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ 002955826690928X

    1966

  4. [12]

    Nakayama, Phys

    K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. C 39, 1475 (1989)

    1989

  5. [13]

    Nakayama and G

    K. Nakayama and G. F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. C 40, 685 (1989)

    1989

  6. [14]

    Grosse, P

    E. Grosse, P. Grimm, H. Heckwolf, W. F. J. M¨ uller, H. Noll, A. Oskarsson, H. Stelzer, and W. R¨ osch, Eu- rophys. Lett. 2, 9 (1986)

    1986

  7. [15]

    Stevenson et al., Phys

    J. Stevenson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 555 (1986)

    1986

  8. [16]

    Gossett, letter (1988?)

    C. Gossett, letter (1988?)

    1988

  9. [17]

    Sch¨ afer, T

    M. Sch¨ afer, T. S. Biro, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, H. Nife- necker, and J. A. Pinston, Z. Phys. A 339, 391 (1991)

    1991

  10. [18]

    C. J. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. C 31, 1340 (1985)

    1985

  11. [19]

    D. P. Murdock and C. J. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. C 35, 21 1442 (1987)

    1987

  12. [20]

    S. S. Wang, Y. G. Ma, X. G. Cao, D. Q. Fang, and C. W. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 254 (2020), 2010.05261

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Shi and Y.-G

    C.-Z. Shi and Y.-G. Ma, Nucl. Sci. Tech. 32, 66 (2021), 2109.09938

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    X. Deng, Y. Ma, and M. Veselsky, Phys. Rev. C 94, 044622 (2016), 1610.04736

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    S. S. Wang, Y. G. Ma, X. G. Cao, D. Q. Fang, and C. W. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 102, 024620 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    C. Shi, Y. Ma, X. Cao, D. Fang, W. He, and C. Zhong, Phys. Rev. C 102, 014601 (2020), 2008.03514

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    N. Gan, K. T. Brinkmann, A. L. Caraley, B. J. Fineman, W. J. Kernan, R. L. McGrath, and P. Danielewicz, Phys. Rev. C 49, 298 (1994)

    1994

  18. [26]

    Yong, B.-A

    G.-C. Yong, B.-A. Li, and L.-W. Chen, Phys. Lett. B 661, 82 (2008), 0711.2837

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Guo, B.-A

    W.-M. Guo, B.-A. Li, and G.-C. Yong, Phys. Rev. C108, 034617 (2023), 2307.05135

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Huovinen, M

    P. Huovinen, M. Belkacem, P. Ellis, and J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. C 66, 014903 (2002), nucl-th/0203023

    2002 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Santini, J

    E. Santini, J. Steinheimer, M. Bleicher, and S. Schramm, Phys. Rev. C 84, 014901 (2011), 1102.4574

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    H. L. Liu, Y. G. Ma, A. Bonasera, X. G. Deng, O. Lopez, and M. Veselsk´ y, Phys. Rev. C 96, 064604 (2017), 1803.07945

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Galatyuk, P

    T. Galatyuk, P. M. Hohler, R. Rapp, F. Seck, and J. Stroth, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 131 (2016), 1512.08688

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Endres, H

    S. Endres, H. van Hees, J. Weil, and M. Bleicher, Phys. Rev. C 92, 014911 (2015), 1505.06131

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Onyango, A

    T. Onyango, A. Bonasera, and R. Rapp, Nucl. Phys. A 1022, 122426 (2022), 2112.14653

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    C. Zhou, Y. Ma, D. Fang, and G. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024604 (2013), 1212.4907

    2013 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zheng, G

    H. Zheng, G. Bonasera, J. Mabiala, P. Marini, and A. Bonasera, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 167 (2014), 1404.2518

    2014 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. Papa, T. Maruyama, and A. Bonasera, Phys. Rev. C 64, 024612 (2001), nucl-th/0012083

    2001 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. Papa, G. Giuliani, and A. Bonasera, J. Comput. Phys. 208, 403 (2005), nucl-th/0502067

    2005 arXiv

  30. [38]

    F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. 110, 974 (1958)

    1958

  31. [39]

    E. M. Nyman, Phys. Rev. 170, 1628 (1968)

    1968

  32. [40]

    T. H. Burnett and N. M. Kroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 86 (1968)

    1968

  33. [41]

    Rrapaj and S

    E. Rrapaj and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C 94, 045805 (2016), 1511.09136

    2016 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP 01, 107 (2017), 1611.03864

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Heller, Phys

    L. Heller, Phys. Rev. 174, 1580 (1968)

    1968

  36. [44]

    R. P. Brinkmann and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 38, 2338 (1988)

    1988

  37. [45]

    Hartnack, Z

    C. Hartnack, Z. X. Li, L. Neise, G. Peilert, A. Rosen- hauer, H. Sorge, H. Stoecker, W. Greiner, and J. Aiche- lin, Nucl. Phys. A 495, 303C (1989)

    1989

  38. [46]

    Hartnack, R

    C. Hartnack, R. K. Puri, J. Aichelin, J. Konopka, S. A. Bass, H. Stoecker, and W. Greiner, Eur. Phys. J. A 1, 151 (1998), nucl-th/9811015

    1998 arXiv

  39. [47]

    S. A. Bass, C. Hartnack, H. Stoecker, and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C 51, R12 (1995)

    1995

  40. [48]

    V. G. J. Stoks, R. A. M. Klomp, M. C. M. Rentmeester, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. C 48, 792 (1993)

    1993

  41. [49]

    Lechanoine-LeLuc and F

    C. Lechanoine-LeLuc and F. Lehar, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 47 (1993), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.65.47

    1993

  42. [50]

    S. K. Charagi and S. K. Gupta, Phys. Rev. C 41, 1610 (1990)

    1990

  43. [51]

    Herrmann, J

    V. Herrmann, J. Speth, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. C 43, 394 (1991)

    1991

  44. [52]

    Santonocito et al., Phys

    D. Santonocito et al., Phys. Rev. C 66, 044619 (2002)

    2002

  45. [53]

    Piattelli et al., Nucl

    P. Piattelli et al., Nucl. Phys. A 599, 63 (1996)

    1996

  46. [54]

    Nifenecker, J

    H. Nifenecker, J. Blachot, J. Crancon, A. Gizon, and A. Lleres, Nucl. Phys. A 447, 533 (1986)

    1986

  47. [55]

    Suomijarvi et al., Phys

    T. Suomijarvi et al., Phys. Rev. C 53, 2258 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    Piattelli et al., Nucl

    P. Piattelli et al., Nucl. Phys. A 649, 181 (1999)

    1999

  49. [57]

    Migneco, C

    E. Migneco, C. Agodi, R. Alba, G. Bellia, R. Coniglione, A. Del Zoppo, P. Finocchiaro, C. Maiolino, P. Piattelli, G. Raia, et al., Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 314, 31 (1992), ISS...

    1992

  50. [58]

    Santonocito, M

    D. Santonocito, M. Colonna, and P. Piattelli, email (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    J. I. Kapusta, Phys. Rev. C 15, 1580 (1977)

    1977

  52. [60]

    Guo, B.-A

    W.-M. Guo, B.-A. Li, and G.-C. Yong, Phys. Rev. C104, 034603 (2021), 2106.08242

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    G. H. Liu, Y. G. Ma, X. Z. Cai, D. Q. Fang, W. Q. Shen, W. D. Tian, and K. Wang, Phys. Lett. B663, 312 (2008)

    2008

  54. [62]

    Y. G. Ma, G. H. Liu, X. Z. Cai, D. Q. Fang, W. Guo, W. Q. Shen, W. D. Tian, and H. W. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024618 (2012), 1203.0164

    2012 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Cassing, V

    W. Cassing, V. Metag, U. Mosel, and K. Niita, Phys. Rept. 188, 363 (1990)

    1990

  56. [64]

    Mahoney, A

    C. Mahoney, A. K. Leibovich, and A. R. Zentner, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043018 (2017), 1706.08871

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    C. S. Shin and S. Yun, JHEP 02, 133 (2022), 2110.03362

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Giannotti and F

    M. Giannotti and F. Nesti, Phys. Rev. D 72, 063005 (2005), hep-ph/0505090

    2005 arXiv

  59. [67]

    H. A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2007 (1983)

    1983

  60. [68]

    J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Me- chanics, International Series In Pure and Applied Physics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965), ISBN 978-0-07-005493- 6

    1965

  61. [69]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder, An Introduction to quantum field theory (Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995), ISBN 978-0-201-50397-5

    1995

  62. [70]

    Haglin, C

    K. Haglin, C. Gale, and V. Emel’yamnov, Phys. Rev. D 47, 973 (1993), hep-ph/9208211

    1993 arXiv

  63. [71]

    R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. 76, 769 (1949). Appendices Appendix A: Derivation of Nucleon-Nucleon Bremsstrahlung Rate The photon production rate can be derived from ki- netic theory starting with the photon emissivity ˙ϵ, which is the emission rate of energy Eγ by photons per uni...

    1949

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.