Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 72 references

This conceptual review argues that nuclear structure is understood through a set of complementary models — liquid drop, shell model, pairing, and collective motion — and that the nuclear potential itself is not an observable quantity.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 04:13 UTC pith:VRK6SGAY

load-bearing objection Explicit pedagogical review, no new result, but a clear and honest synthesis worth a referee's once-over if the venue wants this kind of piece.

arxiv 2607.22887 v1 pith:VRK6SGAY submitted 2026-07-24 nucl-th nucl-ex

What we talk about when we talk about nuclear structure

S. Ragnar Stroberg This is my paper
classification nucl-th nucl-ex PACS 21.10.-k21.60.-n21.65.+f
keywords nuclear structurenucleon interactionsshell modelliquid drop modelpairingcollective motionnuclear saturationshort-range correlations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper lays out the conceptual framework of nuclear structure: the nucleus is a finite system of interacting protons and neutrons, and its observed features — binding energies, radii, magic numbers, odd-even staggering, deformed shapes, halos — can be organized by a few complementary models. Its sharpest claim is that the nuclear potential is not an observable: many short-range parameterizations of the force give identical low-energy observables once many-body forces are adjusted, so only quantities like masses, radii, spectra, and cross sections are uniquely physical. A sympathetic reader would take the review as showing why the liquid-drop, shell, pairing, and collective pictures are all talking about the same underlying physics, and where puzzles like quenched single-particle strength and modified quark distributions in nuclei remain open.

Core claim

The central claim is that nuclear structure is best understood as the physics of interacting protons and neutrons, interpreted through a hierarchy of models rather than a single potential. The review walks through the key observables — binding energies, charge densities, excited spectra, electromagnetic moments and transition rates, and direct-reaction cross sections — and shows how each is accounted for by the liquid-drop picture (saturation), the mean-field shell model (magic numbers and single-particle motion), the pairing condensate (odd-even staggering and the gap in excitation spectra), and collective modes (vibrations and rotations of the nuclear surface). The most pointed assertion a

What carries the argument

The organizing device is the decomposition of the nucleus into interacting nucleons labeled by conserved quantum numbers, interpreted through a ladder of models anchored by the mean-field picture. The load-bearing mechanism is the combination of the exclusion principle and the 'healing distance': the exclusion principle suppresses scattering of deeply bound nucleons, and beyond about 1 fm the relative wave function returns to its mean-field form, so the shell-model orbits remain valid despite a strong short-range repulsion. Around this core, the paper places the liquid-drop/semi-empirical mass formula, the pairing condensate, and quantized surface vibrations and rotations as complementary ap

Load-bearing premise

The mean-field/shell-model picture survives the strong short-range repulsion of the nuclear force: the exclusion principle suppresses scattering of deeply bound nucleons, and the relative wave function heals to its mean-field form beyond about 1 fm. If the correlations induced by the short-range repulsion turned out to be environment-dependent rather than universal, the shell-model, saturation, and pairing narratives would need substantial revision.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to measure the high-momentum tail of the nucleon momentum distribution in several nuclei with sharply different environments and check whether it factorizes as in the paper's Eq. (15), with the same universal short-range part multiplied by a nucleus-dependent contact coefficient. If the universal part varies measurably with the surrounding nucleus — or if a different short-range parameterization of the potential, matched to the same low-energy phase shifts, yields observably different high-momentum contents — then either the potential would become observable or the uni

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the potential is not an observable, the practical goal of nuclear theory becomes reproducing observables with controlled uncertainty, making effective field theories with systematic power counting the natural language.
  • The liquid-drop and shell-model pictures must be reconciled: saturation and magic numbers appear simultaneously because the exclusion principle both suppresses scattering and, via the spin-orbit interaction, creates the shell gaps.
  • Pairing gaps from mass differences should correspond to the energy needed to break a nucleon pair, giving about twice the gap as the lowest intrinsic excitation, a prediction testable across isotopic chains.
  • Because short-range correlations are claimed to be universal and environment-independent, their effect on spectroscopic factors (quenching to about two-thirds of shell-model values) should be consistent across nuclei; residual discrepancies would point to reaction modeling rather than the correlations themselves.
  • The modification of quark distributions inside heavy nuclei, if connected to short-range correlations, would tie the nucleon's internal structure to the same pair physics probed in knockout reactions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the paper is right, debates over the 'correct' short-range behavior of the nuclear force are not empirically decidable; only choices of representation with different convergence rates remain, so future measurements should be phrased as data on phase shifts and observables.
  • A quantitative extension of the short-range-correlation universality is that the high-momentum tails of nucleon momentum distributions across a wide range of nuclei should obey the contact-scaling relation of the paper's Eq. (15); a measurable violation would falsify a pillar of the mean-field picture.
  • If the quark-distribution modification in nuclei turns out NOT to be explained by short-range correlations, it would represent a genuinely new element beyond the interacting-nucleon picture, requiring quark degrees of freedom — a boundary the review explicitly leaves open.
  • The pedagogical claim that the models are complementary rather than competing implies that a single observable, such as the first excited 2+ state, can be interpreted within any of the frameworks; choosing the most economical model is a practical matter, not a fundamental one.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper is a conceptual review of nuclear structure, organized around the idea that the nucleus is best understood in terms of interacting protons and neutrons and interpreted through complementary models: the liquid drop model, the shell model, pairing/collective modes, and the mean-field picture. Sections II–III survey the relevant symmetries and observables (masses, radii, excited states, electromagnetic moments, direct reaction cross sections). Section IV discusses the nucleon-nucleon force, including meson-exchange, chiral effective field theory, renormalization-group transformations, and the claim that the nuclear potential is not an observable. Section V covers saturation, shell structure and magic numbers, pairing, vibrations, deformation, threshold effects, and short-range correlations. The paper explicitly states in §I that it makes no attempt to describe technical details and focuses on conceptual frameworks; it repeatedly flags model-dependence and unresolved issues, such as the reaction-model caveat in §V.E and the lack of consensus on the EMC effect.

Significance. The paper makes no new quantitative claims; its value is as a pedagogical and conceptual synthesis. Its strengths are the consistent attribution of quantitative statements to cited literature, the explicit scoping of its own limitations (e.g., §III.B on model-dependent neutron densities, §V.E on reaction-model dependence, and the unresolved EMC effect), and the clear presentation of the key conceptual thread—that diverse nuclear phenomena are unified by the interacting-nucleon picture while exact calculations remain model-dependent. The figures are pedagogically effective, especially the nuclear/atomic saturation comparisons and the shell-gap diagram. If the target audience is graduate students or researchers new to nuclear structure, the review serves its purpose. It does not overreach: the paper identifies open questions and does not present controversial claims as settled. For a journal that publishes review articles, this is a useful contribution.

minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV.D] The Fermi momentum is written as k_F = (3π²/2 ρ)^{1/3}. For symmetric nuclear matter the correct expression is k_F = (3π²ρ/2)^{1/3}; with ρ ≈ 0.16 fm⁻³ this gives ≈ 1.33 fm⁻¹, consistent with the quoted value. The current typesetting is ambiguous/incorrect and should be fixed.
  2. [§V.D] The resonance width is stated as Γ ∼ τ/ℏ. The correct relation is Γ ∼ ℏ/τ, since width and lifetime are inversely related. Please correct the formula and the surrounding text.
  3. [§V.C] The Cooper-pair coherence length is computed as ξ = ℏv_F/(2Δ). With v_F ∼ 0.3c and Δ ∼ 1 MeV the result is ∼ 30 fm, not ∼ 30 MeV. The unit is wrong; the sentence should state ξ ∼ 30 fm.
  4. [§V.E, Eq. (14)] The definition of the spectroscopic factor writes S_α = |⟨Ψ_f^{(A)}|a†_α|Ψ_i^{(A-1)}⟩|². For nucleon removal (the case relevant to knockout), the annihilation operator a_α should appear, not the creation operator. Please clarify the convention and give the removal form explicitly.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous small typos that should be corrected in a final revision: “Elliot” → “Elliott” (§II), “weakeness” (§II), “nucelus” (§III.A), “αpartices” (§V.D), “positrion” (§III.D), “tern” → “term” (§V.A), “Schriefer” → “Schrieffer” (§V.C), “McGraww-Hill” (ref. [123]).
  6. [§III.D] The sentence “it is advantageous to decompose the radiation field into corresponding to the angular momentum carried by the photon” is grammatically incomplete; it should read “into modes corresponding to the angular momentum carried by the photon” or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is an explicitly scoped conceptual review whose statements are externally attributed, with no derivation chain that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a review article, not an original derivation. Its organizing claim—that nuclear structure is best interpreted via interacting protons and neutrons through complementary models—is a synthesis of externally cited experimental and theoretical results. Every quantitative statement is attributed to outside sources: liquid-drop coefficients are quoted as 'typical values' from prior fits; Skyrme curves cite Refs. [69–73]; experimental spectra cite NNDC and published tables; radii, moments, and transition data cite standard compilations. The one conceptual commitment, 'the nuclear potential is not an observable quantity' (§IV.D), is an RG/EFT argument based on the existence of infinitely many short-distance parameterizations giving the same low-energy NN scattering; it is not defined in terms of the conclusions it supports. The discussion of short-range correlations explicitly flags its own limitations, e.g. the caveat that 'using a reaction to infer nuclear structure depends on how the reaction is modeled' (§V.E) and the statement that the EMC effect 'is not yet a consensus'. The single self-citation (Ref. [79], an ab initio neutron-skin paper coauthored by Stroberg) is merely one illustrative example among many and is not load-bearing for any of the review's conclusions. No fitted input is relabeled as a prediction, no result is defined in terms of another result, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work to force a choice. The review is self-contained as a conceptual survey and does not derive anything from itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The ledger contains only standard inputs the review borrows from the cited literature, plus the framework stance on non-observability of the potential. There are no fitted constants introduced ad hoc to the review itself.

free parameters (2)
  • Liquid-drop coefficients α_V, α_S, α_A, α_C = 15.5, 17, 23, 0.7 MeV
    Quoted in §V.A as 'typical values' for Eq. (9); fitted to binding-energy systematics in the classic semi-empirical mass formula literature. Used here as inputs, not derived.
  • Skyrme functional parameters (SKV, SKA, SKI2, skp, skm*) = not tabulated
    Fig. 6 presents equations of state from five Skyrme energy density functionals, each fitted to finite-nucleus data in the cited literature [69–73]; parameters are not listed in the paper.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Nucleons are the relevant low-energy degrees of freedom; nuclear structure can be described without explicit quark/gluon dynamics.
    The entire review operates at the nucleon-meson level (§I, §IV.A); the quark picture is introduced only as a motivating analogy. This is standard but unproven in the text.
  • domain assumption Chiral EFT power counting (Q/Λ_χ expansion with naive dimensional analysis) provides a controlled expansion of the nuclear force.
    Invoked in §IV.B as the framework for modern nuclear forces; statements about the importance of 3N forces inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption Pauli blocking suppresses scattering of deeply bound nucleons, justifying mean-field single-particle motion despite the strong repulsive core.
    Load-bearing for the shell-model picture in §V.B and the healing-distance argument in §V.E; the paper states it but does not demonstrate it quantitatively.
  • domain assumption Short-distance NN physics is not uniquely determined by experiment; phase-shift-equivalent potentials with adjusted many-body forces are physically equivalent.
    §IV.D concludes 'the nuclear potential is not an observable quantity.' This is an RG/EFT framework position, not a theorem proved here; the paper itself notes the short-range model ambiguity.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25769 in / 16568 out tokens · 166032 ms · 2026-08-01T04:13:48.621808+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

I provide and introductory overview of the field of nuclear structure, with a focus on physical concepts. I describe some basic nuclear structure observables, followed by a qualitative description of nuclear forces. I then outline some nuclear structure models which are most widely used to interpret the experimental data in terms of interacting protons and neutrons.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    C.-S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes, and R. P. Hudson, Experimental test of parity conservation in beta decay, Physical review105, 1413 (1957)

    1957

  2. [2]

    P. F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, Effective field theory for few-nucleon systems, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science52, 339 (2002)

    2002

  3. [3]

    National nuclear data center,http://www.nndc.bnl.gov

  4. [4]

    Wigner, On the consequences of the symmetry of the nuclear hamiltonian on the spec- troscopy of nuclei, Phys

    E. Wigner, On the consequences of the symmetry of the nuclear hamiltonian on the spec- troscopy of nuclei, Phys. Rev.51, 106 (1937)

    1937

  5. [5]

    J. P. Elliott, Collective motion in the nuclear shell model. i. classification schemes for states of mixed configurations, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathemat- ical and Physical Sciences245, 128 (1958), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rspa/article- pdf/245/1240/128/50833/rspa.1958.0072.pdf

    arXiv 1958

  6. [6]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Tables, graphs and references, Chinese Physics C45, 030003 (2021)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. Marinova, Table of experimental nuclear ground state charge radii: An update, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables99, 69 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Tanihata, H

    I. Tanihata, H. Hamagaki, O. Hashimoto, Y. Shida, N. Yoshikawa, K. Sugimoto, O. Ya- makawa, T. Kobayashi, and N. Takahashi, Measurements of interaction cross sections and nuclear radii in the light p-shell region, Physical Review Letters55, 2676 (1985)

    1985

  9. [9]

    Zenihiro, H

    J. Zenihiro, H. Sakaguchi, T. Murakami, M. Yosoi, Y. Yasuda, S. Terashima, Y. Iwao, H. Takeda, M. Itoh, H. P. Yoshida, and M. Uchida, Neutron density distributions of 204,206,208Pb deduced via proton elastic scattering atE p = 295 mev, Phys. Rev. C82, 044611 (2010)

    2010

  10. [10]

    Adhikari, H

    D. Adhikari, H. Albataineh, D. Androic, K. Aniol, D. S. Armstrong, T. Averett, C. Ayerbe Gayoso, S. Barcus, V. Bellini, R. S. Beminiwattha, J. F. Benesch, H. Bhatt, D. Bhatta Pathak, D. Bhetuwal, B. Blaikie, Q. Campagna, A. Camsonne, G. D. Cates, Y. Chen, C. Clarke, J. C. Cornejo, S. Covrig Dusa, P. Datta, A. Deshpande, D. Dutta, C. Feldman, E. Fuchey, C....

    2021

  11. [11]

    Adhikari, H

    D. Adhikari, H. Albataineh, D. Androic, K. A. Aniol, D. S. Armstrong, T. Averett, C. Ayerbe Gayoso, S. K. Barcus, V. Bellini, R. S. Beminiwattha, J. F. Benesch, H. Bhatt, D. Bhatta Pathak, D. Bhetuwal, B. Blaikie, J. Boyd, Q. Campagna, A. Camsonne, G. D. Cates, Y. Chen, C. Clarke, J. C. Cornejo, S. Covrig Dusa, M. M. Dalton, P. Datta, A. Desh- pande, D. D...

    2022

  12. [12]

    Gnech, This volume

    A. Gnech, This volume

  13. [13]

    Campbell, I

    P. Campbell, I. Moore, and M. Pearson, Laser spectroscopy for nuclear structure physics, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics86, 127 (2016). 35

    2016

  14. [14]

    Smith, A

    J. Smith, A. MacLean, W. Ashfield, A. Chester, A. Garnsworthy, and C. Svensson, Gamma–gamma angular correlation analysis techniques with the griffin spectrometer, Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment922, 47 (2019)

    2019

  15. [15]

    Nuclear data sheets general policies

  16. [16]

    Richard, This volume

    A. Richard, This volume

  17. [17]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (John Wiley and Sons, 1999)

    1999

  18. [18]

    Stone,Table of Nuclear Electric Quadrupole Moments, Tech

    N. Stone,Table of Nuclear Electric Quadrupole Moments, Tech. Rep. (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2013)

    2013

  19. [19]

    J. M. Blatt and V. F. Weisskopf,Theoretical Nuclear Physics(John Wiley and Sons, 1952)

    1952

  20. [20]

    Stone,Table of Recommended Nuclear Magnetic Dipole Moments: Part I - Long-lived States, Tech

    N. Stone,Table of Recommended Nuclear Magnetic Dipole Moments: Part I - Long-lived States, Tech. Rep. (International Atomic Energy Agency, 2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano,Modern Quantum Mechanics, third edition ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, NY, 2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Bohr and B

    A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson,Nuclear Structure, Volume 1: Single-Particle Motion(W. A. Benjamin, 1969)

    1969

  23. [23]

    J. M. Eisenberg and W. Greiner,Excitation Mechanisms of the Nucleus(North Holland Publishing Company, 1970)

    1970

  24. [24]

    Ring and P

    P. Ring and P. Schuck,The Nuclear Many-Body Problem(Springer-Verlag, 1980)

    1980

  25. [25]

    S. S. M. Wong,Introductory Nuclear Physics, second edition ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1998)

    1998

  26. [26]

    Zelevinsky and A

    V. Zelevinsky and A. Volya,Physics of Atomic Nuclei(Wiley-VCH, 2017)

    2017

  27. [27]

    Pritychenko, M

    B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, B. Singh, and M. Horoi, Tables of e2 transition probabilities from the first 2+ states in even–even nuclei, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables107, 1 (2016)

    2016

  28. [28]

    Ravlic, This volume

    A. Ravlic, This volume

  29. [29]

    Madurga, This volume

    M. Madurga, This volume

  30. [30]

    G. R. Satchler,Introduction to Nuclear Reactions(John Wiley & Sons, 1980)

    1980

  31. [31]

    I. J. Thompson and F. M. Nunes,Nuclear Reactions for Astrophysics(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  32. [32]

    Kramer, H

    G. Kramer, H. Blok, and L. Lapik´ as, A consistent analysis of (e,e’p) and (d,3he) experiments, Nuclear Physics A679, 267 (2001). 36

    2001

  33. [33]

    Gaarde, Gamow-teller and m1 resonances, Nuclear Physics A396, 127 (1983)

    C. Gaarde, Gamow-teller and m1 resonances, Nuclear Physics A396, 127 (1983)

    1983

  34. [34]

    Aumann, C

    T. Aumann, C. Barbieri, D. Bazin, C. Bertulani, A. Bonaccorso, W. Dickhoff, A. Gade, M. G´ omez-Ramos, B. Kay, A. Moro, T. Nakamura, A. Obertelli, K. Ogata, S. Paschalis, and T. Uesaka, Quenching of single-particle strength from direct reactions with stable and rare-isotope beams, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics118, 103847 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    Ekstr¨ om, This volume

    A. Ekstr¨ om, This volume

  36. [36]

    Elster, This volume

    C. Elster, This volume

  37. [37]

    Hebeler, This volume

    K. Hebeler, This volume

  38. [38]

    Kawai, A

    S. Kawai, A. S. Foster, T. Bj¨ orkman, S. Nowakowska, J. Bj¨ ork, F. F. Canova, L. H. Gade, T. A. Jung, and E. Meyer, Van der waals interactions and the limits of isolated atom models at interfaces, Nature communications7, 11559 (2016)

    2016

  39. [39]

    R. B. Wiringa, V. G. J. Stoks, and R. Schiavilla, Accurate nucleon-nucleon potential with charge-independence breaking, Phys. Rev. C51, 38 (1995)

    1995

  40. [40]

    de With, ed.,Liquid-State Physical Chemistry: Fundamentals, Modeling, and Applications (Wiley-VCH)

    G. de With, ed.,Liquid-State Physical Chemistry: Fundamentals, Modeling, and Applications (Wiley-VCH)

  41. [41]

    Nicholson, This volume

    A. Nicholson, This volume

  42. [42]

    Yukawa, On the interaction of elementary particles

    H. Yukawa, On the interaction of elementary particles. i, Proceedings of the Physico- Mathematical Society of Japan. 3rd Series17, 48 (1935)

    1935

  43. [43]

    Machleidt, High-precision, charge-dependent bonn nucleon-nucleon potential, Phys

    R. Machleidt, High-precision, charge-dependent bonn nucleon-nucleon potential, Phys. Rev. C63, 024001 (2001)

    2001

  44. [44]

    Machleidt and D

    R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces, Physics Reports503, 1 (2011)

    2011

  45. [45]

    Hammer, S

    H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. Van Kolck, Nuclear effective field theory: status and perspectives, Reviews of Modern Physics92, 025004 (2020)

    2020

  46. [46]

    Epelbaum, H.-W

    E. Epelbaum, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, Modern theory of nuclear forces, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 1773 (2009)

    2009

  47. [47]

    Manohar and H

    A. Manohar and H. Georgi, Chiral quarks and the non-relativistic quark model, Nuclear Physics B234, 189 (1984)

    1984

  48. [48]

    J. L. Friar, Dimensional power counting in nuclei, Few-Body Systems22, 161 (1997)

    1997

  49. [49]

    Fujita and H

    J.-i. Fujita and H. Miyazawa, Pion theory of three-body forces, Progress of Theoretical Physics17, 360 (1957), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article-pdf/17/3/360/5252121/17-3- 37 360.pdf

    1957

  50. [50]

    W. H. Dickhoff and H. Muther, Nucleon properties in the nuclear medium, Reports on Progress in Physics55, 1947 (1992)

    1947

  51. [51]

    J. Holt, N. Kaiser, and W. Weise, Density-dependent effective nucleon-nucleon interaction from chiral three-nucleon forces, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics81, 024002 (2010)

    2010

  52. [52]

    Hebeler and A

    K. Hebeler and A. Schwenk, Chiral three-nucleon forces and neutron matter, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics82, 014314 (2010)

    2010

  53. [53]

    Lovato, O

    A. Lovato, O. Benhar, S. Fantoni, A. Y. Illarionov, and K. E. Schmidt, Density-dependent nucleon-nucleon interaction from three-nucleon forces, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics 83, 054003 (2011)

    2011

  54. [54]

    R. B. Wiringa and S. C. Pieper, Evolution of nuclear spectra with nuclear forces, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 182501 (2002)

    2002

  55. [55]

    Navr´ atil, V

    P. Navr´ atil, V. G. Gueorguiev, J. P. Vary, W. E. Ormand, and A. Nogga, Structure of a= 10− −13 nuclei with two- plus three-nucleon interactions from chiral effective field theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 042501 (2007)

    2007

  56. [56]

    Siemens and A

    P. Siemens and A. Vischer, Covariant phenomenological field theory for extended hadrons, Annals of Physics238, 167 (1995)

    1995

  57. [57]

    Machleidt, F

    R. Machleidt, F. Sammarruca, and Y. Song, Nonlocal nature of the nuclear force and its impact on nuclear structure, Physical Review C53, R1483 (1996)

    1996

  58. [58]

    K. G. Wilson, The renormalization group and critical phenomena, Reviews of Modern Physics 55, 583 (1983)

    1983

  59. [59]

    Furnstahl and K

    R. Furnstahl and K. Hebeler, New applications of renormalization group methods in nuclear physics, Reports on Progress in Physics76, 126301 (2013)

    2013

  60. [60]

    Weinberg, Why the renormalization group is a good thing, Asymptotic realms of physics , 1 (1983)

    S. Weinberg, Why the renormalization group is a good thing, Asymptotic realms of physics , 1 (1983)

    1983

  61. [61]

    Lepage, How to renormalize the schrodinger equation, arXiv preprint nucl-th/9706029 (1997)

    P. Lepage, How to renormalize the schrodinger equation, arXiv preprint nucl-th/9706029 (1997)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  62. [62]

    Polyzou and W

    W. Polyzou and W. Gl¨ ockle, Three-body interactions and on-shell equivalent two-body in- teractions, Few-Body Systems9, 97 (1990)

    1990

  63. [63]

    Bogner, R

    S. Bogner, R. Furnstahl, and A. Schwenk, From low-momentum interactions to nuclear struc- ture, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics65, 94 (2010). 38

    2010

  64. [64]

    Heinz, This volume

    M. Heinz, This volume

  65. [65]

    De Vries, C

    H. De Vries, C. De Jager, and C. De Vries, Nuclear charge-density-distribution parameters from elastic electron scattering, Atomic data and nuclear data tables36, 495 (1987)

    1987

  66. [66]

    Day, Nuclear saturation and nuclear forces, Comments Nucl

    B. Day, Nuclear saturation and nuclear forces, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys.;(United King- dom)11(1983)

    1983

  67. [67]

    Carlson, V

    J. Carlson, V. Pandharipande, and R. Wiringa, Three-nucleon interaction in 3-, 4- and∞- body systems, Nuclear Physics A401, 59 (1983)

    1983

  68. [68]

    Hebeler, S

    K. Hebeler, S. Bogner, R. Furnstahl, A. Nogga, and A. Schwenk, Improved nuclear matter calculations from chiral low-momentum interactions, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics 83, 031301 (2011)

    2011

  69. [69]

    Beiner, H

    M. Beiner, H. Flocard, N. Van Giai, and P. Quentin, Nuclear ground-state properties and self- consistent calculations with the skyrme interaction:(i). spherical description, Nuclear Physics A238, 29 (1975)

    1975

  70. [70]

    K¨ ohler, Skyrme force and the mass formula, Nuclear Physics A258, 301 (1976)

    H. K¨ ohler, Skyrme force and the mass formula, Nuclear Physics A258, 301 (1976)

    1976

  71. [71]

    Reinhard and H

    P.-G. Reinhard and H. Flocard, Nuclear effective forces and isotope shifts, Nuclear Physics A584, 467 (1995)

    1995

  72. [72]

    Bartel, P

    J. Bartel, P. Quentin, M. Brack, C. Guet, and H.-B. H ˚ akansson, Towards a better parametri- sation of skyrme-like effective forces: A critical study of the skm force, Nuclear Physics A 386, 79 (1982)

    1982