Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Nonlinear polarization effects on plasma screening for thermonuclear reactions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-center plasma screening model predicts fusion-rate corrections of roughly +15% (D-T) and -25% (p-11B) relative to Debye–Hückel, with the sign set by plasma coupling and degeneracy.

desk verdict A credible, well-structured two-center TFD screening calculation whose headline regime dependence leans on an ideal-gas ion model that is weakest in the regimes where the claimed corrections are largest. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29362 v1 pith:YND5KGTW submitted 2026-07-31 physics.plasm-ph nucl-th

Hanxiang Huang , Binbing Wu , Zhengfeng Fan , Congzhang Gao , Jie Liu , Baisong Xie This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phnucl-th
keywords plasmascreeningfusionreactionratesThomas-Fermi-Diractwo-centerDebye-Hückeldegeneratestronglycoupledthermonuclearreactions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper sets out to show that plasma screening in thermonuclear reactions cannot be reduced to a single-center picture once two reacting nuclei approach closely. Reporting a two-center finite-temperature Thomas-Fermi-Dirac model, the authors claim that the two-body screening potential is stronger than the classic Debye–Hückel result in weakly coupled, weakly degenerate plasmas, but weaker in strongly coupled, strongly degenerate plasmas. The reason is a competition between two nonlinear effects: ions are expelled from the region near the nuclei, lowering the screening potential, while electrons pile up there, raising it. Applied to D-T, p-11B, and 12C-12C, this changes fusion enhancement factors by up to roughly +15%, -25%, and a sign-switching correction, respectively. A sympathetic reader would care because these are the conditions relevant to inertial-confinement fusion and stellar carbon burning, where rate tables are usually built on Debye–Hückel or single-center screening.

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-center Thomas-Fermi-Dirac (TC-TFD) self-consistent field model: a nonlinear Poisson equation coupled to a finite-temperature Fermi-Dirac electron density and a classical Boltzmann ion density, with the two reacting nuclei as point sources. From the converged charge distributions the authors compute the mean force on one nucleus, integrate it along the internuclear axis to obtain the potential of mean force, and subtract this from the bare Coulomb potential to get the screening potential. Named tools in the chain are the potential of mean force, the Hellmann-Feynman theorem for extracting the force, a recursive nested-grid solver for the multiscale nonlinear equa

What would settle it

Use a method that resolves ion–ion correlations, such as path-integral Monte Carlo or quantum molecular dynamics, to compute the potential of mean force between two carbon nuclei fixed at internuclear distances in the 10^2–10^4 fm range in a plasma at 240 g/cm3 and 10 keV. If the resulting two-center screening potential is not below the Debye–Hückel value in that region at low tunneling energies—or if the corresponding Schrödinger enhancement does not drop below the Debye–Hückel result—the central claim of suppressed screening in strongly coupled degenerate plasmas is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a two-center treatment, which lets the two reacting ions share one self-consistently polarized screening cloud, produces an effective two-body interaction whose deviation from Debye–Hückel is governed by coupling strength and electron degeneracy. In the weakly coupled, weakly degenerate limit the shared cloud accumulates electrons nonlinearly and strengthens screening; in the strongly coupled, strongly degenerate limit the mutual evacuation of background ions creates a Coulomb hole that suppresses screening, while Pauli blocking prevents electrons from compensating. The authors demonstrate this through Schrödinger tunneling probabilities and Maxwell-averaged reactio

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the background ions follow a classical Boltzmann mean-field distribution with no direct ion–ion correlations; this is exactly the description most likely to fail in the strongly coupled, strongly degenerate regimes where the paper predicts the largest suppression relative to Debye–Hückel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For deuterium–tritium plasmas near inertial-confinement fusion conditions, the two-center correction raises the fusion cross-section enhancement by up to ~15% over Debye–Hückel in the 1–5 keV Gamow window, with a thermal rate enhancement of ~2–3% at 200–500 eV.
  • For proton–boron-11, the same physics suppresses the enhancement by up to ~25% in the 5–15 keV window, implying that Debye–Hückel-based rate estimates overstate p-11B yields in dense plasmas.
  • For carbon-12–carbon-12, the correction is sign-changing: screening is weaker than Debye–Hückel at low energies, where the turning point is far out and ion evacuation dominates, and stronger at higher energies, where the turning point enters the near-field electron-accumulation region.
  • In the weakly coupled, weakly degenerate limit the TC-TFD model converges to Debye–Hückel, so the standard model remains accurate where the plasma is classical and weakly coupled; the differences open up only where coupling or degeneracy is non-negligible.
  • Because the paper uses a static screened potential and argues that dynamic screening averages to zero in a thermal equilibrium ensemble, the predicted rate corrections are attributed to static many-body polarization rather than plasma fluctuations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the ion-evacuation/electron-accumulation competition is generic, then in plasmas with high-Z impurities or fuel–ablator mixtures the suppression should grow with impurity charge; this is a quantitative prediction the paper does not compute.
  • Editorial inference: The energy-dependent sign reversal seen for carbon-12–carbon-12 is a model-discriminating observable—an enhancement ratio that crosses unity as a function of center-of-mass energy would be difficult to reproduce with any single-center screened potential.
  • Editorial inference: The strong-coupling, strong-degeneracy suppression is the least solid leg because it rests on a classical Boltzmann ion distribution; a first-principles benchmark at p-11B or 12C-12C conditions would either confirm the suppression or show that ion–ion correlations change it.
  • Editorial inference: A practical extension would be to tabulate TC-TFD screening potentials or provide analytic fits over a density–temperature grid, so stellar and ICF reaction networks could include the correction without solving the nonlinear field equations each time.
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 constructs a two-center plasma-screening model based on finite-temperature Thomas-Fermi-Dirac (TC-TFD) theory and applies it to D-T, p-11B, and 12C-12C fusion reactions. Starting from the Kirkwood potential of mean force (Eqs. 1-7), it solves the nonlinear Poisson equation for two fixed nuclei with a finite-T TFD electron density (Eq. 9) and a classical Boltzmann ion density (Eq. 10), extracts the screening potential by integrating the induced force, and then uses a complex Woods-Saxon potential with a Numerov solver to compute tunneling probabilities and reaction-rate enhancement factors. The central result is that the TC-TFD screening potential is stronger than Debye-Hückel in weakly coupled, weakly degenerate conditions but weaker in strongly coupled, strongly degenerate conditions, with correspondingly amplified or suppressed fusion enhancements. Concretely, the reported effects are up to ~15% higher enhancement for D-T at T=500 eV, up to ~25% lower for p-11B at T=1 keV, and a sign-changing correction for 12C-12C at T=10 keV.

Significance. If the results are quantitatively reliable, the two-center treatment is a meaningful step beyond single-center Debye-Hückel and Stewart-Pyatt models for dense-plasma fusion rates. The derivation is internally coherent: the screening potential is obtained from a self-consistent field calculation rather than fitted to fusion data, the use of the potential of mean force is physically well motivated, and the decomposition into ionic evacuation and electronic accumulation is transparent. The paper therefore has the potential to contribute to ICF and astrophysical fusion-rate modeling. The main risk is that the ionic response is treated as a correlation-free ideal gas, and the largest claimed deviations from Debye-Hückel occur in a regime (Γ≈1) where that treatment is least reliable. The manuscript itself acknowledges this limitation in Sec. IV but does not quantify its impact on the reported enhancement factors.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (10); Appendix A, Eq. (A3)] The ionic species are described by a classical ideal-gas Boltzmann distribution, and the grand-potential functional contains only ideal-gas entropy and Hartree Coulomb terms, with no ion-ion exchange-correlation contribution. This is the equation that produces the ionic evacuation mechanism, i.e., the suppression side of the paper's central claim. The largest reported suppression, up to 25% below Debye-Hückel for p-11B in Fig. 5(b), occurs at T=1 keV and ρ_B=110 g/cm³, for which Γ_B≈1. At such coupling, OCP/HNC structure factors and local-field corrections are known to make ion density response deviate materially from the ideal-gas form. The paper's own Sec. IV states that 'higher-order many-body correlation effects are not fully resolved in strongly coupled regimes.' I request a benchmark of the ion channel against HNC/OCP or PIMC/QMD, or at least a quantitative estimate of the error in
  2. [Abstract and Secs. I, III.B, IV] The headline claim that screening is 'weaker in strongly coupled and strongly degenerate regimes' is not supported by any computed example in the manuscript. The strongest ionic coupling among the cases presented is Γ_B≈1 for p-11B; the 12C-12C case has Γ≈0.2; and the D-T case at 200 eV is not in the extreme θ≪1 limit. Thus the strongly coupled/strongly degenerate half of the abstract is an unbenchmarked extrapolation of a model whose ion equation is least reliable in exactly that regime. Either add explicit calculations in the Γ≫1, θ≪1 regime, even within the TC-TFD framework, or restrict the conclusion to the moderately coupled/degenerate conditions actually simulated.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B7)] The screening potential is extracted by numerical differentiation of the induced potential and integration along the internuclear path, with the outermost tail patched to the Debye-Hückel solution beyond R_max. No convergence study is reported for the grid-nesting levels, radial step sizes, R_max, or the under-relaxation parameter. Since the reported effects are at the 2--25% level in the enhancement factors, the numerical error should be demonstrated to be below that scale. Please provide convergence tests with respect to grid resolution and R_max, and a comparison of the integrated V_screen against known analytic limits (e.g., reducing to single-center TFD, or recovering the DH tail) to show that the DH patching does not artificially bias the TC-TFD versus DH comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (16)] The Woods-Saxon parameters V0 and W0 are fixed, but the values of R0 and a are not given in the text or table. Please specify them for each reaction and show a short sensitivity test of P_screened/P_bare to the nuclear-potential parameters, since the ratio is not in principle guaranteed to be independent of the absorptive interior.
  2. [Fig. 6 caption and Sec. III.B] The notation f_rate is inconsistent: the caption defines f_rate = ⟨σv⟩_TC-TFD/⟨σv⟩_bare, while the text defines f_rel = ⟨σv⟩_TC-TFD/⟨σv⟩_DH. Please use distinct symbols and make the definitions consistent.
  3. [Sec. III.A, p-11B paragraph] The text says both TC-TFD and SC-TFD screening potentials are 'consistently lower than the DH prediction across all distances,' but then states that in the near-field region 'the screening potential of TC-TFD becomes higher.' This is confusing; presumably 'higher' means higher than SC-TFD, not higher than DH. Please clarify.
  4. [General notation] The symbol ρ is used both for mass density and for the cylindrical radial coordinate in Appendix B, and r is used for internuclear distance. This creates avoidable ambiguity in Figs. 4--6 and Appendix B; please distinguish the two (e.g., ρ_m and R).
  5. [Throughout] Please correct minor grammatical issues, e.g., 'Base on the Gamow picture' should be 'Based on the Gamow picture' in Sec. II.B.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TC-TFD screening potential is a solution of the stated self-consistent equations, and the fusion enhancement factors are computed outputs rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the grand-potential functional (A1)-(A7) and the coupled field equations (8)-(11), which are solved self-consistently for the electron and ion densities around two fixed nuclei. The screening potential is then obtained by integrating the mean force (Eqs. 5-7, B6-B7); it is not defined by or fitted to the fusion rates. The tunneling probabilities and enhancement factors (Eqs. 15-21) are separate Schrödinger solutions with bare and screened potentials. The nuclear parameters V0 and W0 enter both the screened and bare problems and are not tuned to reproduce the reported ratios. Comparisons with DH, PB, SC-TFD, and IS models are model outputs, and the asymptotic reductions to PB and DH (Eqs. 12-14) are stated limits, not inputs. The cited self-references [43,44] are used only to support the standard relative-coordinate Schrödinger formulation and are not load-bearing for the new screening result. The manuscript's own caveats about higher-order correlations and lack of PIMC/QMD benchmarking are validity limitations, not circularity: an approximation can be uncontrolled or inaccurate without being equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests entirely on mean-field axioms: finite-T TFD plus Boltzmann ions, with the PMF identified with the mean-field free-energy variation and a static screening potential used inside the Schrödinger equation. There are no invented particles or forces, and no fitted constants target the fusion-rate results. The free parameters are the nuclear-potential shape values (partially canceling in ratios), two unspecified Woods-Saxon parameters, and numerical tuning knobs. The most fragile ledger entries are the Boltzmann-ion axiom and the static-screening axiom, both load-bearing for the headline regime dependence.

free parameters (6)
  • Woods-Saxon real depth V0 = 30 MeV
    Chosen 'representative' in Sec. II.B; sets the nuclear barrier and affects absolute tunneling probabilities; enters both P_screened and P_bare and partially cancels in ratios.
  • Woods-Saxon imaginary depth W0 = 500 keV
    Chosen so flux is fully absorbed inside R0 'without causing unphysical reflections' (Sec. II.B); absolute enhancement factors f_cs depend on it.
  • Woods-Saxon radius R0
    Defined in Eq. (16) but never numerically specified anywhere; required to reproduce any figure.
  • Woods-Saxon diffuseness a
    Defined in Eq. (16) but never numerically specified anywhere; required to reproduce any figure.
  • Under-relaxation parameter α = 0.2-0.6
    Ad hoc mixing parameter (Appendix B, Eq. B5), tuned 'depending on the grid depth and the local coupling strength' to stabilize the nonlinear solver; numerical, not physical.
  • Grid-nesting factor and convergence tolerance = 10; 10^-3
    Spatial step refined by 10 per level and global boundary-potential convergence threshold (Appendix B); discretization choices setting the accuracy of the extracted mean force.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Finite-temperature Thomas-Fermi-Dirac with zero-temperature Dirac exchange (LDA) describes the electron screening cloud well enough to define the PMF
    Eqs. (8)-(11) and App. A; the zero-T exchange form at finite T is asserted 'standard and robust' without demonstration, and exchange-correlation beyond Dirac is neglected.
  • domain assumption Background ions follow a classical Boltzmann distribution; ion-ion correlations are negligible
    Eq. (10); the ionic part of the screening potential and the claimed coupling-dependent suppression of screening rest on this; it breaks down as Γ→1 and beyond, precisely where the conclusion is strongest.
  • domain assumption The mean-field grand-potential minimization yields the exact potential of mean force (Kirkwood relation holds for self-consistent densities)
    Eqs. (2)-(7); the PMF is exact as a definition, but the paper evaluates it with mean-field TFD densities, i.e., in a static local approximation to the true many-body free energy.
  • domain assumption Static screening is sufficient: dynamic screening effects 'rigorously average to zero' in thermal equilibrium
    Sec. II.B; used to justify the stationary Schrödinger equation with a fixed V_screen(r). The cited Ref. [17] (Gruzinov-Bahcall 1998) actually finds dynamic effects reduce the static enhancement, so this premise is load-bearing and doubtfully sourced.
  • domain assumption Only s-wave scattering contributes (and all partial-wave effects beyond l=0 are negligible)
    Sec. II.B, stated 'for low energy reactions'; used in Eq. (15); reasonable near the keV Gamow peak but unquantified at the highest incident energies in Fig. 5.
  • domain assumption The astrophysical S-factor is constant over the Gamow window and cancels in the rate ratios
    Sec. II.B, Eqs. (18)-(21); standard treatment but adds an approximation to f_rate beyond the tunneling-probability ratio.
  • domain assumption Pure, static, single-background-composition plasma for each reaction case
    Acknowledged in Sec. IV: 'pure plasmas under static thermodynamic equilibrium', neglecting high-Z impurities and fuel-ablator mixing relevant to ICF.
  • ad hoc to paper The far-field tail of the screening potential is patched to the Debye-Hückel solution beyond R_max
    Appendix B, final paragraph; imposes DH behavior beyond the largest macroscopic grid, so 'all models approach DH at r≳10^5 fm' is partly by construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear polarization effects on plasma screening for thermonuclear reactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YND5KGTW

@misc{pith2026260729362,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear polarization effects on plasma screening for thermonuclear reactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YND5KGTW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29362}
}
abstract

We investigate two-center plasma screening effects on thermonuclear reactions of D-T, p-$^{11}$B, and $^{12}$C-$^{12}$C, spanning from classical to degenerate regimes. The two-center screening potential is obtained within a finite-temperature Thomas-Fermi-Dirac framework, capturing two-ion correlations as the leading-order many-body effect. Combining the resulting screened Coulomb potential with a complex Woods-Saxon nuclear potential, we solve the stationary Schr\"{o}dinger equation to obtain the fusion tunneling probabilities and the corresponding reaction rates. Compared to Debye-H\"{u}ckel results, the present screening potential is stronger in weakly coupled and weakly degenerate regimes but weaker in strongly coupled and strongly degenerate regimes. Consequently, the fusion enhancement factors are amplified in the former but suppressed in the latter. An underlying interplay between two mechanisms is identified: the nonlinear polarization of ions tends to reduce the screening effect, whereas the nonlinear polarization of electrons tends to enhance it. This subtle competition is governed by the plasma coupling strength and degeneracy. These findings highlight that a two-center treatment is important for predicting fusion rates in dense plasmas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29362 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of two nuclei approaching each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online)Comparison of the screening potentials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Analysis of the total screening potential into the contributions of electrons and ions for different plasma configurations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the TC-TFD screening potentials for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Enhancement of the fusion cross-section under different plasma conditions. The solid black line shows the absolute [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Enhancement of the fusion reaction rate in screening [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Spatial Discretization and Singularity Separation Directly solving the Poisson equation with point- charge nuclei leads to numerical singularities at the grid origins. To resolve this, we decompose the total electro- static potential Φ(r) into the known bare nucleus poten- tial and the unknown induced plasma potential: Φ(r) = Φnuclei(r) + Φplasma(r),(B1) ...

  2. [2]

    (B2) is solved iteratively across all grid levels

    Two-W ay Coupled Iteration and Physical Constraints For a given internuclear distancer, Eq. (B2) is solved iteratively across all grid levels. To ensure global physical consistency and exact charge conservation, the algorithm employs a two-way communication scheme between the coarse grid (Ω k−1) and the fine grid (Ω k): (1)Prolongation (Downward Passing):...

  3. [3]

    To guaran- tee stable convergence within the contraction mapping space, under-relaxation techniques are heavily employed for both the potential fields and the boundary conditions

    Under-Relaxation for Numerical Stiffness Due to the exponential (Boltzmann) and Fermi-Dirac nonlinearities in the source termb(Φ), direct fixed-point iteration invariably leads to severe numerical divergence, often referred to as numerical stiffness. To guaran- tee stable convergence within the contraction mapping space, under-relaxation techniques are he...

  4. [4]

    Extraction of the Screening Potential via Hellmann-F eynman Theorem The numerical framework seamlessly integrates with the thermodynamic approach established in the main 12 text. Once global self-consistency is achieved across all nested grids for a specific internuclear distancer, the local induced electric field gradient at the position of the test nucl...

  5. [5]

    Salpeter, Aust

    E. Salpeter, Aust. J. Phys.7, 373 (1954)

    1954

  6. [6]

    Assenbaum, K

    H. Assenbaum, K. Langanke, and C. Rolfs, Z. Phys. A 327, 461 (1987)

    1987

  7. [7]

    D. D. Clayton,Principles of stellar evolution and nucle- osynthesis(University of Chicago press, 1983)

    1983

  8. [8]

    C. E. Rolfs and W. S. Rodney,Cauldrons in the cosmos: Nuclear astrophysics(University of Chicago press, 1988)

    1988

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    E. G. Adelberger, A. Garc ´ ıa, R. H. Robertson, K. Snover, A. Balantekin, K. Heeger, M. Ramsey-Musolf, D. Bem- merer, A. Junghans, C. Bertulani,et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 195 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Lindl, Phys

    J. Lindl, Phys. Plasmas2, 3933 (1995)

    1995

  3. [11]

    Betti and O

    R. Betti and O. Hurricane, Nat. Phys.12, 435 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Abu-Shawareb, R

    H. Abu-Shawareb, R. Acree, P. Adams, J. Adams, B. Ad- dis, R. Aden, P. Adrian, B. Afeyan, M. Aggleton, L. Aghaian,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 065102 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Gasques, A

    L. Gasques, A. Afanasjev, E. Aguilera, M. Beard, L. C. Chamon, P. Ring, M. Wiescher, and D. Yakovlev, Phys. Rev. C72, 025806 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    S. Hu, B. Militzer, V. Goncharov, and S. Skupsky, Phys. Rev. B84, 224109 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Zylstra, O

    A. Zylstra, O. Hurricane, D. Callahan, A. Kritcher, J. Ralph, H. Robey, J. Ross, C. Young, K. Baker, D. Casey,et al., Nature601, 542 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Ichimaru, Rev

    S. Ichimaru, Rev. Mod. Phys.65, 255 (1993)

    1993

  9. [17]

    Grayson, C

    C. Grayson, C. T. Yang, M. Formanek, and J. Rafelski, Astrophys. J.976, 31 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Debye and E

    P. Debye and E. H¨ uckel, Phys. Z.24, 185 (1923)

    1923

  11. [19]

    J. C. Stewart and K. D. Pyatt Jr, Astrophys. J.144, 1203 (1966)

    1966

  12. [20]

    H. E. Mitler, Astrophys. J.212, 513 (1977)

    1977

  13. [21]

    A. V. Gruzinov and J. N. Bahcall, Astrophys. J.504, 996 (1998)

    1998

  14. [22]

    B. F. Rozsnyai, Phys. Rev. A5, 1137 (1972)

    1972

  15. [23]

    D. A. Liberman, Phys. Rev. B20, 4981 (1979)

    1979

  16. [24]

    Starrett and D

    C. Starrett and D. Saumon, Phys. Rev. E87, 013104 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Salpeter and H

    E. Salpeter and H. Van Horn, Astrophys. J.155, 183 (1969)

    1969

  18. [26]

    Kravchuk and D

    P. Kravchuk and D. Yakovlev, Phys. Rev. C89, 015802 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Eichler and U

    J. Eichler and U. Wille, Phys. Rev. Lett.33, 56 (1974)

    1974

  20. [28]

    R. P. Feynman, N. Metropolis, and E. Teller, Phys. Rev. 75, 1561 (1949)

    1949

  21. [29]

    J. G. Kirkwood, J. Chem. Phys.3, 300 (1935)

    1935

  22. [30]

    Furutani, K

    Y. Furutani, K. Ohashi, M. Shimizu, and A. Fukuyama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.62, 3413 (1993)

    1993

  23. [31]

    Dewitt, H

    H. Dewitt, H. Graboske, and M. Cooper, Astrophys. J. 181, 439 (1973)

    1973

  24. [32]

    Graboske, H

    H. Graboske, H. d. Dewitt, A. Grossman, and M. Cooper, Astrophys. J.181, 457 (1973)

    1973

  25. [33]

    Henderson, Phys

    R. Henderson, Phys. Lett. A49, 197 (1974)

    1974

  26. [34]

    Hansen and I

    J.-P. Hansen and I. R. McDonald,Theory of simple liq- uids: with applications to soft matter(Academic press, 2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Onsager, Chem

    L. Onsager, Chem. Rev.13, 73 (1933)

    1933

  28. [36]

    Onsager, J

    L. Onsager, J. Phys. Chem.43, 189 (1939)

    1939

  29. [37]

    R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev.56, 340 (1939)

    1939

  30. [38]

    Perrot, J

    F. Perrot, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter6, 431 (1994)

    1994

  31. [39]

    Teller, Rev

    E. Teller, Rev. Mod. Phys.34, 627 (1962)

    1962

  32. [40]

    N. D. Mermin, Phys. Rev.137, A1441 (1965)

    1965

  33. [41]

    Cowan and J

    R. Cowan and J. Ashkin, Phys. Rev.105, 144 (1957)

    1957

  34. [42]

    Mohankumar and A

    N. Mohankumar and A. Natarajan, Phys. Status Solidi (b)188, 635 (1995)

    1995

  35. [43]

    Blakemore, Solid-State Electron.25, 1067 (1982)

    J. Blakemore, Solid-State Electron.25, 1067 (1982)

    1982

  36. [44]

    M. J. Berger and J. Oliger, J. Comput. Phys.53, 484 (1984)

    1984

  37. [45]

    M. J. Berger and P. Colella, J. Comput. Phys.82, 64 (1989)

    1989

  38. [46]

    Brandt, Math

    A. Brandt, Math. Comput.31, 333 (1977)

    1977

  39. [47]

    B. Wu, Z. Fan, D. Ye, C.-Z. Gao, C. Yu, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. C111, 034602 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    B. Wu, Z. Fan, D. Ye, T. Ye, C. Gao, C. Yu, X. Xu, C. Zhang, and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. C109, 064615 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Thomson, L

    N. Thomson, L. Moschini, and A. Diaz-Torres, Phys. Rev. C110, 034614 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Atzeni and J

    S. Atzeni and J. Meyer-ter Vehn,The Physics of Inertial Fusion: BeamPlasma Interaction, Hydrodynamics, Hot Dense Matter, 125 (Oxford University Press, 2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    G. R. Satchler,Direct nuclear reactions(1983)

    1983

  44. [52]

    Hagino and N

    K. Hagino and N. Takigawa, Prog. Theor. Phys.128, 1061 (2012)

    2012

  45. [53]

    Gamow, Z

    G. Gamow, Z. Phys.51, 204 (1928)

    1928

  46. [54]

    Meyer-ter Vehn, S

    J. Meyer-ter Vehn, S. Atzeni, and R. Ramis, Europhys. 13 News29, 202 (1998)

    1998

  47. [55]

    B. R. Johnson, J. Chem. Phys.69, 4678 (1978)

    1978

  48. [56]

    L. S. Brown and R. Sawyer, Rev. Mod. Phys.69, 411 (1997)

    1997

  49. [57]

    Kritcher, C

    A. Kritcher, C. Young, H. Robey, C. Weber, A. Zylstra, O. Hurricane, D. Callahan, J. Ralph, J. Ross, K. Baker, et al., Nat. Phys.18, 251 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Berzak Hopkins, L

    L. Berzak Hopkins, L. Divol, C. Weber, S. Le Pape, N. Meezan, J. Ross, R. Tommasini, S. Khan, D. Ho, J. Biener,et al., Phys. Plasmas25(2018)

    2018

  51. [59]

    D. T. Casey, C. R. Weber, A. B. Zylstra, C. J. Cerjan, E. Hartouni, M. Hohenberger, L. Divol, D. S. Dearborn, N. Kabadi, B. Lahmann,et al., Front. Phys.10, 1057603 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Grayson and J

    C. Grayson and J. Rafelski, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.234, 2967 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Blakemore, J

    J. Blakemore, J. Appl. Phys.53, R123 (1982)

    1982

  54. [62]

    P. A. Dirac, inMath. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., Vol. 26 (Cambridge University Press, 1930) pp. 376–385

    1930

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.