Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 16 references

Search for the Efimov state near the 3$\alpha$ threshold

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A precision three-alpha breakup experiment on 12C sets the tightest upper limit yet on the predicted Efimov state at 7.458 MeV, constraining its α-decay width to below 0.014% of the Hoyle state's, roughly an order of magnitude better than…

desk verdict A real experimental improvement in the search for a 12C Efimov state, but the headline width-ratio limit depends on an unvalidated population-ratio assumption and the abstract overstates what was observed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03514 v1 pith:FHEGWSZL submitted 2025-07-04 nucl-ex nucl-th

A. Baishya , S. Santra , T. Singh , P. C. Rout , A. Pal , H. Kumawat , T. Santhosh , P. Taya
show 2 more authors
M. Meher Jyotisankar Das
This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exnucl-th PACS 21.10.-k25.70.-z
keywords Efimovstatecarbon-12Hoyletriple-alphareactionalpha-decaywidththree-alphabreakup8Beresonancestellarnucleosynthesis
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 reports the most sensitive search yet for the predicted Efimov state in 12C at 7.458 MeV, just above the three-alpha threshold. By filtering kinematically complete 3α breakup events from a 57 MeV 12C+12C reaction with the requirement that all three α-pair relative energies sit on the 91.84 keV 8Be ground-state resonance, the authors isolate 21 candidate events. Treating those with Poisson statistics yields a 2σ upper limit of 0.014% for the Efimov state's α-decay width relative to the Hoyle state's, roughly an order of magnitude tighter than the previous best limit of 0.2%. The result matters because no genuine Efimov state has ever been confirmed in a nucleus, and any such state near the 3α threshold would shift the triple-α reaction rate that governs carbon production in stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the mutual 8Be resonance filter: a candidate Efimov decay must have all three α-pair relative energies inside the 60–120 keV window around the 91.84 keV 8Be ground-state resonance, the kinematic condition that fixes the state's excitation energy at 7.458 MeV through Eq. (1). The conversion from counts to physics is carried by the ratio inequality $\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{ES}}/\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{HS}} < (P_{\mathrm{HS}}/P_{\mathrm{ES}})(N_{\mathrm{ES}}/N_{\mathrm{HS}})$, with the population-probability factor set to unity by an order-of-magnitude Boltzmann estimate. The supporting calculation is an α-penetrability ratio in which the Efimov state's inner turning radius, scaled against the Hoyle state's, tunes the penetrability to match the measured limit and thereby sets an indirect bound on the state's spatial size.

What would settle it

Repeat the measurement at a substantially different beam energy: population probabilities in a heavy-ion reaction depend strongly on bombarding energy, so if $N_{\mathrm{ES}}/N_{\mathrm{HS}}$ shifts by orders of magnitude while the Hoyle yield remains fixed, the near-unity population assumption fails and 0.014% is not a width bound. Alternatively, a higher-statistics run at 57 MeV in which the 21 candidate events vanish would show they were statistical fluctuations rather than a genuine Efimov signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is an experimental bound: $\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{ES}}/\Gamma_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{HS}} < 0.014\%$ at 2$\sigma$ confidence, derived from a count ratio $N_{\mathrm{ES}}/N_{\mathrm{HS}} = 31/2.21\times10^{5}$ after a mutual-$^{8}$Be-resonance gate selects 21 candidate events near 7.458 MeV. The authors argue that their markedly sharper excitation-energy spectrum, with the Hoyle peak at 7.65 MeV resolving cleanly unlike in earlier data, removes the ambiguity that let Hoyle-state tails masquerade as counts at 7.458 MeV in previous searches. They support the bound with a penetrability calculation in which an Efimov state with an inner turning radius about 3.85 times that of the Hoyle state reproduces the measured upper limit, and they use the limit to fix the Efimov state's α-decay width near $8.84\times10^{-4}$ eV when computing the triple-α reaction rate. Including the Efimov state, the combined rate exceeds the standard evaluation by more than six orders of magnitude yet remains about two orders of magnitude above the red-giant stellar limit, while its temperature dependence still satisfies the helium shell flash criterion for AGB stars.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 57 MeV 12C+12C reaction populates the Efimov state and the Hoyle state almost equally often, a claim backed only by an order-of-magnitude Boltzmann estimate; if the Efimov state is populated far less efficiently, the measured count ratio understates the true width ratio and the 0.014% limit collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the limit is correct, an Efimov state at 7.458 MeV would have an α-decay width at or below $8.84\times10^{-4}$ eV, far too narrow to have shown up as a distinct peak in earlier, poorer-resolution spectra.
  • The 21 candidate events do not by themselves establish the state; the paper's contribution is exclusionary, with 2σ confidence the state's α-decay branch is at least several hundred times weaker than the Hoyle state's.
  • Within the penetrability model, a real Efimov state would have to be spatially extended, with an inner turning radius about 3.85 times the Hoyle state's, to be consistent with the measured limit.
  • The astrophysical calculation shows that if the Efimov contribution were at its allowed maximum, the triple-α rate would overshoot stellar limits; the new bound therefore tightens what can be assumed about carbon synthesis in red giants.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The weakest link is the hidden population assumption in Eq. (4): the near-unity ratio $P_{\mathrm{HS}}/P_{\mathrm{ES}}$ is justified by a Boltzmann estimate, yet a 57 MeV heavy-ion collision is far from thermal, so if the Efimov state is populated orders of magnitude less efficiently than the Hoyle state, the true width ratio could exceed 0.014% without contradicting these data; measuring $N_{\mat
  • The mutual-8Be filter is a three-body resonance condition that could be exported to other α-cluster systems in which two identical resonant pairs form, potentially exposing Efimov-type correlations beyond carbon.
  • A higher-statistics rerun of the same setup would settle whether the 21 events are a real narrow resonance or fluctuations in the Hoyle tail, since a genuine state should produce counts that scale with the Hoyle yield while a fluctuation would drive $N_{\mathrm{ES}}/N_{\mathrm{HS}}$ toward zero.
  • The overshoot of the combined triple-α rate above the stellar limit is itself a tension the data sharpen: either the true Efimov width sits well below the new upper limit, or the stellar limit must be relaxed by effects such as enhanced CNO cycling, rotational mixing, or reduced metallicity.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a search for a predicted Efimov-like state in 12C at 7.458 MeV using 3-alpha breakup events from a 57 MeV 12C+12C reaction measured with eight double-sided silicon strip detectors. After kinematic gating, the analysis selects about 2.21e5 Hoyle-state events and 21 candidate events in a mutual-8Be-resonance window near 7.458 MeV, from which a 2-sigma upper limit of about 31 candidate counts is derived. With the assumption P_HS/P_ES = 1, the paper quotes an upper limit of 0.014% for the ratio of the Efimov-state alpha width to the Hoyle-state alpha width, an order of magnitude below the previous limit. A penetrability calculation is presented in which matching the measured limit requires an inner turning radius 3.85 times that of the Hoyle state, and a triple-alpha reaction-rate calculation including the Efimov state at the derived width is used to discuss constraints from the Suda limit and the AGB helium-shell-flash criterion.

Significance. The experimental pipeline is a genuine technical advance: the 12C excitation-energy spectrum (Fig. 4) shows a markedly sharper Hoyle peak than in Refs. [8,9], the kinematic-gating chain in Fig. 3 is carefully described, and the conditional event-count limit N_ES/N_HS < 1.4e-4 in the mutual-8Be-resonance window is a well-defined quantity. The triple-alpha rate code (Fortran with QUADPACK and COUL90) is a reproducible asset, and the Monte Carlo simulation is documented well enough to be reused. If the population-ratio assumption can be independently constrained, or the result reframed as an event-count limit, this would be a substantial improvement in sensitivity for the Efimov-state hypothesis. As it stands, however, the headline width-ratio limit, the penetrability 'support,' and the astrophysical rate conclusions all rest on an unvalidated population assumption and on one retrofitted parameter.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (4)-(5) and the paragraph following Eq. (4)] The width-ratio limit in Eqs. (4)-(5) rests entirely on the statement that P_HS/P_ES is 'approximately 1' by a Boltzmann-factor argument. A 57 MeV 12C+12C reaction is not a thermal system, and the paper offers no experimental or model-based constraint on the relative population of a diffuse, weakly coupled Efimov-like state versus the strongly populated Hoyle state. Because the inferred limit is proportional to P_HS/P_ES, an unconstrained value of P_HS/P_ES = 10 would raise the limit to about 0.14%, only marginally better than the 0.2% limit of Cardella et al., and P_HS/P_ES = 100 would make the present limit worse than that of Ref. [9]. A literal thermal Boltzmann factor would give P_HS/P_ES < 1 because the Hoyle state is 196 keV higher, so the assumption is not conservative in any well-defined direction. The manuscript must either constrain the population ratio, for example from the relative yields of other known states in the same spectrum, or explicitly present the rigorous result as an upper limit on the event-count ratio N_ES/N_HS with the width-ratio limit stated as conditional on P_HS/P_ES.
  2. [Penetrability discussion and Fig. 5] The penetrability calculation is presented as support for the observation, but it is a one-parameter fit. With the natural inner turning radius the ratio of Efimov to Hoyle penetrabilities is about 1e-8, six orders of magnitude below the measured upper limit, and the radius ratio R_ES_N/R_HS_N is then set to 3.85 so that the penetrability ratio matches 0.014%. The 'extended structure' conclusion is therefore imposed by the data rather than independently confirmed; the abstract's phrasing that the observation is 'supported by a new penetrability calculation' is misleading. At most this calculation can be reported as a consistency check showing that a diffuse state of radius about 3.85 R_N could account for the limit.
  3. [Abstract and concluding paragraph] The abstract states that 'it was possible to observe the Efimov state at the predicted energy level,' and the summary repeats 'the observed Efimov state significantly enhances the triple-alpha reaction rate.' This overstates the analysis: the paper identifies 21 candidate events and derives a 2-sigma upper limit on the decay-width ratio, and that upper limit is consistent with a negligible or zero Efimov contribution. The manuscript should reword these passages to report candidate events and an upper limit, and to present the astrophysical rate enhancement as conditional on the existence of the state and on the adopted width.
  4. [Definition of N_ES and N_HS (paragraph after Fig. 4)] Eqs. (4)-(5) compare observed counts N_ES and N_HS, so the inferred width ratio is valid only if the two event classes are selected with equal efficiency and if the candidate window has negligible background. The manuscript does not state how N_HS = 2.21e5 is determined (for example, a peak integral in Fig. 4), nor does it report the relative detection and gating efficiency for the two event classes, although the Monte Carlo simulation that produced the simulated spectra in Fig. 4 could provide it. In addition, no background estimate is given for the 60-120 keV mutual-8Be-resonance gate; leakage from the Hoyle-state sequential-decay tail or from random coincidences into that window is not quantified. The efficiency ratio and the expected background in the gate should be stated explicitly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Upper-limit statistics (paragraph after Fig. 4)] The text should state the confidence-level convention behind the '2-sigma' upper limit of about 31 events; the value corresponds to the usual 95% confidence-level classical Poisson upper limit for 21 observed events with zero assumed background, so the coverage convention should be specified.
  2. [Eq. (1)] Equation (1) is garbled in the typeset version; it should read E_Efimov = (2/3) times the sum of the three alpha-pair relative energies plus E_th, and E_th = 7.274 MeV should be explicitly identified as the 3-alpha threshold.
  3. [Table I and Appendix A] The triple-alpha rate calculation uses Gamma_ES_alpha = 8.84e-4 eV, obtained from the raw ratio 21/2.21e5 rather than from the 2-sigma upper-limit value (31/2.21e5 about 1.3e-3 eV) quoted in the main text; the choice should be justified or the upper-limit value propagated.
  4. [Table I] In Table I the units of Gamma_alpha are eV while Gamma_gamma is given in meV; consistent units in the column headers would avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Summary of rate comparison] The statement that the combined Hoyle-plus-Efimov rate exceeds the Tsumura et al. rate 'by over six orders of magnitude' should specify the temperature at which this comparison is made, because the ratio is strongly temperature dependent.
  6. [Reference [13]] Reference [13] is incomplete and garbled ('Series in Computational Mathematics v.1 515.43/Q1S 100394Z (1983)'); full bibliographic data should be provided.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 0.014% width-ratio limit is, by Eq. (5), the measured event ratio with P_HS/P_ES set to 1; the extended-structure 'support' is a one-parameter fit (RES_N/RHS_N = 3.85) chosen to reproduce that same limit.

  1. self definitional [Equations (4)-(5), event-analysis section near Figure 4]
    "Now, the Γα of the Efimov state, with respect to the Hoyle state, can be determined from the potential Efimov counts as follows: ΓESα/ΓHSα < PHS/PES × NES/NHS ... The population probability of a particular excited state can be approximated by the Boltzmann factor (e−Ei/kBT). For the present case, the ratio PHS/PES is approximately 1. Thus, ΓESα/ΓHSα ⪅ NES/NHS"

    In Eq. (4), the width ratio is expressed as (P_HS/P_ES)×(N_ES/N_HS). The only constraint on P_HS/P_ES is the appended sentence setting it to 'approximately 1' via a Boltzmann argument for a 57 MeV 12C+12C reaction. Substituting that value makes Eq. (5) algebraically identical to the measured event ratio N_ES/N_HS. The claimed 0.014% limit on Γ_ES_α/Γ_HS_α is therefore, by construction, the observed count ratio with the unknown population factor fixed to unity. If P_HS/P_ES were 10 or 100, the same 21 events would correspond to a 0.14% or 1.4% width ratio, so the central number is the input event ratio renamed as a width ratio rather than an independently inferred width.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Penetrability section, Figure 5]
    "So, in principle, for calculating the penetrability of an α particle from an Efimov state, one can increase the inner turning radius, RN ... to get a higher value of penetrability that matches the observed experimental upper limit. Fig. 5 shows ... Interestingly, it is observed that, for RES_N/RHS_N = 3.85, the penetrability ratio matches our experimental upper limit (0.014%). Thus, assuming the Efimov state to be relatively spatially extended compared to the Hoyle state, one can explain the present experimental upper limit."

    The radius ratio is not obtained from an independent model or measurement; it is tuned so that the penetrability ratio reproduces the paper's own 0.014% upper limit. Choosing RES_N/RHS_N = 3.85 because it yields 0.014% means the subsequent conclusion that the Efimov state is extended, with radius about 3.85 times the Hoyle state, is a one-parameter fit to the target observable. The 'explanation' is therefore forced by construction, and the same argument could accommodate any hypothetical upper limit by readjusting the radius ratio.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A, Table I and following text]
    "For the ES, the resonance parameters are not known experimentally; hence, they were calculated as follows: i) ΓESα was obtained using Eq. 5, thus, ΓESα = ΓHSα × 21/(2.21×10^5) = 9.3(eV) × 9.5 × 10^-5 = 8.84 × 10^-4 eV"

    The Efimov-state alpha width used in the triple-α rate calculation is taken directly from Eq. (5), i.e., from the same event-count ratio that underlies the 0.014% limit. Feeding this width into the reaction-rate integral and reporting that the combined triple-α rate 'was found to be larger than the allowed limit' is a deterministic propagation of the measured count ratio. The astrophysical rate is not an independent prediction or constraint on the Efimov width; it is the input event ratio mapped through the rate formula, so any tension with the Suda limit follows algebraically from the assumed input rather than from new information in the rate calculation.

full rationale

The genuine experimental datum in this paper is the high-resolution event count: 21 candidate events and a 2σ upper limit N_ES/N_HS ≈ 1.4×10^-4. That measurement is not circular. The circularity arises when the paper converts this count ratio into a width-ratio limit: Eq. (4) introduces an unknown population ratio, and the text sets it to unity using a Boltzmann argument that is not applicable to a nonthermal 57 MeV heavy-ion reaction; Eq. (5) then makes the width-ratio limit identical to the event ratio by construction. A separate, clearly fitted step is the penetrability discussion: the inner-radius ratio is increased until the model matches the same 0.014% upper limit, so the 'extended Efimov structure' claim is a one-parameter fit presented as support. The triple-α rate calculation in Appendix A likewise imports Γ_ES_α from Eq. (5) and outputs a rate that is simply the assumed width propagated through the formula; calling this an empirical finding is a renaming of the input. The self-citation to Ref. [10] is minor and not independently load-bearing; the score is set by the definitional collapse of the width ratio to the count ratio and by the fitted radius ratio, which make several of the paper's headline conclusions reduce to their own inputs while the raw event measurement retains independent value.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The measurement itself rests on standard experimental techniques, but the width-ratio upper limit depends on the assumed population ratio P_HS/P_ES≈1, which is the key free parameter. The predicted Efimov energy (7.458 MeV) is taken from the kinematic formula of Zheng and Bonasera. The penetrability and triple-alpha rate sections introduce additional free parameters (radius ratio 3.85, Γ_ES_α=8.84e-4 eV from the count ratio, Γ_ES_γ from the Depastas scaling) that are fitted or derived from the same measurement, so they do not provide independent support.

free parameters (4)
  • Population ratio P_HS/P_ES = ≈1 (assumed)
    The ratio of population probabilities of the Efimov and Hoyle states is set to 1 via a Boltzmann factor approximation, with no validation in a heavy-ion reaction; the extracted width ratio is linearly proportional to the inverse of this ratio.
  • Inner turning radius ratio R_ES_N/R_HS_N = 3.85
    Chosen so the penetrability ratio matches the measured upper limit of 0.014% (Fig. 5).
  • Efimov alpha width Γ_ES_α = 8.84e-4 eV
    Derived from the observed count ratio 21/2.21e5 multiplied by the Hoyle alpha width (9.3 eV); used as input for the triple-alpha rate calculation.
  • Efimov gamma width Γ_ES_γ = 5.28e-8 meV
    Calculated using the Depastas scaling relation, depending on the assumed Γ_ES_α and energy scales.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Efimov state energy formula Eq. (1)
    The predicted 7.458 MeV energy is taken from Zheng and Bonasera's kinematic prescription and is used to define the search region.
  • ad hoc to paper Boltzmann population approximation
    P_HS/P_ES≈1 is assumed without derivation; the reaction is not a thermal bath.
  • domain assumption WKB penetrability model from Ref. [10]
    Nuclear interaction parameters from the authors' prior work are retained for the penetrability calculation.
  • domain assumption Triple-alpha rate formalism of Refs. [11,12]
    Standard formalism used to compute the rate; the Efimov state parameters are inserted as inputs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for the Efimov state near the 3$\alpha$ threshold." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FHEGWSZL

@misc{pith2026250703514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for the Efimov state near the 3$\alpha$ threshold},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FHEGWSZL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03514}
}
abstract

A high-precision experiment in search of the predicted Efimov state in $^{12}\mathrm{C}$ at 7.458 MeV excitation energy was performed. Using a state-of-the-art detector system and novel analysis techniques, it was possible to observe the Efimov state at the predicted energy level above the 3$\alpha$ threshold with much better sensitivity in the $^{12} \mathrm{C}$ excitation energy spectrum compared to the existing data. The mutual $^{8} \mathrm{Be}$ resonance (91.84 keV) condition filters out a total of 21 probable Efimov state events around 7.458 MeV. With 2$\sigma$ confidence, it gives an upper limit of 0.014$\%$ for the Efimov state $\alpha$-decay width relative to that of the Hoyle state, which is about an order of magnitude smaller than the latest upper limit found in the literature. This observation was supported by a new penetrability calculation assuming a relatively extended structure of the Efimov state compared to the Hoyle state. The effect of the Efimov state was also explored in a nuclear astrophysical scenario, where the triple-$\alpha$ reaction rate, including both the Hoyle state and the Efimov state, was found to be larger than the allowed limit, while the temperature dependence of the combined rate was found to be compatible with the helium shell flash criterion of the AGB stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03514 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Artistic representation of a) the Hoyle state depicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental setup consisting of eight DSSDs ar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Excitation energy spectrum of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. a) Simulated kinematic gate that represents the cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ratio of ‘penetrability of the Efimov state’ to ‘that of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) shows the ratio of the triple-α reaction rate (r3α) calculated for the Hoyle state and the Efimov state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Cardella, A

    G. Cardella, A. Bonasera, N.S. Martorana, L. Acosta, E. De Filippo, E. Geraci, B. Gnoffo, C. Guazzoni, L. Lo Monaco, C. Maiolino, A. Pagano, E.V. Pagano, M. Papa, S. Pirrone, G. Politi, F. Risitano, F. Rizzo, P. Rus- sotto, and M. Trimarchi, Nuclear Physics A 1020, 122395 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2022.122395

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Efimov, Phys

    V. Efimov, Phys. Lett. B 33, 563 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(70)90349-7

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(70)90349-7 1970

  3. [2]

    Kraemer, M

    T. Kraemer, M. Mark, P. Waldburger, J. G. Danzl, C. Chin, B. Engeser, A. D. Lange, K. Pilch, A. Jaakkola, H. C. N¨ agerl, and R. Grimm, Nature 440, 315 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04626

    doi:10.1038/nature04626 2006

  4. [3]

    H. Suno, Y. Suzuki, and P. Descouve- mont, Phys. Rev. C 91, 014004 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.91.014004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.91.014004 2015

  5. [4]

    Zheng, A

    H. Zheng, A. Bonasera, M. Huang, and S. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 779, 460 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.02.040 2018

  6. [5]

    Zheng and A

    H. Zheng and A. Bonasera, J. Phys. Commun. 4, 085011 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/2399-6528/abaca4

    work page doi:10.1088/2399-6528/abaca4 2020

  7. [6]

    Zhang, A

    S. Zhang, A. Bonasera, M. Huang, H. Zheng, D. X. Wang, J. C. Wang, L. Lu, G. Zhang, Z. Kohley, Y. G. Ma, and S. J. Yennello, Phys. Rev. C 99, 044605 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.99.044605

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.99.044605 2019

  8. [7]

    L¨ ahde, Dean Lee, and Ulf-G

    Evgeny Epelbaum, Hermann Krebs, Timo A. L¨ ahde, Dean Lee, and Ulf-G. Meißner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 252501 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.252501

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.252501 2012

Show all 16 references
  1. [8]

    Bishop, G

    J. Bishop, G. V. Rogachev, S. Ahn, E. Aboud, M. Barbui, A. Bosh, J. Hooker, C. Hunt, H. Jayatissa, E. Koshchiy, R. Malecek, S. T. Marley, M. Munch, E. C. Pollacco, C. D. Pruitt, B. T. Roeder, A. Saastamoinen, L. G. Sobotka, and S. Upadhyayula, Phys. Rev. C 103, L051303 (2021)....

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    Baishya, S

    A. Baishya, S. Santra, A. Pal, and P. C. Rout, Phys. Rev. C 104, 024601 (2021). 6 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.104.024601

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Angulo, M

    C. Angulo, M. Arnould, M. Rayet, P. Descouvemont, D. Baye, C. Leclercq-Willain, A. Coc, S. Barhoumi, P. Aguer, C. Rolfs, R. Kunz, J. Hammer, A. Mayer, T. Paradellis, S. Kossionides, C. Chronidou, K. Spyrou, S. Degl’Innocenti, G. Fiorentini, B. Ricci, S. Zavatarelli, C. Provide...

    1999 doi

  4. [12]

    Tsumura, T

    M. Tsumura, T. Kawabata, Y. Takahashi, S. Adachi, H. Akimune, S. Ashikaga, T. Baba, Y. Fujikawa, H. Fujimura, H. Fujioka, T. Furuno, T. Hashimoto, T. Harada, M. Ichikawa, K. Inaba, Y. Ishii, N. Itagaki, M. Itoh, C. Iwamoto, N. Kobayashi, A. Koshikawa, S. Kubono, Y. Maeda, Y. M...

    2021

  5. [13]

    Piessens, E

    R. Piessens, E. deDoncker-Kapenga, C. Uberhuber, D. Kahaner, Series in Computational Mathematics v.1 515.43/Q1S 100394Z (1983)

    1983

  6. [14]

    A. R. Barnett, The Calculation of Spherical Bessel and Coulomb Functions, Springer, pp 181–202 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61010-3 9

    1996 doi

  7. [15]

    T. Suda, R. Hirschi, and M. Y. Fujimoto, Astro- phys. J. 741,61 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/0004- 637X/741/1/61

    2011 doi

  8. [16]

    Depastas, S.T

    T. Depastas, S.T. Sun, H.B. He, H. Zheng, A. Bonasera, Phys. Lett. B 860 139180 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2024.139180 Appendix A: T riple-α Reaction Rate The expression for the triple- α reaction rate [11, 12] is given as, r3α = N 2 A⟨σv⟩ααα = 3NA 8πℏ µ2αα µαα...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.