Comment on "Structure effects in the $^{15}$N(n,$\gamma$)$^{16}$N radiative capture reaction from the Coulomb dissociation of $^{16}$N"

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

In their recent study Neelam, Shubhchintak, and Chatterjee have claimed that "it would certainly be useful to perform a Coulomb dissociation experiment to find the low energy capture cross section for the reaction" $^{15}$N(n,$\gamma$)$^{16}$N. However, it is obvious that a Coulomb dissociation experiment cannot constrain this capture cross section because the dominating branchings of the capture reaction lead to excited states in $^{16}$N which do not contribute in a Coulomb dissociation experiment. An estimate of the total $^{15}$N(n,$\gamma$)$^{16}$N cross section from Coulomb dissociation of $^{16}$N requires a precise knowledge of the $\gamma$-ray branchings in the capture reaction. Surprisingly, the calculation of Neelam, Shubhchintak, and Chatterjee predicts a strongly energy-dependent ground state branching of the order of 0.05\% to 0.6\% at energies between 100 and 500 keV which is almost 2 orders of magnitude below calculations in the direct capture model. Additionally, this calculation of Neelam, Shubhchintak, and Chatterjee deviates significantly from the expected energy dependence for $p$-wave capture.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: position or commentary 1.00 · evidence from argument 0.93.

What was examined, and what was not

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON