Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 83 references

"Nuclear thermometers" reveal the origin of the universal r-process nucleosynthesis

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Giant dipole resonances on hot nuclei reveal an enhanced symmetry energy at r-process temperatures, pulling the neutron drip line inward and explaining the universal r-process abundance pattern.

desk verdict Plausible but unproven: the enhanced symmetry energy argument rests on an effect the paper itself calls within errors, with no significance analysis and a shaky extrapolation; still a serious hypothesis worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17852 v1 pith:KJ235DZC submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.SR nucl-exnucl-th

José Nicolás Orce This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRnucl-exnucl-th
keywords r-processnucleosynthesisgiantdipoleresonancesymmetryenergyneutrondriplineBrink-Axelhypothesisstarmergersnuclearthermometerssemi-empiricalmassformula
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 argues that giant dipole resonances built on excited nuclear states can be read as thermometers for the ejecta of neutron-star mergers. A new analysis anchored by a measurement on $^{52}$Cr at an effective temperature of about $T=0.51$ MeV (about $5.9\times10^9$ K) finds that the nuclear symmetry energy is enhanced at the temperatures where the r-process operates. In the Bethe-Weizsäcker semi-empirical mass formula, a larger symmetry energy makes neutron-rich nuclei less bound and pulls the neutron drip line inward. The paper concludes that this temperature-dependent shrinking of the nuclear chart limits the r-process reaction network and thereby explains why the heavy-element abundance pattern is the same in very old metal-poor stars and in the Sun.

What carries the argument

The central object is the giant dipole resonance, the out-of-phase collective oscillation of protons and neutrons, whose centroid energy and width relate to the symmetry-energy coefficient $a_{\rm sym}$ through the Danos hydrodynamic relation, Eq. (2) of the paper. The treatment of GDRs built on excited states as thermometers relies on the Brink-Axel hypothesis, namely that every nuclear state carries a GDR with similar centroid energy and strength. This machinery turns measured $\gamma$-ray spectra from fusion-evaporation reactions into a temperature-dependent $a_{\rm sym}(A)$, which is then inserted into the Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula to shift the neutron drip line inward. The shell-model calculation of the electric-dipole polarizability $\alpha_{E1}$, inversely proportional to the symmetry energy, is the microscopic support: destructive contributions of off-diagonal E1 matrix elements lower $\alpha_{E1}$ for the first excited state and so raise $a_{\rm sym}$.

What would settle it

A direct check would measure the giant dipole resonance on excited states of a heavy neutron-rich nucleus with $A>100$ at an effective temperature near $T\approx0.5$ MeV. If the extracted symmetry energy matches the cold ground-state curve within error, so that it stays near 27 MeV rather than rising toward 31 MeV, the drip line does not close in and the proposed origin of the universal abundances would be contradicted. A complementary test is a mass measurement of waiting-point nuclei near the predicted closed-in drip line, where the claimed binding-energy drop should appear as a systematic offset from cold-mass extrapolations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the Danos hydrodynamic relation between the giant dipole resonance (GDR) energy and width and the symmetry-energy coefficient $a_{\rm sym}$, the author extracts $a_{\rm sym}(A)$ from GDRs built on excited states at $T\approx0.5$–1 MeV. The new data point at $T=0.51$ MeV for $^{52}$Cr, combined with the earlier evaluation, places $a_{\rm sym}(A)$ on a curve that saturates near 31 MeV for heavy nuclei, compared with about 27 MeV for cold nuclei. Substituting $a_{\rm sym}\simeq31$ MeV into the Bethe-Weizsäcker semi-empirical mass formula lowers binding energies of neutron-rich nuclei and closes in the neutron drip line, so the r-process path is confined closer to stability. The paper concludes that this temperature-dependent confinement is the origin of the universal r-process abundance pattern observed in extremely metal-poor stars and the Sun. A shell-model calculation of the electric-dipole polarizability—inversely proportional to the symmetry energy—adds microscopic support, because destructive interference among off-diagonal E1 matrix elements lowers the polarizability of the first excited state and hence raises $a_{\rm sym}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing step is the extrapolation that the flat, enhanced symmetry energy measured in one light nucleus, $^{52}$Cr, at $T=0.51$ MeV continues to hold for the heavy neutron-rich nuclei and the slightly cooler temperatures where the r-process actually runs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • R-process network calculations that assume cold ground-state masses will overestimate how far the reaction path reaches into the neutron-rich region; including the enhanced symmetry energy moves the drip-line cutoff inward.
  • Radiative neutron-capture rates on neutron-rich nuclei decrease at $T\approx0.5$ MeV, because the nuclei involved are less bound.
  • The universality of the observed r-process pattern would be set by nuclear structure, through the temperature-dependent drip line, rather than by a single finely tuned astrophysical site.
  • Mass extrapolations far from stability matter less for abundance predictions, because the reaction flow is cut off before the most uncertain mass region is reached.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the enhancement persists in heavy nuclei, high-precision mass measurements of short-lived neutron-rich isotopes should show binding energies systematically lower than cold-mass predictions by roughly the shift implied by $\Delta a_{\rm sym}$.
  • The mechanism implies a temperature-dependent boundary to the nuclear chart, so the final r-process abundances may be frozen early in the ejecta cooling, before the drip line recedes further.
  • Running the same r-process network with and without the enhanced symmetry energy and comparing the predicted abundance peaks with the solar pattern would give a direct test of how much of the universality is nuclear rather than astrophysical.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the centroid energies of giant dipole resonances (GDRs) built on excited states are slightly increased relative to ground-state GDRs, and that this increase, when converted through Eq. (2), implies an enhanced symmetry energy coefficient asym at temperatures around T = 0.5 MeV. This enhanced symmetry energy is then used in the Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula to close in the neutron drip line, which the author argues limits the r-process reaction network and thereby explains the universal pattern of heavy-element abundances. The new evidence is a single 52Cr datum at T = 0.51 MeV, flatness of asym over 0.74–1.3 MeV from earlier work, and shell-model estimates of the E1 polarizability for a light nucleus (24Mg).

Significance. If substantiated, the claimed enhancement of the symmetry energy at astrophysical temperatures would be of considerable interest: it would connect nuclear structure at finite temperature to the location of the neutron drip line and potentially explain the universality of r-process abundances without invoking a single privileged astrophysical site. The paper also contributes a useful re-evaluation of hot-GDR systematics and a potentially valuable diagnostic (GDR-based nuclear thermometers). However, the central empirical claim rests on an effect the paper itself states is within experimental errors, and the extrapolation from a single light nucleus to heavy neutron-rich nuclei at lower temperatures is unsupported. The paper does not provide a quantitative uncertainty budget or a significance test, so the main conclusion currently lacks the necessary evidential basis.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (2)] The paper states that the 3–5% increase in EGDR for excited-state GDRs is 'within the experimental errors', yet Eq. (2) squares EGDR, which amplifies this into a roughly 15% increase in asym (31 vs 27 MeV). No uncertainty propagation or statistical significance test is given for asymmetric enhancement. Because this enhancement is the entire basis for the drip-line shift and the r-process universality claim, the central empirical conclusion is not established by the presented data.
  2. [Section 2 and Fig. 3] The only new datum at T = 0.51 MeV is for 52Cr, a light nucleus with A = 52, far from the heavy neutron-rich nuclei where the r-process path runs. The paper's own text concedes that flatness in the [0.74, 1.3] MeV interval 'suggests that this relation could still hold at lower temperatures', explicitly acknowledging the absence of data in the r-process window T ≈ 0.04–0.5 MeV. The extrapolation from one light nucleus and a higher-temperature plateau to the r-process regime is load-bearing and unsupported.
  3. [Fig. 5] The drip-line comparison uses asym = 23.7 MeV as the 'usual' ground-state value, whereas Fig. 2 shows the ground-state systematics saturating at approximately 27 MeV. The choice of 23.7 MeV exaggerates the drip-line close-in. Furthermore, the drip lines are obtained by inserting the assumed asym = 31 MeV into the semi-empirical mass formula, so the close-in is a direct consequence of the input value rather than an independent confirmation of the enhanced symmetry energy.
  4. [Section 3 and Fig. 4] The shell-model E1 polarizability calculation is performed at T ≈ 0 MeV for a light self-conjugate nucleus (24Mg), and the text explicitly states that similar 1ℏω shell-model calculations are not feasible for the high excitation energies and heavy neutron-rich nuclei relevant to the r-process. This calculation therefore provides at best qualitative motivation, not quantitative evidence that the symmetry energy is enhanced at T ≈ 0.5 MeV for the nuclei where the r-process operates.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and text] The inequality symbols are garbled in several places (e.g., '1.0 /greaterorapproxeqlT /greaterorapproxeql0.7 MeV'); the typesetting should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The nuclides '201Tl' and '97Tc' should have properly superscripted mass numbers (e.g., 201Tl, 97Tc) to match standard notation.
  3. [Section 2] The weighted average asym(52Cr) = 19.06(13) MeV is not compared with the ground-state asym for 52Cr from Fig. 2, making it difficult for the reader to quantify the claimed temperature effect for this specific nucleus.
  4. [Fig. 2] The asym values extracted from Eq. (2) are shown without error bars; given the admitted experimental uncertainties in EGDR and the strong nonlinear amplification in Eq. (2), an uncertainty band on the curves is essential for assessing the significance of the 27 vs 31 MeV saturation values.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The drip-line close-in in Fig. 5 is the fitted asym=31 value routed through the mass formula and labeled 'predicted'; the r-process conclusion is therefore a restatement of the fitted input rather than an independent test.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Fig. 5 caption and Section 3 (Discussion and Conclusions)]
    "Figure 5. Neutron drip lines predicted at symmetry energy coefficients of asym = 23.7 (squares) and 31 (circles) MeV. Solid lines indicate the loci limits determined from the uncertainty in the symmetry energy. ... The effect from a larger symmetry energy at T ≈ 0.5 − 1 MeV is illustrated in Fig. 5, which shows the corresponding neutron drip lines using the usual asym = 23.7 MeV (Rohlf 1994) (squares) and 31 MeV (circles), respectively."

    The asym=31 MeV input is not an independent measurement; it is the saturation value obtained in Fig. 2 by inserting hot-GDR centroid energies into Eq. 2. The 3–5% EGDR increase, which the text itself says is within experimental errors, is squared into a ~15% asym increase. The drip line is then computed from the Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula using that same asym. Consequently, the 'predicted' close-in of the drip line is a direct algebraic consequence of the fitted/assumed asym and carries no new information. The conclusion that the r-process network is limited is the input value restated rather than an independently tested prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: external GDR centroid data (Schiller & Thoennessen 2007; Feldman et al. 1993) -> Eq. 2 -> asym(A,T) -> Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula -> neutron drip line -> limited r-process network -> universality. The GDR data themselves are external and not circularly obtained; the self-citations to Orce et al. (2023b) point to a previous analysis of the same external Schiller-Thoennessen evaluation, so the self-citation is not, by itself, load-bearing in a circular sense. The circularity arises at the point where the fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction: Fig. 2's solid curve saturates at asym≈31 MeV because Eq. 2 converts the slightly higher hot-GDR centroids into a larger symmetry energy; Fig. 5 then 'predicts' drip lines from that same asym=31 MeV value. The close-in of the drip line is therefore a direct mathematical consequence of the fitted/assumed value, not an independent observable, and the paper uses that close-in as the explanation for r-process universality. The statistical weakness (3-5% EGDR shift within errors) and the extrapolation from T=0.74-1.3 MeV down to 0.5 MeV are correctness risks, but the construction-level issue is that the central 'prediction' is the input parameter expressed in different coordinates.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters beyond the fitted coefficients of the hot-GDR parametrization and the chosen asym values for the drip line illustration. The main assumptions are the validity of the Brink-Axel hypothesis, the hydrodynamic GDR model, and the extrapolation of a single low-temperature datum on a light nucleus to the heavy neutron-rich r-process regime. These assumptions are load-bearing because removing any one of them collapses the link from GDR thermometry to universal r-process abundances.

free parameters (5)
  • hot-GDR parametrization coefficients = 11.27 and 28.45 MeV
    Coefficients in the new parametrization E_GDR = 11.27 A^-1/3 + 28.45 A^-1/6, fit to the excitation-state GDR data from Schiller & Thoennessen (2007) and recent measurements (Fig. 1).
  • saturation symmetry energy (hot) = asym approximately 31 MeV
    Saturation value of the symmetry energy derived from the hot-GDR parametrization; used in Fig. 5 to compute the close-in drip line.
  • ground-state saturation symmetry energy = asym approximately 27 MeV
    Saturation value from ground-state GDRs, used as the comparison in Fig. 2 and for the 23.7 MeV drip line in Fig. 5.
  • asym for drip line calculation = 23.7 MeV and 31 MeV
    Two chosen values used in Fig. 5 to illustrate the drip line shift; 23.7 from Rohlf (1994), 31 from the hot-GDR analysis.
  • level-density parameters for effective temperature = Pühlhofer and Reisdorf prescriptions
    Effective temperatures for the 52Cr data depend on the choice of level-density parameters; two prescriptions give similar results but the choice affects the temperature assignment.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Validity of the Brink-Axel hypothesis
    The paper assumes GDRs built on excited states have the same centroid energy and strength as ground-state GDRs, which is required to use excited-state GDRs as thermometers; the paper cites experimental and theoretical support but also notes deviations in the pygmy region.
  • standard math Validity of the hydrodynamic (Danos) relation between GDR energy and symmetry energy (Eqs. 1-2)
    The extraction of asym from E_GDR and Gamma_GDR uses the Danos hydrodynamic model; this is a standard model in nuclear physics but an approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper Extrapolation of the temperature-independence of asym from 0.74-1.3 MeV down to r-process temperatures
    Section 2 states that the symmetry energy does not change with temperature in [0.74,1.3] MeV and suggests this could hold down to about 0.1 MeV, but only one datum below 0.74 MeV (52Cr at 0.51 MeV) is presented.
  • ad hoc to paper Applicability of the enhanced symmetry energy to heavy neutron-rich r-process nuclei
    The only sub-0.74 MeV data point is for the light nucleus 52Cr; the paper assumes the enhancement applies to heavy r-process nuclei, while admitting that shell-model calculations for such nuclei are not feasible.
  • standard math Semi-empirical mass formula with constant asym for drip line determination
    The drip line calculation in Fig. 5 uses the Bethe-Weizsäcker mass formula with selected asym values; this is a standard but simplified approach to the neutron drip line.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of "Nuclear thermometers" reveal the origin of the universal r-process nucleosynthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJ235DZC

@misc{pith2026241117852,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: "Nuclear thermometers" reveal the origin of the universal r-process nucleosynthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJ235DZC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17852}
}
abstract

The resembling behaviour of giant dipole resonances built on ground and excited states supports the validity of the Brink-Axel hypothesis and assigns giant dipole resonances as spectroscopic probes -- or ``nuclear thermometers'' -- to explore the cooling of the kilonova ejecta in neutron-star mergers down to the production of heavy elements beyond iron through the rapid-neutron capture or r-process. In previous work, we found a slight energy increase in the giant dipole resonance built on excited states at the typical temperatures of $1.0\gtrapprox T\gtrapprox0.7$ MeV where seed nuclei are produced, before ongoing neutron capture. Crucial data are presented here supporting an enhanced symmetry energy at $T=0.51$ MeV (or $5.9\times 10^9$ K) -- where the r-process occurs -- that lowers the binding energy in the Bethe-Weizs\"acker semi-empirical mass formula and results in the close in of the neutron drip line. Ergo, providing an origin to the universality of elemental abundances by limiting the reaction network for r-process nucleosynthesis. An enhanced symmetry energy away from the ground state is further supported by shell-model calculations of the nuclear electric dipole ({\sc E1}) polarizability -- inversely proportional to the symmetry energy -- as a result of the destructive contribution of the products of off-diagonal {\sc E1} matrix elements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17852 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Systematics of centroid energies for excited-state/hot GDRs ex￾tracted from the 2007 evaluation (Schiller & Thoennessen 2007) and re￾cent measurements (Pandit et al. 2012; Dey et al. 2014; Mondal et al. 2018; Pandit et al. 2021). The solid curve corresponds to the new parametrization, EGDR = 11.27 A −1/3 +28.45 A −1/6 , proposed for hot GDRs, whereas the dash curve is the well-known parametrization, EGDR = 31.2 A −1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Symmetry energy coefficient, asym(A) extracted for 201Tl, 97Tc and 52Cr as a function of temperature, T. A similar smooth behaviour is observed for other nuclei. Dashed lines are linear regressions to the data. Two level densities approaches (Pühlhofer (Pühlhofer 1977) and Reisdorf (Reisdorf 1981)) were applied to evaluate the effective temperature, yielding similar results. by γ ray of hTi = [0.51 − 1.36] MeV (Feld… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Neutron drip lines predicted at symmetry energy coefficients of asym = 23.7 (squares) and 31 (circles) MeV. Solid lines indicate the loci limits determined from the uncertainty in the symmetry energy. Dotted lines indicate the proton and neutron magic numbers.. structively. Unfortunately, such 1~ω shell-model calculations are not feasible for such high-excitation energies and for the heavy neutron￾rich nuclei where … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Axel P., 1962, Physical Review, 126, 671

    1962

  2. [2]

    V., 1962, Zhurnal \^Eksperimental'noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki, 42, 275

    Balashov V. V., 1962, Zhurnal \^Eksperimental'noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki, 42, 275

    1962

  3. [3]

    Springer, Berlin

    Berg\`ere R., 1977, Lecture N otes in P hysics 61 and 62, Electron and Photonuclear Reactions. Springer, Berlin

    1977

  4. [4]

    L., 1973, International Conference on Photonuclear reactions and applications

    Berman B. L., 1973, International Conference on Photonuclear reactions and applications. Asilomar, Conference Ground, Pacific Grove, California, p. 569

    work page 1973

  5. [5]

    L., Fultz S

    Berman B. L., Fultz S. C., 1975, Rev. Mod. Phys., 47, 713

    work page 1975

  6. [6]

    A., Bacher R

    Bethe H. A., Bacher R. F., 1936, Rev. Mod. Phys., 8, 82

    work page 1936

  7. [7]

    N., Mottelson B

    Bohr A. N., Mottelson B. R., 1998, Nuclear Structure (in 2 volumes). World Scientific Publishing Company

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    F., Bracco A., Broglia R

    Bortignon P. F., Bracco A., Broglia R. A., 2019, Giant Resonances: Nuclear structure at finite temperature. CRC Press

    work page 2019

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    M., 1955, PhD thesis, University of Oxford

    Brink D. M., 1955, PhD thesis, University of Oxford

    1955

  2. [10]

    Cameron A. G. W., Cowan J. J., Truran J. W., 1983, Astrophysics and Space Science, 91, 235

    1983

  3. [11]

    Chomaz P., 2003, Comptes Rendus Physique, 4, 419

    2003

  4. [12]

    Phys., 5, 23

    Danos M., 1958, Nucl. Phys., 5, 23

    1958

  5. [13]

    J., Koonin S

    Dean D. J., Koonin S. E., Langanke K., Radha P. B., 1995, Phys. Lett. B, 356, 429

    1995

  6. [14]

    J., Langanke K., Sampaio J

    Dean D. J., Langanke K., Sampaio J. M., 2002, Phys. Rev. C, 66, 045802

    2002

  7. [15]

    Dey B., et al., 2014, Phys. Lett. B, 731, 92

    2014

  8. [16]

    M., Bortignon P

    Donati P., Pizzochero P. M., Bortignon P. F., Broglia R. A., 1994, Phys. Rev. Lett., 72, 2835

    1994

  9. [17]

    Fallieros S., Goulard B., 1970, Nucl. Phys. A, 147, 593

    1970

  10. [18]

    F., Margueron J., Donati P., Pizzochero P

    Fantina A. F., Margueron J., Donati P., Pizzochero P. M., 2011, J. Phys. G, 38, 025101

    2011

  11. [19]

    Feldman G., Snover K., Behr J., Gossett C., Gundlach J., Kici\'nska-Habior M., 1993, Phys. Rev. C, 47, 1436

    1993

  12. [20]

    Frebel A., 2018, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 68, 237

    2018

  13. [21]

    J., 1992, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 42, 483

    Gaardh je J. J., 1992, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 42, 483

    1992

  14. [22]

    Rev., 74, 1046

    Goldhaber M., Teller E., 1948, Phys. Rev., 74, 1046

    1948

  15. [23]

    Goriely S., 2003, Nucl. Phys. A, 718, 287

    2003

  16. [24]

    Goriely S., Bauswein A., Janka H.-T., 2011, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 738, L32

    2011

  17. [25]

    G., Tveten G

    Guttormsen M., Larsen A.-C., G\"orgen A., Renstr m T., Siem S., Tornyi T. G., Tveten G. M., 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 012502

    2016

  18. [26]

    Jang S., Szymanski Z., 1985, Nucl. Phys. A, 436, 397

    1985

  19. [27]

    P., Frebel A., Chiti A., Simon J

    Ji A. P., Frebel A., Chiti A., Simon J. D., 2016, Nature, 531, 610

    2016

  20. [28]

    Jiang X.-F., Wu X.-H., Zhao P.-W., 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 915, 29

    2021

  21. [29]

    B., Diehl R., Famiano M

    Kajino T., Aoki W., Balantekin A. B., Diehl R., Famiano M. A., Mathews G. J., 2019, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 107, 109

    2019

  22. [30]

    Kuhn W., 1925, Zeitschrift f\"ur Physik, 33, 408

    1925

  23. [31]

    A., 1998, Phys

    Kusnezov D., Alhassid Y., Snover K. A., 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, 542

    1998

  24. [32]

    Ladenburg R., Reiche F., 1923, Naturwissenschaften, 11, 584

    1923

  25. [33]

    S., 1957, Phys

    Levinger J. S., 1957, Phys. Rev., 107, 554

    1957

  26. [34]

    S., 1960, Nuclear photo-disintegration

    Levinger J. S., 1960, Nuclear photo-disintegration. Oxford University Press

    1960

  27. [35]

    Mahaux C., Bortignon P., Broglia R., Dasso C., 1985, Physics Reports, 120, 1

    1985

  28. [36]

    McNeill K., Thompson M., Bates A., Jury J., Berman B., 1993, Phys. Rev. C, 47, 1108

    1993

  29. [37]

    Migdal A., 1945, Zhurnal Eksperimentalnoi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki, 15, 81

    1945

  30. [38]

    R., Kawano T., Myers W

    M\"oller P., Mumpower M. R., Kawano T., Myers W. D., 2019, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 125, 1

    2019

  31. [39]

    Mondal D., et al., 2018, Phys. Lett. B, 784, 423

    2018

  32. [40]

    R., Surman R., Aprahamian A., 2015, in EPJ Web of Conferences

    Mumpower M. R., Surman R., Aprahamian A., 2015, in EPJ Web of Conferences. p. 03003

    2015

  33. [41]

    R., Surman R., McLaughlin G

    Mumpower M. R., Surman R., McLaughlin G. C., Aprahamian A., 2016, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 86, 86

    2016

  34. [42]

    D., Swiatecki W

    Myers W. D., Swiatecki W. J., 1969, Annals of Physics, 55, 395

    1969

  35. [43]

    N., 2019a, in EPJ Web of Conferences

    Ngwetsheni C., Orce J. N., 2019a, in EPJ Web of Conferences. p. 01045

  36. [44]

    N., 2019b, Hyperfine Interactions, 240, 94

    Ngwetsheni C., Orce J. N., 2019b, Hyperfine Interactions, 240, 94

  37. [45]

    N., 2019c, Phys

    Ngwetsheni C., Orce J. N., 2019c, Phys. Lett. B, 792, 335

  38. [46]

    N., 2022, At

    Orce J. N., 2022, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 146, 101511

    2022

  39. [47]

    N., Ngwetsheni C., 2023, J

    Orce J. N., Ngwetsheni C., 2023, J. Phys. G, 51, 075105

    2023

  40. [48]

    N., Ngwetsheni C., 2024, J

    Orce J. N., Ngwetsheni C., 2024, J. Phys. G, 51, 075105

    2024

  41. [49]

    N., Ngwetsheni C., Brown B

    Orce J. N., Ngwetsheni C., Brown B. A., 2023a, Phys. Rev. C, 108, 044309

  42. [50]

    N., Dey B., Ngwetsheni C., Bhattacharya S., Pandit D., Lesch B., Zulu A., 2023b, MNRAS, 525, 6249

    Orce J. N., Dey B., Ngwetsheni C., Bhattacharya S., Pandit D., Lesch B., Zulu A., 2023b, MNRAS, 525, 6249

  43. [51]

    R., 2012, Phys

    Pandit D., Mukhopadhyay S., Pal S., De A., Banerjee S. R., 2012, Phys. Lett. B, 713, 434

    2012

  44. [52]

    Pandit D., et al., 2021, Phys. Lett. B, 816, 136173

    2021

  45. [53]

    P\"uhlhofer F., 1977, Nucl. Phys. A, 280, 267

    1977

  46. [54]

    Rev., 62, 438

    Racah G., 1942, Phys. Rev., 62, 438

    1942

  47. [55]

    Rayleigh J. W. S. B., 1896, The theory of sound. Macmillan

  48. [56]

    Reiche F., Thomas W., 1925, Zeitschrift f\"ur Physik, 34, 510

    1925

  49. [57]

    A., Arcones A., 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5733

    Reichert M., Obergaulinger M., Eichler M., Aloy M. A., Arcones A., 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5733

    2021

  50. [58]

    Reisdorf W., 1981, Zeitschrift f\"ur Physik A Atoms and Nuclei, 300, 227

    1981

  51. [59]

    M., Egido J

    Ring P., Robledo L. M., Egido J. L., Faber M., 1984, Nucl. Phys. A, 419, 261

    1984

  52. [60]

    W., 1994, Wiley: Modern Physics from alpha to Z 0

    Rohlf J. W., 1994, Wiley: Modern Physics from alpha to Z 0

    1994

  53. [61]

    F., 1984, Phys

    Sagawa H., Bertsch G. F., 1984, Phys. Lett. B, 146, 138

    1984

  54. [62]

    Data Nucl

    Schiller A., Thoennessen M., 2007, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables, 93, 549

    2007

  55. [63]

    P., Margueron J., Borzov I

    Severyukhin A. P., Margueron J., Borzov I. N., Van Giai N., 2015, Phys. Rev. C, 91, 034322

    2015

  56. [64]

    Rep., 53, 341

    Shoda K., 1979, Phys. Rep., 53, 341

    1979

  57. [65]

    Shoda K., Miyase H., Sugawara M., Saito T., Oikawa S., Suzuki A., Uegaki J., 1975, Nucl. Phys. A, 239, 397

    1975

  58. [66]

    M., Barnes J., Metzger B

    Siegel D. M., Barnes J., Metzger B. D., 2019, Nature, 569, 241

    2019

  59. [67]

    Sieja K., 2023, EPJ A, 59, 147

    2023

  60. [68]

    J., Gallino R., 2008, Annu

    Sneden C., Cowan J. J., Gallino R., 2008, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 46, 241

    2008

  61. [69]

    Sneppen A., Watson D., 2023, A&A, 675, A194

    2023

  62. [70]

    A., 1986, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 36, 545

    Snover K. A., 1986, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 36, 545

    1986

  63. [71]

    M., 1983, Annals of Physics, 151, 163

    Sommermann H. M., 1983, Annals of Physics, 151, 163

    1983

  64. [72]

    Steinwedel H., Jensen J. H. D., Jensen P., 1950, Phys. Rev., 79, 1019

    1950

  65. [73]

    Thomas W., 1925, Naturwissenschaften, 13, 627

    1925

  66. [74]

    Wang R., Chen L.-W., 2015, Phys. Rev. C, 92, 031303

    2015

  67. [75]

    J., Kondev F

    Wang M., Huang W. J., Kondev F. G., Audi G., Naimi S., 2021, Chinese Physics C, 45, 030003

    2021

  68. [76]

    A., 1992, Phys

    Warburton E., Brown B. A., 1992, Phys. Rev. C, 46, 923

    1992

  69. [77]

    K., Weneser J., 1969, Electromagnetic properties

    Warburton E. K., Weneser J., 1969, Electromagnetic properties. Isospin in Nuclear Physics ed D H Wilkinson (North-Holland)

    1969

  70. [78]

    Watson D., et al., 2019, Nature, 574, 497

    2019

  71. [79]

    acker C. F., 1935, Zeitschrift f\

    Weizs\"acker C. F., 1935, Zeitschrift f\"ur Physik, 96, 431

    1935

  72. [80]

    D., 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2323

    Wu M.-R., Fern \'a ndez R., Mart \' nez-Pinedo G., Metzger B. D., 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2323

    2016

  73. [81]

    Sneden, J

    C. Sneden, J. J. Cowan, R. Gallino, Neutron-capture elements in the early galaxy

  74. [82]

    A. P. Ji, A. Frebel, A. Chiti, J. D. Simon. R-process enrichment from a single event in an ancient dwarf galaxy

  75. [83]

    J. N. Orce, B. Dey, C. Ngwetsheni, S. Bhattacharya, D. Pandit, B. Lesch, A. Zulu,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.