Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Orbital Collapse in Exotic Atoms and Its Effect on Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a heavy negative particle captured into an atom can undergo orbital collapse in a light atom, something previously associated only with f- or d-orbitals in heavy elements.

desk verdict A genuinely new and testable prediction of a mass-scaled orbital collapse that caps muon capture angular momentum in noble gases, even though the 'hard upper limit' is softer than the calculations can strictly support. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18747 v1 pith:ASKAOLXF submitted 2024-12-25 physics.atom-ph

X. M. Tong , K. Tokesi , D. Kato , T. Okumura , S. Okada , T. Azuma This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 36.10.-k
keywords muonicatomsorbitalcollapsemuoncaptureexoticangularmomentumceilingtime-dependentSchrödingerequationclassicaltrajectoryMonteCarlodensityfunctionaltheory
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 argues that a heavy negative particle captured into an atom can undergo orbital collapse in a light atom, something previously associated only with f- or d-orbitals in heavy elements. The central claim is that in muonic argon the muon orbital collapses at a critical angular momentum $l_c\approx37$: the circular state $(37,36)$ lies outside the 3p electron cloud with almost no overlap, while $(37,35)$ and lower states shrink into the inner well, so states with $l_\mu\ge l_c$ are essentially never populated in capture. The authors confirm the ceiling by solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation and by a classical trajectory Monte Carlo method in the single-active-particle approximation, and they propose a simple estimate $l_c(l_c+1)=m_\mu L_c^2$ from the local maximum of the classical circular-orbit angular momentum in an atomic model potential. If correct, the result fixes the initial angular momentum distribution of muonic and antiprotonic noble-gas atoms, which is what subsequent x-ray cascades begin from.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the scaling relation $l_c(l_c+1)=m_\mu L_c^2$, where $L_c$ is the local maximum of the classical circular-orbit angular momentum $L(r)=\sqrt{-2mr^2V(r)}$ for a particle of mass $m$ in an atomic model potential $V(r)$. It converts a purely classical feature—the jump of the stable circular orbit from an inner radius $R_c$ to an outer radius $R_0$ as $L$ passes $L_c$—into a quantum angular momentum at which the muon's centrifugal barrier no longer allows an inner bound state. The accompanying quantum object is the effective potential $V_{\rm eff}(r)=L_e^2/(2r^2)+V(r)=l_\mu(l_\mu+1)/(2m_\mu r^2)+V(r)$, whose barrier height for Ar corresponds to $l_e\approx2.15$, a non-integer for electrons but an allowed state, $l_\mu=37$, for a muon. The dynamical calculations are built on the single-active-particle approximation, with the 3p electron and the muon sharing one model potential, and on the CTMCm remapping of Eq. (8).

What would settle it

Measure the initial-state distribution of muonic Ar—for instance from the electronic K x-ray spectrum or from muonic cascade lines—and look for any population with $l_\mu\ge37$; finding a non-negligible high-$l$ component would falsify the ceiling. A numerical counterpart is a TDSE calculation with the 3s and 2p electrons active, checking whether any flux lands in $l\ge37$ states.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the muon orbital changes character discontinuously at $l_c$: in muonic Ar, the $(37,36)$ circular orbital is localized outside the 3p electron orbital and has almost no overlap with it, whereas the $(37,35)$ orbital is confined inside and overlaps strongly. The mechanism is the effective radial potential $V_{\rm eff}(r)=l_\mu(l_\mu+1)/(2m_\mu r^2)+V(r)$, which develops a centrifugal barrier separating an inner and an outer well. For $l_\mu=37$ the inner well cannot hold a bound state, while for $l_\mu=36$ it can; the same barrier corresponds to an electron angular momentum $l_e\approx2.15$, which is forbidden for argon, explaining why electrons do not show this collapse. Consequently the state-specified muon capture probability into states with $l_\mu\ge l_c=37$ is negligibly small in both TDSE and CTMC simulations; the two methods agree reasonably after CTMC's classical binding energies are remapped to quantum states using the eigenenergies of the radial Schrödinger equation. The authors show the phenomenon is general, giving $l_c\approx27,37,43,50$ for muonic Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe and larger values for antiprotonic atoms.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes argon can be represented by one active 3p electron and a muon moving in a single, fixed model potential, so that capture through the 3s or 2p electrons or through dynamic response of the electron cloud is too weak to populate states above $l_c$; if that assumption fails, the claimed hard ceiling softens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Muonic Ar capture populations are confined below $l_c$; cascade calculations can safely omit high-$l$ initial states.
  • Since $l_c$ scales with the square root of the particle mass, antiprotonic noble gases have ceilings near 80–150, making the effect a general feature of heavy-particle capture.
  • The remapped CTMC method (CTMCm) gives state-specified capture probabilities in reasonable agreement with TDSE, providing a practical computational tool for other exotic atoms.
  • Orbital collapse appears already in muonic Ne, and the trend across Ne, Ar, Kr, and Xe matches the implication of earlier muonic Ne experiments that the initial $n_\mu$ exceeds 20.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A multi-active-electron TDSE calculation that includes the 3s and 2p electrons would test whether those channels populate states above $l_c$; if they do, the ceiling becomes a statement about the dominant channel rather than a strict upper bound.
  • The small discrepancies between the scaled and DFT values of $l_c$ in Table I suggest that allowing the electron cloud to respond dynamically as the muon moves inward could shift $l_c$ by one or two units.
  • The same recipe—locate $L_c$ in any model potential and apply $l_c(l_c+1)=m L_c^2$—could predict capture ceilings for pions, kaons, or antihydrogen formation, yielding a testable mass-scaling sequence.
  • A direct experimental falsification would be to infer the initial $l_\mu$ distribution of muonic Ar from the electronic K x-ray spectrum; the paper's ceiling predicts no population at or above $l_\mu=37$.
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 paper reports a DFT study of muonic Ar atoms in which the muon orbital is found to undergo a collapse at a critical angular momentum lc (about 36–37 for Ar): for circular states with lµ > lc the muon wavefunction is pushed outside the electron cloud, while for lµ = lc it penetrates inside. The authors interpret lc as an upper limit on the angular momentum of muon-captured states and confirm this with TDSE and CTMC simulations using a single-active-electron model with model potentials. They also propose a semiclassical scaling relation, lc(lc+1) = mµ Lc^2, where Lc is the local maximum of the classical circular-orbit angular momentum in an atomic model potential, and use it to estimate lc for muonic and antiprotonic noble-gas atoms, with values in Table I compared against DFT.

Significance. If correct, this is a qualitatively new prediction: orbital collapse of a heavy negative particle in a low-Z atom, giving a sharp upper bound on the angular momentum of initially captured states. Because the initial capture state determines the subsequent x-ray cascade, the proposed upper limit is directly relevant to recent and planned muonic-atom experiments (e.g., muonic Ar and Ne). The paper offers a simple, potentially widely applicable scaling estimate for lc, and it cross-checks the dynamics with two independent methods (TDSE and CTMC). The strengths are the direct DFT wavefunction evidence, the explicit cross-method dynamical confirmation, and the authors' candid acknowledgment of the single-active-electron and static-potential limitations. The main weaknesses are that the dynamical confirmation is carried out entirely within those approximations, and that the scaling method's agreement with DFT is partly a consistency check because the model potential is fitted to the same DFT potential.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table I / Eq. (6)] The values in the 'lc (µ: scaled)' column do not follow from Eq. (6) with the stated rule of rounding to the nearest integer. For Ne, Lc = 1.98 gives lc(lc+1) ≈ 1.98^2 × 207 ≈ 811, whose nearest integer is lc = 28, not 27; for Ar, Lc = 2.65 gives lc(lc+1) ≈ 1453, and the nearest integer is lc = 38, not 37. Please specify the exact value of mµ and the rounding convention used, and correct the table or the text accordingly; as printed, the agreement between the scaled and DFT columns is not reproducible.
  2. [Abstract / §2 (single-active-particle)] The claim that lc provides an upper limit for muon-captured states is established only within the single-active-electron approximation with static model potentials, as the authors themselves state ('We consider only the 3p electron as an active electron' and the potential 'does not consider dynamic changes of the electron wavefunction when the heavy particle locates in different orbitals'). Since the abstract and conclusion phrase this as a general property of muon-captured states, please either qualify the upper limit as model-dependent or provide a quantitative estimate of the contribution to l > lc from other active orbitals (3s, 2p) and from dynamic response of the electron cloud. Without such a test, the statement that capture into lµ > lc is 'negligible' goes beyond what the presented calculations can demonstrate.
  3. [§4 / Table I] The 'simple method' of Eq. (6) is validated in Table I against DFT calculations, but model potential 1 is fitted to the same self-interaction-free DFT potential (Ref. [34]); the agreement is therefore a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. Please report Lc and the resulting lc obtained with model potential 2 (fitted to a Hartree-Fock potential) as well, or otherwise show that the scaling prediction is insensitive to the choice of model potential and to the fitting target.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] Equation (2) as printed is ambiguous: the placement of parentheses is unclear, and the current typesetting appears to show −(Z−1)[(η/ξ)(e^{ξr}−1)+1]^{−1}+1 all divided by r, which is not dimensionally consistent. Please rewrite the formula unambiguously.
  2. [Fig. 4] The capture probabilities in Fig. 4 are normalized to the largest value; to support the claim that states with lµ ≥ lc are 'negligibly' populated, please report absolute capture probabilities or at least a numerical upper bound relative to the peak for the lµ ≥ lc region.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption of Fig. 1 is difficult to parse; please rewrite it to state clearly which line style corresponds to which muon state and which to the 3p electron.
  4. [Introduction] The text uses 'principle quantum number' in the introduction; the correct spelling is 'principal quantum number'.
  5. [Eq. (6)] Please specify in the text whether mµ in Eq. (6) is the muon mass in atomic units or the reduced mass of the muonic atom, and use the same convention throughout the paper.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The muon-capture upper limit is established only inside the fitted model potential: the Eq. (6) 'agreement' and the TDSE/CTMC 'confirmations' reuse the same DFT-fitted potentials that generate the collapse, so the cutoff is not independently validated.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Eqs. (3)-(6) and Table I, section 'We first analyze the process from a classical viewpoint']
    "The ai’s are obtained by fitting the self-interaction-free DFT potential [34]. ... We also propose a simple method to estimate lc for exotic noble atoms from atomic model potentials. The estimated values agree with those calculated by DFT."

    The model potential enters Eq. (6) through Lc, the local maximum of L(r). The parameters ai are fitted to the self-interaction-free DFT potential, and the 'DFT' lc values in Table I are obtained from that same DFT potential. The agreement between Eq. (6) and DFT is therefore a consistency check of the analytic fit to the parent potential, not a test against independent data: the barrier that produces Lc is inherited from the DFT input, so the estimated and DFT lc values are two outputs of one underlying potential.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 'As a result of orbital collapse...' and Figs. 4(a)-(c)]
    "We consider only the 3p electron as an active electron, despite other orbitals (e.g., 3s and 2p) also contributing to the capture process with lower probabilities. ... In the simulations, the active electron 3p and moun move in the same model potential, and the two particles interact through Coulomb force. ... we simulated the same process by solving the TDSE [24, 38] with model potential 1. ... as the applied model potential does not consider dynamic changes of the electron wavefunction when the heavy particle locates in different orbitals."

    The TDSE/CTMC 'confirmation' uses model potentials 1 and 2, which are fitted to the same DFT/Hartree-Fock potentials that already yield the collapse. Because the muon effective potential for l>lc contains the barrier in the input, the calculated capture probability into l>lc is suppressed by that input barrier. With only the 3p electron active and with dynamic screening excluded, channels that could populate l>lc are not simulated. The dynamical results are therefore an internal-consistency check of the model potential rather than independent evidence that the upper limit holds for the real many-electron system.

full rationale

Score 5 reflects partial, not total, circularity. The central collapse at lc is obtained from a self-interaction-free DFT calculation, which is not itself fitted to the collapse and is prior published work by the authors; this gives the paper genuine independent content. However, the two 'confirmations' are internal to the same theoretical potential. Model potentials 1 and 2 are fitted to the DFT/Hartree-Fock potentials, so Eq. (6) and Table I compare a classical estimate with the quantum result of the same potential, checking the fit rather than testing an external prediction. Likewise, the TDSE and CTMC simulations place the muon and the active 3p electron in those same fitted potentials, and the authors explicitly restrict the active electron and ignore dynamic changes of the electron wavefunction. The negligible capture probability for l>lc is thus built into the input potential's barrier and the single-active-particle ansatz, not demonstrated against multi-electron or polarization channels. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and the self-citations to the DFT method and model potentials are not by themselves circular; the circularity is that the supporting 'predictions' reduce to reprocessing the same fitted potential. The finding that lc emerges within this model is legitimate, but the paper's claim that lc provides an upper limit for muon-captured states is not independently confirmed outside the model that defines it.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the single-active-particle approximation, on model potentials fitted to ground-state DFT/Hartree-Fock data, and on a semiclassical mapping between classical angular momentum and quantum l. The DFT itself is a self-interaction-free method from prior work by the authors. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Model potential 1 parameters a1-a6 = not given
    Six parameters in Eq. (1) fitted to the self-interaction-free DFT potential [34]; these determine Lc and hence the predicted lc.
  • Model potential 2 parameters eta, xi = not given
    Two parameters in Eq. (2) fitted to the Hartree-Fock potential [37]; used in the CTMC and CTMCm simulations.
  • CTMCm binning boundaries = l_- = l_mu - 0.5, l_+ = l_mu + 0.5, epsilon_- = (epsilon_n,l + epsilon_n-1,l)/2, epsilon_+ = (epsilon_n+1,l +…
    The mapping in Eq. (8) uses half-integer boundaries in l and energy midpoints between neighboring n states; these choices affect the agreement between CTMCm and TDSE and were introduced after the original CTMC mapping disagreed with TDSE.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-active-particle approximation: only the 3p electron participates in capture; other electrons (3s, 2p) are neglected.
    Stated in the second paragraph: 'We consider only the 3p electron as an active electron, despite other orbitals ... also contributing with lower probabilities.' Needed for TDSE and CTMC tractability.
  • domain assumption The muon and active electron move in a static model potential fitted to ground-state DFT/Hartree-Fock potentials; the potential does not change dynamically.
    Used throughout: model potential 1 fitted to self-interaction-free DFT potential [34], model potential 2 fitted to Hartree-Fock [37]. Dynamic polarization or state-dependent screening is neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper Semiclassical correspondence lc(lc+1) = m_mu Lc^2 equates the classical angular momentum at the barrier maximum with the quantum angular momentum.
    Eq. (6) is introduced to convert the classical Lc into a quantum lc. It neglects quantum tunneling through the barrier and is validated only by agreement with the DFT result.
  • ad hoc to paper Bound-state existence in the inner well determines observable collapse; quantum tunneling or non-adiabatic transitions cannot populate inner states for l > lc.
    The argument that states with l > lc have negligible overlap and thus negligible capture assumes the barrier is effectively impenetrable; this is plausible for heavy particles but is not derived in the paper.
  • standard math Standard Schrödinger equation and density-functional theory are valid for the muonic atom.
    Background methods; the DFT is self-interaction-free [32] and the TDSE is solved on a grid [24,38].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Orbital Collapse in Exotic Atoms and Its Effect on Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ASKAOLXF

@misc{pith2026241218747,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Orbital Collapse in Exotic Atoms and Its Effect on Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ASKAOLXF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18747}
}
abstract

We study the energy structures of muonic Ar atoms and find the muon orbital collapses at a critical angular momentum $l_c$ using density-functional theory (DFT). The $l_c$ may provide an upper limit for the muon-captured states in muon-Ar collisions. We confirm the existence of this upper limit by calculating the state-specified capture probability using the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation (TDSE) and a classical trajectory Monte Carlo (CTMC) methods with the single-active-particle approximation. Modifying the mapping between the classical binding energy and the principal quantum number led to a reasonable agreement in the state-specified muon capture probabilities obtained by the TDSE and CTMC methods. We also propose a simple method to estimate $l_c$ for exotic noble atoms from atomic model potentials. The estimated values agree with those calculated by DFT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18747 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Radial density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Effective potentials for three classical angular mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. State-specified muon capture probabilities in muon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ratio of the mean radius of muon in a circular state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    X. M. Tong, D. Kato, T. Okumura, S. Okada, and 6 T. Azuma, Phys. Rev. A 107, 012804 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Fermi, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik48, 73 (1928)

    E. Fermi, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik48, 73 (1928)

    1928

  3. [2]

    M. G. Mayer, Phys. Rev. 60, 184 (1941)

    work page 1941

  4. [3]

    W. B. Jensen, J. Chem. Educ. 59, 634 (1982)

    work page 1982

  5. [4]

    D. C. Griffin, K. L. Andrew, and R. D. Cowan, Phys. Rev. 177, 62 (1969)

    work page 1969

  6. [5]

    I. I. Tupitsyn, I. M. Savelyev, Y. S. Kozhedub, D. A. Tel- nov, N. K. Dulaev, A. V. Malyshev, E. A. Prokhorchuk, and V. M. Shabaev, Phys. Rev. A 109, 042807 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Connerade, Eur

    J.-P. Connerade, Eur. Phys. J. D 74, 211 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Fermi and E

    E. Fermi and E. Teller, Phys. Rev. 72, 399 (1947)

    work page 1947

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Hufner, Z

    J. Hufner, Z. Phys. 195, 365 (1966)

    1966

  2. [9]

    Akylas and P

    V. Akylas and P. Vogel, Comput. Phys. Commun. 15, 291 (1978)

    1978

  3. [10]

    Measday, Phys

    D. Measday, Phys. Rep. 354, 243 (2001)

    2001

  4. [11]

    Gorringe and D

    T. Gorringe and D. Hertzog, Prog Part Nucl Phys 84, 73 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    Knecht, A

    A. Knecht, A. Skawran, and S. M. Vogiatzi, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 777 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    I. A. Valuev, G. Col` o, X. Roca-Maza, C. H. Keitel, and N. S. Oreshkina, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 203001 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    N. Paul, G. Bian, T. Azuma, S. Okada, and P. Indelicato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 173001 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Okumura, T

    T. Okumura, T. Azuma, D. Bennett, I. Chiu, W. Doriese, M. Durkin, J. Fowler, J. Gard, T. Hashimoto, R. Hayakawa, G. Hilton, Y. Ichinohe, P. Indelicato, T. Isobe, S. Kanda, M. Katsuragawa, N. Kawamura, Y. Kino, K. Mine, Y. Miyake, K. Morgan, K. Ni- nomiya, H. Noda, G. ONeil, S....

    2023

  9. [16]

    M. Hori, H. Aghai-Khozani, A. S´ ot´ er, A. Dax, and D. Barna, Nature 581, 37 (2020)

    2020

  10. [17]

    G. B. Andresen, M. D. Ashkezari, M. Baquero-Ruiz, W. Bertsche, P. D. Bowe, E. Butler, C. L. Cesar, S. Chap- man, M. Charlton, A. Deller, S. Eriksson, J. Fajans, T. Friesen, M. C. Fujiwara, D. R. Gill, A.Gutierrez, J. S. Hangst, W. N. Hardy, M. E. Hayden, A. J. Humphries, R. Hy...

    2011

  11. [18]

    V. A. Kosteleck and N. Russell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11 (2011)

    2011

  12. [19]

    Yoshida, C

    S. Yoshida, C. O. Reinhold, and J. Burgdorfer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2602 (2000)

    2000

  13. [20]

    A.-T. Le, T. Morishita, X.-M. Tong, and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 72, 032511 (2005)

    2005

  14. [21]

    Reinhold and W

    E. Reinhold and W. Ubachs, Mol. Phys. 103, 1329 (2005)

    2005

  15. [22]

    HARTMANN, in MUONIC ATOMS AND MOLECULES, MONTE VERITA : PROCEED- INGS OF THE CENTRO STEF ANO FRANSCINI ASCONA, edited by L

    F. HARTMANN, in MUONIC ATOMS AND MOLECULES, MONTE VERITA : PROCEED- INGS OF THE CENTRO STEF ANO FRANSCINI ASCONA, edited by L. Schaller and C. Petitjean (1993) pp. 157–165, international Workshop on Muonic Atoms and Molecules, CTR STEF ANO FRANSCINI, ASCONA, SWITZERLAND, APR 0...

    1993

  16. [23]

    Sakimoto, Phys

    K. Sakimoto, Phys. Rev. A 65, 012706 (2002)

    2002

  17. [24]

    X. M. Tong, K. Hino, and N. Toshima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 243202 (2006)

    2006

  18. [25]

    Abrines and I

    R. Abrines and I. C. Percival, Proc. Phys. Soc. 88, 861 (1966)

    1966

  19. [26]

    R. E. Olson and A. Salop, Phys. Rev. A 16, 531 (1977)

    1977

  20. [27]

    J. S. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1160 (1999)

    1999

  21. [28]

    A muon is about 207 times heavier than an electron

    and Ar gas [29], we investigated the structures of muonic atoms and the muon initial-captured states. A muon is about 207 times heavier than an electron. For H atoms, a muon of mass mµ is mainly captured into a state with a principle quantum number nµ = √mµ = 14 based on a mas...

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Okumura, T

    T. Okumura, T. Azuma, D. A. Bennett, W. B. Doriese, M. S. Durkin, J. W. Fowler, J. D. Gard, T. Hashimoto, R. Hayakawa, Y. Ichinohe, P. Indelicato, T. Isobe, S. Kanda, D. Kato, M. Katsuragawa, N. Kawamura, Y. Kino, N. Kominato, Y. Miyake, K. M. Morgan, H. Noda, G. C. O’Neil, S....

    2024 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Okumura, T

    T. Okumura, T. Azuma, D. A. Bennett, P. Caradonna, I. Chiu, W. B. Doriese, M. S. Durkin, J. W. Fowler, J. D. Gard, T. Hashimoto, R. Hayakawa, G. C. Hilton, Y. Ichinohe, P. Indelicato, T. Isobe, S. Kanda, D. Kato, M. Katsuragawa, N. Kawamura, Y. Kino, M. K. Kubo, K. Mine, Y. Mi...

    2021

  24. [31]

    X. M. Tong and C. D. Lin, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 40, 641 (2007)

    2007

  25. [32]

    J. C. Cohen, Phys. Rev. A 27, 167 (1983)

    1983

  26. [33]

    X. M. Tong and C. D. Lin, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 38, 2593 (2005)

    2005

  27. [35]

    A. E. S. Green, D. L. Sellin, and A. S. Zachor, Phys. Rev. 184, 1 (1969)

    1969

  28. [36]

    Tong and S.-I

    X.-M. Tong and S.-I. Chu, Phys. Rev. A 55, 3406 (1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    R. H. Garvey, C. H. Jackman, and A. E. S. Green, Phys. Rev. A 12, 1144 (1975)

    1975

  30. [38]

    Green, An analytic independent particle model for atoms, in Advances in Quantum Chemistry, Vol

    A. Green, An analytic independent particle model for atoms, in Advances in Quantum Chemistry, Vol. 7 (El- sevier, 1973) pp. 221–262

    1973

  31. [39]

    Tokesi, B

    K. Tokesi, B. Juhasz, and J. Burgdorfer, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.: 38, S401 (2005)

    2005

  32. [40]

    X. M. Tong, T. Shirahama, K. Hino, and N. Toshima, Phys. Rev. A 75, 052711 (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    Another consideration is whether the scaling relation, Eq

    that the initial nµ exceeds 20 for muonic Ne atoms. Another consideration is whether the scaling relation, Eq. (6), also works for other exotic atom. Table I lists the Lc for noble atoms, as obtained using model potential 1, lc from Eq. (6), and the values from the DFT simula-...

  34. [42]

    M. J. Rakovic, D. R. Schultz, P. C. Stancil, and R. K. Janev, J. Phys. A 34, 4753 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    Kirch, D

    K. Kirch, D. Abbott, B. Bach, P. Hauser, P. Indelicato, F. Kottmann, J. Missimer, P. Patte, R. T. Siegel, L. M. Simons, and D. Viel, Phys. Rev. A 59, 3375 (1999)

    1999

  36. [44]

    M. Y. Amusia, V. K. Ivanov, and V. A. Kupchenko, Z. Phys. D 14, 219 (1989)

    1989

  37. [45]

    X.-M. Tong, D. Kato, T. Watanabe, and S. Ohtani, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 33, 717 (2000)

    2000

  38. [46]

    Takahashi, Y

    M. Takahashi, Y. Miyake, N. Watanabe, Y. Udagawa, Y. Sakai, and T. Mukoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 013201 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Zhong, J

    S. Zhong, J. Vinbladh, D. Busto, R. J. Squibb, M. Isinger, L. Neorii, H. Laurell, R. Weissenbilder, C. L. Arnold, R. Feifel, J. M. Dahlstrm, G. Wendin, M. Gisselbrecht, E. Lindroth, and A. LHuillier, Nat. Commun. 11, 5042 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.