Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Unnuclear matter at large-charge

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the leading effective-range ($r_0$) corrections to large-charge two-point correlation functions in the near-unitary superfluid EFT vanish identically at first order, so the first symmetry-breaking effect enters at…

desk verdict Solid, clearly written extension of large-charge EFT that claims a new O(r0^2) coefficient, but a non-integrable edge divergence in the perturbative action may contaminate that coefficient at a parametrically larger order than claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10505 v1 pith:M5Y2TT4Y submitted 2025-01-17 nucl-th hep-phhep-th

Silas R. Beane , Domenico Orlando , Susanne Reffert This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thhep-phhep-th
keywords large-chargeexpansionnonrelativisticconformalfieldtheoryeffective-rangecorrectionsscatteringlengthneutronmatterunitaryFermigasSchrödingersymmetryunnuclear
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 aims to establish that the non-relativistic large-charge effective field theory, whose leading order is a Schrödinger-invariant superfluid of fermions at unitarity, remains useful once Schrödinger symmetry is broken by the finite scattering length $a$ and effective range $r_0$ of neutron-neutron interactions. Using a recently found exact solution of the undeformed theory as the background, the authors compute the first symmetry-breaking corrections to the two-point function of operators of charge $Q$. Their central finding is that the nominally leading effective-range corrections vanish at first order; the first non-vanishing contribution is second order in $r_0$, in agreement with an earlier three-body calculation. With coupling constants fixed by quantum Monte Carlo simulations, the deformed EFT gives a controlled description of correlation functions for $Q=3$ through $Q=6$ low-energy neutrons, with an energy window that narrows as $Q$ grows. If correct, this makes the large-charge EFT a quantitative tool for interpreting experiments that produce several low-energy neutrons in the final state.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the master-field solution $\theta_s(\tau,x)$ of the Schrödinger-invariant superfluid EFT, an exact solution of the source equations for two large-charge operator insertions. Around it the perturbation theory is organized in the oscillator frame, a coordinate transformation that sends the insertion times to $\pm\infty$ and makes the symmetry-breaking couplings time-dependent; there the equations of motion separate order by order and admit closed-form solutions by variation of parameters. Returning to the flat frame, the correlation function is assembled by regularizing the divergences at the temporal boundaries and by enforcing charge conservation through the continuity equation, which fixes the chemical potential as a function of $Q$. The $\mathcal{O}(r_0^2)$ correction is extracted from the scheme-independent coefficient of the logarithmic divergence in the regularized saddle-point action.

What would settle it

Perform an independent calculation of $\mathcal{C}''_Q$ at $Q=3$ in direct conformal perturbation theory with three-neutron wavefunctions, in the same way the first-order term was checked; agreement within uncertainties would confirm the boundary treatment, while a mismatch would show that the neglected edge contribution is not suppressed below $\mathcal{O}(r_0^2)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the imaginary part of the two-point function of the lowest operator of charge $Q$, after continuation to Minkowski space and Fourier transform, takes the form $$\operatorname{Im} G(E,0) = C_0 $E^{{\Delta_Q-5/2}}$\left(1+\mathcal{C}_Q\,(a\sqrt{ME})^{-1}+\mathcal{C}''_Q\, $r_0^{2}$ M E\right),$$ with the coefficient of the linear effective-range term exactly zero, $\mathcal{C}'_Q=0$. The vanishing of the $\mathcal{O}(r_0)$ term follows from a cancellation in the saddle-point action together with the reabsorption of divergent boundary terms; in the oscillator frame, the analysis shows that all odd powers of $r_0$ drop out of the physical correlation function, mirroring the three-body result. The second-order coefficient $\mathcal{C}''_Q$ is computed from the logarithmic divergence of the regularized saddle-point action and depends on both the effective-range coupling $h_2$ and the square of the first-order coupling $h_1$. The same framework reproduces the previously computed scattering-length correction $\mathcal{C}_Q$, and the two deformations enter with opposite signs, producing a partial cancellation. The paper concludes from these expressions, together with quantum Monte Carlo determinations of the coupling constants, that the deformed EFT is under control for nuclear reactions with up to six low-energy neutrons in the final state.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the edge of the superfluid droplet remains close enough to its undeformed position that neglected boundary effects are smaller than the $\mathcal{O}(r_0^2)$ terms; the paper itself states that the edge contribution can at best be estimated parametrically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All odd powers of $r_0$ drop out of the large-charge two-point function, so the first range correction is $\mathcal{O}(r_0^2)$; future measurements of neutron spectra can be compared directly with the computed coefficient.
  • The scattering-length and effective-range deformations have opposite signs, so for each $Q$ there is a center-of-mass energy at which the two corrections cancel and the correlation function looks effectively Schrödinger-invariant.
  • The deformed EFT provides a controlled description for up to six low-energy neutrons, extending the 'unnuclear matter' description beyond the three-body sector.
  • The perturbative window narrows as $Q$ grows, so experiments with good final-state energy resolution are needed to probe the controlled regime.
  • The relation $(\mu/\omega)^3 = 3\xi^{3/2} Q$ between chemical potential and charge survives to all orders in $r_0$, because the $\mathcal{O}(r_0^k)$ pieces of the continuity equation cancel order by order.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same oscillator-frame machinery should apply to three- and higher-point functions; a testable expectation is that effective-range corrections there also enter only at $\mathcal{O}(r_0^2)$, with coefficients built from the same $h_1$ and $h_2$.
  • In cold-atom systems near a Feshbach resonance, where $a$ and $r_0$ can be tuned independently, the predicted $Q$-dependent cancellation energy could be measured directly and would provide a sharper test of the coupling constants than neutron data alone.
  • The neglected droplet-edge contribution, estimated at $\mathcal{O}(r_0^{7/3})$, will become the dominant uncertainty once the $\mathcal{O}(r_0^2)$ term is established; identifying it with droplet-edge operators of the undeformed large-charge EFT would make the expansion systematic.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a perturbative framework around the Schrödinger-invariant large-charge superfluid EFT to compute two-point correlation functions of charge-Q operators in the presence of scattering-length and effective-range deformations. Using a transformation to the oscillator frame, the authors find explicit closed-form solutions for the leading and next-to-leading perturbations, show that the first-order effective-range correction vanishes, and compute the second-order effective-range correction to the action at the saddle. After regularization and continuation to Minkowski space, they arrive at the spectral representation (1.1) with a charge-dependent coefficient 𝒞''_Q, and then use QMC-determined low-energy constants to argue that the deformed EFT can describe final-state neutron systems up to Q=6.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, the paper is significant: it provides a concrete method for including Schrödinger-symmetry breaking in the large-charge EFT, predicts that the leading effective-range correction vanishes, and yields an explicit analytic expression for the subleading correction. The calculation is unusually explicit, with exact ODE solutions, transparent regulator checks, and external QMC input used for the low-energy constants rather than fitted to the large-charge correlator itself. These strengths make the paper a valuable step toward quantitative unnuclear physics. However, the central coefficient 𝒞''_Q is currently undermined by an unhandled edge divergence in the O(r0^2) action, so the main quantitative claim is not yet established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 6.2, Eq. (6.13)] The O(r0^2) action integrand contains a non-integrable singularity at the droplet edge. Near ψ=π/2, B1(ψ) ~ 4/(15 cosψ) and B1'(ψ) ~ 4/(15 cos^2ψ), so the term (5/8)τ^2ω^2 B1'(ψ)^2 cosψ sin^2ψ behaves as (2/45)τ^2ω^2/ε^3 with ε=π/2−ψ. With the measure sin^2ψ cosψ dψ ≈ ε dε, the ψ integral diverges as 1/δ when cut off at the edge. Equation (5.45) gives δ ~ (r0√μ)^{1/3}(1−ω^2τ^2)^{−1/6}, and substituting this cutoff produces an action contribution scaling as κ^{5/3} μ^4/ω^3 (up to τ-dependent factors), parametrically larger than the claimed O(κ^2) bulk term in Eq. (6.17). The estimate in Sec. 5.4 concerns only the shift of the leading-order action and does not cover the divergence of the O(r0^2) perturbative solution. Unless a boundary-layer analysis shows that this divergence is canceled or suppressed below O(r0^2), the coefficient 𝒞''_Q in Eqs. (1.1) and (9.13) is not established.
  2. [Sec. 6.1] The statement that the singularity at v=0 'is not a problem' because the NLO solution is valid only up to a distance O(r0^{2/3}) from v=0 is unsupported and appears inconsistent with Eq. (5.45), where the edge displacement is v_edge ~ cosψ_nlo ~ (r0√μ)^{1/3}. Nevertheless, in Sec. 6.2 the ψ integral is extended to ψ=π/2 without a boundary-layer treatment. The authors need to either show that the region near the edge contributes below O(r0^2), or include the edge contribution in the saddle-point action. The present text does not provide such a demonstration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 9.3] Equation (1.1) presents 𝒞''_Q as a charge-dependent coefficient multiplying r0^2 ME, but Eq. (9.13) shows that 𝒞''_Q contains a term log(E/λ), and the later choice λ^{-1}=Δ_Q M r0^2 makes the correction effectively r0^2 ME times a log-enhanced function of r0^2 ME. The notation in Eq. (1.1) should be clarified so that the logarithmic structure is not hidden.
  2. [Sec. 5.4, Eq. (5.46)] The text states that after regularization of the τ integral there remains a finite contribution scaling like r0^{7/3}, but the regularization and the finite remainder are not shown. Since this is used to argue that the edge shift is subleading, a brief derivation or an explicit statement of the regularization scheme would be helpful.
  3. [Sec. 6.1] The text says the NLO solution is valid up to a distance O(r0^{2/3}) from v=0, while Eq. (5.45) implies v_edge ~ (r0√μ)^{1/3} in the oscillator-frame variables. Please correct the exponent or clarify the different variables being used.
  4. [Sec. 10 and Appendix A] The quantitative application to Q=3–6 relies on cNLO fitted to QMC data over Q=3–20 and on h1,h2 with large relative uncertainties (for example h2=0.38(15)). This is legitimate input, but the statement that the EFT is valid up to Q=6 should be accompanied by a more explicit propagation of the cNLO fit uncertainty, especially because Fig. 7 does not propagate uncertainties.
  5. [Throughout] There are numerous formatting issues, such as missing spaces in 'thennloterms', inconsistent capitalization of 'EOM', and undefined acronyms like 'NNLO' at first use in Sec. 5.4. These should be cleaned up before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the O(r0^2) effective-range coefficient is obtained from an explicit saddle-point calculation with external QMC inputs, not from a fit to the target correlation function.

full rationale

The central derivation of C''_Q is self-contained: Sec. 6 solves the inhomogeneous ODE (6.4) with the explicit solution (6.7), evaluates the saddle action (6.15)-(6.17), and Sec. 7 fixes the NNLO Legendre-transform correction (7.19), which becomes the Minkowski-space coefficient (9.13). The only numerical inputs, c0, h1, h2, are matched to independent quantum Monte Carlo determinations of the energy density (3.12)-(3.14), i.e. external benchmarks rather than quantities fitted to the large-charge two-point function. The master-field solution of Ref. [19] is re-derived and stated explicitly in Sec. 4, and its Q=3 limit is checked against the independent conformal-perturbation-theory result of Ref. [4], so the self-citation is not load-bearing circularity. Appendix A does fit cNLO to AFMC data, and footnote 10 notes that subleading Schrodinger-limit constants can be chosen to reproduce the Q=3 conformal dimension; this is a disclosed external input that reduces the independence of the low-Q application in Sec. 10.3, but it does not enter the derivation of the r0^2 coefficient itself. Finally, the boundary-effect caveats in Sec. 5.4 and App. E (edge shifts scaling as r0^{7/3} and possible fractional-power boundary terms) are explicit limitations; even if the skeptic's edge-singularity estimate were correct, it would be a correctness/regularization flaw in the computed C''_Q, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central computation is an analytic perturbative calculation whose input parameters are matched to QMC data and whose low-Q conformal dimension uses a fitted NLO coefficient. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • c0 (LO superfluid coefficient) = 0.168(3)
    Determined from the QMC Bertsch parameter xi=0.372(5) via Eq. (3.12); sets the undeformed energy scale.
  • g1 (scattering-length deformation) = -0.20(4)
    Matched to QMC zeta=-0.68(15) in Eq. (3.13); controls the O(a^-1) correction.
  • g2 (scattering-length squared deformation) = 0.58(6)
    Matched to QMC zeta2=3.6(10) in Eq. (3.13); enters the energy matching.
  • h1 (effective-range deformation) = 0.19(5)
    Matched to QMC eta=0.12(3) in Eq. (3.14); the O(r0) term that cancels in the two-point function.
  • h2 (effective-range squared deformation) = 0.38(15)
    Matched to QMC eta2=-0.03(2) in Eq. (3.14); determines the O(r0^2) coefficient with about 40% uncertainty.
  • cNLO (large-charge conformal dimension NLO coefficient) = -0.053715(1)
    Fit to AFMC simulation data over Q=3-20 in Appendix A; used to fix Delta_Q at Q=3-6 for the neutron-matter plots.
  • lambda (log renormalization scale) = lambda^{-1}=Delta_Q M r0^2 (prescription)
    Chosen in Sec. 9.3 to remove the large logarithm in C''_Q; scheme-dependent and affects the plotted band but not the coefficient of the log.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The deformed Lagrangian (3.7) contains only the displayed scattering-length and effective-range operators, with no mixed a-r0 operators and no shape-parameter terms.
    Section 3.2 states that 'it is assumed that the scattering length and effective range effects are tuned independently; i.e., no mixed operators are considered'.
  • domain assumption The master-field solution (4.5) of Ref [19] remains the correct saddle point for perturbation theory.
    Section 4 builds all corrections on this solution; it is an external result quoted rather than derived.
  • domain assumption The QMC-determined universal parameters xi, zeta, zeta2, eta, eta2 and their errors are accurate.
    Eqs. (3.12)-(3.14) convert these into the EFT constants; any bias in the QMC values propagates into the correlator.
  • ad hoc to paper The large-charge NLO conformal dimension formula (A.1) with one fitted coefficient cNLO is valid down to Q=3.
    Appendix A fits cNLO to AFMC data over Q=3-20 and uses it at Q=3-6; no error estimate for the model form is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The droplet-edge shift gives only O(r0^(7/3)) corrections and can be neglected at O(r0^2).
    Section 5.4 estimates the shift and explicitly says one can at best estimate the parametric dependence; the paper does not compute the edge contribution.
  • domain assumption The perturbative window (5.4)-(5.5) is satisfied in the energies considered for neutron matter.
    Section 10 uses this to define the regime of validity; the abstract's applicability claim depends on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unnuclear matter at large-charge." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M5Y2TT4Y

@misc{pith2026250110505,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unnuclear matter at large-charge},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M5Y2TT4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10505}
}
read the original abstract

The utility of the non-relativistic large-charge EFT for physical systems, and neutron matter in particular, relies on controlled Schr\"odinger-symmetry breaking deformations due to scattering length and effective-range effects in the two-body system. A recently-found exact solution of the large-charge system is used to compute these effects for two-point correlation functions of large-charge operators in perturbation theory around the large-charge ground state. Notably, the leading effective-range effects are found to enter at second order in the effective range, in agreement with analogous calculations in the three-body system. The Schr\"odinger-symmetry breaking deformations are used -- together with input from Quantum Monte Carlo simulations -- to address the range of validity of the EFT with deformations both in general and in the special case of neutron matter. In particular, it is found that nuclear reactions with up to six low-energy neutrons in the final state can be described by the large-charge EFT with Schr\"odinger-symmetry breaking.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Trapping-potential dependence of the unitary Fermi gas at the BCS-BEC crossover

    cond-mat.quant-gas 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Trap-induced corrections to the unitary Fermi gas phonon spectrum and dynamic structure factor are computed in three EFT/WKB regimes, with low-energy corrections depending on trap shape and high-energy corrections set...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Hammer and D

    H.-W. Hammer and D. T. Son.Unnuclear physics. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.118 (2021), e2108716118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2108716118. arXiv: 2103.12610 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    From Nuclear to Unnuclear Physics

    T. Schaefer and G. Baym.From nuclear to unnuclear physics (Sept. 2021). DOI: 10.1073/ pnas.2113775118. arXiv: 2109.06924 [nucl-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Braaten and H

    E. Braaten and H. -W. Hammer. Point production of a nonrelativistic unparticle recoiling against a particle. Phys. Rev. D 107.3 (2023), p. 034017. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107. 034017. arXiv: 2301.04399 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    S. D. Chowdhury, R. Mishra, and D. T. Son. Applied nonrelativistic conformal field theory: scattering-length and effective-range corrections to unnuclear physics (Sept. 2023). arXiv: 2309.15177 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    H. Georgi. Unparticle physics . Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007), p. 221601. DOI: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett.98.221601. arXiv: hep-ph/0703260

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    Greiter, F

    M. Greiter, F . Wilczek, and E. Witten.Hydrodynamic Relations in Superconductivity. Mod. Phys. Lett. B 3 (1989), p. 903. DOI: 10.1142/S0217984989001400

    doi:10.1142/s0217984989001400 1989

  7. [7]

    D. T. Son and M. Wingate. General coordinate invariance and conformal invariance in nonrelativistic physics: Unitary Fermi gas . Annals Phys. 321 (2006), pp. 197–224. DOI: 10.1016/j.aop.2005.11.001. arXiv: cond-mat/0509786

    arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Favrod, D

    S. Favrod, D. Orlando, and S. Reffert.The large-charge expansion for Schrödinger systems. JHEP 12 (2018), p. 052. DOI: 10.1007/JHEP12(2018)052. arXiv: 1809.06371 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    S. M. Kravec and S. Pal. The Spinful Large Charge Sector of Non-Relativistic CFTs: From Phonons to Vortex Crystals. JHEP 05 (2019), p. 194. DOI: 10.1007/JHEP05(2019)194. arXiv: 1904.05462 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Hellerman and I

    S. Hellerman and I. Swanson. Droplet-Edge Operators in Nonrelativistic Conformal Field Theories (Oct. 2020). arXiv: 2010.07967 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Pellizzani.Operator spectrum of nonrelativistic CFTs at large charge

    V. Pellizzani.Operator spectrum of nonrelativistic CFTs at large charge. Phys. Rev. D 105.12 (2022), p. 125018. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.125018. arXiv: 2107.12127 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hellerman, D

    S. Hellerman, D. Orlando, V. Pellizzani, S. Reffert, and I. Swanson. Nonrelativistic CFTs at large charge: Casimir energy and logarithmic enhancements. JHEP 05 (2022), p. 135. DOI: 10.1007/JHEP05(2022)135. arXiv: 2111.12094 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hellerman et al

    S. Hellerman et al. The unitary Fermi gas at large charge and large N (Nov. 2023). arXiv: 2311.14793 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Nishida and D

    Y . Nishida and D. T. Son.Nonrelativistic conformal field theories. Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007), p. 086004. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.086004. arXiv: 0706.3746 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Orlando, S

    D. Orlando, S. Reffert, and F . Sannino.Near-Conformal Dynamics at Large Charge. Phys. Rev. D 101.6 (2020), p. 065018. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.065018. arXiv: 1909.08642 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Orlando, V

    D. Orlando, V. Pellizzani, and S. Reffert.Near-Schrödinger dynamics at large charge. Phys. Rev. D 103.10 (2021), p. 105018. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.105018. arXiv: 2010.07942 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hellerman, D

    S. Hellerman, D. Orlando, S. Reffert, and M. Watanabe. On the CFT Operator Spectrum at Large Global Charge. JHEP 12 (2015), p. 071. DOI: 10.1007/JHEP12(2015)071 . arXiv: 1505.01537 [hep-th]. 47

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    L. A. Gaumé, D. Orlando, and S. Reffert. Selected topics in the large quantum number expansion. Phys. Rept. 933 (2021), pp. 1–66. DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2021.08.001. arXiv: 2008.03308 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    S. R. Beane, D. Orlando, and S. Reffert.Exact evaluation of large-charge correlation functions in nonrelativistic conformal field theory . Phys. Rev. D 110.2 (2024), p. 025011. DOI: 10. 1103/PhysRevD.110.025011. arXiv: 2403.18898 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bergman and G

    O. Bergman and G. Lozano. Aharonov-Bohm scattering, contact interactions and scale invariance. Annals Phys. 229 (1994), pp. 416–427. DOI: 10.1006/aphy.1994.1013. arXiv: hep-th/9302116

    1994

  13. [21]

    Maris, J

    P . Maris, J. P . Vary, S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, and S. C. Pieper.Properties of trapped neutrons interacting with realistic nuclear Hamiltonians. Phys. Rev. C 87.5 (2013), p. 054318. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.054318. arXiv: 1302.2089 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    F . M. Marqués and J. Carbonell.The quest for light multineutron systems. Eur. Phys. J. A 57.3 (2021), p. 105. DOI: 10.1140/epja/s10050-021-00417-8 . arXiv: 2102.10879 [nucl-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Z. H. Yang et al.Study of multi-neutron systems with SAMURAI spectrometer. Springer Proc. Phys. 238 (2020), pp. 529–534. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-32357-8 _87. arXiv: 1903.11256 [nucl-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Pure-neutron nuclei – current and future

    Nakamura,T. “Pure-neutron nuclei – current and future”. HaloWeek’24 - nuclei at and beyond the driplines. 2024. URL: https : / / indico . cern . ch / event / 1319370 / contributions / 5985670/attachments/2876623/5037885/Nakamura_halo_week_4n_pub

    2024

  17. [25]

    Duer et al

    M. Duer et al. Observation of a correlated free four-neutron system. Nature 606.7915 (2022), pp. 678–682. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-04827-6

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    D. B. Kaplan, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise.A New expansion for nucleon-nucleon interactions. Phys. Lett. B 424 (1998), pp. 390–396. DOI: 10 . 1016 / S0370 - 2693(98 ) 00210 - X. arXiv: nucl-th/9801034

    1998 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. B. Kaplan, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise.Two nucleon systems from effective field theory. Nucl. Phys. B 534 (1998), pp. 329–355. DOI: 10.1016/S0550- 3213(98)00440- 4 . arXiv: nucl-th/9802075

    1998 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. R. Beane and M. J. Savage.Rearranging pionless effective field theory. Nucl. Phys. A 694 (2001), pp. 511–524. DOI: 10.1016/S0375-9474(01)01088-0. arXiv: nucl-th/0011067

    2001 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Carlson, S

    J. Carlson, S. Gandolfi, K. E. Schmidt, and S. Zhang. Auxiliary-field quantum Monte Carlo method for strongly paired fermions. Phys. Rev. A 84 (6 2011), p. 061602. DOI: 10.1103/ PhysRevA.84.061602. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.061602

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    Bulgac and G

    A. Bulgac and G. F . Bertsch.Collective Oscillations of a Trapped Fermi Gas near the Unitary Limit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005), p. 070401. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.070401. arXiv: cond-mat/0404687

    2005 arXiv

  23. [31]

    van Kolck

    U. van Kolck. Unitarity and Discrete Scale Invariance. Few Body Syst. 58.3 (2017), p. 112. DOI: 10.1007/s00601-017-1271-9

    2017 doi

  24. [32]

    M. M. Forbes, S. Gandolfi, and A. Gezerlis. Effective-Range Dependence of Resonantly Interacting Fermions. Phys. Rev. A 86 (2012), p. 053603. DOI: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevA . 86 . 053603. arXiv: 1205.4815 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. Y . Chang, V. R. Pandharipande, J. Carlson, and K. E. Schmidt.Quantum Monte Carlo Studies of Superfluid Fermi Gases. Phys. Rev. A 70 (2004), p. 043602. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.70. 043602. arXiv: physics/0404115

    2004 arXiv

  26. [34]

    C. R. Hagen. Scale and conformal transformations in galilean-covariant field theory. Phys. Rev. D 5 (1972), pp. 377–388. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.5.377. 48

    1972 doi

  27. [35]

    Niederer

    U. Niederer. The maximal kinematical invariance group of the free Schrodinger equation. Helv. Phys. Acta 45 (1972), pp. 802–810. DOI: 10.5169/seals-114417

    1972 doi

  28. [36]

    M. Henkel. Schrodinger invariance in strongly anisotropic critical systems. J. Statist. Phys. 75 (1994), pp. 1023–1061. DOI: 10.1007/BF02186756. arXiv: hep-th/9310081

    1994 arXiv

  29. [37]

    D. T. Son, M. Stephanov, and H.-U. Yee.Fate of multiparticle resonances: From Q-balls to He3 droplets. Phys. Rev. A 106.5 (2022), p. L050801. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.106.L050801 . arXiv: 2112.03318 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. M. Kravec and S. Pal. Nonrelativistic Conformal Field Theories in the Large Charge Sector. JHEP 02 (2019), p. 008. DOI: 10.1007/JHEP02(2019)008. arXiv: 1809.08188 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    W. D. Goldberger, Z. U. Khandker, and S. Prabhu. OPE convergence in non-relativistic conformal field theories. JHEP 12 (2015), p. 048. DOI: 10.1007/JHEP12(2015)048 . arXiv: 1412.8507 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Platter, C

    L. Platter, C. Ji, and D. R. Phillips. Range Corrections to Three-Body Observables near a Feshbach Resonance. Phys. Rev. A 79 (2009), p. 022702. DOI: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevA . 79 . 022702. arXiv: 0808.1230 [cond-mat.other]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gandolfi, G

    S. Gandolfi, G. Palkanoglou, J. Carlson, A. Gezerlis, and K. E. Schmidt.The 1S0 Pairing Gap in Neutron Matter. Condens. Mat. 7.1 (2022), p. 19. DOI: 10.3390/condmat7010019. arXiv: 2201.01308 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Golak et al

    J. Golak et al. Radiative pion capture in 2H, 3He and 3H. Phys. Rev. C 98.5 (2018), p. 054001. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.054001. arXiv: 1807.07235 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    S. Y . Chang and G. F . Bertsch. Unitary Fermi gas in a harmonic trap. Phys. Rev. A 76 (2007), p. 021603. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.76.021603. arXiv: physics/0703190

    2007 arXiv

  36. [44]

    M. G. Endres, D. B. Kaplan, J.-W. Lee, and A. N. Nicholson.Lattice Monte Carlo calculations for unitary fermions in a harmonic trap. Phys. Rev. A 84 (2011), p. 043644. DOI: 10.1103/ PhysRevA.84.043644. arXiv: 1106.5725 [hep-lat]

    2011 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Carlson and S

    J. Carlson and S. Gandolfi. Predicting Energies of Small Clusters from the Inhomogeneous Unitary Fermi Gas. Phys. Rev. A90.1 (2014), p. 011601. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.90.011601. arXiv: 1406.3591 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [46]

    X. Y . Yin and D. Blume.Trapped unitary two-component Fermi gases with up to ten particles. Physical Review A 92.1 (July 2015). ISSN: 1094-1622. DOI: 10.1103/physreva.92.013608. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.013608

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    Sur la théorie générale de la variation des constantes arbitraires dans tous les problèmes de la méchanique

    J.-L. Lagrange. “Sur la théorie générale de la variation des constantes arbitraires dans tous les problèmes de la méchanique”. In: Oeuvres de Lagrange. Ed. by J.-A. Serret. Vol. 6. Gauthier- Villars, 1873, pp. 771–805. URL: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k229225j/ f773. 49

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.