REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by
Ultra-cold neutrons in qBounce experiments as laboratory for test of chameleon field theories and cosmic acceleration
T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The paper derives a new upper bound $\beta \leq 6.5\times10^8$ on the chameleon-matter coupling constant from unitarity of perturbed ultra-cold neutron quantum states in qBounce experiments, roughly ten times stronger than the earlier…
desk verdict The claimed β ≤ 6.5×10^8 bound does not follow from unitarity; it comes from an arbitrary perturbativity cutoff, and the paper contains an internal inconsistency. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the first-order perturbed wave function of the mixed gravitational state, $\psi_1=\bar C_6\Psi_6+\bar C_7\Psi_7+\bar C_8\Psi_8$, with coefficients shifted by $C_\phi$ times overlap integrals $a_{k'k}(n)=\left(\frac{\ell_0}{D}\frac{n+2}{2}\right)^{2/(n+2)}\frac{\langle k'|\xi^{2/(n+2)}|k\rangle}{\zeta_{k'}-\zeta_k}$. The mechanism is that a chameleon field coupled to neutrons with strength $\beta$ adds a potential $\Phi(z)=mg\ell_0 C_\phi\,\phi(z)/\Lambda$, and the unitarity condition on the perturbed coefficients, $|\bar C_6|^2+|\bar C_7|^2+|\bar C_8|^2<1$, converts the perturbative requirement $C_\phi\leq0.1$ into the bound $\beta\leq6.5\times10^8$.
What would settle it
Numerically recompute the overlap integrals $\langle k'|\xi^{2/(n+2)}|k\rangle$ from the Airy wave functions in Appendix A for $n\in[2,10]$ and check whether $a_{67}(n)$ lies between 0.1 and 0.2 and satisfies $a_{67}=-a_{76}=a_{87}=-a_{78}$; if it does not, $\beta\leq6.5\times10^8$ does not follow.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that unitarity of the perturbed wave function, rather than transition-frequency data alone, sets the tightest available laboratory limit on chameleon-matter coupling. In the $\phi^{-n}$ chameleon theory with potential $V(\phi)=\Lambda^4(1+\Lambda^n/\phi^n)$ and $\Lambda=2.4\times10^{-3}$ eV, the chameleon profile in the free-fall region above the mirror is known; it induces first-order mixing of the gravitational bound states $k=6,7,8$, shifting the coefficients $C_6=0.42$, $C_7=0.66$, and $C_8=0.55$. Requiring the shifted coefficients to satisfy $|\bar C_k|<1$ and $|\bar C_6|^2+|\bar C_7|^2+|\bar C_8|^2<1$, together with a perturbative cutoff $C_\phi a_{67}(n)\leq0.1$ where $C_\phi=1.54\times10^{-9}\beta$, yields $\beta\leq6.5\times10^8$. The paper argues this is about an order of magnitude stronger than $\beta<5\times10^9$ and is stable under varying the free-fall depth.
Load-bearing premise
The reported bound depends on the numerical claim, read off a plot rather than tabulated, that the mixing coefficients among states 6, 7, and 8 have the signs and sizes $a_{67}=-a_{76}$, $a_{87}=-a_{78}$, and $a_{67}\approx-a_{87}$ for $n\in[2,10]$; if those relations are wrong, the bound changes.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The perturbed coefficients $\bar C_6,\bar C_7,\bar C_8$ are determined by a single parameter $\kappa=0.20\times10^{-9}\beta\,a_{67}(n)$, so a spatially resolved measurement of the free-fall density $|\Psi(z,x,t)|^2$ can directly fit or constrain $\beta$.
- The unitarity argument rules out the previously allowed range $6.5\times10^8<\beta<5\times10^9$ for the $\phi^{-n}$ chameleon family with $n\in[2,10]$.
- The new bound is stable under changing the free-fall depth from $D=47\,\mu$m to $30\,\mu$m or $70\,\mu$m: in each case the old bound violates unitarity while $\beta\leq6.5\times10^8$ does not.
- The bound is compatible with the existing transition-frequency data, requiring only a sensitivity of $\Delta\omega/\omega\leq0.6\%$ for the relevant transitions.
Reading between the lines
- The same first-order unitarity machinery could be applied to other density-dependent scalar fields, since it only needs the field profile and the Airy-state overlap integrals; the paper restricts itself to the $\phi^{-n}$ chameleon.
- Because the bound is derived from the perturbative cutoff $C_\phi a_{67}(n)\leq0.1$, a non-perturbative treatment of the chameleon contribution might shift the numerical limit; the paper does not pursue that.
- The paper stops at a theoretical bound; fitting QBB free-fall data to $\kappa$ would convert the bound into a measurement of $\beta$, a step the authors note but do not perform.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper considers ultra-cold neutrons that are prepared in the ground quantum gravitational state between two mirrors and then fall freely into the region above a single mirror (the qBounce geometry). For a fall height h = 47 µm, the authors decompose the falling state into gravitational eigenstates above the mirror and find it dominated by the levels k = 6, 7, 8 with |C6|² + |C7|² + |C8|² = 0.92 (Table I). They compute first-order corrections to the coefficients C6, C7, C8 induced by a chameleon-field potential of the form V = Λ⁴(1 + Λⁿ/φⁿ), expressed through overlap integrals a_{k′k}(n) (Eqs. (10)–(11)). Using the relations a67 = −a76, a87 = −a78, a67 ≈ −a87 and neglecting a68 and a86, they obtain shifted coefficients C̄k (Eq. (16)) and claim that the unitarity conditions |C̄k| < 1 and Σ|C̄k|² < 1 yield a new upper bound β ≤ 6.5×10⁸ on the chameleon–matter coupling constant, about an order of magnitude stronger than the previously quoted β < 5×10⁹. Stability checks at D = 30 µm and D = 70 µm are presented, and a one-parameter fit of the predicted spatial distribution to future Quantum Bouncing Ball data is proposed (Eq. (23)).
Significance. The paper has some genuine strengths: the decomposition of the falling state into eigenstates above the mirror (Table I) is a concrete, checkable computation; the identification of k = 6, 7, 8 as the dominant contributions at h = 47 µm is clearly presented; and the suggestion to fit future free-fall data with a single parameter κ is a constructive proposal. These parts are not the source of my concerns. However, if the claimed bound were established, its significance would be modest: it would improve the previous qBounce-based limit by a factor of only about 7.7, and it would leave the entire strong-coupling regime quoted in the paper (β ≥ 10⁵) open, so the abstract's claim that the result constrains chameleon fields responsible for cosmic acceleration is overstated. As it stands, the central derivation does not deliver even this modest result: the first-order unitarity sum is identically preserved (Eq. (18)), the operative constraint is an assumed perturbativity threshold (Eq. (21)), and the key numerical inputs (a67(n), a87(n)) are not documented in a reproducible way (Fig. 2).
major comments (4)
- [III, Eqs. (15)–(21)] The headline bound is not derived from the unitarity condition. The sentence following Eq. (15) says the constraint 'may be used for the estimate of the chameleon–matter coupling constant β', but Eq. (18) shows that to first order in Cϕ the sum |C̄6|² + |C̄7|² + |C̄8|² equals the unperturbed sum |C6|² + |C7|² + |C8|² = 0.92 for any β, because the linear corrections cancel exactly under the relations a67 = −a76 and a87 = −a78. The individual conditions |C̄k| < 1 do not constrain β either: even at the old bound β = 5×10⁹, Eqs. (16)–(19) with a67 = 0.1 give C̄6 ≈ 0.93, C̄7 ≈ 0.76, C̄8 ≈ 0.04. The actual constraint is introduced only in Eq. (21) as the hand-chosen perturbativity threshold Cϕ a67(n) ≤ 0.1, and the reported β ≤ 6.5×10⁸ is obtained by inserting Cϕ = 1.54×10⁻⁹β and a67 ≈ 0.1 into that assumption. The threshold is also stated inconsistently: Eq. (21) uses Cϕ a67(n) ≤ 0.1, whereas Section IV states a bound on Cϕ itself, Cϕ ≤ 0.1, which would give β ≤ 6.5×10⁷ by the same algebra. A genuine unitarity constraint would require the second-order O(Cϕ²) terms in the norm sum, which are not computed. Consequently, the abstract's statement that the bound follows 'from the unitarity condition' is unsupported.
- [III, Eq. (16) and Fig. 2] The numerical input that fixes the bound is not reproducible. Two of the three relations used for Eq. (16), namely a67 = −a76 and a87 = −a78, are exact consequences of Eq. (11) because the matrix element is symmetric while the energy denominator is antisymmetric. The load-bearing numerical assertions are the neglect of a68 and a86 and the relation a67 ≈ −a87 with 0.1 ≤ a67 ≤ 0.2 for n ∈ [2,10]; these are asserted only from Fig. 2. The figure's axis labels are garbled ('/Minus1.0', '/Minus0.5', '0.5', '1.0') and the two curves are not identified, so the reader cannot verify the values by any means. Since the reported bound corresponds to using the smallest value a67 ≈ 0.1 in Eq. (21), the bound would change if a67(n) differs from the stated range; tabulated values of a_{k′k}(n) for k, k′ ∈ {6,7,8} and n ∈ [2,10] should be provided. The sentence introducing the simplification is also garbled, naming a86 twice ('the contribution of a86(n) can be neglected with the contributions of a67(n) and a86(n)') and leaving unclear whether a68 is meant.
- [III, Eq. (20)] The block labeled '—————new formulas for n=2 and h=47—————' is mutually inconsistent with Eq. (19) and is not referenced anywhere in the text. For example, Eq. (19) gives C̄7 = 0.66 + 0.20×10⁻⁹ β a67(n) and C̄8 = 0.55 − 1.02×10⁻⁹ β a67(n), whereas the block gives C̄7 = 0.66 − 1.80×10⁻⁹ β and C̄8 = 0.55 + 2.01×10⁻⁹ β: opposite signs, different magnitudes, and no dependence on a67(n). The block additionally introduces C̄5 and C̄10, states outside the three-state truncation Eq. (5), and its unperturbed value C10 = 0.17 contradicts Table I, which lists C10 = −0.17 at h = 47 µm. The manuscript neither reconciles the two sets of formulas nor indicates which one is used for the subsequent bound, leaving the numerical section self-contradictory.
- [IV, stability analysis (D = 30 µm and D = 70 µm)] The assertion that 'the upper bound β < 5×10⁹ ... violates a unitarity condition' is contradicted by the paper's own first-order formulas. With a67 = 0.1 and β = 5×10⁹, Eqs. (16)–(19) yield C̄6 ≈ 0.93, C̄7 ≈ 0.76, C̄8 ≈ 0.04, all below unity, and Eq. (18) shows the sum |C̄6|² + |C̄7|² + |C̄8|² is unchanged from 0.92 at first order for any β. No unitarity violation can therefore be exhibited at the order computed. The 'stability' checks at D = 30 µm and D = 70 µm re-impose the same assumed threshold Cϕ a_{k′k} ≤ 0.1 and hence add no independent support for the bound; the paragraph also contains typographical errors (the interval '0.06 ≤ a54 ≤ 0.03' is reversed; the second 'C̄4' in the list of shifted coefficients should be 'C̄5'; 'C11Ψ4' should presumably read 'C11Ψ11').
minor comments (5)
- [IV] The Discussion contains several typos that make it hard to follow: 'β ≤ 6.5 × 10⁻⁸' should be 'β ≤ 6.5 × 10⁸'; the interval '0.06 ≤ a54 ≤ 0.03' has reversed bounds; the second 'C̄4' in the list of shifted coefficients should be 'C̄5'; the inequality '0.66 ≤ C̄3 ≤ 0.70' contradicts the earlier '0.28 ≤ C̄3 ≤ 0.33'; 'C11Ψ4' should presumably read 'C11Ψ11'; and 'C7 → C̄7 → 0.66 + κ' contains a stray arrow.
- [III, Figs. 1 and 2] Fig. 1's abscissa label contains literal markup ('D/LBracket1Μm /RBracket1') and Fig. 2's axis labels are garbled, so neither figure is usable as printed; given the central role of a67(n) and a87(n), the authors should provide clean figures and a supplementary table of the overlap coefficients.
- [I–II] The spatial region between the mirrors is given as 'z² ≤ d²/2' in the Introduction but as 'z² ≤ d²/4' in Section II; the latter is the correct bound for |z| ≤ d/2 and the former should be corrected.
- [References] Reference [27] is cited as '(to be published) (2013)' and reference [15] is an arXiv preprint; since both carry load-bearing claims (the Eötvös constraint and the β < 5×10⁹ bound), the published versions or current status should be supplied.
- [IV] The sensitivities 'S67 ≤ 0.6%' and 'S78 ≤ 1.5%' at which the bound could be observed are quoted without derivation; a formula relating these sensitivities to the coefficient shifts is needed.
Circularity Check
β≤6.5×10^8 is a restatement of the assumed perturbativity cutoff Cϕ a67≤0.1, not a consequence of unitarity.
-
self definitional
[Section III, Eq. (21) and surrounding text; abstract claim 'from the unitarity condition']
"A reasonable upper bound on the coupling constant Cϕ compatible with a perturbative analysis of contributions of a chameleon field is Cϕa67(n) = 1.54 × 10−9 β a67(n) ≤ 0.1. This gives a new upper bound on the chameleon–matter coupling constant β ≤ 6.5 × 108"
The paper's own Eq. (18) shows that to first order in Cϕ the unitarity sum |C̄6|²+|C̄7|²+|C̄8|² equals the unperturbed value |C6|²+|C7|²+|C8|² < 1 for any β, so the unitarity condition (15) imposes no constraint at this order. The operative constraint is the ad hoc perturbativity cutoff Eq. (21), Cϕ a67(n) ≤ 0.1, which is an assumption, not a consequence of unitarity. Since Cϕ = 1.54×10^-9 β, this inequality is algebraically equivalent to β ≤ 0.1/(1.54×10^-9 a67(n)). With a67 = 0.1 (the minimum of the range stated later in the Discussion), this gives exactly β ≤ 6.5×10^8. Thus the headline 'upper bound from the unitarity condition' reduces to a chosen perturbativity threshold, i.e., the prediction is equivalent to its input by construction.
full rationale
The paper's central claim is a new upper bound β≤6.5×10^8 'from the unitarity condition'. However, the derivation is circular: the bound is not obtained from unitarity but from the assumed perturbativity condition Cϕ a67(n) ≤ 0.1 (Eq. (21)). The paper itself demonstrates in Eq. (18) that the first-order unitarity constraint is automatically satisfied for any β, so unitarity cannot produce the bound. Inserting Cϕ = 1.54×10^-9 β into the assumed inequality yields β ≤ 0.1/(1.54×10^-9 a67), and using a67 = 0.1 (the lower end of the range given in the Discussion) returns exactly β ≤ 6.5×10^8. Hence the output is a restatement of the input threshold, not an independent derivation. Additional non-circular concerns: the numerical relations a67 = -a76, a87 = -a78, a67 ≈ -a87 are asserted only from Fig. 2 without tabulated values, and the inserted 'new formulas' block (Eq. (20)) is internally inconsistent with Eq. (19) in signs and magnitudes for C̄7 and C̄8, further undermining reliability. The self-citation to the Ivanov–Höllwieser group for the chameleon profile and wave functions is standard prior work and not the source of the circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (2)
- chameleon potential power n =
not fitted; considered in [2,10]
- perturbativity threshold C_phi a67 <= 0.1 =
0.1
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption A chameleon scalar field with potential V(phi)=Lambda^4(1+Lambda^n/phi^n) exists and couples to matter with strength beta.
- domain assumption The strong-coupling profile Eq. (7), phi(z)=Lambda((n+2)/(sqrt(2) Lambda D))^(2/(n+2)) (1+z/D)^(2/(n+2)), is valid for beta >= 10^5.
- ad hoc to paper First-order perturbation theory in C_phi is valid, with the final bound only marginally satisfying C_phi a67 <= 0.1 while C_phi itself is near unity.
- ad hoc to paper The coefficient a86 can be neglected, and a67 = -a76, a87 = -a78, and a67 approximately -a87.
- domain assumption Between the mirrors the neutron is prepared purely in the ground gravitational state, and at the edge the wavefunction is a Gaussian packet of width 1 micron.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Ultra-cold neutrons in qBounce experiments as laboratory for test of chameleon field theories and cosmic acceleration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OAHTIFCN
@misc{pith2026250115673,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Ultra-cold neutrons in qBounce experiments as laboratory for test of chameleon field theories and cosmic acceleration},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OAHTIFCN}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15673}
}
abstract
The accelerating expansion of the Universe, attributed to dark energy, has spurred interest in theories involving scalar fields such as chameleon field theories. These fields, which couple to matter with density-dependent effective mass, offer a promising explanation for cosmic acceleration. Experiments leveraging ultra-cold neutrons (UCNs) provide an innovative approach to testing these theories. The existence of a chameleon field, being responsible for the current phase of cosmic acceleration, is investigated by analysing a free fall of ultra-cold neutrons from the gap between two mirrors after their bouncing between these two mirrors. We analyse a deformation of the wave functions of the quantum gravitational states of ultra-cold neutrons, induced by a chameleon field, and find a new upper bound $\beta\leq6.5\times10^8$ on the chameleon-matter coupling constant $\beta$ from the unitarity condition. This result refines previous estimates and highlights the potential of ultra-cold neutron experiments as laboratories for exploring scalar field theories and fundamental physics.
Figures
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Averaging Dynamics of Scalar Field-Matter Interacting Models in Anisotropic Universes: The Locally Rotationally Symmetric Bianchi I Spacetime
The authors apply averaging methods to classify late-time attractors for nine interacting dark sector models in Bianchi I cosmology, but the general interaction formula does not match the specific models analyzed.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Riess, A. et al. , Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant. The Astronomical Journal 116 (1998)
work page 1998
- [2]
- [3]
- [4]
- [5]
- [6]
-
[7]
on the Equivalence Principle (EP) is fulfilled forn ≥ 2 only. In turn, from the experimental data on the transi- tion frequencies of quantum gravitational states [15] one could obtain the estimate on the chameleon–matter cou- pling constant β <5 × 109. arXiv:2501.15673v1 [hep-ph] 26 Jan 2025 2 In this paper we investigate a contribution of a chameleon fie...
arXiv 2025
-
[8]
T. P. Waterhouse, arXiv: astro-ph/0611816
Show all 46 references
-
[9]
Khoury and A
J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 (2004); Phys. Rev. D 69, 044026 (2004); P. Brax et al. , Phys. Rev. D 70, 123518 (2004); D. F. Mota and D. J. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 75, 063501 (2007); Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 151102 (2007)
2004
-
[10]
Caldwell, R. R. & Kamionkowski, M. The Physics of Cos- mic Acceleration. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle 7 k ζk Ek Ck(h = 31µm) Ck(h = 39µm) Ck(h = 47µm) Ck(h = 55µm) Ck(h = 63µm) 1 -2.33811 1.407 2 × 10−3 1.08 × 10−4 +4.03 × 10−6 1.05 × 10−7 1.99 × 10−9 2 -4.08795 2.461...
2009
-
[11]
& Trodden, M
Silvestri, A. & Trodden, M. Approaches to understanding cosmic acceleration. Reports on Progress in Physics 72, 096901 (2009)
2009
-
[12]
Cosmology and the fate of dilatation sym- metry
Wetterich, C. Cosmology and the fate of dilatation sym- metry. Nuclear Physics B 302, 668– 696 (1988)
1988
-
[13]
J., Sami, M
Copeland, E. J., Sami, M. & Tsujikawa, S. Dynamics of dark energy. International Journal of Modern Physics D 15, 1753–1935 (2006)
2006
-
[14]
A. N. Ivanov, R. H¨ ollwieser, T. Jenke, M. Wellenzohn, & H. Abele, The influence of the chameleon field potential on transition frequencies of gravitationally bound quan- tum states of ultra-cold neutrons, Phys. Rev. D87, 10, 105013 (2013) , arXiv: 1207.0419 [hep-th]
2013 arXiv
-
[15]
Brax and G
P. Brax and G. Pignol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 111301 (2011)
2011
-
[16]
R. L. Gibbs, Am. J. Phys. 43, 25 (1975); J. Gea– Banacloche, Am. J. Phys. 67, 776 (1999); H. Wallis et al., Appl. Phys. B 54, 407 (1992)
1975
-
[17]
Jenke, G
T. Jenke, G. Cronenberg, P. Geltenbort, A. N. Ivanov, T. Lauer, T. Lins, H. Saul1, U. Schmidt4, & H. Abele, A novel quantized frequency reference for dark matter and dark energy searches arXiv: 1208.3875 [hep-ex]
-
[18]
V. V. Nesvizhevsky et al. , Phys. Rev. D 67, 102202 (2003)
2003
-
[19]
V. V. Nesvizhevsky et al. , Nature 415, 297 (2002)
2002
-
[20]
Westphal et al
A. Westphal et al. , Eur. Phys. J. C 51, 367 (2007)
2007
-
[21]
V. V. Nesvizhevsky et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 40, 479 (2005)
2005
-
[22]
and D − d 2 = 47 µm. Since the binding energy of the first excited gravitational state of ultra-cold neutrons is equal to E2 = mgh2 = −mgℓ0ξ2 = 2 .614 peV with ξ2 = −4.34177 corresponds to the height h2 = −ℓ0ξ2 = 25.5 µm, the distance d = 25 .5 µm allows to select be- tween tw...
2021
-
[23]
Abele et al
H. Abele et al. , Phys. Rev. D 81, 065019 (2010)
2010
-
[24]
Jenke et al
T. Jenke et al. , Nature Phys. 7, 468 (2011)
2011
-
[25]
E. G. Adelberger et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 131104 (2007)
2007
-
[26]
E. G. Adelberger et al. , Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 62, 102 (2009)
2009
-
[27]
Brax et al
P. Brax et al. , Phys. Rev. D 76, 124034 (2007)
2007
-
[28]
Upadhye, S
A. Upadhye, S. S. Gubser, and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104024 (2006)
2006
-
[29]
Abele et al
H. Abele et al. , Chameleon Field as a Source of a Fifth Force and Equivalence Principle in qBounce Ex- periments, (to be published) (2013)
2013
-
[30]
Abele, T
H. Abele, T. Jenke, D. Stadler, and P. Geltenbort, Nucl. Phys. A 827, 593c (2009)
2009
-
[31]
Jenke, D
T. Jenke, D. Stadler, H. Abele, and P. Geltenbort, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. in Physics Res. A 611, 318 (2009)
2009
-
[32]
Abele and H
H. Abele and H. Leeb, New J. Phys. 14, 055010 (2012)
2012
-
[33]
Beringer et al
J. Beringer et al. Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012)
2012
-
[34]
A. S. Davydov, in Quantum mechanics, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1965
1965
-
[35]
A. N. Ivanov, R. H¨ ollwieser, N. I. Troitskaya, and M. Wellenzohn. Proton recoil energy and angular dis- tribution of neutron radiative β-decay. Phys. Rev., D88(6):065026, 2013
2013
-
[36]
A. N. Ivanov, R. H¨ ollwieser, N. I. Troitskaya, M. Wellen- zohn, and Ya A. Berdnikov. Gauge Properties of Hadronic Structure of Nucleon in Neutron Radiative Beta Decay to Order O( α/π) in Standard V - A Ef- fective Theory with QED and Linear Sigma Model of Strong Low–Energy I...
2018
-
[37]
A. N. Ivanov, R. H¨ ollwieser, N. I. Troitskaya, M. Wellen- zohn, and Ya A. Berdnikov. Gauge and infrared prop- erties of hadronic structure of nucleon in neutron beta decay to order O(α/π) in standard V −A effective theory with QED and linear sigma model of strong low-energy ...
2019
-
[38]
Ivanov, Roman H¨ ollwieser, Nataliya I
Andrey N. Ivanov, Roman H¨ ollwieser, Nataliya I. Troit- skaya, Markus Wellenzohn, and Ya A. Berdnikov. Elec- trodisintegration of Deuteron into Dark Matter and Pro- ton Close to Threshold. Symmetry, 13(11):2169, 2021
2021
-
[39]
A. N. Ivanov, R. H¨ ollwieser, N. I. Troitskaya, M. Wellen- zohn, and Ya A. Berdnikov. Tests of the standard model in neutron beta decay with polarized electrons and unpolarized neutrons and protons. Phys. Rev. D, 99(5):053004, 2019. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 104, 059902 (2021)]
2021
-
[40]
A. N. Ivanov, R. H¨ ollwieser, N. I. Troitskaya, M. Wellen- zohn, and Ya. A. Berdnikov. Corrections of order O(E2 e /m2 N ), caused by weak magnetism and proton re- coil, to the neutron lifetime and correlation coefficients of 8 the neutron beta decay. Results Phys., 21:103806, 2021
2021
-
[41]
A. N. Ivanov, R. H¨ ollwieser, N. I. Troitskaya, M. Wellen- zohn, and Ya. A. Berdnikov. Radiative corrections of order O(αEe/mN ) to Sirlin’s radiative corrections of or- der O(α/π) , induced by the hadronic structure of the neutron. Phys. Rev. D, 103(11):113007, 2021
2021
-
[42]
A. N. Ivanov, R. H¨ ollwieser, N. I. Troitskaya, M. Wellen- zohn, and Ya. A. Berdnikov. Theoretical description of the neutron beta decay in the standard model at the level of 10-5. Phys. Rev. D, 104(3):033006, 2021
2021
-
[43]
A. N. Ivanov, R. H¨ ollwieser, N. I. Troitskaya, M. Wellen- zohn, and Ya. A. Berdnikov. Structure of the correla- tion coefficients S(Ee) and U (Ee) of the neutron β decay. Phys. Rev. C, 104(2):025503, 2021
2021
-
[44]
A. N. Ivanov, R. H¨ ollwieser, N. I. Troitskaya, M. Wellen- zohn, and Ya. A. Berdnikov. On the correlation coef- ficient T (Ee) of the neutron beta decay, caused by the correlation structure invariant under discrete P, C and T symmetries. Phys. Lett. B, 816:136263, 2021
2021
-
[45]
A. N. Ivanov, R. H¨ ollwieser, N. I. Troitskaya, M. Wellen- zohn, and Ya. A. Berdnikov. Precision analysis of pseu- doscalar interactions in neutron beta decays. Nucl. Phys. B, 951:114891, 2020
2020
-
[46]
Altarawneh, R
D. Altarawneh, R. H¨ ollwieser and M. Wellenzohn, Spatial Distribution of Ultracold Neutron Probabil- ity Density in the Gravitational Field of the Earth Above a Mirror,’ Universe 10, no.12, 460 (2024) doi:10.3390/universe10120460 [arXiv:2401.07377 [hep- ph]]
2024 arXiv
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.