Quantum correlation dynamics and in-medium 3$\leftrightarrow$3 collisions of fermions

Wolfgang Cassing

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Quantum correlation dynamics and in-medium 3$\leftrightarrow$3 collisions of fermions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives an in-medium three-body collision term for fermions and shows it cuts nuclear relaxation times by up to a factor of 3, implying standard 2-body transport underestimates stopping.

desk verdict A careful first derivation of an on-shell 3↔3 fermion collision integral with a credible 2-body benchmark, but the factor-of-~3 stopping claim rests on an untested sequential on-shell approximation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21683 v1 pith:DREYN5T4 submitted 2025-05-27 nucl-th

Wolfgang Cassing This is my paper

classification nucl-th

keywords quantumcorrelationdynamics3↔3collisionson-shellcollisionintegralin-mediumfermionsrelaxationtimenuclearstoppingheavy-ionBUUtransport

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 the correct in-medium three-body collision term for fermions: a 3↔3 collision integral derived from the equations of motion for reduced density matrices (quantum correlation dynamics) using the same two-body interaction that generates the ordinary two-body collision term, with no explicit three-body force. In a periodic-box model of spin–isospin symmetric nuclear matter initialized with shifted Fermi spheres, adding this 3↔3 term reduces relaxation times by about a factor of 1.5 at 32 A·MeV and up to a factor of about 3 at 130 A·MeV relative to two-body-only transport. If this is right, standard BUU transport codes that include only binary collisions underestimate stopping and equilibration in low-energy heavy-ion collisions. The paper further predicts a concrete observable: in central 97Rh+97Rh collisions at 40 A·MeV, enhanced stopping from 3↔3 collisions should change the angular distribution of nucleons above 60 MeV from slightly forward- to slightly sideward-peaked. The quantitative factor depends on the Markovian on-shell approximation, which turns each time integral in the three-body correlation into an energy-conserving delta function; the author notes this approximation is invalid for short time intervals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the on-shell three-body collision integral $I^3_{\alpha\alpha}(t)$, constructed in a natural single-particle basis that diagonalizes the one-body density matrix. The derivation proceeds from the cluster decomposition of the reduced density matrices $\rho_2$, $\rho_3$, $\rho_4$ into antisymmetrized products plus correlations $c_2$ and $c_3$; from the equation of motion for $c_3$ in leading order; and from the Markovian on-shell approximation that replaces each time integral in the correlation chain by $-i\pi$ times an energy-conserving delta function $\delta(\epsilon_\alpha+\epsilon_\beta-\epsilon_\gamma-\epsilon_\delta)$ per interaction vertex. The final collision term is a sum over products of on-shell matrix elements of the same two-body interaction $v$, multiplied by occupation-number and Pauli-blocking functions $N$, with energy-momentum conservation enforced at every vertex. This makes the relative enhancement of three-body over two-body effects a prediction of the formalism rather than an input.

What would settle it

Run the periodic-box model without the on-shell delta-function reduction, keeping the finite time integrals in the correlation functions, and compare the resulting relaxation times; a large difference would show that the factor-of-3 reduction is an artifact of the Markovian approximation. Alternatively, measure the angular distribution of nucleons above 60 MeV in central 97Rh+97Rh collisions at 40 A·MeV with high statistics: if the distribution stays forward-peaked under conditions where stopping is enhanced, the predicted forward-to-sideward flip is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central discovery is a first-principles derivation of the on-shell three-body collision integral for identical fermions, built entirely from the same two-body interaction in leading order within quantum correlation dynamics. The integral conserves particle number and total energy-momentum, keeps full antisymmetry under particle exchange, and avoids double counting with the two-body term. In a finite periodic box with shifted Fermi spheres, the 3↔3 term accelerates the decay of the quadrupole moment in momentum space, shortening relaxation times by up to about a factor of 3 at 130 A·MeV compared to the two-body-only case, while the two-body-only box results match continuum-limit BUU transport to within a few percent. The paper also claims that this enhanced stopping shows up in the angular distribution of energetic nucleons (>60 MeV) in central 97Rh+97Rh collisions at 40 A·MeV, flipping it from a slightly forward-peaked distribution to a slightly sideward-peaked one.

Load-bearing premise

The whole quantitative prediction rests on the Markovian on-shell approximation that turns each time integral in the three-body correlation into an energy-conserving delta function per interaction vertex; the paper itself says this is 'invalid for short time intervals,' and if the approximation is not quantitatively accurate, the factor-of-3 relaxation-time reduction and the angular-distribution flip would change or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the periodic-box model, adding the 3↔3 term shortens relaxation times by about a factor of 1.5 at 32 A·MeV and by up to about a factor of 3 at 130 A·MeV, relative to two-body-only transport.
The on-shell three-body collision integral conserves particle number and total energy-momentum to numerical accuracy (about $10^{-6}$) and requires no explicit three-body force.
Two-body-only box results agree with continuum-limit BUU transport at the few-percent level, so the 3↔3 term is a genuine correction rather than a replacement of the established binary-collision description.
In central 97Rh+97Rh collisions at 40 A·MeV, an enhanced stopping power modeled by a 5/3 to 2 times larger elastic cross section changes the angular distribution of nucleons above 60 MeV from slightly forward-peaked to slightly sideward-peaked, offering an experimentally controllable signature.

Reading between the lines

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

If the factor-of-3 reduction holds, transport codes whose in-medium two-body cross sections are fitted to stopping and flow data have implicitly absorbed three-body effects into the fitted two-body cross section; those effective cross sections would then not be directly comparable to G-matrix two-body T-matrices.
A natural testable extension is a systematic BUU scan of the forward-to-sideward flip in fast-nucleon angular distributions across bombarding energies and system sizes; the paper presents only one system, so the extent of the effect is otherwise unconstrained.
The same correlation-dynamics machinery should apply more strongly to bosonic systems, where three-body processes are enhanced rather than suppressed by quantum statistics, so an analogous 3↔3 term may matter for pion or cluster gases even where it is marginal for nucleons.
The author leaves higher-order terms (of order $v c_2 c_2$) unexplored; evaluating them in the same box model would show whether the factor-of-3 reduction is robust or an upper bound.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper is worth taking seriously. It is the first derivation I know of an on-shell 3↔3 collision integral for identical fermions with exact Pauli blocking, built from the same two-body interaction as the 2-body term. The 2-body sector is benchmarked against BUU in a periodic box to a few percent, which is real evidence that the machinery is right. The 3-body contribution shortens relaxation times by a factor 1.5–3 depending on bombarding energy, and the paper suggests an experimental observable (angular distribution of >60 MeV nucleons in central Rh+Rh at 40 A·MeV). Self-citations define the framework, but the new result is not a refit of known parameters; it is a genuine extension.

The soft spot is the one flagged in the stress-test note, and I agree with it. The factor of 3 rests on replacing three sequential time integrals in the 3-body correlation by energy-conserving delta functions around Eqs. (114)–(118). The author himself writes that the approximation 'might be questioned' and is 'invalid for short time intervals.' The 2-body benchmark only validates one delta-function replacement, not a three-vertex on-shell chain where off-shell intermediate propagation can matter. In the box, relaxation times are 5–30 fm/c, so successive collisions are separated by only a few fm/c—not the t→∞ limit used to justify the deltas. Without a quantitative test of that reduction, the factor 1.5–3 and the angular flip are plausible but not established. The leading-order truncation and the isotropic energy-independent interaction add further uncertainty; the author acknowledges both. No code or data are provided, so an independent check is not possible from the text.

I don't think this is a bad paper. The derivation is careful and the limitations are stated openly. But the quantitative claim is load-bearing and currently rests on an untested step. The right next move is a direct numerical test of the on-shell approximation—for instance, solving the finite-time integrals in a small basis and comparing with the delta-function limit, or checking against an exactly solvable 3-body limit.

The paper deserves a serious referee. I would send it out and ask for that test, plus code/data availability. It is most useful for transport theorists and people working on quantum correlation dynamics; a broader audience should treat the factor-of-3 as a motivation, not a prediction.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives a closed on-shell 3↔3 collision integral for identical fermions from the equation-of-motion (BBGKY-type) hierarchy truncated at three-body correlations, using the same two-body interaction that generates the 2↔2 collision term and no fitted three-body interaction. The 2-body sector is first reviewed and benchmarked in a periodic box against BUU transport, with relaxation times agreeing to a few percent. The new 3-body term is then evaluated for shifted Fermi spheres, and the paper reports that including 3-body collisions reduces relaxation times by factors of about 1.5 at 32 A·MeV up to about 3 at 130 A·MeV. Finally, BUU simulations with enhanced two-body cross sections are used to argue that this enhanced stopping would change the angular distribution of >60 MeV nucleons in central 97Rh+97Rh collisions at 40 A·MeV from slightly forward to slightly sideward peaked.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim is correct, the paper fills a genuine gap: no in-medium 3↔3 collision term for identical fermions has been formulated in this transport framework. The strengths are substantial: the derivation is explicit, maintains full antisymmetry, preserves particle number and energy-momentum conservation, uses the same two-body interaction for both 2↔2 and 3↔3 processes, and the 2-body sector is validated against an independent (BUU) calculation to a few percent. The proposed angular-distribution signature is falsifiable and could give experimental access to three-body stopping. However, the numerical factor of ~3 reduction rests on the Markovian on-shell replacement of three nested time integrals in the 3-body correlation, an approximation the author explicitly states is invalid for short time intervals. Because Section 5 imports this factor into BUU as an enhanced 2-body cross section, the experimental prediction inherits the same uncertainty. The leading-order truncation of the correlation hierarchy is a further, acknowledged source of uncertainty that is not quantified.

major comments (3)

[Section 3.2, Eqs. (114)–(118)] The central quantitative result rests on replacing the three nested time integrals in the 3-body correlation by products of energy-conserving delta functions. Immediately after Eq. (114) the author states that this approximation 'might be questioned' and is 'invalid for short time intervals'; no validation is supplied. The 2-body benchmark of Fig. 6 tests only a single delta function and cannot certify the sequential on-shell reduction of a three-vertex chain, in which the intermediate state eta of Eq. (116) propagates off-shell and the finite duration of a 3-body encounter is neglected. In the box calculation the relaxation times are about 5–30 fm/c (Fig. 9), so the t → infinity limit used to derive the delta functions is not approached. A quantitative test is needed: for representative bombarding energies, compare the Markovian result of Eqs. (115)–(118) with the finite-time integration of Eqs. (108), (111), and (113), or broaden the delta functions by a width ~1/tau and show that the extracted relaxation time in Fig. 9 is stable. Until such a test is provided, the factor-of-3 reduction and the Section 5 prediction both remain uncontrolled.
[Section II.C and Section 4.2] The 3-body collision term is derived in leading order only: near Eq. (80) terms of order v c2 c2 are discarded, and the v rho c3 corrections to the c3 propagator are omitted. The author later acknowledges that higher-order terms 'might change the present results and also reduce the net interaction cross section.' Since the stated aim is a quantitative factor (up to about 3) for relaxation times, an estimate of the size of the omitted terms is required. A useful check would be to include a subset of the v c2 c2 terms in a simplified model, or to vary V0 and verify that the 3-body contribution scales as expected and that the omitted terms are subleading at the densities considered.
[Section 5, Fig. 11] The experimental prediction is made by importing the Section 4 enhancement into BUU as a multiplication of the 2-body elastic cross section by factors 1.6 and 2.0, whereas the actual 3-body collision integral has a different phase-space and Pauli-blocking structure. The text mostly uses the word 'modeled,' but the abstract and Section 6 state more strongly that enhanced stopping by 3↔3 collisions 'shows up' in the angular distribution. The paper should explicitly qualify Fig. 11 as an illustrative surrogate, rather than as the direct result of the derived 3-body collision integral, or else justify the equivalence quantitatively.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Section 3.1] The phrase 'out-off equilibrium' appears in the abstract and introduction; after Eq. (94), 'taken the limit' should be 'taking the limit.' These typos should be corrected.
[Section 5, Fig. 11] The figure uses factors 1.6 and 2.0 times sigma_el, while the text says the expected factor at 40 A·MeV is about 5/3; the relation between 5/3 and the plotted 1.6 should be stated explicitly.
[Section 4, Appendix] No numerical code or detailed implementation algorithm for the 3-body sums is provided. Given the reported CPU-time increase by a factor of about 2 x 10^5 compared with the 2-body case, reproducibility would be greatly aided by a code repository or a pseudo-code description of the pre-calculated final states and the summation order in Eqs. (142)–(143).
[Throughout] Section numbering is inconsistent: the text alternates between 'Section 2', 'Section 3.1', and 'Section III.A'. The notation 's.p. energies' in Section 3.2 should also be harmonized with the earlier notation for single-particle energies.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 3-body collision integral is derived from the two-body interaction and benchmarked externally; the flagged on-shell and leading-order limitations are accuracy risks, not circularity.

full rationale

No circular step is present. The 3-body collision integral is derived from the BBGKY/cluster-expansion equations of motion using the same two-body interaction in leading order, and the 3-body outcome is not fitted to the relaxation-time reduction or to the Section 5 angular-distribution flip. The 2-body part is benchmarked against BUU transport with the same isotropic cross section; agreement to a few percent is an independent implementation check of the 2-body on-shell collision integral. Self-citations ([10,11,20,31-34]) supply the framework, the equations-of-motion method, and the BUU code, but the central algebraic derivation is reproduced in the paper itself: the equations for rho, c2, and c3 are written out explicitly, and the on-shell 3-body collision term follows by time integration and delta-function reduction, not by invoking a self-citation as the source of the result. Section 5 is a sensitivity study: it multiplies the elastic Cugnon cross section by 5/3 or 2 in BUU and shows that an enhanced stopping flips the quadrupole moment; this is an illustrative consequence of the model calculation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly flags its weakest assumptions - 'Although one might question this approximation, which is invalid for short time intervals' (after Eq. 114) and 'the leading order approximation for the 3-body interactions might be questioned' (Section 4B) - and these are legitimate accuracy limitations concerning the Markovian on-shell reduction and truncation, not definitional circularity. No Eq. X equals Eq. Y by construction and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the two-body interaction input V0 and on the on-shell Markovianization of the correlation dynamics. No new physics entities are introduced. The truncation at c3 and the delta-force model are stated assumptions, not hidden ones.

free parameters (2)

V0 (delta-interaction strength) = 300 MeV fm^3 (corresponding to sigma_el = 32.4 mb)
Chosen by hand to match an isotropic elastic nucleon-nucleon cross section of about 32 mb used in the model. It is an input from the 2-body sector, not fitted to the 3-body results.
sigma_el multiplier in BUU (5/3 or 2) = 5/3 and 2.0
Chosen in Section 5 to mimic the 3-body relaxation-time reduction of Fig. 9; not derived from the collision integral itself.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Nonrelativistic dynamics with a two-body Hamiltonian and no explicit three-body force.
The whole derivation (Eqs. 1-2) starts from t(i) and v(ij); three-body physics enters only through correlated two-body interactions.
domain assumption BBGKY hierarchy truncated at the three-body correlation level, with c4 = 0.
Section 2A states the system is closed by neglecting the coupling to four-body correlations; this is the main truncation.
domain assumption Markovian on-shell approximation replacing time integrals with delta functions.
Used in Eqs. (94)-(95) for 2-body and Eqs. (114)-(116) for 3-body; author notes it is 'invalid for short time intervals'.
ad hoc to paper Interaction is a zero-range delta force, spin/isospin independent with degeneracy factor 3/4.
Eq. (122) and (129); this is a model simplification for the numerical study, not a general property.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum correlation dynamics and in-medium 3$\leftrightarrow$3 collisions of fermions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DREYN5T4

@misc{pith2026250521683,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum correlation dynamics and in-medium 3$\leftrightarrow$3 collisions of fermions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DREYN5T4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21683}
}

abstract

In this study we aim for quantifying the role of in-medium 3$\leftrightarrow$3 collisions for systems of fermions which initially are out-off equilibrium. The formulation of the 3-body dynamics is based on the equations of motion method for identical fermions -- also denoted as quantum correlation dynamics -- and presented in detail. The on-shell 2-body collision integral is briefly reviewed and the on-shell 3-body collision integral is derived on the basis of the same two-body interaction in leading order. The resulting equations obey particle number as well as energy-momentum conservation. For a quantification of the relative impact of 3-body interactions we employ a model study for a homogeneous system in space in a finite box with periodic boundary conditions. We address spin-isospin symmetric nuclear matter systems with momentum distributions that are given by shifted Fermi spheres (without overlap) as encountered in the initial phase of nucleus-nucleus collisions after contact. The results for the relaxation times -- employing an effective 2-body interaction -- are compared to Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (BUU) transport calculations in the continuum limit for the same bombarding energies and are found to agree on the level of a few percent. We find that the additional 3-body interactions reduce the relaxation times up to a factor of 3 at 130 A$\cdot$MeV. Furthermore, it is shown in BUU transport calculations that an enhanced stopping by 3$\leftrightarrow$3 collisions shows up in the angular distribution of energetic nucleons ($>$ 60 MeV) e.g. in central $^{97}_{45}Rh$ collisions at 40 A$\cdot$MeV that lead to the formation of a compound nucleus. The angular distribution of the energetic nucleons changes from a slightly forward peaked angular distribution to a slightly sidewards peaked angular distribution which might be controlled experimentally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21683 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Illustration of a term in the 3-body correlation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Illustration of the interaction terms in (118) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Numerical results for the time evolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The relaxation times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The initial occupation number as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison of the results for the relaxation time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. The nucleon density distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison of the results for the quadrupole mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[1]

Bonche, S

P. Bonche, S. Koonin, and J. W. Negele, Phys. Rev. C 13, 1226 (1976)

work page 1976
[2]

J. W. Negele, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54, 913 (1982)

work page 1982
[3]

Tohyama and M

M. Tohyama and M. Gong, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei 332, 269 (1989)

work page 1989
[4]

Gong and M

M. Gong and M. Tohyama, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei 335, 153 (1990)

work page 1990
[5]

L. W. Nordheim, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) 119, 689–698 (1928)

work page 1928
[6]

E. A. Uehling and G. Uhlenbeck, Physical Review 43, 552 (1933)

work page 1933
[7]

in case the shifted Fermi- spheres just touch each other in momentum space or are fully separated

and give a nucleon density which at most gives twice nuclear matter density, i.e. in case the shifted Fermi- spheres just touch each other in momentum space or are fully separated. On the other hand screening effects by e.g. by mesons reduce the probability for 3-body fermion scattering such that the geometrical estimates at higher density have to be take...

work page
[8]

G. F. Bertsch, H. Kruse, and S. D. Gupta, Phys. Rev. C 29, 673 (1984), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 33, 1107–1108 (1986)]

work page 1984

Show all 41 references

[9]

Aichelin and G

J. Aichelin and G. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. C31, 1730 (1985)

1985
[10]

G. F. Bertsch and S. Das Gupta, Phys. Rept. 160, 189 (1988)

1988
[11]

Cassing, Lect

W. Cassing, Lect. Notes Phys. 989, pp. (2021)

2021
[12]

Cassing, V

W. Cassing, V. Metag, U. Mosel, and K. Niita, Phys. Rept. 188, 363 (1990)

1990
[13]

L. P. Kadanoff and G. Baym, Quantum Statistical me- chanics (W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1962)

1962
[14]

Danielewicz, Annals Phys

P. Danielewicz, Annals Phys. 152, 305 (1984)

1984
[15]

C. M. Ko, Q. Li, and R.-C. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1084 (1987)

1987
[16]

Blattel, V

B. Blattel, V. Koch, W. Cassing, and U. Mosel, Phys. Rev. C 38, 1767 (1988)

1988
[17]

Botermans and R

W. Botermans and R. Malfliet, Phys. Rept. 198, 115 (1990)

1990
[18]

Wolter et al

H. Wolter et al. (TMEP), Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125, 103962 (2022), arXiv:2202.06672 [nucl-th]

2022
[19]

Cassing, Nucl

W. Cassing, Nucl. Phys. A 700, 618 (2002), arXiv:nucl- th/0105069

2002
[20]

S. M. Dawid, Z. T. Draper, A. D. Hanlon, B. H¨ orz, C. Morningstar, F. Romero-L´ opez, S. R. Sharpe, and S. Skinner, (2025), arXiv:2502.14348 [hep-lat]

2025 arXiv
[21]

S. J. Wang and W. Cassing, Annals Phys. 159, 328 (1985)

1985
[22]

Balescu, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, New York, Sydney, Toronto , 742 (1975)

R. Balescu, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, New York, Sydney, Toronto , 742 (1975)

1975
[23]

Krieg, University of Erlangen, unpublished, Ph.D

R. Krieg, University of Erlangen, unpublished, Ph.D. the- sis (1991)

1991
[24]

Gherega, R

T. Gherega, R. Krieg, P. G. Reinhard, and C. Toepffer, Nucl. Phys. A 560, 166 (1993)

1993
[25]

Tohyama and P

M. Tohyama and P. Schuck, Eur. Phys. J. A 45, 257 (2010), arXiv:1003.0246 [nucl-th]

2010 arXiv
[26]

Tohyama and P

M. Tohyama and P. Schuck, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 77 (2014), arXiv:1312.3703 [nucl-th]

2014 arXiv
[27]

Schuck, D

P. Schuck, D. S. Delion, J. Dukelsky, M. Jemai, E. Litvi- nova, G. Roepke, and M. Tohyama, Phys. Rept. 929, 1 (2021), arXiv:2009.00591 [nucl-th]

2021 arXiv
[28]

Litvinova and P

E. Litvinova and P. Schuck, Phys. Rev. C 100, 064320 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 107, 029903 (2023)], arXiv:1908.05384 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[29]

Tohyama and P

M. Tohyama and P. Schuck, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 74 (2019), arXiv:1904.06780 [nucl-th]

2019 arXiv
[30]

Tohyama and P

M. Tohyama and P. Schuck, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 186 (2017), arXiv:1708.00569 [nucl-th]

2017 arXiv
[31]

Schuck and M

P. Schuck and M. Tohyama, Phys. Rev. B 93, 165117 (2016), arXiv:1603.08276 [cond-mat.str-el]

2016 arXiv
[32]

Cassing and S

W. Cassing and S. Wang, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei 328, 423 (1987)

1987
[33]

Cassing, K

W. Cassing, K. Niita, and S. Wang, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei 331, 439 (1988)

1988
[34]

Cassing and A

W. Cassing and A. Pfitzner, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei 337, 175 (1990)

1990
[35]

Cassing and A

W. Cassing and A. Pfitzner, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Hadrons and Nuclei 342, 161 (1992)

1992
[36]

De Blasio, W

F. De Blasio, W. Cassing, M. Tohyama, P. Bortignon, and R. Broglia, Physical Review Letters 68, 1663 (1992)

1992
[37]

B. D. Day, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 495 (1978)

1978
[38]

K. A. Brueckner, Phys. Rev. 97, 1353 (1955)

1955
[39]

Cugnon, T

J. Cugnon, T. Mizutani, and J. Vandermeulen, Nucl. Phys. A 352, 505 (1981)

1981
[40]

A. Lang, H. Babovsky, W. Cassing, U. Mosel, H.- G. Reusch, and K. Weber, Journal of Computational Physics 106, 391 (1993)

1993
[41]

Linnyk, E

O. Linnyk, E. L. Bratkovskaya, and W. Cassing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 87, 50 (2016), arXiv:1512.08126 [nucl- th]

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bonche, S

P. Bonche, S. Koonin, and J. W. Negele, Phys. Rev. C 13, 1226 (1976)

work page 1976

[2] [2]

J. W. Negele, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54, 913 (1982)

work page 1982

[3] [3]

Tohyama and M

M. Tohyama and M. Gong, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei 332, 269 (1989)

work page 1989

[4] [4]

Gong and M

M. Gong and M. Tohyama, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik A Atomic Nuclei 335, 153 (1990)

work page 1990

[5] [5]

L. W. Nordheim, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London) 119, 689–698 (1928)

work page 1928

[6] [6]

E. A. Uehling and G. Uhlenbeck, Physical Review 43, 552 (1933)

work page 1933

[7] [7]

in case the shifted Fermi- spheres just touch each other in momentum space or are fully separated

and give a nucleon density which at most gives twice nuclear matter density, i.e. in case the shifted Fermi- spheres just touch each other in momentum space or are fully separated. On the other hand screening effects by e.g. by mesons reduce the probability for 3-body fermion scattering such that the geometrical estimates at higher density have to be take...

work page

[8] [8]

G. F. Bertsch, H. Kruse, and S. D. Gupta, Phys. Rev. C 29, 673 (1984), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 33, 1107–1108 (1986)]

work page 1984