Observability of modified threshold behavior near unitarity

Chris H. Greene; H. Kamada; H. Witala; J. Golak; K. Topolnicki; Michael D. Higgins; R. Skibinski

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Observability of modified threshold behavior near unitarity

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 At the physical neutron-neutron scattering length, the unitarity-modified threshold law is not observable for 3n or 4n; only with |a_nn| enlarged by roughly a factor of 3-5 would the modified exponent be seen over an appreciable energy…

desk verdict This paper gives a credible negative answer to a previously unquantified question: at the physical n-n scattering length, the unitarity-modified threshold exponents are not observable in 3n or 4n formation, and you'd need roughly 3-5 times larger |a_nn| to see them. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24569 v1 pith:QXH5M7OC submitted 2025-05-30 hep-ph

Michael D. Higgins , J. Golak , R. Skibinski , K. Topolnicki , H. Witala , H. Kamada , Chris H. Greene This is my paper

classification hep-ph

keywords neutron-neutronscatteringlengthWignerthresholdlawunitaritythree-neutronsystemfour-neutronadiabatichypersphericalrepresentationJWKBtunnelingamplitudeeffectiveexponent

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 asks how close a few-neutron system must be to s-wave unitarity before the predicted unitarity-modified threshold law actually shows up in reaction rates. It answers that the physical neutron-neutron scattering length is not close enough: for both 3n and 4n formation, the low-energy exponent is the ordinary Wigner-law value, and the unitarity exponent appears only when the scattering length is made roughly 3-5 times more negative. This matters because recent theoretical work has identified apparent near-threshold behavior in 3n capture spectra with the unitarity limit; the paper argues that apparent agreement is accidental and that existing calculations are consistent with the ordinary threshold law once the energy is low enough.

What carries the argument

The object carrying the argument is the long-range coefficient of the lowest adiabatic hyperradial potential curve W0(rho), written as l_eff(l_eff+1) $hbar^{2}$/(2 mu $rho^{2}$). The value of l_eff controls the Wigner threshold exponent |T|^2 ~ $k^{{2l_eff+1}}$: the non-interacting value applies for any finite scattering length sufficiently close to threshold (Region I), while the unitarity-limit value would apply only at exact resonance. The paper's diagnostic is the JWKB tunneling amplitude in this potential, evaluated at small hyperradius, and the effective exponent gamma(k) = k d ln|psi|/dk, which tracks the transition between the two exponent limits as k rises past ~1/|a|.

What would settle it

Compute the 4n effective exponent gamma(k) with physical a_nn using a fully converged four-body continuum method that does not rely on the single-channel adiabatic potential curve; if gamma approaches 2.517 over an appreciable energy range before node structure sets in, the paper's 4n conclusion is wrong. For 3n, measure the pion-capture 3n spectrum below about 1 MeV and extract the exponent directly; a clear approach to 1.7727 there would contradict the claimed ordinary Wigner behavior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the unitarity-modified Wigner threshold law predicted for short-range reactive processes producing three or four neutrons cannot be seen at the physical neutron-neutron scattering length a_nn = -18.5 fm. Using the lowest adiabatic hyperradial potential curves for the 3n J^pi = 3/2^- and 4n 0+ symmetries, the authors compute the JWKB tunneling amplitude and the effective threshold exponent gamma(k) = k d ln|psi|/dk. They find that at sufficiently low energy the exponent is the ordinary non-unitarity value (gamma = 3.0 for 3n, gamma = 11/2 for 4n), and that the approach toward the unitarity values (gamma = 1.7727 for 3n, gamma = 2.517 for 4n) begins only near k ~ 1/|a|, well inside the energy window where a short-range formation process could be observed. Only when the scattering length is increased in magnitude by a factor of about 3-5 does the unitarity exponent become visible over an appreciable energy range.

Load-bearing premise

The three-neutron part is cross-checked against exact three-body calculations, but the four-neutron part is a thought experiment that assumes the energy dependence of any four-neutron formation process is set by tunneling through a single lowest potential curve; if that single-channel tunneling description fails, the four-neutron conclusion is unsupported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Existing 3n capture data in the near-threshold region should be read as following the ordinary Wigner law E^3 with l_eff = 5/2, not as evidence for the unitarity-modified exponent.
At the physical scattering length, the effective exponent for 4n formation stays well above the unitarity value gamma = 2.517 throughout the threshold energy regions where a simple power law applies.
The unitarity-modified threshold exponent becomes observable only when the neutron-neutron scattering length is tuned to about 3-5 times the physical magnitude; for any finite a there is a low-energy region where the ordinary Wigner law always wins.
There is a universal transition in the effective exponent near k ~ 1/|a|: below it the non-interacting exponent holds, above it the exponent moves toward the unitarity value.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: the same three-region picture implies that any experimental claim of a unitarity-modified threshold law in nuclear reactions should be accompanied by a check that the energy window lies beyond k ~ 1/|a| and that the extracted exponent is stable over an appreciable range.
Inference: ultracold atoms with a Feshbach resonance could test the predicted 3-5 tuning requirement directly, since the analysis should transfer to any short-range s-wave system with the same effective-centrifugal-constant structure.
Inference: if a future exact four-body continuum calculation at physical a_nn finds significant deviations from the single-channel JWKB tunneling exponent, the paper's 4n conclusion would need revision, while its 3n conclusion would stand.

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

The headline: this paper asks the right question—how close to unitarity do you actually have to be before the modified threshold exponents show up—and gives a clear answer for 3n and 4n: the physical neutron-neutron scattering length is not close enough. The negative conclusion looks right for 3n, and the 4n argument is plausible but thinner.

What's genuinely new is the observability estimate. Previous work (Hammer-Son, the Greene group's own papers) established what the unitarity-limit exponents are; nobody had quantified how far you are from seeing them at finite scattering length. The paper's main quantitative result is the 3-5x estimate: you'd need a_nn somewhere around -55 to -90 fm for the unitarity exponent to hold over an appreciable energy range. That's a useful, concrete claim.

The method is straightforward but appropriate. They compute JWKB tunneling amplitudes in the lowest adiabatic hyperradial potential, and for the 3n case they validate this against the Faddeev capture-rate calculations of Golak et al. The agreement in Region (I) and (II) is reassuring, and they make a good point that the apparent agreement with the unitarity exponent in the 1-3 MeV range is fortuitous—the effective exponent gamma(k) never gets within 20% of 1.7727 at the physical a_nn. That's the strongest part of the paper.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. First, the "3-5 times" number is qualitative. There's no explicit criterion for what counts as "observable" (how broad an energy range, what statistical precision), so the estimate is more a useful rule of thumb than a sharp prediction. Second, the 4n analysis is a gedanken experiment, as the authors admit, with no Faddeev cross-check. The stress-test note is on target: Fig. 6(b) only shows the physical a_nn curve, not tuned values, so the 3-5x extrapolation for 4n is an analogy from the 3n case rather than a demonstrated result. That said, the actual claim being made for 4n—that gamma stays ~20% above the unitarity value—is directly visible in the figure, so the main negative conclusion for 4n is supported by the evidence shown. The tuned-4n gap is a limitation, not a fatal flaw. Third, they rely on potential curves from their own prior work; the expansion coefficients are given but the fitted forms and the Gaussian-interaction parameters are only partially specified, which will make reproduction annoying but not impossible.

Bottom line: this is a solid, honest paper that settles the observability question in the negative for the physical n-n scattering length within the adiabatic-JWKB framework. It deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to review, and I'd probably cite it.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper addresses the question of how close to the S-wave unitarity limit a two-body scattering length must be for the unitarity-modified Wigner threshold exponent to be observable in low-energy reactive processes producing three or four neutrons. Using the adiabatic hyperspherical representation, the authors compute the lowest hyperradial potential curves for the 3n (Jπ=3/2−) and 4n (Jπ=0+) systems, extract the JWKB tunneling amplitude, and define an energy-dependent effective exponent γ(E) via Eq. (11). They find that at the physical neutron-neutron scattering length ann=-18.5 fm, the low-energy exponent is the ordinary non-unitary value (γ=3 for 3n, γ=11/2 for 4n) in Region I, and although it decreases in Region II, it does not reach the unitarity values (1.7727 for 3n, 2.517 for 4n); only for scattering lengths roughly 3–5 times more negative does the unitarity exponent emerge over an appreciable energy range. The 3n result is validated by comparison with Faddeev calculations of the capture reactions 3H(π−,γ)3n and related processes; the 4n result is presented as a gedanken experiment based solely on the JWKB analysis of the lowest 0+ adiabatic curve.

Significance. If the analysis holds, the paper provides a quantitative answer to an open question and corrects an over-reading of earlier work: the apparent agreement of the 3n capture rate with the unitarity exponent in a limited energy window is fortuitous, and the physical nn scattering length is too far from unitarity for the modified threshold law to be observable. The paper's strengths include the direct comparison of the JWKB scale factor with the Faddeev capture-rate data for 3n, the use of well-established adiabatic hyperspherical methods, and the consistency of the unitarity-limit exponents with the conformal field theory results of Hammer and Son. The three-region decomposition of the threshold energy dependence is a useful conceptual framework. The main weakness is that the 4n conclusions rest on a single JWKB channel without an independent cross-check or tuned-scattering-length calculations, so the quantitative 3–5 times estimate for 4n is not directly demonstrated.

major comments (2)

[3.2, Fig. 6] The 4n analysis displays only the physical scattering-length case: Fig. 6(a) and (b) show the JWKB density and effective exponent for ann only, with no curves for 5×, 10×, or 50× ann as in Fig. 3. The Introduction and Conclusion nevertheless state that for the 3n or 4n system the unitarity exponent would be observable only if the scattering length were approximately 3–5 times larger. For 4n this quantitative statement is therefore an extrapolation by analogy, not a result of the calculation shown. Please either add tuned 4n curves (e.g., a panel showing γ(E) for several multiples of ann) or explicitly restrict the 3–5× estimate to 3n and state the 4n statement as a conjecture.
[3.2, Fig. 6(b)] The conclusion that physical ann is insufficient for the 4n system rests on a single JWKB calculation in the lowest 0+ adiabatic curve, and the deviation from the unitarity exponent is only about 20% at the upper end of Region II. Unlike the 3n case, there is no independent Faddeev or other few-body calculation to validate the adiabatic single-channel and JWKB approximations for 4n. Please provide a robustness check—for example, a numerical solution of Eq. (12) compared with the JWKB result, a sensitivity study with respect to ρ_small, or a discussion of the effect of the fitted coefficients C2–C6 on γ(E)—so that the 4n negative conclusion is supported by more than one figure.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The word "quantities" in the abstract should be "quantifies."
[Throughout] The spelling of "Faddeev" is inconsistent; both "Fadeev" and "Faddeev" appear (e.g., §3.1 and the Conclusion).
[3.2] The notation "4He(µ−µ−,νν)4n" is unclear: specify the neutrino flavors and use a more standard notation such as "νμνμ" or "2νμ" to avoid ambiguity.
[3.1, Fig. 3] The statement that the scattering length "would have to be at least 3–5 times more negative" is based on visual inspection of Fig. 3 without an explicit criterion; defining "appreciable energy range" (e.g., the range where γ(E) is within 20% of the unitarity value) would make the claim more quantitative.
[Fig. 2] The caption refers to "JWKB density" but the text does not define whether this is τ_JWKB from Eq. (10) or the squared wave function |Ψ|²; please clarify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central observability estimate is a forward calculation from adiabatic potentials, with independent cross-checks against Faddeev rates and Hammer-Son CFT exponents.

full rationale

The paper's main conclusion is that the physical neutron-neutron scattering length is too far from unitarity for the unitarity-modified threshold exponent to be observable in 3n or 4n formation, and that one would need a roughly 3-5 times larger scattering length. This is a forward calculation: the authors compute JWKB wavefunctions and effective threshold exponents from adiabatic hyperradial potential curves, then read off where gamma(k) deviates from the non-interacting value and how close it gets to the unitarity value. The unitarity benchmark exponents are taken from prior work by the same authors, but these are independently corroborated by the conformal-field-theory results of Hammer and Son, which the paper explicitly cites and compares against. The 3n JWKB energy dependence is validated against the independent Faddeev capture-rate calculations of Golak et al., so the central claim is not fitted to the data it purports to explain. The 4n analysis is explicitly labeled a gedanken experiment and lacks the tuned-scattering-length curves needed to directly support the 3-5x estimate for 4n; however, this is an evidentiary gap or validation limitation, not a circular step. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation chain. The self-citations to Refs. [12,14] supply input potential curves, but those are computational inputs with stated assumptions, not restatements of the paper's conclusion. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the adiabatic hyperspherical potential curves and the JWKB approximation, both of which are standard tools in the field but carry domain assumptions. The physical input is the nn scattering length and effective range. There are no new particles, forces, or invented entities. The main free parameters are the tuning of the Gaussian interaction (not fully specified) and the evaluation point rho_small, which is shown to be inconsequential. The paper leans significantly on prior results from the same group (Refs [4,12,14]) for the potential curves and the unitarity exponents, but those are checked against independent conformal field theory results for the exponents.

free parameters (3)

Gaussian spin-singlet interaction strength scaling = Not reported; tuned to yield a_s = m*a_nn with m = 1, 5, 10, 50
The paper tunes the single Gaussian two-body interaction to achieve scattering lengths that are multiples of the physical nn scattering length. The actual parameters are not listed, and the resulting potential curves drive the gamma(k) analysis in Fig. 3.
JWKB evaluation hyperradius rho_small = 1.25 fm
The effective exponent gamma(k) is evaluated at rho_small = 1.25 fm. The authors state that the energy dependence is unchanged for rho_small in the range 1.25-5 fm, so this choice is not load-bearing.
Adiabatic potential expansion coefficients C2-C6 = Given for the bare a_nn case (e.g., C2 = 9532 fm^2 for 3n); not given for tuned cases
The hyperradial potential is fitted to a power series in 1/rho with coefficients C2-C6. These are numerical representations of the computed potential, not physically meaningful free parameters, but they are fitted values used in the JWKB calculation.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The lowest adiabatic hyperradial potential curve W0(rho) dominates the near-threshold dynamics (single-channel adiabatic approximation).
Used throughout; for the 3n system this is validated by agreement with Faddeev calculations, but for the 4n system it is assumed without an independent check (Section 3.2).
domain assumption The JWKB approximation is accurate for the hyperradial wavefunction in the classically forbidden region and correctly reproduces the threshold-law energy dependence.
Central to extracting gamma(k) and the tunneling amplitude in Eqs. (8)-(10); justified for 3n by comparison with Faddeev data in Fig. 2, but for 4n it is assumed.
domain assumption The single Gaussian two-body interaction, tuned to a given scattering length, accurately reproduces the low-energy physics of the realistic AV8' nucleon-nucleon interaction.
Used to generate hyperradial potential curves for scattering lengths 5, 10, and 50 times a_nn. The paper references Refs [12,14] for this justification but does not show evidence in this manuscript.
domain assumption The energy dependence of a short-range transition operator is dominated by the final-state (or initial-state) wavefunction scale factor at small hyperradius, so the JWKB density at rho_small captures the threshold law.
This underlies the comparison of dGamma/dE with the JWKB wavefunction in Fig. 2 and the extension to the 4n gedanken experiment. It is tested only indirectly for 3n.
domain assumption The physical neutron-neutron scattering length is a_nn = -18.5 fm and the effective range is r0 = 2.73 fm.
These are input values from AV8' and prior nuclear physics analyses, used to define the physical case and the criterion k < 1/|a|.
standard math Wigner's threshold law applies to the transition amplitude with exponent ell_NI + 1/2 when |a| is finite, and with ell_U + 1/2 at exact unitarity.
This is the foundational threshold law from Ref [1] and the unitarity modification from Refs [3-5,12]; the paper uses it as the benchmark for interpreting gamma(k).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observability of modified threshold behavior near unitarity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QXH5M7OC

@misc{pith2026250524569,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observability of modified threshold behavior near unitarity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QXH5M7OC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24569}
}

read the original abstract

A number of recent references have pointed out that an N-particle system having short-range interactions at S-wave and/or P-wave unitarity can exhibit modified threshold behavior for various reactive processes. But the question of how close to unitarity one must get in order to observe such modifications has not been addressed. The present study quantities this question by treating cases involving 3- or 4-neutrons, at the physical value of the neutron-neutron singlet scattering length a and at artificially altered values. One major conclusion is that the neutron-neutron scattering length is not yet sufficiently large for the 3n or 4n systems to demonstrate the unitarity threshold exponent.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Physical Review 73(9), 1002 (1948) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.73.1002

Wigner, E.P.: On the behavior of cross sections near thresholds. Physical Review 73(9), 1002 (1948) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.73.1002

doi:10.1103/physrev.73.1002 1948
[2]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(35), 2108716118 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108716118

Hammer, H.-W., Son, D.T.: Unnuclear physics: Conformal symmetry in nuclear reactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(35), 2108716118 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108716118

doi:10.1073/pnas.2108716118 2021
[3]

Physical Review A 105, 013308 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.105.013308

Chen, Y.-H., Greene, C.H.: Eﬁmov physics implications at p-wave fermionic unitarity. Physical Review A 105, 013308 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.105.013308

work page 2022
[4]

Physical Review A 106, 023304 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA

Higgins, M.D., Greene, C.H.: Three and four identical fermions near the unitary limit. Physical Review A 106, 023304 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA. 106.023304

doi:10.1103/physreva 2022
[5]

Journal of Physics B 58, 015302 (2025) https://doi.org/10

Chen, Y.-H., Greene, C.H.: Universal trimers with p-wave interactions and the faux-Eﬁmov eﬀect. Journal of Physics B 58, 015302 (2025) https://doi.org/10. 1088/1361-6455/ad987b

work page 2025
[6]

Physical Review A 80(2), 022504 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1103/ physreva.80.022504

Stecher, J., Greene, C.H.: Correlated Gaussian hyperspherical method for few- body systems. Physical Review A 80(2), 022504 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1103/ physreva.80.022504

work page 2009
[7]

Physical Review Letters 97, 150401 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.97.150401

Werner, F., Castin, Y.: Unitary quantum three-body problem in a harmonic trap. Physical Review Letters 97, 150401 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.97.150401

work page 2006
[8]

Physical Review A 92(1), 013608 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/ physreva.92.013608

Yin, X., Blume, D.: Trapped unitary two-component Fermi gases with up to ten particles. Physical Review A 92(1), 013608 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/ physreva.92.013608

work page 2015

Show all 18 references

[9]

Physical Review C 94, 034002 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevc.94.034002 17

Golak, J and Skibi´ nski, R and Wita la, H and Topolnicki, K and Kamada, H and Nogga, A and Marcucci, L E: Muon capture on 3H. Physical Review C 94, 034002 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevc.94.034002 17

2016 doi
[10]

Physical Review C 98, 054001 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevC.98.054001

Golak, J and Skibi´ nski, R and Topolnicki, K and Wita la, H and Grassi, A and Kamada, H and Nogga, A and Marcucci, L E: Radiative pion capture in 2H, 3He, and 3H. Physical Review C 98, 054001 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevC.98.054001

2018
[11]

Physical Review C 98, 015501 (2018) https://doi

Golak, J., Skibi´ nski, R., Topolnicki, K., Wita la, H., Grassi, A., Kamada, H., Marcucci, L.E.: Momentum space treatment of inclusive neutrino scattering oﬀ the deuteron and trinucleons. Physical Review C 98, 015501 (2018) https://doi. org/10.1103/physrevc.98.015501

2018 doi
[12]

Physical Review C 103(2), 024004 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.024004

Higgins, M.D., Greene, C.H., Kievsky, A., Viviani, M.: Comprehensive study of the three-and four-neutron systems at low energies. Physical Review C 103(2), 024004 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.024004

2021 doi
[13]

Journal of Physics B 33(5), 93 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/33/5/ 201

Sadeghpour, H.R., Bohn, J.L., Cavagnero, M.J., Esry, B.D., Fabrikant, I.I., Macek, J.H., Rau, A.: Collisions near threshold in atomic and molecular physics. Journal of Physics B 33(5), 93 (2000) https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-4075/33/5/ 201

2000 doi
[14]

Physical Review Letters 125(5), 052501 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.052501

Higgins, M.D., Greene, C.H., Kievsky, A., Viviani, M.: Nonresonant density of states enhancement at low energies for three or four neutrons. Physical Review Letters 125(5), 052501 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.052501

2020 doi
[15]

Proceedings of the Physical Society 88(2), 285 (1966) https://doi.org/10

Berry, M.V.: Semi-classical scattering phase shifts in the presence of metastable states. Proceedings of the Physical Society 88(2), 285 (1966) https://doi.org/10. 1088/0370-1328/88/2/303

1966
[16]

Wiringa, R.B., Stoks, V.G.J., Schiavilla, R.: Accurate nucleon-nucleon potential with charge-independence breaking. Phys. Rev. C 51, 38–51 (1995) https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevC.51.38

1995 doi
[17]

Physical Review A 90(4), 042707 (2014) https://doi

D’Incao, J., Esry, B.: Adiabatic hyperspherical representation for the three-body problem in two dimensions. Physical Review A 90(4), 042707 (2014) https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.042707

2014 doi
[18]

Few-Body Systems 56, 753–759 (2015) https://doi.org/10

Daily, K., Kievsky, A., Greene, C.H.: Adiabatic hyperspherical analysis of realistic nuclear potentials. Few-Body Systems 56, 753–759 (2015) https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00601-015-1012-x 18

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Physical Review 73(9), 1002 (1948) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.73.1002

Wigner, E.P.: On the behavior of cross sections near thresholds. Physical Review 73(9), 1002 (1948) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.73.1002

doi:10.1103/physrev.73.1002 1948

[2] [2]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(35), 2108716118 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108716118

Hammer, H.-W., Son, D.T.: Unnuclear physics: Conformal symmetry in nuclear reactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(35), 2108716118 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108716118

doi:10.1073/pnas.2108716118 2021

[3] [3]

Physical Review A 105, 013308 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.105.013308

Chen, Y.-H., Greene, C.H.: Eﬁmov physics implications at p-wave fermionic unitarity. Physical Review A 105, 013308 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.105.013308

work page 2022

[4] [4]

Physical Review A 106, 023304 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA

Higgins, M.D., Greene, C.H.: Three and four identical fermions near the unitary limit. Physical Review A 106, 023304 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA. 106.023304

doi:10.1103/physreva 2022

[5] [5]

Journal of Physics B 58, 015302 (2025) https://doi.org/10

Chen, Y.-H., Greene, C.H.: Universal trimers with p-wave interactions and the faux-Eﬁmov eﬀect. Journal of Physics B 58, 015302 (2025) https://doi.org/10. 1088/1361-6455/ad987b

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Physical Review A 80(2), 022504 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1103/ physreva.80.022504

Stecher, J., Greene, C.H.: Correlated Gaussian hyperspherical method for few- body systems. Physical Review A 80(2), 022504 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1103/ physreva.80.022504

work page 2009

[7] [7]

Physical Review Letters 97, 150401 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.97.150401

Werner, F., Castin, Y.: Unitary quantum three-body problem in a harmonic trap. Physical Review Letters 97, 150401 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.97.150401

work page 2006

[8] [8]

Physical Review A 92(1), 013608 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/ physreva.92.013608

Yin, X., Blume, D.: Trapped unitary two-component Fermi gases with up to ten particles. Physical Review A 92(1), 013608 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1103/ physreva.92.013608

work page 2015