Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 90 references

Extremely large oblate deformation of the first excited state in $^{12}$C: a new challenge to modern nuclear theory

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 A Coulomb-excitation measurement finds Q_S(2_1^+)=+0.076(30) eb for the 4.439-MeV state of 12C; the weighted average with earlier data, +0.090(14) eb, is an oblate deformation the authors say challenges nuclear theory and calls for alpha…

desk verdict A careful new measurement and a useful kappa calculation, but the headline claim rests on an undocumented, correlated re-analysis and an overconfident average. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03236 v1 pith:ZO6BN5SC submitted 2025-06-03 nucl-ex nucl-thphysics.data-an

C. Ngwetsheni , J. N. Orce , P. Navrátil , P. E. Garrett , T. Faestermann , A. Bergmaier , M. Frosini , V. Bildstein
show 9 more authors
B. A. Brown C. Burbadge T. Duguet K. Hadyńska-Klȩk M. Mahgoub C. V. Mehl A. Pastore A. Radich S. Triambak
This is my paper
classification nucl-exnucl-thphysics.data-an
keywords Coulombexcitationspectroscopicquadrupolemomentoblatedeformationcarbon-12dipolepolarizabilityreorientationeffectabinitionucleartheoryalphaclustering
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 reports a high-statistics Coulomb-excitation measurement of the first excited $2_1^+$ state of $^{12}$C at 4.439~MeV, using the $^{208}\mathrm{Pb}(^{12}\mathrm{C},^{12}\mathrm{C}^*)^{208}\mathrm{Pb}^*$ reaction at 56~MeV. From the reorientation effect it extracts a spectroscopic quadrupole moment $Q_S(2_1^+) = +0.076(30)$~eb, and after combining with earlier measurements and re-analyzing a prior experiment with a newly calculated dipole-polarizability correction, it obtains a weighted average of $Q_S(2_1^+) = +0.090(14)$~eb. A positive moment of this size corresponds to a flattened, oblate charge distribution, about 50% larger than current ab initio and cluster-model predictions near 0.05--0.06~eb. The authors argue that this mismatch is a challenge for modern nuclear theory and that $\alpha$ clustering and triaxiality must be included before the $E2$ collective properties of $^{12}$C converge.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the reorientation effect, a second-order Coulomb-excitation contribution in which the population of magnetic substates of the $2_1^+$ state depends on the diagonal matrix element $\langle 2_1^+ \| \hat{E2} \| 2_1^+\rangle$, and hence on $Q_S$. Because virtual excitation through the giant dipole resonance produces a second-order E1 contribution of similar order, the analysis needs the dimensionless polarizability $\kappa(2_1^+)$; the paper derives it from ab initio calculations of the E1 strength distribution between the $0_1^+$, $1^-$, and $2_1^+$ states, using a Lanczos continued-fraction summation to include the full $1^-$ spectrum, and fixes $\kappa(2_1^+)=1.2(1)$. The diagonal matrix element is then varied in a least-squares fit so that the computed excitation probabilities match the measured ones at three scattering angles.

What would settle it

An independent determination of $Q_S(2_1^+)$ that does not depend on the theoretical $\kappa$—for example a reorientation measurement at several bombarding energies with a separately measured polarizability, or a direct photonuclear measurement of $\sigma_{-2}(2_1^+)$—would settle it. If $\kappa$ turned out to be near 0.8 instead of 1.2, the deduced moments would drop toward the 0.05--0.06~eb range and the challenge would disappear.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $2_1^+$ state of $^{12}$C carries a spectroscopic quadrupole moment $Q_S(2_1^+) = +0.076(30)$~eb from the new measurement, and a weighted average of $+0.090(14)$~eb when combined with the two earlier Coulomb-excitation results, including a re-analysis of the 90$^\circ$ measurement with the same updated polarizability. Because the reorientation effect is small, the analysis relies on an accurate account of the competing E1 polarizability of the excited state; the paper computes $\kappa(2_1^+) = 1.2(1)$ from chiral-interaction ab initio calculations of the E1 strength summed over all $1^-$ states and feeds it into the excitation analysis. The resulting moment is roughly 50% larger than the $\approx 0.05$--$0.06$~eb produced by current ab initio no-core shell model and cluster-model calculations, and the authors interpret this as evidence that those calculations have not yet converged the $E2$ collective properties. They conclude that $\alpha$ clustering and triaxiality, rather than axial deformation alone, are needed for full agreement.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the calculated dipole-polarizability parameter $\kappa(2_1^+) = 1.2(1)$ being correct; there is no direct experimental value for an even-even excited state, and the extracted quadrupole moment moves when $\kappa$ changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because $B(E2;0_1^+\to2_1^+)$ is reproduced well while $Q_S(2_1^+)$ is not, comparisons to theory for $^{12}$C should no longer be judged on transition strength alone; the diagonal moment is a separate, stricter test of the many-body wave function.
  • A larger oblate deformation supports the picture of a triangular $\alpha$-cluster arrangement for the $2_1^+$ state, meaning calculations restricted to axially symmetric shapes will keep underestimating $E2$ collectivity.
  • Re-analysis of the earlier experiment with $\kappa(2_1^+)=1.2(1)$ raises its quoted moment from about $0.06(3)$ to $0.103(20)$~eb, so previously published Coulomb-excitation moments in light nuclei may shift when modern polarizabilities are applied.
  • Dedicated measurements of the dipole polarizability of excited states in even-even nuclei are needed; the current work shows this correction, not the reorientation effect alone, controls the extracted deformation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the combined value holds, the same analysis applied to other self-conjugate light nuclei, such as $^{16}$O or $^{20}$Ne, would predict similarly large polarizability corrections, which could be tested by re-analyzing existing Coulomb-excitation data with updated $\kappa$ values.
  • A precise experimental determination of $\sigma_{-2}$ or the excited-state polarizability, perhaps from photonuclear data or a dedicated scattering measurement, would decouple the reorientation and E1-polarizability contributions; the paper itself notes such data are essentially absent.
  • The tension suggests that current chiral interactions and basis extrapolations may be missing long-range cluster correlations rather than merely needing larger harmonic-oscillator spaces; if so, future calculations with $N_{\max}>10$ should show the predicted moment increasing toward $+0.09$~eb as $\alpha$-cluster degrees of freedom are included.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a Coulomb-excitation measurement of the first excited 2+ state in 12C using the 208Pb(12C,12C*)208Pb* reaction at 56 MeV and the Q3D magnetic spectrograph. From the reorientation effect, the authors extract a spectroscopic quadrupole moment QS(2_1+) = +0.076(30) eb. Combining their result with previous work, including a re-analysis of the Vermeer et al. experiment, they obtain a weighted average QS(2_1+) = +0.090(14) eb, which they interpret as an extremely large oblate deformation that challenges modern ab initio and beyond-mean-field calculations. The analysis relies on a dipole-polarizability correction kappa(2_1+) = 1.2(1) computed from NCSM-LA calculations with four chiral interactions and on Eqs. (8)-(9) for the excited-state polarizability.

Significance. If the result holds, it provides an unusually demanding benchmark for nuclear structure theory: the 12C 2_1+ quadrupole moment is sensitive to many-body correlations, alpha clustering, and triaxiality, and a precise measurement would discriminate among NCSM, PGCM, shell-model, and cluster approaches. The paper also contributes a new ab initio computation of the E1 polarizability of an excited state, which is a largely unexplored quantity. The experimental work appears carefully performed, with high statistics and explicit treatment of background subtraction and peak contaminants. However, the strength of the central claim is limited by the model dependence of kappa and by incomplete documentation of the re-analysis that dominates the weighted average, so the significance is conditional on those issues being resolved.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5 (Results and Discussion)] The re-analysis of the Vermeer et al. data is not reproducible as written. The text states that using the new kappa(2_1+) = 1.2(1) and the updated B(E2) = 0.00390(8) e2b2 yields QS(2_1+) = 0.103(20) eb, but no GOSIA input is given: the coupling scheme, number of states, matrix elements, angular distributions, fitting procedure, or uncertainty budget for the 0.020 eb error are not described. Since this re-analysis has a smaller uncertainty than the new measurement and dominates the quoted weighted average of 0.090(14) eb, the central claim rests on an undocumented analysis step. Please provide a complete description, either in the main text or as a supplement, including enough information for an independent recalculation.
  2. [Section 5 and Table 2] The model dependence of kappa is not propagated into the final uncertainty. Section 5 identifies kappa(2_1+) = 1.2(1) as the only model-dependent parameter and states that its 0.1 uncertainty changes QS by 0.003 eb, but Table 2 lists the shell-model value kappa(2_1+) = 0.9 for the same quantity, and Fig. 5 (left) shows that QS increases monotonically with kappa. A change from 1.2 to 0.9 would shift both the present result and the Vermeer re-analysis downward in a correlated way, yet the weighted average of 0.090(14) is computed as if these inputs were independent. The authors should propagate the full model spread as a correlated systematic or explicitly restrict the claim to the new measurement alone.
  3. [Section 4 and Conclusions] The value of kappa(2_1+) used in GOSIA is derived from Eqs. (8)-(9), which, as the paper states in Section 4, have no experimental validation for excited states in even-even nuclei. Because QS is systematically sensitive to kappa (Fig. 5, left panel), the absence of an experimental benchmark for this key input is a load-bearing limitation. The abstract's characterization of the result as an 'accurate determination' should be tempered, or the paper should provide a quantitative sensitivity analysis covering the full range of theoretical kappa values and state clearly in the abstract and conclusions that the extracted QS is contingent on an unvalidated theoretical correction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 6 (Conclusions)] The statement that QS = +0.090(14) eb 'challenges the rigid-rotor model at the 1.3 sigma level' appears inconsistent with the quoted values: the rigid-rotor value is 0.0566(6) eb, which differs from 0.090(14) by about 2.4 sigma. Please verify the significance claim and correct the number or explain the comparison.
  2. [Section 5 (Results and Discussion)] The description 'a global minimum X_min = 0' for the least-squares search is unusual; please clarify whether this is a normalized chi-square, a single-parameter fit with zero residual at convergence, or a different convention, so that the reader can interpret the X_i curve in Fig. 5.
  3. [Section 4 (Dipole Polarizability)] The sentence 'there is currently no experimental data of sigma_-2 or kappa values for excited states in even-even nuclei' should be reworded for grammatical agreement; more importantly, the sentence should make explicit that this is a limitation of the present analysis, not merely a statement about the literature.
  4. [Equations (3) and (7)] In Eq. (7), 'ZtZt' appears to be a typographical or notation issue; please clarify the target charge factor and define all symbols (including R) consistently with Eq. (3) so that the dimensionless character of the expression is transparent.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The central weighted average is partly built from a correlated re-analysis using the same model-dependent kappa; the kappa input itself comes from the authors' own formulas and NCSM calculations.

  1. other [Section 5, re-analysis of Vermeer and collaborators, paragraph beginning 'It is worth noting...']
    "A re-analysis of this prior work using the currently more accurate weighted average, B(E2; 0+1 → 2+1) = 0.00390(8) e2b2 vs B(E2; 0+1 → 2+1) = 0.00388(22) e2b2 [34] — which includes all previous measurements [12, 13] — and the newly calculated κ(2+1) = 1.2(1) yields a larger and more precise value of Q_S(2+1) = 0.103(20) eb."

    This re-analysis is not an independent measurement: it is a recalculation of the old Vermeer data using the same newly calculated κ(2+) and the same updated B(E2) that enter the present measurement. The paper then combines this re-analysis with the present result in a weighted average, treating the two as independent constraints. The paper's own Fig. 5 shows that Q_S increases with κ, so any error in the shared κ shifts both entries in the same direction. The central value and precision of the quoted average therefore reduce in part to a single model input applied twice, rather than to two independent determinations.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 4, Eqs. (8)–(10) and the GOSIA input paragraph]
    "Recent developments using the formalism of Häusser and collaborators [55] based on E1 and E2 matrix elements, second-order perturbation theory and the hydrodynamic model, show that σ−2(2+) and κ(2+) can be calculated as [60] ... The calculated κ(2+) value is then input in GOSIA [51] for further analysis."

    The only model-dependent correction in the extraction, κ(2+), is obtained from a formula whose citation [60] is the authors' own prior work, and from NCSM calculations by the same group. The formula is an adaptation of a hydrodynamic-model ansatz, not an externally established theorem. The paper's own Table 2 shows that a different model (WBP shell model) gives κ(2+)=0.9, which would move both this measurement and the Vermeer re-analysis downward. The 'challenge to modern nuclear theory' is therefore not logically independent of the model input used to correct the data, even though the measurement itself is a genuine Coulomb-excitation measurement.

full rationale

The new Q_S measurement is not itself a fit to theory: it comes from a least-squares GOSIA search over measured population probabilities, and κ is computed rather than fitted to Q_S. The central claim nonetheless rests on a weighted average that includes a re-analysis of the Vermeer data produced with the same κ(2+) and B(E2) as the present work, so the two most precise entries are correlated through a shared model-dependent input. That input is derived from the authors' own formulas and NCSM-LA calculations, rather than from an independent experimental constraint. The paper does not propagate the correlated κ uncertainty into the 0.014 eb precision of the final average, and Fig. 5 shows that Q_S increases with κ. Because the independent experimental content is real but the headline challenge is partly constructed from self-consistent model inputs, a moderate score of 4 is appropriate: there is self-citation and a partially self-consistent correction chain, but the central measurement is not fully reducible to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a single model-dependent input, the polarizability parameter kappa(2_1^+)=1.2(1), which is computed from the authors' NCSM-LA calculations and their own formula for excited-state polarizability. No new entities are introduced. The B(E2) value is taken from prior measurements.

free parameters (1)
  • kappa(2_1^+) = 1.2(1) (unitless)
    Dipole polarizability correction for the 2_1^+ state in 12C, computed from NCSM-LA and used as the only model-dependent input in GOSIA. The extracted Q_S is sensitive to this parameter, with a shift of about 0.003 eb per 0.1 in kappa.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Semi-classical approximation (SCA) is valid for the Coulomb excitation at 56 MeV with Sommerfeld parameter eta = 36.
    The analysis uses GOSIA, which is based on SCA; the paper argues nuclear effects are negligible based on separations S(theta) > 5.6 fm and previous work, but this is an assumption.
  • standard math The reorientation effect formula (Eq. 3) correctly describes the second-order E2 interference.
    Taken from de Boer and Eichler, standard Coulomb excitation theory.
  • ad hoc to paper The E1 polarizability formalism of Eqs. 8-9, from Orce and Ngwetsheni (2024), correctly gives sigma_-2(2+) and kappa(2+) for even-even nuclei.
    These formulas are from the authors' own prior work and have not been independently validated for excited states; no experimental data exist for excited-state sigma_-2.
  • domain assumption The NCSM-LA calculations provide a converged value of S(E1) = 0.0060(5) e^2 fm^2/MeV.
    Convergence with Nmax is shown, but extrapolation relies on the chiral interactions and the Lanczos continued-fraction method.
  • domain assumption The GOSIA code computes population probabilities accurately for this reaction.
    GOSIA is a standard tool, but its reliability here depends on the inputs and the semi-classical approximation.
  • domain assumption The weighted average of B(E2;0+->2+) = 0.00390(8) e^2b^2 is adopted from previous measurements.
    Used as a fixed input in the analysis; this value is well established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extremely large oblate deformation of the first excited state in $^{12}$C: a new challenge to modern nuclear theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZO6BN5SC

@misc{pith2026250603236,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extremely large oblate deformation of the first excited state in $^12$C: a new challenge to modern nuclear theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZO6BN5SC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03236}
}
abstract

A Coulomb-excitation study of the high-lying first excited state at 4.439 MeV in the nucleus $^{12}$C has been carried out using the $^{208}$Pb($^{12}$C,$^{12}$C$^*$)$^{208}$Pb$^*$ reaction at 56 MeV and the {\sc Q3D} magnetic spectrograph at the Maier-Leibnitz Laboratorium in Munich. High-statistics achieved with an average beam intensity of approximately 10$^{11}$ ions/s together with state-of-the-art {\it ab initio} calculations of the nuclear dipole polarizability permitted the accurate determination of the spectroscopic quadrupole moment, $Q_{_S}(2_{_1}^+) = +0.076(30)$~eb, in agreement with previous measurements. Combined with previous work, a weighted average of $Q_{_S}(2_{_1}^+) = +0.090(14)$ eb is determined, which includes the re-analysis of a similar experiment by Vermeer and collaborators, $Q_{_S}(2_{_1}^+) = +0.103(20)$~eb. Such a large oblate deformation challenges modern nuclear theory and emphasizes the need of $\alpha$ clustering and associated triaxiality effects for full convergence of $E2$ collective properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03236 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Particle energy spectra collected at 80◦ (left), 85◦ (middle) and 90◦ (right) scattering angles with 56 MeV 12C ions. All identified peaks are labelled and the blue dotted line represents the elastic peak line-shape. The inset shows an expanded spectrum with the broadened 2+ 1 peak in 12C overlapping with the 2+ 1 and 4+ 1 peaks in 208Pb. sides of the wires and particle identification using en￾ergy losses ∆E and a 1… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Left panel) Calculated (circles) and measured (s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Calculated sum of E1 matrix elements (S(E1) in Eq. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The B(E1) strengths calculated using the NN N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left panel) General trend of the extracted Q [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Panel (a) shows QS (2+ 1 ) values calculated with the NCSM as a function of Nmax using four different χEFT interactions. Panel (b) presents extrapolated QS (2+ 1 ) values obtained by Calci et al. [2] and D’Alessio et al. [13] from a B(E2;2+ 1 → 0 + 1 ) – QS (2+ 1 ) cor…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. R. Entem, N. Kaiser, R. Machleidt, Y . Nosyk, Peripheral nucleon-nucleon scattering at fifth or- der of chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. C 91 (1) (2015) 014002

    2015

  2. [2]

    Calci, R

    A. Calci, R. Roth, Sensitivities and correlations of nuclear structure observables emerging from chiral interactions, Phys. Rev. C 94 (1) (2016) 014322

    2016

  3. [3]

    Epelbaum, H

    E. Epelbaum, H. Krebs, T. A. Lähde, D. Lee, U.- G. Meißner, Structure and rotations of the Hoyle state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (25) (2012) 252501

    2012

  4. [4]

    A. C. Dreyfuss, K. D. Launey, T. Dytrych, J. P . Draayer, C. Bahri, Hoyle state and rotational fea- tures in 12C within a no-core shell-model frame- work, Phys. Lett. B 727 (4-5) (2013) 511–515

    2013

  5. [5]

    Bender, P .-H

    M. Bender, P .-H. Heenen, P .-G. Reinhard, Self- consistent mean-field models for nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (1) (2003) 121

    2003

  6. [6]

    Ebran, E

    J.-P . Ebran, E. Khan, T. Nikši ´c, D. Vretenar, How atomic nuclei cluster, Nature 487 (7407) (2012) 341

    2012

  7. [7]

    J. Cui, X. Zhou, A beyond-mean-field model for hypernuclei with skyrme-type n interaction, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys 9 (2017) 093D04

    2017

  8. [8]

    Kanada-Enýo, The structure of ground and ex- cited states of 12C, Prog

    Y . Kanada-Enýo, The structure of ground and ex- cited states of 12C, Prog. Theor. Phys. 117 (4) (2007) 655

    2007

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    Chernykh, H

    M. Chernykh, H. Feldmeier, T. Neff, P . von Neumann-Cosel, A. Richter, Structure of the Hoyle state in 12C, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (3) (2007) 032501

    2007

  2. [10]

    Freer, H

    M. Freer, H. Horiuchi, Y . Kanada-Enýo, D. Lee, U. Meißner, Microscopic clustering in light nuclei, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (3) (2018) 035004

    2018

  3. [11]

    D. J. Marin-Lambarri, R. Bijker, M. Freer, M. Gai, T. Kokalova, D. J. Parker, C. Wheldon, Evidence for triangular d 3 h symmetry in 12C, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (1) (2014) 012502

    2014

  4. [12]

    Pritychenko, M

    B. Pritychenko, M. Birch, B. Singh, M. Horoi, Ta- bles of E2 transition probabilities from the first 2 + states in even–even nuclei, At. Data Nucl. Data Ta- bles 107 (2016) 1–139

    2016

  5. [13]

    D’Alessio, T

    A. D’Alessio, T. Mongelli, M. Arnold, S. Bas- sauer, J. Birkhan, I. Brandherm, M. Hilcker, T. Hüther, J. Isaak, L. Jürgensen, et al., Precision measurement of the E2 transition strength to the 2+ 1 state of 12C, Phys. Rev. C 102 (1) (2020) 011302

    2020

  6. [14]

    R. H. Helm, Inelastic and elastic scattering of 187- MeV electrons from selected even-even nuclei, Phys. Rev. 104 (5) (1956) 1466

    1956

  7. [15]

    Strehl, Untersuchung von 0+- 0+-Übergängen in 12C, 24Mg, 28Si, 32S und 40Ca durch unelastis- che Elektronenstreuung, Zeitschrift für Physik A Hadrons and nuclei 234 (5) (1970) 416

    P . Strehl, Untersuchung von 0+- 0+-Übergängen in 12C, 24Mg, 28Si, 32S und 40Ca durch unelastis- che Elektronenstreuung, Zeitschrift für Physik A Hadrons and nuclei 234 (5) (1970) 416

    1970

  8. [16]

    Crannell, T

    H. Crannell, T. A. Griffy, L. R. Suelzle, M. R. Y earian, A determination of the transition widths of some excited states in 12C, Nucl. Phys. A 90 (1) (1967) 152

    1967

  9. [17]

    H. L. Crannell, T. A. Griffy, Determination of ra- diative transition widths of excited states in 12C, Phys. Rev. 136 (6B) (1964) B1580

    1964

  10. [18]

    B. John, Y . Tokimoto, Y . Lui, H. L. Clark, X. Chen, D. H. Y oungblood, Isoscalar electric multipole strength in 12C, Phys. Rev. C 68 (1) (2003) 014305. 9

    2003

  11. [19]

    Kuronen, J

    A. Kuronen, J. Räisänen, J. Keinonen, P . Tikka- nen, E. Rauhala, Electronic stopping power for 7Li, 11B, 12C, 14N and 16O at energies 0.4 to 2.1 MeV/nucleon in Ta and Au, and for 12C at ener- gies 0.4, 0.8 and 1.4 MeV/nucleon in 18 elemental solids, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phy...

    1988

  12. [20]

    Lu Xiting, Ban Y ong, Liu Hongtao, Liu Jiarui, Zheng Zhongshuang, Zhang Qichu, DSA mea- surement using heavy ion reactions on the small tandem accelerator, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sec. A 272 (3) (1988) 909–912

    1988

  13. [21]

    R. B. Begzhanov, F. S. Akilov, A. K. Khalikov, M. S. Rakhmankulov, Lifetimes of excited states of several light nuclei obtained by a new method of Doppler broadening of γ-lines, Izv. Akad. Nauk Uzb. SSR, Ser. Fiz.-Mat. Nauk 59 (4) (1976)

    1976

  14. [22]

    P . M. Cockburn, W . J. Stark, R. W . Krone, Life- time measurements from the analysis of Doppler- broadened shapes, Phys. Rev. C 1 (5) (1970) 1757

    1970

  15. [23]

    Riess, P

    F. Riess, P . Paul, J. B. Thomas, S. S. Hanna, Lifetimes of levels in 12,13C and 13N, Phys. Rev. 176 (4) (1968) 1140

    1968

  16. [24]

    A. L. Catz, S. Amiel, Study of lifetimes of nu- clear levels by Doppler broadening attenuation us- ing a Ge(Li) gamma-ray spectrometer, Nucl. Phys. A 92 (1) (1967) 222

    1967

  17. [25]

    E. K. Warburton, J. W . Olness, K. W . Jones, C. Chasman, R. A. Ristinen, D. H. Wilkinson, Lifetime determinations for nuclei A= 10, 11, and 12 from gamma-ray Doppler shifts, Phys. Rev. 148 (3) (1966) 1072

    1966

  18. [26]

    Devons, Electromagnetic lifetimes and proper- ties of nuclear states, National Academy of Sci- ences 974 (1962) 86

    S. Devons, Electromagnetic lifetimes and proper- ties of nuclear states, National Academy of Sci- ences 974 (1962) 86

    1962

  19. [27]

    Fagot, R

    J. Fagot, R. Lucas, H. Nifenecker, M. Schnee- berger, Faisceau γ quasi monochromatique à én- ergie variable, Nucl. Instrum. Methods 95 (3) (1971) 421–427

    1971

  20. [28]

    Adopted B(E2) values, Available online from: https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/be2/index.jsp (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Navrátil, J

    P . Navrátil, J. P . V ary, B. R. Barrett, Properties of 12C in the ab initio nuclear shell model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (25) (2000) 5728

    2000

  22. [30]

    Forssén, R

    C. Forssén, R. Roth, P . Navrátil, Systematics of 2 + states in C isotopes from the no-core shell model, J. Phys. G 40 (5) (2013) 055105

    2013

  23. [31]

    Machleidt, D

    R. Machleidt, D. R. Entem, Chiral effective field theory and nuclear forces, Phys. Rep. 503 (1) (2011) 1–75

    2011

  24. [32]

    Alder, A

    K. Alder, A. Winther, Electromagnetic Excitation, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1975

    1975

  25. [33]

    M. K. Raju, J. N. Orce, P . Navrátil, G. C. Ball, T. E. Drake, S. Triambak, G. Hackman, C. J. Pearson, K. J. Abrahams, E. H. Akakpo, et al., Reorientation-effect measurement of the first 2 + state in 12C: Confirmation of oblate deformation, Phys. Lett. B 777 (2018) 250

    2018

  26. [34]

    W . J. V ermeer, M. T. Esat, J. A. Kuehner, R. H. Spear, A. M. Baxter, S. Hinds, Electric quadrupole moment of the first excited state of 12C, Phys. Lett. B 122 (1) (1983) 23

    1983

  27. [35]

    Saiz-Lomas, M

    J. Saiz-Lomas, M. Petri, I. Lee, I. Syndikus, S. Heil, J. Allmond, L. Gaffney, J. Pakarinen, H. Badran, T. Calverley, et al., The spectroscopic quadrupole moment of the 2 + 1 state of 12C: A benchmark of theoretical models, Phys. Lett. B 845 (2023) 138114

    2023

  28. [36]

    Häusser, Coulomb reorientation, in: Pure and Applied Physics, V ol

    O. Häusser, Coulomb reorientation, in: Pure and Applied Physics, V ol. 40, Elsevier, 1974, p. 55

    1974

  29. [37]

    de Boer, J

    J. de Boer, J. Eichler, The Reorientation Effect, Springer US, Boston, MA, 1968, Ch. 1, p. 52

    1968

  30. [38]

    Nakai, F

    K. Nakai, F. S. Stephens, R. M. Diamond, Quadrupole moments of the first excited states in 20Ne and 22Ne, Nucl. Phys. A 150 (1) (1970) 114– 128

    1970

  31. [39]

    Roth, Importance truncation for large-scale configuration interaction approaches, Phys

    R. Roth, Importance truncation for large-scale configuration interaction approaches, Phys. Rev. C 79 (6) (2009) 064324

    2009

  32. [40]

    Machleidt, High-precision, charge-dependent Bonn nucleon-nucleon potential, Phys

    R. Machleidt, High-precision, charge-dependent Bonn nucleon-nucleon potential, Phys. Rev. C 63 (2) (2001) 024001

    2001

  33. [41]

    Abgrall, B

    Y . Abgrall, B. Morand, E. Caurier, Multipole de- formations, static quadrupole moments and elec- tromagnetic transitions in light nuclei, Nucl. Phys. A 192 (2) (1972) 372–390

    1972

  34. [42]

    R. H. Bassel, B. A. Brown, R. Lindsay, N. Rowley, 0+ (gs)→ 2+ (4.44 MeV) transition density in 12C, J. Phys. G 8 (9) (1982) 1215. 10

    1982

  35. [43]

    Cohen, D

    S. Cohen, D. Kurath, Effective interactions for the 1p shell, Nucl. Phys. 73 (1) (1965) 1–24

    1965

  36. [44]

    Y uan, T

    C. Y uan, T. Suzuki, T. Otsuka, F. Xu, N. Tsunoda, Shell-model study of boron, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen isotopes with a monopole-based universal interaction, Phys. Rev. C 85 (2012) 064324

    2012

  37. [45]

    Kitagawa, Shell model study of the quadrupole moments in light mirror nuclei, Prog

    H. Kitagawa, Shell model study of the quadrupole moments in light mirror nuclei, Prog. Theor. Phys. 102 (5) (1999) 1015–1026

    1999

  38. [46]

    Sagawa, X.-R

    H. Sagawa, X.-R. Zhou, X. Z. Zhang, T. Suzuki, Deformations and electromagnetic moments in carbon and neon isotopes, Phys. Rev. C 70 (5) (2004) 054316

    2004

  39. [47]

    Dollinger, T

    G. Dollinger, T. Faestermann, Physics at the Mu- nich tandem accelerator laboratory, Nucl. Phys. News 28 (1) (2018) 5

    2018

  40. [48]

    W . A. Mayer, J. Koenig, H. J. Körner, D. Pereira, K. E. Rehm, H. J. Scheerer, Entwicklung eines Fokalebenendetektors fur mittelschwere Ionen, Jahresbericht BL (1981) 142

    1981

  41. [49]

    Lutter, O

    R. Lutter, O. Schaile, K. Schoffel, K. Steinberger, P . Thirolf, B. C., MARaBOOU-A MBS and ROOT based online/offline utility, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science (1999)

    1999

  42. [50]

    J. R. Beene, R. M. DeVries, Particle line shapes in heavy-ion reactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (15) (1976) 1027

    1976

  43. [51]

    Czosnyka, D

    T. Czosnyka, D. Cline, C. Wu, Gosia manual, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc 28 (1983) 745

    1983

  44. [52]

    W . J. V ermeer, M. T. Esat, J. A. Kuehner, R. H. Spear, A. M. Baxter, S. Hinds, Coulomb excitation of the 2.615 MeV (3 −) and 4.086 MeV (2 +) states of 208Pb, Austr. J. Phys. 37 (2) (1984) 123

    1984

  45. [53]

    Goutte, J

    D. Goutte, J. B. Bellicard, J. M. Cavedon, B. Frois, M. Huet, P . Leconte, P . X. Ho, S. Platchkov, J. Heisenberg, J. Lichtenstadt, et al., Determina- tion of the transition charge density of the octupole vibration in 208Pb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 (20) (1980) 1618

    1980

  46. [54]

    R. H. Spear, W . J. V ermeer, M. T. Esat, J. A. Kuehner, A. M. Baxter, S. Hinds, An improved determination of the quadrupole moment of the first excited state of 208Pb, Phys. Lett. B 128 (1-2) (1983) 29–32

    1983

  47. [55]

    Häusser, A

    O. Häusser, A. B. McDonald, T. K. Alexander, A. J. Ferguson, R. E. Warner, E1 polarization in Coulomb excitation of 7Li, Nucl. Phys. A 212 (3) (1973) 613

    1973

  48. [56]

    Häusser, A

    O. Häusser, A. B. McDonald, T. K. Alexander, A. J. Ferguson, R. E. Warner, Nuclear polarizabil- ity of 7Li from coulomb excitation, Phys. Lett. B 38 (2) (1972) 75

    1972

  49. [57]

    J. A. Kuehner, R. H. Spear, W . J. V ermeer, M. T. Esat, A. M. Baxter, S. Hinds, A measurement of the giant-dipole-resonance contribution to the Coulomb excitation of 17O, Phys. Lett. B 115 (6) (1982) 437

    1982

  50. [58]

    J. N. Orce, New formulas for the ( −2) moment of the photoabsorption cross section, σ−2, Phys. Rev. C 91 (6) (2015) 064602

    2015

  51. [59]

    J. S. Levinger, Migdal’s and Khokhlov’s calcula- tions of the nuclear photoeffect, Phys. Rev. 107 (2) (1957) 554

    1957

  52. [60]

    J. N. Orce, C. Ngwetsheni, Electric dipole polariz- ability of low-lying excited states in atomic nuclei, J. Phys. G 51 (7) (2024) 075105

    2024

  53. [61]

    E. K. Warburton, J. Weneser, Electromagnetic properties, V ol. Chapter 4, Science Direct, 1969

    1969

  54. [62]

    Racah, Theory of complex spectra, Phys

    G. Racah, Theory of complex spectra, Phys. Rev. 62 (9-10) (1942) 438

    1942

  55. [63]

    S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, R. J. Perry, Simi- larity renormalization group for nucleon-nucleon interactions, Phys. Rev. C 75 (6) (2007) 061001

    2007

  56. [64]

    D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt, Y . Nosyk, High- quality two-nucleon potentials up to fifth order of the chiral expansion, Phys. Rev. C 96 (2) (2017) 024004

    2017

  57. [65]

    D. R. Entem, R. Machleidt, Accurate charge- dependent nucleon-nucleon potential at fourth or- der of chiral perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. C 68 (4) (2003) 041001

    2003

  58. [66]

    V . Somà, P . Navrátil, F. Raimondi, C. Barbieri, T. Duguet, Novel chiral Hamiltonian and observ- ables in light and medium-mass nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 101 (1) (2020) 014318

    2020

  59. [67]

    Gysbers, G

    P . Gysbers, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, G. R. Jansen, T. D. Morris, P . Navrátil, T. Papenbrock, S. Quaglioni, A. Schwenk, S. R. Stroberg, et al., 11 Discrepancy between experimental and theoretical β -decay rates resolved from first principles, Na- ture Physics 15 (5) (2019) 428–431

    2019

  60. [68]

    Kravvaris, P

    K. Kravvaris, P . Navrátil, S. Quaglioni, C. Heb- born, G. Hupin, Ab initio informed evaluation of the radiative capture of protons on 7Be, Phys. Lett. B 845 (2023) 138156

    2023

  61. [69]

    Girlanda, A

    L. Girlanda, A. Kievsky, M. Viviani, Subleading contributions to the three-nucleon contact interac- tion, Phys. Rev. C 84 (1) (2011) 014001

    2011

  62. [70]

    M. A. Marchisio, N. Barnea, O. G., Efficient method for Lorentz integral transforms of reaction cross sections, Few-Body Systems 33 (4) (2003) 259

    2003

  63. [71]

    F. C. Barker, C. L. Woods, Investigation of E1 strength in Coulomb excitation of light nuclei, Austr. J. Phys. 42 (3) (1989) 233–256

    1989

  64. [72]

    Y . Hao, P . Navrátil, E. B. Norrgard, M. Iliaš, E. Eliav, R. G. E. Timmermans, V . V . Flambaum, A. Borschevsky, Nuclear spin-dependent parity- violating effects in light polyatomic molecules, Phys. Rev. A 102 (5) (2020) 052828

    2020

  65. [73]

    Froese, P

    P . Froese, P . Navrátil, Ab initio calculations of electric dipole moments of light nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 104 (2) (2021) 025502

    2021

  66. [74]

    Gennari, M

    M. Gennari, M. Drissi, M. Gorchtein, P . Navratil, C.-Y . Seng, An ab initio recipe for taming nuclear-structure dependence of V ud: the 10C → 10B superallowed transition, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19281 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    E. G. Fuller, Photonuclear reaction cross sections for 12C, 14N and 16O, Phys. Rep. 127 (3) (1985) 185

    1985

  68. [76]

    Ahrens, H

    J. Ahrens, H. Borchert, K. H. a. Czock, H. B. Eppler, H. Gimm, H. Gundrum, M. Kröning, P . Riehn, G. S. Ram, A. Zieger, et al., Total nuclear photon absorption cross sections for some light el- ements, Nucl. Phys. A 251 (3) (1975) 479

    1975

  69. [77]

    J. N. Orce, C. Ngwetsheni, B. A. Brown, Global trends of the electric dipole polarizability from shell-model calculations, Phys. Rev. C 108 (2023) 044309

    2023

  70. [78]

    E. K. Warburton, B. A. Brown, Effective inter- actions for the 0p1s0d nuclear shell-model space, Phys. Rev. C 46 (3) (1992) 923

    1992

  71. [79]

    Raman, C

    S. Raman, C. Nestor Jr, P . Tikkanen, Transition probability from the ground to the first-excited 2+ state of even–even nuclides, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 78 (1) (2001) 1–128

    2001

  72. [80]

    M. Wang, W . J. Huang, F. G. Kondev, G. Audi, S. Naimi, The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (ii). tables, graphs and references, Chinese Phys. C 45 (3) (2021) 030003

    2021

  73. [81]

    Hebeler, S

    K. Hebeler, S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, A. Nogga, A. Schwenk, Improved nuclear matter calculations from chiral low-momentum interac- tions, Phys. Rev. C 83 (2011) 031301

    2011

  74. [82]

    A. Bohr, B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, World Scientific Publishing Company, 1998

    1998

  75. [83]

    DeShalit, H

    A. DeShalit, H. Feshbach, Theoretical nuclear physics, New Y ork, NY (USA); John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1990

    1990

  76. [84]

    W . B. He, Y . G. Ma, X. G. Cao, X. Z. Cai, G. Q. Zhang, et al., Giant dipole resonance as a finger- print of α clustering configurations in 12C and 16O, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 (3) (2014) 032506

    2014

  77. [85]

    Frosini, T

    M. Frosini, T. Duguet, J. P . Ebran, V . Somà, Multi- reference many-body perturbation theory for nu- clei, Eur. Phys. J. A 58 (4) (2022) 1–28

    2022

  78. [86]

    Marevi ´c, J.-P

    P . Marevi ´c, J.-P . Ebran, E. Khan, T. Nikši ´c, D. Vretenar, Cluster structures in 12C from global energy density functionals, Phys. Rev. C 99 (3) (2019) 034317

    2019

  79. [87]

    Navrátil, S

    P . Navrátil, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, C. Romero- Redondo, A. Calci, Unified ab initio approaches to nuclear structure and reactions, Phys. Scripta 91 (5) (2016) 053002

    2016

  80. [88]

    Kravvaris, S

    K. Kravvaris, S. Quaglioni, G. Hupin, P . Navrátil, Ab initio framework for nuclear scattering and re- actions induced by light projectiles, Phys. Lett. B 856 (2024) 138930

    2024

  81. [89]

    S. R. Stroberg, J. Henderson, G. Hackman, P . Ruotsalainen, G. Hagen, J. D. Holt, System- atics of E2 strength in the sd shell with the valence-space in-medium similarity renormaliza- tion group, Phys. Rev. C 105 (3) (2022) 034333

    2022

  82. [90]

    Henderson, G

    J. Henderson, G. Hackman, P . Ruotsalainen, J. D. Holt, S. R. Stroberg, C. Andreoiu, G. C. Ball, N. Bernier, M. Bowry, R. Caballero-Folch, et al., Coulomb excitation of the |Tz|= 1/2, A = 23 mirror pair, Phys. Rev. C 105 (3) (2022) 034332. 12

    2022

Pith tools

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