Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Recent Results on the Tetraneutron

T0 review · 4 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 A single tetraneutron can explain the contradictory signals

desk verdict A candid review with a speculative two-state reconciliation that is not new and hinges on an unsupported reaction-selectivity assumption, but the experimental synthesis is useful and the hypothesis is worth taking seriously enough to referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11623 v2 pith:J7UVY2DY submitted 2025-06-13 nucl-ex nucl-th

Thomas Faestermann , Roman Gernhäuser This is my paper
classification nucl-exnucl-th
keywords tetraneutronfour-neutronsystemnuclearreactionstransferknockoutneutronclustersboundstateresonance
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

Recent experiments on the four-neutron system report signals at energies that do not agree with one another. This review proposes that the contradiction is only apparent: the low-energy 7Li(7Li,10C) experiment saw a bound ground state, while the 8He $\alpha$-knockout and $\alpha$-transfer experiments saw the first excited state, about $E^* = 3.3 \pm 0.4$ MeV higher and unbound. If correct, this reconciles three experimental results and turns the tetraneutron into a two-level system whose existence would constrain nuclear forces and matter in neutron stars. The paper is a synthesis of published results, not a new measurement.

What carries the argument

The central object is a spin-parity assignment for the two tetraneutron states: a $0^+$ ground state and a $2^+$ excited state built from the two lowest neutron orbitals, $s_{1/2}$ and $p_{3/2}$. The mechanism that carries the argument is reaction selectivity: in $\alpha$-knockout ($^8$He($p,p\alpha$)) and $\alpha$-transfer ($^2$H($^8$He,$^6$Li)) reactions, the removed $\alpha$ is assumed to be formed from the two $s_{1/2}$ neutrons, so the leftover four neutrons sit in a ($p_{3/2}$)$^2$ $2^+$ configuration, whereas the low-energy $^7$Li($^7$Li,$^{10}$C) reaction populates the $0^+$ ground state. This assignment lets each experiment see a different level of the same system rather than contradictory claims.

What would settle it

Measure the spin-parity of the peak near 3 MeV in the four-neutron missing-mass spectrum from $^8$He($p,p\alpha$): if the populated state is $0^+$ rather than $2^+$, the ground/excited-state reconciliation collapses. A dedicated reaction calculation of the population amplitudes for $\alpha$-knockout and $\alpha$-transfer on $^8$He would also settle it, since the mechanism requires that those reactions suppress the $0^+$ component.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the four-neutron system can have a bound $0^+$ ground state built from two neutrons in the $s_{1/2}$ shell and two in the $p_{3/2}$ shell, and an unbound $2^+$ first excited state in which the two $p_{3/2}$ neutrons are coupled to $2^+$. Reaction selectivity decides which state appears: removing an $\alpha$ from $^8$He leaves the $p_{3/2}$ neutrons, producing the $2^+$ state, while the low-energy lithium-lithium transfer goes through a compound-like process and preserves the $0^+$ ground-state configuration. The proposed excitation energy of about 3.3 MeV is consistent, within uncertainties, with the average $2^+$ excitation of the $N=4$ even-even neighbors $^6$He, $^8$Be, $^{10}$C, and $^{12}$O, which the paper gives as $2.5 \pm 0.7$ MeV. The paper presents this as the common explanation that best fits the available experiments, while noting that it conflicts with nearly all published theory.

Load-bearing premise

The reconciliation rests on the assumption that in the $\alpha$-knockout and $\alpha$-transfer reactions the removed $\alpha$ is always formed from the two $s_{1/2}$ neutrons, leaving the remaining four neutrons in a $(p_{3/2})^2$ $2^+$ state, while the low-energy lithium-lithium transfer populates the $0^+$ ground state; if a reaction calculation shows the knockout can also populate the $0^+$ state, the assignment loses its mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The energy difference between the bound state at 0.42 MeV binding and the mean resonance at 2.92 MeV above threshold is 3.3 ± 0.4 MeV, matching the proposed $2^+$ excitation energy.
  • The three key observations—a bound state, a 2.37 MeV resonance, and humps at 3.2–3.5 MeV—fall into a single level scheme instead of contradicting one another.
  • A bound tetraneutron would need to be accommodated in models of the strong interaction, since standard nuclear Hamiltonians do not bind four neutrons.
  • The photodisintegration excess at 30 MeV electron energy overlaps the bound-state energy better than the 2.37 MeV resonance, giving independent support for the ground state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The decisive next step is a quantitative reaction calculation of the knockout and transfer population amplitudes; the paper asserts the reaction selectivity without showing such a calculation.
  • If the bound state is as dilute as the preliminary energy-density-functional result described in the paper (root-mean-square radius near 45 fm), few-body methods truncated to a few oscillator shells would systematically miss it, and halo-oriented methods would be the natural place to look.
  • A high-efficiency multi-neutron detector experiment that measures angular correlations among the four decay neutrons could distinguish a $2^+$ resonance from dineutron final-state interactions or phase-space emission; this goes beyond what the paper computes.
  • The same two-state pattern might be worth testing in other neutron-rich unbound systems such as $^6$H, where the paper notes a similar theory-experiment discrepancy.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a short review of recent experiments reporting tetraneutron signals (Marqués et al. 2002, Kisamori et al. 2016, Faestermann et al. 2022, Duer et al. 2022, Kotanjyan et al. 2023, Muzalevskii et al. 2025). It proposes a reconciliation of the partly conflicting data: Faestermann et al. observed a bound 0+ ground state with EB ≈ 0.42 MeV, while Duer et al. and Muzalevskii et al. observed an unbound 2+ first excited state at about E* = 3.3 ± 0.4 MeV above it. The proposed mechanism is reaction selectivity: low-energy 7Li transfer populates the 0+ ground-state configuration, whereas alpha-knockout and alpha-transfer reactions on 8He remove an alpha formed from the two s1/2 neutrons and leave the four neutrons in a (p3/2)^2 2+ configuration. The paper also summarizes theoretical work, including an unpublished Giessen EDF calculation by Lenske that predicts a bound, extremely dilute four-neutron state.

Significance. If the two-state interpretation is correct, it would elegantly reconcile otherwise contradictory experimental results and would imply that a bound tetraneutron exists, with consequences for neutron-star physics and for nuclear forces. The paper is useful as a compact and readable summary of the experimental status, and its central hypothesis is clearly falsifiable: the proposed ground-state/excited-state assignment can be tested by the planned direct 4n-decay measurement [28] and by repeated alpha-knockout experiments with high multi-neutron detection efficiency. The authors are also honest in stating that the view conflicts with nearly all published theoretical results. However, the proposal rests on two unvalidated pillars: a reaction-selectivity assumption that is asserted without any reaction calculation, and an unpublished and explicitly preliminary EDF calculation. Because these pillars are load-bearing, the paper cannot be accepted as a review-level synthesis in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4] The reaction-selectivity mechanism is asserted, not demonstrated. The text states that in alpha-knockout and alpha-transfer reactions 'it can be assumed that the α is formed from two neutrons in the s1/2 shell' and that it 'seems quite likely that the four neutrons in the final channel are in a (p3/2)^2 2+ state', but no spectroscopic factors, no DWIA/eikonal calculation, no transfer-reaction model, and no estimate of the relative population of 0+ versus 2+ final states is given. This assumption is the central new mechanism that reconciles the data: if the alpha-removal reactions have comparable or dominant overlap with the 0+ ground state, then Duer et al. and Muzalevskii et al. would be expected to see the bound ground state or a two-peak structure, and the two-level scheme loses its explanatory power. The radial-halo argument in the same section actually cuts the other way: if the Lenske EDF ground state has an rms radius near 45 fm, its overlap with a compact alpha-removal vertex should be extremely poor, so the claimed preference for the 2+ state needs quantitative support, not plausibility.
  2. [Section 4] The 3.3 ± 0.4 MeV splitting is not derived from the N=4 analog that is offered in support of it. The paper states that the energy difference would be E* = 3.3 ± 0.4 MeV and then quotes the average 2+ excitation energy of 6He, 8Be, 10C and 12O as 2.5 ± 0.7 MeV (RMS). The difference between these values is about 0.8 MeV and is not discussed, and the spread among the four neighbors is large; moreover, 8Be and 12O are themselves unbound, so the analogy is not obviously applicable. Since the E* value is fixed by the data (Faestermann's bound state plus the Duer/Muzalevskii weighted mean) rather than predicted by the shell-model analogy, the analogy should be presented as a weak consistency check, with the individual 2+ energies listed and the uncertainty in the analogy assessed.
  3. [Section 3] The only theoretical support for a bound tetraneutron ground state is Ref. [27], a private communication by H. Lenske that is described in the text as 'still preliminary'. The description mentions a 1% tuning of the medium-range attraction of a G-matrix-based EDF to reproduce 4,6,8He, but no sensitivity study is reported and no quantitative details of the cavity-size dependence, the 45 fm rms radius, or the +140 keV binding energy are given beyond the summary. In a review that consciously positions itself against 'nearly all theoretical results published', resting the bound ground state on an unpublished calculation is not sufficient. The authors should either include the Lenske results as a documented appendix with a sensitivity analysis or clearly label the two-state proposal as an experimental conjecture whose theoretical basis remains unpublished.
  4. [Section 5] The concluding paragraph concedes that the proposed reconciliation 'is in conflict with nearly all theoretical results published'. The referee agrees that this is an honest caveat, but it also means that the burden of proof for the two-state hypothesis falls entirely on the experimental and reaction-theory arguments. Given that the reaction-selectivity argument is unquantified and the sole theoretical backing is unpublished, the paper should state more prominently in the abstract and introduction that the proposed interpretation is a speculative working hypothesis rather than a concluded synthesis. The current abstract, which says 'we suggest' and 'we also refer to some of the theoretical works', undersells the degree to which the central mechanism remains untested.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo: 'exitation energy' should be 'excitation energy'.
  2. [Section 2.5 / Fig. 1] The claim that the Duer et al. resonance curve has only a 'minuscule overlap' with the 30 MeV photon spectrum is made visually; a quantitative overlap integral, including the effect of the 2.5% electron-energy spread and the exact threshold position, should be reported.
  3. [Fig. 2] Figure 2 does not show error bars on the width and energy of the reported states, although the text quotes statistical and systematic uncertainties for several of them; adding error bars would make the compatibility statements in Section 4 easier to assess.
  4. [Section 2.3] The statement that the second Q3D measurement 'result was now a broad peak composed of the two previous peaks, exactly as expected' is not quantified; a fit or at least a spectrum showing the two components would be useful.
  5. [References] Reference [4] is labeled with arXiv category physics.soc-ph, which appears inappropriate for a physics review of the first 4n signal; please check the correct arXiv identifier or category.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No derivation to reduce: the two-state reconciliation is an explicitly tentative hypothesis whose energy gap is arithmetic from the cited data, not a fitted prediction; the load-bearing reaction-selectivity assumption is unsupported but not circular.

full rationale

This paper is a review/commentary, and its central 'synthesis' (Section 4) is explicitly tentative: the authors ask 'could it not be that Faestermann et al. have observed the ground state and Duer et al. and Muzalevskii et al. the first excited state?' rather than deriving a prediction. The energy gap E* = 3.3 ± 0.4 MeV is not an independent prediction but the arithmetic difference of the quoted experimental energies (bound EB = 0.42 ± 0.16 MeV below threshold for [6]; weighted mean 2.92 ± 0.39 MeV for [8,12]); this is transparent bookkeeping, not a fitted parameter renamed as output. The load-bearing reaction-selectivity assumption (alpha-knockout/alpha-transfer remove s1/2 neutrons, leaving a (p3/2)^2 2+ four-neutron state while low-energy transfer populates the 0+ ground state) is asserted with qualitative shell-model and radial-halo arguments and is indeed unsupported by any DWIA/DWBA calculation; however, it is presented as an assumption, not as a theorem derived from the data, so it is an evidence/verification weakness rather than a circular reduction. The self-citation [30] ('We have argued in a similar way before') points to the authors' prior arXiv preprint but is not the sole or formal justification of the assumption; the physical argument stands in the text independently. The Lenske EDF result [27] is a private communication from a close collaborator, raising reproducibility concerns, but it is not a self-citation and is not used to define the experimental energy differences. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction. Score 2 reflects the minor self-citation in the reaction-selectivity argument, which is not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central hypothesis rests on a shell-model configuration ansatz, a reaction-selectivity assumption, an unpublished EDF calculation from a collaborator, and a halo picture of 8He. The only free parameter is the tuned medium-range attraction in the EDF. No new entities beyond the bound ground state and the unbound excited state are postulated; both are interpretations of existing measurements.

free parameters (1)
  • medium-range attraction strength in Giessen EDF = ~1% adjustment
    In Section 3, the Giessen EDF's medium-range attraction is 'slightly tuned on a one percent level' to reproduce binding energies and radii of 4,6,8He; this tuning is a free parameter in the calculation that produces the claimed bound tetraneutron.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The four-neutron ground state has configuration (s1/2)^2(p3/2)^2 coupled to spin zero; the first excited state has the two p3/2 neutrons coupled to 2+.
    Section 4 uses this shell-model ansatz to estimate the ground-excited splitting E* = 3.3 ± 0.4 MeV and to argue different reactions populate different states.
  • ad hoc to paper In alpha-knockout and alpha-transfer reactions on 8He, the removed alpha is formed from the two s1/2 neutrons, leaving the remaining four neutrons in a (p3/2)^2 2+ configuration; in the low-energy 7Li(7Li,10C) reaction the neutrons retain the 0+ ground-state configuration.
    Section 4: this reaction-selectivity assumption is the mechanism that explains why different experiments see different states; it is asserted without a dedicated reaction calculation.
  • domain assumption The Giessen EDF calculation (preliminary, private communication) correctly describes a bound, extremely dilute tetraneutron with a binding energy of about 140 keV.
    Section 3: this unpublished result is presented as support for the existence of a bound ground state despite contradicting most published theoretical calculations.
  • domain assumption The four valence neutrons of 8He form a halo around the alpha core, so that removal of the alpha leaves the remaining neutrons in a configuration with small overlap with the tetraneutron ground state.
    Section 4: used to argue that knockout/transfer preferentially populate the excited state, based on the difference between 8He matter and charge radii.
invented entities (2)
  • Bound tetraneutron ground state
    purpose: Explain the narrow peak observed by Faestermann et al. at E_B = 0.42 ± 0.16 MeV as a particle-stable ground state.
    The only experimental support is the authors' own 7Li(7Li,10C) measurement [6]; no independent confirmation exists, and most theory forbids such a state.
  • Unbound first excited tetraneutron state (2+) independent evidence
    purpose: Explain the broader resonances observed by Duer et al. (E4n = 2.37 MeV, Γ = 1.75 MeV) and Muzalevskii et al. (about 3.2-3.5 MeV) as the same 2+ resonance populated in knockout/transfer.
    The Duer et al. and Muzalevskii et al. measurements are independent of the authors, but their identification as the first excited state rather than a threshold artifact or final-state interaction is this paper's interpretation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recent Results on the Tetraneutron." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J7UVY2DY

@misc{pith2026250611623,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recent Results on the Tetraneutron},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J7UVY2DY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11623}
}
read the original abstract

We describe the recent experiments which claimed an observation of a tetra-neutron signal. Production reactions like transfer, knockout, fragmentation or photodisintegration have been used at very different experiments and facilities to form systems just made of neutrons. As a possible explanation of the partly contradicting results we suggest that some observed the bound ground state and some an unbound but still correlated state of the four neutrons at different exitation energy. We also refer to some of the theoretical works.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Short-distance production of three particles with large scattering length

    nucl-th 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Short-distance production of three neutrons in pionless EFT is dominated by the P-wave and shows no resonance-like structure; three bosons show Efimov-resonance peaks, and effective-range corrections are small.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [28]

    Few-Body Systems 62(4), 102 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-021-01691-4

    Huang, S.W., Yang, Z.H., Marqu´ es, F.M., Achouri, N.L., Ahn, D.S., Aumann, T., Baba, H., Beaumel, D., B¨ ohmer, M., Boretzky, K., Caama˜ no, M., Chen, S., Chiga, N., Cort´ es, M.L., Cortina, D., Doornenbal, P., Douma, C.A., Dufter, F., Feng, J., Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, B., Elekes, Z., Forsberg, U., Fujino, T., Fukuda, N., Gaˇ spari´ c, I., Ge, Z., Gern...

    work page 2021

  2. [27]

    To be published (2024)

    Lenske, Horst: Private communication. To be published (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    European Physical Journal A 57(3), 105 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/ s10050-021-00417-8 arXiv:2102.10879 [nucl-ex]

    Marqu´ es, F.M., Carbonell, J.: The quest for light multineutron systems. European Physical Journal A 57(3), 105 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1140/epja/ s10050-021-00417-8 arXiv:2102.10879 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [2]

    Marqu´ es, F.M., Labiche, M., Orr, N.A., Ang´ elique, J.C., Axelsson, L., Benoit, B., Bergmann, U.C., Borge, M.J.G., Catford, W.N., Chappell, S.P.G., Clarke, N.M., Costa, G., Curtis, N., D’Arrigo, A., G´ oes Brennand, E., Oliveira Santos, F., Dorvaux, O., Fazio, G., Freer, M., Fulton, B.R., Giardina, G., Gr´ evy, S., Guillemaud-Mueller, D., Hanappe, F., H...

    2002

  5. [3]

    On the possible detection of 4n events in the breakup of 14Be

    Marqu´ es, F.M., Orr, N.A., Falou, H.A., Normand, G., Clarke, N.M.: On the possi- ble detection of 4n events in the breakup of 14Be. arXiv e-prints, 0504–009 (2005) arXiv:nucl-ex/0504009 [nucl-ex] 8

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  6. [4]

    The story around the first 4n signal

    Marqu´ es, F.M.: The Story Around the First 4n Signal. Few-Body Systems 65(2), 37 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00601-024-01907-3 arXiv:2405.14884 [physics.soc-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [5]

    Kisamori, K., Shimoura, S., Miya, H., Michimasa, S., Ota, S., Assie, M., Baba, H., Baba, T., Beaumel, D., Dozono, M., Fujii, T., Fukuda, N., Go, S., Hammache, F., Ideguchi, E., Inabe, N., Itoh, M., Kameda, D., Kawase, S., Kawabata, T., Kobayashi, M., Kondo, Y., Kubo, T., Kubota, Y., Kurata-Nishimura, M., Lee, C.S., Maeda, Y., Matsubara, H., Miki, K., Nish...

    2016

  8. [6]

    Physics Letters B 824, 136799 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136799

    Faestermann, T., Bergmaier, A., Gernh¨ auser, R., Koll, D., Mahgoub, M.: Indi- cations for a bound tetraneutron. Physics Letters B 824, 136799 (2022) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136799

    work page arXiv 2022

Show all 34 references
  1. [7]

    Nuclear Physics News 28(1), 5–12 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10619127.2018.1427405

    Dollinger, G., Faestermann, T.: Physics at the Munich Tandem Accelerator Laboratory. Nuclear Physics News 28(1), 5–12 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10619127.2018.1427405

    2018

  2. [8]

    Nature 606(7915), 678–682 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04827-6

    Duer, M., Aumann, T., Gernh¨ auser, R., Panin, V., Paschalis, S., Rossi, D.M., Achouri, N.L., Ahn, D., Baba, H., Bertulani, C.A., B¨ ohmer, M., Boretzky, K., Caesar, C., Chiga, N., Corsi, A., Cortina-Gil, D., Douma, C.A., Dufter, F., Elekes, Z., Feng, J., Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ıng...

    2022

  3. [9]

    Journal of Contemporary Physics (Armenian Academy of Sciences) 58(1), 6–13 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1134/ S1068337223010127 9

    Kotanjyan, T.V., Aleksanyan, A.Y., Kechechyan, A.O., Amirkhanyan, S.M., Gulkanyan, H.R., Pogosov, V.S., Poghosyan, L.A.: Searching for Tetraneutron in Bismuth Nucleus Photodisintegration Reaction. Journal of Contemporary Physics (Armenian Academy of Sciences) 58(1), 6–13 (2023...

    2023

  4. [10]

    Nuclear Data Sheets 166, 1–230 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2020.05.001

    Kondev, F.G.: Nuclear data sheets for A=205. Nuclear Data Sheets 166, 1–230 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nds.2020.05.001

    2020 doi

  5. [11]

    Lazauskas, R., Hiyama, E., Carbonell, J.: Low Energy Structures in Nuclear Reactions with 4 n in the Final State. Phys. Rev. Lett. 130(10), 102501 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.102501 arXiv:2207.07575 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Muzalevskii, I.A., Shulgina, N.B., Bezbakh, A.A., Chudoba, V., Krupko, S.A., Belogurov, S.G., Biare, D., Egorova, I.A., Fomichev, A.S., Gazeeva, E.M., Gor- shkov, A.V., Grigorenko, L.V., Kaminski, G., Khirk, M., Kiselev, O., Kostyleva, D.A., Kozlov, M.Y., Mauyey, B., Mukha, I....

    2025

  7. [13]

    Pieper, S.C.: Can Modern Nuclear Hamiltonians Tolerate a Bound Tetraneutron? Phys. Rev. Lett. 90(25), 252501 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90. 252501 arXiv:nucl-th/0302048 [nucl-th]

    2003 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Shirokov, A.M., Papadimitriou, G., Mazur, A.I., Mazur, I.A., Roth, R., Vary, J.P.: Prediction for a Four-Neutron Resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 182502 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.182502

    2016 doi

  9. [15]

    Fossez, K., Rotureau, J., Michel, N., P loszajczak, M.: Can Tetraneutron be a Narrow Resonance? Phys. Rev. Lett. 119(3), 032501 (2017) https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.032501 arXiv:1612.01483 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [16]

    Li, J.G., Michel, N., Hu, B.S., Zuo, W., Xu, F.R.: Ab initio no-core Gamow shell- model calculations of multineutron systems. Phys. Rev. C 100(5), 054313 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.100.054313 arXiv:1911.06485 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Physics of Particles and Nuclei 50(5), 537–543 (2019) https://doi.org/10

    Mazur, I.A., Shirokov, A.M., Mazur, A.I., Shin, I.J., Kim, Y., Maris, P., Vary, J.P.: Description of Continuum Spectrum States of Light Nuclei in the Shell Model. Physics of Particles and Nuclei 50(5), 537–543 (2019) https://doi.org/10. 1134/S1063779619050186

    2019

  12. [18]

    Gandolfi, S., Hammer, H.-W., Klos, P., Lynn, J.E., Schwenk, A.: Is a Trineu- tron Resonance Lower in Energy than a Tetraneutron Resonance? Phys. Rev. Lett. 118(23), 232501 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.232501 arXiv:1612.01502 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Physical Review C 100(4), 044002 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC

    Deltuva, A., Lazauskas, R.: Tetraneutron resonance in the presence of a dineutron. Physical Review C 100(4), 044002 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC. 100.044002 arXiv:1910.12333 [nucl-th] 10

    2019 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Higgins, M.D., Greene, C.H., Kievsky, A., Viviani, M.: Nonresonant Density of States Enhancement at Low Energies for Three or Four Neutrons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 052501 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.052501

    2020 doi

  15. [21]

    Hiyama, E., Lazauskas, R., Carbonell, J., Kamimura, M.: Possibility of generating a 4-neutron resonance with a T =3 /2 isospin 3-neutron force. Phys. Rev. C93(4), 044004 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.93.044004 arXiv:1604.04363 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Progress of Theoretical and Exper- imental Physics 2017(7), 073–03 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptx078 arXiv:1705.07927 [nucl-th]

    Lazauskas, R., Carbonell, J., Hiyama, E.: Modeling the double charge exchange response function for a tetraneutron system. Progress of Theoretical and Exper- imental Physics 2017(7), 073–03 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptx078 arXiv:1705.07927 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Shao, T., Chen, J., Pochodzalla, J., Achenbach, P., Christmann, M., Distler, M.O., Doria, L., Esser, A., Geratz, J., Helmel, C., Hoek, M., Kino, R., Klag, P., Ma, Y.- G., Markus, D., Merkel, H., Mihovilovic, M., M¨ uller, U., Nagao, S., Nakamura, S.N., Nishi, K., Nishida, K., ...

    2025

  18. [24]

    Physics Letters B 833, 137367 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022

    Hiyama, E., Lazauskas, R., Carbonell, J.: 7H ground state as a 3H+4n resonance. Physics Letters B 833, 137367 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022. 137367 arXiv:2207.04634 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [25]

    European Physical Journal A 55(12), 238 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1140/epja/i2019-12811-6

    Lenske, H., Tsoneva, N.: Dissolution of shell structures and the polarizability of dripline nuclei. European Physical Journal A 55(12), 238 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1140/epja/i2019-12811-6

    2019 doi

  20. [26]

    European Physical Journal A 54(10), 170 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2018-12603-6

    Adamian, G.G., Malov, L.A., Antonenko, N.V., Lenske, H., Wang, K., Zhou, S.-G.: Incorporating self-consistent single-particle potentials into the microscopic- macroscopic method. European Physical Journal A 54(10), 170 (2018) https: //doi.org/10.1140/epja/i2018-12603-6

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    Nuclear Physics News 33(3), 15–18 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1080/10619127

    Shimoura, S., Otsu, H.: Population of Tetra-Neutron System Using RI Beams. Nuclear Physics News 33(3), 15–18 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1080/10619127. 2023.2198911

    2023

  22. [30]

    arXiv e-prints, 2207–10542 (2022) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.10542 arXiv:2207.10542 [nucl-ex]

    Faestermann, T.: New results on the tetraneutron, seen in context. arXiv e-prints, 2207–10542 (2022) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.10542 arXiv:2207.10542 [nucl-ex]

    2022 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    European Physical Journal A Supplement 25(1), 215–216 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1140/epjad/i2005-06-156-3

    Kiselev, O.A., Aksouh, F., Bleile, A., Bochkarev, O.V., Chulkov, L.V., Cortina- Gil, D., Dobrovolsky, A.V., Egelhof, P., Geissel, H., Hellstr¨ om, M., Isaev, N.B., Komkov, B.G., M´ atos, M., Moroz, F.V., M¨ unzenberg, G., Mutterer, M., Mylnikov, V.A., Neumaier, S.R., Pribora, ...

    2005

  24. [32]

    Mueller, P., Sulai, I.A., Villari, A.C.C., Alc´ antara-N´ u˜ nez, J.A., Alves-Cond´ e, R., Bailey, K., Drake, G.W.F., Dubois, M., El´ eon, C., Gaubert, G., Holt, R.J., Janssens, R.V.F., Lecesne, N., Lu, Z.-T., O’Connor, T.P., Saint-Laurent, M.-G., Thomas, J.-C., Wang, L.-B.: N...

    2007 doi

  25. [33]

    Brodeur, M., Brunner, T., Champagne, C., Ettenauer, S., Smith, M.J., Lapierre, A., Ringle, R., Ryjkov, V.L., Bacca, S., Delheij, P., Drake, G.W.F., Lunney, D., Schwenk, A., Dilling, J.: First direct mass measurement of the two-neutron halo nucleus 6He and improved mass for the...

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    Sick, I.: Precise root-mean-square radius of 4He. Phys. Rev. C 77, 041302 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.77.041302 12

    2008 doi

Pith tools

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