Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Fragment spin in microscopic fission models is an uncertainty-principle effect: orientation spread becomes angular momentum.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 19:01 UTC pith:OZ5ZZAWM

load-bearing objection A serious, honest numerical study whose headline claim overreaches: orientation-uncertainty explains light-fragment spin well but not heavy fragments, and the overlap-based check is largely circular. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2512.02207 v2 pith:OZ5ZZAWM submitted 2025-12-01 nucl-th nucl-exquant-ph

Uncertainty Principle and Angular Momentum Generation in Microscopic Fission Models

G. Scamps , A. Guilleux , D. Regnier , A. Bernard This is my paper
classification nucl-th nucl-exquant-ph PACS 25.85.-w
keywords fission fragmentsangular momentum generationuncertainty principlespin distributionangular momentum projectionTDDFTorientation anglequadrupole deformation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to explain where the intrinsic spin of fission fragments comes from inside a microscopic time-dependent density functional theory description. It argues that most of the spin distribution obtained by exact angular momentum projection is not a dynamical noise effect but a direct consequence of the uncertainty relation between a fragment's orientation angle and its angular momentum: a deformed fragment is tightly oriented with respect to the fission axis, and that narrow orientation implies a wide spread in angular momentum. The authors support this by sampling nucleon configurations from the many-body state to measure the Gaussian width of the orientation angle, and by showing that the rotation overlap of the fragment wave function is Gaussian, so the uncertainty relation reproduces the projected spin cut-off parameter to better than 5 percent. If this picture is right, the experimentally observed saw-tooth pattern of fragment spins is largely a deformation effect: more deformed fragments are more strongly oriented and therefore spin faster.

Core claim

The central claim is that, within the microscopic (TD)DFT description, fragment angular momentum is generated as a quantum orientation effect. At scission the fragments are deformed and therefore oriented along the fission axis; the quantum state has a Gaussian spread in the orientation angle θ, and by the angle–angular-momentum uncertainty relation for an intelligent state, Δθ ΔL = 1/2, that angular spread forces a spin cut-off distribution. The paper quantifies this with a Monte Carlo sampling of nucleon positions from the Bogoliubov vacuum, which yields the full probability distribution of the fragment principal axis and a Gaussian width σθ; combining σθ with the uncertainty relation give

What carries the argument

The angle–angular momentum uncertainty relation Δθ ΔL ≥ 1/2, used in its saturated form Δθ ΔL = 1/2 for a Gaussian (intelligent) orientation wave packet, together with the Gaussian-overlap ansatz for the rotated wave function. The paper uses this relation in two directions: the Monte Carlo sampled θ-width feeds the direct prediction σL, while the width of the rotation overlap feeds the high-precision prediction σJ; both are benchmarked against the exact three-dimensional angular momentum projection.

Load-bearing premise

The jump from angular spread to spin magnitude relies on the fragment's orientation wave function saturating the uncertainty bound (a Gaussian 'intelligent state' with ΔθΔL = 1/2); if the state carries excess fluctuation, the measured angular width alone would not fix the spin cut-off.

What would settle it

Compute the actual product Δθ ΔL directly from the sampled θ distribution and the projected spin distribution for a single fragment; if the product is significantly larger than 1/2, the saturated uncertainty relation is not the controlling mechanism. Alternatively, measure the fragment spin distribution for a mass split where quadrupole deformation is near zero but octupole is large—if the spin remains high, the quadrupole-orientation uncertainty story breaks down.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The spin cut-off of a fission fragment can be estimated directly from the width of its rotation overlap, bypassing the expensive full angular momentum projection.
  • The saw-tooth spin pattern is given a microscopic deformation origin: fragments with larger quadrupole (and octupole) deformation are more tightly oriented and thus carry more spin.
  • The 5% agreement means Gaussian-overlap approximations are an accurate shortcut for spin distributions in microscopic fission calculations.
  • Other spin-generating mechanisms (pair breaking, Coulomb excitation) act as corrections on top of the orientation-uncertainty-dominated floor.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Gaussian-overlap relation holds beyond the three studied nuclei, the fragment spin cut-off becomes a cheap observable derivable from a single rotation overlap around β = 0, which could be implemented in static fission codes without time evolution.
  • The direct-sampling route only sees quadrupole orientation; a natural extension is to include the octupole axis in the sampled orientation, which the paper suggests would reduce the gap between σL and σJ for heavy fragments.
  • A strict reading of the paper implies that a spherical fragment (no orientation) would receive no spin from this mechanism; measuring spins of very spherical fragments could isolate the non-orientation contributions.
  • The same angle–angular-momentum uncertainty mechanism could set a spin floor in other oriented quantum many-body systems, such as molecular dissociation, clusters, or heavy-ion reactions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses microscopic TDHFB calculations with the Gogny interaction for 230Th, 240Pu, and 250Cf to compute fission-fragment angular momentum distributions. It proposes that the spin cutoff can be obtained from the uncertainty relation between the fragment orientation angle θ and angular momentum: the orientation spread σθ is extracted from a Monte Carlo sampling of nucleon positions (NucleoScope), and the spin cutoff σL is then fixed by the intelligent-state relation σθσL = 1/2. These predictions are compared with exact angular momentum projection and with a Gaussian fit to the β-rotational overlap. The paper claims that a large portion of the projected spin distribution is explained by the uncertainty principle and that the spin cutoff is reproduced with better than 5% accuracy, implying that fragment spin originates primarily from quantum orientation uncertainty, mainly from quadrupole deformation with a smaller octupole contribution.

Significance. If the central claim were quantitatively supported, it would provide a simple and appealing mechanism for fission-fragment angular momentum generation and connect the saw-tooth spin pattern to fragment deformation. The technical work is substantial: TDHFB evolution with exact angular momentum projection for three actinides, and an MCMC method to estimate orientation fluctuations from the many-body density. These are useful contributions independent of the interpretation. However, the direct uncertainty-principle route underpredicts the projected widths by factors between 1.36 and 6.57, and the large discrepancies for heavy fragments are not quantified by the invoked octupole contribution. The 5% agreement cited in the conclusion comes from fitting the same β-overlap that enters the projection, so it is close to an internal consistency check rather than an independent confirmation of the causal mechanism. The overarching claim is therefore currently overstated, though the underlying methods and the overlap-Gaussian observation are of interest.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Table I] The direct uncertainty-principle prediction underpredicts the exact projected width σJ in every case. The ratio R=σJ/σL ranges from 1.36 (250Cf L) to 6.57 (240Pu H). The explained variance fractions (σL/σJ)^2 are about 0.02 for 240Pu H, 0.10 for 250Cf H, and 0.18 for 230Th H. These numbers do not support the Abstract's claim that 'a large portion' or 'primarily' of the fragment spin is due to quadrupole orientation uncertainty; the agreement is semiquantitative for light fragments and poor for heavy fragments. The claim must be restricted or the missing octupole contribution must be quantified.
  2. [Eq. (4) and 'Uncertainty principle'] The conversion σθ→σL assumes the wave packet is an intelligent state that saturates ΔθΔL=1/2. The paper tests that the sampled θ distribution is Gaussian (Eq. 5), but a Gaussian envelope does not imply saturation; the uncertainty relation is an inequality. The Monte Carlo orientation spread of the principal axis is a classical-like estimate from many-body configurations and is not shown to equal the quantum angle uncertainty conjugate to L. From Table I, if σθ were inferred from the observed σJ through Eq. (4), the product σθσJ would exceed 1/2 by factors up to ~3.3 for 240Pu H. Without a saturation test, Eq. (4) is an unverified premise.
  3. [Concluding remarks; Eq. (11)] The 'better than 5%' statement refers to the Gaussian-overlap route: σβ is fitted to ⟨Ψ|e^{iβJy}|Ψ⟩ and converted with σβσJ=1/2. But the exact projection in Eq. (9) is a weighted integral over precisely that overlap (with α,γ rotations and D-matrix weights). If the β-overlap is nearly Gaussian, the projected width is essentially determined by σβ by construction; the 5% agreement is a consistency check on the Gaussian approximation rather than an independent test that angular uncertainty generates spin. The only independent evidence for the causal claim is the sampled-σθ route, whose failures are shown in Table I.
  4. [Concluding remarks; Fig. 3] For heavy fragments, where R is largest, the paper invokes octupole deformation as the missing contribution, but no quantitative estimate is given. The principal-axis method includes only quadrupole orientation (Eq. 7), and Fig. 3 shows a correlation between β2 and σL without an octupole-based orientation width. The statement that quadrupole deformation is the primary source and octupole is 'to a lesser extent' is therefore unsupported for these fragments. An explicit estimate of the octupole contribution to σθ, or a reframing that acknowledges the unexplained remainder, is needed before the central mechanism can be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The title line contains an apparent spacing artifact: 'Fis sion' should be 'Fission'.
  2. [Near Eq. (2)] Typo: 'azimutal' should be 'azimuthal'.
  3. [Numerical setup] The time step '2.10−3 zs' should be typeset as 2×10^-3 zs to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Fig. 2] The figure legend should explicitly identify which curves are the exact projections and which are the spin-cutoff formulas; the current caption relies entirely on the text.
  5. [Eq. (5)] The fit function contains a sin θ factor from the volume element, while the wave packet in Eq. (2) does not explicitly show this measure; clarify how normalization and the Gaussian width are related.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The 'better than 5%' support is circular: it fits the same β-overlap that enters the exact projection and then calls the resulting spin cutoff an uncertainty-principle prediction; the independent MCMC angle route actually fails for heavy fragments (σJ/σL up to 6.6).

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Projection section, Eqs. (9)-(11), Table I; Concluding remarks]
    "To verify the validity of the uncertainty principle, we fit the overlap ⟨Ψ|eiβ Ĵy |Ψ⟩ with the Gaussian form of Eq. (11), and compare the deduced σJ to the one found directly with the exact projection ( see table I ). ... A more robust, though less intuitive, argument in favor of spin generation from the uncertainty principle in (TD)HFB arises from the relation between the Gaussian overlap and the resulting spin. As shown in Table I, the spin cut-off parameter is reproduced with better than 5% accuracy by assuming a Gaussian overlap and simply applying the uncertainty principle."

    The Gaussian-fitted overlap of Eq. (11) is the integrand of the exact projection Eq. (9). Under the Gaussian ansatz, the projection integral yields a spin cutoff with σJ = 1/(2σβ) by construction; hence comparing σJ(overlap) with σJ(proj) only tests the Gaussian shape of the overlap, not the physical claim that orientation uncertainty generates the spin. The independent MCMC σθ route (Table I) contradicts the claim for heavy fragments: σJ/σL = 6.57 for 240Pu H. The 5% statement is thus an input-output identity, not an independent confirmation.

full rationale

The paper contains two routes to the spin cutoff. The first is genuinely non-circular: MCMC sampling of nucleon positions gives P(θ), fitting gives σθ, and Eq. (4) converts it to σL. This route is independent of the projection. However, Table I shows it fails quantitatively: σJ/σL ranges from 1.36 to 6.57 (worst for 240Pu H), so quadrupole orientation sampling cannot be 'primarily' responsible for those widths. The paper's 'more robust' argument is the circular one: it fits ⟨Ψ|eiβJy|Ψ⟩ with the Gaussian Eq. (11), uses σβσJ=1/2 to get σJ, and compares to the exact projection Eq. (9), whose integrand is the same overlap. Given the Gaussian ansatz, the projection integral is algebraically forced to yield the same spin cutoff; the comparison only verifies that the overlap is approximately Gaussian. The 5% agreement therefore re-parameterizes the projected distribution rather than confirming the uncertainty-principle mechanism. The octupole and intrinsic-spin corrections are invoked without a comparable calculation, so the causal claim rests on the circular overlap fit. Score 6 rather than 8 because the MCMC route is a genuine independent estimator, albeit one that the data contradict.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the angle-angular momentum uncertainty relation and on two fitted widths: σθ from the sampled θ distribution and σβ from the rotational overlap. Because the projected spin distribution is the angular-momentum transform of that same overlap, the 'uncertainty principle prediction' is substantially equivalent to the input. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • σθ (Gaussian width of the fragment orientation distribution) = not tabulated explicitly; implied by Table I via σθ = 1/(2σL), e.g. 0.17 rad for 230Th L
    Fitted with Eq. (5) to the MCMC-sampled angular distribution; drives the direct uncertainty-principle prediction of spin width.
  • σβ (Gaussian width of the β-rotational overlap) = implied by σJ(overlap) in Table I via σβ = 1/(2σJ), e.g. ≈0.087 rad for 230Th L
    Fitted to the overlap ⟨Ψ|e^{iβJ_y}|Ψ⟩ using Eq. (11); the resulting σJ is then the main 'uncertainty principle' prediction.
  • Basis truncation Nshell=9 and oscillator parameter ℏω=8 MeV = Nshell=9, ℏω=8 MeV
    Chosen numerical parameters; supplement states the PES is not fully converged with respect to Nshell, which affects the deformation landscape and hence spin values.
  • Monte Carlo sampler transition kernel width and spin-flip proposal = 1.5 fm, spin-flip 0.1
    Algorithmic choices in NucleoScope that affect sampling efficiency/autocorrelation but not the physics; included for reproducibility.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Angle-angular momentum uncertainty relation ΔθΔL ≥ 1/2 for a well-oriented axially symmetric system.
    Used as Eq. (1) to justify converting angular spread into spin spread; validity assumes well-defined orientation with small fluctuations around the z-axis.
  • domain assumption Fragments are in a minimum-uncertainty ('intelligent') Gaussian state in orientation angle, so σθσL = 1/2 (Eq. 4).
    Saturation of the uncertainty relation is assumed, not derived; if the actual many-body state has excess fluctuations, the inferred σL is not fixed by σθ.
  • domain assumption The principal axis of the quadrupole tensor computed from sampled nucleon positions defines the fragment orientation (SM Eqs. 7-8).
    Used to estimate σθ; ignores octupole and higher-multipole orientation, which the authors acknowledge causes underestimation of spin.
  • ad hoc to paper The θ distribution is Gaussian (Eq. 5) and the β-rotational overlap is Gaussian (Eq. 11).
    These Gaussian forms are assumed/fitted to enable the analytic spin-cutoff relation; Gaussianity of θ is checked visually, but the overlap Gaussian is asserted and fitted.
  • domain assumption TDHFB with Gogny D1S and the hybrid basis provides a valid description of fission dynamics up to scission.
    All results inherit the accuracy of this mean-field-plus-pairing framework; the supplemental text notes basis convergence is not fully achieved at Nshell=9.
  • standard math Angular momentum projection (Eq. 9) gives the fragment spin distribution.
    Standard projection technique; used as the ground-truth comparison in the paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11094 in / 17188 out tokens · 167865 ms · 2026-08-03T19:01:58.838157+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainty Principle and Angular Momentum Generation in Microscopic Fission Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZ5ZZAWM

@misc{pith2026251202207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Uncertainty Principle and Angular Momentum Generation in Microscopic Fission Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZ5ZZAWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.02207}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The generation of angular momentum (intrinsic spin) in fission fragments has recently attracted renewed attention. While several microscopic approaches reproduce the spin distribution qualitatively using projection techniques, the physical origin of the fragments' angular momentum in density functional theory remains unclear. In this work, we investigate the mechanisms responsible for the spin distribution of fission fragments within a microscopic TDDFT framework. We compare spin distributions obtained from projection operators with those predicted by a simple expression derived from the uncertainty relation between angle and angular momentum, where angular fluctuations are estimated using a Monte Carlo sampling of nucleon positions. We find that a large portion of the spin distribution obtained from projection methods can be explained by the uncertainty principle. Our results thus show that, within microscopic approaches, the spin of fission fragments originates primarily from quantum uncertainty associated with their orientation angle with respect to the fission axis, mainly due to quadrupole deformation and, to a lesser extent, octupole deformation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.02207 by A. Bernard, A. Guilleux, D. Regnier, G. Scamps.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: , the deformed fragments are oriented along the fission axis. In general, the main orientation can be ob￾tained by computing the principle axes of the one-body density, but is not related to an operator and so there is no trivial way of obtaining the fluctuations of that orien￾tation. Here we propose to estimate the distribution of the principal axis orientation going beyond the one-body 0 10 y [fm] 20 15 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Fragment-mass dependence of the angular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Potential energy surface for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Conservation of total energy (top) and particle num [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Example of the determination of the principal deformatio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Microscopic Spin-Parity Distributions of Fission Fragments

    nucl-th 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    TDHFB projections for 239Pu(n,f) show dynamical pair breaking drives unnatural-parity and K≠0 fragment components, so parity yields can strongly depart from equipartition.

  2. Narrowing the Gap Between Theory and Evaluations: Angular Momentum Distributions in Fission Fragments

    nucl-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Microscopic calculations yield angular momentum distributions in fission fragments with sawtooth patterns and isobaric dependence that match experimental photon multiplicities without adjustable parameters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen inhalt der quan- tentheoretischen kinematik und mechanik, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 43, 172 (1927)

    W. Heisenberg, ¨Uber den anschaulichen inhalt der quan- tentheoretischen kinematik und mechanik, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 43, 172 (1927)

    1927

  2. [2]

    H. P. Robertson, The uncertainty principle, Physical Re- view 34, 163 (1929)

    1929

  3. [3]

    Franke-Arnold, S

    S. Franke-Arnold, S. M. Barnett, E. Yao, J. Leach, J. Courtial, and M. Padgett, Uncertainty principle for angular position and angular momentum, New Journal 5 of Physics 6, 103 (2004)

    2004

  4. [4]

    Mikhailov and P

    I. Mikhailov and P. Quentin, On the spin of fission frag- ments, an orientation pumping mechanism, Physics Let- ters B 462, 7 (1999)

    1999

  5. [5]

    Bonneau, P

    L. Bonneau, P. Quentin, and I. N. Mikhailov, Scission configurations and their implication in fission-fragment angular momenta, Phys. Rev. C 75, 064313 (2007)

    2007

  6. [6]

    Scamps and G

    G. Scamps and G. Bertsch, Generation, dynamics, and correlations of the fission fragments’ angular momenta, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034616 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Bender, R

    M. Bender, R. Bernard, G. Bertsch, S. Chiba, J. Dobaczewski, N. Dubray, S. A. Giuliani, K. Hagino, D. Lacroix, Z. Li, et al., Future of nuclear fission theory, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 47, 113002 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Schunck and D

    N. Schunck and D. Regnier, Theory of nuclear fission, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 125, 103963 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    Schunck and L

    N. Schunck and L. M. Robledo, Microscopic theory of nuclear fission: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 79, 116301 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    J. N. Wilson et al. , Angular momentum generation in nuclear fission, Nature 590, 566 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    Travar, V

    M. Travar, V. Piau, A. G¨ o¨ ok, O. Litaize, J. Nikolov, A. Oberstedt, S. Oberstedt, J. Enders, M. Peck, W. Geerts, and M. Vidali, Experimental information on mass- and TKE-dependence of the prompt fission γ-ray multiplicity, Physics Letters B 817, 136293 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Marin, M

    S. Marin, M. S. Okar, E. P. Sansevero, I. E. Hernan- dez, C. A. Ballard, R. Vogt, J. Randrup, P. Talou, A. E. Lovell, I. Stetcu, O. Serot, O. Litaize, A. Chebboubi, S. D. Clarke, V. A. Protopopescu, and S. A. Pozzi, Struc- ture in the event-by-event energy-dependent neutron- γ multiplicity correlations in 252Cf(sf), Phys. Rev. C 104, 024602 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    N. P. Giha, S. Marin, J. A. Baker, I. E. Hernandez, K. J. Kelly, M. Devlin, J. M. O’Donnell, R. Vogt, J. Ran- drup, P. Talou, I. Stetcu, A. E. Lovell, O. Litaize, O. Serot, A. Chebboubi, C.-Y. Wu, S. D. Clarke, and S. A. Pozzi, Correlations between energy and γ-ray emis- sion in 239Pu(n,f ), Phys. Rev. C 107, 014612 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Francheteau, L

    A. Francheteau, L. Gaudefroy, G. Scamps, O. Roig, V. M´ eot, A. Ebran, and G. B´ elier, Scission deformation of the 120Cd/132Sn neutronless fragmentation in 252Cf(sf), Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 142501 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Marin, I

    S. Marin, I. A. Tolstukhin, N. P. Giha, F. Tovesson, V. Protopopescu, and S. A. Pozzi, Measurement of fragment-correlated γ-ray emission from 252Cf(sf), Phys. Rev. C 109, 054617 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    Cannarozzo, S

    S. Cannarozzo, S. Pomp, A. Solders, A. Al-Adili, Z. Gao, M. Lantz, H. Penttil¨ a, A. Kankainen, I. Moore, T. Ero- nen, Z. Ge, J. Ruotsalainen, M. Mougeot, V. Virtanen, A. Jaries, M. Stryjczyk, and A. Raggio, Disentangling the influence of excitation energy and compound nucleus angular momentum on fission fragment angular momen- tum, Phys. Rev. C 111, L031601 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    L. G. Moretto and R. P. Schmitt, Equilibrium statistical treatment of angular momenta associated with collective modes in fission and heavy-ion reactions, Phys. Rev. C 21, 204 (1980)

    1980

  18. [18]

    Døssing and J

    T. Døssing and J. Randrup, Dynamical evolution of an- gular momentum in damped nuclear reactions: (I). Ac- cumulation of angular momentum by nucleon transfer, Nucl. Phys. A 433, 215 (1985)

    1985

  19. [19]

    Randrup and R

    J. Randrup and R. Vogt, Generation of Fragment Angu- lar Momentum in Fission, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 062502 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Randrup, T

    J. Randrup, T. Døssing, and R. Vogt, Probing fission fragment angular momenta by photon measurements, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014609 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Vogt and J

    R. Vogt and J. Randrup, Angular momentum effects in fission, Phys. Rev. C 103, 014610 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Scamps, Microscopic description of the torque acting on fission fragments, Phys

    G. Scamps, Microscopic description of the torque acting on fission fragments, Phys. Rev. C 106, 054614 (2022)

    2022

  23. [23]

    T. M. Shneidman, A. Rahmatinejad, G. G. Adamian, and N. V. Antonenko, Quantum-mechanical description of angular motion of fission fragments at scission, Phys. Rev. C 111, 064621 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    T. M. Shneidman, G. G. Adamian, N. V. Antonenko, S. P. Ivanova, R. V. Jolos, and W. Scheid, Role of bend- ing mode in generation of angular momentum of fission fragments, Phys. Rev. C 65, 064302 (2002)

    2002

  25. [25]

    M. Zhou, S. Chen, Z. Li, M. Smith, and Z. Li, Quan- tum fluctuations drive angular momenta in nuclear fis- sion, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06177 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    G. F. Bertsch, T. Kawano, and L. M. Robledo, Angular momentum of fission fragments, Phys. Rev. C 99, 034603 (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    Marevi´ c, N

    P. Marevi´ c, N. Schunck, J. Randrup, and R. Vogt, An- gular momentum of fission fragments from microscopic theory, Phys. Rev. C 104, L021601 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Marevi´ c, N

    P. Marevi´ c, N. Schunck, and M. Verriere, Microscopic theory of angular momentum distributions across the full range of fission fragments (2025), arXiv:2506.10777 [nucl- th]

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Bulgac, I

    A. Bulgac, I. Abdurrahman, S. Jin, K. Godbey, N. Schunck, and I. Stetcu, Fission fragment intrinsic spins and their correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 142502 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Scamps, I

    G. Scamps, I. Abdurrahman, M. Kafker, A. Bulgac, and I. Stetcu, Spatial orientation of the fission fragment in- trinsic spins and their correlations, Phys. Rev. C 108, L061602 (2023)

    2023

  31. [31]

    Scamps, Quantal effect on the opening angle distri- bution between the spins of the fission fragments, Phys

    G. Scamps, Quantal effect on the opening angle distri- bution between the spins of the fission fragments, Phys. Rev. C 109, L011602 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Hashimoto, Linear responses in time-dependent hartree-fock-bogoliubov method with gogny interaction, The European Physical Journal A 48, 55 (2012)

    Y. Hashimoto, Linear responses in time-dependent hartree-fock-bogoliubov method with gogny interaction, The European Physical Journal A 48, 55 (2012)

    2012

  33. [33]

    Hashimoto, Time-dependent hartree-fock-bogoliubov calculations using a lagrange mesh with the gogny inter- action, Phys

    Y. Hashimoto, Time-dependent hartree-fock-bogoliubov calculations using a lagrange mesh with the gogny inter- action, Phys. Rev. C 88, 034307 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    Hashimoto and G

    Y. Hashimoto and G. Scamps, Gauge angle dependence in time-dependent hartree-fock-bogoliubov calculations of 20O +20 O head-on collisions with the gogny interac- tion, Phys. Rev. C 94, 014610 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    Scamps and Y

    G. Scamps and Y. Hashimoto, Transfer probabilities for the reactions 14,20O + 20 O in terms of multiple time- dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov trajectories, Phys. Rev. C 96, 031602 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    Scamps and Y

    G. Scamps and Y. Hashimoto, Density-constraint Time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov method, arXiv:1904.02945

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1904

  37. [37]

    Regnier, D

    D. Regnier, D. Lacroix, G. Scamps, and Y. Hashimoto, Microscopic description of pair transfer between two su- perfluid fermi systems: Combining phase-space averag- ing and combinatorial techniques, Physical Review C 97, 034627 (2018). 6

    2018

  38. [38]

    Scamps and C

    G. Scamps and C. Simenel, Impact of pear-shaped fis- sion fragments on mass-asymmetric fission in actinides, Nature 564, 382 (2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    Bernard, D

    A. Bernard, D. Regnier, J. Newsome, P. Carpentier, N. Dubray, and N. Pillet, Fluctuation of fission observ- ables investigated with a monte carlo method, in prepa- ration

  40. [40]

    Zhang, D

    D. Zhang, D. Vretenar, T. Nikˇ si´ c, P. Zhao, and J. Meng, Intrinsic spin distributions in multinucleon transfer reac- tions, Physics Letters B , 139828 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    G. F. Bertsch and L. M. Robledo, Symmetry Restoration in Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov Based Theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 042505 (2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Scamps and D

    G. Scamps and D. Lacroix, Effect of pairing on one- and two-nucleon transfer below the coulomb barrier: A time-dependent microscopic description, Phys. Rev. C 87, 014605 (2013)

    2013

  43. [43]

    J. B. Wilhelmy, E. Cheifetz, R. C. Jared, S. G. Thomp- son, H. R. Bowman, and J. O. Rasmussen, Angular Mo- mentum of Primary Products Formed in the Spontaneous Fission of 252Cf, Phys. Rev. C 5, 2041 (1972)

    2041

  44. [44]

    Randrup, Effect of the coulomb force on fission frag- ment angular momenta, Phys

    J. Randrup, Effect of the coulomb force on fission frag- ment angular momenta, Phys. Rev. C 108, 064606 (2023). Supplemental Material : Uncertainty Principle and Angular Momentum Genera tion in Microscopic Fission Models G. Scamps and A. Guilleux Universit´ e de Toulouse, CNRS/IN2P3, L2IT, Toulouse, Fran ce D. Regnier and A. Bernard CEA, DAM, DIF, 91297 Arp...

    2023

  45. [45]

    Matsumoto and Y

    M. Matsumoto and Y. Tanimura, Visualization of nuclear many-body correlations with the most probable configu- ration of nucleons, Phys. Rev. C 106, 014307 (2022)

    2022

  46. [46]

    Dobaczewski, W

    J. Dobaczewski, W. Satu/suppress la, B. Carlsson, J. En- gel, P. Olbratowski, P. Powa/suppress lowski, M. Sadziak, J. Sarich, N. Schunck, A. Staszczak, M. Stoitsov, M. Zalewski, and H. Zdu´ nczuk, Solution of the skyrme–hartree–fock–bogolyubov equations in the carte- sian deformed harmonic-oscillator basis.: (vi) hfodd (v2.40h): A new version of the progr...

    2009

  47. [47]

    Wimmer, Algorithm 923: Efficient numerical computa- tion of the pfaffian for dense and banded skew-symmetric matrices, ACM Trans

    M. Wimmer, Algorithm 923: Efficient numerical computa- tion of the pfaffian for dense and banded skew-symmetric matrices, ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 38, 30:1 (2012)

    2012