Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Low-energy spectra of nobelium isotopes: Skyrme random-phase-approximation analysis

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The disputed $8^{-}$ isomer in $^{254}$No is assigned to the neutron two-quasiparticle configuration $nn[734\uparrow,613\uparrow]$, and the same Skyrme QRPA predicts low-energy $0^{+}$ pairing vibrations from the $N=152$ shell gap.

desk verdict A thorough QRPA study whose credible new result—pairing-vibrational 0+ states in 252,254No—sits alongside an 8- isomer assignment that is plausible but leans on an uncalculated and selectively applied blocking shift. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09096 v3 pith:3QGYNTUQ submitted 2025-02-13 nucl-th

V. O. Nesterenko , M. A. Mardyban , A. Repko , R. V. Jolos , P.-G. Reinhard , Alan A. Dzhioev This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th
keywords nobeliumisotopesK-isomersquasiparticlerandom-phaseapproximationSkyrmeenergydensityfunctionalspairingvibrationsneutronshellgapN=152superheavynuclei
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

This paper tries to establish that the full low-energy spectrum of the heaviest nobelium isotopes can be described by a single self-consistent framework, the Skyrme quasiparticle random-phase approximation, and that the long-disputed $8^{-}$ isomer in $^{254}$No is a neutron two-quasiparticle state, $nn[734\uparrow,613\uparrow]$. The reason the assignment matters is that the same calculation ties the isomer to a predicted neutron shell gap at $N=152$: with neutron pairing nearly quenched, the model predicts low-lying $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ pairing vibrations around 0.6-0.8 MeV in $^{252,254}$No. If the assignment is right, the 0.888 MeV $0^{+}$ state already seen in $^{254}$No is not a shape-coexistence band head but a pairing vibration, giving an observable handle on pairing in superheavy nuclei. The paper also predicts a set of previously unsought low-energy $K$-isomers and doublets, so a sympathetic reader would treat it as a systematic map of where new spectroscopy should look.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the fully self-consistent quasiparticle random-phase approximation (QRPA), in which the same Skyrme energy density functional supplies the mean field, the residual particle-hole and particle-particle interactions, pairing in the BCS approximation, and Coulomb exchange; spurious modes are removed before diagonalization. Excited states are treated as collective one-phonon excitations built from two-quasiparticle pairs. The decisive ingredient is the neutron single-particle spectrum near the Fermi surface: for SLy4 and SLy6 the Fermi level $[734\uparrow]$ sits inside a wide shell gap at $N=152$, and the $8^{-}$ state emerges as an $F\to F+3$ one-phonon excitation $nn[734\uparrow,613\uparrow]$. The pairing vibrational $0^{+}$ states are identified by their dominant diagonal two-quasiparticle components, such as $nn[734\uparrow,734\uparrow]$, with the largest component exhausting only 33-58% of the state norm.

What would settle it

Measure the magnetic moment (g-factor) of the $8^{-}$ isomer at 1.295 MeV in $^{254}$No: the neutron assignment $nn[734\uparrow,613\uparrow]$ yields a $g$-factor close to zero, whereas the proton configuration $pp[514\downarrow,624\uparrow]$ yields a $g$-factor near $+1$ in nuclear magneton units, so the measured value would settle which quasiparticle pair dominates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a fully self-consistent QRPA built on the Skyrme functionals SLy6 and SLy4 reproduces the key non-rotational states in $^{252}$No and $^{254}$No together, and therefore the previously disputed $8^{-}$ isomer in $^{254}$No should be assigned the neutron two-quasiparticle configuration $nn[734\uparrow,613\uparrow]$. The competing proton configuration $pp[514\downarrow,624\uparrow]$ lies close in energy, but the SLy6 decay-chain argument, based on the $10^{+}\to 8^{-}$ transition energy, favors the neutron pair. The same neutron shell gap that creates this isomer suppresses neutron pairing, and as a direct consequence the model predicts low-energy $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ pairing vibrations in $^{252,254}$No; the state observed at 0.888 MeV in $^{254}$No is identified with the predicted pairing vibration rather than with a superdeformed band head. In addition, the paper predicts that the $K^{\pi}=3^{+}$ isomer at 0.987 MeV in $^{254}$No is accompanied by a nearby $K^{\pi}=4^{+}$ band head, and that several further $K$-isomers ($4^{-},7^{-}$ in $^{252}$No; $4^{-},6^{-},7^{-}$ in $^{254}$No) appear at 1.2-1.4 MeV.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the neutron single-particle ordering near the Fermi surface in $^{254}$No puts $[734\uparrow]$ inside the shell gap and $[613\uparrow]$ three levels above it; if the gap or ordering shifts even slightly, the neutron and proton $8^{-}$ candidates separate by only 0.1-0.2 MeV and the assignment flips.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the $8^{-}$ assignment is right, the two competing single-particle schemes that have fought over $^{254}$No for two decades are decided in favor of the neutron pair, and the decay chain from the 2.01 MeV $10^{+}$ band head becomes a consistent neutron two-quasiparticle ladder.
  • The predicted low-energy $K^{\pi}=0^{+}$ pairing vibrations in $^{252,254}$No provide a concrete target for coincidence and transfer experiments; observing one near 0.6-0.8 MeV would confirm that the $N=152$ shell gap suppresses neutron pairing.
  • The $K^{\pi}=3^{+}$ and $4^{+}$ band heads in $^{254}$No should be a nearly degenerate doublet built from the same proton pair $pp[521\downarrow,514\downarrow]$; their rotational bands should show strong Coriolis coupling, so the $4^{+}$ band head newly reported at 1.203 MeV is a direct test.
  • The predicted $4^{-},7^{-}$ states in $^{252}$No and $4^{-},6^{-},7^{-}$ states in $^{254}$No, all around 1.2-1.4 MeV, are specific falsifiable entries for future $\gamma$-ray spectroscopy of nobelium isotopes.
  • The calculation implies that moments of inertia and $E(2^{+})$ energies along $^{250-262}$No should be irregular at $A\sim 252-254$, a fingerprint of the pairing drop that should be visible in rotational band data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right that the 0.888 MeV state in $^{254}$No is a pairing vibration, its two-neutron transfer cross section should be selectively enhanced in $(p,t)$ or $(t,p)$ reactions, unlike a shape-coexistence band head; a transfer measurement would separate the two interpretations without waiting for higher-spin spectroscopy.
  • The same shell-gap mechanism that quenches neutron pairing in $^{254}$No should also affect single-neutron transfer and $\alpha$-decay fine structure in neighbouring isotones, so the prediction could be cross-checked outside the nobelium chain.
  • The near-degeneracy of the neutron and proton $8^{-}$ candidates, only 0.1-0.2 MeV apart, suggests the physical state may be a mixture; the paper treats them as alternative assignments, but a mildly mixed state would have intermediate $g$-factor and transition rates, which the proposed $g$-factor measurement would also reveal.
  • A systematic extension of the same QRPA machinery to $N=150$ isotones, such as $^{250}$Fm, could test whether the $N=152$ gap and the pairing-vibrational $0^{+}$ states persist one neutron pair away.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents fully self-consistent Skyrme QRPA calculations of non-rotational low-energy states in the even-even nobelium isotopes 250-262No, focusing on 252,254No. The model uses four Skyrme forces (SLy4, SLy6, SkM*, SVbas) with different effective masses and pairing prescriptions, plus three UNEDF functionals with Lipkin-Nogami pairing in an appendix. The paper analyzes K-isomers, pairing vibrations, quadrupole and octupole states, and makes three central claims: (i) the disputed 8^- isomer in 254No is the neutron two-quasiparticle configuration nn[734↑,613↑]; (ii) the neutron shell gap at N=152 leads to a suppression of neutron pairing and predicts low-energy pairing-vibrational K^π=0^+ states at approximately 0.6-0.8 MeV in 252,254No; (iii) the observed 3^+ isomer in 254No should be accompanied by a nearby 4^+ state. The work is cross-checked with energy-weighted sum rules, moments of inertia, odd-neighbor single-particle spectra, and the two-neutron mass staggering δ_2n^(3).

Significance. If correct, the assignment of the 8^- isomer resolves a long-standing experimental dispute and the pairing-vibrational 0^+ states provide a concrete, experimentally testable signature of suppressed pairing in a superheavy nucleus. The paper has genuine strengths: the QRPA implementation is fully self-consistent, the energy-weighted sum rules are exhausted to 90-100%, a representative set of forces is used, and the results are cross-checked against odd-A neighbor spectra and mass-staggering data. The paper is honest about the limitations of BCS in the weak-pairing regime and about the need for fine tuning. However, the central 8^- assignment and the 0^+ interpretation have quantitative gaps that need to be addressed before the claims can be accepted as predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Table IV] The assignment of the 254No 8^- isomer to nn[734↑,613↑] rests on QRPA energies that overestimate the experimental Ex=1.295 MeV by 0.378 MeV (SLy4: 1.673 MeV) and 0.452 MeV (SLy6: 1.747 MeV). The paper bridges this gap by citing a 0.2-0.5 MeV pairing-blocking correction from Refs. [35,45] without computing it. The same Table IV shows that the 252No 8^- isomer, with the same neutron two-quasiparticle structure, is reproduced almost exactly without any blocking shift (SLy4: 1.257 MeV vs. 1.254 MeV). If the blocking correction lowers two-quasiparticle energies by the cited amount, it should also lower the 252No state by a comparable amount, destroying the agreement that gives confidence in the single-particle scheme. Since the neutron and proton 8^- two-quasiparticle configurations in 254No are separated by only ~0.1-0.2 MeV (186 keV for SLy6, 128 keV for SkM*, as stated in Sec. IV A), the unquantified correction is the difference between a predicted and a fitted energy. Until the blocking effect is computed within the same QRPA framework for both isotopes, the nn[734↑,613↑] assignment is plausible but not quantitatively supported.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Table V] The prediction of low-energy pairing-vibrational K^π=0^+ states in 254No is not yet uniquely established. The SLy6 result of 0.224 MeV is labelled by the authors themselves as an artifact of the BCS description of weak pairing, and the SLy4 result of 0.616 MeV differs from the experimental 0^+ at 0.888 MeV by more than 0.27 MeV. The experimental paper [10] interprets this state as shape coexistence between normal-deformed and superdeformed minima, and the authors reject that interpretation using the argument that the superdeformed coupling is 'too weak to affect noticeably the low-energy spectrum' without performing a beyond-mean-field mixing calculation. Given that SkM* yields two 0^+ states at 0.767 and 0.866 MeV whose energies and structures bracket the observed state, the identification of the 0.888 MeV state as a pairing vibration is a reasonable hypothesis but not a demonstration. The authors should either compute the shape-mixing amplitude or frame the 0^+ prediction as a testable alternative to shape coexistence rather than as the most plausible explanation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 2 and 3] Figures 2 and 3 are extremely compressed in the manuscript, and the single-particle levels near the Fermi energy are difficult to read; please enlarge these panels or provide a tabulated list of the levels close to the Fermi level.
  2. [Sec. IV A] The terms 'particle-hole' and 'particle-particle' are used without explicit definition; please define them in terms of the F-order and the pairing factors u and v.
  3. [Reference [36]] Reference [36] contains the typo 'anf W. Scheid' and should read 'and W. Scheid'.
  4. [Table II] In Table II, the experimental E(2^+_1) values are given without error bars; please specify the experimental uncertainties or state that they are negligible on the displayed scale.
  5. [Sec. IV A and figure captions] The phrase 'pairing blocking' is used repeatedly; please specify whether it refers to the blocking of the BCS vacuum for odd systems or to a correction to the two-quasiparticle energies in the QRPA calculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Skyrme and pairing parameters are global fits, and the QRPA predictions for nobelium isomers and 0+ pairing vibrations are not equivalent to their inputs by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Skyrme forces SLy4, SLy6, SkM* and SVbas are pre-existing global parametrizations, and the pairing strengths in Table I are quoted from earlier fits to pairing gaps in other isotopic/isotonic chains (Sec. II), not fitted to the 252,254No isomer data. The QRPA method [39-41] and SkyAx code [48] are established tools, and their use here is a new application rather than a derivation that reduces to its inputs. The disputed 254No 8- assignment is read off the dominant 2qp component of the SLy4/SLy6 QRPA states in Table IV, and it is cross-checked against the external decay analysis of Clark et al. [8]; the QRPA energies (1.673-1.747 MeV) are honestly compared with the experimental 1.295 MeV, and the pairing-blocking shifts cited from [35,45] are external model results, not fitted parameters. The predicted low-energy 0+ pairing vibrations follow from the QRPA diagonalization with the same unmodified parameters, and the underlying N=152 neutron shell gap is validated against experimental delta^(3)_2n staggering and odd-nucleus ground states in Table III. Choosing SLy6 as the reference force after benchmarking its description of known isomers is model selection, not circularity, and the acknowledged need for fine tuning or for an unquantified blocking correction is a correctness/accuracy risk rather than a logical equivalence between prediction and input. No step in the paper equates a prediction with its input by definition or by a fitted constant, so no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central predictions rest on a well-tested but approximate many-body scheme. The Skyrme functionals and their pairing constants are global inputs from prior fits; the paper contributes the QRPA calculation and the interpretation. No new physical entity is introduced. The main unproven inputs are the validity of QRPA in the weak-pairing regime and the assumption that non-axial and superdeformed degrees of freedom can be neglected.

free parameters (4)
  • Pairing strength constants Gp and Gn for SLy4, SLy6, SkM*, SVbas = SLy4: 295.37/286.67; SLy6: 298.76/288.52; SkM*: 279.08/258.96; SVbas: 674.62/606.90 (MeV fm^3)
    Eq. (3); fitted to empirical pairing gaps in selected isotopic and isotonic chains (Ref. [50], private communication), then used for all QRPA states. Pairing-sensitive predictions such as 0^+ pairing vibrations and 2qp energies depend directly on these values.
  • SVbas surface pairing density parameter rho_pair = 0.2011 fm^-3
    Fixed in the SVbas force fit [44]; enters the surface pairing form of Eq. (3) and shifts the pairing predictions for SVbas.
  • UNEDF1, UNEDF1SO, UNEDF2 pairing constants Gp/Gn = UNEDF1: 206.58/186.07; UNEDF1SO: 230.33/208.89; UNEDF2: 253.30/192.1 (MeV fm^3)
    Table XI; used for the Appendix A isomer analysis, fitted to nuclear structure data in the construction of the functionals.
  • Skyrme force parameter sets (SLy4, SLy6, SkM*, SVbas, UNEDF1, UNEDF1SO, UNEDF2)
    The energy density functionals themselves are fitted to global nuclear data; they are inherited inputs from prior literature and determine every calculated energy in the paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Low-energy states are one-phonon QRPA excitations with negligible coupling to complex configurations such as two-phonon or multi-quasiparticle states.
    Used throughout Secs. IV A-V; the authors note the coupling is negligible for the 8^- state (citing Ref. [34]) and that two-phonon admixtures are small for the lowest 0^+ state in QPM studies, but no calculation here quantifies these corrections.
  • domain assumption Axially symmetric prolate shape at beta ~0.3 is the only relevant minimum; triaxial, octupole, and superdeformed admixtures are ignored for the low-energy spectrum.
    Sec. II and IV B state 'we can safely consider only the prolate g.s. at beta ~0.3'; this relies on Ref. [54] for negligible triaxial and octupole deformation and on an argument that the superdeformed minimum coupling is weak.
  • domain assumption BCS treatment with zero-range pairing and an energy-dependent cutoff is adequate for all isotopes, even when neutron pairing is weak.
    Sec. II, Eqs. (3)-(4); Sec. IV B admits the SLy6 0.224 MeV 0^+ state is an artifact of BCS collapse and pairing blocking is not included for SLy4-SVbas, so the BCS input is load-bearing for the pairing-sensitive states.
  • domain assumption The ordering of Nilsson single-particle levels from SLy4/SLy6 near N=152 is correct enough to identify 2qp configurations.
    Sec. IV A and Figs. 2-3; the 8^- assignment in 254No hinges on [734↑] lying in the gap and [613↑] at F+3, and the paper itself notes that tiny changes in the single-particle spectrum change the assignment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-energy spectra of nobelium isotopes: Skyrme random-phase-approximation analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3QGYNTUQ

@misc{pith2026250209096,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-energy spectra of nobelium isotopes: Skyrme random-phase-approximation analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3QGYNTUQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09096}
}
abstract

Low-energy spectra in the isotopic chain $^{250-262}$No are systematically investigated within the fully self-consistent Quasiparticle Random-Phase-Approximation (QRPA) using Skyrme forces SLy4, SLy6, SkM* and SVbas. QRPA states of multipolarity $\lambda\mu$=20, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 43, 44 and 98 are considered. The main attention is paid to isotopes $^{252}$No and $^{254}$No where the most extensive experimental spectroscopic information is available. In these two nuclei, a reasonable description of $K^{\pi}=8^-, 2^-$and $3^+$ isomers is obtained with forces SLy4 and SLy6. The disputed $8^-$ isomer in $^{254}$No is assigned as neutron two-quasiparticle configuration $nn[734\uparrow,613\uparrow]$. The isomers are additionally analyzed using Skyrme functionals UNEDF1, UNEDF2 and UNEDF1$^{\rm SO}$. At the energies 1.2 - 1.4 MeV, the 2qp $K$-isomers $4^-, 7^-$ in $^{252}$No and $4^-, 6^-, 7^-$ in $^{254}$No are also predicted. In $^{254}$No, the $K^{\pi}=3^+$ isomer should be accompanied by the nearby $K^{\pi}=4^+$ counterpart. It is shown that, in the chain $^{250-262}$No, some features of $^{252}$No and $^{254}$No should exhibit essential irregularities caused by a noticeable shell gap in the neutron single-particle spectrum and corresponding reduction of the neutron pairing. In particular, low-energy pairing-vibrational $K^{\pi}=0^+$ states in $^{252,254}$No are predicted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09096 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. SLy4, SLy6, SkM* and SVbas proton and neutron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. SLy4, SLy6, SkM*, SVbas and experimental neutron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The same as in Fig. 2 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Experimental [13] (left) and QRPA SLy6 and SLy4 (righ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The same as in fig. 5 but for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. SLy6 reduced transition probabilities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Forge et al, New results on the decay spectroscopy of 254No with GABRIELA@SHELS, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2586, 012083 (2023)

    M. Forge et al, New results on the decay spectroscopy of 254No with GABRIELA@SHELS, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2586, 012083 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Herzberg and P.T

    R.-D. Herzberg and P.T. Greenlees, In-beam and decay spectroscopy of transfermium nuclei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 61, 674 (2008)

    work page 2008

  3. [2]

    K Isomers in Transuranium Nuclei

    F.P. Heßberger, K isomers in transuranium nuclei, arXiv:2309.10468v2[nucl-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [3]

    Ackermann, Decay spectroscopy of heavy and super- heavy nuclei, arXiv:2501.04053v4[nucl-ex]

    D. Ackermann, Decay spectroscopy of heavy and super- heavy nuclei, arXiv:2501.04053v4[nucl-ex]

    work page arXiv

  5. [4]

    Herzberg et al, Nuclear isomers in superheavy ele- ments as stepping stones towards the island of stability, Nature 442, 896 (2006)

    R.-D. Herzberg et al, Nuclear isomers in superheavy ele- ments as stepping stones towards the island of stability, Nature 442, 896 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    Tandel et al, K isomers in 254No: probing single- particle energies and pairing strengths in the heaviest nuclei, Phys

    S.K. Tandel et al, K isomers in 254No: probing single- particle energies and pairing strengths in the heaviest nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 082502 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [6]

    A. P. Robinson et al, K π =8− isomers and K π =2− oc- tupole vibrations in N =150 shell-stabilized isotones, Phys. Rev. C 78, 034308 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [7]

    Hessberger et al, Decay studies of K isomers in 254No, Eur

    F.P. Hessberger et al, Decay studies of K isomers in 254No, Eur. Phys. J. A 43, 55 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 73 references
  1. [8]

    Clark et al, High-K multi-quasiparticle states in 254No, Phys

    R.M. Clark et al, High-K multi-quasiparticle states in 254No, Phys. Lett. B 690, 19 (2010)

    2010

  2. [9]

    Tezekbayeva et al, Study of the production and decay properties of neutron-deficient nobelium isotopes, Eur

    M.S. Tezekbayeva et al, Study of the production and decay properties of neutron-deficient nobelium isotopes, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 52 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Forge, Ph.D

    M. Forge, Ph.D. thesis, ´Etude des ´ etats isom´ eriques des noyaux dits superlourds cas du 254No. Physique Atom- ique [physics.atom-ph], University of Strasbourg, 2023, https:// theses.hal.science/tel-04397507v1

    2023

  4. [12]

    S. G. Wahid et al, Isomers and hindrances in 254No: A touchstone for theories of superheavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 111, 034320 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    National Nuclear Data Center (NNDC) http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat3

  6. [14]

    Baran, Z

    A. Baran, Z. Lojewski, K. Sieja, and M. Kowal, Global properties of even-even superheavy nuclei in macroscopic-microscopic models, Phys. Rev. C 72, 044310 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Kleinig, V

    W. Kleinig, V. O. Nesterenko, J. Kvasil, P.-G. Reinhard , and P. Vesely, Description of the dipole giant resonance in heavy and superheavy nuclei within Skyrme random- phase approximation, Phys. Rev. C 78, 044313 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Delaroche, M

    J.-P. Delaroche, M. Girod, H. Goutte, and J. Libert, Structure properties of even-even actinides at normal and super deformed shapes analysed using the Gogny force, Nucl. Phys. A 771, 103 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Afanasjev, T.L

    A.V. Afanasjev, T.L. Khoo, S. Frauendorf, G.A. Lalazissis, and I. Ahmad, Cranked relativistic Hartree- Bogoliubov theory: Probing the gateway to superheavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 67, 024309 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Afanasjev and O

    A.V. Afanasjev and O. Abdurazakov, Pairing and ro- tational propertiesof actinides and superheavy nuclei in covariant density functional theory, Phys. Rev. C 88, 014320 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Dobaczewski, A.V

    J. Dobaczewski, A.V. Afanasjev, M. Bender, L.M. Rob- ledo, and Yue Shi, Properties of nuclei in the nobelium re- gion studied within the covariant, Skyrme, and Gogny en- ergy density functionals, Nucl. Phys. A 944, 388 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Vretenar, A.V

    D. Vretenar, A.V. Afanasjev, G.A. Lalazissis, and P. Ring, Relativistic Hartree–Bogoliubov theory: static and dynamic aspects of exotic nuclear structure, Phys. Rep. 409, 101 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Self- consistent mean-field models for nuclear structure, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 121 (2003). 18

    2003

  14. [22]

    Per´ u and M

    S. Per´ u and M. Martini, Mean field based calculations with the Gogny force, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 88 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Yuxin Guo and Yue Shi, Stabilization for deformed su- perheavy nuclei: A shell correction analysis, Phys. Rev. C, 110, 054314 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    F.F. Xu, Y.K. Wang, Y.P. Wang, P. Ring, and P.W. Zhao, Emergence of high-order deformation in rotat- ing transfermium nuclei: A microscopic understanding, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 022501 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Zhen-Hua Zhang, Xiao-Tao He, Jin-Yan Zeng, En-Guang Zhao, and Shan-Gui Zhou, Systematic investigation of the rotational bands in nuclei with Z ≈ 100 using a particle-number conserving method based on a cranked shell model, Phys. Rev. C 85, 014324 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Dao and F

    D.D. Dao and F. Nowacki, Nuclear structure within a discrete nonorthogonal shell model approach: New fron- tiers, Phys. Rev. C 105, 054314 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Dao and F

    D.D. Dao and F. Nowacki, First complete de- scription of low-lying spectroscopy in 254No, arXiv:2409.08210v3[nucl-th] (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Dobaczewski, and P.T

    Yue Shi, J. Dobaczewski, and P.T. Greenlees, Rotationa l properties of nuclei around 254No investigated using a spectroscopic-quality Skyrme energy density functional, Phys. Rev. C 89, 034309 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    A. D. Efimov and I. N. Izosimov, High-spin states of yrast bands in even Pu, Cm, Fm, and No isotopes, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 84, 660 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Mardyban, T.M

    E.V. Mardyban, T.M. Shneidman,E.A. Kolganova, and R.V. Jolos, Manifestation of reflection-asymmetric defor- mation in the structure of superheavy nuclei, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 19, 646 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Shneidman, G.G

    T.M. Shneidman, G.G. Adamian, N.V. Antonenko, and R.V. Jolos, Possible alternative parity bands in the heav- iest nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 74, 03 4316 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Bello Garrotea et al, Experimental observation of the M1 scissors mode in 254No, Phys

    F.L. Bello Garrotea et al, Experimental observation of the M1 scissors mode in 254No, Phys. Lett. B 834, 137479 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Balbutsev and I.V

    E.B. Balbutsev and I.V. Molodtsova, Scissors mode in transuranium elements, Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 185 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    The two-center shell model

    show that, for this state, the coupling with complex configurations is negligible. The two-center shell model

  27. [35]

    Jolos, L.A

    R.V. Jolos, L.A. Malov, N.Yu. Shirikova and A.V. Sushkov, Structure of some low lying two-quasiparticle and collective states in nuclei with Z ≈ 100 considered in the quasiparticle phonon model, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 38, 115103 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    A more accurate 2qp assignment of the 8 − state in 254No could be done using experimentally observed γ- decays to and from this state

    gives the proton 2qp 8 − state at ≈1.27 MeV but here a good description of the energy is obtained by a manual decrease of the pairing strength by 15%. A more accurate 2qp assignment of the 8 − state in 254No could be done using experimentally observed γ- decays to and from thi...

  29. [37]

    Soloviev, A.V

    V.G. Soloviev, A.V. Sushkov, and A.Yu. Shirikova, De- scription of Nonrotational States of 250Cf and 256Fm, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 54, 748 (1991)

    1991

  30. [38]

    Zang, H.-Q

    J. Zang, H.-Q. Zhang, T.M. Shneidman, R.V. Jolos, and X.-T. He, Influences of Z=100 and N=152 deformed shells on K π = 8 − isomers and rotational bands in N=150 isotones, Phys. Rev. C 111, 014319 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Adamian, N.V

    G.G. Adamian, N.V. Antonenko, anf W. Scheid, High- spin isomers in some of the heaviest nuclei: Spectra, de- cays, and population, Phys. Rev. C 81, 024320 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    C 44, 034106 (2020)

    Xiao-Tao He, Shu-Young Zhao, Zhen-Hua Zhang, and Zhong-Zhou Ren, High-K multi-particle bands and pair- ing reduction in 254No, Chinese Phys. C 44, 034106 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Kvasil, A

    J. Kvasil, A. Repko, and V. O. Nesterenko, Elimination of spurious modes before the solution of quasiparticle random-phase-approximation equations, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 213 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Repko, J

    A. Repko, J. Kvasil, V.O. Nesterenko, and P.-G. Rein- hard, Skyrme RPA for spherical and axially symmetric nuclei, arXiv:1510.01248 nucl-th, (2015)

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Repko, J

    A. Repko, J. Kvasil, V.O. Nesterenko, and P.-G. Rein- hard, Pairing and deformation effects in nuclear excita- tion spectra, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 221 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Kl¨ upfel, P.-G

    P. Kl¨ upfel, P.-G. Reinhard, T. J. Burvenich, and J. A. Maruhn, Variations on a theme by Skyrme: A systematic study of adjustments of model parameters, Phys. Rev. C 79, 034310 (2009)

    2009

  37. [45]

    Chabanat, P

    E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R. Schaeffer, A Skyrme parametrization from subnuclear to neutron star densities Part II. Nuclei far from stabilities , Nucl. Phys. A 35, 231 (1998)

    1998

  38. [46]

    Bartel, P

    J. Bartel, P. Quentin, M. Brack, C. Guet, and H.-B. Hakansson, Towards a better parametrisation of Skyrme- like effective forces: A critical study of the SkM force, Nucl. Phys. A 386, 79 (1982)

    1982

  39. [47]

    Kortelainen, J

    M. Kortelainen, J. McDonnell, W. Nazarewicz, E. Olsen, P.-G. Reinhard, J. Sarich, N. Schunck, S.M. Wild, D. Davesne, J. Erler, and A. Pastore, Phys. Rev. C 89, 054314 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Nesterenko, V.G

    V.O. Nesterenko, V.G. Kartavenko, W. Kleinig, J. Kvasil, A. Repko, R.V. Jolos, and P.-G. Reinhard, Skyrme random-phase-approximation description of low- est K π =2+ γ states in axially deformed nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 93, 034301 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Kortelainen, J

    M. Kortelainen, J. McDonnell, W. Nazarewicz, P.-G. Reinhard, J. Sarich, N. Schunck, M.V. Stoitsov, and S.M. Wild, Phys. Rev. C 85, 024304 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Reinhard, private communication

    P.-G. Reinhard, private communication

  43. [51]

    Reinhard, B

    P.-G. Reinhard, B. Schuetrumpf, and J.A. Maruhn, The Axial Hartree–Fock + BCS Code SkyAx, Comp. Phys. Communic. 258, 107603 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Bender, K

    M. Bender, K. Rutz, P.-G. Reinhard, and J.A. Maruhn, Pairing gaps from nuclear mean-field models, Eur. Phys. J. A 8, 59 (2000)

    2000

  45. [53]

    Huang, F.G

    Meng Wang, W.J. Huang, F.G. Kondev, G. Audi, and S. Naimi, The AME 2020 atomic mass evaluation (II). Ta- bles, graphs and references, Chinese Phys. C 45, 030003 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Thouless and J.G

    D.J. Thouless and J.G. Valatin, Time-dependent Hartree-Fock equations and rotational states of nuclei, Nucl. Phys. 31, 211 (1962)

    1962

  47. [55]

    Bohr and B.R

    A. Bohr and B.R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, Vol. II, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998)

    1998

  48. [56]

    Sulignano et al, Identification of a K isomer in 252No, Eur

    B. Sulignano et al, Identification of a K isomer in 252No, Eur. Phys. J. A 33, 327 (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    HuaLei Wang, HongLiang Liu, FuRong Xu, and ChangFeng Jiao, Investigation of octupole effects in su- perheavy nuclei with improved potential-energy-surface calculations, Chinese Science Bulletin, 57, 1761 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    Nilsson, Mat

    S.G. Nilsson, Mat. Fys. Medd. Dan. Vid. Selsk. 29, n.16 (1965)

    1965

  51. [59]

    Grigorjev and V.G

    E.P. Grigorjev and V.G. Soloviev, Structure of even de- formed nuclei (Nauka, Moscow, 1974)

    1974

  52. [60]

    Kuzmenko, V.M

    N.K. Kuzmenko, V.M. Mikhailov, and V.O. Nesterenko, Pairing in multi-quasiparticle states, Bull. Acad. Sci. USSR, Phys. Ser. 50, 41 (1986)

    1986

  53. [61]

    Samark-Roth et al, Spectroscopy along flerovium de- cay chains

    A. Samark-Roth et al, Spectroscopy along flerovium de- cay chains. III. Details on experiment, analysis, 282Cn, and spontaneous fission branches, Phys. Rev. C 107, 024301 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    The most thorough analysis for low-energy 0+ states was performed within QPM [60]

    regions. The most thorough analysis for low-energy 0+ states was performed within QPM [60]. The lowest excited 0 + states usually have the energy around 1 MeV. 9 TABLE V. Features of the lowest excited QRPA 0 + states in 252, 254No: QRPA excitation energies E, reduced transiti...

  55. [63]

    Soloviev, Theory of Atomic Nuclei (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1976)

    V.G. Soloviev, Theory of Atomic Nuclei (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1976)

    1976

  56. [64]

    Soloviev, A.V

    V.G. Soloviev, A.V. Sushkov, and N.Yu. Shirikova, Low- 19 lying nonrotational states in well deformed even-even nu- clei in the rare-earth region, Phys. Part. Nucl. 27, 1643 (1996)

    1996

  57. [65]

    Lo Iudice, A.V

    N. Lo Iudice, A.V. Sushkov, and N.Yu. Shirikova, Micro- scopic structure of low-lying 0 + states in deformed nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 72, 034303 (2005)

    2005

  58. [66]

    Lo Iudice and A.V

    N. Lo Iudice and A.V. Sushkov, Microscopic structure of low-lying states in 188, 190, 192Os, Phys. Rev. C 78, 054304 (2008)

    2008

  59. [67]

    Egido and L.M

    J.L. Egido and L.M. Robledo, ”Fission barriers at high angular momentum and the ground state rotational band of the nucleus 254No”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 6 (2000)

    2000

  60. [68]

    Egido and A

    J.L. Egido and A. Jungclaus, Predominance of triaxial shapes in transitional super-heavy nuclei: Ground-state deformation and shape coexistence along the Flerovium (Z=114) chain of isotopes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 192504 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Samark-Roth et al, Spectroscopy along Flerovium de- cay chains: Discovery of 280Ds and an excited state in 282Cn, Phys

    A. Samark-Roth et al, Spectroscopy along Flerovium de- cay chains: Discovery of 280Ds and an excited state in 282Cn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 032503 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Liu, F.R

    H.L. Liu, F.R. Xu, P.M. Walker, and C.A. Bertulani, Effects of high-order deformation on high-K isomers in superheavy nuclei, Phys. Rev. C 83, 011303(R) (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    Nesterenko, V.G

    V.O. Nesterenko, V.G. Soloviev, A.V. Sushkov, and N.Yu. Shirikova, Hexadecapole states in deformed nuclei, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 44, n.6, 938 (1986)

    1986

  64. [72]

    Mottelson and S.G

    B. Mottelson and S.G. Nilsson, Mat. Fys. Skr. Dan. Vid. Selsk 1, n.8 (1959)

    1959

  65. [73]

    Stoitsov, N

    M.V. Stoitsov, N. Schunck, M. Kortelinen, N. Michel, H. Nam, E. Olsen, J. Sarich, and S. Wild, Axially de- formed solution of the Skyrme-Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov equations using the transformed harmonic oscillator ba- sis (II) HFBTHO v2.00d: A new version of the program, Comp. ...

    2013

Pith tools

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