Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references

Short-distance production of three neutrons yields a smooth, P-wave-dominated spectrum with no resonance-like structure.

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 07:41 UTC pith:7C6AUWHD

load-bearing objection A careful LO pionless-EFT calculation of the point-production spectrum for 3n; the new partial-wave-resolved object is real, but the point-source assumption and the equal-strength convention limit the experimental comparison. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.19408 v2 pith:7C6AUWHD submitted 2026-01-27 nucl-th cond-mat.quant-gas

Short-distance production of three particles with large scattering length

Timothy G. Backert , Sebastian Dietz , Hans-Werner Hammer , Sebastian K\"onig , Dam Thanh Son This is my paper
classification nucl-th cond-mat.quant-gas
keywords three-neutron systempionless EFTpoint productionEfimov resonanceconformal symmetryFaddeev equationeffective range correctionsunitary limit
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.

This paper asks what energy spectrum a tightly localized source of three particles produces when the particles interact with a large scattering length. Using pionless effective field theory, the authors solve the Faddeev equation for the point-production amplitude of three neutrons and three spinless bosons. They find that the three-boson spectrum carries a near-threshold resonance peak, whereas the three-neutron spectrum is smooth and, for equal source strengths, dominated by the P-wave. The results confirm that the three-neutron distribution follows conformal scaling R(E) ~ E^(Delta-5/2) in the unitary window, and that effective-range corrections are small up to next-to-next-to-leading order.

Core claim

The central claim is that the short-distance production amplitude for three neutrons contains no resonance-like structure and is dominated by the P-wave when the source strengths for all partial waves are natural (g3,l approximately 1). The full relative-energy distribution R(E) is therefore a smooth power-law-like curve set by the conformal scaling dimension Delta of the three-neutron operator, not a peak. The same calculation for three bosons does produce a peak corresponding to an Efimov resonance crossing threshold, validating the method. Effective-range corrections to the three-neutron distribution are small: about 20% at 5 MeV for the S-wave and far less for the P-wave.

What carries the argument

The Faddeev integral equation for the particle-dimer point-production amplitude Gamma_l(E;p), with a point source strength g3,l, a dimer propagator with scattering length a, and partial-wave projection. The conformal scaling dimensions Delta of nonrelativistic conformal field theory enter through R(E) ~ E^(Delta-5/2); the S-wave dimension 4.66622 and P-wave 4.27272 are used.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the production cross section factorizes into a point-like source times final-state interactions, and that the source strengths for all partial waves are equal (natural); if the source has finite size or the strengths differ, the computed spectrum need not match experiment.

What would settle it

A high-statistics measurement of the three-neutron relative-energy spectrum from a short-distance knockout reaction that reveals a distinct peak above the smooth power-law background, or angular correlations clearly inconsistent with P-wave dominance for natural source strengths, would falsify the central claim.

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

If this is right

  • The three-neutron relative-energy spectrum from short-distance production is smooth and should be compared to data using the power-law exponent Delta-5/2 rather than resonance peaks.
  • Under natural source strengths, the P-wave dominates the spectrum, so experiments sensitive to the total distribution see mostly P-wave behavior.
  • Effective-range corrections are small: the N2LO S-wave deviates about 20% at 5 MeV, and the P-wave far less, so the leading-order conformal prediction remains valid in the accessible energy window.
  • The same formalism reproduces known near-threshold Efimov resonances for three bosons, showing that the method would detect a resonance if one existed.
  • Current experimental data for the three-neutron continuum are consistent with the pionless EFT and conformal predictions and show no resonance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the source is not point-like but has a finite size (about 2.5 fm), the point-production spectrum could be modified; the paper explicitly leaves extended-source effects for future work, so an observable deviation from the point-production prediction would indicate source-size sensitivity.
  • The same logic applied to the four-neutron system would predict no resonance in the 4n spectrum, suggesting that the structure seen in the 8He(p,p alpha)4n experiment arises from initial-state correlations rather than a genuine tetraneutron resonance - the paper hints at this.
  • A direct test of the P-wave-dominance assumption would be to measure the angular correlations of the three outgoing neutrons; if the source strengths are not equal, the interference pattern would change.
  • The conformal scaling exponent Delta is operator-dependent; for the S-wave free-field limit the exponent is 4.0, which the calculation reproduces at low energies. This could be used to extract Delta from future high-precision three-neutron data.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper computes the relative-energy distribution R(E) for three particles produced at a point and interacting via large two-body scattering length, using LO pionless EFT and Faddeev equations. Results are given for three identical bosons and three neutrons. The three-boson calculation reproduces near-threshold Efimov resonances, serving as a benchmark. For three neutrons, S-, P-, and D-wave amplitudes show no resonance-like structure; with equal source strengths the P-wave dominates. The energy dependence is compared with nonrelativistic conformal-field-theory power laws R(E) ~ E^{Delta-5/2}, and effective-range corrections are estimated. The three-neutron curves are compared with the data of Miki et al. and the JWKB calculation of Higgins et al.

Significance. The no-resonance result for the three-neutron point-production amplitude is the paper's most solid contribution: it is based on established Faddeev machinery and agrees with several previous studies. The three-boson test case with known Efimov resonances is a useful positive control, and the asymptotic power-law checks against independent CFT exponents are a genuine consistency check rather than a fit. The main weaknesses lie in the experimental interface: the absolute normalization in the data comparison is arbitrary but unspecified, the point-source approximation is uncontrolled at the lower momentum transfer used, and the P-wave-dominance claim is conditional on an arbitrary choice of equal source strengths. These issues do not invalidate the core no-resonance statement, but they need to be addressed before the paper's advertised comparison to experiment can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Fig. 9] The theoretical curves are normalized arbitrarily; Sec. II states R(E) is determined 'up to a normalization factor that is regarded as arbitrary' and Eq. (15) introduces free constants c. Fig. 9, however, plots absolute differential cross sections in mb/(sr MeV) and the text claims 'quantitative agreement' with Miki et al. Neither the fitted normalization constants nor the fitting procedure are given, and no uncertainty bands are shown. This makes the quantitative comparison untestable. Please state the normalization constant(s), how they were fixed, and include an uncertainty estimate.
  2. [Sec. I and Sec. IV, Fig. 9] The point-source factorization assumption is load-bearing for the data comparison. The paper states neutrons are produced in a region of order 2.5 fm and that extended-source effects are left for future work, yet Fig. 9 compares point-production R(E) to 3H(t,3He)3n data at q_cm=22 and 40 MeV/c. At q_cm=22 MeV/c the associated source size is ~9 fm, so the source form factor varies by O(20%) across the 0-5 MeV window. This can distort the predicted R(E) and the inferred conformal exponent without a true resonance. Please either restrict the comparison to kinematics where point production is controlled, or include an extended-source model and assess the effect.
  3. [Sec. III.B and Summary, Fig. 6] The conclusion that the P-wave contribution is dominant assumes equal source strengths g3,l=1 for all partial waves. The operators have different scaling dimensions (Table II), so equal strengths are a convention rather than a naturalness statement. A moderately larger S-wave source would favor the S-wave conformal exponent (2.166) over the P-wave exponent (1.773) in the unitarity window. The paper is transparent about this assumption, but since P-wave dominance is advertised in the abstract/summary, please quantify the sensitivity to g3,l or state the claim as conditional on that choice.
  4. [Appendix A and Abstract/Summary] The effective-range correction is implemented by resumming the range term in the dimer propagator (Eq. (A1)), which goes beyond strict N2LO in the EFT power counting. The paper acknowledges this in Appendix A but calls the result 'accurate to N2LO' in the Abstract and Summary. Please clarify in the main text that the quoted deviations (20% for S-wave, 0.4% for P-wave at 5 MeV) come from a resummed nonperturbative model and discuss the expected size of omitted higher-order or perturbative-correction terms.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix A and Sec. V] Typos: 'adept' should be 'adapt' in Appendix A; 'the their' appears in Sec. V and Appendix A.
  2. [Sec. III.B] The sentence 'the full amplitude up to the D-wave is nearly the same in comparison to the P-wave amplitude' is unclear; it likely means the total is dominated by the P-wave, but please rewrite.
  3. [Figs. 9-11] No error bars or uncertainty bands are shown. At minimum, a LO/N2LO spread or a numerical error estimate for the integral-equation solution would help the reader judge the significance of the comparisons.
  4. [Sec. IV] The attribution of Higgins et al.'s overshoot to 'higher-order contributions' is speculative; either provide a quantitative comparison or soften the wording.
  5. [Numerical methods] For reproducibility, specify the momentum grids, cutoff Lambda, and the epsilon-extrapolation procedure used for each figure, or release the code/tabulated R(E) values.
  6. [Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The 'identification as an (extended) Mellin transform' deserves a sentence clarifying the contour/inversion; as written it is hard to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No reduction by construction: the Faddeev calculation independently reproduces the external CFT exponents; self-citations are supportive, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central object is the point-production amplitude Γ_l obtained from the Faddeev equation (Eq. 4), whose inputs are the two-body scattering length a, the spin-isospin factor λ, and a regulator cutoff — none of which encode the predicted conformal exponents or the no-resonance conclusion. The conformal scaling dimensions (Table II, Eq. 13) come from the external nonrelativistic CFT literature (Refs. [41,42], Nishida–Son); they are not fitted here. Instead the EFT calculation independently reproduces them: Fig. 11 fits a pure power law aE^b to the computed R(E) and obtains exponents close to the CFT values (e.g., P-wave 1.785 vs 1.773, S-wave 2.262 vs 2.166), and Appendix B derives the S-wave exponent Δ=4.66622 from the asymptotic integral equation (B1)–(B2) rather than imposing it. This is a genuine cross-check between two independent formalisms. The no-resonance finding for three neutrons is an output of the Faddeev solution, benchmarked against the three-boson case where the calculation correctly sees the known Efimov resonances, with resonance parameters taken from the independent earlier calculation in Ref. [20] and Refs. [26–29]. The P-wave-dominance statement is explicitly conditional: 'Assuming the same strength of the source term g3,l = 1 for all partial waves' and 'for natural values of the production strengths, g3,l ≃ 1' — a stated convention, with the source strength itself acknowledged as a parameter that 'has to be fitted to (experimental) data.' The N2LO range corrections are computed numerically in this paper (Appendix A); the agreement with Ref. [47] (a self-citation including co-author Son) is a consistency cross-check, not the load-bearing evidence, and the paper candidly notes that its resummed treatment is not strictly the perturbative N2LO power counting ('in principle such corrections should be treated in perturbation theory... Their strictly perturbative treatment will be considered in future work'). The Sec. I factorization/point-source assumption and the finite source size (~2.5 fm) limit the experimental interpretation of Fig. 9, but an explicitly stated assumption is not a circular input; it is a validity condition. No equation reduces by construction to its inputs, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the conclusion. Score 2 reflects only the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation inherits the standard LO pionless-EFT assumptions: point-like production with factorization, a single S-wave two-body contact for neutrons, and no three-neutron force. For bosons, a three-body parameter is tuned via the cutoff. The only hand-set numbers are the source strengths g3,l (set to 1) and normalization constants in the scaling representation; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Point-source strengths g_{3,l} = 1 for all l (S, P, D)
    Set equal by hand to make the partial-wave comparison; overall normalization of R(E) is arbitrary and must be fitted to data (Sec. II).
  • Three-boson cutoff Lambda (three-body parameter) = 179.9 fm^-1; a = -15.12, -12.6, -10.8, -9.45 fm
    The three-body force in the boson system is renormalized by a three-body parameter; chosen so a_-/a takes values 1.25-2.0 and the explicit three-body term vanishes (Sec. III.A, Ref [20]).
  • Universal-curve normalization constants c in Eq. (15) = 0.386, 9.91e4, 0.723 (S, P, D)
    Fitted to the numerical R(E) to define R(x)->1 as x->infinity; these are representation constants, not physics, but they are fitted quantities in the paper.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Factorization of short-distance production into a point-like source and final-state interactions
    Sec. I: 'assuming factorization of the production cross section [2,3]'; if false, R(E) is not the measured 3n spectrum.
  • domain assumption Leading-order pionless EFT with only a momentum-independent 1S0 two-body contact for neutrons
    Sec. II; higher-order terms are estimated as |r/a| ~ 15%; the calculation is LO unless range corrections from Appendix A are included.
  • domain assumption No leading-order three-neutron force due to Pauli statistics
    Sec. II; this removes the three-body parameter from the neutron system and makes it cutoff-insensitive.
  • domain assumption Non-relativistic conformal symmetry holds in the unitary limit with scaling dimensions taken from Refs [41,42]
    Sec. III.B and Appendix B use R(E)~E^{Delta-5/2} with Delta from external CFT results to validate the EFT.
  • standard math For three bosons, the three-body force has a limit-cycle running and can be set to zero at a special cutoff Lambda0
    Sec. II citing Ref [40]; used to treat boson and neutron systems with the same equation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15070 in / 15502 out tokens · 158780 ms · 2026-08-03T07:41:24.002543+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The short-distance production of multi-particle states in high-energy nuclear reactions provides a unique way to study the low-energy properties of few-body systems. In particular, the production amplitude of multineutron systems is strongly constrained by an approximate conformal symmetry of the underlying theory. We calculate the full amplitude for the short-distance production of three particles with large scattering length in leading order pionless EFT, focusing on the cases of three neutrons and three spinless bosons. We investigate the signature of low-energy resonances and other correlations in the relative energy distributions. For the case of neutrons, we compare to the predictions from approximate conformal symmetry close to the unitary limit and calculate the range corrections up to next-to-next-to leading order.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.19408 by Dam Thanh Son, Hans-Werner Hammer, Sebastian Dietz, Sebastian K\"onig, Timothy G. Backert.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Integral equation for the point-production amplitude of a particle-dimer system with total energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Fully symmetrized point-production amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Anti-symmetrized point-production amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The point-production distribution for the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The physical point-production distribution in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The partial wave point-production distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The partial-wave point-production distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The effective power law coefficient for three neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Differential cross section as a function of the rela [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The partial-wave point-production distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The partial-wave point-production distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 28 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M. A. Janik (ALICE), Overview of recent fem- toscopy measurements with ALICE, in13th Work- shop on Particle Correlations and Femtoscopy(2018) arXiv:1811.02828 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Rigorous QCD analysis of inclusive annihilation and production of heavy quarkonium, Phys. Rev. D51, 1125 (1995), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 55, 5853 (1997)], arXiv:hep- ph/9407339

    arXiv 1995

  3. [3]

    Hammer and D

    H.-W. Hammer and D. T. Son, Unnuclear physics: Con- 12 formal symmetry in nuclear reactions, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.118, e2108716118 (2021), arXiv:2103.12610 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Dueret al., Observation of a correlated free four- neutron system, Nature606, 678 (2022)

    M. Dueret al., Observation of a correlated free four- neutron system, Nature606, 678 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    R. Y. Kezerashvili, Search of trineutron and tetra- neutron, in6th International Conference on Fis- sion and Properties of Neutron Rich Nuclei(2016) arXiv:1608.00169 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    F. M. Marqu´ es and J. Carbonell, The quest for light multineutron systems, Eur. Phys. J. A57, 105 (2021), arXiv:2102.10879 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    F. M. Marqu´ es, M. Labiche, A. Orr, N. A.,et al., Detec- tion of neutron clusters, Phys. Rev. C65, 044006 (2002)

    2002

  8. [8]

    Kisamori, S

    K. Kisamori, S. Shimoura, H. Miya,et al., Candidate res- onant tetraneutron state populated by the 4He(8He,8Be) reaction, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 052501 (2016)

    2016

  9. [9]

    Faestermann, A

    T. Faestermann, A. Bergmaier, R. Gernh¨ auser,et al., Indications for a bound tetraneutron, Phys. Lett. B824, 136799 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    Lazauskas, E

    R. Lazauskas, E. Hiyama, and J. Carbonell, Low energy structures in nuclear reactions with 4n in the finalstate, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 102501 (2023), arXiv:2207.07575 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Faestermann and R

    T. Faestermann and R. Gernh¨ auser, Recent results on the tetraneutron, arXiv preprint:2506.11623 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Mueller, I

    P. Mueller, I. A. Sulai, A. C. C. Villari,et al., Nuclear charge radius of 8He, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 252501 (2007)

    2007

  13. [13]

    Alkhazov, M

    G. Alkhazov, M. Andronenko, A. Dobrovolsky,et al., Nu- clear matter distributions in 6He and 8He from small an- gle p-He scattering in inverse kinematics at intermediate energy, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 2313 (1997)

    1997

  14. [14]

    van Kolck, Nucleon-nucleon interaction and isospin violation, Lect

    U. van Kolck, Nucleon-nucleon interaction and isospin violation, Lect. Notes Phys.513, 62 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9711222

    arXiv 1998

  15. [15]

    D. B. Kaplan, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise, A new expansion for nucleon-nucleon interactions, Phys. Lett. B424, 390 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9801034 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  16. [16]

    D. B. Kaplan, M. J. Savage, and M. B. Wise, Two nucleon systems from effective field theory, Nucl. Phys. B534, 329 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9802075 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  17. [17]

    van Kolck, Effective field theory of short range forces, Nucl

    U. van Kolck, Effective field theory of short range forces, Nucl. Phys. A645, 273 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9808007 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  18. [18]

    Braaten and H.-W

    E. Braaten and H.-W. Hammer, Interpretation of neutral charm mesons near threshold as unparticles, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 032002 (2022), arXiv:2107.02831 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Braaten and H.-W

    E. Braaten and H.-W. Hammer, Point production of a nonrelativistic unparticle recoiling against a particle, Phys. Rev. D107, 034017 (2023), arXiv:2301.04399 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Dietz, H.-W

    S. Dietz, H.-W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and A. Schwenk, Three-body resonances in pionless effective field the- ory, Phys. Rev. C105, 064002 (2022), arXiv:2109.11356 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Braaten and H

    E. Braaten and H. W. Hammer, Universality in few-body systems with large scattering length, Phys. Rept.428, 259 (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0410417

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  22. [22]

    Zwerger (editor),The BCS-BEC crossover and the unitary Fermi gas(Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011)

    W. Zwerger (editor),The BCS-BEC crossover and the unitary Fermi gas(Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011)

    2011

  23. [23]

    H. W. Hammer, C. Ji, and D. R. Phillips, Effective field theory description of halo nuclei, J. Phys. G44, 103002 (2017), arXiv:1702.08605 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    H. W. Hammer, S. K¨ onig, and U. van Kolck, Nuclear effective field theory: status and perspectives, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 025004 (2020), arXiv:1906.12122 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    M. D. Higgins, J. Golak, R. Skibi´ nski,et al., Observabil- ity of modified threshold behavior near unitarity: Md higgins et al., Few-Body Systems66, 35 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Bringas, M

    F. Bringas, M. T. Yamashita, and T. Frederico, Tri- atomic continuum resonances for large negative scatter- ing lengths, Phys. Rev. A69, 040702 (2004), arXiv:cond- mat/0312291

    arXiv 2004

  27. [27]

    Deltuva, Energies and widths of Efimov states in the three-boson continuum, Phys

    A. Deltuva, Energies and widths of Efimov states in the three-boson continuum, Phys. Rev. C102, 034003 (2020), arXiv:2101.12654

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Hyodo, T

    T. Hyodo, T. Hatsuda, and Y. Nishida, Universal physics of three bosons with isospin, Phys. Rev. C89, 032201 (2014), arXiv:1311.6289 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    Jonsell, Efimov states for systems with negative scat- tering lengths, Europhys

    S. Jonsell, Efimov states for systems with negative scat- tering lengths, Europhys. Lett.76, 8 (2006)

    2006

  30. [30]

    Efimov, Energy levels arising form the resonant two- body forces in a three-body system, Phys

    V. Efimov, Energy levels arising form the resonant two- body forces in a three-body system, Phys. Lett. B33, 563 (1970)

    1970

  31. [31]

    Platter, H.-W

    L. Platter, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, The four boson system with short range interactions, Phys. Rev. A70, 052101 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0404313

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  32. [32]

    Platter, H.-W

    L. Platter, H.-W. Hammer, and U.-G. Meißner, On the correlation between the binding energies of the triton and the alpha-particle, Phys. Lett. B607, 254 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0409040

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  33. [33]

    P. F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, Nucleon deuteron scat- tering from an effective field theory, Phys. Lett. B428, 221 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9710073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  34. [34]

    P. F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Ef- fective theory for neutron deuteron scattering: energy dependence, Phys. Rev. C58, R641 (1998), arXiv:nucl- th/9802057

    arXiv 1998

  35. [35]

    P. F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, Renor- malization of the three-body system with short range in- teractions, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 463 (1999), arXiv:nucl- th/9809025

    arXiv 1999

  36. [36]

    P. F. Bedaque, H.-W. Hammer, and U. van Kolck, The three boson system with short range interactions, Nucl. Phys. A646, 444 (1999), arXiv:nucl-th/9811046

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  37. [37]

    G ˚ ardestig, Extracting the neutron-neutron scatter- ing length—recent developments, J

    A. G ˚ ardestig, Extracting the neutron-neutron scatter- ing length—recent developments, J. Phys. G36, 053001 (2009), arXiv:0904.2787 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  38. [38]

    Babenko and N

    V. Babenko and N. Petrov, Study of the low-energy char- acteristics of neutron-neutron scattering in the effective- range approximation, arXiv preprint:1605.04849 (2016)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    Malone, A

    R. Malone, A. Crowell, L. Cumberbatch,et al., Mea- surement of the 1S0 neutron-neutron effective range in neutron-deuteron breakup, Phys. Lett. B835, 137557 (2022)

    2022

  40. [40]

    Hammer and T

    H.-W. Hammer and T. Mehen, A renormalized equation for the three-body system with short range interactions, Nucl. Phys. A690, 535 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0011024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  41. [41]

    Nishida and D

    Y. Nishida and D. T. Son, Nonrelativistic confor- mal field theories, Phys. Rev. D76, 086004 (2007), arXiv:0706.3746 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  42. [42]

    Nishida and D

    Y. Nishida and D. T. Son, Unitary Fermi gas, ep- silon expansion, and nonrelativistic conformal field theo- ries, Lect. Notes Phys.836, 233 (2012), arXiv:1004.3597 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  43. [43]

    Ishikawa, Three-neutron bound and continuum states, Phys

    S. Ishikawa, Three-neutron bound and continuum states, Phys. Rev. C102, 034002 (2020)

    2020

  44. [44]

    M. D. Higgins, C. H. Greene, A. Kievsky, and M. Viviani, Comprehensive study of the three- and four-neutron sys- 13 tems at low energies, Phys. Rev. C103, 024004 (2021)

    2021

  45. [45]

    Deltuva, Three-neutron resonance study using transi- tion operators, Phys

    A. Deltuva, Three-neutron resonance study using transi- tion operators, Phys. Rev. C97, 034001 (2018)

    2018

  46. [46]

    P. F. Bedaque and U. Van Kolck, Nucleon-deuteron scat- tering from an effective field theory, Phys. Lett. B428, 221 (1998)

    1998

  47. [47]

    S. D. Chowdhury, R. Mishra, and D. T. Son, Applied nonrelativistic conformal field theory: scattering-length and effective-range corrections to rate of production of three neutrons at low relative momenta, Phys. Rev. D 109, 016001 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    K. Miki, K. Kameya, D. Sakai,et al., Precise spec- troscopy of the 3nand 3psystems via the 3H(t,3He)3n and 3He(3He, t)3preactions at intermediate energies, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 012501 (2024)

    2024

  49. [49]

    L. Wu, S. Elhatisari, U.-G. Meißner,et al., Search- ing for the tetraneutron resonance on the lattice, arXiv:2601.01801 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    Zhang, S

    S. Zhang, S. Elhatisari, and U.-G. Meißner, Multi- neutron correlations in light nuclei via ab-initio lattice simulations, arXiv:2512.18849 [nucl-th]

    arXiv

  51. [51]

    E. P. Wigner, Lower limit for the energy derivative of the scattering phase shift, Phys. Rev.98, 145 (1955)

    1955

  52. [52]

    D. R. Phillips and T. D. Cohen, How short is too short? Constraining contact interactions in nucleon-nucleon scattering, Phys. Lett. B390, 7 (1997), arXiv:nucl- th/9607048

    arXiv 1997

  53. [53]

    H. W. Hammer and D. Lee, Causality and universality in low-energy quantum scattering, Phys. Lett. B681, 500 (2009), arXiv:0907.1763 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009