Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

A unified mechanism for the origin and evolution of nuclear magicity

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A neglected scalar-field term, paired with the spin-orbit force, drives the appearance and disappearance of nuclear magic numbers.

desk verdict DKT as a driver of magic-number evolution is a plausible new idea with real predictions, but the 'cannot be reabsorbed' claim is not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15562 v1 pith:CA24VHYR submitted 2024-11-23 nucl-th

L. Heitz , J.-P. Ebran , E. Khan , D. Verney This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-th MSC 81V35 PACS 21.60.-n21.10.Pc24.10.Jv
keywords Diracmasskinetictermmagicnumbersnuclearshellstructureevolutionpseudo-spinsymmetryspin-orbitcouplingexoticnucleicovariantdensityfunctionaltheory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the Dirac mass kinetic term—the piece of the nuclear mean-field potential that records how the scalar (spin-0) meson field renormalizes the nucleon mass—has been left out of standard descriptions of nuclear shells. Together with the spin-orbit term, it sets the energy gaps between pseudo-spin-orbit partners, and crossings of those partners create, erase, or move magic numbers as nuclei become more neutron-rich or proton-rich. The authors call this pattern the Dirac confluence mechanism and show that it accounts for established shell-evolution facts, such as the persistence of $N=16$, the emergence of $N=32/34$ near calcium, and the sign change of the $N=50$ pseudo-spin-orbit gap around $^{100}$Sn. If the claim is right, the same mechanism supplies a unified first-order explanation of why magic numbers are not immutable.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the one-body Hamiltonian obtained by a non-relativistic reduction of the covariant mean field, $H=H_0+H_{\rm so}+H_{\rm DKT}$, with $H_0=\mathbf{p}^2/(2M)+(V+S)(r)$ the central term, $H_{\rm so}=-\frac{\kappa}{r}\frac{V'-S'}{4M^2}$ the spin-orbit term where $\kappa=(\ell-j)(2j+1)$, and $H_{\rm DKT}=-\frac{1}{2M^2}[\mathbf{p}S(r)\mathbf{p}]$ the Dirac mass kinetic term; here $S(r)$ is the attractive mean field from a spin-0 meson and $V(r)$ the repulsive field from spin-1 mesons, and the DKT represents the renormalization of the nucleon mass by the scalar field. The argument then runs through pseudo-spin-orbit (PSO) partners—orbitals $(n,\ell,j=\ell+1/2)$ and $(n-1,\ell+2,j'=j+1)$—whose energy gap changes sign as nucleon number grows. The Dirac confluence mechanism is the three-orbital pattern in which one orbital is simultaneously the spin-orbit partner of one orbital and the PSO partner of another; because spin-orbit gaps stay nearly constant while DKT-driven PSO gaps vary, orbitals cross and shell closures appear or vanish.

What would settle it

Fit a non-relativistic Skyrme or Gogny functional, allowing effective-mass and tensor terms, to stable nuclei and compare the predicted $N=50$ gap $2d_{5/2}-1g_{7/2}$ against experiment across the isotonic chain; if this functional reproduces the sign change around $^{100}$Sn without an explicit Dirac mass kinetic term, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that the evolution of nuclear magicity is governed by the Dirac mass kinetic term, $H_{\rm DKT}=-\frac{1}{2M^2}[\mathbf{p}S(r)\mathbf{p}]$, which appears in the non-relativistic reduction of a covariant mean field and is generated by the scalar meson's renormalization of the nucleon mass. In this picture, a magic number forms when orbitals linked by spin and pseudo-spin symmetries are arranged so that both the spin-orbit and the pseudo-spin-orbit gaps are large; the Dirac confluence mechanism describes how the pseudo-spin-orbit partners approach degeneracy and cross as nucleon number increases. The decisive numerical result is that only a functional with an explicit DKT reproduces the observed sign change of the $2d_{5/2}-1g_{7/2}$ gap along $N=50$ around $^{100}$Sn; central-plus-spin-orbit functionals, even with a tensor term, cannot. The same mechanism is used to explain the appearance of $N=16$, $32$ and $34$, and to predict the erosion of $N=56$ and appearance of $N=58$ near $Z\approx35$.

Load-bearing premise

The argument hinges on the claim that the scalar-meson mass term's effect on pseudo-spin-orbit gaps cannot be reabsorbed into a renormalized central, spin-orbit, tensor, or effective-mass potential; a non-relativistic functional that reproduced the same gap evolution without it would undo the paper's conclusion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A correct first-order description of shell evolution from stable to exotic nuclei must include the Dirac mass kinetic term alongside the central and spin-orbit terms; functionals that omit it are limited in how far they can predict magic numbers away from stability.
  • The erosion of the $N=50$ gap near $Z=28$ and the emergence of an $N=58$ subshell gap near $Z\approx35$ are concrete predictions that could be checked by spectroscopy of neutron-rich nuclei around $Z\approx35$, $56\leq N \leq 60$.
  • The tensor force, while needed for quantitative agreement, is repositioned as a refinement rather than the primary cause of shell evolution.
  • The same pseudo-spin-orbit dynamics explains why $N=34$ is a robust closure mainly near $Z=20$ and why $N=16$ persists from $^{24}$O to $^{36}$Ca.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the DKT is genuinely irreducible, the density dependence of the effective mass in non-relativistic functionals should track the scalar field's spatial profile, giving a testable constraint on effective-mass parametrizations.
  • A direct extension would be to add a DKT-like term to Skyrme or Gogny functionals and check whether all PSO crossings, including the predicted $N=58$ and $N=64$ cases, emerge without further parameter adjustment.
  • Because the DKT's strength is set by the scalar field, a systematic comparison across covariant functionals with different scalar-field magnitudes would show whether the predicted crossings move in step.
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 proposes that the Dirac mass kinetic term (DKT), which arises from the scalar (spin-0) meson field in the non-relativistic reduction of covariant density functional theory, is an essential and previously overlooked component of the nuclear confining potential. The authors argue that the combination of the DKT with the spin-orbit term controls the evolution of pseudo-spin-orbit (PSO) gaps, and thereby determines the emergence and disappearance of magic numbers from stable to exotic nuclei. They support this with relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov calculations using the DD-MEV functional, focusing on the formation of N=28 and on the N=50 isotonic chain, where the DKT is claimed to be necessary to reproduce the experimentally observed sign change of the ν(2d5/2-1g7/2) PSO gap around 100Sn. They then introduce a 'Dirac confluence mechanism' (DCM) and apply it to several isotopic and isotonic chains, including predictions for the N=56,58,64 gaps near 78Ni and 100Sn.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, this would be a significant conceptual advance: a unified, microscopic mechanism for shell evolution in exotic nuclei that is grounded in the Lorentz structure of the nuclear force, with a clear falsifiable prediction (the PSO gap sign change near 100Sn). The paper is commendable for not fitting the target data; the DD-MEV functional was adjusted to stable-nucleus properties in prior work, and the comparison to experiment is genuinely predictive. The paper also makes a new, testable prediction regarding the N=56,58,64 gaps that goes beyond existing measurements. The authors are explicit about the limitations of the mean-field treatment and about the role of the tensor force as a refinement, which is honest. However, the significance is contingent on the claim that the DKT cannot be reabsorbed into standard non-relativistic effective-mass or tensor terms; the manuscript does not establish this, so the mechanism's uniqueness remains unproven.

major comments (2)
  1. [Dirac mass kinetic term and spin symmetries; Evolution of shell structure along N=50; Eq. (4) and Fig. 2] The central claim that the DKT 'cannot be globally reabsorbed into a renormalized central and spin-orbit terms' is not established by the comparison in Fig. 2. The statement that traditional non-relativistic EDFs such as Skyrme and Gogny 'only include the two first terms of Eq. (1)' is inaccurate: those functionals contain density-dependent effective-mass terms that generate momentum-dependent potentials of the same generic form as HDKT = -1/(2M^2)[p S(r) p]. The effective-mass channel is thus present, even if not named 'DKT', in the Skyrme, Skyrme+T, and Gogny calculations shown in Fig. 2. The figure therefore does not isolate the DKT; it compares the covariant calculation with a few specific non-relativistic parameterizations in which the effective-mass and tensor parameters were not systematically varied to optimize the PSO gap evolution. The paper would need to show that no reasonable variation of non-relativistic effective-mass and tensor terms can reproduce the sign change around 100Sn while preserving the stable-shell magic numbers, or else soften the claim to state that the DKT is a natural and successful covariant mechanism rather than a strictly necessary one.
  2. [Eqs. (1)-(4) and surrounding derivation in Section 'Dirac mass kinetic term'] The non-relativistic reduction is stated to be valid 'up to first order in 1/M^2'. Since both Hso and HDKT are of order 1/M^2, there may be other terms of the same order (e.g., a Darwin-type contact term) that are not listed in Eq. (1). The omission is not justified in the text. This matters because the paper's quantitative decomposition of PSO gaps into a DKT contribution (referenced to the Supplemental Material) could be contaminated by other same-order terms. The authors should either quantify the size of omitted 1/M^2 terms or cite specific prior work showing that they are negligible in the nuclear context.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section 'Dirac mass kinetic term'] The term is written inconsistently as 'Dirac mass Kinetic Term' and 'Dirac mass kinetic term'; please use lowercase 'kinetic term' throughout for consistency with standard capitalization conventions.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The label 'NR (D1S)' is ambiguous; D1S is a Gogny parameterization, not a generic Skyrme-based NR calculation. Please label it as 'Gogny D1S' for clarity.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The lower panel of Fig. 1 is mentioned in the caption only as a 'schematic evolution' but is not described; please add one or two sentences explaining what the lower panel shows and how it relates to the upper panel.
  4. [Formation of the magic number 28] The sentence 'This drives the 1f7/2 orbital to dive in order to preserve the 1f7/2-1f5/2 spin-orbit gap' is unclear: if 1f5/2 moves up toward 2p3/2, one would expect the spin-orbit partner 1f7/2 to move down to keep the gap constant, but the causal wording is confusing. Please clarify the ordering argument.
  5. [Reference [34]] Reference [34] contains a placeholder '[url]' for the Supplemental Material; please replace it with the actual link or a note that the Supplemental Material is available online.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PSO-gap sign-change prediction is out-of-sample with respect to the DD-MEV fit, and the only author-overlap citations are supporting tools rather than load-bearing premises.

full rationale

No circular reduction is present in the claimed derivation chain. The central out-of-sample result—the sign change of the nu(2d5/2-1g7/2) PSO gap near 100Sn—is obtained from the DD-MEV covariant functional, whose parameters were adjusted to stable-nucleus properties in prior work by two of the present authors, and is then compared with experimental data and with non-relativistic Skyrme/Skyrme+tensor/Gogny results. The target quantity (the sign-change location) is not a fitted input of DD-MEV, so this is a genuine prediction rather than a fitted-input-called-prediction step. The author-overlap citations (DD-MEV [16]; Ref. [24] for S and V magnitudes) are supporting computational tools and standard mean-field values, not a self-citation chain that forces the DKT conclusion. The main caveat is physical rather than circular: the paper's statement that traditional non-relativistic EDFs 'only include the two first terms of Eq. (1)' is an oversimplification, since Skyrme functionals contain effective-mass kinetic terms of the same generic operator form as HDKT in Eq. (4). This weakens the strength of the 'cannot be globally reabsorbed' claim and makes Fig. 2 a less-than-controlled comparison, but it does not make the prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction. Hence no circular step is listed.

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

No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in this paper. The calculations rely on the DD-MEV functional, whose parameters were fitted to nuclear data in prior work (Ref [16]), and on the standard cEDF framework. The central claim rests on the domain assumptions listed above, particularly the validity of the 1/M^2 expansion and the interpretation of single-particle energies.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The non-relativistic reduction of the Dirac equation to first order in 1/M^2 (Eqs. 1-4) captures the relevant dynamics; higher-order and derivative terms are negligible.
    The entire argument is built on this truncated expansion. No convergence check or estimate of omitted terms is provided.
  • domain assumption Spin and pseudo-spin symmetries are the key organizing symmetries of nuclear shell structure, and the magnitude and sign of their breaking determine magic gaps.
    The Dirac confluence mechanism depends on the behavior of pseudo-spin-orbit gaps. This is a standard assumption in the literature, but it is not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption Single-particle energies from mean-field calculations, though not direct observables, reliably indicate magic gaps and correlate with experimental data.
    Stated explicitly in the text (Section: From here on, we will focus on single-particle energies). This assumption is necessary for interpreting the calculated level crossings as predictions about magicity.
  • domain assumption The DD-MEV functional provides a realistic description of both stable and exotic nuclei across the chains studied.
    All quantitative results are produced with DD-MEV (Ref [16]). Its validity is assumed; no systematic comparison to other relativistic functionals is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A unified mechanism for the origin and evolution of nuclear magicity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CA24VHYR

@misc{pith2026241115562,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A unified mechanism for the origin and evolution of nuclear magicity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CA24VHYR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15562}
}
read the original abstract

A simple pattern of organisation, the nuclear shell structure, emerges from the complex interactions between nucleons in nuclei and determines, to some significant degree, nuclear structure properties. Recent experimental investigations of exotic nuclei revealed a shortfall in our current understanding of nuclear shell evolution and nuclear magicity. We introduce a novel perspective where the Dirac mass kinetic term, which stems from the singular participation of a spin-0 boson in the nuclear strong force, plays a pivotal role in generating the nuclear shell structure. Namely, the combination of the Dirac mass kinetic Term with the spin-orbit term redefines magic numbers both in stable and exotic nuclei. The identification of this mechanism allows to provide a broad understanding of the origin and evolution of nuclear magic numbers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15562 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (upper panel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Evolution of shell structure in isotopic and isotonic chains, using relativistic Hartree-Bogoliubov calculations with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Patterns of spin and pseudo-spin symmetries in nuclear relativistic mean-field approaches

    nucl-th 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Closed-form perturbative expressions for spin and pseudo-spin energy splittings in relativistic mean-field models are derived, decomposing pseudo-spin breaking into a mass-dependent central-potential part and a nearly...

  2. Exploring Shell Evolution and N = 40 Magicity in Light-Mass Nuclei with Relativistc Mean Field Approach

    nucl-th 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Relativistic mean-field calculations with NL3 parameters indicate N=40 magicity across Cl to Cr isotopes and N=34 shell closure in Cl, Ar, and Ti.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M. G. Mayer, Physical Review 75, 1969 (1949)

    work page 1949

  2. [2]

    M. B. R. Bohr A, Nuclear Structure, Volume 1 , w. a. benjamin ed. (1969)

    1969

  3. [3]

    Feenberg and K

    E. Feenberg and K. C. Hammack, Physical Review 75, 1877 (1949)

    work page 1949

  4. [4]

    Sorlin and M.-G

    O. Sorlin and M.-G. Porquet, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 61, 602 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Otsuka, A

    T. Otsuka, A. Gade, O. Sorlin, T. Suzuki, and Y. Ut- suno, Reviews of Modern Physics 92, 015002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Steppenbeck, S

    D. Steppenbeck, S. Takeuchi, N. Aoi, P. Doornenbal, M. Matsushita, H. Wang, H. Baba, N. Fukuda, S. Go, M. Honma, J. Lee, K. Matsui, S. Michimasa, T. Moto- bayashi, D. Nishimura, T. Otsuka, H. Sakurai, Y. Shiga, P.-A. S¨ oderstr¨ om, T. Sumikama, H. Suzuki, R. Taniuchi, Y. Utsuno, J. J. Valiente-Dob´ on, and K. Yoneda, Nature 502, 207 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    Elekes, Z

    Z. Elekes, Z. Dombr´ adi, N. Aoi, S. Bishop, Z. F¨ ul¨ op, J. Gibelin, T. Gomi, Y. Hashimoto, N. Imai, N. Iwasa, H. Iwasaki, G. Kalinka, Y. Kondo, A. A. Korsheninnikov, K. Kurita, M. Kurokawa, N. Matsui, T. Motobayashi, T. Nakamura, T. Nakao, E. Y. Nikolskii, T. K. Ohnishi, T. Okumura, S. Ota, A. Perera, A. Saito, H. Sakurai, Y. Satou, D. Sohler, T. Sumik...

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Nowacki, A

    F. Nowacki, A. Poves, E. Caurier, and B. Bounthong, Physical Review Letters 117, 272501 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Nowacki, A

    F. Nowacki, A. Obertelli, and A. Poves, Progress in Par- ticle and Nuclear Physics 120, 103866 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Otsuka, R

    T. Otsuka, R. Fujimoto, Y. Utsuno, B. A. Brown, M. Honma, and T. Mizusaki, Physical Review Letters 87, 082502 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    Otsuka, T

    T. Otsuka, T. Suzuki, R. Fujimoto, H. Grawe, and Y. Akaishi, Physical Review Letters 95, 232502 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Delafosse, D

    C. Delafosse, D. Verney, P. Marevi´ c, A. Gottardo, C. Michelagnoli, A. Lemasson, A. Goasduff, J. Ljung- vall, E. Cl´ ement, A. Korichi, G. De Angelis, C. Andreoiu, M. Babo, A. Boso, F. Didierjean, J. Dudouet, S. Fran- choo, A. Gadea, G. Georgiev, F. Ibrahim, B. Jacquot, T. Ko...

    2018

  5. [13]

    T. R. Routray, P. Bano, M. Anguiano, M. Centelles, X. Vi˜ nas, and L. M. Robledo, Physical Review C 104, L011302 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Z. Wang, Q. Zhao, H. Liang, and W. H. Long, Physical Review C 98, 034313 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Liang, P

    H. Liang, P. Zhao, Y. Zhang, J. Meng, and N. V. Giai, Physical Review C 83, 041301 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    Mercier, J.-P

    F. Mercier, J.-P. Ebran, and E. Khan, Physical Review C 107, 034309 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Schwenk and A

    A. Schwenk and A. P. Zuker, Physical Review C 74, 061302 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Niksic, N

    T. Niksic, N. Paar, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Com- puter Physics Communications 185, 1808 (2014), arXiv: 1403.4039

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Y. Tian, Z. Ma, and P. Ring, Physics Letters B 676, 44 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Huang, J.-Y

    B. Huang, J.-Y. Guo, and S.-W. Chen, Physical Review C 105, 054313 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Shi, D.-P

    M. Shi, D.-P. Li, S.-W. Chen, and J.-Y. Guo, Physical Review C 90, 034318 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Chabanat, P

    E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R. Schaeffer, Nuclear Physics A 635, 231 (1998)

    1998

  15. [23]

    Berger, M

    J. Berger, M. Girod, and D. Gogny, Computer Physics Communications 63, 365 (1991)

    1991

  16. [24]

    Ebran, E

    J.-P. Ebran, E. Khan, A. Mutschler, and D. Vretenar, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 43, 085101 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Arima, M

    A. Arima, M. Harvey, and K. Shimizu, Physics Letters B 30, 517 (1969)

    1969

  18. [26]

    Hecht and A

    K. Hecht and A. Adler, Nuclear Physics A 137, 129 (1969)

    1969

  19. [27]

    J. N. Ginocchio, Physical Review Letters 78, 436 (1997)

    1997

  20. [28]

    Col` o, H

    G. Col` o, H. Sagawa, and P. F. Bortignon, Physical Re- view C 82, 064307 (2010). 6

    2010

  21. [29]

    L.-G. Cao, G. Col` o, H. Sagawa, and P. F. Bortignon, Physical Review C 89, 044314 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    E. V. Litvinova and A. V. Afanasjev, Physical Review C 84, 014305 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    Karakatsanis, G

    K. Karakatsanis, G. A. Lalazissis, P. Ring, and E. Litvi- nova, Physical Review C 95, 034318 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Duguet and G

    T. Duguet and G. Hagen, Phys. Rev. C 85, 034330 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Duguet, H

    T. Duguet, H. Hergert, J. D. Holt, and V. Som` a, Phys. Rev. C 92, 034313 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    See Supplemental Material [url] for DKT contribution, details regarding functionals and 86Ni,114Sn and N=20 isotonic chain calculations

  27. [35]

    J. J. Li, J. Margueron, W. H. Long, and N. Van Giai, Physics Letters B 753, 97 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    W. H. Long, J. Geng, J. Liu, and Z. H. Wang, Commu- nications in Theoretical Physics 74, 097301 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Lalanne, O

    L. Lalanne, O. Sorlin, A. Poves, M. Assi´ e, F. Ham- mache, S. Koyama, D. Suzuki, F. Flavigny, V. Girard- Alcindor, A. Lemasson, A. Matta, T. Roger, D. Beaumel, Y. Blumenfeld, B. Brown, F. D. O. Santos, F. Delau- nay, N. De S´ er´ eville, S. Franchoo, J. Gibelin, J. Guillot, O...

    2023

  30. [38]

    Kanungo, I

    R. Kanungo, I. Tanihata, and A. Ozawa, Physics Letters B 528, 58 (2002)

    2002

  31. [39]

    K. T. Flanagan, P. Vingerhoets, M. Avgoulea, J. Bil- lowes, M. L. Bissell, K. Blaum, B. Cheal, M. De Rydt, V. N. Fedosseev, D. H. Forest, C. Geppert, U. K¨ oster, M. Kowalska, J. Kr¨ amer, K. L. Kratz, A. Krieger, E. Man´ e, B. A. Marsh, T. Materna, L. Mathieu, P. L. Molkanov,...

    2009

  32. [40]

    Iimura, M

    S. Iimura, M. Rosenbusch, A. Takamine, Y. Tsunoda, M. Wada, S. Chen, D. Hou, W. Xian, H. Ishiyama, S. Yan, P. Schury, H. Crawford, P. Doornenbal, Y. Hi- rayama, Y. Ito, S. Kimura, T. Koiwai, T. Kojima, H. Koura, J. Lee, J. Liu, S. Michimasa, H. Miyatake, J. Moon, S. Naimi, S. ...

    2023

  33. [41]

    and references therein. According to the DCM, as Z increases, the 1 g7/2 − 1g9/2 spin-orbit gap is almost un- changed whereas the 1g7/2 − 2d5/2 and 2d3/2 − 3s1/2 PSO gaps are reduced in absolute value, with 1 g7/2 and 2d5/2 5 becoming degenerate around 100Sn and with 3s1/2 cro...

  34. [42]

    This result represents a new prediction concerning nuclei that have not yet been studied

    as Z decreases when approaching 78Ni (Z = 28) in favor of the appearance of an N = 58 subshell gap of comparable size. This result represents a new prediction concerning nuclei that have not yet been studied. Recent observations in the Z ≈ 35 56 ≤ N ≤ 60 region seem to indicat...

  35. [43]

    Thisse, M

    D. Thisse, M. Lebois, D. Verney, J. N. Wilson, N. Jo- vanˇ cevi´ c, M. Rudigier, R. Canavan, D. Etasse, P. Ad- sley, A. Algora, M. Babo, K. Belvedere, J. Benito, G. Benzoni, A. Blazhev, A. Boso, S. Bottoni, M. Bunce, R. Chakma, N. Cieplicka-Ory´ nczak, S. Courtin, M. L. Cort´ ...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Tondeur, Nuclear Physics A 359, 278 (1981)

    F. Tondeur, Nuclear Physics A 359, 278 (1981)

    1981

  37. [45]

    Dudouet, A

    J. Dudouet, A. Lemasson, G. Duchˆ ene, M. Rejmund, E. Cl´ ement, C. Michelagnoli, F. Didierjean, A. Ko- richi, G. Maquart, O. Stezowski, C. Lizarazo, R. P´ erez- Vidal, C. Andreoiu, G. De Angelis, A. Astier, C. De- lafosse, I. Deloncle, Z. Dombradi, G. De France, A. Gadea, A. ...

    2017

  38. [46]

    Dudouet, G

    J. Dudouet, G. Colombi, D. Reygadas Tello, C. Michelagnoli, D. D. Dao, F. Nowacki, M. Abushaw- ish, E. Cl´ ement, C. Costache, G. Duchˆ ene, F. Kandzia, A. Lemasson, N. Marginean, R. Marginean, C. Mihai, S. Pascu, M. Rejmund, K. Rezynkina, O. Stezowski, A. Turturica, S. Ujeniu...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Kumar, P

    R. Kumar, P. Doornenbal, A. Jhingan, R. K. Bhowmik, S. Muralithar, S. Appannababu, R. Garg, J. Gerl, M. G´ orska, J. Kaur, I. Kojouharov, S. Mandal, S. Mukherjee, D. Siwal, A. Sharma, P. P. Singh, R. P. Singh, and H. J. Wollersheim, Phys. Rev. C 81, 024306 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.