Including the strong nuclear force in antihydrogen-scattering calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate two methods to include the strong nuclear force in hydrogenantihydrogen scattering calculations. First, we construct a model optical potential with parameters determined by the measured shift and width of the protonium ground state. Although this potential is a very crude model for the strong nuclear force, its parameters may be adjusted to reproduce both bound states and low-energy annihilation cross sections to within the experimental accuracy. It is then shown that this potential may be reduced to a short-distance boundary condition in terms of the protonantiproton strong-interaction scattering length. Elastic and annihilation cross sections for ground-state hydrogenantihydrogen scattering are calculated for s- and p-waves, and collision energies up to 1 atomic unit. The two methods are found to agree to within about 1%. The main source of discrepancy is that the scattering-length approach does not account for vacuum polarization, relativistic, and finite-size corrections. We verify that the range of the strong interaction potential does not affect the hydrogenantihydrogen s-wave scattering properties, and that the strong interaction has negligible influence on p-wave scattering. PACS Nos.: 36.10.-k, 34.90.+q
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".