MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044207529 · doi:10.1139/p06-071

A semiclassical, microscopic model for nuclear collective rotation

2006· article· en· W2044207529 on OpenAlexaffvenue
P. Gulshani

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamics
Canadian institutionsRogers Communications (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMoment of inertiaSemiclassical physicsClassical mechanicsAngular momentumSchrödinger equationNonlinear Schrödinger equationEuler's equationsQuantum mechanicsMathematical physicsInertiaRotary inertiaQuantum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, a semiclassical, microscopic model (dubbed SMRM) is derived to describe collective rotation in deformed nuclei. The SMRM is derived by transforming the time-dependent, multiparticle Schrodinger equation to a rotating frame whose axes are chosen to coincide with the principal axes of the expectation value of an arbitrary, second-rank, symmetric, tensor (nuclear shape) operator [Formula: see text]. This transformation circumvents the difficulty associated with the introduction of redundant particle coordinates in the Villars' transformation. The SMRM Schrodinger equation, which resembles the cranking model (CM) equation, is a time-dependent, time-reversal-invariant, nonlinear integro-differential equation. In this equation, the angular velocity is determined by the wave function and deformation–rotation shear operators, and this introduces the nonlinearity in the equation. A variational method is proposed and justified to obtain: a stationary solution of the SMRM Schrodinger equation in the Rayleigh–Ritz Hartree–Fock particle–hole formalism, the rotational energy increment, and the associated moment of inertia. When exchange interaction terms are neglected or a separable interaction is used, the SMRM moment of inertia is shown to reduce to that given by the CM provided that a certain relationship exists between the moment of inertia and the expectation value of [Formula: see text]. However, the SMRM and CM wave functions are not the same (SMRM preserves and CM violates time-reversal invariance) implying that the calculated values of other parameters, including the moment of inertia at higher values of the angular momentum, may not be the same in the two models. In any case, the SMRM derives the CM moment of inertia from a microscopic, time-reversal invariant, nonlinear theory.PACS Nos.: 21.60.Ev, 21.60.Fw, 21.60.Jz

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamicsFrench-language works237,207