PS: it was also fun to make it to the editorial selection of physical review C, the main journal for nuclear physics. It never happened to me before and it was cool for it to happen now.

I'm so happy to finally have this out, it is what I tried to do since I started my PhD 15y ago and the reason why I came back to nuclear physics.

I'll be happy to discuss with you, so drop me a mail, DM, comment

journals.aps.org/prc/abstract...

(end)

#academicsky #physics #science #iTeachPhysics

This research advances our understanding of nuclear reactions. I hope this will also help to figure out open questions in models of astrophysical phenomena like stellar burning and nucleosynthesis, maybe even experiment design, and especially applications.

8/n

I think it is pretty convincing that the vibrations and rotations that the nucleus does when kicked a little bit are the most important features to consider, even though we need to study and play with this tool much more. And now that we can!

7/n

This method is particularly useful to describe nuclei with complicated shapes. It is a well-known method, used a lot for decades.

The problem is that when we consider complicated shapes, the bouncing is always difficult to predict so we had to figure out the right maths.

6/n

This trick enables to include a lot of physical intuition ("maybe this shape is important!") let the algebra sort out whether you were right or not, saving you time. This approach is called "generator coordinate method".

5/n

This is a sort of "shotgun approach": trying many things and see what works. The drawback is that we have to generalize the Schrodinger equation and it sounds very complicated, but the advantage is that you don't have to commit to a single shape, making it ultimately faster.

(4/n)

The main idea is that since the nucleus is a complicated object, we define all possible shapes a given nucleus might have and see how probable it is that the nucleus has that shape at a given moment.

Maybe its wavefunction is a superposition of pancake flat & rugby ball!

(3/n)

This is called a scattering problem, and it is way harder than it sounds. Basically, the neutron will probably bounce off the nucleus, but to calculate how probable a specific bounce trajectory is you would need to have a near perfect description of the nucleus as a whole.

(2/n)

I had a paper in review that was done like that. It was a terrible waste of time, but unfortunately I doubt the authors were held accountable.

So if you don't care about science, it is a no loose scenario. We should name and shame bad scholarship, insert some cost into the equation.

Yes, and all of these institutions summed are used by Trump and his goons to say, not without arguments, they have "the best universities in the world".

If the quality and quantity of research doesn't crash, they will claim they made them even better by kicking out the DEI and saved money.

Congrats. Just be aware that if you publish with your American affiliation, and get cited, you might contribute to the visibility and ranking of a fascist institution.

So there's a tradeoff to be aware of.

The administration wants science to be done in AI, quantum information, nuclear physics, biotech, etc.
Wants the technological supremacy without paying the costs.
It doesn't dislike the ranking that is accrued with scientific production and citations.

If you give any of it, you're playing its game.

That's a great way to spot weak academics and weak disciplines.

Use bibtex like a grownup, at least skim what you cite, I swear is not that hard.

Which laptop do you use to work outside?

*American universities.

I would say the complete opposite in the case of the US.
Every work is an act of compliance to the regime. Every paper with Columbia affiliation shows that cutting funds is not so bad. Every line of code solidifies power structures and increases the wealth of the new American imperialism.

bsky.app/profile/nucl...