Scholar iON
Academic Synthesis
The collection of scholarly papers in the "nucl-ex" category highlights significant debates surrounding theoretical interpretations and methodologies in nuclear physics. A recurring theme is the critique and re-evaluation of existing theoretical models and arguments, as seen in Bugaev et al.'s analysis of a preprint, challenging its scientific argumentation, and Gross's criticism of Moretto et al.'s understanding of nuclear phase transitions. Additionally, Pursey et al. dispute Fearing's conclusions regarding proton-proton bremsstrahlung, emphasizing the potential for new insights from such phenomena despite established views. This body of research underscores ongoing discussions about the validity and applicability of theoretical frameworks in elucidating complex nuclear interactions and transitions, illustrating the dynamic and contested nature of theoretical advancements in nuclear physics.
Below we analyze the `critic' statements made in the Preprint arXiv:1301.1828v1 [nucl-th]. The doubtful scientific argumentation of the authors of the Preprint arXiv:1301.1828v1 [nucl-th] is also discussed.
Recently, Fearing (nucl-th/9710061) has argued that, as a matter of principle, proton-proton bremsstrahlung can yield no more information about the off-shell properties of the nucleon-nucleon interaction than can already be deduced from the on-shell properties. In this note we challenge Fearing's conclusion.
Withdrawn by author. This paper was mistakenly submitted twice (See nucl-th/0604008)
The recent paper nucl-th/0208024 by Moretto et al. is commented:
Their picture of nuclear phase transition in terms of macroscopic control parameters, temperature and pressure, is irrelevant. Their criticism of order-disorder phase-transitions on a periodic lattice uses the wrong scenario. This transition has nothing to do with the liquid-gas transition of a single spherical droplet.
This paper has been merged with the preprint nucl-th/0210057. The combined version is accepted for publication is Phys. Rev. C
The qualitative difference in the use of retarded and Feynman amplitudes as demonstrated in nucl-th/0101024 had been wrongly considered in this comment. The concept of the breakdown of crossing symmetry is not effective in the case considered in the adressed article. The technical aspects of the evaluation of higher-order corrections which were adressed in the original comment and their applicability to the total inclusive cross section have been clarified.
Recently, a longitudinal sum rule for the electric polarizability of nuclei was used to revise a relativistic correction in a dipole sum rule for the polarizability (nucl-th/9802011). This revision is shown to be wrong because of neglecting an asymptotic contribution in the underlying dispersion relation. The status and correct use of the longitudinal sum rule is clarified.
This is an erratum to our previously published paper.