Paper detail

Neutron Resonance Data Exclude Random Matrix Theory

Almost since the time it was formulated, the overwhelming consensus has been that random matrix theory (RMT) is in excellent agreement with neutron resonance data. However, over the past few years, we have obtained new neutron-width data at Oak Ridge and Los Alamos National Laboratories that are in stark disagreement with this theory. We also have reanalyzed neutron widths in the most famous data set, the nuclear data ensemble (NDE), and found that it is seriously flawed, and, when analyzed carefully, excludes RMT with high confidence. More recently, we carefully examined energy spacings for these same resonances in the NDE using the $Δ_{3}$ statistic. We conclude that the data can be found to either confirm or refute the theory depending on which nuclides and whether known or suspected p-wave resonances are included in the analysis, in essence confirming results of our neutron-width analysis of the NDE. We also have examined radiation widths resulting from our Oak Ridge and Los Alamos measurements, and find that in some cases they do not agree with RMT. Although these disagreements presently are not understood, they could have broad impact on basic and applied nuclear physics, from nuclear astrophysics to nuclear criticality safety.

preprint2012arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.