Paper detail

Reduced neutron widths in the nuclear data ensemble: Experiment and theory do not agree

I have analyzed reduced neutron widths (Γ_{n}^0) for the subset of 1245 resonances in the nuclear data ensemble (NDE) for which they have been reported. Random matrix theory (RMT) predicts for the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) that these widths should follow a \c{hi}^2 distribution having one degree of freedom (ν=1) - the Porter Thomas distribution (PTD). Careful analysis of the Γ_{n}^2 values in the NDE rejects the validity of the PTD with a statistical significance of at least 99.97% (ν=0.801\pm0.052). This striking disagreement with the RMT prediction is most likely due to the inclusion of significant p-wave contamination to the supposedly pure s-wave NDE. When an energy dependent threshold is used to remove the p-wave contamination, the PTD is still rejected with a statistical significance of at least 98.17% (ν=1.217\pm0.092). Furthermore, examination of the primary references for the NDE reveals that many resonances in most of the individual data sets were selected using methods derived from RMT. Therefore, using the full NDE data set to test RMT predictions seems highly questionable. These results cast very serious doubt on claims that the NDE represents a striking confirmation of RMT.

preprint2011arXivOpen 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.