Paper detail

Suppression of Excited-State Contributions to Stellar Reaction Rates

It has been shown in previous work [Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 191101 (2008); Phys. Rev. C 80, 035801 (2009)] that a suppression of the stellar enhancement factor (SEF) occurs in some endothermic reactions at and far from stability. This effect is re-evaluated using the ground-state contributions to the stellar reaction rates, which were shown to be better suited to judge the importance of excited state contributions than the previously applied SEFs. An update of the tables shown in Phys. Rev. C 80, 035801 (2009) is given. The new evalution finds 2350 cases (out of a full set of 57513 reactions) for which the ground-state contribution is larger in the reaction direction with negative reaction Q-value than in the exothermic direction, thus providing exceptions to the commonly applied Q-value rule. The results confirm the Coulomb suppression effect but lead to a larger number of exceptions than previously found. This is due to the fact that often a large variation in the g.s. contribution does not lead to a sizeable change in the SEF. On the other hand, several previously identified cases do not appear anymore because it is found that their g.s. contribution is smaller than inferred from the SEF.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author3 topics

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 map preview

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.