| Revista | coefic.2002 | status |
| Proc. Roy. Soc. A | 1.4,0.3 | Submitted 1/12; as of 15/12 it was unacknowledged yet, thus I withdrew it; still, a confirmation of rejection was received in february. |
| Nature | 30.4,7.5 | PreSubmision request; kindly rejected (thanks Karen!) 2/12/03 |
| Phys. Rev. Lett. | 7.3,1.5 | Submitted 15/12, rejected by editors 22/12 and 24/12. Appeal 0701(ps). Final 24/02 |
| Phys. Lett. B | 4.2,1.48 | Submitted 2402 rejected by editors 0803 |
| EuroPhysicsLetters | 2.36,0.5? | submitted 3103, rejected by editors 0104, protested 1904, answer received 1205 |
| Nuc. Phys A | 1.56,1.02 | submitted 0104 Rejected by editors 0604 |
| Mod Phys Let A | 1.4 0.5 | submitted 0604, rejected 0605 |
| Eur Phys J A (nuclear) | 1.65, 0.16 | submitted 0605. Rejected 1205 |
| Here I surrender; please check the call for Esau Miniprizes awarding related publications. | ||
Here, the point is subtle. Nucleons orbiting (bound!) in a nucleus suffer self-energy and vertex corrections from any interacting boson. Rule of thumb is to forget about any boson whose mass is above the proton mass. On other hand, the system being bound, the recoil mass of the center of force is the mass of the whole nucleus, and this could invalidate the naive scale at the proton mass. The paper could indicate that vertex or self-energy corrections are relevant in some situations. But I have avoided specific technical claims, limiting the article to show the experimental status. It seems honest to point out this status to the community, but editorial procedures are against this kind of production.
In any case, one must remember that editorial procedures are just a reflect of the community. And then wonder how have we come to this situation.
Other journals:
| PHIL Trans Roy Soc | 1.6, 1.0 | |
| JHEP | 6.8,2.9 (era gratuito al principio, aunque ya empezo con un 6.7) | |
| njp.iop.org | 1.768, 0.376 (acaba de empezar, se mantendra gratuito) | |
| Nuc Phys B | 5.4, 2.1 | |
| ANP | 10.5,- | |
| ARNPS | 7.17,0,4 | |
| E Ph J C (particle) | 6.1,1.0 | |
| Science | 28.9,5.86 | Letter 2 Editor, 3/12/03 |
While it is clear that spin-orbit coupling can be get for nuclear
forces by using a relativistic approach, practitioners known that the huge
spin orbit separations at big magic numbers do still need of an empirical
adjust. So I considered interesting to take a look to nuclei for magic
numbers 50, 82 and 126 by looking at the sub-shells that are responsible
of the magicity. These are, respectively, g9/2, h11/2 and i13/2.
I considered to evaluate the average weight of nuclei while they are
filling these sub-shells. As the filling happens for neutrons and protons,
this double process drives to consider rectangles. Of the possible nine
rectangles, only three touch the valley of stability, and they happen of
course near the doubly magic nuclei, ie:
A) Near P=50,N=50,
B) Near P=50,N=82, and
C) Near P=82,N=126.
Using the filing order for instance from Cottinghan/Greenwood, one sees that
the respective average number of nucleons in each rectangle
is 90, 115, and 181.
The corresponding masses show a intriguing pattern.
A) 90 amu is about 83,8 GeV, which is about a -4% of the mass of the W
or/and about a 8% of the mass of the Z0.
B) 115 amu is about 107 GeV, which is about a 6% of LEP Higgs Events.
C) 181 amu is about 167 GeV, which is about a 3% of the mass of the Top
Also, the following related autors have been sent a copy of the preprint, or notifyed of it:
npaar.ph.tum, bonnie.godiva.physics.fsu, Georgios_Lalazissis.Physik.TU-Muenchen serot.iucf.indiana tbuerven.lanl.gov jsheikh.wotan.t30.physik.tu-muenchen, npaar.ph.tum ptimu01.uni-tuebingen furnstahl.1.osu wiringa.anl, spieper.anl machleid.uidaho glozman.tanashi.kek (bounced) u.meissner.fz-juelich WJSwiateckilbl pfbedaque.lb
(full email addresses are not shown, to avoid spamming)
Also, via ordinary mail: W Greiner. INT library, German Rodrigo (CERN phencl) t'hooft, Oset,
Addenda 2005. I have finally got to read the pdf of Palazzi's physics/0301074; la figura 3 tiene su punto para indicar como en N=28 empieza a torcerse la cosa, pero no veo mucho que rascar de ahi.