Jacek Dobaczewski

Comparison between the calculated spectroscopic magnetic dipole moments of the neutron h11/2- (top) and proton g7/2+ (bottom) configurations with experimental data.

We will soon submit our paper, "Nuclear Electromagnetic Moments in the Sn-Gd Region Determined Within Nuclear DFT," to arXiv. This calculation is performed without adjusted parameters. The neutron results align with the data quite well, but the proton results do not; why is that?

Electric quadrupole (a) and magnetic dipole (b) moments determined in this work for the Omega=5/2 [642]5/2 rotational band, I=5/2...95/2 inn 161Dy. The panels illustrate the comparison between the microscopically calculated (AMP, diamonds) and approximate (ROT, circles) spectroscopic moments, Q_spec and mu_spec. Squares display the known experimental data. The thick line depicts the magnetic moment corresponding to the phenomenological estimate of the rotational collective g-factor, g_R~Z/A. The inset presents the results for I=5/2 and 7/2 plotted in an extended scale.

I just finished preparing this figure for the upcoming publication. We can self-consistently calculate rotational bands in odd nuclei up to angular momenta that are twice as large as those currently known experimentally. The AMP beautifully reproduces the collective increase in the magnetic moments.

The work of refereeing is acknowledged in books.

A day of refereeing for a major publishing house is remunerated in the $180 worth of books. Refereeing is work. Unpaid work is like slavery.

Ratios of the ATDHFB and Inglis-Belyaev moments of inertia obtained for the UNEDF1 and D1S functionals compared with the empirical enhancement factors of 1.2–1.3 (shaded area).

Heads-up before the imminent arXiv submission:

Ratios of the ATDHFB and Inglis-Belyaev moments of inertia obtained for the UNEDF1 and D1S functionals compared with the empirical enhancement factors of 1.2–1.3 (shaded areas).

Sophisticated theori(e)(st)s, please avoid employing fetch factors 😆😆