Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 348

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Discrepancy between experimental and theoretical β-decay rates resolved from first principles

Open access
Gysbers, P., Hagen, G., Holt, J. D., Jansen, G. R., Morris, T. D., Navrátil, P., Papenbrock, T., Quaglioni, S., Schwenk, A., Stroberg, S. R., Wendt, K. A.·2019·Nature Physics

Abstract

The dominant decay mode of atomic nuclei is beta decay (β-decay), a process that changes a neutron into a proton (and vice versa). This decay offers a window to physics beyond the standard model, and is at the heart of microphysical processes in stellar explosions and element synthesis in the Universe1–3. However, observed β-decay rates in nuclei have been found to be systematically smaller than for free neutrons: this 50-year-old puzzle about the apparent quenching of the fundamental coupling constant by a factor of about 0.75 (ref. 4) is without a first-principles theoretical explanation. Here, we demonstrate that this quenching arises to a large extent from the coupling of the weak force to two nucleons as well as from strong correlations in the nucleus. We present state-of-the-art computations of β-decays from light- and medium-mass nuclei to 100Sn by combining effective field theories of the strong and weak forces5 with powerful quantum many-body techniques6–8. Our results are consistent with experimental data and have implications for heavy element synthesis in neutron star mergers9–11 and predictions for the neutrino-less double-β-decay3, where an analogous quenching puzzle is a source of uncertainty in extracting the neutrino mass scale12. The difference between the β-decay rate predicted for free neutrons and that measured in real nuclei is explained by first-principles calculations to arise from strong correlations and the weak-force coupling between nucleons.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41567-019-0450-7

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 43 references

Cited by

See all 348

Metadata

Authors
Gysbers, P., Hagen, G., Holt, J. D., Jansen, G. R., Morris, T. D., Navrátil, P., Papenbrock, T., Quaglioni, S., Schwenk, A., Stroberg, S. R., & Wendt, K. A.
Venue
Nature Physics
Published
2019-03-11
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
428-431
ISSN
  • 1745-2473 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-2481
OpenAlex
W2919003435
Cited by
348
References
43
FWCI
21.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Discrepancy between experimental and theoretical β-decay rates resolved from first principles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41567-019-0450-7
The paper
Gysbers, P., Hagen, G., Holt, J. D., Jansen, G. R., Morris, T. D., Navrátil, P., Papenbrock, T., Quaglioni, S., Schwenk, A., Stroberg, S. R., & Wendt, K. A. (2019). Discrepancy between experimental and theoretical β-decay rates resolved from first principles. Nature Physics. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-019-0450-7

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.