Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- science:phd-notes:2025-02-17-obtd [2025/03/31 13:36] – Update headers jon-dokuwiki
+++ science:phd-notes:2025-02-17-obtd [2025/03/31 14:56] (current) – Elaborate on decays and excites jon-dokuwiki
@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
+==== Wth is going on ====
+So after all that making sure that the levels are correct, I still get that the excitation "strength" is larger than the decay. So let us now elaborate on why I'm calling it "strength" and not strength. In the plots we're just looking at the OBTDs which are not the complete expression for the (reduced) transition strength. So maybe we are led astray by that fact? Let's see what happens if we plot not only the OBTDs but the OBTDs multiplied by the single-particle transition matrix elements (see the definitions [[science:phd-notes:2025-03-03-lee|here]]). We're still not looking at the actual reduced strength as we would need to sum up over all the orbitals / single-particle contributions to get the actual strength and then we would no longer be able to make the grids.
+{{ :science:phd-notes:obtd-times-ls-protons-and-neutrons-yes-abs.png |}}
+Hmm, it seems that the excitation "strength" is still not afraid of being larger than the decay "strength"...  What if we sum up without taking the abs of each term?
+{{ :science:phd-notes:obtd-times-ls-protons-and-neutrons-no-abs.png |}}
+Nope, does not seem to solve anything. Let's think about the original assumption, namely that the decay strength should be larger than the excitation strength. That is an alright assumption, but remember that we are not actually looking at true strengths here, even if we multiply the OBTDs by the L, S terms. So maybe the assumption is bad for this situation?