Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Induced vacuum magnetic flux in quantum spinor matter in the background of a topological defect in two-dimensional space

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the physically admissible boundary condition at an impenetrable ANO vortex core is the unique MIT bag condition θ = 0, selected by demanding that the induced vacuum magnetic flux be finite and continuous in the…

desk verdict Solid analytic mode-sum calculation, but the paper's key conclusion—unique theta=0 boundary condition—rests on an undocumented numerical limit that needs either code or a proof before the claim should be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02058 v2 pith:2CIQ4YYJ submitted 2019-08-06 hep-th math-phmath.MPquant-ph

Yurii A. Sitenko , Volodymyr M. Gorkavenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MPquant-ph PACS 11.10.-z11.10.Kk11.27.+d11.15.Tk04.62.v
keywords vacuumpolarizationAbrikosov-Nielsen-Olesenvortexinducedcurrentmagneticfluxself-adjointextensionboundaryconditionconicalspaceAharonov-Bohmeffect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantum spinor matter confined outside an impenetrable Abrikosov–Nielsen–Olesen vortex can a priori obey any of a one-parameter family of self-adjoint boundary conditions labelled by θ. The paper computes the induced vacuum current circulating around the vortex and the induced magnetic flux along the vortex axis for the whole family, in a 2+1-dimensional conical transverse space. It then shows that requiring the total induced flux to be finite, which it equates with invariance under charge conjugation, restricts θ to 0 or π, and that requiring continuity in θ eliminates π. The survivor is θ = 0, the MIT bag condition, under which the vacuum effects become uniquely determined functions of the vortex flux, the conicity, and the vortex radius; the massless case leaves the two candidate values indistinguishable. If the argument is right, it resolves an old ambiguity: impenetrability alone does not fix the boundary condition, but the demand that the vacuum's magnetic response be well defined does.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-parameter family of self-adjoint boundary conditions at the vortex edge, $(I - i\beta\alpha_r e^{-i\theta\alpha_r})\psi|_{r=r_0} = 0$, where $\theta$ is the self-adjoint extension parameter and $\theta = 0$ is the MIT bag condition. What carries the argument is the interplay between the fractional vortex flux $F$ (the fractional part of $\tilde e\Phi/2\pi$), the conicity parameter $\nu$, and the peculiar $n = n_c$ mode of the Dirac equation, whose near-edge behavior decides the convergence of the flux integral. The load-bearing element is the numerical quantity $\omega(\theta) = \lim_{r\to r_0} \nu r\, j_\phi(r)/\big((r-r_0)/r_0\big)^2$, reported as finite and independent of $F$, $\nu$, and $mr_0$ only at $\theta = 0$ and $\theta = \pi$; when it is finite, the total flux integral converges, and the value of $\theta$ is thereby restricted.

What would settle it

Evaluate $\omega(\theta)$ at an intermediate boundary parameter (say $\theta = \pi/4$) with an independent method, such as high-precision evaluation of the integral representation of $j_\phi(r)$ as $r \to r_0$ or a lattice regularization of the Dirac vacuum, and check whether the total flux integral converges there. If the limit is finite for any $\theta$ other than $0$ or $\pi$, or if it depends on $F$, $\nu$, or $mr_0$ at the selected values, the criterion collapses. A direct analytic derivation of the near-edge asymptotics of $j_\phi(r)$ would settle the question definitively.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in the transverse section of an ANO vortex of finite radius $r_0$, the paper quantizes the Dirac field with the most general impenetrable boundary condition, $(I - i\beta\alpha_r e^{-i\theta\alpha_r})\psi|_{r=r_0} = 0$, and derives closed expressions for the induced vacuum current $j_\phi(r)$ and the induced magnetic field $B_I(r)$ along the vortex axis. The total induced flux $\Phi_I$ is finite only for $\theta = \pi/2 \mp \pi/2$, that is, $\theta = 0$ or $\theta = \pi$, a conclusion carried by the numerical behavior of $\omega(\theta) = \lim_{r\to r_0} \nu r\, j_\phi(r)/\big((r-r_0)/r_0\big)^2$, which is finite and independent of $F$, $\nu$, and $mr_0$ only at those two values. At $\theta = 0$ the flux decreases in absolute value as the vortex radius grows, whereas at $\theta = \pi$ it grows without bound, which the authors count as physically implausible; imposing continuity in $\theta$ accordingly selects $\theta = 0$, the MIT bag condition. Under this choice the vacuum current and flux are continuous in the fractional flux $F$, vanish at $F = 1/2$, and reduce to the earlier minimal-irregularity results for the infinitely thin vortex. The authors stress a qualitative distinction: for massless spinor matter a system-size cutoff $r_{\rm max}$ is needed, and for $r_{\rm max} \gg r_0$ the $\theta = 0$ and $\theta = \pi$ results coincide and do not depend on the vortex radius.

Load-bearing premise

The selection of $\theta = 0$ rests on a numerical observation, that the current's divergence rate near the vortex edge follows the quadratic form $(r-r_0)^2$ only at $\theta = 0$ and $\theta = \pi$, which is reported without an analytic proof or a description of the numerical method.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $\theta = 0$ the induced vacuum current and magnetic flux around an impenetrable ANO vortex are fully determined, given as explicit functions of the fractional vortex flux $F$, the conicity $\nu$, and the vortex radius $r_0$; they are continuous in $F$ and vanish at $F = 1/2$.
  • The finite-radius results reduce to the infinitely thin vortex results under the condition of minimal irregularity, so the $\theta = 0$ choice unifies the finite-core and idealized treatments.
  • At $\theta = 0$ the induced flux decreases with increasing vortex radius and becomes negligible for $mr_0 \gtrsim 1$, so the effect is largest for light matter fields and thin vortex cores.
  • For massless spinor matter the $\theta = 0$ and $\theta = \pi$ results coincide and are independent of the vortex radius for $r_{\rm max} \gg r_0$; this regime retains a discontinuity at $F = 1/2$ with a jump independent of $\nu$.
  • The selection claim covers the parameter ranges with a single peculiar mode (deficiency index (1,1)); ranges with two irregular modes, e.g. $\nu < 1/2$, are left unstudied in the paper.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Applied to other vacuum characteristics in the same geometry, such as the induced energy-momentum tensor or the fermion condensate, a direction the authors flag as open, the same finite-flux and continuity-in-$\theta$ criterion can be expected to select the same $\theta = 0$ boundary condition.
  • The selection rule resembles a renormalization statement: demanding that the physical observable (the flux) be well defined drives the bare boundary parameter to the bag-condition value; testing the same mechanism for non-Abelian flux tubes or higher-dimensional defects would show whether the rule is general.
  • Because the restriction of $\theta$ presently rests on a single numerical observation, an analytic derivation of the near-edge asymptotics of $j_\phi(r)$, or an independent lattice computation of the Dirac vacuum, would convert the selection rule from an observation into a theorem.
  • In engineered two-dimensional Dirac materials with a gapped bulk and an impenetrable defect core, the paper's logic predicts that the realized boundary condition is the bag condition, a statement that could be probed in carbon nanocone junctions or related systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the vacuum polarization induced by a finite-radius Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen vortex in 2+1-dimensional conical spacetime, treating the vortex core as impenetrable for quantized relativistic spinor matter. The authors quantize the Dirac field outside the core using the most general self-adjoint boundary condition, parametrized by a single parameter theta, and derive integral representations for the induced azimuthal vacuum current j_phi, the induced axial magnetic field B_I, and the total induced magnetic flux Phi_I. They then argue that the requirement that Phi_I be finite restricts the boundary-condition parameter to theta = 0 and theta = pi, and that a further 'physical plausibility' requirement, formulated as continuity in theta, selects theta = 0, the MIT bag boundary condition. The massless case is treated separately with a cutoff r_max, where theta = 0 and theta = pi are found to give coinciding, physically sensible results.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a unique, parameter-free prediction for the Aharonov-Bohm type vacuum current and induced magnetic flux around a vortex or cosmic string for spinor matter, including explicit dependence on vortex flux F, conicity parameter nu, and core radius r0. The analytic work in Sections 3-5 and Appendices A-C is detailed and internally consistent: the derivations reproduce known limiting cases in Appendix C, and the massless results agree with earlier work by one of the authors in the r0 -> 0 limit. The explicit formulas for the current, field, and flux, together with the asymptotic analyses, are valuable and extend the literature beyond previously used special boundary conditions. The main weakness is that the decisive boundary-condition selection rests on an undocumented numerical assertion about the near-boundary behavior of j_phi, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6, Eq. (6.26) and Fig. 1] The central claim that the induced vacuum magnetic flux is finite only for theta = 0 and theta = pi rests on the numerical assertion that omega(theta) = lim_{r->r0} nu r j_phi(r) ((r-r0)/r0)^2 vanishes exactly at these two values and is nonzero otherwise, independent of F, nu, and mr0. This is the content of Eq. (6.26) and the convergence condition for the flux representation (6.25). However, no numerical method, code, quadrature tolerances, error estimates, or parameter coverage are provided for Fig. 1, and no analytic derivation of the near-boundary exponent of j_phi is supplied. Appendix D repeats the same numerical claim in Fig. 10 without additional support. Because this numerical observation selects the admissible boundary conditions, it is load-bearing for the main conclusion. The authors should either provide a fully reproducible numerical treatment with convergence checks or, preferably, an analytic argument for the near-boundary behavior of j_phi that proves the vanishing/non-vanishing of omega(theta).
  2. [Section 7, final paragraph] After finiteness of the flux narrows the admissible boundary conditions to theta = 0 and theta = pi, the authors select theta = 0 by invoking 'physical plausibility', which they equate with 'the formal requirement of continuity in the dependence on theta'. This criterion is not derived from any physical principle and is not made precise. The manuscript itself shows that theta = pi is charge-conjugation invariant and gives a finite flux for F != 1/2, and it explicitly reports a discontinuity in theta at F = 1/2, theta = pi (Eqs. (6.30)-(6.33)). If continuity in theta is merely an aesthetic or regularity preference, the unique-theta=0 conclusion should be presented as conditional on that preference; if it is a substantive physical requirement, it needs a clear justification that distinguishes it from the already acknowledged discontinuity at F = 1/2. As written, this step is a post hoc selection rule rather than a derived consequence of the model.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (2.22) and Section 6, Eq. (6.25)] The derivation of the flux convergence condition (6.26) assumes that the only possible divergence in Phi_I comes from the lower limit r -> r0, and that condition (6.26) is necessary and sufficient for finiteness of the total flux. This is plausible, but the paper does not discuss the behavior of j_phi for r very close to r0 in cases where the mode sum and the q-integral are exchanged, nor does it establish that no additional divergence arises from the upper limit for massive fields. The exponential decay statements in Section 7 address the upper limit for massive fields, but a short explicit verification that the integral representations for B_I permit the interchange needed for Eq. (6.25) would strengthen the argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Footnote 1] There is a typo: 'fermion numder fractionization' should read 'fermion number fractionization'.
  2. [Figure 1] The caption of Fig. 1 states that omega(theta) is the same for the listed parameter values, but the figure itself shows no axis labels or theta grid. Please add explicit axes, a legend, and a definition of the plotted quantity so the reader can see the parameter independence claimed in the text.
  3. [Section 6, Eq. (6.38)] The notation for the subscripts on C such as C_{1/2 + nu|F - 1/2|}(v) is dense and hard to parse, particularly in equations (6.38)-(6.40) and (D.12)-(D.14). Defining helper functions with explicit arguments would improve readability without changing the content.
  4. [Section 7, Eq. (7.2)] The charge-conjugation transformation C: Phi -> -Phi, E -> -E, Psi -> sigma_1 Psi^* should state explicitly how the vector-potential background is transformed under C, since the boundary condition transformation in Eq. (7.3) depends on this. The current text is understandable but would benefit from one clarifying sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the theta=0 selection is obtained by applying finiteness and continuity criteria to a self-contained spectral computation, not by fitting or by importing a load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained. The most general self-adjoint boundary condition is derived in Sections 2 and 4 from operator self-adjointness, the mode sums are evaluated in Section 5 and Appendices A-B, and the magnetic field and flux follow from the Maxwell equation in Section 6. The central selection of theta=0 is not an input: it is the output of applying two criteria, finiteness of the total induced flux and continuity in theta, to the computed flux. The finiteness condition (6.26) is checked numerically in Fig. 1 and Fig. 10; this is an evidence-quality and reproducibility concern because the numerical method and code are not supplied, but it is not circularity. The charge-conjugation step in Eq. (7.2)-(7.3) independently selects theta = pi/2 -/+ pi/2 by direct transformation of the boundary condition, and the numerical omega(theta) is then used to connect finiteness to those values; the two criteria are not defined in terms of the target conclusion. Self-citations such as [31,32,47] are used as special-case benchmarks, historical remarks, or comparisons, and they do not carry the derivation of the main theta=0 claim. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result is forced by construction or by a self-citation chain. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard QFT in a fixed conical background, a specific modeling assumption about impenetrability and self-adjoint boundary conditions, and two post hoc plausibility principles that select theta=0. No data are fitted; theta is a free boundary-condition parameter that the paper constrains.

free parameters (1)
  • theta (self-adjoint extension parameter)
    Continuous family of boundary conditions at the vortex core; initially a free mathematical parameter, ultimately restricted to theta=0 by finiteness and continuity requirements. Not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Spacetime outside the vortex core is conical with metric ds^2 = dr^2 + nu^{-2} r^2 dphi^2 + dz^2 (Eq. 1.2).
    This is the background geometry used throughout; nu is an input parameter.
  • domain assumption The vortex core is impenetrable for the spinor field, and the most general boundary conditions are those making the Dirac Hamiltonian self-adjoint, parameterized by theta (Eq. 4.7).
    Defines the admissible boundary-condition space that the paper scans.
  • domain assumption The induced magnetic field is obtained from the Maxwell equation curl B_I = e j (Eq. 2.6), and the total flux is Phi_I = (2 pi / nu) integral_{r0}^{infty} r B_I(r) dr (Eq. 2.22).
    The paper uses standard Maxwell dynamics for the induced field, with no backreaction.
  • standard math The vacuum current is defined as the regularized expectation value of the Dirac current (Eq. 2.5) with vacuum defined by a_E|vac> = b_E|vac> = 0 (Eq. 2.3).
    Standard canonical quantization of the spinor field.
  • ad hoc to paper The final boundary-condition selection uses post hoc principles: the total induced flux must be finite, and the dependence on theta must be continuous (physical plausibility).
    These principles are invoked in Sections 6 and 7 to narrow theta to 0; they are not derived from first principles.
  • standard math Known Bessel function identities, Schlaefli contour integral representations, and Weyl-von Neumann self-adjoint extension theory are used without proof.
    Standard mathematical background, cited from textbooks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Induced vacuum magnetic flux in quantum spinor matter in the background of a topological defect in two-dimensional space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2CIQ4YYJ

@misc{pith2026190802058,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Induced vacuum magnetic flux in quantum spinor matter in the background of a topological defect in two-dimensional space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2CIQ4YYJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02058}
}
abstract

A topological defect in the form of the Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen vortex is considered as a gauge-flux-carrying tube that is impenetrable for quantum matter. The relativistic spinor matter field is quantized in the vortex background in $2+1$-dimensional conical space-time which is a section orthogonal to the vortex axis; the most general set of boundary conditions ensuring the impenetrability of the vortex core is employed. We find the induced vacuum current circulating around the vortex and the induced vacuum magnetic field strength pointing along the vortex axis. The requirement of finiteness and physical plausibility for the total induced vacuum magnetic flux allows us to restrict the variety of admissible boundary conditions. The dependence of the results on the transverse size of the vortex, as well as on the vortex flux and the parameter of conicity, is elucidated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02058 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. ω(θ) = limr→r0 νrjϕ(r)  r − r0 r0 2 is the same at ν = 3/4, 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, mr0 = 10−5 , 10−3 , 10−2 , 10−1 , 1, and different values of F. By performing a numerical analysis, we find that quantity limr→r0 νrjϕ(r)  r − r0 r0 2 depends on θ, actually being independent of other parameters (F, ν and mr0); see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The dimensionless induced flux, e −1m ΦI | θ= π 2 ∓ π 2 , as a function of mr0 at ν = 1 and F = 0.7 (solid lines); the dashed line corresponds to the case of mr0 = 0. As follows from (5.31), jϕ(r)|F6= 1 2 , θ= π 2 ∓ π 2 and, consequently, ΦI |F6= 1 2 , θ= π 2 ∓ π 2 changes signs under F → 1 − F. To be more precise, the dimensionless induced vacuum magnetic flux, e −1m ΦI |F6= 1 2 , θ= π 2 ∓ π 2 , is positive at F > … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The dimensionless induced flux at θ = 0 as a function of F in the cases of mr0 = 0 (solid line), mr0 = 10−5 (dotted line), mr0 = 10−3 (dash-dotted line), and mr0 = 10−2 (dashed line): a) ν = 3/4, b) ν = 1, c) ν = 2, d) ν = 4. The point at F = 1/2 corresponds to the case of mr0 = 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The dimensionless induced flux at θ = 0 as a function of F in the cases of mr0 = 0 (solid lines) and mr0 = 10−3 (dashed lines). 29 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The dimensionless induced flux at θ = π as a function of F in the cases of mr0 = 0 (solid line), mr0 = 10−3 (dotted line), mr0 = 10−1 (dash-dotted line), and mr0 = 1 (dashed line): a) ν = 1, b) ν = 2, c) ν = 3, d) ν = 4. The points at F = 1/2 correspond to θ = π+ (posi…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The dimensionless induced flux at θ = π as a function of F: a) mr0 = 0 (solid lines) and mr0 = 10−1 (dashed lines), b) mr0 = 0 (solid lines) and mr0 = 5 (dashed line). current decreases exponentially as    p m/r exp(−2mr), 1 2 ≤ ν < 2, F 6= 1 2 m sin[(2F −1)π] s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The integral over real k in (A.4) is transformed into the integral over a contour in the complex k plane. With the help of these relations, j (1) ϕ (5.2) and j (2) ϕ (5.3) are presented as j (1) ϕ (r)=− r (2π) 2 Z∞ −∞ dk k2 √ k 2 + m2 X∞ l=1 [Iνl+1−G(−ikr)Kνl−G(−ikr)−I…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Complex z plane with simple poles indicated by crosses: a) contours C+ and C−, b) contour C0. Integrating over q and v, we get j (1,1) ϕ (r)=− m 8π 1 2πi Z C0 dz  1 + 1 2mrq − sinh2 (z/2)   exp  −2mrq − sinh2 (z/2) × cosh G− ν 2  z [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The integral over real k in (B.2) is transformed into the integral over a contour in the complex k plane. The sum in (B.3) is reduced to the form X sgn(E) X ± tan(µ1−G,±) ± 2i sin(Gπ) − cot(µ1−G,±) tan(µ1−G,±) + 2 cos(Gπ) + cot(µ1−G,±) = X ±  e ∓iGπ(h± − 1) − e ±iGπ(h…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ω(θ) in the case of the massless spinor field (solid line) and in the case of the massive spinor field (dashed line). and ΦI(rmax) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abrikosov, Sov

    A.A. Abrikosov, Sov. Phys.-JETP 5, 1174 (1957)

    work page 1957

  2. [2]

    Nielsen and P

    H.B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B 61, 45 (1973)

    work page 1973

  3. [3]

    Kibble, J

    T.W.B. Kibble, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 9, 1387 (1976)

    work page 1976

  4. [4]

    Kibble, Phys

    T.W.B. Kibble, Phys. Rep. 67, 183 (1980)

    work page 1980

  5. [5]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 23, 852 (1981)

    work page 1981

  6. [6]

    Vilenkin, Phys

    A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 24, 2082 (1981)

    1981

  7. [7]

    Zeldovich, Mon

    Ya.B. Zeldovich, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 192, 663 (1980)

    work page 1980

  8. [8]

    Battye, B

    R.A. Battye, B. Garbrecht, A. Moss, and H. Stoica, J. Cosmol. A stropart. Phys. JCAP 0801, 020 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Novoselov, D

    K.S. Novoselov, D. Jiang, F. Schedin, T.J. Booth, V.V. Khotkevich , S.V. Morozov, and A.K. Geim, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 10451 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Geim and K.S

    A.K. Geim and K.S. Novoselov, Nature Mater. 6, 183 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Katsnelson, Graphene: Carbon in Two Dimensions .(Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2012)

    M.I. Katsnelson, Graphene: Carbon in Two Dimensions .(Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    H. Heiberg-Andersen, Carbon nanonones, in Handbook of Theoretical and Computa- tional Nanotechnology (Rieth M., Schommers W., Eds.; American Scientific Publish- ers: Valencia, CA, 2006) pp. 507-517

    2006

  5. [13]

    Naess, A

    S.N. Naess, A. Elgsaeetter, G. Helgesen, and K.D. Knudsen, Sc i. Technol. Adv. Mat. 10, 065002 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Cahangirov, M

    S. Cahangirov, M. Topsakal, E. Akturk, H. Sahin, and S. Ciraci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 236804 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Liu, A.T

    H. Liu, A.T. Neal, Z. Zhu, Z. Luo, X. Xu, D. Tomanek, and P.D. Ye, ACS NANO 8, 4033 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Tsuei and J.R

    C.C. Tsuei and J.R. Kirtley, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 969 (2000)

    2000

  9. [17]

    Qi and S.C

    X.L. Qi and S.C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Aharonov and D

    Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959)

    1959

  11. [19]

    Dunne, Topological Aspects of Low Dimensional Systems (Springer, Berlin, 1999)

    G.V. Dunne, Topological Aspects of Low Dimensional Systems (Springer, Berlin, 1999)

    1999

  12. [20]

    Bezerra de Mello, V

    E.R. Bezerra de Mello, V. Bezerra, A.A. Saharian, and V.M. Barde ghyan, Phys. Rev. D 82, 085033 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    Bellucci, E.R

    S. Bellucci, E.R. Bezerra de Mello, and A.A. Saharian, Phys. Rev. D 83, 085017 (2011). 51

    2011

  14. [22]

    Bezerra de Mello, F

    E.R. Bezerra de Mello, F. Moraes, and A.A. Saharian, Phys. Rev. D 85, 045016 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Gorkavenko, I.V

    V.M. Gorkavenko, I.V. Ivanchenko, and Yu.A. Sitenko, Intern . J. Mod. Phys. A 31, 1650017 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Gorkavenko, Yu.A

    V.M. Gorkavenko, Yu.A. Sitenko, and O.B. Stepanov, J. Phys. A : Math. Theor. 43, 175401 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Gorkavenko, Yu.A

    V.M. Gorkavenko, Yu.A. Sitenko, and O.B. Stepanov, Intern. J . Mod. Phys. A 26, 3889 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Gorkavenko, Yu.A

    V.M. Gorkavenko, Yu.A. Sitenko, and O.B. Stepanov, Intern. J . Mod. Phys. A 28, 1350161 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantummechanik (Springer, Berlin, 1932)

    J. von Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantummechanik (Springer, Berlin, 1932)

    1932

  20. [28]

    Reed and B

    M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics II. Fourier Anal- ysis, Self-Adjointness (Academic Press, New York, 1975)

    1975

  21. [29]

    de Sousa Gerbert and R

    P. de Sousa Gerbert and R. Jackiw, Commun. Math. Phys. 124, 229 (1989)

    1989

  22. [30]

    de Sousa Gerbert, Phys

    P. de Sousa Gerbert, Phys. Rev. D 40, 1346 (1989)

    1989

  23. [31]

    Sitenko, Phys

    Yu.A. Sitenko, Phys. Lett. B 387, 334 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    Sitenko, Phys

    Yu.A. Sitenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 60, 2102 (1997); (E) 62, 1084 (1999)

    1997

  25. [33]

    Sitenko and D.G

    Yu.A. Sitenko and D.G. Rakityansky, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 60, 1497 (1997)

    1997

  26. [34]

    Sitenko, Phys

    Yu.A. Sitenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 62, 1056 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    Sitenko, Phys

    Yu.A. Sitenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 62, 1767 (1999)

    1999

  28. [36]

    Sitenko and N.D

    Yu.A. Sitenko and N.D. Vlasii, Nucl. Phys. B 787, 241 (2007)

    2007

  29. [37]

    Sitenko and N.D

    Yu.A. Sitenko and N.D. Vlasii, J. Phys. Conf. Series 129, 012008 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    Sitenko and N.D

    Yu.A. Sitenko and N.D. Vlasii, Low Temp. Phys. 34, 826 (2008) [Fiz. Nizk. Temp. 34, 1049 (2008)]

    2008

  31. [39]

    Sitenko and V.M

    Yu.A. Sitenko and V.M. Gorkavenko, Low Temp. Phys. 44, 1261 (2018) [Fiz. Nizk. Temp. 44, 1618 (2018)]

    2018

  32. [40]

    Johnson, Acta Phys

    K. Johnson, Acta Phys. Pol. B, 6, 865 (1975)

    1975

  33. [41]

    Alford, J

    M.G. Alford, J. March-Russel and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys. B 328, 140 (1989)

    1989

  34. [42]

    Prudnikov, Yu.A

    A.P. Prudnikov, Yu.A. Brychkov, and O.I. Marychev, Integrals and Series: Special Functions (Gordon & Breach, New York, 1986)

    1986

  35. [43]

    Sitenko and A.Yu

    Yu.A. Sitenko and A.Yu. Babansky, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 13, 379 (1998). 52

    1998

  36. [44]

    Sitenko and A.Yu

    Yu.A. Sitenko and A.Yu. Babansky, Phys. At. Nucl. 61, 1594 (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    Sitenko and N.D

    Yu.A. Sitenko and N.D. Vlasii, Class. Quantum Grav. 26, 195009 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Abramowitz and I.A

    M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun (Eds.), Handbook of Mathematical Functions (Dover, New York, 1972)

    1972

  39. [47]

    Sitenko, Ann

    Yu.A. Sitenko, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 282, 167 (2000). 53

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.