REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references
Ground State Wave Function Overlap in Superconductors and Superfluids
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the infinite-volume ground-state overlap gives a direct, gauge-invariant readout of which phase rotations are spontaneously broken in a condensate, with the superconducting charge rotation uniquely yielding overlap 1.
desk verdict A genuinely useful diagnostic with a real mathematical error in the core overlap derivation; worth refereeing, but the authors need to redo the matrix algebra and prove the all-orders claim. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the kernel-representation Gaussian ground state, defined in Eqs. (26)-(27) as a wavefunctional in the phase fields with a matrix kernel $M_k$, regulated in the UV by $e^{-k\epsilon}$ and evaluated in a finite volume before taking $V\to\infty$. Writing the kernel as $-\nabla^2 J(r)$ turns the overlap into a surface integral of $\nabla J$ at radius $R$, so only long-distance behavior matters. The small-$k$ expansion $\vec{\theta}^* M_k \vec{\theta} = a k(q_2\theta_1 - q_1\theta_2)^2 + b k^{3/2}(q_2\theta_1 - q_1\theta_2)(q_1\theta_1+q_2\theta_2) + c k^2(q_1\theta_1+q_2\theta_2)^2 + O(k^3)$ determines which phase directions survive: the electric direction $\alpha_j=q_j\epsilon$ cancels the long-range terms, while all other directions enter the boundary term and drive the overlap to zero.
What would settle it
For a two-species condensate with $q_1/m_1 \neq q_2/m_2$, numerically diagonalize $H_k$ at small nonzero $k$ and compare the true ground-state covariance to $M_k^{-1}$; if the exact $M$ has a finite $k$-term in the electric direction, the overlap for $\alpha_j = q_j \epsilon$ will not remain exactly $1$, and the paper's central distinction fails.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that the infinite-volume ground state overlap is a clear fingerprint of spontaneous symmetry breaking in a condensate. Expanding each Schrodinger field as $(v_j+\eta_j)e^{i\theta_j}$, integrating out the Coulomb potential, and writing the longitudinal Hamiltonian as $H_k^L = \tfrac12 \vec{\pi}^* K_k \vec{\pi} + \tfrac12 \vec{\theta}^* F_k \vec{\theta}$, the authors take the Gaussian ground state to be $\exp[-\tfrac12 \int \vec{\theta}^* M_k \vec{\theta}]$ with $M_k = K_k^{-1/4} F_k^{1/2} K_k^{-1/4}$. The overlap of two such states rotated by constants $\alpha_j$ is controlled by a surface term at radius $R$; it falls as $\exp[- (a/4)(4/3)R^2(q_2\alpha_1 - q_1\alpha_2)^2 + \cdots]$ for generic rotations, hence vanishes as $R\to\infty$, while for $\alpha_j = q_j\epsilon$ the dangerous leading combination $q_2\alpha_1 - q_1\alpha_2$ is zero and the overlap is exactly $1$. Thus electric phase rotations do not produce a new ground state, whereas mass rotations and other independent rotations do, matching the gapped plasma spectrum and screened electric field of a superconductor.
Load-bearing premise
The computation rests on the premise that the ground-state wavefunction matrix $M_k = K_k^{-1/4} F_k^{1/2} K_k^{-1/4}$ is the correct Gaussian solution of $H = \tfrac12 \pi^\dagger K \pi + \tfrac12 \theta^\dagger F \theta$; this is exact only when $K$ and $F$ commute, which fails for unequal charges and unequal masses.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Measuring or computing the infinite-volume ground-state overlap gives a phase criterion without a local order parameter: two broken directions signal a superfluid, one broken direction a superconductor, none a normal phase.
- The mass-conserving rotation always gives zero overlap, so even a superconductor retains a Goldstone phonon associated with mass conservation.
- Because the overlap is gauge invariant, it can be used in settings where expectation values like $\langle \Psi \rangle$ are gauge dependent or ill-defined.
- Finite-size systems acquire boundary effects such as Josephson currents, so the exact equality $\langle G|G'\rangle=1$ is a bulk statement.
Reading between the lines
- The overlap criterion should generalize to $N$ species: with $N$ independent phase rotations, the number of zero-overlap directions counts $N-1$ Goldstone modes in the superconducting phase and $N$ in the superfluid phase, while the charge direction stays unbroken.
- Applied to lattice or numerically generated ground states, the same boundary-kernel test could serve as a model-independent phase diagnostic without assuming a local order parameter.
- The divergence-theorem form of the overlap makes it sensitive only to infrared modes, suggesting that finite-size or disordered superconducting samples should exhibit small but nonzero overlap for the electric rotation, tied to the inverse system size and the inverse plasma mass.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper constructs the ground-state wave function for a two-species nonrelativistic Bose condensate, in both superfluid (neutral) and superconducting (charged) cases, and computes the overlap between ground states related by global phase rotations θ_j → θ_j + α_j. The central claim is that, with a specific UV-regulated position-space kernel prescription and the infinite-volume limit, the overlap vanishes for generic rotations (including the mass rotation α_j = m_j ε), while for the electric rotation α_j = q_j ε in a superconductor the overlap is exactly one, so that |G′⟩ = |G⟩. The authors conclude that the overlap behavior directly mirrors the Goldstone structure of the effective theory and provides a gauge-invariant diagnostic of the superconducting versus superfluid phase.
Significance. If the main computation were correct, the paper would offer a concrete, gauge-invariant diagnostic of the physical phase of a condensate, connecting ground-state overlap to the presence or absence of Goldstone modes. The question is well motivated, and the paper is clearly written, with explicit derivations of the quadratic Hamiltonian and the kernel representation. However, the central technical step—the matrix exponent of the quadratic ground state—is in error, and the claimed all-orders vanishing for the electric rotation is not demonstrated. Moreover, the special role of the electric rotation is substantially a restatement of the Gauss-law constraint Q|G⟩ = 0, which reduces the novelty of the result. The paper currently does not provide a reliable derivation of its headline quantitative formulas, although the qualitative distinction between superfluid and superconductor may survive a corrected calculation.
major comments (3)
- [V, Eq. (27)] The ground-state exponent matrix M_k for the Hamiltonian H_k = (1/2)π† K_k π + (1/2)θ† F_k θ is asserted to be M_k = K_k^{-1/4} F_k^{1/2} K_k^{-1/4}. This expression is the correct Gaussian width only when K_k and F_k commute. The general positive solution of the equation M K M = F is M = K^{-1/2} (K^{1/2} F K^{1/2})^{1/2} K^{-1/2}. In the superconducting case, K_k in Eq. (23) contains off-diagonal terms q_1 q_2/k^2, while F_k in Eq. (24) is diagonal, so the matrices do not commute. Consequently, the small-k expansions in Eqs. (32)-(36) and the overlap formula in Eq. (55) are not derived from the correct ground-state wave function.
- [VI B, after Eq. (58)] The claim that the electric rotation α_j = q_j ε leaves the overlap exactly equal to one is not proven. The sentence 'we have checked that it vanishes for all higher order contributions' is an unsupported assertion, and the check would need to be redone with the correct M_k. In particular, the k^{3/2} off-diagonal term in Eq. (32) appears to be an artifact of the incorrect matrix square root; the correct solution may have a different small-k off-diagonal structure. Therefore the exact statement |G′⟩ = |G⟩ for the electric rotation is not established by the present derivation.
- [VII A-B, Eqs. (70)-(71)] The physical explanation that Q = ∮ dS · E = 0 for localized configurations leads to Q|G⟩ = 0 and hence |G′⟩ = e^{iQ}|G⟩ = |G⟩ indicates that the electric-rotation overlap result is essentially a consequence of the Gauss-law constraint rather than an independent prediction of the overlap computation. The paper should explicitly separate this consistency check from the genuinely new diagnostic content of the overlap, and should verify that the overlap computation with the corrected M_k is compatible with this constraint.
minor comments (4)
- [I, Introduction] There are typos in the introduction, including 'a a breakdown' and 'the the wave function'; these should be corrected.
- [VI, Eq. (42)] In Eq. (42) the proportionality factor is left implicit, and the normalization N in Eq. (55) is the numerator with α_j = 0, which is also divergent in the R → ∞ limit; the limiting procedure should be stated more carefully to avoid ambiguity in the ratio.
- [VII C, Eq. (73)] The statement that the sum over j must include the heavy nuclei for the mass-conservation argument is not reflected in the notation of Eq. (73), which may confuse readers about which species are included in the sum.
- [V, Eq. (27)] The authors should cite standard results for Gaussian ground states of coupled harmonic oscillators with noncommuting kinetic and potential matrices, which would clarify the conditions under which the simplified square-root formula applies.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the overlap computation is derived from the stated Hamiltonian; minor self-citations are methodological and not load-bearing.
full rationale
The paper's claimed derivation chain is self-contained: the matrices K_k and F_k are read off from the quadratic Hamiltonian (Eqs. 23-25), the ground-state width is constructed from them (Eqs. 26-27), and the infinite-volume overlap is evaluated as a Gaussian integral with an explicit position-space kernel and UV regulator (Eqs. 38-55). I find no step in which the conclusion is equivalent to an input by construction or in which a fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The special rotation alpha_j = q_j epsilon is distinguished by the charge structure in K_k and by the Gauss-law statement Q|G>=0, but the overlap is not fitted to this outcome; it is computed from the kernel. The self-citations to Ref. [11] (for example, 'as we did in Ref. [11]' in Sec. VI) are methodological and not load-bearing, because the kernel prescription is re-defined in this paper and no uniqueness theorem is imported. Two correctness concerns are worth separating from circularity: Eq. (27) is only the correct matrix square root when K_k and F_k commute, which is not generally true for q1 different from q2, and the statement in Sec. VI B that 'we have checked that it vanishes for all higher order contributions' is an asserted cancellation rather than a demonstrated one. These may undermine the derivation, but they are mathematical or completeness failures, not reductions of the result to its inputs. Accordingly the circularity score is low.
Assumptions & free parameters
assumptions (6)
- domain assumption The nonrelativistic effective Lagrangian with quartic self-interactions and minimal electromagnetic coupling describes superfluid and superconducting ground states.
- standard math The ground state of the quadratic fluctuation Hamiltonian is a Gaussian in phase variables.
- ad hoc to paper The matrix M_k = K_k^{-1/4} F_k^{1/2} K_k^{-1/4} is the ground-state covariance for H = 1/2 pi^dagger K pi + 1/2 theta^dagger F theta.
- ad hoc to paper The infinite-volume ground states are defined by the position-space kernel with UV regulator epsilon, taking epsilon to zero before volume to infinity.
- domain assumption Heavy nuclei provide a fixed neutral background and do not participate in phase fluctuations.
- domain assumption The infrared small-k expansion of M_k controls the overlap in the R to infinity limit; terms with Fourier transform delta(r) do not contribute.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Ground State Wave Function Overlap in Superconductors and Superfluids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EELD6I6L
@misc{pith2026190804892,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Ground State Wave Function Overlap in Superconductors and Superfluids},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EELD6I6L}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04892}
}
abstract
In order to elucidate the quantum ground state structure of non-relativistic condensates, we explicitly construct the ground state wave function for multiple species of bosons, describing either superconductivity or superfluidity. Since each field $\Psi_j$ carries a phase $\theta_j$ and the Lagrangian is invariant under rotations $\theta_j \to \theta_j + \alpha_j$ for independent $\alpha_j$, one can investigate the corresponding wave function overlap between a pair of ground states $\langle G|G'\rangle$ differing by these phases. We operate in the infinite volume limit and use a particular prescription to define these states by utilizing the position space kernel and regulating the UV modes. We show that this overlap vanishes for most pairs of rotations, including $\theta_j \to \theta_j + m_j \epsilon$, where $m_j$ is the mass of each species, while it is unchanged under the transformation $\theta_j \to \theta_j + q_j \epsilon$, where $q_j$ is the charge of each species. We explain that this is consistent with the distinction between a superfluid, in which there is a non-trivial conserved number, and the superconductor, in which the electric field and conserved charge is screened, while it is compatible with a non-zero order parameter in both cases. Moreover, we find that this bulk ground state wave function overlap directly reflects the Goldstone boson structure of the effective theory and provides a useful diagnostic of its physical phase.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,
F. Englert and R. Brout, “Broken Symmetry and the Mass of Gauge Vector Mesons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 321 (1964)
work page 1964
-
[2]
Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,
P. W. Higgs, “Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 508 (1964). 11
work page 1964
-
[3]
Global Con- servation Laws and Massless Particles,
G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen and T. W. B. Kibble, “Global Con- servation Laws and Massless Particles,” Phys. Rev. Lett.13, 585 (1964)
work page 1964
-
[4]
Spontaneous symmetry breaking, gauge theo- ries, the Higgs mechanism and all that,
J. Bernstein, “Spontaneous symmetry breaking, gauge theo- ries, the Higgs mechanism and all that,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 46, 7 (1974). Erratum: [Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 259 (1975)] Erratum: [Rev. Mod. Phys. 46, 855 (1974)]
work page 1974
-
[5]
Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Local Gauge Quantum Field Theory: The Higgs Mechanism,
F. Strocchi, “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Local Gauge Quantum Field Theory: The Higgs Mechanism,” Commun. Math. Phys. 56, 57 (1977)
work page 1977
-
[6]
Higgs Mechanism and Symmetry Breaking without Redundant Variables
D. Stoll and M. Thies, “Higgs mechanism and symmetry break- ing without redundant variables,” hep-th/9504068
-
[7]
(Non-)Aligned gauges and global gauge symmetry breaking
A. Maas, “(Non-)Aligned gauges and global gauge sym- metry breaking,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 27, 1250222 (2012) [arXiv:1205.0890 [hep-th]]
work page Pith review arXiv 2012
-
[8]
Spontaneous symmetry breaking in gauge theories,
T. W. B. Kibble, “Spontaneous symmetry breaking in gauge theories,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 373, no. 2032, 20140033 (2014)
work page 2014
Show all 52 references
-
[9]
Symmetries, Symmetry Breaking, Gauge Symme- tries,
F. Strocchi, “Symmetries, Symmetry Breaking, Gauge Symme- tries,” arXiv:1502.06540 [physics.hist-ph]
-
[10]
Brout-Englert-Higgs physics: From foundations to phenomenology,
A. Maas, “Brout-Englert-Higgs physics: From foundations to phenomenology,” arXiv:1712.04721 [hep-ph]
-
[11]
Counting of States in Higgs Theories,
M. P. Hertzberg and M. Jain, “Counting of States in Higgs Theories,” Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 6, 065015 (2019) [arXiv:1807.05233 [hep-th]]
2019 arXiv
-
[12]
The quantum theory of fields
– that one cannot spontaneously break a local, or “small”, gauge symmetry (which is obvious since they are always only redundancies). In this work, we turn our attention to nonrelativistic con- densed matter systems. In particular we will focus on multi- fluid systems of bosons...
1908 arXiv
-
[13]
Impossibility of Spontaneously Breaking Local Symmetries,
S. Elitzur, “Impossibility of Spontaneously Breaking Local Symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D12, 3978 (1975)
1975
-
[14]
Theory of the Superfluidity of Helium II,
L. Landau, “Theory of the Superfluidity of Helium II,” Phys. Rev. 60, 356 (1941)
1941
-
[15]
V . L. Ginzburg and L. D. Landau, ”On the theory of supercon- ductivity”. J. Exp. Theor. Phys.20 1064 (1950)
1950
-
[16]
Theory of su- perconductivity,
J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper and J. R. Schrieffer, “Theory of su- perconductivity,” Phys. Rev.108, 1175 (1957)
1957
-
[17]
Theory of Superconductivity,
J. R. Schrieffer, “Theory of Superconductivity,” New York: W. A. Benjamin (1964)
1964
-
[18]
Superfluidity and Superconductivity,
R. P. Feynman, “Superfluidity and Superconductivity,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 205 (1957)
1957
-
[19]
F. W. London, ”Macroscopic Theory of Superconductivity”. Dover (2005)
2005
-
[20]
A theoretical description of the new phases of liquid He-3,
A. J. Leggett, “A theoretical description of the new phases of liquid He-3,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 331 (1975) Erratum: [Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 357 (1976)]
1975
-
[21]
Experimental properties of superfluid He-3,
J. C. Wheatley, “Experimental properties of superfluid He-3,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 415 (1975)
1975
-
[22]
Phenomenological theory of superfluidity and superconductivity,
M. Rabinowitz, “Phenomenological theory of superfluidity and superconductivity,” Int. J. Theor. Phys.33 389 (1994)
1994
-
[23]
Basic superfluids
A. M. Guenault, “Basic superfluids”, London: Taylor & Francis (2003)
2003
-
[24]
Superconductivity, superfluids, and condensates,
J. F. Annett, “Superconductivity, superfluids, and condensates,” Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press (2005)
2005
-
[25]
Introduction to Superfluidity: Field-theoretical ap- proach and applications,
A. Schmitt, “Introduction to Superfluidity: Field-theoretical ap- proach and applications,” Lect. Notes Phys. 888, pp.1 (2015) [arXiv:1404.1284 [hep-ph]]
2015 arXiv
-
[26]
A Review of Theories of Superconductivity. In: Superconductivity,
R. G. Sharma, “A Review of Theories of Superconductivity. In: Superconductivity,” Springer Series in Materials Science, vol
-
[27]
Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Nambu- Goldstone Bosons in Quantum Many-Body Systems,
T. Brauner, “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Nambu- Goldstone Bosons in Quantum Many-Body Systems,” Symme- try 2, 609 (2010) [arXiv:1001.5212 [hep-th]]
2010 arXiv
-
[28]
Unconventional Superconductivity,
G. R. Stewart, “Unconventional Superconductivity,” Adv. in Phys. 66, 75-196 (2017)
2017
-
[29]
Implications of Relativity on Non- relativistic Goldstone Theorems: Gapped Excitations at Fi- nite Charge Density,
A. Nicolis and F. Piazza, “Implications of Relativity on Non- relativistic Goldstone Theorems: Gapped Excitations at Fi- nite Charge Density,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, no. 1, 011602 (2013) Addendum: [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 039901 (2013)] [arXiv:1204.1570 [hep-th]]
2013 arXiv
-
[30]
Unified Description of Nambu-Goldstone Bosons without Lorentz Invariance,
H. Watanabe and H. Murayama, “Unified Description of Nambu-Goldstone Bosons without Lorentz Invariance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 251602 (2012) [arXiv:1203.0609 [hep-th]]
2012 arXiv
-
[31]
The Quantum Theory of Fields, vol II,
S. Weinberg, “The Quantum Theory of Fields, vol II,” Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge (1985)
1985
-
[32]
Effective Lagrangian for Nonrelativistic Systems,
H. Watanabe and H. Murayama, “Effective Lagrangian for Nonrelativistic Systems,” Phys. Rev. X4, no. 3, 031057 (2014) [arXiv:1402.7066 [hep-th]]
2014 arXiv
-
[33]
Physics 636 Graduate Solid State II
C. Henley, “Physics 636 Graduate Solid State II” Lect. Notes (2012)
2012
-
[34]
Is electromagnetic gauge invariance spontaneously violated in superconductors?
M. Greiter, “Is electromagnetic gauge invariance spontaneously violated in superconductors?” Annals Phys. 319 217 (2005)
2005
-
[35]
Superconductivity, Broken Gauge Symme- try, and the Higgs Mechanism,
N. R. Poniatowski, “Superconductivity, Broken Gauge Symme- try, and the Higgs Mechanism,” Amer. J. Phys.87, 436 (2019)
2019
-
[36]
What symmetry is broken in the superconductor-normal phase transition?
A. Kovner and B. Rosenstein, “What symmetry is broken in the superconductor-normal phase transition?” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 4, 2903 (1992)
1992
-
[37]
Meissner Effect,
G. Wentzel, “Meissner Effect,” Phys. Rev.111, 1488 (1958)
1958
-
[38]
Beyond the Standard Model theory,
N. Arkani-Hamed, “Beyond the Standard Model theory,” Phys. Scr. 2013 014023 (2013)
2013
-
[39]
J. E. Hirsch, ”The origin of the Meissner effect in new and old superconductors,” Phys. Scripta.85 (2012) [arXiv:1201.0139]
2012 arXiv
-
[40]
Meissner effect, diamagnetism, and classical physics - a review,
H. Essen, M. C. N. Fiolhais, “Meissner effect, diamagnetism, and classical physics - a review,” Am. J. Phys. 80 (2) (2012) [arXiv:1109.1968]
2012 arXiv
-
[41]
The discovery of tunnelling supercurrents,
B. D. Josephson, “The discovery of tunnelling supercurrents,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 46 2 (1974)
1974
-
[42]
Possible new effects in superconductive tun- nelling,
B. D. Josephson, “Possible new effects in superconductive tun- nelling,” Phys. Lett.1, 7, 251 (1962)
1962
-
[43]
Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces,
H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces,” Phys. Rev. Lett.32, 438 (1974)
1974
-
[44]
Nature of symmetry breaking in the superconducting ground state,
K. Matsuyama and J. Greensite, “Nature of symmetry breaking in the superconducting ground state,” Phys. Rev. B 100, no.18, 184513 (2019) [arXiv:1905.09406 [cond-mat.supr-con]]
2019 arXiv
-
[45]
Grand Unified Theories,
G. Ross, “Grand Unified Theories,” Westview Press (1984)
1984
-
[46]
Unified Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,
H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, “Unified Interactions of Leptons and Hadrons,” Annals Phys.93, 193 (1975)
1975
-
[47]
The Pseudo-Conformal Uni- verse: Scale Invariance from Spontaneous Breaking of Con- formal Symmetry,
K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury, “The Pseudo-Conformal Uni- verse: Scale Invariance from Spontaneous Breaking of Con- formal Symmetry,” JCAP 1204, 023 (2012) [arXiv:1106.1428 [hep-th]]
2012 arXiv
-
[48]
Modified gravity via spontaneous symmetry breaking,
B. M. Gripaios, “Modified gravity via spontaneous symmetry breaking,” JHEP0410, 069 (2004) [hep-th/0408127]
2004 arXiv
-
[49]
Theory of self-resonance after inflation. I. Adiabatic and isocurvature Goldstone modes,
M. P. Hertzberg, J. Karouby, W. G. Spitzer, J. C. Becerra and L. Li, “Theory of self-resonance after inflation. I. Adiabatic and isocurvature Goldstone modes,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 123528 (2014) [arXiv:1408.1396 [hep-th]]
2014 arXiv
-
[50]
Spontaneous symmetry breaking in inflation- ary cosmology: on the fate of Goldstone Bosons,
D. Boyanovsky, “Spontaneous symmetry breaking in inflation- ary cosmology: on the fate of Goldstone Bosons,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 023509 (2012) [arXiv:1205.3761 [astro-ph.CO]]
2012 arXiv
-
[52]
Spontaneously Broken Spacetime Symmetries and the Role of Inessential Goldstones,
R. Klein, D. Roest and D. Stefanyszyn, “Spontaneously Broken Spacetime Symmetries and the Role of Inessential Goldstones,” JHEP 1710, 051 (2017) [arXiv:1709.03525 [hep-th]]
2017 arXiv
-
[214]
Springer, Cham (2015)
2015
Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.