Short-scale quantum kinetic theory including spin-orbit interactions

Gert Brodin; Haidar Al-Naseri; Jens Zamanian; Robin Ekman

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Short-scale quantum kinetic theory including spin-orbit interactions

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper claims that the phase-space evolution of a spin-1/2 plasma can be captured by a single scalar kinetic equation that retains spin-orbit interaction, hidden momentum, Thomas precession, and a new nonlinear spin torque to all…

desk verdict Solid incremental theory paper with one real gap: the coefficient of the new nonlinear spin-torque term is asserted via an impossible matching, so reviewers should demand the Hurst et al. comparison or the missing derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05131 v1 pith:JFLOV33M submitted 2019-08-14 physics.plasm-ph

Robin Ekman , Haidar Al-Naseri , Jens Zamanian , Gert Brodin This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.25.Dg52.27.Ny52.25.Xz03.50.De03.65.Sq03.30.+p

keywords quantumkinetictheoryspin-orbitinteractionWignerfunctionspin-1/2plasmaLandaudampinghiddenmomentumelectrostaticwaveselectromagnetic

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

The paper tries to establish a quantum kinetic theory for spin-1/2 plasmas valid down to scales of the order of the de Broglie length, including spin-orbit interaction. Starting from a semi-relativistic Pauli Hamiltonian and a gauge-invariant Wigner function, it derives one scalar phase-space equation for the full spin distribution. The equation generalizes previous long-scale and Pauli-based kinetic models and contains a term that depends on both electric and magnetic fields, plus hidden-momentum corrections. As a demonstration, the paper derives linear dispersion relations for electrostatic waves in a magnetized plasma and electromagnetic waves in an unmagnetized plasma, showing a magnetic-field-dependent resonance shift and a spin-dominated regime of Landau damping. If correct, the model supplies a common short-scale framework for quantum plasma effects.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the combination of a gauge-invariant Wigner function with a Husimi-Q spin transform, applied to a semi-relativistic Pauli Hamiltonian with a symmetrized spin-orbit term. The Wigner function is built from the operator $\hat{T}(u,v)=\exp[i(u\cdot\hat{\pi}+v\cdot\hat{x})/\hbar]$, whose Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff forms let commutators with the fields be expressed as differential operators in $\partial_p$ and $\partial_x$ acting on $\hat{W}$. The spin transform $f=(1/4\pi)\operatorname{tr}[(1+s\cdot\sigma)W]$ converts the matrix-valued Wigner function into a scalar distribution on $(x,p,s)$. The machinery delivers the kinetic equation (58), in which fields appear as Weyl-ordered averaged quantities $\tilde{E}$, $\tilde{B}$, $\Delta\tilde{E}$, $\Delta\tilde{B}$, $\Delta\tilde{p}$ defined through integrals over $x\pm i\hbar\tau\partial_p$; these objects encode the all-orders-in-$\hbar$ dispersive effects and maintain gauge invariance. The same operators produce the hidden-momentum current and the polarization and magnetization closures.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a short-scale measurement or first-principles calculation of the damping of parallel-propagating electrostatic waves in a magnetized spin-1/2 plasma: the model predicts resonances at $\omega=kp_z/m\pm\Delta\omega_c\pm\hbar k^2/2m$ with $\Delta\omega_c=\omega_{cg}-\omega_{ce}$, so observing no magnetic-field dependence of the resonance, or a different shift, would rule out Eq. (58). A second test would be to compare Eq. (58) with an independent short-scale kinetic theory retaining the full Dirac structure, which would reveal whether the new nonlinear spin-torque term survives beyond the semi-relativistic approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the evolution equation (58) correctly describes the phase-space distribution of a spin-1/2 plasma, retaining particle dispersive effects to all orders in $\hbar$. The equation results from a gauge-invariant Wigner transformation followed by a spin transform, and is closed by Maxwell's equations with polarization and magnetization densities. Compared with Ref. [13], the new equation adds five spin-orbit terms: hidden-momentum corrections to velocity and magnetic force, the spin-orbit force, spin torque including Thomas precession, and a nonlinear spin-torque term proportional to $(\tilde{B}\times \hbar\partial_p)\times(\tilde{E}\,\overset{\leftarrow}{\nabla}_x\cdot\overset{\rightarrow}{\nabla}_p)$. The sign and coefficient of the last term are fixed by matching the long-scale limit to Ref. [19]. From this equation, the paper derives the electrostatic dispersion relation whose spin-resonance denominators contain $\Delta\omega_c=\omega_{cg}-\omega_{ce}$, nonzero because the gyromagnetic ratio differs from 2, and the electromagnetic dispersion relation with three susceptibility contributions. These results imply that Landau damping can be dominated by spin-orbit effects at long wavelengths and by free-current effects at shorter wavelengths.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation rests on the semi-relativistic Pauli Hamiltonian with a specific symmetric ordering of the spin-orbit term and on the stated applicability conditions for that limit (fields well below the critical field and spatial scales much longer than the Compton length); if a different operator ordering or additional relativistic corrections is needed near the de Broglie length, Eq. (58) and the wave results would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If Eq. (58) is correct, the Pauli-based kinetic model and the long-scale spin-orbit model both become limiting cases of a single short-scale theory.
For electrostatic waves propagating parallel to a magnetic field, the resonance condition gains magnetic-field dependence through $\omega-kp_z/m\pm\Delta\omega_c\pm\hbar k^2/2m=0$, so Landau damping is modified even for parallel propagation.
The spin-orbit contribution to the damping ratio dominates at long wavelengths, while the free-current contribution dominates at shorter wavelengths, with the transition controlled by the normalized magnetic field and the quantum parameter.
For electromagnetic waves in an unmagnetized plasma, spin terms couple transverse and longitudinal degrees of freedom, and the quantum corrections involve the free-particle denominator $\omega^2-\hbar^2 k^4/4m^2$.
The model closes self-consistently with Maxwell's equations through hidden-momentum-corrected free current and polarization and magnetization densities, enabling linear and nonlinear wave calculations.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test would be to measure the magnetic-field-dependent shift of the Landau damping resonance in parallel-propagating electrostatic waves in a dense, weakly relativistic plasma; the shift scales with $\Delta\omega_c=\omega_{cg}-\omega_{ce}$ and would vanish only for a gyromagnetic ratio exactly 2.
Because Eq. (58) retains all orders in $\hbar$, it could serve as the starting point for computing ponderomotive forces and radiation-pressure corrections from spin-orbit coupling at short scales, extending earlier long-scale results.
The agreement with an independently derived model based on the same Hamiltonian [30] suggests the new nonlinear spin-torque term is not an artifact of the Wigner-spin-transform route; if the two derivations diverged at higher orders, the difference would isolate ordering choices in the Hamiltonian.
A comparison against a fully Lorentz-covariant kinetic theory in the regime $\hbar\omega_p/mv_{th}^2\sim 1$ would show whether the order-$\hbar^2$ nonlinear spin-torque term survives beyond the semi-relativistic approximation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a legitimate extension of existing spin-kinetic theory, but the novelty is narrower than the abstract implies. The central equation Eq. (58) is, as the authors themselves say, equivalent to Hurst et al. (2017), up to the anomalous magnetic moment. What is genuinely new is the g != 2 generalization and the explicit linear-wave calculations showing a magnetic-field-dependent resonance and spin-orbit contribution to Landau damping.

What I liked: the derivation is mostly careful, and the use of a scalar phase-space function via the Husimi spin transform is a nice way to make the theory usable. The authors cross-check against Hurst et al. and recover previous long-wavelength limits. The comparison of damping rates (Fig. 1) is physically clear. The identification of Delta_omega_c = omega_cg - omega_ce as a new resonance condition is a real result, and the discussion of energy-momentum conservation for the resonance is helpful.

The soft spot: the coefficient of the new nonlinear spin-torque term in Eq. (58) is not derived. In Section II C the text says 'the overall sign and coefficient of this term is found by matching its long-scale limit to the model in Ref. [19].' That cannot be right. The term is explicitly described as 'of a new type' and later as 'lacks an analog in Ref. [19]', and it contains a gradient of E, so in the long-scale limit it vanishes. You cannot fix a coefficient by matching to a model that does not contain the term. This matters because the coefficient enters the linearized spin torque in Eq. (68) and propagates into the B_+- amplitudes and the susceptibility (77), hence into the damping rates. If the coefficient were off by a sign or a factor, the wave predictions would change.

The authors say Hurst et al. also find this term and that the results agree 'up to trivial transformations.' If that is true, it closes the gap. But the comparison is not shown. A referee should ask for it explicitly, or for a completed derivation of that term.

Other issues are minor: Section II C is an outline with several 'readily' steps; the abstract slightly overstates the novelty relative to Hurst et al.; there is a typesetting error in the definition of mu_e (mu_e = g 2 mu_B should be (g/2) mu_B). The self-citations to Refs. [13,19] are legitimate, since those are the baselines being generalized.

Verdict: I would send this to peer review. It is a solid paper with real, if incremental, new results. The missing coefficient derivation is the one thing that must be addressed before publication; if the authors can supply the Hurst et al. mapping or the missing steps, I would accept it.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript derives a scalar kinetic equation for a spin-1/2 plasma from the semi-relativistic Pauli Hamiltonian with spin-orbit coupling, using a gauge-invariant Wigner transform and a Husimi Q-function for the spin. The central result, Eq. (58), retains particle dispersive effects to all orders in ℏ and contains, in addition to previously known spin effects, a new spin-torque term that is nonlinear in the fields. The paper then linearizes Eq. (58) around magnetized and unmagnetized equilibria, derives electrostatic and electromagnetic dispersion relations, and computes the ratio Γ of spin-orbit to total Landau damping. The final section discusses the relation of the model to the independent model of Hurst et al.

Significance. If Eq. (58) is correct, the paper is a substantial step: it extends the long-wavelength model of Asenjo et al. [19] to scales comparable to the de Broglie length and generalizes the Pauli-based kinetic theory of Zamanian et al. [13] to include spin-orbit effects. The linear-wave analysis yields concrete, falsifiable predictions, in particular the magnetic-field-dependent resonance Δωc and the damping ratio Γ. The gauge-invariant construction and the recovery of earlier long-wavelength limits are strengths, and the claimed independent agreement with Hurst et al. [30] would provide a valuable cross-check. However, the most novel term in Eq. (58) is not fully derived in the manuscript, and the explanation of how its coefficient is fixed is internally inconsistent; the linear-wave results inherit this uncertainty.

major comments (3)

[Sec. II C (after Eq. (57)) and Sec. II D] The statement that 'the overall sign and coefficient of this term is found by matching its long-scale limit to the model in Ref. [19]' cannot be correct for the new term in Eq. (58). That term is proportional to (B×ℏ∂p)×(Eℏ←∇x·→∇p), which contains a gradient of E and vanishes in the long-scale limit. Moreover, Sec. II D explicitly states that this term 'lacks an analog in Ref. [19]'. A quantity that is absent from the reference model and that vanishes in the matched limit cannot determine the sign or coefficient of the term. The coefficient enters the linearized amplitudes B± in Eq. (74) and hence the susceptibilities in Eqs. (76)-(77), so the dispersion and damping predictions depend on exactly this underived coefficient. The authors should either complete the calculation outlined in Sec. II C so that the coefficient follows from the commutator algebra, or provide an explicit equation-by-equation comparison with Hurst et al. [30] showing that the same coefficient is obtained.
[Sec. II A-II C] The derivation of Eq. (58) is only presented as an outline after Eq. (49). The 'new type' contribution in Eq. (57) is obtained through a chain of substitutions summarized as 'following steps like those for OB' and 'when taking the real part', with no intermediate expressions showing how operator ordering and signs are handled. Since Eq. (58) is the central object of the paper and the new term has no analog in Refs. [13] or [19], the omitted algebra is load-bearing rather than a presentation issue. The manuscript should include the missing steps, or at least a detailed appendix; otherwise the new spin-torque term should be regarded as a conjecture rather than a derived result.
[Sec. IV and Ref. [30]] The claimed agreement with Hurst et al. is stated verbally but never demonstrated. Section IV concludes that the model is equivalent to Ref. [30] 'apart from the small but significant detail' of the anomalous magnetic moment, and Section II D says that Hurst et al. 'also find the new non-linear term in the spin torque'. Without an explicit mapping of the two kinetic equations, including the different sign convention for the charge noted in Ref. [31], the agreement cannot be checked. Given that the coefficient of the new term is the main gap in the derivation, the comparison should be shown in detail.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Sec. III B] The phrase 'in a unmagnetized plasma' should read 'in an unmagnetized plasma' in the abstract and in the heading of Section III B.
[Eqs. (59)-(61)] The notation involving ∇s in Eq. (58) is not defined before use; from context it is the gradient in spin variable, but it should be written explicitly, e.g., as ∇_s, to distinguish it from the coordinate gradient ∇x.
[Eq. (58) and Sec. II C] The notation (B×ℏ∂p)×·(Eℏ←∇x·→∇p) is non-standard; the meaning of the '×·' symbol and the operator ordering should be explained when the term is introduced.
[After Eq. (57)] The sentence 'both are order ℏ^2' appears inconsistent with Eq. (56), whose prefactor Δp is first order in ℏ; the authors should clarify the order counting or correct the statement.
[Appendix A] The integrals in Eq. (A1)-(A3) are written with both limits equal to 1/2; they should be from -1/2 to 1/2.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The sign and coefficient of the new spin-torque term are assigned by matching to a self-cited model that, per the paper itself, has no analog for that term.

ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section II C, after Eq. (57), and Section II D]
"The overall sign and coeﬃcient of this term is found by matching its long-scale limit to the model in Ref. [19] ... This term lacks an analog in Ref. [19]; the others are short-scale generalizations of terms found in Ref [19]."

The only justification offered for the sign and coefficient of the genuinely new nonlinear spin-torque term is a match to Ref. [19], a paper co-authored by two of the present authors. But the paper simultaneously states that this term has no analog in Ref. [19], so that model cannot determine the coefficient. The novel, load-bearing quantity is therefore imported from an unexhibited self-citation rather than derived from the Hamiltonian calculation. Because this coefficient enters B± in Eq. (74) and hence the electrostatic susceptibilities (77) and damping rates (79), the later linear-wave predictions inherit an undetermined input, so the claimed short-scale prediction is not independent of the self-cited benchmark.

full rationale

The bulk of the derivation is a self-contained Wigner-Moyal calculation from the stated Pauli Hamiltonian (1), and the paper cites an independent derivation by Hurst et al. [30] that, by the paper's account, agrees with Eq. (58), including the new spin-torque term. That external agreement provides real support for the central kinetic equation, so the central result does not reduce by construction to its inputs. However, the coefficient of the new term is justified only by matching to Ref. [19], a self-citation whose content, according to the paper's own Section II D, excludes that term. This is a load-bearing self-citation gap in the most novel part of Eq. (58), and it propagates into the dispersion and damping predictions. This is a partial circularity/unsupported-input issue rather than a full reduction of the prediction to its input, so the score is moderate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the stated Pauli Hamiltonian, the Wigner/Stratonovich formalism, and the Foldy-Wouthuysen validity conditions. No free parameters are fitted; physical constants are inputs. The sign/coefficient of the new nonlinear term is calibrated against Ref. [19], a self-citation, but the equivalence with Hurst et al. [30] provides independent support.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The Pauli Hamiltonian with the symmetric spin-orbit interaction, Eq. (1), is the correct starting point for a weakly relativistic electron.
The whole theory is built from this Hamiltonian; a different spin-orbit ordering would produce a different kinetic equation.
standard math The gauge-invariant Wigner function and Stratonovich spin transform are valid quantum phase-space representations.
The derivation uses the formalism of Refs. [22,23]; these are established techniques.
domain assumption The Foldy-Wouthuysen applicability conditions hold: pair production negligible (E << E_cr) and spatial scales much longer than the Compton length.
These conditions are stated in Section I and define the regime of validity.
domain assumption In the linear wave analysis, the homogeneous background distribution depends only on p_perp, p_z, and cos(theta_s), and the perturbation is a plane wave.
This symmetry ansatz is used in Section III to expand in eigenfunctions.
ad hoc to paper The long-scale limit of the new spin-torque term is matched to Ref. [19] to fix sign and coefficient.
Section II C says the sign/coefficient is found by matching to Ref. [19]; this is an external calibration rather than a first-principles determination.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Short-scale quantum kinetic theory including spin-orbit interactions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JFLOV33M

@misc{pith2026190805131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Short-scale quantum kinetic theory including spin-orbit interactions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JFLOV33M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05131}
}

abstract

We present a quantum kinetic theory for spin-$1/2$ particles, including the spin-orbit interaction, retaining particle dispersive effects to all orders in $\hbar$, based on a gauge-invariant Wigner transformation. Compared to previous works, the spin-orbit interaction leads to a new term in the kinetic equation, containing both the electric and magnetic fields. Like other models with spin-orbit interactions, our model features "hidden momentum". As an example application, we calculate the dispersion relation for linear electrostatic waves in a magnetized plasma, and electromagnetic waves in a unmagnetized plasma. In the former case, we compare the Landau damping due to spin-orbit interactions to that due to the free current. We also discuss our model in relation to previously published works.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05131 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

[19]

F. A. Asenjo, J. Zamanian, M. Marklund, G. Brodin, and P. Johansson, New J. Phys. 14, 073042 (2012)

work page 2012
[13]

Zamanian, M

J. Zamanian, M. Marklund, and G. Brodin, New. J. Phys. 12, 043019 (2010)

work page 2010
[30]

Hurst, P.-A

J. Hurst, P.-A. Hervieux, and G. Manfredi, Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A 375, 20160199 (2017)

work page 2017
[31]

Taking into account that their convention for the sign of the charge is diﬀerent from ours

work page
[1]

P. K. Shukla and B. Eliasson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 885 (2011)

work page 2011
[2]

Manfredi and J

G. Manfredi and J. Hurst, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 57, 054004 (2015)

work page 2015
[3]

Chabrier, F

G. Chabrier, F. Douchin, and A. Potekhin, J. Phys. Condens. Matter. 14, 9133 (2002)

work page 2002
[4]

D. A. Uzdensky and S. Rightley, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 036902 (2014)

work page 2014

Show all 38 references

[5]

Di Piazza, C

A. Di Piazza, C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177 (2012)

2012
[6]

Weber, S

S. Weber, S. Bechet, S. Borneis, L. Brabec, M. Buˇ cka, E. Chacon-Golcher, M. Ciappina, M. DeMarco, A. Fajs- tavr, K. Falk, et al., Mat. Rad. Extr. 2, 149 (2018)

2018
[7]

Haas, Quantum plasmas: An hydrodynamic approach , Vol

F. Haas, Quantum plasmas: An hydrodynamic approach , Vol. 65 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2011)

2011
[8]

Bonitz, Quantum kinetic theory (Springer, 2016)

M. Bonitz, Quantum kinetic theory (Springer, 2016)

2016
[9]

L. P. Kadanoﬀ and G. A. Baym, Quantum statistical mechanics: Green’s function methods in equilibrium and nonequilibirum problems (Benjamin, New York, 1962)

1962
[10]

L. V. Keldysh et al., Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 1018 (1965)

1965
[11]

Hohenester and W

U. Hohenester and W. P¨ otz, Phys. Rev B 56, 13177 (1997)

1997
[12]

Ekman, F

R. Ekman, F. A. Asenjo, and J. Zamanian, Phys. Rev. E 96, 023207 (2017)

2017
[14]

P. A. Andreev, Phys. Plasmas 23, 012106 (2016)

2016
[15]

Hurst, O

J. Hurst, O. Morandi, G. Manfredi, and P.-A. Hervieux, Eur. Phys. J. D 68, 176 (2014)

2014
[16]

Ekman, J

R. Ekman, J. Zamanian, and G. Brodin, Phys. Rev E 92, 013104 (2015)

2015
[17]

P. A. Andreev, Phys. Plasmas 23, 062103 (2016)

2016
[18]

Haas, Plasma Phys

F. Haas, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 61, 044001 (2019)

2019
[20]

L. L. Foldy and S. A. Wouthuysen, Phys. Rev. 78, 29 (1950)

1950
[21]

A. J. Silenko, Phys. Rev. A 77, 012116 (2008)

2008
[22]

R. L. Stratonovich, Sov. Phys. D 1, 414 (1956)

1956
[23]

O. T. Serimaa, J. Javanainen, and S. Varr´ o, Phys. Rev. A 33, 2913 (1986)

1986
[24]

Husimi, Proc

K. Husimi, Proc. Phys.–Math. Soc. Japan 22, 264 (1940)

1940
[25]

Babson, S

D. Babson, S. P. Reynolds, R. Bjorkquist, and D. J. Griﬃths, Am. J. Phys. 77, 826 (2009)

2009
[26]

Brodin, M

G. Brodin, M. Marklund, J. Zamanian, ˚A. Ericsson, and P. L. Mana, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 245002 (2008)

2008
[27]

Shockley and R

W. Shockley and R. P. James, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 876 (1967)

1967
[28]

Coleman and J

S. Coleman and J. H. Van Vleck, Phys. Rev. 171, 1370 (1968)

1968
[29]

Shockley, Phys

W. Shockley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 343 (1968)

1968
[32]

M¨ uller, J

M. M¨ uller, J. Phys. A32, 1035 (1999)

1999
[33]

Lundin and G

J. Lundin and G. Brodin, Phys. Rev. E 82, 056407 (2010)

2010
[34]

Eliasson and P

B. Eliasson and P. K. Shukla, J. Plasma Phys. 76, 7 (2010)

2010
[35]

D. R. Nicholson, Introduction to plasma theory (Wiley, 1983)

1983
[36]

This will be the case at least if ℏωp/m ≪ 1
[37]

Brodin, R

G. Brodin, R. Ekman, and J. Zamanian, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60, 025009 (2017)

2017
[38]

Stefan, J

M. Stefan, J. Zamanian, G. Brodin, A. P. Misra, and M. Marklund, Phys. Rev. E 83, 036410 (2011)

2011

Pith tools

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

[1] [19]

F. A. Asenjo, J. Zamanian, M. Marklund, G. Brodin, and P. Johansson, New J. Phys. 14, 073042 (2012)

work page 2012

[2] [13]

Zamanian, M

J. Zamanian, M. Marklund, and G. Brodin, New. J. Phys. 12, 043019 (2010)

work page 2010

[3] [30]

Hurst, P.-A

J. Hurst, P.-A. Hervieux, and G. Manfredi, Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. A 375, 20160199 (2017)

work page 2017

[4] [31]

Taking into account that their convention for the sign of the charge is diﬀerent from ours

work page

[5] [1]

P. K. Shukla and B. Eliasson, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 885 (2011)

work page 2011

[6] [2]

Manfredi and J

G. Manfredi and J. Hurst, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 57, 054004 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [3]

Chabrier, F

G. Chabrier, F. Douchin, and A. Potekhin, J. Phys. Condens. Matter. 14, 9133 (2002)

work page 2002

[8] [4]

D. A. Uzdensky and S. Rightley, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 036902 (2014)

work page 2014