Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Embedded structure in quantum theory, functional operator and multiverse

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · 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 quantum field theory can be rebuilt from a higher-level quantum theory of functional operators, whose one-world sector reproduces the QFT Schrödinger equation, and that the same construction supplies a quantum state…

desk verdict A clear, honest third-quantization reformulation with a multiverse twist, but the 'derivation' of QFT is a consistency check that imports the target theory as input. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08276 v3 pith:HRRA55OE submitted 2024-11-13 hep-th gr-qchep-phquant-ph

Yoshiharu Kawamura This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qchep-phquant-ph
keywords embeddedstructurefunctionaloperatorsquantumfield'stheoryQFFTlevelIImultiversethirdquantizationWheeler-DeWittequationlandscape
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

This paper tries to show that quantum field theory is not a standalone theory but sits inside a larger quantum theory, which it calls quantum field's functional theory (QFFT). The key move is to introduce functional operators $\hat{\Phi}(\{\phi\})$ and build the QFFT Hamiltonian by sandwiching the QFT Hamiltonian between them, $\hat{H}_\Phi = \hat{\Phi}^\dagger \hat{H}_\phi \hat{\Phi}$. The paper claims that a one-world state then evolves by the ordinary QFT Schrödinger equation, so QFT is reconstructed from QFFT in the same way that quantum mechanics was reconstructed from QFT. If this works, it explains why fields are quantized, answers the which-came-first question for particles and spacetime by installing both together, and supplies a quantum state space for the level II multiverse of universes with different particle contents.

What carries the argument

The functional operator $\hat{\Phi}(\{\phi\})$ – a 'field's functional' – is the central object. It obeys canonical (anti-)commutation relations with its conjugate $\hat{\Pi}=i\hbar\hat{\Phi}^\dagger$, and the Hamiltonian is formed by sandwiching the QFT Hamiltonian between $\hat{\Phi}^\dagger$ and $\hat{\Phi}$. The operator $\hat{\Phi}^\dagger$ acts as an installation operator: it creates the QFT vacuum $|0\rangle_{\{\phi\}}$ from the nothingness state $|0'\rangle$, simultaneously supplying the fields and their spacetime. This sandwiching is what lets the QFT Schrödinger equation be recovered from the QFFT one.

What would settle it

Take a concrete interacting QFT, represent its Hamiltonian in the functional-operator form, and check whether the one-world state's evolution (eq. 90) reproduces the QFT Schrödinger equation for states with two or more particles; a single failure of that equality, or a demonstration that no Hilbert-space realization of the canonical relations exists for field configurations, would falsify the reconstruction claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the nested construction visible in QFT – $\hat{H}_\phi = \int \hat{\phi}^\dagger \hat{H} \hat{\phi}\, d^3x$ – can be promoted to a new level: $\hat{H}_\Phi = \hat{\Phi}^\dagger(\{\phi\}) \hat{H}_\phi \hat{\Phi}(\{\phi\})$, with $\hat{\Phi}^\dagger$ an installation operator that creates, from a 'nothingness' state $|0'\rangle$, a vacuum $|0\rangle_{\{\phi\}}$ together with the spacetime in which the fields $\phi$ live. For a one-world state $|\Psi(t)\rangle = \Psi(\{\phi\},t)\hat{\Phi}^\dagger |0'\rangle$, the paper derives (eq. 90) that $i\hbar\, d|\Psi(t)\rangle/dt = \hat{H}_\phi|\Psi(t)\rangle$, the QFT Schrödinger equation. The same formalism, with operators labeled by different particle contents and parameters, gives states representing many universes and a Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\{\Phi\}} = \sum_a \hat{\Phi}^\dagger_{(a)} \hat{H}_{\{\phi^{(a)}_k\}} \hat{\Phi}_{(a)}$; positive vacuum energy in such a universe drives inflation, the time component of the constraint is the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, and the landscape potential can be viewed as the potential in the field's functional Hamiltonian.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation rests on the unproven postulate that functional operators exist and satisfy canonical (anti-)commutation relations, and on identifying $\hat{\Phi}^\dagger$ as an installation operator that creates a vacuum with a specified particle content and its spacetime; the paper concedes that a rigorous definition of these operators is not known.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, QFT ceases to be the bottom layer: it is the one-world sector of QFFT, and the same Schrödinger-equation structure that QFT uses to reconstruct quantum mechanics is reused one level up.
  • The origin of fermionic anti-commutation and bosonic commutation is explained by the transformation property of the field's functional under spatial translations, rather than imposed by hand.
  • Because the installation operator creates a vacuum state and its spacetime together, the 'which came first, particles or spacetime' problem is resolved by construction.
  • The level II multiverse acquires a quantum-mechanical state space: universes with different particle contents and parameters are states built by repeated installation operators, and transitions between them have a formal amplitude (eq. 130).
  • Cosmological machinery—inflation from positive vacuum energy, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, third quantization, and the landscape potential—appears inside the same framework.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This ladder is not shown to stop at QFFT: since QFFT also has the Schrödinger form $i\hbar\, d|\Psi\rangle/dt = \hat{H}|\Psi\rangle$, the same nesting could be iterated another level, a possibility the paper leaves implicit.
  • If functional operators can be made rigorous, the transition amplitude between differently populated universes in eq. (130) would give a concrete calculational tool for the measure problem in eternal inflation—something the paper sketches but does not compute.
  • The framework suggests that the universal object in physics may be the Schrödinger equation itself, with the hierarchy QM $\subset$ QFT $\subset$ QFFT arising as successive embeddings; this interpretive claim is stronger than the formal reconstruction.
  • One could test the construction's reach by asking whether QFFT reproduces QFT with interactions and gauge symmetry, including renormalization, since the paper only demonstrates the nested Hamiltonian explicitly for free-field examples.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework called quantum field's functional theory (QFFT), in which functional operators Φ({ϕ}) and Φ†({ϕ}) act on a ``nothingness state'' |0/⟩ to create and remove QFT vacuum states |0⟩_{ϕ}, and the Hamiltonian is formed by the nested construction H_Φ = Φ† H_ϕ Φ (Section 3.1). The paper claims that QFT can be rebuilt from QFFT by deriving the QFT Schrödinger equation (eq. (90)) and the (anti-)commutation relations of fields from the transformation properties of Φ under translations (eqs. (92)-(96)). It then extends the construction to multiple labels a to describe a level II multiverse (Section 4.1) and discusses inflation, third quantization, and the landscape (Section 4.2). The author explicitly acknowledges in Section 5 that it is not known whether functional operators can be rigorously defined.

Significance. If the central derivation were sound and the framework well-defined, the paper would offer a hierarchical embedding of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory in a higher-level quantum theory, potentially addressing foundational questions about field quantization and the origin of the universe. The paper is honest about its limitations and provides explicit Hamiltonian formulas in the appendix. However, as it stands, the construction is a formal exercise built on ad hoc postulates; the claimed reconstruction of QFT is not an independent derivation, and the multiverse discussion is a kinematic tensor product of known QFT sectors rather than a new dynamical framework. The admitted absence of a rigorous definition of functional operators further weakens the explanatory claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, eq. (90)] The claimed derivation of the QFT Schrödinger equation from QFFT is circular and algebraically underdefined. The one-world state in eq. (83) is built from Ψ({ϕ},t) of eq. (84), which, according to eqs. (157)-(158), is expressed in terms of the QFT creation operators ϕ̂†(x); hence Ψ({ϕ},t) is an operator, not a c-number functional. The Hamiltonian H_ϕ appearing in H_Φ = Φ† H_ϕ Φ is the already-quantized QFT Hamiltonian, e.g. eq. (16), written with functional derivatives δ/δϕ(x). The equality Φ† H_ϕ Φ Ψ({ϕ},t) Φ† |0/⟩ = H_ϕ |Ψ(t)⟩ is an identity given the definitions and the vacuum condition Φ|0/⟩=0, and it requires unspecified commutation relations between Φ and the field operators inside Ψ({ϕ},t). Thus the derivation does not explain why fields are quantized; it merely re-states the QFT structure that was put in.
  2. [Section 3.2, eqs. (92)-(96)] The purported justification of field anti-/commutation relations from the transformation property of the functional operator is circular. The Noether charge in eq. (96) is read off as P_Φi = Φ† ∫ d³x ∂_i ϕ(x) (−iħ δ/δϕ(x)) Φ, where the functional derivative δ/δϕ(x) is identified with the QFT momentum π(x), with sign depending on statistics. This identification, together with the canonical relation {ϕ(x), δ/δϕ(y)} = δ³(x−y), is exactly the QFT quantization condition that the paper aims to explain. The transformation rule (94) presupposes that ϕ(x) is a classical field configuration and that Φ is a functional of it; that structure is already QFT. Hence the answer claimed in the text ('these features come from the transformation property of field's functional') is not an independent derivation.
  3. [Section 3.1, eqs. (65)-(66), (78); Section 5] The framework rests on the unproven existence of functional operators Φ̂({ϕ}) obeying canonical (anti-)commutation relations (65)-(66) and on the installation condition (78). No representation of these operators is given, no consistency with the field operators ϕ̂(x) is established, and the author concedes in Section 5 that 'it is not yet known whether functional operators can be rigorously defined.' In the absence of a well-defined operator algebra, the manipulations in eqs. (86)-(90), (96)-(98), and (123)-(126) are formal. The central reconstruction of QFT and the multiverse interpretation therefore have no more status than a heuristic analogy.
  4. [Section 4.1, eqs. (99)-(108); Section 4.2.2, eq. (130)] The level II multiverse construction is a direct product of independent QFT Hilbert spaces labeled by a. The Hamiltonian (108) is a sum over a of single-universe terms, so the universes do not interact; the only dynamics is the free evolution of each universe. The transition amplitude (130) between universes with different particle contents is not well-defined because the Hilbert spaces for different a are different, and no overlap or inter-universe Hamiltonian is specified. Thus the multiverse is a kinematic tensor product, not a dynamical framework that explains the origin of universes with different physical laws.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1, eqs. (65)-(66) and (72)-(73)] The canonical relations are written for a single pair of operators without any label or integration over field configurations; since the functional operators depend on the whole configuration {ϕ}, the notation is misleading and should specify, for example, the functional argument or the equal-time nature of the relations.
  2. [Throughout] The notation |0/⟩ for the nothingness state is typographically awkward and visually confusing; a symbol such as |∅⟩ would be clearer.
  3. [Section 3.2, eq. (84) and Appendix B, eq. (158)] The same symbol ϕ†(x) is used for the QFT creation operator and for the classical field value in the wave functional. This blurs the distinction between the operator Ψ({ϕ},t) and the c-number functional, and it propagates to eqs. (159)-(160). The notation should be made explicit.
  4. [Sections 2 and 3] There are several typographical artifacts in the equations, such as '1/rad⟩callow' and misrendered square roots, that should be corrected in the typeset version.
  5. [References] Reference [15] is incomplete: 'Phys. Lett. 14, 103 (1982)' should give the journal volume and page correctly, and the same check should be applied to other references for bibliographic accuracy.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The central 'reconstruction' of QFT from QFFT is circular by construction: eq. (90) returns the QFT Hamiltonian H_ϕ that was inserted into H_Φ = Φ† H_ϕ Φ in eq. (61), while eq. (96) answers 'why fields are quantized' by assuming π = ±iħδ/δϕ as an input.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.1, eqs. (61)-(64) and (71)]
    "Let us start with the Lagrangian owning a nested structure: ˆLΦ = ˆΦ†({ϕ},t)iħ ∂/∂t ˆΦ({ϕ},t) − ˆΦ†({ϕ},t) ˆHϕ ˆΦ({ϕ},t), (61), where ˆΦ({ϕ},t) is a functional operator, {ϕ} and t stand for a field of ϕ and a time, respectively, and ˆHϕ is the Hamiltonian operator in QFT containing ϕ(x) and its functional derivatives δ/δϕ(x) (see eq. (16))."

    QFFT's Hamiltonian is defined by sandwiching the already-quantized QFT Hamiltonian H_ϕ, which is built from the functional derivatives δ/δϕ(x) that constitute the QFT field representation. Recovering QFT dynamics later in eq. (90) is therefore guaranteed by construction: H_Φ contains H_ϕ as an input, and the final equality simply strips the sandwich. The stated explanatory target Q1, why particles or fields are quantized, is already presupposed inside H_ϕ; imposing canonical relations on Φ in eqs. (65)-(66) only moves the quantization one level upward.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.2, eqs. (78), (83)-(84), (89)-(90)]
    "let us assume that ˆΦ†({ϕ}) is an operator to produce a vacuum state |0〉{ϕ} which has a potential to create an elementary particle ϕ and ϕ obeys definite laws of QFT. This assumption is expressed by ˆΦ†({ϕ})|0/〉 = |0〉{ϕ}, (78) ... From eqs. (74) and (83), we can derive the Schrödinger equation in QFT: iħ d/dt |Ψ(t)〉 = ˆHϕ|Ψ(t)〉, (89), under the assumption that ˆHϕ is the Hamiltonian operator in QFT, as follows, ... = ˆHϕ|Ψ(t)〉. (90)"

    The one-world QFFT state is defined to be the QFT state: in eq. (84), Ψ({ϕ},t) is constructed from QFT Fock-space creation operators ϕ†(x1)···ϕ†(xN) and the QFT vacuum, and the vacuum itself is installed by the postulate (78). Eq. (90) then cancels Φ and Φ† so that the surviving operator is exactly the H_ϕ inserted in eq. (61). No element of QFT is generated from a QFFT-specific law: the Schrödinger equation, Fock space, and vacuum are all assumed in the state and Hamiltonian before the derivation begins.

2 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, eqs. (94)-(96)]
    "the momentum operator ˆPΦ i can be read off as ˆPΦ i ≡ ˆΦ†({ϕ},t) ∫ d3x ∂iϕ(x)(−iħ δ/δϕ(x)) ˆΦ({ϕ},t) = ˆΦ†({ϕ},t)( ∫ d3x ˆπ(x)∂i ˆϕ(x)) ˆΦ({ϕ},t), (96), where we use ˆϕ(x)=ϕ(x) and ˆπ(x)=iħδ/δϕ(x) for fermion (ˆπ(x)=−iħδ/δϕ(x) for boson). ... We notice that these features come from the transformation property of field's functional and an answer to the question 'Why are particles or fields quantized in the first place?' is obtained."

    The passage claims to verify that fields are quantized and satisfy (anti)commutation relations. But the momentum operator from which this is read off already contains the QFT quantization condition π(x)=±iħδ/δϕ(x), stated as 'we use' in eq. (96). Those identifications are exactly the field-operator representation of eqs. (12)/(16) that QFFT was supposed to explain. In addition, the transformation rule (94) treats Φ as a functional of the classical configuration ϕ and uses δ/δϕ, i.e., the QFT field-space structure, as an input. The calculation therefore does not derive new commutation relations; it re-expresses QFT momenta in a sandwiched form.

  2. self definitional [Section 4.1, eqs. (99), (108)]
    "Let us first introduce installation operators ˆΦ†(a)({ϕk(a)}) which produce a vacuum state |0〉{ϕk(a)} where definite elementary particles ϕk(a) can be created and work obeying the laws of QFT. This is expressed by ˆΦ†(a)({ϕk(a)})|0/〉 = |0〉{ϕk(a)}, (99) ... ˆH{Φ} = Σ_{a=1}^N ˆΦ†(a)({ϕk(a)}) ˆH{ϕk(a)} ˆΦ(a)({ϕk(a)}). (108)"

    The level II multiverse is constructed by postulating one installation operator per QFT vacuum and then forming a direct sum of the corresponding QFT Hamiltonians. Different particle contents and parameters are inserted as labels a, and all dynamics (inflation, Wheeler-DeWitt condition, landscape) is imported from the assumed H_{ϕk(a)} and standard QFT/cosmological relations. The construction is a bookkeeping device over assumed QFTs, not an independent derivation of the multiverse from a more fundamental law.

full rationale

The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations; the circularity is structural, not citation-based. The motivating analogy is sound at the first level: Section 2 gives the standard reconstruction of QM from QFT. But the paper's new step, QFFT, is built by defining H_Φ = Φ† H_ϕ Φ with H_ϕ already the QFT Hamiltonian containing δ/δϕ, and by postulating that Φ† installs the QFT vacuum. The 'derivation' of QFT in eqs. (89)-(90) cancels the insertion/removal operators and returns exactly the H_ϕ put in at eq. (61); the one-world state (83)-(84) is already the QFT Fock-space state. The answer to 'why are fields quantized' in eq. (96) reads off π = ±iħδ/δϕ from the QFT energy-momentum tensor, i.e., it assumes the quantization it claims to explain, while the functional operators themselves are quantized by postulate in eqs. (65)-(66), moving the unexplained quantization one level up. The multiverse construction (99)-(108) sums assumed QFT Hamiltonians labeled by particle content, so it describes, rather than derives, the level II multiverse. The author's Section 5 concession that QFFT is not known to be mathematically well-defined strengthens the point that the QFT sector is carried by input assumptions; there is no external benchmark or falsifiable prediction that breaks the loop. Because the central reconstruction reduces by construction to its own input, the circularity score is 8.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

No numerical parameters are fitted in this paper. The framework relies instead on unspecified potentials and arbitrary Hamiltonian choices, which are captured in the axioms and invented entities above. The three invented entities carry the entire conceptual load of the multiverse claim, and none of them has independent evidence.

assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The embedded structure is a fundamental principle: the QFFT Hamiltonian takes the same nested form as the QFT Hamiltonian.
    Section 3.1, eq. (61): the Lagrangian for functional operators is written as L_Φ = Φ† iħ∂_t Φ − Φ† H_φ Φ by analogy with eq. (1). This is a postulate, not a consequence of a more fundamental theory.
  • ad hoc to paper Functional operators obey canonical (anti-)commutation relations.
    Eqs. (65)-(66) are imposed without derivation. Field quantization is inherited from this assumption, so the 'why quantized' question is deferred.
  • ad hoc to paper There exists a nothingness state |0/⟩ and an installation operator Φ† that creates a vacuum state with a specified particle content and spacetime.
    Eq. (78) and the surrounding text. This is the central mechanism for the multiverse; no independent evidence is given.
  • domain assumption Each universe is governed by the physical laws of QFT with a specified particle content and parameters, and the creation of a vacuum is accompanied by the emergence of spacetime including a graviton.
    Sections 4.1 and 4.2. The connection from formal operators to physics is assumed, not derived.
  • domain assumption There exists a landscape Hamiltonian H_{φL} with local minima corresponding to universes with different particle contents and parameters.
    Section 4.2.3, eqs. (127)-(129). This imports the string landscape picture into QFFT without derivation.
invented entities (3)
  • Functional operators Φ̂({φ}) and Φ̂†({φ})
    purpose: Create and remove entire vacuum states (with a specified field content and spacetime) from a nothingness state.
    Introduced in Section 3.1; no experimental or observational handle is provided, and the paper states QFFT is not known to be mathematically well-defined.
  • Nothingness state |0/⟩
    purpose: The state with no universes, on which installation operators act to create a universe.
    Postulated in eqs. (78)-(79); purely formal.
  • Level II multiverse state space spanned by products of installation operators
    purpose: To represent a superposition of universes with different particle contents and physical parameters, called the level II multiverse.
    Section 4.1, eqs. (103)-(105). There is no observable associated with the multiverse state; it is a theoretical construct.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Embedded structure in quantum theory, functional operator and multiverse." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HRRA55OE

@misc{pith2026241108276,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Embedded structure in quantum theory, functional operator and multiverse},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HRRA55OE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08276}
}
read the original abstract

We explore a wider theoretical framework that has quantum field theory built-in, taking the fact that quantum mechanics is reconstructed from quantum field theory as a hint. We formulate a quantum theory with an embedded structure by introducing functional operators, and we find that it could describe the level II multiverse. Topics related to a beginning of the universe such as an inflation, the third quantization and the landscape are discussed in our formulation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P . A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy . Soc. London A 114, 243 (1927)

    work page 1927

  2. [2]

    Heisenberg and W

    W . Heisenberg and W . Pauli, Z. Phys.56, 1 (1929)

    work page 1929

  3. [3]

    Navas et al

    S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

    work page 1957

  5. [5]

    Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields I, II, III , Cambridge University Press

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields I, II, III , Cambridge University Press

    work page

  6. [6]

    T egmark, Our Mathematical Universe My Quest for the Ultimate Nature o f Real- ity, Knopf (2014)

    M. T egmark, Our Mathematical Universe My Quest for the Ultimate Nature o f Real- ity, Knopf (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    R. H. Dick, Nature 192 440 (1961)

    work page 1961

  8. [8]

    Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology

    B. Carter, "Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology", IAU symposium 63: Confrontation of cosmological theories with observational data 63, 291 (1974)

    work page 1974

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2607 (1987)

    1987

  2. [10]

    Symanzik, Nucl

    K. Symanzik, Nucl. Phys. B 190, 1 (1981)

    1981

  3. [11]

    D. H. Lyth and A. Riotto, Phys. Rept. 314, 1 (1999), and references therein

    1999

  4. [12]

    B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 160, 1113 (1967)

    1967

  5. [13]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. Misner, Phys. Rev. 116, 1322 (1959)

    1959

  6. [14]

    S. B. Giddings and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B 321, 481 (1989)

    1989

  7. [15]

    K. Sato, H. Kodama, M. Sasaki, and K. Maeda, Phys. Lett. 14, 103 (1982)

    1982

  8. [16]

    Nonsingular Regenerating Inflationar Uni verse

    A. D. Linde, "Nonsingular Regenerating Inflationar Uni verse", Print-82-0554 (Cam- bridge). 29

  9. [17]

    The anthropic landscape of string theory

    L. Susskind, "The anthropic landscape of string theory ", arXiv:hep-th/0302219

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Douglas, J

    M. Douglas, J. High Energy Phys. 0305, 46 (2003)

    2003

  11. [19]

    M. B. Green, J. H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, Superstring theory I, II , Cambridge Uni- versity Press

  12. [20]

    Polchinski, String theory I, II, Cambridge University Press

    J. Polchinski, String theory I, II, Cambridge University Press

  13. [21]

    Everett, III, Rev

    H. Everett, III, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957)

    1957

  14. [22]

    Matej Pav ˇsiˇc, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 34, 1950186 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Nomura, J

    Y. Nomura, J. High Energy Phys. 11, 063 (2011). 30

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.