Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Angular momentum effects in neutron decay

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Proton angular patterns from structured neutron decay reveal the shape of the decaying wave packet.

desk verdict The proton ring/dip prediction is solid and useful; the spin-orbit asymmetry magnitudes need a full weak-interaction treatment before being used quantitatively. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16231 v2 pith:3H2QH5YQ submitted 2024-11-25 hep-ph quant-ph

I. Pavlov , A. Chaikovskaia , D. Karlovets This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phquant-ph
keywords neutronbetadecayvortexneutronsorbitalangularmomentumspin-orbitcoupledstatesBesselbeamsLaguerre-Gaussianwavepacketsspectral-angulardistributionweakofstructured
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 argues that a free neutron prepared as a non-plane-wave "structured" state—a Bessel vortex beam, a Laguerre-Gaussian wave packet, or a spin-orbit superposition—decays in a way that leaves a readable imprint on the outgoing proton's energy and angle. Its central claim is that the proton's spectral-angular distribution is highly sensitive to the structure of the neutron wave packet, and can therefore serve as a tool to extract features of structured neutron states. Concretely, Bessel neutrons above about 750 eV kinetic energy produce a forward dip and a ring-shaped peak in the proton angular distribution, while spin-orbit neutron states imprint their discrete rotational spin symmetry onto the proton azimuthal distribution. Electron distributions are comparatively insensitive at feasible energies. The paper presents this as a diagnostic for structured neutron beams and as evidence that weak decays reflect the spatial symmetries of decaying quantum states.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the incoherent azimuthal average of plane-wave decay widths together with the lab-frame kinematic critical angle. The Lorentz boost from the neutron rest frame introduces a maximal proton deflection angle for neutron velocities above $\beta_{\rm cr}\approx0.00126$ (kinetic energy about 750 eV), and each plane-wave component of a Bessel state sees a different effective direction, so the averaged proton distribution develops a dip at zero angle and a ring at the vortex cone angle. Analytically, the twisted decay width reduces to $d\Gamma_{\rm tw}=\int (d\phi_n/2\pi)\,d\Gamma_{\rm PW}$, and the spin-orbit cross term is evaluated through the substitution $p_n^\mu\to m_n(n_1^\mu\pm i n_2^\mu)$, which carries the spin-density symmetry into the final proton distribution.

What would settle it

Look for the predicted proton patterns: for a 75 keV Bessel neutron with cone opening angle $\theta_n\approx0.1$ rad, the proton angular distribution should show a forward minimum and a peak at $\theta_p\approx0.1$ rad; if it matches the plane-wave forward cone instead, the critical-angle mechanism fails. Similarly, protons from a 0.5 keV spin-orbit neutron with $\Delta\ell=-1$ and $b=0$ should show a two-peaked $C_2$ azimuthal pattern, and its absence would rule out the symmetry-inheritance claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors compute the $\beta$-decay rate for an arbitrary initial neutron wave packet and find that different plane-wave components of the packet contribute incoherently: the differential rate is an average of plane-wave rates weighted by the packet's momentum density. For an unpolarized Bessel neutron this reduces the decay width to an azimuthal average over the vortex cone, making the result independent of the orbital angular momentum quantum number. The proton distribution nonetheless differs sharply from the plane-wave case once the neutron's kinetic energy exceeds about 750 eV, where a kinematic critical angle exists: each plane-wave component can only emit protons within a cone, and averaging over the Bessel ring produces a forward minimum and a peak at the cone opening angle. For Laguerre-Gaussian packets the OAM enters through the transverse probability density, broadening the proton spectrum, while for spin-orbit states the diagonal and cross terms transfer the spin-density field's discrete rotational symmetry, of order $|\Delta\ell-1|$ and rotated by the relative phase $b$, into the proton azimuthal distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The diagnostic value rests on having neutron beams that are both structured and fast enough: the ring effect needs kinetic energies above about 750 eV, while at currently available 1–10 meV the spin-orbit azimuthal modulation is only about $5\times10^{-4}$, and the paper states that methods for generating fast structured neutrons are not yet explored.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Proton spectral-angular distributions can act as a diagnostic of non-plane-wave neutron states, revealing the vortex cone opening angle and the transverse width of the packet.
  • For Bessel neutrons with kinetic energy above about 750 eV, the proton angular distribution shows a forward dip and a peak at the cone opening angle, while electron distributions lack this feature at experimentally feasible energies.
  • For spin-orbit neutron states, the proton azimuthal pattern inherits the discrete rotational symmetry of the neutron spin density, with order $|\Delta\ell-1|$ and a phase shift set by the relative phase $b$ of the two modes.
  • Bessel-state decays are independent of the neutron OAM value, whereas Laguerre-Gaussian decays depend on OAM through the probability density, so the two kinds of structured states are distinguishable by their proton spectra.
  • The spin-orbit azimuthal asymmetry is only about $5\times10^{-4}$ at 10 meV but grows to roughly 0.2 at 0.5 keV, so the effect could be seen with existing slow structured neutron beams only with high statistics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the same kinematic critical-angle argument should apply to any three-body decay of a fast vortex particle when the detected daughter is nearly as heavy as the parent, making the proton-versus-electron contrast a direct test of that geometry.
  • Editorial extension: the rotation of the proton azimuthal pattern with the relative phase $b$ could be used as a weak-decay polarimetric measurement of the prepared spin-orbit state.
  • Editorial extension: the paper does not estimate event rates, so realizing the 10 meV spin-orbit signal would require large decay counts or a brighter structured neutron source; this is a practical question left open.
  • Editorial extension: if fast structured neutron generation matures, the forward-ring pattern could serve as a beam diagnostic for vortex neutron flux and opening angle without interferometric detection.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies the beta decay of a free neutron prepared in non-plane-wave states: Bessel (vortex) states, Laguerre-Gaussian wave packets, and spin-orbit superpositions of LG modes. The authors derive the plane-wave decay rate in the laboratory frame, then show that for Bessel and general wave packets the decay rate reduces to an incoherent azimuthal average of plane-wave rates (Eqs. (29), (32)), while for spin-orbit states an additional coherent cross-term survives (Eq. (43)). The main predictions are: (i) the proton spectral-angular distribution is highly sensitive to the neutron wave-packet structure, developing a forward dip and a ring at the vortex cone angle for neutron kinetic energies above about 750 eV; and (ii) the proton azimuthal distribution inherits the discrete rotational symmetry of the neutron spin density, with a magnitude that the authors suggest may be observable at 10 meV. The paper concludes that proton SAD can be used as a tool to extract features of structured neutron states.

Significance. The conceptual framework is sound: the incoherent averaging over transverse momenta is standard in the twisted-particle literature, and the derivation from first principles avoids fitted parameters. The kinematic ring/dip effect for Bessel neutrons is a concrete, falsifiable prediction that is independent of the details of the weak Hamiltonian. The spin-orbit symmetry-reflection result (C_N pattern in the proton azimuthal distribution) is a novel extension of the muon-decay analysis of Ref. [18] to neutron decay and is likely robust because it follows from the spin-density symmetries. The main limitation is that all numerical magnitudes are computed with a simplified V-A contact interaction (g_A=g_V=1, no recoil-order terms), and the paper does not quantify the resulting uncertainty; this affects the quantitative claim of observability at 10 meV, though not the qualitative symmetry and kinematic predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III.A, Eq. (10); §IV, Figs. 8–11 and Conclusion] The quantitative spin-orbit predictions are derived from the pure left-handed Fermi contact interaction of Eq. (10) with g_A=g_V=1 and no recoil-order terms. The spin projection rule (24) and the cross-term substitution (47) are exact only for this interaction. The real charged current has g_A/g_V ≈ -1.2756 as well as weak magnetism and induced pseudoscalar form factors, which substantially change spin-correlation observables; for example, the beta-asymmetry parameter is about -0.118 experimentally, whereas g_A=1 gives -1. Since the azimuthal asymmetry in Figs. 8-11 is a spin-correlation observable built from interference of opposite-spin amplitudes, the stated magnitudes (including the 5×10^-4 variation at 10 meV and the claim that the effect 'can possibly be observed even at currently available energies') are not quantitatively supported. The discrete rotational pattern likely survives because it follows from the symmetry of the spin density, but the paper should recompute the magnitudes with the full Standard Model amplitude or clearly label the numbers as illustrative for the simplified interaction.
  2. [§II, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) as printed places the denominator inside the square root, making the expression dimensionally inconsistent. For m=m_p and \tilde m=m_e, the printed formula gives β_cr ≈ 1.68, not the quoted β_cr ≈ 0.00126. The correct form is \beta_{cr} = \sqrt{[(m_n+\tilde m)^2-m^2][(m_n-\tilde m)^2-m^2]}/(m^2+m_n^2-\tilde m^2), i.e., the square root should apply only to the numerator product. The numerical values used later (750 eV) are consistent with the corrected formula, so this is likely a typographical error, but it must be fixed because the equation as printed cannot be used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (26) text] The phrase 'where 𝓁 is the is the azimuthal quantum number' contains a duplicated 'is the'; it should read 'where 𝓁 is the azimuthal quantum number.'
  2. [Sec. V, Conclusion] The statement that differences between structured and plane-wave decays are 'solely due to kinematics' is an overstatement: the spin-orbit cross-term of Eq. (43) is a quantum interference effect controlled by the relative phase b and the spin-density symmetry, not a purely kinematic effect.
  3. [Figs. 3, 5, 6] The matching condition σ_p = (2/3) p_z tan θ_n chosen to compare LG and Bessel states is ad hoc; the sensitivity of the qualitative comparisons to this choice is not discussed and should be at least briefly stated.
  4. [Sec. III.A] The sentence calling Eq. (10) 'the standard model calculation' is misleading; the actual amplitude is the Fermi contact interaction with g_V=g_A=1, which differs from the Standard Model low-energy charged current at the level of the axial coupling and recoil-order terms. This should be reworded for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: decay rates and symmetry reflections are derived analytically from the V–A amplitude and state definitions; the few self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central predictions are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. The plane-wave spectral-angular distribution (Eq. (16)) follows from the standard tree-level amplitude (Eq. (10)) via the phase-space integral in Appendix A, with no fitted parameters. The Bessel-neutron result (Eq. (29)) is obtained in Appendix B by reducing the twisted S-matrix element to the azimuthal average of plane-wave widths; this is a derived identity, not an assumed one. The arbitrary-packet relation (Eq. (32)) follows from momentum-conserving delta functions, which suppress cross terms between different plane-wave components. The spin-orbit cross term (Eq. (43)) uses the standard polarization-density identity (Eq. (44)), cited to several independent references [29-33]; the authors' own Ref. [34] is only one of multiple sources and is not the sole justification. The claimed reflection of the neutron's discrete rotational symmetry in the proton azimuthal distribution (Figs. 8-11) is a computed consequence of the explicit spin-density expectation values (Eqs. (40)-(41)) and the cross-term amplitude, not a symmetry imposed in advance. The quantitative magnitudes rely on the simplified pure V-A Hamiltonian (g_A=g_V=1), but that is a stated modeling assumption and a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The self-citations present (Refs. [34,37]) are contextual or share the load with independent textbook/paper citations, so they do not raise the circularity score.

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

The calculation is a standard QFT exercise with no fitted parameters; the only hand-chosen quantity is the LG width matching condition used in plots. The main assumptions are the simplified weak interaction, the incoherent-superposition ansatz for structured states, and the extrapolation to fast structured beams.

free parameters (1)
  • LG wave packet width σ_p (matching condition) = σ_p = (2/3) p_z tan(θ_n)
    Chosen by hand to make LG wave packets visually comparable to Bessel vortex states with cone angle θ_n; used in Figs. 3, 5, 6. It does not enter the general formalism but affects the plotted comparisons.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The four-fermion V-A contact interaction with unit axial coupling and no vector/axial form factors describes neutron beta decay sufficiently for the studied effects.
    Invoked in Sec. III A around Eq. (10) ('we limit ourselves to the Fermi four-fermion interaction theory and for simplicity neglect the vector and axial vector form factors'); real decay has g_A≈1.27, weak magnetism, recoil corrections.
  • domain assumption Plane-wave components of a structured neutron state do not interfere in the decay rate; the rate is an incoherent average weighted by |ψ(p)|^2.
    Derived in Sec. III C, Eq. (32), using transverse momentum conservation; this is the central structural assumption inherited from twisted-particle decay literature.
  • standard math A Bessel neutron is a monochromatic superposition of plane waves with fixed |p_⊥|=κ and p_z, and its squared delta-function singularity is regularized with a cylinder radius R.
    Sec. III B, Eqs. (25)-(26) and Appendix B, Eqs. (B2)-(B3); standard regularization from vortex state literature.
  • domain assumption Spin-orbit neutron states are coherent superpositions of two LG modes with opposite spin projections and well-defined relative phase b.
    Sec. III D, Eqs. (37)-(38); follows the experimental and theoretical states of Sarenac et al. [7,8].
  • domain assumption Detected final particles are plane waves, so the outgoing electron/proton momentum is sharp and no measurement of the decaying neutron's transverse momentum is made.
    Implicit in the S-matrix and phase-space setup of Sec. III; it is what kills the interference between plane-wave components.
  • domain assumption Structured neutron beams with kinetic energies up to hundreds of MeV can in principle be produced.
    Sec. IV states current structured neutron energies are 1-10 meV and that methods for faster structured neutrons are 'not yet explored', but assumes no fundamental obstacles; the 75 keV and 150 MeV plots rely on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Angular momentum effects in neutron decay." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3H2QH5YQ

@misc{pith2026241116231,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Angular momentum effects in neutron decay},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3H2QH5YQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16231}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the intriguing phenomenon of beta decay of a free neutron in a non-plane-wave(structured) state. Our analysis covers three types of states: unpolarized vortex (Bessel) neutrons that possess nonzero orbital angular momentum (OAM), Laguerre-Gaussian wave packets, and spin-correlated OAM (spin-orbit) states characterized by unique polarization patterns. These states are of particular interest as they have recently been generated in neutron optics experiments and have promising applications in studies of quantum magnetic materials. The spectral-angular distributions (SAD) of the emitted electrons and protons are examined. We show that the high sensitivity of the protons SAD to the structure of the neutron wave packet can be used as a tool to extract the distinctive features of the non-plane-wave neutron states. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the angular distribution of the emitted particles serves as a reflection of the spatial symmetries inherent to the neutron wave packet.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16231 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Kinematics of decay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Electron energy spectrum from 150 MeV unpolarized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Proton energy spectra from unpolarized PW and Bessel [for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Proton energy spectra from 0.5 keV unpolarized PW, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Electron angular distribution from 75 keV unpolarized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Azimuthal distribution of protons calculated at different angles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Azimuthal distribution of protons from decay of 0.5 keV spin-orbit neutron states ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Azimuthal distribution of protons from decay of 0.5 keV spin-orbit neutron state ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Azimuthal distribution of protons from decay of 0.5 keV spin-orbit neutron state ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [15]

    Afanasev, V

    A. Afanasev, V . G. Serbo, and M. Solyanik, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 45, 055102 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [18]

    P . Zhao, I. P . Ivanov, and P . Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 036003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [1]

    Navas, C

    S. Navas, C. Amsler, T. Gutsche, C. Hanhart, J. J. Hernández- Rey, C. Lourenço, A. Masoni, M. Mikhasenko, R. E. Mitchell, C. Patrignani et al. (Particle Data Group Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Rubinsztein-Dunlop, A

    H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, A. Forbes, M. V . Berry, M. R. Dennis, D. L. Andrews, M. Mansuripur, C. Denz, C. Alpmann, P . Banzer, T. Bauer et al., J. Opt. 19, 013001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [3]

    K. Y . Bliokh, E. Karimi, M. J. Padgett, M. A. Alonso, M. R. Dennis, A. Dudley, A. Forbes, S. Zahedpour, S. W. Hancock, H. M. Milchberg et al., J. Opt. 25, 103001 (2023). [ 4 ]C .W .C l a r k ,R .B a r a n k o v ,M .G .H u b e r ,M .A r i f ,D .G .C o r y , and D. A. Pushin, Nature (London) 525, 504 (2015)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Sarenac, M

    D. Sarenac, M. E. Henderson, H. Ekinci, C. W. Clark, D. G. Cory, L. DeBeer-Schmitt, M. G. Huber, C. Kapahi, and D. A. Pushin, Sci. Adv. 8, eadd2002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Geerits, H

    N. Geerits, H. Lemmel, A.-S. Berger, and S. Sponar, Commun. Phys. 6, 209 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Sarenac, J

    D. Sarenac, J. Nsofini, I. Hincks, M. Arif, C. W. Clark, D. Cory, M. Huber, and D. Pushin, New J. Phys. 20, 103012 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    Sarenac, C

    D. Sarenac, C. Kapahi, W. Chen, C. W. Clark, D. G. Cory, M. G. Huber, I. Taminiau, K. Zhernenkov, and D. A. Pushin, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 116, 20328 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Le Thien, S

    Q. Le Thien, S. McKay, R. Pynn, and G. Ortiz, Phys. Rev. B 107, 134403 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Sarenac, O

    D. Sarenac, O. Lailey, M. E. Henderson, H. Ekinci, C. W. Clark, D. G. Cory, L. DeBeer-Schmitt, M. G. Huber, J. S. White, K. Zhernenkov et al., arXiv:2407.19384

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    A. V . Afanasev, D. V . Karlovets, and V . G. Serbo,P h y s .R e v .C 100, 051601(R) (2019)

    2019

  5. [12]

    A. V . Afanasev, D. V . Karlovets, and V . G. Serbo,P h y s .R e v .C 103, 054612 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    critical

    and radiative capture of neutrons by protons [ 14]. Most notably, the decay of a twisted neutron was recently investi- gated using a simple model of an unpolarized Bessel vortex state [ 15]. This study revealed significant differences in the decay patterns of vortex-state neutr...

    2025

  7. [14]

    J. A. Sherwin, Phys. Lett. A 437, 128102 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    W. Kou, B. Guo, and X. Chen, arXiv:2407.06520

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Nsofini, D

    J. Nsofini, D. Sarenac, C. J. Wood, D. G. Cory, M. Arif, C. W. Clark, M. G. Huber, and D. A. Pushin, P h y s .R e v .A94, 013605 (2016)

    2016

  10. [19]

    P . Zhao, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 50, 015006 (2023)

    2023

  11. [20]

    Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles (John Wiley & Sons, New Y ork, 2020)

    D. Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles (John Wiley & Sons, New Y ork, 2020)

    2020

  12. [21]

    Seng, P h y s .R e v .D110, 033002 (2024)

    C.-Y . Seng, P h y s .R e v .D110, 033002 (2024)

    2024

  13. [22]

    Glück, J

    F. Glück, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2023) 188

    2023

  14. [23]

    F. E. Wietfeldt and G. L. Greene, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1173 (2011)

    2011

  15. [24]

    F. E. Wietfeldt, Atoms 6, 70 (2018)

    2018

  16. [25]

    The coefficients are calculated as follows: I αβ (q2gαβ − 2qα qβ ) = 4Bq4 = ∫ [( p¯νe pi ) q2 − 2 ( qp ¯νe ) (qpi ) ]d3 pi ωi d3 p¯νe ω¯νe

    for a similar process of muon decay, A and B are con- stants, but it is not possible when the electron and proton are treated as massive. The coefficients are calculated as follows: I αβ (q2gαβ − 2qα qβ ) = 4Bq4 = ∫ [( p¯νe pi ) q2 − 2 ( qp ¯νe ) (qpi ) ]d3 pi ωi d3 p¯νe ω¯νe ....

    2025

  17. [26]

    Y . Chen, Y . Qiu, Q. Li, S. Tang, Y . Y ang, Z. Ren, W. Jiang, R. Fan, H. Yi, R. Liu et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 60, 63 (2024)

    2024

  18. [27]

    L. B. Okun, Leptons and Quarks (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2013)

    2013

  19. [28]

    J. F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, and B. R. Holstein, Dynamics of the Standard Model (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014)

    2014

  20. [29]

    K. Y . Bliokh, M. R. Dennis, and F. Nori, P h y s .R e v .L e t t .107, 174802 (2011)

    2011

  21. [30]

    I. P . Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 83, 093001 (2011)

    2011

  22. [31]

    Bouchiat and L

    C. Bouchiat and L. Michel, Nucl. Phys. 5, 416 (1958)

    1958

  23. [32]

    S. Y . Choi, T. Lee, and H. S. Song, Phys. Rev. D 40, 2477 (1989)

    1989

  24. [33]

    H. K. Dreiner, H. E. Haber, and S. P . Martin, Phys. Rep. 494,1 (2010)

    2010

  25. [34]

    V ega and J

    R. V ega and J. Wudka, P h y s .R e v .D53, 5286 (1996)

    1996

  26. [35]

    Lorcé, P h y s .R e v .D97, 016005 (2018)

    C. Lorcé, P h y s .R e v .D97, 016005 (2018)

    2018

  27. [36]

    Karlovets, S

    D. Karlovets, S. Baturin, G. Geloni, G. Sizykh, and V . Serbo, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 372 (2023)

    2023

  28. [37]

    D. V . Karlovets, G. L. Kotkin, V . G. Serbo, and A. Surzhykov, P h y s .R e v .A95, 032703 (2017)

    2017

  29. [38]

    Serbo, I

    V . Serbo, I. P . Ivanov, S. Fritzsche, D. Seipt, and A. Surzhykov, P h y s .R e v .A92, 012705 (2015)

    2015

  30. [39]

    V . K. Ivanov, A. D. Chaikovskaia, and D. V . Karlovets, Phys. Rev. A 108, 062803 (2023)

    2023

  31. [40]

    https://rscf.ru/en/project/23-62-10026/

  32. [41]

    U. D. Jentschura and V . G. Serbo, Eur. Phys. J. C 71, 1571 (2011). 024619-11

    2011

Pith tools

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