Mass Hierarchy of Z(2) Monopoles

Eduardo E. Quadros; Paulo J. Liebgott

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Mass Hierarchy of Z(2) Monopoles

T0 review · 3 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 to enumerate all spherically symmetric Z2 monopoles generated by su(2) embeddings in SU(4) broken to SO(4), and finds four with masses forming a hierarchy.

desk verdict The new index-4 and index-10 monopole solutions are likely correct, but the paper's claim to have enumerated every embedding is not proven—one explicit dismissal in Sec. 3 is false. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00210 v2 pith:ILHILK6N submitted 2024-11-29 hep-th math-phmath.MP

Eduardo E. Quadros , Paulo J. Liebgott This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 81T1317B20

keywords Z2monopolessu(2)embeddingsSU(4)Yang-Mills-HiggssymmetrictensorHiggsmonopolemasshierarchystabilityvanishingpotentiallimitfermiongenerationduality

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's central claim is that the SU(4) Yang-Mills-Higgs model broken to SO(4) by a symmetric tensor Higgs field contains exactly four spherically symmetric non-Abelian Z2 monopoles generated by su(2) embeddings, labeled by embedding indices 1, 2, 4, and 10. Two of these, the index 4 and index 10 monopoles, are new and involve scalar multiplets higher than triplets: a quintuplet for index 4 and a septuplet plus triplet for index 10. The paper computes their masses and radii in the vanishing potential limit, finding $M_4 = 2.001 M_0$ and $M_{10} = 4.057 M_0$, and argues that only the index 1 monopole is stable. If correct, the result gives a complete monopole spectrum for this model and a concrete mass hierarchy that the authors suggest may mirror the Standard Model fermion generations through a Z2-monopole/fermion duality.

What carries the argument

The central object is the classification of injective Lie algebra homomorphisms $f : su(2) \to su(4)$ that keep the generator $T_3$ in the unbroken $so(4)$ subalgebra. Each embedding is fixed by an embedding vector $\rho$ in the su(4) root space and a set of nonzero step-operator coefficients $x_\gamma$, subject to equations $\rho \cdot \gamma = 2$ and $\sum |x_\gamma|^2 \gamma = \rho$; its invariant label is the index $\rho^2/2$, which takes values 1, 2, 4, and 10 here. The paper then branches the symmetric tensor representation 10 into su(2) multiplets, decomposes the SO(4)-invariant vacuum into $T_3$ $m=0$ components, applies the hedgehog gauge transformation, and reduces the field equations to a three-function radial ODE system whose numerical solution in the vanishing potential limit yields the masses and radii.

What would settle it

Directly solve the linear system (3.9) together with the bracket-consistency condition in (3.8) for all subsets of the twelve su(4) roots; if any set of coefficients $|x_\gamma|^2$ yields a positive solution other than the four in (3.10), the classification is incomplete. The same test can be repeated by numerically integrating the full radial ODEs with finite $\lambda$ and searching for a spherically symmetric solution whose multiplet structure differs from the four listed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a classification and construction result: every spherically symmetric non-Abelian Z2 monopole in SU(4) Yang-Mills-Higgs theory minimally broken to SO(4) by a symmetric second-rank tensor Higgs field comes from one of four inequivalent su(2) embeddings, with indices 1, 2, 4, and 10. The index 4 and index 10 solutions are new; their scalar fields transform as a 5-plet plus singlets and as a 7-plet plus a triplet respectively, so they are not embedded 't Hooft-Polyakov triplets. In the vanishing potential limit the masses are $M_1 = 0.707 M_0$, $M_2 = 1.414 M_0$, $M_4 = 2.001 M_0$, and $M_{10} = 4.057 M_0$, with radii $2.4$, $2.4$, $4.2$, and $5.6$ in units of $R_0 = (ve)^{-1}$. Stability analysis via perturbations in the unbroken algebra shows an unstable mode exists for indices 2, 4, and 10, so only the fundamental index 1 monopole is stable.

Load-bearing premise

The completeness of the classification rests on the unproven assertion in Section 3 that every root selection other than the four listed is either a Weyl reflection of one of them or impossible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The complete list of spherically symmetric Z2 monopole species in this SU(4) model is the four embeddings indexed 1, 2, 4, and 10; no other su(2) embedding produces a distinct solution.
The index 4 and index 10 monopoles are heavier and larger than the fundamental one in the vanishing potential limit, so any monopole mass measurement in this model would see a $0.707$, $1.414$, $2.001$, $4.057$ hierarchy in units of $M_0$.
Only the index 1 monopole is stable; the index 2, 4, and 10 monopoles carry an unstable perturbation direction in so(4), so they should decay into stable fundamental monopoles.
If Z2 monopoles are dual to massive fermions as the authors propose, the multiplet structure of higher-index embeddings supplies a mechanism for fermion generations, with larger odd-index embeddings in bigger gauge groups as natural next candidates.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the completeness step could be checked by a brute-force enumeration of all root subsets of su(4) satisfying equations (3.7)-(3.9); if a fifth solution appeared, the mass table would be incomplete. This is a test the authors did not run.
Beyond the paper: applying the same embedding classification to SU(n) broken to SO(n) for $n > 4$ would likely produce longer index towers; the paper's proposal needs those towers to reproduce the spread of fermion masses.
Beyond the paper: the reported masses were computed at $\lambda \to 0$; a finite-potential calculation would show whether the ordering $M_1 < M_2 < M_4 < M_{10}$ persists when scalar self-interactions are switched on.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this paper probably has two new physical results—the index-4 and index-10 Z2 monopoles in SU(4)→SO(4)—but the classification that frames them has a hole. The abstract's 'every' is not established by the text.

What's genuinely new: the branching rules for the symmetric tensor 10 under the four su(2) embeddings, the vacuum decompositions, and the numerical masses and radii. The index-1 and index-2 results are scaled BPS solutions and match the exact values to 0.01%, which is a good sign for the solver. The index-4 mass M0≈2.001 and index-10 M0≈4.057, together with the radii, form a clean hierarchy. The appendix gives explicit asymptotic matrices, which is useful.

The soft spot is Sec. 3. The authors want to prove there are exactly four su(2) embeddings with a generator in so(4). They reduce to solving (3.7)–(3.9) and then say all other root choices are 'equivalent to a Weyl reflection... or impossible.' That's a sketch, and one of the dismissals is flat wrong. They claim an embedding with x_{α1} and x_{α1+α2} nonzero is 'prevented by the second condition in (3.8).' It isn't: the cross terms cancel for real phases, and (3.9) admits a formal solution with |x_{α1}|^2=|x_{α1+α2}|^2=2/3. The embedding vector would be ρ=(4/3)α1+(2/3)α2, giving H=diag(4/3,−2/3,−2/3,0) in the fundamental, which is not a valid su(2) Cartan element because its eigenvalues are not integers. The real exclusion is integrality, and that condition never appears in the paper. So the displayed case analysis does not show completeness. The four embeddings listed are the standard ones, and I think the classification is correct, but the proof is missing a step, and the 'every' in the abstract is stronger than what's shown.

Minor issues: no error bars on the masses, no code deposited, and the duality discussion is speculative—but it's clearly labeled as a proposal. None of that is damaging.

Bottom line: the paper is worth a serious referee. The new solutions and their properties are the kind of concrete result monopole people will want. But it needs revision: either supply the missing integrality condition and a complete case analysis in Sec. 3, or scale back the claim from 'every' to 'all embeddings of this type that satisfy the stated conditions.' Send it to review, but make sure the referee asks for that fix.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies spherically symmetric Z2 monopoles in an SU(4) Yang-Mills-Higgs model broken to SO(4) by a symmetric second-rank tensor Higgs field. It classifies su(2) embeddings into su(4), derives the branching rules of the 10 representation under each embedding, decomposes the vacuum in the T3-diagonal basis, and proposes a hedgehog ansatz for the monopole fields. The radial field equations are solved numerically in the vanishing-potential limit. Besides recovering the index 1 and index 2 solutions, the authors report new index 4 and index 10 solutions with masses M4 = 2.001 M0 and M10 = 4.057 M0, larger radii, and a stability analysis claiming that only the index 1 monopole is stable. The final section draws a speculative parallel between the observed mass hierarchy and Standard Model fermion generations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a complete taxonomy of spherically symmetric Z2 monopoles generated by su(2) embeddings in this model, including genuinely new solutions living in higher-dimensional su(2) multiplets. The computation is self-contained in the sense that no parameter is fitted to a target mass: mass ratios follow from solving the Euler-Lagrange equations, with the vacuum expectation value and gauge coupling canceling in units of M0. The numerical solver is calibrated against the known BPS-scaled solutions for indices 1 and 2 with a reported 0.01% relative error, which lends credibility to the new index 4 and 10 results. The branching-rule analysis, vacuum decompositions, and explicit asymptotic field matrices are also useful for future work on Zn monopoles. The speculative Standard Model duality discussion is not load-bearing and should be read as motivation rather than a quantitative claim.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.7)-(3.10)] The proof of exhaustiveness of the su(2) embedding classification is not written out. After reducing to simple-root supports, the text dismisses all other root selections with the sentence that they are "equivalent to a Weyl reflection of the ones above, or impossible." This is load-bearing because the abstract's "every" and the completeness of the taxonomy in Table 2 depend on that statement. The displayed case analysis does not systematically treat supports containing non-simple roots, nor does it state the integrality condition on H = Σ ρα Hα (integer eigenvalues in the fundamental 4) that supplements Eq. (3.9). In particular, Eq. (3.9) alone admits the formal solution |x_{α1}|^2 = |x_{α1+α2}|^2 = 2/3 for the support {α1, α1+α2}; excluding it requires the cross-term computation in (3.8) or the integrality of H, and neither step is shown. I verified that the adjacent-root case is indeed excluded by the second condition in (3.8), but the text needs to provide the omitted computation and, more importantly, a complete case analysis of all root supports, or state explicitly that the classification is quoted from [28] with a precise reference to the relevant classification result.
[Sec. 5, Eqs. (5.3)-(5.8)] The paper does not clearly connect the embedding classification of Sec. 3 to the condition that one generator of the embedded su(2) lies in the unbroken so(4), which is essential for the Dirac-type ansatz (6.1). The statement "D(T3) ∈ so(4) so it annihilates the vacuum state" is asserted rather than derived for the four embeddings. For the index 4 and index 10 cases, the verification is only an output of the vacuum decomposition computed afterwards. Since the goal is a complete list of Z2 monopoles, the authors should either impose the condition T3 ϕvac = 0 directly in the enumeration or explicitly verify it for each listed embedding and argue that no further embedding satisfying this condition exists.
[Sec. 7, Table 2] The new central numerical results are the masses and radii of the index 4 and index 10 monopoles, but the paper does not report the numerical parameters of the solver or an error estimate for these new quantities. The 0.01% agreement for indices 1 and 2 is a useful calibration, yet it does not by itself establish the accuracy of M4 = 2.001 M0 and M10 = 4.057 M0, especially because the index 10 solution has a septuplet and a triplet profile with rather different scales. Please report ξmin, ξmax, step size, shooting tolerance, convergence under mesh refinement, and the resulting uncertainty in M4, M10, R4, and R10.

minor comments (5)

[Table 1, index-1 row] The branching rule heading for index 1 reads "3 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1", but the displayed decomposition contains three singlets (|0 −2 2⟩, |0 −1 0⟩, and |0 0 −2⟩), so the heading should read "3 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1" to sum to 10.
[Figure 2(d) caption] The caption for the index 10 panel refers to a "quintuplet H1(ξ)/ξ", but the index 10 branching rule is 7 + 3, so the caption should say "septuplet" rather than "quintuplet".
[Sec. 5] The text refers twice to "Table 4" when presenting the branching rules and vacuum decomposition; the relevant table is Table 1.
[Eq. (3.8)] In the second condition of Eq. (3.8), the summation index in Σ_{γ′+γ′′=γ} is ambiguous because γ is not explicitly declared as ranging over roots; the summation variables should be defined and the equation prefixed with "for every root γ".
[Various] There are small typographical errors, including "wether" in Section 8 and the missing closing parenthesis in the index 10 vacuum decomposition near Eq. (5.8).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the embeddings, branching rules, and monopole masses are computed from the stated Lie-algebra equations and field equations, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The four su(2) embeddings are obtained by solving the homomorphism conditions (3.7)-(3.9), the branching rules are computed from the Chevalley-basis lowering operators, and the monopole masses are obtained by numerically solving the radial Euler-Lagrange equations (6.6)-(6.8) and integrating the Hamiltonian density (6.5). The free parameters v and e cancel in the quoted mass ratios, and the tail parameters w_b are determined by the shooting boundary conditions rather than by matching target masses. The self-cited framework [21] (Kneipp and Liebgott, one of whom is an author here) supplies the Z2 monopole setup and the diagonal-embedding remark, but the index-4 and index-10 solutions, their branching rules, and their masses are new outputs of the present computation, not inputs drawn from [21]. The Sec. 3 completeness argument contains a compressed claim about Weyl-equivalent root selections and a possibly false assertion about adjacent-root embeddings; that is a proof-gap or correctness concern, not a circularity, because the claimed classification is never assumed as an input. No equation is equivalent by construction to a desired result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results are derived from the Yang-Mills-Higgs action with no free parameters fitted to a target spectrum. The masses are ratios in units of M0 and are determined by the field equations. The main assumptions are standard in the monopole literature but are not all proven in the paper.

assumptions (4)

standard math Completeness of su(2) embeddings into su(4) with one generator in so(4)
The classification in Sec. 3 relies on the assumption that only the four root selections listed in (3.10) are possible. This is drawn from the Lorente-Gruber classification [28] but the paper's own derivation is partial.
domain assumption Spherically symmetric hedgehog ansatz (6.4) describes all embedded monopoles
The ansatz restricts the gauge field to the embedded su(2) and the Higgs field to two radial profiles per multiplet. This is the standard form for spherically symmetric embedded monopoles but is not proven general.
domain assumption Stability criterion (8.1) from Deglmann-Kneipp [37] applies to this non-adjoint Higgs model
The stability analysis in Sec. 8 uses the criterion that an unstable mode exists if [T3,X] = qX with |q| ≥ 1, citing [37]. The paper does not re-derive it for the symmetric tensor representation.
domain assumption Tail corrections and integration limits produce converged masses
The mass values in Table 2 depend on the choice of ξmin and ξmax and the after-the-fact tail correction. No convergence study is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass Hierarchy of Z(2) Monopoles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ILHILK6N

@misc{pith2026241200210,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass Hierarchy of Z(2) Monopoles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ILHILK6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00210}
}

read the original abstract

In this work we establish every spherically symmetric non-Abelian Z(2) monopole generated by su(2) embeddings in the SU(4) Yang-Mills-Higgs model minimally broken to SO(4) by a symmetric second-rank tensor Higgs field. We find new monopole solutions associated with index 4 and index 10 embeddings. These solutions belong to su(2) multiplets that are higher dimensional than triplets. Properties of these monopoles such as their mass and radius are calculated in the vanishing potential limit. A parallel between this result and the Standard Model hierarchy of fermion masses is considered.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[28]

Lorente and B

M. Lorente and B. Gruber, Classification of Semisimple Subalgebras of Simple Lie Algebras, Journal of Mathematical Physics 13 (1972) 1639 [https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article-pdf/13/10/1639/19270469/1639_1_online.pdf]. – 21 –

work page 1972
[1]

Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field, Proc

P. Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A133 (1931) 60

work page 1931
[2]

’t Hooft, Magnetic monopoles in unified gauge theories, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft, Magnetic monopoles in unified gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B79 (1974) 276

work page 1974
[3]

Polyakov, Particle spectrum in quantum field theory, JETP Lett

A. Polyakov, Particle spectrum in quantum field theory, JETP Lett. 20 (1974) 194

work page 1974
[4]

Julia and A

B. Julia and A. Zee, Poles with Both Magnetic and Electric Charges in Nonabelian Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2227

work page 1975
[5]

Bais and J.R

F.A. Bais and J.R. Primack, Spherically Symmetric Monopoles in Nonabelian Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B 123 (1977) 253

work page 1977
[6]

Weinberg, Fundamental monopoles and multimonopole solutions for arbitrary simple gauge groups, Nuclear Physics B (1980) 500

E. Weinberg, Fundamental monopoles and multimonopole solutions for arbitrary simple gauge groups, Nuclear Physics B (1980) 500

work page 1980
[7]

Taubes, The Existence of Multi - Monopole Solutions to the Nonabelian, Yang-Mills Higgs Equations for Arbitrary Simple Gauge Groups, Commun

C.H. Taubes, The Existence of Multi - Monopole Solutions to the Nonabelian, Yang-Mills Higgs Equations for Arbitrary Simple Gauge Groups, Commun. Math. Phys. 80 (1981) 343

work page 1981

Show all 39 references

[8]

Weinberg, Fundamental Monopoles in Theories With Arbitrary Symmetry Breaking, Nucl

E.J. Weinberg, Fundamental Monopoles in Theories With Arbitrary Symmetry Breaking, Nucl. Phys. B 203 (1982) 445. – 20 –

1982
[9]

Montonen and D.I

C. Montonen and D.I. Olive, Magnetic Monopoles as Gauge Particles?, Phys. Lett. B 72 (1977) 117

1977
[10]

Goddard, J

P. Goddard, J. Nuyts and D. Olive, Gauge theories and magnetic charges, Nucl. Phys. B125 (1977) 1

1977
[11]

Osborn, Topological Charges for N=4 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories and Monopoles of Spin 1, Phys

H. Osborn, Topological Charges for N=4 Supersymmetric Gauge Theories and Monopoles of Spin 1, Phys. Lett. B 83 (1979) 321

1979
[12]

Seiberg, Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories, Nucl

N. Seiberg, Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B 435 (1995) 129 [hep-th/9411149]

1995 arXiv
[13]

Seiberg and E

N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Monopoles, duality and chiral symmetry breaking in N=2 supersymmetric QCD, Nucl. Phys. B 431 (1994) 484 [hep-th/9408099]

1994 arXiv
[14]

Hooft, Gauge theories with unified weak, electromagnetic and strong interactions, International physics series (1975) 1225

G. Hooft, Gauge theories with unified weak, electromagnetic and strong interactions, International physics series (1975) 1225

1975
[15]

Mandelstam, Vortices and Quark Confinement in Nonabelian Gauge Theories, Phys

S. Mandelstam, Vortices and Quark Confinement in Nonabelian Gauge Theories, Phys. Rept. 23 (1976) 245

1976
[16]

Kronfeld, M.L

A.S. Kronfeld, M.L. Laursen, G. Schierholz and U.J. Wiese, Monopole Condensation and Color Confinement, Phys. Lett. B 198 (1987) 516

1987
[17]

Seiberg and E

N. Seiberg and E. Witten, Electric - magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory, Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994) 19 [hep-th/9407087]

1994 arXiv
[18]

Greensite, The Confinement problem in lattice gauge theory, Prog

J. Greensite, The Confinement problem in lattice gauge theory, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51 (2003) 1 [hep-lat/0301023]

2003 arXiv
[19]

Weinberg, D

E. Weinberg, D. London and L. Rosner, Magnetic monopoles with Zn charges, Nucl. Phys. B236 (1984) 90

1984
[20]

Bais and R

F. Bais and R. Laterveer, Exact regular ZN monopoles solutions in gauge theories with non-adjoint Higgs representation, Nucl. Phys. B307 (1988) 487

1988
[21]

Kneipp and P

M. Kneipp and P. Liebgott, Z2 monopoles in SU (n) Yang-Mills-Higgs theories, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 045007

2010
[22]

Kneipp and P

M. Kneipp and P. Liebgott, BPS Z2 monopoles and N =2 SU (n) superconformal field theories on the Higgs branch, Phys. Rev. D87 (2013) 025024

2013
[23]

Wu and C.N

T.T. Wu and C.N. Yang, Concept of Nonintegrable Phase Factors and Global Formulation of Gauge Fields, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 3845

1975
[24]

Arafune, P.G.O

J. Arafune, P.G.O. Freund and C. Goebel, Topology of higgs fields, Journal of Mathematical Physics 16 (1975) 433

1975
[25]

Rose, Elementary Theory of Angular Momentum, Dover books on physics and chemistry , Dover (1995)

M. Rose, Elementary Theory of Angular Momentum, Dover books on physics and chemistry , Dover (1995)

1995
[26]

Wilkinson and A.S

D. Wilkinson and A.S. Goldhaber, Spherically symmetric monopoles, Phys. Rev. D 16 (1977) 1221

1977
[27]

Li, Group theory of the spontaneously broken gauge symmetries, Phys

L.-F. Li, Group theory of the spontaneously broken gauge symmetries, Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 1723

1974
[29]

Fuchs and C

J. Fuchs and C. Schweigert, Symmetries, Lie Algebras and Representations: A Graduate Course for Physicists, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, Cambridge University Press (2003)

2003
[30]

Wilczek, Inequivalent embeddings of su(2) and instanton interactions, Physics Letters B 65 (1976) 160

F. Wilczek, Inequivalent embeddings of su(2) and instanton interactions, Physics Letters B 65 (1976) 160

1976
[31]

Georgi, Lie algebras in particle physics: from isospin to unified theories, Taylor & Francis (2000)

H. Georgi, Lie algebras in particle physics: from isospin to unified theories, Taylor & Francis (2000)

2000
[32]

Bogomolny ,Stability of classical solutions, Sov

E. Bogomolny ,Stability of classical solutions, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 24 (1976) 449

1976
[33]

Bezanson, A

J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski and V.B. Shah, Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM Review 59 (2017) 65

2017
[34]

Rackauckas and Q

C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie, Differentialequations.jl – a performant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differential equations in julia, The Journal of Open Research Software 5 (2017)

2017
[35]

Cash, Runge-kutta methods for the solution of stiff two-point boundary value problems, Applied Numerical Mathematics 22 (1996) 165

J. Cash, Runge-kutta methods for the solution of stiff two-point boundary value problems, Applied Numerical Mathematics 22 (1996) 165

1996
[36]

Prasad and C

M. Prasad and C. Sommerfield, An Exact Classical Solution for the ’t Hooft Monopole and the Julia-Zee Dyon, Phys.Rev.Lett. 35 (1975) 760

1975
[37]

Deglmann and M.A

M. Deglmann and M.A. Kneipp, Asymptotic stability analysis for su(n) dark monopoles, Physics Letters B 806 (2020) 135476

2020
[38]

Strassler, Duality, phases, spinors and monopoles in so(n) and spin(n) gauge theories, Journal of High Energy Physics 1998 (1998) 017

M.J. Strassler, Duality, phases, spinors and monopoles in so(n) and spin(n) gauge theories, Journal of High Energy Physics 1998 (1998) 017

1998
[39]

Koide, New view of quark and lepton mass hierarchy, Phys

Y. Koide, New view of quark and lepton mass hierarchy, Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 252. – 22 –

1983

Pith tools

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

[1] [28]

Lorente and B

M. Lorente and B. Gruber, Classification of Semisimple Subalgebras of Simple Lie Algebras, Journal of Mathematical Physics 13 (1972) 1639 [https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article-pdf/13/10/1639/19270469/1639_1_online.pdf]. – 21 –

work page 1972

[2] [1]

Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field, Proc

P. Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A133 (1931) 60

work page 1931

[3] [2]

’t Hooft, Magnetic monopoles in unified gauge theories, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft, Magnetic monopoles in unified gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B79 (1974) 276

work page 1974

[4] [3]

Polyakov, Particle spectrum in quantum field theory, JETP Lett

A. Polyakov, Particle spectrum in quantum field theory, JETP Lett. 20 (1974) 194

work page 1974

[5] [4]

Julia and A

B. Julia and A. Zee, Poles with Both Magnetic and Electric Charges in Nonabelian Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 2227

work page 1975

[6] [5]

Bais and J.R

F.A. Bais and J.R. Primack, Spherically Symmetric Monopoles in Nonabelian Gauge Theories, Nucl. Phys. B 123 (1977) 253

work page 1977

[7] [6]

Weinberg, Fundamental monopoles and multimonopole solutions for arbitrary simple gauge groups, Nuclear Physics B (1980) 500

E. Weinberg, Fundamental monopoles and multimonopole solutions for arbitrary simple gauge groups, Nuclear Physics B (1980) 500

work page 1980

[8] [7]

Taubes, The Existence of Multi - Monopole Solutions to the Nonabelian, Yang-Mills Higgs Equations for Arbitrary Simple Gauge Groups, Commun

C.H. Taubes, The Existence of Multi - Monopole Solutions to the Nonabelian, Yang-Mills Higgs Equations for Arbitrary Simple Gauge Groups, Commun. Math. Phys. 80 (1981) 343

work page 1981