Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Solitary waves in a Two Parameter Family of Generalized Nonlinear Dirac Equations in $1+1$ Dimensions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs exact stationary solitary-wave solutions for every κ>0, p>1 in a generalized ABS nonlinear Dirac model, with E/Q independent of the coupling constant.

desk verdict Sound exact-soliton construction for a two-parameter NLDE family; the stability claims outrun the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13299 v1 pith:FHOLNGSQ submitted 2025-04-17 nlin.PS

classification nlin.PS MSC 35Q5135Q5535Q4137K40 PACS 03.65.Pm05.45.Yv
keywords exactsolitarywavesnonlinearDiracequationgeneralizedABSmodelscalar-scalarinteractionvector-vectorVakhitov-KolokolovcriterionnonrelativisticreductionmodifiedSchrödinger
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 constructs exact stationary solitary-wave solutions of a 1+1-dimensional nonlinear Dirac equation whose self-interaction mixes a scalar-scalar term of power $\kappa+1$ with a vector-vector term of power $(\kappa+1)/2$, with an adjustable relative coefficient set by $p>1$. The authors show that for every $\kappa>0$ and $p>1$ a localized rest-frame solution $\Psi(x,t)=\Phi(x)e^{-i\omega t}$ exists whenever $1/p^{1/(\kappa+1)}<\omega/m<1$, filling the entire allowed parameter plane. The exact profile is given in closed form, the charge and energy are finite, and the ratio $E/Q$ is independent of the coupling constant $g$. Stability is addressed through the Vakhitov--Kolokolov criterion, giving stability for $\kappa<2$ and a small window beyond, with an unstable region predicted for larger $\kappa$. A non-relativistic reduction yields a modified nonlinear Schrödinger equation whose solitons are stable for $\kappa<2$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the radial decomposition $\Phi(x)=R(x)(\cos\theta(x), \sin\theta(x))^T$ in the gamma-matrix representation $\gamma^0=\sigma_3$, $\gamma^1=i\sigma_1$. Substituting it into the equation of motion turns the stationary problem into a first-order equation $d\theta/dx=\kappa[m\cos(2\theta)-\omega]$, solved by $\tan\theta=\alpha\tanh(\kappa\beta x)$, together with an algebraic equation for $R^{2\kappa}$. This factorization reduces the entire two-parameter family to quadratures: $Q$ and $H_2$ become one-dimensional integrals over $y=\tanh(\kappa\beta x)$, from which $E/Q$ and the charge-frequency relation are obtained, and the Vakhitov--Kolokolov derivative $dQ/d\omega$ can be evaluated. The same radial machinery drives the non-relativistic reduction, replacing the interaction by the effective coupling $g^2(p-1)/p$ in the modified nonlinear Schrödinger equation.

What would settle it

Run direct numerical time evolution of the exact solitons for $\kappa>2$ at frequencies where $dQ/d\omega>0$ (the Vakhitov--Kolokolov unstable region) and where $E/Q>1$; linear stability would be settled by computing the spectrum of the linearized Dirac operator around $\Phi(x)$ and looking for eigenvalues with positive real part. If the solitons remain stable where $dQ/d\omega>0$, the Vakhitov--Kolokolov criterion is not sufficient for this model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an exact construction covering the whole admissible parameter plane: for the generalized ABS model with interaction Lagrangian $L_I = \frac{g^2}{(\kappa+1)}(\bar{\psi}\psi)^{\kappa+1} - \frac{g^2}{p(\kappa+1)}[\bar{\psi}\gamma_\mu\psi\,\bar{\psi}\gamma^\mu\psi]^{(\kappa+1)/2}$, every pair $\kappa>0$, $p>1$ admits localized solitary waves $\Psi(x,t)=\Phi(x)e^{-i\omega t}$ with rest-frame frequency in the window $1/p^{1/(\kappa+1)}<\omega/m<1$. The spinor profile is expressed through $\theta(x)=\arctan[\alpha\tanh(\kappa\beta x)]$ and $R^{2\kappa}(x)=\frac{(\kappa+1)p}{g^2}\frac{m\cos(2\theta)-\omega}{p\cos^{\kappa+1}(2\theta)-1}$, with $\alpha=\sqrt{(m-\omega)/(m+\omega)}$ and $\beta=\sqrt{m^2-\omega^2}$. Because both $Q$ and $H_2$ scale as $g^{-2/\kappa}$, the ratio $E/Q$ depends only on $\omega,\kappa,p$ and not on $g$. The bound state exists throughout the $(\kappa,p)$ plane, the transition from double-humped to single-humped density occurs at $\omega/m=(p\kappa+1)/(p(\kappa+1))$, and the stability boundary is governed by $dQ/d\omega$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Vakhitov--Kolokolov condition $dQ/d\omega<0$ is sufficient, not merely necessary, for linear stability of these nonlinear Dirac solitary waves; the paper applies it without proving the spectral and coercivity conditions of the linearized operator, and for $\kappa>2$ it explicitly defers numerical verification of the predicted unstable region.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $\kappa>0$ and $p>1$, exact closed-form solitary waves exist on the whole allowed frequency interval $1/p^{1/(\kappa+1)}<\omega/m<1$, so the generalized ABS model has a complete stationary-soliton family.
  • $E/Q$ is independent of $g$, so fixing the charge determines the coupling as a function of $\omega,\kappa,p$, enabling direct comparison of soliton families without tuning the coupling.
  • The charge density changes from double-humped to single-humped at $\omega/m=(p\kappa+1)/(p(\kappa+1))$, giving a sharp geometric signature of the transition.
  • The Vakhitov--Kolokolov analysis predicts linear stability for $\kappa<2$ and a small window beyond, with instability for larger $\kappa$, a prediction that direct numerical evolution can test.
  • In the non-relativistic limit the model reduces to a modified nonlinear Schrödinger equation with effective coupling $g^2(p-1)/p$, and its solitons are stable for $\kappa<2$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because $E/Q$ at $\kappa=1$ is available in closed form, this family provides a clean analytic test bed for whether the binding threshold $E/Q<m$ and the stability criterion coincide in nonlinear Dirac models.
  • Editorial inference: the sharp double-to-single hump boundary could serve as an observable marker in honeycomb-lattice photonics or spin-orbit-coupled Bose-Einstein condensates, where nonlinear Dirac equations appear as envelope equations.
  • Editorial inference: the same radial factorization may extend to the PT-symmetric and pseudoscalar variants listed as open problems, since the construction relies only on the ratio of scalar and vector densities.
  • Editorial inference: a numerical spectrum of the linearized operator around $\Phi(x)$ would settle whether the Vakhitov--Kolokolov criterion is sufficient, and if it fails the stability boundary would need a full spectral analysis.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs exact stationary solitary wave solutions of a two-parameter family of nonlinear Dirac equations in 1+1 dimensions, with Lagrangian (7): a scalar-scalar interaction of power κ+1 and a vector-vector interaction of power (κ+1)/2 with relative weight set by p>1. For the ansatz Ψ(x,t)=Φ(x)e^{-iωt}, the authors derive the profile from Eqs. (19)-(24), obtaining localized real solutions under the frequency condition 1/p^{1/(κ+1)} < ω/m < 1. They then compute charge and energy, show E/Q is independent of the coupling g, discuss single vs double hump transitions, use the Vakhitov-Kolokolov criterion to claim stability for κ<2 and a small window above κ=2, and finally give a nonrelativistic reduction to a modified nonlinear Schrödinger equation with a Derrick-theorem stability argument.

Significance. If the existence construction is correct, this is a valuable extension of the ABS model: it gives explicit soliton profiles over the full (κ,p) parameter region and identifies a sharp frequency threshold, with E/Q independent of g as a concrete and falsifiable prediction. The derivation from the stated Lagrangian is largely analytic and self-contained, and the κ=1, p=2 ABS limit and the p→∞ scalar-scalar limit are natural consistency checks. The claimed stability results, however, go beyond what is proved in the paper, and several of the formulas underlying the charge, energy, and hump-transition calculations are internally inconsistent. The core existence result may survive, but the quantitative and stability claims require substantial reworking.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (36b)] The integral I(ω,κ,p) is inconsistent with Eq. (27) and the change of variables y=tanh(κβx). Equation (27) gives R² ∝ (1−y²)^{1/κ}, and since dx = dy/[κβ(1−y²)], the Jacobian leads to an integrand proportional to (1−y²)^{1/κ−1}. The manuscript instead writes (1−y²)^{1−1/κ}, which differs from the correct exponent at every κ except κ=1. This error propagates into Q(ω,κ,p), E(ω,κ,p), dQ/dω, and therefore into the Vakhitov-Kolokolov plots and stability diagrams in Secs. IV.C-IV.F. The formulas and the numerical results derived from them need to be rederived and recomputed.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (32)-(34)] The double/single-hump threshold quoted in Eqs. (33)-(34) does not follow from Eq. (32). Setting the bracket in Eq. (32) to zero gives α² = κ(p−1)/[2p+(p+1)κ], which is equivalent to ω/m = (p+κ)/[p(κ+1)], not the displayed (pκ+1)/[p(κ+1)]. The two expressions agree only for κ=1. In addition, Eq. (29) uses (1−y²)^{2/κ} whereas Eq. (27) gives (1−y²)^{1/κ}; this inconsistency appears to be the source of the incorrect threshold. The claimed transition curve in the (κ,p) plane is therefore not established by the derivation as written.
  3. [Secs. IV.F, IV.G, and Conclusions] The central stability claim is supported only by the Vakhitov-Kolokolov condition dQ/dω<0 (Eq. (56)). For nonlinear Dirac equations this condition is necessary but not sufficient for spectral stability; one also needs an analysis of the spectrum of the linearized operator, including Krein-signature or coercivity conditions. No such analysis is supplied. Furthermore, Sec. IV.G explicitly says the instability for κ>2 "will have to be verified by numerics" and phrases the prediction as "We believe", yet the final section states "we have further shown that these solutions are not only stable for κ<2 but even for a small window beyond κ>2". This is an overstatement. The stability statements should be either downgraded to conjectures or supported by a full linear-stability analysis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (15)] Equation (15) contains an unbalanced parenthesis and the first g_s appears without its square; the surrounding notation alternates between g_s, g_v and g_s^2, g_v^2.
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (74)] The statement in Eq. (74) that "H2 is positive and small relative to H1" is used to conclude stability from Derrick's theorem, but no estimate of the relative size of H1 and H2 in the regime of validity of the nonrelativistic reduction is provided.
  3. [Sec. IV, Figs. 4-10] The paper presents many numerical plots of Q, dQ/dω, and E/Q, but does not state the numerical accuracy of the integrals used; a brief description of the quadrature method and error estimates would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Bibliography] References [26] and [27] are listed but not discussed in the text; please either cite them in the stability discussion or remove them.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the soliton construction follows analytically from the stated Lagrangian with no fitted parameter renamed as prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation starts from the explicitly stated Lagrangian (Eq. (7)), inserts the stationary ansatz (Eq. (10)), and obtains the first-order equations (13)-(20). The radial profile Eq. (24) is solved algebraically from the conserved quantity H=0 and the theta equation (20). The existence restriction omega/m > 1/p^{1/(kappa+1)} arises from requiring the denominator p cos^{kappa+1}(2theta)-1 to stay positive over the obtained profile, not from an imposed condition. The g-independence of E/Q follows from scaling: both H2 and Q are proportional to (g^2)^(-1/kappa), as shown in Eqs. (45)-(55). No fitted normalization is used; setting Q=1 only fixes g and is used for plotting. Self-citations to [16] and [17] provide notation, the ABS starting point, and limiting checks, but the target equations are not imported from those citations. The Vakhitov-Kolokolov-based stability section uses the external criterion [18]; whether dQ/domega<0 is sufficient for linear stability of nonlinear Dirac waves is a correctness question, not a circularity. The internal discrepancy between Eq. (32) and Eqs. (33)-(34) is an algebraic error, not a circular reduction. Therefore no prediction reduces by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a stationary ansatz, a first-integral boundary condition, standard Vakhitov-Kolokolov and Derrick stability criteria, and hand-chosen model parameters kappa and p. No new physical entities are introduced and no numbers are fitted to external data.

free parameters (3)
  • kappa = arbitrary, kappa > 0
    Nonlinearity exponent defining the model family; not fitted to data, but every plotted result depends on its chosen value.
  • p = arbitrary, p > 1
    Ratio of scalar-scalar to vector-vector coupling introduced to generalize the ABS model; chosen by hand, not derived.
  • omega = restricted to 1/p^(1/(kappa+1)) < omega/m < 1
    Soliton frequency parameter; solutions are parameterized by it, and existence and stability maps are functions of it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Vakhitov-Kolokolov criterion dQ/domega < 0 is treated as a valid stability condition for these NLDE solitary waves.
    Invoked in Sec. IV.F; the paper does not verify the spectral hypotheses, such as coercivity and absence of unstable internal modes, that make the criterion sufficient for nonlinear Dirac equations.
  • domain assumption The stationary ansatz Psi(x,t)=Phi(x)e^{-i omega t} with (u,v) to 0 at infinity reduces the PDE to ordinary differential equations and permits setting the integration constant H(u,v)=0.
    Used in Sec. III, Eqs. (10), (18), and (19); this is the standard solitary-wave reduction on which all exact profiles are built.
  • standard math Lorentz invariance allows moving solitons to be generated by boosting rest-frame solutions.
    Sec. III, paragraph following Eq. (10), used to justify the rest-frame construction as the general one.
  • domain assumption Derrick's theorem is applicable to the nonrelativistic modified NLSE reduction.
    Sec. V.A, Eqs. (71) to (74); the stability conclusion kappa < 2 in the nonrelativistic regime depends on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Solitary waves in a Two Parameter Family of Generalized Nonlinear Dirac Equations in $1+1$ Dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FHOLNGSQ

@misc{pith2026250413299,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Solitary waves in a Two Parameter Family of Generalized Nonlinear Dirac Equations in $1+1$ Dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FHOLNGSQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13299}
}
abstract

We obtain exact solutions of the nonlinear Dirac equation in 1+1 dimension of the form $\Psi(x,t) = \Phi(x) e^{-i \omega t}$ where the nonlinear interactions are a combination of vector-vector (V-V) and scalar-scalar (S-S) interactions with the interaction Lagrangian given by $L_I= \frac{g^2}{(\kappa+1)}(\bar{\psi} \psi)^{\kappa+1} -\frac{g^2}{p(\kappa+1)}[\bar{\psi} \gamma_{\mu} \psi \bar{\psi} \gamma^{\mu} \psi]^{(\kappa+1)/2}$. This generalizes the model of ABS (N.V. Alexeeva, I.V. Barashenkov and A. Saxena, Annals Phys. {\bf 403}, 198, (2019)) by having the arbitrary nonlinearity parameter $\kappa>0$ and by replacing the coefficient of the V-V interaction by the arbitrary positive parameter $p>1$ which alters the relative weights of the vector-vector and the scalar-scalar interactions. We show that the solitary wave solutions exist in the entire allowed $(\kappa,p)$ plane for $\omega/m > 1/p^{1/(\kappa+1)} $, for frequency $\omega$ and mass $m$. These solutions have the property that their energy divided by their charge is $\it {independent} $ of the coupling constant $g$. As $\omega$ increases, there is a transition from the double humped to the single humped solitons. We discuss the regions of stability of these solutions as a function of $\omega,p,\kappa$ using the Vakhitov-Kolokolov criterion. Finally we discuss the non-relativistic reduction of the 2-parameter family of generalized ABS models to a modified nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation (NLSE) and discuss the stability of the solitary waves in the domain of validity of the modified NLSE.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13299 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Plot of the charge density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) we plot E/Q vs ω for p = 2 and several values of κ, and in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Plot of the charge density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Plot of the charge density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Solitary waves in the complementary generalized ABS model

    nlin.PS 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Exact solitary waves are found for the complementary generalized ABS nonlinear Dirac model, with full frequency range and a q-dependent bound-state threshold, stable for kappa < 2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [16]

    Gross and A

    D.J. Gross and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 10, 3235 (1974)

  2. [17]

    Lee, T.K

    S.Y. Lee, T.K. Kuo and A. Gavrielides, Phys. Rev. D 12, 2249 (1975)

  3. [1]

    We would like to know if the stability is linked with a single/double hump solution and whether the stability is linked to if E/Q> 1

    One would like to know the parameter range in the ( κ-p) plane for which the solitary wave bound state solutions are stable. We would like to know if the stability is linked with a single/double hump solution and whether the stability is linked to if E/Q> 1

  4. [2]

    The interesting question is whether one can also construct the PT-invariant variant of our generalized ABS model and, if yes, can one also obtain its exact solutions

    ABS [17] have also considered the PT-invariant generalization of their model. The interesting question is whether one can also construct the PT-invariant variant of our generalized ABS model and, if yes, can one also obtain its exact solutions

  5. [3]

    It is then natural to examine the behavior of the solitary waves of the generalized ABS model under various external fields

    There has been a lot of discussion in the literature about the behavior of the S-S as well as the V-V solitary waves in various external fields [20, 21]. It is then natural to examine the behavior of the solitary waves of the generalized ABS model under various external fields

  6. [4]

    Another possible interaction is the PS-PS (pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar) interaction

    In this paper we have considered two parameter families of models with novel admix- ture of the V-V and the S-S interactions. Another possible interaction is the PS-PS (pseudoscalar-pseudoscalar) interaction. Can one construct NLD models with the ad- mixture of the PS-PS with the V-V and/or with the S-S models? Going further, can one construct a NLD model...

  7. [5]

    We hope to address some of these questions in the near future

    Finally, perhaps the most interesting question is if one can find relevance of the gen- eralized ABS model (at least for few of the allowed p values) in the context of some physical phenomena, for example in the Bose-Einstein condensate or some other phys- ical system. We hope to address some of these questions in the near future. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would...

  8. [6]

    J Dalibard, F Gerbier, G Juzeli¯ unas, and P ¨Ohberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1523 (2011)

Show all 33 references
  1. [7]

    Geim, K.S

    A.K. Geim, K.S. Novoselov, Nature Materials 6, 183 (2007)

  2. [8]

    models to having arbitrary nonlinearity parameter κ> 0 was studied in [16]. That paper concluded that while the bound state solitary wave solutions exist in the entire κ plane, in the V-V case such bound states are allowed only if κ is less than a certain critical value. As no...

  3. [9]

    C. Wu, D. Bergman, I. Balents and S.D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 070401 (2007)

  4. [10]

    O Peleg, G Bartal, B Freedman, O Manela, M Segev, and D N Christodoulides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 103901 (2007)

  5. [11]

    K F Mak, C Lee, J Hone, J Shan, and T F Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 136805 (2010)

  6. [12]

    Ablowitz and Y

    M.J. Ablowitz and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A 82, 013840 (2010)

  7. [13]

    Ivanenko, ZhETF 8, 260 (1938)

    D. Ivanenko, ZhETF 8, 260 (1938)

  8. [14]

    Thirring, Ann

    W.E. Thirring, Ann. Phys. 3, 91 (1958)

  9. [15]

    Soler, Phys

    M. Soler, Phys. Rev. D 1, 2766 (1970)

  10. [18]

    Mikhailov, JETP Lett 23, 320 (1976), E.A

    A.V. Mikhailov, JETP Lett 23, 320 (1976), E.A. Kuznetsov and A.V. Mikhailov, Theor. Math. Phys. 30, 303 (1977)

  11. [19]

    D. J. Kaup and A. C. Newell, Lett Nuovo Cim 20, 325 (1977)

  12. [20]

    D. K. Campbell and A. R. Bishop, Phys Rev B 24, 4859 (1981); Nucl Phys B 200, 297 (1982)

  13. [21]

    A B Aceves and S Wabnitz, Phys Lett A 141, 37 (1989); C. M. de Sterke and J. E. Sipe, in Progress in Optics, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994), Vol. XXXIII; C. M. de Sterke, D. G. Salinas, J. E. Sipe, Phys Rev E 54, 1969 (1996)

  14. [22]

    Cooper, A

    F. Cooper, A. Khare, B. Mihaila, and A. Saxena, Phy. Rev. E 82, 036604 (2010). We follow the notations of this paper as well as several of its results

  15. [23]

    N.V Alexeeva, I. V. Barashenkov and A. Saxena, Ann. of Phys. 403, 198 (2019)

  16. [24]

    Vakhitov and A.A

    N.G. Vakhitov and A.A. Kolokolov, Radiophys. Quantum Electron 16, 783 (1973)

  17. [25]

    Derrick, J

    G.H. Derrick, J. Math. Phys. 5, 1252 (1964)

  18. [26]

    Mertens, N.R

    F.G. Mertens, N.R. Quintero and A.R. Bishop, Phys. Rev. E 81, 016608 (2010); F. Mertens, N.R. Quintero, I.V. Barashenkov and A.R. Bishop, Phys. Rev. E 84, 026614 (2011); F.G. Mertens, F. Cooper, N.R. Quintero, A. Khare and A. Saxena, J. Phys. A 49, 065402 (2016)

  19. [27]

    Cooper, A

    F. Cooper, A. Khare, N.R. Quintero, F.G. Mertens and A. Saxena, Phys. Rev. E 85, 046607 (2012); F. Cooper, N.R. Quintero, B. Sanchez-Ray, F.G. Mertens and A. Saxena, J. Phys. A 53 455702 (2020)

  20. [28]

    D. D. Ivanenko and M M Mirianashvili, DAN SSSR 106, 413 (1956)

  21. [29]

    Heisenberg, Rev

    W. Heisenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 269 (1957)

  22. [30]

    Feng, O Sugino, R-Y Liu, J Zhang, R Yukawa, M Kawamura, T Iimori, H Kim, Y Hasegawa, H Li, L Chen, K Wu, H Kumigashira, F Komori, T-C Chiang, S Meng, and I Matsuda, Phys

    B. Feng, O Sugino, R-Y Liu, J Zhang, R Yukawa, M Kawamura, T Iimori, H Kim, Y Hasegawa, H Li, L Chen, K Wu, H Kumigashira, F Komori, T-C Chiang, S Meng, and I Matsuda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 096401 (2017)

  23. [31]

    Haddad and L.D

    L.H. Haddad and L.D. Carr, New J. Phys. 17, 113011 (2015)

  24. [32]

    Comech, F

    A. Comech, F. Cooper, and A. Saxena, Linear instability of solitary waves in the massive Thirring model (unpublished)

  25. [33]

    Cui and D

    S. Cui and D. E. Pelinosky, Stability of standing periodic waves in the massive Thirring model, arXiv:2409.02755v1 [nlin.SI] (2024). 19

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.