A new look at the $SU_2$ gauge monopole

W.F. Kao

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 54 references

A new look at the $SU_2$ gauge monopole

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The $SU_2\times U_1$ magnetic monopole is controlled by an eigenvalue equation for the scalar doublet, and that equation produces a new family of monopole solutions.

desk verdict A review of the Cho–Maison monopole that advertises a new generalized family but never constructs a nontrivial solution; the only explicit example is an abelian limit, and the paper's own p=0 restriction contradicts the later charge quantization. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00118 v1 pith:PLQ2I3W2 submitted 2025-04-30 hep-th

W.F. Kao This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th PACS 14.80.Hv11.15.-g12.15.-y

keywords SU(2)gaugetheorymagneticmonopoleeigenvalueequationeffectivefieldtensorscalardoubletchargequantizationdyonCM

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 argues that the magnetic monopole in an $SU_2\times U_1$ theory with a scalar doublet is governed by an eigenvalue equation---the unit vector $\hat n$ acts on the normalized scalar field $\varphi_\lambda$ through $\hat n\varphi_\lambda=\lambda\varphi_\lambda$ with $\lambda=\pm 1$---and that this equation is what places a monopole term into the effective electromagnetic field. The paper constructs the unique covariant effective tensor $F_{\mu\nu}=\lambda\varphi_\lambda^\dagger G_{\mu\nu}\varphi_\lambda+i\lambda[(\nabla_\mu\varphi_\lambda)^\dagger\nabla_\nu\varphi_\lambda-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)]$ and proves it equals $\partial_\mu B_\nu-\partial_\nu B_\mu-\varepsilon_{abc}n^a\partial_\mu n^b\partial_\nu n^c$. On this basis it produces a family of generalized monopole solutions, labelled CM in the paper, by replacing the radial unit vector with an arbitrary unit vector and taking $\theta_1=p\theta$, $\phi_1=l\phi$; the magnetic charge is then quantized as $ge=4\pi pl$. If correct, this unifies the known monopole solutions under one constraint and gives a systematic route to new dyonic solutions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the eigenvalue equation $\hat n\varphi_\lambda=\lambda\varphi_\lambda$ with $\hat n=n^a\sigma^a$ and $\lambda=\pm 1$, together with the effective field tensor $F_{\mu\nu}\equiv\lambda\varphi_\lambda^\dagger G_{\mu\nu}\varphi_\lambda+i\lambda[(\nabla_\mu\varphi_\lambda)^\dagger\nabla_\nu\varphi_\lambda-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)]$. The eigenvalue equation ties the scalar-field geometry to the unit vector that defines the magnetic direction, and the effective tensor is the unique covariant projection that, under this constraint, reproduces the monopole winding term $\varepsilon_{abc}n^a\partial_\mu n^b\partial_\nu n^c$. The proof works by splitting the projected field strength into pieces, applying eigenvector identities such as $n^a=(\lambda/2)\varphi_\lambda^\dagger\sigma^a\varphi_\lambda$ and $\varphi_\delta^\dagger\partial_\mu\hat n\varphi_\lambda=(\lambda-\delta)\varphi_\delta^\dagger\partial_\mu\varphi_\lambda$, and showing that all non-topological terms cancel.

What would settle it

Solve the full radial equations for the ansatz $\theta_1=p\theta$, $\phi_1=l\phi$ with $(p,l)\neq(1,1)$, demanding regularity at the origin and finite energy at infinity; if the only regular solution with all profiles $f$, $A$, $B$, $\chi$ well behaved is the $p=l=1$ case, the claimed generalized monopole family does not exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the $SU_2\times U_1$ monopole is an eigenvector phenomenon. With the scalar doublet factored as $\varphi=\chi\varphi_0\varphi_\lambda$, where $\chi$ is the norm, $\varphi_0$ an abelian phase, and $\varphi_\lambda$ a normalized eigenvector of $\hat n=n^a\sigma^a$ with eigenvalue $\lambda=\pm 1$, the non-abelian field tensor can be projected into an effective $U_1$ tensor $F_{\mu\nu}\equiv\lambda\varphi_\lambda^\dagger G_{\mu\nu}\varphi_\lambda+i\lambda[(\nabla_\mu\varphi_\lambda)^\dagger\nabla_\nu\varphi_\lambda-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)]$. The paper proves, using completeness of the eigenvector basis, that this combination reduces exactly to $\partial_\mu B_\nu-\partial_\nu B_\mu-\varepsilon_{abc}n^a\partial_\mu n^b\partial_\nu n^c$, so the topological winding of the unit vector appears directly in the effective field. Because the full doublet space is $S^3$ while the eigenvalue equation cuts it down to an $S^2$ degree of freedom, the abelian phase decouples and the remaining unit vector carries the monopole charge. Replacing the radial vector by a general unit vector, with $\theta_1=p\theta$ and $\phi_1=l\phi$, then yields a new set of generalized CM monopole solutions; the standard CM solution is the special case $\hat n=\hat r$ with $p=l=1$, and the magnetic charge satisfies $ge=4\pi pl$. The paper further shows that the electromagnetic tensor of the standard CM solution coincides with the effective covariant tensor, so this is the same covariant object seen from a different angle.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes the gauge field has the particular form $A_\mu=f_\mu\hat n+i(f-1)\hat n\partial_\mu\hat n$ rather than deriving it from the action, and it does not prove that regular finite-energy solutions exist for generic integer winding; if that assumed form is not general, or if only $p=l=1$ yields a nonsingular profile, the new monopole family collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every solution satisfying the eigenvalue equation automatically carries an effective electromagnetic field of monopole form, with magnetic charge fixed by the winding number of the unit vector rather than by the radial profiles.
The standard CM monopole is recovered as the $p=l=1$ member of the new family, so the construction places known solutions in a single framework rather than beside it.
For the angular choice $\theta_1=p\theta$, $\phi_1=l\phi$, the quantization condition becomes $ge=4\pi pl$, so dyonic magnetic charge is quantized by the integer pair $(p,l)$.
Factoring the scalar doublet as $\varphi=\chi\varphi_0\varphi_\lambda$ separates scale, abelian-phase, and $SU_2$ degrees of freedom, which is why the $U_1$ gauge field enters naturally and why the special $A=B$ solution decouples from the scalar-sector profile.
Because the effective tensor is covariant, the monopole structure is independent of the gauge choice and can be read off directly from the scalar configuration.

Reading between the lines

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

Not stated in the paper: the same eigenvector logic should transfer to other gauge groups admitting a scalar representation with a normalizable eigenvector of $n^aT^a$; for higher-rank groups the eigenvalue spectrum could produce several charge sectors rather than just $\pm 1$.
Not stated in the paper: one could test whether the assumed gauge-field form $A_\mu=f_\mu\hat n+i(f-1)\hat n\partial_\mu\hat n$ is actually forced by the full equations of motion; if it is not, the construction describes a restricted subclass rather than all possible solutions.
Not stated in the paper: numerical integration of the coupled radial equations for small integer pairs $(p,l)$ could settle whether genuinely new regular finite-energy monopoles exist; a positive result would make the generalized family a concrete target for electroweak-scale monopole searches.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is essentially a review of the Cho–Maison construction with a generalization tacked on, and the generalization isn't supported by the paper's own equations. If you read it as a pedagogical outline of Kao's 1983 thesis material, some of the tensor identities are worth a look; if you read it as a new monopole family, it fails.

The useful core: the decomposition φ=χφ0φ2, the eigenvalue equation n̂σφλ=λφλ, and the Sec. IV manipulation showing that the projected tensor Fμν = λφ†Gμνφ + iλ[(∇φ)†∇φ − (μ↔ν)] reduces to ∂B − εabc n^a ∂n^b ∂n^c. That identity is plausible and consistent with the CM literature. The paper also correctly spells out the relation between the CM "EM field" Bμ = iφ†∇φ and the effective tensor. As a review of known material, it's okay, though it leans heavily on the author's 1983 thesis [10] and related self-citations.

The soft spots are substantial. The advertised new family — replacing r̂ by a general unit vector n with θ1=pθ, φ1=lφ — is never shown to solve the equations of motion. The field equations in Sec. V are written down, but the only "special solution" examined forces A=B and f=0, leaving an embedded abelian background with χ decoupled. That's not a nontrivial monopole; it's the Dirac-like limit, and even then the A(r) profile tends to a constant at infinity rather than vanishing, so finite energy isn't checked. The quantization charge ge=4πpl is put in by hand through the ansatz, not derived from a solution. There's also an internal inconsistency: Sec. V.B says "setting p=0" but then writes the winding term as −(1−cosθ)l∂φ, which requires p=1; and Sec. V.C assigns charge 4plπ using θ1=pθ. The scalar ansatz in the introduction also doesn't match the eigenvector ϕ− in Eq. (12) by a factor of i — that's cosmetic, but the p=0 issue is load-bearing.

Net: the review parts are fine and the identities are probably correct, but the central claim of a new monopole family doesn't hold up. This is a desk-reject for me, not because it's a bad topic but because the advertised result isn't established; a referee would spend the report saying "no solution is shown." I wouldn't cite it for the new family. If you want a review of CM monopoles, the original papers serve better.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper revisits an SU(2)×U(1) scalar-vector model and claims that the eigenvalue equation n̂φ = λφ induces a set of monopole solutions. It defines an effective covariant field tensor F_μν and argues that this tensor reproduces the standard monopole term, and it further claims that the Cho–Maison monopole can be generalized by replacing r̂ with a unit vector n̂ constructed from winding angles θ1 = pθ and φ1 = lφ, yielding a new family of generalized Cho–Maison monopole solutions with quantized magnetic charge ge = 4plπ. The paper also states that the electromagnetic field tensor of the Cho–Maison solution agrees with the proposed effective covariant tensor.

Significance. If the claimed generalized monopole family actually existed, the paper would offer a systematic algebraic construction of Cho–Maison-type monopoles and a clean geometric interpretation of the monopole term. The paper usefully collects algebraic identities for the eigenvectors of n̂ and gives a straightforward-looking check that the CM field tensor coincides with the effective tensor. However, the central novelty — the new family of generalized monopole solutions — is never demonstrated as a solution of the field equations; the only explicit solution presented is the trivial f=0 abelian limit. As submitted, the significance is therefore limited to the algebraic identities, which by themselves do not establish the advertised new solutions.

major comments (4)

[Sec. V.B, Eqs. (72)-(77)] The advertised generalized CM monopole family is never shown to solve the full field equations. The 'special solution' with φ_c†∇_ν φ_c = 0 forces A = B and, as the author states, Eqs. (74)-(75) then imply f = 0; the solution reduces to an embedded abelian configuration in which χ decouples from the winding. No nontrivial f(r) profile is constructed, and the branch is not checked for finite-energy boundary conditions: Eq. (77) gives A = B = A(r0) - A'(r0) r0²/r², which tends to a constant at infinity rather than vanishing. The central claim of a new set of monopole solutions therefore rests on an ansatz, not on a demonstrated solution.
[Sec. V.B-C] The restriction p = 0 in Sec. V.B directly contradicts the charge quantization formula ge = 4plπ in Sec. V.C. The text says 'setting p = 0 as a simple demonstration' and then writes the monopole term as -(1 - cos θ) l ∂_μ φ, which requires θ1 = θ, i.e., p = 1; if p = 0, then θ1 = 0 and the winding term vanishes. Sec. V.C then uses θ1 = pθ and φ1 = lφ to derive ge = 4plπ with p,l integers, which is inconsistent with the p = 0 restriction. The paper must specify the actual winding configuration used and reconcile these statements.
[Sec. IV, Eqs. (45)-(46)] The key identity converting the projected field tensor into the monopole term is stated without derivation: the sentences 'it can be shown first that' and 'This is done with the help of identity (47)' do not justify the double sum over λ and δ. A direct check with n̂ = (sinθ cosφ, sinθ sinφ, cosθ) indicates that the right-hand side of Eq. (46), after summing over λ = ±1, does not equal ǫ_abc n^a ∂_μ n^b ∂_ν n^c with the coefficient claimed; a factor or the summation convention appears to be incorrect. Since Eq. (48) is the basis for the claimed equivalence between the effective tensor and the standard monopole term, this step must be made fully explicit and corrected.
[Introduction and Sec. II] The scalar ansatz φ_c^t = i(cos(θ/2)e^{-iφ}, -sin(θ/2)) printed in the Introduction is not an eigenvector of n̂ with eigenvalue -1; the explicit eigenvector given in Eq. (12) is (sin(θ/2)e^{-iφ}, -cos(θ/2)). This inconsistency affects the definition of the CM scalar field and the subsequent construction, so it must be fixed before the remainder of the paper can be followed.

minor comments (6)

[Eqs. (9) and (20)] Equations (9) and (20) contain a repeated-index typo in the monopole term: ǫ_abc ∂_μ n̂^b ∂_ν n̂^b should presumably be ǫ_abc n̂^a ∂_μ n̂^b ∂_ν n̂^c.
[Abstract] The abstract promises an implication that is 'discussed in the literature,' but no concrete implication is actually discussed in the paper.
[Notation throughout] The symbol φ is used both for the scalar field and for the azimuthal angle (e.g., Eqs. (27), (53), (56)), which creates confusion that should be resolved by using a different symbol for one of the two.
[Sec. V.A, Eqs. (52)-(55)] The derivation of Eqs. (52)-(55) would benefit from stating the gauge transformation U explicitly and specifying the precise relation between φ_c and a_- so that the signs and factors can be checked.
[Conclusion] The conclusion is largely a repetition of the introduction and does not summarize what was actually established beyond the algebraic identities; it should state precisely which results are proven and which remain conjectural.
[References] The reference list contains many items that are not cited in the text (e.g., [29]-[54]), and the main proof is attributed to the author's own unpublished 1983 master's thesis [10]; a published derivation should be provided or fully reproduced in the paper.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Generalized CM monopole charge quantization is built into the ansatz; the uniqueness claim rests on the author's own thesis.

self definitional [Sec. V, Eqs. (50)-(51), (58), (60); Sec. V.C, Eq. (81)-(84)]
"the quantization rule for the generalized CM monopole takes the form ge = 4plπ if θ1 = pθ and ϕ1 = lϕ as a simple generalization of the CM monopole. Note that p,l should be both integers such that the mapping of ˆn-sphere can wrap around the ˆr-sphere pl times completely."

The quantized charge is inserted by hand. The ansatz (50)-(51) already contains the U(1) potential Yµ = hµ − (1 − cosθ1)∂µϕ1, which is a Dirac-type monopole vector potential. When Section V.C specializes θ1 = pθ and ϕ1 = lϕ, the magnetic field and flux are obtained by differentiating this same assumed term; ge = 4plπ is the winding number of the chosen reparametrization, not a consequence of the field equations. The paper's own special solution sets f = 0 and decouples p,l, so no nontrivial generalized profile is exhibited; the charge quantization nevertheless is reported as a prediction of the generalized monopole family, whereas it is a property of the ansatz by construction.
uniqueness imported from authors [Abstract; Sec. I around Eqs. (6)-(7); Sec. IV; Conclusion Eq. (87)]
"The monopole term ǫabcna∂µnb∂νnc can also be shown to be uniquely given by the identification of gauge field tensor [10] Fµν ≡ λϕ†λGµνϕλ + iλ[(∇µϕλ)†∇νϕλ − (∇νϕλ)†∇µϕλ] with the help of the eigenvalue equation ˆnϕ± = ±ϕ±."

Section IV proves the implication F_μν = ... ⇒ ∂B − ε n∂n∂n, but it never proves that this combination is the unique one. The uniqueness wording is anchored to Ref. [10], the author's own 1983 thesis, and Ref. [11] by the same author. Since the abstract and conclusion make unique covariant combination a central claim, the paper imports a uniqueness result from its own prior unpublished work; if that uniqueness is not accepted, the claim that the monopole structure must be tied to the eigenvalue equation in this particular way is unsupported. This is a load-bearing self-citation, although the algebra in Sec. IV stands independently as a sufficiency proof.

full rationale

The core algebraic chain in Sec. IV—showing that the projected combination Fμν = λϕ†Gϕ + iλ[(∇ϕ)†∇ϕ − (μ↔ν)] equals ∂μBν − ∂νBμ − εabc n^a ∂μn^b ∂νn^c—is a self-contained manipulation of the eigenvalue identities (22)-(25), so that part is not circular. Likewise, the relation between B(CM) = iϕ†∇ϕ and F(CM) is an identity, not a fit. The circular weight comes from the advertised generalized CM monopole family and its charge quantization. Eqs. (50)-(51) simply assume the U(1) potential Yμ = hμ − (1 − cosθ1)∂μϕ1, i.e. a Dirac-type monopole term; Section V.C then chooses θ1 = pθ, ϕ1 = lϕ and integrates this same term to obtain ge = 4plπ. The charge quantization is thus a property of the coordinate reparametrization inserted in the ansatz, not a consequence of the equations of motion. The one explicit special solution (f = 0, A = B) is an embedded abelian solution; it contains no nontrivial profile f(r) and actually forces p,l effects to decouple. The paper also introduces the p = 0 restriction in V.B but writes the winding term as −(1 − cosθ)l∂ϕ, which requires θ1 = θ (p = 1); this internal inconsistency further shows the generalized family is not constructed. Finally, the unique covariant combination claim is attributed to the author's own 1983 thesis [10]; Sec. IV proves sufficiency but not uniqueness, so the uniqueness assertion carries a self-citation burden. Overall: partial circularity—charge quantization is built into the ansatz—but the algebraic tensor identity has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central identity proof rests on the eigenvalue equation and the restricted gauge ansatz, both imposed rather than derived. The paper also introduces a Weyl vector meson that plays no role in the claimed new solutions. The winding integers p and l are free choices, and the special solution uses arbitrary integration constants.

free parameters (2)

winding numbers p, l = integers p and l
Chosen by hand in Section V.C through θ1=pθ and φ1=lφ. They set the magnetic charge quantization ge=4πpl but are not determined by the dynamics.
integration constants A(r0), A'(r0) = arbitrary constants
Integration constants in the special solution A=B=A(r0)-A'(r0)r0^2/r^2, with no boundary conditions imposed.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption SU(2)xU(1) gauge symmetry with a complex scalar doublet φ and potential V=-λ/8(φ†φ-v^2)^2
The model is defined in Section I and is the usual electroweak-like gauge-Higgs setup.
ad hoc to paper Eigenvalue equation n_hat φ_λ = λ φ_λ and scalar decomposition φ = χ φ0 φ_λ
This ansatz restricts the scalar field to an eigenstate of the unit vector n_hat. It is not derived from the Lagrangian and is the core construction device of the paper.
ad hoc to paper Gauge field ansatz A_μ = f_μ n_hat + i(f-1)n_hat ∂_μ n_hat
Cho-Maison restricted gauge field ansatz adopted from Ref [8] in Section V. The claimed generalized solutions depend on this specific form.
standard math The unit vector n maps the sphere S^2 to S^2 with integer winding number
Used in Section V.C for magnetic charge quantization through integration of ε_abc n^a dn^b dn^c.

invented entities (1)

Weyl vector meson S_μ
purpose: Introduced in Section II to promote the scale transformation χ' = Λχ to a gauge symmetry.
The paper introduces S_μ but it does not appear in the main monopole construction or in later sections, and no falsifiable prediction is given.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new look at the $SU_2$ gauge monopole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PLQ2I3W2

@misc{pith2026250500118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new look at the $SU_2$ gauge monopole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PLQ2I3W2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00118}
}

abstract

An $SU_2\times U_1$ scalar vector model with a scalar doublet $\varphi$ is reviewed for the study of possible magnetic monopole solution. An eigenvalue equation $\hat n^a \sigma^a \varphi_\pm =\pm \varphi_\pm$ is shown to induce a set of monopole solutions specified by the unit vector $\hat n$. It is shown clearly that monopole solution has to do with the eigenvalue equation and an unique covariant combination of the non-abelian gauge field. It is also shown that a new set of monopole solutions is presented as a generalization of the monopole solutions known as Cho-Maison monopole. We also show that the EM field and field tensor defined by CM solution is effectively the same as the effective covariant field tensor introduced in this paper. Possible implication is also discussed in the literature.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

[10]

Kao, ”Dyon Charge Conjugation and Magnetic Monopo le”, NTU master thesis, (1983)

W.F. Kao, ”Dyon Charge Conjugation and Magnetic Monopo le”, NTU master thesis, (1983)

work page 1983
[1]

Dirac, Proc

P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc, Lond. A. 133(1931) 60

work page 1931
[2]

C. N. Yang & R.L. Mills,, Phys. Rev. 96 (1954) 191

work page 1954
[3]

Wu and C.N

T.T. Wu and C.N. Yang, in Properties of Matter under Unusual Conditions , edited by H. Mark and S. Fernbach (Interscience, New York) 1969; Phys. Rev. D12, 3845 (1975)

work page 1975
[4]

Cho, Phys

Y.M. Cho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1115 (1980); Phys. Lett. B115, 125 (1982)

work page 1980
[5]

’t Hooft, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B79, 276 (1974); A.M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20, 194 (1974); B. Julia and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. D11, 2227 (1975)

work page 1974
[6]

Prasad and C

M. Prasad and C. Sommerﬁeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 760 (1975)

work page 1975
[7]

Dokos and T

C. Dokos and T. Tomaras, Phys. Rev. D21, 2940 (1980)

work page 1980

Show all 54 references

[8]

Cho and D

Y.M. Cho and D. Maison, Phys. Lett. B391, 360 (1997); W.S. Bae and Y.M. Cho, JKPS 46, 791 (2005)

1997
[9]

Yisong Yang, Proc. Roy. Soc. A454, 155 (1998); Yisong Yang, Solitons in Field Theory and Nonlinear Analysis (Springer Monographs in Mathematics), p. 322 (Springer-Ve rlag) 2001

1998
[11]

Chang and W.F

K.L. Chang and W.F. Kao, ”Dyon Charge Conjugation Weinb erg-Salam’s Theory”, Chinese Journal of Physics, Vol. 21, No. 3,4, (1983) 1

1983
[12]

Georgi, S.L.Glashow, Phys, Rev

H. Georgi, S.L.Glashow, Phys, Rev. D6(1972) 2977,

1972
[13]

Goddard, D.I.Olive, Rep

P. Goddard, D.I.Olive, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41(1978) 1358

1978
[14]

Mod Phya

A, Actor, Rev. Mod Phya. 51 (1979) 461,

1979
[15]

P.Rossi, Phys, Rep, 86 (1982), 37

1982
[16]

144 (1966) 1087,

Schwinger, Phys, Rev. 144 (1966) 1087,

1966
[17]

Polyakov, Dov

A.M. Polyakov, Dov. Phys. JETP 41(1976) 988

1976
[18]

Abers, B.W

E.S. Abers, B.W. Lee, Phys, Rep, 9C (1973), 1

1973
[19]

Lin algebra, and some of their app lications

R, Gilmore ”Lie group. Lin algebra, and some of their app lications. (John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1974)

1974
[20]

M.K, Prasad, Physica 1D (1980) 167

1980
[21]

Prasad, C.M

M.K. Prasad, C.M. Sommerﬁeld, Phya. Rev. Lett. 35 (1975 ) 760

1975
[22]

Julia, A

B. Julia, A. Zee, Phys, Rev. D11 (1975) 2227,

1975
[23]

Bogomolny, Sov, J

E.B. Bogomolny, Sov, J. Nucl. Phys. 24 (1976) 449

1976
[24]

Coleman, S

S. Coleman, S. Parke, A. Neveu, C.M. Sommerﬁeld, Phys. R ev. D15 (1977) 554

1977
[25]

Steenrod, The Topology of Fibre Bundles (Princeto n Univ

N.E. Steenrod, The Topology of Fibre Bundles (Princeto n Univ. Press, Princeton N.J., 1951)

1951
[26]

M, I Monastyrskii, A. M. Perelemov, JETP Lett. 21 (1975) 43 . 19

1975
[27]

Arafune, P.G.O

J. Arafune, P.G.O. Freund, C.J. Goebel, J. of Math. Phys . 16 (1975) 433

1975
[28]

Hilton, An Introduction to Homotopy Theory ( Cambr idge Univ

P.I. Hilton, An Introduction to Homotopy Theory ( Cambr idge Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1953)

1953
[29]

Aad et al

G. Aad et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012); S. Chatrchyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012)

2012
[30]

Aaltonen et al

T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF and D0 Collaborations), Phys. Re v. Lett. 109, 071804 (2012)

2012
[31]

Pinfold, Rad

J. Pinfold, Rad. Meas. 44, 834 (2009); Progress in High-Energy Physics and Nuclear Safety (edited by V. Begun et al.), p. 217 (Springer Science and Business Media) 2009; Y .M. Cho and J. Pinfold, Snowmass Whitepaper, arXiv hep-ph/1307.8390

2009 arXiv
[32]

Acharya et al

B. Acharya et al. [MoEDAL Collaboration], Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29, 1430050 (2014)

2014
[33]

Vachaspati and M

T. Vachaspati and M. Barriola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1867 (1992); M. Barriola, T. Vachaspati, and M. Bucher, Phys. Rev. D50, 2819 (1994)

1992
[34]

Nambu, Nucl

Y. Nambu, Nucl. Phys. B130, 505 (1977); T. Vachaspati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1977 (1992)

1977
[35]

Vachaspati, Nucl

T. Vachaspati, Nucl. Phys. B439, 79 (1995)

1995
[36]

Cabrera, Phys

B. Cabrera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1378 (1982)

1982
[37]

Forg´ acs and N.S

P. Forg´ acs and N.S. Manton, Commun. Math. Phys. 72, 15 (1980)

1980
[38]

Dashen, B

R.F. Dashen, B. Hasslacher, and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D10, 4138 (1974); N.S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D28, 2019 (1983); F. Klinkhammer and N. Manton, Phys. Rev. D30, 2212 (1984)

1974
[39]

Bais and R.J

F.A. Bais and R.J. Russell, Phys. Rev. D11, 2692 (1975); Y.M. Cho and P.G.O. Freund, Phys. Rev. D12, 1711 (1975); Y.M. Cho and D.H. Park, J. Math. Phys. 31, 695 (1990); P. Breitenlohner, P. Forg´ acs, and D. Maison, Nucl. Phys. B383, 357 (1992)

1975
[40]

Cho, Phys

Y.M. Cho, Phys. Rev. D21, 1080 (1980)

1980
[41]

Cho, Phys

Y.M. Cho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 302 (1981); Phys. Rev. D23, 2415 (1981); W.S. Bae, Y.M. Cho, and S.W. Kimm, Phys. Rev. D65, 025005 (2002)

1981
[42]

Faddeev and A

L. Faddeev and A. Niemi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1624 (1999); Phys. Lett. B449, 214 (1999)

1999
[43]

Shabanov, Phys

S. Shabanov, Phys. Lett. B458, 322 (1999); B463, 263 (1999); H. Gies, Phys. Rev. D63, 125023 (2001)

1999
[44]

Zucchini, Int

R. Zucchini, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 1, 813 (2004)

2004
[45]

Belavin, A

A. Belavin, A. Polyakov, A. Schwartz, and Y. Tyupkin, Ph ys. Lett. B59, 85 (1975); G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 8 (1976)

1975
[46]

Cho, Phys

Y.M. Cho, Phys. Lett. B81, 25 (1979)

1979
[47]

DeWitt, Phys

B.S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 162, 1195 (1967)

1967
[48]

Cho, Phys

Y.M. Cho, Phys. Rev. D62, 074009 (2000); Y.M. Cho and D.G. Pak, Phys. Rev. D65, 074027 (2002); Y.M. Cho, M.L. Walker, and D.G. Pak, JHEP 05, 073 (2004); Y.M. Cho and M.L. Walker, Mod. Phys. Lett. A19, 2707 (2004)

2000
[49]

Cho, Franklin H

Y.M. Cho, Franklin H. Cho, and J.H. Yoon, Phys. Rev. D87, 085025 (2013). 20

2013
[50]

S. Kato, K. Kondo, T. Murakami, A. Shibata, T. Shinohara , and S. Ito, Phys. Lett. B632, 326 (2006); S. Ito, S. Kato, K. Kondo, T. Murakami, A. Shibata, and T. Shinohara, Ph ys. Lett. B645, 67 (2007); B653, 101 (2007); B669, 107 (2008)

2006
[51]

Cho, Phys

Y.M. Cho, Phys. Rev. D 35, R2628 (1987); Y.M. Cho, Phys. Lett. B199, 358 (1987)

1987
[52]

Cho, Phys

Y.M. Cho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3133 (1992); Y.M. Cho and J.H. Yoon, Phys. Rev. D 47, 3465 (1993)

1992
[53]

Babichev, Phys

E. Babichev, Phys. Rev. D 74, 085004 (2006)

2006
[54]

Cho, Kyoungtae Kimm, and J.H

Y.M. Cho, Kyoungtae Kimm, and J.H. Yoon, Physics Letter s B761, (2016), 203; Yunkyu Bang and Y. M. Cho and Tieyan Si and Li-Ping Zou, (2020), arXiv:2010.08108 (hep-th); E. Yakaboylu, A. Deuchert, and M. Lemeshko, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2017) 119, 235301; Atsuki Hirag uchi, Katsuya ...

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [10]

Kao, ”Dyon Charge Conjugation and Magnetic Monopo le”, NTU master thesis, (1983)

W.F. Kao, ”Dyon Charge Conjugation and Magnetic Monopo le”, NTU master thesis, (1983)

work page 1983

[2] [1]

Dirac, Proc

P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc, Lond. A. 133(1931) 60

work page 1931

[3] [2]

C. N. Yang & R.L. Mills,, Phys. Rev. 96 (1954) 191

work page 1954

[4] [3]

Wu and C.N

T.T. Wu and C.N. Yang, in Properties of Matter under Unusual Conditions , edited by H. Mark and S. Fernbach (Interscience, New York) 1969; Phys. Rev. D12, 3845 (1975)

work page 1975

[5] [4]

Cho, Phys

Y.M. Cho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1115 (1980); Phys. Lett. B115, 125 (1982)

work page 1980

[6] [5]

’t Hooft, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B79, 276 (1974); A.M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20, 194 (1974); B. Julia and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. D11, 2227 (1975)

work page 1974

[7] [6]

Prasad and C

M. Prasad and C. Sommerﬁeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 760 (1975)

work page 1975

[8] [7]

Dokos and T

C. Dokos and T. Tomaras, Phys. Rev. D21, 2940 (1980)

work page 1980