Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Examples for BPS solitons destabilized by quantum effects

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For every model studied, one-loop quantum energy drives BPS solitons that touch a secondary vacuum to negative infinity.

desk verdict A solid numerical study that gives three new examples of one-loop vacuum polarization energies unbounded below for BPS solitons with secondary vacua; the physical destabilization claim is honestly hedged by the authors and should not be over-read. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05006 v2 pith:MZEQ76BJ submitted 2025-06-05 hep-th

Willem J. Meyer , Herbert Weigel This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords BPSsolitonsvacuumpolarizationenergysecondaryquantumdestabilizationone-loopcorrectiontwoscalarfieldsspectralmethodsJostfunction
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 studies BPS solitons in models with two scalar fields in 1+1 dimensions where each has a primary and a secondary vacuum. Because the BPS construction makes the classical energy depend only on the asymptotic values, solitons that spend an arbitrarily large finite interval near the secondary vacuum are all classically degenerate. The authors compute, mostly for the first time, the one-loop vacuum polarization energy of these solitons as a function of the plateau-size parameter $a = \chi(0)/\chi_s$. In every model the result is unbounded below and falls like $E_{\mathrm{VPE}} \sim E_0 - E_1 \ln(1-a)$ with $E_1 < 0$ as $a \to 1$. This is taken as strong corroboration that access to a secondary vacuum destabilizes BPS solitons at the quantum level.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is the super-potential $W(\phi,\chi)$, whose derivatives define both the Lagrangian and the first-order BPS equations that produce the soliton profiles. The variational parameter is $a = \chi(0)/\chi_s$, which interpolates between solitons that barely touch the secondary vacuum and those that dwell there over an arbitrarily long plateau. The quantum calculation uses spectral methods, expressing the vacuum polarization energy as an imaginary-momentum integral of $\ln\det[F_+(t)F_-(t)]$ minus the Born approximation, with the no-tadpole renormalization condition subtracting the $O(V)$ contribution. The Jost matrices $F_\pm(t)$ encode the scattering phase shifts of fluctuations in the parity channels and convert the one-loop energy into a numerically tractable function of $a$.

What would settle it

Compute the two-loop quantum correction to the energy for one of these solitons as $a\to 1$. If the total energy acquires a minimum at $a<1$ or approaches a finite limit, the one-loop runaway is an artifact of truncation, contrary to the paper's destabilization claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the leading one-loop correction not only removes the classical degeneracy but destroys the family: instead of selecting a preferred plateau size, the total energy is unbounded below as the plateau grows. Concretely, for the variational family $\chi(0) = a\chi_s$, the vacuum polarization energy obeys $E_{\mathrm{VPE}}(a) \sim E_0 - E_1 \ln(1-a)$ asymptotically as $a\nearrow 1$, with $E_1 < 0$ in all models considered. This holds whether the secondary vacuum has $\phi_s = 0$ or $\phi_s \neq 0$, and independently of model parameters within the ranges that admit solitons. Since $E_{\mathrm{cl}}$ is independent of $a$, the total one-loop energy has no lower bound, so no stable static soliton remains in the family. The authors infer that the earlier conjecture, based on the Shifman-Voloshin soliton, is a general phenomenon.

Load-bearing premise

The physical conclusion that the solitons are destabilized assumes that the one-loop vacuum polarization energy is the decisive quantum contribution and that higher-order corrections do not restore a lower bound; the paper itself flags this at the end of Section V.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The one-loop vacuum polarization energy has no lower bound in any model studied, so at this order there is no energetically favored soliton in the degenerate family.
  • The functional form $E_0 - E_1 \ln(1-a)$ is universal across models, suggesting a common mechanism rather than a model-specific accident.
  • For secondary vacua with nonzero $\phi$ in the plateau region, a third quasi-zero mode appears as $a$ approaches 1, changing the zero-mode count from two to three in the limit.
  • The earlier conjecture that secondary vacua destabilize BPS solitons is corroborated beyond the single previously examined example.
  • Because the effect grows with the size of the secondary-vacuum region, the one-loop correction itself signals that perturbation theory in the soliton background may be breaking down as $a$ approaches 1.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The universal logarithmic falloff suggests the plateau region acts like a growing soft direction in the effective action; promoting the plateau size to a collective coordinate would likely reveal a runaway mode, which the paper does not do.
  • The same mechanism may operate for higher-dimensional BPS objects, such as lumps or vortices, whenever the moduli space contains directions that let the field approach a secondary vacuum, though the paper restricts itself to 1+1 dimensions.
  • A direct lattice simulation of one of these models, measuring the energy of solitons with ever larger flat regions as $a$ approaches 1, would test whether the one-loop runaway survives non-perturbatively.
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. The manuscript studies three families of D=1+1 two-scalar-field models with BPS solitons that possess several translationally invariant ground states, which the authors call primary and secondary vacua. Classically, a continuous parameter a controls how far the soliton profile approaches a secondary vacuum without changing the classical energy, so there is a one-parameter family of classically degenerate solitons. The authors compute the one-loop vacuum polarization energy (VPE) for each model using the established spectral/Jost-function formalism with a no-tadpole renormalization condition, for a range of model parameters and values of a. In all three models (A, B, and C) they find that the VPE decreases monotonically with a and, for a approaching 1, behaves as E0 - E1 ln(1-a) with E1 < 0, implying that the one-loop VPE is unbounded below. They interpret this as evidence that quantum effects destabilize these BPS solitons whenever secondary vacua are accessible, thereby corroborating a conjecture previously inferred from the Shifman-Voloshin soliton. The zero-mode structure is also examined, with α = 2 in most cases and α = 3 in special cases where the secondary vacuum has non-vanishing φ.

Significance. If the one-loop result is representative of the full quantum correction, the paper is significant because it turns a single-model observation into a systematic numerical survey of three distinct classes of BPS solitons, demonstrating a universal logarithmic divergence governed by the availability of secondary vacua. The computations are carried out with a well-established spectral method, and the zero-mode counts are explicitly verified, which supports the correctness of the calculation. The predicted asymptotic form, E0 - E1 ln(1-a), is a specific and falsifiable statement that can be checked independently. The main limitation, which the authors themselves acknowledge in the final paragraph of Section V, is that no small parameter controls the loop expansion; the physical destabilization claim therefore rests on the assumption that higher-order corrections do not restore a lower bound. The paper does not provide code, but the numerical workflow is described in sufficient detail to be reproducible.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Section V (Conclusion)] The abstract and title state unconditionally that the solitons are 'destabilized by quantum effects', while the calculation is strictly limited to the one-loop vacuum polarization energy. As the authors note in the last paragraph of Section V, 'when the first order correction is sizable, higher orders may be as relevant.' Since none of the models possesses a small parameter that controls the loop expansion, the one-loop unboundedness alone does not establish that the quantum-corrected soliton is destabilized; a two-loop correction could in principle change the sign of the coefficient E1 or add positive terms that restore a lower bound. I recommend either qualifying the claim throughout (e.g., 'at one-loop order') or adding a concrete argument, plausible though not rigorous, for why higher orders are expected to preserve the sign of the effect.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (8)] The two displayed expressions for EVPE in Eq. (8) are not equal as written. Setting t = sqrt(τ^2 + m1^2) gives sqrt(t^2 - m1^2) dt = (τ^2 / sqrt(τ^2 + m1^2)) dτ, not dτ. The subsequent differential equation for ϵ(τ) and the numerical procedure correspond to EVPE = (1/2π) ∫_0^∞ dτ [ν(t) - ν1(t)], which would follow from the first integral only if the integrand were t / sqrt(t^2 - m1^2) [ν(t) - ν1(t)]. Please correct the first equality or add the missing Jacobian factor; as printed, the compact formula is mathematically inconsistent, even though the actual numerical computation appears to use the correct τ-integral.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several typographical errors that should be fixed: 'serval' in the abstract, 'hus' near the end of the abstract, and 'the' in the sentence about the no-tadpole scheme in the Introduction. These do not affect the scientific content but make the paper read as unpolished.
  2. [Section IV.C] The mass parameters for µ > 1 are written ambiguously: 'mγ = 4µ−4√2µ−1 and mχ = 2µ√2µ−1' should be rendered with parentheses or an explicit multiplication sign, e.g., 4µ − 4√(2µ−1) and 2µ√(2µ−1), to avoid confusion about which terms are under the square root.
  3. [Section IV and Fig. 3] The claim that the VPE behaves like E0 − E1 ln(1 − a) is supported only by a visual fit in Fig. 3; the authors do not report the fitted values of E0 and E1, the range of a used for the fit, or any measure of goodness of fit. Reporting these numbers, even in a short table, would strengthen the central claim of a logarithmic divergence.
  4. [Section IV.D] The explanation of the 'dynamical' third zero mode is terse: the authors state that the third zero mode emerges from an ordinary bound state in the limit a → 1 and refer to Ref. [33] for techniques, but they do not provide the numerical evidence or the model-parameter conditions under which this occurs. A brief quantitative illustration (e.g., the bound-state eigenvalue as a function of a) would make this argument self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the one-loop VPE is computed independently from scattering data via spectral methods and benchmarked against the external Dashen-Hasslacher-Neveu kink result; the unboundedness is directly visible in the tables. Self-citations (the conjecture of Ref. [22], method references) are motivational or technical, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim, that the one-loop vacuum polarization energy (VPE) is unbounded from below as a approaches 1, is obtained by an independent computation. The VPE is computed from scattering data via the spectral formula in Eq. (8), EVPE = (1/2π) ∫_{m1}^{∞} dt sqrt(t²−m1²) [ν(t) − ν1(t)], where ν is the Jost-function phase from the soliton background potential V(x) and ν1 is the Born subtraction fixed by the no-tadpole renormalization scheme. Neither the conjecture nor any prior result of the authors enters this formula; the inputs are the BPS soliton profiles (Eqs. 3, 17, 20, 22) and the standard two-field Jost formalism. The method is validated against an external benchmark: 'For the prime example of the kink in the phi4 model, the no-tadpole prescription yields [23] the historic Dashen-Hasslacher-Neveu result [29]' (Section I). The unboundedness conclusion does not reduce to the log fit: E0 and E1 are explicitly labeled 'fit parameters for the VPE' (Table I), and Tables II–VII show EVPE monotonically decreasing by roughly constant amounts per decade of (1−a), for example Table II at µ1 = 0.6 gives −0.999, −1.548, −2.116, −2.683, −3.250 as a runs from 0.9 to 0.99999. The divergence is therefore visible in the raw data and does not depend on the fitted asymptotic form. The self-citations are not load-bearing: Ref. [22] (Weigel and Graham) supplies the motivating conjecture, but the three new models are computed from scratch in this paper and even exhibit a boundary case (Shifman-Voloshin at µ = 2, decoupled quartic fields) that does not follow the unboundedness pattern, so the corroboration is substantive rather than forced. The technical self-citations (Refs. [23, 24, 33]) are standard spectral and Jost-matrix formalism, benchmarked externally. The only flagged caveat is the step from 'one-loop VPE is unbounded' to 'the soliton is quantum-mechanically destabilized', which presumes one-loop dominance; the authors state this themselves: 'when the first order correction is sizable, higher orders may be as relevant' (Section V). That is an explicit limitation affecting the physical interpretation, not a circularity in the derivation chain. Overall score 1: a minor self-citational element (the conjecture being corroborated originates with the authors' prior work) is present, but the central derivation is self-contained and independently benchmarked.

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

The paper's central result rests on standard BPS and spectral-method formalism from the literature, plus an assumption that the one-loop correction is decisive. The numerical extrapolation to a approaching 1 is a key step that is not backed by error estimates. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • a (variational parameter) = scanned from 0 up to 0.999999
    Defined as chi(0)/chi_s; labels the classically degenerate solitons. The VPE is computed as a function of a, and the unboundedness appears as a approaches 1.
  • Model parameters (mu1, mu2 in model A; mu1, mu2, b in model B; mu in model C) = multiple values, see Tables II-VII
    Hand-chosen parameters that define the super-potentials. The conclusion holds across the scanned ranges, so they are inputs rather than fitted values.
  • E0 and E1 (fit parameters) = model-dependent, not tabulated separately
    Used to fit the asymptotic behavior EVPE = E0 - E1 ln(1-a) with E1 < 0. These are fitted to the numerical VPE and only summarize the trend; they do not enter the derivation.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The BPS bound (Eq. 2) is saturated by solutions of the first-order equations (Eq. 3), so the classical energy is determined by field asymptotics.
    Standard BPS construction in scalar field theory, taken from Refs. [18,19,20].
  • domain assumption The vacuum polarization energy is correctly computed by the spectral method via Jost functions (Eq. 8) with the no-tadpole renormalization scheme.
    The method is established in Refs. [23,24,33] and is not re-derived here. The no-tadpole scheme is asserted to fully remove the ultraviolet divergence in 1+1 dimensions.
  • domain assumption The one-loop quantum correction is the decisive contribution for the energetically favored soliton.
    The conclusion that solitons are destabilized assumes the one-loop VPE determines stability; the authors note in Section V that higher orders may be relevant (Ref. [37]).
  • ad hoc to paper The numerical integration and extrapolation to a approaching 1 accurately represents the true VPE.
    The claim that the VPE is unbounded below relies on numerical data for a up to 0.999999 and a fitted ln(1-a) behavior. No error bars or convergence tests are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Examples for BPS solitons destabilized by quantum effects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZEQ76BJ

@misc{pith2026250605006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Examples for BPS solitons destabilized by quantum effects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZEQ76BJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05006}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate serval models for two scalar fields in one space dimension with topologically stable solitons that are constructed from BPS equations. The asymptotic behavior of these solitons fully determines their classical energies. A particular feature of the considered mode ls is that there are several translationally invariant ground states that we call primary and secondary vacua. The former are those that ar e asymptotically assumed by the solitons. Solitons that occupy a secondary vacuum in finite but eventually large portions of space are clas sically degenerate. hus the quantum contributions to the energies are decisive for the energetically favored soliton. While some of these s olitons were constructed previously, we, for the first time, compute the leading (one-loop) quantum contribution their energies. In all ca ses considered we find that this contribution is not bounded from below and that it is the more negative the larger the region is in which the soliton approaches a secondary vacuum. This corroborates the conjecture, earlier inferred from the Shifman-Voloshin soliton, that the a vailability of secondary vacua destabilizes these solitons on the quantum level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05006 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Soliton profiles for model A with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Soliton profiles for model A with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The VPE for the model defined in Eq. (16) as a function of the variable that measures the deviation from the secondary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Soliton profiles for model B with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Soliton profiles for model B with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Soliton profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Soliton profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Quantum Lifts of Noninteger Power Law Field Theories

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    β-shifted normal ordering yields quantum lifts for noninteger power-law potentials with α>2, and tames the divergent Stokes amplitude in the σ=4 Pöschl-Teller model into an O(g^{3/4}) scaling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The scattering wave- function, Ψ sc.(x), is a linear combination of Fk(x) and F−k(x)

    Yet, this problem does not occur when, as motivated above, the VPE is computed from imaginary momenta 2. The scattering wave- function, Ψ sc.(x), is a linear combination of Fk(x) and F−k(x). Assuming, for the time being, that the symmetric (S) and anti-symmetric (A) channels decouple, the corresponding scattering matrices are obtained from Ψ (S) ′ sc. (0)...

    work page

  2. [2]

    mass matrix, containing the (squared) masses of the fluctuations mϕ and mχ masses of the fluctuations with the mapping m1 = min(mϕ, mχ) Vij potential matrix for the fluctuations, generated by the soliton ω or ωk frequency/energy eigenvalues of the fluctuations k and k2(k) wave-numbers of the fluctuations with masses m1 and m2, respectively t and et analyt...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The mass parameters are determined from the model parameters such that plane waves solve Eq

    contains the mass parameters, the potential matrix, Vij = Vij(x) = 1 2 ∂2 ∂ϕi∂ϕj " ∂W ∂ϕ1 2 + ∂W ∂ϕ2 2# ϕi=ϕ(s) i (x) − Mij , (6) is generated by the soliton profiles and thus is time-independent so that different frequency modes decouple. The mass parameters are determined from the model parameters such that plane waves solve Eq. (5) for V ≡ 0, which fol...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (11) These are the so-called Jost matrices in the symmetric and anti-symmetric channels

    The analytically continued combinations of Fk(0) and F ′ k(0) that enter SS,A(k) are FS(t) = lim x→0 Z(t, x) − Z ′(t, x)D−1(t) and FA(t) = lim x→0 Z(t, x) . (11) These are the so-called Jost matrices in the symmetric and anti-symmetric channels. For the problem at hand the symmetric and anti-symmetric channel do, unfortunately, not decouple. The field pot...

    work page

  5. [5]

    When g(µ1, µ2) ≡ µ2 µ1 + µ2 4 ≤ 1, or equivalently µ2 ≤ 2 p 1 + µ2 1 − µ1 there are secondary vacua at χ2 s = µ1 + µ2 2 and ϕs = ± q 1 − µ2 µ1 + µ2 4

    The associated mass parameters are mϕ = 2 p 1 + µ2 1 and mχ = (2µ1 + µ2) mϕ. When g(µ1, µ2) ≡ µ2 µ1 + µ2 4 ≤ 1, or equivalently µ2 ≤ 2 p 1 + µ2 1 − µ1 there are secondary vacua at χ2 s = µ1 + µ2 2 and ϕs = ± q 1 − µ2 µ1 + µ2 4 . If we want to construct soliton solutions whose profiles decrease monotonously so that ϕ(ϵ) = −Kϵ with K > 0 and ϵ → 0, the righ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Rajaraman, Solitons and Instantons(North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    R. Rajaraman, Solitons and Instantons(North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982)

    work page 1982

  7. [7]

    N. S. Manton and P. Sutcliffe, Topological Solitons, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Vachaspati, Kinks and Domain Walls : An Introduction to Classical and Quantum Solitons(Oxford University Press, 2010)

    T. Vachaspati, Kinks and Domain Walls : An Introduction to Classical and Quantum Solitons(Oxford University Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Weinberg, Classical Solitons in Quantum Field Theory(Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    E. Weinberg, Classical Solitons in Quantum Field Theory(Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A260, 127 (1961)

    1961

  3. [11]

    Zahed and G

    I. Zahed and G. E. Brown, Phys. Rept. 142, 1 (1986)

    1986

  4. [12]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 79, 276 (1974). 13

    1974

  5. [13]

    A. M. Polyakov, JETP Lett. 20, 194 (1974)

    1974

  6. [14]

    Vachaspati, Phys

    T. Vachaspati, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1977 (1992), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 216 (1992)]

    1992

  7. [15]

    Achucarro and T

    A. Achucarro and T. Vachaspati, Phys. Rept. 327, 347 (2000)

    2000

  8. [16]

    Nambu, Nucl

    Y. Nambu, Nucl. Phys. B 130, 505 (1977)

    1977

  9. [17]

    Vilenkin and E

    A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard, Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  10. [18]

    Schollw¨ ock,et al., Quantum Magnetism, vol

    U. Schollw¨ ock,et al., Quantum Magnetism, vol. 645, Lecture Notes Phys. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004)

    2004

  11. [19]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Nature Nanotech 8, 1 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    M. A. Kosevich, B. A. Ivanov, and A. S. Kovalev, Phys. Rept. 194, 117 (1990)

    1990

  13. [21]

    Weigel, Chiral Soliton Models for Baryons, vol

    H. Weigel, Chiral Soliton Models for Baryons, vol. 743, Lecture Notes Phys. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    D. T. J. Feist, P. H. C. Lau, and N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D87, 085034 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

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

    1976

  16. [24]

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

    1975

  17. [25]

    Adam and F

    C. Adam and F. Santamaria, JHEP 12, 047 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    M. A. Shifman and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. D 57, 2590 (1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    Weigel and N

    H. Weigel and N. Graham, Phys. Lett. B 783, 434 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Graham, M

    N. Graham, M. Quandt, and H. Weigel,Spectral Methods in Quantum Field Theory, vol. 777, Lecture Notes Phys. (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Graham and H

    N. Graham and H. Weigel, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37, 2241004 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Elizalde, Ten Physical Applications of Spectral Zeta Functions, vol

    E. Elizalde, Ten Physical Applications of Spectral Zeta Functions, vol. 855, Lecture Notes Phys. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995)

    1995

  23. [31]

    Alonso Izquierdo, and W

    A. Alonso Izquierdo, and W. Garcia Fuertes, M. A. Gonzalez Leon, and J. Mateos Guilarte, Nucl. Phys. B 681, 163 (2004)

    2004

  24. [32]

    K. E. Cahill, A. Comtet, and R. J. Glauber, Phys. Lett. B 64, 283 (1976)

    1976

  25. [33]

    Evslin, JHEP 11, 161 (2019)

    J. Evslin, JHEP 11, 161 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    R. F. Dashen, B. Hasslacher, and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 10, 4130 (1974)

    1974

  27. [35]

    Bazeia, R

    D. Bazeia, R. F. Ribeiro, and M. M. Santos, Phys. Rev. E 54, 2943 (1996)

    1996

  28. [36]

    J. S. Faulkner, J. Phys. C 10, 4661 (1977)

    1977

  29. [37]

    R. G. Newton, Scattering Theory of Waves and Particles(Springer, New York, 1982)

    1982

  30. [38]

    Weigel, M

    H. Weigel, M. Quandt, and N. Graham, Phys. Rev. D 97, 036017 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    D. A. Petersen and H. Weigel, Symmetry 17, 13 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Bazeia, M

    D. Bazeia, M. J. dos Santos, and R. F. Ribeiro, Phys. Lett. A208, 84 (1995)

    1995

  33. [41]

    de Souza Dutra, in 11th International Conference on Symmetry Methods in Physics (SYMPHYS-11)(2007), 0705.3237

    A. de Souza Dutra, in 11th International Conference on Symmetry Methods in Physics (SYMPHYS-11)(2007), 0705.3237

    2007 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Evslin, Phys

    J. Evslin, Phys. Lett. B 822, 136628 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.