Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 52 references

The role of scalar current coupling along surfaces

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes and exactly solves a model where a complex scalar field couples to a planar delta-function potential through the normal component of the Klein-Gordon current, yielding interaction energies and boundary conditions that…

desk verdict A genuinely new scalar surface coupling with an exact Green function, but the singular operator is under-defined and a few printed formulas have sign slips. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15625 v1 pith:ETGHLPW4 submitted 2025-07-21 hep-th nucl-th

F.A. Barone , L.H.C. Borges , G. Flores-Hidalgo , H.L. Oliveira , W.Y.A. da Silva This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thnucl-th
keywords complexscalarfieldKlein-GordoncurrentplanardeltapotentialexactGreenfunctionYukawainteractionMITboundaryconditionsChern-Simons-likecouplingboundedHamiltonian
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 proposes and exactly solves a model in which a complex scalar field couples to an external planar potential through the component of the Klein-Gordon current normal to the plane. Its central result is that a single stationary scalar charge feels no force from the potential, while two charges on opposite sides of the plane interact through a Yukawa energy multiplied by a coupling-dependent $2\times 2$ matrix that mixes the two components of the charges. On the same side of the plane, the interaction is unchanged. In the infinite-coupling limit the classical field and its normal derivative vanish on the plane, so the normal Klein-Gordon current vanishes there; the authors identify this as a scalar analogue of the MIT boundary conditions. These properties follow from an exact Green function, and the authors show the Hamiltonian is bounded from below.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Green function $G(x,y)$ of the coupled field equation, a $2\times 2$ matrix solved exactly from the integral equation $G = G_0 - \int G \, O \, G_0$, where $O(x)=\lambda \tilde{I}\,\delta(x_3-a)\,\partial_3 + \frac{\lambda}{2}\tilde{I}\,\partial_3\delta(x_3-a)$ is the current-coupling operator. This operator mixes the real and imaginary parts of the field and makes the differential operator in the field equations differ from the one in the Lagrangian. The explicit solution (Eq. 27), written in terms of the free Green function and sign functions relative to the plane, carries the entire argument: all interaction energies and the $\lambda\to\infty$ boundary conditions are read off from it.

What would settle it

Compute the eigenvalue equation in the appendix using a different distributional convention, for example taking $\int \delta(z-a) v'(z)\,dz = v'(a^+)$ instead of the average $\frac12[v'(a^+)+v'(a^-)]$, and look for negative eigenvalues or an interaction energy in (52) that differs from the reported $\alpha(\lambda)$ and $\beta(\lambda)$; either outcome would show the results are regularization-dependent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that coupling the complex scalar field to a delta-function planar potential via $n_\mu j^\mu$, where $j^\mu$ is the Klein-Gordon current, produces a solvable quadratic theory whose Green function is exactly computable. The surprising consequences are that the potential exerts no force on a single stationary charge, that two charges interact as usual when on the same side of the plane, and that when they are on opposite sides the interaction energy is $$E_{\rm INT} = -\frac{1}{4\pi} Q_B^T \left[\frac{16-\$lambda^{2}$}{16+\$lambda^{2}$} I + \frac{8\$\lambda$}{16+\$lambda^{2}$} \tilde{I}\right] Q_C \frac{$e^{{-m|B-C|}}$}{|B-C|},$$ with $\tilde{I}$ the antisymmetric matrix that mixes the real and imaginary components of the charges. In the limit $\lambda\to\infty$ the matrix factor becomes $-I$, reversing the sign of the Yukawa interaction, and the field and its normal derivative vanish on the plane, yielding $j_3=0$. The paper also finds the energy remains finite when both charges lie on the plane, unlike typical delta-potential models, and that the differential operator in the field equations differs from the one in the Lagrangian.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the products $\delta(x_3-a)\,\partial_3$ and $\partial_3\delta(x_3-a)$ are regulated with the convention $\operatorname{sgn}(0)=0$ and with discontinuous derivatives replaced by their average at the plane; if a different regularization is chosen, the Green function and the resulting interaction energies would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single stationary scalar charge does not interact with the planar potential, which the paper identifies as the first field model where a spatially localized potential does not couple to a point charge.
  • For two charges on opposite sides of the plane, the interaction energy is the Yukawa energy multiplied by the matrix $\frac{16-\lambda^2}{16+\lambda^2} I + \frac{8\lambda}{16+\lambda^2} \tilde{I}$, so the interaction can change sign for $\lambda>4$ and becomes a pure charge-mixing interaction at $\lambda=4$.
  • When both charges are on the same side of the plane, the potential does not affect their interaction at all.
  • When both charges lie on the plane itself, the interaction is the Yukawa interaction attenuated by the factor $16/(16+\lambda^2)$ and remains finite, in contrast with the divergences usually found when sources sit on delta-like potentials.
  • In the $\lambda\to\infty$ limit, the Green function and the classical field satisfy Dirichlet and Neumann conditions on the plane, so the normal Klein-Gordon current $j_3$ vanishes there, giving a scalar analogue of the MIT boundary conditions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is to place two parallel such planes and use the exact Green function to compute the Casimir-like energy between them; the single-plane result would be the building block.
  • The distributional products $\delta\,\partial_3$ and $\partial_3\delta$ are regulated with a specific averaging convention, so it is not known whether the $\lambda\to\infty$ MIT condition or the interaction matrix is stable under other self-adjoint extensions; checking symmetric versus asymmetric averaging would settle that.
  • Because the energy (52) is not symmetric under exchanging the two charges, an observer on one side sees an effective charge rotated by the matrix in (55), while an observer on the other side sees a different effective charge; this direction-dependence could be probed in condensed-matter analogues using phonon or magnon fields.
  • Replacing the delta function by a narrow smooth profile and taking the thin limit should reproduce equation (52) if the model is physically robust; deviations would indicate that the regularized delta prescription matters beyond the idealized plane.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a complex scalar field coupled to a delta-function planar potential through the normal Klein-Gordon current. Using a two-component matrix notation, the authors derive the field equation, obtain the Green function in a mixed Fourier representation, and compute the interaction energy of two stationary point charges. They report that a single charge does not interact with the plane, that charges on the same side interact through the ordinary Yukawa potential, and that charges on opposite sides experience a Yukawa interaction multiplied by a matrix factor α(λ)I + β(λ)I~. They also show that in the λ→∞ limit the field and its normal derivative vanish on the plane, giving j3=0 as a scalar analogue of the MIT boundary condition, and an appendix argues that the Hamiltonian is bounded from below.

Significance. The model is simple, exactly solvable at the Green-function level, and the closed-form interaction energy in Eq. (52) is a concrete, falsifiable prediction. The single-charge decoupling and the appearance of a λ-dependent mixing matrix are interesting and clearly presented. I have checked the reduction from Eq. (42) to Eq. (46) and the signs of the mixing terms in Eqs. (49), (50), and (52); these algebraic steps are internally consistent. The significance is, however, conditional: the exactness of the results depends on a distributional convention for the products δ∂3 and ∂3δ at the plane, and the paper does not state or justify that convention. If the authors can supply a well-defined regularization and show that the results are stable, the paper would be a valuable contribution; as it stands, the headline results are not uniquely defined.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2, Eqs. (11)-(12), (21), (27); Section 3.2.2, Eq. (57); Appendix Eq. (82)] The operator O(x)=λI~δ(x3−a)∂3+(λ/2)I~∂3δ(x3−a) contains products of distributions with fields that are discontinuous at the plane. The derivation fixes a convention through several unstated choices: integration by parts in Eq. (21) discards possible jump contributions, Eq. (27) sets sgn(0)=0, and Appendix Eq. (82) adopts the average of one-sided derivatives. These choices are not part of the Lagrangian (1) and are not shown to be the unique or physically preferred ones. For δ′ potentials in one dimension, different regularizations/self-adjoint extensions give different boundary conditions and different physics. The finite interaction energy for charges on the plane, Eq. (57), is a concrete example: it changes if sgn(0) is assigned a different value. Because Eq. (52) and the λ→∞ Dirichlet/Neumann/MIT limits are derived from this Green function, the central quantitative claims are not uniquely defined as stated. The authors should either specify a regularization or self-adjoint extension as part of the model definition and prove independence of admissible regularizations, or characterize how Eq. (52) changes under such choices.
  2. [Appendix A.2, Eqs. (78)-(83)] The proof that the Hamiltonian is bounded below assumes the eigenfunctions vs are continuous at z=a (the same amplitude A in Eq. (80)) and uses the averaging rule (82) for ∫δ v′ dz. For Schrödinger operators with δ′ potentials, self-adjoint boundary conditions generically include discontinuous eigenfunctions, so this ansatz does not exclude negative eigenvalues. The simplified model in Eq. (70) gives the condition λ²≤4m², whereas the appendix concludes boundedness for all λ; the discrepancy is not resolved. This matters because Section 2 invokes the appendix to assert the existence of a vacuum ground state at the quantum level.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (28)] The displayed coefficient 'λ2/m' in the Hamiltonian density is dimensionally inconsistent and does not match the single power of λ in the field equation (11); this appears to be a typo.
  2. [Eq. (26)] In the first line of Eq. (26), 'G0(p||;a,y3)' should read 'Gc0(p||;a,y3)' to be consistent with the notation used in the rest of the equation.
  3. [Conclusions, final paragraph before the Appendix] The sentence 'the mixing contribution ... varies within the interval [1, 0)' is inverted; β(λ)=8λ/(16+λ²) takes values in (0,1], with maximum 1 at λ=4.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Section 3.2.2] The vanishing of single-charge interaction and the finite on-plane interaction in Eq. (57) rely on the convention sgn(0)=0; this should be stated explicitly where the sign function is introduced, not only implicitly through Eq. (27).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Green function, interaction energies, and λ→∞ limits are derived directly from the stated Lagrangian by explicit calculation.

full rationale

The paper's central results are self-contained derivations from the proposed Lagrangian (1). The Green function is obtained by solving the operator equation (13) through the integral equation (14), and the closed form (27) follows from algebraic manipulation of (21)–(26) with the free Green function (17). The interaction energies (35), (48), (49), and (52) are direct evaluations of the derived Green function with point-like sources; no parameter is fitted to a subset of results and no quantity called a prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. The λ→∞ Dirichlet, Neumann, and MIT-type conditions (60), (63), and (65) are limits of the explicitly computed Green function and its derivative, not assumptions imported from elsewhere. Self-citations in the reference list are contextual or methodological and are not load-bearing: no uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors is invoked to force the central claim. The appendix's distributional convention, e.g., Eq. (82), is an unproved regularization choice that may affect the model's definition, but that is a well-posedness/definitional caveat, not circular reasoning. The paper also explicitly leaves the boundary-condition formulation as an open question, further confirming that it does not rely on a self-citation chain for its main derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard distribution theory plus three modeling assumptions: the Green function is unique, the plane-averaging convention for δ and δ' is physical, and self-energies are subtracted. The only numerical input is λ, which is part of the model definition rather than a fitted constant. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • lambda
    Dimensionless coupling in the Lagrangian (1), an input to the model. Scanned over λ≥0 and the λ→∞ limit; not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Unique solution of the singular Green-function integral equation (14) and validity of the Fourier reduction in x||.
    Used in Section 2 to pass from Eq (14) to Eq (21); the distributional operator O(x) is not proven to define an invertible Fredholm problem.
  • domain assumption Distributional conventions at the plane: sgn(0)=0 and averaged one-sided derivatives in integrals of δ and δ' (Eq (82)).
    These choices fix the value of Gc and its derivatives at x3=a in Eqs (22)-(27) and determine the boundary-condition limit in Section 4.
  • domain assumption External sources are stationary classical charges; self-energy divergences are discarded.
    Section 3 assumes J(x) is time-independent and subtracts the infinite self-energy, Eqs (36)/(39); this underlies all interaction-energy results.
  • domain assumption The differential operator D in Eq (73) is Hermitian and has a complete eigenbasis with real eigenvalues.
    Appendix A.2 needs this to conclude from the absence of negative αs that the Hamiltonian is bounded below; not proven for the complex distributional coefficient.
  • standard math Standard Bessel-function integral identities (Gradshteyn-Ryzhik M0179a, Eq (45)) hold for m>0.
    Used to evaluate the exchange energy integrals in Section 3.2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The role of scalar current coupling along surfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ETGHLPW4

@misc{pith2026250715625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The role of scalar current coupling along surfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ETGHLPW4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15625}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we propose a coupling between the complex scalar field and an external Dirac delta-like planar potential. The coupling is achieved through the Klein-Gordon current normal to the plane where the potential is concentrated. The results are obtained exactly and exhibit many peculiarities. We show that a complex scalar charge does not interact with the potential, but the potential modifies the interaction between two scalar charges if they are placed on opposite sides of the planar potential. When the coupling constant between the potential and the field goes to infinity, the classical field solutions satisfy a kind of MIT boundary conditions along the plane where the potential is concentrated.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15625 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. In the solid line we have α(λ) and in the dashed line we have β(λ). The horizontal axis is λ. λ, but with a sign inversion in this second case. Around the value λ = 4, the contribution involving the mixing factor β(λ) prevails over the one coming from the attenuation factor α(λ). The energy (52) is not symmetric with respect to an interchange between the particles B and C. This interesting property is a feature of t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. In the vertical axis we have the factor 16 16+λ2 that modulates the dependence on λ of the energy (57). The horizontal axis is λ. The finiteness of (57) is a peculiar feature of the model (1) because, as far as the authors know, in models where fields couple to external delta-like potentials, the interactions between external sources usually diverge when a source lies on the regions where the potentials are concentr… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. A. Milton, The Casimir Effect, Physical Manifestations of Zero-Point Energy (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001)

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Bordag, U

    M. Bordag, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepanenko, Phys. Rep. 353, 1 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573%2801%2900015-1

    doi:10.1016/s0370-1573 2001

  3. [3]

    Bordag and J

    M. Bordag and J. M. Mu˜ noz-Casta˜ neda, Phys. Rev. D91, 065027 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.065027 20

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.065027 2015

  4. [4]

    Mu˜ noz-Casta˜ neda, J.M

    J.M. Mu˜ noz-Casta˜ neda, J.M. Guilarte and A.M. Mosquera, Phys. Rev. D87, 105020 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.105020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.105020 2013

  5. [5]

    Barone and F.E

    F.A. Barone and F.E. Barone, Phys. Rev. D 89, 065020 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.065020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.065020 2014

  6. [6]

    Barone and F.E

    F.A. Barone and F.E. Barone, Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 3113 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3113-y

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3113-y 2014

  7. [7]

    Graham, R

    N. Graham, R. L. Jaffe, V. Khemani, M. Quandt, M. Scandurra and H. Weigel, Nucl. Phys. B 645, 49 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213%2802%2900823-4

    doi:10.1016/s0550-3213 2002

  8. [8]

    Bordag, D

    M. Bordag, D. Hennig, and D. Robaschik, J. Phys. A 25, 4483 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/25/16/023

    work page doi:10.1088/0305-4470/25/16/023 1992

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Milton, J

    Kimball A. Milton, J. Phys. A 37, 6391 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/37/24/014

    2004 doi

  2. [10]

    Cavalcanti (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0201150]

    R.M. Cavalcanti (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0201150]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.hep-th/0201150

    2002 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Camilo, F.A

    G.T. Camilo, F.A. Barone and F.E. Barone, Phys. Rev. D 87 025011 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.025011

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    Shajesh, P

    K.V. Shajesh, P. Parashar, I. Brevik, Ann. Phys. 387, 166 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2017.10.008

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Bordag and I.G

    M. Bordag and I.G. Pirozhenko, Phys. Rev. D 95, 056017 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.056017

    2017 doi

  6. [14]

    Bordag, Phys

    M. Bordag, Phys. Rev. D 89, 125015 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.125015

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Milton, P

    K.A. Milton, P. Kalauni, P. Parashar and Y. Li, Phys. Rev. D 96, 085007 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.085007

    2017 doi

  8. [16]

    Milton, P

    K.A. Milton, P. Kalauni, P. Parashar and Yang Li, Phys. Rev. D 99, 045013 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.045013 21

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Parashar, K.A

    P. Parashar, K.A. Milton, K.V. Shajesh and Iver Brevik, Phys. Rev. D 96, 085010 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.085010

    2017 doi

  10. [18]

    Bordag, K

    M. Bordag, K. Kirsten, and D. Vassilevich, Phys. Rev. D 59, 085011 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.085011

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    Mu˜ noz-Casta˜ neda and J.M

    J.M. Mu˜ noz-Casta˜ neda and J.M. Guilarte, Phys. Rev. D91, 025028 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.025028

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    Braga, J.D.L

    A.N. Braga, J.D.L. Silva and D.T. Alves, Phys. Rev. D 94, 125007 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.125007

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Milton, P

    Yang Li, K.A. Milton, P. Kalauni and P. Parashar, Phys. Rev. D 94, 085010 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.085010

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    Milton, Y

    K.A. Milton, Y. Li, P. Kalauni, P. Parashar, R. Gu´ erout, Gert-Ludwig Ingold, A. Lambrecht and S. Reynaud, Fortschr. Phys. 65, 1600047 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201600047

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Venkat Abhignan, Phys. Scr. 98 105018 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/acee2c

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Milton, P

    K.A. Milton, P. Parashar, M. Schaden and K.V. Shajesh, Nuovo Cim. 36 C, 193 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1393/ncc/i2013-11532-4

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    Parashar, K.A

    P. Parashar, K.A. Milton, K.V. Shajesh and M. Schaden, Phys. Rev. D 86, 085021 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.085021

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    Oliveira, L.H.C

    H.L. Oliveira, L.H.C. Borges, F.E. Barone, F.A. Barone, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 558 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09356-6

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    Santamar ´ ıa-Sanz, J

    L. Santamar ´ ıa-Sanz, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.56 385201 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/acef0d

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Sundberg, R.L

    P. Sundberg, R.L. Jaffe, Ann. Phys. 309, 442 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2003.08.015

    2004 doi

  21. [29]

    Adamyan, B.S Pavlov, J Math

    V.M. Adamyan, B.S Pavlov, J Math. Sci. 42, 1537 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01665040 22

    1988 doi

  22. [30]

    Demkov and V

    Y.N. Demkov and V. Ostrovsky, Zero-Range Potentials and Their Applications in Atomic Physics , Plenum Press, New York, (1988)

    1988

  23. [31]

    Kulinskii and D.Y

    V.L. Kulinskii and D.Y. Panchenko, Front. Phys. 7, 44 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2019.00044

    2019

  24. [32]

    Albeverio, F

    S. Albeverio, F. Gesztesy, R. Hoegh-Krohn and H. Holden, with an appendix by Pavel Exner, Solvable Models in Quantum Mechanics , 2nded., AMS Chelsea Publishing vol. 350, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Schmidt, B.K

    A.G.M. Schmidt, B.K. Cheng and M.G.E. da Luz, Phys. Rev. A 66, 062712 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.66.062712

    2002 doi

  26. [34]

    Carreau, J

    M. Carreau, J. Phys.: Math. General 26, 427 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/26/2/025

    1993 doi

  27. [35]

    Albeverio and P

    S. Albeverio and P. Kurasov, Singular Perturbations of Differential Operators. Solvable Schr¨ odinger Type Operators, London Mathematical Society, Lecture Note Series vol. 221, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)

    2000

  28. [36]

    Griffiths and D.F

    D.J. Griffiths and D.F. Schroeter, Introduction to quantum mechanics, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Deser, R

    S. Deser, R. Jackiw and S. Templeton, Ann. Phys. (NY) 140, 372 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4916(82)90164-6

    1982 doi

  30. [38]

    Helay¨ el-Neto, M.A

    J.A. Helay¨ el-Neto, M.A. Santos and I.V. Vanceac, Braz. J. Phys. 36, 1305 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-97332006000700033

    2006 doi

  31. [39]

    de Oliveira, Rev

    D.M. de Oliveira, Rev. Bras. Ens. Fis., 33, 3309 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-11172011000300009

    2011 doi

  32. [40]

    Cremmer and J

    E. Cremmer and J. Scherk, Nucl. Phys. B 72, 117 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(74)90224-7

    1974 doi

  33. [41]

    Allen, M.J

    T.J. Allen, M.J. Bowick and A. Lahiri, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 6, 559 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732391000580

    1991 doi

  34. [42]

    Barone, F.E

    F.A. Barone, F.E. Barone and J. A. Helay¨ el-Neto, Phys. Rev. D 84, 065026 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.065026 23

    2011 doi

  35. [43]

    Carroll, G.B

    S.M. Carroll, G.B. Field and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1231 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.41.1231

    1990 doi

  36. [44]

    Adam and F.R

    C. Adam and F.R. Klinkhamer, Nucl. Phys. B 607, 247 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(01)00161-4

    2001 doi

  37. [45]

    Adam and F.R

    C. Adam and F.R. Klinkhamer, Nucl. Phys. B 657, 214 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(03)00143-3

    2003 doi

  38. [46]

    Belich, M.M

    H. Belich, M.M. Ferreira Jr, J.A. Helay¨ el-Neto, M.T.D. Orlando, Phys. Rev. D 67, 125011 (2003); -ibid, Phys. Rev. D 69, 109903 (E) (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.67.125011 https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.69.109903

    2003 doi

  39. [47]

    Belich, M

    H. Belich, M. M. Ferreira Jr, J.A. Helay¨ el-Neto, M.T.D. Orlando, Phys. Rev. D 68, 025005 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.68.025005

    2003 doi

  40. [48]

    Belich, M

    H. Belich, M. M. Ferreira Jr and J. A. Helay¨ el-Neto, Eur. Phys. J. C 38, 511 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2004-02033-x

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    Belich, T

    H. Belich, T. Costa-Soares, M.M. Ferreira Jr., J.A. Helay¨ el-Neto, Eur. Phys. J. C 42, 127 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s2005-02253-6

    2005 doi

  42. [50]

    Chodos, R.L

    A. Chodos, R.L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C.B. Thorn, V.F. Weisskopf, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3471 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3471

    1974 doi

  43. [51]

    Gradshteyn and I.M

    I.S. Gradshteyn and I.M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series and Products , 7 thed., Academic Press, USA (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    Flores-Hidalgo et al

    G. Flores-Hidalgo et al. , work in progress. 24

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.