Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Quasi-topological mass generation for 3D linearized gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 A Chern-Simons-like term added to linearized gravity gives the 3D graviton a physical mass while preserving a good massless limit.

desk verdict The construction is neat, but the harmonic gauge-fixing is not a valid slice for the residual longitudinal symmetry, so the advertised good massless limit may describe a different theory. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20845 v1 pith:LVD7HE4X submitted 2025-07-28 hep-th gr-qc

Erica Bertolini , Edoardo Lui , Nicola Maggiore This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords three-dimensionallinearizedgravitymassgenerationChern-Simons-liketermTopologicalMassiveBRSsymmetrygravitondegreeoffreedomWardoperatorsvDVZdiscontinuity
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 aims to show that three-dimensional linearized gravity can be made massive by adding a Chern-Simons-like term $S_m = \int d^3x \, \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} h^\lambda_{\mu} \partial_\nu h_{\rho\lambda}$ to the linearized Einstein-Hilbert action, without higher-derivative terms and without a Fierz-Pauli mass term. The argument is that after harmonic gauge fixing with a modified BRS symmetry, the propagators have a physical massive pole at $p^2 = -m^2$, a well-defined $m \to 0$ limit, and no ghost poles. The theory then propagates exactly one massive degree of freedom, the transverse part of the spatial Ricci tensor, matching the physical content of Topological Massive Gravity. If correct, this is a quasi-topological mass generation mechanism that preserves power-counting renormalizability and naturally avoids the vDVZ discontinuity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Chern-Simons-like mass term $S_m = \int d^3x \, \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} h^\lambda_{\mu} \partial_\nu h_{\rho\lambda}$, a parity-breaking, power-counting-renormalizable term built from the symmetric tensor field whose sole role here is to generate mass. Because $S_m$ breaks the diffeomorphism invariance of $S_{\mathrm{lg}}$, the argument is carried by a modified BRS operator $s_m$: it acts on $h$, $c$, and $\bar{c}$ as the usual Becchi-Rouet-Stora symmetry, and on the Nakanishi-Lautrup field as $s_m b_\mu = 2m \, \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho} \partial^\nu c^\rho$, so that the total gauge-fixed action satisfies $s_m S_{\mathrm{tot}} = 0$. The operator is no longer nilpotent but satisfies $s_m^2 = \delta$, with $\delta$ acting only on the antighost. This non-nilpotent but exact symmetry replaces gauge invariance for the massive theory and makes the harmonic gauge-fixed propagator calculation consistent; the massive pole $p^2 = -m^2$ is then isolated in the spin-2 projector $P^{(2)}$ using the Barnes-River basis.

What would settle it

Carry out the variation $s_m S_{\mathrm{tot}}$ explicitly using (3.36)-(3.39). The dangerous terms are the variation of $m S_m$ and the variation of the gauge-fixing term through $s_m b_\mu = 2m \, \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho} \partial^\nu c^\rho$; if any term proportional to $m \, \epsilon \, h \, \partial \partial c$ survives, equation (3.40) is false and the claimed symmetry does not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that three-dimensional linearized gravity can acquire a mass by adding the quasi-topological term $S_m = \int d^3x \, \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho} h^\lambda_{\mu} \partial_\nu h_{\rho\lambda}$ to the linearized Einstein-Hilbert action $S_{\mathrm{lg}}$, with the full action $S = S_{\mathrm{lg}} + m S_m$. Once the vector gauge symmetry is fixed by the harmonic condition, and the gauge fixing is made compatible with $S_m$ by replacing the standard BRS operator with the modified operator $s_m$ defined by $s_m b_\mu = 2m \, \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho} \partial^\nu c^\rho$, the propagators display a massive pole at $p^2 = -m^2$, a well-defined massless limit, and no tachyonic ghosts. The massive pole sits in the spin-2 projector of the Barnes-River basis and describes one propagating massive degree of freedom, identified with the transverse part of the spatial Ricci tensor through the Klein-Gordon equation $(\Box - m^2) R^T_{ij} = 0$. The paper further claims that the resulting gauge-fixed action is uniquely characterized by a set of Ward operators, and that the physical content coincides with Topological Massive Gravity: one massive mode of helicity $\pm 2$.

Load-bearing premise

The construction depends on the claim that the modified BRS operator $s_m$ defined in (3.36)-(3.39) satisfies $s_m S_{\mathrm{tot}} = 0$ for the total gauge-fixed action; the paper states this as 'easily verified' after (3.41) without displaying the cancellation, so if this identity fails, the symmetry, propagator, and degree-of-freedom analysis lose their justification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The graviton in three dimensions receives a physical mass $m$ without higher-derivative terms, so power-counting renormalizability is preserved.
  • The massless limit $m \to 0$ is smooth at the level of the gauge-fixed propagator, in contrast with the scalar gauge-fixing version of the same action and with Fierz-Pauli massive gravity.
  • The theory propagates exactly one massive degree of freedom, the transverse component of the spatial Ricci tensor, satisfying $(\Box - m^2) R^T_{ij} = 0$, with no tachyonic ghosts for $m^2 > 0$.
  • The physical content coincides with Topological Massive Gravity despite the different form of the mass term.
  • The Ward operators associated with $s_m$ and $\delta$ uniquely determine the gauge-fixed massive action, giving an algebraic characterization of the theory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an editorial extension, the same pattern of a massive breaking term plus a modified BRS operator could be tried on higher-rank symmetric tensor gauge theories, including fractonic dipolar models where $S_m$ already appears, as a way to give their gauge fields a mass without adding higher-derivative terms.
  • The non-nilpotent relation $s_m^2 = \delta$ suggests the symmetry algebra here is a graded extension of the usual BRS algebra; if it survives quantization, it would constrain counterterms through Ward identities beyond what the paper verifies at tree level.
  • Because the massive pole appears purely in the spin-2 projector with positive norm, one testable extension is to couple the model to point particles and compute the two-body potential: a finite-range gravitational force with a single helicity state is a concrete observable prediction of this mass generation mechanism.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new mechanism for giving mass to three-dimensional linearized gravity by adding a Chern-Simons-like term S_m = ∫ ε^{μνρ} h^λ_μ ∂_ν h_{ρλ} to the linearized Einstein-Hilbert action S_lg, with the combined action S = S_lg + m S_m. The authors gauge-fix this action using the harmonic condition through a modified BRS operator s_m, compute the propagator in momentum space, and report a massive pole at p^2 = -m^2 together with a smooth massless limit. They then perform a scalar-field decomposition of h_{μν}, reduce the action to u(□ - m^2)□u, and identify a single propagating massive degree of freedom with the transverse part of the spatial Ricci tensor, in analogy with Topologically Massive Gravity. The paper also claims that the resulting theory is characterized by a set of Ward operators that uniquely determine it.

Significance. If the proposed construction is valid, the paper would offer a genuinely new and simple way to give a mass to 3D linearized gravity without higher-derivative terms or a Fierz-Pauli mass term, and with a well-behaved massless limit. The explicit propagator coefficients, the use of the Barnes-River projectors to identify the massive spin-2 pole, and the reduction to a single physical scalar degree of freedom are valuable technical steps that make the central claim checkable. The connection to the modified BRS symmetry and the Ward-operator structure is also an interesting algebraic feature that could be useful for studying the renormalization and uniqueness properties of the model. However, the paper's main physical conclusion rests on the validity of the vector harmonic gauge-fixing for an action whose residual symmetry is only the longitudinal diffeomorphisms; this point is not established and is, in fact, challenged by the paper's own discussion in Section 3.2.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3 (Eqs. (3.11), (2.3), (3.40)-(3.41))] The action S = S_lg + m S_m is invariant only under the longitudinal diffeomorphisms (1.1), not under the full linearized diffeomorphisms (1.2), as the paper itself states in Section 3.2. A valid gauge-fixing must therefore be based on a scalar condition such as (3.12), not on the vector harmonic condition (2.3). Under the residual longitudinal symmetry, F_μ = ∂^ν h_{μν} - (1/2) ∂_μ h transforms as F_μ → F_μ + (1/2) ∂_μ □λ, so the harmonic slice is not reachable for a generic h_{μν}. Hence the gauge-fixed action S_tot = S_lg + S_gf + S_m is not a Faddeev-Popov gauge-fixing of S, and the propagator (A.59)-(A.67) may describe a different theory. The paper must demonstrate that S_tot and S have the same physical content, for example by showing that the modified BRS construction is equivalent to a legitimate gauge-fixing in an extended phase space or by proving that physical observables are independent of the choice of gauge-fixing.
  2. [§3.3 (Eqs. (3.40)-(3.44))] The exact symmetry s_m S_tot = 0 is asserted with the phrase 'as it can be easily verified' after Eq. (3.41), and the non-nilpotent algebra s_m^2 = δ with δ S_tot = 0 is also stated without derivation. This cancellation is load-bearing: if the modified BRS symmetry fails, the gauge-fixed action has no symmetry that justifies the propagator computation or the quantum interpretation. The authors should provide an explicit calculation of s_m S_tot (or at least a detailed algebraic proof), and should also verify the δ-invariance (3.44) and the algebra (3.42) by explicit computation.
  3. [§4 (Eqs. (4.13)-(4.19))] The degree-of-freedom count relies on the reduction from the action (4.10) to (4.18) via the constraints (4.13)-(4.15). This reduction assumes that the fields vanish at infinity and that the constraints can be solved algebraically as stated. More importantly, the claim that the massless poles of the propagator disappear when contracted into conserved sources is asserted without proof for this model, and the only explicitly computed propagator with a legitimate scalar gauge-fixing, (A.30)-(A.38), diverges as m→0. The authors must show that the physical observables (e.g., conserved-source amplitudes) have a smooth massless limit, or else the requirement 1 of the Introduction is not verified for the proposed theory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3.62)] The position-space form of the propagator contains operators such as 1/(□ - m^2) and E^(θ) with derivative operators; the pole structure and the unitarity claims should be stated more carefully, because the position-space expression may be formal without a clear prescription for the □^{-1} operators.
  2. [§1 and Section 2] The statement that 'gravity in 3D has no propagating DoF' is only true for linearized gravity on a fixed Minkowski background; the wording should be qualified to avoid confusion with the non-linear theory.
  3. [§3.3] The claim that the Ward operators 'uniquely determine the theory' is not proven in the present paper. If this is a key new result, the authors should either provide a cohomological proof or cite the precise previous work where such uniqueness is established.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical and grammatical issues, e.g., 'Degrees of F reedom' in the Introduction, and inconsistent spacing around equations. These do not affect the technical content but should be corrected in a revised version.
  5. [Appendix A.2] The coefficients (A.59)-(A.67) are stated after 'lengthy calculations' without showing the derivation. Since these coefficients are central to the paper's claims, at least one representative step of the computation should be included, or an ancillary file with the calculation should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the massive pole and single DoF are direct algebraic consequences of the proposed action, with m a free input rather than a fitted quantity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is explicit: S = S_lg + m S_m, the gauge-fixed quadratic operator is inverted in Appendix A.2, and the propagator coefficients (A.59)-(A.67) are obtained by solving the algebraic identities (A.55)-(A.58). The mass parameter m appears as an input coefficient of the Chern-Simons-like term; the pole condition p^2 = -m^2 is a computed consequence, not an assumption. The degree-of-freedom analysis in Section 4 likewise follows by decomposing the action (4.10), using the constraints (4.13)-(4.15) derived from the action, and reducing to (□ - m^2)□u = 0. Comparison with Topological Massive Gravity is an external benchmark from Deser-Jackiw-Templeton, not a self-citation. The self-citations in the paper, mainly [8]-[10] for the tensor basis and fractonic context and [18]-[21] for Fierz-Pauli massive gravity, provide technical tools or contextual results but are not load-bearing for the central claim; the A^(i) basis is a computational decomposition and the Fierz-Pauli discussion is contextual. The assertion s_m S_tot = 0 after (3.41) is left as 'easily verified', and the non-nilpotent algebra (3.42) is an input, but an omitted verification is a rigor gap, not circularity. The concern that the harmonic gauge slice may not be a valid slice of the residual longitudinal symmetry is a correctness and physical-equivalence issue, not a case of an equation reducing to its own input. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no result is imported solely from the authors' prior work as a forced uniqueness theorem.

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

The central claim rests on the unproven modified BRS symmetry and on a conserved-source decoupling assumption borrowed from TMG. The mass parameter m is a physical input, not fitted. No new entities are introduced beyond the standard ghost/multiplier fields.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The quadratic LG action (2.1) is the most general local functional invariant under infinitesimal diffeomorphisms (1.2).
    Standard result in linearized gravity, used in Section 2 to define the massless starting point.
  • ad hoc to paper The modified BRS operator s_m defined in (3.36)-(3.39) is an exact symmetry of the total action S_tot, i.e., s_m S_tot = 0.
    Stated as 'easily verified' after eq. (3.41) but not demonstrated; the entire construction depends on this cancellation.
  • domain assumption Massless poles in the propagator do not contribute to physical observables because they vanish when contracted with conserved sources.
    Used in Section 3 after eq. (3.62) to discard massless modes; borrowed from TMG [2,3] and not shown for this specific non-diffeomorphism-invariant mass term.
  • domain assumption The decomposition of Section 4 and the elimination of Lagrange multipliers are valid, including the assumption that fields vanish at infinity so Poisson equations are solved by (4.16)-(4.17).
    Standard for this reduction procedure, but the boundary conditions are not discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasi-topological mass generation for 3D linearized gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LVD7HE4X

@misc{pith2026250720845,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasi-topological mass generation for 3D linearized gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LVD7HE4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20845}
}
read the original abstract

We present a new mass generation mechanism for linearized gravity in three spacetime dimensions, which consists of a lower-dimensional Chern-Simons-like term added to the invariant action. The propagators of the gauge fixed massive action show a massive pole and a good massless limit. Moreover, we show that, as the Topological Massive Gravity model of Deser, Jackiw and Templeton, this theory displays one propagating massive DoF, which can be traced back to the transverse part of the spatial Ricci tensor. Finally, the action of this linearized massive gravity is characterized by an algebraic structure formed by a set of Ward operators, which uniquely determine the theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Three-Dimensional Gravity Revisited,

    E. Witten, “Three-Dimensional Gravity Revisited,” [arXiv:0706.3359 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Three-Dimensional Massive Gauge Theories,

    S. Deser, R. Jackiw and S. Templeton, “Three-Dimensional Massive Gauge Theories,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 975-978 (1982) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.975

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.48.975 1982

  3. [3]

    Topologically Massive Gauge Theories,

    S. Deser, R. Jackiw and S. Templeton, “Topologically Massive Gauge Theories,” Annals Phys. 140, 372-411 (1982) [erratum: Annals Phys. 185, 406 (1988)] doi:10.1016/0003-4916(82)90164- 6

    work page doi:10.1016/0003-4916(82)90164- 1982

  4. [4]

    Massive Gravity in Three Dimensions,

    E. A. Bergshoeff, O. Hohm and P. K. Townsend, “Massive Gravity in Three Dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 201301 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.201301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.201301 2009

  5. [5]

    The dimensional reduction of linearized spin-2 the- ories invariant under transverse diffeomorphisms,

    D. Dalmazi and R. R. L. d. Santos, “The dimensional reduction of linearized spin-2 the- ories invariant under transverse diffeomorphisms,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.6, 547 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09297-0

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09297-0 2021

  6. [6]

    Fracton Phases of Matter,

    M. Pretko, X. Chen and Y. You, “Fracton Phases of Matter,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, no.06, 2030003 (2020) doi:10.1142/S0217751X20300033

    doi:10.1142/s0217751x20300033 2020

  7. [7]

    The Fracton Gauge Principle,

    M. Pretko, “The Fracton Gauge Principle,” Phys. Rev. B 98, no.11, 115134 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.98.115134

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.98.115134 2018

  8. [8]

    Hall-like behaviour of higher rank Chern-Simons theory of fractons,

    E. Bertolini, A. Blasi, N. Maggiore and D. S. Shaikh, “Hall-like behaviour of higher rank Chern-Simons theory of fractons,” JHEP 10, 232 (2024) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2024)232

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2024)232 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Quasi-topological fractons: a 3D dipolar gauge theory,

    E. Bertolini, A. Blasi and N. Maggiore, “Quasi-topological fractons: a 3D dipolar gauge theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.1, 68 (2025) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13821-x

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Maxwell theory of fractons,

    E. Bertolini and N. Maggiore, “Maxwell theory of fractons,” Phys. Rev. D 106, no.12, 125008 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.125008

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Selfdual massive gravity,

    C. Aragone and A. Khoudeir, “Selfdual massive gravity,” Phys. Lett. B 173, 141-144 (1986) doi:10.1016/0370-2693(86)90234-0

    1986 doi

  4. [12]

    A New spin-2 self-dual model in D=2+1,

    D. Dalmazi and E. L. Mendonca, “A New spin-2 self-dual model in D=2+1,” JHEP 09, 011 (2009) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/011 [arXiv:0907.5009 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Higher spin analogs of linearized topologically mas- sive gravity and linearized new massive gravity,

    D. Dalmazi and A. L. R. d. Santos, “Higher spin analogs of linearized topologically mas- sive gravity and linearized new massive gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 104, no.8, 085023 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.085023 [arXiv:2107.08879 [hep-th]]. 20

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity

    Carroll, S. M., (2019). “Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity.” Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 9781108488396 doi.org/10.1017/9781108770385

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    Lecture notes on general relativity

    M. Blau, “Lecture notes on general relativity”, http://blau.itp.unibe.ch/ GRLecturenotes.html

  8. [16]

    Quantum Field Theory

    C. Itzykson, J. B. Zuber, “Quantum Field Theory”, Dover Publications (2012), ISBN: 9780486445687

    2012

  9. [17]

    Theoretical Aspects of Massive Gravity,

    K. Hinterbichler, “Theoretical Aspects of Massive Gravity,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 671-710 (2012) doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.84.671

    2012 doi

  10. [18]

    Massive gravity and Fierz-Pauli theory,

    A. Blasi and N. Maggiore, “Massive gravity and Fierz-Pauli theory,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no.9, 614 (2017) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5205-y

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Massive deformations of rank-2 symmetric tensor theory (a.k.a. BRS characterization of Fierz–Pauli massive gravity),

    A. Blasi and N. Maggiore, “Massive deformations of rank-2 symmetric tensor theory (a.k.a. BRS characterization of Fierz–Pauli massive gravity),” Class. Quant. Grav. 34, no.1, 015005 (2017) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/34/1/015005

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    A note on harmonic gauge(s) in massive gravity,

    G. Gambuti and N. Maggiore, “A note on harmonic gauge(s) in massive gravity,” Phys. Lett. B 807, 135530 (2020) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135530

    2020

  13. [21]

    Fierz–Pauli theory reloaded: from a theory of a sym- metric tensor field to linearized massive gravity,

    G. Gambuti and N. Maggiore, “Fierz–Pauli theory reloaded: from a theory of a sym- metric tensor field to linearized massive gravity,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.2, 171 (2021) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-08962-8

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Renormalization of Gauge Theories,

    C. Becchi, A. Rouet and R. Stora, “Renormalization of Gauge Theories,” Annals Phys. 98, 287-321 (1976) doi:10.1016/0003-4916(76)90156-1

    1976 doi

  15. [23]

    Continuum Gauge Theories,

    R. Stora, “Continuum Gauge Theories,” Conf. Proc. C 7607121, 201 (1976) CPT-76-P.854

    1976

  16. [24]

    Covariant Quantization of the Electromagnetic Field in the Landau Gauge,

    N. Nakanishi, “Covariant Quantization of the Electromagnetic Field in the Landau Gauge,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 35 (1966), 1111-1116 doi:10.1143/PTP.35.1111

    1966 doi

  17. [25]

    Canonical Quantum Electrodynamics In Covariant Gauges,

    B. Lautrup, “Canonical Quantum Electrodynamics In Covariant Gauges,” Kong. Dan. Vid. Sel. Mat. Fys. Med. 35, no. 11 (1967)

    1967

  18. [26]

    Massive Gravity with Mass Term in Three Dimensions,

    M. Nakasone and I. Oda, “Massive Gravity with Mass Term in Three Dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 104012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.104012

    2009 doi

  19. [27]

    A new class of spin projection operators for 3D models,

    A. Accioly, J. Helayel-Neto, B. Pereira-Dias and C. Hernaski, “A new class of spin projection operators for 3D models,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 105046 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.105046. 21

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    On Unitarity of Massive Gravity in Three Dimensions,

    M. Nakasone and I. Oda, “On Unitarity of Massive Gravity in Three Dimensions,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 121 (2009), 1389-1397 doi:10.1143/PTP.121.1389

    2009 doi

  21. [29]

    Massive and massless Yang-Mills and gravitational fields,

    H. van Dam and M. J. G. Veltman, “Massive and massless Yang-Mills and gravitational fields,” Nucl. Phys. B 22, 397-411 (1970) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(70)90416-5

    1970 doi

  22. [30]

    Linearized gravitation theory and the graviton mass,

    V. I. Zakharov, “Linearized gravitation theory and the graviton mass,” JETP Lett. 12, 312 (1970) 22

    1970

Pith tools

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