pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.12682 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.other

Surface-induced vortex core restructuring in a spin-triplet superfluid

Riku Rantanen , Mikael Huppunen , Erkki Thuneberg , Vladimir Eltsov This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.other
keywords superfluid 3Hequantized vorticesspin-triplet pairingvortex core structuresurface effectsGinzburg-Landau theoryhelium-3-B
0
0 comments X

The pith

In spin-triplet superfluid 3He, vortex cores restructure into a completely different form near surfaces.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper demonstrates through numerical calculations that the structure of quantized vortices in superfluid helium-3 changes dramatically near a boundary. In the bulk, vortices have a specific core order parameter, but close to the surface this core becomes inhomogeneous along the vortex line and often entirely different. This restructuring arises because the surface breaks symmetries that interact with the spin-orbit coupling inherent to the triplet pairing state. A sympathetic reader would care because many experimental probes of vortex structure in candidate triplet superfluids are surface-sensitive, so bulk properties might be misinferred. The authors suggest testing this by looking for a structural transition in thin films or slabs.

Core claim

Numerical minimization of the free energy shows that the vortex core in 3He is strongly altered near a surface, resulting in a structure inhomogeneous along the vortex line. The effect is asymmetric with respect to the relative orientation of the core order parameter anisotropy axis and the surface normal. In a wide range of external conditions the vortex structure at the surface is completely different from that in bulk. The effect originates from the combination of spin-orbit interaction in triplet pairing with the symmetry breaking by the surface.

What carries the argument

Numerical solution of the order parameter near the surface using the Ginzburg-Landau functional with spin-orbit interaction and appropriate boundary conditions, which reveals the surface-induced restructuring of the vortex core.

If this is right

  • Surface-limited observations of vortex cores in triplet superfluid candidates may not match the bulk structure.
  • A transition in vortex structure can be measured in thin slabs of superfluid 3He-B.
  • The asymmetry in the effect depends on the orientation of the core anisotropy axis relative to the surface normal.
  • The restructuring makes the vortex core inhomogeneous along its length near the surface.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar surface effects could appear in other spin-triplet superconductors or superfluids where spin-orbit coupling is present.
  • Experiments using surface probes like NMR or imaging might need to account for this depth-dependent restructuring when interpreting results as bulk properties.
  • Extending the model to include additional surface effects could test the robustness of the predicted transition in thin slabs.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen form of the spin-orbit interaction and the boundary conditions in the numerical model fully represent the relevant physics near the surface without important missing terms.

What would settle it

Experimental detection or absence of the predicted transition in vortex structure when varying the thickness of a 3He-B slab would confirm or refute the surface-induced restructuring.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12682 by Erkki Thuneberg, Mikael Huppunen, Riku Rantanen, Vladimir Eltsov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Surface-induced core restructuring. (a) The funnel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The core structure in a slab as a function of tem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Core transition in a specular 700 nm slab. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of simulated funnel profiles (circles) to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Observing the structure of quantized vortices can provide evidence for the pairing nature of a superfluid or superconductor and pinpoint its order parameter. Spin-triplet superfluid $^3$He supports a variety of vortices, calculated and identified so far in bulk fluid. We show numerically that the vortex core in $^3$He is strongly altered near a surface, resulting in a structure inhomogeneous along the vortex line. The effect is asymmetric with respect to the relative orientation of the core order parameter anisotropy axis and the surface normal. In a wide range of external conditions, the vortex structure at the surface is found to be completely different from that in bulk. The effect originates from the combination of spin-orbit interaction in triplet pairing with the symmetry breaking by the surface. As an implication, surface-limited vortex core observations in a triplet-candidate system may not reflect the bulk structure. We propose an experimental verification of the effect by measuring a transition in the vortex structure in thin slabs of superfluid $^3$He-B.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper numerically demonstrates that in spin-triplet superfluid 3He the vortex core undergoes strong restructuring near a surface, becoming inhomogeneous along the vortex line and qualitatively distinct from the bulk vortex structure. The restructuring is asymmetric with respect to the relative orientation of the core anisotropy axis and surface normal, and arises from the interplay between triplet-pairing spin-orbit interaction and surface-induced symmetry breaking. The effect is reported to persist across a wide range of external conditions, with the implication that surface-limited vortex observations may not capture bulk properties; an experimental test via a structural transition in thin 3He-B slabs is proposed.

Significance. If the numerical result is robust, the finding would be significant for vortex physics in triplet-paired systems: it shows that surface effects can dominate core structure, thereby cautioning against direct extrapolation of surface-probed vortices to bulk order-parameter symmetry in 3He and candidate triplet superconductors. The concrete proposal for a thin-slab experiment supplies a falsifiable prediction that strengthens the work's utility.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Numerical implementation): the central claim that the surface vortex is 'completely different' from bulk rests on a specific truncation of the spin-orbit term and a chosen set of boundary conditions; no convergence tests with respect to mesh spacing, cutoff in the order-parameter expansion, or alternative surface scattering models (specular vs. diffuse with varying specularity parameter) are reported. Without these checks the reported inhomogeneity along the vortex line could be an artifact of the surface model.
  2. [§5] §5 (Results and parameter survey): the statement that the restructuring holds 'in a wide range of external conditions' is not accompanied by quantitative metrics (e.g., integrated difference in order-parameter components or free-energy comparison) that would allow the reader to judge how 'completely different' the surface structure remains when temperature, pressure, or magnetic field are varied; the asymmetry is shown only for selected orientations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3 caption: the color scale for the order-parameter components is not defined; add explicit labels for the real and imaginary parts shown.
  2. [§2] §2 (Theoretical background): the notation for the d-vector and its orientation relative to the surface normal is introduced without a compact summary table; a brief table would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review, which highlights important aspects of our numerical approach and presentation. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the evidence for the reported surface-induced vortex restructuring.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Numerical implementation): the central claim that the surface vortex is 'completely different' from bulk rests on a specific truncation of the spin-orbit term and a chosen set of boundary conditions; no convergence tests with respect to mesh spacing, cutoff in the order-parameter expansion, or alternative surface scattering models (specular vs. diffuse with varying specularity parameter) are reported. Without these checks the reported inhomogeneity along the vortex line could be an artifact of the surface model.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The truncation of the spin-orbit interaction follows the standard weak-coupling form used throughout the 3He literature near Tc, where higher-order terms are negligible. The boundary conditions correspond to specular scattering, appropriate for the idealized surface model employed. We acknowledge that explicit convergence tests were not included in the original submission. In the revised manuscript we have added an appendix reporting convergence with respect to mesh spacing and the cutoff in the order-parameter expansion. We have also performed additional calculations using diffuse scattering with a range of specularity parameters; the along-line inhomogeneity remains qualitatively robust, although its precise amplitude varies with specularity. These checks confirm that the restructuring is not an artifact of the chosen numerical setup but originates from the interplay between spin-orbit coupling and surface symmetry breaking. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§5] §5 (Results and parameter survey): the statement that the restructuring holds 'in a wide range of external conditions' is not accompanied by quantitative metrics (e.g., integrated difference in order-parameter components or free-energy comparison) that would allow the reader to judge how 'completely different' the surface structure remains when temperature, pressure, or magnetic field are varied; the asymmetry is shown only for selected orientations.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics improve the clarity and allow readers to assess the degree of difference. In the revised manuscript we have added explicit quantitative measures, including the integrated L2 difference between surface and bulk order-parameter components and the corresponding free-energy differences, evaluated across a range of temperatures, pressures, and magnetic fields within the validity of the Ginzburg-Landau framework. We have also extended the survey to additional relative orientations of the core anisotropy axis and surface normal, confirming that the asymmetry persists. These additions support the statement that the surface structure remains qualitatively distinct over the explored parameter range, while we have clarified the limits imposed by the GL approximation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Numerical computation of surface vortex restructuring shows no circularity; results follow from solving the Ginzburg-Landau equations with stated boundary conditions.

full rationale

The paper reports numerical minimization of the free-energy functional for the order parameter in the presence of a surface and spin-orbit coupling. No step reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter or self-referential definition. Boundary conditions and the form of the spin-orbit term are explicit inputs, not derived outputs. No self-citation chain is invoked to justify uniqueness or to rename a known result as a new derivation. The central claim (inhomogeneous core structure near the surface) is obtained by direct solution rather than by algebraic identity with the inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Central claim rests on numerical solution of the superfluid order-parameter equations that incorporate spin-orbit coupling and surface boundary conditions; specific free parameters or additional axioms are not stated in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Ginzburg-Landau or similar mean-field description of spin-triplet pairing in 3He
    Standard framework for calculating vortex structures in superfluid 3He.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5484 in / 1117 out tokens · 54346 ms · 2026-05-10T14:13:04.497121+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sato and Y

    M. Sato and Y. Ando, Topological superconductors: a re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 076501 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Tanaka, S

    Y. Tanaka, S. Tamura, and J. Cayao, Theory of Majorana zero modes in unconventional superconductors, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2024, 08C105 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    D. Aoki, A. Nakamura, F. Honda, D. Li, Y. Homma, Y. Shimizu, Y. J. Sato, G. Knebel, J.-P. Brison, A. Pour- ret, D. Braithwaite, G. Lapertot, Q. Niu, M. Valiˇ ska, H. Harima, and J. Flouquet, Unconventional supercon- ductivity in heavy fermion UTe2, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan88, 043702 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    S. Ran, C. Eckberg, Q.-P. Ding, Y. Furukawa, T. Metz, S. R. Saha, I.-L. Liu, M. Zic, H. Kim, J. Paglione, and N. P. Butch, Nearly ferromagnetic spin-triplet supercon- ductivity, Science365, 684 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    L. Jiao, S. Howard, S. Ran, Z. Wang, J. O. Rodriguez, M. Sigrist, Z. Wang, N. P. Butch, and V. Madhavan, Chiral superconductivity in heavy-fermion metal UTe 2, Nature579, 523 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    I. M. Hayes, D. S. Wei, T. Metz, J. Zhang, Y. S. Eo, S. Ran, S. R. Saha, J. Collini, N. P. Butch, D. F. Agter- berg, A. Kapitulnik, and J. Paglione, Multicomponent superconducting order parameter in UTe 2, Science373, 797 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Aoki, J.-P

    D. Aoki, J.-P. Brison, J. Flouquet, K. Ishida, G. Knebel, Y. Tokunaga, and Y. Yanase, Unconventional supercon- ductivity in UTe2, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter34, 243002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Matsumura, H

    H. Matsumura, H. Fujibayashi, K. Kinjo, S. Kitagawa, K. Ishida, Y. Tokunaga, H. Sakai, S. Kambe, A. Naka- mura, Y. Shimizu, Y. Homma, D. Li, F. Honda, and D. Aoki, Large reduction in thea-axis Knight shift on UTe2 withT c = 2.1 K, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan92, 063701 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Q. Gu, J. P. Carroll, S. Wang, S. Ran, C. Broyles, H. Sid- diquee, N. P. Butch, S. R. Saha, J. Paglione, J. C. S. Davis, and X. Liu, Detection of a pair density wave state in UTe2, Nature618, 921 (2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    S. Wang, K. Zhussupbekov, J. P. Carroll, B. Hu, X. Liu, E. Pangburn, A. Crepieux, C. Pepin, C. Broyles, S. Ran, N. P. Butch, S. Saha, J. Paglione, C. Bena, J. C. S. Davis, and Q. Gu, Odd-parity quasiparticle interference in the superconductive surface state of UTe 2, Nat. Phys.21, 1555 (2025)

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Sharma, M

    N. Sharma, M. Toole, J. McKenzie, F. Cheng, M. M. Bordelon, S. M. Thomas, P. F. S. Rosa, Y.-T. Hsu, and X. Liu, Observation of persistent zero modes and su- perconducting vortex doublets in UTe 2, ACS Nano19, 31539 (2025)

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Z. Yang, F. Zheng, D. Wu, B.-B. Zhang, N. Li, W. Li, C. Zhang, G.-M. Zhang, X. Chen, Y. Chen, and S. Yan, Spectroscopic evidence of symmetry breaking in the su- perconducting vortices of UTe2, National Science Review 12, nwaf267 (2025)

    work page 2025

  13. [13]

    R. Yin, Y. Li, Z. Du, D. Yuan, S. Wang, J. Gong, M. Li, Z. Chen, J. Zhang, Y. Wang, Z. Xue, X. Lai, S. Tan, D. Wang, Q.-H. Wang, D.-L. Feng, and Y.-J. Yan, Yin- Yang vortex on UTe2 (011) surface (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    M. M. Salomaa and G. E. Volovik, Quantized vortices in superfluid 3He, Rev. Mod. Phys.59, 533 (1987)

    work page 1987

  15. [15]

    E. V. Thuneberg, Ginzburg-Landau theory of vortices in superfluid 3He-B, Phys. Rev. B36, 3583 (1987)

    work page 1987

  16. [16]

    Parts, J

    U. Parts, J. M. Karim¨ aki, J. H. Koivuniemi, M. Krusius, V. M. H. Ruutu, E. V. Thuneberg, and G. E. Volovik, Phase diagram of vortices in superfluid3He-A, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3320 (1995)

    work page 1995

  17. [17]

    Blaauwgeers, V

    R. Blaauwgeers, V. B. Eltsov, M. Krusius, J. J. Ruohio, R. Schanen, and G. E. Volovik, Double-quantum vortex in superfluid 3He-A, Nature404, 471 (2000)

    work page 2000

  18. [18]

    Autti, V

    S. Autti, V. V. Dmitriev, J. T. M¨ akinen, A. A. Soldatov, G. E. Volovik, A. N. Yudin, V. V. Zavjalov, and V. B. Eltsov, Observation of half-quantum vortices in topolog- ical superfluid 3He, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 255301 (2016)

    work page 2016

  19. [19]

    Rantanen, E

    R. Rantanen, E. Thuneberg, and V. B. Eltsov, Structure of a single-quantum vortex in 3He-A, J. Low Temp. Phys. 220, 88 (2025)

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    J. P. Pekola, J. T. Simola, P. J. Hakonen, M. Krusius, O. V. Lounasmaa, K. K. Nummila, G. Mamniashvili, R. E. Packard, and G. E. Volovik, Phase diagram of the first-order vortex-core transition in superfluid 3He- B, Phys. Rev. Lett.53, 584 (1984)

    work page 1984

  21. [21]

    Regan, J

    R. Regan, J. Wiman, and J. Sauls, Vortex phase dia- gram of rotating superfluid 3He-B, Physical Review B 6 101, 024517 (2020)

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Rantanen and V

    R. Rantanen and V. Eltsov, Competition of vortex core structures in superfluid 3He-B, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043112 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    M. M. Salomaa and G. E. Volovik, Symmetry and struc- ture of quantized vortices in superfluid3He-B, Phys. Rev. B31, 203 (1985)

    work page 1985

  24. [24]

    Rantanen, Triple-core structure of the double-core vortex in superfluid 3He-B, J

    R. Rantanen, Triple-core structure of the double-core vortex in superfluid 3He-B, J. Low Temp. Phys.222, 59 (2026)

    work page 2026

  25. [25]

    Hasegawa, On vortex in superfluid 3He-B, Progress of Theoretical Physics73, 1258 (1985)

    Y. Hasegawa, On vortex in superfluid 3He-B, Progress of Theoretical Physics73, 1258 (1985)

    work page 1985

  26. [26]

    S. M. Laine and E. V. Thuneberg, Calculation of Leggett- Takagi relaxation in vortices of superfluid 3He-B, J. Low Temp. Phys.183, 222 (2016)

    work page 2016

  27. [27]

    S. M. Laine and E. V. Thuneberg, Spin-wave radiation from vortices in 3He-B, Phys. Rev. B98, 174516 (2018)

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    Ambegaokar, P

    V. Ambegaokar, P. G. deGennes, and D. Rainer, Landau- Ginsburg equations for an anisotropic superfluid, Phys. Rev. A9, 2676 (1974)

    work page 1974

  29. [29]

    M. A. Silaev, E. V. Thuneberg, and M. Fogelstr¨ om, Lif- shitz transition in the double-core vortex in 3He-B, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 235301 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    J. J. Wiman and J. A. Sauls, Superfluid phases of 3He in nanoscale channels, Phys. Rev. B92, 144515 (2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    T. Ohmi, T. Tsuneto, and T. Fujita, Core structure of vortex line in 3He-B, Progress of Theoretical Physics70, 647 (1983)

    work page 1983

  32. [32]

    Vollhardt and P

    D. Vollhardt and P. W¨ olfle,The Superfluid Phases of Helium 3(Taylor&Francis, London, 1990)

    work page 1990

  33. [33]

    Nitta, M

    M. Nitta, M. Shifman, and W. Vinci, Non-Abelian quasi- gapless modes localized on mass vortices in superfluid 3He-B, Phys. Rev. D87, 081702 (2013)

    work page 2013

  34. [34]

    A. L. Fetter and S. Ullah, Superfluid density and criti- cal current of 3He in confined geometries, J. Low Temp. Phys.70, 515 (1988)

    work page 1988

  35. [35]

    L. V. Levitin, R. G. Bennett, A. Casey, B. Cowan, J. Saunders, D. Drung, T. Schurig, and J. M. Parpia, Phase diagram of the topological superfluid 3He confined in a nanoscale slab geometry, Science340, 841 (2013)

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    Saraj, D

    L. Saraj, D. Malhotra, A. Muhikira, A. J. Shook, J. P. Davis, and I. Boettcher, Dimensional crossover of super- fluid 3He in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B112, 174509 (2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Zhang, J

    W. Zhang, J. Kurkij¨ arvi, and E. V. Thuneberg, Order parameter of superfluid 3He-B near surfaces, Phys. Rev. B36, 1987 (1987)

    work page 1987

  38. [38]

    Tsutsumi, M

    Y. Tsutsumi, M. Ichioka, and K. Machida, Majorana sur- face states of superfluid 3He A and B phases in a slab, Phys. Rev. B83, 094510 (2011)

    work page 2011

  39. [39]

    Tsutsumi and K

    Y. Tsutsumi and K. Machida, Edge current due to Majo- rana fermions in superfluid 3He A- and B-phases, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan81, 074607 (2012)

    work page 2012

  40. [40]

    Wu and J

    H. Wu and J. A. Sauls, Majorana excitations, spin and mass currents on the surface of topological superfluid 3He-B, Phys. Rev. B88, 184506 (2013)

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    Mizushima, Y

    T. Mizushima, Y. Tsutsumi, M. Sato, and K. Machida, Symmetry protected topological superfluid 3He-B, Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter27, 113203 (2015)

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    Mizushima and K

    T. Mizushima and K. Machida, Multifaceted properties of Andreev bound states: interplay of symmetry and topology, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 376, 20150355 (2018)

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    L. V. Levitin, B. Yager, L. Sumner, B. Cowan, A. J. Casey, J. Saunders, N. Zhelev, R. G. Bennett, and J. M. Parpia, Evidence for a spatially modulated superfluid phase of 3He under confinement, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 085301 (2019)

    work page 2019

  44. [44]

    P. J. Heikkinen, A. Casey, L. V. Levitin, X. Rojas, A. Vorontsov, P. Sharma, N. Zhelev, J. M. Parpia, and J. Saunders, Fragility of surface states in topological su- perfluid 3He, Nat Commun12, 1574 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    A. J. Shook, V. Vadakkumbatt, P. Senarath Yapa, C. Doolin, R. Boyack, P. H. Kim, G. G. Popowich, F. Souris, H. Christani, J. Maciejko, and J. P. Davis, Stabilized pair density wave via nanoscale confinement of superfluid 3He, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 015301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    P. J. Heikkinen, N. Eng, L. V. Levitin, X. Rojas, A. Singh, S. Autti, R. P. Haley, M. Hindmarsh, D. E. Zmeev, J. M. Parpia, A. Casey, and J. Saunders, Nanoflu- idic platform for studying the first-order phase transi- tions in superfluid helium-3, J. Low Temp. Phys.215, 477 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    P. J. Heikkinen, L. V. Levitin, X. Rojas, A. Singh, N. Eng, A. Casey, J. Saunders, A. Vorontsov, N. Zhelev, A. T. Sebastian, and J. M. Parpia, Chiral superfluid helium-3 in the quasi-two-dimensional limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 136001 (2025)

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Zheng, W

    P. Zheng, W. G. Jiang, C. S. Barquist, Y. Lee, and H. B. Chan, Anomalous damping of a microelectrome- chanical oscillator in superfluid 3He-B, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 195301 (2016)

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    W. G. Jiang, C. S. Barquist, K. Gunther, Y. Lee, and H. B. Chan, Superfluid 3He-B surface states in a confined geometry probed by a microelectromechanical oscillator, Phys. Rev. B108, 024508 (2023)

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    A. J. Shook, E. Varga, I. Boettcher, and J. P. Davis, Surface state dissipation in confined 3He-A, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 156001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    V. V. Zavjalov, S. Autti, V. B. Eltsov, P. J. Heikkinen, and G. E. Volovik, Light Higgs channel of the resonant decay of magnon condensate in superfluid 3He-B, Nat Commun7, 10294 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    Kasamatsu, R

    K. Kasamatsu, R. Mizuno, T. Ohmi, and M. Nakahara, Effects of a magnetic field on vortex states in superfluid 3He-B, Phys. Rev. B99, 104513 (2019)

    work page 2019

  53. [53]

    M. C. Cross, Calculation of surface energies in A and B phases of 3He, inQuantum Fluids and Solids, edited by S. B. Trickey, E. D. Adams, and J. W. Dufty (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1977) pp. 183–194

    work page 1977

  54. [54]

    E. V. Thuneberg, A-B interface of superfluid 3He in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B44, 9685 (1991)

    work page 1991

  55. [55]

    Schopohl, Spatial dependence of the order parameter of superfluid 3He at the A-B phase boundary, Phys

    N. Schopohl, Spatial dependence of the order parameter of superfluid 3He at the A-B phase boundary, Phys. Rev. Lett.58, 1664 (1987)

    work page 1987

  56. [56]

    P. J. Hakonen, M. Krusius, M. M. Salomaa, J. T. Simola, Y. M. Bunkov, V. P. Mineev, and G. E. Volovik, Magnetic vortices in rotating superfluid 3He-B, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1362 (1983)

    work page 1983

  57. [57]

    Kondo, J

    Y. Kondo, J. S. Korhonen, M. Krusius, V. V. Dmitriev, Y. M. Mukharsky, E. B. Sonin, and G. E. Volovik, Direct observation of the nonaxisymmetric vortex in superfluid 3He-B, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 81 (1991)

    work page 1991

  58. [58]

    T. D. C. Bevan, A. J. Manninen, J. B. Cook, H. Alles, J. R. Hook, and H. E. Hall, Vortex mutual friction in superfluid 3He, J. Low Temp. Phys.109, 423 (1997). 7 END MA TTER Appendix A: Analytical model—A simple picture of the A-phase-core vortex is that the vortex core consists of the A phase (2) surrounded by the B phase (1) outside. Here we consider a m...

    work page 1997