Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Vortices in Two-Dimensional Chiral Superfluids

T0 review · 3 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 a two-dimensional chiral superfluid with a centered vortex, the total orbital angular momentum equals the full paired value only in the BEC regime or for p+ip pairing with single vorticity; otherwise spectral flow reduces it.

desk verdict A competent extension of the spectral-flow approach to chiral superfluids with multiply quantized vortices, with a clean central identity but an unquantified suppression claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08468 v1 pith:5FZJFLWW submitted 2025-06-10 cond-mat.supr-con

Yan He , Wenxing Nie This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords chiralsuperfluidorbitalangularmomentummultiplyquantizedvortexBogoliubov-deGennestheoryspectralflowp+ipd+idunpairedfermions
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 asks how much orbital angular momentum a two-dimensional chiral superfluid can carry when it holds a quantized vortex. Using Bogoliubov-de Gennes theory on a disk, the authors argue that the natural expectation $L_z=(k+\nu)N/2$ remains exact in the Bose-Einstein-condensate (BEC) regime for every pairing order $\nu$ and vorticity $k$. In the weak-pairing BCS regime the same value survives only for $p+ip$ pairing with $k=\pm 1$; for $\nu\ge 2$ or $|k|\ge 2$ the orbital angular momentum is reduced, sharply for high-order chiral pairing and moderately but core-size dependently for multiply quantized vortices. The universal mechanism is spectral flow: a conserved combination $Q=L_z-(k+\nu)N/2$ is determined by a weighted sum of the spectral asymmetry of the BdG spectrum. This matters because it ties a long-debated macroscopic property, the angular momentum of chiral superfluids, to a small set of in-gap modes and unpaired fermions.

What carries the argument

The conserving combination is $Q=\hat{L}_z-\frac{k+\nu}{2}\hat{N}$, built so that it commutes with the BdG Hamiltonian even though neither $\hat{L}_z$ nor $\hat{N}$ does. The calculation's output is the spectral flow $\eta_l=\sum_{E_n^{(l)}>0}1-\sum_{E_n^{(l)}<0}1$ for each angular-momentum block $l$, together with the identity $Q=-\sum_l (l+(k+\nu)/2)\,\eta_l/2$. Nonzero $\eta_l$ signals unpaired fermions in the ground state of the generalized Bogoliubov transformation, and these unpaired fermions carry orbital angular momentum opposite to the Cooper pairs. Numerically, the paper diagonalizes the BdG equation in a Bessel-function basis on a disk with a specular wall and gap profile $\Delta(r)=\Delta_0\tanh(r/\xi)$, extracting $\eta_l$ from the in-gap mode crossings.

What would settle it

Solve the BdG equations self-consistently for the same disk geometry with a $k=2$ $p+ip$ vortex and a $k=1$ $d+id$ vortex, then recompute the spectral flow and total $L_z$. If the in-gap vortex-mode structure shifts so that $\eta_l$ becomes nonzero in different angular-momentum blocks or changes magnitude, the suppression factor would change, contradicting the paper's claim that qualitative features do not depend on the detailed form of $Δ(r)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the total orbital angular momentum of a chiral $(p_x+ip_y)^\nu$ superfluid with a centered $k$-vortex is governed by the conservation of $Q=L_z-(k+\nu)N/2$, and that $Q$ itself is carried entirely by spectral flow: $Q=-\sum_l (l+(k+\nu)/2)\,\eta_l/2$. Whenever the spectral flow $\eta_l$ vanishes for all $l$, $L_z$ takes its full value $(k+\nu)N/2$; whenever in-gap modes cross the BdG spectrum so that $\eta_l\neq 0$, the orbital angular momentum is suppressed. In the BEC regime the spectrum is fully gapped, so the full value holds for all $\nu$ and $k$. In the BCS regime, $p+ip$ pairing with $k=\pm 1$ has zero spectral flow and hence full $L_z$, while $\nu\ge 2$ or $|k|\ge 2$ produces nonzero spectral flow from in-gap vortex or boundary modes, reducing $L_z$ in the two cases by different amounts. The $k=-1$ $p+ip$ antivortex is special: its total $L_z$ is exactly zero, yet the radial distribution $L_z(r)$ is nontrivial, with a negative plateau from the vortex cancelling a positive boundary peak from the chiral pairing.

Load-bearing premise

The most delicate premise is that the qualitative orbital-angular-momentum behavior is independent of the detailed vortex pairing profile, with the assumed $Δ(r)=Δ_0\tanh(r/\xi)$ treated as representative; the paper does not solve the BdG equation self-consistently, and the $|k|\ge 2$ suppression is explicitly core-size dependent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the BEC regime, any chiral pairing order and any integer vorticity gives the full value $L_z=(k+\nu)N/2$.
  • In the BCS regime, only $p+ip$ pairing with $k=\pm 1$ retains the full value; every higher-partial-wave chiral superfluid loses orbital angular momentum in the ideal disk geometry.
  • Multiply quantized vortices with $|k|\ge 2$ reduce $L_z$ by an amount tied to the vortex core size rather than to the boundary.
  • The $k=-1$ $p+ip$ antivortex has zero total $L_z$ but a nontrivial radial current distribution, so measuring only the total angular momentum would miss the underlying chiral structure.
  • Nonzero spectral flow implies unpaired fermions in the ground state, which produce counterflow near the vortex core or the boundary and thereby explain the OAM suppression.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the identity $Q=-\sum_l (l+(k+\nu)/2)\eta_l/2$ should hold for any rotation-symmetric trap, since it follows from particle-hole symmetry and angular momentum conservation rather than from the specific Bessel basis; a harmonic-trap calculation would test whether the BEC/BCS contrast persists exactly.
  • The interpretation that spectral flow, not wavefunction overlap, controls the OAM reduction suggests that lattice or tight-binding realizations of chiral superfluids should show the same suppression whenever in-gap edge modes survive, which could be checked by exact diagonalization.
  • Because the sharp suppression for $\nu\ge 2$ is attributed to boundary modes, a soft confining potential could change the magnitude of that suppression; this is a concrete testable extension of the paper's ideal specular-wall setting.
  • If the claim survives a self-consistent calculation, the angular-momentum paradox would be resolved by classifying which BdG spectra have spectral flow, rather than by estimating Fermi-surface suppression factors.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies the orbital angular momentum L_z of two-dimensional chiral (p_x+ip_y)^ν-wave superfluids in a disk with an axisymmetric vortex of vorticity k, using BdG theory with a fixed pairing profile. The central formal result is Eq. (38): Q = L_z - (k+ν)N/2 = -1/2 Σ_l (l+(k+ν)/2) η_l, where η_l is the spectral-flow asymmetry. The authors claim that in the BEC regime η_l=0 for any integer k and ν, so L_z=(k+ν)N/2; in the BCS regime this holds only for p+ip pairing with k=±1, while for ν≥2 or |k|≥2 the spectral flow is nonzero and L_z is reduced, sharply for ν≥2 and moderately and core-size-dependently for |k|≥2. They also present density and OAM distributions for four representative cases.

Significance. The formal identity in Appendix A is a clean, parameter-free result and is a useful addition to the OAM literature; it connects the conserved generalized angular momentum directly to spectral flow without fitting parameters. The numerical spectra for the chosen parameters support a distinction between the zero-spectral-flow cases (p+ip, k=±1) and the nonzero-spectral-flow cases (p+ip, k=2; d+id, k=1). If the quantitative suppressions were actually demonstrated, the paper would meaningfully sharpen the OAM paradox for vortices. However, the paper currently stops at showing that η_l is nonzero; it does not evaluate Q or L_z, so the headline quantitative claims are not yet supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (38), Figs. 3(b) and 3(d)] The central BCS-regime claim that L_z is reduced for ν≥2 or |k|≥2 is not established by the data shown. Eq. (38) expresses Q as a weighted sum of η_l over all l; nonzero η_l in some intervals is necessary but not sufficient, because cancellations between different l sectors can occur and the sign of Q determines whether L_z is below or above (k+ν)N/2. The text reports only the l-ranges in which η_l is nonzero and never gives the η_l values or evaluates the weighted sum, nor does it report Q or total L_z for any ν≥2 or |k|≥2 case. For example, in Fig. 3(b) the intervals 0≤l≤4 and −7≤l≤−3 contribute with opposite signs to the weighted sum, so without the actual η_l values even the sign of Q is undetermined. The abstract's distinctions ('sharply suppressed' vs. 'moderate, core-size dependent') require the magnitude of Q, not just its nonzero status.
  2. [Section IV, first paragraph (BEC regime)] The BEC-regime claim that η_l=0 for any integer k and ν is stated on the basis of spectra that are explicitly 'not shown'. Since this is the load-bearing branch of the abstract's claim for arbitrary k and ν, the manuscript should either display representative BEC spectra for at least a few (k,ν), including ν≥2 and |k|≥2, or prove the full gap analytically. As it stands, the 'any k,ν' part of the BEC statement is not checkable from the manuscript.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (41) and Sec. II after Eq. (11)] The quantitative suppression outcomes (core-size dependence for |k|≥2, sharp boundary-sensitive suppression for ν≥2) are computed with the fixed profile Δ(r)=Δ0 tanh(r/ξ), and the paper explicitly does not solve the BdG equation self-consistently. The assertion that the qualitative features do not depend on the detailed function form of Δ(r) is not tested. Since the in-gap mode structure, and hence η_l, can depend on the vortex-core profile, a concrete sensitivity check (e.g., varying the profile shape or carrying out one self-consistent iteration for a representative case) is needed before accepting the quantitative statements in the abstract.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A7)] In Eq. (A7) the final equality 'Q = ... = Σ_n sgn E^{(l)}_n' is incorrect: η_l equals Σ_n sgn E^{(l)}_n, but Q is the weighted sum −1/2 Σ_l (l+(k+ν)/2) η_l. Please correct the displayed equation.
  2. [Eq. (35)] Eq. (35) appears to have a typographical error: the coefficient of the first term is written as l+μ+ν, but from the angular-momentum content of u^{(l)}_n it should be l+k+ν. Please verify and correct.
  3. [Introduction, second paragraph] In the sentence 'for s-wave SF carrying an MQV (|k|=1) in the BCS regime', the condition should be |k|>1; as written it contradicts the preceding definition of MQV.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption and Section IV] There are several small typing errors: the Fig. 2 caption has 'located at the the origin', and Section IV uses 'vertex' instead of 'vortex' in several places (e.g., 'singly quantized vertex').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central Q-to-spectral-flow identity is derived within the paper, and no prediction is equivalent by construction to an input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not circular. Appendix A proves, from the orthogonality of the generalized Bogoliubov coefficients, that Q = Lz - (k+nu)N/2 equals -1/2 sum_l (l+(k+nu)/2) eta_l (Eqs. A1-A7). This identity is derived in-paper and does not assume the target OAM value. The spectral flows eta_l are computed numerically from the BdG spectrum (Figs. 1 and 3), not fitted to reproduce Lz; the BEC-regime statement eta_l=0 for any k,nu and the p+ip k=±1 statement eta_l=0 are reported model outputs, not inputs. The nonzero-eta_l cases are presented as evidence of suppression, but strictly Eq. (38) gives Q only when multiplied by the sign-dependent weight; the inference from nonzero eta_l to suppression is an interpretive step about sign and magnitude, not a circular reduction. Self-citations [20,23] are background claims about p+ip versus non-p chiral SFs and are not load-bearing for the new Q derivation, which relies on external algebraic facts and on the paper's own Appendix A. The assumed vortex profile Delta(r)=Delta0 tanh(r/xi) is an uncontrolled approximation, and the 'qualitative features do not depend' assertion is untested, but these are correctness risks, not circularity. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to an input.

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

The ledger records four model parameters set by hand and three modeling assumptions. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are invented; the conserved quantity Q is derived from the BdG Hamiltonian. The central identity in Appendix A is a parameter-free consequence of the definitions.

free parameters (4)
  • Delta0/EF = 0.3
    Overall pairing gap scale used in all numerics; chosen by hand, not constrained by self-consistency.
  • kF*xi = 15
    Vortex core size in units of inverse Fermi momentum; controls the tanh profile and the core-size dependence of |k|>=2 suppression.
  • kF*R = 80
    Dimensionless disk radius; sets the number of radial levels and the location of boundary edge modes.
  • mu/EF = 1 (BCS regime); mu/EF<0 (BEC regime)
    Chemical potential sets the regime; the BCS value is fixed to 1 in the numerical figures.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The BdG mean-field Hamiltonian with a symmetrized pairing operator adequately describes the ground state of the chiral superfluid.
    Introduced in Sec. II, Eq. (1)-(2). The paper does not go beyond mean-field.
  • ad hoc to paper The vortex gap profile is fixed as Delta(r)=Delta0 tanh(r/xi) and no self-consistent solution is sought.
    Sec. IV, Eq. (41) and following paragraph. The qualitative robustness is asserted without demonstration.
  • domain assumption The disk boundary is an infinite specular wall (Bessel-function boundary conditions).
    Sec. II, Eq. (12). Suppression for nu>=2 is stated to occur in this ideal setting and may depend on boundary.
  • domain assumption Equal spin populations and no spin-dependent potentials.
    Sec. II, immediately after Eq. (3). Standard simplification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vortices in Two-Dimensional Chiral Superfluids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FZJFLWW

@misc{pith2026250608468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vortices in Two-Dimensional Chiral Superfluids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FZJFLWW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08468}
}
abstract

We study the orbital angular momentum (OAM) $L_z$ of two-dimensional chiral $(p_x+ip_y)^{\nu}$-wave superfluids (SFs) in the presence of an axisymmetric multiply quantized vortex (MQV) with vorticity $k$ on a disk at zero temperature, in the framework of Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) theory. Focusing on spectral asymmetry (or spectral flow), we find that $L_z=(k+\nu)N/2$ for any integer $\nu$ and $k$ in the Bose-Einstein Condensation (BEC) regime, where $N$ is the total number of fermions. While in the weak-pairing Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) regime, only for chiral $p+ip$-wave SF with $k=\pm 1$, $L_z=(k+\nu)N/2$ still holds. For chiral SFs with $\nu\ge2$ or $|k|\ge2$ in the BCS regime, the OAM $L_z$ is remarkably reduced from its ``full" value in the BEC regime. However, the deviations differ in these two cases. For chiral SFs with $\nu\ge2$, $L_z$ is sharply suppressed in this ideal setting with a specular wall, while the suppression caused by the $|k| \ge 2$ vortex is moderate, which is core-size dependent. Furthermore, for $p+ip$-wave SF with $k=-1$, the total OAM $L_z$ is zero, but the distribution $L_z(r)$ is nontrivial compared with that of vortex-free $s$-wave SF, in which the total OAM is zero as well. For chiral SFs with $\nu\ge2$ and $|k|\ge2$, the effects of circulation due to vortex and chiral pairing can coexist, and hence depress the OAM simultaneously. These observations can be explained by spectral asymmetry and unpaired fermions in the ground state of the BdG Hamiltonian. We also investigate the spatial distribution of particle density, OAM, by solving the BdG equation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08468 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The eigenvalues E (l) n as a function of l. One singly quantized vortex is located at the center of the p + ip chiral superfluid disk, with vorticity k = 1 in (a) and k = −1 in (b), where kF R = 80, kF ξ = 15, 2m0 = 1, ∆0/EF = 0.3, µ/EF = 1. find the energy spectrum is fully gapped without any in￾gap state (not shown), for any integer vorticity k and chiral pairing order ν. In this case, the spectral flow is zero. A… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The density n(r) and the orbital angular momentum distribution Lz(r) as functions of r, with one singly quantized vortex located at the the origin of chiral p+ip -wave SF, where vorticity k = 1 in the top row, and k = −1 in the bottom row. the disk boundary. The other in-gap mode that is more confined around l = 0, corresponds to the edge mode located at the vortex core, which is so called Caroli–de Gennes–Matricon … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The density n(r) and the OAM distribution Lz(r) as functions of r. Top row: One k = 2 vortex in the p+ip chiral SF. Bottom row: One k = 1 vortex in the d + id chiral SF. Parameters: kFR = 80, kF ξ = 15, 2m0 = 1, ∆0/EF = 0.3, µ/EF = 1. chiral pairing, as elaborated in the following. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (A7) 9 If there is no spectral flow, then we have Lz = (k +ν)N/2

    (A6) Collecting the above results, we find that Q depends on the spectral flows as Q = − ∑ l ( l + k +ν 2 ) ηl 2 = ∑ n sgnE(l) n . (A7) 9 If there is no spectral flow, then we have Lz = (k +ν)N/2

    work page

  2. [2]

    (A1) Considering the expansion of u(l) n (r) and v(l) n (r) in Eq. (16) and (17), we find that Q = ∑ l ( l + k +ν 2 ) ∫ dr [ ∑ E(l) n <0 |u(l) n (r)|2 − ∑ E(l) n >0 |v(l) n (r)|2 ] = ∑ l ( l + k +ν 2 )[ ∑ m,E(l) n <0 ( U (l) mn ) 2 − ∑ m,E(l) n >0 ( V (l) mn ) 2] . (A2) Here we have used the orthogonal relations of φlm(r) in Eq. (18). Now it is easy to see...

    work page

  3. [3]

    P. W. Anderson and P. Morel, Phys. Rev. 123, 1911 (1961)

    work page 1961

  4. [4]

    A. J. Leggett, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 331 (1975)

    1975

  5. [5]

    G. E. Volovik, Exotic Properties of Superfluid 3He (World Scientific, 1992)

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    Read and D

    N. Read and D. Green, Phys. Rev. B 61, 10267 (2000)

    2000

  7. [7]

    G. E. Volovik, The Universe in a Helium Droplet (Oxford University Press, 2003)

    2003

  8. [8]

    A. J. Leggett, Quantum liquids: Bose Condensation and Cooper Pairing in Condensed-Matter Systems (Oxford Universtiy Press, 2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    P. W. Anderson and W. F. Brinkman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 1108 (1973)

    1973

  2. [10]

    Ishikawa, Prog

    M. Ishikawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 57, 1836 (1977)

    1977

  3. [11]

    M. G. McClure and S. Takagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 596 (1979)

    1979

  4. [12]

    N. D. Mermin and P. Muzikar, Phys. Rev. B 21, 980 (1980)

    1980

  5. [13]

    T. Kita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 664 (1996)

    1996

  6. [14]

    G. E. Volovik, JETP Lett. 61, 958 (1995)

    1995

  7. [15]

    T. Kita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 67, 216 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    Stone and R

    M. Stone and R. Roy, Phys. Rev. B 69, 184511 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    Stone and I

    M. Stone and I. Anduaga, Ann. Phys. (Amsterdam) 323, 2 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    J. A. Sauls, Phys. Rev. B 84, 214509 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Tsutsumi and K

    Y. Tsutsumi and K. Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81, 074607 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Tsutsumi and K

    Y. Tsutsumi and K. Machida, Phys. Rev. B 85, 100506 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    M. C. Cross, J. Low Temp. Phys. 21, 525 (1975)

    1975

  14. [22]

    Y. Tada, W. Nie, and M. Oshikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 195301 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Huang, E

    W. Huang, E. Taylor, and C. Kallin, Phys. Rev. B 90, 224519 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Huang, S

    W. Huang, S. Lederer, E. Taylor, and C. Kallin, Phys. Rev. B 91, 094507 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    W. Nie, W. Huang, and H. Yao, Phys. Rev. B 102, 054502 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    M. B. Paranjape, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2390 (1985)

    1985

  19. [27]

    Niemi and G

    A. Niemi and G. Semenoff, Phys. Rep. 135, 99 (1986)

    1986

  20. [28]

    Stone and F

    M. Stone and F. Gaitan, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 178, 89 (1987)

    1987

  21. [29]

    Labont´ e, Commun

    G. Labont´ e, Commun. math. Phys. 36, 59 (1974)

    1974

  22. [30]

    G. E. Volovik, JETP Lett. 100, 742 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Ojanen, Phys

    T. Ojanen, Phys. Rev. B 93, 174505 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Suzuki and Y

    S.-I. Suzuki and Y. Asano, Phys. Rev. B 94, 155302 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    A. Prem, S. Moroz, V. Gurarie, and L. Radzihovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 067003 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    K. Howe, A. R. Lima, and A. Pelster, Eur. Phys. J. D 54, 667 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    V. L. Berezinskii, 34, 610 (1972)

    1972

  28. [36]

    J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C 6, 1181 (1973)

    1973

  29. [37]

    Garaud and E

    J. Garaud and E. Babaev, Sci. Rep. 5, 17540 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    J. A. Sauls and M. Eschrig, New J. Phys. 11, 075008 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    G. E. Volovik and N. B. Kopnin, JETP Lett. 25, 22 (1977)

    1977

  32. [40]

    O. V. Lounasmaa and E. Thuneberg, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (1999), 10.1073/pnas.96.15.7760

    1999 doi

  33. [41]

    Blaauwgeers, V

    R. Blaauwgeers, V. B. Eltsov, M. Krusius, J. J. Ruohio, R. Schanen, and G. E. Volovik, Nature 404, 471 (2000)

    2000

  34. [42]

    Mizushima, M

    T. Mizushima, M. Ichioka, and K. Machida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 150409 (2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Mizushima and K

    T. Mizushima and K. Machida, Phys. Rev. A 81, 053605 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    D. A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 268 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    Caroli, P

    C. Caroli, P. De Gennes, and J. Matricon, Phys. Lett. 9, 307 (1964)

    1964

Pith tools

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