Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Vacuum Polarization Energy of a Proca Soliton

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The leading quantum correction to a Proca soliton's energy is finite and scheme-independent.

desk verdict Competent, narrow technical paper; the Hermitian-rescaling insight is genuine, but the quantitative VPE numbers ride on analytic fits with unquantified 1-2% variance. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18373 v2 pith:5LYQUCD3 submitted 2024-11-27 hep-th

Damian A. Petersen , Herbert Weigel This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th PACS 11.27.+d11.10.Gh
keywords vacuumpolarizationenergyProcafieldsolitonspectralmethodsJostfunctionmassgap1+1dimensionsrenormalization
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

Solitons receive quantum corrections to their classical energy, and computing these corrections in models with massive vector fields was suspected to be obstructed: the mass gap between heavy and light fluctuation channels makes a standard Born subtraction imaginary for some momenta, and the longitudinal component of a Proca field carries an unconventional normalization factor that might break analytic continuation. This paper argues that in a 1+1 dimensional Proca model these obstacles do not actually arise. It first shows, in a two-channel toy model, that real-momentum and imaginary-momentum computations of the vacuum polarization energy agree, with the Born obstacle repaired by a finite Feynman-diagram correction proportional to $\ln(m_< / m_>)$. It then constructs the Proca soliton, demonstrates that the normalization issue and the non-Hermiticity of the naive fluctuation equations are the same datum, and computes the vacuum polarization energy, finding agreement between the two schemes at the fourth significant digit. If the paper is right, a technical barrier to computing quantum corrections for solitons that contain vector mesons is removed, and the efficient imaginary-axis spectral method becomes fully applicable to such systems.

What carries the argument

The machine that carries the computation is the Jost function $F(k)$ of the fluctuation scattering problem, analytic in the upper half momentum plane; continuing to imaginary momentum $k=it$ expresses the vacuum polarization energy as a single integral over $t$, $E_{\mathrm{VPE}} = \int_m^\infty \frac{dt}{2\pi}\,\frac{t}{\sqrt{t^2-m^2}}\,[\ln F(it)]_B$, with the Born subtraction ensuring convergence. Three devices make this work for the Proca soliton. (i) A two-channel toy model with mass matrix $\mathrm{diag}(m_1^2,m_2^2)$ uses the dependent momentum $k_2(k) = k\sqrt{1 - (m_2^2-m_1^2)/(k+i0^+)^2}$, which keeps all additional singularities in the lower half-plane and permits analytic continuation even though the Born approximation would be imaginary inside the mass gap; the gap is crossed with a Pauli-Villars-motivated correction $E_{\mathrm{vac}} - \tilde{E}_{\mathrm{vac}} = \frac{\langle V\rangle}{2\pi}\ln\frac{m_<}{m_>}$, a finite Feynman diagram. (ii) The rescaling of the longitudinal Proca fluctuation, $\bar{u}_1 = -i\omega u_1/\mu$, converts the non-Hermitian coupled fluctuation equations into a Hermitian two-channel problem and compensates the normalization factor in the field decomposition. (iii) The soliton profiles are replaced by analytic fits, Eqs. (26) and (33), and the proximity of the translational zero mode to $\omega_0 = 0$ (observed at $0.01$ to $0.03$) serves as an internal check of those fits.

What would settle it

Compute the VPE using the numerical shooting-method profiles with high-order interpolation instead of the analytic fits of Eqs. (26) and (33); if the translational zero mode does not move toward $\omega_0 = 0$ and the VPE shifts by more than one to two percent for some parameter set, the quantitative Table IV values are not trustworthy. Alternatively, search for a parameter set where the real- and imaginary-axis results differ beyond the fourth significant digit, which would signal a missed non-analyticity in the analytic continuation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the vacuum polarization energy $E_{\mathrm{VPE}}$ of a Proca soliton in $D=1+1$ dimensions is finite, unambiguously computable, and free of two apparent obstructions: the mass gap of the heavier fluctuation channel and the non-standard normalization of the longitudinal component of the Proca field. The quantitative evidence is that the real-momentum and imaginary-momentum formulations of the spectral method give equal results: for $\mu=1.5$, $g=1.0$ the two schemes yield $-0.648$ and $-0.649$, and in six tested parameter sets the difference appears only in the fourth significant digit. The structural insight is that the unconventional normalization factor $\omega/\mu$ in the field decomposition is the very same datum as the non-Hermiticity of the naive fluctuation equations: the rescaling $\bar{u}_1 = -i\omega u_1/\mu$ turns the coupled fluctuation equations into a Hermitian two-channel Schrodinger problem and simultaneously compensates the normalization factor, so that the normalization issue and the construction of a Hermitian scattering problem are two sides of the same medal. For the parameter sets considered, $E_{\mathrm{VPE}}$ ranges from roughly $-0.61$ to $-0.89$; it is nearly independent of the coupling when the Proca field is lighter than the scalar field and decreases noticeably with the coupling when the Proca field is heavier.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the analytic fits in Eqs. (26) and (33) faithfully represent the true soliton profiles when inserted into the scattering potential (32); if those fits misrepresent the profiles near the core or at large distances, the quoted VPE values inherit a systematic error of one to two percent, although the equality of the real and imaginary momentum schemes could still hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The real- and imaginary-momentum schemes for the vacuum polarization energy are now verified to agree for coupled two-channel systems with a mass gap, provided the Born subtraction is repaired by the finite Feynman-diagram term (18).
  • The efficient imaginary-axis spectral method applies directly to the Proca soliton, so its vacuum polarization energy can be scanned across parameters; the resulting table shows the energy decreasing with coupling when $\mu \geq 2$ and remaining nearly flat when $\mu < 2$.
  • Because the rescaling that makes the fluctuation equations Hermitian also implements the correct single-particle normalization of the longitudinal mode, the spectral computation includes the proper phase-space factor without additional bookkeeping.
  • For $\mu \geq 2$ the self-interaction potential of the heavier channel vanishes, so the Feynman-diagram correction (18) vanishes; the full correction is required only when the heavier particle self-interacts.
  • The near-kink value of the vacuum polarization energy for $\mu < 2$ (around $-0.65$ versus the pure kink's $-0.666$) suggests that a lighter Proca field leaves the quantum correction close to that of the pure scalar kink even though the bound-state spectrum changes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 'two sides of the very same medal' identification should generalize to higher-dimensional Proca systems: whenever the constraint $\partial_\alpha V^\alpha = 0$ entangles the longitudinal component with the temporal one, the correct particle normalization and the Hermiticity of the fluctuation problem will likely be fixed by the same momentum-dependent field rescaling, though the vector structu
  • The Pauli-Villars-motivated repair (18) suggests a general protocol for coupled-channel spectral calculations: any Born subtraction that becomes imaginary within a mass gap can be replaced by a finite local counterterm proportional to the logarithm of the mass ratio, so the imaginary-axis route does not need the full real-axis machinery.
  • If the Proca soliton is taken as a toy for vector-meson-stabilized solitons in hadron physics, the mild coupling dependence of the vacuum polarization energy for $\mu < 2$ implies that the leading quantum correction is robust against uncertainties in the vector-meson mass, while the stronger dependence for $\mu \geq 2$ could serve as a diagnostic of the coupling constant when experimental masses a
  • A direct test of the fitting sensitivity would be to rerun the vacuum polarization energy scan using the alternative fits (33) instead of (26) and plot the difference; the observed one-to-two percent variation is the current systematic floor, so improving the fits would sharpen the quantitative values in Table IV.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the vacuum polarization energy (VPE) of a soliton in a 1+1 dimensional Proca model with a scalar field and a massive vector field, using spectral methods based on the Jost function. The authors address two potential obstacles: the Born approximation in the presence of a mass gap, which becomes imaginary for real momenta in the gap, and the unconventional normalization of the longitudinal component of the Proca field, which might introduce non-analyticities. They show that the normalization issue is resolved by a field rescaling that maps the fluctuation problem to a Hermitian two-channel scattering system, and they handle the mass-gap Born problem by a modified subtraction corrected by a finite Feynman diagram. They verify the equivalence of the real and imaginary momentum formulations in a toy model and in the Proca model, and they present numerical VPE values as functions of the coupling and vector-meson mass. The main quantitative results are collected in Tables III and IV, with the VPE for the Proca soliton ranging roughly from -0.61 to -0.89 depending on parameters.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful methodological contribution by demonstrating that the VPE of a Proca soliton can be computed unambiguously with spectral methods, resolving two obstacles that had previously appeared to complicate such calculations. The real/imaginary axis equivalence is a valuable cross-check, and the analytic treatment of the mass-gap Born contribution is clean. The Hermitian rescaling that eliminates the longitudinal-normalization issue is an elegant step. The paper also gives a first, albeit approximate, quantitative estimate of the VPE in a vector-meson soliton model relevant to generalizations of the Skyrme model. The main weakness is that the numerical VPE values in Table IV inherit a one-to-two percent systematic uncertainty from the analytic fits used for the soliton profiles, which is not controlled and is comparable to some of the qualitative features discussed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section VII, Table IV and Eqs. (26), (33)] The quantitative VPE values in Table IV are computed from the analytic profile fits (26) and (33) rather than from the numerical solutions of Eq. (23), and the authors explicitly allow a parameterization variance of one or two percent. For the same parameter set (μ=1.5, g=1.0) the two fits give Evac = -0.649 and -0.658, a difference of 1.4%, while Table IV quotes three decimal places and the paper discusses features of this size, such as the non-monotonic g-dependence for μ=1.5 and the closeness of the VPE to the kink value -0.666. The zero-mode test (ω0 ≈ 0.01...0.03) is a necessary but not sufficient check, because it does not constrain the local and asymptotic fidelity of the fits that enter the potential in Eq. (32). The authors should recompute the VPE with a controlled interpolation of the actual profiles, or add conservative error bars to Table IV and avoid interpreting sub-error-bar features.
  2. [Section IV, after Eq. (15), definition of F(q)] The piecewise definition of F(q) used in the real-axis derivation is internally inconsistent as written. The text states F(q) = n2π = δ(0) in the gap, but Eq. (13) and the example in Fig. 1 (n=2) give δ(0) = 3π/2, and the subsequent integral appears to produce a factor n/2 that is then equated to half the number of bound states. Since the final correction formula (18) is load-bearing for the real-axis calculation and is used in Table III, the derivation must be cleaned up so that the constant gap-phase and the factors of 2 and π are unambiguous.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (26)] The fit function afit(x) = b0 e^{-b1 x^2} + b0 e^{-b1 x^4} uses the same coefficients b0 and b1 in both terms; please check whether the second term should have independent coefficients (e.g., b2 and b3) and correct the notation if so.
  2. [Throughout] The paper uses "Chapter" and "Chap." to refer to sections; use "Section" consistently.
  3. [Section IV, reference [30]] The claim of "numerous such comparisons" in Ref. [30] rests on an unpublished Master's thesis; since this supports the robustness of the real/imaginary equivalence, it would be helpful to either make the thesis available or summarize the additional checks in an appendix.
  4. [Eq. (5)] The transition from the second to the third line of Eq. (5) uses Levinson's theorem, but this is only mentioned in the prose after the equation; add a parenthetical note at the step where the substitution is made.
  5. [Abstract] The phrase "these obstacles do actually not arise" should be reworded as "these obstacles do not arise" for grammatical correctness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the VPE is computed from scattering data with independent real- and imaginary-axis cross-checks; the profile-fit uncertainty is an accuracy caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The VPE is obtained from the Jost function extracted from the fluctuation scattering problem (Eqs. 5, 7, 19), with Born subtractions and standard renormalization conditions. The real-axis and imaginary-axis formulations are independent calculational routes; their agreement in Tables I and III is a numerical cross-check, not an input. The correction in Eq. (18) is derived analytically from a Feynman-diagram calculation and then used consistently, not fitted to the imaginary-axis result. The only notable approximation is the use of analytic fits, Eqs. (26) and (33), for the soliton profiles instead of the direct numerical solutions of Eq. (23). The paper explicitly acknowledges the resulting parameterization variance of one to two percent and the nonzero translational zero mode as a diagnostic; this is a numerical accuracy limitation, not a circular reduction. The self-citations to Refs. [14,15,25,30] provide method background and supplementary checks, but the load-bearing Proca calculation is derived and verified within the paper. No step reduces to its own input by construction.

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

The central calculation is a numerical application of established spectral methods; it does not introduce new physical entities or fit parameters to the VPE itself. The main extra assumptions are technical: analytic continuation properties of the Jost function, the accuracy of the fitted soliton profiles, and the Pauli-Villars-like subtraction scheme.

free parameters (3)
  • Profile fit coefficients for phi_fit and a_fit (Eq. 26) = Not tabulated; fitted numerically to classical profiles
    The scattering potential matrix in Eq. (32) is built from fitted profiles. The authors report a zero mode at omega0=0.01 to 0.03 instead of exactly zero and a one to two percent VPE parameterization variance.
  • Alternative profile coefficients (Eq. 33) = Not tabulated
    Used to estimate parameterization variance. For mu=1.5 and g=1.0, Eq. (33) yields Evac=-0.658 versus -0.649 for Eq. (26).
  • Phase-shift smoothing integer offsets = Multiples of 2*pi chosen per momentum interval
    The real-axis computation requires unwrapping delta(k) from the interval [-pi, pi]. Offsets are fixed by smoothness requirements and by Levinson's theorem. The imaginary-axis result is independent of this procedure, which is why it is used for Table IV.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Jost function F(k) is analytic for Im(k) >= 0, its phase is the scattering phase shift, and Levinson's theorem relates delta(0) to the bound state count.
    Invoked in Section III, Eqs. (5)-(7), and used to simplify the real-axis integral and to check phase unwrapping in Section IV.
  • domain assumption The no-tadpole renormalization condition is implemented by setting E_FD + E_CT = 0.
    The paper uses this standard scheme in Section III and for the correction in Eq. (18). It is a conventional choice in the spectral methods literature.
  • domain assumption The i0+ prescription in Eq. (9) places all additional singularities of k2(k) in the lower half complex k-plane, so analytic continuation to imaginary momenta is valid.
    This is the technical assumption behind the imaginary-axis method and is carried over from Ref. [25]. The paper verifies its consequences numerically.
  • ad hoc to paper The analytic fit forms in Eq. (26) and Eq. (33) accurately represent the exact soliton profiles throughout x, including the asymptotic region.
    The paper checks fidelity only indirectly via the classical identities (25), the near-zero translation mode, and the comparison between parameterizations. It acknowledges a one to two percent parameterization variance.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vacuum Polarization Energy of a Proca Soliton." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5LYQUCD3

@misc{pith2026241118373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vacuum Polarization Energy of a Proca Soliton},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5LYQUCD3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18373}
}
read the original abstract

We study an extended Proca model with one scalar field and one massive vector field in one space and one time dimensions. We construct the soliton solution and subsequently compute the vacuum polarization energy (VPE) which is the leading quantum correction to the classical energy of the soliton. For this calculation we adopt the spectral methods approach which heavily relies on the analytic properties of the Jost function. This function is extracted from the interaction of the quantum fluctuations with a background potential generated by the soliton. Particularly we explore eventual non-analytical components that may be induced by mass gaps and the unconventional normalization for the longitudinal component of the vector field fluctuations. By numerical simulation we verify that these obstacles do actually not arise and that the real and imaginary momentum formulations of the VPE yield equal results. The Born approximation to the Jost function is crucial when implementing standard renormalization conditions. In this context we solve problems arising from the Born approximation being imaginary for real momenta associated with energies in the mass gap.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Total phase shift in the toy model for repulsive (left) and attractive (right) potentials. The parameters for the repulsive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Soliton profiles for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Domain Wall Soliton's Tension

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The one-loop domain wall tension in 3+1d phi^4 theory is computed as m^3/(3λ) + 0.0410959 m^3 under a chosen renormalization scheme.

  2. (Anti-)Stokes Scattering on the Domain Wall String

    hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Meson scattering off a (2+1)-dimensional domain wall string can excite or de-excite the string's shape mode, and this paper gives the leading-order probability densities for both processes, including forward and backw...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (29) We immediately observe that the scattering problem is non-Hermitian

    This allows us to eliminate u0 from the linearized field equations and obtain u′′ 1 = µ2 − ω2 u1 − igω 1 − ϕ2 η (28) η′′ = 4 − ω2 η + 6 ϕ2 − 1 η + 2gϕa′η + i ω µ2 1 − ϕ2 u1 + g2 1 − ϕ2 2 η . (29) We immediately observe that the scattering problem is non-Hermitian. Rather, the coefficient functions of η in the differential equation for u1 and its counterpa...

    work page

  2. [2]

    ⟨V ⟩p q2 − m2 2 + m2 1 − ⟨V ⟩ q # = ∞Z 0 dq 2π

    According to equation (15) we would calculate eE2 = 1 2 b.s.X j (ωj − m1) − ∞Z 0 dq 2π qp q2 + m2 1 F (q) − ⟨V ⟩ q , with F (q) = ( n2π = δ(0) for q2 ≤ m2 2 − m2 1 δ p q2 − m2 2 + m2 1 for q2 ≥ m2 2 − m2 1 , where n2 is the number of bound states in that channel and the smoothening produces the q2 ≤ m2 2 − m2 1 part. The contribution of that part is obtai...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The latter relation corresponds to u0 = a′

    Using the soliton equations (23) it is straightforward to verify that the above fluctuation equations with ω = 0 are solved by η = ϕ′ and u1 = −µa. The latter relation corresponds to u0 = a′. Hence this zero mode is nothing but the (infinitesimal) translation of the soliton. Observing a zero mode in the bound state spectrum will further test the numerical...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Rajaraman

    R. Rajaraman. Solitons and Instantons; North Holland: Amsterdam, 1982

    work page 1982

  5. [5]

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

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Vachaspati

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

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    T. H. R. Skyrme. A Nonlinear Field Theory. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond.1961, A260, 127

    work page 1961

  8. [8]

    Zahed and G

    I. Zahed and G. E. Brown. The Skyrme Model. Phys. Rept. 1986, 142, 1

    work page 1986

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Vilenkin and E

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

    2000

  2. [10]

    Schollw¨ ock,et al

    U. Schollw¨ ock,et al.. Quantum Magnetism; Vol. 645, Lecture Notes Phys., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004

    2004

  3. [11]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura. Topological Properties and Dynamics of Magnetic Skyrmions. Nature Nanotech2013, 8, 1

  4. [12]

    H. Weigel. Chiral Soliton Models for Baryons; Vol. 743, Lecture Notes Phys., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    G. S. Adkins, C. R. Nappi, and E. Witten. Static Properties of Nucleons in the Skyrme Model. Nucl. Phys. 1983, B228, 552

    1983

  6. [14]

    Meier and H

    F. Meier and H. Walliser. Quantum Corrections to Baryon Properties in Chiral Soliton Models. Phys. Rept.1997, 289, 383

    1997

  7. [15]

    Ulf-G. Meißner. Low-Energy Hadron Physics from Effective Chiral Lagrangians with Vector Mesons. Phys. Rept. 1988, 161, 213

    1988

  8. [16]

    Schwesinger, H

    B. Schwesinger, H. Weigel, G. Holzwarth, and A. Hayashi. The Skyrme Soliton in Pion, Vector and Scalar Meson Fields: πN Scattering and Photoproduction. Phys. Rept. 1989, 173, 173

    1989

  9. [17]

    Graham, M

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

    2009

  10. [18]

    Graham and H

    N. Graham and H. Weigel. Quantum Corrections to Soliton Energies. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A2022, 37, 2241004

  11. [19]

    J. Baacke. Numerical Evaluation of the One Loop Effective Action in Static Backgrounds with Spherical Symmetry. Z. Phys. 1990, C47, 263

    1990

  12. [20]

    Graham, R

    N. Graham, R. L. Jaffe, V. Khemani, M. Quandt, M. Scandurra, and H. Weigel. Calculating Vacuum Energies in Renor- malizable Quantum Field Theories: A New Approach to the Casimir Problem. Nucl. Phys. 2002, B645, 49–84

    2002

  13. [21]

    M. Bordag. Vacuum Energy in Smooth Background Fields. J. Phys. 1995, A28, 755

    1995

  14. [22]

    Elizalde

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

    1995

  15. [23]

    H. Gies, K. Langfeld, and L. Moyaerts. Casimir Effect on the Worldline. JHEP 2003, 06, 018

    2003

  16. [24]

    J. Evslin. Manifestly Finite Derivation of the Quantum Kink Mass. JHEP 2019, 11, 161

    2019

  17. [25]

    I. J. R. Aitchison, C. M. Fraser. Derivative Expansion of Fermion Determinants: Anomaly Induced Vertices, Goldstone- Wilczek Currents and Skyrme Terms. Phys. Rev. 1985, D31, 2605

    1985

  18. [26]

    Integration in Functional Spaces and its Applications in Quantum Physics

    Gelfand, I.M.; Yaglom, A.M. Integration in Functional Spaces and its Applications in Quantum Physics. J. Math. Phys. 1960, 1, 48

    1960

  19. [27]

    Alonso Izquierdo, W

    A. Alonso Izquierdo, W. Garcia Fuertes, M. A. Gonzalez Leon, J. Mateos Guilarte. Generalized Zeta Functions and One-Loop-Corrections to Quantum Kink Masses. Nucl. Phys. B2002, 635, 525

  20. [28]

    Weigel, M

    H. Weigel, M. Quandt, and N. Graham. Spectral Methods for Coupled Channels with a Mass Gap. Phys. Rev. 2018, D97, 036017

    2018

  21. [29]

    J. S. Faulkner. Scattering Theory and Cluster Calculations. J. Phys. 1977, C10, 4661

    1977

  22. [30]

    G. Barton. Levinson’s Theorem in One Dimension: Heuristics. J. Phys. A1985, 18, 479

  23. [31]

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

    1982

  24. [32]

    Feshbach

    H. Feshbach. Unified Theory of Nuclear Reactions. Annals Phys. 1958, 5, 357

    1958

  25. [33]

    D. A. Petersen. Vacuum Polarization Energy of a Proca Soliton in D = 1 + 1 Dimensions. Master’s thesis, Stellenbosch University, 2024. unpublished

    2024

  26. [34]

    G. S. Adkins and C. R. Nappi. Stabilization of Chiral Solitons via Vector Mesons. Phys. Lett. B1984, 137, 251

  27. [35]

    G. H. Derrick. Comments on Nonlinear Wave Equations as Models for Elementary Particles. J. Math. Phys.1964, 5, 1252

    1964

  28. [36]

    ’t Hooft

    G. ’t Hooft. Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories. Nucl. Phys. B1974, 79, 276–284

  29. [37]

    A. M. Polyakov. Particle Spectrum in the Quantum Field Theory. JETP Lett. 1974, 20, 194–195

    1974

  30. [38]

    da Hora, L

    E. da Hora, L. Pereira, C. dos Santos, and F. C. Simas. Geometrically Constrained sine-Gordon Field: BPS Solitons and their Collisions 2024. [arXiv:hep-th/2409.09767]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.