Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Abelian-Higgs vortices in the oscillating axion background

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

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

Pith's one-line read In the Abelian-Higgs model, an oscillating axion background turns each vortex into a cylindrical resonant cavity, resonantly enhancing induced electric fields and producing forces between vortices even in the BPS limit.

desk verdict A genuinely new numerical result on axion-vortex resonance and BPS forces, with an honest but load-bearing idealization that keeps the experimental claim conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16720 v1 pith:5SU7NXQJ submitted 2025-07-22 hep-ph cond-mat.supr-conhep-th

Naoya Kitajima , Shota Nakagawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phcond-mat.supr-conhep-th
keywords axiondarkmatterAbelian-Higgsvorticesaxion-photonconversionresonantcavityTM010modeBPSlimitvortexinteractionssuperconductingdevices
topics Dark Matter
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 argues that a single Abelian-Higgs vortex, the kind of magnetic flux tube that forms in a type-II superconductor, behaves like a miniature cylindrical resonant cavity for axion dark matter. Because the axion converts to photons in the magnetic core, an oscillating electric field is driven inside the tube, and the tube size sets a natural resonance frequency. The authors' lattice simulations find a well-defined resonance at $\omega_a = 1.247\,v$, corresponding to an effective cavity radius $R_{\mathrm{eff}} \simeq 2.7\,m_A^{-1}$, matching the TM010 mode of a vacuum cylinder. They also find that a coherent axion background makes two vortices attract or repel even in the BPS limit, where static vortices exert no force on each other. If these effects survive in realistic materials, they offer a new experimental avenue for axion dark matter detection.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the Abrikosov-Nielsen-Olesen (ANO) vortex solution of the Abelian-Higgs/Ginzburg-Landau model and the axion-photon conversion term $g_{a\gamma}\,a\,F_{\mu\nu}\tilde{F}^{\mu\nu}$. The paper models the vortex as an empty vacuum cylinder of radius $R_{\mathrm{eff}}$, so the known TM0l0 modes of a cylindrical cavity set the resonance frequencies; the TM010 mode, governed by the first root $\xi_1 \simeq 2.405$ of $J_0$, is the dominant one. The dynamics is simulated on a 2+1-dimensional lattice using a gauge formulation, with vortex positions tracked through a gauge-invariant local winding number and the two-vortex force read from the time evolution of their separation.

What would settle it

Measure the electric-field response of a single vortex in a superconducting film as the axion frequency is swept: if there is no well-defined peak near $\omega_a \approx 1.247\,v$, corresponding to $R_{\mathrm{eff}} \approx 2.7\,m_A^{-1}$, but instead a broad or damped rise, the empty-cavity resonance claim fails. A lattice calculation that includes finite electrical conductivity in the core would provide the same check in simulation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the paper's own terms, is that the vortex core acts as a cylindrical resonant cavity: the axion-photon coupling drives an electric field along the core, and the Meissner effect confines the resulting electromagnetic fields to the tube. For the lowest transverse-magnetic mode, TM010, whose frequency is set by the first zero of the Bessel function $J_0$, the resonance condition is met at $\omega_a = 1.247\,v$ in the model's units, corresponding to an effective cavity radius $R_{\mathrm{eff}} \simeq 2.7\,m_A^{-1}$. In the BPS limit ($\beta = 1$), where two static vortices experience no force, an oscillating axion background with frequency $0.5$ or $1.0$ makes them attract, while frequency $2.0$ makes them repel, with the induced acceleration scaling as the square of the axion amplitude.

Load-bearing premise

The resonant-cavity picture assumes a vortex interior that is empty vacuum with reflecting walls; in a real superconductor the core contains normal-state charge carriers that could absorb or damp the induced fields.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the resonance, the induced electric field amplitude grows linearly in time, consistent with forced oscillation of a cavity mode.
  • Axion-driven forces modify vortex dynamics even in the BPS limit, where static vortices are force-free.
  • The induced acceleration between vortices scales as $A^2$, so the effect is quadratic in the axion amplitude.
  • Since the resonance frequency is set by the vortex core size, the axion mass that can be probed is tied to the material parameters of the superconductor.
  • The authors suggest that axion-induced vortex forces could affect the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in thin superconducting films, an avenue they flag for future study.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the empty core is replaced by a conducting one, the sharp resonance is likely to broaden or shift; quantifying that damping is a necessary step before any experimental sensitivity forecast.
  • The same axion-driven mechanism should apply to other magnetic-flux-carrying topological objects, such as cosmic strings, where resonant photon production inside the core could leave an electromagnetic signature.
  • The frequency-dependent sign of the vortex-vortex force suggests a practical readout: a superconducting film's vortex-lattice spacing could be monitored for a sudden change as the axion mass is tuned across the resonance.
  • Because the simulations use an idealized aligned-vortex geometry, real detectors would need to convert microscopic vortex motion into a macroscopic signal, such as resistance or noise; the paper does not compute that conversion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies Abelian-Higgs vortices in a spatially homogeneous, time-dependent axion background. Using lattice simulations of the coupled gauge-Higgs-axion system, the authors observe that the axion-induced electric field is resonantly amplified in a single vortex when the axion frequency is near ω_a = 1.247 v, and they interpret this as the excitation of a TM010 cylindrical-cavity mode with an effective cavity radius R_eff ≃ 2.7 m_A^{-1}. They further show that in the BPS limit, where static vortices do not interact, the oscillating axion background induces frequency-dependent attractive or repulsive forces between two vortices, with the measured acceleration scaling quadratically in the axion amplitude A. The paper proposes that these effects could open a new avenue for axion dark matter searches with superconducting devices.

Significance. If the resonant-cavity interpretation is correct, the paper identifies a genuinely new phenomenon: a field-theoretic vortex acting as a resonant cavity for axion-photon conversion, with a clean numerical demonstration in the Abelian-Higgs model. The two-vortex result is also interesting because it modifies a well-known BPS property in a time-dependent background. The study is carefully executed within its stated idealized assumptions: standard lattice gauge formulation, consistency checks with different grid sizes, and an explicit check that the two-vortex acceleration scales as A^2. The authors are transparent about the main idealization, namely the empty, lossless vortex core, and they note that a non-relativistic treatment with electric conductivity is needed for realistic superconductors. However, the experimental relevance is currently speculative, and the central "vortex as a cavity" claim would be substantially strengthened by a direct comparison with the analytic TM010 mode profile and by a quantitative discussion of losses.

major comments (2)
  1. [Oscillating axions in the vortex core and Numerical results] The resonant-cavity claim rests on an empty, lossless core. In the simulations the amplitude at resonance grows linearly in time (Fig. 1, bottom panel) and the peak width in Fig. 2 narrows with simulation time, so the enhancement factor is an undamped transient rather than a steady-state cavity response. For the proposed application to superconducting devices, the core contains normal-conducting charges, as the Discussion acknowledges, and finite conductivity will damp the mode, potentially reducing or eliminating the resonant enhancement. Please either add a simple loss/conductivity model and estimate the resulting quality factor and its effect on the resonant signal, or clearly restrict the claim to the idealized Abelian-Higgs model and temper the experimental statements in the abstract and introduction.
  2. [Numerical results] The effective cavity radius R_eff is obtained by inverting the ideal-cavity formula Eq. (12) after the resonance frequency is measured, rather than by an independent determination from the vortex profile. This makes the "vortex as a cylindrical cavity" interpretation rest on a single fitted number. Please provide an independent estimate of R_eff from the vortex profile (for example, from the width of B_3(r) or |Φ|(r)) and compare it with the resonance-inferred value, and additionally show that the radial profile of the induced E_z inside the core is consistent with J_0(ξ_1 r/R_eff). Without such a check, the assignment of the peak to the TM010 mode is not fully demonstrated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [The Model and Numerical results] The quoted values ω_a = 1.247 v and R_eff ≃ 2.7 m_A^{-1} depend on the specific gauge coupling e used in the simulation. The paper states that β = λ/(2 e^2) is the only free parameter after rescaling, but it does not state the actual values of e and λ (or equivalently m_A/v) used in the runs. Please specify these parameters so that the numerical results are reproducible.
  2. [Numerical results, Fig. 3] The sign convention for the acceleration is confusing: the fit d = d_ini − α t^2/2 means that a positive α corresponds to attraction (decreasing separation), while the text describes filled and open points as positive and negative values corresponding to attractive and repulsive forces. Please state this convention explicitly in the caption or text.
  3. [Discussion] The qualitative explanation of the attractive/repulsive transition in terms of constructive and destructive interference of induced electric and magnetic fields is plausible but not quantitative. A computation of the force from the Maxwell stress tensor or field momentum in the two-vortex configuration would considerably strengthen this part of the paper, even if only for one or two representative frequencies.
  4. [Numerical results] No error bars or convergence tolerances are reported for the resonant frequency or for the fitted accelerations. Since the authors performed simulations with different grid sizes and box sizes, a brief statement of the resulting uncertainty in ω_a and α would be helpful.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

The vortex-as-cavity identification is a one-parameter reinterpretation of the numerically found peak; the underlying field-equation simulation is otherwise self-contained and not circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Oscillating axions in the vortex core', Eqs. (11)-(12)]
    "For the most dominant mode, TM010 with ξ1 ≃ 2.405, the induced electric field has a resonance peak at the axion frequency ωa (= ma), ωa = ξ1/Reff, where Reff is the effective cavity radius ... From the numerical calculation, we found the resonant frequency, ωa = 1.247v (see Fig. 2), and the effective cavity radius is obtained as Reff ≃ 2.7m−1 A."

    Reff is not predicted from the vortex profile or from any independent boundary condition; it is defined by the ideal-cavity relation itself, ωa = ξ1/Reff. Inserting the numerically measured peak frequency ωa = 1.247v gives Reff = ξ1/1.247v ≈ 2.7 m_A^{-1} by construction. The subsequent statement that the vortex behaves as a cylindrical cavity at the TM010 frequency is therefore a restatement of the definition of Reff rather than a parameter-free confirmation. The numerical simulation does show a genuine amplification peak, so the circularity is limited to the cavity interpretation: the effective radius is chosen so that the ideal-cavity formula matches the peak, rather than being independently derived.

full rationale

The core equations of motion, Eqs. (4)-(6), are written out explicitly from the standard Abelian-Higgs Lagrangian with an axion coupling, and the single-vortex profiles are obtained by solving Eqs. (9)-(10) without fitting. The resonant amplification is a direct numerical output (linear-in-time growth at ωa = 1.247v, sharp peak in Fig. 2), not a quantity produced by injecting the claimed answer. The two-vortex force results are measured accelerations from lattice simulations, with only a standard quadratic fit used to extract a constant acceleration; the axion-induced attraction/repulsion in the BPS limit is a new numerical observation. The self-citations [43,44] are used only to identify the known axion-gauge coupling Lagrangian, which the paper states in full, so they are not load-bearing. The only mild circularity is the interpretation of the numerical peak as the ideal cylindrical-cavity TM010 mode: the effective radius Reff ≃ 2.7 m_A^{-1} is obtained by inverting Eq. (12) using the measured peak frequency, so the agreement with the cavity formula is enforced by construction rather than independently predicted. The paper's own Discussion explicitly acknowledges the unrealistic empty-core assumption and the need for a conducting-phase treatment, which is a physical limitation rather than a circular step. Overall score 2 reflects this single interpretive post-fit; the derivation itself is self-contained.

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

The central claims rest on the standard Abelian-Higgs Lagrangian, the homogeneous axion approximation, and the idealization of the vortex as a vacuum cylindrical cavity. The effective radius is the only parameter effectively tuned to match the observed resonance to the cavity formula, and the axion amplitude and frequency are inputs scanned in the simulations. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Effective cavity radius Reff = 2.7 m_A^{-1}
    Inferred from the numerically found resonance frequency via the ideal-cavity formula (11), not independently measured from the vortex profile.
  • Axion amplitude A = 0.001, 0.1, 0.15
    Chosen for simulations; the two-vortex acceleration is shown to scale as A^2.
  • Axion frequency omega_a = scanned from 0.5 to 2.0 in units of v
    Input scan parameter, not fitted.
  • beta = lambda/(2 e^2) = 1 (BPS), 0.95, 1.1
    Model parameter set by hand; central claims are for the BPS limit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The axion field is a spatially homogeneous coherent oscillation a = A cos(omega_a t)
    Assumed valid when the system size is much smaller than the axion de Broglie wavelength; stated in the model section.
  • ad hoc to paper The vortex core is treated as an empty vacuum cylindrical cavity with perfectly reflecting walls for the resonant-mode interpretation
    Stated in 'Oscillating axions in the vortex core'; later acknowledged in Discussion as unrealistic for superconductors because of free charged particles inside the core.
  • domain assumption The classical equations of motion (4),(5) with a fixed axion background accurately describe the dynamics; backreaction of induced fields on the axion is neglected
    Justified by the small axion-photon coupling, but not explicitly quantified.
  • standard math The standard ideal cylindrical cavity resonance relation omega = xi_l / R (Eq. 11) applies
    Used to interpret the resonantly enhanced mode as TM010.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Abelian-Higgs vortices in the oscillating axion background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5SU7NXQJ

@misc{pith2026250716720,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Abelian-Higgs vortices in the oscillating axion background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5SU7NXQJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16720}
}
read the original abstract

We study the dynamics of Abelian-Higgs vortices in the background of a coherently oscillating axion field. We show that the electric field is induced in the magnetic core of the vortex due to the axion-photon conversion. Moreover, because the electromagnetic field is confined in the vortex and excluded from the superconducting bulk regions due to the Meissner effect, the vortex tube can be regarded as a cylindrical cavity, and our numerical analysis shows that the resonant cavity mode (TM010 mode) can be efficiently enhanced in this tube. We also focus on the interaction of two vortices in the oscillating axion background, resulting in attractive or repulsive forces, even in the case with the BPS limit. These new features open up a new possibility for the axion dark matter search using superconducting devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16720 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Top: The profile of the vortex solution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Amplitude of the induced electric field as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Top: Time evolution of the separation between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Resonance phenomena in vortex-antivortex collisions

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Vortex–antivortex collisions in the deep type-II Abelian-Higgs model show multi-bounce windows embedded in annihilation regions, driven by a Feshbach resonant mode.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  5. [5]

    Svrcek and E

    P. Svrcek and E. Witten, JHEP 06, 051 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605206

    arXiv 2006

  6. [6]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    Cicoli, M

    M. Cicoli, M. Goodsell, and A. Ringwald, JHEP 10, 146 (2012), arXiv:1206.0819 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    Sikivie, Lect

    P. Sikivie, Lect. Notes Phys. 741, 19 (2008), arXiv:astro- ph/0610440

    arXiv 2008

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Kawasaki and K

    M. Kawasaki and K. Nakayama, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 63, 69 (2013), arXiv:1301.1123 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    D. J. E. Marsh, Phys. Rept. 643, 1 (2016), arXiv:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Di Luzio, M

    L. Di Luzio, M. Giannotti, E. Nardi, and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rept. 870, 1 (2020), arXiv:2003.01100 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    K. Choi, S. H. Im, and C. Sub Shin, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 71, 225 (2021), arXiv:2012.05029 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    C. A. J. O’Hare, PoS COSMICWISPers, 040 (2024), arXiv:2403.17697 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 29, 7 (2021), arXiv:2005.03254 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hui, Ann

    L. Hui, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 59, 247 (2021), arXiv:2101.11735 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 89 (2018), arXiv:1801.08127 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1415 (1983), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 52, 695 (1984)]

    1983

  10. [18]

    B. M. Brubaker et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 061302 (2017), arXiv:1610.02580 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Du et al

    N. Du et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 151301 (2018), arXiv:1804.05750 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Alesini et al

    D. Alesini et al. , Phys. Rev. D 99, 101101 (2019), arXiv:1903.06547 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Braine et al

    T. Braine et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 101303 (2020), arXiv:1910.08638 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Alesini et al., Phys

    D. Alesini et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 102004 (2021), arXiv:2012.09498 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    K. M. Backes et al.(HAYSTAC), Nature590, 238 (2021), arXiv:2008.01853 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Grenet, R

    T. Grenet, R. Ballou, Q. Basto, K. Martineau, P. Perrier, P. Pugnat, J. Quevillon, N. Roch, and C. Smith, (2021), arXiv:2110.14406 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    C. M. Adair et al., Nature Commun. 13, 6180 (2022), arXiv:2211.02902 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Chang et al

    H. Chang et al. (TASEH), Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 111802 (2022), arXiv:2205.05574 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ahn et al

    S. Ahn et al. (CAPP), Phys. Rev. X 14, 031023 (2024), arXiv:2402.12892 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bai et al

    X. Bai et al. (HAYSTAC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 151006 (2025), arXiv:2409.08998 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Iwazaki, Phys

    A. Iwazaki, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135861 (2020), arXiv:2007.09832 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Jacobs and C

    L. Jacobs and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. B 19, 4486 (1979)

    1979

  23. [31]

    C. H. Taubes, Commun. Math. Phys. 72, 277 (1980)

    1980

  24. [32]

    P. J. Ruback, Nucl. Phys. B 296, 669 (1988)

    1988

  25. [33]

    K. J. M. Moriarty, E. Myers, and C. Rebbi, Phys. Lett. B 207, 411 (1988)

    1988

  26. [34]

    Myers, C

    E. Myers, C. Rebbi, and R. Strilka, Phys. Rev. D 45, 1355 (1992)

    1992

  27. [35]

    T. M. Samols, Commun. Math. Phys. 145, 149 (1992)

    1992

  28. [36]

    Rebbi, R

    C. Rebbi, R. Strilka, and E. Myers, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 26, 240 (1992)

    1992

  29. [37]

    J. M. Speight, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3830 (1997), arXiv:hep- th/9603155

    1997

  30. [38]

    M. Eto, Y. Hamada, R. Jinno, M. Nitta, and M. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D 106, 116002 (2022), arXiv:2205.04394 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Fujikura, S

    K. Fujikura, S. Li, and M. Yamaguchi, JHEP 12, 115 (2023), arXiv:2309.05515 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    E. B. Bogomolny, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 24, 449 (1976)

    1976

  33. [41]

    M. K. Prasad and C. M. Sommerfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 760 (1975)

    1975

  34. [42]

    Jacobs, Physica B: Condensed Matter 152, 288 (1988)

    L. Jacobs, Physica B: Condensed Matter 152, 288 (1988)

    1988

  35. [43]

    Kitajima, S

    N. Kitajima, S. Nakagawa, and F. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D 105, 103011 (2022), arXiv:2111.06696 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Nakagawa, F

    S. Nakagawa, F. Takahashi, and W. Yin, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063016 (2023), arXiv:2209.01107 [astro-ph.CO]. 6

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  38. [46]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B 120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  39. [47]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  40. [48]

    R. L. Davis, Phys. Lett. B 180, 225 (1986)

    1986

  41. [49]

    D. H. Lyth, Phys. Lett. B 275, 279 (1992)

    1992

  42. [50]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and K. Saikawa, JCAP 08, 030 (2011), arXiv:1012.4558 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, T. Sekiguchi, M. Yam- aguchi, and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D 83, 123531 (2011), arXiv:1012.5502 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 85, 105020 (2012), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 86, 089902 (2012)], arXiv:1202.5851 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, JCAP 01, 001 (2013), arXiv:1207.3166 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Saikawa, and T. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 91, 065014 (2015), arXiv:1412.0789 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A. A. Abrikosov, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 2, 199 (1957)

    1957

  48. [56]

    H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Nucl. Phys. B 61, 45 (1973)

    1973

  49. [57]

    Vilenkin and E

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

    2000

  50. [58]

    Kajantie, M

    K. Kajantie, M. Karjalainen, M. Laine, J. Peisa, and A. Rajantie, Phys. Lett. B 428, 334 (1998), arXiv:hep- ph/9803367

    1998

  51. [59]

    Schmid, Physik der kondensierten Materie 5, 302 (1966)

    A. Schmid, Physik der kondensierten Materie 5, 302 (1966)

    1966

  52. [60]

    R. Kato, Y. Enomoto, and S. Maekawa, Physical review B 44, 6916 (1991)

    1991

  53. [61]

    Yokoi and E

    N. Yokoi and E. Saitoh, JHEP 01, 022 (2018), arXiv:1612.05406 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

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

    1973

Pith tools

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