Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Propagation and Dynamics of Oscillating Tetraquark Systems

T0 review · 5 major / 5 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 The paper derives a closed-form quantum propagator for a tetraquark modeled as four non-relativistic quarks bound by harmonic gluon-mediated forces, and uses it to show that the probability density oscillates, spreads, and decays over time.

desk verdict A textbook harmonic oscillator propagator relabeled with tetraquark parameters, and the derivation has dimensional and structural errors that invalidate the central claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07396 v1 pith:AZS3XOXA submitted 2025-06-09 hep-ph

Sh. Janjan , G.R.Boroun This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords tetraquarkquantumpropagatorharmonicoscillatorfour-bodysystemtimeevolutionprobabilitydensitycolorconfinementnonrelativisticmechanics
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 attempts to establish that a tetraquark, modeled as four non-relativistic quarks and antiquarks in a harmonic, gluon-mediated potential, possesses an exact analytical quantum propagator. The authors derive the propagator from the equations of motion for the four coordinates, evolve a normalized exponential initial wave function through it, and obtain a closed-form time-dependent wave function and probability density. The density is shown to grow at very early times, then to oscillate, spread, and decay, with its peak moving along the propagation axis while the packet broadens. If the derivation is correct, this supplies a parameter-dependent dynamical description of tetraquarks that carries color, flavor, spin, and mass dependence, and a concrete starting point for studying quark entanglement and multipartite correlations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the quantum propagator of Eq. (7), defined concretely as the transition amplitude that maps the initial four-quark wave function to any later time. It is constructed by solving the equations of motion for the position $x_i(t)$ and momentum $p_i(t)$ of each quark, organised through the $2\times2$ matrix $f(t)=\exp(B't)$ with entries $\cos(t\sqrt{-\vec\lambda_i\cdot\vec\lambda_j a/m_i})$ and $\sin(t/m_i)$; the color-confinement strength enters through $\vec\lambda_i\cdot\vec\lambda_j a$, and the spin-dependent term through $\beta'=(\pi/m_im_j)(1+\tfrac{2}{3}\vec\sigma_i\cdot\vec\sigma_j)$. The initial state is a normalized exponential wave function with variable width parameter $\alpha$ and spherical harmonic $Y_{lm}$ (Eq. (8)). Applying the propagator through the integral in Eq. (9) produces the time-evolved wave function Eq. (10), and the probability density Eq. (11) then governs the spatial distribution of the four quarks at later times.

What would settle it

Substitute Eq. (7) into the evolution equation $i\hbar\partial_t\kappa=H\kappa$ with the full coupled Hamiltonian of Eq. (2); if the identity fails for $x_i\neq x_j$, the propagator belongs to decoupled oscillators rather than the interacting tetraquark, and an exact normal-mode diagonalization of Eq. (2) would show cross-coordinate terms that Eq. (7) lacks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the four-body harmonic tetraquark Hamiltonian admits the closed-form propagator $\kappa(x_i,t|x'_i,t_0)$ of Eq. (7), with denominator $(2\pi i\hbar)^4\sin(t/m_i)$ and oscillatory factors built from $\cos(t\sqrt{-\vec\lambda_i\cdot\vec\lambda_j a/m_i})$, $\sin(t/m_i)$, and $\sin^{-1}(t/m_i)$. Inserting this propagator into the convolution of Eq. (9) together with the normalized exponential initial state of Eq. (8) yields the wave function of Eq. (10), and the probability density of Eq. (11) follows as $\varphi(x_i;t)\varphi^*(x_i;t)$. The paper finds that the probability of presence first increases, up to times of order $6$ fm/c in the figures, then declines while the wave packet broadens and its peak shifts from roughly $0.6$ fm to $1.2$ fm; the system oscillates between two quasi-stable spatial regions, which the paper interprets as quantum superposition between two configurations. Throughout this evolution the uncertainty product stays at $\Delta x(t)\Delta p(t)=\hbar/2$.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that the four-body problem can be split into independent single-particle oscillators whose propagators factorize, even though the Hamiltonian couples quarks pairwise through $x_{ij}=x_i-x_j$; the paper provides no normal-mode or collective-coordinate transformation that would make that split exact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With a specified initial exponential state, Eq. (11) gives an explicit formula for the probability of finding the tetraquark at position $x$ at time $t$, so the model produces quantitative spatial predictions at arbitrary later times.
  • The computed density grows at first and then decays and broadens, so an oscillating tetraquark of this type is not a static bound state but a finite-lived, spreading wave packet.
  • The peak moves back and forth along the propagation axis while decreasing in height, implying oscillation between two quasi-stable spatial configurations rather than simple monotonic decay.
  • The wave function's color and spin factors make the time evolution depend on $\vec\lambda_i\cdot\vec\lambda_j$ and $\vec\sigma_i\cdot\vec\sigma_j$, which is the basis the paper cites for future predictions of quark entanglement and multipartite dependence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not settled by the paper itself: because Eq. (7) is a product of single-coordinate factors while the Hamiltonian couples coordinates through $x_{ij}=x_i-x_j$, the closed form would need an exact normal-mode treatment to confirm that it describes the interacting system rather than four decoupled oscillators.
  • A direct numerical check of Eq. (7) against $i\hbar\partial_t\kappa=H\kappa$ with the full Hamiltonian of Eq. (2) would settle the status of the derivation; this is a concrete next step the paper leaves implicit.
  • As an extension the paper leaves implicit, the same matrix-exponential construction could be applied to other quadratic multiquark Hamiltonians, such as pentaquark or six-quark geometries, yielding propagators with denominator $(2\pi i\hbar)^N$ for $N$ constituents.
  • The explicit position- and time-dependent wave function is a natural input for computing pair entanglement measures between quarks, a direction the paper names as motivation but does not carry out.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a non-relativistic four-body harmonic-oscillator model for tetraquarks and claims to derive an analytical quantum propagator, Eq. (7), which is then used to compute the time-evolved wave function and probability density. The authors present several figures showing oscillatory, spreading, and decaying dynamics. The central claim is that Eq. (7) exactly propagates the tetraquark system described by the Hamiltonian in Eq. (2), including color, flavor, and spin labels.

Significance. If the derivation were correct, the paper would provide a closed-form time-evolution kernel for a four-quark system with harmonic confinement, a useful benchmark for phenomenological studies. The paper addresses a topical problem and uses a Gaussian ansatz consistent with some prior work. However, the main result is not established: the propagator does not follow from the Hamiltonian, and the expressions contain undefined quantities and dimensionally inconsistent arguments. The paper also ships no reproducible code or machine-checked derivations, and the uncertainty check is circular. Given these load-bearing issues, the claimed results are not reliable.

major comments (5)
  1. [§II, Eqs. (2)–(7)] The Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) has genuine pair couplings x_ij = x_i - x_j among all four particles, but the propagator in Eq. (7) is a product over independent coordinates x_i. The paper never performs a normal-mode or Jacobi-coordinate transformation to diagonalize the coupled quadratic part. The claimed propagator therefore does not follow from the model Hamiltonian; the solution assumes the factorization that needs to be proven. This is a load-bearing gap in the central derivation.
  2. [§II, Eqs. (3)–(5)] The matrix B' defined in Eq. (3) is a single-particle 2x2 matrix, and its exponentiation produces expressions such as f2 = sin(t/m_i) and f3 = sin(t λ_i·λ_j a) in Eq. (4), whose arguments have dimensions of time/mass and time×energy/length², respectively (even in units with ℏ=c=1). The resulting equations of motion in Eq. (5) are therefore not dimensionally consistent and cannot be the correct solution of a four-body oscillator problem.
  3. [§II, Eq. (7)] The propagator contains sin^{-1}(t/m_i) (arcsin) in the exponent and denominator, as well as sin(t/m_i), both with dimensionful arguments. It also depends on ρ_t and τ_t, which are never defined. Without these definitions and a check that the expression satisfies the Schrödinger equation for Eq. (2), Eq. (7) is not a well-defined or verifiable result.
  4. [§III, Eq. (11)] The probability density in Eq. (11) contains the undefined τ_t and a factor sin^{-1}(t/m_i) with a dimensionful argument. The subsequent discussion claims ΔxΔp = ℏ/2 because Δp is defined as ℏ/(2Δx). This is circular: it assumes the uncertainty product rather than computing ⟨p²⟩ from the wave function. The statement in Section III that 'the Heisenberg uncertainty relation is Δx(t)Δp(t) = ℏ/2' is therefore not a consistency test of the derived state.
  5. [§II, Eq. (10)] The time-evolved wave function in Eq. (10) includes the undefined ρ_t and τ_t and is not normalized. The step from Eq. (9) to Eq. (10) is not shown; in particular, the Gaussian integral over x'_i in Eq. (9) requires a well-defined quadratic form in x'_i, which the propagator of Eq. (7) does not provide because of the arcsin factors and undefined coefficients. The derivation of the central time-evolution formula is therefore incomplete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] The text contains several typos, such as 'filed' in the first paragraph and 'crusial' in the third paragraph; 'inverely' should be 'inversely' in Section II.
  2. [§II, after Eq. (2)] The notation 'P4 i=1 xij = xi' and similar expressions are not meaningful as written; summations should be over explicit indices with a clear definition of each variable.
  3. [§II, β' definition] The definition of β' is inconsistent: Eq. (2) and the text give β' = (π/m_i m_j)(1 + 2σ_i·σ_j/3), while later text states β' = (π/m_i m_j)(1 + 2σ_i·σ_j/2). The correct form should be stated once and used consistently.
  4. [Figures 2–6] The figures are described qualitatively, but no numerical inputs (values of a, α, quark masses, color factors, or coupling constants) are listed, so the figures cannot be reproduced from the text alone.
  5. [References] Reference [12] is cited as 'L. Collaboration' without a specific author; the reference list should identify the collaboration properly, e.g., LHCb Collaboration.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One self-definitional uncertainty check; the central propagator derivation is not itself circular, though it has separate correctness problems.

  1. self definitional [Section III (Probability Density and Dynamics), after Eq. (11)]
    "Hence ∆ x(t) = sqrt(⟨x2⟩ − ⟨x⟩2) = (cos(t sqrt(−→λi .−→λj a/mi))^2 + 4ℏ^2(sin−1(t/mi))^2α^2/4)^(1/2); for momentum ∆p(t) = ℏ/2∆x(t) = ℏ/(cos(t sqrt(−→λi .−→λj a/mi))^2 + 4ℏ^2(sin−1(t/mi))^2α^2)^(1/2). Thus, the Heisenberg uncertainty relation is ∆ x(t)∆p(t) = ℏ/2; meaning that no matter how much cos(t sqrt(−→λi .−→λj a/mi))^2 + 4ℏ^2(sin−1(t/mi))^2α^2 changes over time, uncertainty still exists and evolution is consistent with the principles of quantum mechanics."

    The momentum uncertainty is not computed independently from the wave function; it is defined as ℏ/(2Δx). Therefore the product ΔxΔp = ℏ/2 is an identity, not a derived consistency check. The statement that the evolution is consistent with the uncertainty principle is true by construction, so this particular 'check' cannot provide independent validation of the wave function. This is a peripheral verification step, however, not the central propagator claim.

full rationale

The central derivation, Eq. (7) as the propagator for the Hamiltonian Eq. (2), is not a case of circularity in the sense of output reducing to input by construction. It is a claimed analytic derivation from a quadratic Hamiltonian, and whatever its mathematical defects (e.g., the missing normal-mode diagonalization of the coupled pair coordinates and dimensionally inconsistent trigonometric arguments), those are correctness risks rather than self-referential reductions. The paper does not fit parameters to data and then rename them as predictions; the parameters λ_i·λ_j, a, m_i, and αs enter the model as inputs. The self-citations [19, 31, 42] are used for standard formalism and spin-spin interaction inputs, not as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or as substitutes for the derivation. The one clear circular step is the Heisenberg-uncertainty consistency check in Section III, where Δp is defined as ℏ/(2Δx), making ΔxΔp = ℏ/2 an immediate identity. Since this is a validation claim rather than the main derived result, the overall circularity score is moderate: 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's free parameters are the Gaussian width alpha, confinement strength a, quark masses m_i, the coupling alpha_s, and the undefined functions rho_t and tau_t. The axioms are the non-relativistic treatment, the quadratic confinement potential, the oscillatory-gluon assumption, the Gaussian initial ansatz, the implicit factorization of the propagator, and the treatment of the non-quadratic terms as an external force. No genuinely new entity is introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha (Gaussian width parameter) = not specified in paper
    Introduced in Eq. (8) as the variable width of the initial Gaussian wave function; it controls the wave packet spread and all subsequent probability-density plots but no numerical value is given.
  • a (confinement strength) = not specified in paper
    Strength of the quadratic color-confinement term in Eq. (2), entering the oscillator frequency sqrt(lambda_i.lambda_j a/m_i); no value is assigned despite being essential for the plotted time scales.
  • quark masses m_i = not specified in paper
    The masses enter every trigonometric argument such as t/m_i and arcsin(t/m_i) and the spin term beta'; the paper states that the method is mass-dependent but gives no numerical masses for the figures.
  • rho_t and tau_t (undefined time-dependent functions) = undefined in text
    Appear in the propagator Eq. (7), wave function Eq. (10), and probability density Eq. (11) as gamma = ... + x_i rho_t + x'_i tau_t, but are never defined or related to beta, beta', or the external-force term; they function as ad hoc placeholders.
  • alpha_s (quark-gluon coupling) = approximately 1.5
    Mentioned in Section II as approximately 1.5, but no value is used in the plotted curves; it enters beta and beta' and is chosen rather than fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Quarks in a tetraquark are non-relativistic point masses obeying the Schrodinger equation
    Eq. (1) and Section II state 'all quarks are considered non-relativistic'. This excludes relativistic corrections, which the paper itself notes matter in strong fields.
  • ad hoc to paper The confining interaction is exactly quadratic, V_C = -lambda_i.lambda_j a x_ij^2
    Eq. (2) and the text say 'We consider the color-confinement interaction in quadratic form ... desired Hamiltonian will be a quadratic Hamiltonian'. This is chosen for analytic solvability, not derived from QCD.
  • domain assumption Gluon fields can be modeled as oscillators
    Introduction: 'it is acceptable to model oscillatory behavior for gluons and to consider oscillatory behavior for gluon coupling'. This is the physical premise behind all oscillation claims.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial wave function is a Gaussian
    Eq. (8) uses the Gaussian basis from Refs. [30, 31, 43]; it is an input ansatz, not a solution of the Hamiltonian.
  • ad hoc to paper The propagator factorizes over four independent coordinates
    Eq. (7) contains (2 pi i hbar)^4 and single-coordinate cosines; no normal-mode decomposition justifies this for the coupled Hamiltonian.
  • ad hoc to paper The non-quadratic terms act as a uniform external force
    Section II says 'the term ... acts as an external force on the system'; the coupled dynamics of the beta/x_ij and hyperfine terms are not solved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Propagation and Dynamics of Oscillating Tetraquark Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AZS3XOXA

@misc{pith2026250607396,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Propagation and Dynamics of Oscillating Tetraquark Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AZS3XOXA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07396}
}
read the original abstract

We have presented a theoretical investigation into the behavior of tetraquark states. These states are modeled as a non-relativistic four-body quantum system governed by harmonic interactions. Our goal is to capture the fundamental dynamics of quark-antiquark interactions in the tetraquark configuration. Within this framework, we have derived an analytical expression for the quantum propagator. This expression was then used to compute the time evolution of the wave function and the associated probability density. We examined the time evolution and oscillation patterns to gain a better understanding of the wave function and its probability of presence in space. This approach offers valuable insights into the dynamics of the tetraquark system. This model can serve as a basis for predicting complex structures such as entanglement and multipartite dependence of quarks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07396 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Two quarks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The probability of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. In this figure, it can be seen that the probability of the particle’s presence increases at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The peak of each diagram moves along the x-axis as time progresses from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The probability distribution ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cheng, S.-Y

    J.-B. Cheng, S.-Y. Li, Y.-R. Liu, Z.-G. Si, and T. Yao, Chinese Physics C 45, 043102 (2021). 13

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Xin and Z.-G

    Q. Xin and Z.-G. Wang, Chinese Physics C 48, 033104 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Chinese Physics C 48 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    S.-K. Choi, S. Olsen, K. Abe, T. Abe, I. Adachi, B. S. Ahn, H. Aihara, K. Akai, M. Akatsu, M. Akemoto, et al., Physical review letters 91, 262001 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [6]

    Wu and S.-L

    W.-L. Wu and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 111, 034044 (2025), arXiv:2411.17962 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [7]

    Dong and Z.-G

    W.-C. Dong and Z.-G. Wang, Nuclear Physics B , 116828 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [8]

    H.-M. Yang, Y. Ma, W.-L. Wu, and S.-L. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2502.10798 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [9]

    Niu, B.-B

    J.-J. Niu, B.-B. Shi, Z.-K. Tao, and H.-H. Ma, Physical Review D 111, 014019 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 46 references
  1. [10]

    Belov, A

    I. Belov, A. Giachino, and E. Santopinto, Journal of High Energy Physics 2025, 1 (2025)

    2025

  2. [11]

    Ma, W.-L

    Y. Ma, W.-L. Wu, L. Meng, Y.-K. Chen, and S.-L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 074026 (2024), arXiv:2408.00503 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Collaboration, Nature Communications , 1 (2022)

    L. Collaboration, Nature Communications , 1 (2022)

    2022

  4. [13]

    Faiman and A

    D. Faiman and A. W. Hendry, Physical Review 173, 1720 (1968)

    1968

  5. [14]

    H. R. Lewis and W. Riesenfeld, Journal of mathematical physics 10, 1458 (1969)

    1969

  6. [15]

    L. Brey, N. Johnson, and B. Halperin, Physical Review B 40, 10647 (1989)

    1989

  7. [16]

    M. K. Bahar and F. Yasuk, Advances in High Energy Physics 2013, 814985 (2013)

    2013

  8. [17]

    Huang, C

    H. Huang, C. Deng, X. Liu, Y. Tan, and J. Ping, Symmetry 15, 1298 (2023)

    2023

  9. [18]

    Zhang, X.-M

    H.-F. Zhang, X.-M. Mo, and Y.-P. Yan, Physical Review D 110, 096021 (2024)

    2024

  10. [19]

    Janjan and F

    S. Janjan and F. Kheirandish, Pramana 97, 169 (2023)

    2023

  11. [20]

    Hu, B.-R

    J. Hu, B.-R. He, and J.-L. Ping, The European Physical Journal C 83, 559 (2023)

    2023

  12. [21]

    F. G. Celiberto, G. Gatto, and A. Papa, The European Physical Journal C 84, 1 (2024)

    2024

  13. [22]

    Chen, Y.-X

    H.-X. Chen, Y.-X. Yan, and W. Chen, Physical Review D 106, 094019 (2022)

    2022

  14. [23]

    Y. Tan, Y. Wu, H. Huang, and J. Ping, Universe 10, 17 (2023)

    2023

  15. [24]

    Park and S

    W. Park and S. Noh, Physical Review D 110, 074041 (2024)

    2024

  16. [25]

    F. G. Celiberto and A. Papa, Physics Letters B 848, 138406 (2024)

    2024

  17. [26]

    R. P. Feynman, M. Kislinger, and F. Ravndal, Physical Review D 3, 2706 (1971)

    1971

  18. [27]

    Kabana and P

    S. Kabana and P. Minkowski, International Journal of Modern Physics A 32, 1750004 (2017)

    2017

  19. [28]

    S. D. G lazek, Physical Review D 69, 065002 (2004)

    2004

  20. [29]

    Wu, Y.-K

    W.-L. Wu, Y.-K. Chen, L. Meng, and S.-L. Zhu, Physical Review D 109, 054034 (2024). 14

    2024

  21. [30]

    Yu, Z.-Y

    G.-L. Yu, Z.-Y. Li, Z.-G. Wang, L. Jie, and Y. Meng, The European Physical Journal C 83, 1 (2023)

    2023

  22. [31]

    Asadi and G

    Z. Asadi and G. Boroun, Physical Review D 105, 014006 (2022)

    2022

  23. [32]

    Valamontes, ResearchGate Preprint (2024)

    A. Valamontes, ResearchGate Preprint (2024)

    2024

  24. [33]

    Asadi and G

    Z. Asadi and G. Boroun, Communications in Theoretical Physics 75, 035201 (2023)

    2023

  25. [34]

    G.-J. Wang, M. Oka, and D. Jido, Physical Review D 108, L071501 (2023)

    2023

  26. [35]

    Tegen, Annals of Physics 197, 439 (1990)

    R. Tegen, Annals of Physics 197, 439 (1990)

    1990

  27. [36]

    Assi and M

    B. Assi and M. L. Wagman, Physical Review D 110, 094001 (2024)

    2024

  28. [37]

    Minkowski, Nuclear Physics B 174, 258 (1980)

    P. Minkowski, Nuclear Physics B 174, 258 (1980)

    1980

  29. [38]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 136, 453 (1932)

    1932

  30. [39]

    Yu, Z.-Y

    G.-L. Yu, Z.-Y. Li, Z.-G. Wang, B. Wu, Z. Zhou, and J. Lu, The European Physical Journal C 84, 1 (2024)

    2024

  31. [40]

    Noh and W

    S. Noh and W. Park, Physical Review D 108, 014004 (2023)

    2023

  32. [41]

    K. Born, E. Laermann, N. Pirch, T. F. Walsh, and P. Zerwas, Physical Review D 40, 1653 (1989)

    1989

  33. [42]

    Janjan and F

    S. Janjan and F. Kheirandish, Physica Scripta 98, 065003 (2023)

    2023

  34. [43]

    Fan-Yong, C

    Z. Fan-Yong, C. Xiao-Lin, and D. Wei-Zhen, Chinese Physics C 32, 515 (2008)

    2008

  35. [44]

    G. Yang, J. Ping, and J. Segovia, Physical Review D 102, 054023 (2020)

    2020

  36. [45]

    Liu, R.-H

    F.-X. Liu, R.-H. Ni, X.-H. Zhong, and Q. Zhao, Physical Review D 107, 096020 (2023)

    2023

  37. [46]

    C. Deng, H. Chen, and J. Ping, Physical Review D 103, 014001 (2021)

    2021

  38. [47]

    J. Ping, F. Wang, and T. Goldman, Physical Review C 62, 054007 (2000). 15

    2000

Pith tools

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