Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 41 references

Constraint on the magnetic field for the stable strange quark matter

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In the quasiparticle model developed here, absolutely stable strange quark matter exists only above a lower limit on the magnetic field, and that limit rises as the coupling constant or the vacuum bag constant is increased.

desk verdict A plausible quasiparticle-model calculation of magnetic-field effects on SQM stability, but the claim of a lower limit for absolutely stable matter needs beta equilibrium and charge neutrality. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07011 v1 pith:CNUOPVZJ submitted 2025-01-13 hep-ph nucl-th

Xin-Jian Wen , Xiao-Wen Jiang This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords strangequarkmatterquasiparticlemodelmagneticfieldeffectivebagconstantrunningcouplingfreeenergyperbaryonstabilitywindowLandaulevels
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 uses a quasiparticle model of three-flavor quark matter to ask when strange quark matter can be absolutely stable, meaning stable against ordinary nuclear matter, in the presence of a strong magnetic field. It derives an effective bag constant that depends on both quark chemical potential and magnetic field, imposing thermodynamic self-consistency so that the minimum of the free energy per baryon occurs at zero pressure. The model predicts that a magnetic field helps stabilize strange quark matter, while a larger running coupling constant or a larger vacuum bag constant destabilizes it. The central result is a lower limit on the magnetic field strength required for absolutely stable strange quark matter, and this limit rises as the coupling constant or the vacuum bag constant increases. A sympathetic reader would care because the result turns the magnetic field into a quantitative condition for the existence of stable strange stars rather than a mere environmental parameter.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the quasiparticle description of quark matter in a strong magnetic field: each quark flavor carries an in-medium mass $m_i^*(\mu_i)$ from Eq. (1) and occupies Landau levels in a magnetic field, giving the thermodynamic potential of Eq. (2). The effective bag constant is not put in by hand; it is derived from the stationarity condition $\partial P/\partial m_i^*|_{T,\mu_i}=0$ (Eq. (3)), which makes the free energy minimum coincide with zero pressure. The magnetic field enters the quark dynamics through the running coupling $g^2(\mu,B_m)$ of Eq. (7), a phenomenological extension of the usual density-dependent coupling with a multiplicative factor $[1+\alpha\ln(1+\beta eB_m/\Lambda_2^2)]$ taken from Ref. [34]. That coupling changes the slope $dm_i^*/d\mu_i$ and thereby shapes the bag function $B_i^*(\mu_i)$ and the free energy per baryon, which is compared with the 930 MeV iron benchmark. All three ingredients, the Landau-level thermodynamics, the self-consistent bag, and the magnetically enhanced coupling, are needed for the lower-limit result.

What would settle it

Recompute the 930 MeV stability boundary in beta-equilibrated, charge-neutral strange quark matter using a magnetic-field-dependent quark mass or coupling obtained from a first-principles calculation rather than the fitted factor in Eq. (7). If the minimum free energy per baryon remains below 930 MeV at field strengths below the paper's lower limit, the central claim is falsified; equivalently, an observed magnetar whose core field lies below the predicted boundary and whose mass-radius data require self-bound strange quark matter would contradict the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that, within the quasiparticle framework with a magnetically dressed running coupling, absolutely stable strange quark matter exists only above a magnetic-field-dependent floor. The stability criterion is the standard one: at zero pressure, the minimum free energy per baryon must fall below 930 MeV, the value for iron. Because stronger magnetic fields push the zero-pressure point to lower chemical potentials and lower the minimum free energy, while larger coupling constants and vacuum bag constants raise it, the two effects compete. The result is a stability window in the $eB_m$--$g$ plane whose boundary $E/n_B = 930$ MeV moves to stronger fields as $g$ or $B_0$ increases. Thus, for a given coupling strength and vacuum bag constant, magnetic fields weaker than the predicted threshold leave strange quark matter unstable against conversion to iron nuclei.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the fitted formula for how the strong force's coupling grows with magnetic field (Eq. 7, with $\alpha=2$, $\beta=0.000327$, $\Lambda_1=120$ MeV, $\Lambda_2=200$ MeV, taken from Ref. [34]); if that formula does not apply to strange quark matter, the claimed lower limit on the magnetic field would change or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any fixed coupling constant and vacuum bag constant, the model assigns a minimum magnetic field below which strange quark matter would not be absolutely stable; fields above that threshold are required for self-bound strange stars.
  • The stronger the magnetic field, the lower the chemical potential at which pressure vanishes, so magnetized strange quark matter can be self-bound at lower densities than unmagnetized matter.
  • Increasing the vacuum bag constant or the coupling constant shrinks the stable region in the $eB_m$--$g$ plane, so the model constrains how large these parameters may be if SQM is to exist.
  • Because the stability boundary is expressed in physical units ($eB_m$ versus $g$), the predicted threshold can be directly compared with magnetic field estimates in neutron-star cores.

Reading between the lines

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

  • My inference: if the threshold survives more complete treatments, SQM stability becomes field-conditional, meaning a strange star could be stable in its high-field core but unstable in outer low-field layers; the surface and interior would then obey different energy minima.
  • My inference: the result suggests a complementary bound on the coupling constant at fixed magnetic field, beyond a maximum $g$ no astrophysically plausible field strength can stabilize SQM; this could be translated into constraints on strong-interaction models.
  • My inference: replacing the common-chemical-potential ansatz with beta equilibrium and charge neutrality (u, d, s plus electrons) would shift the 930 MeV boundary; a quantitative test is to recompute Fig. 5 under that constraint and check whether the lower-limit field moves up or down.
  • My inference: if magnetar cores have $eB_m$ values near the predicted boundary, the mass-radius relation and tidal deformability of strange star candidates become field-dependent, offering an indirect observational test through gravitational-wave measurements.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies strange quark matter (SQM) in a quasiparticle model with a finite chemical potential and a strong magnetic field. The effective bag constant is derived from a stationarity condition of the pressure, leading to a self-consistent thermodynamics in which the free energy minimum coincides with zero pressure. The authors compute the energy per baryon at zero pressure and compare it with the iron value 930 MeV to determine the absolute stability of SQM. Their central claim is that a strong magnetic field stabilizes SQM, while larger coupling constants and vacuum bag constants destabilize it, resulting in a lower limit on the magnetic field that increases with coupling and bag constant.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper would provide a simple model-based constraint on the magnetic field required for absolutely stable strange quark matter, with possible implications for neutron star interiors and dark-matter candidates. The self-consistent thermodynamic construction and the explicit derivation of a density- and magnetic-field-dependent bag constant are useful features. The qualitative trends—magnetic field stabilizing, coupling and bag constant destabilizing—are physically reasonable. However, the quantitative lower bound rests on two assumptions: a common chemical potential for u, d, and s quarks without beta equilibrium or charge neutrality, and a magnetic-field-dependent running coupling whose constants are imported from another model without sensitivity analysis. These simplifications limit the reliability of the reported bound.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figs. 3-5] The stability analysis is performed for matter with a single common chemical potential μ for u, d, and s quarks and no electrons. Absolutely stable strange quark matter must instead satisfy weak equilibrium (μ_d = μ_s = μ_u + μ_e) and charge neutrality (2n_u/3 − n_d/3 − n_s/3 − n_e = 0). Because the effective masses of the three flavors differ, the equal-μ configuration is not the minimum-energy state at fixed baryon density; imposing neutrality changes the flavor fractions, introduces μ_e, and shifts both the pressure and the energy per baryon. Therefore the criterion ε/n_B = 3μ < 930 MeV at zero pressure used to draw the stability boundary in Fig. 5 is a constraint on flavor-symmetric quark matter, not on absolutely stable SQM. The authors should either impose the standard equilibrium conditions or explicitly restrict the claim to the symmetric case.
  2. [Eq. (7) and Fig. 5] The magnetic-field dependence of the running coupling is introduced only through the factor [1 + α ln(1 + β eB/Λ_2^2)] with α=2, β=0.000327, Λ_1=120 MeV, Λ_2=200 MeV, adopted from Ref. [34]. No sensitivity analysis is given for these constants, and the paper does not justify their transferability to the quasiparticle model. Moreover, for the field range displayed (eB ≲ 0.6 GeV^2), the factor differs from unity by about 1% (2 ln(1 + 0.000327×0.6/0.04) ≈ 0.0098), so the dominant magnetic-field effect actually arises from the Landau-level sum in Eq. (2) rather than from the modified coupling. The authors should separate these two contributions and show how the lower-limit result depends on the values of α and β.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (4)] The derivation of the effective bag function B_i^*(μ_i) from the stationarity condition in Eq. (3) is only sketched. The expression in Eq. (4) is dimensionally consistent and consistent with B_i^*(μ_i) = -∫_0^{μ_i} dμ' (∂Ω_i/∂m_i^*) dm_i^*/dμ', but the text does not explain how the μ-dependence of the Fermi momentum p_F is handled in the inner integral or why the outer integral starts from μ_i=0. Since the numerical results depend on this integral, the derivation should be written out in full or at least the key intermediate steps should be given.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The current quark masses m_i are not specified numerically. Please state the values used for m_u, m_d, and m_s.
  2. [Section 2] The notation B for the bag constant and B_m for the magnetic field is confusing, especially in equations where both appear. Consider using a distinct symbol, e.g., \mathcal{B}, for the bag constant.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The manuscript contains many typographical and grammatical errors, such as 'quar k matter' in the Abstract, 'cond e nse' in the Introduction, and 'a whole se of collective quasiparticles'. A careful proofreading is needed.
  4. [Fig. 5] The stable and unstable regions in the eB_m–g plane are not labeled in the figure or the caption. Please add clear labels and define precisely what is plotted on each axis.
  5. [Section 3] The statement that the free energy per baryon has a minimum value 3μ at zero pressure is a direct consequence of the common-μ assumption. This should be stated as such rather than as a general property of the model.
  6. [References] Reference [35], cited for the GMOR lower bound on the bag constant, is an arXiv preprint (2410.19678). Please update to a peer-reviewed publication if available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the stability boundary is a forward model calculation using externally adopted coupling parameters, with no refitting of the target result.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—a lower bound on eB for absolutely stable strange quark matter—is obtained by evaluating the quasiparticle thermodynamic potential with a fixed input set, not by fitting to the claimed output. The magnetic field enters through the Landau-level sum in Eq. (2) and through the running coupling g^2(µ,B) in Eq. (7); the latter is explicitly labeled as an adopted expression with α=2 and β=0.000327 from the external Ref. [34]. Ref. [34] is not by the present authors, and nothing in this paper fits α or β to the 930 MeV stability criterion or to the eB–g boundary in Fig. 5; the boundary is a computed contour of ε/n_B=930 MeV, an external benchmark. The effective bag function B*_i in Eq. (4) is fixed by the stationarity condition ∂P/∂m*_i=0 (Eq. (3)), which is a self-consistency requirement of the quasiparticle scheme rather than a parameter adjusted to reproduce the lower-limit result; the statement that the free energy minimum coincides with zero pressure is a consequence of that same thermodynamic closure, not a separate prediction. The paper's self-citations (Refs. [15], [22], [23]) support the standard quasiparticle mass and density formulas and are not load-bearing for the new magnetic-field constraint. The physical concern raised in review—that a single common µ for u,d,s omits beta equilibrium and charge neutrality, so the equal-µ path may not represent absolutely stable SQM—is a modeling limitation, not a circularity: it does not make the output equivalent to an input by construction. The adopted form of Eq. (7) is also externally sourced rather than fitted here, so no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern is present. The analysis is therefore self-contained as a model computation, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The model's output is controlled by five free parameters (alpha, beta, Lambda_1, Lambda_2, B0) plus unspecified quark masses; the most load-bearing axiom is the B-dependent running coupling Eq (7), which is the only place the magnetic field enters the quark dynamics. The equal-chemical-potential treatment is another large simplification.

free parameters (6)
  • alpha = 2
    Coefficient in the magnetic-field correction to the running coupling, Eq (7); adopted from Ref [34] where it was fitted to magnetic-field-dependent QCD phenomenology. The central result (B stabilizes SQM) disappears for alpha=0, so this parameter controls the qualitative outcome.
  • beta = 0.000327
    Same origin as alpha; controls the field scale dependence in Eq (7). Together with alpha it fixes the size of the B-dependence of g^2, hence the location of the stability boundary in Fig 5.
  • Lambda_1 = 120 MeV
    Scale-fixing parameter in the logarithmic running of Eq (7). Adopted by hand; no sensitivity study is provided.
  • Lambda_2 = 200 MeV
    Magnetic-field scale in Eq (7); adopted by hand. The value of beta depends on this choice, as beta was fitted in Ref [34] with the same Lambda_2.
  • B0^(1/4) vacuum bag constant = 145, 155, 165 MeV (scanned)
    Input bag constant from hadron spectroscopy and bag model fits. The stability window in Fig 5 is parameterized by this value; no uncertainty is quoted.
  • u, d, s current masses = not stated
    Inputs to Eq (1); not specified in the paper, so the exact curves cannot be reproduced without guessing. Standard values (m_u, m_d of order 5 MeV, m_s of order 100-150 MeV) would be needed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Quasiparticle effective quark mass Eq (1), from hard-dense-loop one-loop self-energy, is adequate at zero temperature.
    Invoked in Section 2, Eq (1), with citations [22,24,16,25,23]. The entire thermodynamics rests on this dispersion relation.
  • domain assumption Stationarity condition dP/dm*_i = 0 (Eq (3)) is the correct thermodynamic consistency condition.
    Invoked to construct the bag function Eq (4). Standard in quasiparticle models but an imposed condition, not derived from QCD.
  • ad hoc to paper The running coupling parameterization Eq (7) with the given constants correctly captures magnetic-field-induced effects.
    Eq (7) is imported from Ref [34]; it is a phenomenological interpolation, not derived in this paper. The stability window is a direct function of this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Strange quark matter is treated with a common chemical potential mu for u, d, s; no beta equilibrium or charge neutrality is imposed.
    The text uses a single mu and '3 mu' for the free energy minimum; no lepton contribution is included. This is not stated as an approximation and differs from standard SQM treatments.
  • domain assumption Absolute stability criterion: free energy per baryon below 930 MeV at zero pressure.
    Used in Section 3 and Fig 5. Standard Bodmer-Witten estimate, but often applied with beta-equilibrated matter.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraint on the magnetic field for the stable strange quark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNUOPVZJ

@misc{pith2026250107011,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraint on the magnetic field for the stable strange quark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNUOPVZJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07011}
}
read the original abstract

The quasiparticle model is employed to investigate the quark matter at finite chemical potential. The effective bag constant is derived to be dependent on both the chemical potential and the magnetic field. The self-consistent thermodynamics is fulfilled that the free energy minimum corresponds to the zero pressure. It is shown that the strong magnetic field is helpful for the stabilization of the strange quark matter. However, the increase in the coupling constant and the vacuum bag constant could reduce the stability. For the absolutely stable strange quark matter, there is a lower limit of the allowed magnetic field, which rises with the increase in the coupling constant and the vacuum bag constant.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07011 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The variation of the bag constant as a decreasing functio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The variation of the bag constant with the coupling consta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The free energy per baryon on the top panel and the pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The free energy per baryon as a function of chemical pot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The stability window in the eBm-g plane is shown at different vacuum bag constants B0. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [34]

    R. L. S. Farias, K. P. Gomes, G. I. Krein and M. B. Pinto, Phys. R ev. C 90, no.2, 025203 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.90.025203 [arXiv:1404.3931 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2014

  2. [1]

    E. V. Shuryak and I. Zahed, 2004 Phys. Rev. C 49 021901; G.E. Brown, C-H. Lee, M. Rho and E.V. Shuryak, 2004 Nucl. Phys. A740 171

    work page 2004

  3. [2]

    Gyulassy and L

    M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, 2005 Nucl. Phys. A750 30

    work page 2005

  4. [3]

    Kettner, F

    C. Kettner, F. Weber, M. K. Weigel and N. K. Glendenning, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1440-1457 (1995) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.1440

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.51.1440 1995

  5. [4]

    Dexheimer, J

    V. Dexheimer, J. R. Torres and D. P. Menezes, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2569 (2013) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 013-2569-5 [arXiv:1303.5102 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [5]

    G. Peng, C. Xia and J. Xu, JPS Conf. Proc. 20, 011022 (2018) doi:10.7566/JPSCP.20.011022

    work page doi:10.7566/jpscp.20.011022 2018

  7. [6]

    R. G. Felipe, A. P. Martinez, H. P. Rojas and M. Orsaria, Phys. Re v. C 77, 015807 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [7]

    H. Liu, Y. H. Yang, Y. Han and P. C. Chu, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.3, 034004 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.034004 [arXiv:2305.01246 [nucl-th]]. 9

    arXiv 2023

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Chodos, R

    A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson and C. B. Thorn, Phys. Rev. D 10, 2599 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.2599

    1974 doi

  2. [9]

    Chodos, R

    A. Chodos, R. L. Jaffe, K. Johnson, C. B. Thorn and V. F. Weissk opf, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3471-3495 (1974) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.9.3471

    1974 doi

  3. [10]

    Alcock, E

    C. Alcock, E. Farhi, A. Olinto, Astrophys. J. 310 (1986) 216; E . Farhi, R.L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 2379

    1986

  4. [11]

    Di Clemente, M

    F. Di Clemente, M. Casolino, A. Drago, M. Lattanzi and C. Ratt i, [arXiv:2404.12094 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  5. [12]

    Peshier, B

    A. Peshier, B. Kampfer, O. P. Pavlenko and G. Soff, Phys. Lett . B 337, 235-239 (1994) doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(94)90969-5

    1994 doi

  6. [13]

    Z. J. Ma, Z. Y. Lu, J. F. Xu, G. X. Peng, X. Fu and J. Wang, Phys . Rev. D 108, no.5, 054017 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.054017 [arXiv:2308.05308 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    G. N. Fowler, S. Raha and R. M. Weiner, Z. Phys. C 9, 271 (1981) doi:10.1007/BF01410668

    1981 doi

  8. [15]

    X. J. Wen, J. Y. Li, J. Q. Liang and G. X. Peng, Phys. Rev. C 82, 025809 (2010)

    2010

  9. [16]

    Peshier, B

    A. Peshier, B. Kampfer and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. C 61, 045203 (2000)

    2000

  10. [17]

    Peshier, B

    A. Peshier, B. Kampfer, O. P. Pavlenko and G. Soff, Phys. Rev. D 54, 2399-2402 (1996) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.2399

    1996 doi

  11. [18]

    V. M. Bannur, 2008 Phys. Rev. C 78 045206

    2008

  12. [19]

    Leonidov, K

    A. Leonidov, K. Redlich, H. Satz, E. Suhonen and G. Weber, Phy s. Rev. D 50, 4657-4662 (1994) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.4657

    1994 doi

  13. [20]

    Joshi, S

    S. Joshi, S. Sau and S. Sanyal, JHEAp 30, 16-23 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2021.03.001 [arXiv:2002.07647 [nucl-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [21]

    M. A. Thaler, R. A. Schneider and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C 69, 035210 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.69.035210 [arXiv:hep-ph/0310251 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Schertler, C

    K. Schertler, C. Greiner and M. H. Thoma, Nucl. Phys. A 616, 659-679 (1997)

    1997

  16. [23]

    X. J. Wen, Z. Q. Feng, N. Li and G. X. Peng, J. Phys. G 36, 025011 (2009)

    2009

  17. [24]

    Schertler, C

    K. Schertler, C. Greiner and M. H. Thoma, J. Phys. G 23, 2051-2056 (1997). 10

    1997

  18. [25]

    V. M. Bannur, Phys. Rev. C 78, 045206 (2008)

    2008

  19. [26]

    M. I. Gorenstein and S. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 52, 5206-5212 (1995)

    1995

  20. [27]

    R. A. Schneider and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. C 64, 055201 (2001)

    2001

  21. [28]

    V. M. Bannur, Phys. Rev. C 75, 044905 (2007)

    2007

  22. [29]

    Giacosa, Phys

    F. Giacosa, Phys. Rev. D 83, 114002 (2011)

    2011

  23. [30]

    Peshier, [arXiv:hep-ph/9809379 [hep-ph]]

    A. Peshier, [arXiv:hep-ph/9809379 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  24. [31]

    M. I. Gorenstein, S. N. Yang, 1995 Phys. Rev. D 52 5206; N. Prasad and C. P. Singh, 2001 Phys. Lett. B 501 92

    1995

  25. [32]

    F. G. Gardim and F. M. Steffens, Nucl. Phys. A 797, 50-66 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.09.006 [arXiv:0709.3853 [nucl-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  26. [33]

    B. K. Patra, C. P. Singh, 1996 Phys. Rev. D 54 3551

    1996

  27. [35]

    Yang Bai and Ting-Kuo Chen, arXiv:2410.19678

  28. [36]

    Alford, M

    M. Alford, M. Braby, M. W. Paris and S. Reddy, Astrophys. J. 629, 969-978 (2005) doi:10.1086/430902 [arXiv:nucl-th/0411016 [nucl-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Kouno and F

    H. Kouno and F. Takagi, Z. Phys. C 42, 209 (1989) doi:10.1007/BF01555858

    1989 doi

  30. [38]

    Burgio, M

    G.F. Burgio, M. Baldo, P.K. Sahu, A.B. Santra, H.-J. Schulze, 200 2 Phys. Lett. B 526 19

  31. [39]

    V. V. Begun, M. I. Gorenstein, and O. A. Mogilevsky, hep-ph// 1004.0953

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Dexheimer, B

    V. Dexheimer, B. Franzon, R. O. Gomes, R. L. S. Farias, S. S. A vancini and S. Schramm, Phys. Lett. B 773, 487-491 (2017) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.008 [arXiv:1612.05 795 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Bianchi, F

    M. Bianchi, F. Bisconti, C. Blaksley, V. Bocci, M. Casolino, F. Di Cle mente, A. Drago, C. Fuglesang, F. Iacoangeli and M. Lattanzi, et al. Sensors 24, no.16, 5090 (2024) doi:10.3390/s24165090 11

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.