Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 75 references

Chiral dynamics: Quo vadis?

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 This review argues that chiral dynamics, built on the broken chiral symmetry of QCD, remains the quantitative framework for low-energy hadron and nuclear physics and now yields tight Big Bang bounds on variation of the weak scale.

desk verdict Competent, opinionated conference review of chiral dynamics whose only real red flag is the quoted deuterium bound on the Higgs VEV, which excludes zero without explanation. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03014 v1 pith:FHYTPMQV submitted 2025-01-06 hep-ph hep-exhep-lathep-thnucl-th

Ulf-G. Mei{ss}ner This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-exhep-lathep-thnucl-th
keywords chiralperturbationtheorydynamicspion-pionscatteringtwo-polestructureLambda(1405)nucleareffectivefieldBigBangnucleosynthesisHiggsvacuumexpectationvalue
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

The review defends a single thesis: chiral dynamics, built on QCD's spontaneously and explicitly broken chiral symmetry, remains the quantitative framework for low-energy hadron and nuclear physics, from pion-pion scattering to the structure of beryllium isotopes to the first minutes of the Big Bang. It argues that even where simple SU(4)-symmetric nuclear models work well, one-pion exchange is needed to reach precision, and that pionless approaches are the exception rather than the rule. Its sharpest quantitative payload is a pair of Big Bang nucleosynthesis bounds: the Higgs vacuum expectation value can have shifted by only between -0.0069 and +0.0039 (from helium-4) and between -0.0007 and -0.0002 (from deuterium) since nucleosynthesis, with the fine-structure constant bound to sub-2% variation. These bounds follow from mapping quark-mass variation onto pion-mass variation through the Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation and using chiral low-energy theorems at unphysical pion masses. A sympathetic reader is meant to conclude that chiral dynamics is not obsolete but is converging with lattice QCD and precision experiment.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the chiral expansion itself, defined by distinguishing chiral perturbation theory as a strict perturbative expansion in small quark masses and momenta from chiral dynamics as the non-perturbative resummation of that expansion, typically through the unitarized scattering matrix T = V/[1 + G V], where V is the CHPT potential and G is the two-hadron loop function. This unitarization generates resonances, including the two Lambda(1405) poles that emerge from the SU(3) limit of three-flavor QCD. The Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation $M_pi^{2}$ = B0 (m_u + m_d) converts quark-mass variation into pion-mass dependence, which enters nuclear observables through pion propagators, nucleon masses, pion-nucleon couplings, and four-nucleon contact terms; low-energy theorems at an unphysical pion mass of 450 MeV anchor the BBN bounds. Wavefunction matching, a unitary transformation that brings the chiral Hamiltonian close to a solvable SU(4)-symmetric Hamiltonian and treats the difference in first-order perturbation theory, is what lets N3LO chiral nuclear forces reach medium-mass nuclei.

What would settle it

Recompute the two-nucleon system on the lattice at a pion mass of 450 MeV; if the resulting phase shifts and binding energies disagree with the low-energy theorems quoted in the review by more than the stated uncertainties, the mapping from quark masses to nuclear observables fails. Alternatively, detect a time variation of the fine-structure constant larger than the sub-2% bound in quasar or atomic-clock data, since the review's BBN analysis holds alpha fixed while varying v.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that chiral dynamics leaves clear imprints everywhere it is tested: the two-pole structure of states like the Lambda(1405) arises naturally from unitarized coupled-channel chiral dynamics; pions are indispensable in nuclear structure because wavefunction matching of the chiral N3LO Hamiltonian fails without one-pion exchange in the simplified Hamiltonian; and the quark-mass dependence of nuclear reactions, converted through the chiral expansion, turns Big Bang nucleosynthesis into a precision probe of Standard Model parameter variation. The review therefore asserts that chiral dynamics is the indispensable quantitative framework for low-energy QCD, and that its central quantitative predictions, the pion-pion scattering lengths, the two-pole spectrum, the nuclear bindings, and the BBN bounds, are confirmed or sharply constrained by data and lattice QCD.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Yukawa couplings stayed fixed, so a change in the light quark masses is exactly proportional to a change in the Higgs vacuum expectation value; if the Yukawas vary too, the BBN bounds on delta v/v do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the chiral framework is right, the residual discrepancies between dispersive and lattice determinations of the pion-pion scattering lengths and the rho mass should shrink as lattice systematics are controlled, rather than requiring new physics.
  • The two-pole structure of the Lambda(1405) and similar states becomes a generic prediction, so resonance analyses that force a single Breit-Wigner shape will misrepresent the spectrum; experimental and PDG listings should accommodate two poles.
  • Wavefunction matching with the chiral N3LO Hamiltonian gives a path from helium to calcium with controlled uncertainties, so binding energies, radii, and the neutron-matter equation of state can be predicted consistently from the same chiral interaction.
  • A deuterium abundance observed outside the band corresponding to delta v/v in [-0.0007, -0.0002] would rule out the fixed-Yukawa mapping and point to physics beyond the Standard Model.
  • The pion-nucleon sigma-term near 59 MeV from Roy-Steiner equations, if confirmed, pins down the strange-quark content of the nucleon and must be reproduced by lattice QCD.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The review's logic implies that lattice QCD at physical quark masses will not make chiral dynamics obsolete; instead, lattice results at unphysical masses become input that sharpens the chiral extrapolation, so the two programs are complementary rather than competing.
  • The fixed-Yukawa assumption in the BBN bound means the quoted interval is really a bound on a combination of quark-mass and Higgs-VEV variation; a theory with varying Yukawas could evade it even if the chiral calculation is exact.
  • The methods described for the strangeness sector are directly portable to charmed and bottom baryons, where analogous two-pole structures should appear once data and lattice results reach similar precision.
  • Pushing BBN bounds further is feasible with lattice calculations of few-nucleon systems at lower pion masses, which the review explicitly calls for; the limiting input is currently the low-energy theorems at 450 MeV.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This conference proceedings paper reviews the status of chiral dynamics (CD), defined as the non-perturbative use of chiral effective Lagrangians, in contrast to strict chiral perturbation theory. The author surveys pion-pion scattering and the precise values of the S-wave scattering lengths, dynamically generated resonances and two-pole structures such as the Λ(1405), the role of chiral symmetry in nuclear forces and the new wavefunction matching method, and finally Big Bang nucleosynthesis constraints on variations of fundamental constants, particularly the Higgs VEV. The paper's central claim is that chiral dynamics remains an indispensable, quantitative framework for low-energy QCD and for nuclear structure, with pions playing an essential role.

Significance. As a review by a leading expert, the paper provides a useful and mostly well-attributed survey of recent developments, with many numerical results tied to specific publications. Its strengths include the clear definitions of CHPT versus CD, the honest discussion of tensions between lattice QCD and dispersive analyses, and the explicit mention of open issues. The most significant quantitative claims are the BBN bounds on Higgs VEV variation quoted in Section 5. However, the paper's presentation of the deuterium-derived bound is incomplete and potentially misleading, and the defense of the 'pions are needed' conclusion omits a key technical caveat. If the BBN bounds are correctly interpreted and the wavefunction-matching truncation is validated, the review would be a solid, informative contribution to the literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 5] The quoted 2H-derived bound on the Higgs VEV variation, δv/v ∈ [-0.0007,-0.0002], excludes zero. Taken at face value, this would mean that standard BBN with an unvarying weak scale is excluded, which would be a discovery; the review does not claim this and does not explain the discrepancy. The more plausible reading is that the interval is a consequence of the specific input choices in Ref. [62], such as the adopted deuterium abundance, the CMB-fixed baryon density, or the low-energy theorems used at M_π = 450 MeV. The review should either explain why the interval does not contain zero, or present it as a sensitivity-dependent estimate rather than a constraint. This is load-bearing because these bounds are the paper's most quantitative vindication of chiral dynamics.
  2. [Section 4] The conclusion that 'pions are indeed needed in nuclear structure' rests on the wavefunction matching method, in which the difference H'_χ - H_S is treated in first-order perturbation theory. The review does not discuss the accuracy or convergence of this truncation, even though the conclusion depends directly on it. A sentence indicating whether the first-order treatment has been validated in Ref. [55], or noting the residual uncertainty, would make the claim appropriately cautious.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 6] There is a typo: 'undoutable' should be 'undoubtedly'.
  2. [Sections 3 and 6] The phrase 'integer part' is used where 'integral part' is meant, in the discussions of the hadron spectrum and of chiral dynamics.
  3. [Section 3] The overline in 'fo¯KN scattering' is misplaced; it should be over the K (or written as K̄N) to denote the antikaon.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review reports externally tested results and derives no quantity from its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a conference review, not a derivation paper. The numerical claims (ππ scattering lengths, Roy-Steiner σ-term, NLEFT spectra, BBN bounds on δv/v) are quoted from published, peer-reviewed works, including several by the author's group, and are compared with experimental data or lattice QCD results that are external to the present text. The BBN section makes an explicit modeling assumption ('Keeping, as mostly done, the Yukawa couplings fixed...') rather than importing the target conclusion, and the quoted intervals from Ref. [62] are presented as published results, not re-derived here. The wavefunction-matching argument for pions is empirical: the simplified Hamiltonian contains one-pion exchange by construction, but the conclusion that pions are needed rests on the subsequent agreement with measured charge radii and equations of state after fitting 3NF operators to binding energies, not on a definitional identity. Self-citations are numerous but transparent and are not used to forbid alternatives or to invoke a uniqueness theorem. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This review introduces no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities of its own. The items listed are inherited from the cited framework on which the review's claims rest: the unitarization subtraction constants, the pion-nucleon LECs, the fitted 3NF operators, the fixed-Yukawa proportionality, and the wavefunction-matching perturbative truncation. The two-pole structures in Section 3 are predictions of Refs. [37, 38], not entities postulated by this manuscript.

free parameters (3)
  • Subtraction/regularization constants of the meson-baryon loop function G = not quoted in this paper
    The unitarized amplitude T = V/[1 + G V] in Section 3 requires a regularized two-hadron loop function; Section 3 acknowledges this 'seems to introduce some model-dependence'. The subtraction constants are fitted to data in the cited analyses (e.g., Ref. [37]).
  • Pion-nucleon low-energy constants c_i = c1 = 1.10(3), c2 = 3.57(4), c3 = -5.54(6), c4 = 4.17(4) GeV^{-1}
    Quoted in Section 3 from the Roy-Steiner analysis of Ref. [32]. These constants drive the two-pion-exchange parts of the nuclear potentials and the three-nucleon forces discussed in Section 4; they are fitted to pion-nucleon data, not derived in this review.
  • Smeared three-nucleon force operator strengths in wavefunction matching = fit to binding energies of nuclei with 3 <= A <= 58
    Section 4: 'fitting the various locally and non-locally smeared 3NF operators to the nuclear binding energies with 3 <= A <= 58'. These fitted operators enter the NLEFT calculation cited as Ref. [55].
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All fundamental quantum field theories are effective field theories, and chiral perturbation theory is the correct low-energy EFT of QCD
    Section 1 asserts 'we know now that all fundamental quantum field theories are indeed effective field theories'; this frames the entire review.
  • standard math Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation M_pi^2 = B0(m_u + m_d)
    Invoked in Section 5 to map light quark mass variation onto pion mass variation for the BBN bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper With Yukawa couplings held fixed, light quark mass variation is proportional to Higgs VEV variation
    Section 5: 'Keeping, as mostly done, the Yukawa couplings fixed, the variation of the light quark masses is proportional to the variation of v'. This mapping is load-bearing for the quoted delta v / v bounds and is taken from Ref. [62].
  • domain assumption Decoupling theorem: leading non-analytic terms come from Goldstone boson one-loop graphs, so resonances must decouple
    Section 3 uses this theorem to judge which resonance treatments are consistent with QCD, e.g., the claim that large-N_c limits and chiral limits do not commute.
  • ad hoc to paper Wavefunction matching is adequate at first-order perturbation theory in H'_chi - H_S
    Section 4: the conclusion 'pions are indeed needed in nuclear structure' rests on the unitary transformation and first-order perturbative treatment of Ref. [55], an approximation whose validity is not demonstrated in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral dynamics: Quo vadis?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FHYTPMQV

@misc{pith2026250103014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral dynamics: Quo vadis?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FHYTPMQV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03014}
}
read the original abstract

I review the status of chiral dynamics. Topics include pion-pion scattering, dynamically generated states in the hadron spectrum and the emergence of two-pole structures, chiral symmetry in nuclear physics and chiral dynamics in the Big Bang.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03014 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Unitarization of GB scattering (dashed lines) off baryons (solid lines) . channel index is suppressed for simplicity. The two-hadron loop function and the resummation procedure require regularization, and this seems to introduce some model-dependence. It can, however, be overcome by going to sufficiently high orders. More importantly, the resummation allows for the generation of resonances, in particular the elusive… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The LECs 𝑐𝑖 (red circles) in pion-nucleon scattering (left), the two-pion exchange potential in the NN (middle) and the 3N (right) forces, respectively. Solid (dashed) lines denote nucleons (pions). exchange (TPE) was already studied in the framework of the chiral NN forces in [45, 46], but a truely quantitative description was only achieved later with the N4LO [47] and N4LO+ potentials [48]. The leading two-pion ex… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Low-lying spectrum from 7Be to 12Be calculated by NLEFT using the N3LO interaction [55] and the SU(4) interaction [52], compared to the data. The error bars correspond to one standard deviation errors include stochastic errors and uncertainties in the Euclidean time extrapolation. The two 𝛼 threshold is denoted by horizontal dashed line. The cartoons display the dominant structure of each isotope. Figure courtesy of… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pion mass dependence of the NN interaction through the OPE and the LO contact interactions. Solid (dashed) lines denote nucleons (pions). 𝑀2 𝜋 = 𝐵0 (𝑚𝑢+𝑚𝑑 ), the light quark mass dependence can be mapped onto the pion mass dependence, which is either explicit (pion pro…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [62]

    The electromagnetic fine-structure constant in primordial nucleosynthesis revisited,

    U.-G. Meißner, B. C. Metsch and H. Meyer, “The electromagnetic fine-structure constant in primordial nucleosynthesis revisited,” Eur. Phys. J. A59 (2023) no.10, 223

    work page 2023

  2. [37]

    Chiral dynamics in the presence of bound states: Kaon nucleon interactions revisited,

    J. A. Oller and U.-G. Meißner, “Chiral dynamics in the presence of bound states: Kaon nucleon interactions revisited,” Phys. Lett. B500 (2001), 263-272

    work page 2001

  3. [55]

    Dean Lee,these proceedings

    work page

  4. [1]

    Chiral-invariant perturbation theory,

    J. Honerkamp and K. Meetz, “Chiral-invariant perturbation theory,” Phys. Rev. D3 (1971), 1996-1998

    work page 1971

  5. [2]

    Chiral dynamics,

    J. S. Schwinger, “Chiral dynamics,” Phys. Lett. B24(1967), 473-476

    work page 1967

  6. [3]

    Phenomenological Lagrangians,

    S. Weinberg, “Phenomenological Lagrangians,” Physica A96(1979) no.1-2, 327-340

    work page 1979

  7. [4]

    Chiral perturbation theory,

    P. Langacker and H. Pagels, “Chiral perturbation theory,” Phys. Rev. D8 (1973), 4595-4619

    work page 1973

  8. [5]

    Chiral Perturbation Theory to One Loop,

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, “Chiral Perturbation Theory to One Loop,” Annals Phys.158 (1984), 142

    work page 1984

Show all 75 references
  1. [6]

    Chiral Perturbation Theory: Expansions in the Mass of the Strange Quark,

    J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, “Chiral Perturbation Theory: Expansions in the Mass of the Strange Quark,” Nucl. Phys. B250 (1985), 465-516

    1985

  2. [7]

    Feng-Kun Guo,these proceedings

  3. [8]

    A walk through the world of chiral dynamics,

    U.-G. Meißner, “A walk through the world of chiral dynamics,” PoSCD12(2013), 012

    2013

  4. [9]

    Another walk through the world of chiral dynamics,

    U.-G. Meißner, “Another walk through the world of chiral dynamics,” PoSCD2018 (2019), 013

    2019

  5. [10]

    Pion scattering lengths,

    S. Weinberg, “Pion scattering lengths,” Phys. Rev. Lett.17(1966), 616-621

    1966

  6. [11]

    Elasticpipiscatteringtotwo loops,

    J.Bijnens,G.Colangelo,G.Ecker,J.GasserandM.E.Sainio,“Elasticpipiscatteringtotwo loops,” Phys. Lett. B374 (1996), 210-216 10 Chiral dynamics: Quo vadis ? Ulf-G. Meißner

    1996

  7. [12]

    The pi pi S wave scattering lengths,

    G. Colangelo, J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, “The pi pi S wave scattering lengths,” Phys. Lett. B 488 (2000), 261-268

    2000

  8. [13]

    MassandwidthofthelowestresonanceinQCD,

    I.Caprini,G.ColangeloandH.Leutwyler,“MassandwidthofthelowestresonanceinQCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett.96 (2006), 132001

    2006

  9. [14]

    Hadronic atoms in QCD + QED,

    J. Gasser, V. E. Lyubovitskij and A. Rusetsky, “Hadronic atoms in QCD + QED,” Phys. Rept. 456 (2008), 167-251

    2008

  10. [15]

    Determination of𝜋𝜋 scattering lengths from measurement of𝜋+𝜋− atom lifetime,

    B. Adeva,et al.“Determination of𝜋𝜋 scattering lengths from measurement of𝜋+𝜋− atom lifetime,” Phys. Lett. B704 (2011), 24-29

    2011

  11. [16]

    Observation of𝜋−𝐾+ and𝜋+𝐾− atoms,

    V. Yazkov [DIRAC], “Observation of𝜋−𝐾+ and𝜋+𝐾− atoms,” EPJ Web Conf.181 (2018), 01036

    2018

  12. [17]

    𝜋K scattering in chiral perturbation theory to one loop,

    V. Bernard, N. Kaiser and U.-G. Meißner, “𝜋K scattering in chiral perturbation theory to one loop,” Nucl. Phys. B357 (1991), 129-152

    1991

  13. [18]

    Dispersive𝜋K→𝜋K and𝜋𝜋→K ¯K amplitudes from scattering data,thresholdparameters,andthelighteststrangeresonance 𝜅 orK0∗(700),

    J. R. Peláez and A. Rodas, “Dispersive𝜋K→𝜋K and𝜋𝜋→K ¯K amplitudes from scattering data,thresholdparameters,andthelighteststrangeresonance 𝜅 orK0∗(700),”Phys.Rept. 969 (2022), 1-126

    2022

  14. [19]

    Precise tests of low energy QCD from K(e4)decay properties,

    J. R. Batleyet al.[NA48/2], “Precise tests of low energy QCD from K(e4)decay properties,” Eur. Phys. J. C70 (2010), 635-657

    2010

  15. [20]

    Isospin 0 and 2 two-pionscatteringatphysicalpionmassusingdistillationwithperiodicboundaryconditions in lattice QCD,

    M. Bruno, D. Hoying, T. Izubuchi, C. Lehner, A. S. Meyer and M. Tomii, “Isospin 0 and 2 two-pionscatteringatphysicalpionmassusingdistillationwithperiodicboundaryconditions in lattice QCD,” [arXiv:2304.03313 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  16. [21]

    Isospin0and2two-pionscatteringatphysicalpionmass using all-to-all propagators with periodic boundary conditions in lattice QCD,

    T.Blum etal. [RBCandUKQCD],“Isospin0and2two-pionscatteringatphysicalpionmass using all-to-all propagators with periodic boundary conditions in lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.9, 094512 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) no.3, 039902]

    2023

  17. [22]

    Cross-channel study of pion scattering from lattice QCD,

    M. Mai, C. Culver, A. Alexandru, M. Döring and F. X. Lee, “Cross-channel study of pion scattering from lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. D100 (2019) no.11, 114514

    2019

  18. [23]

    Towardsatheoryofhadronresonances,

    M.Mai,U.-G.MeißnerandC.Urbach,“Towardsatheoryofhadronresonances,”Phys.Rept. 1001 (2023), 1-66

    2023

  19. [24]

    Review of particle physics,

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) no.3, 030001

    2024

  20. [25]

    LightandstrangevectorresonancesfromlatticeQCDatphysicalquarkmasses,

    P. Boyle, F. Erben, V. Gülpers, M. T. Hansen, F. Joswig, N. P. Lachini, M. Marshall and A.Portelli,“LightandstrangevectorresonancesfromlatticeQCDatphysicalquarkmasses,” [arXiv:2406.19194 [hep-lat]]

    arXiv

  21. [26]

    Approaching the Chiral Limit in QCD,

    J. Gasser and A. Zepeda, “Approaching the Chiral Limit in QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B174(1980), 445

    1980

  22. [27]

    HANDBOOK OF PION NUCLEON SCATTERING,

    G. Höhler, F. Kaiser, R. Koch and E. Pietarinen, “HANDBOOK OF PION NUCLEON SCATTERING,” Phys. Daten12N1 (1979), 1

    1979

  23. [28]

    Jacobo Ruiz de Elvira,these proceedings

  24. [29]

    Chiral dynamics and the low-energy kaon - nucleon interaction,

    N. Kaiser, P. B. Siegel and W. Weise, “Chiral dynamics and the low-energy kaon - nucleon interaction,” Nucl. Phys. A594(1995), 325-345 11 Chiral dynamics: Quo vadis ? Ulf-G. Meißner

    1995

  25. [30]

    Unitarization Technics in Hadron Physics with Historical Remarks,

    J. A. Oller, “Unitarization Technics in Hadron Physics with Historical Remarks,” Symmetry 12 (2020) no.7, 1114

    2020

  26. [31]

    Roy–Steiner-equationanalysis of pion–nucleon scattering,

    M.Hoferichter,J.RuizdeElvira,B.KubisandU.-G.Meißner,“Roy–Steiner-equationanalysis of pion–nucleon scattering,” Phys. Rept.625 (2016), 1-88

    2016

  27. [32]

    Ontheroleofisospinviolation in the pion–nucleon𝜎-term,

    M.Hoferichter, J.R.deElvira, B.KubisandU.-G.Meißner, “Ontheroleofisospinviolation in the pion–nucleon𝜎-term,” Phys. Lett. B843(2023), 138001

    2023

  28. [33]

    Nucleon resonance parameters from Roy–Steiner equations,

    M. Hoferichter, J. R. de Elvira, B. Kubis and U.-G. Meißner, “Nucleon resonance parameters from Roy–Steiner equations,” Phys. Lett. B853 (2024), 138698

    2024

  29. [34]

    Review of theΛ(1405) A curious case of a strangeness resonance,

    M. Mai, “Review of theΛ(1405) A curious case of a strangeness resonance,” Eur. Phys. J. ST 230 (2021) no.6, 1593-1607

    2021

  30. [35]

    QCD and the strange baryon spectrum,

    T. Hyodo and M. Niiyama, “QCD and the strange baryon spectrum,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120 (2021), 103868

    2021

  31. [36]

    Lisheng Geng,these proceedings

  32. [38]

    Chiral dynamics of the two Lambda(1405) states,

    D. Jido, J. A. Oller, E. Oset, A. Ramos and U.-G. Meißner, “Chiral dynamics of the two Lambda(1405) states,” Nucl. Phys. A725 (2003), 181-200

    2003

  33. [39]

    Two-polestructuresinQCD:Facts,notfantasy!,

    U.-G.Meißner,“Two-polestructuresinQCD:Facts,notfantasy!,”Symmetry 12(2020)no.6, 981

    2020

  34. [40]

    On the Interaction of Elementary Particles I,

    H. Yukawa, “On the Interaction of Elementary Particles I,” Proc. Phys. Math. Soc. Jap.17 (1935), 48-57

    1935

  35. [41]

    Observations on the Tracks of Slow Mesons in Photographic Emulsions. 1,

    C. M. G. Lattes, G. P. S. Occhialini and C. F. Powell, “Observations on the Tracks of Slow Mesons in Photographic Emulsions. 1,” Nature160 (1947), 453-456

    1947

  36. [42]

    Meson exchange effects in n + p —> d + gamma,

    D. O. Riska and G. E. Brown, “Meson exchange effects in n + p —> d + gamma,” Phys. Lett. B 38(1972), 193-195

    1972

  37. [43]

    T. S. Park, D. P. Min and M. Rho, “Chiral dynamics and heavy fermion formalism in nuclei

  38. [44]

    Rept.233 (1993), 341-395

    Exchange axial currents,” Phys. Rept.233 (1993), 341-395

    1993

  39. [45]

    Where are the nuclear pions?,

    G. F. Bertsch, L. Frankfurt and M. Strikman, “Where are the nuclear pions?,” Science259 (1993), 773-774

    1993

  40. [46]

    The Two nucleon potential from chiral Lagrangians,

    C. Ordonez, L. Ray and U. van Kolck, “The Two nucleon potential from chiral Lagrangians,” Phys. Rev. C53(1996), 2086-2105

    1996

  41. [47]

    PeripheralNNscattering: Roleofdeltaexcitation, correlated two pion and vector meson exchange,

    N.Kaiser,S.GerstendorferandW.Weise,“PeripheralNNscattering: Roleofdeltaexcitation, correlated two pion and vector meson exchange,” Nucl. Phys. A637 (1998), 395-420

    1998

  42. [48]

    Precisionnucleon-nucleonpotentialatfifthorder in the chiral expansion,

    E.Epelbaum,H.KrebsandU.-G.Meißner,“Precisionnucleon-nucleonpotentialatfifthorder in the chiral expansion,” Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) no.12, 122301

    2015

  43. [49]

    Semilocal momentum-space regularized chiral two- nucleon potentials up to fifth order,

    P. Reinert, H. Krebs and E. Epelbaum, “Semilocal momentum-space regularized chiral two- nucleon potentials up to fifth order,” Eur. Phys. J. A54(2018) no.5, 86

    2018

  44. [50]

    Nuclear Physics Around the Unitarity Limit,

    S. König, H. W. Grießhammer, H. W. Hammer and U. van Kolck, “Nuclear Physics Around the Unitarity Limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118 (2017) no.20, 202501 12 Chiral dynamics: Quo vadis ? Ulf-G. Meißner

    2017

  45. [51]

    Essential elements for nuclear binding,

    B. N. Lu, N. Li, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, E. Epelbaum and U.-G. Meißner, “Essential elements for nuclear binding,” Phys. Lett. B797 (2019), 134863

    2019

  46. [52]

    On the Consequences of the Symmetry of the Nuclear Hamiltonian on the Spectroscopy of Nuclei,

    E. Wigner, “On the Consequences of the Symmetry of the Nuclear Hamiltonian on the Spectroscopy of Nuclei,” Phys. Rev.51(1937), 106-119

    1937

  47. [53]

    Emergentgeometry and duality in the carbon nucleus,

    S.Shen,S.Elhatisari,T.A.Lähde,D.Lee,B.N.LuandU.-G.Meißner,“Emergentgeometry and duality in the carbon nucleus,” Nature Commun.14(2023) no.1, 2777

    2023

  48. [54]

    AbInitioCalculationoftheAlpha-Particle Monopole Transition Form Factor,

    U.-G.Meißner,S.Shen,S.ElhatisariandD.Lee,“AbInitioCalculationoftheAlpha-Particle Monopole Transition Form Factor,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024) no.6, 062501

    2024

  49. [56]

    Wavefunction matching for solving quantum many-body problems,

    S. Elhatisari, et al. “Wavefunction matching for solving quantum many-body problems,” Nature630 (2024) no.8015, 59-63

    2024

  50. [57]

    Ab initio study of the beryllium isotopes 7Be to12Be,

    S. Shen, S. Elhatisari, D. Lee, U.-G. Meißner and Z. Ren, “Ab initio study of the beryllium isotopes 7Be to12Be,” [arXiv:2411.14935 [nucl-th]]

    arXiv

  51. [58]

    The Cosmological constants,

    P. A. M. Dirac, “The Cosmological constants,” Nature139 (1937), 323

    1937

  52. [59]

    The degree of fine-tuning in our universe — and others,

    F. C. Adams, “The degree of fine-tuning in our universe — and others,” Phys. Rept.807 (2019), 1-111

    2019

  53. [60]

    Fundamentalconstants: frommeasurementtotheuniverse, awindowongravita- tion and cosmology,

    J.P.Uzan, “Fundamentalconstants: frommeasurementtotheuniverse, awindowongravita- tion and cosmology,” [arXiv:2410.07281 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  54. [61]

    Helen Meyer,these proceedings

  55. [63]

    Improved constraints on the variation of the weak scale from Big Bang nucleosynthesis,

    H. Meyer and U.-G. Meißner, “Improved constraints on the variation of the weak scale from Big Bang nucleosynthesis,” JHEP06(2024), 074 [Erratum: JHEP01 (2025), 033]

    2024

  56. [64]

    Onthemassdifferencebetweenprotonandneutron,

    J.Gasser,H.LeutwylerandA.Rusetsky,“Onthemassdifferencebetweenprotonandneutron,” Phys. Lett. B814 (2021), 136087

    2021

  57. [65]

    Low-energytheoremsfornucleon-nucleon scattering at unphysical pion masses,

    V.Baru,E.Epelbaum,A.A.FilinandJ.Gegelia,“Low-energytheoremsfornucleon-nucleon scattering at unphysical pion masses,” Phys. Rev. C92(2015) no.1, 014001

    2015

  58. [66]

    Low-energy theorems for nucleon-nucleon scattering at𝑀𝜋 = 450 MeV,

    V. Baru, E. Epelbaum and A. A. Filin, “Low-energy theorems for nucleon-nucleon scattering at𝑀𝜋 = 450 MeV,” Phys. Rev. C94 (2016) no.1, 014001

    2016

  59. [67]

    Constraints on variation of the weak scale from big bang nucleosynthesis,

    A. K. Burns, V. Keus, M. Sher and T. M. P. Tait, “Constraints on variation of the weak scale from big bang nucleosynthesis,” Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) no.12, 123506

    2024

  60. [68]

    Andrii Maltsev,these proceedings

  61. [69]

    Bai-Hoid Long,these proceedings

  62. [70]

    Pion–Nucleon Sigma Term from Lattice QCD,

    R.Gupta,S.Park,M.Hoferichter,E.Mereghetti,B.YoonandT.Bhattacharya,“Pion–Nucleon Sigma Term from Lattice QCD,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127 (2021) no.24, 24

    2021

  63. [71]

    Can the two-pole structure of the𝐷∗ 0(2300) be understood from recent lattice data?,

    A. Asokan, M. N. Tang, F. K. Guo, C. Hanhart, Y. Kamiya and U.-G. Meißner, “Can the two-pole structure of the𝐷∗ 0(2300) be understood from recent lattice data?,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83(2023) no.9, 850

    2023

  64. [72]

    Pions and Nuclei,

    T. E. O. Ericson and W. Weise, “Pions and Nuclei,” Clarendon Press, 1988. 13 Chiral dynamics: Quo vadis ? Ulf-G. Meißner

    1988

  65. [73]

    Precision calculation of n p —> d gamma cross-section for big bang nucleosyn- thesis,

    G. Rupak, “Precision calculation of n p —> d gamma cross-section for big bang nucleosyn- thesis,” Nucl. Phys. A678(2000), 405-423

    2000

  66. [74]

    The Three-Boson System at Next-To-Next-To-Leading Order,

    L. Platter and D. R. Phillips, “The Three-Boson System at Next-To-Next-To-Leading Order,” Few Body Syst.40(2006), 35-55

    2006

  67. [75]

    Theoretical evaluation of solar proton-proton fusion reaction rate and its uncertainties,

    H. De-Leon and D. Gazit, “Theoretical evaluation of solar proton-proton fusion reaction rate and its uncertainties,” Phys. Lett. B844 (2023), 138093 14

    2023

Pith tools

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