Monopoles, Dirac Strings and Generalised Symmetries

C M Hull

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Monopoles, Dirac Strings and Generalised Symmetries

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dirac's magnetic-monopole formalism is shown to be Maxwell theory with 1-form shift symmetries gauged by the Dirac string currents, making the Dirac veto an anomaly-vanishing condition.

desk verdict A genuine and checkable reformulation: Dirac strings as 2-form gauge fields and the Dirac veto as anomaly cancellation, with the dyonic generalization carrying an acknowledged but unresolved delta-function regularization gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18741 v3 pith:IUTMRXWA submitted 2024-11-27 hep-th

C M Hull This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-th PACS 11.15.-q14.80.Hv11.30.-j

keywords magneticmonopolesDiracstringsgeneralizedsymmetries1-formmixedanomalyvetop-formgaugefieldsinflow

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 Dirac's 1948 formulation of magnetic monopoles is exactly Maxwell theory in which the electric and magnetic 1-form shift symmetries have been gauged by 2-form gauge fields built from the Dirac string currents. The action, field equations, and Dirac veto all emerge from this identification, so the freedom to move a Dirac string becomes a local 1-form gauge symmetry and the veto becomes the condition that the mixed anomaly of the electric and magnetic 1-form symmetries vanishes. A sympathetic reader should care because this turns a historically awkward construction with singular strings into an ordinary generalized-symmetry theory, and because the anomaly viewpoint suggests concrete ways to remove the veto by embedding the theory in higher dimensions. The same structure is extended to p-form gauge fields in d dimensions coupled to charged branes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of 2-form gauge fields $B = -\ast \tilde{J}$ and $\tilde{B} = -\ast J$ formed from the Dirac string currents, with field strengths $H = dB = \ast \tilde{j}$ and $\tilde{H} = d\tilde{B} = \ast j$. Together with $F = dA - B$, these convert Dirac's action into the gauged Maxwell action whose variation under $\delta A = \lambda$ is $\delta S = -\int \lambda \wedge \tilde{H}$. The anomaly cancellation condition $\int \lambda \wedge \tilde{H} = 0$ is what enforces the Dirac veto for the parameters that move the strings, and the paper shows this condition is preserved by the generalized symmetries.

What would settle it

Regularize the delta-function currents with a smooth smearing (for example Gaussians of width $\varepsilon$) and compute $\tilde{J} \wedge j$ for a charged-particle worldline tangent to a Dirac string worldsheet, then take $\varepsilon \to 0$. A nonzero or scheme-dependent limit would falsify the claim that the Dirac veto follows from a consistent regularization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Dirac's action equals the gauged Maxwell action (2.9) when one identifies the 2-form gauge fields as $B = -\ast \tilde{J}$ and $\tilde{B} = -\ast J$, where $J$ and $\tilde{J}$ are the 2-form current densities of the electric and magnetic Dirac strings. In this identification the field strength is $F = dA - B$, the transformations $\delta A = \lambda$, $\delta B = d\lambda$ (and their magnetic duals) are the local 1-form shift symmetries, and the action changes by $\delta S = -\int \lambda \wedge \tilde{H}$ under the electric shift. Requiring this variation to vanish for string-deformation parameters is exactly the Dirac veto $\tilde{J} \wedge j = 0$, so the veto is not an extra condition but the statement that the mixed anomaly of the two 1-form symmetries is absent. The paper presents this as an equivalence, not an analogy, and derives the same correspondence for p-form gauge fields, for non-linear Born-Infeld type actions, and in a global formulation using a connection on a $U(1)$ bundle over the monopole-free region.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that products of delta-function currents, such as $\tilde{J} \wedge j$, vanish when an electrically charged particle worldline is tangent to a Dirac string worldsheet, relying on a regularization that is not specified; if that regularized product does not vanish, the derivation of the Dirac veto and the action's invariance under string deformations fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Dirac's theory becomes a concrete example of a gauged generalized symmetry, so the interpretation of the string currents as 2-form gauge fields applies to the standard tools of generalized symmetries.
The Dirac veto is derived rather than imposed: it is the vanishing of the mixed-anomaly variation for parameters that move the strings.
In the quantum theory the action is multivalued but $\exp(iS/\hbar)$ is single-valued under Dirac quantization, and string deformations that cross worldlines are symmetries modulo $2\pi\hbar$.
For p-form gauge fields in d dimensions, the same argument gives a veto between electric $p-1$-branes and magnetic $d-p-3$-branes.
Coupling the 4d theory to a 5d bulk with the topological term $\int_N B \wedge d\tilde{B}$, or embedding on a brane in a higher-dimensional string theory, cancels the anomaly and formally removes the veto.

Reading between the lines

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

If the equivalence is exact, then in the path integral one could try integrating over the positions of Dirac strings, which amounts to summing over the 2-form gauge fields $B$ and $\tilde{B}$; the paper leaves this sum undefined, so testing whether a well-defined measure exists would probe the quantum content of the claim.
The anomaly-inflow construction suggests concrete brane realizations where the veto is automatic; one could look for configurations in which fundamental strings and D-strings ending on a 3-brane reproduce the formal 5-dimensional coupling $\int j' \wedge \tilde{J}'$.
A natural testable extension is to replace the unspecified delta-function regularization with a specific physical cutoff and check whether the Dirac veto survives for tangential intersections; this would also clarify whether the veto is scheme-dependent.
The generalized-symmetry reformulation may offer a route to the non-local Lagrangian quantum theories of electric and magnetic charges by treating the string currents as dynamical fields, an avenue the paper mentions but does not develop.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear Colleague,

Read this one. It is the rare paper that puts a 76-year-old formalism into the modern generalized-symmetry language without losing the physics. Hull's central identification is explicit: take B = -∗J̃ and H = dB = ∗j̃; Dirac's F = dA + ∗J̃ becomes F = dA - B, and Dirac's action turns into the gauged Maxwell action (2.9), up to a boundary term. That is a real result—the cited literature doesn't appear to contain it, and the algebra can be checked line by line. For the original Dirac setup, where each particle carries either electric or magnetic charge but not both, the argument holds and the Dirac veto is exactly the condition that the mixed anomaly vanishes. That alone is worth publishing.

What else is good: the paper gives a clean account of deformations of Dirac strings as symmetries, extends the idea to p-form gauge fields and charged branes, and suggests anomaly inflow from a higher-dimensional bulk as a way to evade the veto. The Wu-Yang comparison is careful, and the citation pattern is sensible (Dirac, Deser-Gomberoff-Henneaux-Teitelboim, Gaiotto et al., standard reviews; the self-citations are to related work, not padding).

The soft spot is the one the stress test flags. The dyonic case needs J̃_i ∧ j_i = 0, but since C_i is the boundary of D_i, the product of the two delta-function currents lives on C_i and is regularization-dependent. Hull assumes a regulator that makes it vanish, citing [2,3], but gives no prescription. A symmetric point-splitting typically gives a nonzero boundary term. If that term survives, the dyon equation (4.7) gets a singular self-force and the anomaly condition (6.5) for i=j no longer follows from the veto. This is a genuine gap, and it affects the advertised dyonic and generalized p-form sections. It is not load-bearing for the non-dyonic equivalence; that claim survives. The paper does acknowledge the assumption, so it's an open technical issue rather than a hidden contradiction.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. I'd send it to JHEP and ask the referee to either supply a regularization argument for the dyonic self-terms or soften those claims. The central result is solid and useful.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reinterprets Dirac's 1948 theory of magnetic monopoles in the language of generalised (higher-form) symmetries. The singular 2-form current \tilde J supported on Dirac string worldsheets is identified with a 2-form gauge field B = -*\tilde J, so that the field strength F = dA + *\tilde J becomes F = dA - B. The Dirac action is then shown, up to a surface term, to coincide with the action obtained by gauging the electric 1-form symmetry of Maxwell theory, and the mixed anomaly between electric and magnetic 1-form symmetries is identified with the obstruction to deforming the Dirac strings. The Dirac veto — that Dirac strings must not intersect electric worldlines — is shown to be exactly the condition for this anomaly to vanish for the restricted set of gauge transformations. The analysis is extended to dyonic particles, to p-form gauge fields in general dimensions, and to a higher-dimensional anomaly-inflow mechanism; a relation to the Wu-Yang bundle formalism is also discussed.

Significance. If the central equivalence holds, the paper provides a clean and instructive bridge between a classical monopole formalism and the modern generalised-symmetry framework. The algebraic identification in Section 7 is explicit and elegant, and the author is careful about the role of surface terms and boundary conditions. A notable strength is that the core claim for the original Dirac case, where each particle carries either electric or magnetic charge, does not require any product of singular currents: the Dirac veto makes the supports disjoint, so the derivation is robust. This portion of the paper is convincing. However, the dyonic and p-form extensions rest on an unproven regularisation assumption for products of delta-function currents, which the paper states but does not justify; this prevents the broader claims from being fully established as written.

major comments (2)

[Section 4, eqs. (4.18)-(4.24); Section 6, eq. (6.5)] The treatment of dyons requires the self-term \tilde J_i \wedge j_i to vanish. The paper states that the delta functions are "regularised in such a way that \tilde J_i \wedge j_i = 0 for each i" but gives no explicit prescription and no proof. This condition is load-bearing: it is used to derive the Lorentz-force equation (4.7) and to conclude that the action is independent of the Dirac string positions (4.24). A symmetric point-splitting regularisation typically produces a nonzero boundary term proportional to the endpoint value, so the assumption cannot be taken for granted. The authors should either supply an explicit regularisation and demonstrate the vanishing, or restrict the dyonic claims to the case q_i p_i = 0 and present the general dyonic case as conjectural.
[Section 8.2, eqs. (8.3)-(8.10)] The quantum invariance condition (8.5) contains integrals \int \delta C_i \wedge \delta E_j. For i = j, C_j is a boundary component of E_j, so the intersection is non-transverse and the integral is a self-intersection that requires regularisation. The paper asserts without argument that this vanishes. This is the same delta-function product issue as in Section 4, and it underlies the claim that Wilson and 't Hooft lines are preserved by the generalised symmetries in the dyonic case. Please provide a detailed regularisation prescription or state clearly that the dyonic quantum-symmetry analysis is incomplete.

minor comments (3)

[Section 1, plan of the paper] The introduction states that "In section 9 the discussion of Maxwell theory is generalised to a p-form gauge field in d dimensions", but the actual p-form generalisation appears in Section 10; Section 9 is about anomaly inflow. Please correct the cross-reference.
[Section 1 and Section 9] There are several typographical errors, including "emebedded" in Section 1, "homotpy" in Section 5, and "Consder" in Section 9. A careful proofread would remove these.
[Section 7, eqs. (7.5)-(7.6)] The equality with the gauged Maxwell action is stated "up to a surface term". Since Dirac strings extend to infinity, it would be helpful to state explicitly the boundary conditions under which this surface term vanishes, so that the word "precisely" in the following sentence is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Dirac-to-gauged-Maxwell equivalence is an explicit algebraic identification, not an input fitted or renamed.

full rationale

The central claim (Sections 1, 4, and 7) is that Dirac's action with F = dA + *J~ is exactly the gauged Maxwell action of Section 2 after the identification B = -*J~ and H = dB = *j. This is a direct manipulation: equation (7.3) rewrites F = dA + *J~ as F = dA - B, and (7.4)-(7.6) rewrite the coupling -A ∧ *j as dA ∧ B up to a surface term, giving precisely the action (2.9) obtained by gauging the 1-form symmetry. Neither side is fitted to the other; both the Dirac action and the general gauged-Maxwell action are defined independently before the identification. The invariance under Dirac-string deformations is likewise derived: a deformation changes J~ by δJ~ = d†ρ with λ = *ρ, so the action changes by δS = ∫ λ ∧ *j, and the Dirac veto is the condition that this vanishes. The identification of the veto with a non-anomalous subgroup of the 1-form symmetry is a consequence of this computation rather than a restatement. The only manuscript-flagged limitation is the regularization assumption for products of delta-function currents in the dyonic case: Section 4 states that 'it will be assumed that the delta-functions are regularised in such a way that J~_i ∧ j_i = 0 for each i, as in [2,3]', and Section 6 makes the analogous assumption for δE_i ∧ δC_i. This is a genuine physical/mathematical assumption that may fail for dyons, but it is not circular: it is an extra regularity input, and the non-dyonic Dirac case, which is the core of the paper, has no diagonal terms because each particle carries only electric or only magnetic charge. The self-citations (refs. [18], [19], [23]) are background tools: the Noether-charge construction in Section 2.2 is verified explicitly in the canonical formalism in the text, and the self-dual actions in Section 11 are cited as prior constructions rather than as evidence for the central equivalence. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the author's previous work to make the choice of B = -*J~ forced. The paper is therefore self-contained in its main derivation and receives circularity score 0.

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

The central claim is a mathematical equivalence and depends on standard differential geometry of currents, the conservation and localization of the sources, and a specific regularization of products of delta-function currents. There are no free parameters and no new entities; the 2-form gauge fields B, B~ are identified with the Hodge duals of the string currents, not introduced independently.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Currents j, j~ are conserved off-shell (d†j = d†j~ = 0), allowing them to be written as divergences of 2-form currents via d†J~ = j~, d†J = j.
Dirac's model treats particle worldlines as infinite or closed, giving conservation; used throughout, e.g., eq. (1.3) in the introduction and section 3.
ad hoc to paper Products of delta-function currents can be regularized by smooth bump functions, and tangential intersections (e.g., C_i tangent to D_i) give zero.
Needed for eq. (4.18) and (6.5) to vanish for i=j; the paper states 'it will be assumed that the delta-functions are regularised in such a way that J~_i ∧ j_i = 0' in Section 4, and similar in Section 6.
standard math Standard differential geometry: de Rham currents, Poincaré duality, and Stokes theorem hold for singular forms.
Used throughout, e.g., eq. (3.14) δ∂P = d†δP in Section 3, and in the identification of currents with gauge fields in Section 7.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Monopoles, Dirac Strings and Generalised Symmetries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUTMRXWA

@misc{pith2026241118741,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Monopoles, Dirac Strings and Generalised Symmetries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUTMRXWA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18741}
}

abstract

Dirac's formulation of magnetic monopoles is shown to be equivalent to Maxwell theory coupled to 2-form gauge fields so that it has a local 1-form symmetry, with the 2-form gauge fields given in terms of the 2-form current densities associated with the Dirac strings. The field equations of Dirac's theory do not depend on the positions of the Dirac strings provided that they do not intersect the worldlines of any electrically charged particles; this constraint is called the Dirac veto. It is shown that Dirac's action is independent of the positions of the Dirac strings and that this corresponds a local 1-form symmetry. The electric and magnetic 1-form symmetries have a mixed anomaly, and the Dirac veto is shown to correspond to a restriction to gauge transformations for which the anomaly vanishes. The extension to $p$-form gauge fields in d-dimensions coupled to charged branes is discussed, together with the possibility of cancelling the anomaly by embedding in a higher-dimensional theory and so avoiding the veto.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

't Hooft loops in N=4 super-Yang-Mills
hep-th 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A new perturbative framework for 't Hooft lines reproduces localization results for chiral primaries and yields a resummed Wilson-'t Hooft potential that matches holography.
Coupling Self-Dual p-Form Gauge Fields to Self-Dual Branes
hep-th 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Self-dual p-form gauge fields in d=4k+2 dimensions can be coupled to self-dual branes via Dirac branes, with the action invariant under Dirac brane deformations subject to the Dirac veto.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

The Theory of magnetic poles,

P. A. M. Dirac, “The Theory of magnetic poles,” Phys. Rev. 74 (1948), 817-830 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.817

doi:10.1103/physrev.74.817 1948
[2]

P-bran e dyons and electric magnetic duality,

S. Deser, A. Gomberoﬀ, M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “P-bran e dyons and electric magnetic duality,” Nucl. Phys. B 520 (1998), 179-204 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00179-5 [arXiv:hep-th/9712189 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1998
[3]

Duality, selfduality, sources and charge quantization in Abelian N form theories,

S. Deser, A. Gomberoﬀ, M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “Duality, selfduality, sources and charge quantization in Abelian N form theories,” Phys. Lett. B 400 (1997), 80-86 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00338-9 [arXiv:hep-th/9702184 [hep -th]]

arXiv 1997
[4]

The Quantum Field Theory of Ele ctric and Magnetic Charge,

M. Blagojevic and P. Senjanovic, “The Quantum Field Theory of Ele ctric and Magnetic Charge,” Phys. Rept. 157 (1988), 233 doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90098-1

doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90098-1 1988
[5]

Dirac’s Monopole Without Strings: Classic al Lagrangian Theory,

T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, “Dirac’s Monopole Without Strings: Classic al Lagrangian Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976), 437-445 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.437

doi:10.1103/physrevd.14.437 1976
[6]

Topological Quantization and Cohomology,

O. Alvarez, “Topological Quantization and Cohomology,” Commun. Math. Phys. 100 (1985), 279 doi:10.1007/BF01212452

work page doi:10.1007/bf01212452 1985
[7]

Diﬀerential manifolds. Forms, Currents, Harmonic Forms

G. de Rham, “Diﬀerential manifolds. Forms, Currents, Harmonic Forms”, Springer-Verlag 1984

work page 1984
[8]

Principles of Algebraic Geometry

P. Griﬃths and J. Harris, “Principles of Algebraic Geometry”, Joh n Wiley 1978

work page 1978

Show all 27 references

[9]

Dirac branes, characteristic cu rrents and anomaly cancellations in ﬁve-branes,

K. Lechner and P. Marchetti, “Dirac branes, characteristic cu rrents and anomaly cancellations in ﬁve-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 102 (2001), 94-99 doi:10.1016/S0920-5632(01)01542-0 [arXiv:hep-th/0103161 [hep -th]]

2001 arXiv
[10]

Cariglia and K

M. Cariglia and K. Lechner, Nucl. Phys. B 700 (2004), 157-182 doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2004.08.023 [arXiv:hep-th/0406083 [hep-th ]]

2004 arXiv
[11]

Dirac branes for Dirichlet branes: Supergravity a ctions,

A. R. Frey, “Dirac branes for Dirichlet branes: Supergravity a ctions,” Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.4, 046017 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.046017 [arXiv:1907.1 2755 [hep-th]]

2020 doi
[12]

Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic ﬁe ld,,

P. A. M. Dirac, “Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic ﬁe ld,,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 133 (1931) no.821, 60-72 doi:10.1098/rspa.1931.0130

1931
[13]

Generalized G lobal Symmetries,

D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg and B. Willett, “Generalized G lobal Symmetries,” JHEP 02 (2015), 172 doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2015)172 [arXiv:1412.5148 [hep-t h]]

2015 arXiv
[14]

Lectures on generalized symmetries,

L. Bhardwaj, L. E. Bottini, L. Fraser-Taliente, L. Gladden, D. S. W. Gould, A. Platschorre and H. Tillim, “Lectures on generalized symmetries,” Phys. Rept. 1051 (2024), 1-87 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.11.002 [arXiv:2307.07547 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[15]

Introduction to Generalized Globa l Symmetries in QFT and Particle Physics,

T. D. Brennan and S. Hong, “Introduction to Generalized Globa l Symmetries in QFT and Particle Physics,” [arXiv:2306.00912 [hep-ph]]

arXiv
[16]

ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible gener alized symmetries,

S. Schafer-Nameki, “ICTP lectures on (non-)invertible gener alized symmetries,” Phys. Rept. 1063 (2024), 1-55 doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2024.01.007 [arXiv:2305.18296 [h ep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[17]

Stability of Gravity with a Cosmologic al Constant,

L. F. Abbott and S. Deser, “Stability of Gravity with a Cosmologic al Constant,” Nucl. Phys. B 195 (1982), 76-96 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(82)90049-9 – 30 –

1982 doi
[18]

Magnetic charges for the graviton,

C. M. Hull, “Magnetic charges for the graviton,” JHEP 05 (2024), 257 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2024)257 [arXiv:2310.18441 [hep-th]]

2024 arXiv
[19]

Generalised symmetries in linear gravity,

C. Hull, M. L. Hutt and U. Lindstr¨ om, “Generalised symmetries in linear gravity,” [arXiv:2409.00178 [hep-th]]

arXiv
[20]

On Lorentz invariant actio ns for chiral p forms,

P. Pasti, D. P. Sorokin and M. Tonin, “On Lorentz invariant actio ns for chiral p forms,” Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997), 6292-6298 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.55.6292 [arXiv:hep-th/9 611100 [hep-th]]

1997 doi
[21]

Covariant Action for Type IIB Supergravity,

A. Sen, “Covariant Action for Type IIB Supergravity,” JHEP 07 (2016), 017 doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2016)017 [arXiv:1511.08220 [hep-th]]

2016 arXiv
[22]

Self-dual forms: Action, Hamiltonian and Compactiﬁca tion,

A. Sen, “Self-dual forms: Action, Hamiltonian and Compactiﬁca tion,” J. Phys. A 53 (2020) no.8, 084002 doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ab5423 [arXiv:1903.12196 [hep -th]]

2020 arXiv
[23]

Covariant action for self-dual p-form gauge ﬁelds in general spacetimes,

C. M. Hull, “Covariant action for self-dual p-form gauge ﬁelds in general spacetimes,” JHEP 04 (2024), 011 doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2024)011 [arXiv:2307.04748 [hep- th]]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Nonlinear (chiral) p- form electrodynamics,

Z. Avetisyan, O. Evnin and K. Mkrtchyan, “Nonlinear (chiral) p- form electrodynamics,” JHEP 08 (2022), 112 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)112 [arXiv:2205.02522 [hep- th]]

2022 arXiv
[25]

Three approaches to chiral form interactions,

O. Evnin and K. Mkrtchyan, “Three approaches to chiral form interactions,” Diﬀer. Geom. Appl. 89 (2023), 102016 doi:10.1016/j.difgeo.2023.102016 [arXiv:2207.01767 [hep-th]]

2023
[26]

Magnetic charge and quantum ﬁeld theory,

J. S. Schwinger, “Magnetic charge and quantum ﬁeld theory,” P hys. Rev. 144 (1966), 1087-1093 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.144.1087

1966 doi
[27]

Local Lagrangian quantum ﬁeld theory of elect ric and magnetic charges,

D. Zwanziger, “Local Lagrangian quantum ﬁeld theory of elect ric and magnetic charges,” Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971), 880 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.3.880 – 31 –

1971 doi

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

The Theory of magnetic poles,

P. A. M. Dirac, “The Theory of magnetic poles,” Phys. Rev. 74 (1948), 817-830 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.74.817

doi:10.1103/physrev.74.817 1948

[2] [2]

P-bran e dyons and electric magnetic duality,

S. Deser, A. Gomberoﬀ, M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “P-bran e dyons and electric magnetic duality,” Nucl. Phys. B 520 (1998), 179-204 doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(98)00179-5 [arXiv:hep-th/9712189 [hep-th]]

arXiv 1998

[3] [3]

Duality, selfduality, sources and charge quantization in Abelian N form theories,

S. Deser, A. Gomberoﬀ, M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “Duality, selfduality, sources and charge quantization in Abelian N form theories,” Phys. Lett. B 400 (1997), 80-86 doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(97)00338-9 [arXiv:hep-th/9702184 [hep -th]]

arXiv 1997

[4] [4]

The Quantum Field Theory of Ele ctric and Magnetic Charge,

M. Blagojevic and P. Senjanovic, “The Quantum Field Theory of Ele ctric and Magnetic Charge,” Phys. Rept. 157 (1988), 233 doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90098-1

doi:10.1016/0370-1573(88)90098-1 1988

[5] [5]

Dirac’s Monopole Without Strings: Classic al Lagrangian Theory,

T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, “Dirac’s Monopole Without Strings: Classic al Lagrangian Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976), 437-445 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.437

doi:10.1103/physrevd.14.437 1976

[6] [6]

Topological Quantization and Cohomology,

O. Alvarez, “Topological Quantization and Cohomology,” Commun. Math. Phys. 100 (1985), 279 doi:10.1007/BF01212452

work page doi:10.1007/bf01212452 1985

[7] [7]

Diﬀerential manifolds. Forms, Currents, Harmonic Forms

G. de Rham, “Diﬀerential manifolds. Forms, Currents, Harmonic Forms”, Springer-Verlag 1984

work page 1984

[8] [8]

Principles of Algebraic Geometry

P. Griﬃths and J. Harris, “Principles of Algebraic Geometry”, Joh n Wiley 1978

work page 1978