Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Modeling Confinement in Analogy with Black Holes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 At one loop, QCD and the black hole interior share the same double-well soliton action, and the paper concludes that QCD confines because it has a causal horizon.

desk verdict The central equivalence between QCD and black-hole actions fails because Eq. (34) is not derivable from the stated transformations; the analogy is interesting but unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01521 v2 pith:KMNIKG7O submitted 2024-12-02 hep-th gr-qc

J. Gamboa This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords confinementblackholeinteriorCarrollfieldtheoryinstantonseffectiveactionKantowski-SachsmetricQCDsolitons
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 proposes that quark confinement in QCD and the trapping of matter inside a black hole are two faces of the same effective dynamics. Working at one loop, the author derives the QCD action under instanton dominance and the action for a black hole interior in a Carrollian time-only limit, and finds both reduce to the same double-well scalar soliton action $S = \frac{1}{\lambda} \int d\tau \left[ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d\varphi}{d\tau}\right)^2 + \frac{1}{4}(\varphi^2 - 1)^2 \right]$. If the match holds, the hadron radius acts as an effective horizon and confinement is a causal-horizon effect rather than an accident of the strong coupling. The paper is explicit that the analogy is formal, since a hadron is not a black hole, but it yields a concrete relation between the cosmological constant and the Yang-Mills coupling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the common one-loop effective action $S = \frac{1}{\lambda} \int d\tau \left[ \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d\varphi}{d\tau}\right)^2 + \frac{1}{4}(\varphi^2 - 1)^2 \right]$, a double-well scalar soliton action in the Carrollian limit where only time derivatives survive. On the QCD side, it is reached through the Diakonov ansatz (14), which maps self-dual SU(2) instantons to the scalar $\varphi$, with the instanton scale $\rho$ interpreted as $\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}^{-1}$. On the black hole side, it is reached through the Kantowski-Sachs metric (28), the reduction to fields $\psi_1, \psi_2$ with one negative kinetic mode, and the auxiliary-field truncation $\psi_1 = 0$ that leaves a single soliton field $\psi_2$. The matching of the two actions is what carries the argument: it converts a gravitational trapping mechanism into a statement about QCD confinement.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop effective action for the Kantowski-Sachs interior without dropping the $\psi_1$ kinetic term; if the resulting potential for $\psi_2$ no longer reduces to (52) under any field rescaling, the matching action (58) and the confinement criterion are falsified. Alternatively, a lattice QCD calculation showing that quark confinement persists in a regime where the Carrollian instanton-dominance description fails would count against the claim that confinement is a horizon effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At one loop, the effective action for QCD in the instanton-dominance limit and the effective action for the interior of a black hole are mathematically identical. The QCD side uses the Diakonov potential ansatz to map self-dual SU(2) Yang-Mills instantons onto a real scalar field with a quartic self-interaction, giving action (26). The black hole side starts from the Kantowski-Sachs metric, rewrites the interior as two Carrollian scalar fields, integrates out matter, and then drops the kinetic term of the negative-energy mode $\psi_1$, treating it as an auxiliary field; on the $\psi_1 = 0$ branch the remaining field $\psi_2$ obeys the same double-well action (58) after rescaling. The paper concludes that QCD confines because it has a causal horizon, just as a black hole does, with $\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}^{-1}$ playing the role of the horizon radius, and derives relation (59) connecting the cosmological constant to the gauge coupling.

Load-bearing premise

On the black hole side, the negative-kinetic-energy mode $\psi_1$ must be frozen as an auxiliary field, with its kinetic term dropped because energy is conserved, and only the $\psi_1 = 0$ branch kept, with no controlled limit stated for this reduction; the matching action (58) and therefore the QCD-black hole correspondence collapse if that step fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the equivalence is correct, the QCD vacuum in the instanton-dominance regime is described by a Carrollian scalar soliton, and confinement is a topological and horizon effect rather than a purely dynamical one.
  • The hadron radius becomes an effective event horizon: quarks cannot escape because the region beyond $\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}^{-1}$ is causally inaccessible in the same sense as the interior of a black hole.
  • The same one-loop dynamics implies that the theory inside a black hole is asymptotically free, since the beta function is $\beta(M) = M \frac{\partial \lambda_2^2}{\partial M} = -\frac{1}{2} \lambda_2^2(M)$.
  • Higher-order corrections of order $\psi_2^6$ do not destabilize the soliton; they only produce small transient effects that the paper identifies with deconfinement signals such as jet quenching, and with a partial mechanism for black hole information release.
  • Relation (59) predicts a concrete numerical link between the cosmological constant, the Yang-Mills coupling, and a UV mass scale, which could be checked against observation if the correspondence is taken quantitatively.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The author leaves implicit that the auxiliary-field truncation $\psi_1 = 0$ is itself a physical choice; a natural extension is to relax it and see whether the matching action survives when the negative mode is kept dynamical.
  • A concrete test would be to compute the two-loop effective potential in this model: the paper predicts that higher-order corrections are controlled by $\sqrt{|\Lambda|}/M$, so a two-loop result that changes the shape of (52) would sharpen or invalidate the correspondence.
  • If the correspondence is interpreted numerically rather than formally, relation (59) predicts a specific hierarchy between the cosmological constant, the QCD scale, and a UV mass; comparing that product with observed cosmological and hadronic scales would test whether the analogy has quantitative teeth.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a correspondence between the one-loop effective action of instanton-dominated QCD and the effective action of the interior of a black hole described by the Kantowski-Sachs metric. Both are claimed to reduce to the same Carrollian scalar-field soliton action S = (1/lambda) int dtau [1/2 phidot^2 + 1/4(phi^2 - 1)^2]. From this identity the paper concludes that QCD confines because it has a causal horizon, just like a black hole, and it proposes a relation between the cosmological constant and the Yang-Mills coupling in Eq. (59). The paper is transparent about the formal nature of the analogy, but the central derivation is not sound: the black-hole Lagrangian is not reduced correctly, the auxiliary-field treatment of the negative-kinetic mode is uncontrolled, and the advertised relation (59) is a restatement of the matching condition rather than a prediction.

Significance. If the claimed equivalence were correct, it would be a strikingly simple formal explanation of confinement and would connect hadron radius, Lambda_QCD, and the cosmological constant in a new way. The manuscript attempts explicit computations and is honest about their heuristic status. However, the central mathematical identity is not established. The transformation leading to Eq. (34) is algebraically inconsistent, the reduction of psi_1 to an auxiliary field is explicitly acknowledged in footnote 4 as uninvestigated, and Eq. (59) does not follow from the matching condition. These are load-bearing failures, not presentational issues. The paper therefore does not currently support its main claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.A, Eqs. (30)-(34)] Starting from L=(cdot bdot)/N+N(Lambda b^2 - 1), the transformation (31), c=(phi1+phi2)/sqrt(2), b=(phi1-phi2)/sqrt(2), gives cdot bdot = (1/2)(phidot1^2 - phidot2^2) and b^2 = (1/2)(phi1-phi2)^2, so L = (1/(2N))(phidot1^2 - phidot2^2) + N(Lambda(phi1-phi2)^2/2 - 1), which is not Eq. (32): the signs of the two kinetic terms are reversed, and both the kinetic coefficient and the potential normalization differ. The second substitution (33) simply returns to the original variables psi1=c, psi2=b, so Eq. (34) cannot be obtained from the Kantowski-Sachs action by the changes of variables written in the paper. Since Eq. (34) is the starting point for the one-loop action (47), the auxiliary-field treatment, and the matching action (58), the claimed identity with the QCD action (26) is not established.
  2. [Section IV.D] The treatment of the negative-kinetic mode psi1 as an auxiliary field is unjustified. Neglecting the kinetic energy because energy is conserved is not a controlled approximation: no large-mass, strong-coupling, or near-isotropy limit is specified, and the manuscript itself states in footnote 4 that the relevant limit has not been investigated. The two solutions (49)-(50) are then used to discard one branch without a physical criterion, and the soliton potential (52) and the matching action (58) both depend on this step. This is a load-bearing assumption rather than a derivation.
  3. [Section V, Eq. (59)] Equation (59) does not follow from the preceding equations. Using Eq. (46), lambda_2^2 = (g_2^2/4)(E_P/M)^2, and Eq. (56), E_P^2 = |Lambda|, the matching condition lambda_2^2 = g^2/(12 pi^2) gives |Lambda|/M^2 = g^2/(3 pi^2 g_2^2) for dimensionless couplings, not the expression |Lambda|/M^2 = (g/g_2)/(3 pi) printed as Eq. (59). More fundamentally, the condition lambda_2^2 = g^2/(12 pi^2) is simply the requirement that the engineered action (58) has the same coefficient as the QCD action (26); Eq. (59) is therefore a restatement of the matching assumption, not an independent physical prediction.
  4. [Section II, Eqs. (22)-(25)] There is also an algebraic inconsistency on the QCD side of the derivation. Eq. (22) contains the term -3h^2, whereas the Euler-Lagrange equation of the Lagrangian (23) is 2hddot - 2h + 3h^2 - h^3 = 0; the two equations differ by the sign of the h^2 term. The shift h -> phi + 1 produces the potential (1/4)(phi^2 - 1)^2 from the Lagrangian (23), but it does not turn Eq. (22) into an equation with that potential. This does not invalidate the standard instanton result, but it means the derivation of Eq. (26) as presented is not correct.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] The cross-references in the Introduction do not match the actual section numbering: 'Section VI' is referred to twice for what later appears as Section VI and Section VII, and 'section VII' is used for the discussion.
  2. [Before Eq. (28)] A stray LaTeX command 'citevile:' appears immediately before the Kantowski-Sachs metric and should be removed.
  3. [Eqs. (12)-(13)] The definitions of the 't Hooft symbols eta and bar-eta are garbled in the text; for example, the displayed identity involving epsilon_abc eta^b_mu nu eta^c_rho sigma is not a valid expression as printed.
  4. [Eqs. (35) and (39)] The notation '1/2N' is ambiguous and should be written as 1/(2N) consistently, as in '1/(2N) chidot^2'.
  5. [Section V] The sentence 'Let us write (23) as' appears to refer to Eq. (52), not Eq. (23), which is the earlier Lagrangian for h.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed QCD–black hole action identity is produced by construction: Eq. (34) is asserted rather than derived from the Kantowski–Sachs action, and Eq. (59) is the coefficient-matching condition of two normalized phi^4 actions, not an independent prediction.

  1. other [Section IV.A, Eqs. (31)-(34)]
    "Returning to a new (and simple) change of variables to diagonalize both the kinetic and potential energy terms simultaneously (renaming variables). psi1 = 1/sqrt(2)(phi1 + phi2), psi2 = 1/sqrt(2)(phi1 - phi2), (33), the Lagrangian becomes L0 = -1/(2N)(psi_dot1^2 - psi_dot2^2) + N(2Lambda psi2^2 - 1). (34)"

    Under the paper's own Eq. (31), c = (phi1+phi2)/sqrt(2) and b = (phi1-phi2)/sqrt(2), so c_dot b_dot = (phi_dot1^2 - phi_dot2^2)/2. Substituting (31) into Eq. (30) gives L = (1/(2N))(phi_dot1^2 - phi_dot2^2) + N(Lambda(phi1-phi2)^2/2 - 1), not Eq. (32) and not Eq. (34). Eq. (33) merely repeats the transformation (31) with psi1 = c, psi2 = b; it cannot diagonalize anything. The QCD-like two-scalar Lagrangian is therefore asserted as the black-hole Lagrangian rather than reduced from the Kantowski-Sachs action. Every later step -- the one-loop effective action (47), the auxiliary-field treatment of psi1, the soliton (52), and the matching action (58) -- inherits this asserted form, so the claimed identity with QCD is imposed by the chosen variables rather than derived.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section V, after Eq. (58), especially Eq. (59)]
    "It is remarkable to note that, by comparing (26) with (58), it is found that the description of QCD and black holes becomes equivalent if lambda2^2 = g^2/12pi^2, implying that |Lambda|/M^2 = 1/(3pi)(g/g2). (59) This is a very remarkable relation because it connects the cosmological constant with the Yang-Mills charge g, providing the link we were seeking to relate black holes with QCD."

    lambda2^2 is a free combination of g2, EP, and M defined in Eq. (46), and the rescaling psi2 = (2kappa/lambda2) psi_bar2 in the lines before Eq. (58) is a field redefinition chosen precisely to put the black-hole effective action into the normalized phi^4 form of the QCD action (26). Eq. (59) is obtained by equating the prefactors of (26) and (58) and then using EP = sqrt(|Lambda|) from Eq. (56). It is thus the matching condition that defines the parameters of the comparison, not a constraint derived independently from either QCD or black-hole physics. The conclusion that QCD confines because it has a causal horizon is therefore the assumed equality of the two normalized actions restated as a result.

full rationale

The QCD side of the paper, Eqs. (14)-(26), is a self-contained rewrite of the Diakonov instanton ansatz into a scalar phi^4 action with coefficient 12pi^2/g^2; this part is not circular, and the citation [8] is not load-bearing because the derivation is displayed in the text. The circularity lies on the black-hole side. The reduction from the Kantowski-Sachs Lagrangian (30) to the diagonal Carrollian two-scalar Lagrangian (34) is not performed: substituting Eq. (31) into Eq. (30) gives a different expression, and Eq. (33) only renames the original variables. Eq. (34) is the point at which the target QCD-like structure is introduced by assertion. The subsequent one-loop computation is algebraically consistent but starts from this asserted action, so the final soliton action (58) has no demonstrated connection to Eq. (30). The paper then compares (58) with (26) and obtains the equivalence condition lambda2^2 = g^2/12pi^2 and the 'remarkable' relation (59); these are just the coefficient-matching conditions of two identical normalized phi^4 actions with arbitrary parameters, not a prediction with external content. Footnote 4 ('I have not investigated this fact so far') and Section VII's remark about 'selecting well-suited variables' are in-scope evidence that the key black-hole reduction is assumed rather than derived. Because the central claim -- the identity of the QCD and black-hole effective actions -- reduces to the imposed variable choice and the parameter matching, a partial circularity score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The correspondence is built from a chain of modeling choices rather than from first-principles QCD. The free parameters are not fitted to external data, but the central relation (59) rewrites the imposed coupling match. The most fragile assumptions are the auxiliary-field treatment of psi_1 and the psi_1 = 0 branch choice, both required to obtain the QCD-like action.

free parameters (5)
  • EP (infrared volume-energy cutoff) = set equal to sqrt(|Lambda|) in Eq. (56); otherwise unspecified
    Introduced through G(0) = EP^3/(2M) in Eq. (42); it is needed to make the tunneling probability finite and to define the couplings in Eq. (46).
  • Lambda (cosmological constant) = negative; magnitude set by the matching relation (59)
    Input of the Einstein-Hilbert action; its sign and size are chosen so that kappa^2 > 0 and so that Eq. (59) holds.
  • g1, g2 (matter couplings) = unspecified
    Couplings of the matter field chi to psi_1 and psi_2 in Eq. (35); they determine the masses m1^2, m2^2 and the quartic couplings lambda_1, lambda_2 in Eqs. (45)-(46).
  • M (mass of chi, used as UV cutoff) = unspecified; assumed large so EP/M << 1
    Mass of the integrated matter field; it sets the scale of the expansion and is identified as the UV cutoff.
  • gamma (coefficient of psi_2^6) = gamma < 0; magnitude unspecified
    Coefficient of the higher-order term in Eq. (63); the negative sign is chosen to produce the claimed destabilization and evaporation.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Self-dual Yang-Mills configurations solve the Yang-Mills equations, and SO(4) decomposes into SU(2) x SU(2).
    Used in Section II to reduce the BPST instanton problem to a scalar field equation via the Diakonov ansatz.
  • domain assumption The Carroll limit maps the scalar theory to a one-dimensional system whose Euclidean action is volume times local action.
    Used in Section II.A-II.B to introduce the infrared cutoff; the volume factor enters the tunneling probability.
  • domain assumption Instantons dominate the QCD vacuum, so fermions only renormalize parameters without changing the topological character.
    Invoked in Section V to justify comparing the instanton-dominated QCD action with the black hole effective action.
  • domain assumption The Kantowski-Sachs metric describes the interior of a black hole with the r-t symmetry.
    Used in Section IV.A to turn the Einstein-Hilbert action into the mechanical Lagrangian (30).
  • ad hoc to paper The kinetic energy of psi_1 can be neglected and psi_1 can be treated as an auxiliary field because energy is conserved.
    Assumed in Section IV.B before Eq. (49); no controlled limit is given, and this step is required to reach the QCD-like action.
  • ad hoc to paper The psi_1 = 0 branch of the auxiliary solution is the physical one; the other branch only redefines parameters.
    Stated in Section IV.D; choosing this branch is necessary to obtain the soliton potential (52).
  • ad hoc to paper The cosmological constant acts as an infrared cutoff: EP = sqrt(|Lambda|).
    Equation (56); attributed to reference [15]. It converts the coupling match into the relation (59).
  • ad hoc to paper The two effective actions are equivalent when lambda_2^2 = g^2/(12 pi^2); matching couplings across the two systems is legitimate.
    Equation (59); this is an imposed identification, not derived from either theory.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Confinement in Analogy with Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KMNIKG7O

@misc{pith2026241201521,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Confinement in Analogy with Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KMNIKG7O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01521}
}
read the original abstract

The confinement of quarks is analyzed by establishing a correspondence between the effective actions inside a black hole and the QCD action, formulated as a scalar field theory in the Carrollian regime. We first demonstrate that both QCD (in the instanton-dominance limit) and the interior of a black hole can be described at one-loop as the effective action of a soliton in the Carrollian limit. At one-loop, QCD confinement is shown to be entirely analogous to confinement within a black hole, with the event horizon acting as the hadron radius. Higher-order corrections to the effective action do not destabilize the solitons but may produce subtle observable effects, such as deconfinement or a partial resolution to the information loss problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01521 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. This caption provides a qualitative description of t [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Effective Lagrangian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We have constructed an effective theory for the interior of black holes, demonstrating that the interior can be viewed as an effective theory describ ing solitons

    work page

  2. [2]

    of SU (2) ×SU (2). The tensorFµν belongs to a reducible representation (1, 0)⊕(0, 1) so that the quantities can represent the conditions of self and anti-self dualitie s Fa L = ηa µν ( Fµν + ˜Fµν ) , (12) Fa R = ¯ηa µν ( Fµν − ˜Fµν ) , (13) whereη and ¯η are the ‘t Hooft symbols for SU (2) which have the following properties: ηaµν = 1 2ǫµνρσ ηaρσ, ¯ηaµν =...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (35) In the gauge N = 1, the equations of motion are as follows: ¨ψ1 = −g1χ2ψ1, (36) ¨ψ2 = 4Λψ2 +g2χ2ψ2 (37) ¨χ = −M 2χ + (g1ψ1 +g2ψ2)χ, (38) besides the constraint ˙ψ2 1 2 − ˙ψ2 2 2 − ˙χ2 2 −M 2 2 χ2 + g1 2Nχ 2ψ2 1 + g2 2Nχ 2ψ2 2 = 0. (39) This is a set of nonlinear differential equations that can be s olved numerically but are written here merely to high...

    work page

  4. [4]

    + γ 4 (g2 1ψ4 1 +g2 2ψ4

    work page

  5. [5]

    (41) where γ is fixed below

    +γg1g2 2 ψ2 1G(0)2ψ2 2 ) + · · · = ψ1 ψ1 + ψ1 ψ1 ψ1ψ1 +... (41) where γ is fixed below. To write the precise form of G(0), we must take into account that in the Carroll limit, the volume element d3p factorizes and can be written as E3 P , where EP is cutoff. In terms of this cutoff, G(0) = E3 P 2M, (42) whereE3 P is a volume energy cutoff from d3p and –in the...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Thus, the mass M of the scalar χ effectively plays the role of the UV cutoff in the theory

    (47) As an incidental non-trivial note, let us also observe that t he Carroll limit implies that, in the absence of spatial propagation, Green’s function is nec essarily G(0), which is consistent with the fact that EP M ≪ 1. Thus, the mass M of the scalar χ effectively plays the role of the UV cutoff in the theory. Up to this point, our arguments have not a...

    work page

  7. [7]

    topological protec- tion

    (52) where κ2 = 2Λ −m2 2. Under such conditions, ψ2 describes a soliton confined within the interior of the black hole if κ2 > 0. (53) D. Solution ψ 2 1 = − 1 λ 1 [ m2 1 + ( EP 2M ) 2 g1g2ψ 2 2 ] This solution only contributes with redefinitions of the par ameters that appear in the Lagrangian, which are essentially irrelevant. They are mod ifications of the...

    work page

  8. [8]

    This theory is mappable to Yang-Mills theory, and consequ ently, if a black hole confines due to the presence of causal horizons, then QCD confines for t he same reasons. VIII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author thanks M. B. Paranjape and R. B. Mackenzie for thei r hospitality during his visit to Montreal. He also thanks J. L. Cortés, J. Lopez-Sarr ion, F. Méndez, ...

    work page

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    J. -M. Levý-Leblond, Annales de l’I. H. Poincaré section A, tome 3, no 1 (1965), p. 1-12

    1965

  2. [10]

    Donnay and C

    See for example L. Donnay and C. Marteau, Class. Quant. Gr av. 36 (2019) no.16, 165002 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab2fd5 [arXiv:1903.09654 [hep-t h]]; M. Henneaux and P. Salgado- Rebolledo, JHEP 11 (2021), 180 doi:10.1007/JHEP11(2021)180 [arXiv:2109.06 708 [hep-th]]; E. A. Bergshoe...

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, A. S. Schwartz and Y. S. Tyupk in, Phys. Lett. B 59 (1975), 85-87 doi:10.1016/0370-2693(75)90163-X

    1975 doi

  4. [12]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 190 (1981), 455-478 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(81)90442-9; L. Su sskind, Phys. Rev. D 20 (1979), 2610-2618 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.2610; G. ’t Ho oft, Nucl. Phys. B 138 (1978), 1-25 doi:10.1016/0550-3213(78)90153-0

    1981 doi

  5. [13]

    Kantowski and R

    R. Kantowski and R. K. Sachs, J. Math. Phys. 7 (1966), 443 doi:10.1063/1.1704952; see also,

    1966 doi

  6. [14]

    R. W. Brehme, Am. J. Phys. 45 (1977), 423 doi:10.1119/1.10829

    1977 doi

  7. [15]

    J. R. Klauder, Commun. Math. Phys. 18 (1970), 307-318

    1970

  8. [16]

    Gamboa and J

    J. Gamboa and J. Lopez-Sarrion, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 36 (2021) no.13, 13 doi:10.1142/S0217751X21500743 [arXiv:2009.05852 [hep- th]]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Calvo, Phys

    M. Calvo, Phys. Rev. D 15 (1977), 1733-1735 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.15.1733

    1977 doi

  10. [18]

    The Uses of Instantons,

    S. R. Coleman, “The Uses of Instantons,” Subnucl. Ser. 15 (1979), 805 HUTP-78-A004

    1979

  11. [19]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976), 3432-3450 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978), 2199] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3432

    1976 doi

  12. [20]

    Diakonov, Prog

    D. Diakonov, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51 (2003), 173-222 doi:10.1016/S0146-6410(03)90014- 7 [arXiv:hep-ph/0212026 [hep-ph]]; A. Actor, Rev. Mod. Phy s. 51 (1979), 461 doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.51.461

    2003 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y . Oz, Phys. Rept. 323 (2000), 183-386 doi:10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00083-6 [arXiv:hep- th/9905111 [hep-th]]. 23

    2000

  14. [22]

    Fanaras and A

    G. Fanaras and A. Vilenkin, JCAP 03 (2022) no.03, 056 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/03/056 [arXiv:2112.00919 [gr-qc]]; J. J. Halliwell and J. Louko, P hys. Rev. D 42 (1990), 3997- 4031 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.42.3997; D. W. Chiou, Phys. Rev . D 78 (2008), 044019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD...

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    J.Kowalski-Glikman and L.Smolin, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004), 065020 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.065020 [arXiv:hep-th/0406276 [hep-th]]

    2004 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cao and X

    S. Cao and X. N. Wang, Rept. Prog. Phys. 84 (2021) no.2, 024301 doi:10.1088/1361- 6633/abc22b [arXiv:2002.04028 [hep-ph]]. 24

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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