Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Deviations from the von Laue condition: Implications for the on-shell Lagrangian of particles and fluids

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Real particles and fluids satisfy the on-shell identity L = T to about one part in a thousand in ordinary environments.

desk verdict The core bound (Eqs. 42-45) is clean and worth taking seriously; the fluid extrapolation in Sec. VII is the soft underbelly and needs a sharper argument before the nonideal-gas conclusion is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10427 v2 pith:LLGPNYTU submitted 2025-02-07 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-ph

S. R. Pinto , P. P. Avelino This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-ph MSC 83C5583C05
keywords vonLaueconditionon-shellLagrangianperfectfluidsenergy-momentumtensortracedominantenergyglobalmonopolesidealgasnuclearstructure
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 paper aims to turn a known ideal-gas identity—the volume-averaged on-shell Lagrangian equals the trace of the energy-momentum tensor—into a quantitative bound for real, interacting matter. Working from the von Laue stability condition and the dominant energy condition, it shows that the finite-volume pressure average of any static finite-mass particle is bounded by the energy fraction outside that volume. The same bound controls the on-shell Lagrangian: its volume average can differ from the trace by at most three times the outer-energy fraction. For a proton at its measured radius this gives agreement at the $10^{-3}$ level, and a stronger bound for heavier nuclei. The authors conclude that in ordinary fluids, including nonideal gases with significant interparticle interactions, the ideal-gas on-shell Lagrangian accurately approximates the true one except in extremely dense environments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is $\bar w(r) \equiv \langle p\rangle_r/\langle \rho\rangle_r = -\frac{\int_r^\infty p(r') r'^2 dr'}{\int_0^r \rho(r') r'^2 dr'}$, a finite-radius rewriting of the von Laue condition. Since $\rho \ge |p|$, the numerator is bounded by the outer energy $m_{\mathrm{out}}(r)$, giving $|\bar w(r)| \le m_{\mathrm{out}}/(m - m_{\mathrm{out}})$. The companion relation $\langle L_{\mathrm{on-shell}}\rangle_r/\langle T\rangle_r = 1/(1-3\bar w(r))$ converts the pressure bound into Eq. (45). The toy model used to demonstrate the bound is the static global K-monopole, a scalar field solution with nonstandard kinetic term $K(X)=X|X|^{\alpha-1}$ and an O(3) vacuum, which has finite energy for $\alpha \in (3/2, 3]$.

What would settle it

A lattice-QCD computation of the volume-averaged pressure inside a nucleon on a sphere of radius $0.84$ fm could test $|\langle p\rangle_r/\langle \rho\rangle_r| \le m_{\mathrm{out}}(r)/m$: finding a ratio larger than $3 m_{\mathrm{out}}/m$ would falsify Eq. (45). Alternatively, a high-precision determination of the proton's energy outside $0.84$ fm showing a strong-interaction tail of order $10^{-3}$ of the proton mass or larger would invalidate the stated 0.1% accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is an inequality: for a static, finite-mass particle, the volume averages obey $\left|\frac{\langle L_{\mathrm{on-shell}}\rangle_r}{\langle T\rangle_r} - 1\right| \lesssim 3\,\frac{m_{\mathrm{out}}(r)}{m}$, where $m_{\mathrm{out}}(r)$ is the energy outside a sphere of radius $r$ and $m$ is the total mass. It follows from the von Laue identity, which fixes the volume-averaged pressure at infinity, together with the dominant energy condition $\rho \ge |p|$ that bounds the finite-radius pressure average by the outer-energy fraction. The authors verify the scaling on global K-monopole solutions and then apply it to protons and stable nuclei, concluding that inside a proton at $r_p = 0.84$ fm the identity $\langle L_{\mathrm{on-shell}}\rangle_r = \langle T\rangle_r$ holds to about $10^{-3}$, with stronger constraints for heavier nuclei.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the dominant energy condition holds at every point inside hadrons and nuclei, and for the quantitative proton claim it assumes that little energy beyond 0.84 fm comes from strong-interaction tails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any stable, static particle satisfying $\rho \ge |p|$, the volume-averaged pressure deviation from the von Laue value is at most the outer-energy fraction; at typical interparticle separations this is tiny.
  • The ideal-gas identity $L_{\mathrm{on-shell}} = T$ holds for real fluids to high accuracy, even with interactions, unless the local energy density approaches nuclear or particle densities.
  • In nonminimally coupled theories, the fluid's on-shell Lagrangian entering the field equations can be replaced by the trace of its energy-momentum tensor to the same accuracy, because both quantities are scalars and share the same volume-integral bound.
  • For a proton, the Lagrangian-to-trace ratio at $r_p = 0.84$ fm deviates from unity by less than $10^{-3}$, and for stable nuclei with baryon number greater than one the bound is stronger by about a factor of two.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: because only the sign-changing pressure profile and the outer-energy fraction enter the bound, the argument likely extends to other soliton-like models of baryons, such as Skyrme-type nuclei, despite their different inner pressure signs.
  • Editorial inference: in modified-gravity or dark-energy coupling scenarios, choosing $L = p$ instead of $L = T$ would introduce an error of order the outer-energy fraction; for dilute cosmic fluids that is negligible, but near compact objects it may become relevant.
  • Editorial inference: the bound could be checked numerically in lattice QCD by computing the volume-averaged pressure inside a nucleon in a finite box and comparing it with the energy in the exterior tail, which would also test the dominant energy condition at hadronic scales.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies deviations from the von Laue condition for static, finite-mass systems with fixed structure. Using global K-monopoles with nonstandard kinetic terms as a toy model, the authors derive an upper bound on the volume-averaged pressure in terms of the energy outside a given radius, |<p>_r/<rho>_r| <= m_out(r)/(m - m_out(r)), under the dominant energy condition. They combine this with the relation <L_on-shell>_r = -<rho>_r to obtain a bound on the deviation of <L_on-shell>_r/<T>_r from unity, Eq. (45): |<L_on-shell>_r/<T>_r - 1| <~ 3 m_out(r)/m. They then apply this bound to protons and atomic nuclei, estimating a 0.1% accuracy for the proton, and extend the conclusion to real fluids, arguing that the ideal-gas on-shell Lagrangian L = T remains accurate for nonideal gases except in extremely dense environments. The paper closes with implications for nonminimally coupled fluids in cosmology and gravity.

Significance. If the central bound is correct, it is a clean and useful result: it converts the von Laue condition from an exact statement for isolated systems into a quantitative inequality controlled by the outer energy fraction, with no fitted parameters. The derivation of Eqs. (42)-(45) from conservation, the von Laue condition, and the dominant energy condition is transparent, and the numerical K-monopole solutions provide a convincing check of the analytic tail approximations. The advertised implications for the on-shell Lagrangian of fluids are potentially important for nonminimal couplings in cosmology. However, as detailed in the major comments, the extension from isolated particles to particles inside fluids, and the quantitative proton estimate, currently outrun what Eqs. (42)-(45) establish. These gaps are localizable and repairable, so the core contribution is worth preserving in a revised version.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VII] The extension of Eq. (45) to a particle embedded in a fluid is not established. Equation (45) is derived for a single isolated system whose total pressure integral vanishes by the von Laue condition. When the same formula is applied at r = d = n^(-1/3) to a particle inside a fluid, the integral of the spatial stress over the particle's volume need not vanish: the boundary term in Eq. (24), integral over dS of T^{ij} x^i n_j, is a surface traction exerted by the surrounding matter. The paper asserts additivity of single-particle contributions for dilute systems, but it gives no estimate relating this traction to m_out(r)/m. The regime of 'significant interparticle interactions' is exactly where the traction can be non-negligible, so the conclusion L_F = T_F for nonideal gases goes beyond what Eqs. (42)-(45) demonstrate.
  2. [Section VI] The quantitative proton bound is undercounted. Equation (45) bounds the deviation by the total outer energy fraction m_out(r_p)/m, but the numerical estimate inserts only the electrostatic self-energy outside r_p = 0.84 fm (0.86 MeV). Strong-interaction contributions to the energy outside r_p, such as pion-cloud and gluon-field tails, are not estimated. Consequently, the stated 0.1% accuracy of <L> = <T> inside the proton is not established; only a weaker bound using the true total outer energy would follow. The same undercount affects the claims for heavier nuclei, where the electrostatic energy fraction is not the only relevant contribution.
  3. [Section III, Eqs. (31) and (38)] The passage from the global K-monopole model to real particles assumes <L_on-shell>_r = -<rho>_r at every radius r. For the scalar model this is exact by Eq. (12), since T_00 = -L for a static configuration. For a real particle, the requirement that the integrated action reproduce S = -m integral d tau fixes at most the total volume integral of L, not the local or subvolume equality needed to write Eq. (38) at arbitrary r. Since Eq. (38) is the starting point for the central bound (45), this identification must be justified, or explicitly stated as a definition/assumption for real matter.
  4. [Section VI] The quantitative claims for protons and nuclei rely on the dominant energy condition holding pointwise inside hadrons and nuclei. This is stated as 'expected to hold', but no evidence or reference establishing rho >= |p| for QCD matter is provided. If the dominant energy condition fails locally, Eq. (45) does not follow; the paper should either supply support for this assumption or present the bounds as conditional on it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 5 caption] The caption reads 'on shell r/ T r'; it should be '<L_on-shell>_r/<T>_r'.
  2. [Section VI] The sentence about reducing the bound by a factor of 1/3 for the electrostatic field (w = 1/3) should be clarified: it is not immediately clear whether this factor applies to |<p>_r/<rho>_r| or to |<L>_r/<T>_r - 1|, and stating the resulting explicit inequality would help.
  3. [Section VI, Eq. (39)] The second equality in Eq. (39) uses the vanishing of the total pressure integral from the von Laue condition; making this explicit would avoid confusion when the same formula is later applied to non-isolated systems in Section VII.
  4. [References] Reference [19] is incomplete: the author list is truncated ('Cardoso' appears without initials or full name), and the full citation should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the core bound is derived from conservation and energy conditions, and the self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central result, Eqs. (42)-(45), follows directly from the covariant conservation identity (Eq. (24)), the von Laue condition (Eq. (27)), and the dominant energy condition |w| <= 1. No parameter is fitted to the target result: the global K-monopole solutions are illustrative, and the analytical approximations (41) and (44) are checked against numerics rather than used as inputs. The identity L_on-shell = -rho (Eq. (12)) is definitional for a static scalar configuration, and Eq. (38) is a mathematical rewriting; the substantive new content is the bound on wbar, which is derived rather than assumed. The proton estimate uses the experimentally adopted radius and the electrostatic self-energy as external estimates, so it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The ideal-gas L=T result is cited from the authors' prior work [29-31], but the relevant statement is also obtainable from this paper's own Eq. (31) and the new deviation bound, so the self-citation is not load-bearing, and no uniqueness claim is imported to force the conclusion. The extension to fluids in Sec. VII does rely on an additivity/coarse-graining assumption whose validity for nonideal gases is not fully established; that is a scope or correctness concern about the fluid claim, not a circular reduction, because the fluid conclusion is not fed back as an input to Eqs. (42)-(45). Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and no circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four pillars: the von Laue condition for static, fixed-structure, weakly gravitating systems; the dominant energy condition applied globally, including inside hadrons; the scale-separation assumption that turns per-particle bounds into fluid statements; and the electrostatic estimate for the proton's outer energy fraction. No new particles, fields, or fitted constants are introduced; the K-monopole parameters do not enter the final bounds.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (kinetic exponent) = scanned over (3/2, 3]
    Toy-model parameter delimiting finite-energy monopoles that satisfy the dominant energy condition; the final bounds do not depend on it.
  • lambda (potential coupling) = 1
    Set to unity in the numerics; the paper asserts this choice does not affect the main results.
  • A (shooting constant) = determined by requiring f(infinity) = 1
    Free constant of the near-core expansion, fixed by the physical requirement of a finite-energy solution; not fitted to data.
  • Proton outer energy fraction m_out(r_p)/m = about 10^-3
    Estimated from the classical electrostatic energy of the proton outside 0.84 fm (0.86 MeV). It assumes the total outer energy is dominated by the electrostatic contribution, which is the weakest point of the particle application.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Dominant energy condition (rho >= |p|) holds at every point, including inside hadrons and nuclei.
    Required for Eq. (42) to bound the pressure integral by the outer energy; stated as a hypothesis in the abstract and Sec. VI but not established for QCD matter.
  • domain assumption Static, isolated, fixed-structure particles with negligible self-gravity obey the global von Laue condition: the integral of the proper pressure over all space vanishes.
    Eq. (39) converts the interior pressure integral into the negative exterior integral using the global condition; this idealizes protons and nuclei as static bound states.
  • domain assumption Scale separation for fluids: interparticle distance much larger than particle size, with spacetime locally Minkowskian at the fluid scale, so the fluid on-shell Lagrangian is the sum of single-particle Lagrangians.
    Underpins the Sec. VII conclusion that L = T for real fluids including nonideal gases; stated but not quantified.
  • standard math Standard vector calculus: Stokes' theorem, conservation of the energy-momentum tensor for time-independent configurations, and sufficiently fast decay of T^{ij} at infinity.
    Used in Sec. III to derive the von Laue condition and the vanishing of spatial momentum components.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deviations from the von Laue condition: Implications for the on-shell Lagrangian of particles and fluids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LLGPNYTU

@misc{pith2026250210427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deviations from the von Laue condition: Implications for the on-shell Lagrangian of particles and fluids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LLGPNYTU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10427}
}
read the original abstract

According to the von Laue condition, the volume integral of the proper pressure inside isolated particles with a fixed structure and finite mass vanishes in the Minkowski limit of general relativity. In this work, we consider a simple illustrative example: nonstandard static global monopoles with finite energy, for which the von Laue condition is satisfied when the proper pressure is integrated over the whole space. We demonstrate, however, that the absolute value of this integral, when calculated up to a finite distance from the center of the global monopole, generally deviates from zero by no more than the energy located outside the specified volume (under the assumption of the dominant energy condition). Furthermore, we find that the maximum deviation from unity of the ratio between the volume averages of the on-shell Lagrangian and the trace of the energy-momentum tensor cannot exceed three times the outer energy fraction. Extending these results to real particles, we demonstrate that these constraints generally hold for finite-mass systems with fixed structure, including stable atomic nuclei, provided the dominant energy condition is satisfied. Specifically, we show that, except in extremely dense environments with energy densities comparable to that of the particles themselves, the volume average of the aforementioned ratio must be extremely close to unity. Finally, we discuss the broader implications of our findings for the form of the on-shell Lagrangian of real fluids, which is often a crucial element for accurately modeling the dynamics of the gravity and matter, especially in scenarios involving nonminimal couplings to other matter fields or gravity. We find that, in general, the ideal gas on-shell Lagrangian provides an accurate approximation of the true on-shell Lagrangian, even for nonideal gases with significant interparticle interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The solid lines show the value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The solid lines display the value of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. The solid lines display the value of ¯w [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The solid lines display the value of ¯w [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

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

  1. Lagrangian Identity and Mass Evolution of Particle-like Objects in Nonminimally Coupled Gravity

    gr-qc 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Nambu-Goto p-branes satisfy L_[p]=T_[p]/(p+1), so their rest mass scales as f2^{-p/(p+1)} under nonminimal matter-geometry coupling in FLRW cosmologies.

  2. Numerical evaluation of the exact post-Newtonian parameters in Brans-Dicke and entangled relativity theories

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    First numerical evaluation of the exact strong-field post-Newtonian parameters in Brans–Dicke and Entangled Relativity: neutron-star deviations up to ~46% from standard values, and dipolar gravitational-wave predictio...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. F. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D 2, 2762 (1970)

    work page 1970

  2. [2]

    J. R. Ray, Journal of Mathematical Physics 13, 1451 (1972)

    work page 1972

  3. [3]

    B. F. Schutz and R. Sorkin, Annals Phys. 107, 1 (1977)

    work page 1977

  4. [4]

    A. H. Taub, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 10, 301 (1978)

    work page 1978

  5. [5]

    Matarrese, Proc

    S. Matarrese, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 401, 53 (1985)

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    J. D. Brown, Class. Quant. Grav. 10, 1579 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9304026

    arXiv 1993

  7. [7]

    Andersson and G

    N. Andersson and G. L. Comer, Living Rev. Rel. 10, 1 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0605010

    arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    New derivation of the Lagrangian of a perfect fluid with a barotropic equation of state

    O. Minazzoli and T. Harko, Phys. Rev. D 86, 087502 (2012), arXiv:1209.2754 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    V. M. C. Ferreira, P. P. Avelino, and R. P. L. Azevedo, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063525 (2020), arXiv:2005.07739 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    R. P. Lopes de Azevedo, Cosmological Implications of Nonminimally-Coupled f(R) Gravity and the Lagrangian of Cosmic Fluids , Ph.D. thesis, Porto U., Porto U. (2022), arXiv:2207.08578 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Wetterich, Astron

    C. Wetterich, Astron. Astrophys. 301, 321 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9408025

    1995 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908023

    2000 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Zimdahl and D

    W. Zimdahl and D. Pavon, Phys. Lett. B521, 133 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0105479

    2001 arXiv

  6. [14]

    G. R. Farrar and P. J. E. Peebles, Astrophys. J. 604, 1 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0307316

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Capozziello and M

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Physics Reports 509, 167–321 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    G. J. Olmo, International Journal of Modern Physics D 20, 413–462 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Physics Reports 513, 1–189 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 580, A22 (2015), arXiv:1406.7482 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Berti, E

    E. Berti, E. Barausse, and Cardoso, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity 32, 243001 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A14 (2016), arXiv:1502.01590 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Nojiri, S

    S. Nojiri, S. Odintsov, and V. Oikonomou, Physics Re- ports 692, 1–104 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Harko and F

    T. Harko and F. S. N. Lobo, The European Physical Journal C 70, 373–379 (2010)

    2010

  15. [24]

    Katırcı and M

    N. Katırcı and M. Kavuk, The European Physical Jour- nal Plus 129 (2014), 10.1140/epjp/i2014-14163-6

    2014 doi

  16. [25]

    Haghani, T

    Z. Haghani, T. Harko, F. S. N. Lobo, H. R. Sepangi, and S. Shahidi, Physical Review D 88 (2013), 10.1103/phys- revd.88.044023

    2013 doi

  17. [26]

    Ludwig, O

    H. Ludwig, O. Minazzoli, and S. Capozziello, Physics Letters B 751, 576–578 (2015)

    2015

  18. [27]

    Harko, T

    T. Harko, T. S. Koivisto, F. S. Lobo, G. J. Olmo, and D. Rubiera-Garcia, Physical Review D 98 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.98.084043

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    Bahamonde, The European Physical Journal C 78 (2018), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5793-1

    S. Bahamonde, The European Physical Journal C 78 (2018), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5793-1

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    P. P. Avelino and L. Sousa, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064019 (2018), arXiv:1802.03961 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [30]

    P. P. Avelino and R. P. L. Azevedo, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064018 (2018), arXiv:1802.04760 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [31]

    P. P. Avelino and R. P. L. Azevedo, Physical Review D 105 (2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.104005

    2022 doi

  23. [32]

    Laue, Annalen der Physik 340, 524 (1911)

    M. Laue, Annalen der Physik 340, 524 (1911)

    1911

  24. [33]

    Giulini, Int

    D. Giulini, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 15, 1850182 (2018), arXiv:1808.09320 [math-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [34]

    P. P. Avelino, JCAP 08, 005 (2023), arXiv:2303.06630 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [35]

    P. P. Avelino, Phys. Lett. B 859, 139144 (2024), arXiv:2406.04335 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Babichev, Physical Review D 74 (2006), 10.1103/physrevd.74.085004

    E. Babichev, Physical Review D 74 (2006), 10.1103/physrevd.74.085004

    2006 doi

  28. [37]

    P. P. Avelino, D. Bazeia, R. Menezes, and J. G. G. S. Ramos, The European Physical Journal C 71 (2011), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1683-5. 10

    2011 doi

  29. [38]

    G. H. Derrick, J. Math. Phys. 5, 1252 (1964)

    1964

  30. [39]

    R. H. Hobart, Proceedings of the Physical Society 82, 201 (1963)

    1963

  31. [40]

    Kontou and K

    E.-A. Kontou and K. Sanders, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 193001 (2020), arXiv:2003.01815 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [41]

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Sci- entific Computing (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  33. [42]

    M. V. Polyakov and P. Schweitzer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1830025 (2018), arXiv:1805.06596 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [43]

    P. E. Shanahan and W. Detmold, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 072003 (2019), arXiv:1810.07589 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [44]

    V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, and F. X. Girod, Nature 557, 396 (2018)

    2018

  36. [45]

    Garc ´ ıa Mart ´ ın-Caro, M

    A. Garc ´ ıa Mart ´ ın-Caro, M. Huidobro, and Y. Hatta, Phys. Rev. D 110, 034002 (2024), arXiv:2312.12984 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Pohl et al

    R. Pohl et al. , Nature 466, 213 (2010)

    2010

  38. [47]

    Xiong et al

    W. Xiong et al. , Nature 575, 147 (2019)

    2019

  39. [48]

    Bezginov, T

    N. Bezginov, T. Valdez, M. Horbatsch, A. Marsman, A. C. Vutha, and E. A. Hessels, Science 365, 1007 (2019)

    2019

  40. [49]

    Ayaita, M

    Y. Ayaita, M. Weber, and C. Wetterich, Phys. Rev. D 85, 123010 (2012), arXiv:1112.4762 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.