Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 81 references

Anisotropic quark propagation and Zeeman effect in an external magnetic field

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A constant magnetic field makes a dressed quark anisotropic: the transverse effective mass always exceeds the longitudinal one, and the splitting grows as a power of the field strength.

desk verdict Competent, clearly written DSE study of quark propagation in a weak magnetic field; the qualitative M⊥ > M∥ result is solid, but the power-law scaling claim is not controlled by the first-order expansion used. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14504 v1 pith:ONFBBBYP submitted 2025-04-20 hep-ph

Minghui Ding , Fei Gao , Sebastian M. Schmidt This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords quarkpropagatorexternalmagneticfieldanisotropiceffectivemassZeemansplittingtensordressingaxial-vectorcatalysis
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 tries to establish what a single quark looks like when it moves through a constant external magnetic field, with full gluon dressing included rather than treating the quark as free or as having a fixed constituent mass. It derives a general momentum-space form for the dressed propagator and computes it numerically for up, down, and strange quarks in the weak-field regime. The central claim is that the vector part of the propagator splits into directions parallel and perpendicular to the field, giving two effective masses, $M^{\mathrm{eff}}_\perp > M^{\mathrm{eff}}_\parallel$ for every flavor computed, with a splitting that grows roughly as $\Delta M_{u,d}(h) = 0.22\,h^{1.49}$ and $\Delta M_s(h) = 0.15\,h^{1.79}$. The same calculation produces magnetic-field-induced axial-vector and tensor dressing terms, which the paper reads as a nonperturbative Zeeman effect. If correct, the propagator is the needed one-body input for studies of magnetic catalysis, spin polarization, and meson condensation in strong fields.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Dirac-structure decomposition of the dressed inverse quark propagator in an external magnetic field, obtained by expanding the Landau-level representation on the eigenfunction basis that makes a free quark in a field resemble a vacuum quark. In momentum space the inverse propagator takes the form $S^{-1}(p_\parallel,p_\perp) = -\hat{S} + \hat{V}_\parallel \,/\!\!p_\parallel - \hat{V}_\perp \,/\!\!p_\perp + h\hat{A}\Sigma_3 \,/\!\!p_\parallel - 2h\hat{T}\Sigma_3$, with the five scalar functions $\hat{S}$, $\hat{V}_\parallel$, $\hat{V}_\perp$, $h\hat{A}$, and $2h\hat{T}$ reconstructed from the Landau-level dressing functions. The inequality $\hat{V}_\parallel \neq \hat{V}_\perp$ is what produces two effective masses, while the axial-vector and tensor terms carry the Zeeman effect. The numerical solution works because the authors keep only first-order terms in the field in the Landau-level summation, which reduces the propagator denominator to a manageable form that is then solved self-consistently in rainbow truncation, where the dressed quark-gluon vertex is replaced by the bare vertex.

What would settle it

Re-solve the same gap equation with a gluon propagator computed in the magnetic field, or extract the quark dressing functions from lattice QCD in a background field near $eB \approx 1\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$. If $\Delta M_{u,d}(h)$ no longer follows $0.22\,h^{1.49}$, or if $\hat{M}^{\mathrm{eff}}_\perp \leq \hat{M}^{\mathrm{eff}}_\parallel$ at any field strength in the computed range, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in the weak-field limit, the authors decompose the inverse dressed quark propagator as $S^{-1}(p_\parallel,p_\perp) = -\hat{S} + \hat{V}_\parallel \,/\!\!p_\parallel - \hat{V}_\perp \,/\!\!p_\perp + h\hat{A}\Sigma_3 \,/\!\!p_\parallel - 2h\hat{T}\Sigma_3$, where $\Sigma_3 = i\gamma^1\gamma^2$ projects the quark spin along the field. They then solve the corresponding gap equation numerically, using a rainbow truncation and an infrared gluon model. The results show $\hat{V}_\parallel \neq \hat{V}_\perp$, so the two effective masses defined by $\hat{M}^{\mathrm{eff}}_\parallel = \hat{S}/\hat{V}_\parallel$ and $\hat{M}^{\mathrm{eff}}_\perp = \hat{S}/\hat{V}_\perp$ are distinct, with $\hat{M}^{\mathrm{eff}}_\perp > \hat{M}^{\mathrm{eff}}_\parallel$ in all computed cases. The difference follows the power laws $\Delta M_{u,d}(h) = 0.22\,h^{1.49}$ and $\Delta M_s(h) = 0.15\,h^{1.79}$ (with $h = eB$ in GeV$^2$). The field also switches on $h\hat{A}$ and $2h\hat{T}$, which vanish at $h=0$; these split spin-up and spin-down energies within a Landau level, which the paper identifies with the Zeeman effect. The splitting is smaller for the strange quark than for up and down quarks, and the full momentum-dependent mass functions are provided as input for hadron-level calculations.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the gluon propagator is unchanged by the magnetic field and that first-order small-field terms remain accurate up to $h = 1\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$; if the gluon feels the field or higher-order terms matter, the computed masses and power laws shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim is right, any hadron built from these quarks in a magnetic field inherits directional dependence: transverse binding differs from longitudinal binding, so hadron masses and decay constants should depend on their orientation relative to the field.
  • The mass splitting grows as a power of the field, with exponent approximately 1.5 for up/down quarks and 1.8 for the strange quark; heavier quarks respond less, which is a concrete flavor-dependent prediction for magnetized quark matter.
  • The nonzero $h\hat{A}$ and $2h\hat{T}$ terms mean spin-up and spin-down quarks in the same Landau level have different effective masses and momenta, a nonperturbative Zeeman effect that should show up as spin polarization and possibly as quark magnetic dipole moments.
  • The fully momentum-dependent dressed propagator is a direct input for bound-state calculations of mesons in magnetic fields, providing a pathway to vector-meson condensation and neutral-pion condensation phenomena.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the quoted power-law fits are extracted from first-order weak-field data but are evaluated up to $h\sim 1\,\mathrm{GeV}^2$, where $h$ is comparable to QCD scales; a full-$h$ solution or an explicitly field-dependent gluon might change the exponents, so the fits should be read as a small-field benchmark rather than a universal law.
  • If the gluon were allowed to respond to the magnetic field, the near-symmetry between $p_l^2$ and $p_t^2$ noted in the paper would likely break; that asymmetry would be a sharp test of whether the anisotropy is quark-driven or gluon-driven.
  • The different momentum behavior of $2h\hat{T}$ along longitudinal versus transverse directions suggests that tensor-type condensates or spin-dependent observables may be sensitive to the direction of the quark momentum, a testable consequence for phenomenological models of magnetized quark matter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the dressed quark propagator in a constant external magnetic field within a Dyson-Schwinger approach. Starting from the Ritus-basis / Landau-level representation of the free propagator, the authors derive the general Dirac structure of the inverse dressed propagator (S, V_parallel, V_perp, A, T), perform a weak-field expansion to obtain a momentum-space propagator, and solve the rainbow-truncated gap equation numerically for u/d and s quarks. The central results are: (i) the vector dressing splits into longitudinal and transverse components, giving anisotropic effective masses with M_perp^eff > M_parallel^eff; (ii) the mass splitting grows with h and is fitted by DeltaM_{u,d} = 0.22 h^1.49 and DeltaM_s = 0.15 h^1.79; and (iii) field-induced axial-vector and tensor terms are interpreted as a Zeeman effect. The propagator is proposed as input for studies of magnetic catalysis, vector-meson condensation, and hadron properties in magnetic fields.

Significance. The calculation is a useful and clearly specified model study. Its strengths are that the truncation and all assumptions are stated explicitly (rainbow truncation, vacuum gluon propagator, weak-field expansion), the input parameters are fixed by vacuum hadron observables rather than by the magnetic-field effect, and the qualitative anisotropy M_perp^eff > M_parallel^eff is stable across omega = 0.4-0.6 GeV. If the results hold, they provide a complete momentum-dependent quark propagator that can feed hadron bound-state calculations in magnetic fields. However, the headline quantitative claim--the power-law scaling of DeltaM--is not controlled at the field strengths used for the fit, and the B-independent gluon assumption is load-bearing for the numerical values. The paper is therefore a valuable contribution whose quantitative conclusions need revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [V.B, Eq. (56), Fig. 6] The power-law fit is applied to numerical data over h approximately 0.2-1.0 GeV^2, but the propagator used to generate those data is explicitly first order in the weak-field expansion: Eq. (40) drops O(Delta_2^2), Eq. (42) keeps tan(sh) approximately sh + O(h^3), and Eq. (43) retains only terms linear in h. With the zero-field mass scale M approximately 0.5 GeV from Table I, the relevant infrared expansion parameter is h/M^2, which reaches about 4 at h = 1 GeV^2. A first-order expansion evaluated in this regime cannot control the effective exponents 1.49 and 1.79, and no fit or truncation uncertainties are quoted. This is load-bearing because the abstract and conclusions present the growing splitting and its scaling as main results. I request either a next-order estimate, a fit restricted to h much less than M^2, or an explicit statement of the truncation error; without one, Eq. (56) should be presented as an interpolation rather than a predicted power law.
  2. [IV, Eq. (53) and surrounding text] The assumption that the gluon propagator is unaffected by the magnetic field (stated after Eq. (47)) is central to the numerical values of V_parallel, V_perp, and DeltaM: the entire anisotropy is generated by the quark propagator in the loop while the gluon remains isotropic. If the gluon dressing has a B dependence, as suggested by some DSE and FRG studies, the transverse and longitudinal quark dressings could shift substantially. Since the paper aims to provide quantitative input for hadron observables in magnetic fields, this sensitivity needs to be assessed--for example by comparing with a B-dependent gluon model or by estimating the size of the neglected contributions--rather than only flagged as a future refinement.
  3. [V.B, Eq. (56)] The fitted equation is not dimensionally transparent as written: if h is measured in GeV^2 and DeltaM in GeV, the coefficients 0.22 and 0.15 must carry non-trivial dimensions (GeV^{1-2p} for exponent p). The authors should state the units of these coefficients, or specify that h is normalized by a reference scale in the fit. This is a local presentation issue, but it matters because Eq. (56) is quoted as a quantitative result in the abstract and conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [II, after Eq. (10)] There is a duplicated word: 'In the specific limit where where V_parallel = V_perp = 1...' should read 'where'.
  2. [V.B.1] There is a typo in 'becoming nonzero..' with a double period; it should read 'becoming nonzero.'
  3. [V] The phrase 'at across the entire momentum domain' should be corrected to 'over the entire momentum domain'.
  4. [Abstract and III.D] The abstract says a 'general momentum-space representation' is derived, but the derivation in Sec. III.D is explicitly in the weak-field limit; this should be stated as 'weak-field momentum-space representation' to avoid overstating the scope.
  5. [V.B.1 and Fig. 4] Equation (55) and Fig. 4 compare h = 1.0 GeV^2 with h = 0; the justification for choosing 1.0 GeV^2 as the reference point is not given, especially in view of the weak-field condition raised in the major comments.
  6. [VI] The statement that the scaling exponent 'gradually approaches 2' when going from light to heavy quarks is based on only two flavors; it should be phrased as a tentative observation rather than a trend.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the anisotropic effective masses and induced tensor/axial-vector dressings are genuine numerical outputs of a gap-equation calculation with inputs fixed independently of the magnetic-field effect.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The dressing functions are obtained by solving the Dyson-Schwinger gap equation (Eq. C1) with a vacuum gluon model (Eqs. 49-51) whose parameters were fixed by meson properties in prior independent work, and with quark masses (Eq. 54) fixed by pion/kaon observables; none of these inputs is fitted to the magnetic-field effect. The decomposition of the vector part into V∥ and V⊥, and the nonzero axial-vector and tensor dressings hA and 2hT, emerge as numerical solutions of the coupled equations, not as imposed inputs. The inequality M⊥eff > M∥eff follows from the computed result V∥ > V⊥ (Fig. 3) via the definitions in Eq. (33), so it is not tautological. Equation (56) is a power-law parametrization of the computed ΔM(h) curves, not an input used to generate those curves; describing one's own numerical output with a fitted power law is not a circular prediction. The weak-field expansion (Eqs. 39-43) and the explicit assumption that the gluon propagator is unaffected by the magnetic field (Sec. IV) are stated approximations that limit quantitative reliability at h ≈ 1 GeV², but these are correctness and truncation concerns rather than circularity. Self-citations in the paper are contextual or fix vacuum inputs and do not carry the magnetic-field result, and the load-bearing weak-field summation and general propagator structure are attributed to the independent work in Ref. [63].

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The computation adds a numerical solution of a truncated gap equation in a magnetic field. The physical input is the gluon model (Qin-Chang-Roberts-Wilson) with parameters fitted to vacuum meson properties, plus current quark masses fitted to meson masses. The claim of a power-law mass splitting is a fit to the model's own output. All of this is on the ledger; the only thing the paper contributes beyond the established formalism is the numerical solution and its parametrization.

free parameters (4)
  • Gluon interaction width ω = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 GeV (with Dω = (0.80 GeV)^3)
    Width parameter of the Qin-Chang-Roberts-Wilson gluon model (Ref. [66]), varied to estimate model dependence; controls the strength of infrared dressing in the gap equation.
  • Current quark masses m_l and m_s = 3.3 MeV and 74.6 MeV at ζ = 19 GeV
    Taken from Ref. [69], fitted to pion and kaon properties; the strange quark mass controls the flavor dependence of the mass splitting.
  • Power-law parameters for ΔM(h) = a_u/d = 0.22, b_u/d = 1.49; a_s = 0.15, b_s = 1.79
    Coefficients and exponents in Eq. (56) fitted to the numerical ΔM curves in Fig. 6; they carry the quantitative claim of the paper and have no quoted fit uncertainties.
  • UV coupling parameters Λ_QCD, m_t, γ_m, τ = Λ_QCD = 0.36 GeV, m_t = 0.5 GeV, γ_m = 12/23, τ = e^2 - 1
    Parameters of the UV gluon dressing (Eqs. 49-50) taken from the gluon model [66]; they set the high-momentum behavior of the interaction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rainbow truncation with bare quark-gluon vertex
    The gap equation (44) replaces the full quark-gluon vertex by γμ, dropping vertex dressing. This truncation is uncontrolled.
  • domain assumption The gluon propagator is unaffected by the magnetic field
    Stated explicitly in Sec. IV. The magnetic field only dresses quarks, not gluons; lattice and effective-model studies suggest gluon dressing changes with B, which would alter the results.
  • domain assumption Weak-field expansion truncated at first order is valid up to h = 1 GeV²
    The propagator is expanded for h → 0 (Eqs. 39-43), but numerical results and the power-law fit are presented to h = 1 GeV², comparable to QCD scales; the truncation error is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Schwinger phase factorization (Eq. 14)
    The propagator is assumed to factorize into a Schwinger phase times a translation-invariant part, following Refs. [44, 64]; this is an approximation in the interacting case.
  • domain assumption The Qin-Chang-Roberts-Wilson gluon model (Eqs. 49-51) represents QCD's gluon dressing
    The computed propagator is only as good as this phenomenological model of the gluon interaction; the model is fitted to vacuum hadron observables in [66].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic quark propagation and Zeeman effect in an external magnetic field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ONFBBBYP

@misc{pith2026250414504,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic quark propagation and Zeeman effect in an external magnetic field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ONFBBBYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14504}
}
read the original abstract

We investigated the impact of a constant external magnetic field on the dressed propagators of up-, down-, and strange quarks. In the weak field limit, we derive a general momentum-space representation for the propagator and numerically solve the corresponding gap equation. Our analysis reveals that the vector term of the propagator can be decomposed into components parallel and perpendicular to the magnetic field, resulting in anisotropic effective masses, with the transverse mass consistently exceeding the longitudinal mass. This mass disparity exhibits a power law dependence on the magnetic field strength and is less pronounced for the strange quark compared to up and down quarks. Additionally, the magnetic field induces axial-vector and tensor terms, highlighting the Zeeman effect resulting from quark interactions with the magnetic field. These findings have important implications for (inverse) magnetic catalysis, and phenomena such as vector meson and pion condensations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14504 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of quarks in a magnetic field: Positively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The mass function of the quark propagator, denoted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Magnetic field dependence of the dressing functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Percentage variation in the dressing functions of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Magnetic field dependence of the effective mass func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Logarithmic plot illustrating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Dressing functions of quark propagator: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Magnetic field dependence of the dressing functions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ˆS, ˆV∥ and ˆV⊥ We begin by analyzing the dressing functions associ- ated with the scalar and vector Dirac structures: ˆS, ˆV∥, and ˆV⊥. These functions are intrinsically linked to the characteristics of the quark propagator in vacuum and encapsulate the average-spin properties of the quark, pro- viding insights into mass and momentum dynamics in both lon...

  2. [2]

    We present results for hˆA and 2hˆT, as these combinations are the actual dressing functions that appear in the quark propagator, as shown in Eq

    ˆA and ˆT The axial-vector and tensor structures are new Dirac structures that appear in the quark propagator only in the presence of a magnetic field, where they become non- zero (i.e., ˆA̸= 0 and ˆT̸= 0). We present results for hˆA and 2hˆT, as these combinations are the actual dressing functions that appear in the quark propagator, as shown in Eq. (31)...

    work page

  3. [3]

    J. O. Andersen, W. R. Naylor, and A. Tranberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 025001 (2016), arXiv:1411.7176 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Schutzhold, H

    R. Schutzhold, H. Gies, and G. Dunne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 130404 (2008), arXiv:0807.0754 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    Letter of Intent: Towards a Vacuum Birefringence Experiment at the Helmholtz International Beamline for Extreme Fields,

    N. Ahmadiniaz et al. , “Letter of Intent: Towards a Vacuum Birefringence Experiment at the Helmholtz International Beamline for Extreme Fields,” (2024), arXiv:2405.18063 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Hattori, K

    K. Hattori, K. Itakura, and S. Ozaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 133, 104068 (2023), arXiv:2305.03865 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    The figure demonstrates that, while the overall qualitative behavior of the mass function remains largely unchanged, variations in the infrared region are noted

    For this analysis, we use ω = 0.5 GeV as a represen- tative example. The figure demonstrates that, while the overall qualitative behavior of the mass function remains largely unchanged, variations in the infrared region are noted. Consequently, we have numerically determined the mass functions defined in Eq. (33) across the entire momentum range for up/do...

    work page

  8. [8]

    V. A. Miransky and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rept. 576, 1 (2015), arXiv:1503.00732 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Fukushima, Prog

    K. Fukushima, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 107, 167 (2019), arXiv:1812.08886 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Grasso and H

    D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, Phys. Rept. 348, 163 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0009061

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    R. C. Duncan and C. Thompson, Astrophys. J. Lett.392, L9 (1992)

    1992

  4. [12]

    C. A. Bertulani, S. R. Klein, and J. Nystrand, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55, 271 (2005), arXiv:nucl-ex/0502005

    2005 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Skokov, A

    V. Skokov, A. Y. Illarionov, and V. Toneev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 24, 5925 (2009), arXiv:0907.1396 [nucl-th]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3499 (1994), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 76, 1005 (1996)], arXiv:hep-ph/9405262

    1994 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Preis, A

    F. Preis, A. Rebhan, and A. Schmitt, JHEP 03, 033 (2011), arXiv:1012.4785 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A 803, 227 (2008), arXiv:0711.0950 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Fukushima, D

    K. Fukushima, D. E. Kharzeev, and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D 78, 074033 (2008), arXiv:0808.3382 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. K. Boomsma and D. Boer, Phys. Rev. D 81, 074005 (2010), arXiv:0911.2164 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Gatto and M

    R. Gatto and M. Ruggieri, Lect. Notes Phys. 871, 87 (2013), arXiv:1207.3190 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ferreira, P

    M. Ferreira, P. Costa, D. P. Menezes, C. Providˆ encia, and N. Scoccola, Phys. Rev. D 89, 016002 (2014), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 019902 (2014)], arXiv:1305.4751 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ferreira, P

    M. Ferreira, P. Costa, O. Louren¸ co, T. Frederico, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D 89, 116011 (2014), arXiv:1404.5577 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    P.-C. Chu, X. Wang, L.-W. Chen, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 91, 023003 (2015), arXiv:1409.6154 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  15. [23]

    L. Yu, J. Van Doorsselaere, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 91, 074011 (2015), arXiv:1411.7552 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [24]

    H. Liu, X. Wang, L. Yu, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 97, 076008 (2018), arXiv:1801.02174 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    K. Xu, J. Chao, and M. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 076015 (2021), arXiv:2007.13122 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bergman, G

    O. Bergman, G. Lifschytz, and M. Lippert, JHEP 05, 007 (2008), arXiv:0802.3720 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    C. V. Johnson and A. Kundu, JHEP 12, 053 (2008), arXiv:0803.0038 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    V. G. Filev, C. V. Johnson, and J. P. Shock, JHEP 08, 013 (2009), arXiv:0903.5345 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Preis, A

    F. Preis, A. Rebhan, and A. Schmitt, Lect. Notes Phys. 871, 51 (2013), arXiv:1208.0536 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Ballon-Bayona, JHEP 11, 168 (2013), arXiv:1307.6498 [hep-th]

    A. Ballon-Bayona, JHEP 11, 168 (2013), arXiv:1307.6498 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  23. [31]

    K. A. Mamo, JHEP 05, 121 (2015), arXiv:1501.03262 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ejiri, F

    S. Ejiri, F. Karsch, E. Laermann, C. Miao, S. Mukherjee, P. Petreczky, C. Schmidt, W. Soeldner, and W. Unger, Phys. Rev. D 80, 094505 (2009), arXiv:0909.5122 [hep- lat]. 17

    2009 arXiv

  25. [33]

    D’Elia, S

    M. D’Elia, S. Mukherjee, and F. Sanfilippo, Phys. Rev. D 82, 051501 (2010), arXiv:1005.5365 [hep-lat]

    2010 arXiv

  26. [34]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, S. Krieg, A. Schafer, and K. K. Szabo, JHEP 02, 044 (2012), arXiv:1111.4956 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  27. [35]

    D’Elia and F

    M. D’Elia and F. Negro, Phys. Rev. D 83, 114028 (2011), arXiv:1103.2080 [hep-lat]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and A. Schafer, Phys. Rev. D 86, 071502 (2012), arXiv:1206.4205 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bruckmann, G

    F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, and T. G. Kovacs, JHEP 04, 112 (2013), arXiv:1303.3972 [hep-lat]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endrodi, F. Gruber, and A. Schaefer, JHEP 04, 130 (2013), arXiv:1303.1328 [hep- lat]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    G. S. Bali, F. Bruckmann, G. Endr¨ odi, S. D. Katz, and A. Sch¨ afer, JHEP08, 177 (2014), arXiv:1406.0269 [hep- lat]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Endrodi, JHEP 07, 173 (2015), arXiv:1504.08280 [hep-lat]

    G. Endrodi, JHEP 07, 173 (2015), arXiv:1504.08280 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Skokov, Phys

    V. Skokov, Phys. Rev. D 85, 034026 (2012), arXiv:1112.5137 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. O. Andersen and A. Tranberg, JHEP 08, 002 (2012), arXiv:1204.3360 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. O. Andersen, W. R. Naylor, and A. Tranberg, JHEP 04, 187 (2014), arXiv:1311.2093 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Kamikado and T

    K. Kamikado and T. Kanazawa, JHEP 03, 009 (2014), arXiv:1312.3124 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Kamikado and T

    K. Kamikado and T. Kanazawa, JHEP 01, 129 (2015), arXiv:1410.6253 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Braun, W

    J. Braun, W. A. Mian, and S. Rechenberger, Phys. Lett. B 755, 265 (2016), arXiv:1412.6025 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Nucl. Phys. B 563, 361 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9908320

    1999 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C. N. Leung and S.-Y. Wang, Annals Phys. 322, 701 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0503298

    2007 arXiv

  41. [49]

    C. N. Leung and S.-Y. Wang, Nucl. Phys. B 747, 266 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0510066

    2006 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Rojas, A

    E. Rojas, A. Ayala, A. Bashir, and A. Raya, Phys. Rev. D 77, 093004 (2008), arXiv:0803.4173 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  43. [51]

    E. J. Ferrer and V. de la Incera, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 050402 (2009), arXiv:0807.4744 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  44. [52]

    E. J. Ferrer and V. de la Incera, Nucl. Phys. B 824, 217 (2010), arXiv:0905.1733 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Kojo and N

    T. Kojo and N. Su, Phys. Lett. B 720, 192 (2013), arXiv:1211.7318 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Mueller, J

    N. Mueller, J. A. Bonnet, and C. S. Fischer, Phys. Rev. D 89, 094023 (2014), arXiv:1401.1647 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Mueller and J

    N. Mueller and J. M. Pawlowski, Phys. Rev. D91, 116010 (2015), arXiv:1502.08011 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    L. D. Landau, J. S. Bell, M. Kearsley, L. Pitaevskii, E. Lifshitz, and J. Sykes, Electrodynamics of continu- ous media, Vol. 8 (elsevier, 2013)

    2013

  49. [57]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum mechanics: non-relativistic theory, Vol. 3 (Elsevier, 2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    C. D. Roberts and A. G. Williams, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 33, 477 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403224

    1994 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ayala, C

    A. Ayala, C. A. Dominguez, L. A. Hernandez, M. Loewe, and R. Zamora, Phys. Lett. B 759, 99 (2016), arXiv:1510.09134 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Fukushima and Y

    K. Fukushima and Y. Hidaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 031601 (2013), arXiv:1209.1319 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Cao and P

    G. Cao and P. Zhuang, Phys. Rev. D 92, 105030 (2015), arXiv:1505.05307 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Ayala, C

    A. Ayala, C. A. Dominguez, L. A. Hernandez, M. Loewe, A. Raya, J. C. Rojas, and C. Villavicencio, Phys. Rev. D 94, 054019 (2016), arXiv:1603.00833 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Sheng, S.-Y

    X.-L. Sheng, S.-Y. Yang, Y.-L. Zou, and D. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 299 (2024), arXiv:2209.01872 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    V. I. Ritus, Annals Phys. 69, 555 (1972)

    1972

  57. [65]

    V. I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP 48, 788 (1978)

    1978

  58. [66]

    Watson and H

    P. Watson and H. Reinhardt, Phys. Rev. D 89, 045008 (2014), arXiv:1310.6050 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [67]

    J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  60. [68]

    F. Gao, M. Ding, Y. Liu, and S. M. Schmidt, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 144 (2023), arXiv:2202.03191 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    S.-x. Qin, L. Chang, Y.-x. Liu, C. D. Roberts, and D. J. Wilson, Phys. Rev. C 84, 042202 (2011), arXiv:1108.0603 [nucl-th]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    C. Chen, L. Chang, C. D. Roberts, S. Wan, and D. J. Wilson, Few Body Syst. 53, 293 (2012), arXiv:1204.2553 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  63. [71]

    M. Ding, F. Gao, L. Chang, Y.-X. Liu, and C. D. Roberts, Phys. Lett. B753, 330 (2016), arXiv:1511.04943 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  64. [72]

    S.-x. Qin, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Few Body Syst. 60, 26 (2019), arXiv:1902.00026 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    M. Ding, C. D. Roberts, and S. M. Schmidt, Particles 6, 57 (2023), arXiv:2211.07763 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  66. [74]

    I. A. Shushpanov and A. V. Smilga, Phys. Lett. B 402, 351 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9703201

    1997 arXiv

  67. [75]

    T. D. Cohen, D. A. McGady, and E. S. Werbos, Phys. Rev. C 76, 055201 (2007), arXiv:0706.3208 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  68. [76]

    B. L. Ioffe and A. V. Smilga, Nucl. Phys. B 232, 109 (1984)

    1984

  69. [77]

    Gubler and D

    P. Gubler and D. Satow, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 106, 1 (2019), arXiv:1812.00385 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [78]

    P. V. Buividovich, M. N. Chernodub, E. V. Luschevskaya, and M. I. Polikarpov, Phys. Rev. D 81, 036007 (2010), arXiv:0909.2350 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  71. [79]

    M. N. Chernodub, Phys. Rev. D 82, 085011 (2010), arXiv:1008.1055 [hep-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Dittrich and H

    W. Dittrich and H. Gies, Probing the quantum vac- uum. Perturbative effective action approach in quantum electrodynamics and its application , Vol. 166 (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000)

    2000

  73. [81]

    E. J. Ferrer and V. de la Incera, Phys. Rev. D 58, 065008 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9803226

    1998 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.