Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 28 references

A Lattice Physics Approach to Spin-Networks in Loop Quantum Gravity

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spin-network lattice model predicts roughly twelve coherent graviton-like excitations at each vertex.

desk verdict Novel idea, transparent execution, but the twelve-graviton result collapses on a false exponential approximation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14630 v1 pith:PZGLKB65 submitted 2025-07-19 gr-qc cond-mat.otherhep-th

Noah M. MacKay This is my paper
classification gr-qccond-mat.otherhep-th
keywords spin-networkloopquantumgravitytetrahedrallatticeLennard-JonespotentialgravitonWheeler-DeWittconstraintPlanckscalevariationalmethod
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 a spin-network—the discrete quantum geometry behind loop quantum gravity—can be approximated as a regular tetrahedral lattice, and that standard lattice physics then determines the energy of each vertex. Starting from the area eigenvalue of the spin-network, the author fixes a lattice constant of about $2.707\,l_P$, then builds a vertex Hamiltonian from a Lennard-Jones attraction, a zero-point energy, and harmonic-oscillator vibrations. The central result is a variational ground-state energy of about $10.917\,m_P c^2$, which is read as roughly twelve coherent, spin-0 graviton-like excitations per vertex slice. If correct, flat spacetime is not empty: it is a graviton-rich lattice whose local energy densities cancel slice by slice to satisfy the Wheeler-DeWitt constraint.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a one-vertex Hamiltonian that separates into a structural energy $U_s^{(l)}(r)$ — a Lennard-Jones 12-6 potential plus an $l(l+1)/r^2$ centrifugal barrier plus a zero-point term — and a simple-harmonic-oscillator energy $U_{\mathrm{SHO}}(r)$. The load-bearing objects are the area-eigenvalue relation that fixes the lattice constant $a = 2.707\,l_P$, and the variational functional $E[\beta]$ built from a trial wavefunction that multiplies a second Hermite-Gaussian (for $l=1$) by a plane wave. Minimizing $E[\beta]$ with respect to $\beta$ yields the ground-state energy, and dividing the excess over zero-point energy by the per-graviton oscillator energy at $r=a$ produces the twelve-excitation count.

What would settle it

Recompute the position-space oscillator energy at $r = a$ using the exact $\mathrm{csch}^2$ form from Eq. (21) instead of the exponential-to-inverse-square replacement; if $|U_{\mathrm{SHO}}(a)|$ is not $3.0531\,m_P c^2$, the integer $N$ in Eq. (32) changes and the twelve-graviton conclusion does not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single spin-network vertex, treated as a lattice point, carries a total energy with three pieces: a structural Lennard-Jones term with a centrifugal barrier, a zero-point quantum energy $U_{\mathrm{ZP}} = 6.1674\,m_P c^2$ for $l=1$, and a simple-harmonic-oscillator vibrational term. Reinterpreting those vibrations as a coherent gas of spin-0 graviton-like bosons and adding a plane-wave perturbation, the author obtains the energy functional $E[\beta] = \frac{32\sqrt{\pi}}{9}\frac{\hbar c}{\beta} + 12.3731\,m_P c^2\bigl(1 + 0.5511(l_P/\beta)^2 + \cdots\bigr)$. Minimizing over the length scale $\beta$ gives $\beta = -2.1640\,l_P$ and $E[\beta] \approx 10.9170\,m_P c^2$, which exceeds the zero-point energy by $4.7496\,m_P c^2$. Dividing this excess by the SHO energy per graviton at one lattice spacing, $|U_{\mathrm{SHO}}(a)| \approx 3.0531\,m_P c^2$, yields $\lfloor N \rfloor = 11$, and with the Bose-enhancement factor $(N+1)$ the vertex effectively hosts about twelve spin-0 graviton excitations. The paper concludes that flat spacetime is a densely populated graviton lattice, with the Hamiltonian constraint satisfied through cancellation of local slice energies.

Load-bearing premise

The twelve-graviton result rests on the assumptions that neighboring quanta interact via a Lennard-Jones potential with equilibrium at the edge midpoint and well depth equal to the centrifugal barrier, and that the oscillator energy can be approximated by an inverse-square law.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Flat spacetime would have a definite graviton density: roughly twelve coherent spin-0 excitations per Planck-scale vertex slice.
  • The Wheeler-DeWitt constraint can be satisfied by locally nonzero Hamiltonian slices that cancel pairwise, so the zero energy of physical states does not require empty space.
  • The model fixes a concrete discretization scale for quantum geometry: $a \approx 2.707\,l_P$ for minimal fermionic spins and the chosen Immirzi parameter.
  • Gravitons in a purely spatial spin-network are emergent spin-0 pseudoparticles (degeneracy $g_s=1$), not fundamental spin-2 quanta; their counting is a property of the lattice, not of the particle.
  • For bent spacetime, edge spins would shift toward integer values and the constraint would become Schrödinger-like, potentially recovering the quantum black-hole area $A = 16\pi l_P^2$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The minimum of $E[\beta]$ occurs at a negative length, $\beta = -2.1640\,l_P$; a physically meaningful width should be positive, so re-running the variational calculation with $\beta > 0$ is a direct test of whether the $10.917\,m_P c^2$ ground state is physical.
  • The count $N = 11$ in Eq. (32) uses the approximation $e^{-x} \approx 1/x$ to convert the $\mathrm{csch}^2$ oscillator energy into an inverse-square law; replacing that step with the exact expression at $r = a$ would show whether the resulting $N$ stays an integer near 11.
  • If the model were extended to 3+1 dimensions, gravitons would carry spin 2 with a larger degeneracy, which would rescale the energy budget per vertex and could change the inferred number of excitations substantially.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes to model a spin-network of loop quantum gravity as a regular tetrahedral lattice. Starting from the LQG area spectrum, it derives a lattice constant a=2.707 l_P and builds a vertex Hamiltonian consisting of a Lennard-Jones structural term, a zero-point energy, and simple harmonic oscillator contributions. Fluctuations are interpreted as spin-0 graviton pseudoparticles, and a variational calculation with an effective temperature T* yields a perturbed vertex energy E[β]≈10.917 m_P c^2. Dividing the excess over the zero-point energy by the SHO energy at r=a, the paper concludes that each vertex hosts about 11 (twelve after Bose enhancement) coherent gravitons. The paper also argues that a foliation of the tetrahedral cell with an antisymmetric top/bottom Hamiltonian enforces the Wheeler-DeWitt constraint.

Significance. If the central calculation were correct, the paper would offer an explicit condensed-matter analogue for emergent gravitons in LQG, with a concrete number testable in principle. The manuscript is transparent in stating its assumptions and in showing the algebraic steps, which makes the errors easy to isolate. However, the main quantitative conclusion is not supported: the twelve-graviton count rests on a mathematically false asymptotic approximation, and the derivation of the lattice constant contains a numerical inconsistency. As a result, the paper does not currently provide a reliable prediction about the graviton content of a spin-network vertex.

major comments (5)
  1. [§II.B, Eqs. (24)-(25), (32)] The approximation in Eq. (25), obtained from Eq. (24) by replacing csch^2 by an inverse-square law via 'e^{-x} ~ 1/x', is mathematically false. At the point r=a used in Eq. (32), x≈19.74, so e^{-x}≈2.7×10^{-9} while 1/x≈5.1×10^{-2}. Using the exact expression in Eq. (24) gives |U_SHO(a)|≈10^{-15} m_P c^2, not 0.417 m_P c^2; Eq. (32) would then yield N≈4×10^{15} rather than 11. The twelve-graviton result therefore follows from an incorrect asymptotic step.
  2. [§I.A, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The numerical evaluation in Eq. (6) is inconsistent: 8π(18/25)√(3/4) l_P^2 equals 15.67 l_P^2, not 13.572 l_P^2, and the summation over the six edges in Eq. (5) is omitted. Consequently the lattice constant a=2.707 l_P is not correctly derived, and the length and energy scales built on it (r_c, m*, σ, ε, U_ZP) are all affected.
  3. [§III.A, Eq. (30); §II.B, Eqs. (22)-(23)] The variational minimization in Eq. (30) yields a negative characteristic length β=-2.1640 l_P, which is unphysical for a wavefunction width and is not discussed. In addition, the effective temperature T* in Eqs. (22)-(23) is fixed by an arbitrary truncation threshold; the two quoted thresholds differ by a factor ~4.75 in y and produce correspondingly different values for U_SHO and hence for the inferred graviton number. The choice of the lower bound in Eq. (24) is not justified.
  4. [§II.A, Eqs. (14)-(16)] The physical ingredients that set the energy scales—the Lennard-Jones 12-6 interaction between spin-network quanta, the equilibrium separation r0=a/2, the ansatz α=ε, and the zero-point energy formula U_ZP=(2πℏ/σ)√(ε/m*)—are assumed without derivation from loop quantum gravity. Since these choices determine the structural and zero-point energies that enter the graviton count, the central result is not a prediction of the lattice model but an artifact of the chosen potential.
  5. [§II, Eqs. (10)-(12)] The claim that the Wheeler-DeWitt constraint is enforced relies on the assumed reflection antisymmetry (11) and the vanishing of intermediate slices (12). These relations are postulated rather than derived from the LQG Hamiltonian constraint, so the paper does not actually demonstrate consistency with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.A, after Eq. (32)] The text states that each vertex slice contains 'approximately nine gravitons,' but the calculation gives N=11 and the Bose-enhanced number is 12; the text should be corrected.
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'intepretations', 'Hamiltonain' in Eq. (9), 'formulism' for 'formalism', and 'residual term residual term' in §II.C.
  3. [§II.B, Eq. (21)] The derivation of Eq. (21) from Eq. (20) (the inverse Fourier transform) is not shown; the negative sign and the discarded imaginary part are explained only qualitatively.
  4. [References] Several key concepts, such as the Brownian-like behavior and sub-Planckian graviton propagation, are referenced to the author's own preprints (Refs. 11-13) rather than to independent sources, which makes the provenance of these ideas difficult to assess.
  5. [§II.B, Eq. (20)] The sum over wavevectors is not given a cutoff; for massless modes with ω=|k|, the energy would be ultraviolet divergent in three dimensions, and the manuscript should address this.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the graviton count is an internal quotient of model energies, and the false e^{-x} ≈ 1/x replacement is a correctness flaw rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

I traced the derivation chain: the lattice constant a follows from the area eigenvalue with j_i = 1/2 and a fixed Immirzi parameter; the structural energy U_s uses an explicitly chosen Lennard-Jones/centrifugal model with α = ε and r0 = a/2; the SHO energy U_SHO comes from an inverse Fourier transform and an effective temperature fixed by a stated truncation threshold; the variational energy E[β] is minimized with a stated trial state; and finally N is solved from E[β] − U_ZP = N |U_SHO(a)|. At no point is the target 'twelve excitations' used as an input to define the Hamiltonian, the trial state, or the parameters; the count is a derived quotient. Self-citations [11]–[13] appear only in supporting remarks about Planck-scale graviton propagation and graviton reservoirs, not in the derivation of the energy functional. The main numerical claim is, however, seriously compromised by the paper's own Eq. (25): the text replaces csch² by a 1/r² law using the false asymptotic e^{-x} ≈ 1/x. The exact expression Eq. (24) at r = a gives |U_SHO(a)| on the order of 10^{-15} m_P c² instead of 0.42 m_P c², changing N by many orders of magnitude. This is an internal mathematical inconsistency, and the arbitrary truncation/regularization choices (Section II.B and Appendix B) are also flagged in the text as practical thresholds. These are correctness and robustness concerns, not circularity: the derivation does not assume the conclusion, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The model depends on many free choices. Standard LQG assumptions (area spectrum, Wheeler-DeWitt constraint) are domain assumptions, while the Lennard-Jones form, the α = ϵ ansatz, the r0 = a/2 equilibrium, the truncation thresholds for T*, and the spin-0 graviton interpretation are paper-specific additions with no independent evidence. The only externally grounded elements are the use of the LQG area spectrum and the Immirzi parameter from the literature.

free parameters (5)
  • α/ϵ ratio = 1
    Section II.A: the minimization of the structural energy is simplified by choosing α = ϵ rather than deriving the ratio from physical input. This choice determines σ = 0.8676 r0 and the well depth ε.
  • equilibrium separation r0 = a/2 = 1.3535 l_P
    Section II.A: 'Assuming this balance occurs at the midpoint of a lattice edge, r0 = a/2 = 1.3535 l_P'. This assumption sets σ = 1.1743 l_P and all subsequent energy scales.
  • truncation thresholds for T* = y = 9.88634 and y = 46.7558 (10^-5 and 10^-35)
    Section II.B: the effective temperature T* is obtained by solving y^3 coth(y)csch^2(y) ≈ 0 with user-chosen numerical thresholds; T* ranges from 0.739 π T_P to 1.117 π^2 T_P depending on the threshold. The paper admits the result becomes arbitrarily large as accuracy increases.
  • regulator ξ in Appendix B = 0 (limit), finite part retained
    Appendix B: the divergent integrals in the energy expectation value are regularized by r^{-2n} -> (r^2 - ξ^2)^{-n} and only the ξ-independent part is kept, with no physical justification for this subtraction.
  • angular momentum quantum number l = 1
    The paper sets l = 1 as the lowest non-zero azimuthal number for the structural energy and trial wavefunction (n = l + 1 = 2). All quantitative results depend on this choice.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption LQG area spectrum A = 8πγ l_P^2 Σ sqrt(j(j+1))
    Eq. (1) is taken from Rovelli-Smolin LQG, a standard result.
  • domain assumption Wheeler-DeWitt constraint H|Ψ> = 0
    Eq. (2) is imposed as the Hamiltonian constraint in canonical quantum gravity.
  • ad hoc to paper Foliation with top/bottom Hamiltonian antisymmetry (Eq. 11)
    The reflection relation H_t|ψ>_t = -H_b|ψ>_b is asserted due to a combinatorial symmetry without derivation; it ensures the global constraint is satisfied by cancellation.
  • ad hoc to paper Lennard-Jones 12-6 potential between spacetime quanta
    Eq. (14) applies an atomic interaction potential to Planck-scale quanta; no microscopic justification is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Effective mass m* from Compton wavelength λ_C = 2π r_c with r_c = a/2
    Section II: the lattice point mass is estimated by identifying the equatorial standing wavelength of a sphere of radius a/2 with the Compton wavelength.
  • domain assumption Dispersion relation ω = |k| and Bose-Einstein occupation for gravitons
    Gravitons are massless and bosonic, so standard relations are applied, though here they are treated as spin-0.
  • ad hoc to paper Gravitons as spin-0 pseudoparticles with degeneracy g_s = 1
    Section II.B asserts that in a purely spatial model the graviton spin-2 assignment does not apply and chooses spin-0, which alters counting.
  • ad hoc to paper Approximation e^{-x} ~ 1/x for large x
    Section II.B, after Eq. (24), uses 'assuming that e^{-x} ~ 1/x for large x, which mirrors the behavior of exponential decay under truncation' to obtain the inverse-square form of U_SHO. This is mathematically incorrect and is introduced solely to obtain a compact expression.
invented entities (2)
  • Spin-0 graviton pseudoparticles
    purpose: Quantize the lattice vibrational modes and act as emergent, coherent bosonic excitations (graviton-rich lattice).
    No falsifiable prediction outside the model is provided; the degeneracy g_s = 1 and the count N ≈ 12 are internal outputs.
  • Effective temperature T*
    purpose: Internal thermal scale for graviton dynamics, replacing the CMB temperature.
    T* is defined from the lattice parameters and truncation thresholds, not measured or calibrated to any independent observable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Lattice Physics Approach to Spin-Networks in Loop Quantum Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZGLKB65

@misc{pith2026250714630,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Lattice Physics Approach to Spin-Networks in Loop Quantum Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZGLKB65}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14630}
}
abstract

In this study, we model a spin-network in loop quantum gravity as a regular tetrahedral lattice, applying lattice physics techniques to study its structure and vertex dynamics. Using the area eigenvalue, $A\propto 8\pi l_P^2$, we derive a lattice constant $a = 2.707\,l_P$ and construct a vertex Hamiltonian incorporating a Lennard-Jones potential, zero-point energy, and simple harmonic oscillations. A foliation approach enforces the Wheeler-DeWitt constraint via locally non-zero Hamiltonians that globally cancel. Graviton-like perturbations (treated here as spin-0 bosons) modify the vertex energy spectrum, with variational analysis suggesting twelve coherent excitations per vertex. This model frames flat spacetime as a graviton-rich lattice while enforcing a Brownian-like stochastic picture for the gravitons, and offers a basis for extension into curved quantum geometries.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14630 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. If any one of the four faces is taken as the base, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: A pictorial representation of a foliated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Normalized structural energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. P. Feynman, F. B. Morinigo, W. G. Wagner, B. Hat- field, D. Pines. Feynman Lectures on Gravitation (West- view Press Inc., 2002) ISBN 978-0-8133-4038-8

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    Rafie-Zinedine, [arXiv:1808.06086 [hep-th]]

    S. Rafie-Zinedine, [arXiv:1808.06086 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    M. J. Duff, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 11, 5623- 5642 (1996) doi:10.1201/9781482268737-36 [arXiv:hep- th/9608117 [hep-th]]

    work page arXiv 1996

  4. [4]

    Becker, M

    K. Becker, M. Becker, and J. Schwarz. String Theory and M-Theory: A Modern Introduction (Cambridge Univer- sity Press, 2007) doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816086

    doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816086 2007

  5. [5]

    B. L. Hu and A. Matacz, Phys. Rev. D 51 1577- 1586 (1995). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.1577 [arXiv:gr- qc/9403043 [gr-qc]]

    work page arXiv 1995

  6. [6]

    J. W. Moffat, Phys. Rev. D 56 6264-6277 (1997) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.56.6264 [arXiv:gr-qc/9610067 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 1997

  7. [7]

    Rovelli and L

    C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. Lett.61 1155 (1988) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.1155

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.61.1155 1988

  8. [8]

    Substituting these values, the surface area evaluates to 8πl2 P 18 25 s 1 2 1 2 + 1 = 13.572 l2 P , (6) which, via Eq

    ≈ 3/25 [21, 22]. Substituting these values, the surface area evaluates to 8πl2 P 18 25 s 1 2 1 2 + 1 = 13.572 l2 P , (6) which, via Eq. (5), yields a lattice constant a = 2.707 lP . II. THE HAMIL TONIAN OF ONE LA TTICE POINT The Hamiltonian constraint, encoded in the Wheeler- DeWitt equation, ensures that a local region of space- time is diffeomorphism-in...

    work page

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Rovelli and L

    C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, Nucl. Phys. B 331 80 (1990) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(90)90019-A

    1990 doi

  2. [10]

    Rovelli and L

    C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, Nucl. Phys. B 456 753 (erratum) (1995) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(95)00150-Q [arXiv:gr-qc/9411005 [gr-qc]]

    1995 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Einstein, Sitzungsber

    A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ) 1915, 844-847 (1915)

    1915

  4. [12]

    N. M. MacKay, [arXiv:2408.13917 [gr-qc]]

  5. [13]

    N. M. MacKay, [arXiv:2410.04562 [gr-qc]]

  6. [14]

    N. M. MacKay, [arXiv:2412.20169 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    C. Rovelli. Quantum Gravity (Cambridge Academic Press, 2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    Hedrich, [arXiv:0902.0190 [gr-qc]]

    R. Hedrich, [arXiv:0902.0190 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Rev. 160, 1113-1148 (1967) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.160.1113

    1967 doi

  10. [18]

    R. L. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 1997-2027 (2008) doi:10.1007/s10714-008- 0661-1 [arXiv:gr-qc/0405109 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [19]

    B. L. Hu, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 44, 1785-1806 (2005) doi:10.1007/s10773-005-8895-0 [arXiv:gr-qc/0503067 [gr- qc]]

    2005 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Triangular Pyramid

    E. W. Weisstein. “Triangular Pyramid.” From MathWorld–A Wolfram Resource . https://mathworld.wolfram.com/TriangularPyramid.html

  13. [21]

    Thiemann, Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-511-75568-2, 978-0-521-84263-1 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511755682

    T. Thiemann, Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 978-0-511-75568-2, 978-0-521-84263-1 doi:10.1017/CBO9780511755682

    2007 doi

  14. [22]

    M. H. Ansari, Nucl. Phys. B 783, 179-212 (2007) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.01.009 [arXiv:hep- th/0607081 [hep-th]]

    2007

  15. [23]

    M. H. Ansari, Nucl. Phys. B 795, 635-644 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2007.11.038 [arXiv:gr- qc/0603121 [gr-qc]]

    2008

  16. [24]

    Thiemann, Class

    T. Thiemann, Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 839-873 (1998) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/15/4/011 [arXiv:gr-qc/9606089 [gr-qc]]

    1998 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. E. Lennard-Jones, Proceedings of the Physical Society 43 5, 461 (1931) doi:10.1088/0959-5309/43/5/301

    1931 doi

  18. [26]

    Lenhard, S

    J. Lenhard, S. Stephan, and H. Hasse, An- nalen der Physik 536 6, 2400115 (2024) doi:10.1002/andp.202400115

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Mogull, J

    G. Mogull, J. Plefka and J. Steinhoff, JHEP 02, 048 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2021)048 [arXiv:2010.02865 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kimura, Phys

    Y. Kimura, Phys. Scripta 99, no.4, 045024 (2024) doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ad338a [arXiv:2310.01925 [hep- th]]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.