Chiral Waves on the Fermi-Dirac Sea: Quantum Superfluidity and the Axial Anomaly

Andrey V. Sadofyev; Emil Mottola

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Chiral Waves on the Fermi-Dirac Sea: Quantum Superfluidity and the Axial Anomaly

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Massless fermions at zero temperature form a relativistic quantum superfluid, with the axial anomaly's massless pole acting as a gapless Chiral Density Wave and collective Goldstone mode.

desk verdict The D=2 equivalence is a clean result and the Goldstone-extension argument is worth engaging; the D=4 superfluid claim is real but conditional, and the abstract oversells it. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01974 v2 pith:V4AOMCBX submitted 2019-09-04 hep-th nucl-th

Emil Mottola , Andrey V. Sadofyev This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thnucl-th

keywords axialanomalychiraldensitywavequantumsuperfluidityGoldstonetheoremMagneticEffectSeparationSchwingermodelWeylsemimetals

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 claims that the axial anomaly turns massless fermions at zero temperature into a relativistic quantum superfluid, with the anomaly's massless pole playing the role of a collective Goldstone boson rather than a kinematic artifact. In two spacetime dimensions the claim is an identity: the superfluid effective action coincides with the bosonized Schwinger model as the charge $e\to0$, and the acoustic Chiral Density Wave is exactly the Schwinger boson. In four dimensions the same massless pole in the triangle diagram is shown to generate the non-dissipative currents of the Chiral Magnetic, Chiral Separation, and Anomalous Hall effects, and in a constant magnetic field the theory dimensionally reduces to two dimensions, where the collective mode is a Chiral Magnetic Wave with mass $M^2=e^3B/(2\pi^2)$. The authors construct a new local bosonic effective action for the anomaly in any even dimension, show that its quantization follows from the anomalous Schwinger terms in current commutators, and extend Goldstone's theorem to symmetry breaking by an anomaly. The interest is that a fundamental short-distance property of quantum field theory becomes a concrete long-distance, observable collective phenomenon in Dirac and Weyl materials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the longitudinal sector of the axial current and its massless anomaly pole, packaged into a single real pseudoscalar phase field $\eta$ (a Clebsch potential) whose conjugate momentum is the chiral charge density $J^0_5$. The central identity is the canonical commutator $[\eta(t,\mathbf x),J^0_5(t,\mathbf x')]=i\delta^3(\mathbf x-\mathbf x')$, the bosonic image of the anomalous Schwinger terms, which converts the anomaly into a propagating mode. The main constructive device is the local effective action $S_{\rm anom}$ in (5.11), which reproduces the non-local anomaly action when $J^5_\lambda$ is varied as a Lagrange multiplier, and which together with a density term $-\epsilon(n_5)$ becomes the chiral superfluid action (2.1). In $D=2$ the proportionality $\eta=-\pi\chi+\theta/2$ ties $\eta$ to the chiral boson of bosonized fermions, completing the proof that the acoustic CDW is the Schwinger boson.

What would settle it

Measure the zero-temperature longitudinal chiral density response in a clean Dirac semimetal: the paper predicts a gapless acoustic pole at $\omega^2=v_s^2 k^2$ with $v_s^2=1/3$ (and, in a magnetic field, a Chiral Magnetic Wave at $M^2=e^3B/(2\pi^2)$); if no such pole appears in the spectral function, the central claim collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the massless $1/k^2$ pole in the longitudinal sector of the axial triangle amplitude $\langle \tilde J^\lambda J^\alpha J^\beta\rangle$ is a genuine collective Goldstone mode, not a kinematic curiosity of the Feynman diagram. In $D=2$ the authors prove an identity: the effective action of an irrotational, dissipationless chiral superfluid with phase field $\eta$ coincides with the bosonized Schwinger model in the limit $e\to 0$, so the acoustic Chiral Density Wave is the Schwinger boson and the Dirac vacuum itself may be regarded as a superfluid. In $D=4$ they give a local bosonic anomaly action $S_{\rm anom}[\eta;A,A_5]=\int d^4x\{(\partial_\lambda\eta+A^5_\lambda)J^5_\lambda+\eta\,\mathcal A_4\}$ with $\mathcal A_4=(2\alpha/\pi)E\cdot B$, equivalent to the non-local anomaly action with its massless pole, and show that this single field accounts for the Chiral Magnetic, Chiral Separation, and Anomalous Hall effects. In a constant uniform magnetic field the four-dimensional triangle amplitude reduces to the two-dimensional polarization tensor, so the CDW along $\mathbf B$ is the Chiral Magnetic Wave and acquires mass $M^2=e^3B/(2\pi^2)$. Gaplessness is ensured by an extension of Goldstone's theorem in which the anomalous Schwinger commutator $[\eta(t,\mathbf x),J^0_5(t,\mathbf x')]=i\delta^3(\mathbf x-\mathbf x')$ supplies the non-vanishing commutator required for a massless pole.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the phase order parameter $z_0=\langle e^{2i\eta}\rangle$ is non-zero in the ground state; the authors assume this for $D=4$ without deriving it, while in $D=2$ it holds only as quasi-long-range order in the controlled $e\to0$, $L\to\infty$ limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the paper is right, the axial anomaly pole in massless QED is a collective Goldstone mode, so long-distance non-dissipative currents are forced by the anomaly rather than by boundary conditions or interactions.
The Dirac vacuum at zero temperature can be treated as a quantum superfluid, with the gapless Chiral Density Wave as its acoustic Goldstone mode.
In two spacetime dimensions, the superfluid description is exact in the $e\to0$ limit and identical to the bosonized Schwinger model, so the CDW is the Schwinger boson.
In four dimensions, the same effective action predicts that the Chiral Magnetic, Chiral Separation, and Anomalous Hall effects all derive from one and the same gapless pseudoscalar mode.
In a constant uniform magnetic field the four-dimensional CDW becomes a Chiral Magnetic Wave propagating along $\mathbf B$ with mass $M^2=e^3B/(2\pi^2)$, a measurable prediction for Dirac and Weyl semimetals.

Reading between the lines

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

If the extended Goldstone theorem survives scrutiny, then every even-dimensional axially anomalous fermion theory should exhibit a gapless longitudinal pseudoscalar collective mode at zero temperature, making the anomaly pole a universal long-distance feature rather than a diagrammatic artifact.
The $D=4$ finite-density result with sound speed $v_s^2=1/3$ suggests a concrete experimental target: a gapless acoustic mode in the longitudinal chiral channel of a clean Weyl semimetal, which would be the first observation of Fermi-surface bosonization in three spatial dimensions.
The mass formula $M^2=e^3B/(2\pi^2)$ in a magnetic field is sharp enough to be tested directly; a null result in low-temperature magneto-optical or noise spectroscopy would force a return to the phase-order assumption.
In $D=4$ the superfluid description may survive even if true long-range order fails, as a finite-volume quasi-long-range-order phenomenon in the limit of weak coupling, mirroring the $D=2$ resolution of the no-go theorem.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What you should know first: this paper is worth a serious referee, but the abstract is ahead of the derivation. The D=2 part is solid and genuinely new: the authors show that the chiral superfluid effective action (2.1) coincides exactly with the e→0 Schwinger model, Eq. (3.18). That is not circular—it is benchmarked against independent bosonization—and Appendix C handles the Mermin-Wagner-Coleman subtlety carefully, including the non-commuting limits e→0 and L→∞. The Goldstone theorem for anomalous symmetry breaking in Sec. IV is also a real contribution, though it is conditional in the way the authors themselves state.

The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test note identifies. The D=4 vacuum-superfluid claim rests on the order parameter z0 = ⟨e^{2iη}⟩ ≠ 0, Eq. (4.1). In D=2 this is established only as quasi-long-range order in the limit e→0 with eL fixed; at exactly e=0 it vanishes. In D=4 no analogous derivation is given. Without z0 ≠ 0, the anomaly pole remains a kinematic feature of the triangle diagram, not a Goldstone mode. The paper’s own Sec. VII says the linearized wave equation (7.6) cannot be extrapolated to μ5,n5→0 and that a completion for μ5=0 is an open question. So the abstract’s claim that massless fermions at zero temperature define a relativistic quantum superfluid—and especially that the Dirac vacuum itself is such a superfluid—overreaches the derivation in D=4.

The local action (5.11) and the transverse completion −ε(n5) in (7.2) are also somewhat ad hoc: the local action is built to reproduce the known non-local anomaly action, and the completion is justified only for finite μ5. That does not sink the D=2 result or the Goldstone extension, but it means the D=4 superfluid interpretation is a proposal, not a theorem. The CMW mass M² = e³B/2π² is already in the literature; what is new is the derivation from the anomaly pole and the dimensional-reduction argument, which is clean and should be credited.

Bottom line: this is a thoughtful, technically substantial paper that deserves peer review. I would send it out, but with instructions to the authors to distinguish sharply between the exact D=2 equivalence and the conditional D=4 framework, and to temper the abstract. I would not cite it for the vacuum-superfluid claim, but I would cite it for the D=2 identity and the ASB Goldstone theorem.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops an effective field theory/hydrodynamic description in which the axial anomaly induces a gapless collective boson—a Chiral Density Wave—and argues that massless fermions at zero temperature therefore form a relativistic quantum superfluid. It introduces a Clebsch-potential action for an irrotational chiral fluid, proves an exact equivalence to the bosonized Schwinger model in D=2 up to a theta surface term, proposes an extension of Goldstone's theorem to 'anomalous symmetry breaking' based on a phase order parameter z0, constructs a local D=4 anomaly action that reproduces the nonlocal anomaly pole, derives CME, CSE, AHE, and a Chiral Magnetic Wave mass, and presents a finite-chiral-density acoustic mode with v_s^2=1/3. The D=2 part is rigorous and carefully handles the e->0, L->infinity limits; the D=4 part is explicitly incomplete and rests on an assumed nonzero phase order parameter.

Significance. If the D=4 claims could be established, the paper would forge a genuinely new link between the axial anomaly pole and superfluidity, with testable consequences for Weyl and Dirac semimetals. The D=2 derivation is a real achievement: Eq. (3.18) gives an exact bosonized equivalence, Appendix C correctly audits Mermin-Wagner-Coleman obstructions and the double-scaling limit, and the dimensional-reduction calculation in Sec. VI is a nontrivial consistency check. The paper is also commendably explicit about its own limitations in Secs. V-VII. However, the central D=4 statement is conditional: the extended Goldstone theorem requires z0 != 0, which is assumed, not derived, in D=4.

major comments (3)

[IV, Eq. (4.1)] The proof of the extended Goldstone theorem is conditional on Eq. (4.1), z0 = <e^{2i eta}> != 0. In D=2 the authors show in Appendix C that at exactly e=0 one has z0=0 (Eq. (C30)), and that a nonzero z0 is obtained only in the double limit e->0, L->infinity with eL fixed, i.e. quasi-long-range order. In D=4 no analogous derivation of a nonzero phase order parameter is given; the paper does not identify a microscopic ground state or interaction that produces the necessary long-range order. Therefore Eqs. (4.8) and (4.16) do not by themselves prove that the massless pole of the QED4 triangle diagram is a Goldstone mode. The central superfluid interpretation collapses if z0 vanishes in the physical D=4 vacuum, a possibility the manuscript leaves open.
[V.B and VII, Eqs. (5.11), (7.2)] The local action (5.11) alone contains no dynamics for eta: stationarity with respect to J5^lambda gives partial_lambda eta + A5_lambda = 0, making eta a Lagrange multiplier. The propagating wave equation (7.6) is obtained only after the transverse completion -epsilon(n5) is added in Eq. (7.2), an energy-density term borrowed from free fermions rather than derived from the anomaly. The paper acknowledges this incompleteness, saying the action is 'clearly incomplete' in Sec. VI and that (7.6) cannot be extrapolated to mu5,n5->0 in Sec. VII. Consequently the D=4 gapless CDW is not shown to be a consequence of the anomaly alone; it depends on a particular minimal completion valid at finite chiral density. This should be stated as a conjecture or a model, not as a derived property of massless QED4.
[Abstract and Sec. VII] The abstract's claim that massless fermions at zero temperature define a relativistic quantum superfluid, and especially that the Dirac vacuum itself may be viewed as a superfluid state, overreaches the derivation. In D=2 the vacuum statement is true only in the quasi-long-range-order sense of Appendix C (e->0, L->infinity, eL fixed), and at exactly e=0 one has z0=0. In D=4 the paper explicitly states that (7.6) cannot be extrapolated to mu5,n5->0 and that a completion extending the bosonic description to mu5=0 is an open question. The abstract and Summary should distinguish the proved D=2 vacuum statement from the conditional finite-density D=4 construction.

minor comments (5)

[V] The claimed local form of the anomaly effective action 'in any D even' is demonstrated only for D=2 and D=4; a sentence explaining the status for D>=6 would prevent overstatement.
[III.B and Appendix C] The delicate limit e->0, L->infinity with eL fixed (C31) should be recalled at the point of the abstract's vacuum-superfluid claim; as written, the main text can be read as asserting an exact statement at e=0.
[References] Some references are incomplete or prospective, e.g. Ref. [101] 'to appear'; please update or remove them.
[VII, Eq. (7.2)] Eq. (7.2) introduces n5 and mu5 without a forward pointer; defining them where first used in Sec. VII would make the section self-contained.
[II, Eq. (2.4)] The notation A_D for the anomaly density and A5_lambda for the axial potential is easy to confuse; using a separate calligraphic symbol for the anomaly density would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

D=4 Goldstone-mode claim is partly constructed: the local action is built to reproduce the known anomaly-pole action, and the canonical commutator used by the Goldstone theorem is posited on that same boson.

self definitional [Sec. V.B, Eqs. (5.10)-(5.14); used in Sec. IV.A, Eq. (4.8)]
"Thus rather than introducing two scalar fields, consider instead the local anomaly action Sanom[η;A,A5]=∫d4x{(∂λη+A5λ)Jλ5+ηA4} (5.11) together with the variational principle that this effective action should be stationary against variations of the axial current Jλ5... Solving this constraint for η ... and substituting this back into (5.11) reproduces exactly the required non-local action (5.10) with its massless pole... which then implies the equal time commutator [η(t,x),Πη(t,x′)]=[η(t,x),J05(t,x′)]=iδ3(x−x′) (5.14) upon quantization."

The massless 1/k2 pole in (5.10) is the input, quoted from Refs. [21,22], and the local action (5.11) is explicitly constructed so that its variational constraint reproduces exactly that pole action. The canonical commutator (5.14) is then imposed on the same η field. Section IV.A uses that commutator as (2.20) to derive the massless pole (4.8). Thus the D=4 Goldstone pole is not derived from an independent fermion calculation: it is inserted by writing a local action equivalent to the known pole action and postulating the canonical pair. The Goldstone theorem then restates the input pole under the additional condition z0≠0, making the pole partly an input rather than a prediction.

full rationale

This paper is not globally circular. In D=2 the hydrodynamic action is matched to the independently solved bosonized Schwinger model, and the dimensional-reduction/CMW analysis is checked against the LLL polarization operator and external current-commutator results. The identified circularity is confined to the D=4 Goldstone-mode interpretation. Equation (5.10) is the known non-local anomaly action from Refs. [21,22] (both coauthored by Mottola); equation (5.11) is deliberately built so that, via the constraint ∂λη+A5λ=0, it reproduces (5.10) and its massless pole. The canonical commutator (5.14) is then imposed on η and J05, and Sec. IV uses that same commutator as (2.20) to derive the massless pole (4.8), so the pole is an input of the Goldstone argument. The argument is conditional on z0=⟨e2iη⟩≠0 (4.1), which in D=2 is only quasi-long-range order in a double limit and in D=4 is assumed rather than derived; Sec. VII explicitly states that (7.6) cannot be extrapolated to μ5,n5→0 and that a completion extending the bosonic description to μ5=0 is an open question. Those are limitations or correctness risks rather than additional circular steps. Overall, one central D=4 step reduces by construction, while the D=2 core and magnetic-field dimensional reduction remain independent, so a moderate partial-circularity score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard anomaly results plus four model choices: the single-Clebsch superfluid ansatz, the canonical commutator, the assumed nonvanishing order parameter z0, and the D=4 transverse completion. Only the D=2 equivalence is fully derived from microscopic fermion theory. No numerical parameters are fitted to data; the mass gap M²=e³B/2π² is derived, not tuned.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The axial anomaly in D=2n even spacetime dimensions takes the form (2.4), with the exact coefficient 2/(4π)^n n!.
Standard QFT result (Adler-Bell-Jackiw, Adler-Bardeen) invoked without derivation; it is the starting point of the hydrodynamic action.
domain assumption The superfluid hydrodynamic action (2.1) with a single Clebsch potential η, ξλ = -∂λη, describes the zero-temperature massless fermion system.
Postulated in Sec. II A; assumes pure irrotational, isentropic flow with no entropy or vorticity modes.
domain assumption The phase field η obeys the canonical equal-time commutator [η(t,x), J0_5(t,x')] = iδ(x-x') (2.20)/(5.14).
Derived from bosonization in D=2 (3.11); imposed in D=4 by the local action (5.11) and supported by the anomalous Schwinger terms (5.17).
ad hoc to paper The chiral order parameter z0 = <e^{2iη}> is nonzero in the system ground state (4.1).
Introduced as the condition for the extended Goldstone theorem; in D=2 it holds only as quasi-long-range order in the e→0, L→∞ limit with eL fixed (Appendix C), and in D=4 it is not proven.
domain assumption In D=4 the transverse part of the axial current is completed by the free-fermion energy density ε(n5) of (7.1), valid when µ5 exceeds other scales.
Added in (7.2) to close the effective action; the authors note this completion is not unique and is justified only in the finite-density hydrodynamic regime.
domain assumption In a constant uniform magnetic field only the Lowest Landau Level contributes to the gapless response, so the theory reduces to D=2 with coupling 2αB.
Standard LLL dominance used in Sec. VI; supported by the LLL polarization operator (6.5) and the saturation of the anomalous commutator (6.7).

invented entities (1)

Chiral Density Wave (CDW) phase field η independent evidence
purpose: Serves as the collective Goldstone mode of anomalous chiral symmetry breaking and sources chiral and electromagnetic currents through (5.15).
Emergent bosonic field localizing the anomaly pole; in D=2 it is exactly the Schwinger boson, and in a magnetic field it reproduces the CMW with mass M²=e³B/2π², which is a falsifiable handle. It is not a new fundamental particle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chiral Waves on the Fermi-Dirac Sea: Quantum Superfluidity and the Axial Anomaly." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4AOMCBX

@misc{pith2026190901974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chiral Waves on the Fermi-Dirac Sea: Quantum Superfluidity and the Axial Anomaly},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4AOMCBX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01974}
}

abstract

We show that as a result of the axial anomaly, massless fermions at zero temperature define a relativistic quantum superfluid. The anomaly pole implies the existence of a gapless Chiral Density Wave (CDW), i.e. an axion-like acoustic mode of an irrotational and dissipationless Hamiltonian perfect fluid, that is a correlated fermion/anti-fermion pair excitation of the Fermi-Dirac sea. In $D\!=\!2$ dimensions the chiral superfluid effective action coincides with that of the Schwinger model as $e\rightarrow 0$, and the CDW acoustic mode is precisely the Schwinger boson. Since this identity holds also at zero chiral chemical potential, the Dirac vacuum itself may be viewed as a quantum superfluid state. The CDW collective boson is a $U(1)$ chiral phase field, which is gapless as a result of a novel, non-linear realization of Goldstone's theorem, extended to this case of symmetry breaking by an anomaly. A new local form of the axial anomaly bosonic effective action in any $D$ even spacetime is given, consistent with superfluidity, and its quantization is shown to be required by the anomalous Schwinger terms in fermion current commutators. In QED$_4$ this collective Goldstone mode appears as a massless pole in the axial anomaly triangle diagram, and is responsible for the macroscopic non-dissipative currents of the Chiral Magnetic and Chiral Separation Effects, as well as the Anomalous Hall Effect. In a constant uniform magnetic field an exact dimensional reduction from $D\!=\!4$ to $D\!=\!2$ occurs and the collective $e^+e^-$ CDW chiral pair excitation propagating along the magnetic field direction is a Chiral Magnetic Wave, which acquires a mass gap $M^2\!=\! e^{3}B/2\pi^{2}$. Possible realizations and tests of the theory of collective bosonic excitations due to the anomaly in Dirac/Weyl materials are briefly discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01974 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: The Axial Anomaly Triangle Diagram Amplitude Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Anomaly Realization in Charge-Flux Detector Correlators
hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Axial anomalies realize in flux detectors as massless-limit collapse of angular distributions onto beam-collinear deltas while preserving the integrated anomaly sum rule, with the same mechanism for zilch and mixed gr...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Khalatnikov, An Introduction to the Theory of Superﬂuidity (Perseus, 2000)

I. Khalatnikov, An Introduction to the Theory of Superﬂuidity (Perseus, 2000)

2000
[2]

Penrose, London, Edinburgh & Dublin Phil

O. Penrose, London, Edinburgh & Dublin Phil. Mag. and Jour. of Science 42, 1373 (1951)

1951
[3]

Penrose and L

O. Penrose and L. Onsager, Phys. Rev. 104, 576 (1956)

1956
[4]

C. N. Yang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 694 (1962)

1962
[5]

L. S. Brown, Quantum Field Theory (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992)

1992
[6]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961)

1961
[7]

Goldstone, Nuovo Cimento 19, 154 (1961)

J. Goldstone, Nuovo Cimento 19, 154 (1961)

1961
[8]

Goldstone, A

J. Goldstone, A. Salam, and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 127, 965 (1962)

1962

Show all 112 references

[9]

Giorgini, L

S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1215 (2008)

2008
[10]

J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 128, 2425 (1962)

1962
[11]

F. D. M. Haldane, J. Phys. C: Sol. State Phys. 14, 2585 (1981). 36

1981
[12]

Schmitt, Lect

A. Schmitt, Lect. Notes Phys. 888, pp.1 (2015), arXiv:1404.1284 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[13]

S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. 177, 2426 (1969)

1969
[14]

Treiman, R

S. Treiman, R. Jackiw, and D. Gross, Lectures on Current Algebra and Its Applications (Princeton Univ. Press, 1972)

1972
[15]

R. A. Bertlmann, Anomalies in Quantum Field Theory (Oxford Univ. Press, 1996)

1996
[16]

A. D. Dolgov and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B27, 525 (1971)

1971
[17]

Frishman, A

Y. Frishman, A. Schwimmer, T. Banks, and S. Yankielowicz, Nucl. Phys. B 177, 157 (1981)

1981
[18]

Coleman and B

S. Coleman and B. Grossman, Nucl. Phys. B 203, 205 (1982)

1982
[19]

Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,

G. ‘t Hooft, “Naturalness, chiral symmetry, and spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking,” in Recent Developments in Gauge Theories (Springer US, 1980) pp. 135–157

1980
[20]

S. L. Adler and W. A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. 182, 1517 (1969)

1969
[21]

Giannotti and E

M. Giannotti and E. Mottola, Phys. Rev. D79, 045014 (2009), arXiv:0812.0351 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[22]

D. N. Blaschke, R. Carballo-Rubio, and E. Mottola, JHEP 12, 153 (2014), arXiv:1407.8523 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[23]

Coleman, Phys

S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. D11, 2088 (1975)

1975
[24]

Mottola and R

E. Mottola and R. Vaulin, Phys. Rev. D74, 064004 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0604051 [gr-qc]

2006 arXiv
[25]

Armillis, C

R. Armillis, C. Corian` o, and L. Delle Rose, Phys. Rev. D 81, 085001 (2010)

2010
[26]

Mottola, Acta Phys

E. Mottola, Acta Phys. Polon. B41, 2031 (2010), arXiv:1008.5006 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[27]

Mermin and H

N. Mermin and H. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 1133 (1966)

1966
[28]

S. R. Coleman, Comm. Math. Phys. 31, 259 (1973)

1973
[29]

Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge Univ

S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011)

2011
[30]

D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. Voloshin, and G. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 88, 1 (2016), arXiv:1511.04050 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[31]

Huang, Rept

X.-G. Huang, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 076302 (2016), arXiv:1509.04073 [nucl-th]

2016 arXiv
[32]

Landsteiner, Acta Phys

K. Landsteiner, Acta Phys. Polon. B47, 2617 (2016), arXiv:1610.04413 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[33]

G. M. Monteiro, A. G. Abanov, and V. P. Nair, Phys. Rev. D91, 125033 (2015), arXiv:1410.4833 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[34]

B. F. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D2, 2762 (1970)

1970
[35]

Jackiw, V

R. Jackiw, V. P. Nair, S. Y. Pi, and A. P. Polychronakos, J. Phys. A37, R327 (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0407101 [hep-ph]

2004
[36]

Clebsch, Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik 1859, 1 (1859)

A. Clebsch, Journal f¨ ur die reine und angewandte Mathematik 1859, 1 (1859)
[37]

R. L. Seliger and G. B. Whitham, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 305, 1 (1968)

1968
[38]

Lublinsky and I

M. Lublinsky and I. Zahed, Phys. Lett. B684, 119 (2010), arXiv:0910.1373 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[39]

Dubovsky, L

S. Dubovsky, L. Hui, and A. Nicolis, Phys. Rev. D89, 045016 (2014), arXiv:1107.0732 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[40]

Glorioso, H

P. Glorioso, H. Liu, and S. Rajagopal, JHEP 01, 043 (2019), arXiv:1710.03768 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[41]

Zumino, Y.-S

B. Zumino, Y.-S. Wu, and A. Zee, Nucl. Phys. B239, 477 (1984)

1984
[42]

B. F. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D4, 3559 (1971)

1971
[43]

M. G. Alford, S. K. Mallavarapu, A. Schmitt, and S. Stetina, Phys. Rev. D87, 065001 (2013), 37 arXiv:1212.0670 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[44]

Johnson, Phys

K. Johnson, Phys. Lett. 5, 253 (1963)

1963
[45]

Mandelstam, Phys

S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rev. D11, 3026 (1975)

1975
[46]

J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 296 (1959)

1959
[47]

Jo, Phys

S.-G. Jo, Phys. Lett. B 163, 353 (1985)

1985
[48]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 124, 246 (1961)

1961
[49]

A. Yu. Alekseev, V. V. Cheianov, and J. Frohlich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3503 (1998), arXiv:cond- mat/9803346 [cond-mat]

1998
[50]

L. V. Delacr´ etaz, D. M. Hofman, and G. Mathys, SciPost Phys. 8, 47 (2020)

2020
[51]

J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo Cimento A60, 47 (1969)

1969
[52]

Rosenberg, Phys

L. Rosenberg, Phys. Rev. 129, 2786 (1963)

1963
[53]

Armillis, C

R. Armillis, C. Corian` o, L. D. Rose, and M. Guzzi, JHEP 2009, 029 (2009)

2009
[54]

S. L. Adler and D. G. Boulware, Phys. Rev. 184, 1740 (1969)

1969
[55]

D. J. Gross and R. Jackiw, Nucl. Phys. B14, 269 (1969)

1969
[56]

Vilenkin, Phys

A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D22, 3080 (1980)

1980
[57]

D. E. Kharzeev, L. D. McLerran, and H. J. Warringa, Nucl. Phys. A803, 227 (2008), arXiv:0711.0950 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[58]

Fukushima, D

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

2008 arXiv
[59]

P. V. Buividovich, M. N. Chernodub, E. V. Luschevskaya, and M. I. Polikarpov, Phys. Rev. D80, 054503 (2009), arXiv:0907.0494 [hep-lat]

2009 arXiv
[60]

D. E. Kharzeev and H. J. Warringa, Phys. Rev. D80, 034028 (2009), arXiv:0907.5007 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[61]

D. T. Son and P. Surowka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 191601 (2009), arXiv:0906.5044 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[62]

Pu, J.-h

S. Pu, J.-h. Gao, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. D83, 094017 (2011), arXiv:1008.2418 [nucl-th]

2011 arXiv
[63]

A. V. Sadofyev and M. V. Isachenkov, Phys. Lett. B697, 404 (2011), arXiv:1010.1550 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[64]

Sadofyev, V

A. Sadofyev, V. Shevchenko, and V. I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D83, 105025 (2011), arXiv:1012.1958 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[65]

Kalaydzhyan and I

T. Kalaydzhyan and I. Kirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 211601 (2011), arXiv:1102.4334 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[66]

Hoyos, T

C. Hoyos, T. Nishioka, and A. O’Bannon, JHEP 10, 084 (2011), arXiv:1106.4030 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[67]

V. P. Nair, R. Ray, and S. Roy, Phys. Rev. D86, 025012 (2012), arXiv:1112.4022 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[68]

D. T. Son and N. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 181602 (2012), arXiv:1203.2697 [cond-mat.mes- hall]

2012 arXiv
[69]

M. A. Stephanov and Y. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 162001 (2012), arXiv:1207.0747 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[70]

Jensen, Phys

K. Jensen, Phys. Rev. D85, 125017 (2012), arXiv:1203.3599 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[71]

Views of the chiral magnetic eﬀect,

K. Fukushima, “Views of the chiral magnetic eﬀect,” in Strongly Interacting Matter in Magnetic Fields, edited by D. Kharzeev, K. Landsteiner, A. Schmitt, and H.-U. Yee (Springer, Berlin, 2013) pp. 241–259. 38

2013
[72]

Khaidukov, V

Z. Khaidukov, V. Kirilin, A. Sadofyev, and V. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B934, 521 (2018), arXiv:1307.0138 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[73]

Avdoshkin, V

A. Avdoshkin, V. Kirilin, A. Sadofyev, and V. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B755, 1 (2016), arXiv:1402.3587 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[74]

A. A. Zyuzin and A. A. Burkov, Phys. Rev. B 86, 115133 (2012)

2012
[75]

Hosur and X

P. Hosur and X. Qi, Comp. Rend. Phys. 14, 857 (2013)

2013
[76]

Goswami and S

P. Goswami and S. Tewari, Phys. Rev. B 88, 245107 (2013)

2013
[77]

Kim, H.-J

K.-S. Kim, H.-J. Kim, M. Sasaki, J.-F. Wang, and L. Li, Sci. Tech. Adv. Mat. 15, 064401 (2014)

2014
[78]

Loskutov and V

Y. Loskutov and V. Skobelev, Phys. Lett. A56, 151 (1976)

1976
[79]

Calucci and R

G. Calucci and R. Ragazzon, Jour. Phys. A 27, 2161 (1994)

1994
[80]

V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Lett. B349, 477 (1995), arXiv:hep- ph/9412257 [hep-ph]

1995
[81]

V. P. Gusynin, V. A. Miransky, and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1291 (1999), arXiv:hep- th/9811079 [hep-th]

1999
[82]

Fukushima, Phys

K. Fukushima, Phys. Rev. D83, 111501 (2011), arXiv:1103.4430 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[83]

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

2015 arXiv
[84]

H. B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, Phys. Lett. B130, 389 (1983)

1983
[85]

Basar and G

G. Basar and G. V. Dunne, Lect. Notes Phys. 871, 261 (2013), arXiv:1207.4199 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[86]

Rupertsberger, Phys

H. Rupertsberger, Phys. Rev. D 23, 2388 (1981)

1981
[87]

D. E. Kharzeev and H.-U. Yee, Phys. Rev. D83, 085007 (2011), arXiv:1012.6026 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[88]

D. O. Rybalka, E. V. Gorbar, and I. A. Shovkovy, Phys. Rev. D99, 016017 (2019), arXiv:1807.07608 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[89]

F. D. M. Haldane, (2005), arXiv:cond-mat/0505529 [cond-mat.str-el]

2005 arXiv
[90]

Houghton and J

A. Houghton and J. B. Marston, Phys. Rev. B 48, 7790 (1993)

1993
[91]

A. H. Castro Neto and E. Fradkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1393 (1994)

1994
[92]

Gribov, Nucl

V. Gribov, Nucl. Phys. B 206, 103 (1982)

1982
[93]

Rubakov, Nucl

V. Rubakov, Nucl. Phys. B 236, 109 (1984)

1984
[94]

Morchio and F

G. Morchio and F. Strocchi, Ann. Phys. 172, 267 (1986)

1986
[95]

C. D. Roberts and R. T. Cahill, Phys. Rev. D 33, 1755 (1986)

1986
[96]

Qi and S.-C

X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

2011
[97]

N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015001 (2018)

2018
[98]

R. Li, J. Wang, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Nature Phys. 6, 284 (2010)

2010
[99]

Wang and S.-C

Z. Wang and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 87, 161107 (2013)

2013
[100]

Gooth et al., Nature 575, 315 (2019), arXiv:1906.04510 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

J. Gooth et al., Nature 575, 315 (2019), arXiv:1906.04510 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

2019 arXiv
[101]

Schmeltzer and A

D. Schmeltzer and A. Saxena, LA-UR-19-31359, to appear
[102]

Klaiber, Quantum theory and statistical physics

B. Klaiber, Quantum theory and statistical physics. Proceedings, 10th Summer Institute for Theoretical Physics: Boulder, CO, USA, 1967 , Lect. Theor. Phys. 10A, 141 (1968). 39

1968
[103]

Wolf and J

D. Wolf and J. Zittartz, Z. Phys. B: Cond. Mat. 59, 117 (1985)

1985
[104]

J. E. Hetrick and Y. Hosotani, Phys. Rev. D38, 2621 (1988)

1988
[105]

J. H. Lowenstein and J. A. Swieca, Ann. Phys. 68, 172 (1971)

1971
[106]

J. B. Kogut and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D11, 3594 (1975)

1975
[107]

N. S. Manton, Ann. Phys. 159, 220 (1985)

1985
[108]

Link, Phys

R. Link, Phys. Rev. D42, 2103 (1990)

1990
[109]

Grosse, E

H. Grosse, E. Langmann, and E. Raschhofer, Ann. Phys. 253, 310 (1997), arXiv:hep-th/9609206 [hep-th]

1997 arXiv
[110]

Hosotani and R

Y. Hosotani and R. Rodriguez, J. Phys. A31, 9925 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9804205 [hep-th]

1998 arXiv
[111]

Kleinert, Gauge ﬁelds in condensed matter

H. Kleinert, Gauge ﬁelds in condensed matter. Vol. 1: Superﬂow and Vortex Lines (World Scientiﬁc, Singapore, 1989)

1989
[112]

Habib, Y

S. Habib, Y. Kluger, E. Mottola, and J. P. Paz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4660 (1996), arXiv:hep- ph/9509413 [hep-ph]. Appendix A: Energy-Momentum Tensor Conservation and Comparison of H and T 00 We note ﬁrst that the Hermitian Dirac chiral matrix γD+1 is deﬁned in D dimensions by ...

1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Khalatnikov, An Introduction to the Theory of Superﬂuidity (Perseus, 2000)

I. Khalatnikov, An Introduction to the Theory of Superﬂuidity (Perseus, 2000)

2000

[2] [2]

Penrose, London, Edinburgh & Dublin Phil

O. Penrose, London, Edinburgh & Dublin Phil. Mag. and Jour. of Science 42, 1373 (1951)

1951

[3] [3]

Penrose and L

O. Penrose and L. Onsager, Phys. Rev. 104, 576 (1956)

1956

[4] [4]

C. N. Yang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 694 (1962)

1962

[5] [5]

L. S. Brown, Quantum Field Theory (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992)

1992

[6] [6]

Nambu and G

Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961)

1961

[7] [7]

Goldstone, Nuovo Cimento 19, 154 (1961)

J. Goldstone, Nuovo Cimento 19, 154 (1961)

1961

[8] [8]

Goldstone, A

J. Goldstone, A. Salam, and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 127, 965 (1962)

1962