Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 84 references

For analytic Skyrme-model spaghetti and lasagna crystals, the low-energy sector is a free massless scalar in 1+1 dimensions, and Kubo response yields an ideal elastic solid with a full elasticity tensor and vanishing viscosity and thermal c

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:18 UTC pith:W2ZFKJK2

load-bearing objection A genuinely new but structurally fragile computation: the reduction to a single scalar mode is asserted without proof, and the sign of the shear modulus looks off. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18463 v1 pith:W2ZFKJK2 submitted 2026-07-20 hep-th nucl-th

Viscoelastic and thermal response on nuclear pasta states at finite baryon density

Nicol\'as Grandi , Scarlett Rebolledo , Aldo Vera This is my paper
classification hep-th nucl-th
keywords nuclear pastaSkyrme modelspaghetti and lasagna phaseselasticity tensorGreen-Kubo formulathermal conductivitytopological solitonsneutron star crust
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to show that the nuclear pasta phases described by analytic Skyrme-model crystals have a computable low-energy effective theory: a single free massless scalar in 1+1 dimensions. Using Green-Kubo formulas on that scalar, the authors derive explicit expressions for the elasticity tensor, thermoelastic coefficients, heat capacity, and thermal inductance, while finding zero viscosity and zero thermal conductivity. A sympathetic reader would care because this is one of the first analytic, first-principles computations of the mechanical and thermal response of nuclear pasta, providing a baseline for understanding neutron star crust stability. The key insight is that the rigidity of these phases is topologically rooted in the Skyrme field's structure, not in ordinary atomic-scale elasticity.

Core claim

The central claim is that for the analytic spaghetti (baryonic tubes) and lasagna (baryonic layers) solutions of the Skyrme model, the lowest-energy excitations are a free massless scalar field in 1+1 dimensions, obtained by perturbing only the phase function along the long direction while keeping the profile functions fixed. Applying the Green-Kubo formula to this scalar field yields the complete elasticity tensor, nonzero thermoelastic and heat-capacity coefficients, and identically vanishing viscosity and thermal conductivity. The nonvanishing elastic coefficients, e.g. E_xxxx, E_zzzz, E_yyyy, E_zzxx, are expressed through classical form functions, the zero-mode free-energy factor f0(T),

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the emergent 1+1-dimensional free massless scalar field φ(x+,x−) that arises from perturbing the phase Φ = p x− + c φ around the analytic crystal backgrounds. The reduction is made possible by the constraint ∂+G ∂−G = 0 that follows from the Skyrme term, forcing Φ to depend on a single light-like coordinate. This scalar, together with the classical form functions f_zz, f_yy, etc., feeds into the Kubo formula for the generalized susceptibility λ, from which all response coefficients are read off.

Load-bearing premise

The reduction to a single scalar mode assumes that the only low-energy perturbations are smooth changes of the phase Φ along the long x direction, while the profile functions α and Θ (and any y,z dependence) stay fixed; the paper states without proof that α and Θ perturbations do not yield consistent linearized equations, and if that truncation is wrong the effective theory and all response coefficients would be incomplete.

What would settle it

Compute the full linear fluctuation spectrum around the analytic spaghetti and lasagna solutions, allowing all three Skyrme degrees of freedom (α, Θ, Φ) to depend on x, y, z and time. If any mode other than the φ phase perturbation has energy comparable to or less than 1/L_x, the effective scalar theory and the resulting elasticity and transport coefficients would be incomplete. Alternatively, a molecular-dynamics simulation of nuclear pasta at low temperature that finds a shear viscosity incompatible with the predicted elastic-limit baseline would also falsify the central claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The elasticity tensor of nuclear pasta phases can be obtained analytically, giving explicit access to Young moduli, shear moduli, and Poisson ratios.
  • At leading order, nuclear pasta behaves as an ideal elastic solid: it resists shear, while viscosity and thermal conductivity vanish.
  • Low-energy excitations propagate ballistically along the tubes and layers, a consequence of the free massless scalar description.
  • The topological protection of the crystal structure provides a first-principles argument for the mechanical stability of the neutronic crust.
  • Future corrections—self-interactions or couplings to other sectors—are expected to give nonvanishing viscosity and thermal conductivity that scale linearly with temperature, matching existing numerical results.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: If the single-scalar reduction holds, the same Kubo pipeline could be applied to other topological soliton crystals, such as BPS superfluid configurations, yielding a generic statement that lattice soliton crystals have a phonon-like 1+1-dimensional low-energy sector.
  • Editorial inference: The vanishing viscosity and thermal conductivity are likely an artifact of the free-field truncation; any realistic extension will introduce dissipation. A testable prediction is that the first corrections scale as T, which could be checked directly in molecular-dynamics simulations of pasta phases.
  • Editorial inference: The cutoff k''max encodes the unknown high-energy modes (y,z momentum and α/Θ oscillations). Its physical scale, set at ~200 MeV in the Skyrme effective theory, implies that the elasticity coefficients depend on ultraviolet physics; lattice QCD or improved effective theories could pin down this scale and remove the cutoff sensitivity.
  • Editorial inference: If the elastic response is as large as predicted, neutron star crust shear modes (e.g., torsional oscillations) would be dominated by the topological rigidity, possibly altering current estimates of crust breaking strain.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes viscoelastic and thermal response coefficients for two analytic nuclear-pasta configurations in the SU(2) Skyrme model: a spaghetti crystal of baryonic tubes and a lasagna crystal of baryonic layers. The classical backgrounds are taken from earlier work and are reviewed in Sec. 3. The authors then argue in Sec. 4 that the only low-energy excitations are perturbations of the phase function Φ, reducing the effective theory to a free massless scalar in 1+1 dimensions. Using Green–Kubo formulas and explicit commutator calculations in the appendices, they obtain the elasticity tensor, viscosity (which vanishes), thermal conductivity (which vanishes), heat capacity, thermal stress, thermal inductance, and elastocaloric coefficients, Eqs. (5.7)–(5.12). The paper claims that the rigidity of the pasta phases has a topological origin and that the results agree qualitatively with molecular dynamics and geometric-stability studies.

Significance. If the mode reduction is correct, the paper would be a rare analytic derivation of transport and elastic coefficients for inhomogeneous baryonic matter, complementing numerical simulations of nuclear pasta. A notable strength is the explicitness of the computation: the quantization of the emergent scalar, the evaluation of the required commutators, and the final Kubo integrals are carried out in full in Appendices B and C, and no phenomenological fitting parameters enter except for the momentum cutoff k''_max. The qualitative agreement with existing molecular-dynamics results is encouraging. However, the central low-energy reduction is not proven, and the cutoff dependence and sign convention issues prevent the results from being fully first-principles predictions in their present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4 (before Eq. 4.1)] The reduction to a single Φ mode is not justified. The text rules out α and Θ perturbations that depend only on x by saying they 'do not lead to consistent linearized equations,' but this only excludes perturbations with a trivial (y,z) profile. The background is periodic in y and z, so broken translations imply gapless acoustic phonons with wavevector k_x and transverse polarization, e.g. δα ∝ f(t,x) ∂_z α0(z). Their energy is ~|k_x|/L_x, the same scale as the Φ mode in the limit L_x→∞. Without computing the linearized fluctuation spectrum around the exact background, the effective action (4.2) and all response coefficients (5.7)–(5.12) may be incomplete.
  2. [Sec. 5, Eq. (5.7); Appendix A] The sign of the extracted moduli appears inconsistent with the stated convention. With δH = +∫ u_ij T^ij and Eq. (A.5), the static susceptibility should give E = +λ in the low-frequency limit, yet Eq. (5.7) gives E_xyxy = −c²L_x² g_·y g'_·y. For the lasagna phase, g_·y is nonzero and the product can be positive, which would imply a negative shear modulus and an apparent instability. The authors should clarify whether E is a local kernel or a coarse-grained modulus and verify the sign convention, since the stability claim in Sec. 7 depends on it.
  3. [Eqs. (5.14)–(5.16), Sec. 5] The response coefficients depend on a hand-chosen momentum cutoff k''_max: the moduli grow as k''_max or k''_max² depending on the temperature regime. The text states that k''_max can be made 'as large as we want' and also invokes a physical 200 MeV cutoff, but no calculation fixes k''_max or shows that the divergent part cancels in observables. Without such a prescription, the numerical predictions are not first-principles, and the comparison with molecular dynamics [29] and geometric stability [84] remains qualitative.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4] The claim that α and Θ perturbations depending only on x are inconsistent is stated without proof. Even if the mode truncation is accepted, this statement should be demonstrated or referenced.
  2. [Sec. 7] The phrase 'knots of the Skyrme field' is vague and not defined. The topological argument for rigidity should be made precise, perhaps by connecting the elasticity components to the baryon-charge density.
  3. [Fig. 2] The schematic representation is helpful, but the caption and the discussion in Sec. 7 would benefit from a table listing the actual nonvanishing components from Eq. (5.7), their signs, and their dependence on the cutoff.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. 5] The comparison with MD results [29] and geometric stability [84] is qualitative. A quantitative comparison, even order-of-magnitude, would strengthen the claim of agreement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the response coefficients are derived from explicit Kubo commutators of the effective scalar theory, with no fitted parameter and no target result assumed.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: exact Skyrme backgrounds (Sec. 3, from refs. [59-68], some co-authored by one of the present authors) -> perturb only the phase Phi in Eq. (4.1) -> free 1+1D scalar action (4.2) -> quantization (Appendix B) -> commutators of T^{mu nu} (Appendix C) -> Kubo formula (5.5) -> response coefficients (5.7)-(5.12). No fitted parameter enters the Kubo computation; the normalization c is fixed by requiring a canonical scalar action (4.2), not by matching the response data. The restriction to a single Phi mode is an explicit truncation assumption, and if alpha/Theta or transverse modes are actually soft, the response list could be incomplete, but that is a validity/correctness concern, not circularity: the paper never defines the low-energy theory in terms of the response coefficients it outputs. Self-citations to prior analytic solutions are inputs, and the paper restates the relevant equations (e.g., (3.5), (3.10)); the target elastic/thermal results are not assumed in those references. External comparisons to molecular dynamics [29] and geometric stability [84] are independent checks. The possible sign issue in E_xyxy is likewise a correctness issue, not a circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on the Skyrme model and prior analytic crystal solutions. No new entities are introduced. The only hand-chosen regulator is the momentum cutoff k''_max, on which the quantitative values of the moduli depend.

free parameters (1)
  • momentum cutoff k''_max = not fitted; ~200 MeV scale
    Regulates divergent sums in wss1; elastic moduli scale as k''_max or k''_max^2, so quantitative values depend on the cutoff.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Skyrme model is the low-energy effective theory of QCD at finite baryon density
    Section 1 and 2; underpins the entire calculation.
  • domain assumption The analytic solutions of refs. [59-68] describe the nuclear pasta phases
    Section 3 reviews them; physical relevance argued from qualitative agreement with numerical pasta configurations and shear modulus comparison in [64].
  • domain assumption Separation of scales L_x >> L_y, L_z makes higher-dimensional modes energetically suppressed
    Section 4, used to truncate to the 1+1d scalar field.
  • ad hoc to paper Perturbations of α and Θ that depend only on x have no consistent linearized equations
    Section 4, asserted without derivation; load-bearing for the emergent scalar reduction.
  • standard math Green-Kubo formulas and the identification of lambda with E,η,κ etc. in the small-ω limit
    Appendix A; standard linear response theory.
  • standard math Wick's theorem and canonical quantization on a circle, dropping ill-defined zero-mode correlators
    Appendices B,C; standard.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25501 in / 13457 out tokens · 121689 ms · 2026-08-01T15:18:53.834738+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We compute the viscoelastic and thermal response of non-homogeneous hadronic condensates at finite baryon density representing crystals of baryonic tubes and layers. We describe them using analytic solutions of the Skyrme model in $3+1$ dimensions as ground states for a perturbative approach. At low enough temperatures, the lowest-energy excitations are described by a free massless scalar field theory in $1+1$ dimensions. We apply the Green-Kubo formulas to such excitations to obtain the elasticity tensor and other response coefficients. The analytic results of our computations are compared with available results on the nuclear pasta phase.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961); Phys. Rev. 124, 246 (1961)

    1961

  2. [2]

    Rajagopal and F

    K. Rajagopal and F. Wilczek, in At the Frontier of Particle Physics/Handbook of QCD, edited by M. Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001); arXiv:hep-ph/0011333

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  3. [3]

    M. G. Alford, J. A. Bowers, and K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. D 63, 074016 (2001)

    2001

  4. [4]

    Casalbuoni and G

    R. Casalbuoni and G. Nardulli, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 263 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    Ravenhall, C.J

    D.G. Ravenhall, C.J. Pethick, J.R.Wilson,Phys. Rev. Lett.50, 2066 (1983)

    2066

  6. [6]

    Hashimoto, H

    M. Hashimoto, H. Seki, M. Yamada, Prog. Theor. Phys. 71, 320 (1984)

    1984

  7. [7]

    C. J. Horowitz, D. K. Berry, C.M. Briggs, M. E. Caplan, A. Cumming, A. S. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 031102 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

    D. K. Berry, M. E. Caplan, C. J. Horowitz, G. Huber, A. S. Schneider, Phys. Rev. C 94, 055801 (2016)

    2016

  9. [9]

    C. O. Dorso, G. A. Frank, J. A. L´ opez, Nucl. Phys. A978, 35 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    da Silva Schneider, M

    A. da Silva Schneider, M. E. Caplan, D. K. Berry, C. J. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. C 98, 055801 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    M. E. Caplan, A. S. Schneider, and C. J. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 132701 (2018)

    2018

  12. [12]

    Nandi and S

    R. Nandi and S. Schramm, J. Astrophys. Astron. 39, 40 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Z. Lin, M. E. Caplan, C. J. Horowitz, C. Lunardini, Phys.Rev.C 102 (2020) 4, 045801

    2020

  14. [14]

    Dorso, A

    C.O. Dorso, A. Strachan, G.A. Frank, Nucl.Phys.A 1002 (2020) 122004

    2020

  15. [15]

    Pethick, Z

    C.J. Pethick, Z. Zhang, D.N. Kobyakov, Phys.Rev.C 101 (2020) 5, 055802

    2020

  16. [16]

    J. A. Lopez, C. O. Dorso, G. A. Frank, Front.Phys. (Beijing) 16 (2021) 2, 24301

    2021

  17. [17]

    L. Brey, H. A. Fertig, R. Cote, A. H. MacDonald,Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 2562 (1995)

    1995

  18. [18]

    Klebanov,Nucl

    I. Klebanov,Nucl. Phys.B 262(1985) 133

    1985

  19. [19]

    Wrist, G.E

    E. Wrist, G.E. Brown, A.D. Jackson,Nucl. Phys.A 468(1987) 450

    1987

  20. [20]

    Manton,Phys Lett.B 192(1987) 177

    N. Manton,Phys Lett.B 192(1987) 177

    1987

  21. [21]

    Goldhaber, N

    A. Goldhaber, N. Manton,Phys Lett.B 198(1987), 231

    1987

  22. [22]

    Manton, P

    N. Manton, P. Sutcliffe,Phys. Lett.B 342(1995) 196

    1995

  23. [23]

    Harland, N

    D. Harland, N. Manton,Nucl. Phys.B 935(2018) 210

    2018

  24. [24]

    W. K. Baskerville,Phys. Lett.B 380(1996) 106

    1996

  25. [25]

    Loewe, C

    M. Loewe, C. Villavicencio, Phys. Rev. B 71 (2005) 094001

    2005

  26. [26]

    Loewe, S

    M. Loewe, S. Mendizabal, J.C. Rojas, Physics Letters B 632 (2006) 512–516

    2006

  27. [27]

    J. A. Ponciano, N. N. Scoccola, Phys. Lett. B 659, 551 (2008)

    2008

  28. [28]

    D. G. Yakovlev,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society453, 581–590 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    C. J. Horowitz and D. K. Berry, Phys. Rev. C78, 035806 (2008). – 34 –

    2008

  30. [30]

    Caplan, C.R

    M.E. Caplan, C.R. Forsman, A.S. Schneider, Phys.Rev.C 103 (2021) 5, 055810

    2021

  31. [31]

    Nandi, S

    R. Nandi, S. Schramm, J.Astrophys. Astron. 39 (2018) 40; Astrophys.J. 852 (2018) 2, 135

    2018

  32. [32]

    Sonoda, G

    H. Sonoda, G. Watanabe, K. Sato, T. Takiwaki, K. Yasuoka, T. Ebisuzaki, Phys.Rev.C 75 (2007) 042801

    2007

  33. [33]

    M. S. Green, Melville,Jour. of Chem. Phys.22(3): 398–413 (1954)

    1954

  34. [34]

    Kubo,Jour

    R. Kubo,Jour. of the Phys. Soc. of Japan.12(6): 570–586 (1957-06-15)

    1957

  35. [35]

    P. C. Martin, J. Schwinger,Phys. Rev.115, 1342–1373 (1959)

    1959

  36. [36]

    Morgenstern Horing,Quantum Statistical Field Theory: An Introduction to Schwinger’s Variational Method, Oxford University Press (2017)

    N. Morgenstern Horing,Quantum Statistical Field Theory: An Introduction to Schwinger’s Variational Method, Oxford University Press (2017)

    2017

  37. [37]

    T. H. R. Skyrme, Proc. R. Soc. LondonA 260, 127 (1961)

    1961

  38. [38]

    ’t Hooft, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phy.B72; Nucl. Phys.B75, 461 (1974)

    1974

  39. [39]

    Veneziano,Nucl

    G. Veneziano,Nucl. Phys.B 117, 519 (1976)

    1976

  40. [40]

    Witten,Nucl

    E. Witten,Nucl. Phys.B 160, 57 (1979)

    1979

  41. [41]

    A Primer for Chiral Perturbation Theory

    S. Scherer, M. R. Schindler, “A Primer for Chiral Perturbation Theory” Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012)

    2012

  42. [42]

    Dynamics of the Standard Model

    J. Donoghue, E. Golowich, and B. Holstein, “Dynamics of the Standard Model” (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1994)

    1994

  43. [43]

    Machleidt, D

    R. Machleidt, D. R. Entem,Phys. Rep.503, 1 (2011)

    2011

  44. [44]

    Balachandran, A

    A.P. Balachandran, A. Barducci, F. Lizzi, C.G.J. Rodgers, A. Stern, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1984), 887

    1984

  45. [45]

    Advanced Topics in Quantum Field Theory: A Lecture Course

    M. Shifman, “Advanced Topics in Quantum Field Theory: A Lecture Course” Cambridge University Press, (2012)

    2012

  46. [46]

    Supersymmetric Solitons

    M. Shifman, A. Yung, “Supersymmetric Solitons” Cambridge University Press, (2009)

    2009

  47. [47]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys.B 223, 422 (1983); Nucl. Phys.B 223, 433 (1983)

    1983

  48. [48]

    G. S. Adkins, C. R. Nappi, E. Witten, Nucl. Phys.B 228, 552 (1983)

    1983

  49. [49]

    P. Jain, R. Johnson, N.W. Park, J. Schechter, H. Weigel, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 855

    1989

  50. [50]

    Schwesinger, H

    B. Schwesinger, H. Weigel, G. Holzwarth, A. Hayashi, Phys. Rep. 173 (1989) 173

    1989

  51. [51]

    MeiBner, Phys

    U.-G. MeiBner, Phys. Rep. 161 (1988) 213

    1988

  52. [52]

    Johnson, N.W

    R. Johnson, N.W. Park, J. Schechter, V. Soni, H. Weigel, Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 2998

    1990

  53. [53]

    Masak, Phys

    D. Masak, Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989) 305

    1989

  54. [54]

    J. J. Sakurai,Currents and mesons. Chicago: Chicago University Press 1969

    1969

  55. [55]

    Machleidt, K

    R. Machleidt, K. Holinde and C. Elster, Phys. Rept.149(1987), 1-89

    1987

  56. [56]

    G. S. Adkins, Phys. Rev. D33, 193 (1986)

    1986

  57. [57]

    U. G. Meissner and I. Zahed, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 1035 (1986)

    1986

  58. [58]

    Bando, T

    M. Bando, T. Kugo, S. Uehara, K. Yamawaki and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. Lett.54, 1215 (1985). – 35 –

    1985

  59. [59]

    P. D. Alvarez, F. Canfora, N. Dimakis, A. Paliathanasis,Phys. Lett.B 773, (2017) 401-407

    2017

  60. [60]

    Canfora,Eur

    F. Canfora,Eur. Phys. J.C 78, no. 11, 929 (2018)

    2018

  61. [61]

    Canfora, S.-H

    F. Canfora, S.-H. Oh, A. Vera,Eur. Phys. J.C 79(2019) no.6, 485

    2019

  62. [62]

    Canfora, M

    F. Canfora, M. Lagos and A. Vera,Eur. Phys. J.C 80, no. 8, 697 (2020)

    2020

  63. [63]

    Canfora, S

    F. Canfora, S. Carignano, M. Lagos, M. Mannarelli and A. Vera,Phys. Rev.D103 (2021) 7, 076003

    2021

  64. [64]

    P. D. Alvarez, S. L. Cacciatori, F. Canfora and B. L. Cerchiai, Phys. Rev. D101, no. 12, 125011 (2020)

    2020

  65. [65]

    S. L. Cacciatori, F. Canfora, M. Lagos, F. Muscolino and A. Vera, JHEP12, 150 (2021)

    2021

  66. [66]

    S. L. Cacciatori, F. Canfora, M. Lagos, F. Muscolino and A. Vera, Nucl. Phys. B976, 115693 (2022)

    2022

  67. [67]

    Canfora, D

    F. Canfora, D. Hidalgo, M. Lagos, E. Meneses and A. Vera, Phys. Rev. D106, no.10, 105016 (2022)

    2022

  68. [68]

    Canfora, JHEP11, 007 (2023)

    F. Canfora, JHEP11, 007 (2023)

    2023

  69. [69]

    Ayon-Beato, F

    E. Ayon-Beato, F. Canfora, J. Zanelli,Phys. Lett.B 752,(2016) 201-205

    2016

  70. [70]

    Ayon-Beato, F

    E. Ayon-Beato, F. Canfora, M. Lagos, J. Oliva, A. Vera, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no. 5, 384 (2020)

    2020

  71. [71]

    Canfora and P

    F. Canfora and P. Pais, Nucl. Phys. B1017, 116955 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    Canfora and P

    F. Canfora and P. Pais, Eur. Phys. J. C85, no.8, 884 (2025)

    2025

  73. [73]

    Canfora, M

    F. Canfora, M. Lagos and A. Vera, JHEP10, 224 (2024)

    2024

  74. [74]

    S. L. Cacciatori, F. Canfora and F. Muscolino, Nucl. Phys. B1000, 116477 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    Vera, JHEP10, 119 (2025)

    A. Vera, JHEP10, 119 (2025)

    2025

  76. [76]

    S. L. Cacciatori and A. Scotti, Universe8, no.10, 492 (2022)

    2022

  77. [77]

    Avil´ es, F

    L. Avil´ es, F. Canfora, N. Dimakis and D. Hidalgo, Phys. Rev. D96, no.12, 125005 (2017)

    2017

  78. [78]

    Canfora, M

    F. Canfora, M. Lagos, S. H. Oh, J. Oliva and A. Vera, Phys. Rev. D98, no.8, 085003 (2018)

    2018

  79. [79]

    S. L. Cacciatori, F. Canfora, E. Delgado, F. Muscolino and L. Rosa, Phys. Rev. D113, no.10, 105025 (2026)

    2026

  80. [80]

    LifshitzStatistical Physics,Volume 5 (3 rd Edition - January 1, 1980) Paperback ISBN: 9780750633727, eBook ISBN: 9780080570464

    L D Landau, E.M. LifshitzStatistical Physics,Volume 5 (3 rd Edition - January 1, 1980) Paperback ISBN: 9780750633727, eBook ISBN: 9780080570464

    1980

Showing first 80 references.