pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.28004 · v1 · pith:YVHSRS2Vnew · submitted 2026-06-26 · 🪐 quant-ph

Hard-core Bosons in Action: Applications to Quantum Circuits

David Emmanuel-Costa , Michael Epping This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 04:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords hard-core bosonsquantum circuit simulationClifford algebrasgenetic algorithmsquantum computingtensor product structure
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hard-core boson algebra for quantum circuits avoids sign corrections and runs faster than Clifford-based methods.

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

The paper establishes that hard-core bosons provide a natural way to represent multi-qubit systems for circuit simulation. This representation directly encodes the tensor-product structure and eliminates the need for sign corrections that appear in complex Clifford algebra approaches. Although the two are formally equivalent, the boson method shows computational advantages, which the authors demonstrate through an efficient implementation that beats IBM Qiskit in execution time. They further apply it to synthesize circuits using genetic algorithms.

Core claim

Although both the hard-core boson and complex Clifford algebra approaches are formally equivalent, the hard-core boson formulation exhibits computational advantages for the representation and simulation of quantum circuits because it realizes the tensor-product structure directly and requires no sign corrections. The work reviews and extends the algebra, presents an efficient implementation, shows substantially improved execution times versus IBM Qiskit, and introduces a new application that combines the formalism with genetic algorithms for quantum circuit synthesis.

What carries the argument

Hard-core boson algebra, which represents multi-qubit systems with direct tensor products and no sign corrections for circuit simulation.

If this is right

  • Quantum circuit simulations execute with substantially improved execution times compared to IBM Qiskit.
  • The hard-core boson formalism combines with genetic algorithms to enable quantum circuit synthesis.
  • An efficient implementation of the extended algebra supports both simulation and synthesis tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Faster per-circuit evaluation could let genetic algorithms test more candidate circuits within fixed compute budgets.
  • The sign-free representation might extend naturally to simulation of open quantum systems or noisy circuits.
  • Direct tensor-product handling could simplify code for hybrid quantum-classical algorithms that require frequent circuit re-evaluation.

Load-bearing premise

The hard-core boson representation can be realized in code without introducing hidden overheads that would offset the savings from skipping sign corrections.

What would settle it

A side-by-side timing test on identical circuits where the hard-core boson implementation shows no consistent speedup or runs slower than Qiskit would falsify the claimed computational advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.28004 by David Emmanuel-Costa, Michael Epping.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A quantum circuit that prepares the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger. realism and in many quantum information and quantum communication schemes 39 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger state for different qubit number provided by the Munich Quantum Toolkit Benchmark Library, up to 64 qubits. The figure presents execution times for three simulators were used, namely, Quipo34 (hard-core boson implementation), Qiskit 35 and Stim43 . |+i |+i Uω UD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quantum circuit for the Grover algorithm to find the solution |ωi = |10i marked by the oracle Uω, followed by the action of the diffusor UD (the reflection across the initial state). Note that since n = 2 qubits are used, the Grover iteration UDUω is applied only once. The goal of Grover’s algorithm is to find the solution state |ωi ∈ C ⊗n 2 which is marked by the oracle Uω via a phase flip, i.e., Uω |ωi =… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Quantum Fourier transformation to entangled qubits for different qubit number provided by the Munich Quantum Toolkit Benchmark Library, up to 25 qubits. The figure presents execution times for three simulators were used, namely, Quipo34 (hard-core boson implementation) and Qiskit 35 . Qiskit. We have verified that all the probabilities of the final state for each algorithm are exactly the same for both Qui… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Deutsch–Jozsa circuit for five input qubits and written in terms of primitive gates {RZ, SX, X, CX}. This quantum circuit was drawn using Qiskit 35 . circuit is composed of 38 gates. We have implemented our GA within the C++ Quipo library, in particular for calculating the fitness function given in Equation (16). Applying our GA together with bisection method we get the following 6-gate sequence: G → X(1)−… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The use of algebraic frameworks based on complex Clifford algebras for the representation and simulation of quantum circuits has been discussed in the literature. Recently, an alternative algebraic approach employing hard-core bosons has been proposed. Hard-core bosons provide a natural representation of multi-qubit systems, in which the tensor-product structure is realized directly and no sign corrections are required, in contrast to realizations based on complex Clifford algebras. Although both approaches are formally equivalent, the hard-core boson formulation exhibits computational advantages. This work reviews and extends the hard-core boson algebra for circuit simulation and presents an efficient implementation. A performance comparison with IBM Qiskit shows substantially improved execution times for simulations. Moreover, a new application is introduced in which the hard-core boson formalism is combined with genetic algorithms for quantum circuit synthesis.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reviews and extends the hard-core boson algebra as an alternative to complex Clifford algebras for representing and simulating quantum circuits. It asserts formal equivalence between the approaches but claims computational advantages for hard-core bosons arising from direct realization of the tensor-product structure and the absence of sign corrections. The work presents an efficient implementation, reports substantially faster execution times than IBM Qiskit on benchmark simulations, and introduces a new application that combines the hard-core boson formalism with genetic algorithms for quantum circuit synthesis.

Significance. If the claimed computational advantages are shown to originate from the algebraic representation rather than implementation choices, the work would supply a practically useful alternative framework for circuit simulation. The combination with genetic algorithms for synthesis constitutes a concrete new application that extends the formalism beyond pure simulation. The review and extension of the algebra, together with the reported performance comparison, could be of interest to researchers working on efficient quantum circuit tools.

major comments (1)
  1. [Performance comparison section] Performance comparison section (and associated tables/figures): the central claim that hard-core bosons exhibit computational advantages rests on the reported speedups versus Qiskit. The manuscript provides no indication that the Qiskit baseline was re-implemented with equivalent low-level tuning, memory layout, or compiler settings, nor does it include profiling that isolates the overhead of sign corrections. Without such controls it is not possible to attribute the observed execution-time differences to the algebraic representation itself.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrase 'substantially improved execution times' would be more informative if accompanied by at least one concrete example of circuit size or gate count used in the comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting this important point regarding the performance comparison. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Performance comparison section] Performance comparison section (and associated tables/figures): the central claim that hard-core bosons exhibit computational advantages rests on the reported speedups versus Qiskit. The manuscript provides no indication that the Qiskit baseline was re-implemented with equivalent low-level tuning, memory layout, or compiler settings, nor does it include profiling that isolates the overhead of sign corrections. Without such controls it is not possible to attribute the observed execution-time differences to the algebraic representation itself.

    Authors: We agree that the comparison is between our hard-core boson implementation and the standard Qiskit simulator, without a re-implemented and equivalently tuned Qiskit baseline or explicit profiling of sign-correction overhead. This means the reported speedups cannot be attributed solely to the algebraic representation. In the revised manuscript we will expand the performance section to describe our implementation details (memory layout, data structures, and compiler settings), explicitly note that the advantages arise from the combination of the direct tensor-product structure and absence of sign corrections with our specific code, and add a statement clarifying the limitations of the current benchmark. We will also indicate that controlled comparisons isolating the algebraic contribution remain an open direction for future work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; performance claims rest on external benchmark

full rationale

The paper reviews and extends the hard-core boson algebra for circuit simulation, presents an implementation, and reports execution-time comparisons against IBM Qiskit. These comparisons are framed as external empirical benchmarks rather than predictions derived from fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. No equations or claims reduce by construction to their own inputs, and no load-bearing step relies on a self-citation chain that itself lacks independent verification. The abstract and described structure contain no self-definitional, fitted-input, or ansatz-smuggling patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review supplies no information on free parameters, background axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5651 in / 1075 out tokens · 35471 ms · 2026-06-29T04:15:03.705714+00:00 · methodology

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

53 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Simulation of quantum computers: Review and acceleration opportunities ,

    Cicero A, Maleki MA, Azhar MW et al. Simulation of quantum computers: Review and acceleration opportunities ,

  2. [2]

    2410.12660

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12660. 2410.12660

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Massively parallel quantum computer simulator, eleven years later

    De Raedt H, Jin F, Willsch D et al. Massively parallel quantum computer simulator, eleven years later. Comput Phys Commun 2019; 237: 47–61. DOI:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.11.005. 1805.04708

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2018.11.005 2019

  4. [4]

    Simulating physics with computers

    Feynman RP . Simulating physics with computers. Int J Theor Phys 1982; 21: 467–488. DOI:10.1007/BF02650179

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02650179 1982

  5. [5]

    The computer as a physical system: A microscopi c quantum mechanical hamiltonian model of computers as represented by turing machines

    Benioff P . The computer as a physical system: A microscopi c quantum mechanical hamiltonian model of computers as represented by turing machines. Journal of Statistical Physics 1980; 22(5): 563–591. DOI:10.1007/BF01011339

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01011339 1980

  6. [6]

    The computable and the non-computable (Vychislimoe i nevychislimoe)

    Manin YI. The computable and the non-computable (Vychislimoe i nevychislimoe) . Kibernetika. Moskva: Sovetskoe RadioSovetskoe Radio, 1980. R. 0.45

    1980

  7. [7]

    Quantum computational networks

    Deutsch DE. Quantum computational networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A Mathematical and Physical Sciences 1989; 425(1868): 73–90. DOI:10.1098/rspa.1989. 0099

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1989 1989

  8. [8]

    Quantum supremacy us- ing a programmable superconducting proces- sor

    Arute F, Arya K, Babbush R et al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature 2019; 574: 505–510. DOI:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1666-5 2019

  9. [9]

    Quantum computing in the nisq era and beyond,

    Preskill J. Quantum computing in the NISQ era and beyond. Quantum 2018; 2: 79. DOI:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.22331/q-2018-08-06-79 2018

  10. [10]

    Quantum Software Ecosystem Design , chapter 7

    Basermann A, Epping M, Fauseweh B et al. Quantum Software Ecosystem Design , chapter 7. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. ISBN 978-3-031-64136-7, 2024. pp. 143–188. DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-64136-7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-64136-7 2024

  11. [11]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-64136-7_7

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-64136-7_7

  12. [12]

    Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition

    Nielsen MA and Chuang IL. Quantum Computation and Quantum Information: 10th Anniversary Edition . Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  13. [13]

    Elementary gates for quantum computation

    Barenco A, Bennett CH, Cleve R et al. Elementary gates for quantum computation. Physical Review A 1995; 52(5): 3457–

    1995

  14. [14]

    DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.52.3457

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.52.3457

  15. [15]

    A Geometric Algebra Perspective On Quantum Computational Gates And Universality In Quantum Computing

    Cafaro C and Mancini S. A Geometric Algebra Perspective On Quantum Computational Gates And Universality In Quantum Computing. Adv Appl Clifford Algebras 2011; 21: 493–519. DOI:10.1007/s00006-010-0269-x. 1006.2071

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/s00006-010-0269-x 2011

  16. [16]

    Quantum computing based on complex Clifford algebras

    Hrdina J, Navrat A and V asik P . Quantum computing based on complex Clifford algebras. Quant Inf Proc 2022; 21(9):

    2022

  17. [17]

    2201.02246

    DOI:10.1007/s11128-022-03648-w. 2201.02246

    work page doi:10.1007/s11128-022-03648-w

  18. [18]

    On Classical Simulation of Quantum Circuits Composed of Clifford Gates

    Biswas G. On Classical Simulation of Quantum Circuits Composed of Clifford Gates. Quanta 2024; 13(1): 20–27. DOI:10.12743/quanta.v13i1.265. 2405.13590

    work page doi:10.12743/quanta.v13i1.265 2024

  19. [19]

    Geometric Algebra Jordan–Wigner Transformation for Quantum Simulation

    V eyrac G and Toffano Z. Geometric Algebra Jordan–Wigner Transformation for Quantum Simulation. Entropy 2024; 26(5): 410. DOI:10.3390/e26050410

    work page doi:10.3390/e26050410 2024

  20. [20]

    Simulating quantum circuits with har d- core bosons

    Emmanuel-Costa D. Simulating quantum circuits with har d- core bosons. In 2025 Annual Modeling and Simulation Conference (ANNSIM). pp. 1–12

    2025

  21. [21]

    The Hermitian Clifford Analysis Toolbox

    Brackx F, De Schepper H and Sommen F. The Hermitian Clifford Analysis Toolbox. Adv Appl Clifford Algebras 2008; 18(3-4): 451–487. DOI:10.1007/s00006-008-0081-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s00006-008-0081-z 2008

  22. [22]

    Quantum Register Algebra: the mathematical language for quantum computing

    Hrdina J, Hildenbrand D, N´ avrat A et al. Quantum Register Algebra: the mathematical language for quantum computing. Quant Inf Proc 2023; 22(9): 328. DOI:10.1007/ s11128-023-04086-y. 2208.02608

    arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Quantum registe r algebra: the basic concepts

    Hrdina J, Hildenbrand D, N´ avrat A et al. Quantum registe r algebra: the basic concepts. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2023; 13771: 112. DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-34031-4 10

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-34031-4 2023

  24. [24]

    Families from Spinors

    Wilczek F and Zee A. Families from Spinors. Phys Rev D 1982; 25: 553. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevD.25.553

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.25.553 1982

  25. [25]

    Quantum theory of emission and absorption of radiation

    Dirac PAM. Quantum theory of emission and absorption of radiation. Proc Roy Soc Lond A 1927; 114: 243. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.1927.0039

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1927.0039 1927

  26. [26]

    SO(2n) Grand Unification in an SU(N) Basis

    Mohapatra RN and Sakita B. SO(2n) Grand Unification in an SU(N) Basis. Phys Rev D 1980; 21: 1062. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.21.1062

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.21.1062 1980

  27. [27]

    SOSpin, a C++ library for Yukawa decomposition in SO(2N) models

    Cardoso N, Emmanuel-Costa D, Gonc ¸alves N et al. SOSpin, a C++ library for Y ukawa decomposition in SO(2N) models. Comput Phys Commun 2016; 203: 178–200. DOI:10.1016/j. cpc.2016.01.010. 1509.00433

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1016/j 2016

  28. [28]

    A lattice model of liquid helium, i

    Matsubara T and Matsuda H. A lattice model of liquid helium, i. Progress of Theoretical Physics 1956; 16(5): 569– 582

    1956

  29. [29]

    Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices

    Anderson PW. Absence of diffusion in certain random lattices. Physical Review 1958; 109(5): 1492–1505

    1958

  30. [30]

    Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain

    Lieb E, Schultz T and Mattis D. Two soluble models of an antiferromagnetic chain. Annals of Physics 1961; 16(3): 407– 466

    1961

  31. [31]

    Parafermionic and generalized parafermionic algebras

    Bonatsos D, Daskaloyannis C and Kanakoglou K. Parafermionic and generalized parafermionic algebras. In International W orkshop on Quantum Groups, Deformations and Contractions. pp. 1–12. hep-th/9909002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    Qubits as Parafermions

    Wu LA and Lidar DA. Qubits as parafermions. J Math Phys 2002; 43(9): 4506–4525. DOI:10.1063/1.1499208. quant-ph/0109078. Prepared using sagej.cls D. Emmanuel-Costa and M. Epping 13

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1063/1.1499208 2002

  33. [33]

    The Boolean SA Tisfiability Problem in Clifford algebra

    Budinich M. The Boolean SA Tisfiability Problem in Clifford algebra. Theoretical Computer Science 2019; 784: 1–10. DOI:10.1016/j.tcs.2019.03.027. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304397519301938

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tcs.2019.03.027 2019

  34. [34]

    Streltsov, G

    Streltsov A, Adesso G and Plenio MB. Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource. Rev Mod Phys 2017; 89: 041003. DOI:10.1103/RevModPhys.89.041003. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.89.041003

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.041003 2017

  35. [35]

    Quantifying Coherence

    Baumgratz T, Cramer M and Plenio MB. Quantifying coherence. Phys Rev Lett 2014; 113: 140401. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.140401. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.140401

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.140401 2014

  36. [36]

    Hybrid simplification rules for boundaries of quantum circuits, 2022

    Epping M. Hybrid simplification rules for boundaries of quantum circuits, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.03036. 2206.03036

    arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Quantum7, 1062 (2023) https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-07-20-1062

    Quetschlich N, Burgholzer L and Wille R. MQT Bench: Benchmarking Software and Design Automation Tools for Quantum Computing. Quantum 2023; DOI: 10.22331/q-2023-07-20-1062. MQT Bench is available at https://www.cda.cit.tum.de/mqtbench/, 2204.13719

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-07-20-1062 2023

  38. [38]

    Quipo, a c++ library for implementing hard-core bosons algebra,

    Emmanuel-Costa D, Keitzl T and R¨ ohrig-Z¨ ollner M. Quipo, a c++ library for implementing hard-core bosons algebra,

  39. [39]

    Under development, Institute of Software Technology , German Aerospace Center (DLR), Cologne, Germany

  40. [40]

    Quantum computing with Qiskit

    Javadi-Abhari A, Treinish M, Krsulich K et al. Quantum computing with Qiskit, 2024. DOI:10.48550/arXiv.2405. 08810. 2405.08810

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405 2024

  41. [41]

    Quantum mysteries revisited

    Mermin ND. Quantum mysteries revisited. American Journal of Physics 1990; 58(8): 731–734. DOI:10.1119/1.16503

    work page doi:10.1119/1.16503 1990

  42. [42]

    Going Beyond Bell’s Theorem

    Greenberger DM, Horne MA and Zeilinger A. Going Beyond Bell’s Theorem. Fundam Theor Phys 1989; 37: 69–72. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-0849-4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0849-4 1989

  43. [43]

    Observation of three photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entanglemen t

    Bouwmeester D, Pan JW, Daniell M et al. Observation of three photon Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger entanglemen t. Phys Rev Lett 1999; 82: 1345–1349. DOI:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.82.1345. quant-ph/9810035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  44. [44]

    Multi- partite entanglement can speed up quantum key distribution in networks

    Epping M, Kampermann H, macchiavello C et al. Multi- partite entanglement can speed up quantum key distribution in networks. New J Phys 2017; 19(9): 093012. DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/aa8487

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/aa8487 2017

  45. [45]

    Open quantum assembly language, 2017

    Cross AW, Bishop LS, Smolin JA et al. Open quantum assembly language, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.03429. 1707.03429

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    The heisenberg representation of quantum computers

    Gottesman D. The heisenberg representation of quantum computers. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics . pp. 1 – 20. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9807006. quant-ph/9807006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  47. [47]

    Improved Simulation of Stabilizer Circuits

    Aaronson S and Gottesman D. Improved simulation of stabilizer circuits. Phys Rev A 2004; 70(5): 052328. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.70.052328. quant-ph/0406196

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physreva.70.052328 2004

  48. [48]

    Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator

    Gidney C. Stim: a fast stabilizer circuit simulator. Quantum 2021; 5: 497. DOI:10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497. URL https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-07-06-497 2021

  49. [49]

    A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search

    Grover LK. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing . STOC ’96, New Y ork, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 0897917855, p. 212–219. DOI:10.1145/237814.237866. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/237814.237866. quant-ph/9605043

    work page doi:10.1145/237814.237866

  50. [50]

    Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems

    Holland JH. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems . University of Michigan Press, 1975

    1975

  51. [51]

    Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning

    Goldberg DE. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, 1989

    1989

  52. [52]

    GASP: a genetic algorithm for state preparation on quantum computers

    Creevey FM, Hill CD and Hollenberg LCL. GASP: a genetic algorithm for state preparation on quantum computers. Sci Rep 2023; 13(1): 11956. DOI:10.1038/s41598-023-37767-w. 2302.11141

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-023-37767-w 2023

  53. [53]

    Über das paulische äquivalenzverbot,

    Jordan P and Wigner EP . About the Pauli exclusion princip le. Z Phys 1928; 47: 631–651. DOI:10.1007/BF01331938. Author Biographies David Emmanuel-Costa is a researcher at the German Aerospace Centre (DLR). He obtained his Ph.D. degree in theoretical pa rticle physics under the supervision of Gustavo Branco at the Unive rsity of Lisbon (UL), Portugal. He ...

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01331938 1928