Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Laser-assisted electron-positron collisions can produce muon-antimuon pairs below the 2M threshold through a tunneling process with a Schwinger-like exponential cross section.

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 14:06 UTC pith:Z62U34FD

load-bearing objection A plausible subthreshold regime for laser-assisted muon pair production, but the central exponential law is fit-anchored and its Bessel justification is not uniform in the far-below regime. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18857 v1 pith:Z62U34FD submitted 2026-07-21 hep-ph

Muon pair production in electron-positron collisions close to threshold in the presence of a strong laser field

N. Mahlin , S. Villalba-Ch\'avez , C. M\"uller This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords mu+mu− pair productionlaser-assisted e+e− collisionssubthreshold tunneling effectstrong-field QEDSchwinger effectmultiphoton absorptionlaser intensity parameterBessel functions
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 muon pair production, normally impossible in electron-positron collisions below the 2M threshold, becomes possible when the collision happens inside a strong laser field, and that the suppression has the exponential signature of quantum tunneling. By dressing the electron, positron, and muon states with the laser field, the authors derive the cross section and identify three regimes, separated by Δp = 2mξ, where Δp is the energy gap below threshold and ξ is the laser intensity parameter. The central quantitative claim is Eq. (13): in the far-below-threshold regime the cross section behaves as σ ≈ σ_fbt^(0) exp[-(4/3)(Δp - 2mξ)^{3/2}/(ω√(mξ))], with the field-modulated gap Δp - 2mξ playing the role of the barrier height, just as 2m does in the Schwinger rate. If true, a strong laser acts like a tunneling bridge across the muon threshold, and the same mechanism could be exploited to study Schwinger-like phenomena in accelerator-laser settings.

Core claim

The paper claims that a strong laser field opens up muon pair production in electron-positron collisions even when the incident center-of-mass energy sits below the vacuum threshold 2M. In the far-below-threshold regime, where the energy gap Δp = 2M - √s_p exceeds 2mξ, the cross section is exponentially suppressed and well approximated by σ ≈ σ_fbt^(0) exp[-(4/3)(Δp - 2mξ)^{3/2}/(ω√(mξ))]. The exponent has the same tunneling structure as the Schwinger rate, but with the effective barrier height set by the laser-modulated energy gap Δp - 2mξ rather than by 2m. The paper also establishes a three-regime classification: exponential tunneling far below threshold, an intermediate regime around thr

What carries the argument

The central object is the instantaneous, phase-modulated collision energy √s(φ) ≈ 2M - Δp - 2mξ cos φ, whose minimum defines the effective barrier Δp - 2mξ. The calculation uses laser-dressed states for the electron, positron, and muon, and the generating function of Bessel functions to sum over the number N of laser photons exchanged. The asymptotic form of the Bessel function for large N and argument, combined with the fact that the dominant contribution comes from the minimal photon number N_min ≈ Δp/ω, produces the exponential law in Eq. (13). A phase average of the field-free cross section over √s(φ) explains the around-threshold and far-above-threshold regimes.

Load-bearing premise

The entire tunneling prediction rests on treating the deepest dip of the laser-modulated collision energy, Δp - 2mξ, as the effective barrier height in the exponential; the paper supports this only by fitting its own numerical data, so if quantum or virtual corrections change the effective gap, the Schwinger-like law would fail.

What would settle it

Compute the same cross section with an independent method, for example direct numerical evaluation of the full dressed amplitude without the approximation q² ≈ (q_+ + q_-)², at parameters such as Δp = 4m, ξ = 2, ω = 0.05m, and compare the logarithmic slope in Δp and ξ with Eq. (13). If the slope departs from (4/3)(Δp - 2mξ)^{3/2}/(ω√(mξ)), the claimed tunneling exponent is wrong.

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

If this is right

  • Below threshold, muon pair production can reach cross sections around 10^-7 b when the laser intensity parameter ξ exceeds roughly 2, even though the field-free process is strictly forbidden.
  • The boundary Δp = 2mξ separates three regimes: exponential tunneling far below threshold, an intermediate regime where the field both enables and suppresses production, and a far-above-threshold regime where the laser only redistributes momenta and the cross section approaches the vacuum value.
  • In the intermediate above-threshold band 0 < -Δp < 2mξ, the laser reduces the cross section below its vacuum value, because decelerating field phases drop the instantaneous collision energy under threshold.
  • The analytical formula, together with phase averaging over the field-free cross section, lets the results be transferred to other laser frequencies, including optical lasers Doppler-shifted to x-ray frequencies in a small-angle high-energy crossing.
  • In the far-below-threshold regime the largest partial cross sections come from the minimal photon number N_min ≈ Δp/ω, unlike usual Schwinger-like processes where large photon numbers dominate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One could test the tunneling law directly by measuring the muon yield as a function of laser intensity at fixed gap: Eq. (13) predicts a straight line in a plot of ln σ versus (Δp - 2mξ)^{3/2}/(ω√ξ) with slope -4/3; any significant deviation would indicate that the effective gap differs from Δp - 2mξ.
  • The same laser-dressing mechanism should apply to heavier lepton pair production, such as tau pairs, where the larger threshold gap would push the tunneling regime to higher intensities but the same exponential structure should appear.
  • Because the prefactor σ_fbt^(0) is only a fit parameter, a future analytic derivation that extracts its dependence on ξ, ω, and Δp would sharpen the tunneling picture and provide a more discriminating test than the exponent alone.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the laser-assisted process e+e- -> mu+mu- for center-of-mass energies near the 2M threshold, using laser-dressed Volkov states and a Bessel-function expansion of the S-matrix. The authors compute the total cross section numerically and identify three regimes separated by |Delta_p| ~ 2m*xi: far-below, around, and far-above threshold. The central quantitative claim is Eq. (13), a Schwinger-like exponential approximation for the far-below-threshold cross section, sigma ~ sigma_fbt^(0) exp[-(4/3)(Delta_p - 2m*xi)^{3/2}/(omega sqrt(m*xi))], with sigma_fbt^(0) fitted. The paper motivates this form via the phase-modulated collision energy and Bessel asymptotics, and gives a three-regime classification consistent with the displayed numerical results.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper provides a concrete Schwinger-like tunneling rate for muon pair production in a strong laser field, extending dynamical-assistance ideas to the second lepton generation. The three-regime classification is intuitive and the predicted scaling is falsifiable. The paper's strengths are its explicit Furry-picture calculation, the photon-number-resolved partial cross sections, and the transparent admission that the prefactor is fitted. However, because Eq. (13) is introduced as an empirical fit and the Bessel justification is only sketched, the significance hinges on an independent validation of the exponent's parameter dependence. The manuscript would be considerably stronger with a direct log-slope test or a proper uniform asymptotic derivation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (11)-(13)] Eq. (13) is announced as an empirical fit ('By analyzing our results we have found...'), and the prefactor is a fit parameter. The Bessel asymptotic used to motivate the exponent is only valid for |N-zeta| << min(N,zeta), whereas in the shown far-below regime (e.g., Delta_p=6m, xi=1, omega=0.05m: N~120, zeta~40) the condition fails. The uniform large-order exponent would differ by ~10%, which is many orders of magnitude in sigma; because sigma_fbt^(0) is fitted, the displayed agreement does not validate the exponent. The authors should derive Eq. (13) from a uniform asymptotic expansion or directly test the predicted log-slope d ln sigma/dDelta_p = 2 sqrt(Delta_p - 2m*xi)/(omega sqrt(m*xi)) against the numerical data.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (14)] Eq. (14) is introduced with 'we have found that the partial cross sections may be approximated as', without derivation from the amplitude (8). Since the Bessel function J_N^2(zeta) in (14) is the basis for the asymptotic justification of (13), the exponent's derivation is incomplete. Please provide the reduction from Eq. (8) to Eq. (14) (at least the spin-sum and phase-space steps) or validate Eq. (14) against the exact partial cross sections in Fig. 6.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] Typo: 'excert' should be 'exerts'.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The ordinate label 's(phi)-4M^2 c^4' is confusing because the text says the shift is by 4M_*^2; make the notation consistent.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (13) discussion] The statement that Eq. (13) is not shown for Delta_p=2m because the far-below regime lies outside the plot range is unclear: for xi>1 the condition Delta_p>2m*xi is not met, so the point is not in the far-below regime. Please rephrase.
  4. [Section III, Bessel asymptotic] The asymptotic Bessel formula cited from [37] should be located precisely (equation number) and its condition of validity stated; the current citation is too vague for the claimed derivation.
  5. [Section III, Eq. (15)] The phase-average approximation is said to be checked, but no comparison is shown; add a panel or quantitative statement of its accuracy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Eq. (13) is a transparent analytic fit to independently computed numerical data; no load-bearing self-citation or definitional circularity found.

full rationale

The paper's central result, Eq. (13), is presented as an approximation found by analyzing the authors' own numerical cross-section, not as a prediction derived from Eq. (13) itself. The quoted phrase 'By analyzing our results we have found...' makes this fitting status explicit. The prefactor σ_fbt^(0) is treated as a fit parameter, but it multiplies the exponential and does not determine the exponent's physical scaling; the exponent contains only physical parameters (Δp, ω, m, ξ) and is motivated by a standard Bessel asymptotic from Abramowitz and Stegun, an external reference. The regime boundary Δp = 2mξ follows from the classical phase-modulated collision energy in Eqs. (11)–(12), not from Eq. (13), and the paper checks that classification against the numerical Figs. 2 and 3. Self-citations such as [33] and [35] are used as contextual analogies, not as load-bearing derivations. No equation is reduced to its own inputs, and no quantity fitted to a subset of data is subsequently called an independent prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The paper's load-bearing inputs are standard QED plus two parameter choices (ω = 0.05m, and the fitted prefactor); the main physical assumption is the semiclassical phase-averaged energy picture used to classify regimes and justify the tunneling exponent.

free parameters (2)
  • Pre-exponential factor σ_fbt^(0) = 4.6-6.7 × 10^-11 b (depends on ξ, ω, Δp)
    Fit parameter in Eq. (13) representing the absolute scale of the far-below-threshold cross section; the paper states it is 'treated as a fit parameter' (Sec. III).
  • Laser frequency ω = 0.05 m (≈25 keV, x-ray)
    Chosen 'to facilitate the computations' rather than from experiment; the central claim's numerics use this value, with transferability to other frequencies asserted via Eqs. (13) and (15).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Furry-picture/Volkov treatment of electrons, positrons, and muons in the laser field is the correct leading-order description (single-photon exchange, no higher-order radiative corrections)
    Invoked in Eqs. (2)-(8) and Sec. II; all results rest on this strong-field QED framework.
  • ad hoc to paper The classical phase-modulated collision energy sqrt(s(φ)) in Eqs. (11)-(12) captures the energy available for the quantum transition; the tunneling rate is governed by the minimum gap Δp - 2mξ.
    Used to define the three regimes and to motivate Eq. (13); only validated internally against the numerical data.
  • ad hoc to paper The photon-propagator approximation q^2 ≈ (q+ + q-)^2, dropping the nk contribution and the i0+, is valid for the parameters considered.
    Stated in Sec. II after Eq. (8), justified by nω ~ m << q0± ≈ M*; load-bearing for the amplitude factorization.
  • standard math Standard Bessel-function identities and asymptotics (Graf's addition theorem, J_N asymptotics from Ref. [37])
    Used to derive Eqs. (8), (14), and the exponential form in Eq. (13).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11870 in / 15482 out tokens · 130388 ms · 2026-08-01T14:06:20.875839+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Within the framework of strong-field quantum electrodynamics, we study the creation of muon-antimuon pairs in laser-assisted collisions of electrons with positrons, whose center-of-mass energy is close to the threshold of the process. Our focus lies on incident collision energies slightly below the threshold, where the associated energy gap has to be overcome by multiphoton absorption from the applied high-intensity laser field while the collision occurs. We calculate the cross section of the process and discuss its nonperturbative dependencies on the energy gap and the laser parameters. Three qualitatively different interaction regimes are identified, where the influence of the laser field either has a classical or fully quantum nature. In the latter case, an exponential dependence of the cross section on the collision parameters is found, which resembles the Schwinger effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18857 by C. M\"uller, N. Mahlin, S. Villalba-Ch\'avez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a). The laser-dressed states for the electron and positron are given by [36] Ψp±,s± (x) = r m q 0 ±V  1 ± ek/A/ 2(kp±)  up±,s± e if (±) (4) with f (±) = ±(q±x) + ea(p±ε1) (kp±) sin(kx) − ea(p±ε2) (kp±) cos(kx). In Eq. (4), p µ ± are the initial free four-momenta of the electron and positron (outside the laser field), s± denote the particle spin states, the up±,s± are free Dirac spinors, and q µ ± = p µ … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Total cross section of subthreshold muon pair pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Total cross section of muon pair production in a laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Locations of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Squared effective collision energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Partial cross sections of muon pair production, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗

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

40 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory(Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1995)

    1995

  2. [2]

    Igarashi, N

    M. Igarashi, N. Nakazawa, T. Shimada, and Y. Shimizu, Electroweak corrections to muon pair production in electron-positron annihilation at high energy, Nucl. Phys. B 263 (1986) 347

    1986

  3. [3]

    F. A. Berends, R. Kleiss, and S. Jadach, Radiative correc- tions to muon pair and quark pair production in electron- positron collisions in theZ 0 region, Nucl. Phys. B 202 (1982) 63

    1982

  4. [4]

    A. B. Arbuzov, V. V. Bytev, and E. A. Kuraev, Radiative muon pair production in high-energy electron-positron annihilation process, JETP Lett. 79 (2004) 593

    2004

  5. [5]

    Banerjee, B

    S. Banerjee, B. Pietrzyk, J. M. Roney, and Z. Was, Tau and muon pair production cross sections in electron- positron annihilations at √s= 10.58 GeV, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 054012

    2008

  6. [6]

    Amapaneet al., Study of muon pair production from positron annihilation at threshold energy, JINST 15 (2020) P01036; D

    N. Amapaneet al., Study of muon pair production from positron annihilation at threshold energy, JINST 15 (2020) P01036; D. Alesiniet al., Positron driven muon source for a muon collider, arXiv:1905.05747

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Y. M. Bystritskiy, E. A. Kuraev, G. V. Fedotovich, and F. V. Ignatov, Cross sections of muon and charged pion pair production in electron-positron annihilation near the threshold, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 114019

    2005

  8. [8]

    A. I. Titov, B. K¨ ampfer, and H. Takabe, Dimuon produc- tion by laser-wakefield accelerated electrons, Phys. Rev. STAB 12 (2009) 111301

    2009

  9. [9]

    B. S. Rao, J. H. Jeon, H. T. Kim, and C. H. Nam, Bright muon source driven by GeV electron beams from a com- 8 pact laser wakefield accelerator, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60 (2018) 095002

    2018

  10. [10]

    J. D. Ludwiget al., Laser based 100 GeV electron accel- eration scheme for muon production, Sci. Rep. 15 (2025) 25902

    2025

  11. [11]

    Zhanget al., Proof-of-principle demonstration of muon production with an ultrashort high-intensity laser, Nat

    F. Zhanget al., Proof-of-principle demonstration of muon production with an ultrashort high-intensity laser, Nat. Phys. 21 (2025) 1050

    2025

  12. [12]

    Calvinet al., Experimental evidence of production of directional muons from a laser-wakefield accelerator, Plasma Phys

    L. Calvinet al., Experimental evidence of production of directional muons from a laser-wakefield accelerator, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 68 (2026) 035015

    2026

  13. [13]

    V. N. Nedoreshta, S. P. Roshchupkin, and A. I. Voroshilo, Nonresonant muon pair production in electron-positron annihilation in the field of light wave, Laser Phys. 19 (2009) 531

    2009

  14. [14]

    K. T. McDonald and K. Shmakov, Temporary accelera- tion of electrons while inside an intense electromagnetic pulse, Phys. Rev. STAB 2 (1999) 121301

    1999

  15. [15]

    S. J. M¨ uller, C. H. Keitel, and C. M¨ uller, Particle pro- duction reactions in laser-boosted lepton collisions, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 094008

    2014

  16. [16]

    K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. M¨ uller, and C. H. Keitel, Micro- scopic laser-driven high-energy colliders, Europhys. Lett. 76 (2006) 29

    2006

  17. [17]

    M¨ uller, K

    C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Muon pair creation from positronium in a circularly polarized laser field, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 074017

    2006

  18. [18]

    M¨ uller, K

    C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Particle physics with a laser-driven positronium atom, Phys. Lett. B 659 (2008) 209; Muon pair creation from positronium in a linearly polarized laser field, Phys. Rev. A 78 (2008) 033408

    2008

  19. [19]

    M. Y. Kuchiev, Production of high-energy particles in laser and Coulomb fields and thee +e− Antenna, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 130404

    2007

  20. [20]

    When the process e+e− →µ +µ− occurs at a very high center-of-mass en- ergy in theZ 0 region, a background laser field of moder- ate intensity excerts only minor effects [21]

    on a high-intensity laser wave. When the process e+e− →µ +µ− occurs at a very high center-of-mass en- ergy in theZ 0 region, a background laser field of moder- ate intensity excerts only minor effects [21]. In the present paper we study a complementary sce- nario ofµ +µ− production by laser-assistede +e− colli- sions. Ane − ande + are assumed to impinge w...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Meuren, K

    S. Meuren, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. H. Keitel, and A. Di Piazza, High-energy recollision processes of laser- generated electron-positron pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 (2015) 143201

    2015

  22. [22]

    Ouali, M

    M. Ouali, M. Ouhammou, S. Taj, B. Manaut, R. Benbrik, E. Hrour, and M. El Idrissi, Effect of the laser beam geometry on laser-assisted muon pair production process ate +e− collider, Laser Phys. 33 (2023) 016002

    2023

  23. [23]

    J. S. Schwinger, On gauge invariance and vacuum polar- ization, Phys. Rev. 82 (1951) 664

    1951

  24. [24]

    Sch¨ utzhold, H

    R. Sch¨ utzhold, H. Gies, and G. Dunne, Dynamically as- sisted Schwinger mechanism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 130404

    2008

  25. [25]

    L¨ otstedt, U

    E. L¨ otstedt, U. D. Jentschura, and C. H. Keitel, Laser channeling of Bethe-Heitler pairs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 203001

    2008

  26. [26]

    Di Piazza, E

    A. Di Piazza, E. L¨ otstedt, A. I. Milstein, and C. H. Kei- tel, Barrier control in tunnelinge +−e− photoproduction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (2009) 170403

    2009

  27. [27]

    Orthaber, F

    M. Orthaber, F. Hebenstreit, and R. Alkofer, Momentum spectra for dynamically assisted Schwinger pair produc- tion, Phys. Lett. B 698 (2011) 80

    2011

  28. [28]

    I. Akal, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, and C. M¨ uller, Electron- positron pair production in a bifrequent oscillating elec- tric field, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 113004

    2014

  29. [29]

    A. Otto, D. Seipt, D. Blaschke, B. K¨ ampfer, and S. A. Smolyansky, Lifting shell structures in the dynamically assisted Schwinger effect in periodic fields, Phys. Lett. B 740 (2015) 335

    2015

  30. [30]

    A. Otto, D. Seipt, D. Blaschke, S. A. Smolyansky, and B. K¨ ampfer, Dynamical Schwinger process in a bifre- quent electric field of finite duration: survey on ampli- fication, Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 105018

    2015

  31. [31]

    Torgrimsson, C

    G. Torgrimsson, C. Schneider, J. Oertel, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Dynamically assisted Sauter-Schwinger effect — non-perturbative versus perturbative aspects, JHEP 1706 (2017) 043

    2017

  32. [32]

    I. A. Aleksandrov, G. Plunien, and V. M. Shabaev, Dy- namically assisted Schwinger effect beyond the spatially- uniform-field approximation, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 116001

    2018

  33. [33]

    Taya, Franz-Keldysh effect in strong-field QED, Phys

    H. Taya, Franz-Keldysh effect in strong-field QED, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 056006

    2019

  34. [34]

    Villalba-Ch´ avez and C

    S. Villalba-Ch´ avez and C. M¨ uller, Signatures of the Schwinger mechanism assisted by a fast-oscillating elec- tric field, Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 116018

    2019

  35. [35]

    Kohlf¨ urst, F

    C. Kohlf¨ urst, F. Queisser, and R. Sch¨ utzhold, Dynami- cally assisted tunneling in the impulse regime, Phys. Rev. Research 3 (2021) 033153

    2021

  36. [36]

    Mahlin, S

    N. Mahlin, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, and C. M¨ uller, Dynam- ically assisted nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in bichromatic laser fields of circular polarization, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 096023

    2023

  37. [37]

    V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, Relativistic Quantum Theory(Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1971)

    1971

  38. [38]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun,Handbook of Mathe- matical Functions(Dover, New York, 1965)

    1965

  39. [39]

    V. I. Ritus, Quantum effects of the interaction of ele- mentary particles with an intense electromagnetic field, J. Sov. Laser Res. 6 (1985) 497

    1985

  40. [40]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Quantum Mechanics (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1965)

    1965