Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

A single-component superconductor with a Chern–Simons term can host stable multi-vortex anyon bound states, breaking the type-I/type-II dichotomy.

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

2026-08-04 11:23 UTC pith:OVH4KMBP

load-bearing objection Static-mass analysis is a real contribution; the hybrid bound-state claim is not yet supported by the analytic result or by reproducible numerics. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.04830 v2 pith:OVH4KMBP submitted 2025-10-06 cond-mat.supr-con hep-th

Anyon Bound States and Hybrid Superconductivity

Paul Leask This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-con hep-th
keywords anyonsChern–Simons theoryGinzburg–Landau modelsuperconductivity typevortex interactionsbound statesflux-charge relationtype-1.5 superconductivity
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 argues that adding a Chern–Simons term to the standard Ginzburg–Landau model turns each vortex into an anyon carrying both a flux quantum and a proportional electric charge, and rewires how vortices interact. Linearizing about the vacuum shows the gauge fields acquire complex-conjugate screening masses, so magnetic and electric fields share one penetration depth but decay with an oscillatory phase. The resulting pair interaction has a damped oscillatory gauge part competing with the usual Higgs attraction: repulsive at short range, attractive at longer range. If the gauge term dominates at the right scale, vortices settle into separated, molecular-like bound clusters rather than collapsing into one core or forming a type-II lattice. This would realize hybrid type-I/type-II behavior in a single-component condensate, without any second band.

Core claim

The central claim is that the Chern–Simons extension of the single-component Ginzburg–Landau model breaks the conventional type-I/type-II dichotomy by giving vortices a dual interaction. Through Gauss' law, each flux quantum binds a Noether charge proportional to the Chern–Simons level, so vortices are anyons. The Chern–Simons term also changes the screening spectrum from two real gauge masses to one complex-conjugate pair m± = sqrt(m_A² − κ²/4) ± iκ/2, meaning the magnetic and electric tails have a common decay length but oscillate in sign. The asymptotic interaction energy between two vortex anyons is then Vint(R) = 2π|c_B|²√(2π/(m_A R)) e^{−αR} cos(βR−γ) − 2π c_H² K0(m_H R), a damped osci

What carries the argument

The central object is the Chern–Simons–Landau–Ginzburg static energy with its Gauss-law constraint. It produces (i) the charge-flux relation Q_m = −κΦ that makes each vortex anyonic, and (ii) a fourth-order linearized operator Δκ = (−∇² + m_A²)² + κ²∇² for the gauge fields. Factorizing Δκ gives complex-conjugate screening masses m± = α ± iβ, α = sqrt(m_A² − κ²/4), β = κ/2, so the gauge channel oscillates as it decays; this is the mechanism that converts the usual type-I/type-II force dichotomy into a non-monotonic force law.

Load-bearing premise

The existence of bound states hinges on the gauge term in the asymptotic interaction energy being repulsive and dominant at short range; the paper never fixes the amplitudes c_B, c_H and phase γ from the vortex profiles, so the sign and range of that term are not established by the calculation itself.

What would settle it

Compute the single-vortex amplitudes c_H, c_B, γ from numerically relaxed vortex profiles, insert them into Eq. (53) for λ < 1, κ > 0, and check whether the pair interaction Vint(R) actually rises at short range and then falls; if Vint(R) is monotone, the hybrid bound-state claim fails. Alternatively, relax two well-separated vortices in the full field equations and measure whether the equilibrium separation is finite and nonzero.

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

If this is right

  • Even at the Bogomolny point λ = 1, where ordinary Ginzburg–Landau vortices are neutrally stable, a nonzero Chern–Simons level makes vortex anyons repel.
  • In the nominal type-I regime (λ < 1), an intermediate Chern–Simons coupling frustrates collapse and stabilizes separated multi-vortex clusters with negative binding energy.
  • For sufficiently large Chern–Simons coupling, repulsion dominates at all distances and the system mimics type-II behavior even when λ < 1.
  • The resulting molecular-like vortex clusters are neither a giant type-I core nor an Abrikosov lattice, so anyon superconductors can support collective states outside the standard classification.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the interaction formula depends on amplitudes c_H and c_B that must come from the single-vortex profile, the paper's bound-state claim is only as strong as those coefficients; a natural next step is to extract them numerically and check the sign of the short-range gauge force directly.
  • The same mechanism — a Chern–Simons term generating oscillatory gauge tails and non-monotonic intervortex forces — suggests that any parity-violating term producing complex screening masses could create type-1.5-like behavior in other single-component systems; the author draws the analogy to non-centrosymmetric superconductors, but does not test it.
  • If the bound clusters are stable and anyonic, braiding them may give rise to fractional or non-Abelian statistics at the cluster level, a consequence not explored in the paper.
  • The damped oscillatory interaction also implies preferred inter-vortex spacings, which could manifest as commensurate vortex cluster phases or novel lattices, a direction the paper leaves open.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Chern–Simons extension of the single-component Ginzburg–Landau model (CSLG) and claims that its vortices realize 'hybrid superconductivity': short-range repulsion and long-range attraction, leading to stable multi-vortex anyon bound states. The paper derives a positive-definite static energy using Gauss' law, obtains the charge–flux relation, introduces a constrained Newton-flow method, and linearizes the field equations to find complex-conjugate gauge screening masses. It then uses a point-particle source method to write an asymptotic interaction energy, Eq. (53), and combines this with numerical binding-energy plots to conclude that the type-I/type-II dichotomy is broken in a single-component condensate.

Significance. If established, this result would be notable: a topological gauge term in a single-component superconducting model would generate non-monotonic intervortex forces and molecular-like vortex bound states, extending the phenomenology of type-1.5 superconductivity. The linearized analysis is largely coherent, the positivity of the static energy is a useful step, and the source-method reconstruction of the asymptotic tails is a principled approach. The κ→0 consistency check is a genuine strength. However, the central bound-state claim is not yet supported: the asymptotic interaction energy contains undetermined amplitudes and phases, the asymptotic formula is used beyond its validity, and the numerical evidence is not reproducible from the information given.

major comments (4)
  1. [Hybrid superconductivity, Eq. (53)] The central prediction of hybrid superconductivity rests on Vint(R) in Eq. (53), yet the constants c_H, |c_B|, and γ are never determined. They are single-vortex far-field amplitudes that must be obtained from the nonlinear vortex profiles, but no calculation or numerical value is given. Consequently, the sign and magnitude of the gauge term at any separation cannot be evaluated; the claimed short-range repulsion is explicitly conditional in the text ('If the gauge term dominates...'). Without these coefficients, or an alternative computation of Vint, the analytic argument does not establish bound states.
  2. [Appendix 2, Eq. (51)] Eq. (51) is the large-R asymptotic expansion of K0(m+R), with the exponentially small prefactor 1/sqrt(R). Eq. (53) is then used to infer a repulsive region at R < π/κ + 2γ/κ, which is precisely the regime where this asymptotic expansion may not be valid. The short-range behavior should be obtained from the exact expression in Eq. (50) with determined c_B, or from direct numerical evaluation of the interaction energy. As written, the argument uses an asymptotic formula outside its domain of validity.
  3. [Multi-vortex anyon bound states; Figs. 1 and 2] The existence of stable multi-vortex anyon bound states is the central claim, but the numerical evidence is not reproducible. The paper does not release code or data, state the lattice size h, the number of grid points, the boundary conditions, or provide convergence tests with respect to grid resolution and flow tolerance. Figure 2 shows a single N=4 configuration, and Fig. 1 shows binding energies without error estimates. The reader cannot verify that the minima are not numerical artifacts.
  4. [Hybrid superconductivity, Eqs. (24)–(26)] The damped oscillatory form and the common penetration depth require α = sqrt(m_A^2 - κ^2/4) to be real, i.e. κ < 2m_A. The manuscript never states this condition or discusses the regime κ ≥ 2m_A, where the asymptotic tails (38) and interaction energy (53) are not of the claimed form. Either the analysis should be explicitly restricted to κ < 2m_A, or the κ ≥ 2m_A case should be addressed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix 1, Eq. (32)] Applying ∇² to Eq. (30c) gives (−∇² + m_A²)∇² a0 = −κ∇² B, not (∇² + m_A²)∇² a0 as printed. The sign error appears to be a typo, since the final operator in Eq. (33) is correct, but the printed relation should be fixed.
  2. [References] Several references are incomplete: [22] lacks year/article number, [27] lacks volume/page, and [42] lacks volume/page. These should be completed before publication.
  3. [Multi-vortex anyon bound states] The notation is confusing: λ denotes the Ginzburg–Landau parameter in Eq. (23), while the magnetic penetration depth is also denoted λ_H in the same paragraph. Please use distinct symbols for the GL parameter and the penetration depth.
  4. [Figure 1] The caption and axis labels should specify the exact parameters used (m, q, and the meaning of the curves labelled 'κ = 0, 0.5, 1'), and ideally include error bars or convergence indicators.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation: the interaction formula follows from the linearized field equations and source method; the uncomputed tail amplitudes are an incompleteness, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. Eq. (53) is obtained from the linearized equations (30)-(33), the factorized operator (34), and a standard point-particle source method (40)-(52): the sources are chosen to reproduce the single-vortex asymptotic tails (38), and the two-vortex interaction is then read off from the on-shell cross terms (48). Nothing in the two-body interaction is used to determine the single-vortex amplitudes c_H, c_B or the phase gamma; these remain undetermined constants of the single-vortex solution. That is an incompleteness (the sign and magnitude of the gauge channel at any R cannot be evaluated without numerical values), not a circular construction. The self-citations ([20],[21],[27],[28]) are bibliographic references to analogous problems or to the numerical flow method, which is described in the paper; none of them is invoked as the source of the central physical claim. The claimed short-range repulsion is explicitly stated conditionally ('If the gauge term dominates...'), and the numerical evidence is not fully reproduced, but these are evidential weaknesses, not definitional or self-referential reductions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The central derivation relies on standard linearization and point-particle methods, with the main unknowns being the single-vortex tail amplitudes c_H, c_B and phase γ, which are not computed from the vortex solution. The numerical claims rest on unstated implementation parameters.

free parameters (2)
  • c_H (Higgs tail amplitude)
    Appears in Eq. (38a) and Eq. (53) as the coefficient of the attractive Higgs channel. It is not computed from the single-vortex profile; its magnitude affects whether bound states exist.
  • c_B (complex gauge tail amplitude) and phase γ
    Appears in Eqs. (38b) and (53). Its amplitude and phase control whether the gauge channel is repulsive at short range, the key ingredient for hybrid behavior; the paper does not derive these from the vortex solutions.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Existence of finite-energy static vortex solutions for the CSLG model with quartic Higgs potential and Maxwell term.
    Rigorous existence is cited for related Chern–Simons–Higgs systems [12, 13], but the specific model with both Maxwell and Chern–Simons terms is assumed to possess minimizers; the numerics assume convergence to such minimizers.
  • domain assumption The point-particle source method [47–49] is valid for computing long-range interactions of well-separated vortices in this nonlocal Chern–Simons theory.
    The method is standard for GL vortices, but the paper does not justify its validity when the gauge fields have complex screening masses and oscillatory tails.
  • domain assumption Static screening masses, not propagator pole masses, determine the asymptotic vortex tails and penetration depths.
    This is argued physically via the flux-charge constraint, but it is a modeling choice about how to extract measurable length scales from the linearized operator.
  • standard math Bessel-function asymptotic expansion (51) and Green's function identity (42) for K0 in 2D.
    These are standard mathematical identities used in the asymptotic interaction derivation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13304 in / 19287 out tokens · 163207 ms · 2026-08-04T11:23:01.850051+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The interactions of anyonic quasi-particles (vortices) in the Chern--Simons extension of the Ginzburg--Landau model is investigated and we show that it manifestly realizes a hybridization of type I/II superconductivity. Through Gauss' law, each vortex simultaneously carries a flux quantum and a proportional Noether charge, thereby realizing an anyonic excitation. The Chern--Simons coupling also modifies the screening structure of the gauge fields, producing complex-conjugate masses that yield a common penetration depth with an oscillatory phase. This altered asymptotic behavior breaks the conventional type-I/type-II dichotomy of the Ginzburg--Landau model. As a result, vortex anyons experience short-range repulsion and long-range attraction, enabling the formation of separated multi-vortex bound states with non-monotonic interaction energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.04830 by Paul Leask.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The binding energy per vortex anyon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Density plots of an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Interactions of composite magnetic skyrmion-superconducting vortex pairs in ferromagnetic superconductors

    cond-mat.supr-con 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0

    Skyrmion-vortex pairs in ferromagnetic superconductors attract at long range via a mixed magnetization-gauge mode, and for suitable parameters they form stable bound states.

  2. Resonance phenomena in vortex-antivortex collisions

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0

    Vortex–antivortex collisions in the deep type-II Abelian-Higgs model show multi-bounce windows embedded in annihilation regions, driven by a Feshbach resonant mode.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S. C. Zhang, T. H. Hansson, and S. Kivelson, Effective- field-theory model for the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 82 (1989)

    1989

  2. [2]

    These vortex anyons are obtained for the Higgs potential (23), with parametersm= 1andλ=1

    It can be seen that the magnetic flux is centered on the cores of the vortices (bottom left panel), and the electric Noether charge forms a ring of charge around each vortex core (bottom right panel). These vortex anyons are obtained for the Higgs potential (23), with parametersm= 1andλ=1

  3. [3]

    They do not collapse to form an axially symmetric state with coincident cores as they experience short-range repulsion

    The binding energy of this4-vortex is negative and, so, the vortices form a bound state. They do not collapse to form an axially symmetric state with coincident cores as they experience short-range repulsion. field inversion [37]. These both lead to non-monotonic in- tervortex forces that stabilize vortex bound states. This is in close analogy to how the ...

  4. [4]

    S. C. Zhang, The Chern-Simons-Landau-Ginzburg the- ory of the fractional quantum Hall effect, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B6, 25 (1992)

    1992

  5. [5]

    Mulligan, C

    M. Mulligan, C. Nayak, and S. Kachru, Isotropic to anisotropic transition in a fractional quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. B82, 085102 (2010)

    2010

  6. [6]

    Mawson, T

    T. Mawson, T. C. Petersen, J. K. Slingerland, and T. P. Simula, Braiding and fusion of non-abelian vortex anyons, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 140404 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Lee and M

    D.-H. Lee and M. P. A. Fisher, Anyon superconductivity and the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 903 (1989)

    1989

  8. [8]

    Lee and M

    D.-H. Lee and M. P. A. Fisher, Anyon superconductivity and charge-vortex duality, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B05, 2675 (1991)

    1991

  9. [9]

    Fröhlich and P

    J. Fröhlich and P. Marchetti, Quantum field theories of vortices and anyons, Commun. Math. Phys.121, 177 (1989)

    1989

  10. [10]

    Hansson, V

    T. Hansson, V. Oganesyan, and S. Sondhi, Supercon- ductors are topologically ordered, Ann. Phys.313, 497 (2004). 7

    2004

  11. [11]

    Fradkin, Superfluidity of the lattice anyon gas and topological invariance, Phys

    E. Fradkin, Superfluidity of the lattice anyon gas and topological invariance, Phys. Rev. B42, 570 (1990)

    1990

  12. [12]

    Banks and J

    T. Banks and J. D. Lykken, Landau-Ginzburg descrip- tion of anyonic superconductors, Nucl. Phys. B336, 500 (1990)

    1990

  13. [13]

    Boyanovsky, Vortices in Landau-Ginzburg theories of anyonic superconductivity, Nucl

    D. Boyanovsky, Vortices in Landau-Ginzburg theories of anyonic superconductivity, Nucl. Phys. B350, 906 (1991)

    1991

  14. [14]

    L. A. Caffarelli and Y. Yang, Vortex condensation in the Chern–Simons Higgs model: an existence theorem, Com- mun. Math. Phys.168, 321 (1995)

    1995

  15. [15]

    Bazeia, L

    D. Bazeia, L. Losano, M. Marques, and R. Menezes, Compact Chern–Simons vortices, Phys. Lett. B772, 253 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

    Andrade, D

    I. Andrade, D. Bazeia, M. A. Marques, and R. Menezes, Vortices in Maxwell-Chern-Simons-Higgs models with nonminimal coupling, Phys. Rev. D102, 045018 (2020)

    2020

  17. [17]

    Andrade, R

    J. Andrade, R. Casana, and E. da Hora, BPS chiral vor- tices in Maxwell-Higgs electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 111, 036019 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    P. K. Ghosh, Bogomol’nyi equations of Maxwell-Chern- Simons vortices from a generalized abelian Higgs model, Phys. Rev. D49, 5458 (1994)

    1994

  19. [19]

    Torres, Bogomol’nyi limit for nontopological solitons in a Chern-Simons model with anomalous magnetic mo- ment, Phys

    M. Torres, Bogomol’nyi limit for nontopological solitons in a Chern-Simons model with anomalous magnetic mo- ment, Phys. Rev. D46, R2295 (1992)

    1992

  20. [20]

    Bazeia, R

    D. Bazeia, R. Casana, E. da Hora, and R. Menezes, Gen- eralized self-dual Maxwell-Chern-Simons-Higgs model, Phys. Rev. D85, 125028 (2012)

    2012

  21. [21]

    G. V. Dunne and C. A. Trugenberger, Self-duality and nonrelativistic Maxwell-Chern-Simons solitons, Phys. Rev. D43, 1323 (1991)

    1991

  22. [22]

    Leask and M

    P. Leask and M. Speight, Demagnetization in micro- magnetics: magnetostatic self-interactions of bulk chi- ral magnetic skyrmions (2025), arXiv:2504.17772 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Leask, Topological transition from a hopfion to a toron via flexoelectric self-polarization in chiral liquid crystals, Phys

    P. Leask, Topological transition from a hopfion to a toron via flexoelectric self-polarization in chiral liquid crystals, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043001 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    S. B. Gudnason and J. M. Speight, Backreacted Coulomb energy in the Skyrme model, J. High Energ. Phys.01, 150

  25. [25]

    M. Eto, Y. Hamada, and M. Nitta, Tying knots in par- ticle physics, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 091603 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    S. A. Parameswaran, S. A. Kivelson, E. H. Rezayi, S. H. Simon, S. L. Sondhi, and B. Z. Spivak, Typology for quantum Hall liquids, Phys. Rev. B85, 241307 (2012)

    2012

  27. [27]

    Deser, R

    S. Deser, R. Jackiw, and S. Templeton, Topologically massive gauge theories, Ann. Phys.281, 409 (2000)

    2000

  28. [28]

    S. B. Gudnason and J. M. Speight, Realistic classical binding energies in theω-Skyrme model, J. High Energ. Phys.2020, 184

    2020

  29. [29]

    Harland, P

    D. Harland, P. Leask, and M. Speight, Skyrmion crystals stabilized byω-mesons, J. High Energ. Phys.06, 116

  30. [30]

    Leask, Baby skyrmion crystals stabilized by vector mesons, Phys

    P. Leask, Baby skyrmion crystals stabilized by vector mesons, Phys. Lett. B855, 138842 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, Vortex-line models for dual strings, Nucl. Phys. B61, 45 (1973)

    1973

  32. [32]

    M. B. Hindmarsh and T. W. B. Kibble, Cosmic strings, Rep. Prog. Phys.58, 477 (1995)

    1995

  33. [33]

    Babaev, Vortices with fractional flux in two-gap super- conductors and in extended Faddeev model, Phys

    E. Babaev, Vortices with fractional flux in two-gap super- conductors and in extended Faddeev model, Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 067001 (2002)

    2002

  34. [34]

    Babaev and M

    E. Babaev and M. Speight, Semi-Meissner state and nei- ther type-I nor type-II superconductivity in multicompo- nent superconductors, Phys. Rev. B72, 180502 (2005)

    2005

  35. [35]

    Babaev, J

    E. Babaev, J. Carlström, and M. Speight, Type-1.5 Su- perconducting State from an Intrinsic Proximity Effect in Two-Band Superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 067003 (2010)

    2010

  36. [36]

    Carlström, E

    J. Carlström, E. Babaev, and M. Speight, Type-1.5 su- perconductivity in multiband systems: Effects of inter- band couplings, Phys. Rev. B83, 174509 (2011)

    2011

  37. [37]

    E.Babaev, J.Carlström, M.Silaev,andJ.Speight,Type- 1.5 superconductivity in multicomponent systems, Phys- ica C Supercond.533, 20 (2017)

    2017

  38. [38]

    Samoilenka and E

    A. Samoilenka and E. Babaev, Spiral magnetic field and bound states of vortices in noncentrosymmetric super- conductors, Phys. Rev. B102, 184517 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Garaud, M

    J. Garaud, M. N. Chernodub, and D. E. Kharzeev, Vor- ticeswithmagneticfieldinversioninnoncentrosymmetric superconductors, Phys. Rev. B102, 184516 (2020)

    2020

  40. [40]

    Muñoz de las Heras, E

    A. Muñoz de las Heras, E. Macaluso, and I. Carusotto, Anyonic molecules in atomic fractional quantum hall liq- uids: A quantitative probe of fractional charge and any- onic statistics, Phys. Rev. X10, 041058 (2020)

    2020

  41. [41]

    Z. D. Shi and T. Senthil, Doping a fractional quan- tum anomalous hall insulator, Phys. Rev. X15, 031069 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    Kuhlenkamp, W

    C. Kuhlenkamp, W. Kadow, A. Imamoğlu, and M. Knap, Chiral pseudospin liquids in moiré heterostructures, Phys. Rev. X14, 021013 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    Speight and T

    M. Speight and T. Winyard, Vortex lattices and critical fields in anisotropic superconductors, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.58, 095203 (2025)

    2025

  44. [44]

    High Energ

    D.Bazeia, J.G.F.Campos,andA.Mohammadi,Abelian Chern-Simons vortices in the presence of magnetic impu- rities, J. High Energ. Phys.12, 108

  45. [45]

    Speight and T

    M. Speight and T. Winyard, Short-range intervortex forces, Phys. Rev. D112, 055024 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Barkman, A

    M. Barkman, A. Samoilenka, T. Winyard, and E. Babaev, Ring solitons and soliton sacks in imbalanced fermionic systems, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043282 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    S. K. Paul and A. Khare, Charged vortices in an abelian Higgs model with Chern-Simons term, Phys. Lett. B174, 420 (1986)

    1986

  48. [48]

    R. D. Pisarski and S. Rao, Topologically massive chro- modynamics in the perturbative regime, Phys. Rev. D 32, 2081 (1985)

    2081

  49. [49]

    J. M. Speight, Static intervortex forces, Phys. Rev. D55, 3830 (1997)

    1997

  50. [50]

    N. S. Manton and J. M. Speight, Asymptotic interactions of critically coupled vortices, Commun. Math. Phys.236, 535 (2003)

    2003

  51. [51]

    Speight and T

    M. Speight and T. Winyard, Intervortex forces in competing-order superconductors, Phys. Rev. B103, 014514 (2021)

    2021

  52. [52]

    L. M. A. Bettencourt and R. J. Rivers, Interactions be- tween U(1) cosmic strings: An analytical study, Phys. Rev. D51, 1842 (1995)

    1995

  53. [53]

    Fujikura, S

    K. Fujikura, S. Li, and M. Yamaguchi, Interactions be- tween several types of cosmic strings, J. High Energ. Phys.12, 115. 8

  54. [54]

    We work in the Coulomb gauge∂iAi = 0 and linearize about ψ=m+ϕ(r), A µ = 0 +a µ,(28) with|ϕ| ≪mand the unitary gauge (zero phase) for the Higgs field mode

    Single-vortex anyon tail Let the vacuum (ground state) have modulus|ψ|= m >0, and define the Proca massmA =qm, withqthe gauge charge. We work in the Coulomb gauge∂iAi = 0 and linearize about ψ=m+ϕ(r), A µ = 0 +a µ,(28) with|ϕ| ≪mand the unitary gauge (zero phase) for the Higgs field mode. In general, the Taylor expansion of the potentialV(|ψ|)about the gr...

  55. [55]

    Long-range interactions Nowthatwehavedeterminedthesingle-vortexfarfield form, we proceed to determine the long-range interaction energy following the point-particle method [47–49]. This is done in two parts, we (i) add linear sources to the linearized energy (29) such that the solutions of the cor- responding field equations are exactly the single-vortex ...

  56. [56]

    First of all, we observe that the decay rate becomes limκ→0 α=m A =qmand the oscillatory behavior van- ishes,lim κ→0 β= 0

    Ginzburg–Landau limitκ→0 As a consistency check, we want to ensure that we re- cover the Ginzburg–Landau model in the limitκ→0. First of all, we observe that the decay rate becomes limκ→0 α=m A =qmand the oscillatory behavior van- ishes,lim κ→0 β= 0. Therefore, the magnetic penetration depth is recovered, lim κ→0 λgauge = 1 α = 1 mA ,(54) and the complex-...