Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

This paper constructs massive and massless one-particle states in a single front-form framework, and shows that the massless spin-1 gauge shift ε→ε+ξk is the remnant of taking the infinite-boost limit through different reference vectors.

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 10:40 UTC pith:HYSLO3ZS

load-bearing objection The spin-1 massless-shift calculation is explicit, cross-checked, and worth having; the general UIR claim, however, rests on an unproved group-property assertion and is not yet established. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.08983 v3 pith:HYSLO3ZS submitted 2025-10-10 hep-th

Relativistic Particle on Light-Front

Junmou Chen This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords light-front quantizationfront formWigner classificationlittle groupmassive-massless continuationpolarization vectorsgauge symmetryspin-1 particle
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.

This paper tries to reconcile the massive and massless representations of the Poincaré group, which are normally treated as separate cases. It proposes a front-form construction where a one-particle state is labeled by a null reference vector, and the little group transformation is simply a change of that vector. The resulting Wigner D-matrices are parameterized by rapidities and have both a smooth zero-momentum limit (recovering the usual rest-frame d-matrix) and a smooth massless limit (infinite boost). For spin-1, this yields the familiar polarization-shift ε→ε+ξk as a derived coefficient, with ξ fixed by the angle between reference vectors, offering a physical origin for gauge symmetry. If correct, this gives a unified Wigner classification with massive-massless continuation that could help transfer massless-amplitude techniques to massive amplitudes.

Core claim

The central claim is that unitary irreducible representations of the Poincaré group can be constructed in front form with a null 'reference vector' n as an intrinsic label, and that this construction interpolates smoothly between massive and massless particles. For a spin-1 particle, the paper derives the Wigner d-matrix elements in terms of the rapidities η, η_p and the angle θ between reference vectors, and shows that in the massless limit (η, η_p → ∞) the longitudinal polarization decouples while the transverse polarizations transform as ε^μ_±(p,n_p) = ε^μ_±(p,n) − (sinθ e^{±iφ_p}/√2) p^μ/(n·p). This is exactly the standard gauge shift ε→ε+ξk, now with ξ determined by the relative orienta

What carries the argument

The central object is the null reference vector n that labels the front form (light-front coordinates along a null direction). A one-particle state |p,σ,n> is defined by a standard Lorentz transformation from rest frame labeled by n; a little group transformation is then realized as a change of reference vector, W(p,n|n') = L(p,k,n') L(k,p,n). This identification turns the Wigner D-matrix into an inner product of states with different reference vectors, computed via a rotated coordinate system S' in which n' becomes (1,0,0,-1). The key identity is Eq.(20): D_{σσ'}(η,η',n|n') = <p_m,σ',n|p_m,σ,n'>. For spin-1 the d-matrix elements are obtained by sandwiching the rotation e^{iJ2θ} between pola

Load-bearing premise

The construction relies on the claim that changing the reference vector can produce any little-group rotation; if that set of transformations does not actually form a closed group, the Wigner D-matrices may not represent the Poincaré group correctly.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to compute W(p,n|n'') from two successive little-group transformations W(p,n|n')W(p,n'|n'') and verify it equals a third transformation of the same form with the composed reference vector. If the composition fails to close, the front-form D-matrices do not satisfy the group multiplication law. Alternatively, for spin-1 one can compute the massless limit of the d-matrix from the Pauli-Lubanski contraction (Eq. 56) and compare with the front-form result (Eq. 41) at finite η; a mismatch for off-diagonal elements beyond the identified α would falsify the claimed equivalence

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

If this is right

  • The construction provides a unitary representation of the Poincaré group with a smooth massive-massless continuation, so the massless little group arises as a contraction limit rather than a separate case.
  • For spin-1, the polarization vectors computed in this front-form framework match those of spinor-helicity formalism, establishing a concrete dictionary.
  • In the massless limit, the longitudinal polarization decouples from the physical spectrum, and the gauge shift ε→ε+ξk is derived with ξ = sinθ e^{±iφ}/√2, determined by the geometry of the reference vectors.
  • The Wigner d-matrix in the zero-momentum limit reduces to the conventional rest-frame d-matrix, providing a cross-check and unifying front-form and instant-form descriptions.
  • The matching of the front-form d-matrix with the Pauli-Lubanski-based computation shows that the single physical parameter α = arcsin((m/(n·p)) sinθ) fully characterizes the little group transformation, which may simplify future amplitude calculations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same reference-vector mechanism may extend to higher spins (e.g., spin-2), where gravitational gauge symmetry might similarly appear as a remnant of the infinite-boost limit taken through different reference vectors, potentially offering a new interpretation of diffeomorphism invariance.
  • The identification of the gauge parameter ξ with the angle between reference vectors suggests a geometric interpretation of gauge transformations: they are differences in how the massless limit is approached, which could be tested by computing massive amplitudes with different reference vectors and checking that physical observables remain independent.
  • A concrete extension is to apply the front-form construction to spin-1/2 (as the paper indicates as future work); one would check whether the spinor-helicity transformation rules and the associated momentum shift for massless spin-1/2 emerge with the same reference-vector geometry.
  • The unresolved question of whether the set of reference-vector changes forms a closed group could be settled by explicitly computing the composition law for W(p,n|n') and verifying closure, which would either confirm or refine the group-representation claim.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a front-form (light-front) construction of one-particle states as unitary irreducible representations of the Poincaré group. States are labeled by a null reference vector n in addition to momentum and spin. The little-group transformation is re-expressed as a change of reference vector, W(p,n|n') = L(p,k,n') L(k,p,n), and the Wigner D-matrix is computed as an overlap between states with different reference vectors. The formalism is then applied to a massive spin-1 particle, yielding explicit d-matrix elements (Eq. (41)) and polarization vectors. In the infinite-rapidity/massless limit, the longitudinal polarization decouples and the transverse polarizations transform by a momentum shift, ε± → ε± + ξ p^μ, with ξ determined by the angle between reference vectors. The paper claims this gives a smooth massive–massless continuation and a derivation of the standard gauge shift of massless spin-1 from the little-group structure. It also performs a cross-check against a direct Pauli–Lubanski based computation in Sec. IV.B.

Significance. If the construction is correct, it provides a Wigner-type classification in the front form with an explicit massive–massless continuation, and it offers a concrete derivation of the familiar momentum shift for massless spin-1 particles as a remnant of the decoupling of the longitudinal mode. The spin-1 computation is explicit and the paper includes a non-trivial cross-check against the Lie-algebra contraction, which is a strength. The interpretation of gauge symmetry as a limit of the massive little group, with a precise coefficient for the shift, is a potentially useful contribution for the amplitudes community. The result is, however, conditional on resolving a structural gap in the general construction, described in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A, after Eq. (17)] The claim that the set W(q,n|n') = L(q,k,n')L(k,q,n), with n' varying, is 'precisely the little group of SO(3)' is asserted rather than proven. For fixed q and n, the natural composition is that of a groupoid: W(q,n|n'') = W(q,n'|n'') W(q,n|n'), not a closed multiplication on the set {W(q,n|n')}. The D-matrices defined in Eq. (20) as overlaps between different reference-vector bases therefore need not satisfy the ordinary representation composition law of SO(3); they form a representation of the groupoid only if a cocycle condition holds. The paper does not prove such a condition, nor does it show that Eq. (19) yields a representation of the full Poincaré group for arbitrary Λ. The spin-1 cross-check in Sec. IV.B, which matches the explicit form of the d-matrix to a one-parameter SO(3) subgroup after imposing Eq. (57), does not supply the missing group-composition proof. This gap is load
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (44)-(47)] The massive–massless continuation is demonstrated only for the spin-1 case. The abstract and conclusion state the result generally ('this construction has massive-massless continuation'), but the limit η,η_p→∞ with m→0 is analyzed only for the specific combination d_{±,0} ε_0. For higher spins, the behavior of the d-matrix elements involving the longitudinal polarization is not examined, and no general argument is given that the massless limit of the constructed states is smooth. The paper should either restrict its claim to spin-1 or provide a general proof. This is not a fatal flaw for the spin-1 application, but it affects the scope of the advertised result.
  3. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (57)-(58)] The equivalence between the front-form d-matrix (Eq. (41)) and the Lie-algebra d-matrix (Eq. (56)) is established only for one component, d_{1,-1}, in Appendix A. The paper states that the other components 'can be checked straightforwardly,' but no explicit verification is shown. Given that Eq. (57) sets α = arcsin(m/(n·p) sinθ) and thereby claims to identify a single physical parameter from three parameters (η, η_p, θ), it is important to show at least one additional nontrivial equality (e.g., d_{0,0} or d_{1,0}) to demonstrate the full matrix equivalence. This is a moderate issue, not a fatal one, but it leaves the cross-check incomplete.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'it obtain the massless limit smoothly' contains a typo ('obtain' → 'obtains').
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (20)] In the displayed equation after Eq. (20), the notation D_{σσ'}(η, η', n|n) has a typo: the last argument should be n'.
  3. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (45)] The limit notation 'lim_{η,η→∞}' is missing the subscript p on the second η; it should be η, η_p → ∞.
  4. [Sec. II] The definitions of light-cone coordinates and the placement of indices are hard to follow. A table of conventions would help the reader.
  5. [Sec. IV.A] The claim that the polarization vectors in Eqs. (36)-(37) are equivalent to those in spinor-helicity formalism is not elaborated. A brief derivation or a precise reference would strengthen the statement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the spin-1 Wigner d-matrix and the massless polarization shift are derived from the reference-vector construction and independently cross-checked.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. One-particle states and little-group transformations are defined through standard Lorentz transformations L(p,k,n) and a reference-vector change W(p,n|n'), and the Wigner D-matrix is computed as an inner product of states with different reference vectors. The spin-1 d-matrix elements in Eq. (41) are obtained from polarization vectors defined by the conditions p·ε=0 and n·ε=0; the massless limit and the gauge shift ε± → ε± + ξ p^μ in Eq. (47) follow by taking η→∞ with m→0 while keeping the relevant products finite. This is a derivation from the definitions, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The paper also provides independent checks: the zero-momentum limit reduces to the conventional rest-frame Wigner d-matrix (Eq. (34)), and the Lie-algebra computation via the Pauli-Lubanski pseudovector yields an equivalent d-matrix, with the parameter matching in Eq. (57) serving as a consistency condition rather than a fit. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited works (Dirac, Brodsky et al., Kogut-Soper) provide background and motivation, not the paper's central results. The structural concern that W(q,n|n') forms a groupoid rather than a proven SO(3) group is a mathematical rigor gap in the representation property of the D-matrices, not a circularity, since the paper does not assume the conclusion it claims to derive.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The construction introduces no fitted numerical constants and no new physical entities; the reference vector is a mathematical labeling device. The central claim rests on standard Wigner classification, front-form dynamics, group contraction, and a set of ad hoc assumptions about the little-group coverage and the massless limit that are only explicitly verified for spin-1.

free parameters (1)
  • Reference null vector n (parameterized by angles θ,φ)
    The state is defined by a chosen null reference vector; the construction and the massless-limit gauge shift depend on this choice, but it is a gauge/label choice, not fitted to data.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Wigner classification: one-particle states correspond to unitary irreducible representations of the Poincaré group classified by Casimirs m² and s(s+1)
    Used throughout Sec. III.A as the starting framework; the paper builds on this rather than deriving it.
  • domain assumption Front-form dynamics: the null vector n=(1,0,0,-1) defines the light-front time and the generator split of the Poincaré algebra
    Invoked in Sec. II; the entire construction is formulated in the front form per Dirac [33,34].
  • standard math The Lie-algebra contraction SO(3)→ISO(2) with m→0
    Used in the Introduction Eq.(1) and in Sec. IV.B Eq.(49) to motivate the massive-massless continuation.
  • ad hoc to paper The set W(q,n|n')=L(q,k,n')L(k,q,n) is the full little group SO(3) as n' varies
    Asserted after Eq.(17) without proof; if false, the Wigner D-matrices in Eq.(19)-(20) may not form a representation.
  • domain assumption Polarization vectors satisfying p·ε=0 and n·ε=0 reproduce spinor-helicity polarization
    Used in Sec. IV.A; equivalence to spinor-helicity formalism is stated but not derived in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The massless limit is obtained by η→∞ keeping products like d_{±,0} ε_0 finite
    The smoothness of the limit relies on a cancellation between vanishing d-matrix elements and the divergent longitudinal polarization; verified for spin-1 but not for general spin.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14127 in / 18900 out tokens · 158348 ms · 2026-08-04T10:40:17.919942+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We construct one-particle states as unitary, irreducible representations of Poincare group in front form, characterized by a special null vector, dubbed reference vector. We demonstrate that this construction has massive-massless continuation. The state is defined by the reference vector. The little group transformation, defined at a general moving momentum, is equivalent to a change of reference vector. The resulting Wigner D-matrix is parameterized by the rapidities, in addition to the two reference vectors before and after transformation. Boosting the rapidities to infinity, it obtain the massless limit smoothly. We then apply those results to massive spin-1 particle and compute the corresponding Wigner D-matrices. The resulting polarization vectors are equivalent to those in spinor-helicity formalism. In the massless limit, it is shown that longitudinal polarization decouples from the spectrum. The $\epsilon^\mu_\pm \rightarrow \epsilon^\mu_\pm +\xi k^\mu$ shift turns out to be remnant of this decoupling, with $\xi$ determined by the angle between the reference vectors. Our results thus give us a deeper understanding of gauge symmetry: massless spin-1 particle is defined as the infinite boost limit of massive spin-1 particle, gauge symmetry can be understood to origin from obtaining the massless limit for polarization vectors through different reference vectors.

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. The Four Polarizations of the $W$ at High Energies

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    Polarization interference in intermediate W bosons is generically nonzero even on-shell, can exceed width-over-mass corrections at low energies, and is suppressed at LHC energies; a 2P scheme is proposed to reduce gau...

  2. Massive Gauge Theories from Consistency Conditions of Amplitudes

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0

    Massive vector-boson and scalar amplitudes through four points are uniquely fixed by two on-shell consistency conditions, forcing spontaneously-broken gauge theories — or Stueckelberg theory when scalar masses are equ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    E. P. Wigner,On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz Group, Annals Math.40, 149 (1939)

    1939

  2. [2]

    Bargmann and E

    V. Bargmann and E. P. Wigner,Group Theoretical Discussion of Relativistic Wave Equations, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.34, 211 (1948). 19

    1948

  3. [3]

    Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields(Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    S. Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields(Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  4. [4]

    L. J. Dixon, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics: Particle Physics: The Higgs Boson and Beyond(2014), pp. 31–67, 1310.5353

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Elvang and Y.-t

    H. Elvang and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering Amplitudes(2013), 1308.1697

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    S. J. Parke and T. R. Taylor,An Amplitude fornGluon Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.56, 2459 (1986)

    1986

  7. [7]

    F. A. Berends and W. T. Giele,Recursive Calculations for Processes with n Gluons, Nucl. Phys. B 306, 759 (1988)

    1988

  8. [8]

    L. J. Dixon, inTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics (TASI 95): QCD and Beyond(1996), pp. 539–584, hep-ph/9601359

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  9. [9]

    M. L. Mangano and S. J. Parke,Multiparton amplitudes in gauge theories, Phys. Rept.200, 301 (1991), hep-th/0509223

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1991

  10. [10]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, and D. A. Kosower,Progress in one loop QCD computations, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.46, 109 (1996), hep-ph/9602280

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  11. [11]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo, and B. Feng,New recursion relations for tree amplitudes of gluons, Nucl. Phys. B715, 499 (2005), hep-th/0412308

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  12. [12]

    Britto, F

    R. Britto, F. Cachazo, B. Feng, and E. Witten,Direct proof of tree-level recursion relation in Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 181602 (2005), hep-th/0501052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  13. [13]

    Bern and D

    Z. Bern and D. A. Kosower,The Computation of loop amplitudes in gauge theories, Nucl. Phys. B379, 451 (1992)

    1992

  14. [14]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, and D. A. Kosower,Fusing gauge theory tree amplitudes into loop amplitudes, Nucl. Phys. B435, 59 (1995), hep-ph/9409265

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  15. [15]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, D. C. Dunbar, and D. A. Kosower,One loop n point gauge theory amplitudes, unitarity and collinear limits, Nucl. Phys. B425, 217 (1994), hep-ph/9403226

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  16. [16]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson,Perturbative Quantum Gravity as a Double Copy of Gauge Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 061602 (2010), 1004.0476

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    Z. Bern, L. J. Dixon, and V. A. Smirnov,Iteration of planar amplitudes in maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory at three loops and beyond, Phys. Rev. D72, 085001 (2005), hep-th/0505205

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  18. [18]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson,New Relations for Gauge-Theory Amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D78, 085011 (2008), 0805.3993

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  19. [19]

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban,The duality between color and kinematics and its applications, J. Phys. A57, 333002 (2024), 1909.01358

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Witten,Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space, Commun

    E. Witten,Perturbative gauge theory as a string theory in twistor space, Commun. Math. Phys.252, 189 (2004), hep-th/0312171

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  21. [21]

    Arkani-Hamed, F

    N. Arkani-Hamed, F. Cachazo, and J. Kaplan,What is the Simplest Quantum Field Theory?, JHEP 09, 016 (2010), 0808.1446

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    Arkani-Hamed, J

    N. Arkani-Hamed, J. L. Bourjaily, F. Cachazo, A. B. Goncharov, A. Postnikov, and J. Trnka,Grassman- nian Geometry of Scattering Amplitudes(Cambridge University Press, 2016), ISBN 978-1-107-08658-6, 20 978-1-316-57296-2, 1212.5605

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  23. [23]

    Arkani-Hamed and J

    N. Arkani-Hamed and J. Trnka,The Amplituhedron, JHEP10, 030 (2014), 1312.2007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  24. [24]

    Cachazo, S

    F. Cachazo, S. He, and E. Y. Yuan,Scattering Equations and Matrices: From Einstein To Yang-Mills, DBI and NLSM, JHEP07, 149 (2015), 1412.3479

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    J. M. Drummond, J. M. Henn, and J. Plefka,Yangian symmetry of scattering amplitudes in N=4 super Yang-Mills theory, JHEP05, 046 (2009), 0902.2987

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  26. [26]

    Arkani-Hamed, T.-C

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang,Scattering amplitudes for all masses and spins, JHEP 11, 070 (2021), 1709.04891

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Conde and A

    E. Conde and A. Marzolla,Lorentz constraints on massive three-point amplitudes, Journal of High Energy Physics2016(2016), ISSN 1029-8479, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP09(2016)041

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2016)041 2016

  28. [28]

    Gomez-Laberge,Massive Spinor Helicity Amplitudes, Cross Sections, and Coalescence(2025), 2508.05539

    C. Gomez-Laberge,Massive Spinor Helicity Amplitudes, Cross Sections, and Coalescence(2025), 2508.05539

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Wu and S.-H

    C. Wu and S.-H. Zhu,Massive on-shell recursion relations for n-point amplitudes, Journal of High Energy Physics2022(2022), ISSN 1029-8479, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP06(2022)117

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2022)117 2022

  30. [30]

    Ni, Y.-N

    Y.-H. Ni, Y.-N. Wang, C. Wu, and J.-H. Yu,Massive Helicity-Chirality Spinor Formalism from Massless Amplitudes with On-shell Mass Insertion(2025), 2501.09062

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Y. Ema, T. Gao, W. Ke, Z. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, and I. Mahbub,Momentum shift and on-shell constructible massive amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D110, 105003 (2024), 2403.15538

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Ballav and A

    S. Ballav and A. Manna,Recursion relations for scattering amplitudes with massive particles, Journal of High Energy Physics2021(2021), ISSN 1029-8479, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/JHEP03(2021) 295

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep03(2021 2021

  33. [33]

    P. A. M. Dirac,Forms of Relativistic Dynamics, Rev. Mod. Phys.21, 392 (1949)

    1949

  34. [34]

    S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, and S. S. Pinsky,Quantum chromodynamics and other field theories on the light cone, Phys. Rept.301, 299 (1998), hep-ph/9705477

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  35. [35]

    K. Y.-J. Chiu and S. J. Brodsky,Angular Momentum Conservation Law in Light-Front Quantum Field Theory, Phys. Rev. D95, 065035 (2017), 1702.01127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    J. B. Kogut and D. E. Soper,Quantum Electrodynamics in the Infinite Momentum Frame, Phys. Rev. D1, 2901 (1970)

    1970