pith. sign in

arxiv: 2410.06167 · v2 · submitted 2024-10-08 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.mes-hall· cond-mat.other· physics.app-ph

Broken intrinsic symmetry induced magnon-magnon coupling in synthetic ferrimagnets

Mohammad Tomal Hossain , Hang Chen , Subhash Bhatt , Mojtaba Taghipour Kaffash , Mitra M. Subedi , John Q. Xiao , Joseph Sklenar , M. Benjamin Jungfleisch This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 19:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.otherphysics.app-ph
keywords synthetic ferrimagnetsmagnon-magnon couplingavoided level crossinginterlayer exchange interactionacoustic and optical magnonsmagnonicsferromagnetic metals
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dissimilar ferromagnetic layers in synthetic ferrimagnets break intrinsic symmetry and couple acoustic and optical magnons via a tunable avoided crossing gap of 3.9 GHz.

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

The paper establishes that synthetic ferrimagnets made from two dissimilar ferromagnetic metals with antiferromagnetic interlayer coupling exhibit magnon-magnon hybridization due to broken symmetry. This hybridization manifests as an avoided level-crossing between acoustic and optical magnon modes at their degeneracy points. The gap size scales with the interlayer exchange strength and reaches 3.9 GHz when the non-magnetic spacer thickness is adjusted. This exceeds the coupling typically seen when magnons interact with photons or phonons instead. A reader would care because the result shows a direct, electrically tunable way to mix two magnon branches inside a single magnetic stack without external mediators.

Core claim

In a synthetic ferrimagnet consisting of two dissimilar antiferromagnetically interacting ferromagnetic metals, broken intrinsic symmetry induces coupling of acoustic and optical magnons, as shown by an avoided level-crossing whose gap depends on the interlayer exchange interaction and can be controlled by non-magnetic interlayer thickness, reaching a value of 3.9 GHz.

What carries the argument

Avoided level-crossing gap between acoustic and optical magnon modes, induced by broken symmetry from dissimilar ferromagnetic layers and tuned via interlayer exchange.

If this is right

  • The magnon-magnon coupling strength is directly set by the interlayer exchange interaction, which is adjustable through non-magnetic spacer thickness.
  • Hybridization occurs precisely at the degeneracy points of the two distinct magnon modes.
  • The resulting gap of 3.9 GHz is larger than the coupling strengths reported in magnon-photon or magnon-phonon hybrid systems.
  • The effect is intrinsic to the synthetic ferrimagnet geometry and does not require external fields or additional coupling media.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Engineers could use the same spacer-thickness knob to design magnonic filters or logic gates that operate entirely within the magnetic stack.
  • The same symmetry-breaking principle might be tested in other layered systems, such as synthetic antiferromagnets with three or more magnetic layers, to create multi-mode magnon hybrids.
  • Varying the degree of layer dissimilarity (for example, by changing saturation magnetization or anisotropy) could map how the gap scales and identify an optimal mismatch for maximum coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The observed avoided crossing is produced by the broken symmetry from the two different ferromagnetic materials rather than by sample inhomogeneity, stray fields, or measurement artifacts.

What would settle it

Fabricate an otherwise identical stack but replace one ferromagnetic layer with a duplicate of the other so the layers are identical, then measure whether the avoided-crossing gap disappears or shrinks below the 3.9 GHz scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2410.06167 by Hang Chen, John Q. Xiao, Joseph Sklenar, M. Benjamin Jungfleisch, Mitra M. Subedi, Mohammad Tomal Hossain, Mojtaba Taghipour Kaffash, Subhash Bhatt.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Schematic illustration of the synthetic ferri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Experimentally observed magnon spectra. Thermal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Micromagnetic simulation results obtained by Mumax3. (a) Simulated spectrum for a Ru thickness of 0.8 nm. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Simulated coupling gap g (blue) and simulated degeneracy field Hg (green) vs. quadratic interaction constant Jq at a fixed biquadratic interaction constant Jbq = 0.74 kJ/m3 . The degeneracy field Hg was determined as the field where the high- and low-frequency modes have the smallest separation in frequency (g).Solid lines represent linear fits with respect to Jq.(b) Simulated coupling gap g (blue) and… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Synthetic antiferromagnets offer rich magnon energy spectra in which optical and acoustic magnon branches can hybridize. Here, we demonstrate a broken intrinsic symmetry induced coupling of acoustic and optical magnons in a synthetic ferrimagnet consisting of two dissimilar antiferromagnetically interacting ferromagnetic metals. Two distinct magnon modes hybridize at degeneracy points, as indicated by an avoided level-crossing. The avoided level-crossing gap depends on the interlayer exchange interaction between the magnetic layers, which can be controlled by adjusting the non-magnetic interlayer thickness. A large avoided level crossing gap of 3.9 GHz is revealed, exceeding the coupling strength that is typically found in other magnonic hybrid systems based on a coupling of magnons with photons or magnons with phonons.

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

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports observation of hybridization between acoustic and optical magnon modes in a synthetic ferrimagnet formed by two dissimilar ferromagnetic layers antiferromagnetically coupled through a Ru spacer. Hybridization is attributed to broken intrinsic symmetry, evidenced by an avoided level crossing whose gap reaches 3.9 GHz and varies with Ru thickness, thereby tuning the interlayer exchange.

Significance. If the mechanism is confirmed, the work would establish a symmetry-breaking route to magnon-magnon coupling whose strength exceeds typical magnon-photon or magnon-phonon hybrids, offering a tunable platform for magnonic devices.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Results] Abstract and Results: the central attribution of the 3.9 GHz avoided-crossing gap specifically to broken intrinsic symmetry (rather than extrinsic effects such as inhomogeneity, stray dipolar fields, or thickness-dependent interface roughness) lacks any quantitative model, simulation, or control experiment that isolates the symmetry-breaking term; the thickness dependence alone is consistent with interlayer exchange but does not exclude alternatives.
  2. [Abstract / Experimental section] No raw spectra, fitting procedures, or error analysis are supplied, making it impossible to verify that the reported gap is free of instrumental artifacts or that the two modes are indeed the acoustic and optical branches of the bilayer system.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for the two ferromagnetic layers and the definition of acoustic versus optical modes should be introduced explicitly with a schematic or Hamiltonian term.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the opportunity to clarify our work. We address each major point below with the strongest honest defense supported by the manuscript's content and data.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Results] Abstract and Results: the central attribution of the 3.9 GHz avoided-crossing gap specifically to broken intrinsic symmetry (rather than extrinsic effects such as inhomogeneity, stray dipolar fields, or thickness-dependent interface roughness) lacks any quantitative model, simulation, or control experiment that isolates the symmetry-breaking term; the thickness dependence alone is consistent with interlayer exchange but does not exclude alternatives.

    Authors: The manuscript attributes the coupling to broken intrinsic symmetry because the two ferromagnetic layers are deliberately dissimilar (different thicknesses and/or materials), which removes the inversion symmetry present in conventional synthetic antiferromagnets with identical layers; this symmetry breaking permits hybridization between acoustic and optical branches at their degeneracy points. The observed gap scales systematically with Ru thickness exactly as expected for the interlayer exchange strength that sets the optical-mode frequency, producing a clean avoided crossing whose magnitude (3.9 GHz) exceeds typical dipolar or roughness-induced splittings reported in the literature. While a full micromagnetic simulation isolating every term is not present in the original submission, the thickness dependence and the requirement for dissimilar layers together make extrinsic explanations (uniform inhomogeneity or stray fields) inconsistent with the data; we have added a concise discussion paragraph in the revised manuscript explaining this distinction. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract / Experimental section] No raw spectra, fitting procedures, or error analysis are supplied, making it impossible to verify that the reported gap is free of instrumental artifacts or that the two modes are indeed the acoustic and optical branches of the bilayer system.

    Authors: We agree that raw spectra and analysis details improve verifiability. The revised manuscript now includes representative raw broadband spectra in the supplementary information, together with the Lorentzian fitting routine used to extract resonance frequencies, the explicit criterion for identifying acoustic versus optical branches (field-dependent frequency ordering and opposite precession sense), and error bars derived from repeated measurements on multiple samples. These additions confirm that the 3.9 GHz gap lies well above instrumental linewidth and is reproducible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental measurement of gap vs. thickness

full rationale

The paper reports fabrication of synthetic ferrimagnets with varying Ru spacer thickness, followed by direct spectroscopic measurement of magnon modes showing an avoided crossing whose size varies with spacer thickness. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivations are invoked that reduce any reported quantity (such as the 3.9 GHz gap) to a definition or fit performed on the same data. Central attribution to broken symmetry is an interpretation of the experimental trend, not a self-referential derivation. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The abstract describes an experimental observation of magnon hybridization; it introduces no new free parameters, mathematical axioms, or postulated entities beyond standard concepts of interlayer exchange already present in the magnonics literature.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5704 in / 1164 out tokens · 34226 ms · 2026-05-23T19:25:43.222990+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    J. Chen, H. Yu, and G. Gubbiotti, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 55, 123001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Haldar, D

    A. Haldar, D. Kumar, and A. O. Adeyeye, Nature Nan- otechnology 11, 437 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Urazhdin, V

    S. Urazhdin, V. E. Demidov, H. Ulrichs, T. Kendzior- czyk, T. Kuhn, J. Leuthold, G. Wilde, and S. O. Demokritov, Nature Nanotechnology9, 509 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Khitun, M

    A. Khitun, M. Bao, and K. L. Wang, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics43, 264005 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Mahmoud, F

    A. Mahmoud, F. Ciubotaru, F. Vanderveken, A. V. Chu- mak, S. Hamdioui, C. Adelmann, and S. Cotofana, Jour- nal of Applied Physics128, 161101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    A. V. Chumak, P. Kabos, M. Wu, C. Abert, C. Adel- mann, A. O. Adeyeye, J. Åkerman, F. G. Aliev, A. Anane, A. Awad, C. H. Back, A. Barman, G. E. W. Bauer, M. Becherer, E. N. Beginin, V. A. S. V. Bit- tencourt, Y. M. Blanter, P. Bortolotti, I. Boventer, D. A. Bozhko, S. A. Bunyaev, J. J. Carmiggelt, R. R. Cheenikundil, F. Ciubotaru, S. Cotofana, G. Csaba, O...

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Q. Wang, G. Csaba, R. Verba, A. V. Chumak, and P. Pirro, Physical Review Applied 21, 040503 (2024), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Xiong, Y

    D. Xiong, Y. Jiang, K. Shi, A. Du, Y. Yao, Z. Guo, D. Zhu, K. Cao, S. Peng, W. Cai, D. Zhu, and W. Zhao, Fundamental Research2, 522 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Kosub, M

    T. Kosub, M. Kopte, R. Hühne, P. Appel, B. Shields, P. Maletinsky, R. Hübner, M. O. Liedke, J. Fassbender, O. G. Schmidt, and D. Makarov, Nature Communica- tions 8, 13985 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Olejník, V

    K. Olejník, V. Schuler, X. Marti, V. Novák, Z. Kašpar, P. Wadley, R. P. Campion, K. W. Edmonds, B. L. Gal- lagher, J. Garces, M. Baumgartner, P. Gambardella, and T. Jungwirth, Nature Communications8, 15434 (2017)

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Olejník, T

    K. Olejník, T. Seifert, Z. Kašpar, V. Novák, P. Wadley, R. P. Campion, M. Baumgartner, P. Gambardella, P. Němec, J. Wunderlich, J. Sinova, P. Kužel, M. Müller, T. Kampfrath, and T. Jungwirth, Science Advances4, eaar3566 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Novosad, P

    M.B.Jungfleisch, J.Sklenar, J.Ding, J.Park, J.E.Pear- son, V. Novosad, P. Schiffer, and A. Hoffmann, Physical Review Applied 8, 064026 (2017), publisher: American 7 Physical Society

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    H. Lee, T. S. Jung, H. J. Shin, S. H. Oh, K. I. Sim, T. Ha, Y. J. Choi, and J. H. Kim, Applied Physics Letters119, 192903 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Rongione, O

    E. Rongione, O. Gueckstock, M. Mattern, O. Gomonay, H. Meer, C. Schmitt, R. Ramos, T. Kikkawa, M. Mičica, E. Saitoh, J. Sinova, H. Jaffrès, J. Mangeney, S. T. B. Goennenwein, S. Geprägs, T. Kampfrath, M. Kläui, M. Bargheer, T. S. Seifert, S. Dhillon, and R. Lebrun, Nature Communications 14, 1818 (2023), number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Mashkovich, K

    E. Mashkovich, K. Grishunin, R. Mikhaylovskiy, A. Zvezdin, R. Pisarev, M. Strugatsky, P. Christianen, T. Rasing, and A. Kimel, Physical Review Letters123, 157202 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Bowlan, S

    P. Bowlan, S. A. Trugman, D. A. Yarotski, A. J. Taylor, and R. P. Prasankumar, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 51, 194003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    W. Wu, C. Yaw Ameyaw, M. F. Doty, and M. B. Jungfleisch, Journal of Applied Physics 130, 091101 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Meier, J

    F. Meier, J. Levy, and D. Loss, Physical Review B68, 134417 (2003)

    work page 2003

  19. [19]

    M. N. Baibich, J. M. Broto, A. Fert, F. N. Van Dau, F. Petroff, P. Etienne, G. Creuzet, A. Friederich, and J. Chazelas, Physical Review Letters61, 2472 (1988)

    work page 1988

  20. [20]

    Binasch, P

    G. Binasch, P. Grünberg, F. Saurenbach, and W. Zinn, Physical Review B39, 4828 (1989)

    work page 1989

  21. [21]

    Grollier, D

    J. Grollier, D. Querlioz, and M. D. Stiles, Proceedings of the IEEE104, 2024 (2016)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    S. I. Kiselev, J. C. Sankey, I. N. Krivorotov, N. C. Emley, R. J. Schoelkopf, R. A. Buhrman, and D. C. Ralph, Nature 425, 380 (2003)

    work page 2003

  23. [23]

    K. Luo, Y. Guo, W. Li, B. Zhang, B. Wang, and J. Cao, Journal of Applied Physics133, 153902 (2023)

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    S.-J. Gong, C. Gong, Y.-Y. Sun, W.-Y. Tong, C.-G. Duan, J.-H. Chu, and X. Zhang, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences115, 8511 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    A. V. Chumak, Arxiv1901.08934 (2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  26. [26]

    MacNeill, J

    D. MacNeill, J. T. Hou, D. R. Klein, P. Zhang, P. Jarillo- Herrero, and L. Liu, Physical Review Letters 123, 047204 (2019), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Shiota, T

    Y. Shiota, T. Taniguchi, M. Ishibashi, T. Moriyama, and T. Ono, Physical Review Letters 125, 017203 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    J. P. Patchett, M. Drouhin, J. W. Liao, Z. Soban, D. Pe- tit, J. Haigh, P. Roy, J. Wunderlich, R. P. Cowburn, and C. Ciccarelli, Physical Review B105, 104436 (2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    A. Sud, C. W. Zollitsch, A. Kamimaki, T. Dion, S. Khan, S. Iihama, S. Mizukami, and H. Kurebayashi, Physical ReviewB 102,100403(2020),publisher: AmericanPhys- ical Society

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Dai and F

    C. Dai and F. Ma, Applied Physics Letters118, 112405 (2021)

    work page 2021

  31. [31]

    Hayashi, Y

    D. Hayashi, Y. Shiota, M. Ishibashi, R. Hisatomi, T. Moriyama, and T. Ono, Applied Physics Express16, 053004 (2023)

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Sklenar and W

    J. Sklenar and W. Zhang, Physical Review Applied15, 044008 (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    H. Chen, Y. Chen, T. Wang, Y. Xie, A. F. Franco, and J.Q.Xiao,IEEETransactionsonMagnetics 56,1(2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    M. Li, J. Lu, and W. He, Physical Review B103, 064429 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Also known as bilinear or quadratic interaction

    work page

  36. [36]

    Lepadatu, H

    S. Lepadatu, H. Saarikoski, R. Beacham, M. J. Ben- itez, T. A. Moore, G. Burnell, S. Sugimoto, D. Yesudas, M. C. Wheeler, J. Miguel, S. S. Dhesi, D. McGrouther, S. McVitie, G. Tatara, and C. H. Marrows, Scientific Reports 7, 1640 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    X. Xie, X. Wang, W. Wang, X. Zhao, L. Bai, Y. Chen, Y. Tian, and S. Yan, Advanced Materials35, 2208275 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    A. S. Jenkins, B. Lacoste, G. Geranton, D. Gusakova, B. Dieny, U. Ebels, and L. D. Buda-Prejbeanu, Journal of Applied Physics115, 083911 (2014)

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    A. F. Franco and P. Landeros, Journal of Physics D: Ap- plied Physics 51, 225003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    A. Sud, K. Yamamoto, K. Z. Suzuki, S. Mizukami, and H. Kurebayashi, Physical Review B108, 104407 (2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Y. Wang, Y. Zhang, C. Li, J. Wei, B. He, H. Xu, J. Xia, X. Luo, J. Li, J. Dong, W. He, Z. Yan, W. Yang, F. Ma, G. Chai, P. Yan, C. Wan, X. Han, and G. Yu, Na- ture Communications15, 2077 (2024), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2077

  42. [42]

    M. M. Subedi, K. Deng, B. Flebus, and J. Sklenar, Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter 36, 375802 (2024), publisher: IOP Publishing

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Vansteenkiste, J

    A. Vansteenkiste, J. Leliaert, M. Dvornik, M. Helsen, F. Garcia-Sanchez, and B. Van Waeyenberge, AIP Ad- vances 4, 107133 (2014)

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    Y. S. Gui, N. Mecking, X. Zhou, G. Williams, and C.-M. Hu, Physical Review Letters98, 107602 (2007)

    work page 2007

  45. [45]

    A. A. Tulapurkar, Y. Suzuki, A. Fukushima, H. Kub- ota, H. Maehara, K. Tsunekawa, D. D. Djayaprawira, N. Watanabe, and S. Yuasa, Nature438, 339 (2005)

    work page 2005

  46. [46]

    J. C. Sankey, P. M. Braganca, A. G. F. Garcia, I. N. Krivorotov, R. A. Buhrman, and D. C. Ralph, Physical Review Letters 96, 227601 (2006)

    work page 2006

  47. [47]

    L. Liu, T. Moriyama, D. C. Ralph, and R. A. Buhrman, Physical Review Letters106, 036601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    M. T. Hossain, S. Lendinez, L. Scheuer, E. T. Papaioan- nou, andM.B.Jungfleisch,AppliedPhysicsLetters 119, 212407 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Harder, Z

    M. Harder, Z. X. Cao, Y. S. Gui, X. L. Fan, and C.-M. Hu, Physical Review B84, 054423 (2011)

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    S. O. Demokritov, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 31, 925 (1998)

    work page 1998

  51. [51]

    Inoue, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 136, 233 (1994)

    J. Inoue, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 136, 233 (1994)

    work page 1994

  52. [52]

    H. J. Waring, N. A. B. Johansson, I. J. Vera-Marun, and T.Thomson,PhysicalReviewApplied 13,034035(2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [53]

    H. J. Mamin, D. Rugar, J. E. Stern, R. E. Fontana, and P. Kasiraj, Applied Physics Letters55, 318 (1989)

    work page 1989

  54. [54]

    L. Exl, S. Bance, F. Reichel, T. Schrefl, H. Peter Stim- ming, and N. J. Mauser, Journal of Applied Physics115, 17D118 (2014)

    work page 2014

  55. [55]

    S. O. Parreiras and M. D. Martins, Physics Procedia 20th International Conference on Magnetism, ICM 2015,75, 1142 (2015)

    work page 2015

  56. [56]

    Weber, D.-S

    R. Weber, D.-S. Han, I. Boventer, S. Jaiswal, R. Lebrun, G. Jakob, and M. Kläui, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 52, 325001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    Hrabec, F

    A. Hrabec, F. J. T. Gonçalves, C. S. Spencer, E. Aren- holz, A. T. N’Diaye, R. L. Stamps, and C. H. Marrows, Physical Review B93, 014432 (2016)

    work page 2016

  58. [58]

    L D Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Quantum Mechanics - 3rd Edition, Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. Volume 3 (1977)

    work page 1977