Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Non-perturbative Effects and Unparticle Physics in Generalized Schwinger Models

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In generalized Schwinger models, all normalized low-dimension operators with the same chiral charge flow to a single infrared operator.

desk verdict Conformal coalescence in diagonal-color Schwinger models is a real new result, but the no-phase proof in Section 7 is incomplete—the proposed spectator has nonzero chiral charge, so the unit-coefficient statement (7.87) is not established as written. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03279 v3 pith:AWQLIRZR submitted 2019-08-08 hep-th hep-ph

Howard Georgi , Bea Noether This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thhep-ph
keywords Schwingermodelunparticleconformalcoalescencediagonalcolor1+1dimensionalgaugetheoryanomalousdimensionszero-dimensionoperatorsclusterdecomposition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper works out the long-distance behavior of an exactly solvable class of 1+1-dimensional gauge theories, the generalized Schwinger models with diagonal color $SU(n)$ and unequal gauge-boson masses. It claims that the low-energy conformal sector contains two kinds of gauge-invariant operators: zero-dimension operators (ZDOPs), which become constants with calculable vacuum values, and low-dimension operators (LDOPs), which behave as unparticle operators with small anomalous dimensions. The main result is conformal coalescence: after normalization, all operators with the same chiral charge have identical long-distance correlators, and in fact flow to one and the same operator in the infrared, with differences between distinct operators vanishing exponentially. The authors also show that adding a very light $U(1)$ gauge boson binds the fermions into massive particles, eliminating the conformal sector and exposing a free-fermion to unparticle to massive-particle transition. The incomplete-binding picture of section 8 is explicitly presented by the authors as a speculation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exact gauge-invariant representation (2.2), imported from the authors' companion paper: each Lagrangian fermion field is replaced by a free massless fermion field times an exponential of ghost and massive pseudoscalar fields. Every correlator in the paper reduces to free-fermion correlators multiplied by exponentials of ghost and massive-boson propagators. The second ingredient is the diagonal-color identity (3.14), $\lambda^n_{\gamma_1\gamma_2}=\delta_{\gamma_1\gamma_2}-\frac{1}{n}u^n_{\gamma_1}u^n_{\gamma_2}$, which makes the ghost contribution cancel the free-fermion scaling except for the $1/n$ term, yielding anomalous dimension $(N(A)-N(B))^2/n$ and identifying ZDOPs as operators with $N(A)=N(B)$. Finally, cluster decomposition applied to the perturbatively calculable four-point function turns the perturbative correlators into non-perturbative ones, producing coalescence.

What would settle it

Compute the mixed two-point function of two distinct normalized LDOPs with the same chiral charge, for example $\Phi_{\{1\};\emptyset}$ and $\Phi_{\{2\};\emptyset}$ in the $n=4$ diagonal-color model. Coalescence predicts it approaches $(-x^2+i\epsilon)^{-1/n}$ at large spacelike separation with no extra mass-dependent prefactor. Finding any mass-dependent prefactor or a different power would falsify equation (7.87).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that in diagonal color $SU(n)$ generalized Schwinger models at the Schwinger point, the long-distance correlators of normalized ZDOPs and LDOPs depend only on their chiral charge. Concretely, equation (7.87): $\langle 0| T \Phi_{A_1;B_1}(x) \Phi^*_{A_2;B_2}(0)|0\rangle \to \delta_{N(A_1)-N(B_1),N(A_2)-N(B_2)} (-x^2+i\epsilon)^{-(N(A_1)-N(B_1))^2/n}$ as $-x^2\to\infty$. This is what the authors call an extreme form of conformal coalescence: all differences between normalized operators of equal chiral charge vanish exponentially for $x\gg 1/m$, so every $\Phi_{A;B}$ with a given chiral charge flows to a single operator $O_{N(A)-N(B)}$ in the conformal sector. The non-perturbative step that produces this result is the application of cluster decomposition to perturbatively calculable four-point functions, which fixes the mixed correlators up to phases; the phases are then shown to be removable, leaving no extra operator-dependent structure. As a corollary, the ZDOP vacuum expectation values have phases satisfying $\theta_{A;B}=\sum_{\alpha\in A}\theta_\alpha-\sum_{\alpha\in B}\theta_\alpha$, with $n-1$ independent $\theta$ angles.

Load-bearing premise

The central result rests on the exact representation (2.2) that rewrites each interacting fermion as a free massless fermion times an exponential of auxiliary scalar fields, together with the assumption that cluster decomposition holds in the long-distance conformal sector; if either gives way, the claimed coalescence collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Equation (7.87) implies that in the deep infrared the conformal sector has essentially one primary operator for each chiral charge, so the operator product of any two same-charge operators collapses to that single operator.
  • The ZDOP vacuum expectation values are fixed in magnitude, and their phases obey the linear relation $\theta_{A;B}=\sum_\alpha (N^A_\alpha-N^B_\alpha)\theta_\alpha$; absorbing these phases in the operator definitions makes all normalized ZDOPs have vacuum value 1.
  • For any set of gauge couplings satisfying the same identity (3.14), not just diagonal color, and for any gauge-boson masses, coalescence still holds; the masses affect only normalization and the way the long-distance limit is approached.
  • In the $U(n)$ extension with a very light $U(1)$ gauge boson of mass $m_n$, all LDOPs become ZDOPs at distances $x\gg 1/m_n$, the conformal sector disappears, and the theory develops a mass gap, interpreted as complete binding of the fermions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural testable extension is to look for similar coalescence in other Banks-Zaks-like gauge theories: if only a conserved chiral charge survives as a label for infrared operators, the number of conformal primaries could be far smaller than the count of classically gauge-invariant operators suggests.
  • The incomplete-binding picture suggests a diagnostic for unparticle behavior: an operator looks like an unparticle when the ghost contributions cancel the free-fermion scaling only partially; adding the missing gauge direction completes the cancellation. This mechanism might be worth searching for in 3+1 dimensions.
  • A lattice simulation of the hierarchical-mass $U(n)$ model could measure the intermediate conformal plateau predicted for $1/m \ll x \ll 1/m_n$; the plateau's anomalous dimension should be the same for every operator of a given chiral charge, independent of the color-index structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes a class of solvable 1+1-dimensional gauge theories: diagonal color SU(n) Schwinger models with arbitrary gauge boson masses. Using an exact representation of gauge-invariant fermion operators in terms of free fermions dressed by ghost and massive pseudoscalar fields (imported from the authors' earlier work), the authors identify two classes of low-lying operators: zero-dimension operators (ZDOPs) whose two-point functions tend to constants, and low-dimension operators (LDOPs) with non-zero anomalous dimensions that behave like unparticle operators. Explicit formulas are given for ZDOP VEVs (up to phases) and for perturbative 2-, 3-, and r-point correlators of the normalized operators. The central new claim is 'conformal coalescence': cluster decomposition applied to perturbative 4-point functions shows that the long-distance 2-point function of any two normalized LDOPs with the same chiral charge is given by a universal power law with unit coefficient, so that all such operators flow to a single infrared operator for each chiral charge. The paper further adds a small U(1) coupling, producing a mass gap and an explicit free-fermion to unparticle to massive-particle transition.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable and explicit demonstration of a non-perturbative phenomenon in solvable gauge theories: different short-distance operators with the same quantum numbers can merge into a single conformal-sector operator at long distances. The paper's perturbative correlator formulas are explicit and internally consistent, and the magnitude of the coalescence 2-point function is derived from cluster decomposition rather than assumed. The equal-mass limit and various unequal-mass plots provide concrete, checkable predictions, and the U(1) extension offers a controlled example of complete binding. The main weakness is that the phase of the coalescence 2-point function is not rigorously fixed; the argument in Section 7 contains a concrete error in the proposed spectator operator and an unproven assertion about the existence and phase-independence of ZDOP spectators.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 7, Eq. (7.86) and following paragraph] The proposed spectator Φ_{B1∪B2;A1∪A2} has N(B1∪B2) − N(A1∪A2) = −2q, so for q ≠ 0 it is an LDOP with chiral charge −2q, not a ZDOP, and therefore cannot appear as a neutral spectator in the correlator (7.86), whose first two operators already carry charges q and −q. Consequently, the perturbative correlator (7.86) is zero for this choice and does not fix the phase of (7.85). The corrected spectator for mutually disjoint sets is Φ_{B1∪A2;A1∪B2}, which is a ZDOP; the paper should state this and provide a proof for overlapping sets.
  2. [Section 7, paragraph after Eq. (7.86)] The sentence 'In practice, we do not need to actually find examples of the Φ_{Ak;Bk}(xk) in (7.86) because all such correlators give the same result. There are no phases!' is an unsupported assertion that is load-bearing for Eq. (7.87). Equation (7.87) claims an exact unit coefficient with no relative phase; if the phase of the mixed 2-point function ⟨Φ_{A1;B1}(x) Φ*_{A2;B2}(0)⟩ is non-trivial, then differences of same-charge Φs do not vanish and the strong form of conformal coalescence fails. The manuscript needs either a rigorous proof that a set of ZDOP spectators always exists and that the phase is independent of the choice, or a modified statement of coalescence 'up to an operator-dependent phase' with (7.87)–(7.89) adjusted accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 7, first paragraph] The phrase 'defined by (5.59) and and (5.70)' contains a duplicated word; it should read 'defined by (5.59) and (5.70)'.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.94)] The condition 'N^B_γ = δ_{γ} for 2 < j < k' is incomplete; presumably δ_{γ,k} is intended, and the summation limits in (A.95) should be stated more clearly.
  3. [Figures 3–6] The legends of Figures 3–6 render with glyph corruption in the arXiv text; the authors should ensure the published figures have readable legends, since the mass-permutation dependence is the main quantitative content of Section 4.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (3.10)] The notation 'e_j = √(2π m_j)' is used, but the relation to the couplings e_{jα} in (3.9) is not explicitly written out; a short explanation of how (3.9) and (3.10) combine would help the reader.
  5. [Section 4, Eq. (4.34)] The summation 'n−1∑_{j−1}' in (4.34) should be '∑_{j=1}^{n−1}'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central claim is derived from exact bosonization; only the standard normalization of Φ is by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 5, Eqs. (5.59)-(5.60)]
    "if we define the normalized operators Φ A;B ≡ (4π^2)^(N(A)+N(B)) φ A;B / H(A,B, {m}) the long-distance part has a simple form ⟨0|T Φ A;B(x) Φ ∗ A;B(0)|0⟩ −→ −x^2→∞ (−x^2 +iǫ)^(−(N(A1)−N(B1))^2/n)"

    H(A,B,{m}) is defined in (4.36) as the long-distance coefficient extracted from the same 2-point function (4.37). Substituting (5.59) into (4.37) cancels H^2 by construction, so the unit coefficient in the diagonal 2-point function (5.60) is fixed by the normalization rather than derived as an independent prediction. This is standard operator normalization and does not by itself force the off-diagonal coalescence result in (7.87), which is the paper's actual physical claim.

full rationale

The derivation chain is largely self-contained after the exact bosonization representation (2.2), which is imported from the authors' earlier paper [14]. That representation is parameter-free, has stated assumptions, and does not contain the coalescence result, so the self-citation is real evidence rather than circular. The perturbative 2-point, 3-point, and r-point functions in Sections 4-6 are computed from (2.2), not fitted. The normalized operators in (5.59) are defined to absorb H(A,B,{m}), so the diagonal 2-point function automatically has coefficient 1; this is the only by-construction element. The non-trivial content of Section 7 is the off-diagonal correlator between different operators of equal chiral charge, obtained from cluster decomposition of the perturbative 4-point function (7.82)-(7.84). The phase argument around (7.86) is asserted rather than fully constructed, and the stated spectator has the wrong chiral charge, but an incomplete proof is a correctness or completeness issue, not circularity. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no imported uniqueness theorem forcing the conclusion. Score 2 reflects the routine normalization being definitional and the heavy, though legitimate, reliance on the earlier bosonization paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the exact bosonization technology of ref [14] and on cluster decomposition in the conformal sector. No parameters are fitted to data; gauge boson masses m_j are model inputs and all normalization factors are computed. The only ad hoc assumption is the nonzero overlap of equal-charge LDOPs, which the subsequent cluster-decomposition calculation then determines.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Exact representation (2.2) of gauge-invariant fermion bilinears as free fermion fields multiplied by exponentials involving ghost and massive pseudoscalar fields, taken from ref [14].
    Invoked in Section 2 immediately before Eq. (2.2); all dimension and correlator calculations in the paper rely on this representation.
  • domain assumption Cluster decomposition holds for correlation functions in the long-distance conformal sector and in the presence of degenerate θ vacua.
    Used in Sections 2, 5, and 7 to derive ZDOP VEVs and to extract the non-perturbative mixed 2-point function (Eqs. (2.7), (5.65), (7.84)).
  • standard math Unitarity bound: the lowest operator dimension in a unitary conformal theory is 0 (Mack).
    Used in Section 2 to argue ZDOPs occur only at the Schwinger point (ref [22]).
  • ad hoc to paper The mixed 2-point function between LDOPs with equal chiral charge is nonzero ('anything that can happen usually does').
    Section 7, first paragraph: used to bootstrap the non-perturbative 2-point function; the value is then extracted from cluster decomposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-perturbative Effects and Unparticle Physics in Generalized Schwinger Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AWQLIRZR

@misc{pith2026190803279,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-perturbative Effects and Unparticle Physics in Generalized Schwinger Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AWQLIRZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03279}
}
abstract

We analyze generalizations of the Schwinger model with more massless fermions and more vector fields. We focus on models with the gauge structure of ``diagonal color $SU(n)$'' but unlike previous investigators, we do not assume that all the gauge boson masses are the same. Unlike the Schwinger model, these are Banks-Zaks models with conformal sectors that survive at long distances. In addition to local operators that go to ``unparticle operators'' with non-zero anomalous dimensions at long distances, they contain local operators like the $\bar\psi_L\psi_R$ operator in the Schwinger model which go to constants at long distances. These operators have calculable vacuum expectation values (up to phases). Cluster decomposition applied to correlation functions involving these operators yields nontrivial and calculable non-perturbative constraints on correlation functions. One consequence is ``conformal coalescence'' in which linear combinations of short distance operators disappear from the long-distance theory, leaving only one kind of unparticle stuff in the low-energy theory. We believe that our detailed analysis of diagonal color $SU(n)$ paints an appealing picture of unparticle operators as the result of an incomplete binding of the massless fermions. We complete the picture (and the binding) by analyzing the diagonal color $U(n)$ model with a very small $U(1)$ coupling and thus a gauge boson with a dynamical mass much smaller than the other masses in the model. This model has a mass gap and we can see explicitly the transition from free-fermion behavior at short distances to unparticle physics at intermediate distances to the physics of massive particles at long distances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03279 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A ZDOP correlation function for N(A) = N(B) = 1 as a function of spacelike x plotted in units of 1/m, showing the transition from free-fermion behavior at small x to constancy at large x. If N(A) = N(B), then φA;B is a ZDOP and we can take −x 2 → ∞ in (4.38) and use cluster decomposition to conclude that for mj = m ∀ j |h0 | φA;B | 0i|2 = H(A, B, {m}) 2 =  ξ 2m2 4π 2 N(A)+N(B) (4.40) so that h0 | φA;B | 0i = H(A, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An LDOP correlation function for N(A) = 1, N(B) = 0 as a function of spacelike x plotted in units of 1/m for various values of n, showing the transition from free-fermion behavior at small x to unparticle behavior at large x. Thus, just as in the Schwinger model, the vacuum is degenerate. Here we would expect that there will be n−1 independent θ angles, one for each gauge boson and each (related) anomalous U(1) symm… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LDOP correlators for various permutations of (1, 10, 100) → m1 m , m2 m , m3 m  . Similar patterns appear in the ZDOP correlators in figures 4-6, but they are more complicated because more masses are involved in the largest effects. 0.010 0.100 1 10 1 100 104 106 108 ~μν({€ ‚ƒ„ 1}† {‡ˆ ‰Š ‹Œ 0} {Ž ‘ ’ 0}) μν({• ™š 10}› {œ žŸ ¡ 0}¢ {£¤ ¥¦ §¨ 0}) ©μν({ª«¬­ ®¯° 1}± {²³ ´µ ¶· 0}¸ {¹º »¼ ½¾ 0}) ¿μν({ÀÁÂà ÄÅ 10}Æ {… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ZDOP correlators for various permutations of (1, 10, 100) → m1 m , m2 m , m3 m  . 6Note that the aspect ratio changes in figure 3-6 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ZDOP correlators for various permutations of (1, 10, 100) → m1 m , m2 m , m3 m  . 0.010 0.100 1 10 0.1 1000.0 10z 1011 10{| }μν({~ €‚ƒ 10}„ { † ‡ˆ ‰Š 0}‹ {Œ Ž ‘ 1}) ’μν({• ™ 1}š {›œ ž Ÿ 0}¡ {¢£ ¤¥ ¦§ 1}) ¨μν({©ª «¬­ 100}® {¯° ±² ³´ 0}µ {¶· ¸¹ º» 1}) ¼μν({½¾¿ ÀÁ …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ZDOP correlators for various permutations of (1, 10, 100) → m1 m , m2 m , m3 m  . You can see from figures 4 and 5 that the ZDOP VEVs depend not just on the gauge boson masses but on where they appear in A and B, as expected from (4.32) and (4.36). For N(A) = 1, it is…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The LDOP correlation function of figure 2 for N(A) = 1, N(B) = 0 with the addition of a U(1) gauge boson with dynamical mass m/50 as a function of spacelike x plotted in units of 1/m for various values of n, showing the transition from free-fermion behavior at small x …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [14]

    Generalizations of the Sommerfield and Schwinger models

    H. Georgi and B. Warner, “Generalizations of the Sommer field and Schwinger models,” JHEP 01 (2020) 047, arXiv:1907.12705 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    Gauge invariance and mass. II,

    J. S. Schwinger, “Gauge invariance and mass. II,” Phys. Rev. 128 (1962) 2425

    work page 1962

  3. [2]

    Confinement of Quarks,

    K. G. Wilson, “Confinement of Quarks,” Phys. Rev. D10 (1974) 2445–2459. [,319(1974)]

    work page 1974

  4. [3]

    Charge Shield ing and Quark Confinement in the Massive Schwinger Model,

    S. R. Coleman, R. Jackiw, and L. Susskind, “Charge Shield ing and Quark Confinement in the Massive Schwinger Model,” Annals Phys. 93 (1975) 267

    work page 1975

  5. [4]

    Screening versus confinement in (1+1)-dimensions,

    D. J. Gross, I. R. Klebanov, A. V. Matytsin, and A. V. Smilg a, “Screening versus confinement in (1+1)-dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B461 (1996) 109–130, arXiv:hep-th/9511104 [hep-th]

    arXiv 1996

  6. [5]

    Topological fluctuations a nd breaking of chiral symmetry in gauge theories involving massless fermions,

    N. K. Nielsen and B. Schroer, “Topological fluctuations a nd breaking of chiral symmetry in gauge theories involving massless fermions,” Nucl. Phys. B120 (1977) 62. 12Note that figure 2 and figure 7 have the same aspect ratio, while to make figures 4-6 fit, we have different aspect ratios and this somewhat obscures the effect we are describin g. 21

    work page 1977

  7. [6]

    The Role of Pseudoparticl e Configurations in the Schwinger Model,

    G. Maiella and F. Schaposnik, “The Role of Pseudoparticl e Configurations in the Schwinger Model,” Nucl. Phys. B132 (1978) 357–364

    work page 1978

  8. [7]

    Interaction of Massless Fer mions with Instantons,

    C.-k. Lee and W. A. Bardeen, “Interaction of Massless Fer mions with Instantons,” Nucl. Phys. B 153 (1979) 210–236

    work page 1979

Show all 24 references
  1. [8]

    Instantons and vacuum expectation values in th e Schwinger model,

    C. Adam, “Instantons and vacuum expectation values in th e Schwinger model,” Z. Phys. C63 (1994) 169–180

    1994

  2. [9]

    Instantons and fermion condensate in adjo int QCD in two-dimensions,

    A. V. Smilga, “Instantons and fermion condensate in adjo int QCD in two-dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 6836–6848, arXiv:hep-th/9402066 [hep-th]

    1994 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Schwinger model Green functions with to pological effects,

    T. Radozycki, “Schwinger model Green functions with to pological effects,” Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 105027, arXiv:hep-th/9811206

    1999 arXiv

  4. [11]

    On the fermion condensate in the Schwinge r model,

    A. V. Smilga, “On the fermion condensate in the Schwinge r model,” Phys. Lett. B278 (1992) 371

    1992

  5. [12]

    SCHWINGER MODEL ON S(2),

    C. Jayewardena, “SCHWINGER MODEL ON S(2),” Helv. Phys. Acta 61 (1988) 636–711

    1988

  6. [13]

    QED ON A CIRCLE,

    J. E. Hetrick and Y. Hosotani, “QED ON A CIRCLE,” Phys. Rev. D38 (1988) 2621

    1988

  7. [15]

    On the definition of currents and the a ction principle in field theories of one spatial dimension,

    C. M. Sommerfield, “On the definition of currents and the a ction principle in field theories of one spatial dimension,” Ann. Phys. 26 (1964) 1

    1964

  8. [16]

    Generalized Two-dimensional Abelian Gauge Theories and Confinement,

    L. V. Belvedere, K. D. Rothe, B. Schroer, and J. A. Swieca , “Generalized Two-dimensional Abelian Gauge Theories and Confinement,” Nucl. Phys. B153 (1979) 112–140

    1979

  9. [17]

    Two-dimensional Gauge Theories Wit h Diagonal SU(N ) Color,

    P. J. Steinhardt, “Two-dimensional Gauge Theories Wit h Diagonal SU(N ) Color,” Annals Phys. 132 (1981) 18

    1981

  10. [18]

    Path I ntegral Formulation of Two-dimensional Gauge Theories With Massless Fermions,

    R. Gamboa Saravi, F. Schaposnik, and J. Solomin, “Path I ntegral Formulation of Two-dimensional Gauge Theories With Massless Fermions,” Nucl. Phys. B 185 (1981) 239–253

    1981

  11. [19]

    Dynamical Mass Generation and Confineme nt in Two-dimensional Gauge Theories,

    L. Belvedere, “Dynamical Mass Generation and Confineme nt in Two-dimensional Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 276 (1986) 197–219

    1986

  12. [20]

    On the phase structure of vector-l ike gauge theories with massless fermions,

    T. Banks and A. Zaks, “On the phase structure of vector-l ike gauge theories with massless fermions,” Nucl. Phys. B196 (1982) 189

    1982

  13. [21]

    The Schwinger Point,

    H. Georgi, “The Schwinger Point,” JHEP 11 (2019) 057, arXiv:1905.09632 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    All unitary ray representations of the confor mal group SU(2,2) with positive energy,

    G. Mack, “All unitary ray representations of the confor mal group SU(2,2) with positive energy,” Commun. Math. Phys. 55 (1977) 1

    1977

  15. [23]

    More about the massive Schwinger model,

    S. R. Coleman, “More about the massive Schwinger model, ” Ann. Phys. 101 (1976) 239

    1976

  16. [24]

    Unparticle physics,

    H. Georgi, “Unparticle physics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 221601, arXiv:hep-ph/0703260. 22 A ZDOP VEV with multiple masses If N(A) = N(B) so that φA;B is a ZDOP, (4.41) goes to ⟨0 |φA;B | 0⟩ =eiθA;B ( ξ 2π ) 2N(A) exp   n−1∑ j=1   ∑ γ1∈A − ∑ γ1∈B     ∑ γ2∈A − ∑ γ2∈B ...

    2007 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.