Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Continuity from neutron matter to two-flavor quark matter with $^1 S_0$ and $^3 P_2$ superfluidity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Quark-hadron continuity can hold for two-flavor neutron matter through 3P2 d-quark pairing

desk verdict A clean symmetry argument proposing 3P2 d-quark pairing as the quark-side analogue of neutron 3P2 superfluidity; the algebraic core is solid, the dynamical claim is honestly labeled as not yet computed. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09360 v2 pith:JGNEE2XW submitted 2019-08-25 hep-ph nucl-th

Yuki Fujimoto , Kenji Fukushima , Wolfram Weise This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phnucl-th
keywords quark-hadroncontinuitytwo-flavorquarkmatter3P2superfluidity1S0diquarkcondensate2SCphaseneutronstarcoolingspin-orbitinteraction
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

The paper argues that quark-hadron continuity, the idea that hadronic matter and quark matter are the same phase with no intervening transition, holds not only for idealized three-flavor symmetric matter but also for the two-flavor neutron matter found in neutron stars. The key claim is that the $^3P_2$ superfluidity of neutrons, which sets in above nuclear saturation density, has a direct analogue in a $^3P_2$ condensate of $d$-quarks pairing in the color-sextet channel, coexisting with the usual 2SC $\langle ud\rangle$ condensate. If true, the symmetry-breaking patterns on the hadronic and quark sides match, so superfluid neutron matter can evolve smoothly into two-flavor quark matter. This matters for neutron-star phenomenology because the proposed $d$-quark pairing supplies the extra gap ('2SC+X') needed to keep observed cooling curves consistent with a suppressed Urca process.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rearrangement identity of Eq. (37), which factorizes the relativistic $^3P_2$ neutron-pair operator $\hat n^T C \gamma_i \nabla_j \hat n$ into the 2SC condensate $\Phi^{\alpha}_{ud}$ and the color-sextet $d$-quark condensate $\langle \hat d_\alpha^T C \gamma_i \nabla_j \hat d_\beta\rangle$. The $^3P_2$ quantum numbers live in the tensor structure $\gamma_i\nabla_j$; the nonrelativistic limit $\phi_n^T \sigma_2 \sigma_i \nabla_j \phi_n$ recovers the standard neutron pairing operator. The supporting dynamics are the repulsive short-range piece of one-gluon exchange in the color-sextet channel (the $+1/6$ term of Eq. 38), which disfavors $L=0$, and the quark spin-orbit potential $V_{LS}^{\rm OGE}(r)= -\alpha_s/(2m_q^2 r^3)\,\mathbf{L}\cdot\mathbf{S}$, which is attractive in the $^3P_2$ channel because $\langle \mathbf{L}\cdot\mathbf{S}\rangle=+1$; NJL vector couplings generate a spin-orbit force of comparable strength. A Fierz transformation shows the $^3P_2$ four-fermion coupling is proportional to the squared pressure, $\langle \hat I_P\rangle \simeq (3/4)p^2$, linking the condensate to a macroscopic quantity.

What would settle it

Calculate the $d$-quark $^3P_2$ gap $\Delta_{dd}$ microscopically, for example in a two-flavor NJL model with vector coupling $G_V\simeq G$ at baryon densities around $5$-$10\,n_0$: a zero or negligible gap would show the analogue is purely formal, while a gap in the 10-100 keV range would support it. An unrelated observable check would be a discontinuity in the neutron-star mass-radius or tidal-deformability relation at the expected crossover density, which would contradict the claimed continuity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the $^3P_2$ neutron-superfluid order parameter can be rewritten, by operator rearrangement and mean-field factorization (its Eq. 37), as a product of the 2SC $\langle ud\rangle$ diquark condensate with a color-sextet $\langle d^T C \gamma_i \nabla_j d\rangle$ condensate that carries the same $^3P_2$ quantum numbers as the neutron pair. Because a neutron is $udd$, the dibaryon condensate $\langle n^T C \gamma_i \nabla_j n\rangle$ decomposes into a scalar $\langle ud\rangle$ condensate plus a $d$-quark pair in an $S=1$, $L=1$ state. The paper then argues that the two dynamical ingredients that select $^3P_2$ pairing in neutron matter, short-range repulsion that suppresses $S$-wave pairing and a spin-orbit attraction specific to $J=2$, also operate between two $d$-quarks, through one-gluon exchange and through NJL-type scalar and vector couplings. The conclusion is that the symmetry-breaking patterns of superfluid neutron matter and 2SC$+\langle dd\rangle$ quark matter are the same, so the transition between them can be continuous.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a color-sextet $\langle dd\rangle$ condensate in the $^3P_2$ channel actually forms and dominates around $5$-$10\,n_0$; the mean-field factorization in Eq. (37) presupposes that condensate, and the paper leaves its gap $\Delta_{dd}$ uncalculated microscopically. In plain terms, the continuity argument stands on an assumed pairing channel whose existence and strength have not been derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, neutron superfluid matter and two-flavor quark matter are the same phase: no phase transition separates them as density increases through the star's core.
  • The quark-matter ground state in neutron-rich matter becomes 2SC$+\langle dd\rangle$ rather than pure 2SC, so the residual $d$-quarks that would otherwise run the direct Urca process are gapped.
  • The expected $\Delta_{dd}$ of order 10-100 keV matches the extra pairing channel 'X' needed to fit neutron-star cooling data, identifying $X$ with $d$-quark pairing.
  • The $^3P_2$ diquark coupling introduces a new four-fermion interaction into quark-matter studies; since it is proportional to the squared pressure, it connects superfluidity to the equation of state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A microscopic calculation of $\Delta_{dd}$ at $5$-$10\,n_0$ would be the decisive test; the paper itself flags this as future work.
  • The crystalline term in Eq. (37), dropped here, could turn the naive crossover into a crystalline color-superconducting region with periodic order; a nonzero net pair momentum would alter the order parameter and observable signatures.
  • If the identification of $X$ with $d$-quark pairing is right, neutron-star cooling curves, especially the contrast between young cold and old warm sources, become an indirect probe of color-sextet pairing.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that quark-hadron continuity, previously established for idealized three-flavor matter, can be extended to two-flavor neutron-star matter. The central idea is that neutron 1S0 and 3P2 superfluidity have direct counterparts in d-quark pairing within a 2SC+⟨dd⟩ phase: the 1S0 neutron condensate is rearranged into a scalar color-sextet ⟨dd⟩ condensate, while the 3P2 neutron condensate is rearranged into a tensor ⟨d^T C γ_i ∇_j d⟩ condensate. The authors present symmetry-breaking-pattern arguments, an operator-level rearrangement of order parameters, dynamical estimates based on one-gluon exchange and NJL-type models, a Fierz transformation connecting the 3P2 diquark channel to the energy-momentum tensor, and a discussion of neutron-star cooling phenomenology.

Significance. If established, this would be a meaningful extension of the quark-hadron continuity scenario to the physically relevant two-flavor, isospin-asymmetric case, with direct consequences for neutron-star cooling and the structure of dense matter. The paper's strengths are its clear symmetry analysis, the explicit operator rearrangement in Eq. (37), and the Fierz identity in Sec. VI A connecting a 3P2 diquark interaction to the pressure. However, the central dynamical claim rests on the existence of a nonzero 3P2 ⟨dd⟩ condensate, which is asserted rather than computed, and the quantitative support in Sec. V is limited to order-of-magnitude estimates with adjustable parameters. The manuscript is therefore best read as a well-motivated conjecture with supporting symmetry arguments, not as an established derivation of quark-hadron continuity in two-flavor matter.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV C, Eq. (37)] The factorization of the neutron 3P2 order parameter into 2SC and ⟨dd⟩ condensates presupposes that both Φ_ud and ⟨d^T C γ_i ∇_j d⟩ are nonzero. The first term on the right-hand side, a crystalline condensate involving ∇Φ_ud, is dropped without quantitative justification, even though the authors note that it could be nonzero. Since the claimed U(1)_B breaking and the superfluid continuity hinge entirely on the second term, the argument is incomplete unless the existence and dominance of the tensor ⟨dd⟩ condensate is established. The paper itself states in Sec. VI B that 'further justification by calculating Δ_dd microscopically is left for future studies,' which confirms that this is a load-bearing gap rather than a peripheral detail.
  2. [Sec. V B, Eqs. (48) and (56)] The dynamical support for 3P2 d-quark pairing is based on order-of-magnitude estimates of spin-orbit potentials, not on a calculation of the pairing gap. The claim that V_dd_LS is comparable to V_nn_LS does not imply that the gap Δ_dd is comparable, because the gap depends on the density of states near the Fermi surface, the momentum dependence of the interaction, and the cutoff. Moreover, the color-sextet channel is repulsive in the short-distance OGE interaction, as shown in Eq. (38), so the net attraction in the 3P2 channel must be demonstrated rather than assumed. To make the central claim quantitative, the authors need to compute Δ_dd in a concrete model or clearly reframe the dynamical section as suggestive evidence only.
  3. [Sec. III B 2] The symmetry analysis relies on selecting the (b,b) color component of the ⟨dd⟩ condensate because it is 'favored since ud diquarks are chosen as Eq. (16) in a gauge-fixed description.' However, color orientations in a gauge theory are not physical degrees of freedom, and the physical content of the symmetry-breaking pattern should be stated in terms of gauge-invariant order parameters. As written, the argument that 2SC+⟨dd⟩ breaks U(1)_B could be seen as an artifact of a particular gauge choice unless the existence of the ⟨dd⟩ condensate is established dynamically. This point should be clarified, since it is central to the claimed matching of symmetry-breaking patterns.
  4. [Sec. III B and Sec. VI B] The manuscript asserts that '⟨dd⟩ induces the chiral symmetry breaking even without the chiral condensate' but does not provide a derivation, and the same subsection defers a dynamical study to future work. This matters because the pure 2SC phase leaves chiral symmetry intact, and the continuity argument requires the chiral symmetry-breaking patterns on the two sides to match. If the 2SC+⟨dd⟩ phase does not break chiral symmetry in the same way as neutron matter, the proposed continuity would fail. Given that this is one of the requirements explicitly listed at the start of Sec. III B, the assertion needs support rather than a deferred future-study caveat.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B 1] There is a typo in 'the preceeding model calculations'; it should be 'preceding.'
  2. [Sec. VI] The sentence introducing the 2SC+⟨dd⟩ phase contains 'viewpont,' which should be 'viewpoint.'
  3. [Sec. IV C, Eq. (37)] The notation in Eq. (37) could be clarified by stating explicitly that the derivative ∇j acts before the mean-field factorization, since the first term involves ∇j Φ_ud while the second involves ∇j acting on the d-quark field in the condensate.
  4. [Sec. V] The estimates in Eqs. (45), (48), and (56) are useful as order-of-magnitude illustrations, but the text should consistently label them as such and avoid implying that they constitute a calculation of the pairing gap.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the d-quark 3P2 analogue is an openly deferred conjecture, not a prediction reduced to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central operator identity, Eq. (37), is a genuine rearrangement: substituting n = Phi_ud d and factorizing in mean field maps the neutron 3P2 pairing operator onto Phi_ud Phi_ud <d^T C gamma_i nabla_j d> plus a crystalline first term. The second term is not defined to be equal to the neutron order parameter; it is a distinct diquark expectation value whose nonzero value is posited, not fitted. The paper explicitly states that 'further justification by calculating Delta_dd microscopically is left for future studies' (Sec. VI B), and the cooling discussion merely says that 'one can speculate' that d-quark superfluidity 'might be a natural candidate to substitute for the unknown X' from Ref. [52]. Dynamical support in Sec. V is an order-of-magnitude analogy using one-gluon exchange (Eq. (48)) and NJL-type vector couplings (Eq. (56)) with parameters from external sources; even though the cited NJL model of Refs. [18,36] is itself 'guided by the quark-hadron continuity hypothesis,' the paper does not derive the existence of the dd condensate from that model, and the OGE estimate is independent of the continuity assumption. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [35], with W. Weise) supply input couplings and chemical-potential trends, but those inputs are not the target result and do not force the 3P2 dd conclusion. Consequently, there is no step in which a prediction reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain; the central gap is an unproven assumption, which is a correctness or completeness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a number of inputs: nuclear and quark model parameters (G_v, G_tau, constituent masses, NJL couplings), modeling assumptions such as non-relativistic one-gluon exchange and mean-field factorization, and the continuity hypothesis itself. The operator identities are algebraic and independent of these parameters, but the dynamical conclusion that 3P2 dd pairing is favored depends on the chosen inputs. No independent falsifiable prediction is derived from first principles.

free parameters (6)
  • Nuclear vector couplings G_v, G_tau = G_v ~ 4 fm^2, G_tau ~ 1 fm^2
    Typical couplings from chiral meson-nucleon field theory (Ref [35]); used in Eqs (4)-(7) to compute neutron and proton chemical potentials.
  • Scalar condensate density parametrization = ⟨σ⟩ ≈ ⟨σ⟩_0 (1 - 0.1 n_B/n_0)
    Linear parametrization of chiral condensate density dependence, Eq (8); sets in-medium nucleon and quark masses.
  • Constituent quark masses = m_u = 312.3 MeV, m_d = 313.6 MeV
    Fixed so that m_p = 2m_u + m_d and m_n = 2m_d + m_u, Eq (9).
  • Quark vector couplings g_v, g_tau = g_v ~ 0.44 fm^2, g_tau ~ G_tau/9
    Assumed 1/9 scaling from nuclear couplings due to N_c = 3 factor, Eqs (10)-(11); cited as close to Ref [36].
  • OGE and NJL parameters for dd spin-orbit estimate = α_s ~ 0.5, m_q ~ 300 MeV, r ~ 0.8 fm; G ~ 2 Λ^{-2}, Λ ~ 0.6 GeV, G_V = G
    Chosen inputs for the estimates in Eqs (48), (50), and (56); the claimed -16 MeV attraction depends on these choices.
  • Neutron spin-orbit coupling parameters = g_S^2/4π ~ 8, g_V ~ g_S, g_T ~ 0; g_V^2/4π ~ 0.5, g_T/g_V ~ 6
    Rough phenomenological inputs used to estimate V_nn_LS ≈ -24 MeV in Eq (45), taken from nuclear phenomenology rather than derived.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Beta-equilibrium and electric charge neutrality conditions (Eqs (1)-(3))
    Standard composition constraints for neutron star matter; an idealization of the true conditions but widely used.
  • ad hoc to paper Coexistence of ⟨ud⟩ 2SC and ⟨dd⟩ condensates with mean-field factorization (Eqs (31) and (37))
    The central algebraic step assumes both diquark condensates have nonzero expectation values and that fluctuations can be neglected. No dynamical calculation establishes this coexistence.
  • domain assumption The 2SC condensate exists with the gauge choice aligning color with flavor, specifically color (b,b) for ⟨dd⟩
    Assumed from standard 2SC phase; the color orientation is a gauge choice, but the existence of the 2SC condensate is taken as given.
  • ad hoc to paper A non-relativistic quark model with one-gluon exchange and NJL vector couplings describes dd interactions at high density
    Used in Sec V to derive short-range repulsion and spin-orbit attraction. This is a modeling choice with no direct QCD justification at n_B ~ 5-10 n0.
  • domain assumption Chiral symmetry remains broken in the quark phase (⟨q̄q⟩ ≠ 0)
    Assumed in Sec III B so that the chiral breaking pattern matches the hadronic side; the authors note this can be relaxed if ⟨dd⟩ induces chiral breaking.
  • ad hoc to paper Quark-hadron continuity itself holds for two-flavor matter
    The hypothesis under consideration is used as an input to motivate the 2SC+⟨dd⟩ phase, which in turn is presented as supporting the hypothesis.
invented entities (1)
  • 2SC+⟨dd⟩ phase with 3P2 d-quark pairing
    purpose: Serves as the quark-matter counterpart of superfluid neutron matter, breaking U(1)B and carrying the 3P2 angular momentum channel of neutron pairing.
    The phase is introduced to satisfy the requirements of continuity; its existence and gap magnitude are not derived from a microscopic calculation. Cooling phenomenology offers only an indirect and unquantified hint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Continuity from neutron matter to two-flavor quark matter with $^1 S_0$ and $^3 P_2$ superfluidity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JGNEE2XW

@misc{pith2026190809360,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Continuity from neutron matter to two-flavor quark matter with $^1 S_0$ and $^3 P_2$ superfluidity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JGNEE2XW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09360}
}
abstract

This study is performed with the aim of gaining insights into the possible applicability of the quark-hadron continuity concept, not only in the idealized case of three-flavor symmetric quark matter, but also for the transition from neutron matter to two-flavor quark matter. A key issue is the continuity between neutron superfluidity and a corresponding superfluid quark phase produced by $d$-quark pairing. Symmetry arguments are developed and relevant dynamical mechanisms are analyzed. It is pointed out that the $^3P_2$ superfluidity in dense neutron matter has a direct analogue in the $^3P_2$ pairing of $d$-quarks in two-flavor quark matter. This observation supports the idea that the quark-hadron continuity hypothesis may be valid for such systems. Possible implications for neutron stars are briefly discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.09360 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic picture of quark-hadron continuity be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Nucleon chemical potentials, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Quark chemical potentials, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Short-range interaction between neutrons mediated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Cooling of Hybrid Stars with a 2SC+$<dd>$ Phase

    nucl-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Hybrid stars with a 2SC+⟨dd⟩ quark core cool hotter than with 2SC and near CFL; with a 3P2 gap near 5×10^8 K their cooling curves pass through the observed temperatures of 3C58, Vela Jr., and Vela-like pulsars.

  2. Renormalization-group approach to the Kohn-Luttinger superconductivity: Amplification of the pairing gap from $\ell^4$ to $\ell$

    cond-mat.supr-con 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The renormalization group with the zero-sound diagram predicts the Kohn-Luttinger pairing gap exponent scales as -ℓ instead of the standard -ℓ^4.

  3. Classification of color superconductivity by one-gluon exchange helicity amplitudes and renormalization group equations

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In dense QCD, the most attractive quark pairing channel is classified by helicity amplitudes and renormalization group equations, with a new p-wave (1P1) channel favored for symmetric flavor and attraction found in th...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [52]

    Buballa, Phys

    M. Buballa, Phys. Rept. 407, 205 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0402234 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2005

  2. [1]

    (16) The color direction,δα3, is a gauge choice consistent with Eq

    2SC phase The ground state of two-flavor symmetric quark matter at high density is considered to be the 2SC phase with the following condensates, ΦαA L =−ΦαA R =δα3δA3∆. (16) The color direction,δα3, is a gauge choice consistent with Eq. (14). These condensates imply a symmetry breaking pattern,G→H , with G = [SU(3)C]× SU(2)L× SU(2)R× U(1)B, H = [SU(2)C]× ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    constituent

    2SC +⟨dd⟩ phase As discussed in Sec. II, neutron matter with its max- imal isospin asymmetry has an abundance of d quarks which are not paired with u quarks. One can therefore anticipate the formation of a⟨dd⟩ diquark condensate at high baryon densities. The microscopic structure of ⟨dd⟩ will be clarified later; for the moment let us consider the simplest ...

    work page 2005

  4. [3]

    Sch¨ afer and F

    T. Sch¨ afer and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3956 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9811473 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1999

  5. [4]

    M. G. Alford, J. Berges, and K. Rajagopal, Nucl. Phys. B558, 219 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903502 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1999

  6. [5]

    Hatsuda, M

    T. Hatsuda, M. Tachibana, N. Yamamoto, and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 122001 (2006), arXiv:hep- ph/0605018 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2006

  7. [6]

    Abuki, G

    H. Abuki, G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, and N. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D81, 125010 (2010), arXiv:1003.0408 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2010

  8. [7]

    Yamamoto, M

    N. Yamamoto, M. Tachibana, T. Hatsuda, and G. Baym, Phys. Rev. D76, 074001 (2007), arXiv:0704.2654 [hep- ph]

    arXiv 2007

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Hatsuda, M

    T. Hatsuda, M. Tachibana, and N. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D78, 011501 (2008), arXiv:0802.4143 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [9]

    M. G. Alford, G. Baym, K. Fukushima, T. Hatsuda, and M. Tachibana, Phys. Rev. D99, 036004 (2019), arXiv:1803.05115 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Chatterjee, M

    C. Chatterjee, M. Nitta, and S. Yasui, Phys. Rev. D99, 034001 (2019), arXiv:1806.09291 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Cherman, S

    A. Cherman, S. Sen, and L. G. Yaffe, (2018), arXiv:1808.04827 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Hirono and Y

    Y. Hirono and Y. Tanizaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 212001 (2019), arXiv:1811.10608 [hep-th]; (2019), arXiv:1904.08570 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    McLerran and R

    L. McLerran and R. D. Pisarski, Nucl. Phys. A796, 83 (2007), arXiv:0706.2191 [hep-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Fukushima and T

    K. Fukushima and T. Kojo, Astrophys. J. 817, 180 (2016), arXiv:1509.00356 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    McLerran and S

    L. McLerran and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 122701 (2019), arXiv:1811.12503 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [16]

    K. S. Jeong, L. McLerran, and S. Sen, (2019), arXiv:1908.04799 [nucl-th]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Masuda, T

    K. Masuda, T. Hatsuda, and T. Takatsuka, Astrophys. J. 764, 12 (2013), arXiv:1205.3621 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [18]

    D. E. Alvarez-Castillo, S. Benic, D. Blaschke, and R. Lastowiecki, Acta Phys. Polon. Supp. 7, 203 (2014), arXiv:1311.5112 [nucl-th]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [19]

    G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, P. D. Powell, Y. Song, and T. Takatsuka, Rept. Prog. Phys. 81, 056902 (2018), arXiv:1707.04966 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    G. Baym, S. Furusawa, T. Hatsuda, T. Kojo, and H. To- gashi, (2019), arXiv:1903.08963 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, and K. Murase, Phys. Rev. D98, 023019 (2018), arXiv:1711.06748 [nucl-th]; (2019), arXiv:1903.03400 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [22]

    ¨Ozel, G

    F. ¨Ozel, G. Baym, and T. Guver, Phys. Rev. D82, 101301 (2010), arXiv:1002.3153 [astro-ph.HE]; F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, Z. Arzoumanian, S. Morsink, and M. Baubock, Astrophys. J. 832, 92 (2016), arXiv:1512.03067 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  16. [23]

    A. W. Steiner, J. M. Lattimer, and E. F. Brown, Astro- phys. J. 722, 33 (2010), arXiv:1005.0811 [astro-ph.HE]; Astrophys. J. 765, L5 (2013), arXiv:1205.6871 [nucl-th]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [24]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Gezerlis, C

    A. Gezerlis, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, in: Novel Su- perfluids, Vol. 2, Int. Series of Monographs in Physics, K.- H. Bennemann and J. B. Ketterson (eds.), Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford 157, 580 (2015), arXiv:1406.6109 [nucl-th]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Sedrakian and J

    A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark, (2018), arXiv:1802.00017 [nucl-th]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Hoffberg, A

    M. Hoffberg, A. E. Glassgold, R. W. Richardson, and M. Ruderman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 775 (1970)

    1970

  21. [28]

    Tamagaki, Prog

    R. Tamagaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 44, 905 (1970); T. Takatsuka and R. Tamagaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 112, 27 (1993)

    1970

  22. [29]

    P. F. Bedaque, G. Rupak, and M. J. Savage, Phys. Rev. C68, 065802 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0305032 [nucl-th]

    2003 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Masuda and M

    K. Masuda and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev.C93, 035804 (2016), arXiv:1512.01946 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Watanabe and C

    G. Watanabe and C. J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 062701 (2017), arXiv:1704.08859 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Drischler, T

    C. Drischler, T. Kr¨ uger, K. Hebeler, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. C95, 024302 (2017), arXiv:1610.05213 [nucl- 14 th]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Kitazawa, T

    M. Kitazawa, T. Koide, T. Kunihiro, and Y. Nemoto, Prog. Theor. Phys. 108, 929 (2002), [Erratum: Prog. Theor. Phys.110,no.1,185(2003)], arXiv:hep-ph/0207255 [hep-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Zhang, K

    Z. Zhang, K. Fukushima, and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rev. D79, 014004 (2009), arXiv:0808.0927 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  28. [35]

    V. D. Burkert, L. Elouadrhiri, and F. X. Girod, Nature 557, 396 (2018)

    2018

  29. [36]

    Fonseca et al

    E. Fonseca et al. , Astrophys. J. 832, 167 (2016), arXiv:1603.00545 [astro-ph.HE]; J. Antoniadis et al., Sci- ence 340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]; H. T. Cromartie et al., (2019), 10.1038/s41550-019-0880- 2, arXiv:1904.06759 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Drews and W

    M. Drews and W. Weise, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 93, 69 (2017), arXiv:1610.07568 [nucl-th]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Y. Song, G. Baym, T. Hatsuda, and T. Kojo, (2019), arXiv:1905.01005 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Wilczek, in From fields to strings: Circumnavigat- ing theoretical physics

    F. Wilczek, in From fields to strings: Circumnavigat- ing theoretical physics. Ian Kogan memorial collection (3 volume set) (2004) pp. 322–338, arXiv:hep-ph/0409168 [hep-ph]; R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rept. 409, 1 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0409065 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  33. [40]

    (13) is only valid for the good di- quark

    Strictly speaking, Eq. (13) is only valid for the good di- quark. Two quarks in 3 representation of color and flavor group reduce to 3× 3 = ¯3 + 6. The indices on the right- hand side of Eq. (13) are those of3, while on the left-hand side they refer to ¯3 after the reduction. S...

  34. [41]

    Casalbuoni and R

    R. Casalbuoni and R. Gatto, Phys. Lett. B464, 111 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9908227 [hep-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  35. [42]

    D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D61, 074012 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9910491 [hep-ph]; Phys. Rev. D62, 059902 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004095 [hep- ph]

    2000 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Berges and K

    J. Berges and K. Rajagopal, Nucl. Phys. B538, 215 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9804233 [hep-ph]; M. Huang, P.- f. Zhuang, and W.-q. Chao, Phys. Rev. D65, 076012 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0112124 [hep-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  37. [44]

    M. G. Alford, J. A. Bowers, J. M. Cheyne, and G. A. Cowan, Phys. Rev. D67, 054018 (2003), arXiv:hep- ph/0210106 [hep-ph]

    2003

  38. [45]

    M. G. Alford, H. Nishimura, and A. Sedrakian, Phys. Rev. C90, 055205 (2014), arXiv:1408.4999 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Bailin and A

    D. Bailin and A. Love, Phys. Rept. 107, 325 (1984)

    1984

  40. [47]

    Oka and K

    M. Oka and K. Yazaki, Phys. Lett. 90B, 41 (1980)

    1980

  41. [48]

    Oka and K

    M. Oka and K. Yazaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 66, 556 (1981); Prog. Theor. Phys. 66, 572 (1981)

    1981

  42. [49]

    De Rujula, H

    A. De Rujula, H. Georgi, and S. L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D12, 147 (1975)

    1975

  43. [50]

    M. M. Nagels, T. A. Rijken, and J. J. de Swart, Phys. Rev. D12, 744 (1975)

    1975

  44. [51]

    Machleidt, K

    R. Machleidt, K. Holinde, and C. Elster, Phys. Rept. 149, 1 (1987)

    1987

  45. [53]

    M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Sch¨ afer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1455 (2008), arXiv:0709.4635 [hep- ph]

    2008 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Grigorian, D

    H. Grigorian, D. Blaschke, and D. Voskresensky, Phys. Rev. C71, 045801 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0411619 [astro- ph]

    2005 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Baldo, O

    M. Baldo, O. Elgaroey, L. Engvik, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and H. J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C58, 1921 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9806097 [nucl-th]

    1998 arXiv

  48. [56]

    D. Ding, A. Rios, H. Dussan, W. H. Dickhoff, S. J. Witte, A. Polls, and A. Carbone, Phys. Rev. C94, 025802 (2016), [Addendum: Phys. Rev.C94,no.2,029901(2016)], arXiv:1601.01600 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

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