Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 45 references

An EFT for anisotropic anti-ferromagnets: gapped Goldstones, pseudo-Goldstones, and phase transitions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs the leading-order effective field theory for easy-plane anisotropic antiferromagnets in a magnetic field, showing that it contains gapped Goldstones, pseudo-Goldstones, and a first-order spin-flop transition.

desk verdict The EFT framework is clean and the NiO matching is honest, but the printed overlap functions in Eq. (28) and Appendix C have a sign error that makes the quantization formula wrong for part of the parameter space; the paper is worth a serious referee after the fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09761 v2 pith:3BFVDJ5G submitted 2024-11-14 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.stat-mechhep-th

Pier Giuseppe Catinari , Angelo Esposito , Shashin Pavaskar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.stat-mechhep-th
keywords effectivefieldtheoryantiferromagnetmagnonGoldstonebosonpseudo-Goldstonespinfloptransitionmagneticanisotropynickeloxide
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 builds the leading-order effective field theory for easy-plane anisotropic antiferromagnets in an external magnetic field, adding two anisotropy couplings to the standard isotropic magnon EFT. The resulting Lagrangian is simple, yet it contains, within one framework: exact Goldstones that acquire a gap because the magnetic field puts the system at finite spin density (gapped Goldstones), their conversion into pseudo-Goldstones when the anisotropies explicitly break the spin symmetry, and a first-order spin-flop phase transition at $H_{\rm s.f.} = \sqrt{2\lambda_z}/\mu$ where the staggered order parameter jumps direction. Because the quadratic action in the low-field phase has a single-time-derivative term, the two magnon fields cannot be diagonalized by a local field redefinition; the paper provides a consistent quantization through overlap functions that connect the fields to the physical magnon states. Matching the EFT to nickel oxide gives concrete values for all coefficients, which matters for proposed dark-matter searches using this material.

What carries the argument

The central object is the unit-vector order parameter $\hat{n}(x)$ with $|\hat{n}|=1$ and the covariant derivative $\partial_t \hat{n} + \mu H \times \hat{n}$ that encodes the Zeeman coupling. The argument runs on the competition between the field term and the easy-axis anisotropy: the combination $\mu^2 H^2 - 2\lambda_z$ changes sign at $H_{\rm s.f.}$, selecting either a perpendicular or parallel ground state. In the low-field phase the quadratic action contains a single-time-derivative term $(\partial_t \theta_a - \mu H \epsilon_{ab}\theta_b)^2$, which makes the kinetic matrix non-diagonal and prevents any local change of variables from diagonalizing it; the paper handles this by imposing canonical equal-time commutators and solving for the overlap functions whose squared magnitudes are given in Eq. (28), mapping the non-diagonal fields to the physical magnon states with dispersions (17).

What would settle it

Measure the two magnon gaps of nickel oxide as a function of magnetic field along the easy axis at low temperature. The EFT predicts that the lower gap closes at $H_{\rm s.f.} = \sqrt{2\lambda_z}/\mu \approx 46.3$~kOe and that the order parameter then changes direction discontinuously (a first-order transition). If the gap instead stays nonzero, or the reorientation is continuous, or the critical field differs from $\sqrt{2\lambda_z}/\mu$ beyond the matching uncertainties, the leading-order EFT is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the leading-order Lagrangian for an easy-plane antiferromagnet in a magnetic field is $\mathcal{L} = \frac{c_1}{2}\left[(\partial_t \hat{n} + \mu H\times\hat{n})^2 - v_\theta^2(\nabla\hat{n})^2 + 2\lambda_z \hat{n}_z^2 - 2\lambda_x \hat{n}_x^2\right]$, with $\lambda_x,\lambda_z > 0$. This single expression determines the ground state and the entire low-energy spectrum: for $H > H_{\rm s.f.} = \sqrt{2\lambda_z}/\mu$ the ground-state staggered order parameter lies in the plane perpendicular to the field, the two magnon modes have gaps $\sqrt{2\lambda_x}$ and $\sqrt{\mu^2 H^2 - 2\lambda_z}$, and the anisotropies turn the formerly exact Goldstones into pseudo-Goldstones; for $H < H_{\rm s.f.}$ the order parameter aligns with the easy axis, the spectrum is given by Eq. (17), and the quadratic theory cannot be diagonalized by any local field redefinition. The spin-flop transition at $H_{\rm s.f.}$ is first order because the order parameter changes discontinuously across the threshold. The paper also derives the quantization of the low-field phase using overlap functions that satisfy the canonical equal-time commutation relations, and matches all coefficients to the microscopic Heisenberg Hamiltonian of nickel oxide.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on the assertion that Eq. (11) is the complete leading-order low-energy action: the magnetic field enters only through the covariant derivative $\partial_t \hat{n} + \mu H\times \hat{n}$, the single-time-derivative coefficient $c_3$ vanishes for antiferromagnets, and no other equally-leading terms exist.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The spin-flop field $H_{\rm s.f.} = \sqrt{2\lambda_z}/\mu$ is a quantitative prediction: at that field the lower magnon gap closes and the order parameter jumps discontinuously, marking a first-order transition.
  • In the high-field phase, one magnon is an exact but gapped Goldstone whose gap at zero anisotropy is the universal $\mu H$, set by the magnetic field alone; the anisotropies add small corrections and make both modes pseudo-Goldstones.
  • In the low-field phase the two fields $\theta_1,\theta_2$ are not one-to-one with the physical magnons; any tree-level computation must use the overlap functions (28), which the paper derives both from canonical commutators and from polology.
  • For nickel oxide the matching gives $\lambda_x = 9.80$~meV$^2$, $\lambda_z = 0.17$~meV$^2$, and $H_{\rm s.f.} = 46.3$~kOe, so the EFT makes a concrete prediction for the field at which the material's magnon spectrum should reorganize.
  • The EFT is valid only for momenta $q \ll 1/a$, energies $\omega \ll J_2$, and fields $H \ll J_2/\mu$; within this window the low-energy magnon physics is fixed by the five parameters in $\mathcal{L}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the paper does not take is to expand $\mathcal{L}$ to cubic and quartic order; those interactions would give magnon lifetimes and energy-transport predictions fixed by the same coefficients as the spectrum.
  • The first-order character of the spin-flop transition implies hysteresis and latent heat when $H$ is swept through $H_{\rm s.f.}$; the EFT provides the free-energy difference between the two phases, so a domain-nucleation model could turn it into a rate estimate.
  • The overlap-function quantization should carry over to any non-relativistic system with mixed single- and double-time-derivative kinetic terms, such as ferromagnets or coupled magnon-phonon systems, where the same obstruction to local diagonalization arises.
  • For dark-matter searches, the spin-flop phase changes the material's response: above $H_{\rm s.f.}$ the ground state has a nonzero net magnetization $c_1 H$, so spin-dependent scattering rates should differ across the transition, giving an experimentally tunable handle.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a leading-order low-energy effective field theory for anisotropic antiferromagnets in an external magnetic field, extending the standard SO(3)/SO(2) coset construction by easy-axis and hard-axis anisotropy terms. The authors derive the ground-state structure, including a spin-flop transition at H_s.f. = sqrt(2 λz)/μ, and the quadratic spectra in the two phases. For the H < H_s.f. phase, where a single-time-derivative term prevents local diagonalization, they propose a quantization procedure based on overlap functions obtained from canonical equal-time commutators and from a polology appendix. The paper closes by matching the EFT coefficients to nickel oxide and discussing the regime of validity, with a conceptual appendix re-examining the role of discrete symmetries.

Significance. If the technical issues are repaired, this is a useful bridge between the effective-field-theory and condensed-matter literatures. The paper has clear strengths: the coset construction is standard and careful, the matching to NiO is explicit and concrete, the quantization problem in the non-diagonal phase is well motivated, and the polology appendix is a genuine cross-check. The main claim of a consistent quantization with overlap functions is, however, not correct as printed: Eq. (28) contains a sign error in the discriminant, and Appendix C repeats the same error. The error appears local and repairable, and it does not affect the spectrum or the EFT framework, but it is load-bearing for the quantization section.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (28)] The discriminant in Eq. (28) has the wrong sign. Combining Eq. (25b) with a=b=1, Eq. (25c) with a=1,b=2, and Eq. (27) gives z_± = 1/2 ± (2 μ²H² − λx)/(2R) with R = sqrt(λx² + 4 μ²H²(λx + 2λz + vθ² q²)). The printed formula instead uses λx − 2λz inside the square root. This is not a cosmetic issue: for λx=1, λz=2, μH=1.5, q=0, one has μ²H²=2.25 < 2λz=4, so the spectrum in Eq. (17) is real and positive, but the printed radicand is 1 + 9(1 − 4) = −26, making |Z¹|² complex. The quantization claim is therefore invalid as stated, although the corrected sign repairs the formula and the preceding derivation is otherwise consistent.
  2. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C3)–(C4)] The polology cross-check repeats the same error. In Eq. (C3), the (1,1) element of the inverse kinetic matrix should contain 2(λz + λx), not "2(λz + λz)"; consequently Eq. (C4) should read Σ_α |Z¹_{q,α}|² ω²_{q,-α} = vθ² q² − μ²H² + 2(λz + λx). With the printed coefficient, the sum rule produces the incorrect sign in the final |Z¹| formulas, so Appendix C cannot corroborate Eq. (28) as it stands. This is the second occurrence of the same load-bearing typo.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, around Eq. (36)] The sentence stating that Eq. (36) "reproduces exactly what was found independently within the EFT" overstates the test: since λz is fixed by matching the zero-field gap, the spin-flop field is fixed by construction. The equality is a useful consistency check, but should be phrased as such.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (29)] The notation "Z^a_{q,+} = (0, −i)" is ambiguous; the authors mean the two-component vector (Z¹_{q,+}, Z²_{q,+})^T. Please write it in a form that distinguishes the field index from the mode index.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C4)] The notation ω_{q,−α} is not defined before its use in Eq. (C4). Define it explicitly or use ω_{q,∓}.
  4. [Section V] The power counting for the anisotropy couplings λx,z and the magnetic field relative to ω and q is implicit. A sentence stating that both are treated as small parameters at the same order as the low-energy derivatives would make the regime-of-validity discussion more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EFT is constructed from symmetry and matching, and the spin-flop field is presented as a derived consistency relation rather than an independently fitted prediction.

full rationale

Walking the claimed derivation chain, I find no step in which a result presented as a prediction or first-principles output is equivalent by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation. The Lagrangian (11) is assembled from the declared symmetry-breaking pattern SO(3)xT -> SO(2)x(TR_pi) and the derivative expansion; the exclusion of the single-time-derivative term is justified in Appendix A as a matching condition (“The magnetization… is an output of our EFT, not an input”), not as an ansatz imported from the authors’ prior work. The spectrum (17) follows from det M = 0, and the quantization conditions (25)–(28) are solved from the equal-time commutators together with the equations of motion; these are genuine derivations from the Lagrangian. The coefficients lambda_x and lambda_z are explicitly matched to the zero-field magnon gaps (33)–(35); the spin-flop field H_s.f. = sqrt(2*lambda_z)/mu is then a derived relation, and the paper transparently calls the short-distance value a consistency check (“this reproduces exactly what was found independently within the EFT”), rather than an independently fitted prediction. Self-citations to Refs. [6], [10], [20], and [32] supply standard or companion matching results and are not load-bearing for the central EFT construction. The sign discrepancy in Eq. (28)/Appendix C is a technical correctness issue, not circularity, and thus does not change the verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The EFT rests on the symmetry-based coset construction and standard EFT power counting. The central results depend on coefficients that are matched or fitted, not derived from first principles. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • vθ (magnon propagation speed) = 1.3 × 10^-4 (dimensionless)
    Fitted to the measured spin-wave dispersion of NiO in Ref. [27], as stated in Table I.
  • c1 (perpendicular magnetic susceptibility) = 0.58 MeV/Å
    Taken from the authors' earlier neutron-scattering matching in Ref. [6]; used to relate spin density to magnetic field.
  • λx (hard-axis anisotropy coupling) = 9.80 meV²
    Matched to the zero-field magnon gap ω0+ via Eq. (35a), using short-distance parameters from Ref. [11].
  • λz (easy-axis anisotropy coupling) = 0.17 meV²
    Matched to the zero-field magnon gap ω0- via Eq. (35b), using short-distance parameters from Ref. [11].
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The system is at zero temperature.
    Explicitly assumed in Section II; thermal effects are beyond scope.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field enters only via the covariant derivative ∂t n → ∂t n + µH×n.
    Stated in Eq. (5), following Ref. [24]; no other field-dependent operators are included at leading order.
  • domain assumption Anisotropies appear as quadratic terms in the order parameter, +2λz n_z² - 2λx n_x².
    Motivated by the discrete symmetry T·Rπ and the spin-flip invariance of Eq. (10); the form in Eq. (11) is assumed to be the leading-order effect.
  • domain assumption The single-time-derivative coefficient c3 vanishes for antiferromagnets.
    Derived in Appendix A from matching the magnetization behavior of antiferromagnets; the central spectrum depends on this.
  • standard math Ground states are found by minimizing the static homogeneous Hamiltonian.
    Used in Eq. (12) to determine the spin-flop phases; standard semiclassical approach.
  • standard math Canonical quantization with overlap functions and one-particle completeness.
    Section III and Appendix C rely on the equal-time commutators (24) and the completeness relation (C1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An EFT for anisotropic anti-ferromagnets: gapped Goldstones, pseudo-Goldstones, and phase transitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3BFVDJ5G

@misc{pith2026241109761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An EFT for anisotropic anti-ferromagnets: gapped Goldstones, pseudo-Goldstones, and phase transitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3BFVDJ5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09761}
}
read the original abstract

We build and discuss a low energy effective field theory for anisotropic anti-ferromagnets in presence of an external magnetic field. Such an effective theory is simple yet rich, and features a number of phenomena such as the appearance of gapped Goldstones, pseudo-Goldstones and a "spin flop" phase transition, all within the regime of validity of the theory. We also discuss in detail, the quantization procedure of the free theory in the presence of a magnetic field, which is made non-trivial by the presence of a single-time derivative term. This class of materials make a precious test field for exotic phenomena in quantum field theory. Moreover, we explicitly perform the matching of the effective theory to the short distance theory of a specific anti-ferromagnet, namely, nickel oxide. The latter is particularly relevant in light of recent proposals of employing this material towards the hunt for light dark matter. As a byproduct of our study, we also re-evaluate the role played by discrete symmetries in magnetic materials, presenting it in a way that is completely consistent with the proper low energy EFT ideology.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09761 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Background configuration in the simultaneous presence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The crystal structure and spin arrangements in NiO below the N´eel temperature, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Gaps of the lowest lying magnon modes, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Small anisotropies: the H > Hs.f. phase In this case the background is the same as in the absence of anisotropies, and we thus expect the explicit breaking effect to simply contribute to a small gap to the Goldstone modes. Indeed, by expanding again at quadratic order in the magnon fields, one gets, L = c1 2 ( ˙θ1) 2 − v2 θ (∇θ1) 2 − (µ2H2 − 2λz)(θ1) 2 + ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    vacuum selection

    Large anisotropies: the H < Hs.f. phase When the effects of the anisotropies are larger than those of the applied magnetic field, the background changes, and the system undergoes a phase transition. As an indi- cation of this, the gap of the mode in Eq. (14b) becomes imaginary, thus pointing to an instability. As anticipated, the new background is now ⟨ ˆ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    In particular, one has O = (P i∈A S i + P i∈B S i ≡ M , ferromagn.P i∈A S i − P i∈B S i ≡ N , antiferromagn

    The difference arises when one wants to express the order parameter in terms of the degrees of freedom of the short distance theory, i.e., the spins of the material. In particular, one has O = (P i∈A S i + P i∈B S i ≡ M , ferromagn.P i∈A S i − P i∈B S i ≡ N , antiferromagn. , where M is the magnetization and N is the N´ eel vector. How about discrete symm...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Consider the field ˆn(x) such that, ◦ it rotates under SO(3), ˆn(x) SO(3) − − − − → R ·ˆn(x); ◦ it changes sign under either time reversal or the discrete rotation of 180 ◦, ˆn(x) T − → −ˆn(x) and ˆn(x) Rπ − − → −ˆn(x); ◦ it has unit norm and acquires a non-zero expec- tation value on the ground state, ⟨ ˆn(x)⟩ ̸= 0

    work page

  5. [5]

    Write the most general theory for ˆn(x) that is invari- ant under the full SO(3) and under the combined action of ( T Rπ)

    work page

  6. [6]

    polology

    Organize the theory in a derivative expansion. 10 Following this, the most general leading-order Lagrangian respecting these rules is the one reported also in [10], L = c1 2 (∂t ˆn)2 − c2 2 (∇i ˆn)2 + c3 (∂tϕ) cosθ , (A2) where θ(x) and ϕ(x) are the polar and azimuthal an- gles defining ˆn = (sin θ cos ϕ, sin θ sin ϕ, cos θ). As shown in Ref. [ 10], under...

    work page

  7. [7]

    N´ eel, Magnetism and local molecular field, Science174, 985 (1971)

    L. N´ eel, Magnetism and local molecular field, Science174, 985 (1971)

    work page 1971

  8. [8]

    M. N. Baibich, J. M. Broto, A. Fert, F. N. Van Dau, F. Petroff, P. Etienne, G. Creuzet, A. Friederich, and J. Chazelas, Giant magnetoresistance of (001) fe/(001) cr magnetic superlattices, Physical review letters 61, 2472 (1988)

    work page 1988

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Binasch, P

    G. Binasch, P. Gr¨ unberg, F. Saurenbach, and W. Zinn, Enhanced magnetoresistance in layered magnetic struc- tures with antiferromagnetic interlayer exchange, Physical review B 39, 4828 (1989)

    1989

  2. [10]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, A. Gloppe, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics, Applied Physics Express 12, 070101 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, and Y. Nakamura, Resolving quanta of collective spin excitations in a millimeter-sized ferromagnet, Science Advances 3, e1603150 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Esposito and S

    A. Esposito and S. Pavaskar, Optimal antiferromagnets for light dark matter detection, Phys. Rev. D 108, L011901 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    D. J. E. Marsh, K.-C. Fong, E. W. Lentz, L. Smejkal, and M. N. Ali, Proposal to Detect Dark Matter using Axionic Topological Antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 121601 (2019), arXiv:1807.08810 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    C. P. Burgess, Goldstone and pseudoGoldstone bosons in nuclear, particle and condensed matter physics, Phys. Rept. 330, 193 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9808176

    2000 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Chandra, P

    P. Chandra, P. Coleman, and A. Larkin, A quantum fluids approach to frustrated heisenberg models, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 2, 7933 (1990)

    1990

  8. [16]

    Pavaskar, R

    S. Pavaskar, R. Penco, and I. Rothstein, An effective field theory of magneto-elasticity, SciPost Physics 12, 10.21468/scipostphys.12.5.155 (2022)

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    S. M. Rezende, A. Azevedo, and R. L. Rodr ´ ıguez-Su´ arez, Introduction to antiferromagnetic magnons, Journal of Applied Physics 126, 151101 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Nicolis and F

    A. Nicolis and F. Piazza, Implications of Relativity on Nonrelativistic Goldstone Theorems: Gapped Excitations at Finite Charge Density, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 011602 (2013), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 110, 039901 (2013)], arXiv:1204.1570 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Nicolis, R

    A. Nicolis, R. Penco, F. Piazza, and R. A. Rosen, More on gapped Goldstones at finite density: More gapped Goldstones, JHEP 11, 055, arXiv:1306.1240 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Watanabe, T

    H. Watanabe, T. Brauner, and H. Murayama, Massive Nambu-Goldstone Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 021601 (2013), arXiv:1303.1527 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cuomo, A

    G. Cuomo, A. Esposito, E. Gendy, A. Khmelnitsky, A. Monin, and R. Rattazzi, Gapped Goldstones at the cut-off scale: a non-relativistic EFT, JHEP 02, 068, arXiv:2005.12924 [hep-th]

    2005 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Grimsditch, L

    M. Grimsditch, L. McNeil, and D. Lockwood, Unexpected behavior of the antiferromagnetic mode of nio, Physical Review B 58, 14462 (1998)

    1998

  15. [23]

    Milano, L

    J. Milano, L. Steren, and M. Grimsditch, Effect of dipolar interaction on the antiferromagnetic resonance spectra of nio, Physical review letters 93, 077601 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Sievers III and M

    A. Sievers III and M. Tinkham, Far infrared antiferro- magnetic resonance in mno and nio, Physical Review 129, 1566 (1963)

    1963

  17. [25]

    Satoh, S.-J

    T. Satoh, S.-J. Cho, R. Iida, T. Shimura, K. Kuroda, H. Ueda, Y. Ueda, B. Ivanov, F. Nori, and M. Fiebig, Spin oscillations in antiferromagnetic nio triggered by circularly polarized light, Physical review letters 105, 077402 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    P. G. Catinari, A. Esposito, and S. Pavaskar, Hunting axion dark matter with antiferromagnets: A case study with nickel oxide, Phys. Rev. D 112, 035007 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Lovesey, Theory of Neutron Scattering from Condensed Matter

    S. Lovesey, Theory of Neutron Scattering from Condensed Matter. Vol. 2: Polarization Effects and Magnetic Scatter- ing, International series of monographs on physics (Claren- don Press, 1984)

    1984

  20. [28]

    Leutwyler, Phonons as goldstone bosons, Helv

    H. Leutwyler, Phonons as goldstone bosons, Helv. Phys. Acta 70, 275 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9609466

    1997 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Nicolis, R

    A. Nicolis, R. Penco, F. Piazza, and R. Rattazzi, Zool- ogy of condensed matter: Framids, ordinary stuff, extra- ordinary stuff, JHEP 06, 155, arXiv:1501.03845 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Brauner, Effective Field Theory for Spontaneously Bro- ken Symmetry (2024) arXiv:2404.14518 [hep-th]

    T. Brauner, Effective Field Theory for Spontaneously Bro- ken Symmetry (2024) arXiv:2404.14518 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    C. G. Callan Jr, S. Coleman, J. Wess, and B. Zumino, Structure of phenomenological lagrangians. ii, Physical Review 177, 2247 (1969)

    1969

  24. [32]

    Coleman, J

    S. Coleman, J. Wess, and B. Zumino, Structure of phe- nomenological lagrangians. i, Physical Review 177, 2239 (1969)

    1969

  25. [33]

    M. T. Hutchings and E. J. Samuelsen, Inelastic neutron scattering measurement of spin waves and magnetic in- teractions in NiO, Solid State Communications 9, 1011 (1971)

    1971

  26. [34]

    M. T. Hutchings and E. J. Samuelsen, Measurement of spin-wave dispersion in nio by inelastic neutron scattering and its relation to magnetic properties, Phys. Rev. B 6, 3447 (1972)

    1972

  27. [35]

    Keffer and C

    F. Keffer and C. Kittel, Theory of antiferromagnetic reso- nance, Phys. Rev. 85, 329 (1952)

    1952

  28. [36]

    F. L. A. Machado, P. R. T. Ribeiro, J. Holanda, R. L. Rodr ´ ıguez-Su´ arez, A. Azevedo, and S. M. Rezende, Spin- flop transition in the easy-plane antiferromagnet nickel oxide, Phys. Rev. B 95, 104418 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    L. Hui, I. Kourkoulou, A. Nicolis, A. Podo, and S. Zhou, S-matrix positivity without Lorentz invariance: a case study, JHEP 04, 145, arXiv:2312.08440 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Esposito, E

    A. Esposito, E. Geoffray, and T. Melia, Effective field theory for acoustic and pseudoacoustic phonons in solids, Phys. Rev. D 102, 105009 (2020), arXiv:2006.05429 [hep- th]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Cheung, A

    C. Cheung, A. Helset, and J. Parra-Martinez, Geometric soft theorems, JHEP 04, 011, arXiv:2111.03045 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Creminelli, M

    P. Creminelli, M. Delladio, O. Janssen, A. Longo, and L. Senatore, Non-analyticity of the S-matrix with spon- taneously broken Lorentz invariance, JHEP 06, 201, arXiv:2312.08441 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Chakravarty, D

    S. Chakravarty, D. R. Nelson, and B. I. Halperin, Low temperature behavior of two-dimensional quantum anti- ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1057 (1988)

    1988

  34. [42]

    Manousakis, The spin-1 /2 heisenberg antiferromagnet on a square lattice and its application to the cuprous oxides, Reviews of Modern Physics 63, 1 (1991)

    E. Manousakis, The spin-1 /2 heisenberg antiferromagnet on a square lattice and its application to the cuprous oxides, Reviews of Modern Physics 63, 1 (1991)

    1991

  35. [43]

    F. J. Dyson, General theory of spin-wave interactions, Phys. Rev. 102, 1217 (1956)

    1956

  36. [44]

    H.-H. Kim, K. Ueda, S. Nakata, P. Wochner, A. Macken- 13 zie, C. Hicks, G. Khaliullin, H. Liu, B. Keimer, and M. Minola, Giant stress response of terahertz magnons in a spin-orbit mott insulator, Nature Communications 13, 6674 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields

    S. Weinberg, The Quantum theory of fields. Vol. 1: Foun- dations (Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.