Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

This paper derives a self-consistent set of Lorentz-covariant, gauge-invariant equations of motion for a massive spinning quark in a background Yang-Mills field, preserving mass-shell, spin, and color constraints for any chromomagnetic mome

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 20:24 UTC pith:7N5WBCUS

load-bearing objection Genuinely new non-Abelian completion of the DPM spin dynamics; limits check out, but the central constraint algebra is asserted rather than shown, and the Delta=0 degeneracy is underplayed — deserves refereeing, not desk reject. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.20083 v2 pith:7N5WBCUS submitted 2025-11-25 nucl-th hep-th

Covariant equations of motion of massive spinning particles in a background Yang-Mills field

Jie Zhou , Ying Shan Zhao , Yifeng Sun This is my paper
classification nucl-th hep-th MSC 70H4581T13 PACS 11.15.-q12.38.Mh25.75.-q
keywords Yang-Mills backgroundglasmaspinning particleWong equationsDirac-Bergmann algorithmchromomagnetic momentspin polarizationheavy-ion collisions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to supply what the standard Wong equations lack: a classical description of a colored, spinning quark moving through the strong color fields (glasma) formed in heavy-ion collisions, without sacrificing Lorentz covariance, arbitrary chromomagnetic moment, or the physical constraints that define a spin-1/2 particle. It constructs a constrained Hamiltonian system and applies the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm to derive explicit evolution equations for position, momentum, spin tensor, and color charge. The central assertion is that these equations form a self-consistent set: the constraints inherent to the Hamiltonian formalism keep the particle on the spin surface even when g_S differs from 2 and the background field is arbitrary. If true, this gives a more complete basis for studying momentum broadening and spin polarization of hard probes in the glasma than the spinless Wong equations.

Core claim

Using a primary Hamiltonian in which the spin couples to the non-Abelian field strength through a single chromomagnetic-moment term, and treating the color charge q^a directly as a dynamical variable with Poisson bracket {q^a,q^b}=f^{abc}q^c, the authors derive, via the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm, explicit equations of motion for x, P, S, and q. These equations simultaneously preserve the mass-shell constraint, the Tulczyjew-Dixon condition P_μ S^{μν}=0, the spin normalization, and the Casimir invariants of the color charge; they transform covariantly under non-Abelian gauge transformations. The same dynamics is reformulated as a BMT-type spin-vector equation, showing that spin precession has

What carries the argument

The machinery is the constrained Hamiltonian dynamics of a relativistic spinning particle: spin is represented by a tensor S^{μν}=2(ω^μ π^ν−ω^ν π^μ) built from canonical variables (ω,π), and the physical phase space is defined by six constraints—mass-shell, spin normalization, P·ω=0, P·π=0, ω·π=0—plus the Casimir conditions on color. The Dirac-Bergmann algorithm classifies these into first- and second-class constraints; the Dirac bracket built from the second-class set generates the equations of motion from the reduced Hamiltonian. This mechanism is what makes the resulting equations preserve the constraints automatically and remain covariant.

Load-bearing premise

The result assumes the starting energy function with its single spin-color coupling term captures the full classical spin dynamics; if additional couplings are needed, or if the consistency bookkeeping has a hidden error, the derived equations are not self-consistent.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate the derived equations for a concrete glasma-like background, such as a constant or slowly varying chromomagnetic field, with g_S=2 and with g_S≠2, and monitor the mass-shell quantity and the Tulczyjew-Dixon vector P_μ S^{μν}; if either drifts from zero, the claimed self-consistency fails. A simpler check is a symbolic re-run of the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm on the listed constraints to confirm that no new physical constraints appear beyond the third stage.

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

If this is right

  • Hard probes like heavy quarks in the glasma will acquire a spin-dependent force from non-uniform color fields, of the Stern-Gerlach type, and their velocity will generically not be collinear with their kinetic momentum.
  • Spin precession of a quark is governed by a BMT-type equation in which the non-Abelian field and the color charge appear explicitly, enabling classical estimates of spin polarization induced by the glasma.
  • Color-charge evolution is itself modified by spin, so spin and color dynamics are coupled even at the classical level.
  • The constraint set stays intact for arbitrary chromomagnetic moment, so g_S ≠ 2 can be studied without breaking Lorentz covariance or the Tulczyjew-Dixon condition.
  • In the limit where spin-dependent terms vanish, the equations reduce to the familiar Wong-type dynamics for a colored particle.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to insert these equations into event-by-event glasma simulations and compute the early-time contribution to heavy-quark spin polarization or spin alignment; the paper motivates but does not perform that comparison.
  • Because the color charge is handled directly through its Poisson bracket rather than through local coordinate charts on the group, the same construction should extend to any compact Lie group and to higher representations, not just SU(3) fundamentals.
  • The BMT-vector form gives a direct handle for comparing this classical system with quantum kinetic or Wigner-function approaches to spin transport in color fields; such a comparison could expose where the classical approximation misorders ℏ effects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends the constrained Hamiltonian formalism of Deriglazov and Pupasov-Maksimov for a relativistic spinning particle in an electromagnetic field to a massive spin-1/2 color charge moving in a background SU(N_c) Yang-Mills field. The phase space consists of the position x^μ, kinetic momentum P_μ, a spin canonical pair (ω^μ, π^μ), and a classical color charge q^a. The authors impose a modified mass-shell condition, spin normalization, Tulczyjew-Dixon condition, and additional orthogonality constraints, and construct a primary Hamiltonian (58) with auxiliary variables. They apply the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm, identify first- and second-class constraints, and derive Dirac brackets in Appendix A. The resulting covariant equations of motion, Eqs. (69)–(70) in tensor form and Eqs. (71)–(72) in BMT-vector form, are claimed to be self-consistent, gauge invariant, and to preserve the constraints for arbitrary chromomagnetic moment μ and arbitrary background fields, while reducing to the Wong equations in the μ→0 limit.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, the paper provides a Lorentz-covariant classical description of colored spinning particles with an arbitrary chromomagnetic moment, which is a useful tool for studying spin-dependent transport of heavy quarks and jets in the glasma. The authors give explicit creditworthy checks: the μ→0 limit reproduces the Wong equations; the null vectors (63) are verified annihilators of the constraint matrix; and the gauge-invariance proof and Casimir conservation argument are clear. However, the central self-consistency claim rests on the Dirac-Bergmann analysis in Appendix A, where a key step—the termination of the algorithm at the third stage—is asserted without showing the algebra. In addition, the claim that the formalism works for 'arbitrary background fields' is not supported because the quantity Δ appearing in denominators can vanish on the constraint surface. These are load-bearing issues for the paper's central assertion, but they appear fixable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A6)–(A8)] The termination of the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm at the third stage is asserted rather than demonstrated. The text states: 'Inserting Eqs. (A5) and (A8) into ˙2ndcon1, one finds that ˙2ndcon1 is not independent of ˙2ndcon4 and 2ndcon6' and 'all ˙2ndcon_i ... only impose restrictions on Lagrange multipliers and do not generate new constraints' (Appendix A). This is the load-bearing step: a single error in this algebra would invalidate the claim that the constraints T1–T6 are preserved by the reduced Hamiltonian (66), and hence the central equations (69)–(72). The authors should provide the full intermediate algebra for the third-stage computation, including the explicit substitution of (A5) and (A8) into each ˙2ndcon_i and the proof that no new physical constraints arise. They should also show the inversion of the matrix Δ_{αβ} used to construct the Dirac brackets (A14)–(A16) or provide a
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (66) and Eqs. (68)–(72)] The abstract and Sec. V claim the formalism holds for 'arbitrary background fields', but the equations of motion and Dirac brackets are singular when Δ = m^2 + (2μ+1) g q^a F^a_{μν} ω^μ π^ν vanishes. On the constraint surface T1=0, one finds Δ = P^2 + (1/4) g q^a F^a_{μν} S^{μν} and P^2 = m^2 + (μ/2) g q^a F^a_{μν} S^{μν}. For μ>0 and a sufficiently strong field with a negative spin-field contraction, Δ=0 is reachable while P^2>0 (e.g., for μ=1, g q F S = -4m^2/3 gives Δ=0 and P^2=m^2/3). At such points the denominators in (68)–(72) and in the Dirac brackets (A14)–(A16) blow up, so the dynamics is not defined. The paper should restate the domain of validity (e.g., weak fields) or analyze the singular surface. This also affects the BMT-vector transformation (22), which requires P^2>0; for strong fields P^2 can become zero or negative, so the BMT-vector form is not defined in that regime.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (2), (10), (25)] The text states that the basic non-vanishing Poisson brackets are Eqs. (2), (10), and (25), but the derivation uses the bracket {P_μ, P_ν} = g q^a F^a_{μν} (Eq. (A3a)). This bracket should be stated explicitly in Sec. II, together with the relation between p_μ and P_μ in the non-Abelian case, to avoid confusion.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A12)] The constraint matrix C_{αβ} is presented without derivation. Although the explicit form is given, a short derivation or a note indicating how it follows from Eqs. (A3) and (33) would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (63)–(64)] The null vectors v1 and v2 are stated without derivation. The reader can verify them, but a brief explanation of how they were found (or a statement that they are checked by direct computation) would make the existence of the two first-class constraints more transparent.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (58)] The primary Hamiltonian (58) is the main modeling input. The paper should more explicitly state that the derived equations of motion are conditional on this choice; the phrase 'the constraints inherent to the Hamiltonian formalism restrict the quark to move on the spin surface' in Sec. V could be read as if the constraints are derived, whereas they are imposed by construction. This is not a flaw, but it would help the reader distinguish model input from output.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the equations of motion are a standard constrained-Hamiltonian construction from an externally cited U(1) framework. The only weaknesses are an asserted (not exhibited) Dirac-Bergmann closure and a possible Δ→0 degeneracy, which are correctness risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is: choose physical constraints (T1–T6, Eq. (60), originating in Sec. II's mass-shell, spin-normalization, and Tulczyjew-Dixon conditions); write the primary Hamiltonian (58) by transplanting the U(1) spin-field coupling of Ref. [45] into a non-Abelian background; run the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm; identify first-class combinations (64) and the second-class set (65); construct Dirac brackets (A14)–(A16); compute the reduced-Hamiltonian EOMs (68)–(72). None of these steps is a fit renamed as a prediction. The preservation of T3–T6 is the Dirac-bracket theorem: second-class constraints are strong identities after reduction, so 'moving on the spin surface' is guaranteed by construction of the algorithm, not an independent empirical output. The constraint set is an input assumption, not a conclusion disguised as one. The color Casimir conservation follows from the Lie-Poisson bracket and trace cyclicity (56), again a mathematical identity. The cited spin framework [45] is external to the authors; self-citations [16,33,34] concern glasma phenomenology and are not load-bearing. The genuine weaknesses are technical, not circular: Appendix A asserts 'one finds that ˙2ndcon1 is not independent' and 'the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm terminates at the third stage' without displaying the algebra, and the denominators Δ in (68) vanish for strong fields, so 'arbitrary background fields' is unproven. These are proof-gap/correctness risks, not equivalence of output to input. Score 2 only for the presence of minor, non-load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The derivation carries modest baggage: two hand-entered parameters (μ and the spin-surface constants a_2, a_3), an assumed single-coupling mass-shell, and an abbreviated constraint-algebra computation. No invented entities: q^a (color charge), S^{μν} (spin), and μ (chromomagnetic moment) all come from prior literature.

free parameters (2)
  • chromomagnetic moment μ (= g_S/2)
    Entered by hand as the coefficient of the spin-field coupling in the mass-shell condition (29) and primary Hamiltonian (58). The paper deliberately leaves it arbitrary, so the physical content of all spin-torque terms scales with it; its relation to the standard QED/QCD gyromagnetic value (g_S = 2) is a convention chosen in Eqs. (5)/(29) that is never pinned to a quantum calculation.
  • spin-surface normalization constants a_2, a_3 = unspecified ('specific values are not essential')
    Chosen by hand in Eq. (31) to fix the spin surface. The paper asserts they drop out of the physical dynamics, but they appear in the first-class combination χ2 = (a3/a2)T2 + T3 and in the Dirac brackets (A15a) (division by a_2, a_3), so a_2, a_3 ≠ 0 is technically load-bearing.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Classical color charges satisfy the Poisson bracket {q^a, q^b} = f^{abc} q^c, with Casimirs fixed at the classical values (18).
    Taken from Refs. [55-58] via Eqs. (10)-(18); converts the quantum commutator to a classical PB and fixes the quadratic/cubic Casimir values. The paper does not re-derive this.
  • domain assumption The mass-shell condition for a spinning colored particle is P² − 2μg q^aF^a_{μν}ω^μπ^ν − m² = 0 (Eq. (29)).
    Transplanted from the U(1) framework of Ref. [45] (also claimed to be 'widely adopted', Eq. (5)). This single-parameter spin coupling is the key physical input and is assumed, not derived from QCD.
  • domain assumption Tulczyjew-Dixon condition P_μS^{μν} = 0 and spin normalization S² = 8s² are the correct classical spin constraints (Eqs. (20)-(21)).
    Standard spin constraints from Refs. [48,49]; the paper builds them into the constraint algebra.
  • domain assumption The spin tensor is representable via canonical variables as S^{μν} = 2(ω^μπ^ν − ω^νπ^μ) subject to (31).
    Follows Ref. [45], Eqs. (26)-(31).
  • ad hoc to paper The primary Hamiltonian (58), containing the constraint combinations with Lagrange multipliers, is the correct starting dynamics.
    An ansatz explicitly borrowed from the U(1) case of Ref. [45]; its extension to the non-Abelian sector (adding the color PB and q^aF^a couplings) is this paper's modeling choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The Dirac-Bergmann algorithm terminates at the third stage, generating no additional physical constraints in the physical phase space (Appendix A).
    The central technical computation; asserted with abbreviated algebra ('one finds', 'not independent'). Reviewer spot-checks of the null vectors (63) pass, but this is a paper-specific claim requiring full verification.
  • standard math Standard constrained-Hamiltonian machinery: Poisson vs. Dirac brackets, first/second-class constraint split, extended and fully reduced Hamiltonians.
    Textbook material, Refs. [62-69].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17461 in / 37926 out tokens · 372330 ms · 2026-08-03T20:24:29.966661+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The dynamics of a spinning colored particle in a background non-Abelian Yang-Mills field is of broad interest in many areas of physics. A physically important application arises in relativistic heavy-ion collisions, where hard probes such as heavy quarks and jets propagate through the strong early-time classical color fields collectively referred to as the glasma. The standard framework for describing the classical dynamics of colored particles in a background Yang-Mills field is provided by the Wong equations, but it does not incorporate spin degrees of freedom. Although several extensions of the Wong equations have been proposed to include spin, they generally fail to satisfy all the necessary requirements simultaneously, such as Lorentz covariance, allowance for an arbitrary chromomagnetic moment, and preservation of the required physical constraints. In this work, we extend the framework of a relativistic classical spinning particle in an electromagnetic field to describe spin-1/2 quarks propagating in a generic background non-Abelian Yang-Mills field. By systematically applying the Dirac-Bergmann algorithm, we derive a self-consistent set of equations of motion for the particle's coordinates, momenta, spin, and color charge that satisfies all these requirements. This formalism provides a more complete and physically consistent description of spinning colored particles in background Yang-Mills fields, and offers a suitable framework for studying momentum diffusion and spin polarization phenomena of hard probes in heavy-ion collisions, particularly in the glasma.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Kinetic and canonical momentum broadening in the Glasma

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Derives gauge-invariant equations of motion for kinetic and canonical momentum of particles in a classical non-Abelian background, finding that transverse fields contribute to kinetic momentum broadening even in the e...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 47 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aamodtet al.(ALICE), JINST3, S08002 (2008)

    K. Aamodtet al.(ALICE), JINST3, S08002 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    Adamset al.(STAR), Nucl

    J. Adamset al.(STAR), Nucl. Phys.A757, 102 (2005)

    2005

  3. [3]

    Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Nucl

    K. Adcoxet al.(PHENIX), Nucl. Phys.A757, 184 (2005)

    2005

  4. [4]

    Arseneet al.(BRAHMS), Nucl

    I. Arseneet al.(BRAHMS), Nucl. Phys.A757, 1 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    B. B. Backet al., Nucl. Phys.A757, 28 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    The Color Glass Conden- sate and high-energy scattering in QCD,

    E. Iancu and R. Venugopalan, “The Color Glass Conden- sate and high-energy scattering in QCD,” inQuark-gluon plasma 4, edited by R. C. Hwa and X.-N. Wang (2003) pp. 249–3363, arXiv:hep-ph/0303204

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    Gelis, E

    F. Gelis, E. Iancu, J. Jalilian-Marian, and R. Venu- gopalan, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.60, 463 (2010), arXiv:1002.0333 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Gelis, Int

    F. Gelis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1330001 (2013), arXiv:1211.3327 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    Lappi and L

    T. Lappi and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A772, 200 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  10. [10]

    Lappi, J

    T. Lappi, J. Phys. G35, 104052 (2008), arXiv:0804.2338 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  11. [11]

    Fujii, K

    H. Fujii, K. Fukushima, and Y. Hidaka, Phys. Rev. C 79, 024909 (2009), arXiv:0811.0437 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    Fukushima and F

    K. Fukushima and F. Gelis, Nucl. Phys. A874, 108 (2012), arXiv:1106.1396 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  13. [13]

    S. K. Das, M. Ruggieri, S. Mazumder, V. Greco, and J. Alam, J. Phys. G42, 095108 (2015), arXiv:1501.07521 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    S. K. Das, M. Ruggieri, F. Scardina, S. Plumari, and V. Greco, J. Phys. G44, 095102 (2017), arXiv:1701.05123 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Ruggieri and S

    M. Ruggieri and S. K. Das, Phys. Rev. D98, 094024 (2018), arXiv:1805.09617 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Y. Sun, G. Coci, S. K. Das, S. Plumari, M. Rug- 13 gieri, and V. Greco, Phys. Lett. B798, 134933 (2019), arXiv:1902.06254 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    J. H. Liu, S. Plumari, S. K. Das, V. Greco, and M. Rug- gieri, Phys. Rev. C102, 044902 (2020), arXiv:1911.02480 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    J.-H. Liu, S. K. Das, V. Greco, and M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D103, 034029 (2021), arXiv:2011.05818 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Khowal, S

    P. Khowal, S. K. Das, L. Oliva, and M. Ruggieri, Eur. Phys.J.Plus137,307(2022),arXiv:2110.14610[hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Ruggieri, Pooja, J

    M. Ruggieri, Pooja, J. Prakash, and S. K. Das, Phys. Rev. D106, 034032 (2022), arXiv:2203.06712 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    A. Ipp, D. I. Müller, and D. Schuh, Phys. Rev. D102, 074001 (2020), arXiv:2001.10001 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    A. Ipp, D. I. Müller, and D. Schuh, Phys. Lett. B810, 135810 (2020), arXiv:2009.14206 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Avramescu, V

    D. Avramescu, V. Băran, V. Greco, A. Ipp, D. I. Müller, and M. Ruggieri, Phys. Rev. D107, 114021 (2023), arXiv:2303.05599 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Avramescu, V

    D. Avramescu, V. Greco, T. Lappi, H. Mäntysaari, and D. Müller, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 172301 (2025), arXiv:2409.10565 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 102301 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0410079

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  26. [26]

    Gao, S.-W

    J.-H. Gao, S.-W. Chen, W.-t. Deng, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C77, 044902 (2008), arXiv:0710.2943 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [28]

    Adamet al.(STAR), Phys

    J. Adamet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 132301 (2019), arXiv:1905.11917 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Nature614, 244 (2023), arXiv:2204.02302 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 012301 (2020), arXiv:1910.14408 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. C101, 044611 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 105, 029902 (2022)], arXiv:1909.01281 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys

    S. Acharyaet al.(ALICE), Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 042303 (2023), arXiv:2204.10171 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Sun and C

    Y. Sun and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C99, 011903 (2019), arXiv:1810.10359 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    S. Y. F. Liu, Y. Sun, and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 062301 (2020), arXiv:1910.06774 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    B. Fu, S. Y. F. Liu, L. Pang, H. Song, and Y. Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 142301 (2021), arXiv:2103.10403 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, G. Inghirami, I. Karpenko, and A. Palermo, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 272302 (2021), arXiv:2103.14621 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 042304 (2023), arXiv:2205.15689 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Li and S

    F. Li and S. Y. F. Liu, (2022), arXiv:2206.11890 [nucl- th]

    arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Müller and D.-L

    B. Müller and D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D105, L011901 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 039904 (2022)], arXiv:2110.15630 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Kumar, B

    A. Kumar, B. Müller, and D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 108, 016020 (2023), arXiv:2304.04181 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Yang, Phys

    D.-L. Yang, Phys. Rev. D111, 056005 (2025), arXiv:2411.14822 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    S. K. Wong, Nuovo Cim. A65, 689 (1970)

    1970

  43. [43]

    A. P. Balachandran, P. Salomonson, B.-S. Skagerstam, and J.-O. Winnberg, Phys. Rev. D15, 2308 (1977)

    1977

  44. [44]

    Mueller and R

    N. Mueller and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D99, 056003 (2019), arXiv:1901.10492 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    A. A. Deriglazov and A. M. Pupasov-Maksimov, Nucl. Phys. B885, 1 (2014), arXiv:1401.7641 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  46. [46]

    U. W. Heinz, Phys. Lett. B144, 228 (1984)

    1984

  47. [47]

    D.-L.Yang,JHEP06,140(2022),arXiv:2112.14392[hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Tulczyjew, Acta Phys

    W. Tulczyjew, Acta Phys. Pol.18, 37 (1959)

    1959

  49. [49]

    W. G. Dixon, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A314, 499 (1970)

    1970

  50. [50]

    Linden, A

    N. Linden, A. J. Macfarlane, and J. W. van Holten, Czech. J. Phys.46, 209 (1996), arXiv:hep-th/9512071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  51. [51]

    A. A. Deriglazov, Mod. Phys.Lett. A28, 1250234 (2013), arXiv:1204.2494 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [52]

    A. A. Deriglazov and A. M. Pupasov-Maksimov, Eur. Phys. J. C74, 3101 (2014), arXiv:1312.6247 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    Y.-C. Liu, K. Mameda, and X.-G. Huang, Chin. Phys. C44, 094101 (2020), [Erratum: Chin.Phys.C 45, 089001 (2021)], arXiv:2002.03753 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Balasin, D

    H. Balasin, D. N. Blaschke, F. Gieres, and M. Schweda, SIGMA10, 099 (2014), arXiv:1403.0255 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  55. [55]

    Johnson, Annals Phys.192, 104 (1989)

    K. Johnson, Annals Phys.192, 104 (1989)

    1989

  56. [56]

    Bulgac and D

    A. Bulgac and D. Kusnezov, Annals of Physics199, 187 (1990)

    1990

  57. [57]

    D. F. Litim and C. Manuel, Phys. Rept.364, 451 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0110104

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  58. [58]

    P. F. Kelly, Q. Liu, C. Lucchesi, and C. Manuel, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3461 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403403

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  59. [59]

    FRENKEL, Nature117, 653 (1926)

    J. FRENKEL, Nature117, 653 (1926)

    1926

  60. [60]

    Bargmann, L

    V. Bargmann, L. Michel, and V. L. Telegdi, Phys. Rev. Lett.2, 435 (1959)

    1959

  61. [61]

    A. A. Deriglazov, Phys. Lett. A376, 309 (2012), arXiv:1106.5228 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  62. [62]

    Dirac, Canadian Journal of Mathematics2, 129 (1950)

    P. Dirac, Canadian Journal of Mathematics2, 129 (1950)

    1950

  63. [63]

    Dirac, Canadian Journal of Mathematics3, 1 (1951)

    P. Dirac, Canadian Journal of Mathematics3, 1 (1951)

    1951

  64. [64]

    Dirac, Proc

    P. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London)246, 326 (1958)

    1958

  65. [65]

    J. L. Anderson and P. G. Bergmann, Phys. Rev.83, 1018 (1951)

    1951

  66. [66]

    P. G. Bergmann and I. Goldberg, Phys. Rev.98, 531 (1955)

    1955

  67. [67]

    P. A. M. Dirac,Lectures on Quantum Mechanics(Dover Publications, 1964)

    1964

  68. [68]

    A.W.Wipf,Lect.NotesPhys.434,22(1994),arXiv:hep- th/9312078

    arXiv 1994

  69. [69]

    J. D. Brown, Universe8, 171 (2022), arXiv:2201.06558 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  70. [70]

    Lukes-Gerakopoulos, Phys

    G. Lukes-Gerakopoulos, Phys. Rev. D96, 104023 (2017), arXiv:1709.08942 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  71. [71]

    M. Wen, C. H. Keitel, and H. Bauke, Phys. Rev. A95, 042102 (2017), arXiv:1610.08951 [physics.plasm-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017