Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Bhabha-like scattering in the Rarita-Schwinger model at finite temperature

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Thermal spin-3/2 scattering grows as temperature squared

desk verdict First finite-T spin-3/2 Bhabha calculation, but the advertised T^2 thermal growth sits on delta functions with no support on massive on-shell phase space. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19910 v1 pith:25K2HUK3 submitted 2024-12-27 hep-th

M. C. Araújo , J. G. Lima , J. Furtado , T. Mariz This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords Rarita-Schwingerspin-3/2Bhabhascatteringfinitetemperaturethermofielddynamicsthermalcross-sectionultra-relativisticlimithigher-spinQED
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 sets out to compute, at tree level, the cross-section for fermion-antifermion scattering mediated by photons in a massive Rarita-Schwinger model, and to expose how temperature changes it. Using the thermofield dynamics formalism it arrives at a closed differential cross-section in the center-of-mass frame. The central results are that the thermal corrections become dominant at very high temperature, making the cross-section grow as the square of the temperature, and that at zero temperature the ultra-relativistic cross-section is finite for all scattering angles, unlike ordinary QED. This matters because spin-3/2 particles such as gravitinos or excited leptons, if they exist, would scatter in hot environments where the thermal enhancement could be observed or constrained.

What carries the argument

The calculation is carried by the Rarita-Schwinger photon vertex $\Sigma^{\alpha\mu\nu}=ie(\gamma^\alpha\eta^{\mu\nu}-\gamma^\mu\eta^{\alpha\nu}-\gamma^\nu\eta^{\alpha\mu}+\gamma^\mu\gamma^\alpha\gamma^\nu)$, the thermal photon propagator of thermofield dynamics, and the spin-3/2 projector sums (51)-(52). Temperature enters through Bogoliubov-transformed creation and annihilation operators that alter only the propagator, producing the distributional terms $\delta(q^2)$ in Eq. (31) and ultimately the $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_3$ functions in the cross-section. The paper applies the regularization identity (55) to products of delta functions that appear in Eq. (53), treating them as a standard feature of the formalism.

What would settle it

Evaluate the phase-space integrals of the delta-function terms in Eq. (53) without the regularization (55), or compute the same thermal cross-section in the Matsubara imaginary-time formalism, where the Feynman rules do not produce such products of delta functions; if the $T^2$ term does not survive that computation, the central high-temperature claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the temperature-dependent differential cross-section for Bhabha-like scattering in the Rarita-Schwinger model, given by Eq. (53), separates into a thermal-background piece controlled by three functions $\Gamma_1$, $\Gamma_2$, $\Gamma_3$. As the inverse temperature $\beta$ tends to zero, $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_3$ dominate and the cross-section grows in proportion to $T^2$, so high temperature strongly enhances spin-3/2 scattering. In the opposite limit, the thermal functions reduce to $\Gamma_1\to 1$ and the cross-section recovers a zero-temperature form that is regular for all angles $\theta$ in the ultra-relativistic limit $E\gg m$; integrating it gives the closed total cross-section $\sigma_{T=0}=26 e^4 E^6/(1215 \pi m^8)$. The paper contrasts this with ordinary QED, whose forward cross-section diverges as $\theta\to 0$, and interprets the difference as a virtue of the Rarita-Schwinger vertex structure.

Load-bearing premise

The high-temperature $T^2$ growth rests on the claim that the products of Dirac delta functions in Eq. (53) should be regularized with the identity (55) and make finite contributions; if those distributional terms actually vanish on the physical phase space of massive on-shell particles, the enhancement disappears.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a hot environment such as the early universe, scattering of spin-3/2 particles would be strongly enhanced, growing as $T^2$ rather than being suppressed.
  • A total cross-section exists at zero temperature in the ultra-relativistic limit, which is not a well-defined quantity for ordinary QED at tree level because of the forward divergence.
  • The $m^{-8}$ mass dependence of $\sigma_{T=0}$ means lighter spin-3/2 states scatter far more copiously at fixed energy, which could shape collider or cosmic searches.
  • The result gives a concrete tree-level benchmark for thermal cross-sections in higher-spin gauge theories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same thermofield-dynamics treatment could be applied to other spin-3/2 processes such as Compton scattering; extending the calculation would test whether the $T^2$ growth is universal or specific to Bhabha kinematics.
  • A direct computation in the Matsubara imaginary-time formalism would settle whether the $T^2$ enhancement is physical or an artifact of the delta-singularity regularization, since that formalism avoids products of delta functions.
  • If the $T^2$ growth is physical, it could serve as a thermal signature distinguishing spin-3/2 particles from ordinary fermions in early-universe or astrophysical environments.
  • The well-behaved ultra-relativistic cross-section suggests the consistency problems historically associated with interacting Rarita-Schwinger fields may be milder for this channel, but this is an interpretation beyond the paper's own claims.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies tree-level Bhabha-like scattering of massive spin-3/2 fermions in a Rarita-Schwinger model coupled to Maxwell theory, with temperature effects included through the thermofield dynamics (TFD) formalism. The authors derive thermal propagator and vertex rules, compute the temperature-dependent differential cross-section in the center-of-mass frame, and report a high-temperature behavior in which the cross-section grows as T^2. They also present a zero-temperature ultra-relativistic total cross-section, Eq. (54), and compare the angular behavior with ordinary QED. The central finite-temperature result, Eq. (53), contains products of Dirac delta functions that are not regularized into a finite observable.

Significance. If the central claim were established, this would be a first finite-temperature treatment of spin-3/2 scattering and would predict a strong thermal enhancement together with a well-behaved zero-temperature angular distribution, in contrast to ordinary QED. The paper is self-contained and algebraic: no fitted parameters enter the central computation, and the spinor-trace algebra is presented in explicit form. However, the main physical claim rests on terms in Eq. (53) that are either zero on the physical phase space or undefined as products of distributions. The proposed regularization identity, Eq. (55), is not applied to obtain a finite cross-section. Therefore the significance of the thermal prediction cannot be assessed from the present manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV, Eq. (53)] The claimed T^2 growth at high temperature is attributed to the Γ2 and Γ3 terms, which contain δ(E^2), δ(E^2)^2, and δ((E^2-m^2)(cosθ-1))^2. For massive on-shell external particles in the center-of-mass frame, E ≥ m > 0, so δ(E^2) has no support on the physical phase space. The remaining delta term is supported only at the boundary θ=0 (for E > m) or has an identically zero argument (for E = m), making the contribution either an ill-defined endpoint term or zero. Consequently, the high-temperature enhancement stated after Eq. (53) is not established by the computation presented.
  2. [IV, Eq. (55)] The regularization identity in Eq. (55) relates derivatives of the delta function to differences of functions with the same pole structure; it does not define products of delta functions with coinciding arguments, such as those appearing in Eq. (53). Moreover, the paper never actually applies Eq. (55) to transform the singular terms of Eq. (53) into a finite differential cross-section. The plots in Figures 1 and 7 and the discussion of the 'well-behaved part' explicitly exclude the delta terms, so they do not supply the missing regularization. As written, Eq. (53) remains an unregularized distribution rather than a physical cross-section.
  3. [IV, after Eq. (53)] The paper states that the product of delta functions with the same argument is an 'apparent singularity' that can be addressed by Eq. (55). This is not correct as stated: in standard distribution theory, products of delta functions with identical arguments are not well-defined singularities, and a derivative representation of a single delta function does not resolve the square of a delta. The manuscript needs either a rigorous definition of the product or a physically motivated limiting procedure that yields a finite cross-section; neither is provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV, Eq. (53)] The notation δ(En2)2 is unclear: the variable En is not defined, and it is not stated whether the superscript 2 denotes the square of the delta function or the square of its argument. Please clarify.
  2. [IV, Eq. (55)] The identity in Eq. (55) is introduced but never used in the derivation of any plotted or quoted cross-section; connecting it explicitly to Eq. (53) is necessary for the reader to understand its intended role.
  3. [References] Reference [41] gives the arXiv identifier as 2205.1451, which appears incomplete; the standard identifier for the cited paper is likely 2205.14517.
  4. [V. Conclusion] There is a typo in the first paragraph of the conclusion: 'scaterring' should be 'scattering'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the thermal and zero-temperature cross-sections are derived from the Lagrangian, TFD rules, and spinor projectors; author self-citations are illustrative only.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Section II defines the Rarita-Schwinger action and Feynman rules from Eqs. (1)-(7); Section III constructs the TFD thermal photon propagator in Eq. (31) and external-line contractions in Eqs. (38)-(39); Section IV squares the resulting tree-level amplitudes (43)-(44) and evaluates spin sums with the standard projectors (51)-(52). No fitted parameter enters, and the thermal functions Gamma1, Gamma2 and Gamma3 are explicit functions of E and beta given in Appendix A, so the claimed high-temperature behavior is a direct algebraic consequence of those functions, not of a quantity defined to equal the claimed T^2 growth. The zero-temperature ultra-relativistic total cross-section in Eq. (54) is a trace computation from the same amplitudes. The singular delta-products in Eq. (53) and the regularization identity (55) raise a mathematical-consistency question about whether the claimed terms contribute on the physical phase space, but that is a correctness concern, not circularity: the delta functions come from the thermal propagator input, not from the target result. Citations to the authors' earlier TFD papers ([41], [46], [47], [51]) appear only as examples of prior applications and are not load-bearing; the TFD machinery is re-derived here from standard references [44,45]. Therefore no step reduces by construction to its own input, and the circularity burden is negligible.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical constants are fitted to data. The hand-chosen model parameter is A=-1 in the generalized RS operator. The load-bearing assumptions are the consistency of the minimally coupled RS model, the TFD machinery, and especially the delta-function regularization.

free parameters (1)
  • Interaction parameter A in the generalized Rarita-Schwinger operator Λμν = -1
    Eq. (3) introduces an arbitrary real parameter A; the paper sets A=-1 in Eq. (4) to select the commonly used RS coupling. The computed cross-section depends on this hand-chosen model parameter, which is not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Minimal electromagnetic coupling of the Rarita-Schwinger field (Eqs. 1-4) yields a physically meaningful tree-level scattering amplitude.
    The paper cites known consistency problems of the RS model [23-30] but does not address how they affect the calculation; the vertex (6) is taken as valid.
  • domain assumption The TFD doubled Hilbert space and Bogoliubov transformations correctly describe finite-temperature scattering through M(β) = M(β) - M_tilde(β).
    Adopted in Sec. III; standard in the cited TFD literature, but its applicability to this spin-3/2 process is assumed without independent check.
  • ad hoc to paper The derivative-of-delta identity (55) is a legitimate regularization for the products of delta functions in Eq. (53).
    Stated without proof and not applied to the final result; the physical cross-section after regularization is never displayed.
  • standard math The Rarita-Schwinger spin-sum projectors (51) and (52) are correct.
    Used in Sec. IV to evaluate spinor sums; no derivation is given, but they are standard in the RS literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bhabha-like scattering in the Rarita-Schwinger model at finite temperature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/25K2HUK3

@misc{pith2026241219910,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bhabha-like scattering in the Rarita-Schwinger model at finite temperature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/25K2HUK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19910}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we study a Bhabha-like scattering in a massive Rarita-Schwinger model at finite temperature. The analysis is conducted at the tree level and addresses temperature effects through the thermofield dynamics formalism. We consider the usual fermion-antifermion into fermion-antifermion scattering and compute the cross-section in order to investigate the influence of the finite temperature effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19910 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Angular dependence of the differ￾ential cross-section at zero temperature for E < m. We have used E = 2 and e = 1. the mass m. As we can see, the smaller the value of the mass, the larger σT =0 becomes. Returning to Eq. (53), we observe that in the result of the temperature-dependent differential cross-section, there exists a product of Dirac delta functions with the same argument. Such terms are characteristic of t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Angular dependence of the differ￾ential cross-section at zero temperature for E ≈ m. We have used E = 1 and e = 1. m  6.0 m  8.0 m  10.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 θ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Energy dependence of the total cross section in the ultrarelativistic limit at zero temperature for several values of the mass m in the Rarita-Schwinger model. We have used e = 1 for this plot. To compute the Bhabha-like differential cross section at finite temperature, we taken into account the modification of the fermion-photon vertex imposed by the Rarita-Schwinger model and the proper thermal contribution to the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dependence on β and θ of the well-behaved sector of the differential cross section at finite temperature in the Rarita-Schwinger model. We have used E = 1, m = 6, and e = 1 for this plot. We also investigated the zero temperature differential cross section for the Bhab…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Higher Spin Field Theory

    A. Bengtsson, “Higher Spin Field Theory”, Texts and Monographs in Theoretical Physics, De Gruyter (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    One-loop effective actions and higher spins,

    L. Bonora, M. Cvitan, P. Dominis Prester, S. Giaccari, B. Lima de Souza and T. Štemberga, “One-loop effective actions and higher spins,” JHEP12 (2016), 084 [arXiv:1609.02088 [hep- th]]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    One-loop effective actions and higher spins. Part II,

    L. Bonora, M. Cvitan, P. Dominis Prester, S. Giaccari and T. Štemberga, “One-loop effective actions and higher spins. Part II,” JHEP01 (2018), 080 [arXiv:1709.01738 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Higher Spin Theory - Part I,

    R. Rahman, “Higher Spin Theory - Part I,” PoSModave VIII, 004 (2012) [arXiv:1307.3199 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

    SU(8) family unification with boson-fermion balance,

    S. L. Adler, “SU(8) family unification with boson-fermion balance,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A29 (2014) 1450130 [arXiv:1403.2099 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2014

  6. [6]

    Higher-spin gauge theories in three spacetime dimen- sions

    A. Campoleoni and S. Fredenhagen, “Higher-spin gauge theories in three spacetime dimen- sions” [arXiv:2403.16567 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Higher Spin — CFT Duality

    S. Giombi, “Higher Spin — CFT Duality” [arXiv:1607.02967 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Lagrangian formulation for arbitrary spin. 1. The boson case,

    L. P. S. Singh and C. R. Hagen, “Lagrangian formulation for arbitrary spin. 1. The boson case,” Phys. Rev. D9 (1974), 898-909

    work page 1974

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Lagrangian formulation for arbitrary spin. 2. The fermion case,

    L. P. S. Singh and C. R. Hagen, “Lagrangian formulation for arbitrary spin. 2. The fermion case,” Phys. Rev. D9 (1974), 910-920. 17

    1974

  2. [10]

    Massless Fields with Integer Spin,

    C. Fronsdal, “Massless Fields with Integer Spin,” Phys. Rev. D18 (1978), 3624

    1978

  3. [11]

    Massless Fields with Half Integral Spin,

    J. Fang and C. Fronsdal, “Massless Fields with Half Integral Spin,” Phys. Rev. D18 (1978), 3630

    1978

  4. [12]

    On a theory of particles with half integral spin,

    W. Rarita and J. Schwinger, “On a theory of particles with half integral spin,” Phys. Rev.60 (1941), 61

    1941

  5. [13]

    Properties of Supergravity Theory,

    D. Z. Freedman and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Properties of Supergravity Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 14 (1976), 912

    1976

  6. [14]

    Gauge Quantization for Spin 3/2 Fields,

    A. K. Das and D. Z. Freedman, “Gauge Quantization for Spin 3/2 Fields,” Nucl. Phys. B114 (1976), 271-296

    1976

  7. [15]

    Superspace Or One Thousand and One Lessons in Supersymmetry,

    S. J. Gates, M. T. Grisaru, M. Rocek and W. Siegel, “Superspace Or One Thousand and One Lessons in Supersymmetry,” Front. Phys.58 (1983), Addison-Wesley [arXiv:hep-th/0108200]

    1983 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Compton scattering off elementary spin 3/2 par- ticles,

    E. G. Delgado-Acosta and M. Napsuciale, “Compton scattering off elementary spin 3/2 par- ticles,” Phys. Rev. D80 (2009), 054002 [arXiv:0907.1124 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Massive gravitino scattering amplitudes and the unitarity cutoff of the new Fayet-Iliopoulos terms,

    I. Antoniadis, A. Guillen and F. Rondeau, “Massive gravitino scattering amplitudes and the unitarity cutoff of the new Fayet-Iliopoulos terms,” JHEP01, 043 (2023) [arXiv:2210.00817 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Covariant description of the Delta in nuclear matter,

    F. de Jong and R. Malfliet, “Covariant description of the Delta in nuclear matter,” Phys. Rev. C 46 (1992), 2567-2581

    1992

  11. [19]

    Field theory of nucleon to higher spin baryon transi- tions,

    V. Pascalutsa and R. Timmermans, “Field theory of nucleon to higher spin baryon transi- tions,” Phys. Rev. C60 (1999), 042201 [arXiv:nucl-th/9905065]

    1999 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Infrared regularization with spin 3/2 fields,

    V. Bernard, T. R. Hemmert and U. G. Meissner, “Infrared regularization with spin 3/2 fields,” Phys. Lett. B565 (2003), 137-145 [arXiv:hep-ph/0303198]

    2003 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lorentz-breaking Rarita-Schwinger model,

    M. Gomes, T. Mariz, J. R. Nascimento and A. Y. Petrov, “Lorentz-breaking Rarita-Schwinger model,” Phys. Scripta98 (2023) no.12, 125260 [arXiv:2211.12414 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Non-Abelian Car- roll–Field–Jackiw term in a Rarita-Schwinger model,

    M. Gomes, J. G. Lima, T. Mariz, J. R. Nascimento and A. Y. Petrov, “Non-Abelian Car- roll–Field–Jackiw term in a Rarita-Schwinger model,” Phys. Lett. B 845 (2023), 138141 [arXiv:2308.16308 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Properties of Half-Integral Spin Dirac-Fierz-Pauli Particles,

    P. A. Moldauer and K. M. Case, “Properties of Half-Integral Spin Dirac-Fierz-Pauli Particles,” Phys. Rev. 102 (1956), 279-285

    1956

  16. [24]

    Inconsistency of the local field theory of charged spin 3/2 particles,

    K. Johnson and E. C. G. Sudarshan, “Inconsistency of the local field theory of charged spin 3/2 particles,” Annals Phys.13 (1961), 126-145. 18

    1961

  17. [25]

    Noncausality and other defects of interaction lagrangians for particles with spin one and higher,

    G. Velo and D. Zwanziger, “Noncausality and other defects of interaction lagrangians for particles with spin one and higher,” Phys. Rev.188 (1969), 2218-2222

    1969

  18. [26]

    Propagation and quantization of Rarita-Schwinger waves in an external electromagnetic potential,

    G. Velo and D. Zwanziger, “Propagation and quantization of Rarita-Schwinger waves in an external electromagnetic potential,” Phys. Rev.186 (1969), 1337-1341

    1969

  19. [27]

    Theory of high-spin fields,

    A. Aurilia and H. Umezawa, “Theory of high-spin fields,” Phys. Rev.182 (1969), 1682-1694

    1969

  20. [28]

    Uniqueness of the interaction involving spin 3/2 particles,

    L. M. Nath, B. Etemadi and J. D. Kimel, “Uniqueness of the interaction involving spin 3/2 particles,” Phys. Rev. D3 (1971), 2153-2161

    1971

  21. [29]

    Classical Gauged Massless Rarita-Schwinger Fields,

    S. L. Adler, “Classical Gauged Massless Rarita-Schwinger Fields,” Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.8, 085022 [arXiv:1508.03380 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Quantized Gauged Massless Rarita-Schwinger Fields,

    S. L. Adler, “Quantized Gauged Massless Rarita-Schwinger Fields,” Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.8, 085023 [arXiv:1508.03382 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Production and Decay Properties of Possible Spin 3/2 Leptons,

    J. Leite Lopes, J. A. Martins Simoes and D. Spehler, “Production and Decay Properties of Possible Spin 3/2 Leptons,” Phys. Lett. B94, 367-372 (1980)

    1980

  24. [32]

    Possible Spin 3/2 Quarks and Scaling Violations in Neutrino Reactions,

    J. Leite Lopes, J. A. Martins Simoes and D. Spehler, “Possible Spin 3/2 Quarks and Scaling Violations in Neutrino Reactions,” Phys. Rev. D23, 797 (1981)

    1981

  25. [33]

    WEAK INTERACTIONS INVOLVING SPIN 3/2 LEPTONS,

    J. Leite Lopes, D. Spehler and J. A. Martins Simoes, “WEAK INTERACTIONS INVOLVING SPIN 3/2 LEPTONS,” Phys. Rev. D25, 1854 (1982)

    1982

  26. [34]

    EXOTIC FERMIONS,

    Y. Tosa and R. E. Marshak, “EXOTIC FERMIONS,” Phys. Rev. D32, 774 (1985)

    1985

  27. [35]

    LIMITS ON EXCITED SPIN 3/2 LEPTONS,

    S. R. Choudhury, R. G. Ellis and G. C. Joshi, “LIMITS ON EXCITED SPIN 3/2 LEPTONS,” Phys. Rev. D31, 2390 (1985)

    1985

  28. [36]

    Production and decay of single heavy spin 3/2 leptons in high-energy electron - positron collisions,

    F. M. L. Almeida, Jr., J. H. Lopes, J. A. Martins Simoes and A. J. Ramalho, “Production and decay of single heavy spin 3/2 leptons in high-energy electron - positron collisions,” Phys. Rev. D 53, 3555-3558 (1996) [arXiv:9509364 [hep-ph]]

    1996

  29. [37]

    Higher-spin particles at high-energy colliders,

    J. C. Criado, A. Djouadi, N. Koivunen, M. Raidal and H. Veermäe, “Higher-spin particles at high-energy colliders,” JHEP05, 254 (2021) [arXiv:2102.13652 [hep-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Elucidating the nature of hidden-charm pentaquark states with spin-32 through their electromagnetic form factors,

    U. Özdem, “Elucidating the nature of hidden-charm pentaquark states with spin-32 through their electromagnetic form factors,” Phys. Lett. B851, 138551 (2024) [arXiv:2402.03802 [hep- ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Searchfor excitedspin-3/2andspin-1/2leptons atlinearcolliders,

    O.Cakir andA.Ozansoy, “Searchfor excitedspin-3/2andspin-1/2leptons atlinearcolliders,” Phys. Rev. D77, 035002 (2008), [arXiv:0709.2134 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Search for excited spin-3/2 neutrinos at LHeC,

    A. Ozansoy, V. Arı and V. Çetinkaya, “Search for excited spin-3/2 neutrinos at LHeC,” Adv. 19 High Energy Phys.2016, 1739027 (2016) [arXiv:1607.04437 [hep-ph]]

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Meson scattering in a Lorentz-violating scalar QED at finite temperature,

    M. C. Araújo and R. V. Maluf, “Meson scattering in a Lorentz-violating scalar QED at finite temperature,” Annals Phys.444 (2022), 169036 [arXiv:2205.1451 [hep-ph]]

    2022

  34. [42]

    On Thermodynamics of Kerr Black Hole,

    S. C. Ulhoa, A. F. d. Santos, E. P. Spaniol and F. C. Khanna, “On Thermodynamics of Kerr Black Hole,” Annalen Phys.535 (2023) no.8, 2300173 [arXiv:2306.02950 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Thermofield dynamics: Quantum Chaos ver- sus Decoherence,

    Z. Xu, A. Chenu, T. Prosen and A. del Campo, “Thermofield dynamics: Quantum Chaos ver- sus Decoherence,” Phys. Rev. B103, no.6, 064309 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.103.064309 [arXiv:2008.06444 [quant-ph]]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Thermo field dynamics,

    Y. Takahashi and H. Umezawa, “Thermo field dynamics,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. B10, 1755-1805 (1996)

    1996

  37. [45]

    THERMO FIELD DYNAMICS AND CON- DENSED STATES,

    H. Umezawa, H. Matsumoto and M. Tachiki, “THERMO FIELD DYNAMICS AND CON- DENSED STATES,” (1982)

    1982

  38. [46]

    Lorentz-violating extension of scalar QED at finite temperature,

    M. C. Araújo, J. Furtado and R. V. Maluf, “Lorentz-violating extension of scalar QED at finite temperature,” Phys. Lett. B844 (2023), 138064 [arXiv:2306.06959 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Nonanalyticity of the non-Abelian five-dimensional Chern-Simons term,

    J. F. Assunção, J. Furtado and T. Mariz, “Nonanalyticity of the non-Abelian five-dimensional Chern-Simons term,” EPL134 (2021) no.4, 41002 [arXiv:2011.12333 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    e+e−→ l+l− scattering at finite temperature in the pres- ence of a classical background magnetic field,

    D. S. Cabral and A. F. Santos, “e+e−→ l+l− scattering at finite temperature in the pres- ence of a classical background magnetic field,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139 (2024) no.2, 190 [arXiv:2402.01457 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Temperature effects fore− +e+→ µ− +µ+ scattering in very special relativity,

    A. F. Santos and F. C. Khanna, “Temperature effects fore− +e+→ µ− +µ+ scattering in very special relativity,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus137 (2022) no.1, 101 [arXiv:2112.11422 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Effects of the CPT-even and Lorentz violation on the Bhabha scattering at finite temperature,

    P. R. A. Souza, A. F. Santos and F. C. Khanna, “Effects of the CPT-even and Lorentz violation on the Bhabha scattering at finite temperature,” Annals Phys.428 (2021), 168451 [arXiv:2103.08404 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Meson scattering in a non-minimally Lorentz- violating scalar QED at finite temperature,

    M. C. Araújo, R. V. Maluf and J. Furtado, “Meson scattering in a non-minimally Lorentz- violating scalar QED at finite temperature,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.8, 844 (2024) [arXiv:2406.17078 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Non-Abelian Aether-Like Term and Applications at Finite Temperature,

    A. F. Santos and F. C. Khanna, “Non-Abelian Aether-Like Term and Applications at Finite Temperature,” Adv. High Energy Phys.2022 (2022), 6703645 [arXiv:2209.09727 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Symmetry of massive Rarita-Schwinger fields,

    T. Pilling, “Symmetry of massive Rarita-Schwinger fields,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A20 (2005), 2715-2742 [arXiv:hep-th/0404131]. 20

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Radiatively induced Lorentz-violating operator of mass dimension five in QED,

    T. Mariz, “Radiatively induced Lorentz-violating operator of mass dimension five in QED,” Phys. Rev. D83, 045018 (2011) [arXiv:1010.5013 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    OncalculationofcrosssectionsinLorentzviolating theories,

    G.Rubtsov, P.SatuninandS.Sibiryakov, “OncalculationofcrosssectionsinLorentzviolating theories,” Phys. Rev. D86, 085012 (2012) [arXiv:1204.5782 [hep-ph]]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Electrodynamics with Lorentz-violating operators of arbi- trary dimension,

    V. A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes, “Electrodynamics with Lorentz-violating operators of arbi- trary dimension,” Phys. Rev. D80, 015020 (2009) [arXiv:0905.0031 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Real and Imaginary Time Field Theory at Finite Temperature and Density,

    N. P. Landsman and C. G. van Weert, “Real and Imaginary Time Field Theory at Finite Temperature and Density,” Phys. Rept.145 (1987), 141

    1987

  50. [58]

    An Introduction to Real- and Imaginary-time Thermal Field Theory, Lecture notes on Statistical Field Theory,

    Ch. G. van Weert, “An Introduction to Real- and Imaginary-time Thermal Field Theory, Lecture notes on Statistical Field Theory,” (2001). 21

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.