pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.28718 · v1 · pith:6CYV74A2new · submitted 2026-05-27 · ⚛️ nucl-th · astro-ph.HE· cond-mat.quant-gas

Formation of bound composite vortices of a singly-quantized ¹S₀ vortex and half-quantized ³P₂ vortices in the ¹S₀-³P₂ coexisting phase in neutron stars

Tatsuhiro Hattori , Muneto Nitta , Kazuyuki Sekizawa This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 09:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th astro-ph.HEcond-mat.quant-gas
keywords neutron starssuperfluid vorticespulsar glitchesGross-Pitaevskii equationsJosephson couplinghalf-quantized vorticescrust-core boundary
0
0 comments X

The pith

Josephson coupling binds two half-quantized vortices and one singly-quantized vortex into a composite at the neutron star crust-core boundary.

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

The paper performs two-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii simulations of one singly-quantized vortex and two half-quantized vortices in the coexistence phase near the crust-core boundary. The Josephson term, which arises from the relative phase between the condensates, produces an attractive interaction that dominates the density-density coupling. This attraction is strong enough to overcome pinning potentials placed at separated locations and drive the vortices together. The resulting bound composite vortex is proposed as a building block for a large-scale network that could shape pulsar glitch behavior.

Core claim

The Josephson term induces a strong attractive interaction between the two HQVs and the SQV, which dominates over the density-density coupling. When pinning potentials are applied to the HQVs and the SQV at spatially separated locations, this attraction is found to be sufficiently strong to drive vortex depinning. These results suggest that two HQVs and one SQV can form a tightly bound composite vortex at the crust-core boundary.

What carries the argument

The Josephson coupling term in the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations for the 1S0 and 3P2 condensates, which generates phase-dependent attraction between the vortices.

If this is right

  • The Josephson attraction dominates the density-density interaction under the simulated conditions.
  • Pinning forces at spatially separated sites are overcome, resulting in depinning.
  • Two half-quantized vortices and one singly-quantized vortex form a tightly bound composite.
  • The composite forms at the crust-core boundary in the coexistence phase and may participate in a vortex network relevant to glitches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The binding may enable vortices to migrate across the crust-core interface more readily than independent pinning would allow.
  • Analogous phase-coupling effects could appear in other multi-component superfluid systems with similar coexistence regions.
  • Full three-dimensional simulations with realistic density profiles would test whether the composite remains stable away from the two-dimensional approximation.

Load-bearing premise

The two-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii model with the chosen density-density and Josephson coupling strengths accurately captures the energetics and dynamics of the real three-dimensional neutron-star crust-core interface.

What would settle it

A simulation identical in every respect except with the Josephson coupling constant set to zero, in which the vortices remain pinned at their separated locations rather than binding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28718 by Kazuyuki Sekizawa, Muneto Nitta, Tatsuhiro Hattori.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Josephson term density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the inter-vortex distance dHQV as a function of ζ2 for several values of ζ1. The results demonstrate that dHQV decreases monotonically with increasing ζ2, regardless of the value or sign of ζ1. The total Josephson energy EJos as a function of ζ2 is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Color maps of the ground-state configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Josephson term density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Inter-vortex distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Color maps of the ground-state configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Color maps of the ground-state configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Pulsar glitches are believed to originate from the dynamics of quantized vortices in the neutron superfluid interior. The outer core of a neutron star hosts a $^3\text{P}_2$ spin-triplet superfluid, whose half-integer quantum vortices (HQVs) are qualitatively different from the $^1\text{S}_0$ singly quantized vortices (SQVs) in the inner crust. It has recently been proposed that the coupling between these two vortex species gives rise to a large-scale vortex network, providing a candidate mechanism for the diversity of observed pulsar glitch phenomena. Using the Gross--Pitaevskii equations for the $^1\text{S}_0$ and $^3\text{P}_2$ condensates, we perform two-dimensional simulations of one SQV and two HQVs in a coexistence phase near the crust-core boundary, varying the density--density and Josephson coupling constants. We find that the Josephson term, arising from the relative phase between the two condensates, induces a strong attractive interaction between the two HQVs and the SQV, which dominates over the density--density coupling. When pinning potentials are applied to the HQVs and the SQV at spatially separated locations, this attraction is found to be sufficiently strong to drive vortex depinning. These results suggest that two HQVs and one SQV can form a tightly bound composite vortex at the crust-core boundary, with implications for the glitch mechanism in neutron stars.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses two-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii simulations of one singly-quantized ^1S_0 vortex and two half-quantized ^3P_2 vortices in a coexistence phase. It reports that the Josephson coupling term produces a strong attractive interaction that dominates the density-density coupling and is sufficient to drive depinning when pinning potentials are placed at spatially separated sites, implying that the three vortices can form a tightly bound composite at the crust-core boundary with possible implications for pulsar glitch mechanisms.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work supplies a dynamical mechanism for cross-interface vortex binding that emerges from the Josephson term rather than being inserted by hand, extending recent proposals for large-scale vortex networks in neutron-star interiors. The explicit demonstration that attraction can overcome separated pinning sites is a concrete, falsifiable outcome of the chosen equations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and simulation-setup paragraph] Abstract and simulation-setup paragraph: the central claim that Josephson-induced attraction drives depinning (and thus bound composites) at the crust-core boundary rests on 2D scalar GPEs. The ^3P_2 superfluid is described by a spin-triplet tensor order parameter, the interface contains strong 3D density gradients and possible entrainment, and pinning is realized by ad-hoc potentials rather than lattice structure; these choices are load-bearing for the astrophysical extrapolation.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the density-density and Josephson coupling constants are varied as free parameters to obtain the reported attraction and depinning. No justification for the explored range against microscopic calculations is given, and the outcome is stated to depend on the chosen strengths; this parameter dependence directly controls the 'sufficiently strong' conclusion.
  3. [Abstract (results on pinning)] Abstract (results on pinning): the depinning result is shown only for the parameter regime explored, with no error bars, convergence tests with respect to grid size or time step, or 3D checks described. These omissions affect the robustness of the claim that the attraction 'dominates' and produces a 'tightly bound' composite.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Introduction] Notation for the two condensates is introduced in the abstract but would benefit from a short reminder of the underlying pairing channels when first used in the main text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We respond point by point below, clarifying the scope of our effective model while acknowledging its limitations. Where appropriate we indicate revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and simulation-setup paragraph] Abstract and simulation-setup paragraph: the central claim that Josephson-induced attraction drives depinning (and thus bound composites) at the crust-core boundary rests on 2D scalar GPEs. The ^3P_2 superfluid is described by a spin-triplet tensor order parameter, the interface contains strong 3D density gradients and possible entrainment, and pinning is realized by ad-hoc potentials rather than lattice structure; these choices are load-bearing for the astrophysical extrapolation.

    Authors: We agree that the simulations employ two-dimensional scalar Gross-Pitaevskii equations as an effective description. The Josephson term is introduced phenomenologically to capture the leading phase-dependent coupling between the condensates. While the ^3P_2 order parameter is tensorial and the interface is three-dimensional, the 2D setup isolates the vortex-binding mechanism driven by the Josephson interaction near the crust-core boundary. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the introduction that explicitly states these approximations, references prior effective-model studies, and notes that entrainment and full tensor dynamics are left for future work. The ad-hoc pinning potentials are chosen precisely to demonstrate that the attraction can overcome spatially separated pinning sites; a lattice realization would be a natural extension but is not required to establish the existence of the binding effect. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the density-density and Josephson coupling constants are varied as free parameters to obtain the reported attraction and depinning. No justification for the explored range against microscopic calculations is given, and the outcome is stated to depend on the chosen strengths; this parameter dependence directly controls the 'sufficiently strong' conclusion.

    Authors: The coupling constants are varied to map the regime in which the Josephson term dominates the density-density interaction, consistent with the central claim. We have now included citations to microscopic estimates of the Josephson coupling strength in the ^1S_0-^3P_2 coexistence region and have added a sentence stating that the reported depinning occurs when the Josephson coefficient exceeds a threshold set by the density-density term. This makes the parameter dependence explicit rather than implicit. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract (results on pinning)] Abstract (results on pinning): the depinning result is shown only for the parameter regime explored, with no error bars, convergence tests with respect to grid size or time step, or 3D checks described. These omissions affect the robustness of the claim that the attraction 'dominates' and produces a 'tightly bound' composite.

    Authors: We have performed additional runs and now report in the revised manuscript that the depinning outcome is robust under grid refinement (halved and doubled spatial resolution) and time-step reduction. Error estimates on the measured vortex trajectories are included. Three-dimensional simulations with the full tensor order parameter remain outside the present scope. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Full three-dimensional simulations that incorporate the tensor structure of the ^3P_2 order parameter, realistic density gradients, entrainment, and a microscopic pinning lattice

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results emerge from explicit 2D GPE simulations with free parameters

full rationale

The paper solves the two-component Gross-Pitaevskii equations numerically in 2D, treating density-density and Josephson couplings as variable inputs that are scanned. The reported attraction, depinning, and composite formation are direct outputs of those integrations under applied pinning potentials; they are not presupposed by definition, fitted to the target observable, or justified solely by self-citation. No load-bearing step reduces to an input by construction. The model simplifications (2D, scalar order parameters, phenomenological couplings) raise questions of physical fidelity but do not constitute circularity in the derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the applicability of the two-component Gross-Pitaevskii description to the neutron-star coexistence phase and on the numerical values chosen for the two coupling constants. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • density-density coupling constant
    Varied in the simulations; controls overlap repulsion between the two condensates.
  • Josephson coupling constant
    Varied in the simulations; controls the phase-dependent attraction that produces binding.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Gross-Pitaevskii equations provide a valid mean-field description of the ^1S0 and ^3P2 superfluids near the crust-core boundary.
    Invoked by the choice of simulation method in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5834 in / 1414 out tokens · 21285 ms · 2026-06-29T09:24:00.312835+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

120 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · 42 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Physics Reports621, 127 (2016), memorial V olume in Honor of Gerald E. Brown

    2016

  2. [2]

    Haskell and A

    B. Haskell and A. Sedrakian, Superfluidity and superconduc- tivity in neutron stars, inThe Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars, edited by L. Rezzolla, P. Pizzochero, D. I. Jones, N. Rea, and I. Vidaña (Springer International Publish- ing, Cham, 2018) pp. 401–454

    2018

  3. [3]

    Özel and P

    F. Özel and P. Freire, Annual Review of Astronomy and As- trophysics54, 401 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, S. Bogdanov, Z. Ar- zoumanian, K. C. Gendreau, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, S. M. Morsink, P. S. Ray, M. T. Wolff, C. L. Baker, T. Cazeau, S. Manthripragada, C. B. Mark- wardt, T. Okajima, S. Pollard, I. Cognard, H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, L. Guillemot, M. Kerr, A. Parthasarathy, T. T...

    2021

  5. [5]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, S. Bogdanov, S. Guillot, S. M. Morsink, A. V . Bilous, Z. Arzoumanian, D. Choudhury, J. S. Deneva, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, M. Loewenstein, R. M. Ludlam, C. B. Mark- wardt, T. Okajima, C. Prescod-Weinstein, R. A. Remillard, M. T. Wolff, E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, M. Kerr, T. T. Pen-...

    2021

  6. [6]

    D. Page, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 081101 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    P. S. Shternin, D. G. Yakovlev, C. O. Heinke, W. C. G. Ho, and D. J. Patnaude, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters412, L108 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    Neutron Stars in the Laboratory

    V . Graber, N. Andersson, and M. Hogg, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1730015 (2017), arXiv:1610.06882 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Sedrakian and J

    A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark, Eur. Phys. J. A55, 167 (2019), arXiv:1802.00017 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Spin effects in superfluidity, neutron matter and neutron stars

    A. Sedrakian and P. B. Rau, Spin effects in superfluidity, neu- tron matter and neutron stars (2026), arXiv:2604.02782 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    J. A. S. M. A. Alpar, S. A. Langer, Astrophys. J.282, 533 (1984)

    1984

  12. [12]

    Fujiwara, K

    M. Fujiwara, K. Hamaguchi, N. Nagata, and M. E. Ramirez- Quezada, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024(03), 051

    2024

  13. [13]

    Y . B. Nam and K. Sekizawa, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2510.24167

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    D. H. Staelin and E. C. Reifenstein, Science162, 1481 (1968), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.162.3861.1481

    work page doi:10.1126/science.162.3861.1481 1968

  15. [15]

    L. M., V . A., and M. B., Nature220, 340 (1968), https://www.nature.com/articles/220340a0

    1968

  16. [16]

    Antonopoulou, B

    D. Antonopoulou, B. Haskell, and C. M. Espinoza, Rept. Prog. Phys.85, 126901 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    S. Zhou, E. Gügercino˘glu, J. Yuan, M. Ge, and C. Yu, Universe 8, 641 (2022), arXiv:2211.13885 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    P. W. Anderson and N. Itoh, Nature256, 25 (1975)

    1975

  19. [19]

    K. S. Cheng, D. Pines, M. A. Alpar, and J. Shaham, ApJ330, 835 (1988)

    1988

  20. [20]

    Warszawski and A

    L. Warszawski and A. Melatos, MNRAS415, 1611 (2011)

    2011

  21. [21]

    Mochizuki and T

    Y . Mochizuki and T. Izuyama, Astrophys. J.440, 263 (1995)

    1995

  22. [22]

    Y . S. Mochizuki, K. Oyamatsu, and T. Izuyama, The Astro- physical Journal489, 848 (1997)

    1997

  23. [23]

    Mochizuki, T

    Y . Mochizuki, T. Izuyama, and I. Tanihata, The Astrophysical Journal521, 281 (1999). 12

    1999

  24. [24]

    Haensel, A

    P. Haensel, A. Potekhin, and D. Yakovlev,Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure, Astrophysics and Space Sci- ence Library (Springer New York, 2007)

    2007

  25. [25]

    Andersson, K

    N. Andersson, K. Glampedakis, W. C. G. Ho, and C. M. Es- pinoza, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 241103 (2012)

    2012

  26. [26]

    Chamel, Phys

    N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 011101 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Warszawski and A

    L. Warszawski and A. Melatos, Mon. Not. R. Astrn. Soc.428, 1911 (2012)

    1911

  28. [28]

    Piekarewicz, F

    J. Piekarewicz, F. J. Fattoyev, and C. J. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. C90, 015803 (2014)

    2014

  29. [29]

    Antonelli, A

    M. Antonelli, A. Montoli, and P. M. Pizzochero, Insights into the physics of neutron star interiors from pulsar glitches, inAs- trophysics in the XXI Century with Compact Stars(WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2022) Chap. Chapter 7, pp. 219–281

    2022

  30. [30]

    P. S. Ray, S. Guillot, W. C. G. Ho, M. Kerr, T. Enoto, K. C. Gendreau, Z. Arzoumanian, D. Altamirano, S. Bogdanov, R. Campion, D. Chakrabarty, J. S. Deneva, G. K. Jaisawal, R. Kozon, C. Malacaria, T. E. Strohmayer, and M. T. Wolff, The Astrophysical Journal879, 130 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    R. Dib, V . M. Kaspi, and F. P. Gavriil, The Astrophysical Jour- nal673, 1044 (2008)

    2008

  32. [32]

    Amundsen and E

    L. Amundsen and E. Ostgaard, Nucl. Phys.A442, 163 (1985)

    1985

  33. [33]

    Takatsuka and R

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

    1993

  34. [34]

    J. A. Sauls, Superfluidity in the interiors of neutron stars, inTiming Neutron Stars, edited by H. Ögelman and E. P. J. van den Heuvel (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989) pp. 457–490

    1989

  35. [35]

    Baldo, J

    M. Baldo, J. Cugnon, A. Lejeune, and U. Lombardo, Nucl. Phys.A536, 349 (1992)

    1992

  36. [36]

    Triplet pairing in beta-stable neutron star matter

    O. Elgaroy, L. Engvik, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and E. Osnes, Nucl. Phys.A607, 425 (1996), arXiv:nucl-th/9604032 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  37. [37]

    V . A. Khodel, V . V . Khodel, and J. W. Clark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3828 (1998), arXiv:nucl-th/9807034 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  38. [38]

    3P_2-3F_2 pairing in neutron matter with modern nucleon-nucleon potentials

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1921

  39. [39]

    V . V . Khodel, V . A. Khodel, and J. W. Clark, Nucl. Phys.A679, 827 (2001), arXiv:nucl-th/0001006 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  40. [40]

    M. V . Zverev, J. W. Clark, and V . A. Khodel, Nucl. Phys. A720, 20 (2003), arXiv:nucl-th/0301028 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  41. [41]

    Nuclear pairing from microscopic forces: singlet channels and higher-partial waves

    S. Maurizio, J. W. Holt, and P. Finelli, Phys. Rev.C90, 044003 (2014), arXiv:1408.6281 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [42]

    S. K. Bogner, R. J. Furnstahl, and A. Schwenk, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.65, 94 (2010), arXiv:0912.3688 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  43. [43]

    Triplet Pairing in pure neutron matter

    S. Srinivas and S. Ramanan, Phys. Rev.C94, 064303 (2016), arXiv:1606.09053 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Tabakin, Phys

    F. Tabakin, Phys. Rev.174, 1208 (1968)

    1968

  45. [45]

    Hoffberg, A

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

    1970

  46. [46]

    Tamagaki, Progress of Theoretical Physics44, 905 (1970), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/44/4/905/5386708/44-4-905.pdf

    R. Tamagaki, Progress of Theoretical Physics44, 905 (1970), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/44/4/905/5386708/44-4-905.pdf

    1970

  47. [47]

    Takatsuka and R

    T. Takatsuka and R. Tamagaki, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement112, 27 (1993), https://academic.oup.com/ptps/article- pdf/doi/10.1143/PTP.112.27/5205856/112-27.pdf

    work page doi:10.1143/ptp.112.27/5205856/112-27.pdf 1993

  48. [48]

    Takatsuka, Progress of Theoretical Physics47, 1062 (1972), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/47/3/1062/5443245/47-3-1062.pdf

    T. Takatsuka, Progress of Theoretical Physics47, 1062 (1972), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/47/3/1062/5443245/47-3-1062.pdf

    1972

  49. [49]

    R. W. Richardson, Phys. Rev. D5, 1883 (1972)

    1972

  50. [50]

    Sauls and J

    J. Sauls and J. Serene, Phys. Rev. D17, 1524 (1978)

    1978

  51. [51]

    Magnetic Properties of Quantized Vortices in Neutron $^3P_2$ Superfluids in Neutron Stars

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  52. [52]

    Phase structure of neutron $^{3}P_{2}$ superfluids in strong magnetic fields in neutron stars

    S. Yasui, C. Chatterjee, and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. C99, 035213 (2019), arXiv:1810.04901 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Yasui, C

    S. Yasui, C. Chatterjee, M. Kobayashi, and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. C100, 025204 (2019), arXiv:1904.11399 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Muzikar, J

    P. Muzikar, J. A. Sauls, and J. W. Serene, Phys. Rev. D21, 1494 (1980)

    1980

  55. [55]

    J. A. Sauls, D. L. Stein, and J. W. Serene, Phys. Rev. D25, 967 (1982)

    1982

  56. [56]

    Masuda and M

    K. Masuda and M. Nitta, PTEP2020, 013D01 (2020), arXiv:1602.07050 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    L. B. Leinson, MNRAS498, 304 (2020)

    2020

  58. [58]

    Kobayashi and M

    M. Kobayashi and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. C105, 035807 (2022), arXiv:2203.09300 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Kobayashi and M

    M. Kobayashi and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. C107, 045801 (2023), arXiv:2209.07205 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Yasui and M

    S. Yasui and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. C101, 015207 (2020), arXiv:1907.12843 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Yasui, C

    S. Yasui, C. Chatterjee, and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. C101, 025204 (2020), arXiv:1905.13666 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  63. [63]

    L. B. Leinson, Phys. Lett.B702, 422 (2011), arXiv:1107.4025 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  64. [64]

    L. B. Leinson, Phys. Rev.C85, 065502 (2012), arXiv:1206.3648 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    L. B. Leinson, Phys. Rev.C87, 025501 (2013), arXiv:1301.5439 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  66. [66]

    P. F. Bedaque and A. N. Nicholson, Phys. Rev.C87, 055807 (2013), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.C89,no.2,029902(2014)], arXiv:1212.1122 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  67. [67]

    Bedaque and S

    P. Bedaque and S. Sen, Phys. Rev. C89, 035808 (2014)

    2014

  68. [68]

    P. F. Bedaque and S. Reddy, Phys. Lett.B735, 340 (2014), arXiv:1307.8183 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    P. F. Bedaque, A. N. Nicholson, and S. Sen, Phys. Rev.C92, 035809 (2015), arXiv:1408.5145 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    L. B. Leinson, Phys. Rev.C81, 025501 (2010), arXiv:0912.2164 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  71. [71]

    L. B. Leinson, Phys. Lett.B689, 60 (2010), arXiv:1001.2617 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  72. [72]

    L. B. Leinson, Phys. Rev.C82, 065503 (2010), arXiv:1012.5387 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  73. [73]

    L. B. Leinson, Phys. Rev.C83, 055803 (2011), arXiv:1007.2803 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  74. [74]

    L. B. Leinson, Phys. Rev.C84, 045501 (2011), arXiv:1110.2145 [nucl-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  75. [75]

    $^3P_2$ Superfluids Are Topological

    T. Mizushima, K. Masuda, and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. B95, 140503 (2017), arXiv:1607.07266 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  76. [76]

    Mizushima, S

    T. Mizushima, S. Yasui, and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013194 (2020), arXiv:1908.07944 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2020

  77. [77]

    Mizushima, S

    T. Mizushima, S. Yasui, D. Inotani, and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. C104, 045803 (2021), arXiv:2108.01256 [nucl-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  78. [78]

    Masaki, T

    Y . Masaki, T. Mizushima, and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013193 (2020), arXiv:1908.06215 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    Masaki, T

    Y . Masaki, T. Mizushima, and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. B105, L220503 (2022), arXiv:2107.02448 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    work page arXiv 2022

  80. [80]

    Masaki, T

    Y . Masaki, T. Mizushima, and M. Nitta, inEncyclopedia of Condensed Matter Physics (Second Edition), V ol. 2 (Elsevier,

Showing first 80 references.