Formation of Quark-Gluon Plasma droplets under Ultra-Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions in the presence of magnetic fields with a modified hadronic medium

Agam K. Jha; Ananya Sharma; Divya Rathee

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Formation of Quark-Gluon Plasma droplets under Ultra-Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions in the presence of magnetic fields with a modified hadronic medium

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding kaons to a pion medium raises the free-energy peak of quark-gluon plasma droplets, making them more stable.

desk verdict The kaonic-medium extension is real but the magnetic-field insertion is dimensionally broken and loads every B-dependent conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03774 v1 pith:UZAHDJGI submitted 2026-08-04 hep-ph

Ananya Sharma , Divya Rathee , Agam K. Jha This is my paper

classification hep-ph PACS 12.38.Mh25.75.-q24.85.+p

keywords quark-gluonplasmakaonicmediumchemicalpotentialmagneticfieldeffectivemassphasetransitionThomas-Fermimodelheavyioncollisions

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 extends a statistical model of quark-gluon plasma droplets, built on Thomas-Fermi and Bethe density-of-states methods, by adding a kaonic component to the hadronic medium, an effective mass for quarks and gluons, a finite chemical potential, and a magnetic field. It claims that the total free energy, summed over up, down, and strange quarks, gluons, pions, kaons, and a surface term (Eq. 17), controls droplet stability: a finite peak that later falls to negative infinity signals a stable droplet, and a higher peak means greater stability. On that basis, the paper concludes that a pion-plus-kaon medium yields a higher free-energy peak than a purely pionic medium, so kaons stabilize the droplet and enlarge it. It also concludes that chemical potential and magnetic field act oppositely—raising mu lowers the peak while raising B lifts it—so their competition can confine droplets to finite radii, and that the entropy and heat-capacity curves indicate a weakly first-order phase transition rather than a strong first-order one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the total free energy F_total = F_u + F_d + F_s + F_g + F_pi + F_K + F_surface (Eq. 17). Each constituent free energy is built from a Thomas-Fermi/Bethe density of states; quarks and gluons use an effective mass M_eff that combines rest mass and thermodynamic mass, while pions and kaons keep rest masses only. The magnetic field and chemical potential enter as an additive shift in the single-particle energy, sqrt(M^2+k^2+B)-mu. F_peak as a function of droplet radius is the stability measure, and the comparison of pionic vs pionic+kaonic media plus the F_peak(mu,B) phase diagrams carry the argument.

What would settle it

Recompute F_peak with charged quarks given Landau-quantized energies (sqrt(M^2 + 2|eB|(n+1/2) + k_z^2)) instead of the additive shift; if the free-energy peak no longer rises monotonically with B or the stable high-B/low-mu region disappears, the central claim fails. Alternatively, a heavy-ion measurement finding a sharp entropy jump at T_c = 175 MeV would contradict the weakly first-order conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the stability of the droplet is read off the peak of F_total(R): including kaons alongside pions raises this peak both in the original system and when B and mu are present, so the droplet is more stable in a kaonic+pionic medium. The paper further finds that F_peak and R_peak fall as mu grows and rise as B grows, which lets the two parameters oppose each other and produce finite-sized stable droplets; the (mu,B) phase diagram shows the stable region at high B and low mu, with a blank high-mu/low-B region where no droplet forms. With an effective mass that includes rest mass, the droplet is less stable than in the dynamic-mass-only model, and the entropy shows no

Load-bearing premise

The magnetic field is treated as a simple addition to each particle's energy rather than as a field that forces charged particles into discrete Landau orbits; if that shortcut is not a valid effective description, the claimed balance between magnetic field and chemical potential, and the droplet phase diagrams, do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is correct, strangeness-rich collision events should produce QGP droplets that are more stable and larger than pion-only model estimates predict, since kaons raise the total free-energy peak in both the bare and the B+mu cases.
For each chemical potential there is a magnetic-field threshold below which no droplet forms; above it, the peak free energy grows nonlinearly with B, so the stability map over (mu,B) is a surface with a forbidden region.
Including rest mass via the effective mass lowers the free-energy peak compared with dynamic-mass-only treatments, so realistic droplets are less stable than earlier Thomas-Fermi/Bethe estimates suggested.
Because the entropy has no jump at T_c = 175 MeV but the heat capacity turns downward, the transition is weakly first-order, which changes the expected freeze-out signature from a sharp discontinuity to a smooth but rapid change.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's most fragile step is its additive treatment of B; replacing sqrt(M^2+k^2+B)-mu with Landau-quantized energies for charged quarks would show whether the stability gain and the no-droplet region survive, and is the natural next calculation.
The (mu,B) phase diagram implies that high-baryon-density, low-magnetic-field collisions should not form droplets; beam-energy scans that vary baryon chemical potential could look for a corresponding disappearance of droplet signatures at fixed B.
Since kaons carry strangeness, the stability gain suggests a testable correlation between kaon-to-pion ratios and droplet freeze-out radii in existing heavy-ion data—an implication the paper leaves implicit.
A weakly first-order transition implies critical fluctuations are suppressed relative to a strong first-order transition; net-baryon or strangeness cumulant measurements could probe this consequence.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know. The paper really does compute something new: a kaonic medium added to the pion gas, an effective mass that combines rest mass with the thermodynamic mass, and a mu–B stability map. The kaon part is a legitimate extension of the authors' earlier model. But the magnetic-field part is broken: B is inserted additively inside sqrt(M^2+k^2+B−mu), with B defined as x m_pi^2/e (MeV^2) and mu ~ 400 MeV. That is energy^2 minus energy under a square root. No Landau quantization, no effective-dispersion justification. Every B-dependent result, including the phase diagrams and the mu–B opposition, rests on that term.

The effective-mass expression (Eq. 12) is sloppy: m_d^2 = M_d, with M_d already an energy-squared quantity (from Eq. 2), so the formula can be made dimensionally consistent if m_d is meant to be sqrt(M_d). The text never says this cleanly, and a referee would have to ask. The 'higher peak = more stable' criterion is taken from earlier papers, so I won't quibble, but the paper doesn't justify why a higher barrier corresponds to stability. The entropy/heat-capacity argument for a weakly first-order transition is too quick; no discontinuity plus one downward-sloping C_V is not evidence without a latent-heat check.

On the upside, the paper is honest about building on [5,6], it doesn't oversell the novelty, and the kaon-stability trend is a real computed consequence rather than a fit. That counts for something. But no code, no parameter values (gamma_q, gamma_g, quark masses), and no data file are given, so none of the figures can be reproduced.

Bottom line: this is for the narrow community that works with the Thomas-Fermi/Bethe density-of-states model. There is a kernel of a useful extension, but as written the magnetic-field analysis—the paper's main new dimension—does not stand. I wouldn't spend referee time until the B insertion is either derived correctly or removed.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the stability of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) droplets in a Thomas-Fermi/Bethe density-of-states model, extending earlier work by the same group. It introduces an effective mass combining rest and thermodynamic masses, a non-zero chemical potential, an external magnetic field, and a kaonic-plus-pionic hadronic medium. The free energy is computed as a function of droplet radius, chemical potential, and magnetic field, and the paper claims that (i) kaons increase the free-energy peak and thus stabilize the droplet, (ii) chemical potential and magnetic field have opposing effects that allow finite-size stable droplets, and (iii) the phase transition is weakly first order. The paper also presents phase diagrams for F_peak(mu, B) and entropy/heat-capacity plots.

Significance. If the framework were valid, the paper would extend a phenomenological QGP-droplet model to a more realistic hadronic medium and provide a map of stability in the (mu, B) plane. The inclusion of kaons and the systematic exploration of effective mass, chemical potential, and magnetic field are potentially useful extensions. However, the central quantitative results rest on dimensionally inconsistent expressions and on an ad hoc magnetic-field insertion; the paper also omits essential parameter values and makes unsupported claims of agreement with lattice QCD. As written, the significance of the claims is not established.

major comments (6)

[II.B.1, Eq. (12)] The effective-mass formula is not dimensionally consistent as written. Equation (12) defines M_eff^2 = m_0^2 + sqrt(2) m_0 m_d + m_d^2 and states "m_d^2 = M_d". Since M_d in Eq. (2) has dimensions of energy (MeV), m_d has dimensions of sqrt(MeV). The three terms then have dimensions MeV^2, MeV^{3/2}, and MeV, and cannot be added. If instead m_d is intended to denote M_d itself, the definition m_d^2 = M_d is incorrect. This affects the effective-mass results in Sec. III.C and Fig. 3.
[II.A and II.B.3, Eqs. (5), (8), (14), (15), (16)] The magnetic field is inserted additively inside the square root of the single-particle dispersion as sqrt(M^2 + k^2 + B - mu)/T. Equation (16) defines B = x m_pi^2/e, i.e., B has units of energy^2, while mu is an energy (e.g., 400 MeV). Thus B and mu cannot be combined inside the same square root. For charged particles in a uniform magnetic field the standard treatment is Landau quantization, not an additive shift; no effective-theory argument is provided. All B-dependent conclusions, including the claimed mu-B opposition and the phase diagrams in Figs. 8-12, follow from this term and are therefore unsupported.
[II.A, II.B.1, III (general)] The paper does not specify the numerical values of the flow parameters gamma_q and gamma_g, the quark rest masses m_0, or the hadron masses m_pi and m_K used in the figures. Equation (9) defines k_min in terms of gamma_q,g, but no values are given. Without these inputs the calculations in Figs. 1-14 are not reproducible. The authors should provide a complete table of parameters and mention the integration limits and any convergence checks.
[III.A and Sec. II.A (stability criterion)] The criterion "the higher the peak of free energy, the more stable the QGP droplet" is used throughout to compare pionic vs kaonic-pionic media, but no thermodynamic justification is given. In the canonical ensemble, a maximum in F(R) is generally an instability barrier, not a sign of enhanced stability; stable configurations correspond to minima of the free energy. The authors cite Refs. [21-25], but the statement as written is at odds with standard thermodynamics. This criterion is load-bearing for the central claim that kaons stabilize the droplet.
[III.G and Conclusions] The phase-transition conclusion is internally inconsistent. Section III.G states that no discontinuity is observed in the entropy at T_C = 175 MeV (Fig. 13), but then concludes that the system undergoes a "weakly first-order phase transition" because the heat capacity decreases (Fig. 14). A first-order transition, however weak, has a latent heat and hence a discontinuity in entropy. The absence of an entropy jump is more naturally interpreted as a crossover or a continuous transition; this point needs to be reconciled.
[Abstract and Conclusions (lattice-QCD agreement)] The paper repeatedly claims that the results "are in accordance with lattice QCD simulations" (abstract, Sec. III, conclusions), but no quantitative comparison with lattice data is shown. The ranges of mu and B are said to be chosen from lattice QCD, but the stability conclusions are not compared to any lattice observable such as the equation of state or transition temperature.

minor comments (5)

[II.A, Eq. (6)] The notation gamma in F_surface is defined in Eq. (7) with two terms both involving gamma_g; this looks like a typo (one should probably be gamma_q). Please check.
[II.B.3] The text says "We also expand on the range of magnetic field included in previous analyses... from 0m_pi^2 to 45m_pi^2" but Eq. (16) writes B = x m_pi^2/e. The distinction between eB and B is confusing; define the physical magnetic field in natural units consistently.
[III.E, Fig. 9 caption] The caption says "logF_peak(mu) and R_peak(mu)" but the figure is for the magnetic-field variation; the axes/labels should be fixed.
[III.F, Fig. 11] The blank region in the heat map is attributed to configurations where the equations do not allow droplet formation, but the mathematical condition that produces this region is not explained.
[I and II] The paper contains several typos and awkward phrases, e.g., "magnetism" for "magnetic field" and "the previous studies reflect the above". A careful language edit is needed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed mu-B opposition is hard-wired into the additive B-mu insertion inherited from ref [5]; the kaon-stability result is a genuinely computed consequence.

self citation load bearing [Sec. II.A, sign-reversal sentence after Eq. (8)]
"At the same time, the inclusion of a magnetic field reverses the signs of the free energy of the quarks and gluons; hence, in the final expressions, the signs are reversed when there is an external magnetic field present[5]."

This sign reversal is the load-bearing input for all magnetic-field results, including the claimed stabilizing effect of B and the phase diagrams of Figs. 8-12. It is justified solely by ref [5], which shares an author (A.K. Jha) with the present paper; no derivation is provided here. The same self-citation supplies the additive B inside the single-particle energy in Eqs. (5), (8), (14), and (15). Thus the B-dependence of F_peak is an imported choice from the authors' own prior work, not an independently established first-principles result.
other [Sec. III.F and Conclusions; Eqs. (5), (8), (14), (15)]
"In the above sections, we observe from the results of chemical potential and magnetic field that these two parameters have an inverse effect on the QGP droplet. ... These opposing effects ... allow us to contain a QGP droplet within a finite radius with a non-infinite peak in free energy."

In every volume term the single-particle energy is sqrt(M^2+k^2+B-mu); hence B and mu enter only through the combination (B-mu). The derivative of each volume free-energy integrand with respect to mu is equal and opposite to its derivative with respect to B. The paper's conclusion that mu decreases stability while B increases it is therefore a direct algebraic consequence of the assumed combination, not a prediction from QCD dynamics. The phase diagram F_peak(mu,B) is essentially a plot of a function of B-mu, so the 'opposing effects' claim reduces by construction to the ansatz.

full rationale

The kaon-stability part of the paper is not circular: adding F_K introduces a new species with its own mass and degeneracy, and the resulting shift of the free-energy peak in Figs. 1-2 is a computed consequence rather than a fitted value. That claim therefore has independent content and would not by itself raise the score. The circularity is concentrated in the magnetic-field/chemical-potential claim. In every volume term, B and mu appear only as (B-mu) inside the square root, so the claimed 'opposing effects' and the phase diagrams are a re-expression of that combination, and that combination is inherited from the authors' previous work [5] without derivation. There is also an apparent dimensional inconsistency in the same insertion (B is quoted in MeV^2, e.g. 933345 MeV^2, while mu is 400 MeV, yet both appear inside one square root); this is a correctness risk rather than a circularity, but it reinforces that the B-mu opposition follows from an unvalidated ansatz rather than from an independent calculation. Because a central claimed result reduces by construction to an imported self-cited input, the appropriate score is 6, not 0-2.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced; the effective mass is a parameter modification rather than a new entity. The calculation rests on the density-of-states ansatz, the peak-stability criterion, and the additive-B modeling choice.

free parameters (2)

Flow parameters gamma_q, gamma_g
Phenomenological parameters in V_conf and M_d; no numerical values are given in this paper, they are inherited from refs. [5,6].
Upper integration limit coefficient on k_min = 5
The upper limit is set to 5 k_min because the free-energy integral is stated to saturate there; no convergence test or derivation is shown.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Thomas-Fermi/Bethe density of states (Eq. 4) describes the QGP droplet.
The whole free-energy calculation starts from this density-of-states form; no QCD derivation is provided.
domain assumption The confining potential V_conf (Eq. 13) with an effective mass is the correct single-particle potential.
Adopted from refs. [5,6,10] and modified with M_eff; its validity in a magnetized, kaonic medium is assumed.
ad hoc to paper A magnetic field enters as an additive shift in the particle energy, sqrt(M^2+k^2+B)-mu.
Introduced in Eqs. (5), (14), and (15) without derivation from Landau quantization; all B-dependent results rely on it.
domain assumption A higher non-negative peak in F(R) means a more stable droplet.
Stated in Sec. II.B.3 and supported by refs. [21-25]; it converts F(R) curves into stability statements.
domain assumption Pions and kaons retain only rest mass in the medium because of chiral symmetry.
Invoked in Sec. II.A; it shapes F_pi and F_K and the kaon comparison.
ad hoc to paper The integral over k from k_min to 5 k_min captures the full free energy.
Upper limit chosen empirically so the integral saturates; no convergence check is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Formation of Quark-Gluon Plasma droplets under Ultra-Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions in the presence of magnetic fields with a modified hadronic medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UZAHDJGI

@misc{pith2026260803774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Formation of Quark-Gluon Plasma droplets under Ultra-Relativistic Heavy Ion Collisions in the presence of magnetic fields with a modified hadronic medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UZAHDJGI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03774}
}

read the original abstract

We build upon the previous studies conducted in this domain using the density of states of various components of the quark-gluon plasma(QGP) modelled after the Thomas-Fermi and Bethe models. This study provides an analysis of the stability of the quark-gluon plasma droplet by the inclusion and variation of chemical potential and magnetic field. An effective mass term is included to account for both the rest mass and thermodynamic mass terms of the quarks and gluon. We also expand on the inclusion of a different meson, kaon, into the medium of the droplet. The analysis on these quantities is done by calculating the free energy of the system and examining it as a function of droplet radius, chemical potential and magnetic field to find conditions for stable droplet formation. We discover that a kaonic medium, along with a pre-existing pionic medium, provides greater stability to the system. At the same time, it is realised that the parameters of chemical potential and magnetic field, due to their opposing effect, help in containing the droplet. Further calculations on entropy and heat capacity yield information about the nature of the phase transition of the system. Our analysis and results are in accordance with lattice QCD simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03774 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Comparison in variation of free energy in a kaonic+pionic vs a pionic medium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Comparison of variation in free energy when different mass terms are included [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (11 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Comparison of variation in free energy when a zero and non-zero chemical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Variation in free energy as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Variation in log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7: Comparing the change in log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8: Variation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9: Comparing the change in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10: 3D phase diagram between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11: Heat Map for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12: Heat Map for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13: Entropy vs Temperature graph showing no discontinuity at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14: Heat Capacity vs Temperature graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Ramanathan, Y

R. Ramanathan, Y. K. Mathur, and K. K. Gupta, inProceedings of the IVth International Conference on Quark–Gluon Plasma(Jaipur, India, 2008)

work page 2008
[2]

Ramanathan, Y

R. Ramanathan, Y. K. Mathur, K. K. Gupta, and A. K. Jha, arXiv preprint (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0402272 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2004
[3]

Fermi and F

E. Fermi and F. Zeit, inProc. Camb. Phil. Soc, Vol. 23 (1927) p. 542

work page 1927
[4]

H. A. Bethe, Reviews of Modern Physics9, 69 (1937)

work page 1937
[5]

A. K. Jha and A. Srivastava, International Journal of Modern Physics A40, 2550108 (2025)

work page 2025
[6]

Ramanathan, Y

R. Ramanathan, Y. Mathur, K. Gupta, and A. K. Jha, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics 70, 027903 (2004)

work page 2004
[7]

ALICE Collaboration, Nature Physics13, 535 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

Cheng and A

B. Cheng and A. V. Olinto, Physical Review D50, 2421 (1994)

work page 1994

Show all 25 references

[9]

G. D. Yen and M. I. Gorenstein, Physical Review C59, 2788 (1999)

1999
[10]

Peshier, B

A. Peshier, B. K¨ ampfer, O. Pavlenko, and G. Soff, Physics Letters B337, 235 (1994)

1994
[11]

V. V. Goloviznin and H. Satz, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik C57, 671 (1993)

1993
[12]

Balian and C

R. Balian and C. Bloch, Annals of Physics60, 401 (1970)

1970
[13]

Mardor and B

I. Mardor and B. Svetitsky, Physical Review D44, 878 (1991)

1991
[14]

P. K. Srivastava, S. K. Tiwari, and C. P. Singh, Physical Review D82, 014023 (2010)

2010
[15]

Kumar, inEPJ Web of Conferences, Vol

Y. Kumar, inEPJ Web of Conferences, Vol. 182 (2018) p. 02070

2018
[16]

Soloveva, P

O. Soloveva, P. Moreau, and E. Bratkovskaya, Phys. Rev. C101, 045203 (2020)

2020
[17]

Tuchin, Advances in High Energy Physics2013, 490495 (2013)

K. Tuchin, Advances in High Energy Physics2013, 490495 (2013)

2013
[18]

G¨ ursoy, D

U. G¨ ursoy, D. Kharzeev, and K. Rajagopal, Physical Review C89, 054905 (2014)

2014
[19]

A. Das, H. Mishra, and R. K. Mohapatra, Physical Review D101, 034027 (2020)

2020
[20]

Ding, J.-B

H.-T. Ding, J.-B. Gu, A. Kumar, and S.-T. Li, arXiv preprintarXiv:2508.07532(2025), 19 arXiv:2508.07532 [hep-lat]

2025 arXiv
[21]

L. P. Csernai, J. I. Kapusta, and E. Osnes, Physical Review D67, 045003 (2003)

2003
[22]

J. I. Kapusta, R. Venugopalan, and A. P. Vischer, Physical Review C51, 901 (1995)

1995
[23]

L. P. Csernai and J. I. Kapusta, Physical Review D46, 1379 (1992)

1992
[24]

L. P. Csernai and J. I. Kapusta, Physical Review Letters69, 737 (1992)

1992
[25]

L. P. Csernai, J. Kapusta, G. Kluge, and E. E. Zabrodin, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik C58, 453 (1993). 20

1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Ramanathan, Y

R. Ramanathan, Y. K. Mathur, and K. K. Gupta, inProceedings of the IVth International Conference on Quark–Gluon Plasma(Jaipur, India, 2008)

work page 2008

[2] [2]

Ramanathan, Y

R. Ramanathan, Y. K. Mathur, K. K. Gupta, and A. K. Jha, arXiv preprint (2004), arXiv:hep- ph/0402272 [hep-ph]

work page arXiv 2004

[3] [3]

Fermi and F

E. Fermi and F. Zeit, inProc. Camb. Phil. Soc, Vol. 23 (1927) p. 542

work page 1927

[4] [4]

H. A. Bethe, Reviews of Modern Physics9, 69 (1937)

work page 1937

[5] [5]

A. K. Jha and A. Srivastava, International Journal of Modern Physics A40, 2550108 (2025)

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Ramanathan, Y

R. Ramanathan, Y. Mathur, K. Gupta, and A. K. Jha, Physical Review C—Nuclear Physics 70, 027903 (2004)

work page 2004

[7] [7]

ALICE Collaboration, Nature Physics13, 535 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Cheng and A

B. Cheng and A. V. Olinto, Physical Review D50, 2421 (1994)

work page 1994