Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 42 references

A fermion primer

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read No Weyl fermion propagator exists; the Dirac stand-in is logically unsound.

desk verdict A solid fermion tutorial whose central claim about the non-existence of Weyl propagators is undercut by the paper's own Section 3.1.4. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10925 v1 pith:H4FOBAOG submitted 2026-08-11 hep-th

Loriano Bonora , Roberto Soldati This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords WeylfermionsDiracMajoranachiralpropagatorPauli-VillarsregularizationanomalyWickrotationindextheorem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This review paper sets out to establish that a free Weyl fermion has no Feynman propagator, because its kinetic operator is the Dirac operator multiplied by a chiral projector and therefore has no inverse. From this it follows that the widespread practice of substituting the massless Dirac propagator in chiral calculations is not a harmless trick but a logical loophole: it can accidentally produce correct numbers, but it cannot prove anything. The paper's positive proposal is to compute Weyl amplitudes by enlarging the theory with a spectator axial-vector field, obtaining an ordinary Dirac propagator, and only at the end taking the limit that recovers the chiral vertex. The same framework is used to separate Weyl from massless Majorana fermions, to delimit when Pauli-Villars regularization is legitimate, and to warn that Wick-rotating the classical Weyl action produces a different theory. The authors flag that the index-theoretic backbone of their argument is proven in Euclidean signature and that the curved-spacetime version of the spectator method is deferred to the literature.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the chiral kinetic operator $\mathbb{D}_L=\mathbb{D}P_L=\mathbb{D}(1-\gamma_5)/2$, whose non-invertibility is the paper's main structural claim. The derivation runs through the causal Green's function of a chiral bispinor, where the on-shell projector structure survives but the off-shell matrix $W=(p_0-\sigma\cdot p)/(2|\mathbf{p}|)$ ceases to be a projector, showing that chirality cannot be encoded in a four-component propagator. The alternative machinery is the spectator-field construction: a Dirac fermion with both vector and axial-vector couplings, quantized with an ordinary propagator, whose $V\to V/2,\ A\to -V/2$ limit returns the Weyl vertex. Finally, the family's index theorem supplies the cohomological obstruction: when the index bundle of the chiral half of the Dirac operator is nontrivial, the operator cannot be inverted and consistent chiral anomalies appear.

What would settle it

Construct a well-defined, Lorentz-covariant causal Green's function $S$ that satisfies $\mathbb{D}_L S=P_R$ (and $S\,\mathbb{D}_L=P_L$ on the chiral subspace) in a nontrivial gauge background, derived from a functional measure built from chiral bispinors alone; if such an object can be exhibited, the paper's non-existence claim is refuted. A weaker check would be to find one calculation where the two-component propagator and the spectator method give different observable correlation functions beyond anomaly coefficients.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Weyl-Dirac operator $\mathbb{D}_L=\mathbb{D}P_L$ is non-invertible, so the eigenvalue problem for a Weyl kinetic term is not well posed and no causal Green's function exists for a chiral bispinor alone. The derived two-by-two Green's functions $S_c$ and $\bar S_c$ are shown to be fully causal inverses of the two-component operators $\bar\sigma\cdot\partial$ and $\sigma\cdot\partial$, but the off-shell matrix $W=(p_0-\sigma\cdot p)/(2|\mathbf{p}|)$ is not a projector, so chirality is lost in the time-ordered product; consequently, the usual formula $S_{\rm Weyl}=S_{\rm Dirac}P_L$ is formally false. The correct route, according to the paper, is to couple a Dirac fermion to both a vector and an axial-vector spectator potential, quantize with the ordinary Dirac propagator, and then take the limit $V\to V/2,\ A\to -V/2$ that reproduces the chiral vertex. The paper also argues that massless Majorana and Weyl fermions are distinct objects, that a regularized Pauli-Villars propagator is not the inverse of any local kinetic operator, and that Wick rotating the classical action lands in a non-equivalent Euclidean theory. It concludes by linking the non-existence of the Weyl propagator to 'obstructive' consistent chiral anomalies through the family's index theorem, with the caveat that the theorem's proof is available only in Euclidean signature.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if one accepts the standard two-component Weyl propagator $i\,\sigma\!\cdot\!p/(p^2+i\varepsilon)$ as a legitimate Green's function; the paper's conclusion depends on requiring instead that a genuine Weyl propagator be the exact inverse of the full four-component operator $\mathbb{D}P_L$, with chirality enforced by an off-shell projector $W$ that fails for the two-by-two object.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every perturbative Weyl-fermion calculation that uses a massless Dirac propagator must be re-derived with the spectator method before its result can be considered probative.
  • The one-loop Weyl self-energy is regularization independent and massless: dimensional, Pauli-Villars, and cutoff regulators give the same universal form, with no mass term generated.
  • Pauli-Villars regularization cannot be promoted to a local classical action, because the sum of regularized propagators is not the inverse of any local kinetic operator.
  • Applying a Wick rotation to the classical Weyl action yields a different theory; a Euclidean Weyl action cannot be real, and the Euclidean bispinor's two chiral halves transform under equivalent representations.
  • Consistent chiral anomalies are symptoms of the missing Weyl propagator; the family's index theorem gives a rule any acceptable regularization must obey in order for the chiral kinetic operator to be invertible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Going beyond the paper, one can read its anomaly conclusion as a general criterion: a regularization scheme for a chiral theory is acceptable only if it leaves the Weyl kinetic operator effectively invertible, which would make anomaly cancellation a kinematical consistency condition rather than a dynamical accident.
  • A direct extension would be to test the spectator method against the Dirac-substitution trick in an exactly solvable two-dimensional chiral model, where full correlation functions can be compared and the paper's claim predicts disagreements that the anomaly coefficients alone would not reveal.
  • If the Weyl-versus-Majorana separation is right, neutrino-mass model building should be re-examined: the experimental helicity facts cited by the paper make a Majorana mass term an awkward fit, so oscillations would need a different origin.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a review/tutorial on Dirac, Weyl, and Majorana fermions in four dimensions. It reviews Clifford algebras, spin states, canonical quantization, and then develops a series of theses: that the Weyl fermion propagator does not exist; that replacing it by a massless Dirac propagator is logically flawed; that the Bardeen spectator-field method is the correct way to compute Weyl-fermion amplitudes; that Wick rotation cannot be performed at the level of the classical Weyl action; and that the non-invertibility of the Weyl-Dirac operator is tied to obstructive anomalies through the family index theorem. It also argues that Weyl and massless Majorana fermions are fundamentally different objects. The paper contains substantial tutorial material, especially in Sections 2 and 3, and a detailed one-loop comparison of dimensional, Pauli-Villars, and cutoff regularizations in Section 5.

Significance. If the central thesis were correct, the paper would have broad consequences: standard perturbative treatments of Weyl fermions that employ Dirac propagators would lack probative value, and the Bardeen method would be the only reliable route. The paper also provides useful explicit material: the canonical construction of Weyl and Majorana spin states, the Majorana real representation, and a regularization-independent one-loop result in Section 5 showing that no mass term is generated for a chirally coupled Weyl field. However, the advertised central claim fails. Section 3.1.4 of the paper itself constructs the standard two-component Weyl causal Green's functions and verifies that they satisfy the inverse equation; the later non-existence claim is obtained only by imposing an extra, unjustified requirement that the propagator be the inverse of the four-component operator D P_L and preserve chirality as an off-shell projector. Because the main thesis rests on that stipulative requirement, the broad negative conclusions of Sections 6 and 8 are not supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1.4, Eqs. (68)–(70)] The paper derives two-component causal Green's functions S_c and \bar S_c and verifies the inverse relations \bar σ·∂ S_c = δ^{(4)} and σ·∂ \bar S_c = δ^{(4)}. These are legitimate Weyl propagators in the standard two-component formalism, with Fourier transforms i(p_0 \mp σ·p)/(p^2+iε). The subsequent rejection of these objects because the off-shell matrix W=(p_0 − σ·p)/(2℘) is not a projector is not a valid physical or mathematical objection: the projector property is never used in deriving the delta-function identities, and a Green's function does not need to be a projector. The standard Weyl propagator iσ·p/(p^2+iε) is exactly such an inverse.
  2. [§6, Eqs. (191)–(192)] The non-existence claim is based on the non-invertibility of the four-component operator D_L = D P_L. But D P_L maps the left-handed subspace into the right-handed subspace; it is not an endomorphism of a single space, so the absence of an ordinary inverse of this four-by-four operator is a trivial and unsurprising fact. The physically relevant kinetic operator for a left-handed Weyl fermion is the two-component operator σ·∂, which maps the left-handed space to itself and is invertible. Therefore the statement in Section 6 that 'the corresponding usual formulas for the chiral Weyl quantum theory do not exist at all' is contradicted by the paper's own Section 3.1.4.
  3. [§3.1.4, final paragraph, and §6] The paper asserts that 'in order to get a bona fide fully causal inversion for the kinetic differential operator of a massless spinor we have to turn back to Dirac bispinors.' This assertion is stipulative rather than derived. The two-component propagators already provide fully causal inversions of the Weyl kinetic operators, as shown in Eqs. (68) and (70). If one redefines a 'Weyl propagator' to mean a four-by-four inverse of D P_L that preserves chirality as an off-shell projector, then non-existence follows by construction; but that is a tautology, not a physical result, and it cannot support the paper's conclusions about the Dirac-replacement trick or the relation between missing propagators and anomalies.
  4. [§5 and §6] There is an internal tension between Section 5 and Section 6. Section 5 presents a successful one-loop calculation using the Dirac propagator and concludes that the regularization-independent result preserves chirality and generates no mass term. Section 6 then states that 'all the results (even ours own) obtained with such procedure ... are intrinsically contradictory.' This transition from 'works here' to 'intrinsically contradictory' is driven entirely by the unsupported non-existence thesis of Section 6. Without that thesis, the logical criticism of the Dirac-replacement trick collapses, and the remaining discussion in Section 6 reduces to a warning that mixing chiralities can be dangerous in some calculations—a valid but much weaker point.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6] The text says 'As it has been shown in the example of Section 4,' but the one-loop regularization example appears in Section 5.
  2. [§6.2] There is a typo: 'Sectiom 5' should read 'Section 5.'
  3. [§3.2.5 and §8] The name Atiyah-Singer is misspelled as 'Atiah-Singer' in several places.
  4. [§9] The Conclusion contains a typo: 'te original Action integral' should read 'the original Action integral.'
  5. [§6] The phrase 'a bag at the very beginning' appears to be a typo for 'a bug at the very beginning,' and the phrase 'a desperate deception' is rhetorical; a technical statement would be preferable.
  6. [§3.1.4] The notation alternates between \bar σ and \tilde σ for the same two-by-two sigma matrices; a single convention would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The advertised claim that 'the Weyl fermion propagator does not exist' (abstract, Section 6) is an artifact of definition: Section 3.1.4 derives valid 2x2 propagators and verifies sigma·partial S_c = delta, then rejects them because the off-shell W matrix fails to be a projector, a criterion never required of Green's functions.

  1. self definitional [Section 6, 'Weyl and Dirac propagators', around eqs. (191)-(192) and the closing sentence of that passage]
    "This is reflected in the fact that the inverse of /DL = /DPL = PR/D (191) does not exist, since it is the product of an invertible operator times a projector. The full propagator of a Weyl fermion does not exist in this naive form... It is clear that the corresponding usual formulas for the chiral Weyl quantum theory do not exist at all."

    Non-existence is stipulated by defining the Weyl propagator as the inverse of the single 4-component operator /D P_L: since P_L projects onto the left-handed subspace while /D maps left-handed to right-handed spinors, /D P_L is not an endomorphism of the full space and its non-invertibility follows by construction. Section 3.1.4 already gave the 2x2 inverses satisfying sigma·partial S_c = delta and sigma·partial S_c = delta (eqs. 68, 70), i.e. the standard Weyl propagators in the natural two-component formalism, so the 'does not exist' verdict requires discarding the paper's own verified construction.

  2. self definitional [Section 3.1.4, 'Causal Green's functions', immediately after eqs. (68)-(70)]
    "It turns out that in the above off-shell expression the rank-two square matrix W = (p0 - sigma·p)/(2wp) is no longer a projector on left-handed two-component spin states because W^2 = (p0^2 - 2p0 sigma·p + p^2)/(4p^2) != W, TrW = p0/wp in R as it was true for the corresponding on-shell matrix with p0 = wp. Hence, in the process of inversion for the Weyl differential operators, leading to the Weyl causal Green's functions, the very notion of chirality is definitely and unavoidably lost."

    The preceding lines verified the defining Green's-function identities sigma·partial S_c = delta (68) and sigma·partial S_c = delta (70), so S_c and S_c are genuine inverses of the Weyl operators. The projector criterion W^2 = W comes from the on-shell spin-state construction (eqs. 19-21) and is never used in deriving the delta-function identities; it is a property of spin projectors, not a requirement on propagators. Rejecting a verified inverse because its off-shell coefficient matrix is not idempotent imports a foreign criterion after the fact, so 'chirality is lost' is an assertion by definition rather than a consequence of the computation.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim — the Weyl fermion propagator does not exist, so the Dirac-propagator substitute is 'flawed at the very origin by a logical loophole' (abstract) — derives from the paper's own stipulative definitions rather than from its computations. In Section 3.1.4 the authors construct the 2x2 causal Green's functions S_c and S_c and verify the defining inverse equations sigma·partial S_c = delta^(4) (68) and sigma·partial S_c = delta^(4) (70); the Fourier transform of S_c is i(p0 - sigma·p)/(p^2 + i eps), the standard Weyl propagator. They then discard these bona fide inverses because the off-shell coefficient matrix W = (p0 - sigma·p)/(2wp) is not a projector. The projector property (eqs. 19-21) is an on-shell spin-state identity and is never a condition for being a Green's function; it plays no role in deriving (68)-(70). Rejecting a verified inverse on that criterion, and then declaring in Section 6 that the 4x4 operator /D P_L does not have an inverse 'since it is the product of an invertible operator times a projector', converts a truism of linear algebra (P_L projects into one chirality while /D maps it to the other, so /D P_L is not an endomorphism) into the paper's central negative result. The conclusion 'the corresponding usual formulas for the chiral Weyl quantum theory do not exist at all' is therefore true only under a definition of 'Weyl propagator' that excludes the paper's own successful 2x2 construction. Self-citations to [1,2,3] and [28,29] are frequent (the paper states it re-elaborates 'material taken... from our past research'), and Section 8's identification of type-O anomalies with non-invertibility of the Weyl-Dirac operator leans on [3,29]; but these citations are secondary to the definitional step, so the circularity is of the self-definitional kind rather than a pure citation chain. The paper is not wholly circular: the one-loop DR/PV/cutoff comparison in Section 5, the Wick-rotation analysis in Section 7, and the Weyl/Majorana distinction are self-contained or externally grounded. Score 6: the central advertised claim reduces by construction, while substantial independent content remains.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the regulators lambda_s, C_s, M_s in Section 5 are formal and cancel in the renormalized result. No new physical entities, dimensions, or forces are introduced. The spectator right-handed fermion and axial vector field are standard tools from the cited literature. The argument depends instead on the definitions and background assumptions listed above.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard classification of real and complex Clifford algebras and their spinor representations.
    Used throughout Section 2 and Table 1 to assert that Weyl and Majorana representations are incompatible in 4d.
  • ad hoc to paper A valid Weyl propagator must be the inverse of the 4-component operator D P_L and must preserve chirality by remaining a projector off-shell.
    This stipulation is introduced in Section 3.1.4, where the 2x2 Green's function S_c is discarded because W is not a projector, and it is the basis for the non-existence claim in Section 6.
  • domain assumption The Atiyah-Singer family index theorem, proved in Euclidean signature, is assumed to hold on Minkowski spacetime.
    Explicitly stated in Section 8: 'we consider its statement valid also in Minkowski spacetimes'.
  • ad hoc to paper The Pauli-Villars regularized spinor propagator cannot be the inverse of any local differential operator, so no local classical Action can produce it.
    Asserted without proof in Section 5, remark 3, and used to argue that PV regularization is only an algorithmic device, not a field-theoretic regulator.
  • domain assumption The Goldhaber et al. helicity measurements imply that neutrinos are Weyl and rule out a Majorana mass.
    Used in Sections 3.2.5 and 6.2; the 1958 helicity measurement alone does not exclude a predominantly left-handed Majorana neutrino at relativistic energies, so this is a strong extra assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A fermion primer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H4FOBAOG

@misc{pith2026260810925,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A fermion primer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H4FOBAOG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10925}
}
read the original abstract

This is a review paper intended to illustrate a few critical issues concerning Dirac, Weyl and Majorana fermions and their differences. The first part consists in basic introductions to fermions, and more in detail to fermions in 4d, focusing in particular in what differentiate the three type of fermions: chirality, helicity, mass, field equations, properties under discrete symmetry transformations, Actions, Observables. On this basis we tackle a series of challenging and sometime controversial problems: the non-existence of Weyl fermion propagators, and the ways to circumvent it; the regularizations for Weyl fermion amplitudes, in particular the appropriateness of using the PV regularization; the definition of a functional integral for Weyl fermion, the difference between Weyl and massless Majorana fermions and the difference between the Dirac and Majorana mass terms. Most notably we come to the conclusion that the trick of replacing the non-existing Weyl fermion propagator with a massless Dirac one, although it may yield in some cases correct results, is flawed at the very origin by a logical loophole. We then show which is the correct way to proceed in this case. We consider also the topic of applying the Wick rotation at the classical Action level for Weyl fermions and conclude that this procedure leads to a nonequivalent theory. Finally, although anomalies are not the central focus here, we have deemed it useful to summarily review the relation, and its cohomological basis, that exists between the lack of a Weyl fermion propagator (non-invertibility of the Weyl-Dirac operator) and the appearance of dangerous anomalies in the theory.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dirac, Majorana, Weyl in 4d

    L. Bonora, R. Soldati and S. Zalel,Dirac, Majorana, Weyl in 4d, Universe 6 (2020) 8, 111. [arXiv:2006.04546[hep-th]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    On the trace anomaly for Weyl fermions

    L. Bonora and R. Soldati,On the trace anomaly for Weyl fermions, arXiv:1909.11991 [hep-th]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1909

  3. [3]

    Bonora,Fermions and Anomalies in Quantum Field Theories, Springer (2023)

    L. Bonora,Fermions and Anomalies in Quantum Field Theories, Springer (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison:Dimensional renormalization and the action principle, Comm. Math. Phys52(1977) 11-38

    work page 1977

  5. [5]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison:Dimensionally renormalized Green’s functions for theories with massless particles. I, Comm. Math. Phys52(1977) 39-54

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Maison:Dimensionally renormalized Green’s functions for theories with massless particles. II, Comm. Math. Phys52(1977) 55-75

    work page 1977

  7. [7]

    Wolfgang Pauli & Felix Villars,On the Invariant Regularization in Relativistic Quantum Theory, Review of Modern Physics21, 434 - 444 (1949) [ Issue 3 July 1949 ]

    work page 1949

  8. [8]

    Claude Itzykson & JeanBernard Zuber,Quantum Field Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)

    work page 1980

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Lounesto,Clifford Algebras and Spinors, Cambridge University Press, 2001

    P. Lounesto,Clifford Algebras and Spinors, Cambridge University Press, 2001

    2001

  2. [10]

    3 (1958) pp

    MauriceGoldhaber, LeeGrodzins&AndrewW.Sunyar,Helicity of Neutrinos, inPhysicalReview, vol.109, n. 3 (1958) pp. 1015-1017

    1958

  3. [11]

    H. B. Lawson jr and M. -L. Michelsohn,Spin geometry, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton (1989)

    1989

  4. [12]

    J. Vaz jr. and Ronaldo da Rocha jr.,An introduction to Clifford Algebras and Spinors, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Merzbacher,Quantum Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons (1961)

    E. Merzbacher,Quantum Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons (1961)

    1961

  6. [14]

    M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An introduction to Quantum Field Theory, Westview Press (1995)

    1995

  7. [15]

    N. N. Bogoliubov and D. V. Shirkov,Introduction to the theory of quantized fields, Interscience Publisher, New York (1959)

    1959

  8. [16]

    Ettore Majorana,Teoria simmetrica dell’elettrone e del positrone, Il Nuovo Cimento, volume14 (1937) pp. 171-184

    1937

  9. [17]

    Racah,On the symmetry of particles and antiparticles, Nuovo Cimento,14(1936) 322

    G. Racah,On the symmetry of particles and antiparticles, Nuovo Cimento,14(1936) 322. 74

    1936

  10. [18]

    J. F. Cornwell,Group theory in physics, vol.II, Ch.17 (1984) Academic Press, London

    1984

  11. [19]

    B. S. DeWitt,The dynamical theory of groups and fields, Gordon & Breach, New York (1965)

    1965

  12. [20]

    B. S. DeWitt,Global approach to quantum field theory, Oxford University Press (2003) vol. I and II

    2003

  13. [21]

    Rev.82(1951) 664-679

    J.Schwinger,On gauge invariance and vacuum polarization, Phys. Rev.82(1951) 664-679

    1951

  14. [22]

    Kirsten,Heat kernel asymptotics: more special case calculations, Nuclear Physics B (Proc

    K. Kirsten,Heat kernel asymptotics: more special case calculations, Nuclear Physics B (Proc. Suppl.)104(2002) 119-126

    2002

  15. [23]

    D. V. Vassilevich,Heat kernel expansion: user’s manual, Phys. Rep.388(2003) 279-360

    2003

  16. [24]

    R. T. Seeley,Complex powers of an elliptic operator, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.10, Amer. Math. Soc. (1967) 288-307

    1967

  17. [25]

    R. T. Seeley,The resolvent of an elliptic boundary value problem, Am. J. Math.91(1969) 889-920

    1969

  18. [26]

    S. W. Hawking,Zeta function regularization of path integrals in curved space-time, Commun. Math. Phys.55(1977) 133-162

    1977

  19. [27]

    Bardeen,Anomalous Ward Identities in Spinor Field Theories, Phys

    W.A. Bardeen,Anomalous Ward Identities in Spinor Field Theories, Phys. Rev.184(1969) 1848

    1969

  20. [28]

    Bonora, M

    L. Bonora, M. Cvitan, P. Dominis Prester, S. Giaccari, M. Paulisic, T. Stemberga,Axial gravity: a non-perturbative approach to split anomalies, Eur. Phys. J. C78(2018) 652 [arXiv:1807.01249]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bonora and S

    L. Bonora and S. Giaccari,Something Anomalies can tell about SM and Gravity, Symmetry17 (2025) 273, arXiv:2412.07470 [hep-th]

    2025

  22. [30]

    Fujikawa,On the evaluation of chiral anomaly in gauge theories withγ5 couplings, Phys

    K. Fujikawa,On the evaluation of chiral anomaly in gauge theories withγ5 couplings, Phys. Rev. D29(1984) 25. [31]On the Euclidean structure of relativistic field theory, Proc. Nat. Ac. of Sc.44(1958) 956

    1984

  23. [32]

    Schwinger,Euclidean Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys

    J. Schwinger,Euclidean Quantum Electrodynamics, Phys. Rev.115(1959) 721 and117(1960) 1407

    1959

  24. [33]

    Osterwalder, R

    K. Osterwalder, R. Schrader,Feynman-kac formula for euclidean fermi and bose fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.29(1972) 1423

    1972

  25. [34]

    Osterwalder, R

    K. Osterwalder, R. Schrader,Euclidean Fermi fields and a Feynman-Kac formula for boson- fermion models, Helv.Phys. Acta 46 (1973) 277

    1973

  26. [35]

    Osterwalder, R

    K. Osterwalder, R. Schrader,Axioms for Euclidean Green’s functions, Comm.Math.Phys.31 (1973) 83 andAxioms for Euclidean Green’s functions.2, Comm.Math.Phys.42(1975) 281

    1973

  27. [36]

    Fr¨ ohlich, K

    J. Fr¨ ohlich, K. Osterwalder,Is There a Euclidean Field Theory for Fermions, Helv. Phys. Acta 47(1974) 781

    1974

  28. [37]

    Nicolai,A Possible constructive approach to (SUPERϕ**3) in four-dimensions

    H. Nicolai,A Possible constructive approach to (SUPERϕ**3) in four-dimensions. 1. Euclidean formulation of the model, Nucl.Phys.B 140(1978) 294-300. 75

    1978

  29. [38]

    Mehta,Euclidean continuation of the Dirac fermion, Phys.Rev.Lett.65(1990) 1983

    M.R. Mehta,Euclidean continuation of the Dirac fermion, Phys.Rev.Lett.65(1990) 1983

    1990

  30. [39]

    Kupsch and W

    J. Kupsch and W. D. Thacker,Euclidean Majorana and Weyl Spinors, Fortsch.Phys.38(1990) 35

    1990

  31. [40]

    Haba and J

    Z. Haba and J. Kupsch,Supersymmetry in euclidean quantum field theory, Fortsch.Phys.43(1995) 41-66

    1995

  32. [41]

    van Nieuwenhuizen, A

    P. van Nieuwenhuizen, A. Waldron,On Euclidean spinors and Wick rotations, Phys. Lett.B389 (1996) 29, e-print: 9608174 [hep-th]

    1996

  33. [42]

    Wetterich,Spinors in euclidean field theory, complex structures and discrete symmetries, Nucl.Phys.B 852(2011) 174-234, e-Print:1002.3556 [hep-th]

    C. Wetterich,Spinors in euclidean field theory, complex structures and discrete symmetries, Nucl.Phys.B 852(2011) 174-234, e-Print:1002.3556 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Streater and A.S

    R.S. Streater and A.S. Wightman,PCT, Spin, Statistics, and all that, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton 2000. 76

    2000

Pith tools

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