Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Schwinger's non-commutative coordinates and duality between helicity and Dirac quantisation conditions

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a 3-cocycle phase violating associativity of momentum translations for Schwinger's non-commuting coordinates quantizes massless helicity as $\lambda=(\hbar/2)n$, identical under duality to Dirac's monopole condition.

desk verdict The associativity derivation has a load-bearing gap—the displayed BCH phase vanishes identically—though the conclusion is probably right and the duality point is fair. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21529 v3 pith:56GUQHZ2 submitted 2025-04-30 hep-th math-phmath.MP

George Savvidy This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thmath-phmath.MP
keywords Schwingernon-commutingcoordinateshelicityquantization3-cocycleDiracchargemasslessparticlesassociativityviolationmomentumtranslationoperatorminimalspacecellvolume
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 paper argues that quantum mechanics itself forces the helicity of massless particles to take discrete values. Working with Schwinger's non-commuting coordinates for photons, gravitons, and other massless states, the paper shows that the momentum translation operator fails to be associative by a phase factor that satisfies a 3-cocycle relation. The phase is evaluated as the flux of the singular field $\vec{P}/P^3$ through the tetrahedron formed by three translations, giving $\Phi=4\pi\lambda$. Restoring associativity requires this phase to be a multiple of $2\pi$, which quantizes $\lambda$ as $(\hbar/2)n$. Under the duality map (8.78) this is exactly Dirac's quantization of magnetic charge, so the two quantization rules become one condition in dual variables.

What carries the argument

The central object is the momentum translation operator $U(\vec{b})=e^{-(i/\hbar)\vec{b}\cdot\hat{R}}$, which shifts momentum states. The key identity is the evaluation of the associator phase as the flux of the singular vector field $\vec{P}/P^3$ through the tetrahedron spanned by $(\vec{b}_1,\vec{b}_2,\vec{b}_3)$, yielding $\Phi=4\pi\lambda$ through $\nabla\cdot(\vec{P}/P^3)=4\pi\delta^{(3)}(\vec{P})$. This phase is a 3-cocycle, the obstruction to associativity that appears when the Jacobi identity fails at zero momentum. The argument then runs on the requirement that this phase be an integer multiple of $2\pi$, and on the duality map (8.78) that carries the same condition to the Dirac monopole case. The non-commuting coordinates themselves, with $[\hat{R}_n,\hat{R}_m]=-i\hbar\lambda\epsilon_{nmk}P_k/P^3$, are the Schwinger device that removes the spin operator from massless representations.

What would settle it

Evaluate the fourfold product $U(\vec{b}_1)U(\vec{b}_2)U(\vec{b}_3)(U(\vec{b}_1+\vec{b}_2+\vec{b}_3))^{-1}$ on a massless wave packet with a regulated $\vec{P}/P^3$ (for example a hard cutoff around $\vec{P}=0$), and check whether the phase is exactly $4\pi\lambda$ independent of the regulator. Because the naive bracket in Eq. (7.66) vanishes by vector identities away from $\vec{P}=0$, the whole phase must come from the singular point; a path-ordered or lattice computation would settle whether the flux is indeed $4\pi\lambda$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the associativity relation $U(\vec{b}_1)(U(\vec{b}_2)U(\vec{b}_3))=e^{i\Phi/\hbar}(U(\vec{b}_1)U(\vec{b}_2))U(\vec{b}_3)$ for the momentum translation operator $U(\vec{b})=e^{-(i/\hbar)\vec{b}\cdot\hat{R}}$ is violated by a phase $\Phi=4\pi\lambda$, because the Jacobi identity for the non-commuting coordinates $[\hat{R}_n,\hat{R}_m]=-i\hbar\lambda\epsilon_{nmk}P_k/P^3$ is obstructed at zero momentum. The phase satisfies a 3-cocycle relation, and associativity, which is required for well-defined operators on a Hilbert space, is restored only when $\Phi/\hbar=2\pi n$, giving $\lambda=(\hbar/2)n$. The paper then exhibits a duality map $\hat{R}\leftrightarrow p$, $P\leftrightarrow -r$, $\lambda\leftrightarrow eg_m/c$ under which this condition is the same as Dirac's quantization $eg_m/c=(\hbar/2)n$ for a magnetic monopole. The result is offered as a correspondence that makes helicity quantization and Dirac charge quantization two faces of one 3-cocycle condition.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the associator phase is exactly the flux $4\pi\lambda$ of the singular field $\vec{P}/P^3$ through the tetrahedron, with the entire value coming from the point $\vec{P}=0$; if that exact value is wrong, the helicity quantization $\lambda=(\hbar/2)n$ does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Massless particle helicity is forced to the discrete set $\lambda=(\hbar/2)n$, so values such as photon helicity $\pm\hbar$ and graviton helicity $\pm2\hbar$ are consistent with associative quantum mechanics.
  • Any other helicity value would require non-associative quantum mechanics, which the paper excludes because operators on a Hilbert space necessarily associate.
  • The Dirac quantization condition $eg_m/c=(\hbar/2)n$ and the helicity condition are the same 3-cocycle condition, implying that monopole charge and massless helicity are dual variables in the sense of (8.78).
  • The noncommutativity of photon and graviton coordinates yields transverse position uncertainty relations, and for gravitons suggests a minimal space-cell volume of order $(G\hbar/c^3)^{3/2}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A path-ordered or lattice evaluation of the associator would extend the paper's calculation to generic momenta and test whether the $4\pi\lambda$ flux is regulator independent.
  • The duality suggests momentum-space interference experiments on massless beams could probe the 3-cocycle: four successive translations should accumulate a phase that vanishes only for $\lambda=(\hbar/2)n$.
  • If the minimal space-cell volume for gravitons is real, Planck-scale gravitational-wave or quantum-gravity phenomenology could in principle test the associated uncertainty bound.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies Schwinger's non-commutative coordinates for massless particles, defined by the commutator [R̂_n, R̂_m] = -iℏλ ε_{nmk} P_k/P^3, for which the Jacobi identity fails with a delta-function obstruction at P=0. The central claim is that the momentum translation operator U(b) = exp(-(i/ℏ)b·R̂) violates associativity by a 3-cocycle phase equal to the flux of P/P^3 through a tetrahedron in momentum space, Φ = 4πλ, and that restoring associativity requires Φ/ℏ = 2πn, hence λ = (ℏ/2)n. Under the duality map (8.78), this is the same condition as Dirac's quantization of monopole charge. The paper further discusses uncertainty relations, a minimal space cell volume for photons and gravitons, and a high-spin extension of the Poincaré algebra.

Significance. The conceptual observation that helicity quantization and Dirac charge quantization can be viewed as the same 3-cocycle condition in dual variables is interesting and, if rigorously established, would provide a unified derivation of two known quantization rules. The construction is parameter-free and the final condition matches the known monopole result. However, the central derivation is not supported by the displayed algebra: the exponent bracket in Eq. (7.66) vanishes identically, so the claimed phase Φ = 4πλ is not derived. The paper's main theorem therefore remains unproven as printed, although it is likely repairable by adapting Jackiw's exact monopole computation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7, Eqs. (7.66)–(7.67)] The exponent bracket in Eq. (7.66) is identically zero: {(b2×b3) + (b1×(b2+b3)) − (b1×b2) − ((b1+b2)×b3)} = 0 by bilinearity of the cross product. Therefore the truncated BCH computation displayed in the paper gives Φ = 0, not the claimed flux 4πλ. The nonzero phase in Eq. (7.67) can only arise from an exact, point-split or path-ordered treatment of the singular field P/P^3 at P=0, which the manuscript does not supply. Because the quantization condition (7.68) depends entirely on Φ = 4πλ, the central claim is not established by the derivation as printed. The identical defect appears in the Dirac-side computation in Eq. (8.75). The step is repairable by adapting the exact monopole computation of Jackiw [4], but that computation must be included.
  2. [§7, footnote 5] The conclusion that associativity is restored only when Φ/ℏ = 2πn assumes that non-associative quantum mechanics is not a viable physical framework. The paper explicitly states this premise but does not justify it, despite citing literature on non-associative quantum mechanics in refs. [26–32]. If consistent non-associative operator algebras are admitted, the phase Φ need not be quantized and the helicity quantization condition does not follow. This is a load-bearing physical assumption that should be either defended or clearly marked as a limitation of the result.
  3. [§7, Eq. (7.62)] The action U(b)Ψ(P) = Ψ(P+b) defines an ordinary translation with no phase, yet the BCH product in Eq. (7.65) introduces a phase that depends on P/P^3. The paper does not reconcile these two descriptions: if U(b) acts as in Eq. (7.62), the associator phase computed from the BCH formula must be consistent with the matrix elements of U, which requires a connection or a careful definition of the operator ordering. This omission is part of the gap identified above and needs to be addressed in a revised derivation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "like it takes place for photons and gravitons" is ungrammatical; suggest "as for photons and gravitons".
  2. [§7, Eq. (7.61)] The phrase "and will takes the following form" contains a typo; it should be "and will take the following form".
  3. [Figure 1 caption] The caption asserts that the displayed bracket equals the total flux through the tetrahedron; since that bracket is identically zero, the caption should be revised to describe the intended nonperturbative interpretation.
  4. [§8, Eq. (8.75)] The bracketed expression for the inverse product has mismatched parentheses around U(a3); the notation should be cleaned up.
  5. [§6, final paragraph] The sentence "The expressions (6.45), (6.48) and (6.50) completely define ... do vanish, as does M R̂." is confusing and should be rewritten for clarity.
  6. [§10] Section 10 appears to be a summary of previous work on high-spin extensions and is not integrated with the main derivation; consider moving it to an appendix or connecting it explicitly to the quantization condition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the helicity quantization is a consistency constraint on Schwinger's input commutator, not an input-output circle; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: take Schwinger's non-commuting coordinates in Eq. (7.60), with lambda a free helicity parameter; compute the associator phase of momentum translation operators; and require that phase to be 2*pi*n, yielding lambda = (hbar/2)n. No parameter is fitted to a target quantity, and the quantization condition is not assumed before the computation. The commutator originates from Schwinger [1] and the 3-cocycle method from Jackiw [4], both external and independent sources; the coefficient 4*pi comes from the delta-function identity for nabla dot (P/P^3), not from the desired conclusion. Self-citations occur mainly in Sec. 10, refs. [39-46], and in a list of cocycle references, but they are not used to justify the central associativity computation or the quantization condition. The duality map in Eq. (8.78) is a dictionary between two established structures, not a renaming that manufactures the result. A separate reviewer concern, noted in the skeptical analysis, is that the displayed BCH bracket in Eq. (7.66) is algebraically zero, so the paper as printed does not actually demonstrate the claimed 4*pi*lambda phase; that is a correctness/support gap rather than circularity, because a repaired exact computation would still yield a nontrivial consistency constraint from Eq. (7.60).

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

The central claim rests on one physical input, λ, and one method, the 3-cocycle quantization inherited from Jackiw [4]. No new particles, fields, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The fragile inputs are the associativity requirement (footnote 5), the truncated BCH step that as written cancels to zero, and the Planck-length assumption for gravitons in (6.54). The high-spin section draws on the author's own prior algebra but is not needed for the main claim.

free parameters (2)
  • λ (massless particle helicity) = constrained to (ℏ/2)n with n∈ℤ; specific value not predicted
    λ enters the Schwinger commutator (7.60) as an input; the derivation restricts it to half-integer multiples of ℏ but does not determine which n applies (photon n=2, graviton n=4). This is a consistency constraint, not a fit.
  • eg_m/c (monopole charge product) = constrained to (ℏ/2)n, n∈ℤ (Dirac condition)
    Input in the monopole analog (8.70); the quantization restricts its values. Taken from the standard Dirac/Jackiw argument.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Distributional identity △(1/P)=-4πδ³(P) (and its spatial analog △(1/r)=-4πδ³(r))
    Used in (6.46), (7.61), and (8.72) to convert the Laplacian of 1/P or 1/r into delta functions at the origin.
  • domain assumption Ordinary quantum mechanics on a Hilbert space must be associative; non-associative algebras are excluded
    Stated in footnote 5: 'The non-associating quantities cannot be represented by well-defined linear operators, acting on a vector or Hilbert space.' If non-associative QM is allowed (refs [26-32], and Bojowald et al. [29] show small magnetic charges evade Dirac quantization), the conclusion does not follow.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncated Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff product (7.65), (8.75) captures the exact associator phase
    The text keeps only the first commutator [A,B]/2. The exponent bracket in (7.66) is identically zero, so the truncated method yields no phase; the claimed 4πλ requires an unshown exact/holonomy computation. This assumption is asserted implicitly and is false at the level shown.
  • domain assumption The duality map (8.78), R̂↔p, P↔-r, λ↔eg_m/c, is a valid correspondence
    The map equates two commutator algebras (7.60) and (8.70). A sign check gives λ=-eg_m/c rather than +eg_m/c, so the map as written is a schematic analogy, not a derived equivalence.
  • domain assumption Graviton wavelength is always larger than the Planck length
    Needed for the minimal space volume (6.54); the paper flags this as speculation ('if one speculates').
  • domain assumption Helicity spectrum of the high-spin extension (10.92) from the author's earlier papers [39-46]
    Section 10 relies on prior work by the author; it is not load-bearing for the main cocycle argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Schwinger's non-commutative coordinates and duality between helicity and Dirac quantisation conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/56GUQHZ2

@misc{pith2026250421529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Schwinger's non-commutative coordinates and duality between helicity and Dirac quantisation conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/56GUQHZ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21529}
}
read the original abstract

The helicity operator of massless particles has only two polarisations like it takes place for photons and gravitons. For them not all of the 2s+1 spin magnetic quantum states exist, with two exceptions, and the spin operator ceases to be defined properly and consistently. The problem was solved by Schwinger, who introduced non-commutative space coordinates that completely eliminate the spin operator and ensure that only helicity operator appears explicitly. We further investigate the violation of the associativity relation of the momentum translation operator that emerges due to the failure of the corresponding Jacobi identity. The associativity relation is broken by a phase factor which satisfies a 3-cocycle relation. The associativity is restored when a 3-cocycle is an integer number, and leads to the quantisation of massless particle's helicity. We discuss the correspondence (duality) between the helicity and the Dirac quantisation conditions. The relation for the minimal space cell volume, similar to the minimal phase-space cell of Heisenberg is suggested.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21529 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The expression {( ⃗b2 ×⃗b3) + (⃗b1 × ( ⃗b2 +⃗b3)) − ( ⃗b1 ×⃗b2) − ((⃗b1 +⃗b2) ×⃗b3)} · P /P ⃗ 3 is equal to the total flux of the momentum P /P ⃗ 3 through the surface of the tetrahedron (⃗b1, ⃗b2, ⃗b3). and obtained that the phase factor in (7.63) is the total flux of the momentum P⃗ P3 through the surface of tetrahedron constructed by the three momentum vectors (⃗b1, ⃗b2, ⃗b3) (see Fig.1) Φ = λ I P⃗ P3 dS⃗ = λ Z … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [4]

    Jackiw, 3 - Cocycle in Mathematics and Physics, Phys

    R. Jackiw, 3 - Cocycle in Mathematics and Physics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 (1985) 159–162. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.54.159

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.54.159 1985

  2. [1]

    Schwinger, Particles, Sources, and Fields, Vol.1, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1970

    J. Schwinger, Particles, Sources, and Fields, Vol.1, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1970

    work page 1970

  3. [2]

    Poincar´ e, SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L’´ELECTRON, Rendiconti del Circolo matematico di Palermo 21: 129-1976, 1906

    H. Poincar´ e, SUR LA DYNAMIQUE DE L’´ELECTRON, Rendiconti del Circolo matematico di Palermo 21: 129-1976, 1906. Adunanza del 23 luglio 1905. Stampato il 14-16 dicembre

    work page 1976

  4. [3]

    E. P. Wigner, On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz Group, Annals Math. 40 (1939) 149–204. doi:10.2307/1968551

    doi:10.2307/1968551 1939

  5. [5]

    B. Zumino, Chiral Anomalies And Differential Geometry: Lectures Given At Les Houches, August 1983, in: Les Houches Summer School on Theoretical Physics: Relativity, Groups and Topology, 1983, pp. 1291–1322

    work page 1983

  6. [6]

    Mickelsson, Chiral Anomalies in Even and Odd Dimensions, Commun

    J. Mickelsson, Chiral Anomalies in Even and Odd Dimensions, Commun. Math. Phys. 97 (1985) 361. doi:10.1007/BF01213402

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01213402 1985

  7. [7]

    L. D. Faddeev, Operator Anomaly for the Gauss Law, Phys. Lett. B 145 (1984) 81–84. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)90952-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0370-2693(84)90952-3 1984

  8. [8]

    Zumino, Y.-S

    B. Zumino, Y.-S. Wu, A. Zee, Chiral Anomalies, Higher Dimensions, and Differential Geom- etry, Nucl. Phys. B 239 (1984) 477–507. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90259-1

    work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(84)90259-1 1984

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    T. A. Arakelian, G. K. Savvidy, Cocycles of Area Preserving Diffeomorphisms and Anoma- lies in Theory of Relativistic Surfaces, Phys. Lett. B 214 (1988) 350. doi:10.1016/ 0370-2693(88)91375-5. 17

    1988

  2. [10]

    Savvidy, Topological mass generation in four-dimensional gauge theory, Phys

    G. Savvidy, Topological mass generation in four-dimensional gauge theory, Phys. Lett. B 694 (2011) 65–73. arXiv:1001.2808, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.09.036

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Antoniadis, G

    I. Antoniadis, G. Savvidy, New gauge anomalies and topological invariants in various dimensions, Eur. Phys. J. C 72 (2012) 2140. arXiv:1205.0027, doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-012-2140-9

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Antoniadis, G

    I. Antoniadis, G. Savvidy, Extension of Chern-Simons forms and new gauge anomalies, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 29 (2014) 1450027. arXiv:1304.4398, doi:10.1142/S0217751X14500274

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Konitopoulos, G

    S. Konitopoulos, G. Savvidy, Extension of Chern-Simons forms, J. Math. Phys. 55 (2014) 062304. arXiv:1401.4812, doi:10.1063/1.4882086

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Doplicher, K

    S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen, J. E. Roberts, Space-time quantization induced by classical gravity, Phys. Lett. B 331 (1994) 39–44. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(94)90940-7

    1994 doi

  7. [15]

    Doplicher, K

    S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen, J. E. Roberts, The Quantum structure of space-time at the Planck scale and quantum fields, Commun. Math. Phys. 172 (1995) 187–220. arXiv:hep-th/ 0303037, doi:10.1007/BF02104515

    1995 doi

  8. [16]

    Yoneya, String theory and space-time uncertainty principle, Prog

    T. Yoneya, String theory and space-time uncertainty principle, Prog. Theor. Phys. 103 (2000) 1081–1125. arXiv:hep-th/0004074, doi:10.1143/PTP.103.1081

    2000 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Lust, T-duality and closed string non-commutative (doubled) geometry, JHEP 12 (2010)

    D. Lust, T-duality and closed string non-commutative (doubled) geometry, JHEP 12 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Mylonas, P

    D. Mylonas, P. Schupp, R. J. Szabo, Non-Geometric Fluxes, Quasi-Hopf Twist Deformations and Nonassociative Quantum Mechanics, J. Math. Phys. 55 (2014) 122301. arXiv:1312. 1621, doi:10.1063/1.4902378

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    Bacry, The Position Operator Revisited, Ann

    H. Bacry, The Position Operator Revisited, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. Theor. 49 (1988) 245

    1988

  12. [20]

    Izaurieta, P

    F. Izaurieta, P. Salgado, S. Salgado, Chern–Simons–Antoniadis–Savvidy forms and stan- dard supergravity, Phys. Lett. B 767 (2017) 360–365. arXiv:1703.00991, doi:10.1016/j. physletb.2017.02.016

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Rubio, P

    G. Rubio, P. Salgado, Modified Newtonian dynamics and non-relativistic ChSAS gravity, Phys. Lett. B 787 (2018) 30–35. arXiv:1811.01717, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.10. 028. 18

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. Song, K. Wu, J. Yang, Higher Chern-Simons-Antoniadis-Savvidy forms based on crossed modules, Phys. Lett. B 848 (2024) 138374. arXiv:2306.08930, doi:10.1016/j.physletb. 2023.138374

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    M. N. Saha, Note on Dirac’s theory of magnetic poles, Phys. Rev. 75 (1949) 1968. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.75.1968

    1949 doi

  16. [24]

    Goddard, D

    P. Goddard, D. I. Olive, Magnetic monopoles in gauge field theories, Rept. Prog. Phys. 41 (1978) 1357. doi:10.1088/0034-4885/41/9/001

    1978 doi

  17. [25]

    Deguchi, K

    S. Deguchi, K. Kitsukawa, Charge quantization conditions based on the Atiyah-Singer index theorem, Prog. Theor. Phys. 115 (2006) 1137–1149. arXiv:hep-th/0512063, doi:10.1143/ PTP.115.1137

    2006 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Witten, Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory, Nucl

    E. Witten, Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory, Nucl. Phys. B 268 (1986) 253–294. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(86)90155-0

    1986 doi

  19. [27]

    Savvidy, A New noncommutative field theory, AIP Conf

    K. Savvidy, A New noncommutative field theory, AIP Conf. Proc. 646 (1) (2002) 89–98. arXiv:hep-th/0205292, doi:10.1063/1.1524557

    2002 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Blumenhagen, A

    R. Blumenhagen, A. Deser, D. Lust, E. Plauschinn, F. Rennecke, Non-geometric Fluxes, Asymmetric Strings and Nonassociative Geometry, J. Phys. A 44 (2011) 385401. arXiv: 1106.0316, doi:10.1088/1751-8113/44/38/385401

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bojowald, S

    M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, U. Buyukcam, J. Guglielmon, M. van Kuppeveld, Small Magnetic Charges and Monopoles in Nonassociative Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (20) (2018) 201602. arXiv:1810.06540, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.201602

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    R. J. Szabo, Magnetic monopoles and nonassociative deformations of quantum theory, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 965 (1) (2018) 012041. arXiv:1709.10080, doi:10.1088/1742-6596/965/ 1/012041

    2018 arXiv

  23. [31]

    R. J. Szabo, An Introduction to Nonassociative Physics, PoS CORFU2018 (2019) 100. arXiv: 1903.05673, doi:10.22323/1.347.0100

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Schupp, R

    P. Schupp, R. J. Szabo, An algebraic formulation of nonassociative quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A 57 (23) (2024) 235302. arXiv:2311.03647, doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ad4935

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    V.B.Berestetskii, L.P.Pitaevskii, E.M.Lifshitz, Quantum Electrodynamics, Vol.4, Butterworth-Heinemann; 2nd edition, 1982. 19

    1982

  26. [34]

    Landau, R

    L. Landau, R. Peierls, Quantenelectrodynamik im Konfigurationsraum, Zeit. F. Phys. 62 (1930) 188

    1930

  27. [35]

    Condeescu, I

    C. Condeescu, I. Florakis, D. Lust, Asymmetric Orbifolds, Non-Geometric Fluxes and Non- Commutativity in Closed String Theory, JHEP 04 (2012) 121. arXiv:1202.6366, doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2012)121

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Andriot, M

    D. Andriot, M. Larfors, D. Lust, P. Patalong, (Non-)commutative closed string on T-dual toroidal backgrounds, JHEP 06 (2013) 021. arXiv:1211.6437, doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2013) 021

    2013 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bakas, D

    I. Bakas, D. L¨ ust, 3-Cocycles, Non-Associative Star-Products and the Magnetic Paradigm of R-Flux String Vacua, JHEP 01 (2014) 171. arXiv:1309.3172, doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2014) 171

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hassler, D

    F. Hassler, D. Lust, Non-commutative/non-associative IIA (IIB) Q- and R-branes and their intersections, JHEP 07 (2013) 048. arXiv:1303.1413, doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2013)048

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Savvidy, Interaction of non-Abelian tensor gauge fields, Arm

    G. Savvidy, Interaction of non-Abelian tensor gauge fields, Arm. J. Math. 1 (2008) 1–17. arXiv:0804.2003

    2008 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Savvidy, Extension of the Poincar´ e Group and Non-Abelian Tensor Gauge Fields, Int

    G. Savvidy, Extension of the Poincar´ e Group and Non-Abelian Tensor Gauge Fields, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 25 (2010) 5765–5785. arXiv:1006.3005, doi:10.1142/S0217751X10051050

    2010 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Savvidy, Non-Abelian Tensor Gauge Fields, Proc

    G. Savvidy, Non-Abelian Tensor Gauge Fields, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 272 (1) (2011) 201–215. arXiv:1004.4456, doi:10.1134/S0081543811010196

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Savvidy, Non-Abelian tensor gauge fields: Generalization of Yang-Mills theory, Phys

    G. Savvidy, Non-Abelian tensor gauge fields: Generalization of Yang-Mills theory, Phys. Lett. B 625 (2005) 341–350. arXiv:hep-th/0509049, doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.08.048

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Savvidy, Generalisation of the Yang-Mills Theory, Int

    G. Savvidy, Generalisation of the Yang-Mills Theory, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31 (01) (2016) 1630003. arXiv:1511.00274, doi:10.1142/S0217751X16300039

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Savvidy, Non-abelian tensor gauge fields

    G. Savvidy, Non-abelian tensor gauge fields. II, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21 (2006) 4959–4977. doi:10.1142/S0217751X06033829

    2006 doi

  37. [45]

    Savvidy, Non-abelian tensor gauge fields

    G. Savvidy, Non-abelian tensor gauge fields. I, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21 (2006) 4931–4957. doi:10.1142/S0217751X06033817

    2006 doi

  38. [46]

    Antoniadis, L

    I. Antoniadis, L. Brink, G. Savvidy, Extensions of the Poincare group, J. Math. Phys. 52 (2011) 072303. arXiv:1103.2456, doi:10.1063/1.3607971. 20

    2011 arXiv

  39. [84]

    arXiv:1010.1361, doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2010)084

    2010 arXiv

  40. [1905]

    arXiv:https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Sur_la_dynamique_de_l’electron

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.