Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 51 references

This paper claims that a Seiberg–Witten noncommutative twist of the bulk gauge field lowers the critical magnetic field of a holographic superconductor, effectively strengthening the external field seen by the boundary system.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 18:10 UTC pith:XNS45KZI

load-bearing objection A solid first-order Seiberg-Witten computation with honest commutative-limit checks, but the headline B_c shift is convention-dependent and needs a scheme-dependence analysis before it can be used as a physical prediction. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.15572 v3 pith:XNS45KZI submitted 2026-03-16 hep-th

Twisted holographic superconductors in external magnetic field

Jovan Potrebi\'c , Dragoljub Go\v{c}anin This is my paper
classification hep-th
keywords holographic superconductornoncommutative field theorySeiberg-Witten maptwist deformationcritical magnetic fieldAdS/CFTcondensateLandau levels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that a noncommutative twist deformation of the bulk gauge fields — a deformation that leaves the spacetime metric untouched — changes the phase boundary of a holographic superconductor in a magnetic field. Concretely, the twist lowers the critical magnetic field below which the charged scalar condenses, so the superconducting region in the (B,T) plane shrinks, while the value of the condensate grows. The authors work out both a (2+1)-dimensional boundary model with a dyonic Reissner–Nordström black hole and a (3+1)-dimensional model with a planar black brane, and in the latter case obtain the compact formula Bc = Bc⁰(1 − Bc⁰ k̄). The point is to show that noncommutative structure in the bulk is a usable dial in the holographic description of condensed matter, not merely a formal decoration.

Core claim

The paper argues that applying a first-order Seiberg–Witten twist to the U(1) gauge sector of the bulk action — with θ^xy = k̄/α² generated by the translations ∂x, ∂y — changes the holographic superconductor's phase diagram. In the (2+1)-dimensional model the allowed (B,T) region shrinks as k̄ grows, and the condensate ⟨O₂⟩ rises; in the (3+1)-dimensional model the critical field obeys Bc = Bc⁰(1 − Bc⁰ k̄), so the twist acts like an effective enhancement of the magnetic field, B_eff = B(1 + Bθ). The commutative limit k̄→0 exactly reproduces the established results for holographic superconductors in a magnetic field.

What carries the argument

The central object is an Abelian Killing twist F = exp(−i k̄/(2α²)(∂x⊗∂y − ∂y⊗∂x)) acting on bulk U(1) fields, with the Seiberg–Witten map expressing twisted fields as θ-expansions of ordinary ones. This produces a first-order NC correction to the action that, in the probe limit, leaves the dyonic Reissner–Nordström black hole an exact background solution and modifies only the scalar equation of motion. The angular equation becomes a two-dimensional harmonic oscillator with λ² = Bn; keeping n=1 gives the Gaussian condensate profile. The key step is the redefinition m′² = −2/L² (and analogously in 5D), which removes the twist-induced mass shift and leaves the (1+2hk̄) factor that suppresses c

Load-bearing premise

The headline result rests on erasing the twist-induced scalar mass shift by hand (m′² = −2/L²) so that only the (1+2hk̄) Landau term acts; if that renormalization is not the physical one, the magnitude and possibly the sign of the critical-field shift change.

What would settle it

Compute the critical magnetic field without imposing the mass renormalization m′² = −2/L², keeping m²(1 − h k̄/2), and compare Bc to the commutative value; a sign or magnitude change would indicate the reported suppression is an artifact of the renormalization choice. Equivalently, repeat the 4D calculation with θ^xy → −θ^xy and check whether Bc increases rather than decreases.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • In the commutative limit k̄→0 the critical curves reduce to the standard holographic superconductor results, so the twist is a controlled deformation.
  • For fixed temperature, the maximum magnetic field that still allows condensation decreases with k̄; the effect grows with the magnetic field strength h.
  • The twist raises the VEV of the Δ=2 scalar operator, so the condensate is more robust at a given (B,T).
  • In four dimensions the analytic formula Bc = Bc⁰(1−Bc⁰ k̄) shows the correction is quadratic in the undeformed critical field, making NC effects more visible near Tc where Bc⁰ is large.
  • Since results are first order in k̄, flipping the sign of θ^xy changes the direction of the effect.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The hand-imposed mass renormalization (m′² = −2/L²) suppresses an independent NC channel that would soften the scalar mass and ease condensation; keeping it could reduce, cancel, or reverse the reported suppression of Bc, so the headline direction is scheme-dependent.
  • A natural test is to go to second order in k̄; at O(k̄²) new couplings from the ⋆-product commutators may alter the clean factorized form Bc⁰(1−Bc⁰ k̄).
  • The effective-field mapping B_eff = B(1 + Bθ) suggests a concrete boundary interpretation: the twist renormalizes the magnetic length, so droplet size and vortex physics could be probed directly in a boundary simulation.
  • The same twist machinery could be applied to p-wave or higher-dimensional superconductors, where the Landau-level structure differs, to see whether condensation is generically suppressed or whether the effect is special to s-wave.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper adds first-order Seiberg-Witten noncommutative corrections, generated by a Killing twist along ∂x and ∂y, to two holographic superconductor models in external magnetic fields. In the 3D model (Sec. III) the bulk is a dyonic Reissner-Nordström AdS4 black hole and the scalar is probed; the θ-linear scalar equation separates into a Landau-level radial equation and a z-equation with NC-corrected mass and λ² factors. Numerically, the zero-node solution gives a lower critical magnetic field and an increased ⟨O₂⟩ relative to the commutative theory. In the 4D model (Sec. IV) the AdS5 planar black brane is fixed, the gauge field is dynamical, and in the strong-field limit the coupled equations are solved near T_c both analytically (matching near-horizon and near-boundary expansions at z = 1/2) and numerically. The analytic result is B_c = B_c^0(1 - B_c^0 k̄), reproducing the pure Einstein-Hilbert result of [23] for k̄ = 0; numerical results agree qualitatively. The paper concludes that the twist effectively enhances the magnetic field and shrinks the superconducting region.

Significance. The claimed effect is novel and, if correct, would be a useful dial in holographic models of charged superfluids: a first-order twist deformation continuously lowers B_c and raises the condensate, with the commutative limit exactly recovering [18] and [23]. The commutative-limit checks and the consistency between the analytical and numerical 4D computations are genuine supporting evidence. The main reservation is that the direction of the effect is controlled by a mass-renormalization convention (Eqs. (30) and (58)) rather than by the SW construction alone; until that is resolved, the quantitative and even sign content of Eq. (69) is conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (29)-(30), (58)] The central result, Eq. (69), is obtained only after imposing the mass renormalization in Eq. (30) in 3D and Eq. (58) in 4D. The θ-linear scalar equation (25)/(54) contains NC corrections to both the effective mass and the Landau-level term. Setting m′² = -2/L² or m²L²(1 - B k̄/4) = -3 removes the mass channel by hand. The paper justifies this only as "to avoid" a shift in the operator scaling dimension; it does not argue that the operator dimension must be held fixed, nor does it compute B_c under the alternative prescription in which m² is kept at its commutative value and Δ is allowed to shift. In that alternative the mass channel opposes the (1 + 2h k̄) Landau factor, so the sign and magnitude of the B_c shift are convention-dependent. Because Eq. (69) is the paper's headline, the claim as stated is not fully supported.
  2. [Eq. (58)] In the 4D case the "mass renormalization" is not merely a constant shift: Eq. (58) enforces m²L² = -3/(1 - B k̄/4), so the bulk mass parameter becomes magnetic-field-dependent. The original action (49) has a constant m²; promoting m² to a function of B is an additional deformation and changes the variational problem beyond the SW expansion. The text does not acknowledge this. Together with the previous comment, the derivation of Eq. (69) does not yet isolate the NC twist effect from a chosen field-dependent renormalization.
  3. [Figures 2-3] The numerical results are obtained from equations truncated at first order in k̄, yet Figures 2 and 3 display k̄ = 0.75 and 1.00, where O(k̄²) terms are not negligible. The trend is already visible at small k̄, so this does not invalidate the qualitative conclusion, but the perturbative control of the plotted range should be stated and, if possible, the plots restricted to the region where the first-order expansion is reliable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (46)] The rescaled temperature T̃ is introduced before the critical value q̃ is defined; define q̃ explicitly in the same paragraph.
  2. [Figures 4-5] Figures 4 and 5 use very different ranges of k̄ (10⁻⁴ vs 10⁻²), so the visual comparison is misleading. State explicitly that Figure 5 uses larger k̄ values to make the effect visible in the numerically stable window.
  3. [Before Eq. (48)] The statement that "the holographic dictionary itself becomes deformed" is not substantiated by the subsequent Appendix C, which only derives a (1 + h k̄) factor in the one-point function while the operator dimension is held fixed by the convention of Eq. (30). Clarify that this is part of the chosen renormalization scheme.
  4. [References] Several references (e.g. [5], [18]) are given only as JHEP/arXiv numbers without year or volume; standardize the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the NC critical-field shift is computed from the SW-deformed bulk equations, with commutative limits matched to independent references.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The NC action (20)-(22) is obtained by applying the SW map (eqs. (10)-(12)) to the commutative holographic superconductor action (13), and the scalar equation of motion (24)-(25) follows by variation. The separation of variables (26)-(27) and the Landau-level radial solution (28) are direct consequences of the linearized equations; the mass renormalization in (29)-(30) is an explicit renormalization convention, not a fitted parameter, and the subsequent critical-field result is obtained by solving the resulting ODE with shooting (3D) or by the matching expansion (65)-(69) (4D). The commutative limits are checked against [18] and [23], which are independent of the authors. The only self-citations ([33], [37]) are contextual/analogical and are not used to justify the main result. The sign of the reported Bc shift is sensitive to the mass scheme, but that is a scheme-dependence/correctness issue, not circularity. No equation is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to predict, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central computation rests on two hand-chosen inputs that together determine the headline effect: (i) the sign/magnitude of the canonical twist parameter θ^xy = k̄/α² (chosen positive; no universal criterion admitted), and (ii) the mass renormalization that cancels the NC mass shift (Eqs. 30, 58). Neither is fitted to data, so this is not a fitting-as-prediction case, but both shape the reported B_c reduction. All other inputs are standard holographic machinery (probe limit, standard/alternate quantization, lowest Landau level). The SW map introduces no new fields, so no invented entities arise. The dyonic-RN-background-consistency claim (Appendix B) is a domain assumption only partially spot-checked here.

free parameters (2)
  • k̄ (α²θ^xy, NC twist parameter) = varied 0–1.0 (3D), 0–0.0007 (analytic 4D), 0–0.1 (numeric 4D)
    The NC deformation strength. Positive sign chosen by hand; the direction of the reported B_c shift (reduction) is tied to that sign, as the paper itself notes ('results necessarily depend on the sign of k̄').
  • renormalized bare scalar mass m²(k̄) = implicitly −2/(L²(1−hk̄/2)) (3D) and −3/(L²(1−Bk̄/4)) (4D)
    Chosen so the NC-shifted effective mass equals the commutative value (Eqs. 30, 58). This hand-picked renormalization fixes the operator dimension and removes the NC mass channel, which would otherwise oppose the reported B_c reduction.
axioms (6)
  • standard math First-order truncation of the Seiberg–Witten expansion (O(θ²) neglected)
    All NC actions and equations are kept to O(θ) (Eqs. 20–24); the paper plots k̄ up to 1.0 in the 3D case, where the truncation is less obviously controlled.
  • ad hoc to paper Twist generated by commuting Killing fields ∂x, ∂y with θ^xy = +k̄/α²
    The paper notes there is 'no universal criterion' for choosing the twist vector fields (Section II); the sign of θ^xy sets the direction of the reported B_c reduction.
  • ad hoc to paper NC mass shift removed by redefining m'² = −2/L² (3D) and m²L²(1−Bk̄/4) = −3 (4D)
    Eqs. (29)–(30) and (58) cancel the θ-induced change of the scalar mass 'to avoid' a shift of the operator dimension; this discards the NC mass channel, which would oppose the reported effect.
  • domain assumption Dyonic RN background remains exact under the NC-deformed Maxwell equations
    Claimed in Section III and Appendix B ('the NC contribution exactly vanishes' for Φ=0); a spot-check of the x-component supports it, but the full check is not shown.
  • standard math Standard quantization: Δ=2 (AdS4) and Δ=3 (AdS5) operators; both near-boundary modes normalizable
    Klebanov–Witten [43]; for m²L²=−2 in AdS4 both Δ=1 and Δ=2 modes are normalizable, so a quantization choice is imposed (Eq. 35).
  • domain assumption n=1 lowest Landau level condenses first (λ² = B)
    Assumed in both models ('the lowest mode is expected to condense first'); excludes vortex lattices and phase-winding configurations, which the cited Abrikosov analysis [45] would allow.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18279 in / 51376 out tokens · 470336 ms · 2026-08-02T18:10:47.931857+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Among the various applications of the AdS/CFT correspondence in condensed matter physics, the realization of the phase transition between the normal and superconducting phases in holographic quantum field theory is of particular importance. Following seminal papers on holographic superconductors that introduced the basic framework, one major line of development has focused on capturing the Meissner effect with all relevant parameters, which requires the inclusion of an external magnetic field. Although a complete holographic description of a superconductor is still lacking, the basic elements of the gravitational systems dual to what can most accurately be characterized as a charged superfluid have been established. Using holographic setups to describe three- and four-dimensional superconductors, we investigate the effect of noncommutative twist deformation of bulk fields on the phase transition parameters, such as the critical magnetic field. In a broader context, our results represent the first systematic attempt to elucidate the role of noncommutative gauge field theory as part of the bulk description of condensed matter systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.15572 by Dragoljub Go\v{c}anin, Jovan Potrebi\'c.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Zero-node and one-node modes of the scalar field with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Allowed values of the magnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Temperature dependence of the vacuum expectation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Analytical results for temperature dependence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Numerical results for temperature dependence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

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

51 extracted references · 42 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 231 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711200 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  2. [2]

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, Phys. Lett. B428, 105 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802109 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 253 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802150 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    S. S. Gubser, Phys. Rev. D78, 065034 (2008), arXiv:0801.2977 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  5. [5]

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog, and G. T. Horowitz, JHEP 12, 015, arXiv:0810.1563 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog, and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 031601 (2008), arXiv:0803.3295 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Herzog, P

    C. Herzog, P. Kovtun, and D. Son, Phys. Rev. D79, 066002 (2009), arXiv:0809.4870 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    G. T. Horowitz and M. M. Roberts, Physical Review D 78, 126008 (2008), arXiv:0810.1077 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  9. [9]

    Nakano and W.-Y

    E. Nakano and W.-Y. Wen, Phys. Rev. D78, 046004 (2008), arXiv:0804.3180 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  10. [10]

    Amado, M

    I. Amado, M. Kaminski, and K. Landsteiner, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 021 (2009), arXiv:0903.2209 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    Koutsoumbas, E

    G. Koutsoumbas, E. Papantonopoulos, and G. Siop- sis, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 026 (2009), arXiv:0902.0733 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  12. [12]

    Maeda, M

    K. Maeda, M. Natsuume, and T. Okamura, Physical Re- view D78, 106007 (2008), arXiv:0809.3079 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  13. [13]

    Sonner, Physical Review D80, 084031 (2009), arXiv:0903.0627 [hep-th]

    J. Sonner, Physical Review D80, 084031 (2009), arXiv:0903.0627 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  14. [14]

    Zeng, Z.-Y

    H. Zeng, Z.-Y. Fan, and H.-S. Ren, Physical Review D 80, 066001 (2009), arXiv:0906.2323 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [15]

    Pang, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 031 (2009), arXiv:0908.1272 [hep-th]

    D.-W. Pang, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 031 (2009), arXiv:0908.1272 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [16]

    Cai and H.-Q

    R.-G. Cai and H.-Q. Zhang, Physical Review D81, 066003 (2010), arXiv:0911.4867 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    Siopsis and J

    G. Siopsis and J. Therrien, Journal of High Energy Physics2010, 013 (2010), arXiv:1003.4275 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    Albash and C

    T. Albash and C. V. Johnson, JHEP09, 121, arXiv:0804.3466 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    S. A. Hartnoll, Class. Quantum Grav.26, 224002 (2009), arXiv:0903.3246 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Physical Review Letters 17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  21. [21]

    P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev.158, 383 (1967)

    1967

  22. [22]

    Gregory, S

    R. Gregory, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, Journal of High En- ergy Physics2009, 010 (2009), arXiv:0907.3203 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  23. [23]

    X.-H. Ge, B. Wang, S.-F. Wu, and G.-H. Yang, Journal of High Energy Physics2010, 108 (2010), arXiv:1002.4901 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    Q.-Y. Pan, B. Wang, E. Papantonopoulos, J. Oliveira, and A. B. Pavan, Physical Review D81, 106007 (2010), arXiv:0912.2475 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  25. [25]

    Pan and B

    Q.-Y. Pan and B. Wang, Physics Letters B693, 159 (2010), arXiv:1005.4743 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  26. [26]

    Montull, O

    M. Montull, O. Pujolas, A. Salvio, and P. J. Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 181601 (2011), arXiv:1105.5392 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  27. [27]

    Montull, O

    M. Montull, O. Pujolas, A. Salvio, and P. J. Silva, JHEP 04, 135, arXiv:1202.0006 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    Salvio, JHEP09, 134, arXiv:1207.3800 [hep-th]

    A. Salvio, JHEP09, 134, arXiv:1207.3800 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  29. [29]

    Domenech, M

    O. Domenech, M. Montull, A. Pomarol, A. Salvio, and P. J. Silva, JHEP08, 033, arXiv:1005.1776 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Salvio, JHEP03, 136, arXiv:1302.4898 [hep-th]

    A. Salvio, JHEP03, 136, arXiv:1302.4898 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    S. M. Girvin, A. H. MacDonald, and P. M. Platzman, Physical Review B33, 2481 (1986)

    1986

  32. [32]

    Dong and T

    Z. Dong and T. Senthil, Physical Review B102, 205126 (2020), arXiv:2006.01282 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Goˇ canin, S

    D. Goˇ canin, S. Predin, M. Dimitrijevi´ c ´Ciri´ c, V. Radovanovi´ c, and M. Milovanovi´ c, Physical Review B 104, 115150 (2021), arXiv:2102.11313 [cond-mat.str-el]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    Seiberg and E

    N. Seiberg and E. Witten, JHEP9909, 032, arXiv:hep- th/9908142 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  35. [35]

    Ardalan, H

    F. Ardalan, H. Arfaei, and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, JHEP 9902, 016, arXiv:hep-th/9810072 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Chu and P.-M

    C.-S. Chu and P.-M. Ho, Nuclear Physics B550, 151 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9812219 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  37. [37]

    Dimitrijevi´ c ´Ciri´ c, D

    M. Dimitrijevi´ c ´Ciri´ c, D. Goˇ canin, N. Konjik, and V. Radovanovi´ c, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 548 (2018), arXiv:1804.00608 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    Breitenlohner and D

    P. Breitenlohner and D. Freedman, Annals Phys.144, 249 (1982)

    1982

  39. [39]

    Gibbons and S

    G. Gibbons and S. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.66, 291 (1979)

    1979

  40. [40]

    Kobayashi, D

    S. Kobayashi, D. Mateos, S. Matsuura, R. C. Myers, and R. M. Thomson, JHEP02, 016, arXiv:hep-th/0611099 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    S. A. Hartnoll and P. K. Kovtun, Phys. Rev. D76, 066001 (2007), arXiv:0704.1160 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  42. [42]

    Dimitrijevi´ c´Ciri´ c, N

    M. Dimitrijevi´ c´Ciri´ c, N. Konjik, and A. Samsarov, Phys. Rev. D101, 116009 (2019), arXiv:1904.04053 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B556, 89 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9905104 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  44. [44]

    Liu, Q.-Y

    Y.-X. Liu, Q.-Y. Pan, B. Wang, and R.-G. Cai, Physics Letters B693, 343 (2010), arXiv:1007.2536 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  45. [45]

    We choose the axially symmetric gauge, since we are interested in axially symmetric con- figurations

    we assume At =A t(z), A x =−By, A y =Bx, A z =A w = 0, and Φ = Φ(x, y, z). We choose the axially symmetric gauge, since we are interested in axially symmetric con- figurations. It is therefore convenient to switch to polar coordinates (x, y)→(r, φ), implying Φ = Φ(r, φ, z) = Φ(r, z). Under these assumptions, the equations of mo- tion forA t and Φ reduce t...

    2023

  46. [46]

    A. A. Abrikosov, L. P. Gorkov, and I. E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics (Dover Publications, New York, 1963)

    1963

  47. [47]

    Pramanik, S

    S. Pramanik, S. Das, and S. Ghosh, (2014), arXiv:1401.7832 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    Ghorai and S

    D. Ghorai and S. Gangopadhyay, (2016), arXiv:1603.03598 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  49. [49]

    Pramanik and S

    S. Pramanik and S. Ghosh, (2015), arXiv:1509.07825 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Gangopadhyayet al., (2018), arXiv:1801.06051 [hep- th]

    S. Gangopadhyayet al., (2018), arXiv:1801.06051 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    Paul and S

    S. Paul and S. Gangopadhyay, (2025), arXiv:2502.08275 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025