2004
DOI: 10.1007/s00220-004-1110-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Existence of Energy Minimizers as Stable Knotted Solitons in the Faddeev Model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

3
96
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(99 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
3
96
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Sublinear growth laws of the form (4.20) have profound implications for the formation of knotted/tangled soliton structures. See Lin & Yang (2004, 2007 for details in the classical situation (Faddeev 1979(Faddeev , 2002Faddeev & Niemi 1997) of three spatial dimensions (nZ1). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sublinear growth laws of the form (4.20) have profound implications for the formation of knotted/tangled soliton structures. See Lin & Yang (2004, 2007 for details in the classical situation (Faddeev 1979(Faddeev , 2002Faddeev & Niemi 1997) of three spatial dimensions (nZ1). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The corresponding topological index classifying a finite energy field configuration is a linking number (the Hopf index), whereas it is a winding number for the Skyrme model. The existence of soliton solutions in the Faddeev-Niemi model has been proven in [11], and confirmed by numerical calculations, e.g., in ([12] - [15]). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…In that paper, they obtain a condition for the existence of solutions for the 3D Skyrme's problem consisting in a family of strict decomposition inequalities. By modifying the proofs in [1,2] but still using the concentration-compactness approach, an existence result for minimizers of deg(φ) = ±1 can be established under the same conditions as in [4,5]. This is not surprising.…”
mentioning
confidence: 90%
“…In [1,2] an existence result for minimizers of degree ±1 was proved by using the concentration-compactness method. But as Fanghua Lin and Yisong Yang have pointed out recently [4,5], the proof of the main result contained in [1,2] is not correct. This Erratum announces that these proofs can be corrected by modifying the arguments used in [1,2].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation