Talk:Axial anomaly

Editor remarks

To reviewers: please number comments as shown below.

Comment E1: On comment A1

If the author agrees I can create some pages redirecting to "axial anomaly" titled:

• Adler anomaly
• Bell-Jackiw anomaly

I would not suggest to create "anomalous properties of the axial current" beacuse is a quite long title, but if you ask I'll do it.

Comment E2: On comment E1

Both author and reviewer are neutral about the addition of redirections I proposed, so we do not need them.

Reviewer A

Comment A1

Roman Jackiw's article is a clear, technically sound exposition of the basic facts about anomalies. With regard to the references, while the usage of calling the anomaly the "Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly" is now widely accepted , some early articles call it the Bell-Jackiw anomaly, as in 't Hooft's article cited by Jackiw as his ref. 3, some the Adler anomaly or the Adler divergence condtion, as respectively in Delbourgo and Salam [1] and Hagen [2], and some refer simply to anomalous properties of the axial current, as in Zumino [3].

[1] R. Delbourgo and A. Salam, ``The gravitational correction to PCAC, Phys. Lett. B 40, 381 (1972).

[2] C. R. Hagen, "Derivation of Adler's Divergence Condition from the Field Equations", Phys. Rev. 177, 2622 (1969).

[3] B. Zumino, "Anomalous Properties of the Axial Vector Current", in J. S. Bell, editor, Proceedings of the "Topical Conference on Weak Interactions", CERN, Geneva, 14-17 January 1969, pp. 361-369.

Reviewer B

Comment B1

This article is extremely clear and remarkably complete. In my opinion its level perfectly fits the scopes of Scholarpedia. I am sure that the number of hypertext links will increase when more scholarpedia articles will be available.

I have only detected an open bracket ( that does not close in the 7th line of the first section.

(AU1) Remark on Comment (A1)

While it is certainly OK by me to give a cross reference to my article from "Adler, Bell, Jackiw anomaly," I cannot justify adding to my article the three references explicitly listed by the referee. (I understood the three references as exemplifying various historical modes of nomenclature/referencing, NOT providing new or important additions to the theory.) In fact the Delbourgo-Salam paper is numerically in error (corrected by Deser), and deals with a different subject (gravitational anomalies). The Zumino article is a review, one of many, and not of his important contribution with Wess. This review is not available outside the CERN archive. Thus adding the three papers serves no purpose and would be unfair to the many other relevant papers. Thus I do not wish to add these three references. This comment may be forwarded to the referee.