trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

Nambu-Goldstone bosons arise from quantum anomaly symmetry breaking

the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
Recorded sources
0 sources for · 2 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that Nambu-Goldstone bosons arise from quantum anomaly symmetry breaking?

No. Nambu-Goldstone bosons arise from the spontaneous breaking of continuous global symmetries, not from quantum anomaly symmetry breaking (which typically leads to explicit breaking or anomalous violations of conservation laws).

Verdict: REFUTED · 0 sources for, 2 against · Last checked

The analysis

The retrieved literature standardly defines Nambu-Goldstone bosons as a consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking (Goldstone's theorem), whereas quantum anomalies explicitly break symmetries at the quantum level, preventing them from being conserved and generally not yielding standard Goldstone bosons in the same manner. Therefore, the claim is refuted.

Evidence against · 2
Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Nambu–Goldstone Bosons in Quantum Many-Body Systems
2010
Get citation
Brauner, T. (2010). Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Nambu–Goldstone Bosons in Quantum Many-Body Systems. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym2020609

See more details
More against · 1
Phase Transitions, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, and Goldstone's Theorem
2023
Get citation
Frohlich, J. (2023). Phase Transitions, Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, and Goldstone's Theorem. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-90800-9.00275-4

Related receipts

What does the evidence say?

The retrieved literature standardly defines Nambu-Goldstone bosons as a consequence of spontaneous symmetry breaking (Goldstone's theorem), whereas quantum anomalies explicitly break symmetries at the quantum level, preventing them from being conserved and generally not yielding standard Goldstone bosons in the same manner. Therefore, the claim is refuted.

Receipt History
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → REFUTED · 2204 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work