Analytical description of quantum emission in optical analogues to gravity

Friedrich Koenig; Maxime J Jacquet

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Analytical description of quantum emission in optical analogues to gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read All spontaneous emission at a moving refractive-index front in a dispersive dielectric follows from a single analytically computed scattering matrix, which yields concrete spectra and correlation maps for a fused-silica analogue of black…

desk verdict Honest, useful extension of the step-RIF programme to two-photon correlations and lab-frame observables; the sharp-step idealization and the thesis dependency are the real caveats. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02060 v2 pith:FZVDGJOK submitted 2019-08-06 quant-ph cond-mat.othergr-qc

Maxime J Jacquet , Friedrich Koenig This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.othergr-qc

keywords analoguegravityHawkingradiationHopfieldmodelscatteringmatrixphoton-numbercorrelationsmovingrefractiveindexfrontdispersivemediaspontaneousemission

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 aims to show that a step-like moving refractive index front in a dispersive optical medium—a laboratory analogue of an event horizon—can be solved exactly: from the Hopfield model of light coupled to three polarisation resonances, the authors build the complete scattering matrix for all modes and frequencies, including evanescent waves. From that matrix they derive, in closed form, the photon flux and the spectrally resolved photon-number correlations in both the frame co-moving with the front and the laboratory frame. Applying the formulas to bulk fused silica, they predict distinct emission types depending on whether a black-hole or white-hole horizon exists at a given frequency, and show the correlation structure is robust when the index step's height is varied over five orders of magnitude. If correct, the paper gives experimenters exact target wavelengths and correlation strengths—for example a 0.97 correlation at (397 nm, 210 nm)—for observing analogue Hawking emission in optical fibres.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Hopfield model—a Lagrangian in which light (a scalar potential) is coupled to three polarisation oscillator fields with Sellmeier dispersion—combined with matching conditions at a step-like refractive index front. The matching conditions, derived in Appendix B, require continuity of the potential, the polarisation fields, and their derivatives across the step, with a discontinuity in the polarisation-derivative set by the elastic constants. The scattering matrix S is obtained as the transformation between global in and out mode bases, S = (σ_out_L)^{-1} σ_in_L, and is shown to be quasi-unitary with respect to the Klein-Gordon norm, which preserves the canonical commutation relations. All observables—flux (3), covariance (7), correlation coefficient (9), and g(2) (11)—are expressed directly in terms of S, so the entire emission phenomenology rests on this matrix.

What would settle it

Measure the photon-number correlation coefficient at the predicted black-hole pair (397 nm, 210 nm) using a 400 nm pump pulse in fused silica: if C is far below 0.97, or if the spectral peak at 210 nm lacks the sharp 'shark fin' cut-off at the horizon boundary, the step-like Hopfield model does not capture the emission.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the quantum emission at a moving refractive index front is completely characterised by an analytically constructed scattering matrix. The authors supplement the Hopfield-model field theory in curved spacetime, treat the index change as a sharp step, and match the electromagnetic potential, the three polarisation fields, and their derivatives at the boundary. Solving the resulting linear system yields the scattering matrix in all kinematic scenarios—horizonless, white-hole, black-hole, and mixed—including the complex, evanescent modes. From this matrix the authors derive the output photon flux in Eq. (3) and the normally ordered photon-number covariance in Eq. (7), which is independent of the photon flux, and hence the full correlation coefficient (9) and g(2) functions. Applied to fused silica, the formalism predicts narrow 'shark-fin' spectral peaks over the horizon intervals and near-unity pair correlations—0.97 at the black-hole pair (397 nm, 210 nm) and 0.92 at the white-hole pair (3.6 µm, 227 nm)—with the overall structure stable against changes in step height and pulse velocity.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions rest on modelling the moving refractive-index perturbation as a sharp, lossless step in a three-resonance Hopfield dielectric, ignoring phonon interactions, four-wave mixing, and other nonlinearities; a real Kerr pulse has a smooth index profile, and the paper acknowledges that the step 'is physically hard to implement'.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A fused-silica experiment with a 400 nm pump (RIF velocity u = 2c/3) should observe the black-hole partner at 210 nm and the signal at 398 nm, with a photon-number correlation coefficient of 0.97 at (397 nm, 210 nm).
The white-hole pair at 3.6 µm and 227 nm, with C = 0.92, provides a spectrally well-separated target that avoids pump contamination.
The 'shark fin' spectral line shape, cut off abruptly at the horizon interval boundary, is a robust signature of horizon emission, persisting over five orders of magnitude of index-step height.
The method extends to finite-length pulse profiles, allowing theoretical predictions for the two-horizon configurations that real Kerr pulses implement.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the correlation coefficient in Eq. (9) is independent of the photon flux, the correlation map may remain measurable even where the flux is too low for direct detection; this makes the near-unity contours, rather than peak heights, the most decisive experimental signature.
The same S-matrix formalism could be transferred to other linear bosonic platforms with step-like inhomogeneities—polariton condensates, cold atoms, or superconducting circuits—where analogous horizon pairs would display the same shark-fin spectral cut-offs if dispersion is tuned to match the Hopfield-Sellmeier structure.
A smooth-front calculation is the natural next test: if a realistic Kerr pulse only broadens the shark-fin peaks rather than shifting their centres, the analytic step model would still serve as the quantitative backbone for designing analogue-gravity experiments.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is the natural follow-up to Finazzi and Carusotto's step-RIF scattering work, and it is not a rehash: it extends the scattering problem to all kinematic scenarios including evanescent modes, and it derives spectrally resolved photon-number correlations for an optical analogue for the first time. The correlation formulas in Eqs. (7)-(9) are general results for any stationary scattering process, not just this system, and they are derived carefully in Appendix E. The S-matrix construction in Section IV is coherent, the quasi-unitarity check in Appendix D is included, and the free parameters (Sellmeier coefficients, step height, velocity) are physical inputs rather than fitted quantities.

The paper is honest about its own limits. The introduction concedes that the step is physically hard to implement and that smooth profiles, two-horizon interactions, and nonlinearities will modify the outputs. That candor makes the main caveat less damaging than it might be: the quantitative predictions, including the shark-fin spectra and the near-unity correlation peaks at (397 nm, 210 nm) and (3.6 µm, 227 nm), are computed for a single infinitely sharp boundary, and the robustness studies in Fig. 4 and Table I vary only step height and velocity, never the profile shape or pulse length. A Kerr RIF is finite and smooth, with two edges; mode conversion in that setting is controlled by the local gradient and by interference between the two horizons. So the numbers in Figs. 6 and 7 are not yet shown to be what an actual experiment will observe. The authors mostly say as much, but the abstract's claim that these are genuine features of "optical and non-optical analogues" goes beyond what is computed, since only fused silica with a three-resonance Sellmeier response appears.

The other soft spot is self-containedness. The claim that the S-matrix is derived for all frequencies and kinematic scenarios is not fully backed inside the paper: only scenario (c) is worked out in Appendix C, and the rest is referred to the first author's thesis. A referee should ask for the other scenarios to be included or for an explicit statement that they follow from the same construction. The citation pattern is otherwise fine — Finazzi-Carusotto, the Hopfield model, and the Barnett-Loudon quantization line are all credited; the thesis dependence is the only structural issue.

None of this is fatal. The derivation holds together, the correlation formulas are genuinely new and useful, and the kinematic classification in Section II is worth having. This paper is for people working on optical analogue gravity — theorists who want the toolkit and experimentalists who want target wavelengths to search for — and it deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it to review, and accept with revisions that make the other scenarios self-contained, soften or support the non-optical generalization, and state plainly that the sharp-step predictions are the idealized limit, not the experimental forecast.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an analytical scattering-matrix framework for spontaneous emission at a moving refractive-index step in a dispersive dielectric described by the Hopfield model. It constructs global modes for all kinematic scenarios, including evanescent waves, derives the S-matrix from the field matching conditions at the step, and uses it to compute photon flux spectra and photon-number correlations in both the comoving and laboratory frames. Numerical results for fused silica predict 'shark-fin' spectral peaks at white-hole and black-hole horizon frequencies and near-unity correlations at specific wavelength pairs, with correlation structures reported to be robust to changes in step height and RIF velocity.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a complete and explicit analytical route from a microscopic Hopfield model to the two-photon observables of an optical analogue of gravity, including a step-by-step derivation of the covariance and variance formulas and a quasi-unitarity check of the S-matrix. The expressions relating flux and correlations directly to S-matrix elements are general and could be reused for other stationary mode-conversion problems. The main limitation is that the quantitative predictions are computed for an idealized sharp step, which the authors themselves note is hard to realize experimentally; the paper therefore demonstrates a calculational method and identifies qualitative types of emission, rather than delivering directly testable experimental spectra.

major comments (3)

[Section V, Figs. 4-7, Table I] The quantitative predictions, including the shark-fin spectral shape and the peak correlations of 0.97 and 0.92 at (397 nm, 210 nm) and (3.6 micrometres, 227 nm), are computed for a single infinitely sharp step with matching at x=0 (Appendix B). The robustness study in Section V C and Table I varies only the step height and the RIF velocity, never the profile shape or the pulse length. The Introduction explicitly states that the step 'is physically hard to implement' and that outputs 'will be further modified by gradual horizons, two-horizon interactions and other nonlinear effects'. Since a Kerr-generated RIF has a smooth finite-width profile, the step result is not automatically the limit of the smooth result, and the paper does not demonstrate that the computed spectra and correlations describe a real experiment. The abstract and Section V B should be tempered to state that these are predictions for the idealized step, or the paper should add a concrete discussion (even a qualitative adiabaticity estimate) of how smooth profiles are expected to modify the signatures.
[Section IV and Appendix C] The central claim that 'We calculate the scattering matrix at all frequencies (from all kinematic scenarios)' is only explicitly demonstrated for mode scenario c (8 propagating modes on either side). Appendix C works out the sigma matrices and the S-matrix for that case and refers to the first author's PhD thesis ([36]) for 'further calculations'. Scenarios with evanescent (complex) modes are described verbally in Appendix A 2, but no explicit construction, matching solution, or quasi-unitarity verification for such a scenario appears in the manuscript. To substantiate the all-frequency claim and make the paper self-contained, the authors should include at least one explicit example with evanescent modes (e.g., scenario d) in an appendix, or provide the general algorithm in sufficient detail to reproduce those cases.
[Appendices A 2 and D] The treatment of unphysical (evanescent) modes assigns them a norm of unity in the metric g (Appendix D) and includes them in the S-matrix construction. The physical observables (3) and (9) sum only over beta not in {alpha}, which excludes the unphysical modes if they are placed in {alpha}, so physical predictions are expected to be independent of this arbitrary normalization, but this independence is not shown. The authors should demonstrate that the physical block of the S-matrix is unaffected by the arbitrary norm assignment, or justify why the quasi-unitarity relation with such an assignment is a meaningful numerical check.

minor comments (5)

[Equation (9)] The prefactor 'Delta^2/Delta1 Delta2' in the last line of Eq. (9) is printed in the text as 'Delta2/Delta1 Delta2', which is ambiguous and would reduce to 1/Delta1 if taken literally; this should be corrected to clarify that the numerator contains Delta^2.
[Section V B] Near the discussion of Fig. 7, the text reads 'starting at 237 mn' and should read '237 nm'.
[Section III and Appendix E] The distinction between the scattering matrix S and the norm-adjusted matrix S introduced in Appendix E is not defined in the main text at Eq. (6); a short note clarifying that rows of negative-norm modes are complex-conjugated would improve readability.
[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract states 'We supplement the field theory in curved spacetime for this model', but the Lagrangian (A1) is written in a moving frame and the analogue metric is not explicitly used; a brief clarification of how the analogue spacetime enters the calculation would help readers.
[Figure 5] The caption of Fig. 5 uses labels uL, lL, nlL, and nuL for non-optical modes without defining them; these labels should be defined or referenced to Fig. 8.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the S-matrix is derived from matching conditions and observables follow from it; self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the field theory in Appendix A is the standard Hopfield model with Sellmeier parameters taken from external references, not from the paper's own outputs. The moving refractive index perturbation is treated as a step by explicit assumption, with the paper itself conceding that the step is 'physically hard to implement' and that outputs would be modified by gradual horizons and two-horizon interactions; this is a limitation on external validity, not circularity. The scattering matrix is constructed in Section IV from local-mode bases and field matching conditions (Eqs. (16)-(23)), with the matching conditions derived in Appendix B, an explicit example in Appendix C, and quasi-unitarity verified in Appendix D. Observables in Section III are derived from the S-matrix: the photon flux Eq. (3) follows from the second moment (E2), and the correlation coefficient Eq. (9) follows from the fourth-order moment (E5). No parameter is fitted to the computed spectra or correlation maps; the Sellmeier coefficients are external inputs and the step height and velocity are scanned as parameters. The prior self-citations ([36], [38], [39]) supply kinematic classification, earlier flux results, and supplementary mode-configuration calculations, but the central S-matrix and correlation derivation is carried out in the present paper, and the cited results are not used to define the quantities being predicted. Thus no step reduces by construction to its inputs, and the observed robustness of the 'types' is a computed consequence of the S-matrix rather than a restatement of the definitions. The main weakness, namely the reliance on a sharp step profile, is a correctness risk about external validity, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions depend on the Hopfield model parameters and on the idealizations listed. No new physical entities are postulated. The Sellmeier coefficients and RIF parameters are inputs from prior literature or chosen control values, not fitted to the emitted spectra.

free parameters (3)

Sellmeier coefficients kappa_i, Omega_i (fused silica) = kappa=(0.07142,0.03246,0.05540); Omega=(190.341 THz,16.2047 PHz,27.537 PHz)
Empirical material constants taken from Ref. [44] and used in Eq. (1) and Eq. (A6); the emitted spectra depend on them, but they are not fitted in this paper.
Refractive index step height delta_n = 10^-6 to 10^-1; main plots use 2x10^-6
Chosen parameter controlling the index jump; varied over five orders of magnitude to test robustness. It is not fitted to target data.
RIF velocity u = u/c = 2/3, 2.04/3, 2.05/3
Chosen control parameter; it sets which kinematic scenarios occur and which wavelengths are emitted. It is not fitted to data.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The Hopfield Lagrangian in Eq. (A1) with three Lorentz oscillators describes the dielectric response of fused silica at the frequencies of interest.
Invoked in Appendix A and Eq. (A6); all dispersion, mode structure and emission spectra follow from this model.
domain assumption The medium is transparent: absorption is neglected because frequencies are far from material resonances.
Stated in Appendix A; this makes the scattering matrix quasi-unitary and the mode solutions oscillatory.
domain assumption Fields are treated as one-dimensional scalar fields, with only the x-component of the vector potential and three polarization fields.
Stated in Appendix A; this ignores vector and three-dimensional effects such as polarization mixing and transverse structure.
domain assumption The RIF is a sharp step, and phonon interactions, four-wave mixing and other optical nonlinearities are neglected.
Assumed in Section I and Appendix A; the paper acknowledges the step is hard to realize physically, so quantitative predictions may not carry over to smooth pulses.
standard math Canonical quantization via the equal-time commutation relations in Eqs. (A15)-(A16) applies to the Hopfield fields.
Used in Appendix A 3 to define Bosonic global modes and the S-matrix transformation; this is the standard quantization postulate for these fields.
ad hoc to paper The unphysical complex (evanescent) modes can be assigned a norm and included in the S-matrix construction.
Described in Appendix A 2; this choice is needed to define eight in and out global modes when complex modes are present, and it affects the reported correlations in horizon scenarios.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytical description of quantum emission in optical analogues to gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZVDGJOK

@misc{pith2026190802060,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytical description of quantum emission in optical analogues to gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZVDGJOK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02060}
}

read the original abstract

We consider a moving refractive index perturbation in an optical medium as an optical analogue to waves under the influence of gravity. We describe the dielectric medium by the Lagrangian of the Hopfield model. We supplement the field theory in curved spacetime for this model to solve the scattering problem for all modes and frequencies analytically. Because of dispersion, the kinematic scenario of the field modes may contain optical event horizons for some frequencies. We calculate the spectra of spontaneous emission in the frame co-moving with the perturbation and in the laboratory frame. We also calculate the spectrally-resolved photon number correlations in either frame. The emitted multimode field comes in different types depending on the presence of horizons. We show that these types are robust against changes in the system parameters and thus are genuine features of optical and non-optical analogues. These methods and findings pave the way to new observations of analogue gravity in dispersive systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02060 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Possible kinematic scenarios at the RIF. Time (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Diagram of possible mode contributions in the laboratory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Photon flux (3) of each optical mode in the moving frame for varying step heights (from bottom to top, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Matrices of photon number correlations (9) between the eight outgoing modes for five typifying frequencies: columns [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Spectral density of emission in the laboratory frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Photon number correlations in the laboratory: The RIF leads to broadband entangled pair production with a near-unity coefficient at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Typical dispersion relation of a 3-resonances medium in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Mode composition of two Global Modes (GMs) in a space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

[36]

M. J. Jacquet, Negative Frequency at the Horizon: Theoretical Study and Experimental Realisation of Analogue Gravity Phys- ics in Dispersive Optical Media, Springer Theses (Springer In- ternational Publishing, Vienna, 2018), ISBN 978-3-319-91070- 3

work page 2018
[1]

W. G. Unruh, Physical Review Letters 46, 1351 (1981)

1981
[2]

W.Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

S. W.Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

work page 1974
[3]

S. W. Hawking, Communications In Mathematical Physics 43, 199 (1975)

work page 1975
[4]

Lahav, A

O. Lahav, A. Itah, A. Blumkin, C. Gordon, S. Rinott, A. Zayats and J. Steinhauer, Physical Review Letters105, 240401 (2010)

work page 2010
[5]

J. R. Muoz de Nova, K. Golubkov, V . I. Kolobov, and J. Stein- hauer, Nature 569, 688 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Rousseaux, C

G. Rousseaux, C. Mathis, P. Maissa, T. G. Philbin and U. Leon- hardt, New Journal of Physics 10, 053015 (2008)

work page 2008
[7]

Weinfurtner, E

S. Weinfurtner, E. W. Tedford, M. C. J. Penrice, W. G. Un- ruh and G. A. Lawrence, Physical Review Letters 106, 021302 (2011)

work page 2011

Show all 71 references

[8]

Euv ´e, F

L.-P. Euv ´e, F. Michel, R. Parentani, T. G. Philbin and G. Rousseaux, Physical Review Letters 117, 121301 (2016)

2016
[9]

Torres, S

T. Torres, S. Patrick, A. Coutant, M. Richartz, E. W. Tedford and S. Weinfurtner, Nature Physics13, 833 (2017)

2017
[10]

Euv ´e and G

L.-P. Euv ´e and G. Rousseaux, Physical Review D 96, 064042 (2017)

2017
[11]

Euv ´e, S

L.-P. Euv ´e, S. Robertson, N. James, A. Fabbri and G. Rousseaux, Physical Review Letters 124, 141101 (2020)

2020
[12]

H. S. Nguyen, D. Gerace, I. Carusotto, D. Sanvitto, E. Galopin, A. Lemaˆıtre, I. Sagnes, J. Bloch and A. Amo, Physical Review Letters 114, 036402 (2015)

2015
[13]

Michel, O

C. Michel, O. Boughdad, M. Albert, P.-E. Larr ´e and M. Bellec, Nature Communications 9, 2108 (2018)

2018
[14]

Fontaine, T

Q. Fontaine, T. Bienaim ´e, S. Pigeon, E. Giacobino, A. Bramati and Q. Glorieux, Physical Review Letters 121 (2018)

2018
[15]

M. J. Jacquet, T. Boulier, F. Claude, A. Ma ˆıtre, E. Cancellieri, C. Adrados, A. Amo, S. Pigeon, Q. Glorieux, A. Bramati and E. Giacobino, arXiv:2002.00043 [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph] (2020)

2020 arXiv
[16]

Busch and R

X. Busch and R. Parentani, Physical Review D 89, 105024 (2014)

2014
[17]

Busch, I

X. Busch, I. Carusotto and R. Parentani, Physical Review A 89, 043819 (2014)

2014
[18]

Finazzi and I

S. Finazzi and I. Carusotto, Physical Review A 90, 033607 (2014)

2014
[19]

Boiron, A

D. Boiron, A. Fabbri, P.-E. Larr ´e, N. Pavloff, C. I. Westbrook and P. Zi´n, Physical Review Letters 115, 025301 (2015)

2015
[20]

Michel, J.-F

F. Michel, J.-F. Coupechoux and R. Parentani, Physical Review D 94 (2016)

2016
[22]

Sch ¨utzhold and W

R. Sch ¨utzhold and W. G. Unruh, Physical Review Letters 107, 149401 (2011)

2011
[23]

Finke, P

A. Finke, P. Jain and S. Weinfurtner, New Journal of Physics 18, 113017 (2016)

2016
[24]

Fabbri and N

A. Fabbri and N. Pavloff, SciPost Physics 4 (2018)

2018
[25]

Coutant and S

A. Coutant and S. Weinfurtner, Physical Review D 97, 025005 (2018)

2018
[26]

Coutant and S

A. Coutant and S. Weinfurtner, Physical Review D 97, 025006 (2018)

2018
[27]

Isoard and N

M. Isoard and N. Pavloff, Physical Review Letters 124, 060401 (2020)

2020
[28]

Visser, Classical and Quantum Gravity 15, 1767 (1998)

M. Visser, Classical and Quantum Gravity 15, 1767 (1998)

1998
[29]

Leonhardt, Nature 415, 406 (2002)

U. Leonhardt, Nature 415, 406 (2002)

2002
[30]

Sch ¨utzhold and W

R. Sch ¨utzhold and W. G. Unruh, Physical Review Letters 95, 031301 (2005)

2005
[31]

A. V . Gorbach and D. V . Skyrabin, Nature Photonics 1, 653 (2007)

2007
[32]

T. G. Philbin, C. Kuklewicz, S. Robertson, S. Hill, F. K¨onig and U. Leonhardt, Science 319, 1367 (2008)

2008
[33]

S. Hill, C. E. Kuklewicz, U. Leonhardt and F. K ¨onig, Optics Express 17, 13588 (2009)

2009
[34]

Faccio, S

D. Faccio, S. Cacciatori, V . Gorini, G. Sala, A. Averchi, A. Lotti, M. Kolesik and J. V . Moloney, Europhysics Letters 89, 34004 (2010)

2010
[35]

Choudhary and F

A. Choudhary and F. K ¨onig, Optics Express 20, 5538 (2012)

2012
[37]

Drori, Y

J. Drori, Y . Rosenberg, D. Bermudez, Y . Silbergerg and U. Leonhardt, Physical Review Letters 122 (2019)

2019
[38]

M. J. Jacquet and F. K ¨onig, Physical Review A 92, 023851 (2015)

2015
[39]

M. J. Jacquet and F. K ¨onig, arXiv:2001.05807 [cond-mat, physics:gr-qc, physics:quant-ph] (2020)

2020 arXiv
[40]

Belgiorno, S

F. Belgiorno, S. Cacciatori and F. Dalla Piazza, Physical Review D 91, 124063 (2015). 12

2015
[41]

M. F. Linder, R. Sch¨utzhold and W. G. Unruh, Physical Review D 93, 104010 (2016)

2016
[42]

Finazzi and I

S. Finazzi and I. Carusotto, Physical Review A 87, 023803 (2013)

2013
[43]

Loudon, The quantum theory of light , 117 (Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 2000)

R. Loudon, The quantum theory of light , 117 (Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 2000)

2000
[44]

G. P. Agrawal, Nonlinear ﬁber optics (Academic Press, Boston, 2012)

2012
[45]

between uoL and moR

Note that also extremely weak positive-positive norm correla- tions exist which are not visible in the ﬁgure, e.g. between uoL and moR
[46]

McLenaghan and F

J. McLenaghan and F. K ¨onig, New Journal of Physics 16, 063017 (2014)

2014
[47]

Sch ¨utzhold, G

R. Sch ¨utzhold, G. Plunien and G. Soff, Physical Review Letters 88, 061101 (2002)

2002
[48]

J. J. Hopﬁeld, Physical Review 112, 1555 (1958)

1958
[49]

Weinfurtner, P

S. Weinfurtner, P. Jain, M. Visser and C. W. Gardiner, Classical and Quantum Gravity 26, 065012 (2009)

2009
[50]

Eckel, A

S. Eckel, A. Kumar, T. Jacobson, I. B. Spielman and G. K. Campbell, Physical Review X 8 (2018)

2018
[51]

Campo and R

D. Campo and R. Parentani, Physical Review D 72, 045015 (2005)

2005
[52]

Campo and R

D. Campo and R. Parentani, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 44, 1705 (2005)

2005
[53]

Campo and R

D. Campo and R. Parentani, Physical Review D 74, 025001 (2006)

2006
[54]

J. L. Gaona-Reyes and D. Bermudez, Annals of Physics 380, 41 (2017)

2017
[55]

Bermudez and U

D. Bermudez and U. Leonhardt, Classical and Quantum Gravity 36, 024001 (2019)

2019
[56]

Patrick, A

S. Patrick, A. Coutant, M. Richartz and S. Weinfurtner, Physical Review Letters 121, 061101 (2018)

2018
[57]

Macher and R

J. Macher and R. Parentani, Physical Review D 79, 124008 (2009)

2009
[58]

Cohen-Tannoudji, J

C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc and G. Grynberg, Photons and atoms: introduction to quantum electrodynamics , Physics textbook (Wiley, Weinheim, 2004), ISBN 978-0-471-18433-1

2004
[59]

Sellmeier, Annalen der Physik 223, 386 (1872)

W. Sellmeier, Annalen der Physik 223, 386 (1872)
[60]

Rubino, J

E. Rubino, J. McLenaghan, S. C. Kehr, F. Belgiorno, D. Twonsend, S. Rohr, C. E. Kuklewicz, U. Leonhardt, F. K ¨onig and D. Faccio, Physical Review Letters 108, 253901 (2012)

2012
[61]

Schubert and B

M. Schubert and B. Wilhelmi, Nonlinear optics and quantum electronics, Wiley series in pure and applied optics (Wiley, New York, 1986), ISBN 978-0-471-08807-3

1986
[62]

Huttner, J

B. Huttner, J. J. Baumberg and S. M. Barnett, Europhysics Let- ters 16, 177 (1991)

1991
[63]

Huttner and S

B. Huttner and S. M. Barnett, Europhysics Letters 18, 487 (1992)

1992
[64]

Matloob, R

R. Matloob, R. Loudon, S. M. Barnett and J. Jeffers, Physical Review A 52, 4823 (1995)

1995
[65]

S. M. Barnett, B. Huttner and R. Loudon, Physical Review Let- ters 68, 3698 (1992)

1992
[66]

S. M. Barnett, R. Matloob and R. Loudon, Journal of Modern Optics 42, 1165 (1995)

1995
[67]

D. J. Santos and R. Loudon, Physical Review A 52, 1538 (1995)

1995
[68]

Finazzi and I

S. Finazzi and I. Carosutto, Physical Review A 89, 053807 (2014)

2014
[69]

N. N. Bogoliubov, V . V . Tolmachov and D. V . Sirkov, Fortsch- ritte der Physik 6, 605 (1958). Appendix A: Field Theory

1958
[70]

We consider one-dimensional scalar electromagnetic ﬁelds and operate at frequencies sufﬁciently far from the me- dium resonances to neglect absorption

Light in an inhomogeneous dispersive dielectric Following [42, 47, 57] and [38], we describe the interac- tions of light with an inhomogeneous and transparent dielec- tric by a microscopic model based on the Hopﬁeld model [48]. We consider one-dimensional scalar electromagneti...
[71]

We proceed to construct modes of the inhomogen- eous system, the global modes (GMs)

Global modes of the system In section II, we have discussed all possible mode scen- arios [36]. We proceed to construct modes of the inhomogen- eous system, the global modes (GMs). These are solutions to the equation of motion that are valid in both regions. Global modes corre...
[72]

Conversely, each out GM describes a single harmonic wave resulting from the scattering of various incoming waves

Quantum ﬁeld theory of scattering at the RIF Each in GM describes the scattering of a harmonic wave to various outgoing harmonic waves. Conversely, each out GM describes a single harmonic wave resulting from the scattering of various incoming waves. The scattering can be descr...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [36]

M. J. Jacquet, Negative Frequency at the Horizon: Theoretical Study and Experimental Realisation of Analogue Gravity Phys- ics in Dispersive Optical Media, Springer Theses (Springer In- ternational Publishing, Vienna, 2018), ISBN 978-3-319-91070- 3

work page 2018

[2] [1]

W. G. Unruh, Physical Review Letters 46, 1351 (1981)

1981

[3] [2]

W.Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

S. W.Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

work page 1974

[4] [3]

S. W. Hawking, Communications In Mathematical Physics 43, 199 (1975)

work page 1975

[5] [4]

Lahav, A

O. Lahav, A. Itah, A. Blumkin, C. Gordon, S. Rinott, A. Zayats and J. Steinhauer, Physical Review Letters105, 240401 (2010)

work page 2010

[6] [5]

J. R. Muoz de Nova, K. Golubkov, V . I. Kolobov, and J. Stein- hauer, Nature 569, 688 (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [6]

Rousseaux, C

G. Rousseaux, C. Mathis, P. Maissa, T. G. Philbin and U. Leon- hardt, New Journal of Physics 10, 053015 (2008)

work page 2008

[8] [7]

Weinfurtner, E

S. Weinfurtner, E. W. Tedford, M. C. J. Penrice, W. G. Un- ruh and G. A. Lawrence, Physical Review Letters 106, 021302 (2011)

work page 2011