Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

On duality between Cosserat elasticity and fractons

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 Cosserat elasticity is dual to a coupled tensor and U(1) gauge theory

desk verdict The central Cosserat duality map is invalidated by an internal algebra error: Eq. (44) misidentifies the antisymmetric part of the stress tensor, so the U(1) coupling and the gapped-mode claim do not follow from the paper's own definitions. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06984 v2 pith:NHQ4KUSM submitted 2019-08-19 cond-mat.str-el hep-th

Andrey Gromov , Piotr Surówka This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elhep-th
keywords CosseratelasticitydualitytensorgaugetheoryfractonsdislocationsanddisclinationsglideconstraintStückelbergmechanismmicropolar
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 establishes that flat-space 2+1D Cosserat elasticity—a theory in which each material element carries a displacement and an independent local orientation—is exactly dual to a coupled gauge theory. The dual description consists of a vector-valued one-form (tensor) gauge field $A^i_\mu$ together with an ordinary, non-propagating U(1) gauge field $a_\mu$. The mapping is built by solving the two conservation laws of the elastic theory through gauge potentials, and the dual action (50) has two gapless modes plus one gapped mode whose mass is set by the orientation stiffness $\zeta$. A sympathetic reader should care because this connects micropolar elasticity to fracton physics: dislocations and disclinations of the Cosserat medium appear as restricted-mobility charges, and the standard symmetric-tensor gauge theory of ordinary elasticity is recovered when the gapped mode is integrated out.

What carries the argument

The machine of the argument is the replacement of conservation laws by gauge potentials. Momentum conservation $\partial_\mu T^{i\mu}=0$ is solved by writing $T^{i\mu}=\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho}\partial_\nu A^i_\rho$, and angular-momentum conservation is solved by introducing the U(1) gauge field $a_\mu$ through $L^0+\epsilon_{ij}A^{ij}=\epsilon_{ij}\partial_i a_j$ and $L^i+\epsilon_{ij}\Phi^j=\epsilon_{ij}(\partial_i a_0-\partial_0 a_i)$. These two potentials, together with the gauge transformations $\delta A^i_\mu=\partial_\mu\alpha^i$ and $\delta a_\mu=\partial_\mu\lambda$, generate the dual action (50). The Stückelberg mechanism, described in Appendix B, is what makes the antisymmetric component of $A_{ij}$ massive while preserving gauge invariance, with the mass controlled by $\zeta$.

What would settle it

Compute the partition function of the original Cosserat action (36) and of the dual action (50) on a flat $2+1$-dimensional lattice with periodic boundary conditions, including all nontrivial gauge configurations; if the two partition functions differ, the gauge-field representation misses global information and the duality fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an exact flat-space duality: Cosserat elasticity in 2+1 dimensions is dual to a vector-valued one-form gauge field $A^i_\mu$ coupled to an ordinary U(1) gauge field $a_\mu$, with the dual action given by Eq. (50). Because the stress tensor of the Cosserat theory is not symmetric, the dual theory is not a symmetric tensor gauge theory; instead, the antisymmetric component of $A_{ij}$ acquires a mass through the coupling to the U(1) field, and the orientation stiffness $\zeta$ fixes that mass. The remaining two components are gapless, matching the Goldstone counting for spontaneously broken translation and rotation. In the same language, dislocation and disclination densities map to charges obeying the Gauss laws $\partial_i\pi^i=\rho_\theta$ and $\partial_j\Pi^{ij}=\rho^i-e^i$, and the combined rotational defect density satisfies a fracton conservation law. The paper also shows the duality does not extend to curved space, where Christoffel-symbol terms obstruct the gauge-field representation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the flat-space conservation equations can be rewritten, without loss, as curls of gauge potentials; the paper itself states that on curved surfaces extra geometric terms prevent this, so the duality is restricted to flat, topologically trivial settings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dual action (50) has exactly two gapless modes and one gapped mode; the mass of the gapped antisymmetric component of $A_{ij}$ is fixed by the orientation stiffness $\zeta$.
  • Integrating out the gapped antisymmetric field returns the symmetric-tensor gauge theory of ordinary elasticity, so Cosserat elasticity reduces to the standard fracton-elasticity duality at low energies.
  • Defects are not free particles: the combined rotational defect density $\rho_{\mathrm{rot}}=\partial_i\rho^i+\rho_\theta$ obeys the fracton conservation law $\partial_0\rho_{\mathrm{rot}}+\partial_i\partial_j J^{ij}=0$, and dipoles of the singularities still satisfy the glide constraint.
  • Because the breaking of rotation accompanies translation, no new gapless Goldstone mode appears; the local orientation contributes only a massive mode.
  • The duality is strictly flat-space: on curved manifolds the stress conservation equation gains Christoffel-symbol terms and is no longer solvable by the gauge potentials, as stated in Sec. 3.5.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the duality is taken literally, the non-propagating U(1) gauge field acts as a spectator that mediates the mass of the antisymmetric tensor mode; one could ask whether tuning $\zeta$ through zero drives a transition where the orientation mode becomes gapless and new topological sectors appear.
  • The same gauge-theoretic decomposition could be applied to other micropolar or liquid-crystal elasticity theories by treating the orientation stiffness as a tunable parameter; the dual action (50) then provides a template for predicting defect mobility from the structure of the Gauss laws.
  • A lattice implementation of the coupled gauge theory would give a concrete test of the fracton interpretation: measuring the mobility of isolated disclination and $\theta$-vortex pairs on a lattice should show immobility unless dipoles are present.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims a duality between 2+1-dimensional Cosserat (micropolar) elasticity and a coupled gauge theory. Starting from the Cosserat action for a displacement field u_i and a local rotation θ, the authors introduce Hubbard–Stratonovich fields T^{iμ} and L^μ, integrate out the smooth parts of u_i and θ, and resolve the resulting constraints (39) by writing T^{iμ} as the curl of a vector-valued one-form gauge field A^i_μ and by introducing an ordinary U(1) gauge field a_μ (Eqs. (40)–(46)). The dual action (50) is presented as a general tensor gauge field coupled to a non-propagating U(1) gauge field, with two gapless modes and one gapped mode; the gapped mode is identified with the antisymmetric part of A_{ij}, with mass set by the orientation stiffness ζ. Section 3.3 couples crystalline defects through Gauss laws (62)–(63), Section 3.4 discusses restricted motion and the glide constraint, and Section 3.5 states that the duality does not extend to curved space.

Significance. If the duality were established, it would be a useful extension of the fracton–elasticity correspondence to micropolar continua and would provide a field-theoretic description of rotational defects with a nonsymmetric stress tensor. The paper is clearly organized and self-contained, and it explicitly states the flat-space/topologically trivial limitation and the failure of the construction on curved backgrounds. These are genuine strengths. However, the central algebraic step that converts the angular-momentum constraint into a relation involving the gauge fields is inconsistent with the paper's own definitions, so the claimed duality and the associated mode assignment are not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (41)–(44)] The contraction used to isolate the antisymmetric part of the stress tensor is inconsistent with the definitions in Eqs. (41)–(42). From Eq. (42), E^i_j = ε^{ik}(−∂_0 A^k_j + ∂_j Φ^k), so ε_{ij}E^i_j = −∂_0 A^j_j + ∂_j Φ^j up to an overall sign, i.e. the trace of A and the divergence of Φ, not the combination ε_{ij}∂_0 A_{ij} − ε_{ij}∂_i Φ_j written in Eq. (44). A direct check with A^i_j = t δ^i_j and Φ = 0 gives T^{12}=1 and T^{21}=−1 from Eq. (41), so ε_{ij}T^{ij}=2, while Eq. (44) gives 0. Consequently Eq. (45) is not a valid rewriting of the angular-momentum constraint, the U(1) representation (46) is not justified, and the dual action (50), the mass term ζ^{−1}(ε_{ij}A_{ij})^2 in Eq. (52), and the claim that the antisymmetric part of A_{ij} is the gapped mode do not follow from the preceding equations. The central claim of the paper therefore rests on an algebraic identity that is false.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (52)] In the gauge a_i = 0, and with a_0 also set to zero to eliminate the U(1) electric field, the term (e_i − Φ_i)(e_i − Φ_i) in Eq. (50) becomes +Φ_i Φ_i, not −Φ_i Φ_i as printed in Eq. (52). The sign error is not cosmetic: it changes the stability of the Φ^i term and affects the claimed two-gapless/one-gapped mode count. The gauge-fixed action (52) is therefore not correctly derived from Eq. (50), and the mode analysis needs to be re-done.
  3. [§3.3, Eq. (58) versus Eq. (38)] The coupling of the singular rotation field changes sign between the original Hubbard–Stratonovich action and the defect action: Eq. (38) contains θ(∂_μ L^μ − ε_{ij}T^{ij}), while Eq. (58) uses θ_sing(∂_μ L^μ + ε_{ij}T^{ij}). This sign enters the derivation of the source terms in Eq. (59) and the Gauss laws (62)–(63), so the defect sector is internally inconsistent as written. It must be rederived after the constraint resolution of Section 3.2 is corrected.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (46)] The equation L_i + ε_{ij}Φ_j = ε_{ij}(∂_i a_0 − ∂_0 a_i) uses the index i both as a free index on the left and as a summation index in ε_{ij}∂_i a_0. Please use distinct indices, e.g. L_j + ε_{ji}Φ_i = ε_{ji}(∂_i a_0 − ∂_0 a_i).
  2. [§3.3, Eqs. (59)–(60)] The θ-defect current is written as j^i = ε^{ij}(∂_i∂_0 − ∂_0∂_i)θ_sing. For smooth θ this expression vanishes identically, and for singular θ a distributional definition is required. Please specify how the non-commuting derivatives are meant to be evaluated.
  3. [General notation] There are several notation inconsistencies, such as E^i_j in Eq. (42) versus E^{ij}/E_{ij} in Eq. (44), and the index placement in expressions like ε_{ij}T^{ij} in Eq. (13). Please harmonize upper and lower indices and the convention for ε_{ij} throughout the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Cosserat-to-gauge dual action (50) follows from the input action (36), and the paper's self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. It starts from the Cosserat action (36), performs Hubbard-Stratonovich transformations to obtain (37)-(38), integrates out the regular parts of the displacement and orientation fields to get the constraints (39), and then resolves the momentum constraint by the standard tensor-gauge ansatz (40)-(43). The angular-momentum constraint is solved by introducing the U(1) gauge field in (46), which leads to the dual action (50) and its gauge-fixed form (52) with two gapless and one gapped mode. No parameter is fitted, and the target duality is not assumed as an input; the gauge fields are introduced purely as constraint-resolution variables. The self-citations [18] and [39] appear in the introduction and in the curved-space remark, but they are used for context and background, not as inputs to the main derivation. The paper explicitly states in Section 3.5 that the duality does not extend to curved space because Eq. (68) cannot be solved in terms of gauge fields; this is an acknowledged limitation rather than a circular reliance on prior work. Accordingly, no load-bearing step reduces, by construction, to its own inputs, so the circularity score is zero.

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

No parameters are fitted in this paper. The inputs are elastic moduli C_ijkl and orientation stiffness zeta from the Cosserat action (36), treated as given physical constants from prior literature. The dual gauge fields A^i_mu and a_mu are exact change-of-variable objects used to solve conservation constraints, not new postulated entities. The main domain assumption is that the Cosserat action itself is the correct starting theory; the main mathematical assumption is the global flat-space representation of the stress tensor as a curl, which the paper itself shows fails in curved space.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Cosserat elasticity action (Eq. 36), with independent fields u_i and theta, strain gamma_ij = partial_i u_j - epsilon_ij theta, curvature tau_i = partial_i theta, and stiffness zeta, describes micropolar solids.
    The dual theory is built from this starting action, taken from Refs. [43-45]; it is not derived in the paper.
  • standard math The Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation and integration over smooth parts of u_i and theta produce the conservation constraints (39); singular parts are handled separately as defects.
    This is the standard Legendre and duality machinery used for symmetric elasticity in Sec. 2; its validity is assumed.
  • domain assumption The stress tensor conservation law is solved by a global vector-valued one-form gauge field via Eq. (7), which requires a flat, topologically simple background.
    Sec. 3.5 shows this step fails in curved space, so the central duality rests on the flat-space representation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On duality between Cosserat elasticity and fractons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NHQ4KUSM

@misc{pith2026190806984,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On duality between Cosserat elasticity and fractons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NHQ4KUSM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06984}
}
abstract

We present a dual formulation of the Cosserat theory of elasticity. In this theory a local element of an elastic body is described in terms of local displacement and local orientation. Upon the duality transformation these degrees of freedom map onto a coupled theory of a vector-valued one-form gauge field and an ordinary $U(1)$ gauge field. We discuss the degrees of freedom in the corresponding gauge theories, the defect matter and coupling to the curved space.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Notes from the bulk

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A boundary-QFT analysis shows that curved bulk metrics create local edge velocities in topological models and that fracton and linearized-gravity theories carry Kac-Moody boundary algebras.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [37]

    Radzihovsky and M

    L. Radzihovsky and M. Hermele, Fractons from vector gauge theory , arXiv e-prints arXiv:1905.06951 (2019), 1905.06951

    arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    M. A. Metlitski and A. Vishwanath, Particle-vortex duality of two-dimensional dirac fermion from electric-magnetic duality of three-dimensio nal topological insulators , Phys- ical Review B 93(24), 245151 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    Senthil, D

    T. Senthil, D. Thanh Son, C. Wang and C. Xu, Duality between (2 + 1)d Quantum Critical Points, arXiv e-prints arXiv:1810.05174 (2018), 1810.05174. 13 SciPost Physics Submission

    arXiv 2018

  4. [3]

    Seiberg, T

    N. Seiberg, T. Senthil, C. Wang and E. Witten, A duality web in 2+ 1 dimensions and condensed matter physics , Annals of Physics 374, 395 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    M. E. Peskin, Mandelstam-’t hooft duality in abelian lattice models , Annals of Physics 113(1), 122 (1978), doi:10.1016/0003-4916(78)90252-x

    doi:10.1016/0003-4916(78)90252-x 1978

  6. [5]

    Dasgupta and B

    C. Dasgupta and B. I. Halperin, Phase transition in a lattice model of superconductivity , Physical Review Letters 47(21), 1556 (1981)

    work page 1981

  7. [6]

    Lee and M

    D.-H. Lee and M. P. Fisher, Anyon Superconductivity and Charge-Vortex Duality , Inter- national Journal of Modern Physics B 05(16n17), 2675 (1991)

    work page 1991

  8. [7]

    Herbut, A Modern Approach to Critical Phenomena , Cambridge University Press, ISBN 051175552X (2010)

    I. Herbut, A Modern Approach to Critical Phenomena , Cambridge University Press, ISBN 051175552X (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    Kleinert, Gauge Fields in Condensed Matter , World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 9971502119 (1989)

    H. Kleinert, Gauge Fields in Condensed Matter , World Scientific Publishing Company, ISBN 9971502119 (1989)

    1989

  2. [9]

    H. Kleinert, Theory of fluctuating nonholonomic fields and applications: S tatistical me- chanics of vortices and defects and new physical laws in spac es with curvature and torsion , In Formation and Interactions of Topological Defects , pp. 201–232. Springer (1995)

    1995

  3. [10]

    A. J. Beekman, J. Nissinen, K. Wu and J. Zaanen, Dual gauge field theory of quantum liquid crystals in three dimensions , Physical Review B 96(16) (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    A. J. Beekman, J. Nissinen, K. Wu, K. Liu, R.-J. Slager, Z . Nussinov, V. Cvetkovic and J. Zaanen, Dual gauge field theory of quantum liquid crystals in two dime nsions, Physics Reports 683, 1 (2017)

    2017

  5. [12]

    Xu, Novel algebraic boson liquid phase with soft graviton excit ations, arXiv preprint cond-mat/0602443 (2006)

    C. Xu, Novel algebraic boson liquid phase with soft graviton excit ations, arXiv preprint cond-mat/0602443 (2006)

    2006 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Xu and P

    C. Xu and P. Hoˇ rava,Emergent gravity at a lifshitz point from a bose liquid on the lattice, Physical Review D 81(10), 104033 (2010)

    2010

  7. [14]

    Rasmussen, Y.-Z

    A. Rasmussen, Y.-Z. You and C. Xu, Stable gapless bose liquid phases without any symmetry, arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.08235 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Pretko, Generalized electromagnetism of subdimensional particles: A spin liquid story , Physical Review B 96(3), 035119 (2017)

    M. Pretko, Generalized electromagnetism of subdimensional particles: A spin liquid story , Physical Review B 96(3), 035119 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    Pretko, Subdimensional particle structure of higher rank u (1) spin liquids, Physical Review B 95(11), 115139 (2017)

    M. Pretko, Subdimensional particle structure of higher rank u (1) spin liquids, Physical Review B 95(11), 115139 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    A. Prem, M. Pretko and R. Nandkishore, Emergent phases of fractonic matter , arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.09673 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Gromov, Towards classification of Fracton phases: the multipole alg ebra, Phys

    A. Gromov, Towards classification of Fracton phases: the multipole alg ebra, Phys. Rev. X9(3), 031035 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    Bulmash and M

    D. Bulmash and M. Barkeshli, Generalizedu(1) gauge field theories and fractal dynamics , arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.01855 (2018). 14 SciPost Physics Submission

    2018 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Vijay, J

    S. Vijay, J. Haah and L. Fu, A new kind of topological quantum order: A dimensional hierarchy of quasiparticles built from stationary excitat ions, Physical Review B 92(23), 235136 (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    Vijay, J

    S. Vijay, J. Haah and L. Fu, Fracton topological order, generalized lattice gauge theo ry, and duality , Physical Review B 94(23), 235157 (2016)

    2016

  15. [22]

    Haah, Local stabilizer codes in three dimensions without string l ogical operators, Phys- ical Review A 83(4), 042330 (2011)

    J. Haah, Local stabilizer codes in three dimensions without string l ogical operators, Phys- ical Review A 83(4), 042330 (2011)

    2011

  16. [23]

    Yoshida, Exotic topological order in fractal spin liquids , Physical Review B 88(12), 125122 (2013)

    B. Yoshida, Exotic topological order in fractal spin liquids , Physical Review B 88(12), 125122 (2013)

    2013

  17. [24]

    Slagle and Y

    K. Slagle and Y. B. Kim, Fracton topological order from nearest-neighbor two-spin inter- actions and dualities , Physical Review B 96(16), 165106 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    Slagle and Y

    K. Slagle and Y. B. Kim, Quantum field theory of x-cube fracton topological order and robust degeneracy from geometry , Physical Review B 96(19), 195139 (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Slagle, A

    K. Slagle, A. Prem and M. Pretko, Symmetric Tensor Gauge Theories on Curved Spaces , Annals Phys. 410, 167910 (2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    Shirley, K

    W. Shirley, K. Slagle, Z. Wang and X. Chen, Fracton models on general three-dimensional manifolds, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031051 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    Shirley, K

    W. Shirley, K. Slagle and X. Chen, Foliated fracton order from gauging subsystem sym- metries, SciPost Physics 6(4), 041 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    Y. You, T. Devakul, F. Burnell and S. Sondhi, Subsystem symmetry protected topological order, Physical Review B 98(3), 035112 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    Y. You, T. Devakul, F. Burnell and S. Sondhi, Symmetric fracton matter: Twisted and enriched, arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09800 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Devakul, S

    T. Devakul, S. Parameswaran and S. Sondhi, Correlation function diagnostics for type-i fracton phases, Physical Review B 97(4), 041110 (2018)

    2018

  25. [32]

    Prem, S.-J

    A. Prem, S.-J. Huang, H. Song and M. Hermele, Cage-Net Fracton Models , Phys. Rev. X9(2), 021010 (2019)

    2019

  26. [33]

    Petrova and N

    O. Petrova and N. Regnault, Simple anisotropic three-dimensional quantum spin liquid with fractonlike topological order , Phys. Rev. B 96, 224429 (2017)

    2017

  27. [34]

    H. Song, A. Prem, S.-J. Huang and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Twisted fracton models in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 99, 155118 (2019)

    2019

  28. [35]

    Yan et al

    H. Yan et al. , Hyperbolic fracton model, subsystem symmetry, and hologra phy, Physical Review B 99(15), 155126 (2019)

    2019

  29. [36]

    Pretko and L

    M. Pretko and L. Radzihovsky, Fracton-elasticity duality , Physical Review Letters 120(19), 195301 (2018). 15 SciPost Physics Submission

    2018

  30. [38]

    Pretko and L

    M. Pretko and L. Radzihovsky, Symmetry-enriched fracton phases from supersolid dual- ity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 235301 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Gromov, Chiral topological elasticity and fracton order , Phys

    A. Gromov, Chiral topological elasticity and fracton order , Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 076403 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Kumar and A

    A. Kumar and A. C. Potter, Symmetry-enforced fractonicity and two-dimensional quan - tum crystal melting , Phys. Rev. B 100, 045119 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Pretko, Z

    M. Pretko, Z. Zhai and L. Radzihovsky, Crystal-to-fracton tensor gauge theory dualities , Phys. Rev. B 100, 134113 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Zhai and L

    Z. Zhai and L. Radzihovsky, Two-dimensional melting via sine-gordon duality , Phys. Rev. B 100, 094105 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Nowacki, Theory of Asymmetric Elasticity , Pergamon Press, ISBN 0080275842 (1985)

    W. Nowacki, Theory of Asymmetric Elasticity , Pergamon Press, ISBN 0080275842 (1985)

    1985

  36. [44]

    A. C. Eringen, Microcontinuum Field Theories: I. Foundations and Solids , Springer, ISBN 978-1-4612-0555-5 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Dyszlewicz, Micropolar Theory of Elasticity , Springer, ISBN 9783540452867 (2012)

    J. Dyszlewicz, Micropolar Theory of Elasticity , Springer, ISBN 9783540452867 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    Landau, E

    L. Landau, E. Lifshitz, A. Kosevich and L. Pitaevski ˘ ı, Theory of elasticity , Theoretical Physics. Butterworth-Heinemann, ISBN 9780750626330 (198 6)

  39. [47]

    F. R. N. Nabarro, Theory of Crystal Dislocations (Dover Books on Physics and Chem - istry), Dover Pubns, ISBN 0486654885 (1987)

    1987

  40. [48]

    D. R. Nelson, Defects and Geometry in Condensed Matter Physics , Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521004004 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    Teisseyre, H

    R. Teisseyre, H. Nagahama and E. Majewski, Physics of Asymmetric Continuum: Ex- treme and Fracture Processes, Springer, ISBN 9783540683605 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Frenzel, M

    T. Frenzel, M. Kadic and M. Wegener, Three-dimensional mechanical metamaterials with a twist , Science 358(6366), 1072 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Rueger and R

    Z. Rueger and R. Lakes, Strong cosserat elasticity in a transversely isotropic pol ymer lattice, Physical Review Letters 120(6) (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    M. H. Sadd, Elasticity: Theory, Applications, and Numerics , Academic Press, ISBN 0124081363 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Vitelli, J

    V. Vitelli, J. B. Lucks and D. R. Nelson, Crystallography on curved surfaces , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(33), 12323 (2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    S. Li, R. Zandi and A. Travesset, Elasticity in curved topographies: Exact theories and linear approximations, Physical Review E 99(6) (2019). 16 SciPost Physics Submission

    2019

  47. [55]

    M. D. Schwartz, Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model , Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9781107034730 (2013)

    2013

  48. [56]

    de Rham, Massive gravity , Living Reviews in Relativity 17(1) (2014)

    C. de Rham, Massive gravity , Living Reviews in Relativity 17(1) (2014). 17

    2014

Pith tools

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