Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Pulse-induced memory-like effect in cyclotron motion?

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A short electric pulse permanently shifts the center and radius of a charged particle's cyclotron orbit, a non-relativistic analogue of electromagnetic memory.

desk verdict Correct textbook derivation of a pulse-induced orbit change, honestly framed as 'memory-like'; worth refereeing for a teaching journal, not a research claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19460 v2 pith:IYUW7BY4 submitted 2024-12-27 physics.class-ph gr-qchep-th

Sayan Kar (IIT Kharagpur , India) This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.class-phgr-qchep-th
keywords electromagneticmemoryvelocitykickcyclotronmotionvectorpotentialgaugetransformationelectricpulsenon-relativisticchargedparticlepersistentobservables
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

The paper asks whether a passing pulse can leave a permanent mark on a simple mechanical system, and answers yes. It studies a charged particle moving in a uniform magnetic field, whose normal cyclotron circle is interrupted by a short, spatially uniform electric pulse; after the pulse switches off, the particle settles on a different circle rather than returning to the old one. The permanent changes are a shift of the circle's center by $(E/B)(\sin\alpha\,T,\,-\cos\alpha\,T)$ and a change in its radius and in the particle's velocity, all of which persist indefinitely. The author traces this memory-like effect to a constant difference between the vector potentials before and after the pulse, a difference that is itself a pure gauge transformation. The point of the work is that a 'memory' usually associated with gravitational waves can appear in a completely non-relativistic, textbook electromagnetic setting.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a three-region solution of the Lorentz force equations—before, during, and after the pulse—matched at the two switching times $t=0$ and $t=T$. The central object is the difference in the vector potential between the far future and the far past: $\Delta\mathbf A = -ET(\cos\alpha\,\hat i+\sin\alpha\,\hat j)$, a constant vector that survives after the electric and magnetic fields themselves have returned to their initial values. This difference is a pure gauge transformation with generator $\Lambda=-ET(x\cos\alpha+y\sin\alpha)$, yet it produces observable changes in the orbit; the general relation $\Delta\mathbf v = -\frac{q}{m}\Delta\mathbf A(t)+\omega_B\Delta\tilde{\mathbf r}$, with $\tilde{\mathbf r}=y\hat i-x\hat j$, encodes how the vector-potential shift and the position shift together give the velocity kick. The complex-velocity representation $\tilde w=v_x+iv_y$ is used to derive the kick compactly.

What would settle it

Set up a cyclotron-like apparatus with $B=1.5$ T and a deuteron beam whose initial orbit has center $(0.60,-0.10)$ m and radius $0.50$ m, and apply a nominally square, 50 MV/m, 10 ns electric pulse. The paper predicts the post-pulse center $(0.60,-0.43)$ m and radius $0.79$ m; observing any significant deviation from both values, or finding that the orbit returns to its original circle for a nonzero pulse, would refute the central claim. A cleaner separator is pulse-shape independence: the theory predicts the center shift depends only on $\int\mathbf E\,dt$, so using a Gaussian or triangular pulse of the same area should leave the center shift unchanged while altering the radius according to the shape-dependent terms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a square electric pulse $\mathbf E = E[\Theta(t)-\Theta(t-T)](\cos\alpha\,\hat i+\sin\alpha\,\hat j)$ superimposed on a uniform magnetic field $B\hat k$ changes the asymptotic cyclotron orbit. Writing the pre-pulse orbit with center $(C_0,C'_0)$ and radius $\sqrt{A_0^2+D_0^2}$, the post-pulse orbit is again a circle, with center shifted by $(E/B)(\sin\alpha\,T,\,-\cos\alpha\,T)$ and radius equal to the square root of $\left(A_0+\frac{2E}{\omega_B B}\sin\frac{\omega_B T}{2}\cos(\frac{\omega_B T}{2}+\alpha)\right)^2 + \left(D_0+\frac{2E}{\omega_B B}\sin\frac{\omega_B T}{2}\sin(\frac{\omega_B T}{2}+\alpha)\right)^2$. The velocity difference between future and past is the complex quantity $-i\frac{E}{B}e^{-i\omega_B t}(e^{i(\omega_B T+\alpha)}-e^{i\alpha})$, so the particle's speed as well as its direction changes. The paper identifies the origin of this persistence in the nonzero difference of vector potentials, $\Delta \mathbf A = -ET(\cos\alpha\,\hat i+\sin\alpha\,\hat j)$, which is related to $-\nabla\Lambda$ with $\Lambda=-ET(x\cos\alpha+y\sin\alpha)$, and it provides a generalized velocity-kick formula $\Delta\mathbf v = -\frac{q}{m}\Delta\mathbf A(t)+\omega_B\Delta\tilde{\mathbf r}$ for the case with a uniform magnetic field.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pulse is an idealized square wave that is spatially uniform, turns on and off instantaneously, and can be superposed on the magnetic field without radiation, edge effects, or back-reaction from the moving charge; if that idealization fails, the quantitative formulas for the center shift and radius change would need modification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • After the pulse leaves, the particle is on a new circle forever; the old circle is not recovered, and no choice of initial constants keeps both the center and the radius unchanged.
  • For $\omega_B T=2n\pi$ the radius is unchanged but the center still shifts; for $\omega_B T=(2n+1)\pi$ the radius changes in a way controlled by $\alpha$, and with specially tuned initial conditions the particle can be left completely at rest.
  • A pair of identical charges with different initial conditions ends up with a different relative separation and relative velocity after the pulse, giving a two-particle marker of the memory-like effect.
  • The generalized kick formula $\Delta\mathbf v=-\frac{q}{m}\Delta\mathbf A(t)+\omega_B\Delta\tilde{\mathbf r}$ reduces to the familiar $\Delta\mathbf v=q\int \mathbf E\,dt$ when the magnetic field is switched off, so the pure-electric memory formula is recovered as a special case.
  • The paper's illustrative parameters (deuteron, $B=1.5$ T, $E=50$ MV/m, $T=10$ ns) shift the center by about $0.33$ m and increase the speed from $0.12c$ to $0.19c$, which places the predicted effect at a scale a modified cyclotron could in principle resolve.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the vector-potential difference is truly the mechanism, then the center shift should depend only on the time integral of the electric field, while the radius change should carry pulse-shape information; numerically comparing square, Gaussian, and triangular pulses would test this separation directly.
  • The idealized calculation ignores radiation reaction; including it should turn the 'permanent' circle into a very slowly decaying spiral, so the effect is really a long-lived memory rather than an exact one under more complete physics.
  • The same two-region matching applied to a nonuniform magnetic field would overlay the guiding-center drift on the memory shift, possibly giving a new way to distinguish the pulse-induced part of the motion.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a non-relativistic charged particle in a uniform magnetic field, subject to a short, spatially homogeneous, square electric pulse in the plane perpendicular to the field. It derives the exact piecewise solution of the Lorentz force equation in three time regions, matches the boundary conditions at the pulse edges, and obtains explicit formulas for the post-pulse orbit: a shifted guiding center, a changed radius, and a velocity kick. The author interprets these permanent changes as a memory-like effect and argues that they are related to the difference in vector potentials before and after the pulse, which are connected by a gauge transformation.

Significance. The calculation is a clean, parameter-free exact solution of a standard problem in classical electrodynamics. The main formulas, in particular the velocity kick (Eq. 20) and the post-pulse orbital invariants (Eq. 22), are internally consistent and reproduce the stated center shift and radius change. The paper is honest that this is not a wave-memory effect at null infinity, but a simple analogue with 'persistent observables'. The derivation is self-contained and does not depend on the cited memory literature, so there is no circularity concern. The main value is pedagogical and interpretive: it provides a concrete, exactly solvable model that illustrates how a transient field can leave a permanent imprint on a charged particle's orbit.

minor comments (5)
  1. [II (Current source)] Equation (29) has a sign error. From the Ampere-Maxwell law with ∇×B = 0, J = -ε0 ∂E/∂t, so for the pulse in Eq. (28) one obtains J = -ε0 E [δ(t) - δ(t-T)](cos α i + sin α j), not the expression with a plus sign. The stated current source would, if used as an input, generate an electric pulse of the opposite sign. This should be corrected and the surrounding paragraph adjusted accordingly.
  2. [II (Velocities)] The claim that 'for no pair of values of ti and tf is the difference Δvα = 0' is too strong. Equation (20) gives a complex velocity difference that rotates with frequency ωB, so for each Cartesian component there will generally be many pairs (ti, tf) for which that component's difference vanishes. The correct statement is that the difference is not identically zero and is generically nonzero, or that the asymptotic difference is nonzero for a nonvanishing pulse. This overstatement is not needed for the orbit-memory result but should be revised.
  3. [III (Role of the vector potential)] The wording that the vector potential difference (34) is 'responsible for a memory-like effect' is an overinterpretation. The electric and magnetic fields are identical before and after the pulse, and the gauge transformation (35) with Λ = -ET(x cos α + y sin α) is a regular, small gauge transformation. The physical cause of the permanent change is the time-integrated Lorentz force during the pulse. The quantitative relation (41) is correct, but the interpretive sentences should be softened to present the vector potential difference as a mathematical characterization rather than a causal mechanism.
  4. [II (Experimental possibility)] The paper correctly acknowledges that the practical implementation needs more thought, but it should also state explicitly that a perfectly homogeneous electric pulse filling all space is an idealization with infinite energy. A real pulse would have finite spatial extent, and edge effects would modify the idealized predictions. This does not invalidate the exact solution for the idealized configuration, but it should be labeled as an idealization in the experimental section.
  5. [General] The data availability statement reads 'No Data associated in the manuscript'; the phrasing should be 'No data are associated with the manuscript' or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted orbit changes are direct consequences of the Lorentz-force solution, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an exact, parameter-free solution of the Lorentz force for a prescribed square electric pulse in a uniform magnetic field. Equations (15)-(18) are obtained by direct integration and boundary matching, the velocity-kick formula (20) follows algebraically from the complex-velocity equation (19), and the final-circle invariants (22) are rearrangements of the solved trajectories. No parameter is fitted to the predicted final orbit; the constants A0, D0, C0, C0' are initial conditions chosen for plots. The vector-potential discussion in Section III computes A from E = -∂A/∂t, forms ΔA, and derives the gauge function Λ from A_after = A_before + ∇Λ; the relation Δv = -q/m ΔA + ωB Δr̃ is obtained by integrating the equations of motion and then verified, not assumed. The paper's self-citations (e.g., [19], [21]-[23], [53]) appear only in background or analogical contexts and are not load-bearing for the derivation. The paper explicitly concedes the experimental limitation ('The practical implementation of this idea in a possible experiment will surely require more detailed thought'), and the Ampere-Maxwell source expression in Eq. (29) has a sign error; these concern realizability and correctness of the source model, not circularity. Defining 'memory' as a permanent change is a labeling convention, not a circular derivation. The result is self-contained against the stated idealized pulse. Score 0.

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

The central claim rests on no fitted parameters. The integration constants A0, D0, C0, C0' are fixed by initial conditions, not by the target result. The only axioms are the idealizations of a perfectly square, homogeneous pulse and a uniform, constant B field, plus the standard Lorentz and Maxwell framework.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The electric pulse is a prescribed, spatially uniform square wave, E(t) = E for 0 <= t <= T and zero otherwise, independent of the particle's motion.
    This idealization is introduced in Section II, Eq. (3), and is the driving input of the calculation.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field is exactly uniform, constant, and along z, B = B k, and the particle moves non-relativistically with vz = 0.
    Stated in Section II; sets the circular motion and justifies the non-relativistic Lorentz force equations.
  • standard math The standard Lorentz force and Maxwell equations are used without radiative or back-reaction corrections.
    Used throughout; the paper does not include radiation reaction, consistent with its non-relativistic scope.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pulse-induced memory-like effect in cyclotron motion?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IYUW7BY4

@misc{pith2026241219460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pulse-induced memory-like effect in cyclotron motion?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IYUW7BY4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19460}
}
read the original abstract

We study how a charged particle moving in a uniform magnetic field along its standard circular path (cyclotron motion) reacts to a short-duration, homogeneous, uniform electric field pulse injected in the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field. A `permanent' change in the radius of the initial circle and a shift of its centre is noted at later times, after the pulse is switched off. The velocity vector (components and magnitude) undergoes a change too, akin to a `velocity kick'. The cause behind this permanent change appears to be linked to the difference between the vector potentials before and after the duration of the electric pulse. Further, we show how such vector potentials in the past and future are related through a gauge transformation. In summary, our results suggest a pulse-induced `electromagnetic memory-like effect', which is not quite a `wave memory', but, nevertheless, has similar features within a simple, non-relativistic context.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19460 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The square pulse E as function of t. in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The circular paths before and after the arrival of the pulse. The blue (red) curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The circular paths before and after the arrival of the pulse. The blue (red) curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evolution of the charge in time. The red curve (pre-pulse circle) is from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The circular path (green) before the arrival of the pulse. The blue curve traces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The left figure shows the initial circular trajectories (before the arrival of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The electric field pulse (yellow curve) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

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. Memory-like effects and kinematics of trajectories in Cyclotron motion

    physics.class-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An electric pulse leaves a permanent shear restructuring (complex-shear phase rotation) on a cyclotron trajectory congruence without changing focusing times.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The effect of the pulse is manifest in the modified trajectories in regions II and III

    and its radius is p A2 0 + D2 0. The effect of the pulse is manifest in the modified trajectories in regions II and III. In III, we find that the trajectory is still a circle but with a shifted centre and a different radius. The equation of this new circle at times t ≥ T is given as: x(III ) − C0 + E B (sin α) T 2 + y(III ) − C ′ 0 − E B (cos α) T 2 = A0 ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    After the pulse has interacted and departed, we have different radii and velocities

    Hence the difference in the magnitudes of the radii and velocities are given as: ∆Ri = |Ri2 − Ri1| , ∆ vi = |vi2 − vi1| = ωB∆Ri. After the pulse has interacted and departed, we have different radii and velocities. In particular, we have, R2 f 1 = A01 + 2E ωBB sin ωBT 2 cos ωBT 2 + α 2 + D01 + 2E ωBB sin ωBT 2 sin ωBT 2 + α 2 . (26) R2 f 2 = A02 + 2E ωBB s...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and A. G. Polnarev, Sov. Astron 18, 17 (1974)

    work page 1974

  4. [4]

    V. B. Braginsky and L. P. Grishchuk, Sov. Phys. JETP 62, 427 (1985)

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    Christodoulou, Phys

    D. Christodoulou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1486 (1991)

    1991

  6. [6]

    O. M. Boersma, D. A. Nichols, P. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083026 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    H¨ ubner, P

    M. H¨ ubner, P. Lasky, E. Thrane, Phys. Rev.D 104, 023004 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Inchausp´ e, S

    H. Inchausp´ e, S. Gasparotto, D. Blas, L. Heisenberg, J. Zosso, S. Tiwari, arXiv:2406.09228

    arXiv

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    Bieri and D

    L. Bieri and D. Garfinkle, Phys. Rev. D 89, 084039 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Tolish, L

    A. Tolish, L. Bieri, D. Garfinkle, and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 90, 044060 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Tolish and R

    A. Tolish and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 89, 064008 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    M¨ adler and J

    T. M¨ adler and J. Winicour, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 175006 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    M¨ adler and J

    T. M¨ adler and J. Winicour, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 115009 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Strominger and A

    A. Strominger and A. Zhiboedov, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2016), 86. 19

    2016

  7. [15]

    Strominger, Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory (2017) arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]

    A. Strominger, Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory (2017) arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Zhang, C

    P.-M. Zhang, C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, and P. A. Horvathy, Phys. Lett. B 772, 743 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Zhang, C

    P.-M. Zhang, C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, and P. A. Horvathy, Phys. Rev. D 96, 064013 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    P. M. Zhang, C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons, and P. A. Horvathy, JCAP 05, 030

  11. [19]

    Zhang, C

    P.-M. Zhang, C. Duval, and P. A. Horvathy, Class. Qtm. Grav. 35, 065011 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    P. M. Zhang, M. Elbistan, G. W. Gibbons, and P. A. Horvathy, Gen. Rel. Grav.50,107 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Chakraborty and S

    I. Chakraborty and S. Kar, Phys. Rev. D 101, 064022 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Cvetkovi´ c and D

    B. Cvetkovi´ c and D. Simi´ c, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 127 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Chakraborty and S

    I. Chakraborty and S. Kar, Phys. Lett. B 808, 135611 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Siddhant, I

    S. Siddhant, I. Chakraborty, and S. Kar, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 350 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Chakraborty and S

    I. Chakraborty and S. Kar, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 418 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    P. -M. Zhang, P. A. Horvathy, arXiv:2405.12928. Annals of Physics 470, 169784 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    P. -M. Zhang, Q. -L. Zhao, J. Balog and P. A. Horvathy, Annals of Physics 473, 169890 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Ben Achour and J-P Uzan, JCAP 08,004 (2024),

    J. Ben Achour and J-P Uzan, JCAP 08,004 (2024),

    2024

  21. [29]

    E. E. Flanagan, A. M. Grant, A. I. Harte, and D. A. Nichols.Phys. Rev. D 99, 084004 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    E. E. Flanagan, A. M. Grant, A. I. Harte, and D. A. Nichols, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104033 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    A. M. Grant and D. A. Nichols, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024056 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    O’Loughlin and H

    M. O’Loughlin and H. Demirchian, Phys. Rev. D 99, 024031 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    A. K. Divakarla and B. F. Whiting, Phys. Rev. D 104, 064001 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    G. M. Shore, JHEP 12, 133 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    H. Hadi, A. R. Akbarieh, David F. Mota, Class. Quantum Grav. 41, 105005 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Favata, Class

    M. Favata, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 084036 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Mitman, M

    K. Mitman, M. Boyle, L. C. Stein, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, J. Moxon, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, S. A. Teukolsky, W. Throwe, N. L. Vu, Class. Quantum Grav. 41, 223001 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    L. P. Grishchuk and A. G. Polnarev, Sov. Phys. JETP 69, 653 (1989)

    1989

  31. [39]

    Bieri, D

    L. Bieri, D. Garfinkle, Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 195009 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Jokela, K

    N. Jokela, K. Kajantie and M. Sarkkinen, Phys. Rev. D99, 11603 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Winicour, Class

    J. Winicour, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 205003 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    Susskind, arXiv:1507.02584

    L. Susskind, arXiv:1507.02584. 20

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Pasterski, JHEP 154 (2017)

    S. Pasterski, JHEP 154 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Pate, A-M Raclariu, and A

    M. Pate, A-M Raclariu, and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 261602 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Satishchandran, R

    G. Satishchandran, R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D99 084007 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Campoleoni, D

    A. Campoleoni, D. Francia, and C. Heissenberg, Phys. Rev. D 100, 085015 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Garfinkle, Class

    D. Garfinkle, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 135010 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Bieri and D

    L. Bieri and D. Garfinkle, Class. Quantum Grav. 41, 225009 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Oblak, A

    B. Oblak, A. Seraj Phys. Rev. D 109, 044037 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Chautard, Beam dynamics for cyclotrons, CERN Particle Accelerator School: 209–229 (2006) doi:10.5170/CERN-2006-012.209

    F. Chautard, Beam dynamics for cyclotrons, CERN Particle Accelerator School: 209–229 (2006) doi:10.5170/CERN-2006-012.209

    2006 doi

  43. [51]

    Shaikh, S

    R. Shaikh, S. Kar and A. DasGupta, Eur. Phys. Jr. Plus 129, 90 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    R. W. Gould, Am. J. Phys. 37, 585 (1969)

    1969

  45. [53]

    Iimori, T

    T. Iimori, T. Naito and N. Ohta, JACS 129, 3458 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    S-Jui, C-Ye, C-Wen, C-Jung and H-C Tseng, ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces 11, 33525 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Dey and S

    A. Dey and S. Kar, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084056 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Mashhoon, Gravitoelectromagnetism: A Brief Review, in L

    B. Mashhoon, Gravitoelectromagnetism: A Brief Review, in L. Iorio (ed.), The Measurement of Gravitomagnetism: A Challenging Enterprise, Nova Science Publishers (2007)

    2007

  49. [57]

    M. L. Ruggiero and D. Astesiano, J. Phys. Commun. 7 112001 (2023). 21

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.