Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Analogue simulation of quantum gravity black hole models in a dc-SQUID array

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that a dc-SQUID array can simulate a star's collapse-and-bounce spacetime, and identifies the downstream-radiation flux profile as the experimentally suitable one.

desk verdict New application of the SQUID-array mapping to a bouncing black-hole-white-hole metric, but the downstream feasibility claim is built on the AC component and does not survive a total-flux analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14150 v1 pith:IPSAY5SR submitted 2025-07-03 physics.gen-ph

Marco D. Maceda , Carlos Sabín This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.gen-ph
keywords analoguegravitydc-SQUIDarrayblackholebouncewhiteGullstrand-PainlevémetricmagneticfluxprofileHawkingradiationquantumsimulation
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 proposes an analogue quantum simulation of a quantum-gravity-inspired spacetime: a star collapsing from infinity into a black hole that, at Planck scale, bounces into a white hole. The platform is a one-dimensional dc-SQUID array in which an external magnetic flux tunes the propagation speed of an electromagnetic field, creating an effective 1+1-dimensional curved spacetime. The authors compute the time- and position-dependent flux profiles that reproduce the radial light speed of the metric for two radiation scenarios, upstream and downstream, and find that the downstream profile is the more experimentally suitable because critical flux values, where the inductance diverges, appear only in a small interior region. If the proposal works, the array would allow laboratory study of quantum fields inside a bouncing black hole and test how Hawking radiation behaves across the bounce.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the identification of the coordinate speed of radial null geodesics in the Gullstrand-Painlevé metric, $\tilde{c} = v \pm c$, with the propagation speed of a quantum field in a dc-SQUID array, $c(x) = 1/\sqrt{C L(\phi(x))} = c_0 \sqrt{|\cos(\pi\phi/\phi_0)|}$, assuming $\cos\psi \approx 1$. The AC/DC flux-tuning relation (Eq. 12) converts a target effective speed into a magnetic flux profile; the paper applies it to the piecewise collapse/expansion metric with a bounce. This machinery does two jobs: it makes the metric experimentally addressable, and it locates the points where the simulation breaks down, namely $\phi = \pm\phi_0/2$, where $\tilde{c} = 0$ and the inductance diverges. The downstream/upstream comparison is simply a comparison of where those critical points sit in the $(t,r)$ plane.

What would settle it

Take a short dc-SQUID array, apply the downstream flux profile of Eqs. (24)-(25), and measure the propagation speed and phase noise as a function of applied flux: if the array leaves the linear superconducting regime, or if the speed deviates from $c_0 \sqrt{|\cos(\pi\phi/\phi_0)|}$, before the predicted photon-pair production appears, the feasibility claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the radial null-light speed $\tilde{c} = v \pm c$ of a Gullstrand-Painlevé spacetime describing collapse and bounce can be imprinted on a dc-SQUID array by choosing the magnetic flux $\phi(x,t)$ so that the array's effective speed $c(x) = c_0 \sqrt{|\cos(\pi\phi/\phi_0)|}$ matches it. For upstream radiation (light moving against the flow), the required flux approaches the critical value $\phi = \pm\phi_0/2$, giving zero speed and infinite inductance, over nearly the whole exterior region; for downstream radiation (light moving with the flow), this happens only on the stellar surface inside the horizon, in a small spacetime region around the boundary. The paper therefore concludes that the downstream scenario is experimentally preferable: quantum fluctuations of the superconducting phase remain confined to a small part of the array, so the rest stays in the linear regime with $\cos\psi \approx 1$. A secondary result is the constraint $3 t_B < M$ in natural units, meaning that for Planck-mass black holes the bounce time can be at most one-third of the Planck time for the flux profile to be computable.

Load-bearing premise

The whole plan depends on the field in the superconducting array moving at a speed set by the magnetic flux, with the array staying in its normal linear superconducting regime; near the critical flux the inductance becomes infinite and this assumption breaks, so the plan works only if those points are isolated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A downstream flux profile confines critical flux to the stellar surface inside the horizon, so a practical experiment can keep the entire array superconducting except a small region around one or a few SQUIDs.
  • The same SQUID-array technology already proposed for static black holes can simulate the full black-hole-to-white-hole bounce, opening the dynamics inside the horizon to laboratory probes.
  • Critical-flux points act as localized sources of photon pairs, analogous to Hawking radiation, so the downstream configuration offers a spatially localized Hawking-pair source that can be measured against the array's phase shifts.
  • The computability bound $3 t_B < M$ ties the bounce time to the stellar mass: for Planck-mass holes the bounce must be shorter than a third of the Planck time, which is a concrete target for quantum-gravity models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the same flux-mapping method should generalize to any metric whose radial null speed has the form $v \pm c$, since only the squared combination enters the flux formulas; metrics with $v$ and $c$ aligned (downstream) will always push critical flux into the interior, while anti-aligned ones push it outward.
  • A natural experimental test would be to fabricate a short array whose flux is near the critical value at a single SQUID and measure the emitted photons: pair production localized at that point, rather than spread over the array, would be a clean signature of the analogue horizon.
  • The paper's feasibility criterion can be restated as an engineering specification: choose the bounce such that $r_\star(t)$ inside the horizon is the only place where $\phi$ approaches $\pm\phi_0/2$, which in turn constrains $t_B$ through the $3 t_B < M$ bound; future quantum-gravity theories that predict longer bounces would make the downstream profile harder to realize.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes an in-principle analogue quantum simulation of the radial section of a collapsing and bouncing star spacetime, modelled as a black-hole-to-white-hole transition with a bounce duration t_B and star mass M. The authors use the published dc-SQUID-array mapping between external magnetic flux and the effective propagation speed of light, Eqs. (8)-(12), and apply it to the Painlevé-Gullstrand form of the metric, Eqs. (3)-(5). They compute the time- and position-dependent flux profiles needed to emulate the two radial light-speed branches, which they call upstream and downstream radiation, and they conclude that the downstream configuration is more experimentally suitable because the critical flux values φ = ±φ0/2, where the SQUID inductance diverges, appear only in a small spacetime region. The central calculation is a direct application of a previously published mapping to a previously published metric, with no fitted parameters beyond the two model parameters M and t_B.

Significance. If the conclusion were correct, the paper would provide a concrete, parameter-free recipe for simulating a bouncing black-hole metric in a dc-SQUID array, including explicit flux profiles and a clear criterion for choosing between the two propagation directions. The upstream/downstream distinction is pedagogically useful, and the paper is careful to restrict the simulation to the regions outside the unknown bounce interval. These are genuine strengths: the derivation is transparent, the profiles are explicit, and no quantity is fitted to force the conclusion. However, the headline claim is not established on the evidence presented, because the feasibility argument is based on the AC component of the flux rather than the total flux that physically enters the inductance, and because an algebraic error affects the DC offset formulas. The comparison between the two scenarios is therefore parameter-dependent and needs to be reworked.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eqs. (17) and (23)] There is an algebraic error in the derivation of the DC offset. From Eq. (6), r⋆^3 = (9M/2)t^2, so at the bounce boundary t = ±t_B/2 one has r⋆ = (1/2)(9M t_B^2)^{1/3}, and therefore sqrt(2M/r⋆) = 2 (M/(3t_B))^{1/3}. The preceding lines of Eqs. (17) and (23) require this cube-root expression, but the printed closed forms use (2/3) sqrt(M/(3t_B)), a square-root factor that is not equivalent. As a result Eqs. (17), (18), (19), (23), (24) and (25) are not correct as printed. For example, at the largest allowed bounce time t_B = M/3, Eq. (17) as printed gives cos(π φ_DC/φ0) = 9, which is outside the arccosine domain, so the boundary normalization cannot be satisfied. The derivation must be redone with the correct cube-root factor, and the domain condition 3t_B < M should be re-checked.
  2. [Section V, Eqs. (21)-(25) and the abstract] The central feasibility claim conflates the AC component with the total flux. Equations (24) and (25) are explicitly formulas for φ_AC, but the physical inductance and propagation speed in Eqs. (8)-(10) depend on the total flux φ = φ_AC + φ_DC. From Eq. (24), the total flux outside the star is φ = (φ0/π) arccos{[(1 + sqrt(2M/r))/(1 + η)]^2}, where η = 2(M/(3t_B))^{1/3} is the correct boundary factor; the second arccos term in Eq. (24) is exactly πφ_DC/φ0. This total flux tends to φ_DC at spatial infinity and to φ_DC as r → 0 inside the star, while Eq. (23) gives φ_DC → φ0/2 as t_B/M → 0 and φ_DC ≈ 0.46φ0 even at the largest allowed t_B. Hence for small bounce times almost the entire array is biased near φ0/2, where |cos(πφ/φ0)| ≪ 1, the inductance is large, and the linearization cosψ ≈ 1 underlying Eq. (10) fails. The confinement of critical values to a small interior region is therefore an artifact of reporting the AC component, and the abstract's claim that the downstream configuration is 'more experimentally suitable' is not supported without a total-flux analysis over the full (t,r) domain.
  3. [Section V, parameter dependence of the comparison] The upstream/downstream comparison is parameter-dependent in a way the manuscript does not address. With the corrected boundary factor, the allowed range is 3t_B ≤ M. At t_B = M/3, the upstream total flux at infinity is zero while at the horizon it is φ0/2, whereas for t_B/M → 0 both upstream and downstream profiles have total flux approaching φ0/2 over essentially the whole array. Thus which configuration keeps the array away from the high-inductance regime depends on t_B/M, and the ordering could reverse for small bounce times. A quantitative suitability criterion is also missing: the paper never specifies what fraction of SQUIDs may be near φ0/2 or what maximum inductance is tolerable, so the phrase 'small region' in Section V has no operational definition.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) as printed has the inductance proportional to |cos(πφ/φ0)|, which would make L → 0 and c → ∞ at the critical flux, the opposite of the intended behaviour. To be consistent with Eq. (10), the Josephson inductance should be proportional to 1/|cos(πφ/φ0)|; a reciprocal or division sign appears to be missing.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] The text contains typographical errors: 'Inthisspacetime' should be 'In this spacetime', and 'outfalling' should be 'outgoing' or 'outward-moving' radiation.
  3. [Figures 1 and 2] The figure captions state that the plotted quantity is the 'applied magnetic flux' but do not specify whether this is the AC component φ_AC or the total flux φ = φ_AC + φ_DC. Given that the text equations (18)-(19) and (24)-(25) are for φ_AC, and that the feasibility discussion in Section V depends on this distinction, the captions must state explicitly which quantity is plotted.
  4. [Section IV, unit restoration] The reconstructed inequality '3t_B G < M c^3' is dimensionally inconsistent. The SI form of the natural-units condition 3t_B < M is 3t_B c^3/G < M, or equivalently 3t_B < G M/c^3.
  5. [Equations (17) and (23)] The notation '= 1 − →' in Eqs. (17) and (23) is garbled and should be replaced with an ordinary implication arrow or the explicit statement that the arccosine argument is normalized to unity at the boundary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: direct application of a published parameter-free dispersion mapping to a published metric; no fitted parameter is repackaged as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and parameter-free. The target metric enters only through the radial null speed c̃ = v ± c (Eq. 7). The SQUID-array dispersion relation c² = c0² |cos(πφ/φ0)| (Eq. 10) is an external physical input, and Eq. 12 is an algebraic inversion of that relation with the split φ = φAC + φDC, not a fit. The DC offset φDC is fixed by a boundary condition that sets the arccos argument to 1 at the bounce boundary (Eqs. 17 and 23); this is a domain-preservation choice, not a parameter tuned to produce the downstream/upstream comparison. The AC flux profiles (Eqs. 18–19 and 24–25) then follow by substitution, and the comparison is drawn from the resulting figures. No step equates its output to its input by construction. The self-citations ([25], [26], [27]) provide the mapping and measurement techniques, but the cited mapping is an algebraic identity with stated assumptions (linear regime, cos ψ ≈ 1) that do not include the target bounce metric, so the citations are independent support rather than load-bearing circularity. The downstream-feasibility conclusion rests on Section V's reading of Figs. 1–2; whether that reading is correct is a consistency question (the DC offset of Eq. 23 is nonzero, and total flux, not AC flux, sets the propagation speed), not a circularity. The stated domain constraint 3tB < M (Sec. IV) is a limitation of the arccos inversion, not a predicted outcome. Therefore the paper shows no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation has no free parameters fitted to data. The free parameters are the bounce duration tB and the star mass M, both inputs to the simulation. All other quantities are either physical constants, device parameters from the cited SQUID literature, or derived from the boundary condition that the arccosine arguments stay within [-1,1]. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • tB (bounce duration)
    Chosen as a model input; it sets the width of the excluded bounce interval and determines the necessary DC flux offset via Eqs 17 and 23. The stated condition 3 tB < M follows from the intended algebra.
  • M (star mass)
    Input mass of the collapsing star that defines the target metric. It is a physical control parameter of the simulated system, not fitted to data; the flux profiles are expressed in units of M.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Painlevé-Gullstrand form of the Schwarzschild metric (Eq 3) with flat spatial sections and time equal to free-fall proper time.
    Standard coordinate transformation of the Schwarzschild metric, cited to Refs 28 and 29. Used as the starting point for the river model.
  • domain assumption The bouncing black-hole-white-hole spacetime of Barceló et al. (Eqs 4-6) with a time-symmetric bounce of duration tB whose internal metric is unknown.
    The paper imports this model from Refs 5, 6, and 30. The unknown bounce-region metric is the reason the simulation excludes -tB/2 < t < tB/2.
  • domain assumption The dc-SQUID array dispersion relation c(x) = c0 sqrt(|cos(pi phi/phi0)|), with cos psi ≈ 1 (Eqs 8-10).
    This relation links inductance to magnetic flux and is cited to Ref 34. The linear-regime approximation is invoked and later acknowledged to break near critical flux.
  • domain assumption The mapping between effective speed of light and flux, Eq 12, from Ref 27.
    This is the bridge that translates a target c̃(x) into a required AC flux offset by a DC flux. It comes from prior work by one of the authors but is published and used as a black box.
  • domain assumption The free-fall collapse trajectory r_star^3 = (9M/2) t^2 (Eq 6).
    Dust-collapse solution in Painlevé-Gullstrand coordinates, cited to Ref 30. Used to express the interior flux as a function of r and t alone.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analogue simulation of quantum gravity black hole models in a dc-SQUID array." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IPSAY5SR

@misc{pith2026250714150,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analogue simulation of quantum gravity black hole models in a dc-SQUID array},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IPSAY5SR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14150}
}
read the original abstract

We propose an analog quantum simulation for studying the collapse and bounce of a star from infinity. In this spacetime, which encompasses both a black hole and a white hole, we place a massless scalar field that propagates at the speed of light, which is modified by the curvature. We simulate this system using an SQUID array, in which we can alter the propagation of light using an external magnetic field. We consider both infalling and outfalling radiation, giving rise to two different scenarios: downstream and upstream radiation. We compute the magnetic flux profile required by the simulation in both cases and find out that the former is more experimentally suitable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.14150 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Applied magnetic flux, in units of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Applied magnetic flux, in units of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

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. Josephson's effect in the Schwarzschild background

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Josephson dynamics in Schwarzschild spacetime reduce to flat-space laws with redshifted voltages, giving critical currents that scale as α, power as α², and Shapiro steps fixed in asymptotic variables.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies,Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1982)

    1982

  2. [2]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Com- munications in Mathematical Physics43, 199 (1975)

    work page 1975

  3. [3]

    S. W. Hawking, Breakdown of predictability in gravita- tional collapse, Phys. Rev. D14, 2460 (1976)

    1976

  4. [4]

    C. R. Stephens, G. ’t Hooft, and B. F. Whiting, Black hole evaporation without information loss, Classical and Quantum Gravity 11, 621 (1994)

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    Barceló, R

    C. Barceló, R. Carballo-Rubio, L. J. Garay, and G. Jannes, The lifetime problem of evaporating black holes: mutiny or resignation, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 035012 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Mutiny at the white-hole district

    C. Barceló, R. Carballo-Rubio, and L. J. Garay, Mutiny at the white-hole district, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics D23 (2014), arXiv:1407.1391v1 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Husain, J

    V. Husain, J. G. Kelly, R. Santacruz, and E. Wilson- Ewing, Fate of quantum black holes, Phys. Rev. D106, 024014 (2022). 6

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Barceló, S

    C. Barceló, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, Analogue gravity, Living reviews in relativity14, 1 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Barceló,Analogue black-hole horizons,Nature Physics 15, 210 (2019)

    C. Barceló,Analogue black-hole horizons,Nature Physics 15, 210 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Troyer, and P

    A.J.Daley, I.Bloch, C.Kokail, S.Flannigan, N.Pearson, M. Troyer, and P. Zoller, Practical quantum advantage in quantum simulation, Nature607, 667 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Steinhauer, Observation of quantum Hawking radia- tion and its entanglement in an analogue black hole, Na- ture Physics 12, 959–965 (2016), arXiv:1510.00621 [gr- qc]

    J. Steinhauer, Observation of quantum Hawking radia- tion and its entanglement in an analogue black hole, Na- ture Physics 12, 959–965 (2016), arXiv:1510.00621 [gr- qc]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J. R. Muñoz de Nova, K. Golubkov, V. I. Kolobov, and J. Steinhauer, Observation of thermal Hawking radiation and its temperature in an analogue black hole, Nature 569, 688 (2019), arXiv:1809.00913 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    V. I. Kolobov, K. Golubkov, J. R. Muñoz de Nova, and J. Steinhauer, Observation of stationary sponta- neous Hawking radiation and the time evolution of an analogue black hole, Nature Phys. 17, 362 (2021), arXiv:1910.09363 [gr-qc]

    2021

  6. [14]

    Steinhauer, Confirmation of stimulated Hawking radi- ation, but not of black hole lasing, Phys

    J. Steinhauer, Confirmation of stimulated Hawking radi- ation, but not of black hole lasing, Phys. Rev. D106, 102007 (2022), arXiv:2110.06796 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    P. D. Nation, M. P. Blencowe, A. J. Rimberg, and E. Buks, Analogue Hawking radiation in a dc-squid ar- ray transmission line, Physical Review Letters , 087004 (2009), arXiv:0904.2589v2 [quant-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Terrones and C

    A. Terrones and C. Sabín, Towards quantum simulation of black holes in a dc-squid array, Universe7, 499 (2021), arXiv:2110.11344v2 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Patrick, H

    S. Patrick, H. Goodhew, C. Gooding, and S. Weinfurtner, Backreactioninananalogueblackholeexperiment,Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 041105 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Bekenstein, R

    R. Bekenstein, R. Schley, M. Mutzafi, C. Rotschild, and M. Segev, Optical simulations of gravitational effects in the newton–schrödinger system, Nature Physics11, 872 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    down- stream

    where the authors analyze the Hawking radiation generated in an analogue black hole including a bounce, by means of an SQUID terminated coplanar waveguide. They use the equivalency between black holes and accel- erated boundary conditions and propose an implemen- tation of the...

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    García Martín-Caro, G

    A. García Martín-Caro, G. García-Moreno, J. Olmedo, and J. M. Sánchez Velázquez, Hawking radiation from an analogue bouncing geometry, Physical Review D108, L061701 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    C. M. Wilson, G. Johansson, A. Pourkabirian, M. Simoen, J. R. Johansson, T. Duty, F. Nori, and P. Delsing, Observation of the dynamical casimir effect in a superconducting circuit, nature479, 376 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Krein, G

    G. Krein, G. Menezes, and N. F. Svaiter, Analog model for quantum gravity effects: Phonons in random fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 131301 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Liberati, G

    S. Liberati, G. Tricella, and A. Trombettoni, The infor- mation loss problem: An analogue gravity perspective, Entropy 21, 10.3390/e21100940 (2019)

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Barceló, Carlos, Garay, Luis J., and García-Moreno, Ger- ardo, Analogue gravity simulation of superpositions of spacetimes, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 727 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    J. Foo, C. S. Arabaci, M. Zych, and R. B. Mann, Quan- tum superpositions of minkowski spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 107, 045014 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Sabín, Quantum simulation of traversable wormhole spacetimes in a dc-squid array, Physical Review D94, 081501 (2016), arXiv:1603.00639v2 [quant-ph]

    C. Sabín, Quantum simulation of traversable wormhole spacetimes in a dc-squid array, Physical Review D94, 081501 (2016), arXiv:1603.00639v2 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Martín-Vázquez and C

    G. Martín-Vázquez and C. Sabín, Closed timelike curves and chronology protection in quantum and classical simulators, Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 045013 (2020), arXiv:1810.05124v2 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Sabín, One-dimensional sections of exotic spacetimes with superconducting circuits, New Journal of Physics 20, 053028 (2018), arXiv:1707.07439v2 [quant-ph]

    C. Sabín, One-dimensional sections of exotic spacetimes with superconducting circuits, New Journal of Physics 20, 053028 (2018), arXiv:1707.07439v2 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Painlevé, La mécanique classique et la théorie de la relativité, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences 173, 677–680 (1921)

    P. Painlevé, La mécanique classique et la théorie de la relativité, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences 173, 677–680 (1921)

    1921

  22. [30]

    Gullstrand, Allgemeine lösung des statischen einkör- perproblems in der einsteinschen gravitationstheorie, Arkiv för Matematik, Astronomi och Fysik 16(8), 1 (1922)

    A. Gullstrand, Allgemeine lösung des statischen einkör- perproblems in der einsteinschen gravitationstheorie, Arkiv för Matematik, Astronomi och Fysik 16(8), 1 (1922)

    1922

  23. [31]

    Kanai, M

    Y. Kanai, M. Siino, and A. Hosoya, Gravita- tional collapse in painlev ´e-gullstrand coordinates, Progress of Theoretical Physics125, 1053–1065 (2011), arXiv:1008.0470v1 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. J. Hamilton and J. P. Lisle, The river model of black holes, American Journal of Physics76, 519 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Josephson, Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling, Physics Letters1, 251 (1962)

    B. Josephson, Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling, Physics Letters1, 251 (1962)

    1962

  26. [34]

    J. Q. You and F. Nori, Atomic physics and quantum op- tics using superconducting circuits, Nature474, 589–597 (2011), arXiv:1202.1923v1 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Simons, Parametric interactions with signals and the vacuum, Ph.D

    M. Simons, Parametric interactions with signals and the vacuum, Ph.D. thesis, Charlmers university of technology (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Lindkvist, C

    J. Lindkvist, C. Sabín, I. Fuentes, A. Dragan, I.-M. Svensson, P. Delsing, and G. Johansson, Twin para- dox with macroscopic clocks in superconducting circuits, Phys. Rev. A90, 052113 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    Sabín, Quantum simulation of traversable wormhole spacetimes in a dc-squid array, Phys

    C. Sabín, Quantum simulation of traversable wormhole spacetimes in a dc-squid array, Phys. Rev. D94, 081501 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Sabín, One-dimensional sections of exotic spacetimes with superconducting circuits, New Journal of Physics 20, 053028 (2018)

    C. Sabín, One-dimensional sections of exotic spacetimes with superconducting circuits, New Journal of Physics 20, 053028 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    D. B. Haviland, K. Andersson, and P. Ågren, Super- conducting and insulating behavior in one-dimensional josephson junction arrays, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 118, 733 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    P. D. Nation, J. R. Johansson, M. P. Blencowe, and F. Nori, Stimulating uncertainty: Amplifying the quan- tum vacuum with superconducting circuits, Reviews of Modern Physics 84, 1–24 (2012), arXiv:1103.0835v3 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lähteenmäki, G

    P. Lähteenmäki, G. S. Paraoanu, J. Hassel, and P. J. Hakonen, Dynamical casimir effect in a josephson meta- material, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences 110, 4234–4238 (2013), arXiv:1111.5608v2 [cond- mat.mes-hall]. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CS acknowledges financial sup...

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.