Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

Dynamical analog spacetimes from nonlinear perturbations in a topological material

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 claims that nonlinear density-wave perturbations in a topological-material electron fluid generate a time-dependent acoustic metric with an evolving horizon and a measurable microkelvin analog Hawking temperature.

desk verdict The nonlinear wave equation holds up, but the Hawking-temperature calculation is dimensionally wrong and off by orders of magnitude — the headline microkelvin claim is unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16570 v1 pith:MF5WADLG submitted 2025-07-22 gr-qc cond-mat.mtrl-sciquant-ph

Surajit Das , Surojit Dalui , Hrishit Banerjee , Arpan Krishna Mitra This is my paper
classification gr-qccond-mat.mtrl-sciquant-ph
keywords analoggravityacousticmetricHawkingtemperatureBerrycurvatureelectronhydrodynamicsnonlinearperturbationshorizongraphene
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 aims to show that a topological material can host a genuinely dynamical analog spacetime: when the electron fluid is perturbed nonlinearly, the perturbation itself generates a time-dependent acoustic metric with an evolving horizon, rather than a fixed background geometry. The authors build this from Berry-curvature-modified hydrodynamic equations for a radially flowing electron fluid, using a perturbation variable that resembles a mass accretion rate. They then demonstrate, using a first-principles density profile for graphene, that the acoustic horizon forms where the flow speed equals the sound speed and that the associated analog Hawking temperature falls in the tens-of-microkelvin range. If the central derivation is right, the result would extend analog gravity from linearized toy models to realistic, tunable quantum materials where horizon dynamics and quasi-thermal emission could be probed experimentally.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nonlinear acoustic metric whose inverse components are $g^{tt}=A/(\rho r^2)$, $g^{tr}=F/(\rho r^2)$, and $g^{rr}=F^2/(\rho^3 r^6)-c_s^2/(A\rho r^2)$. It is generated by a perturbation variable $F=\rho v r^2/A$, which plays the role of a Berry-curvature-modified mass accretion rate; here $A$ is the Berry curvature correction, a quantum geometric phase effect on the electron's semiclassical motion. The wave equation $\partial_\mu(g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\nu F')=0$ carries all nonlinearities in the metric, and the horizon condition $g^{rr}=0$ locates the surface where the radial flow speed equals the local sound speed. This metric, together with the resulting surface gravity, is the machinery that turns electron-fluid perturbations into a laboratory analog of a black hole.

What would settle it

Recompute the second time derivative of the perturbed Euler equation while keeping every term for the exact background $v_0=b/r$ and the DFT density profile; if the omitted radial-derivative terms are nonzero at the claimed horizon $r_H=0.166614$ m, then the wave equation, the effective metric, and the reported $T_H\simeq9.99\,\mu\mathrm{K}$ must be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that all orders of a radial perturbation of a stationary, spherically symmetric, Berry-curvature-modified electron flow obey a single nonlinear wave equation $\partial_\mu(g^{\mu\nu}\partial_\nu F')=0$ for the variable $F=\rho v r^2/A$, where $A$ encodes the Berry correction. The inverse acoustic metric $g^{\mu\nu}$ depends on the full fluctuating density, velocity, and sound speed, so the geometry reacts to the perturbation as it propagates. The horizon sits where $g^{rr}=0$, equivalent to $|v|=c_s$, and expanding the metric around that radius gives a surface gravity $\kappa=\rho(r_H)b^2/(A r_H)$ for the velocity profile $v=b/r$, hence $T_H=\hbar\rho(r_H)b^2/(2\pi k_B A r_H)$. Using a DFT-derived graphene density and the parameters $b=-1999.37\ \mathrm{m^2/s}$, $c_s=12000\ \mathrm{m/s}$, $A=5$, the authors obtain $r_H\simeq0.166614$ m and $T_H\simeq9.99\times10^{-6}$ K. They further show numerically that first- and second-order perturbations localize near the horizon and, for low-frequency perturbations, drive the horizon to recede.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the second time derivative of the perturbed Euler equation may be simplified by dropping all radial derivatives of the stationary background velocity and density, even though those derivatives do not vanish for the adopted $v_0=b/r$ background and the graphene density profile.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper's central claim is correct, laboratory electron flows in graphene-like systems could exhibit analog Hawking temperatures of order ten microkelvin, within reach of existing low-temperature measurement techniques.
  • The acoustic horizon becomes a dynamical object: high-frequency perturbations produce a horizon that relaxes toward its stationary location, while low-frequency perturbations make it recede.
  • All nonlinear orders contribute to the effective metric, so the curvature of the emergent spacetime depends on the perturbation amplitude instead of being fixed by the background flow.
  • The perturbation scheme yields a systematic order-by-order expansion of the metric corrections, so horizon formation and back-reaction can be tracked to arbitrary order in the accretion-rate variable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same accretion-rate perturbation variable could be used to engineer nonlinear analog horizons in other two-dimensional hydrodynamic systems, such as polariton condensates or cold-atom flows, where the density profile is created rather than computed ab initio.
  • Editorial inference: the reported low-frequency receding horizon implies a concrete time-domain signature, a gradual inward drift of the surface where the flow speed equals the sound speed, that could be searched for in transport measurements of electron hydrodynamics.
  • Editorial inference: the weakest step in the derivation could be tested directly by integrating the original nonlinear fluid equations numerically without the perturbative shortcut; discrepancies in horizon location or temperature would pinpoint exactly where the acoustic-metric reduction fails.
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 develops a nonlinear analog gravity framework for a Berry-curvature-modified electron fluid, using the mass-accretion-like variable F = ρ v r^2 / A. It derives an exact nonlinear wave equation for perturbations of F, packages it as propagation on a dynamical acoustic metric, expands the metric perturbatively to second order, and numerically studies horizon dynamics for a graphene-based model. The paper's advertised quantitative result is an analog Hawking temperature of roughly 10 microkelvin in experimentally accessible regimes.

Significance. The nonlinear wave-equation part of the paper is a genuine contribution if it stands: the derivation from the Euler equation is exact, the perturbative expansion of the acoustic metric to second order is systematic, and the idea of using a topological material as an analog spacetime platform is interesting. I want to be explicit that the reader's concern about the step from Eq. (9) to Eq. (10) does not land: for a barotropic fluid, time differentiation and spatial differentiation commute in the required way, so Eq. (10) is exact rather than an approximation. However, the central quantitative claim of the paper, the Hawking temperature, is undermined by a dimensional inconsistency and an arithmetic error in Eqs. (32), (33), and (38). Because that temperature is highlighted in the abstract and conclusion, the paper cannot be accepted in its current form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (31)-(33)] The surface gravity κ defined in Eq. (31) and evaluated in Eq. (32) has incorrect dimensions. With ρ in C/m^2, b in m^2/s, and r_H in m, the combination κ = ρ(r_H) b^2 / (A r_H) has units C·m/s^2, not s^-1; if ρ were a conventional mass density, the units would be kg/s^2, again not s^-1. Consequently T_H = ℏκ/(2πk_B) in Eq. (33) does not have units of temperature. Even if the density factors were dimensionless, a 1/c_s factor would be needed to convert an acceleration into a rate before applying the Hawking formula. This is load-bearing because Eq. (33) is the basis for the abstract's claim of experimentally accessible microkelvin temperatures.
  2. [Sec. IV.D, Eq. (38)] The arithmetic in Eq. (38) is internally inconsistent. Substituting the stated values gives a quotient of order 10^17 K, not 9.98532 × 10^-6 K. The displayed microkelvin value is recovered only if the factor ℏ/k_B = 7.638226 × 10^-12 K s is moved from the denominator into the numerator, rather than appearing in the denominator as written. Thus the numerical Hawking-temperature claim of the abstract is not supported by the equations as written.
  3. [Sec. IV.A and Fig. 1] The background density profile is described as obtained from first-principles DFT, but the manuscript does not explain how a graphene unit-cell calculation yields the plotted macroscopic radial distribution with r in meters (0.1068 m to 0.2422 m), does not define the coordinate x in r ≡ √(2x), and does not give the fitting function or convergence details for the density profile. Since the value ρ(r_H) = 1.711766 C/m^2 is used in Eq. (38), the numerical results are not reproducible as reported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (16)] In Eq. (16), the summation index is l but the expansion parameter is written as ϵ^k; this should be ϵ^l ζ_l(r,t).
  2. [Figs. 6-12 and text] Several figure cross-references are inconsistent: for example, the text describing Fig. 6 refers to Fig. 7 panels, and some captions cite the wrong equation numbers. The figures should be renumbered or the references corrected.
  3. [Sec. IV.A] The text says the radial coordinate is defined as r ≡ √(2x) but x is never introduced, and the mapping from a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate to a radial variable in a spherically symmetric flow needs clarification.
  4. [Sec. IV.A] The DFT paragraph should specify the supercell geometry, k-point mesh used for the charge density, and the procedure by which the computed charge density is converted into the continuum profile ρ0(r) plotted in Fig. 1.
  5. [General] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and grammatical errors, including 'dimish', 'more amplified versions', and inconsistent use of 'the horizon position... are located'. An editorial pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the nonlinear wave equation and Hawking temperature are derived from stated fluid equations and independently chosen parameters, with no fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity. The nonlinear wave equation, Eq. (11), and the inverse acoustic metric, Eq. (13), are obtained by substituting the perturbation decomposition (Eqs. (5)-(8)) and the continuity relation (Eq. (7)) into the time-differentiated Euler equation (Eqs. (9)-(10)); no parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted, and the resulting wave equation is not equivalent by construction to its own ansatz. The Hawking temperature, Eq. (33), is evaluated in Eq. (38) from independently chosen parameters (b = -1999.37 m^2/s, c_s = 12000.0 m/s, A = 5) and the DFT-derived density rho(r_H) = 1.711766 C/m^2, rather than fitted to a target temperature. Whether the displayed arithmetic and dimensions in Eq. (38) are correct is a soundness issue, not a circularity issue. The self-citation to Ref. [26], authored by the corresponding author, supplies the starting Berry-curvature-modified fluid equations with stated semiclassical assumptions; those assumptions do not include the acoustic-metric or Hawking-temperature results, and the later derivation does not rely on Ref. [26] to establish those results. Refs. [17, 24, 25] are used as standard background formalism and benchmark behavior, not as a substitute for the derivation. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the Berry-curvature fluid model of Ref. [26] (a domain assumption), the constancy of A (ad hoc), and the unproven passage to Eq. (10). The Hawking temperature value depends on hand-chosen parameters A, b, and c_s rather than on measured graphene parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • Berry curvature factor A = 5
    Introduced as a constant in the fluid equations and set to 5 in the Hawking temperature estimate (Sec. IV D). In graphene, Berry curvature varies across the Brillouin zone, so a constant value is an ad hoc choice.
  • specific angular momentum b = -1999.37 m^2/s
    Chosen so the horizon sits at r_H=0.166614 m; not derived from graphene electronic structure (Sec. IV B).
  • sound speed c_s = 12000.0 m/s
    Set as a constant in the isothermal flow; this is orders of magnitude below typical graphene Fermi velocities, so it is a hand-chosen model input, not a graphene property (Sec. IV B).
  • perturbation frequencies = omega_high=10^6 rad/s, omega_low=10^4 rad/s
    Adopted to define high- and low-frequency regimes; boundaries at 7.0566e5 and 3.11343e5 rad/s are tied to inner/outer radii (Sec. IV E).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Berry-curvature-modified fluid equations (Eqs. 1 and 2) from Ref. [26] correctly describe electron hydrodynamics in graphene.
    The paper adopts the model of Ref. [26] without testing it against graphene transport data; Ref. [26] is co-authored by one of the present authors.
  • ad hoc to paper A = 1 + e(Omega.B) is a constant.
    The paper assumes constant Berry curvature term throughout, though graphene's Berry curvature is momentum-dependent and changes sign at Dirac points (Sec. II).
  • ad hoc to paper The perturbed Euler equation can be time-differentiated to yield Eq. (10) with background gradient terms omitted.
    Eq. (10) is stated without derivation; direct linearization of Eq. (9) gives extra terms proportional to d_r v0 and d_r P0 that do not vanish.
  • domain assumption The fluid flow is spherically symmetric with radial velocity v=b/r.
    A sink-like velocity profile is imposed (Eq. 27); no justification from graphene electrostatics.
  • standard math The two-dimensional metric can be promoted to 3+1 dimensions so that the scalar-field equation (14) holds.
    The authors invoke spherical symmetry to convert from Eq. (12) to Eq. (14); this is standard in dimensional reduction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamical analog spacetimes from nonlinear perturbations in a topological material." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MF5WADLG

@misc{pith2026250716570,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamical analog spacetimes from nonlinear perturbations in a topological material},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MF5WADLG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16570}
}
read the original abstract

Emergent spacetime analogs in condensed matter systems have opened a fascinating window into simulating aspects of gravitational physics in controlled laboratory environments. In this work, we develop a comprehensive nonlinear analog gravity framework within a topological material, incorporating the impact of Berry curvature on the hydrodynamic flow of electrons. Unlike prevalent studies in existing literature limited to linear perturbations, we derive and analyze a fully nonlinear wave equation governing radial perturbations of density and velocity fields, which dynamically generate an effective acoustic metric. Taking the example of graphene as a representative system, and calculating its properties from first principles, we numerically demonstrate the formation of evolving acoustic horizons and quantify analog Hawking temperatures in experimentally accessible regimes. Our findings suggest that topological materials can serve as versatile platforms to probe rich gravitational phenomena, including horizon dynamics and quasi-thermal emission, beyond conventional linear approximations. This work lays the groundwork for exploring nonlinear emergent spacetime in a broad class of quantum materials, bridging condensed matter physics and gravitational analogs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16570 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Plot illustrating the background charge density dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Plots displaying all components of the inverse acoustic metric (Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Plots displaying all components of the acoustic metric (Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Plot illustrating the phase-space trajectory of a unit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Plots displaying all components of the first order inverse acoustic metric (Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Plots displaying all components of the second order inverse acoustic metric (Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (b). Given that the mass accretion rate fluctua￾tion F2(r, t) reaches its most negative fluctuation value in the subsonic region, the associated density solution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Plots displaying all components of the first order inverse acoustic metric (Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Plots displaying all components of the second order inverse acoustic metric (Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (18), we assume the trial solution ofF 1(r, t) of the form: F1(r, t) =gω(r)e−iωt .(39) Therefore using Eq

    High frequency perturbations First, for the Berry curvature incorporated accretion rate perturbations, in solving Eq. (18), we assume the trial solution ofF 1(r, t) of the form: F1(r, t) =gω(r)e−iωt .(39) Therefore using Eq. (39), from Eq. (18) one can have the following differential equation ofg ω(r). grr (0) g′′ ω + grr (0) ′ g′ ω −ω 2gtt (0) gω −iω 2gt...

    work page

  2. [2]

    LINDA & JUDY

    Low frequency perturbations We now examine low frequency perturbations that de- cay exponentially over time. For this purpose, we nu- merically solve Eq. 40 withω low = 10 4 rad/s over the time intervalt= 0 s tot= 30 s. The full real space- time solution for the Berry curvature induced accretion rate,F 1(r, t), is presented in Fig. 9(a). The solution dis-...

    work page

  3. [3]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. Lett.46, 1351 (1981)

    1981

  4. [4]

    L. P. Euv´ e, F. Michel, R. Parentani, T. G. Philbin, and G. Rousseaux, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 121301 (2016), arXiv:1511.08145 [physics.flu-dyn]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Steinhauer, Nature Phys.12, 959 (2016), arXiv:1510.00621 [gr-qc]

    J. Steinhauer, Nature Phys.12, 959 (2016), arXiv:1510.00621 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    J. R. Mu˜ noz de Nova, K. Golubkov, V. I. Kolobov, and J. Steinhauer, Nature569, 688 (2019), arXiv:1809.00913 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Observation of Stimulated Hawking Radiation in Optics

    J. Drori, Y. Rosenberg, D. Bermudez, Y. Silberberg, and U. Leonhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 010404 (2019), arXiv:1808.09244 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Magnonic Analogue of Black/White Hole Horizon in Superfluid $^3$He-B

    M. ˇCloveˇ cko, E. Gaˇ zo, M. Kupka, and P. Skyba, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 161302 (2019), arXiv:1810.09890 [cond- mat.other]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Vocke, C

    D. Vocke, C. Maitland, A. Prain, K. E. Wilson, F. Bian- calana, E. M. Wright, F. Marino, and D. Faccio, Optica 5, 1099 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    D. D. Solnyshkov, C. Leblanc, S. V. Koniakhin, O. Bleu, and G. Malpuech, Phys. Rev. B99, 214511 (2019), arXiv:1809.05386 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Aguero-Santacruz and D

    R. Aguero-Santacruz and D. Bermudez, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A378, 20190223 (2020), arXiv:2002.07907 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Petty and F

    J. Petty and F. K¨onig, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A378, 20190231 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Leonhardt, Phil

    U. Leonhardt, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A378, 20190229 (2020), arXiv:2001.03943 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. J. Jacquet et al., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A378, 20190225 (2020), arXiv:2002.00043 [cond-mat.quant- gas]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    M. P. Blencowe and H. Wang, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A378, 20190224 (2020), arXiv:2003.00382 [quant- ph]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bera and S

    A. Bera and S. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D101, 105012 (2020), arXiv:2001.08467 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    M. A. Anacleto, F. A. Brito, and E. Passos, Phys. Lett. A380, 1105 (2016), arXiv:1309.1486 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M. J. Jacquet, S. Weinfurtner, and F. K¨ onig, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A378, 20190239 (2020), arXiv:2005.04027 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Barcelo, S

    C. Barcelo, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, Living Rev. Rel. 14, 3 (2011), arXiv:gr-qc/0505065

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Torres, S

    T. Torres, S. Patrick, M. Richartz, and S. Weinfurtner, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 011301 (2020), arXiv:1811.07858 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    H. Liu, H. Guo, and R. Ling, Phys. Rev. D110, 024035 (2024), arXiv:2404.04982 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Patrick and S

    S. Patrick and S. Weinfurtner, Phys. Rev. D102, 084041 (2020), arXiv:2007.03769 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Sen and A

    S. Sen and A. K. Ray, Phys. Rev. D89, 063004 (2014), arXiv:1207.1070 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Albuquerque and S

    S. Albuquerque and S. H. V¨ olkel, Phys. Rev. D111, 124020 (2025), arXiv:2501.09000 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Malato Corrˆ ea, C

    M. Malato Corrˆ ea, C. F. B. Macedo, R. Panosso Macedo, and L. A. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D112, 024036 (2025), arXiv:2504.00107 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Fernandes, S

    K. Fernandes, S. Maity, and T. K. Das, Phys. Rev. D 106, 025020 (2022), arXiv:2106.07618 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Fernandes, S

    K. Fernandes, S. Maity, and T. Das, Phys. Rev. D106, L021701 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    A. K. Mitra and S. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D106, L041702 (2022), arXiv:2111.00473 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Sundaram and Q

    G. Sundaram and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B59, 14915 (1999), arXiv:cond-mat/9908003

    1999 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1959 (2010), arXiv:0907.2021 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1539 (2010), arXiv:0904.4154 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Abrikosov, Introduction to the Theory of Normal Metals (Academic Press, New York, 1972)

    A. Abrikosov, Introduction to the Theory of Normal Metals (Academic Press, New York, 1972)

    1972

  25. [33]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 206602 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0408417

    2004 arXiv

  26. [34]

    H. B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, Physics Letters B130, 389 (1983)

    1983

  27. [35]

    Bohm et al., The Geometric Phase in Quantum Systems (Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, 2003)

    A. Bohm et al., The Geometric Phase in Quantum Systems (Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, 2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    Duval, Z

    C. Duval, Z. Horvath, P. A. Horvathy, L. Martina, and P. Stichel, Mod. Phys. Lett. B20, 373 (2006), arXiv:cond-mat/0506051

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Gosselin, A

    P. Gosselin, A. Berard, and H. Mohrbach, Eur. Phys. J. B58, 137 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0603192

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chang and Q

    M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1348 (1995), arXiv:cond-mat/9505021

    1995 arXiv

  31. [39]

    S. K. Das, D. Roy, and S. Sengupta, Pramana8, 117 (1977)

    1977

  32. [40]

    Slavchov and R

    R. Slavchov and R. Tsekov, J. Chem. Phys.132, 084505 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Polini and A

    M. Polini and A. K. Geim, Phys. Today73, 28 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Lucas and K

    A. Lucas and K. C. Fong, J. Phys. Condens. Matter30, 053001 (2018), arXiv:1710.08425 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Mackenzie, N

    A. Mackenzie, N. Nandi, S. Khim, P. Kushwaha, P. Moll, and B. Schmidt, L. Barletti J. Math. Ind.6, 7 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    J. A. Petterson, J. Silk, and J. P. Ostriker, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.191, 571 (1980). 18

    1980

  37. [45]

    Theuns and M

    T. Theuns and M. David, Astrophys. J.384, 587 (1992)

    1992

  38. [46]

    Frank, A

    J. Frank, A. King, and D. J. Raine, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition (Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2002)

    2002

  39. [47]

    Visser, Class

    M. Visser, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 1767 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9712010

    1998

  40. [48]

    Schutzhold and W

    R. Schutzhold and W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D66, 044019 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0205099

    2002 arXiv

  41. [49]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  42. [50]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B47, 558 (1993)

    1993

  43. [51]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  44. [52]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  45. [53]

    Dalui, A

    S. Dalui, A. K. Mitra, D. Mitra, and S. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D109, 064055 (2024), arXiv:2402.15540 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Dalui, B

    S. Dalui, B. R. Majhi, and P. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D102, 044006 (2020), arXiv:1910.07989 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Dalui and B

    S. Dalui and B. R. Majhi, Phys. Rev. D102, 124047 (2020), arXiv:2007.14312 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Dalui and B

    S. Dalui and B. R. Majhi, Phys. Lett. B826, 136899 (2022), arXiv:2103.11613 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Sarsby, N

    M. Sarsby, N. Yurttag¨ ul, and A. Geresdi, Nature Com- munications11, 1492 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    J. M. Edge, Y. Kedem, U. Aschauer, N. A. Spaldin, and A. V. Balatsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 247002 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    J. S. J. A. Petterson and J. P. Ostriker, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc.191, 571 (1980)

    1980

Pith tools

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