Holographic Strange Metals for Philosophers and Physicists

Enrico Cinti; Henk T.C. Stoof; Mark Golden; Sebastian De Haro; Umut G\"ursoy

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 7 references

Holographic Strange Metals for Philosophers and Physicists

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper tries to establish that ARPES measurements on strange-metal cuprates give empirical evidence for holography while ruling out realism about the anti-de Sitter black hole.

desk verdict A serious philosophy-of-physics paper that applies common-core and emergence frameworks to strange metals, but the empirical bridge to holography has a sign error as written and needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23527 v2 pith:YHFTH5T4 submitted 2025-07-31 physics.hist-ph cond-mat.str-elhep-th

Enrico Cinti , Sebastian De Haro , Mark Golden , Umut Gürsoy , Henk T.C. Stoof This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.hist-phcond-mat.str-elhep-th

keywords strangemetalsholographysemi-holographyAdS-CFTcorrespondenceARPEScupratesscientificrealismemergence

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's aim is to establish that laboratory measurements on strange metals, specifically the momentum-dependent power-law self-energy seen in ARPES on cuprate superconductors, provide genuine empirical evidence for holography, because the data can currently be reproduced only by a semi-holographic model built on an Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton black hole. The authors argue that this evidence does not warrant realism about the black hole itself, which lives in anti-de Sitter spacetime and is not in the lab; what is justified is realism about the common core theory that the strange metal and the black hole share as dual descriptions. This matters because, if true, it turns condensed-matter experiments into a rare empirical handle on holography, and it reframes the philosophical payoff: the experiments commit us to holography-as-common-core, not to higher-dimensional geometry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is semi-holography: a hybrid scheme in which an elementary boundary fermion $\chi$ is coupled to a strongly coupled composite operator $O$ of a CFT that has a holographic dual, so the electron Green's function takes the form $G(\omega,k)=1/[G_{\mathrm{free}}(\omega,k)+|g|^2\langle O^\dagger O\rangle]$ and only the self-energy $\Sigma(\omega,k)=|g|^2\langle O^\dagger O\rangle$ is computed in the bulk. The paper shows that semi-holography can be subsumed into ordinary holography by alternative boundary conditions, integrating over the boundary source rather than fixing it, and that the Gubser-Rocha charged dilaton black hole gives the analytic solution whose near-horizon scaling produces the momentum-dependent exponent. This machinery carries the evidentiary argument: it converts a laboratory spectral measurement into a statement about a bulk geometry, and then converts that geometric statement back into a defensible claim about a common core shared by the two dual descriptions.

What would settle it

A non-holographic condensed-matter model that reproduces the measured momentum-dependent $\alpha(k)=\alpha[1-(k-k_F)/k_F]$ across dopings would falsify the claim that the data uniquely support holography; so would ARPES data at other dopings that deviate from the predicted linear-in-$|\vec{k}|$ form of the exponent in a way no doping-dependent $q$ can absorb.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated sympathetically, is that the ARPES-measured imaginary part of the electron self-energy in strange-metal cuprates, $\hbar\Sigma''(\omega,\vec{k})\propto\omega^{2\alpha(k)}$ with $\alpha(k)=\alpha[1-(k-k_F)/k_F]$, is a genuinely holographic observable: it is reproduced by a semi-holographic computation in which the self-energy comes from the bulk gravity dual, with the Gubser-Rocha solution in the $\theta/z=-1$ and $z\to\infty$ limits yielding the momentum-dependent exponent $\nu_{\vec{k}}=2q\hbar v_F|\vec{k}|/\mu$ that is matched to the data by taking $q$ doping dependent. On this basis the paper concludes that experiments can supply empirical evidence for holography, but that a realist interpretation of the black hole cannot be upheld: the legitimate object of realist commitment is the common core theory invariant under the bulk-to-boundary map, and that commitment is, in the authors' words, a commitment to holography itself.

Load-bearing premise

The entire evidentiary link depends on the assumption that the semi-holographic Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton model is the only framework that reproduces the ARPES power-law self-energy data, and that the free charge $q$ can be made doping dependent so that $\nu_{\vec{k}}=\alpha|\vec{k}|/k_F$ without losing predictive force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the central claim is right, strange-metal ARPES data constitute experimental evidence that a holographic description is physically significant.
The black hole in anti-de Sitter spacetime is not part of what the evidence supports; realism about it is not epistemically justified.
The justified commitment is to the common core theory, which the paper identifies as a commitment to holography itself.
The explanatory direction runs from holography to the strange metal, not from the strange metal to the black hole.
The reduction of semi-holography to holography via alternative boundary conditions is what allows experimental evidence for semi-holography to transfer to holography.

Reading between the lines

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

One implication the authors leave implicit: if the common core is the proper object of realism, then the same cautious attitude should apply to the boundary fermion, since it is not itself invariant across the duality once semi-holography is promoted to holography.
A testable extension: the relation $\nu_{\vec{k}}=2q\hbar v_F|\vec{k}|/\mu$ predicts a specific doping dependence of the power-law exponent, so measuring $\alpha(k)$ over a wider doping range would sharpen whether the semi-holographic fit is unique or one of several viable models.
Another extension: the argument sets a template for assessing empirical evidence for holography in other laboratory analogues, such as cold-atom or quantum-simulation experiments, where the bulk dual is even less likely to be ontological.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this paper before sending it to a referee: it is a serious, readable philosophy-of-physics contribution that uses strange metals as a case study, but the empirical bridge at the center has a sign error as written, and the 'only known theoretical description' claim is too strong. The paper deserves peer review, but it needs revision.

What is genuinely new: the authors apply Butterfield's emergence and De Haro–Butterfield's common-core framework to the specific case of holographic strange metals. The three emergence scenarios (vertical, horizontal, diagonal) and the trio of objections to black-hole realism are useful distinctions that go beyond the existing duality literature. They also make a plausible case that if semi-holography can be reduced to holography via alternative boundary conditions (Gürsoy et al. 2012), then the empirical success of semi-holographic modeling of ARPES data provides some evidence for the common core, not for the literal black hole. The physics review is accurate enough for its purpose, and the writing is clear.

Now the soft spots. The biggest problem is the claimed match between the model exponent and the ARPES data. The paper reports the measured exponent as α(k)=α[1−(k−k_F)/k_F], a line with slope −α/k_F, while the model exponent is ν_k=2qħv_F|k|/µ, matched by setting ν_k=α|k|/k_F, which has slope +α/k_F. Those two forms agree only at k=k_F. If this is a convention issue (k measured relative to the Fermi surface), the paper needs to say so explicitly; as written, the empirical evidence for holography rests on a fit that does not actually fit. And q is made doping-dependent to force the match, so this is not a prediction. That does not destroy the philosophical argument—the common-core conclusion could hold even if the empirical support is weaker—but it does undercut the abstract's claim that strange metals can only be described holographically.

On that claim: 'cannot be described using standard condensed-matter physics. Currently, it can only be described through a holographic dual' is overstated. There are competing frameworks for strange-metal phenomenology, even if none is complete.

Minor: there is an unrelated inserted block of text from a grant application (page 9), which should be removed. And the existence of the common core is assumed rather than established; the authors acknowledge this, but it means the central recommendation to commit to the common core is programmatic.

Bottom line: this paper is for philosophers of physics and philosophically-minded condensed-matter theorists. It deserves a serious referee, but the referee should push on the empirical sign issue and the 'only known' claim before publication.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the physics and philosophy of strange metals, focusing on the cuprate normal state. It reviews Fermi-liquid theory, semi-holography, and the Gubser-Rocha Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton model, and then connects the model to ARPES measurements of a momentum-dependent power-law self-energy exponent. The authors argue that this connection provides empirical evidence for holography, while also arguing that a realist interpretation of the anti-de Sitter black hole itself is not justified; instead, the epistemically warranted commitment is to the common core shared by the dual descriptions. The philosophical sections explore emergence, explanation, and scientific realism in this setting.

Significance. If the empirical and reduction claims were established, the paper would be a valuable interdisciplinary contribution: it brings a concrete laboratory system, the strange-metal cuprates, into the philosophical debate on holography, and it offers a nuanced distinction between realism about the black hole and realism about the common core. The review of ARPES and of the semi-holographic formalism is accessible and largely accurate, and the paper engages directly with recent experimental and modeling literature (Smit et al. 2024; Mauri et al. 2024). The philosophical taxonomy of vertical, horizontal, and diagonal emergence, and the discussion of internal versus external interpretations, are useful tools for future work. However, the central empirical bridge from the ARPES data to holography is weaker than the text suggests: the claimed match between the model exponent and the measured exponent is obtained by fitting the charge q to the data, and the two functional forms as written do not agree in their momentum dependence. These issues do not undermine the philosophical analysis as a framework, but they do affect the paper's strongest claims about empirical evidence for holography.

major comments (3)

[Section 2.3] The claimed match between the semi-holographic exponent and the ARPES data is not supported by the formulas as written. The paper reports the measured exponent as α(k)=α[1−(k−k_F)/k_F], which for k near k_F has a slope of −α/k_F, while the Gubser-Rocha expression ν_k=2qℏv_F|k|/μ is matched by "simply making q doping dependent such that ν_k=α|k|/k_F", which has a slope of +α/k_F. The two functions agree only at k=k_F. Because Sections 3.1(i) and 4 use this match to justify the "ineliminable role" of holography and "empirical evidence for holography", the authors need to reconcile the functional forms, for example by correcting the derivation of ν_k or by clarifying the definition of k on the two sides, or to state explicitly that the momentum dependence is not yet reproduced and explain what follows for the empirical claim.
[Sections 1 and 3.1(i)] The paper's central claim that semi-holography is the "only known theoretical description" of strange metals (abstract and Section 1) is asserted rather than demonstrated. Existing non-holographic frameworks for parts of the strange-metal phenomenology, such as marginal Fermi-liquid phenomenology, SYK-like models, and quantum-critical descriptions, are not discussed. Since the confirmation argument in Section 3.1(i) depends on holography playing a "crucial, ineliminable role", the authors should either survey and rule out the main alternatives or weaken the uniqueness claim to a comparative one.
[Section 2.3 and Section 3.1(i)] The matching of q is a free-parameter fit rather than a prediction. Section 2.3 states that q is made doping dependent so that ν_k=α|k|/k_F, and α is extracted from the same ARPES data that the model is supposed to explain. Therefore the subsequent claim in Section 3.1(i) that the experiments "confirm" the holographic framework is, in this respect, circular. The paper should separate the genuinely predicted features, such as the functional form of the frequency dependence, from the fitted parameters, and state what would count as a falsifiable prediction of the semi-holographic model.

minor comments (3)

[Equation (2)] Equation (2) has missing closing brackets in the denominator: "[ω−εk/ℏ−Σ′(k,ω]" and "[Σ′′(k,ω]" should both be closed with a square bracket after the argument.
[Abstract and Section 3.3 footnote 20] The abstract refers to a "four-dimensional black hole" while the footnote in Section 3.3 refers to a "five dimensional black hole"; the dimensionality should be made consistent, noting that the bulk is d+1-dimensional and may have additional internal dimensions.
[References] The Faulkner and Polchinski (2011) reference appears twice in the bibliography with slightly different formatting; one entry should be removed.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The ARPES 'confirmation' reduces to a fit: q is made doping dependent so that ν_k = α|k|/k_F, and the data are then called 'as predicted'.

fitted input called prediction [Section 2.3 (Semi-Holography and Strange Metals), paragraph after the Gubser-Rocha solution]
"Note here especially the proportionality of the exponent ν⃗k to the dimensionless charge of the Dirac fermion q, which makes it ideal to describe the strange metal as a critical phase by simply making q doping dependent such that ν⃗k = α|⃗k|/kF , with ℏkF the momentum of the Fermi surface (Mauri et al. 2024)."

The model's momentum-dependent exponent, nominally a holographic prediction from the Gubser-Rocha solution, is equated to the measured exponent α|k|/k_F by promoting q to a doping-dependent free parameter. Since q is not independently fixed, the model's k-dependence is imposed by the data it is then used to explain. Any subsequent match between ν_k and α(k) is therefore forced by construction, not derived from first principles.
fitted input called prediction [Section 2.4 (The ARPES Experiments), final paragraph]
"Recently, Smit et al. (2024) carried out careful, high-resolution ARPES experiments on simple, single-band cuprate strange-metals, and found that Σ′′(k,ω) displays a power law exponent that changes as a function of doping, pointing to a quantum critical phase, and also found that these power law exponents α(k) are also momentum dependent, as predicted by semi-holography, discussed above in Section 2.2."

This sentence presents the measured momentum dependence of α(k) as 'as predicted by semi-holography'. But the prediction in Section 2.3 was constructed by 'making q doping dependent such that ν⃗k = α|⃗k|/kF'. Thus the agreement is not an independent check of the model; it is the fitted relation restated. Calling the fit a prediction converts the adjusted parameter into apparent empirical support, which then carries the paper's later inference of 'empirical evidence for holography'.

full rationale

The paper's empirical derivation chain runs: (i) the Gubser-Rocha semi-holographic model gives ν_k = 2qℏv_F|k|/µ; (ii) Section 2.3 chooses q doping dependent so that ν_k = α|k|/k_F; (iii) Section 2.4 reports ARPES found α(k) momentum dependent 'as predicted by semi-holography'; (iv) Sections 3.1 and 4 use this match as empirical evidence for holography and as the basis for the 'epistemically justified commitment to the common core'. Step (ii) is a fit, not a prediction: q is a free parameter adjusted to the measured exponent, so the later 'prediction' reduces by construction to the fitted relation. The circularity is partial rather than total because the paper's philosophical analysis of emergence, explanation, and scientific realism is substantially independent of the ARPES match; those sections argue from the structure of dualities and common-core theories. The self-citation to Gürsoy et al. (2012) for reducing semi-holography to holography is present and is used in the evidentiary transfer, but the paper restates the construction and also cites independent work (Contino and Pomarol 2004), so this citation alone is not a circular step. Additionally, as written the fitted form ν_k = α|k|/k_F has a different momentum slope from the reported α(k)=α[1−(k−k_F)/k_F], which is a correctness concern but not itself circularity. Overall score 6: the central empirical link is forced by construction, while the philosophical conclusions retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the model ingredients come from prior literature. The main 'free' content is the fitting of q to ARPES data and the choice of θ,z limits, plus the philosophical commitments that carry the argument.

free parameters (2)

q (dimensionless charge of the Dirac fermion) = doping dependent, chosen so ν_k = α|k|/k_F
Section 2.3 makes q doping dependent to match the measured momentum-dependent exponent α(k), so the model's momentum-dependent self-energy exponent is fitted to the ARPES data.
z and θ (dynamical and hyperscaling-violating exponents) = z→∞, θ→−∞ with θ/z=−1
Chosen by hand in Section 2.3 so that the black-hole entropy (and hence resistivity) scales linearly in T and the self-energy takes the observed power-law form; these limits are selected to reproduce strange metal phenomenology.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence (holographic dictionary) is valid for strongly coupled field theories with a bulk gravity dual.
Invoked throughout Section 2.2 to map boundary currents and self-energies to bulk fields in a black-hole spacetime.
domain assumption Semi-holography can be reduced to holography by alternative boundary conditions (Legendre transform), following Gürsoy et al. 2012.
This reduction is the bridge allowing the paper to treat empirical support for semi-holography as evidence for holography (Section 3.1, point (iii)).
domain assumption A common core theory exists for the bulk-boundary duality and captures the invariant physics.
The philosophical conclusions in Sections 3.3 and 3.4 rely on the existence of a common core theory, which the paper explicitly says is beyond its scope to work out (Section 4).
domain assumption Butterfield's definition of emergence (novelty and robustness relative to a comparison class) is the operative notion of emergence.
Adopted in Section 3.2 to classify vertical, horizontal and diagonal emergence scenarios.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holographic Strange Metals for Philosophers and Physicists." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YHFTH5T4

@misc{pith2026250723527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holographic Strange Metals for Philosophers and Physicists},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YHFTH5T4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23527}
}

read the original abstract

This paper introduces the physics and philosophy of strange metals, which are characterized by unusual electrical and thermal properties that deviate from conventional metallic behaviour. The anomalous strange-metal behaviour discussed here appears in the normal state of a copper-oxide high-temperature superconductor, and it cannot be described using standard condensed-matter physics. Currently, it can only be described through a holographic dual, viz.~a four-dimensional black hole in anti-de Sitter spacetime. This paper first introduces the theory of, and specific experiments carried out on, strange metals. Then it discusses a number of philosophical questions that strange metals open up regarding the experimental evidence for holography and its realist interpretation. Strange metals invert the explanatory arrows, in that usual holographic arguments are seen as giving explanations of the bulk quantum-gravity theory from the boundary. By contrast, the aim here is, by using holography, to explain the experimentally discovered and anomalous properties of strange metals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23527 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Sketch of the holographic correspondence, from (G¨ursoy, 2021). spacetime (Maldacena, 1998; Gubser et al 1998; Witten 1998).3 It maps the collective transport — denoted by the current J at the black point in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Fig7: Agreement between the effe spectively, is a fundamental observable, directly measured by angle-resolved [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Two channels of propagation for the boundary elementary field χ in semi-holography: on the boundary, and through the bulk. sider the standard holographic dictionary in which we view the boundary value of the bulk field Ψ as the source for the corresponding boundary operator O. Now instead of considering χ as an additional elementary field on the boundary, we can identify it with the source of the operator O, hence … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Schematic of the workings of an electron energy analyzer in an ARPES experiment. of the band structure can be extracted. An illustration of an ARPES experiment is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Emergence beside semi-holography: they lie along different axes, as in the discussion of question (B). the premise that semi-holography is holography, or secondly one would need to deny the horizontal nature of the emergence itself. This amounts to breaking with the g…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Emergence of the black hole from the strange metal, under the assumption that semi-holography is not holography, as discussed in the context of question (C). In this case semi-holography is not a duality. tuning parameter and since duality and emergence are now “along…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Emergence of the black hole from the lower-dimensional theory in the context of question (C), thanks to a combination of the RG flow, and semiholography. Here, semi-holography is assumed to be holography. before: namely, that the emergent IR physics is independent of …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

7 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

Butterfield, J. N. (2011a). ‘Emergence, Reduction and Supervenience: A Varied Landscape’ .Foundations of Physics, 41, pp. 920-959. Butterfield, J. N. (2011b). ‘Less is Different: emergence and Reduction Rec- onciled’ .Foundations of Physics, 41, pp. 1065-1135. Butterfield, J. N (2021). ‘On Dualities and Equivalences Between Physical Theories’ . In: Philos...

work page 2011
[34]

Teh, N. J. (2013). ‘Holography and emergence’ . Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(3), pp.300-311. Williams, P. (2019). ‘Scientific Realism Made Effective’ .The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 70, pp. 209-237. Witten, E. (1998). ’Anti de Sitter space and holography’ ...

arXiv 2013
[58]

Crowther, K. (2016). Effective Spacetime. Understanding Emergence in Ef- fective Field Theory and Quantum Gravity . Springer. Curd, M., and Cover, J. A. (1998). ‘Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues’ .New York and London: WW Norton and Company . Dardashti, R., Dawid, R., Gryb, S., and Th´ ebault, K. (2018). ‘On the Empirical Consequences of the AdS/C...

work page 2016
[155]

Faulkner, T., Polchinski, J. (2011). ‘Semi-holographic Fermi liquids’ .Journal of High-Energy Physics , 2011(6), 1-23. Guay, A., Sartenaer, O. (2016). ‘A new look at emergence. Or when after is different’ .European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 6 (2), pp. 297-322. Gubser, S. S., Klebanov, I. R., Polyakov, A. M. (1998). ‘Gauge theory corre- lators fr...

work page 2011
[247]

and Vandoren, S

G¨ ursoy, U., Plauschinn, E., Stoof, H. and Vandoren, S. (2012). ‘Holography and ARPES sum-rules’ . Journal of High-Energy Physics , 2012(5), pp. 1-21. Hartnoll, S. A., Lucas, A., Sachdev, S. (2018). Holographic quantum matter. MIT press. Humphreys, P. (2016). Emergence. A Philosophical Accounts . New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kovtun, P. K...

work page 2012
[1335]

G¨ ursoy, U. (2021). ‘Holographic QCD and magnetic fields’ . The European 51 Physical Journal A , 57,

work page 2021
[4581]

Strominger, A. (2001). ‘The dS/CFT correspondence’ . Journal of High- Energy Physics, 2001(10),

work page 2001

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Butterfield, J. N. (2011a). ‘Emergence, Reduction and Supervenience: A Varied Landscape’ .Foundations of Physics, 41, pp. 920-959. Butterfield, J. N. (2011b). ‘Less is Different: emergence and Reduction Rec- onciled’ .Foundations of Physics, 41, pp. 1065-1135. Butterfield, J. N (2021). ‘On Dualities and Equivalences Between Physical Theories’ . In: Philos...

work page 2011

[2] [34]

Teh, N. J. (2013). ‘Holography and emergence’ . Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 44(3), pp.300-311. Williams, P. (2019). ‘Scientific Realism Made Effective’ .The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 70, pp. 209-237. Witten, E. (1998). ’Anti de Sitter space and holography’ ...

arXiv 2013

[3] [58]

Crowther, K. (2016). Effective Spacetime. Understanding Emergence in Ef- fective Field Theory and Quantum Gravity . Springer. Curd, M., and Cover, J. A. (1998). ‘Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues’ .New York and London: WW Norton and Company . Dardashti, R., Dawid, R., Gryb, S., and Th´ ebault, K. (2018). ‘On the Empirical Consequences of the AdS/C...

work page 2016

[4] [155]

Faulkner, T., Polchinski, J. (2011). ‘Semi-holographic Fermi liquids’ .Journal of High-Energy Physics , 2011(6), 1-23. Guay, A., Sartenaer, O. (2016). ‘A new look at emergence. Or when after is different’ .European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 6 (2), pp. 297-322. Gubser, S. S., Klebanov, I. R., Polyakov, A. M. (1998). ‘Gauge theory corre- lators fr...

work page 2011

[5] [247]

and Vandoren, S

G¨ ursoy, U., Plauschinn, E., Stoof, H. and Vandoren, S. (2012). ‘Holography and ARPES sum-rules’ . Journal of High-Energy Physics , 2012(5), pp. 1-21. Hartnoll, S. A., Lucas, A., Sachdev, S. (2018). Holographic quantum matter. MIT press. Humphreys, P. (2016). Emergence. A Philosophical Accounts . New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kovtun, P. K...

work page 2012

[6] [1335]

G¨ ursoy, U. (2021). ‘Holographic QCD and magnetic fields’ . The European 51 Physical Journal A , 57,

work page 2021

[7] [4581]

Strominger, A. (2001). ‘The dS/CFT correspondence’ . Journal of High- Energy Physics, 2001(10),

work page 2001