Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 28 references

Inverse Hamiltonian Reconstruction from Gravitational Energy Density in Curved Spacetime

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 A proposed formula converts gravitational energy density profiles into effective Hamiltonians under local thermal equilibrium.

desk verdict The central inversion H ~ -T log ρ is a restatement of the assumed Boltzmann factor, not a derived result, and the numerical appendix tests a different forward map than the main text. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06510 v1 pith:U4FSGBLN submitted 2025-07-28 gr-qc hep-th

Davood Momeni This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C5583C4082C70 PACS 04.20.-q04.60.-m05.20.Dd
keywords HamiltonianreconstructionenergydensityLiouvilleequationlocalthermalequilibriumFLRWcosmologyLoopQuantumAdS/CFTSYKmodel
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 claims that from a measured gravitational energy density profile $\rho(x)$ one can recover an effective Hamiltonian — the function that generates time evolution in phase space — by assuming local thermal equilibrium, $f(x,p)\propto e^{-\beta H(x,p)}$, and writing the density as a momentum integral over $H^2 f$. A saddle-point or variational inversion then yields the central relation $H(x)\sim -T(x)\log\rho(x)+\mathrm{const}$, which the author presents as a universal map from macroscopic thermodynamic data to microscopic dynamics. If correct, this would let cosmologists, holographers, and quantum-gravity modelers read off effective Hamiltonians from observable density curves without knowing the fundamental Lagrangian. The paper applies the same logarithmic reconstruction to FLRW cosmology, Loop Quantum Cosmology, AdS/CFT, the SYK model, and Casimir vacuum profiles. The practical reach of the proposal therefore depends on the unstated approximation that collapses the momentum integral into a pointwise logarithm.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the inverse map $H(x)\sim -T(x)\log\rho(x)+\mathrm{const}$, obtained from $\rho(x)=\int H^2(x,p) f(x,p)\,d^3p$ with $f\propto e^{-\beta H}$. The paper calls this step a saddle-point or variational analysis; it is what converts a momentum-space integral into a pointwise logarithmic relation between density and Hamiltonian. Around this map the framework stacks the Liouville or Vlasov equation as the forward evolution law and the Boltzmann-Gibbs form $f\propto e^{-\beta H}$ as the statistical ansatz, then applies the map to FLRW, LQC, AdS/CFT, and SYK. The same map is also used to read Hamiltonians off Casimir energy profiles and to suggest that the mismatch between phase-space and spacetime conservation laws might serve as a diagnostic for curvature corrections.

What would settle it

Choose a concrete Hamiltonian such as the paper's own FLRW form $H(p,t)=\sqrt{p^2/a^2(t)+m^2}$, fix the temperature, compute $\rho(x)=\int H^2 e^{-\beta H}\,d^3p$ exactly by quadrature, and then test whether $H=-T\log\rho+\mathrm{const}$ reproduces the original Hamiltonian. The exact integral is a combination of special functions rather than a pure logarithm of $\rho$, so any deviation marks the boundary where Eq. (7) stops being an inversion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim the author aims to establish is a functional inversion channel: given a scalar energy density profile $\rho(x)$, and assuming an equilibrium distribution $f(x,p)\propto \exp(-\beta(x) H(x,p))$ together with the density formula $\rho(x)=\int H^2(x,p) f(x,p)\,d^3p$, a saddle-point or variational reduction leads to $H(x)\sim -T(x)\log\rho(x)+\mathrm{const}$. This identity is then carried across four arenas — cosmological fluids, effective Loop Quantum Cosmology dynamics, boundary CFTs in AdS/CFT, and the SYK spectral density — plus Casimir vacuum energy profiles, as a universal map from thermodynamic or spectral data to an effective generator of dynamics. In the SYK case the reconstruction is expressed as $H(E)=d\log\rho(E)/dE$, so the effective Hamiltonian is identified with the entropy gradient. The author presents the result as a general framework rather than a derivation from first principles.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the momentum integral in $\rho(x)=\int H^2 e^{-\beta H}\,d^3p$ can be collapsed by a saddle-point or variational argument into the simple relation $\rho\propto e^{-\beta H}$, and that this collapse remains valid for arbitrary Hamiltonians; no derivation of that collapse is given, and if it fails the logarithmic reconstruction $H\sim -T\log\rho$ has no grounding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the inversion holds, measured cosmological density histories $\rho(t)$ can be converted into effective single-particle Hamiltonians $H(t)\sim -T(t)\log\rho(t)$, giving a direct thermodynamic probe of early-universe dynamics.
  • In Loop Quantum Cosmology, the same scheme yields $P(t)\approx (1/\lambda)\arcsin(\lambda\sqrt{a^3\rho})$, so the bounded sine structure and the critical density $\rho_{\mathrm{crit}}=1/(\lambda^2 a^3)$ become observable signatures of a quantum bounce.
  • In AdS/CFT, bulk energy density near the boundary is taken to encode a boundary Hamiltonian through $H_{\mathrm{CFT}}\sim -T\log\langle T^{00}\rangle$, connecting holographic renormalization to thermal reconstruction.
  • In the SYK model, $H(E)=d\log\rho(E)/dE$ yields an emergent Hamiltonian from the spectral density, and for the low-energy SYK spectrum this Hamiltonian diverges as $1/\sqrt{E}$, matching the expected soft-mode behavior.
  • Casimir energy densities can be passed through the same logarithmic map to produce effective vacuum Hamiltonians for plates, spheres, and cylinders, extending the framework beyond gravitational settings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the saddle-point reduction is the make-or-break step, so readers should test it numerically on known Hamiltonians before applying the formula to observational data.
  • Editorial inference: one could turn the framework into a family of exactly solvable examples by restricting $H(x,p)$ to factorized forms $h(x)g(p)$ for which the momentum integral closes in terms of $\rho\propto e^{-\beta H}$.
  • Editorial inference: laboratory analogues with known Hamiltonians — such as ultracold atomic or trapped-ion systems where energy-density profiles are measurable — could serve as clean falsification experiments independent of cosmology.
  • Editorial inference: if the Liouville-continuity mismatch truly encodes curvature corrections, one might reconstruct not just $H$ but its curvature-dependent deformation by comparing exact kinetic-theory densities with observed gravitational densities, a conjecture the paper leaves open.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a general framework for reconstructing an effective Hamiltonian H(x,p) from a known gravitational energy density profile ρ(x) in curved spacetime. The construction starts from the local thermal equilibrium ansatz f(x,p) ∝ e^{-β(x)H(x,p)} and the energy-density formula ρ(x) = ∫ H² f d³p (Eq. 5). The paper then claims that a saddle-point or variational analysis yields the inverse relation H(x) ∼ -T(x) log ρ(x) + const (Eq. 7), and applies this relation to FLRW cosmology, Loop Quantum Cosmology, AdS/CFT, the SYK model, and Casimir energy densities. A numerical appendix fits a time-dependent potential Φ(t) by matching a radiation-dominated density profile ρ(t) ∝ t^{-4}.

Significance. If the central inversion were rigorously established, the paper would offer a simple, observationally driven route from energy-density profiles to effective Hamiltonians, with potential relevance to cosmology, holography, and quantum gravity phenomenology. However, the central derivation is absent: Eq. (7) is asserted rather than derived from Eq. (5), it is dimensionally inconsistent as written, and the numerical appendix tests a different forward map (Eq. 44) than the one in the main text. Because Eq. (7) is the basis for all applications in Sections 7–10, the manuscript's central claim is not supported by the presented analysis. The paper does demonstrate broad knowledge of the relevant literatures and honestly acknowledges the limitations of the AdS/CFT mapping in Section 8.3, but those strengths do not compensate for the missing core derivation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (5)–(7)] The central inversion H ∼ -T log ρ is not derived. The text states that 'performing a saddle-point or variational analysis' leads to Eq. (7), but no saddle-point equation, variational functional, or error estimate is provided. For a generic Hamiltonian H(x,p), the integral ∫ H² e^{-βH} d³p is a function of β(x) and possibly other parameters; it does not collapse to a simple exponential e^{-βH} unless additional strong assumptions are imposed. Those assumptions are never stated or justified, so Eq. (7) is an unsupported leap rather than a consequence of Eq. (5). Since Eq. (7) is used in the FLRW, AdS/CFT, and Casimir applications, this is a load-bearing gap.
  2. [Sec. 4, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) is dimensionally inconsistent as written. H has dimensions of energy, while T log ρ has dimensions of energy multiplied by the logarithm of an energy density. A physically meaningful relation requires an undetermined scale, e.g., H ∼ -T log(ρ/ρ0), but the paper never introduces such a scale. This affects the quantitative tables (Table 1 and Table 2) and makes the claimed numerical values of H ambiguous.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (44)] The numerical validation in Appendix A tests a different forward equation from the main text. Equation (44) uses ρ(t) = ∫ dⁿp H e^{-βH}, without the square on H, whereas Eq. (5) defines ρ(x) = ∫ H² f d³p. The appendix therefore cannot validate the inversion of Eq. (5) or the logarithmic relation Eq. (7). The statement that the reconstruction 'validates the inversion approach' is not supported by this numerical example.
  4. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (5)–(7)] The claimed inversion is circular if interpreted as a derivation from the Boltzmann form. Assuming f ∝ e^{-βH}, the statement H ∼ -T log ρ is already equivalent to asserting ρ ∝ e^{-βH}. The paper does not show that the momentum-space integral in Eq. (5) reduces to e^{-βH}; it simply posits the logarithmic inverse. Thus Eq. (7) is a restatement of the thermal ansatz in a different variable, not an independent reconstruction result.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] The acronym FLRW is consistently misspelled as 'FLR W' (e.g., in the abstract, Section 7, and Section 8.1).
  2. [Table 1] Table 1 lists log ρ(t) for values of ρ(t) that have dimensions, but the logarithm of a dimensionful quantity is not defined without a reference scale; this is a consequence of the dimensional issue noted in the major comments.
  3. [Figure 3] The caption states that H(t) = 1 + 0.5/t² fits the reconstruction, but no data points, residuals, or fitting procedure are shown, so the claim that the relative error remains below 10⁻⁴ cannot be independently checked from the manuscript.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 9.0 of 10

Eq. (7) is the logarithmic inverse of the assumed Boltzmann factor, not a consequence of Eq. (5); the numerical validation fits Φ(t) to the target and uses a different forward map.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 4, Eqs. (5)-(7)]
    "Inserting this form into the energy density expression and performing a saddle-point or variational analysis, one can derive an approximate inverse relation: H(x) ∼ −T (x) logρ(x) + const. (7)"

    Eq. (6) defines f ∝ e^{-βH}; Eq. (7) is just H = -T log ρ, the logarithmic inverse of ρ ∝ e^{-βH}. The H² factor and the d³p integral in Eq. (5) are never evaluated: no saddle-point or variational calculation appears in the text. For a generic H(x,p), the integral ∫ H² e^{-βH} d³p does not collapse to e^{-βH}, so the logarithm of ρ cannot recover a momentum-dependent Hamiltonian. The claimed inversion therefore follows only by assuming the conclusion ρ ∝ e^{-βH}, making Eq. (7) true by construction rather than by derivation from Eq. (5).

  2. fitted input called prediction [Appendix A, Eq. (44), Fig. 3]
    "We use the inversion procedure defined in the main text, where Φ(t) is iteratively adjusted so that the integrated expression matches Eq. (43). ... The reconstruction accurately tracks the expected time dependence, validating the inversion approach."

    The free function Φ(t) is iteratively adjusted so that the integrated expression reproduces the target ρ(t); agreement is enforced by the fitting procedure, so it cannot validate the inversion. Moreover, Eq. (44) defines ρ(t) = ∫ dⁿp H(t,p) e^{-βH} without the H² factor of the main-text Eq. (5). The numerical example therefore tests a different forward map and cannot support Eq. (7).

2 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 7, Eqs. (13)-(14)]
    "Assuming this limit and treating A(t) as slowly varying, we find that the energy density scales as: ρ(t) ∝ T 4(t), (13) ... Taking the logarithm and solving for the Hamiltonian leads to the inverse relation: H(t) ∼ −T (t) logρ(t) + const. (14)"

    From ρ(t) ∝ T⁴ alone, log ρ is a function of T, and H = -T log ρ does not follow from solving the stated integral relation for a radiation Hamiltonian H ~ p/a ~ T. The step merely inverts a Boltzmann-like identification ρ ∝ e^{-βH}, repeating the same definitional move as Eq. (7). Table 1 lists H(t) = -T log ρ(t) directly, showing the relation is imposed rather than derived from Eq. (12).

  2. renaming known result [Sec. 9, Eqs. (25)-(26)]
    "ρ(E) ∼ e S(E). (25) ... The effective Hamiltonian is then reconstructed as the entropy gradient: H(E) = dS dE = d dE log ρ(E). (26)"

    S(E) = log ρ(E) is the definition of microcanonical entropy, and dS/dE is the standard inverse temperature β = 1/T, not a Hamiltonian. Renaming this thermodynamic identity as an 'effective Hamiltonian' and then differentiating the assumed spectrum Eq. (27) is a definitional identity, not an inverse reconstruction from energy-density data. The result H(E) = β/(2√E) is just the derivative of the assumed log ρ(E), so it carries no independent content.

full rationale

The central claim of the paper, Eq. (7), is not derived from the forward relation Eq. (5). The text announces a saddle-point or variational analysis but provides none, and the resulting H = -T log ρ is exactly the logarithmic inverse of the assumed Boltzmann factor f ∝ e^{-βH}. In other words, the output Hamiltonian is the input distribution ansatz rewritten, with the H² prefactor and momentum integral dropped. This is circular by construction. The circularity is compounded in Appendix A, where Φ(t) is iteratively adjusted so the integral matches the target ρ(t); the reported agreement is a fit, not a prediction, and Eq. (44) even uses a forward map without the H² factor of Eq. (5). The FLRW and SYK applications repeat the same pattern: the FLRW relation H ~ -T log ρ is asserted after taking a logarithm, and the SYK 'reconstruction' H(E) = d log ρ/dE is the standard microcanonical identity β = dS/dE renamed as a Hamiltonian. No load-bearing self-citation appears; the circularity is internal and definitional, so the score is high but not based on citation practices.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central result rests on the Boltzmann equilibrium ansatz, a nonstandard energy-density integral (H² instead of H), an unshown saddle-point reduction, and several domain-specific model inputs. The numerical example adds a fitted effective potential, so most of the paper's output is either assumed or fitted.

free parameters (4)
  • β(x) (local inverse temperature) = not specified; set β=1 in Appendix A
    Assumed local thermal equilibrium input; the inversion result depends on it.
  • A(t) (FLRW normalization) = treated as slowly varying, not computed
    Enters the FLRW distribution function; the ρ ∝ T^4 scaling assumes it varies slowly.
  • Φ(t) (effective potential) = fitted to match ρ(t) = (t0/t)^4; reported fit H(t)=1+0.5/t^2
    The numerical inversion in Appendix A iteratively adjusts Φ(t) so the integral matches a target density, so the result is a fit to the input.
  • T_eff in Casimir reconstruction = varied; 'const' or 'a' in Table 2
    Introduced as a regulator or scaling field for vacuum modes; has no independent physical meaning.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Distribution function is Boltzmann: f ∝ e^{-βH}
    Stated in Eqs. (4), (6), and Sec. 5; the entire inversion depends on this.
  • ad hoc to paper Energy density is the momentum integral of H² f (Eq. 5)
    This relation is introduced without derivation and is not the standard kinetic-theory formula ρ = ∫ H f d³p.
  • ad hoc to paper Saddle-point/variational reduction of the integral to ρ ∝ e^{-βH}
    No such analysis is shown; this step is the actual inversion and is never justified.
  • domain assumption Tolman law for β: β(x) = β0/√(-ξ²)
    Assumes a timelike Killing vector for stationarity; only approximately valid more generally (Sec. 5).
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT dictionary ⟨Tμν⟩ = (4L³/κ²) g(4)
    Standard holographic renormalization result (Eq. 23), used as input.
  • domain assumption SYK spectral density ρ(E) ~ e^{S(E)}
    Standard thermodynamic relation; used to define H(E)=d log ρ/dE.
  • domain assumption LQC effective Hamiltonian H ~ sin(λP)/λ
    Taken from LQC literature, Eq. (15), as the model to invert.
  • ad hoc to paper Vacuum modes in Casimir effect follow a thermal distribution
    Vacuum states are non-thermal; the paper introduces an effective temperature as a 'regulator' (Sec. 10).
invented entities (1)
  • Effective temperature T for Casimir vacuum modes
    purpose: To apply the Boltzmann inversion to zero-point energy, where no thermal distribution exists.
    The paper treats T(x) as a 'regulator or scaling field' (Sec. 10) with no independent physical measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inverse Hamiltonian Reconstruction from Gravitational Energy Density in Curved Spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U4FSGBLN

@misc{pith2026250806510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inverse Hamiltonian Reconstruction from Gravitational Energy Density in Curved Spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U4FSGBLN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06510}
}
abstract

We present a general framework for reconstructing effective Hamiltonians from known gravitational energy density profiles in curved spacetime. Starting from local thermal equilibrium and Liouville dynamics, we establish an inverse procedure that relates the macroscopic energy density \( \rho(x) \) to a distribution function \( f(x,p) \sim e^{-\beta H(x,p)} \), and recovers the underlying Hamiltonian \( H(x,p) \) via functional inversion. This approach synthesizes tools from relativistic kinetic theory, statistical mechanics, and covariant gravitational thermodynamics, offering a systematic way to extract microscopic dynamics from coarse-grained energy observables. Applications include FLRW cosmology, Loop Quantum Gravity corrections, AdS/CFT holography, and the SYK model. Our results provide a novel route for probing emergent spacetime dynamics through observable densities, bridging geometry, entropy, and Hamiltonian flow in curved backgrounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06510 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Inverse map from energy density to effective Hamiltonian using equilibrium as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of log ρ(E) and its derivative H(E) in the SYK model. The growth in ρ(E) reflects entropy accumulation, while H(E) decays with energy, characteristic of soft holographic modes. which reveals that the effective Hamiltonian diverges in the infrared (E → 0), consistent with the strong infrared behavior of the SYK model and the emergence of soft reparameterization modes. This entropic reconstruction aligns per… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. shows the reconstructed effective Hamiltonian H(t) as a function of time. We normalize m = 1, t0 = 1, and set β = 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 t H(t) Reconstructed H(t) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    F. W. Hehl, J. D. McCrea, E. W. Mielke, Y. Ne’eman, Phys. Rept. 258 (1995) 1

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, T. Koivisto, Universe 5 (2019) 173

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    S. R. de Groot, W. A. van Leeuwen, C. G. van Weert, Relativistic Kinetic Theory, North-Holland, 1980

    work page 1980

  4. [4]

    Ehlers, Gen

    J. Ehlers, Gen. Rel. Grav. 2 (1971) 267

    work page 1971

  5. [5]

    Cercignani and G

    C. Cercignani and G. M. Kremer, The Relativistic Boltzmann Equation: Theory and Applications, Birkh¨ auser, 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    G. F. R. Ellis, R. Maartens, and M. A. H. MacCallum,Relativistic Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990)

    work page 1990

  8. [8]

    Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008)

    S. Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

    1973

  2. [10]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,

    Planck Collaboration, “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,” Astron. As- trophys. 641, A6 (2020), doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Quantum Nature of the Big Bang,

    A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, and P. Singh, “Quantum Nature of the Big Bang,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 141301 (2006), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.141301

    2006 doi

  4. [12]

    Loop quantum cosmology,

    M. Bojowald, “Loop quantum cosmology,” Living Rev. Relativ. 8, 11 (2005), doi:10.12942/lrr-2005-11

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    Loop Quantum Cosmology: A Status Report,

    A. Ashtekar and P. Singh, “Loop Quantum Cosmology: A Status Report,” Class. Quan- tum Grav. 28, 213001 (2011), doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/21/213001

    2011 doi

  6. [14]

    A Geometric Perspective on Singularity Resolution and Uniqueness in Loop Quantum Cosmology,

    A. Corichi and P. Singh, “A Geometric Perspective on Singularity Resolution and Uniqueness in Loop Quantum Cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D 80, 044024 (2009), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.044024

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Super- gravity,

    J. M. Maldacena, “The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Super- gravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231–252 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    1998 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Anti-de Sitter Space and Holography,

    E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter Space and Holography,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 253–291 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    1998 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gauge Theory Correlators from Non-Critical String Theory,

    S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov, and A. M. Polyakov, “Gauge Theory Correlators from Non-Critical String Theory,” Phys. Lett. B 428, 105–114 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802109. 22

    1998 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Holographic Reconstruction of Space- time and Renormalization in the AdS/CFT Correspondence,

    S. de Haro, S. N. Solodukhin, and K. Skenderis, “Holographic Reconstruction of Space- time and Renormalization in the AdS/CFT Correspondence,” Commun. Math. Phys. 217, 595–622 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0002230]

    2001 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Lecture Notes on Holographic Renormalization,

    K. Skenderis, “Lecture Notes on Holographic Renormalization,” Class. Quantum Grav. 19, 5849–5876 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0209067

    2002 arXiv

  12. [20]

    TASI Lectures on the Emergence of Bulk Physics in AdS/CFT,

    D. Harlow, “TASI Lectures on the Emergence of Bulk Physics in AdS/CFT,” PoS TASI2017, 002 (2018) [arXiv:1802.01040 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Jerusalem Lectures on Black Holes and Quantum Information,

    D. Harlow, “Jerusalem Lectures on Black Holes and Quantum Information,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 015002 (2016), arXiv:1409.1231 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gapless Spin-Fluid Ground State in a Random, Quantum Heisen- berg Magnet,

    S. Sachdev and J. Ye, “Gapless Spin-Fluid Ground State in a Random, Quantum Heisen- berg Magnet,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3339 (1993), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.3339

    1993 doi

  15. [23]

    A Simple Model of Quantum Holography,

    A. Kitaev, “A Simple Model of Quantum Holography,” Talks at KITP, April and May 2015, https://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled15/kitaev/

    2015

  16. [24]

    Remarks on the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev Model,

    J. Maldacena and D. Stanford, “Remarks on the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev Model,” Phys. Rev. D 94, 106002 (2016), arXiv:1604.07818 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [25]

    The Soft Mode in the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev Model and its Gravity Dual,

    A. Kitaev and S. J. Su, “The Soft Mode in the Sachdev–Ye–Kitaev Model and its Gravity Dual,” Fortschr. Phys. 64, 555–567 (2016), doi:10.1002/prop.201600074

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Black Holes and Random Matrices,

    J. Cotler et al., “Black Holes and Random Matrices,” JHEP 05, 118 (2017), arXiv:1611.04650 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    K. A. Milton, The Casimir Effect: Physical Manifestations of Zero-Point Energy , World Scientific (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    Bordag, G

    M. Bordag, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, V. M. Mostepanenko, Advances in the Casimir Effect, Oxford University Press (2009). 23

    2009

Pith tools

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