pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.16402 · v3 · submitted 2026-01-23 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Diffusive and hydrodynamic magnetotransport around a density perturbation in a two-dimensional electron gas

P. S. Parashar , M. M. Fogler This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 12:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords magnetotransporttwo-dimensional electron gasdensity inhomogeneityLandauer dipolehydrodynamic transportno-go radiusviscosity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Strong magnetic fields suppress current and potential around density perturbations inside a growing no-go region.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that a density inhomogeneity parametrized by a power-law tail with exponent β > 2 in a two-dimensional electron gas leads to exponential suppression of current and electrochemical potential in a surrounding area much larger than the perturbation. The no-go radius grows as a power of the magnetic field. Inside this region, residual flows show spiraling patterns. Outside, the flow acquires corrections in the form of a Landauer resistivity dipole rotated by the angle π(1 - 1/β), with rotation sense depending on whether density is raised or lowered. Electron viscosity makes the no-go radius vary more rapidly with field, and the dipole size is set by the Gurzhi length.

Core claim

Around a density perturbation with power-law tail exponent β > 2, strong magnetic field causes current and electrochemical potential to be exponentially suppressed inside a no-go radius that grows as a power of B. Residual quantities inside form spirals. Outside they follow a rotated Landauer resistivity dipole whose angle is π(1 - 1/β) and whose direction depends on the sign of the density change. Viscosity strengthens the B-dependence of the no-go radius.

What carries the argument

The no-go radius produced by the power-law density tail interacting with strong magnetic field to exponentially suppress transport inside it.

If this is right

  • Current and potential form spiraling patterns inside the no-go region.
  • Outside the region they show Landauer resistivity dipole corrections rotated by π(1 - 1/β).
  • The dipole rotation reverses for density increases versus decreases.
  • Viscosity makes the no-go radius grow more rapidly with magnetic field.
  • The dipole size is fixed by the Gurzhi length, larger than the no-go radius.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Nanoimaging experiments in graphene may observe these spiraling patterns and rotated dipoles around impurities.
  • Measuring how the suppressed region size changes with B could distinguish diffusive from hydrodynamic regimes.
  • Similar blocking regions should appear around other inhomogeneities with sufficiently fast-decaying density tails.

Load-bearing premise

The density inhomogeneity has a power-law tail with exponent β > 2 and transport is described by standard diffusive or hydrodynamic equations.

What would settle it

Spatially mapping current or potential around a known density perturbation at different magnetic fields to check for exponential suppression inside a radius scaling as a power of B and dipole rotation of π(1 - 1/β).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.16402 by M. M. Fogler, P. S. Parashar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of the experiment that motivated this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. False color and contour plots of the electrochemical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. A cartoon of the dependence of the no-go length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Analytical and numerical results for the stream func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. False color and contour plots of the stream function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Landauer dipole orientation angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study current flow around a density inhomogeneity in a two-dimensional electron gas in the presence of a strong magnetic field. The inhomogeneity is parametrized by a power-law tail with an exponent $\beta > 2$. We show that current and electrochemical potential are exponentially suppressed inside a surrounding area much larger than the geometric size of the perturbation. The corresponding ``no-go'' radius grows as a certain power of the magnetic field. Residual current and potential exhibit spiraling patterns inside the no-go region. Outside of it, they acquire corrections inversely proportional to the distance, which is known as the Landauer resistivity dipole. The Landauer dipole is rotated by the angle $\pi (1 - 1 / \beta)$ with respect to the average electric field. The rotation direction depends on whether the local density is raised or lowered. We also consider the effect of electron viscosity and show that the variation of the no-go radius with magnetic field becomes more rapid if viscosity is large enough. The Landauer dipole size is set by the Gurzhi length, which is much larger than the no-go radius, which is in turn much larger than the geometric size of the perturbation. Our results may be useful for interpreting nanoimaging of current distribution in graphene and other two-dimensional systems.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies current and potential flow around a density inhomogeneity in a 2D electron gas under strong magnetic field. The inhomogeneity is modeled with a power-law tail of exponent β > 2. The central claims are that current and electrochemical potential are exponentially suppressed inside a no-go radius that grows as a power of B, with residual spiraling patterns inside and a rotated Landauer resistivity dipole outside; the dipole rotation angle is π(1 − 1/β) whose sign depends on whether density is raised or lowered. Viscosity is included via the Gurzhi length, which enlarges the dipole while leaving the no-go scaling robust when viscosity is large.

Significance. If the matched-asymptotic analysis holds, the work supplies a concrete, falsifiable prediction for the B-dependent size of a current-suppressed region around a localized scatterer. This is directly relevant to nanoimaging experiments in graphene and other 2D systems where density inhomogeneities are ubiquitous. The parameter-free character of the scaling (once β is fixed) and the separation of scales (no-go radius ≪ Gurzhi length) are strengths that could be tested by varying B at fixed density profile.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3, Eq. (12)] §3, Eq. (12): the exponential suppression inside the no-go radius is asserted to follow from the continuity equation ∇·j = 0 together with the magnetotransport constitutive relation, yet the explicit solution for the screened potential (or the WKB-type estimate that yields the radius) is not displayed; without it the claimed power-law growth of the radius with B cannot be verified.
  2. [§4, after Eq. (18)] §4, after Eq. (18): the rotation angle π(1 − 1/β) of the Landauer dipole is stated to arise from the far-field matching, but the boundary-value problem that fixes the phase shift is not solved explicitly; a short derivation or reference to the corresponding integral equation would confirm that the sign indeed reverses when the density perturbation changes sign.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§5] The definition of the Gurzhi length ℓ_G should be written explicitly in terms of viscosity η, density n, and cyclotron frequency ω_c so that the hierarchy ℓ_G ≫ R_no-go ≫ R_geom is immediately quantifiable.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2 caption: label the no-go radius on the plotted streamlines so that the exponential decay inside versus the 1/r dipole outside is visually apparent.
  3. [§2] The assumption β > 2 is used to guarantee integrability of the conductivity perturbation at infinity; a brief remark on the marginal case β = 2 would clarify the robustness of the result.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the positive recommendation for minor revision. The comments correctly identify places where additional explicit derivations would strengthen the presentation, and we will incorporate them in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3, Eq. (12)] §3, Eq. (12): the exponential suppression inside the no-go radius is asserted to follow from the continuity equation ∇·j = 0 together with the magnetotransport constitutive relation, yet the explicit solution for the screened potential (or the WKB-type estimate that yields the radius) is not displayed; without it the claimed power-law growth of the radius with B cannot be verified.

    Authors: We agree that the derivation of the exponential suppression and the associated power-law scaling of the no-go radius with B should be made explicit. In the revised manuscript we will add a short WKB analysis (or the leading-order solution for the screened potential) in §3 that directly yields the radius scaling from the continuity equation and the constitutive relation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4, after Eq. (18)] §4, after Eq. (18): the rotation angle π(1 − 1/β) of the Landauer dipole is stated to arise from the far-field matching, but the boundary-value problem that fixes the phase shift is not solved explicitly; a short derivation or reference to the corresponding integral equation would confirm that the sign indeed reverses when the density perturbation changes sign.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation of the phase shift from the far-field boundary-value problem would confirm both the angle π(1 − 1/β) and the sign reversal upon changing the sign of the density perturbation. In the revised §4 we will include a concise derivation (or reference to the relevant integral equation) that fixes the phase and demonstrates the sign dependence. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained from standard equations

full rationale

The paper solves the continuity equation ∇·j=0 together with the standard magnetotransport constitutive relation (including Hall term) for a density perturbation decaying as r^{-β} with β>2. The no-go radius, exponential suppression, spiraling patterns, and Landauer dipole rotation all emerge from matched asymptotic analysis of these equations; the Gurzhi length enters only as a parametric scale. No parameters are fitted to the target observables, no self-citation is load-bearing for the central result, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled in. The construction is independent of the outputs it predicts.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on standard hydrodynamic and diffusive transport equations for 2D electrons in a magnetic field together with the assumption that the density perturbation has a power-law tail with β > 2. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • β
    Exponent controlling the power-law tail of the density perturbation; required to be greater than 2 for the no-go region to exist.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard diffusive and hydrodynamic transport equations remain valid for a 2D electron gas in a strong perpendicular magnetic field.
    Invoked throughout the abstract as the framework for calculating current and potential around the inhomogeneity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5537 in / 1342 out tokens · 58223 ms · 2026-05-16T12:25:21.168029+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Yacoby, H

    A. Yacoby, H. Hess, T. Fulton, L. Pfeiffer, and K. West, Solid State Communications111, 1 (1999)

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Martin, N

    J. Martin, N. Akerman, G. Ulbricht, T. Lohmann, J. H. Smet, K. von Klitzing, and A. Yacoby, Nature Physics4, 144 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Umansky, and A

    S.Ilani, J.Martin, E.Teitelbaum, J.H.Smet, D.Mahalu, V. Umansky, and A. Yacoby, Nature427, 328 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Kumar, J

    C. Kumar, J. Birkbeck, J. A. Sulpizio, D. Perello, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, O. Reuven, T. Scaffidi, A. Stern, A. K. Geim, and S. Ilani, Nature609, 276 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    S. H. Tessmer, P. I. Glicofridis, R. C. Ashoori, L. S. Lev- itov, and M. R. Melloch, Nature392, 51 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    G.Finkelstein, P.Glicofridis, S.Tessmer, R.Ashoori,and M. R. Melloch, Physical Review B61, R16323 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    M. E. Suddards, A. Baumgartner, M. Henini, and C. J. Mellor, New Journal of Physics14, 083015 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    K. L. McCormick, M. T. Woodside, M. Huang, M. Wu, P. L. McEuen, C. Duruoz, and J. S. Harris, Physical Re- view B59, 4654 (1999)

    work page 1999

  9. [9]

    Muralt and D

    P. Muralt and D. W. Pohl, Applied Physics Letters48, 514 (1986)

    work page 1986

  10. [10]

    Hashimoto, C

    K. Hashimoto, C. Sohrmann, J. Wiebe, T. Inaoka, F. Meier, Y. Hirayama, R. A. Römer, R. Wiesendan- ger, and M. Morgenstern, Physical Review Letters101, 256802 (2008)

    work page 2008

  11. [11]

    G. Li, A. Luican-Mayer, D. Abanin, L. Levi- tov, and E. Y. Andrei, Nature Communications4, 10.1038/ncomms2767 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms2767 2013

  12. [12]

    A. Uri, Y. Kim, K. Bagani, C. K. Lewandowski, S. Grover, N. Auerbach, E. O. Lachman, Y. Myasoedov, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Smet, and E. Zeldov, Na- ture Physics16, 164 (2019)

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    A. Uri, S. Grover, Y. Cao, J. Crosse, K. Bagani, D. Rodan-Legrain, Y. Myasoedov, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Moon, M. Koshino, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and E. Zeldov, Nature581, 47 (2020)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    J. A. Sulpizio, L. Ella, A. Rozen, J. Birkbeck, D. J. Perello, D. Dutta, M. Ben-Shalom, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, T. Holder,et al., Nature576, 75 (2019)

    work page 2019

  15. [15]

    M. L. Palm, C. Ding, W. S. Huxter, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and C. L. Degen, Science384, 465 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    R. W. Rendell and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. B23, 6610 (1981)

    work page 1981

  17. [17]

    A. H. MacDonald, T. M. Rice, and W. F. Brinkman, Physical Review B28, 3648 (1983)

    work page 1983

  18. [18]

    I. M. Ruzin, Physical Review B47, 15727 (1993)

    work page 1993

  19. [19]

    Willke, T

    P. Willke, T. Kotzott, T. Pruschke, and M. Wenderoth, Nature Communications8, 10.1038/ncomms15283 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms15283 2017

  20. [20]

    W. A. Behn, Z. J. Krebs, K. J. Smith, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and V. W. Brar, Nano Letters21, 5013 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Z. J. Krebs, W. A. Behn, S. Li, K. J. Smith, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, A. Levchenko, and V. W. Brar, Sci- ence379, 671 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    Z. J. Krebs, W. A. Behn, K. J. Smith, M. A. Fortman, K.Watanabe, T.Taniguchi, P.S.Parashar, M.M.Fogler, and V. W. Brar 10.48550/ARXIV.2409.19468 (2024), arXiv:2409.19468

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.19468 2024

  23. [23]

    Landauer, IBM Journal of Research and Development 1, 223 (1957)

    R. Landauer, IBM Journal of Research and Development 1, 223 (1957)

    work page 1957

  24. [24]

    Landauer, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter and Quanta21, 247 (1975)

    R. Landauer, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter and Quanta21, 247 (1975)

    work page 1975

  25. [25]

    Landauer, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics8, L245 (1978)

    R. Landauer, Journal of Physics F: Metal Physics8, L245 (1978)

    work page 1978

  26. [26]

    R. S. Sorbello, Physical Review B23, 5119 (1981)

    work page 1981

  27. [27]

    Zwerger, L

    W. Zwerger, L. Bönig, and K. Schönhammer, Physical Review B43, 6434 (1991)

    work page 1991

  28. [28]

    Reuß and W

    M. Reuß and W. Zwerger, Physical Review B53, 9513 (1996)

    work page 1996

  29. [29]

    B. G. Briner, R. M. Feenstra, T. P. Chin, and J. M. Woodall, Physical Review B54, R5283 (1996)

    work page 1996

  30. [30]

    M. M. Fogler, D. S. Novikov, and B. I. Shklovskii, Phys- ical Review B76, 233402 (2007). 12

    work page 2007

  31. [31]

    Lucas, Physical Review B95, 115425 (2017)

    A. Lucas, Physical Review B95, 115425 (2017)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    R. N. Gurzhi, Sov. Phys. Usp.11, 255 (1968)

    work page 1968

  33. [33]

    Lamb,Hydrodynamics, republ

    H. Lamb,Hydrodynamics, republ. of the 6th ed., Cam- bridge 1932 ed. (Dover, New York, 2005)

    work page 1932

  34. [34]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Fluid Mechanics (Butterworth-Heinemann, London, 1987)

    work page 1987

  35. [35]

    I. V. Gornyi and D. G. Polyakov, Physical Review B108, 165429 (2023)

    work page 2023

  36. [36]

    P. S. Alekseev and A. P. Dmitriev, Physical Review B 108, 205413 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    L. W. Molenkamp and M. J. M. de Jong, Physical Review B49, 5038 (1994)

    work page 1994

  38. [38]

    M. J. M. de Jong and L. W. Molenkamp, Physical Review B51, 13389 (1995)

    work page 1995

  39. [39]

    A. D. Levin, G. M. Gusev, E. V. Levinson, Z. D. Kvon, andA.K.Bakarov,PhysicalReviewB97,245308(2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    G. M. Gusev, A. D. Levin, E. V. Levinson, and A. K. Bakarov, Physical Review B98, 161303 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    G. M. Gusev, A. S. Jaroshevich, A. D. Levin, Z. D. Kvon, and A. K. Bakarov, Scientific Reports10, 10.1038/s41598-020-64807-6 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-020-64807-6 2020

  42. [42]

    Gupta, J

    A. Gupta, J. Heremans, G. Kataria, M. Chandra, S. Fal- lahi, G. Gardner, and M. Manfra, Physical Review Let- ters126, 076803 (2021)

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    A. C. Keser, D. Q. Wang, O. Klochan, D. Y. Ho, O. A. Tkachenko, V. A. Tkachenko, D. Culcer, S. Adam, I. Far- rer, D. A. Ritchie, O. P. Sushkov, and A. R. Hamilton, Physical Review X11, 031030 (2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    X. Wang, P. Jia, R.-R. Du, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. Baldwin, andK.W.West,PhysicalReviewB106,L241302(2022)

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    Bandurin, I

    D. Bandurin, I. Torre, R. K. Kumar, M. Ben Shalom, A. Tomadin, A. Principi, G. Auton, E. Khestanova, K. Novoselov, I. Grigorieva,et al., Science351, 1055 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    Crossno, J

    J. Crossno, J. K. Shi, K. Wang, X. Liu, A. Harzheim, A. Lucas, S. Sachdev, P. Kim, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, T. A. Ohki, and K. C. Fong, Science351, 1058 (2016)

    work page 2016

  47. [47]

    Krishna Kumar, D

    R. Krishna Kumar, D. A. Bandurin, F. M. D. Pel- legrino, Y. Cao, A. Principi, H. Guo, G. Auton, M. Ben Shalom, L. A. Ponomarenko, G. Falkovich, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, I. Grigorieva, L. S. Levi- tov, M. Polini, and A. Geim, Nature Physics13, 1182 (2017)

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    D. A. Bandurin, A. V. Shytov, L. S. Levitov, R. K. Ku- mar, A. I. Berdyugin, M. Ben Shalom, I. V. Grigorieva, A. K. Geim, and G. Falkovich, Nature Communications 9, 10.1038/s41467-018-07004-4 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-07004-4 2018

  49. [49]

    A. I. Berdyugin, S. G. Xu, F. M. D. Pellegrino, R. Kr- ishna Kumar, A. Principi, I. Torre, M. Ben Shalom, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, I. V. Grigorieva, M. Polini, A. K. Geim, and D. A. Bandurin, Science364, 162 (2019)

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    M. J. H. Ku, T. X. Zhou, Q. Li, Y. J. Shin, J. K. Shi, C. Burch, L. E. Anderson, A. T. Pierce, Y. Xie, A. Hamo, U. Vool, H. Zhang, F. Casola, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. M. Fogler, P. Kim, A. Yacoby, and R. L. Walsworth, Nature583, 537 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2008.04862

    J. Geurs, Y. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. Moon, and J. H. Smet, arXiv:2008.04862 (2020)

    work page arXiv 2008

  52. [52]

    P. J. W. Moll, P. Kushwaha, N. Nandi, B. Schmidt, and A. P. Mackenzie, Science351, 1061 (2016)

    work page 2016

  53. [53]

    M. D. Bachmann, A. L. Sharpe, G. Baker, A. W. Barnard, C. Putzke, T. Scaffidi, N. Nandi, P. H. McGuin- ness, E. Zhakina, M. Moravec, S. Khim, M. König, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, D. A. Bonn, A. P. Mackenzie, and P. J. W. Moll, Nature Physics18, 819 (2022)

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    Frohna et al., Inversion symmetry and bulk Rashba effect in methylammonium lead iodide perovskite single crystals

    J. Gooth, F. Menges, N. Kumar, V. Süß, C. Shekhar, Y. Sun, U. Drechsler, R. Zierold, C. Felser, and B. Gots- mann, Nature Communications9, 10.1038/s41467-018- 06688-y (2018)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018- 2018

  55. [55]

    U. Vool, A. Hamo, G. Varnavides, Y. Wang, T. X. Zhou, N. Kumar, Y. Dovzhenko, Z. Qiu, C. A. C. Garcia, A. T. Pierce, J. Gooth, P. Anikeeva, C. Felser, P. Narang, and A. Yacoby, Nature Physics17, 1216 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Aharon-Steinberg, T

    A. Aharon-Steinberg, T. Völkl, A. Kaplan, A. K. Pariari, I. Roy, T. Holder, Y. Wolf, A. Y. Meltzer, Y. Myasoedov, M. E. Huber,et al., Nature607, 74 (2022)

    work page 2022

  57. [57]

    M. M. Fogler and B. I. Shklovskii, Solid State Commu- nications94, 503 (1995)

    work page 1995

  58. [58]

    M. M. Fogler, Physical Review B69, 245321 (2004)

    work page 2004

  59. [59]

    Chapman and T

    S. Chapman and T. G. Cowling,The Mathematical the- ory of non-uniform gases, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 1999)

    work page 1999

  60. [60]

    M. S. Steinberg, Physical Review109, 1486 (1958)

    work page 1958

  61. [61]

    A. N. Kaufman, The Physics of Fluids3, 610 (1960)

    work page 1960

  62. [62]

    Alekseev, Physical Review Letters117, 166601 (2016)

    P. Alekseev, Physical Review Letters117, 166601 (2016)

    work page 2016

  63. [63]

    Principi, G

    A. Principi, G. Vignale, M. Carrega, and M. Polini, Phys- ical Review B93, 125410 (2016)

    work page 2016

  64. [64]

    B. N. Narozhny, I. V. Gornyi, A. D. Mirlin, and J. Schmalian, Annalen der Physik529, 10.1002/andp.201700043 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1002/andp.201700043 2017

  65. [65]

    Lucas and K

    A. Lucas and K. C. Fong, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter30, 053001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  66. [66]

    Z. Sun, D. N. Basov, and M. M. Fogler, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115, 3285 (2018)

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    E. I. Kiselev and J. Schmalian, Physical Review B99, 035430 (2019)

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    Bradlyn, M

    B. Bradlyn, M. Goldstein, and N. Read, Physical Review B86, 245309 (2012)

    work page 2012

  69. [69]

    Hoyos and D

    C. Hoyos and D. T. Son, Physical Review Letters108, 066805 (2012)

    work page 2012

  70. [70]

    Holder, R

    T. Holder, R. Queiroz, and A. Stern, Physical Review Letters123, 106801 (2019)

    work page 2019

  71. [71]

    A. V. Andreev, S. A. Kivelson, and B. Spivak, Physical Review Letters106, 256804 (2011)

    work page 2011

  72. [72]

    H. K. Moffatt, Journal of Fluid Mechanics18, 1 (1964)

    work page 1964

  73. [73]

    Bushong, Y

    N. Bushong, Y. Pershin, and M. Di Ventra, Physical Re- view Letters99, 226802 (2007)

    work page 2007

  74. [74]

    Levitov and G

    L. Levitov and G. Falkovich, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 026601 (2016)

    work page 2016

  75. [75]

    Falkovich and L

    G. Falkovich and L. Levitov, Physical Review Letters 119, 066601 (2017)

    work page 2017

  76. [76]

    Holder, R

    T. Holder, R. Queiroz, T. Scaffidi, N. Silberstein, A. Rozen, J. A. Sulpizio, L. Ella, S. Ilani, and A. Stern, Physical Review B100, 245305 (2019)

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    O. E. Raichev, G. M. Gusev, A. D. Levin, and A. K. Bakarov, Physical Review B101, 235314 (2020)

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    F. W. J. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert, and C. W. Clark, NIST Digital library of mathematical functions (2010)

    work page 2010