Unifying microscopic theories for the phono-magnetic effect

Finja Tietjen; Natalia Shabala; R. Matthias Geilhufe; Ylva Liljegren

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Unifying microscopic theories for the phono-magnetic effect

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 shows that Floquet, perturbative, and adiabatic derivations of the phono-magnetic effect produce identical effective Hamiltonians in the low-frequency limit, with the field set by phonon angular momentum and phonon Berry…

desk verdict A useful unification of three phono-magnetic derivations, with one genuinely sloppy perturbative step that should be fixed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04754 v1 pith:CMZV2JCR submitted 2026-08-05 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Natalia Shabala , Finja Tietjen , Ylva Liljegren , R. Matthias Geilhufe This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 71.38.-k63.20.-e75.10.-b

keywords phono-magneticeffectphononangularmomentumchiralphononseffectivemagneticfieldBerrycurvatureFloquettheoryelectron-phononcouplingSrTiO3

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 three previously separate microscopic routes to the phono-magnetic effect—Floquet theory, time-dependent perturbation theory, and adiabatic evolution—produce the same effective electronic Hamiltonian in the low-frequency limit. If correct, this means the earlier theories of Refs. [12], [14], and [17] are one theory in their overlapping regime, not competing pictures. The shared result expresses the effective magnetic field as the product of the phonon angular momentum and a phonon Berry curvature, so the magnetization induced in a solid is controlled by lattice chirality and the geometry of the electronic states. The paper also separates the total magnetization into a spontaneous part from ionic magnetic dipoles and an induced part from the electron-phonon-driven Zeeman splitting, and uses the formalism to estimate the effective field in laser-driven SrTiO3.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-Abelian phonon Berry connection $A_{u_i} = \langle a|\partial_{u_i}|b\rangle$ and its curvature $\Omega^{ab}_{u_x u_y} = i \sum_n [\langle a|\partial_{u_x} U|n\rangle\langle n|\partial_{u_y} U|b\rangle - (x\leftrightarrow y)]/E_{nb}^2$. In the Floquet route, a tridiagonal Floquet Hamiltonian with nearest-sideband couplings is downfolded to a second-order self-energy that gives Eq. (25); in the perturbative route, the same second-order kernel appears from the iteration of the interaction-picture evolution, giving Eq. (32); in the adiabatic route, the same curvature appears in the non-Abelian geometric phase accumulated by the degenerate ground multiplet, giving Eq. (51). The identity of the three is sealed by writing the effective Hamiltonian as $H_{\rm eff} = (\hbar/2)L_z \Omega_{u_x u_y}$, with the low-frequency limit $\hbar\omega \ll |E_{nb}|$ making all three denominators coincide.

What would settle it

Take a concrete two-level or two-orbital model with known coupling $V(t)$, compute the exact second-order effective Hamiltonian using the properly time-ordered double integral, and compare it with the low-frequency Floquet result; if they differ beyond $O(\omega^2)$, Eq. (53) cannot hold for the perturbative method as written.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the low-frequency regime, the Floquet, perturbative, and adiabatic derivations converge on the identical effective Hamiltonian $$H_{ab}^{\rm eff} = \frac{i\hbar}{2} L_z \sum_n \left[ \frac{\langle a|\partial_{u_x} U|n\rangle\langle n|\partial_{u_y} U|b\rangle}{E_{nb}^2 - \$hbar^{2}$\$omega^{2}$} - (x\leftrightarrow y) \right],$$ where $L_z$ is the phonon angular momentum and the summand is the non-Abelian phonon Berry curvature. The paper argues that the time-reversal-odd, antisymmetric part of the second-order electron-phonon scattering matrix is what splits degenerate electronic orbitals, producing an orbital Zeeman effect with effective magnetic field $B_{\rm eff} = (\hbar/\mu_B)|L_z \Omega_{u_x u_y}|$. By connecting this effective Hamiltonian to the semiclassical magnetization formula of Ref. [12], it identifies the phonon-induced magnetization as the sum of a spontaneous contribution (ionic magnetic dipoles, proportional to the determinant of the Born effective charge tensor) and an induced contribution (proportional to the effective field times the electronic Berry curvature in momentum space).

Load-bearing premise

The perturbative derivation relies on writing the second-order time-evolution as a product of two independent integrals (Eq. (27)); if that product is not equivalent to the time-ordered double integral of standard perturbation theory, the agreement with the Floquet result is not actually established for the perturbative route.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The Floquet, perturbative, and adiabatic theories of the phono-magnetic effect are compatible; a single effective Hamiltonian Eq. (53) suffices in the low-frequency regime.
The effective magnetic field scales linearly with phonon angular momentum $L_z$ and with the square of the electron-phonon coupling strength, and decreases quadratically with the electronic gap.
The phonon-induced magnetization decomposes into a spontaneous part from ionic dipoles (the determinant of the Born effective charge tensor) and an induced part from the orbital Zeeman-like splitting; both are needed to compare with experiments.
For SrTiO3 with a soft-mode phonon at 2.7 THz and $|g| \approx 10$ meV, the predicted effective field is about 0.5 mT, two orders below the reported experimental value, implying that precise electron-phonon matrix elements are required to test the theory.
The role of $\hbar^2\omega^2$ in the denominator prevents the effective Hamiltonian from diverging in small-gap (e.g., Dirac) materials, a feature the paper notes but does not develop.

Reading between the lines

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

If the unified Hamiltonian is correct, the same effective field formula should apply to other coherent chiral phonon setups, including thermal equilibrium through the phonon occupation factor, a test the paper does not perform.
The quadratic gap dependence at fixed coupling and the role of $\hbar\omega$ in preventing divergence in small-gap materials suggest the phono-magnetic effect could be resonantly enhanced by tuning the phonon frequency near an electronic transition; the paper only notes the divergence but does not explore the resonance.
The SrTiO3 discrepancy can be converted into a quantitative constraint on the electron-phonon coupling if the experimental field value is trusted; conversely, an independent measurement of $g$ would decide whether one of the three methods underestimates the effect.
The formal equivalence among the three routes implies a single geometric description of phonon-driven magnetism, which may extend to acoustic phonons or to phonon modes beyond the circularly polarized coherent case considered here.

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

The core of this paper is a real consolidation: the Floquet, adiabatic, and perturbative routes to the phono-magnetic effective Hamiltonian are put on equal footing, and Eq. (53) states the common low-frequency limit cleanly. That comparison is the new content, and it is worth having. The Floquet and adiabatic sections are internally consistent, and the magnetization decomposition into spontaneous and induced parts is a clarifying addition. The SrTiO3 estimate is also honest about the two-orders-of-magnitude gap with experiment, which is the right way to present a numerical estimate.

The main soft spot is the perturbative derivation in Sec. III B. Equation (27) writes the second-order term as a product of two independent integrals from 0 to t. That is not the standard Dyson expansion; the correct second-order term needs a nested time-ordered integral. If Eq. (27) is meant as shorthand for the nested form, the paper never says so, and the subsequent steps (Eq. (29) and then Eq. (31)) do not follow from the equation as printed. This matters because Eq. (31) is the bridge that makes the perturbative route agree with Floquet. I think the intended result is right—the Floquet and adiabatic routes both land on Eq. (53), and the perturbative route should too—but the rigor gap is real and needs a fix.

A smaller issue is the identification of chi in Eq. (68). The choice of chi is essentially definitional to make Eq. (67) match Eq. (57), so the "induced magnetization" language is somewhat loaded. The paper could be more explicit that this is a motivated identification rather than a derivation from first principles.

Neither of these problems sinks the central message. The unification is a legitimate advance and the paper cites the prior work honestly, including its own earlier papers. It deserves a serious referee; the right fix is to rewrite the perturbative expansion cleanly and clarify the chi identification. I would be happy to see it in a good journal after that revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper compares three microscopic derivations of the effective electron Hamiltonian induced by circularly polarized (axial) phonons: Floquet theory, time-dependent perturbation theory, and adiabatic geometric phase. It claims that in the low-frequency limit all three yield the same expression for H_ab^eff (Eq. 53), proportional to the phonon angular momentum L_z and a phonon Berry curvature. It then connects this effective Hamiltonian to two contributions to sample magnetization, denoted spontaneous and induced, and gives a numerical estimate of the effective magnetic field in laser-driven SrTiO3, finding values about two orders of magnitude below the experiment of Ref. [19].

Significance. If the central equivalence is established, the paper fulfills a useful synthesis: it puts Refs. [12,14,17] on a common footing, identifies the low-frequency limit that connects them, and clarifies the distinction between spontaneous and induced magnetization. The comparison is parameter-free and the numerical estimate is transparent, with all input parameters stated. However, the perturbative and adiabatic derivations contain technical gaps that currently prevent the equivalence from being accepted as proven.

major comments (4)

[III B, Eq. (27)] The second-order term in Eq. (27) is written as (-1/hbar^2) integral_0^t dt' V(t') integral_0^t dt'' V(t'') with two independent integration limits. Standard time-dependent perturbation theory requires the time-ordered, nested integral (-1/hbar^2) integral_0^t dt' integral_0^{t'} dt'' V(t') V(t''); the two expressions are not equal because interaction-picture operators at different times do not commute. Equation (29) then keeps only one ordering and therefore does not follow as written. If Eq. (27) is intended as compressed notation for the nested Dyson integral, this must be stated, because Eq. (31), which is the bridge to the Floquet result Eq. (23), relies on it.
[III A, Eq. (24)] The statement "Noting that Y=X*" is not generally true: X=langle a|h1|n rangle langle n|h1^dagger|b rangle and Y=langle a|h1^dagger|n rangle langle n|h1|b rangle are not complex conjugates unless the matrix elements of partial_{u_x} U and partial_{u_y} U in the chosen orbital basis are real (or satisfy another specific reality condition). Without this additional gauge or phase choice, X-Y is not purely imaginary and the extraction of the time-reversal-odd contribution that leads to Eq. (25) is not justified. The assumption should be stated explicitly and its validity for the SrTiO3 estimate discussed.
[III C, Eqs. (45)-(51)] The adiabatic derivation applies the non-degenerate relation Eq. (46), langle n|partial_u|n' rangle = langle n|partial_u H|n' rangle/(epsilon_n - epsilon_n'), to matrix elements langle a|partial_u|b rangle with a,b in the same degenerate ground-state multiplet, for which the energy denominator vanishes and the relation does not apply. The non-Abelian Berry curvature of a degenerate subspace must instead be obtained by adiabatic elimination of excited states; the sum in Eq. (48) should exclude all states of the degenerate multiplet (the text excludes only n != a, leaving n=b with a vanishing denominator). In addition, Eqs. (47) and (50) imply H_eff = hbar d gamma/dt = -hbar/2 L_z Omega_ab, whereas Eq. (51) states H_eff = +hbar/2 L_z Omega_ab (with Omega_ab containing the factor i), so the sign convention between the geometric phase and the effective Hamiltonian needs to be fixed.
[IV B, Eq. (68)] The identification chi = -e^2/(4 m_e) Omega_{k_x k_y} is introduced after the fact so that Eq. (67) "is equivalent" to Eq. (57); this is a definitional matching rather than a derivation. Moreover, Eq. (64) defines B_eff with an absolute value, while the equivalence with Eq. (57) drops the absolute value and depends on the sign of L_z and Omega_{u_x u_y}; as written, the sign of the right-hand side of Eq. (67) depends on the parity of Omega_{k_x k_y} under k -> -k (through chi(-k)) and on the sign of L_z, which are not stated. Please clarify the status of Eq. (68) as a constitutive definition and state the sign or parity assumptions explicitly.

minor comments (4)

[III B, Eq. (27)] The first-order term in Eq. (27) writes "V" without an explicit time argument; it should be V(t) at the upper integration limit.
[III C, Eq. (38)] The expression "T X_m exp(-i omega_0 t) exp(...)" is unclear: the sum over m, the meaning of the leading time-ordering symbol, and the action on the initial state |psi_0> should be defined more carefully.
[II, Eq. (4)] The notation u_R,L = 1/sqrt(2)(u_x -/+ i u_y) is easily confused with the displacement vector u; renaming the amplitudes would improve readability.
[V, Eq. (70)] The estimate |g| approx 10 meV is imported from Ref. [45], but that work computes electron-phonon scattering couplings rather than the specific p-d matrix element used in Eq. (70); this transfer should be justified or softened.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The three-method unification is self-contained; only the Sec. IV B identification of the induced magnetization is fixed by defining χ to match Eq. (57).

self definitional [Section IV B (Induced magnetization of axial phonons), Eqs. (57), (64), (67), (68)]
"The combination of Eqs. (57) and (64) allows us to motivate M_z^(2) by identifying χ as the proportionality quantity between M_z^(2) and B_eff, and arrive at: χ = -e^2/(4m_e) Ω_{kxky}. With this definition, the Eqs. (67) and (57) are equivalent. As a result, we identify M_z^(2) as the induced magnetization due to the effective magnetic field experienced by electrons in the presence of axial phonons."

The susceptibility χ is not derived from an independent microscopic response calculation; it is chosen so that Eq. (67) exactly reproduces Eq. (57). The label 'induced magnetization' is therefore assigned by construction rather than by prediction. This step is definitional, but it is confined to Section IV B and does not feed back into the central three-method effective-Hamiltonian derivation, which remains parameter-free and internally compared.

full rationale

The central claim, Eq. (53), is that the Floquet, perturbative, and adiabatic approaches reduce to the same effective Hamiltonian in the low-frequency limit. This result is established by three independent derivations: the Floquet route yields Eq. (25), the perturbative route yields Eq. (32) after explicitly comparing Eq. (31) with Eq. (23), and the adiabatic route yields Eq. (51), which matches the others when ħω ≪ |E_nb|. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing step is justified solely by a self-citation: Refs. [11,14] are cited for prior context, but the paper rederives the needed expressions from Eq. (2) onward. The SrTiO3 estimate imports |g| ≈ 10 meV from the external first-principles work Ref. [45], which is transparent parameter usage, not circularity. The qualified non-time-ordered integral in Eq. (27) is a potential correctness issue in the perturbative expansion, but it is not a circularity: the paper compares the resulting expression with the Floquet result rather than assuming it. The only circular-adjacent step is the identification of M_z^(2) as induced magnetization in Section IV B, where χ is defined as the proportionality constant that makes Eq. (67) equal to Eq. (57). Since that identification is explicitly introduced as a definition ('With this definition, the Eqs. (67) and (57) are equivalent'), it is by construction, but it does not affect the independent unification result. Overall, the paper is largely self-contained against internal benchmarks, so the circularity score is low—3 rather than 0 only because of the definitional χ identification.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central equivalence uses no fitted constants and no invented entities. The free parameters listed here enter only the numerical SrTiO3 estimate, not the analytic unification. The most significant ledger item is the imported semiclassical magnetization formula from Ref. [12], on which the spontaneous/induced interpretation rests.

free parameters (3)

Electron-phonon coupling strength |g| in SrTiO3 estimate = approximately 10 meV (assumed from Ref. [45])
Only unknown parameter in Eqs. (70)-(71). The predicted Beff scales as |g|^2; raising |g| to 80 meV changes Beff from 0.5 mT to about 30 mT. This is an imported input, not derived here.
d-p transition energy E_dp = 4.2 eV
Used in Eqs. (70)-(71) for the SrTiO3 estimate; no source is cited in the text for this value.
Oscillator and laser parameters for phonon amplitude = E0 = 230 kV/cm, beta = 0.7, tau = 0.5 ps, eta = 0.6 THz, Zeff = 1.54 e/sqrt(amu)
Taken from Refs. [19,44] and stated as assumptions; they control u^2(t) and therefore the numerical Beff(t). Not fitted in this paper.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The electron-phonon potential is linearized in the phonon displacement: V(t) = u(t) dot grad_u U, with no higher-order terms.
All three derivations start from Eq. (3); if anharmonic or higher-order coupling contributes at the same order as the splitting, the equivalence in Eq. (53) would not capture it.
domain assumption The circular phonon displacement is exactly u(t) = u(cos omega t, +/- sin omega t, 0) with fixed frequency omega.
Used in Eqs. (5)-(7) to produce the single positive/negative frequency structure that all three methods exploit.
domain assumption Floquet sidebands beyond the first are negligible and the quasienergy can be replaced by the unperturbed orbital energy E_b.
Eqs. (17)-(21); this is a small-displacement O(u^2) truncation that the central equivalence inherits.
domain assumption The perturbative expansion uses adiabatic switching, neglect of first-order resonant transitions, and neglect of second-harmonic terms.
Stated in Section III B before Eq. (31); these are required to reach the two-denominator form.
domain assumption The degenerate adiabatic theorem applies and the system is initialized in a ground-state multiplet with b_n(0) = 1.
Section III C, Eqs. (34)-(38), citing Rigolin and Ortiz [40,41].
ad hoc to paper The derivative matrix elements can be taken real so that Y = X* in Eq. (24).
The antisymmetric imaginary part of the effective Hamiltonian depends on this relation, but a real gauge is not stated.
domain assumption The semiclassical second-Chern-form magnetization formula Eq. (54) from Ren et al. [12] is accepted as the starting point for the magnetization decomposition.
Section IV uses this result without re-derivation; the spontaneous/induced separation inherits its validity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unifying microscopic theories for the phono-magnetic effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CMZV2JCR

@misc{pith2026260804754,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unifying microscopic theories for the phono-magnetic effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CMZV2JCR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04754}
}

abstract

Phonon angular momentum induces an effective magnetic field, a phenomenon called phono-magnetic effect, which has been measured to vary significantly in size. Here, we compare three approaches for deriving the effective magnetic field of a phonon, using electron-phonon coupling and orbital magnetism. The adiabatic approach assumes a slow ionic motion, keeping electrons in the ground state. The perturbative approach treats the electron-phonon interaction as a perturbation to the electronic ground state, and the Floquet approach is based on the time-periodicity of the circular ionic motion. We show that all three approaches lead to the same effective Hamiltonian in the low-frequency limit, which moves us closer towards a unified theory of the phono-magnetic effect. Furthermore, we identify two phononic contributions to the sample magnetization, spontaneous and induced. Thus, we clarify the role of the effective magnetic field in the phonon-induced magnetization. We conclude by providing a numerical estimate for the effective magnetic field in SrTiO$_3$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04754 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. a) The laser drive and the corresponding phonon displacement as a function of time. The laser drive is modelled as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[19]

Basini, M

M. Basini, M. Pancaldi, B. Wehinger, M. Udina, V. Unikandanunni, T. Tadano, M. C. Hoffmann, A. V. Balatsky, and S. Bonetti, Terahertz electric-field-driven dynamical multiferroicity in SrTiO 3, Nature627, 457 (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

A. G. McLellan, Angular momentum states for phonons and a rotationally invariant development of lattice dy- namics, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics21, 1177 (1988)

work page 1988
[2]

Zhang and Q

L. Zhang and Q. Niu, Angular Momentum of Phonons and the Einstein–de Haas Effect, Physical Review Letters 112, 085503 (2014)

work page 2014
[3]

D. M. Juraschek, R. M. Geilhufe, H. Zhu, M. Basini, P. Baum, A. Baydin, S. Chaudhary, M. Fechner, B. Fle- bus, G. Grissonnanche,et al., Chiral phonons, Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

work page 2025
[4]

Zhang and Q

L. Zhang and Q. Niu, Chiral Phonons at High-Symmetry Points in Monolayer Hexagonal Lattices, Physical Review Letters115, 115502 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

Schaack, Magnetic-field dependent phonon states in paramagnetic CeF3, Solid State Communications17, 505 (1975)

G. Schaack, Magnetic-field dependent phonon states in paramagnetic CeF3, Solid State Communications17, 505 (1975)

work page 1975
[6]

Y. T. Rebane, Faraday effect produced in the residual ray region by the magnetic moment of an optical phonon in an ionic crystal, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics84, 2323 (1983)

work page 1983
[7]

D. M. Juraschek, M. Fechner, A. V. Balatsky, and N. A. Spaldin, Dynamical multiferroicity, Physical Re- view Mater.1, 014401 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 45 references

[8]

D. M. Juraschek and N. A. Spaldin, Orbital magnetic mo- ments of phonons, Physical Review Materials3, 064405 (2019)

2019
[9]

D. M. Juraschek, P. Narang, and N. A. Spaldin, Phono- magnetic analogs to opto-magnetic effects, Physical Re- view Research2, 043035 (2020)

2020
[10]

R. M. Geilhufe, V. Juriˇ ci´ c, S. Bonetti, J.-X. Zhu, and A. V. Balatsky, Dynamically induced magnetism in KTaO$ 3$, Physical Review Research3, L022011 (2021)

2021
[11]

Shabala, F

N. Shabala, F. Tietjen, and R. M. Geilhufe, Axial phono-magnetic effects, arXiv:2511.03329 10.48550/arXiv.2511.03329 (2025)

2025 doi
[12]

Y. Ren, C. Xiao, D. Saparov, and Q. Niu, Phonon mag- netic moment from electronic topological magnetization, Physical Review Letters127, 186403 (2021)

2021
[13]

Chaudhary, D

S. Chaudhary, D. M. Juraschek, M. Rodriguez-Vega, and G. A. Fiete, Giant effective magnetic moments of chiral phonons from orbit-lattice coupling, Physical Review B 110, 094401 (2024)

2024
[14]

Shabala and R

N. Shabala and R. M. Geilhufe, Phonon inverse Fara- day effect from electron-phonon coupling, Physical Re- view Letters133, 266702 (2024)

2024
[15]

Merlin, Magnetophononics and the chiral phonon misnomer, PNAS Nexus4, 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf002 (2024)

R. Merlin, Magnetophononics and the chiral phonon misnomer, PNAS Nexus4, 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf002 (2024)

2024 doi
[16]

R. Merlin, Unraveling the effect of circularly polarized light on reciprocal media: Breaking time reversal symme- try with non-Maxwellian magnetic-esque fields, Physical Review B110, 094312 (2024)

2024
[17]

Klebl, A

L. Klebl, A. Schobert, M. Eckstein, G. Sangiovanni, A. V. Balatsky, and T. O. Wehling, Ultrafast pseudomagnetic fields from electron-nuclear quantum geometry, Physical Review Letters134, 016705 (2025)

2025
[18]

M. F. Biggs, Sin-hang, Ho, A. Alejandro, M. Lutz, C. D. Moss, and J. A. Johnson, Ultrafast Faraday Rotation Probe of Chiral Phonon-Polaritons in LiNbO 3, arXiv: 2507.22232 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[20]

C. S. Davies, F. G. N. Fennema, A. Tsukamoto, I. Raz- dolski, A. V. Kimel, and A. Kirilyuk, Phononic switching of magnetization by the ultrafast Barnett effect, Nature 628, 540 (2024)

2024
[21]

J. Luo, T. Lin, J. Zhang, X. Chen, E. R. Blackert, R. Xu, B. I. Yakobson, and H. Zhu, Large effective magnetic fields from chiral phonons in rare-earth halides, Science 382, 698 (2023)

2023
[22]

Schaack, Observation of circularly polarized phonon states in an external magnetic field, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics9, L297 (1976)

G. Schaack, Observation of circularly polarized phonon states in an external magnetic field, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics9, L297 (1976)

1976
[23]

G. Schaack, Magnetic field dependent splitting of dou- bly degenerate phonon states in anhydrous cerium- trichloride, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik B Condensed Matter and Quanta26, 49 (1977)

1977
[24]

Baydin, F

A. Baydin, F. G. Hernandez, M. Rodriguez-Vega, A. K. Okazaki, F. Tay, I. G Timothy Noe, I. Katayama, J. Takeda, H. Nojiri, P. H. Rappl,et al., Magnetic control of soft chiral phonons in PbTe, Physical Review Letters 128, 075901 (2022)

2022
[25]

F. G. Hernandez, A. Baydin, S. Chaudhary, F. Tay, I. Katayama, J. Takeda, H. Nojiri, A. K. Okazaki, P. H. Rappl, E. Abramof,et al., Observation of interplay be- tween phonon chirality and electronic band topology, Sci- 10 ence advances9, eadj4074 (2023)

2023
[26]

Lujan, J

D. Lujan, J. Choe, S. Chaudhary, G. Ye, C. Nnokwe, M. Rodriguez-Vega, J. He, F. Y. Gao, T. N. Nunley, E. Baldini,et al., Spin–orbit exciton–induced phonon chi- rality in a quantum magnet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2304360121 (2024)

2024
[27]

Mustafa, C

H. Mustafa, C. Nnokwe, G. Ye, M. Fang, S. Chaudhary, J.-A. Yan, K. Wu, C. J. Cunningham, C. M. Heme- sath, A. J. Stollenwerk,et al., Origin of large effec- tive phonon magnetic moments in monolayer MoS2, ACS nano 10.1021/acsnano.4c18906 (2025)

2025 doi
[28]

M. Che, J. Liang, Y. Cui, H. Li, B. Lu, W. Sang, X. Li, X. Dong, L. Zhao, S. Zhang, T. Sun, W. Jiang, E. Liu, F. Jin, T. Zhang, and L. Yang, Magnetic order induced chiral phonons in a ferromagnetic Weyl semimetal, Phys- ical Review Letters134, 196906 (2025)

2025
[29]

Cheng, T

B. Cheng, T. Schumann, Y. Wang, X. Zhang, D. Bar- balas, S. Stemmer, and N. Armitage, A large effective phonon magnetic moment in a Dirac semimetal, Nano letters20, 5991 (2020)

2020
[30]

F. Wu, S. Bao, J. Zhou, Y. Wang, J. Sun, J. Wen, Y. Wan, and Q. Zhang, Fluctuation-enhanced phonon magnetic moments in a polar antiferromagnet, Nature Physics19, 1868 (2023)

2023
[31]

F. Wu, J. Zhou, S. Bao, L. Li, J. Wen, Y. Wan, and Q. Zhang, Magnetic switching of phonon angular momen- tum in a ferrimagnetic insulator, Physical Review Letter 134, 236701 (2025)

2025
[32]

Fransson, Chiral phonon induced spin polarization, Physical Review Research5, L022039 (2023)

J. Fransson, Chiral phonon induced spin polarization, Physical Review Research5, L022039 (2023)

2023
[33]

Xiao, M.-C

D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Berry phase effects on electronic properties, Review Modern. Physical82, 1959 (2010)

2010
[34]

Oka and S

T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Floquet engineering of quantum materials, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 387 (2019)

2019
[35]

P. S. Pershan, J. P. van der Ziel, and L. D. Malmstrom, Theoretical discussion of the inverse Faraday effect, ra- man scattering, and related phenomena, Physical Review 143, 574 (1966)

1966
[36]

Popova,Microscopic description of the inverse Fara- day effect at subpicosecond time scales, Ph.D

D. Popova,Microscopic description of the inverse Fara- day effect at subpicosecond time scales, Ph.D. thesis, Aachen, Techn. Hochsch., Diss., 2013 (2014)

2014
[37]

P. J. Wong, I. M. Khaymovich, G. Aeppli, and A. V. Bal- atsky, Large inverse faraday effect for rydberg states of free atoms and isolated donors in semiconductors, Phys- ical Review B111, 064425 (2025)

2025
[38]

R. D. King-Smith and D. Vanderbilt, Theory of polar- ization of crystalline solids, Physical Review B47, 1651 (1993)

1993
[39]

Yao and S

D. Yao and S. Murakami, Theory of spin magnetization driven by chiral phonons, Physical Review B111, 134414 (2025)

2025
[40]

Rigolin and G

G. Rigolin and G. Ortiz, Adiabatic perturbation theory and geometric phases for degenerate systems, Physical Review Letters104, 170406 (2010)

2010
[41]

Rigolin and G

G. Rigolin and G. Ortiz, Adiabatic theorem for quantum systems with spectral degeneracy, Physical Review A85, 062111 (2012)

2012
[42]

Urazhdin, Atomic and interatomic orbital magnetiza- tion induced in srtio 3 by chiral phonons, Phys

S. Urazhdin, Atomic and interatomic orbital magnetiza- tion induced in srtio 3 by chiral phonons, Phys. Rev. B 111, 214435 (2025)

2025
[43]

Resta, Modern theory of polarization in ferroelectrics, Ferroelectrics151, 49 (1994)

R. Resta, Modern theory of polarization in ferroelectrics, Ferroelectrics151, 49 (1994)

1994
[44]

H. Vogt, Refined treatment of the model of linearly cou- pled anharmonic oscillators and its application to the temperature dependence of the zone-center soft-mode fre- quencies of KTaO 3 and SrTiO 3, Physical Review B51, 8046 (1995)

1995
[45]

J.-J. Zhou, O. Hellman, and M. Bernardi, Electron- phonon scattering in the presence of soft modes and elec- tron mobility in SrTiO 3 perovskite from first principles, Physical Review Letters121, 226603 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [19]

Basini, M

M. Basini, M. Pancaldi, B. Wehinger, M. Udina, V. Unikandanunni, T. Tadano, M. C. Hoffmann, A. V. Balatsky, and S. Bonetti, Terahertz electric-field-driven dynamical multiferroicity in SrTiO 3, Nature627, 457 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

A. G. McLellan, Angular momentum states for phonons and a rotationally invariant development of lattice dy- namics, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics21, 1177 (1988)

work page 1988

[3] [2]

Zhang and Q

L. Zhang and Q. Niu, Angular Momentum of Phonons and the Einstein–de Haas Effect, Physical Review Letters 112, 085503 (2014)

work page 2014

[4] [3]

D. M. Juraschek, R. M. Geilhufe, H. Zhu, M. Basini, P. Baum, A. Baydin, S. Chaudhary, M. Fechner, B. Fle- bus, G. Grissonnanche,et al., Chiral phonons, Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

work page 2025

[5] [4]

Zhang and Q

L. Zhang and Q. Niu, Chiral Phonons at High-Symmetry Points in Monolayer Hexagonal Lattices, Physical Review Letters115, 115502 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [5]

Schaack, Magnetic-field dependent phonon states in paramagnetic CeF3, Solid State Communications17, 505 (1975)

G. Schaack, Magnetic-field dependent phonon states in paramagnetic CeF3, Solid State Communications17, 505 (1975)

work page 1975

[7] [6]

Y. T. Rebane, Faraday effect produced in the residual ray region by the magnetic moment of an optical phonon in an ionic crystal, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics84, 2323 (1983)

work page 1983

[8] [7]

D. M. Juraschek, M. Fechner, A. V. Balatsky, and N. A. Spaldin, Dynamical multiferroicity, Physical Re- view Mater.1, 014401 (2017)

work page 2017