Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Is the Aharonov-Casher phase geometrical or dynamical?

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Aharonov-Casher phase is geometrical for Schrödinger electrons but dynamical for Dirac electrons in graphene.

desk verdict Solid algebra, but the central geometrical/dynamical distinction is a parametrization artifact for massless Dirac and never connects to the closed-loop AC effect. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12427 v1 pith:54W3P5G3 submitted 2026-08-12 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph

Igor Kuzmenko , Y. B. Band , Yshai Avishai This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph PACS 03.65.Vz71.70.Ej
keywords Aharonov-CasherphaseRashbaspin-orbitinteractionSU(2)gaugepotentialgeometricaldynamicalgrapheneDiracequationplane-wavesolution
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

This paper asks whether the Aharonov-Casher phase, the phase a spin-1/2 particle acquires when moving through an electric field under Rashba spin-orbit coupling, is a geometrical or a dynamical phase. The authors find the answer depends on which equation of motion the particle obeys. For a two-dimensional electron gas governed by the Schrödinger equation, the phase factor that removes the Rashba coupling from a plane-wave solution depends on the spatial coordinate along the wave vector, so the AC phase is geometrical. For graphene, governed by the Dirac equation, the same analysis yields a phase that depends on time through $v_F\kappa t$, so the Dirac AC phase is dynamical. The physical point is that the Rashba term in the Dirac model splits into a part along the momentum that can be gauged away and a perpendicular part that acts like an effective mass and cannot.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the decomposition of the Rashba $SU(2)$ vector potential and the two unitary phase factors built from it. For the Schrödinger plane wave, the unitary matrix $\hat{U}_{\mathbf{k}}(\xi)=e^{i\phi_S^{AC}(\xi)\sigma_n}$ with $\phi_S^{AC}(\xi)=m_e\alpha_R\xi/\hbar$ eliminates the Rashba term from the one-dimensional Hamiltonian, leaving spin-degenerate eigenvalues; because the phase depends on the coordinate $\xi$, it is classified as geometrical. For the Dirac plane wave, the Rashba potential splits into $\mathbf{A}_{R,k}$ along $\mathbf{k}$ and $\mathbf{A}_{R,n}$ normal to $\mathbf{k}$; the along-$\mathbf{k}$ part is removed by the time-dependent unitary $U_{AC}(t)=e^{i\tau_k\sigma_n v_F\kappa t}$ giving $\phi_D^{AC}(t)=v_F\kappa t$, while the normal part creates an effective mass $m_e v_F\alpha_R=\hbar v_F\kappa$ that survives in $\tilde{H}_{D,1D}=v_F p_\xi\tau_k\sigma_0-\hbar v_F\kappa\,\tau_n\sigma_k$. The noncommutativity $[\Pi_x,\Pi_y]\neq 0$ is what blocks any full gauge elimination in two dimensions, making the plane-wave reduction necessary.

What would settle it

Compute the phase acquired by a spin-1/2 particle in the Dirac model transported around a closed loop in a uniform perpendicular electric field. If the closed-loop phase is independent of the time taken to traverse the loop (or equals the coordinate-dependent form), then the claim that the Dirac AC phase is dynamical, rather than geometrical, would be contradicted for the interferometric setting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Both the two-dimensional Schrödinger Hamiltonian and the two-dimensional Dirac Hamiltonian contain an $SU(2)$ Rashba vector potential $\mathbf{A}_R=m_e\alpha_R\,\boldsymbol{\sigma}\times\hat{z}$, and in both cases $\mathbf{A}_R$ cannot be removed by a gauge transformation because the canonical momentum components do not commute, $[\Pi_x,\Pi_y]=m_e^2\alpha_R^2\sigma_z$. For a plane-wave eigenstate the problem reduces to one dimension, and there each model admits a unitary phase factor that restores spin degeneracy. In the Schrödinger case the factor is $\hat{U}_{\mathbf{k}}(\xi)=\exp(i\phi_S^{AC}(\xi)\sigma_n)$ with $\phi_S^{AC}(\xi)=m_e\alpha_R\xi/\hbar$, a coordinate-dependent, geometrical phase. In the Dirac case the unitary factor is $U_{AC}(t)=\exp(i\tau_k\sigma_n v_F\kappa t)$ with $\phi_D^{AC}(t)=v_F\kappa t$, a time-dependent, dynamical phase, while the orthogonal Rashba component leaves an effective mass $\hbar v_F\kappa$ behind that no unitary transformation can eliminate. The paper concludes that the Dirac AC phase is dynamical and the Schrödinger AC phase is geometrical, so the nature of the AC phase depends on the host system.

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the plane-wave phase factor with the observable Aharonov-Casher phase is assumed; if the measured AC phase is instead the closed-loop phase of an interferometer, the geometrical/dynamical classification drawn from plane-wave solutions may not apply to that measured quantity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a Schrödinger two-dimensional electron gas with Rashba coupling, the AC phase for a plane wave is $\phi_S^{AC}=m_e\alpha_R\xi/\hbar$ and is geometrical: it depends on distance along the propagation direction, not on elapsed time.
  • In graphene, the Rashba term creates an effective mass gap $\hbar v_F\kappa$ between the otherwise massless Dirac bands, so the spin splitting is an energy splitting rather than a momentum splitting.
  • The Dirac AC phase $\phi_D^{AC}(t)=v_F\kappa t$ accumulates linearly in time, which means spin interference in graphene involves a dynamical phase that cannot be eliminated by changing the path geometry alone.
  • The same electric field that produces the phase also produces a static effective mass in the Dirac Hamiltonian, so the Rashba coupling in graphene is only partially removable even after the unitary transformation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Dirac AC phase is truly time-dependent, then electron interferometers made from graphene should show spin interference that depends on transit time at fixed path, whereas semiconductor interferometers should not; this is a testable distinction between the two models.
  • The difference between a horizontal band shift in momentum (Schrödinger) and a vertical shift in energy (Dirac) offers a spectroscopic way to infer which type of AC phase a material carries without building an interferometer.
  • For proposals that store or manipulate spin information with Rashba phases, the result implies that graphene-based devices cannot rely on path-geometric protection; timing errors would translate directly into phase noise, whereas in ordinary 2D electron gases they would not.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript asks whether the Aharonov-Casher (AC) phase is geometrical or dynamical in two two-dimensional models with Rashba spin-orbit interaction: a Schrödinger electron gas and a single-layer graphene model described by a massless Dirac equation. The authors show that the SU(2) Rashba vector potential cannot be removed from either 2D Hamiltonian by a unitary gauge transformation, and then restrict attention to plane-wave solutions, for which a one-dimensional reduction is possible. In the Schrödinger case the unitary that removes the along-k RSOI term is U_k(ξ)=exp(iκξσ_n), and the corresponding phase is called geometrical because it depends on the coordinate ξ. In the Dirac case the analogous unitary is U_AC(t)=exp(iτ_kσ_n v_F κ t), which is time-dependent, and the phase ϕ_D^AC(t)=v_F κ t is called dynamical; the remaining normal component generates an effective mass term that cannot be eliminated. The paper concludes that the Dirac AC phase is dynamical, in contrast to the Schrödinger AC phase, which is geometrical.

Significance. The paper is clearly written and the algebraic core is mostly checkable: the plane-wave reductions, the unitary transformations, and the cancellation leading to Eq. (27) are all reproducible, and no quantity is fitted. If the claimed distinction were established for the observable Aharonov-Casher effect, it would be a conceptually interesting result. However, the paper identifies the AC phase with an open-path, plane-wave unitary factor rather than with the closed-loop interferometric phase that defines the standard AC effect, and its geometrical/dynamical classification relies on a coordinate-versus-time labeling that may not be invariant under reparametrization. The significance is therefore contingent on a missing closed-loop calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Aharonov-Casher phase for a plane wave; Time-dependent unitary transformation] The manuscript identifies U_k(ξ) and U_AC(t) as AC phase factors, but it never computes a closed-loop phase for either model. The Aharonov-Casher effect is defined for a closed path in an interferometer, and the physical phase is a nonintegrable phase factor or Wilson loop; an open-path plane-wave phase is not gauge invariant and cannot, by itself, determine whether the observable phase is geometrical or dynamical. The authors should compute a closed-loop phase for a finite-area path in each model and show that its time/coordinate dependence has the claimed character.
  2. [Eq. (30) and Summary and Conclusions] The distinction between a ξ-dependent and a t-dependent phase is not invariant under reparametrization of the trajectory. Along a classical path, ξ is a function of t; for massless Dirac fermions with v_F t=ξ, the factor exp(iτ_kσ_n v_Fκt) is identical to exp(iτ_kσ_n κξ) along the trajectory. Even when the effective mass modifies the group velocity, the exponent is proportional to the path length and therefore to the traversal time, so the time dependence alone does not establish that the phase is dynamical. The paper needs an invariant criterion, for example a separation into a Berry-phase contribution and ∫E dt/ℏ for a cyclic evolution, to support the central claim.
  3. [Dirac equation with RSOI in graphene, Eq. (19)] The model Hamiltonian H_D,2D = v_F τ·(p + m_e α_R σ×ẑ) is presented as describing single-layer graphene, but the standard Rashba spin-orbit coupling in graphene has a different sublattice/spin structure than the SU(2) minimal-coupling term used here. If the conclusion is intended to apply to graphene, the authors should justify this Hamiltonian as the graphene Rashba model; otherwise the result should be stated as applying to a generic Dirac model with an SU(2) vector potential rather than to graphene.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The commutator is stated as [Π_x,Π_y]=m_e^2 α_R^2 σ_z, but the correct evaluation is [Π_x,Π_y]=±2i m_e^2 α_R^2 σ_z (depending on the orientation convention for σ×ẑ); the commutator must be anti-Hermitian. The nonvanishing commutator, and hence the non-eliminability argument, is unaffected.
  2. [Eq. (13)] The transformed Schrödinger Hamiltonian should read p_ξ^2/(2m_e) - m_e α_R^2/2, not p_ξ^2/(2m_e) - m_e α_R^2, in order to be consistent with Eq. (12) and with the subsequent identity ǫ_{k,σ}=ǫ^{(0)}_{k+σκ}-ǫ^{(0)}_κ.
  3. [Eq. (17)] The notation ψ_{k+σκ,σ}(r) is slightly misleading because the spinor is unchanged under the shift; since k and k+σκ are collinear, the spinor χ_{k,σ} is the same. Please clarify this in the text.
  4. [Dirac equation, Eq. (22)] The quantum number σ in the Dirac sector is not defined explicitly; it should be stated that it labels the eigenvalues of the conserved operator τ_k σ_n (or another defined operator), because σ is also used for the Pauli matrices.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained algebraic manipulation, and self-citations are used only for nomenclature, not as load-bearing evidence.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived from explicit Hamiltonians. The Schrodinger AC phase is obtained by constructing U_k(ξ)=exp(iκξ σ_n) and showing that it removes the RSOI from the 1D SE; the Dirac result is obtained by constructing U_AC(t)=exp(iτ_k σ_n v_F κ t) and showing that it removes the spin-splitting term proportional to τ_k σ_n while leaving an effective mass term. Equations (14)-(15) and (26)-(30) provide the phase factors directly; no parameter is fitted and no output is fed back as an input. The classification 'geometrical' versus 'dynamical' is read off the explicit dependence of the constructed unitaries on ξ and t respectively, so the conclusion follows from the paper's own algebra. The references [20-22], including the authors' prior work, are invoked for terminology ('AC phase factor', 'non-topological and non-Abelian') and for the general context, but the current calculation re-derives the phase factors and does not rely on those citations to establish the time or coordinate dependence. The potentially debatable step—identifying a straight-line plane-wave unitary with the interferometric Aharonov-Casher phase—is an interpretive limitation about the quantity being computed, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs. No step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on two modeling assumptions: the Rashba vector potential form and the graphene Dirac model with that same potential. Both are taken from prior literature; the second is a simplification not justified for real graphene. The interpretive identification of the plane-wave unitary transformation with the AC phase is an additional assumption. No new free parameters are fitted.

free parameters (1)
  • Rashba coupling alpha_R = g mu_B E / (4 m_e c^2) (Eq. 1)
    Input parameter from prior literature describing the strength of the RSOI; the AC phase is proportional to kappa = m_e alpha_R / hbar. Not fitted in this paper, but the classification of the phase depends on the structure, not the value.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Rashba spin-orbit interaction is represented as an SU(2) vector potential A_R = alpha_R [E-hat x sigma] with alpha_R given in Eq. (1).
    Taken from standard Rashba literature (Refs. [1,25]). The central derivations use this form throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper Graphene is modeled by a massless 2D Dirac equation H = v_F tau dot Pi with the same free-electron Rashba vector potential in Pi (Eqs. 19-20).
    This is a simplification; realistic graphene Rashba coupling is sublattice-dependent and differs from the free-electron form. The paper does not flag this as a limitation.
  • ad hoc to paper The AC phase is identified with the unitary transformation that removes the RSOI from the reduced 1D plane-wave Hamiltonian.
    This interpretive step is load-bearing for the geometrical/dynamical distinction, but the standard AC effect is defined for closed paths, not plane-wave eigenstates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Is the Aharonov-Casher phase geometrical or dynamical?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/54W3P5G3

@misc{pith2026260812427,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Is the Aharonov-Casher phase geometrical or dynamical?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/54W3P5G3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12427}
}
abstract

We consider two two-dimensional (2D) electronic systems in the presence of a perpendicular homogeneous electric field that generates a Rashba spin-orbit interaction (RSOI): a system of non-interacting electrons in a 2D conductor, modeled using the 2D Schr\"odinger equation (SE), and a single-layer graphene system, modeled using a 2D Dirac equation (DE) for massless fermions. In both cases the RSOI is expressed via an $SU(2)$ Rashba vector potential ${\bf A}_{R}$. We demonstrate that ${\bf A}_{R}$ cannot be eliminated from either the 2D SE or the 2D DE via a gauge transformation. Nevertheless, for a plane wave solution, an $SU(2)$ matrix exists that eliminates ${\bf A}_{R}$ from the resulting 1D SE. This unitary matrix is an Aharonov-Casher (AC) phase factor, and facilitates the calculation of the AC phase in the Schr\"odinger scheme. The plane wave solution for the DE contains two components of ${\bf A}_{R}$: $A_{R, k}$ in the direction of the wave vector ${\bf k}$, and $A_{R, n}$ normal to ${\bf k}$. The latter generates an effective electron mass that cannot be eliminated from the DE. The former generates an AC phase that can be eliminated by a time-dependent unitary transformation. Thus, the Dirac AC phase is time-dependent, i.e., it is a dynamical phase. This is in contradistinction to the Schr\"odinger AC phase which is geometrical.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12427 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. I. Rashba and V. I. Sheka, Fiz. Tverd. Tela – Collected Papers (Leningrad), v. II, 162-176 (1959) (in Russian), English translation: Supplemental Material to the paper by G. Bihlmayer, O. Rader, and R. Winkler, Focus on the Rashba effect, New J. Phys. 17, 050202 (2015)

    work page 1959

  2. [2]

    Toroidal energy surfaces in crystals wit h wurtzite symmetry

    R. C. Casella, “Toroidal energy surfaces in crystals wit h wurtzite symmetry”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 5, 371 (1960)

    work page 1960

  3. [3]

    Gate Con- trol of Spin-Orbit Interaction in an Inverted In0.53Ga0.47As/In0.52Al0.48As Heterostructure

    J. Nitta, T. Akazaki, H. Takayanagi, “Gate Con- trol of Spin-Orbit Interaction in an Inverted In0.53Ga0.47As/In0.52Al0.48As Heterostructure”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1335 (1997)

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Experimental Demonstration of the Time Reversal Aharonov-Casher Effect

    T. Bergsten, T. Kobayashi, Y. Sekine, and J. Nitta, “Experimental Demonstration of the Time Reversal Aharonov-Casher Effect”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 196803 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Spin splitting o f Au(111) surface state band observed with angle resolved photoelectron spectroscopy

    S. LaShell, B. A. McDougall, E. Jensen, “Spin splitting o f Au(111) surface state band observed with angle resolved photoelectron spectroscopy”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3419 (1996)

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Spin structure of the Shockley surface state on Au(111)

    M. Hoesch, et al. “Spin structure of the Shockley surface state on Au(111)”, Phys. Rev. B 69, 241401 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Giant Rashba-type spin splitting in bulk BiTeI

    K. Ishizaka, et. al., “Giant Rashba-type spin splitting in bulk BiTeI”, Nature Materials 10, 521 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Elec- tric Control of the Giant Rashba Effect in Bulk GeTe

    D. Di Sante, P. Barone, R. Bertacco, S. Picozzi, “Elec- tric Control of the Giant Rashba Effect in Bulk GeTe”, Advanced Materials. 25, 509 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Conflux of tun- able Rashba effect and piezoelectricity in flexible magne- sium monochalcogenide monolayers for next-generation spintronic devices

    M. K. Mohanta, A. Arora, A. De Sarkar, “Conflux of tun- able Rashba effect and piezoelectricity in flexible magne- sium monochalcogenide monolayers for next-generation spintronic devices”, Nanoscale 13, 8210 (2021). 5

    2021

  2. [10]

    Tunable Rashba Spin-Orbit Interaction at Oxide Interfaces

    A. D. Caviglia, M. Gabay, S. Gariglio, N. Reyren, C. Cancellieri, J.-M. Triscone, “Tunable Rashba Spin-Orbit Interaction at Oxide Interfaces”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 126803 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Interface-based tuning of Rashba spin-orbit interaction in asymmetric oxide heterostructures with 3d electrons

    W. Lin, L. Li, F. Doˇ gan, C. Li, H. Rotella, X. Yu, B. Zhang, Y. Li, W. S. Lew, S. Wang, W. Prellier, S. J. Pennycook, J. Chen, Z. Zhong, A. Manchon, T. Wu, “Interface-based tuning of Rashba spin-orbit interaction in asymmetric oxide heterostructures with 3d electrons”, Nat. ...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Wide-range ideal 2D Rashba electron gas with large spin splitting in Bi2Se3/MoTe2 heterostructure

    T.-H. Wang and H.-T. Jeng, “Wide-range ideal 2D Rashba electron gas with large spin splitting in Bi2Se3/MoTe2 heterostructure”, Npj Comput. Mater. 3, 5 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Rashba Spin-Splitting Control at the Surface of the Topological Insulator Bi2Se 3

    Z.-H. Zhu, G. Levy, B. Ludbrook, C. N. Veenstra, J. A. Rosen, R. Comin, D. Wong, P. Dosanjh, A. Ubaldini, P. Syers, N. P. Butch, J. Paglione, I. S. Elfimov, A. Dam- ascelli, “Rashba Spin-Splitting Control at the Surface of the Topological Insulator Bi2Se 3”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10...

    2011

  6. [14]

    Mea- surement of the Aharonov-Casher Phase in an Atomic System

    K. Sangster, E. A. Hinds, S. M. Barnett, E. Riis, “Mea- surement of the Aharonov-Casher Phase in an Atomic System”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3641 (1993)

    1993

  7. [15]

    Nagasawa, J

    F. Nagasawa, J. Takagi, Y. Kunihashi, M. Kohda, J. Nitta, Experimental Demonstration of Spin Geometric Phase: Radius Dependence of Time-Reversal Aharonov- Casher Oscillations Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 086801 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    New perspectives for Rashba spin-orbit cou- pling

    A. Manchon, H. C. Koo, J. Nitta, S. M. Frolov, R. A. Duine, “New perspectives for Rashba spin-orbit cou- pling”, Nat. Mater. 14, 871 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Unitary Transformation of Two-Dimensional Spin-Orbit Coupled Models

    M. K. Mohanta, “Unitary Transformation of Two-Dimensional Spin-Orbit Coupled Models”, arXiv:2601.03582

  10. [18]

    Weyl and Dirac Semimetals in Three Dimensional Solids

    N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, Ashvin Vishwanath, “Weyl and Dirac Semimetals in Three Dimensional Solids”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    In particular, we address the question of whether the SU (2) AC vector potential can be eliminated via a suitable gauge transformation

    as described below. In particular, we address the question of whether the SU (2) AC vector potential can be eliminated via a suitable gauge transformation. It has already been demonstrated that Schr¨ odinger equation (SE) for a particle with spin in the presence of an external...

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Topological Quantum Effects for Neutral particles

    Y. Aharonov, A. Casher, “Topological Quantum Effects for Neutral particles”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 319 (1984)

    1984

  13. [21]

    Concept of nonintegrable phase factors and global formulation of gauge fields

    Tai Tsun Wu and C. N. Yang, “Concept of nonintegrable phase factors and global formulation of gauge fields”, Phys. Rev. D 12, 3845 (1975)

    1975

  14. [22]

    The Aharonov- Casher phase is geometrical and not topological

    I. Kuzmenko, Y. B. Band, Y. Avishai, “The Aharonov- Casher phase is geometrical and not topological”, Phys. Rev. B 112, L020501 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Aharonov-Casher phase: Considerations regarding force, time dependence, and Berry phase

    I. Kuzmenko, Y. B. Band, Y. Avishai, “Aharonov-Casher phase: Considerations regarding force, time dependence, and Berry phase”, Phys. Rev. B 112, 224309 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Z2 Topological Order and the Quantum Spin Hall Effect

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, “Z2 Topological Order and the Quantum Spin Hall Effect”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    Significance of electromag- netic potentials in quantum theory

    Y. Aharonov, D. Bohm, “Significance of electromag- netic potentials in quantum theory”, Phys. Rev. 115 485 (1959)

    1959

  18. [26]

    Quantum transport in Rashba spin-orbit materials: a review

    D. Bercioux, P. Lucignano, “Quantum transport in Rashba spin-orbit materials: a review”, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 106001 (2015), see Eq. (49)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Y. B. Band, Y. Avishai, Quantum Mechanics with Appli- cations to Nanotechnology and Information Science , (El- sevier, Oxford 2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.