Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 69 references

Classical fractons with cosmological fixed points

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Scale-shape reduction turns a family of fracton Hamiltonians into systems with attractor fixed points that are central configurations; one special model reproduces flat matter-dominated cosmology as a late-time attractor.

desk verdict Genuinely new analytic core: scale-shape reduction maps fracton fixed points to Riesz central configurations and isolates a unique EdS model with a Newtonian dual. But the abstract's 'attractors without fine-tuning' outruns the conditional stability theorem and two explicit conjectures still carry a lot of weight. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07672 v1 pith:3KT4BLD4 submitted 2026-08-07 cond-mat.stat-mech cond-mat.str-elgr-qcphysics.class-ph

Akash Singh , Dileep P. Jatkar , S. L. Sondhi , Abhishodh Prakash This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.stat-mechcond-mat.str-elgr-qcphysics.class-ph MSC 70F1037C7582C05
keywords classicalfractonscentralconfigurationsEinstein-deSitterscale-shapeseparationRieszpotentialsattractorfixedpointsNewtoniancosmologyarrowoftime
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 studies a two-parameter family of classical fracton Hamiltonians, $H_{\alpha,\beta}=\sum_{i

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dynamical-similarity reduction: coordinates are rewritten as an overall scale $R=\sqrt{\sum_i|x_i-X_C|^2}$ and centered, shape-normalized variables $s_i=(x_i-X_C)/R$, $u_i=R^{\beta/\alpha}(p_i-P_C)$, with rescaled time $d\tau=dt/R^{(\alpha-\beta)/\alpha}$. The resulting shape dynamics is autonomous and is not symplectic in the reduced variables, which is how attractors can coexist with phase-space volume preservation (Liouville's theorem) for the full Hamiltonian flow. On the radial ansatz $u_i=\gamma s_i$ the fixed-point equations collapse to $H_i^q=S_q s_i$ with $H_i^q=\sum_{j\ne i}(s_i-s_j)/|s_i-s_j|^{2-q}$, the central-configuration equation of the Riesz potential $\Xi_q=\sum_{i<j}|s_i-s_j|^q$, where $q=\alpha+\beta$. Stability is carried by the damped-oscillator equation $\ddot v+3S_q\dot v-2C_qQ_q v=0$, in which $Q_q$ is the constrained Hessian of $\Xi_q$ and $C_q=L-2P+S_q I$ is the auxiliary form whose positivity is the paper's main technical hypothesis. The large-$N$ distributions come from the equilibrium measures of the corresponding power-law interaction: weighted balls for $-3<q<1$, a homogeneous ball at $q=-1$, and spherical shells for $1\le q<2$ and $2<q<4$.

What would settle it

Compute the smallest eigenvalue of the auxiliary form $C_q$ restricted to the physical tangent space (after quotienting translations, rotations, and the $\gamma$-family zero mode) for regular extrema of the shape potential $\Xi_{-1}$ at, say, $N=100,200,500$, using the paper's own finite-difference projection procedure (its Appendix E). A negative eigenvalue for any regular minimum would contradict Conjecture 1 and remove the linear stability on which the no-fine-tuning claim rests; a positive gap persisting as $N$ grows would support it. Independently, in large-$N$ runs ($N=1000$ to $15000$), measure the ratio of intra-cluster to inter-cluster length scales: Conjecture 2 predicts this ratio tends to zero with the cluster centers satisfying the unequal-mass central-configuration equation, so a trajectory in which clusters fail to shrink relative to their separations, or in which the renormalized center diagnostics do not vanish, would falsify the clustered-attractor picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that radial fixed points of the reduced shape dynamics are central configurations of the Riesz shape potential, and on the Einstein-de Sitter branch $\alpha=-2\beta$ the expanding fixed points are linearly asymptotically stable under a positivity condition on the auxiliary quadratic form $C_q$, proven for the equilateral three-body configuration and checked numerically for larger $N$. For the distinguished model $(\alpha,\beta)=(-2,1)$ this means: the fixed-point equation coincides with the equal-mass Newtonian central-configuration equation; the regular large-$N$ distribution is a homogeneous expanding ball; the scale obeys $R(t)\propto |t|^{2/3}$; and every homothetic fixed-point trajectory admits an exact zero-energy Newtonian gravitational dual whose coupling is generated by the fracton data. The paper further claims that random initial conditions at moderate $N$ are attracted to this state, so the Einstein-de Sitter structure is selected without tuning. At large $N$ the attractors instead form bound clusters of nearly fixed physical size whose centers obey an unequal-mass Newtonian central-configuration equation (Conjecture 2), preserving large-scale homogeneity. Trajectories generically show a bidirectional arrow of time from a Janus point (a moment of minimal scale), with the Boltzmann entropy growing logarithmically in the scale as $S_B\sim k_B(9N-20)\log R/2$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, not yet proven in general, is that the auxiliary quadratic form $C_q$ is strictly positive on the physical perturbation space of every regular extremum central configuration: the authors prove this only for the equilateral $N=3$ configuration and check it numerically for selected $N=75$ configurations, leaving the general case as Conjecture 1, and the large-$N$ clustered picture separately depends on the unproven scale-separation conjecture (Conjecture 2); if either premise fails, the corresponding no-fine-tuning conclusion collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Within the studied basins, the Einstein-de Sitter state is an attractor of a microscopic conservative system: generic sampled initial data flow to a homothetic $t^{2/3}$ expansion with no imposed central-configuration, flatness, or homogeneity conditions.
  • The zero-energy Newtonian dual means effective flatness is automatic along fixed-point trajectories: the critical Newtonian energy and the dual gravitational constant are outputs of the fracton solution, not inputs.
  • The large-$N$ profile is model-selective: the distinguished model forms an expanding homogeneous ball of radius $\sim t^{2/3}N^{-1/2}$, whereas models with $q=1$, such as $(\alpha,\beta)=(2,-1)$, collapse onto an expanding spherical shell.
  • Under Conjecture 2, large-$N$ attractors support bound clusters of nearly fixed physical size whose centers separate as $t^{2/3}$ and satisfy an unequal-mass Newtonian central-configuration equation, so small-scale structure coexists with large-scale homogeneity.
  • Time-reversal invariance notwithstanding, generic trajectories exhibit a bidirectional arrow of time: scale expansion and shape complexity grow away from a Janus point, while the coarse-grained Boltzmann entropy grows as $k_B(9N-20)\log(R/R_*)/2$ in each direction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors' own stability criterion suggests a finite-$N$ numerical programme the paper only begins: computing the lowest eigenvalue of $C_q$ on the physical tangent space for regular minima of $\Xi_{-1}$ across a sequence of $N$ would either upgrade Conjecture 1 to a proven fact or produce an explicit counterexample.
  • Conjecture 2 carries a quantitative prediction the paper does not test: the intra-cluster to inter-cluster length-scale ratio should decay with a definite law, and measuring its approach to zero would show whether the unequal-mass Newtonian dual is reached asymptotically or only approximated over accessible times.
  • The matching condition $q=\alpha+\beta$ suggests a broader prescription: any conservative many-body system with a mechanical-similarity symmetry whose reduced shape flow admits central-configuration fixed points may generate such cosmological attractors; the distinguished model is the case where the reduced fixed-point problem coincides with the desired dual theory.
  • A natural next step the paper does not take is relativistic: whether an analogous attracting dynamics can live inside a causal spacetime setting, rather than on the fixed Euclidean background used here, separates the toy analogue from a mechanism relevant to gravitational physics.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a two-parameter family of scale-invariant, dipole-conserving classical fracton Hamiltonians H_{α,β} = Σ_{i<j} |p_i−p_j|^α |x_i−x_j|^β. After separating an overall scale from dimensionless shape variables, the authors derive an autonomous reduced shape dynamics whose radial fixed points are central configurations of a Riesz potential with exponent q = α+β, with accompanying scale evolution R(t) ∝ |t|^{α/(α−β)}. On the Einstein-de Sitter branch α = −2β, these fixed points are argued to be linearly stable under a conditional positivity assumption, and the distinguished case (α, β) = (−2, 1) is singled out because its fixed-point equation is the equal-mass Newtonian central-configuration equation, its large-N profile is a homogeneous ball, and its homothetic trajectories admit a zero-energy Newtonian gravitational dual. Numerics at moderate N show convergence from Gaussian-sampled random initial data, while large-N numerics display clustered attractors whose centers are conjectured to obey an effective unequal-mass dynamics. The paper interprets these properties as emergent, attractor-based cosmological analogues, while explicitly disclaiming any replacement of relativistic cosmology.

Significance. If the main claims hold, this is a valuable and elegant contribution: it provides an analytically tractable example of Hamiltonian systems that develop attractors after reduction, connects classical fractons to the well-developed theory of Riesz equilibrium measures, and offers a concrete toy model in which features analogous to flatness, homogeneity, and an arrow of time arise from a single reduced fixed point rather than from fine-tuned initial data. The geometric derivation in Sections 3.2–3.3 is clean, the dictionary to known equilibrium-measure results in Appendix C is careful, and the paper is unusually honest in labeling its two central conjectures. The numerical stability checks, the equilateral three-body analytic result, and the explicit large-N diagnostics are strengths. However, the advertised conclusions outrun the proven theorems in two load-bearing places: the local-stability theorem depends on an unproved positivity conjecture for C_q, and the clustered large-N attractor depends on an explicitly postulated scale-separation conjecture.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, Theorem 2 and Conjecture 1; abstract] The abstract's unqualified statement that 'the fixed points are locally stable' is not what Theorem 2 proves. Theorem 2 requires the auxiliary quadratic form C_q, defined in Eq. (3.39), to be strictly positive on the physical perturbation space. This positivity is established analytically only for the equilateral N = 3 configuration (Proposition 1) and checked numerically for selected N = 75 minima; Conjecture 1 explicitly leaves the general case open. Because positivity of C_q is not implied by the constrained Hessian sign Q_q < 0, a regular extremum could in principle have a C_q-negative physical mode for which the damped-oscillator argument leading to Eq. (3.45) fails and the expanding fixed point is not linearly attracting. This is a load-bearing condition for the 'attractor without fine-tuning' claim. Please either prove or delimit Conjecture 1, or qualify the abstract and the headline stability statements accordingly.
  2. [§4.4, Conjecture 2 and Eq. (4.9)] The clustered large-N attractor, the renormalized central-configuration equation (4.7), and the unequal-mass Newtonian dual in Corollaries 1–2 are all consequences of Conjecture 2, which postulates an asymptotic scale-separated cluster decomposition rather than deriving it from the microscopic equations. The manuscript is explicit that this is a conjecture, but the abstract and the conclusions present the clustered state, its homogeneity, and its Newtonian dual as part of the paper's results. Since these clustered fixed points are central to the advertised 'richer class of fixed points' and to the large-N cosmological analogy, the revision should either derive the effective dynamics (4.9) in a controlled limit or consistently present the whole clustered-attractor picture as conjectural, including in the abstract.
  3. [§3.6 and §6; abstract] The claim that flatness and the cosmological analogues are selected 'without fine-tuning' is stronger than the evidence supplied. Theorem 2 establishes only local linear stability, and the numerical basins studied in Section 4.3 consist of Gaussian-sampled, re-centered random initial data at moderate N. Section 6 carefully restricts the conclusion to 'the analytic basins and numerical simulations actually studied,' but the abstract and introduction drop that restriction and present the no-fine-tuning selection as an established property. The paper should either provide an explicit Lyapunov function or other global-basin argument for the reduced shape dynamics, or consistently state that the no-fine-tuning statement is basin-dependent and demonstrated only for the examples studied.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix E.1] The sentence 'The spectra are computed only after this residual is ;' is incomplete; please state the numerical tolerance actually used for accepting a fixed point.
  2. [§3.5, Proposition 1] The phrase 'the nonzero rotational companions have negative decay rate' is confusing because the common rotational zero modes are said to be quotiented; please clarify how the rotational companions are treated in the reduced stability problem.
  3. [§5.3] The notations t_R^J and t_Ξ^J for the Janus points are used without formal definitions; please define these times and explain the claimed approximate coincidence t_R^J ≈ t_Ξ^J.
  4. [§3.5, footnote 4] The statement that 'the positivity of C_q naturally follows' from numerically verifying local stability is too vague for a load-bearing condition; please specify which numerical checks are being reported and how they constrain C_q.
  5. [§5, Table 1] The table caption correctly says the cluster counts come from one representative run, but the surrounding text invites scaling-law inferences from these counts; please add an explicit ensemble-average caveat in the main text.
  6. [Abstract and §4.3] The abstract's 'simulations at moderate N approach them from random initial data' should specify that the initial data are Gaussian-sampled, re-centered, and re-scaled random shape phase-space points, not generic or fully unstructured random data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is algebraic from the Hamiltonian, external Riesz-equilibrium results supply the large-N profiles, and the stated conjectures are explicit limitations rather than disguised inputs.

full rationale

I traced the paper's claimed derivation chain. The scale-shape reduction (Eqs. 3.13-3.18) is an explicit change of variables; the fixed-point condition (3.22) with the stated radial ansatz (3.25) reduces algebraically to the central-configuration equation (3.26), and the scale law (3.24) follows by integration of (3.18). No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The large-N homogeneous-ball profile (Theorem 1) is imported, through the dictionary in Appendix C, from the external Frank-Matzke equilibrium-measure classification [13], not from the paper's own simulation data. The zero-energy Newtonian dual (Section 3.6) is a constructed dictionary: the coupling G_eff in Eq. (3.63) is defined by matching the fracton scale equation, and the vanishing Newtonian energy (3.64) is then an identity; the paper explicitly restricts the equivalence to homothetic fixed-point trajectories. This is a legitimate dual construction, not a circular prediction. Stability is presented as conditional: Theorem 2 requires positivity of C_q, proved analytically only for the equilateral N=3 case (Proposition 1) and otherwise left as Conjecture 1; the clustered attractor and unequal-mass dual are explicitly stated as Conjecture 2. These are honest open assumptions and so are correctness risks, not circularity. Self-citations [6,7,8] are background motivation and are not load-bearing for the present derivation. The selection of (α,β)=(-2,1) is a uniqueness statement within the EdS branch, not an input reused as an output.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The Newtonian dual and the effective cluster dynamics are mathematical equivalences or limiting descriptions of the same Hamiltonian, not additional entities. The main extra assumptions are the two conjectures and the restriction to smooth, collision-free patches.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Hamiltonian mechanics and the Liouville theorem
    Used in Sections 2.1 and 3.2 to argue that attractors in shape space are allowed because the full phase-space flow remains volume-preserving.
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian family (3.1) is considered away from collisions and degenerate pair-momentum differences
    Section 3.1 restricts all statements to smooth patches with alpha, beta nonzero and alpha != beta; singular collisions and vanishing momentum differences are excluded, so fixed-point theorems do not cover those boundaries.
  • standard math Frank-Matzke classification of attractive-repulsive power-law equilibrium measures
    Theorem 1 transfers large-N profiles from Ref. [13]; the paper does not re-derive the equilibrium measures.
  • ad hoc to paper C_q > 0 on the physical tangent space for regular extrema on the EdS branch (Conjecture 1)
    Required for Theorem 2 local stability; proven analytically only for the N = 3 equilateral configuration and verified numerically for selected N = 75 configurations.
  • ad hoc to paper Scale-separated cluster decomposition and effective unequal-mass dynamics (Conjecture 2)
    Needed for the large-N clustered attractor and for the unequal-mass Newtonian dual; supported only by numerical evidence and heuristic analysis.
  • domain assumption Gaussian-sampled, recentered random shape initial data are representative of generic initial conditions
    Basin-of-attraction claims in Sections 4.3-4.4 are based on such samples; no phase-space volume or measure estimates are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Classical fractons with cosmological fixed points." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KT4BLD4

@misc{pith2026260807672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Classical fractons with cosmological fixed points},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KT4BLD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07672}
}
abstract

Classical fractons are Hamiltonian systems that can develop attractors after projection onto configuration or shape variables, although the full phase space admits none. We study a scale-invariant, dipole-conserving two-parameter family of fracton Hamiltonians $H_{\alpha,\beta}$. By separating coordinates into scale and shape, we obtain autonomous shape dynamics that admit fixed points which leave a purely scale evolution of the form $R(t)\propto |t|^{\alpha/(\alpha-\beta)}$. The shape fixed points, which determine the distribution of the expanding particles, are central configurations of power-law Riesz potentials. The distinguished model $(\alpha,\beta)=(-2,1)$ is unique: its scale evolution takes the Einstein-de Sitter form $R(t)\propto |t|^{2/3}$, its fixed-point equation is the equal-mass Newtonian central-configuration, its large-$N$ distribution is a homogeneous ball, and its homothetic trajectories admit a zero-energy Newtonian gravitational dual. The fixed points are locally stable, and simulations at moderate $N$ approach them from random initial data. Large $N$ simulations reveal a richer class of fixed-points: bound clusters of approximately fixed physical size retain internal motion, while their centers approach unequal-mass Newtonian central configurations and preserve large-scale homogeneity. A scale-separation conjecture yields an effective unequal-mass fracton dynamics for the centers and a corresponding zero-energy Newtonian gravitational dual. Trajectories generically exhibit a bidirectional arrow of time: scale and shape complexity grow away from a Janus point, while Boltzmann entropy grows logarithmically. Together, these features reproduce the salient structure of a flat matter-dominated cosmology. In the distinguished fracton model, all these cosmological analogues emerge as attractor properties, making it a toy model for cosmological dynamics without fine-tuning.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Strogatz,Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 2 ed

    S.H. Strogatz,Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos: With Applications to Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Engineering, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 2 ed. (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Wilson and J

    K.G. Wilson and J. Kogut,The Renormalization Group and the Epsilon Expansion,Physics Reports12(1974) 75

    work page 1974

  3. [3]

    Arnold,Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer (1978)

    V.I. Arnold,Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer (1978)

    work page 1978

  4. [4]

    Scaling Symmetries, Contact Reduction and Poincar\'e's dream

    A. Bravetti, C. Jackman and D. Sloan,Scaling symmetries, contact reduction and Poincar´ e’s dream,Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical56(2023) 435203 [2206.09911]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Sloan,Dynamical similarity,Physical Review D97(2018) 123541

    D. Sloan,Dynamical similarity,Physical Review D97(2018) 123541. – 58 –

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Prakash, Y

    A. Prakash, Y. Sadki and S.L. Sondhi,Machian fractons, Hamiltonian attractors, and nonequilibrium steady states,Physical Review B110(2024) 024305

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Prakash, A

    A. Prakash, A. Goriely and S.L. Sondhi,Classical nonrelativistic fractons,Physical Review B 109(2024) 054313

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Classical Fractons: Local chaos, global broken ergodicity and an arrow of time

    A. Babbar, Y. Sadki, A. Prakash and S.L. Sondhi,Classical fractons: Local chaos, global broken ergodicity, and an arrow of time,Physical Review B111(2025) 245134 [2501.12445]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Landau and E.M

    L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz,Mechanics, vol. 1 ofCourse of Theoretical Physics, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 3 ed. (1976)

    1976

  2. [10]

    Battye, G.W

    R.A. Battye, G.W. Gibbons and P.M. Sutcliffe,Central configurations in three dimensions, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences459 (2003) 911 [hep-th/0201101]

    2003 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Diacu, E

    F. Diacu, E. P´ erez-Chavela and M. Santoprete,Central configurations and total collisions for quasihomogeneous n-body problems,Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications65 (2006) 1425

    2006

  4. [12]

    Maderna,Minimizing configurations and Hamilton–Jacobi equations of homogeneous N-body problems,Regular and Chaotic Dynamics18(2013) 656 [1308.5578]

    E. Maderna,Minimizing configurations and Hamilton–Jacobi equations of homogeneous N-body problems,Regular and Chaotic Dynamics18(2013) 656 [1308.5578]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Frank and R.W

    R.L. Frank and R.W. Matzke,Minimizers for an Aggregation Model with Attractive–Repulsive Interaction,Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis249(2025) 15

    2025

  6. [14]

    Carazzato, A

    D. Carazzato, A. Pratelli and I. Topaloglu,Particle Approximation of Nonlocal Interaction Energies,Nonlinear Analysis263(2026) 113974 [2506.02905]

    2026

  7. [15]

    Brans and R.H

    C. Brans and R.H. Dicke,Mach’s Principle and a Relativistic Theory of Gravitation, Physical Review124(1961) 925

    1961

  8. [16]

    Barbour and H

    J.B. Barbour and H. Pfister, eds.,Mach’s Principle: From Newton ’s Bucket to Quantum Gravity, Einstein Studies, Vol. 6, Birkh¨ auser, Boston (1995)

    1995

  9. [17]

    Sciama,On the origin of inertia,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 113(1953) 34

    D.W. Sciama,On the origin of inertia,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 113(1953) 34

    1953

  10. [18]

    Barbour, T

    J. Barbour, T. Koslowski and F. Mercati,Identification of a Gravitational Arrow of Time, Physical Review Letters113(2014) 181101 [1409.0917]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ellis and G.W

    G.F.R. Ellis and G.W. Gibbons,Discrete Newtonian cosmology,Classical and Quantum Gravity31(2014) 025003 [1308.1852]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Ellis and G.W

    G.F.R. Ellis and G.W. Gibbons,Discrete Newtonian cosmology: perturbations,Classical and Quantum Gravity32(2015) 055001 [1409.0395]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Dodelson and F

    S. Dodelson and F. Schmidt,Modern Cosmology, Academic Press, 2nd ed. (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press (1993)

    P.J.E. Peebles,Principles of Physical Cosmology, Princeton University Press (1993)

    1993

  15. [23]

    Einstein and E.G

    A. Einstein and E.G. Straus,The influence of the expansion of space on the gravitation fields surrounding the individual stars,Reviews of Modern Physics17(1945) 120

    1945

  16. [24]

    Carrera and D

    M. Carrera and D. Giulini,Influence of global cosmological expansion on local dynamics and kinematics,Reviews of Modern Physics82(2010) 169

    2010

  17. [25]

    Penrose,Singularities and Time-Asymmetry, inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein – 59 – Centenary Survey, S.W

    R. Penrose,Singularities and Time-Asymmetry, inGeneral Relativity: An Einstein – 59 – Centenary Survey, S.W. Hawking and W. Israel, eds., pp. 581–638, Cambridge University Press (1979)

    1979

  18. [26]

    Albert,Time and Chance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2000)

    D.Z. Albert,Time and Chance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2000)

    2000

  19. [27]

    Chamon,Quantum Glassiness in Strongly Correlated Clean Systems: An Example of Topological Overprotection,Physical Review Letters94(2005) 040402

    C. Chamon,Quantum Glassiness in Strongly Correlated Clean Systems: An Example of Topological Overprotection,Physical Review Letters94(2005) 040402

    2005

  20. [28]

    Haah,Local stabilizer codes in three dimensions without string logical operators,Physical Review A83(2011) 042330 [1101.1962]

    J. Haah,Local stabilizer codes in three dimensions without string logical operators,Physical Review A83(2011) 042330 [1101.1962]

    2011 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Vijay, J

    S. Vijay, J. Haah and L. Fu,A new kind of topological quantum order: A dimensional hierarchy of quasiparticles built from stationary excitations,Physical Review B92(2015) 235136

    2015

  22. [30]

    Pretko,Subdimensional particle structure of higher rank U(1) spin liquids,Physical Review B95(2017) 115139 [1604.05329]

    M. Pretko,Subdimensional particle structure of higher rank U(1) spin liquids,Physical Review B95(2017) 115139 [1604.05329]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Pretko,Generalized electromagnetism of subdimensional particles: A spin liquid story, Physical Review B96(2017) 035119 [1606.08857]

    M. Pretko,Generalized electromagnetism of subdimensional particles: A spin liquid story, Physical Review B96(2017) 035119 [1606.08857]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Pretko and L

    M. Pretko and L. Radzihovsky,Fracton-Elasticity Duality,Physical Review Letters120 (2018) 195301 [1711.11044]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gromov,Chiral Topological Elasticity and Fracton Order,Physical Review Letters122 (2019) 076403 [1712.06600]

    A. Gromov,Chiral Topological Elasticity and Fracton Order,Physical Review Letters122 (2019) 076403 [1712.06600]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Gromov,Towards Classification of Fracton Phases: The Multipole Algebra,Physical Review X9(2019) 031035 [1812.05104]

    A. Gromov,Towards Classification of Fracton Phases: The Multipole Algebra,Physical Review X9(2019) 031035 [1812.05104]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gorantla, H.T

    P. Gorantla, H.T. Lam, N. Seiberg and S.-H. Shao,A modified Villain formulation of fractons and other exotic theories,Journal of Mathematical Physics62(2021) 102301 [2103.01257]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Seiberg and S.-H

    N. Seiberg and S.-H. Shao,Exotic Symmetries, Duality, and Fractons in 2+1-Dimensional Quantum Field Theory,SciPost Physics10(2021) 027 [2003.10466]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Pretko,Emergent gravity of fractons: Mach’s principle revisited,Physical Review D96 (2017) 024051 [1702.07613]

    M. Pretko,Emergent gravity of fractons: Mach’s principle revisited,Physical Review D96 (2017) 024051 [1702.07613]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Yan,Hyperbolic fracton model, subsystem symmetry, and holography,Physical Review B 99(2019) 155126 [1807.05942]

    H. Yan,Hyperbolic fracton model, subsystem symmetry, and holography,Physical Review B 99(2019) 155126 [1807.05942]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Slagle and Y.B

    K. Slagle and Y.B. Kim,Fracton topological order from nearest-neighbor two-spin interactions and dualities,Physical Review B96(2017) 165106 [1704.03870]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Jain and K

    A. Jain and K. Jensen,Fractons in curved space,SciPost Physics12(2022) 142 [2111.03973]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bidussi, J

    L. Bidussi, J. Hartong, E. Have, J. Musaeus and S. Prohazka,Fractons, dipole symmetries and curved spacetime,SciPost Physics12(2022) 205 [2111.03668]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sadki, A

    Y. Sadki, A. Prakash, S.L. Sondhi and D.P. Arovas,Phase space fractons,Physical Review Letters136(2026) 126504 [2502.02650]

    2026

  35. [43]

    Sadki, A

    Y. Sadki, A. Prakash and S.L. Sondhi,Continuum fractons: Quantization and the few-body problem,Physical Review B114(2026) 045102 [2510.00110]

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Classen-Howes, R

    J. Classen-Howes, R. Senese and A. Prakash,Universal Freezing Transitions of Dipole-Conserving Chains,Physical Review B112(2025) 125148 [2408.10321]. – 60 –

    2025

  37. [45]

    Milne,A Newtonian Expanding Universe,The Quarterly Journal of Mathematicsos-5 (1934) 64

    E.A. Milne,A Newtonian Expanding Universe,The Quarterly Journal of Mathematicsos-5 (1934) 64

    1934

  38. [46]

    Bagla and T

    J.S. Bagla and T. Padmanabhan,Cosmological N-body simulations,Pramana49(1997) 161

    1997

  39. [47]

    Bertschinger,Simulations of structure formation in the universe,Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics36(1998) 599

    E. Bertschinger,Simulations of structure formation in the universe,Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics36(1998) 599

    1998

  40. [48]

    Louren¸ co, J

    M.I.R. Louren¸ co, J. Barbour and F.S.N. Lobo,Emergence of measured geometry in self-gravitating systems,Physical Review D113(2026) 104068 [2602.18115]

    2026 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Louren¸ co, J

    M.I.R. Louren¸ co, J. Barbour and F.S.N. Lobo,Scale Invariance, Variety and Central Configurations,2602.11225

  42. [50]

    Carroll and J

    S.M. Carroll and J. Chen,Spontaneous Inflation and the Origin of the Arrow of Time, hep-th/0410270

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Carroll and J

    S.M. Carroll and J. Chen,Does Inflation Provide Natural Initial Conditions for the Universe?,International Journal of Modern Physics D14(2005) 2335–2339

    2005

  44. [52]

    Goldstein, R

    S. Goldstein, R. Tumulka and N. Zangh ` ı,Is the hypothesis about a low entropy initial state of the Universe necessary for explaining the arrow of time?,Phys. Rev. D94(2016) 023520

    2016

  45. [53]

    Barbour and B

    J.B. Barbour and B. Bertotti,Mach’s principle and the structure of dynamical theories, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences382 (1982) 295

    1982

  46. [54]

    Barbour,Scale-invariant gravity: particle dynamics,Classical and Quantum Gravity20 (2003) 1543 [gr-qc/0211021]

    J. Barbour,Scale-invariant gravity: particle dynamics,Classical and Quantum Gravity20 (2003) 1543 [gr-qc/0211021]

    2003 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Anderson,Relational particle models: I

    E. Anderson,Relational particle models: I. Reconciliation with standard classical and quantum theory,Classical and Quantum Gravity23(2006) 2469

    2006

  48. [56]

    R.H. Byrd, P. Lu, J. Nocedal and C. Zhu,A Limited Memory Algorithm for Bound Constrained Optimization,SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing16(1995) 1190

    1995

  49. [57]

    Gryb and S

    S. Gryb and S. Friederich,An account of the arrow of time when scale is surplus, 2510.03041

  50. [58]

    Collaboration, N

    P. Collaboration, N. Aghanim et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astronomy & Astrophysics641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Guth,Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems, Physical Review D23(1981) 347

    A.H. Guth,Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems, Physical Review D23(1981) 347

    1981

  52. [60]

    Linde,Chaotic inflation,Physics Letters B129(1983) 177

    A.D. Linde,Chaotic inflation,Physics Letters B129(1983) 177

    1983

  53. [61]

    Remmen and S.M

    G.N. Remmen and S.M. Carroll,Attractor Solutions in Scalar-Field Cosmology,Physical Review D88(2013) 083518 [1309.2611]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Wald,Asymptotic Behavior of Homogeneous Cosmological Models in the Presence of a Positive Cosmological Constant,Physical Review D28(1983) 2118

    R.M. Wald,Asymptotic Behavior of Homogeneous Cosmological Models in the Presence of a Positive Cosmological Constant,Physical Review D28(1983) 2118

    1983

  55. [63]

    Mukhanov, H.A

    V.F. Mukhanov, H.A. Feldman and R.H. Brandenberger,Theory of Cosmological Perturbations,Physics Reports215(1992) 203

    1992

  56. [64]

    Allahverdi, R

    R. Allahverdi, R. Brandenberger, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine and A. Mazumdar,Reheating in Inflationary Cosmology: Theory and Applications,Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science60(2010) 27 [1001.2600]. – 61 –

    2010 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Konopka, F

    T. Konopka, F. Markopoulou and S. Severini,Quantum Graphity: A Model of Emergent Locality,Physical Review D77(2008) 104029 [0801.0861]

    2008 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Buchert,On Average Properties of Inhomogeneous Fluids in General Relativity I: Dust Cosmologies,General Relativity and Gravitation32(2000) 105 [gr-qc/9906015]

    T. Buchert,On Average Properties of Inhomogeneous Fluids in General Relativity I: Dust Cosmologies,General Relativity and Gravitation32(2000) 105 [gr-qc/9906015]

    2000 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Marsden and A

    J. Marsden and A. Weinstein,Reduction of Symplectic Manifolds with Symmetry,Reports on Mathematical Physics5(1974) 121

    1974

  60. [68]

    Gomes, S

    H. Gomes, S. Gryb and T. Koslowski,Einstein gravity as a 3D conformally invariant theory, Classical and Quantum Gravity28(2011) 045005

    2011

  61. [69]

    Barbour,Shape dynamics

    J. Barbour,Shape dynamics. An introduction, inQuantum field theory and gravity: Conceptual and mathematical advances in the search for a unified framework, F. Finster, O. M¨ uller, M. Nardmann, J. Tolksdorf and E. Zeidler, eds., pp. 257–297, Birkh¨ auser Basel (2012), DOI. – 62 –

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.