Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Atomic collapse of high-order singular potentials in graphene

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that any attractive potential steeper than 1/r — V(r)=-β/r^γ with γ>1 — collapses atomic orbits in graphene at arbitrarily small β, arranging the collapse-state energies as a power sequence and even placing some states abo

desk verdict A credible and genuinely useful paper; the power-sequence law for γ>1 is plausible, the positive-energy collapse states are new, and the main fixable gap is the lack of quantitative slope comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03921 v1 pith:E5QXPBAO submitted 2025-09-04 cond-mat.mes-hall

Yu-Chen Zhuang , Yue Mao , Qing-Feng Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 73.22.Pr72.80.Vp
keywords atomiccollapsegraphenesingularpotentialpowersequenceDiracfermionsquasi-boundstatesKleintunnelinglocaldensityof
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 asks what happens to massless Dirac fermions in graphene when an attractive potential is more singular than the Coulomb 1/r law, i.e. V(r)=-β/r^γ with γ>1. It argues that, unlike Coulomb potentials which require a supercritical charge to trigger atomic collapse, a high-order singular potential collapses atomic orbits at any strength β>0. It further claims that the resulting atomic collapse states follow a universal power sequence in energy, not the geometric sequence known for Coulomb potentials, and that some of these states can sit above the bulk Dirac point. If correct, weak screened-Coulomb impurities or other fast-decaying potentials should produce measurable collapse resonances with a clean spectral fingerprint in graphene.

What carries the argument

The central object is the semiclassical radial-momentum expression p_r^2=(β/r^γ+ε)^2−m^2/r^2, which determines where electrons can move classically and where they are trapped. Combined with the Einstein–Brillouin–Keller quantization integral Eq. (4), it yields the power-sequence formula Eq. (6): the quantization integral is dominated by β/r^γ+ε, so the resulting energies satisfy |ε_n|^{(γ−1)/γ}∝n. This same machinery produces the phase diagram: for γ>1 the effective potential at r→0 is always attractive, so no critical β exists, and the tangency condition between βx^γ+ε and |m|x produces special positive-energy collapse states.

What would settle it

Compute exact finite-difference or tight-binding LDOS for a bare singular potential while decreasing the cutoff radius by an order of magnitude; if the first collapse resonance does not appear at arbitrarily small β, or if the |ε_n|^{(γ−1)/γ} versus n fit degrades for the lowest-energy states (where the m^2/r^2 term is not negligible), the central claim is falsified. Alternatively, an STM experiment measuring LDOS peak positions on the |E|^{(γ−1)/γ} axis should find equally spaced resonances with a slope that tracks 1/(γ r0^{γ−1}); any clear deviation would invalidate Eq. (6) as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a massless Dirac fermion in graphene under a singular attractive potential β/r^γ, the paper finds that the supercritical regime — where classical electron orbits spiral into the center — appears for every β>0 once γ>1, whereas at γ=1 it requires β>|m|. Using a WKB/EBK quantization integral with the inner turning point r1≈(β/|ε|)^{1/γ}, the authors derive a universal power law: I≈β/(γ−1)(r0^{-(γ−1)} − γ(|ε_n|/β)^{(γ−1)/γ})=nπ, so |ε_n|^{(γ−1)/γ} is approximately linear in the level index n. This replaces the geometric energy sequence of Coulomb atomic collapse. The same WKB picture also shows that for γ>1 two turning points can exist even for positive energies, producing special atomic co

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the angular-momentum barrier can be ignored in the quantization integral, which only holds for states with intermediate energies, and it assumes the cutoff radius can be made arbitrarily small, while every numerical demonstration uses a finite cutoff that restores a finite critical strength.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, STM measurements of local density of states near a charged impurity or quantum dot in graphene should show resonances equally spaced on the |E|^{(γ−1)/γ} axis whenever the effective potential decays faster than 1/r.
  • Screened Coulomb impurities in doped graphene, which develop an asymptotic 1/r^3 tail, would be expected to display atomic collapse even at subcritical bare charges, broadening the parameter regime for collapse experiments.
  • The appearance of positive-energy collapse states above the bulk Dirac point provides a distinctive experimental signature that a potential is genuinely non-Coulomb, since such states cannot occur for a pure 1/r well.
  • As γ increases toward very large values, the potential approaches a square-well limit; the predicted power (γ−1)/γ tends to 1, so the collapse-state spacing should continuously morph into an equally spaced sequence — a trend the paper explicitly notes.
  • Two-terminal conductance measurements through a graphene flake with a central charge impurity should show resonant conductance peaks at the predicted power-sequence energies, giving a transport-based test of the spectrum.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that the measured power exponent (γ−1)/γ could be used as an inverse-spectroscopy tool: extracting the exponent from LDOS peak spacings would infer the effective decay exponent of the potential in a given device.
  • A testable extension would be to vary the cutoff radius r0 systematically while monitoring the first collapse resonance: the claim that βc→0 requires r0→0 implies a quantitative scaling of βc with r0 that could be checked directly in simulations or engineered tip potentials.
  • Positive-energy SACSs, if realized, might alter transport at energies above the Dirac point in p-n junctions, since they provide resonances where Klein tunneling would otherwise predict full transmission; conductance dips or phase shifts could accompany these states.
  • The geometric-to-power-sequence crossover as γ passes through 1 suggests a sharp experimental marker: near γ=1 the ratio between adjacent collapse energies is nearly constant, while for any γ>1 it slowly changes; measuring this ratio could distinguish screened from bare Coulomb potentials.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript studies massless Dirac fermions in graphene in the presence of an attractive singular potential V(r) = -β/r^γ. Using a WKB/EBK quantization condition (Eq. (4)), the authors derive an approximate quantization law, Eq. (6), which predicts that for γ > 1 the atomic-collapse-state (ACS) energies form a power sequence, |ε_n|^{(γ−1)/γ} ∝ n, in contrast to the geometric sequence known for Coulomb impurities. They further argue that the supercritical regime extends to arbitrarily small β in the ideal singular limit, and they identify a class of positive-energy ACSs (SACSs) above the bulk Dirac point. The analytic results are compared with finite-difference solutions of the radial Dirac equation and with tight-binding pybinding LDOS simulations, which show approximately equally spaced resonances on the -|ε|^{(γ−1)/γ} axis.

Significance. If correct, the paper identifies a simple, falsifiable spectral fingerprint for high-order singular potentials in graphene and predicts positive-energy resonances with no Coulomb counterpart. Its strengths include a transparent analytic derivation, two independent numerical verifications (finite-difference Dirac LDOS and tight-binding kernel-polynomial LDOS), and an explicit discussion of regularization dependence in the Supplemental Material. These strengths are partly offset by an algebraic error in the SACS critical-energy expression and by insufficient quantitative support for the m-dropping approximation that underlies the central power-law formula.

major comments (3)
  1. [The special ACSs at γ > 1, Eq. (7)] Eq. (7) as printed simplifies to ε_c = |m|(β/γ)^{1/(γ−1)}, which decreases as β decreases. This contradicts the sentence immediately below it ('ε_c will increase with the decline of β') and the behavior shown in Fig. 3(c). The correct tangency condition for F1(x)=βx^γ+ε and F2(x)=|m|x gives ε_c = |m|(|m|/β)^{1/(γ−1)}(γ^{−1/(γ−1)} − γ^{−γ/(γ−1)}), which is the expression used in Sec. SVII. Please correct Eq. (7) and re-examine any downstream conclusions that use this critical energy.
  2. [Abstract, Fig. 1, and Sec. SVI] The headline claim of atomic collapse at infinitesimal β is based on the V_eff(r→0)→−∞ argument, but all numerical results use a finite regularization cutoff r0. In fact, Eq. (6) itself implies that the first ACS exists only for β > β_c ≈ (γ−1)π r0^{γ−1} in the hard-cutoff model; Sec. SVI acknowledges that β_c is finite. The manuscript should state this relation explicitly and qualify the abstract and phase diagram so that 'infinitesimal charge' is understood as the r0→0 limit, not as a statement about any regularized physical potential.
  3. [Sec. SIII and Figs. 2/3] Equation (6) is derived by dropping the m^2/r^2 term and setting r1≈(β/|ε|)^{1/γ}. The validity condition γ(|ε|/β)^{(γ−1)/γ} ≫ |m|/β is stated in Sec. SIII but is never verified for the states used in the fits. In particular, Fig. 3(a) does not state the β values, and the number of available ACSs at γ=1.5 is very sensitive to β. Please add a table comparing the full WKB energies from Eq. (4) with Eq. (6) for each fitted state, including the value of γ(|ε_n|/β)^{(γ−1)/γ}/(|m|/β), so the reader can judge whether the power law is established in the claimed regime.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 2 and 3 captions] The β values used for the 'first six ACSs' fits should be stated explicitly. The text mentions β=0.45 in several places, but for γ=1.5 and r0=0.02, Eq. (6) allows only about two states at that β; the fits in Fig. 3(a) must therefore use different (likely larger) β values.
  2. [Notation in Eq. (7) vs. Sec. SVII] The expression for ε_c appears in two different forms in the main text and in Sec. SVII. The Supplemental version is consistent with the tangency derivation; please unify the notation and ensure Eq. (7) matches.
  3. [Sec. SVI] The critical values β_c are reported in physical units (eV^{-...}) for the tight-binding model. It would be helpful to also give the corresponding dimensionless values and a direct comparison with β_c ≈ (γ−1)π r0^{γ−1} obtained from Eq. (6).
  4. [General] There are several minor typographical errors (e.g., 'whithin' in Sec. SI, 'monmentum' in the same section). A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the power-sequence law is derived from the WKB/EBK quantization rule and independently cross-checked by finite-difference and tight-binding simulations; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is Eq. (6), which follows from the EBK quantization integral Eq. (4) by the stated approximations: an asymptotic inner turning point r1 ≈ (β/|ε|)^(1/γ) and retention of the (β/r^γ + ε) term while neglecting m^2/r^2. These are analytic approximations with no free parameters; the exponent (γ−1)/γ and the slope 1/(γ r0^{γ-1}) are fixed by γ and the cutoff r0. The paper then compares Eq. (6) against two independent numerical implementations of the same physical model: (i) direct finite-difference diagonalization of the radial Dirac equation and computation of the LDOS, and (ii) tight-binding graphene lattice simulations using the external pybinding package. No parameter is fitted to the numerical spectra to force the power law; the extracted ACS energies are plotted on the theoretically predicted axis |ε_n|^{(γ−1)/γ} and show the predicted linear-in-n behavior. The phase diagram for γ>1 (supercritical for all β>0) is a direct consequence of V_eff(r→0)→−∞ for any β when γ>1, and the paper explicitly acknowledges that a finite cutoff r0 introduces a finite βc, so the infinitesimal-β statement is an idealization rather than a fitted result. The self-citations in the paper (Refs. 25–28, 46) are used for experimental context, for specific potential forms, and for a standard finite-difference method; they do not supply a uniqueness theorem, an ansatz, or a load-bearing premise for the derivation. Concerns about the WKB validity window (m^2/β ≪ |ε| ≪ β/r0^γ) are correctness/robustness issues, not circularity, and do not amount to the derivation reducing to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central law draws on standard semiclassical methods and one ad hoc approximation (dropping m and using the approximate turning point) that the authors check numerically. One regularization cutoff r0 is a genuine free parameter; the power exponent is independent of it. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • regularization cutoff r0 = 0.02 (finite-difference); 4, 8, 10, 12 nm (tight-binding)
    Introduced to regularize the 1/r^γ singularity; the offset in the power sequence depends on it, while the exponent does not. The 'infinitesimal β' statement requires r0→0, which is not achievable in the numerics.
  • LDOS broadening parameters (λd, Γd, λs, Γs) = λd=0.2, Γd=1; λs=0.15 nm, Γs=0.01 eV
    Chosen by hand to visualize resonances; they affect peak widths and visibility but are not fitted to extract the physical energies.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The EBK quantization rule I = ∫ p_r dr = nπ (Eq. 4) approximates the quasi-bound state energies.
    Invoked in main text after Eq. (4); semiclassical approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper The integrand in Eq. (4) can be replaced by (β/r^γ + ε), dropping the m^2/r^2 term, and r1 ≈ (β/|ε|)^(1/γ) for the states of interest.
    Sec. SIII derives and checks this numerically (Fig. S1), but it is a stated approximate premise for the universal law; if it fails for low-lying states, the power sequence could break.
  • domain assumption Massless Dirac fermions in graphene are described by Eq. (1) with the given singular potential; lattice and finite-size effects are negligible in the Dirac continuum regime.
    Standard graphene model used throughout; verified indirectly by tight-binding comparison.
  • ad hoc to paper The cutoff r0 can be taken to zero in principle, making the critical βc vanish for γ>1.
    Used to support the 'infinitesimal charge' claim; SVI shows βc increases with r0, so the limit r0→0 is a physically motivated extrapolation, not a computed limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Atomic collapse of high-order singular potentials in graphene." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5QXPBAO

@misc{pith2026250903921,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Atomic collapse of high-order singular potentials in graphene},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5QXPBAO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03921}
}
read the original abstract

Artificial atoms in graphene hosting a series of quasi-bound states can serve as an excellent platform to explore atomic collapse and become a basis to design novel graphene nanodevices. We theoretically study behaviors of massless Dirac fermions in singular potentials with a general form of 1/r^{\gamma}. Different from the Coulomb potential that demands a supercritical charge Z > Zc, a high-order singular potential ({\gamma} > 1) is found to in principle induce atomic collapse with an infinitesimal charge Z. The energies of atomic collapse states (ACSs) within these potentials are arranged roughly as a power sequence. We also show that some special ACSs can exist even above the bulk Dirac point, which cannot appear in the Coulomb potential. These findings uncover the anomalies of massless Dirac fermions in diverse charge potentials and provide guidance for further experiments and graphene nanodevice applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03921 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The theoretical analysis of atomic collapse under a general singular potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The behaviors of ACSs at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The universal power sequence of ACSs at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The illustration of SACSs at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M. I. Katsnelson, I. V. Grigorieva, S. V. Dubonos, and A. A. Firsov, Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene, Nature438, 197 (2005)

    2005

  2. [2]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, The electronic properties of graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    C. G. Darwin, Xxxiv. the theory of X-ray reflexion, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science27, 315 (1914)

    work page 1914

  4. [4]

    Greiner, B

    W. Greiner, B. M¨ uller, and J. Rafelski,Quantum Electro- dynamics of Strong Fields (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1985)

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    A.V.Shytov, M.I.Katsnelson,andL.S.Levitov,Atomic Collapse and Quasi–Rydberg States in Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 246802 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    V. M. Pereira, J. Nilsson, and A. H. Castro Neto, Coulomb Impurity Problem in Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 166802 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Y. Wang, D. Wong, A. V. Shytov, V. W. Brar, S. Choi, Q. Wu, H.-Z. Tsai, W. Regan, A. Zettl, R. K. Kawakami, S. G. Louie, L. S. Levitov, and M. F. Crommie, Observ- ing Atomic Collapse Resonances in Artificial Nuclei on Graphene, Science 340, 734 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Z. Ge, D. Wong, J. Lee, F. Joucken, E. A. Quezada- Lopez, S. Kahn, H.-Z. Tsai, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, F. Wang, A. Zettl, M. F. Crommie, and J. J. Velasco, Imaging quantum interference in stadium-shaped mono- layer and bilayer graphene quantum dots, Nano Lett.21, 8993 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Ge, S. Slizovskiy, P. Polizogopoulos, T. Joshi, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. Lederman, V. I. Fal’ko, and J. Velasco, Giant orbital magnetic moments and param- agnetic shift in artificial relativistic atoms and molecules, Nat. Nanotechnol. 18, 250 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Z. Ge, A. M. Graf, J. Keski-Rahkonen, S. Sli- zovskiy, P. Polizogopoulos, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, R. Van Haren, D. Lederman, V. I. Fal’ko, E. J. Heller, and J. Velasco, Direct visualization of relativistic quan- tum scars in graphene quantum dots, Nature635, 841 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    H.-Y. Ren, Y. Mao, Y.-N. Ren, Q.-F. Sun, and L. He, Tunable quantum confinement in individual nanoscale quantum dots via interfacial engineering, ACS Nano19, 1352 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Chi- ral tunnelling and the Klein paradox in graphene, Nat. Phys. 2, 620 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    K. J. Lamas-Martínez, J. A. Briones-Torres, S. Molina- Valdovinos, and I. Rodríguez-Vargas, Persistent elec- tronic cloaking and Klein tunneling in multiple phospho- rene junctions, Phys. Rev. B109, 035416 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Mittag, J

    C. Mittag, J. V. Koski, M. Karalic, C. Thomas, A. Tuaz, A. T. Hatke, G. C. Gardner, M. J. Manfra, J. Danon, T. Ihn, and K. Ensslin, Few-electron single and double quantum dots in anInAs two-dimensional electron gas, 8 PRX Quantum 2, 010321 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Phys.17, 33201 (2021)

    S.-Y.LiandL.He,Recentprogressesofquantumconfine- ment in graphene quantum dots, Front. Phys.17, 33201 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    W. C. Silva, J. E. Sanches, A. M. Freitas, L. T. Lustosa, M. de Souza, and A. C. Seridonio, Analog of atomic col- lapse for adatoms on rhombohedral multilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B108, 205407 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Wang, W.-S

    J. Wang, W.-S. Zhao, Y. Hu, R. N. C. Filho, and F. m. c. M. Peeters, Charged vacancy in graphene: Interplay between landau levels and atomic collapse resonances, Phys. Rev. B109, 104103 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Efimov, Energy levels arising from resonant two-body forces in a three-body system, Phys

    V. Efimov, Energy levels arising from resonant two-body forces in a three-body system, Phys. Lett. B 33, 563 (1970)

    1970

  11. [19]

    Ovdat, J

    O. Ovdat, J. Mao, Y. Jiang, E. Y. Andrei, and E. Akker- mans, Observing a scale anomaly and a universal quan- tum phase transition in graphene, Nat. Commun.8, 507 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Nishida, Vacuum polarization of graphene with a su- percritical Coulomb impurity: Low-energy universality and discrete scale invariance, Phys

    Y. Nishida, Vacuum polarization of graphene with a su- percritical Coulomb impurity: Low-energy universality and discrete scale invariance, Phys. Rev. B90, 165414 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Nishida, Renormalization group analysis of graphene with a supercritical Coulomb impurity, Phys

    Y. Nishida, Renormalization group analysis of graphene with a supercritical Coulomb impurity, Phys. Rev. B94, 085430 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Z. Shao, S. Li, Y. Liu, Z. Li, H. Wang, Q. Bian, J. Yan, D. Mandrus, H. Liu, P. Zhang, X. C. Xie, J. Wang, and M. Pan, Discrete scale invariance of the quasi-bound states at atomic vacancies in a topological material, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e220480...

    2022

  15. [23]

    J. Mao, Y. Jiang, D. Moldovan, G. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. R. Masir, F. M. Peeters, and E. Y. Andrei, Realization of a tunable artificial atom at a su- percritically charged vacancy in graphene, Nat. Phys.12, 545 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Jiang, J

    Y. Jiang, J. Mao, D. Moldovan, M. R. Masir, G. Li, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. M. Peeters, and E. Y. Andrei, Tuning a circular p-n junction in graphene from quantum confinement to optical guiding, Nat. Nanotech- nol. 12, 1045 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Zheng, Y.-C

    Q. Zheng, Y.-C. Zhuang, Q.-F. Sun, and L. He, Coex- istence of electron whispering-gallery modes and atomic collapse states in graphene/WSe2 heterostructure quan- tum dots, Nat. Commun.13, 1597 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Zheng, Y.-C

    Q. Zheng, Y.-C. Zhuang, Y.-N. Ren, C. Yan, Q.-F. Sun, and L. He, Molecular Collapse States in Graphene/WSe2 Heterostructure Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 076202 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Mao, H.-Y

    Y. Mao, H.-Y. Ren, X.-F. Zhou, H. Sheng, Y.-H. Xiao, Y.-C. Zhuang, Y.-N. Ren, L. He, and Q.-F. Sun, Orbital hybridization in graphene-based artificial atoms, Nature 639, 73 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Zhou, Y.-C

    X.-F. Zhou, Y.-C. Zhuang, M.-H. Zhang, H. Sheng, Q.-F. Sun, and L. He, Relativistic artificial molecule of two cou- pled graphene quantum dots at tunable distances, Nat. Commun. 15, 8786 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    K. M. Case, Singular Potentials, Phys. Rev. 80, 797 (1950)

    1950

  22. [30]

    W. M. Frank, D. J. Land, and R. M. Spector, Singular potentials, Rev. Mod. Phys.43, 36 (1971)

    1971

  23. [31]

    S. R. Beane, P. F. Bedaque, L. Childress, A. Kryjevski, J. McGuire, and U. van Kolck, Singular potentials and limit cycles, Phys. Rev. A64, 042103 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    Braaten and D

    E. Braaten and D. Phillips, Renormalization-group limit cycle for the 1/r2 potential, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052111 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    F. J. Rogers, H. C. Graboske, and D. J. Harwood, Bound eigenstates of the static screened coulomb poten- tial, Phys. Rev. A1, 1577 (1970)

    1970

  26. [34]

    E. H. Hwang and S. Das Sarma, Dielectric function, screening, and plasmons in two-dimensional graphene, Phys. Rev. B75, 205418 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    A. V. Shytov, M. I. Katsnelson, and L. S. Levitov, Vac- uum polarization and Screening of Supercritical Impuri- ties in Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 236801 (2007)

    2007

  28. [36]

    I. S. Terekhov, A. I. Milstein, V. N. Kotov, and O. P. Sushkov, Screening of coulomb impurities in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 076803 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    M. M. Fogler, D. S. Novikov, and B. I. Shklovskii, Screen- ing of a hypercritical charge in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 76, 233402 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    M. I. Katsnelson, Nonlinear screening of charge impuri- ties in graphene, Phys. Rev. B74, 201401 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Lu, H.-Z

    J. Lu, H.-Z. Tsai, A. N. Tatan, S. Wickenburg, A. A. Omrani, D. Wong, A. Riss, E. Piatti, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Zettl, V. M. Pereira, and M. F. Crom- mie, Frustrated supercritical collapse in tunable charge arrays on graphene, Nat. Commun.10, 477 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    De Martino, D

    A. De Martino, D. Klöpfer, D. Matrasulov, and R. Egger, Electric-dipole-induced universality for dirac fermions in graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 186603 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    The way we define it is to make the question more con- sise

    In principle, there are many ways to define the effective potential strength ˜β in singular potentials with γ > 1. The way we define it is to make the question more con- sise. However, the specific definitions will not affect our conclusions since the main analysis can be dime...

  34. [42]

    J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva and L. S. Levitov, Berry phase jumps and giant nonreciprocity in Dirac quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B94, 235406 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Sundaram and Q

    G. Sundaram and Q. Niu, Wave-packet dynamics in slowly perturbed crystals: Gradient corrections and Berry-phase effects, Phys. Rev. B59, 14915 (1999)

    1999

  36. [44]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Berry phase effects on electronic properties, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1959 (2010)

    1959

  37. [45]

    A. D. Stone, Einstein’s unknown insight and the problem of quantizing chaos, Phys. Today58, 37 (2005)

    2005

  38. [46]

    Hou, Y.-F

    Z. Hou, Y.-F. Zhou, X. C. Xie, and Q.-F. Sun, Berry phase induced valley level crossing in bilayer graphene quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B99, 125422 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    H.-Y. Chen, V. Apalkov, and T. Chakraborty, Fock- Darwin States of Dirac Electrons in Graphene-Based Ar- tificial Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 186803 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    See Supplemental Materials for details of analytical derivations, numerical calculations and some supplemen- tary figures

  41. [49]

    A.MatulisandF.M.Peeters,Quasiboundstatesofquan- tum dots in single and bilayer graphene, Phys. Rev. B77, 115423 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Gutiérrez, L

    C. Gutiérrez, L. Brown, C.-J. Kim, J. Park, and A. N. Pasupathy, Klein tunnelling and electron trapping in nanometre-scale graphene quantum dots, Nat. Phys.12, 1069 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Y. Zhao, J. Wyrick, F. D. Natterer, J. F. Rodriguez- Nieva, C. Lewandowski, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. S. Levitov, N. B. Zhitenev, and J. A. Stroscio, Cre- 9 ating and probing electron whispering-gallery modes in graphene, Science 348, 672 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    O. O. Sobol, P. K. Pyatkovskiy, E. V. Gorbar, and V. P. Gusynin, Screening of a charged impurity in graphene in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B94, 115409 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Moldovan, M

    D. Moldovan, M. Anđelkovi´ c, and F. M. Peeters.,pybind- ing v0.9.5: a Python package for tight-binding calcula- tions, Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.4010216 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Weiße, G

    A. Weiße, G. Wellein, A. Alvermann, and H. Fehske, The kernel polynomial method, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 275 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    Covaci, F

    L. Covaci, F. M. Peeters, and M. Berciu, Efficient Numer- ical Approach to Inhomogeneous Superconductivity: The Chebyshev-Bogoliubov–de Gennes Method, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 167006 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    14,673(1972)

    Ya B Zeldovich and Valentin S Popov, Electronic struc- tureofsuperheavyatoms,Sov.Phys.Usp. 14,673(1972)

    1972

  49. [57]

    C. W. J. Beenakker, Colloquium: Andreev reflection and Klein tunneling in graphene, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 1337 (2008)

    2008

  50. [58]

    J. H. Bardarson, M. Titov, and P. W. Brouwer, Electro- static confinement of electrons in an integrable graphene quantum dot, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 226803 (2009). S1 Supplemental Materials SI. THE DET AILS OF NUMERICAL CALCULA TIONS In this section, we introduce the details of ...

    2009

  51. [59]

    (S4) contributes mainly at r → r0 ≪ r1, and 2 ϵ β r2 should be a small quantity

    Considering the integrand in Eq. (S4) contributes mainly at r → r0 ≪ r1, and 2 ϵ β r2 should be a small quantity. Putting Eq. (S5) into Eq. (S4), we can get: I ≈ Z r1 r0 β r2 (1 + ϵ β r2)dr = β( 1 r0 − 1 r1 ) + ϵ(r1 − r0) ≈ β r0 − 2 p β|ϵ| = nπ (n = 1, 2, ...). (S6) S2 where w...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.