pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.22915 · v1 · pith:LHZUVHNMnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🪐 quant-ph · hep-lat

Unified resonant-manifold framework for dynamical quantum phase transitions

Jesse J. Osborne , Cheuk Yiu Wong , Jad C. Halimeh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 05:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph hep-lat
keywords dynamical quantum phase transitionsresonant manifoldsbranch DQPTsmanifold DQPTsZ2 lattice gauge theoryreturn rateout-of-equilibrium criticalityconstrained Hilbert spaces
0
0 comments X

The pith

Dynamical quantum phase transitions arise from resonances within the initial state manifold or with a connected transitional manifold.

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

The paper sets out a single mechanism that accounts for the different observed kinds of dynamical quantum phase transitions after a sudden quench. Resonances inside the starting set of product states produce manifold DQPTs, while resonances between that set and a transitional set reached by low-order dynamical connections produce branch DQPTs. The number of states in the transitional set controls whether the branch transitions appear regular or irregular and also sets the conditions for unusual stretches of degeneracy in the return rate. The distinction is illustrated by explicit quenches in the one-plus-one-dimensional Z2 lattice gauge theory. A reader would care because the account replaces separate phenomenological categories with one dynamical picture based on resonant connectivity inside constrained spaces.

Core claim

Manifold DQPTs are governed by resonances within the initial state manifold, branch DQPTs are governed by resonances with a transitional manifold of states dynamically connected to the initial manifold by low-order processes, and the (ir)regularity of branch DQPTs is related to the multiplicity of this transitional manifold; exotic periods of extended degeneracy in the return rate are likewise conditioned on the structure of the transitional manifold. The framework is demonstrated for two different initial configurations quenched across parameter regimes in the 1+1D Z2 lattice gauge theory.

What carries the argument

The resonant-manifold framework, which classifies DQPTs by whether the governing resonances lie inside the initial manifold or reach a transitional manifold connected by low-order processes.

If this is right

  • The type and regularity of DQPTs after a quench become predictable from the energy structure and multiplicity of the transitional manifold.
  • Branch DQPTs appear irregular precisely when the transitional manifold contains multiple states reachable by low-order processes.
  • Extended degeneracy intervals in the return rate appear only when the transitional manifold has a structure that supports simultaneous resonances at the same energy.
  • DQPTs function as direct probes of resonant connectivity inside constrained Hilbert spaces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same resonant-manifold logic may classify DQPTs in other symmetry-constrained models once their low-order connectivity graphs are mapped.
  • Quench protocols could be designed to tune the multiplicity of the transitional manifold independently and thereby control the appearance of regular versus irregular branch transitions.
  • The framework supplies a route to search for new DQPT signatures in systems where the initial and transitional manifolds are known but have not yet been examined for return-rate non-analyticities.

Load-bearing premise

The type and regularity of each DQPT are fixed by the energy spectrum and multiplicity of the transitional manifold rather than by other features of the quench dynamics or the Hilbert-space constraints.

What would settle it

A quench in the Z2 lattice gauge theory or an analogous constrained model in which the observed DQPT type, regularity, or degeneracy intervals fail to match the resonances and multiplicity predicted from the transitional manifold would falsify the account.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22915 by Cheuk Yiu Wong, Jad C. Halimeh, Jesse J. Osborne.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The parameter space of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The evolution of the return rate (top) and particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. A schematic energy diagram of the different product [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The evolution of the return rate (top panels) and electric flux and particle number difference (bottom panels) following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The evolution of the return rate (top panels) and electric flux and particle number difference (bottom panels) following [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: As there is only one gauge-invariant CP state, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The evolution of the return rates in the QLM starting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Quench dynamics of (a) the fully polarized state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Dynamical quantum phase transitions (DQPTs) are an exciting paradigm of out-of-equilibrium criticality in many-body systems manifested in nonanalytic behavior in the return rate to the initial state following a sudden quench. While previous work has tried to distinguish between distinct types of DQPTs, such as regular and anomalous, or manifold and branch, a comprehensive understanding of why each type appears in a given scenario is still lacking. In this work, we propose a unified framework addressing this gap in terms of the energy structure of different product state configurations. In particular, while manifold DQPTs are governed by resonances within the initial state manifold, branch DQPTs are governed by resonances with a transitional manifold of states dynamically connected to the initial manifold by low-order processes. We show that the (ir)regularity of branch DQPTs is related to the multiplicity of this transitional manifold, and we also observe exotic periods of extended degeneracy in the return rate (beyond the conventional level crossing of a DQPT) which are also conditioned on the structure of this transitional manifold. We demonstrate this by studying quenches of two different configurations in the 1 + 1D Z_2 LGT to various parameter regimes. Our findings provide a dynamical mechanism underlying branch DQPTs and frames DQPTs as probes of resonant connectivity in constrained Hilbert spaces, paving the way to a more complete understanding of the multifaceted nature of dynamical criticality.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified resonant-manifold framework for classifying dynamical quantum phase transitions (DQPTs) according to the energy structure of product-state configurations. Manifold DQPTs arise from resonances inside the initial-state manifold, while branch DQPTs arise from resonances with a transitional manifold reachable from the initial manifold by low-order processes; the regularity (or irregularity) of branch DQPTs and the appearance of extended degeneracy periods are attributed to the multiplicity of this transitional manifold. The framework is illustrated by two distinct quenches in the 1+1D Z_{2} lattice gauge theory.

Significance. If the attribution of DQPT type and regularity to the transitional-manifold structure is substantiated by the explicit calculations, the work supplies a dynamical mechanism that unifies previously distinguished DQPT categories and recasts DQPTs as diagnostics of resonant connectivity inside constrained Hilbert spaces. This interpretive advance would be of clear interest to the out-of-equilibrium many-body community.

minor comments (3)
  1. The abstract states that the framework is demonstrated on two configurations of the 1+1D Z_{2} LGT, but the manuscript should include a short table or figure caption that explicitly lists the initial states, the target Hamiltonians, and the observed DQPT periods for each case so that the multiplicity rule can be checked at a glance.
  2. Notation for the transitional manifold (introduced as an invented entity in the abstract) should be defined once in the main text with a clear operational criterion for “low-order processes” before it is used in the discussion of branch DQPTs.
  3. The manuscript would benefit from a brief comparison paragraph that contrasts the resonant-manifold picture with the earlier regular/anomalous and manifold/branch distinctions cited in the introduction, indicating which features are recovered and which are newly explained.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive evaluation of our manuscript and the recommendation of minor revision. The referee summary accurately captures the central idea of our unified resonant-manifold framework and its application to the Z2 LGT quenches.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; framework is interpretive and model-demonstrated

full rationale

The paper proposes a resonant-manifold classification of DQPTs (manifold vs. branch) and ties regularity to transitional-manifold multiplicity, then demonstrates the distinction via explicit quenches in the 1+1D Z2 LGT. No equation or claim reduces a prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, no self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The derivation chain consists of direct numerical observation of return-rate non-analyticities and their attribution to energy resonances, which remains falsifiable against the simulated spectra rather than tautological.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum time evolution and return-rate definitions plus the new transitional-manifold construct; no free parameters are mentioned and the transitional manifold lacks independent evidence beyond the specific model.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard Schrödinger evolution and Loschmidt-echo return rate apply to the quenched Z2 LGT systems.
    The framework presupposes conventional many-body quantum dynamics to define resonances and DQPTs.
invented entities (1)
  • transitional manifold no independent evidence
    purpose: To account for branch DQPTs via resonances with states reachable by low-order processes from the initial manifold.
    New concept introduced to unify DQPT types; independent_evidence is false as no falsifiable prediction outside the studied model is given in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5788 in / 1447 out tokens · 33967 ms · 2026-05-25T05:51:41.366059+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

187 extracted references · 187 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Silva, Phys

    A. Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 120603 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    M. Heyl, A. Polkovnikov, and S. Kehrein, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 135704 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Heyl, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 054001 (2018)

    M. Heyl, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 054001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    A. A. Zvyagin, Dynamical quantum phase transitions (2017), arXiv:1701.08851 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Karrasch and D

    C. Karrasch and D. Schuricht, Phys. Rev. B87, 195104 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Vajna and B

    S. Vajna and B. D´ ora, Phys. Rev. B89, 161105 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Pozsgay, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2013, P10028 (2013)

    B. Pozsgay, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment2013, P10028 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Andraschko and J

    F. Andraschko and J. Sirker, Phys. Rev. B89, 125120 (2014)

    work page 2014

  9. [9]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Van Damme, V. Zauner-Stauber, and L. Vanderstraeten, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 033111 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. Van Damme, L. Guo, J. Lang, and P. Hauke, Phys. Rev. B104, 115133 (2021)

    work page 2021

  11. [11]

    J. J. Osborne, J. Knaute, I. P. McCulloch, and J. C. Hal- imeh, Meson mass sets onset time of anomalous dynami- cal quantum phase transitions (2024), arXiv:2407.03394 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    work page arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    ˇZunkoviˇ c, A

    B. ˇZunkoviˇ c, A. Silva, and M. Fabrizio, Philosophi- cal Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathemati- cal, Physical and Engineering Sciences374, 20150160 (2016)

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    Homrighausen, N

    I. Homrighausen, N. O. Abeling, V. Zauner-Stauber, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. B96, 104436 (2017)

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    J. C. Halimeh and V. Zauner-Stauber, Phys. Rev. B96, 134427 (2017)

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Zauner-Stauber and J

    V. Zauner-Stauber and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. E96, 062118 (2017)

    work page 2017

  16. [16]

    Defenu, T

    N. Defenu, T. Enss, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. B 100, 014434 (2019)

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    Uhrich, N

    P. Uhrich, N. Defenu, R. Jafari, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. B101, 245148 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    A. L. Corps and A. Rela˜ no, Phys. Rev. B106, 024311 (2022)

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    A. L. Corps and A. Rela˜ no, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 100402 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    A. L. Corps, P. Str´ ansk´ y, and P. Cejnar, Phys. Rev. B 107, 094307 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    Mitra, T

    A. Mitra, T. Albash, P. D. Blocher, J. Takahashi, A. Miyake, G. Biedermann, and I. H. Deutsch, New Journal of Physics27, 013026 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Schmitt and S

    M. Schmitt and S. Kehrein, Phys. Rev. B92, 075114 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    Bhattacharya and A

    U. Bhattacharya and A. Dutta, Phys. Rev. B96, 014302 (2017)

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Srivastav, U

    V. Srivastav, U. Bhattacharya, and A. Dutta, Phys. Rev. B100, 144203 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    De Nicola, B

    S. De Nicola, B. Doyon, and M. J. Bhaseen, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 05LT02 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Hashizume, J

    T. Hashizume, J. C. Halimeh, and I. P. McCulloch, Phys. Rev. B102, 035115 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Hashizume, I

    T. Hashizume, I. P. McCulloch, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013250 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Vajna and B

    S. Vajna and B. D´ ora, Phys. Rev. B91, 155127 (2015)

    work page 2015

  29. [29]

    Huang and A

    Z. Huang and A. V. Balatsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 086802 (2016)

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    Sedlmayr, P

    N. Sedlmayr, P. Jaeger, M. Maiti, and J. Sirker, Phys. Rev. B97, 064304 (2018)

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    Hagym´ asi, C

    I. Hagym´ asi, C. Hubig, O. Legeza, and U. Schollw¨ ock, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 250601 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Mas lowski and N

    T. Mas lowski and N. Sedlmayr, Phys. Rev. B101, 014301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Porta, F

    S. Porta, F. Cavaliere, M. Sassetti, and N. Traverso Ziani, Scientific Reports10, 12766 (2020)

    work page 2020

  34. [34]

    Okugawa, H

    R. Okugawa, H. Oshiyama, and M. Ohzeki, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043064 (2021)

    work page 2021

  35. [35]

    Wrze´ sniewski, I

    K. Wrze´ sniewski, I. Weymann, N. Sedlmayr, and T. Doma´ nski, Phys. Rev. B105, 094514 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    Mas lowski and N

    T. Mas lowski and N. Sedlmayr, Phys. Rev. B108, 094306 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    K. Cao, T. Zhang, X.-P. Jiang, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. A112, 10.1103/5289-8kz5 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/5289-8kz5 2025

  38. [38]

    N. O. Abeling and S. Kehrein, Phys. Rev. B93, 104302 (2016)

    work page 2016

  39. [39]

    Bhattacharya, S

    U. Bhattacharya, S. Bandyopadhyay, and A. Dutta, Phys. Rev. B96, 180303 (2017)

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    Sedlmayr, M

    N. Sedlmayr, M. Fleischhauer, and J. Sirker, Phys. Rev. B97, 045147 (2018)

    work page 2018

  41. [41]

    J. Lang, B. Frank, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. B97, 174401 (2018)

    work page 2018

  42. [42]

    J. Lang, B. Frank, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 130603 (2018)

    work page 2018

  43. [43]

    B. Mera, C. Vlachou, N. Paunkovi´ c, V. R. Vieira, and O. Viyuela, Phys. Rev. B97, 094110 (2018)

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    A. L. Corps, A. Rela˜ no, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043080 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    M. C. Ba˜ nuls, K. Cichy, H.-T. Hung, Y.-J. Kao, C.-J. D. Lin, and A. Singh, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 023194 (2025)

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Zhou, Q.-h

    L. Zhou, Q.-h. Wang, H. Wang, and J. Gong, Phys. Rev. A98, 022129 (2018)

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    K. Wang, X. Qiu, L. Xiao, X. Zhan, Z. Bian, W. Yi, and P. Xue, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 020501 (2019)

    work page 2019

  48. [48]

    Zhou and Q

    L. Zhou and Q. Du, New Journal of Physics23, 063041 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Hamazaki, Nature Communications12, 10.1038/s41467-021-25355-3 (2021)

    R. Hamazaki, Nature Communications12, 10.1038/s41467-021-25355-3 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25355-3 2021

  50. [50]

    Mondal and T

    D. Mondal and T. Nag, Phys. Rev. B106, 054308 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Current-induced depairing in the Bi 2Te3/FeTe interfacial superconductor

    K. Kawabata, A. Kulkarni, J. Li, T. Numasawa, and S. Ryu, Phys. Rev. B108, 10.1103/phys- revb.108.075110 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2023

  52. [52]

    Mondal and T

    D. Mondal and T. Nag, Phys. Rev. B107, 184311 (2023)

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Mondal and T

    D. Mondal and T. Nag, The European Physical Journal B97, 10.1140/epjb/s10051-024-00701-8 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjb/s10051-024-00701-8 2024

  54. [54]

    Fu and G

    Y. Fu and G. Xianlong, Phys. Rev. B112, L140302 (2025)

    work page 2025

  55. [55]

    Zhang, C

    K. Zhang, C. Shu, and K. Sun, Dynamical quantum phase transitions and many-body backflow in open quantum systems (2025), arXiv:2509.03570 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Smearing of dynamical quantum phase transitions in dissipative free-fermion systems

    G. Parez and V. Alba, Smearing of dynamical quan- tum phase transitions in dissipative free-fermion sys- tems (2026), arXiv:2509.21585 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Mondkar, P

    S. Mondkar, P. Ghosh, and U. Sen, Dynamical quan- tum phase transitions in boundary time crystals (2026), arXiv:2602.04792 [quant-ph]. 11

    work page arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    H. Gu, Y. Zhao, S. Cheng, Y. Xie, X. Yang, and Y. Chen, Biorthogonal dynamical quantum phase transitions in a non-hermitian kitaev chain (2026), arXiv:2605.15982 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Kosior and K

    A. Kosior and K. Sacha, Phys. Rev. A97, 053621 (2018)

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    Kosior, A

    A. Kosior, A. Syrwid, and K. Sacha, Phys. Rev. A98, 023612 (2018)

    work page 2018

  61. [61]

    J. C. Halimeh, N. Yegovtsev, and V. Gurarie, Dynam- ical quantum phase transitions in many-body localized systems (2019), arXiv:1903.03109 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  62. [62]

    Trapin, J

    D. Trapin, J. C. Halimeh, and M. Heyl, Phys. Rev. B 104, 115159 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    T. V. Zache, N. Mueller, J. T. Schneider, F. Jendrze- jewski, J. Berges, and P. Hauke, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 050403 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    Huang, D

    Y.-P. Huang, D. Banerjee, and M. Heyl, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 250401 (2019)

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    S. P. Pedersen and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. B103, 235103 (2021)

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    R. B. Jensen, S. P. Pedersen, and N. T. Zinner, Phys. Rev. B105, 224309 (2022)

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    J. C. Halimeh, M. V. Damme, T. V. Zache, D. Banerjee, and P. Hauke, Quantum6, 878 (2022)

    work page 2022

  68. [68]

    Van Damme, T

    M. Van Damme, T. V. Zache, D. Banerjee, P. Hauke, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. B106, 245110 (2022)

    work page 2022

  69. [69]

    Mueller, J

    N. Mueller, J. A. Carolan, A. Connelly, Z. Davoudi, E. F. Dumitrescu, and K. Yeter-Aydeniz, PRX Quan- tum4, 030323 (2023)

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    Pomarico, L

    D. Pomarico, L. Cosmai, P. Facchi, C. Lupo, S. Pas- cazio, and F. V. Pepe, Entropy25, 10.3390/e25040608 (2023)

    work page doi:10.3390/e25040608 2023

  71. [71]

    Van Damme, J.-Y

    M. Van Damme, J.-Y. Desaules, Z. Papi´ c, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033090 (2023)

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    J. J. Osborne, I. P. McCulloch, and J. C. Halimeh, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 043076 (2025)

    work page 2025

  73. [73]

    Bernien, S

    H. Bernien, S. Schwartz, A. Keesling, H. Levine, A. Om- ran, H. Pichler, S. Choi, A. S. Zibrov, M. Endres, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nature551, 579 (2017)

    work page 2017

  74. [74]

    Fl¨ aschner, D

    N. Fl¨ aschner, D. Vogel, M. Tarnowski, B. S. Rem, D.-S. L¨ uhmann, M. Heyl, J. C. Budich, L. Mathey, K. Sen- gstock, and C. Weitenberg, Nature Physics14, 265 (2018)

    work page 2018

  75. [75]

    Nie, B.-B

    X. Nie, B.-B. Wei, X. Chen, Z. Zhang, X. Zhao, C. Qiu, Y. Tian, Y. Ji, T. Xin, D. Lu, and J. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 250601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  76. [76]

    Xu, Q.-Q

    X.-Y. Xu, Q.-Q. Wang, M. Heyl, J. C. Budich, W.-W. Pan, Z. Chen, M. Jan, K. Sun, J.-S. Xu, Y.-J. Han, C.- F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Light: Science & Applications9, 10.1038/s41377-019-0237-8 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41377-019-0237-8 2020

  77. [77]

    Heyl, Phys

    M. Heyl, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 205701 (2014)

    work page 2014

  78. [78]

    Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields(Cam- bridge University Press, 1995)

    S. Weinberg,The Quantum Theory of Fields(Cam- bridge University Press, 1995)

    work page 1995

  79. [79]

    X. Wen,Quantum Field Theory of Many-Body Sys- tems:From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons: From the Origin of Sound to an Origin of Light and Electrons, Oxford Graduate Texts (OUP Oxford, 2004)

    work page 2004

  80. [80]

    Zee,Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell(Princeton University Press, 2003)

    A. Zee,Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell(Princeton University Press, 2003)

    work page 2003

Showing first 80 references.