Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

A holographic soft-wall model predicts that J/ψ mesons in a rotating quark-gluon plasma acquire a spin-rotation splitting of their spectral peaks, with the pattern depending on whether the meson momentum is parallel or perpendicular to the

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 00:57 UTC pith:MZIG7GDQ

load-bearing objection A genuinely new local-frame method and a clean parallel-axis result, but the transverse momentum claims rest on an uncontrolled quasi-classical approximation. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00665 v1 pith:MZIG7GDQ submitted 2026-08-01 hep-th hep-ph

Spectral Functions of J/psi Meson in Rotating Thermal Background from Holography

Xin-Li Sheng , Jun-Xia Chen , Defu Hou , Hai-Cang Ren This is my paper
classification hep-th hep-ph PACS 11.25.Tq12.38.Mh
keywords holographic QCDsoft-wall modelJ/psi spectral functionrotating thermal plasmaspin-rotation couplingretarded Green functionquark-gluon plasmavector meson spin alignment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper aims to establish how global rotation modifies the in-medium spectral function of the charmonium vector meson J/ψ in a strongly coupled thermal plasma, using the holographic soft-wall model. It introduces a local inertial frame through vielbeins so that the bulk vector field can be decomposed into definite spin states, and computes the retarded Green function under incoming-wave boundary conditions. The central result is that rotation lifts the degeneracy between spin-0 and spin-±1 peaks: for momentum parallel to the rotation axis the peak energy shifts by −ΩJ_z and the width stays nearly constant, while for transverse momentum the spin-±1 spectral functions deviate from a single-peak shape and can even turn negative at large Ω. The paper presents this as a holographic perspective on spin-dependent vector meson properties in rotating systems, relevant to vorticity and spin-alignment phenomena in heavy-ion collisions.

Core claim

The vector field in a rotating AdS-like bulk, when projected onto spin eigenstates in a local inertial frame, yields retarded Green functions whose imaginary parts show three distinct invariant-mass peaks for J/ψ at T = 150 MeV. For momentum along the rotation axis, the peak masses obey ω(Ω) = ω(0) − ΩS_z (with orbital L_z = 0), so the λ = +1, 0, −1 states split linearly in Ω and the widths change by less than 1% up to Ω = 0.1 GeV. For momentum transverse to the axis, the fixed-momentum states are not eigenstates of total angular momentum; the projected Green function becomes non-diagonal, the extracted spectral functions for λ = +1 and λ = −1 develop multi-peak structures and negative regio

What carries the argument

The central object is the soft-wall holographic action for a bulk U(1) gauge field in a rotating AdS metric, combined with a local vielbein frame (e^a_M) that carries the rotation terms and allows spin to be defined at the boundary. The proof mechanism is the near-horizon incoming-wave expansion: analytically solving the equations of motion to next-to-leading order in (ζ/ζ_h − 1), numerically propagating to the boundary, and using the holographic dictionary to extract the retarded Green function; the spin projection onto circular polarizations then isolates the spectral functions ϱ_λ. The −ΩJ_z energy shift enters through the near-horizon frequency redefinition ω̃ = ω + (L_z + λ)Ω.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation freezes the transverse location (x, y) of the meson, treating it as a point particle on macroscopic scales while a plane wave microscopically; if Ωx or Ωy are not small compared with the inverse wavelength, the neglected mixing of Fourier modes would change the spectral functions.

What would settle it

Compute the same spectral functions by solving the bulk equations with the full coordinate-dependent rotating metric, without the classical-location freezing, and check whether the −ΩJ_z splitting and direction-dependent multi-peak structure survive; any sizable deviation would falsify the paper's central prediction.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For momentum along the rotation axis, the three spin peaks split linearly with Ω and widths stay within about 1%, so rotation acts essentially as a shift without distorting the line shape.
  • For transverse momentum, the model predicts non-trivial interference: λ = ±1 spectral functions acquire multi-peak structure and negative values at large Ω, signalling that fixed-momentum spin projections are not angular-momentum eigenstates.
  • The triplet splitting pattern provides a holographic benchmark for spin-dependent J/ψ properties in a vortical plasma, and the same framework with different dilaton parameters extends to φ and bottomonium.
  • The predicted splittings are tied to the near-horizon condition ω̃ ≈ ω + (L_z + λ)Ω, giving a direct geometric origin for the rotational energy shift.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the direction-dependent splitting holds, the relative heights and shifts of the three spin peaks in the J/ψ invariant-mass spectrum could serve as a vorticity probe in heavy-ion collisions, since the pattern encodes both the magnitude and the orientation of Ω relative to the meson momentum.
  • The negative spectral regions at large transverse momentum suggest that single-particle spectral interpretation fails there; an editor-level extension is to compute the off-diagonal projected Green function to quantify the mixing angle between fixed-momentum and fixed-J_z bases as a function of q and Ω.
  • The quasi-classical decoupling assumption should be tested by a solution retaining the full x, y dependence of the metric; if the Ωx, Ωy corrections matter at moderate Ω, the predicted triplet splitting may be a lower-order artifact rather than a stable signature.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the invariant-mass spectral functions of the J/psi meson in a rotating thermal plasma using a soft-wall AdS/QCD model. Global rotation is implemented by a metric with off-diagonal terms proportional to Omega, and a local inertial frame is introduced so that spin projections lambda=0,+1,-1 are well defined. The equations of motion for the bulk vector field are solved with an incoming-wave boundary condition near the horizon, and the retarded Green function is projected onto polarization vectors. For momentum parallel to the rotation axis, the extracted peak masses follow the expected -Omega J_z shift and the widths are nearly Omega-independent. For perpendicular momentum, the spectral functions of spin-+1 and spin--1 states deviate from a single-peak form and can become negative at large Omega and transverse momentum; these features are attributed to off-diagonal mixing in the projected Green function.

Significance. If the perpendicular-momentum results are robust, the paper provides a concrete holographic prediction for spin-rotation splitting of quarkonium spectral functions, which is potentially relevant for spin-alignment measurements in heavy-ion collisions. The framework is presented clearly, the near-horizon analysis is explicit, and the paper includes a data-availability statement. However, the central perpendicular-momentum claim rests on an uncontrolled quasi-classical approximation, and the numerical evidence at the onset of the claimed effect is not yet sufficient. The parallel-axis result is a useful consistency check of the formalism, but it is not an independent prediction in the present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (14)–(16); Appendix A] The 'plane-wave/point-particle' approximation is not systematically controlled for the transverse-momentum case. The stated condition (15), Omega << omega,|q|, bounds the derivative of the metric (∂_x g ~ Omega) against the inverse wavelength, but the coefficient matrices T3 in Eq. (A1) retain terms of order Omega L_z and Omega^2 L_z^2. For the parameters of Sec. V.B (L_z=2.54, Omega=0.05–0.1 GeV), Omega L_z is 0.13–0.25 GeV; for q_y=2 GeV in Fig. 8 it reaches approximately 0.5 GeV, comparable to |q|. Thus the regime in which the paper reports deviations from -Omega J_z and negative spectral functions is precisely where the expansion parameter Omega L_z/|q| is O(0.25–1), not small. In the exact theory, a term like Omega y A_x becomes Omega ∂_{q_y} A_x, so fixing (x,y) neglects coupling between Fourier modes separated by Omega in q_y; replacing i∂_{q_y} by x is an uncontrolled stationary-
  2. [Sec. V.B, Figs. 4–8] The numerical support for the perpendicular-momentum claims is incomplete. The Breit-Wigner fit (58) fails exactly in the region where Omega L_z/|q| is not tiny (q_y=1 GeV, Omega > 0.07 GeV), and the lambda=+1 points are omitted from Figs. 5(b) and 6(b). The spectral functions in Figs. 7 and 8 contain visible oscillations attributed to 'numerical noise', but no convergence tests are reported (grid spacing, near-horizon starting point, order of the near-horizon expansion) and no error estimates are given for the extracted masses and widths. Because the negative values and multi-peak structure are the paper’s main new effect, it is essential to demonstrate that these features are not numerical artifacts and that the fit failures do not simply mark the breakdown of the approximation discussed above. A concrete robustness test would be to vary the near-horizon matching point and the radial g
  3. [Eq. (57) and Eq. (35)] The excellent agreement in Fig. 2 between the holographic masses and Eq. (57) is, at least in part, a consistency check rather than an independent confirmation. The near-horizon consistency condition (35) already yields omega_tilde = omega + (L_z + lambda) Omega, and the incoming-wave ansatz (25) is built with omega_tilde. The paper should clarify that the comparison verifies that the self-consistent near-horizon analysis and the boundary spectral extraction are compatible with the expected -Omega J_z shift, and should make explicit which parts of the shift are derived from the equations of motion rather than inserted by hand. Without this clarification, the abstract’s first main result could be read as tautological.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, after Eq. (15)] Typo: 'allowing us to choice a classical transverse location' should be 'choose'.
  2. [Eq. (58)] The fit function has a dimensionful parameter a and an exponent b; please specify the dimensions explicitly so that the GeV^4 normalization on the right-hand side is unambiguous.
  3. [Sec. V.A, Fig. 2] The relation (57) is written for the energy omega, but the figure shows invariant mass M. Please state the conversion used to plot the solid lines, especially for nonzero q_z, so that the reader can reproduce the comparison.
  4. [Sec. V.B, Figs. 7 and 8] The captions mention 'small oscillations originate from numerical noise'. Please specify the numerical scheme, the grid resolution, and the tolerance used for the ODE integration; otherwise the reader cannot judge the significance of features that are of similar size to the noise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the −ΩJ_z shift is an output of the near-horizon boundary-value problem, not a fitted parameter, and the quasi-classical (x,y)-freezing is an explicit approximation rather than a self-referential reduction.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The peak shift −ΩJ_z is obtained from the near-horizon consistency condition: the ansatz (25), E = e^{-i\tilde\omega r_*}\psi, is a standard normal form, and the value \tilde\omega_\lambda \simeq \omega+(L_z+\lambda)\Omega is solved from the leading-order matrix condition (32) and displayed in Eq. (35). It is not a parameter fitted to the spectral functions; the full spectral functions are then obtained by numerical integration from the horizon to the boundary with the near-horizon initial data (38). Thus the masses and widths are outputs of the boundary-value problem. The only calibrated parameter is the soft-wall dilaton constant c=m_{J/\psi}^2/4, which fixes the zero-rotation mass but does not determine the Ω-dependence, the q_⊥ behavior, or the widths; consequently no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The paper explicitly introduces the quasi-classical point-particle truncation in Sec. II (Eqs. (14)–(16)): the metric inhomogeneity is replaced by a fixed transverse location (x,y). This is an uncontrolled approximation when ΩL_z becomes comparable to |q|, as the skeptical review notes, and the paper itself acknowledges the resulting non-diagonal projected Green function and negative spectral weights (Sec. V.B, Figs. 7–8). But an uncontrolled or limited approximation is a correctness/robustness issue, not a circularity: the equations used to produce the shifts are not equivalent by construction to the result being claimed. Self-citations [63,64] are used for standard spectral-function methodology and comparison, not as load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz justification. No step in the paper reduces to its own input by definition, and no external benchmark is manufactured by fitting. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central Ω-dependent shifts are not fitted: they follow from the near-horizon consistency condition and are compared with the classical formula (57). The model's absolute mass scale comes from the standard soft-wall parameter c. The main extra approximation is the frozen-(x,y) WKB ansatz, not a fitted parameter.

free parameters (2)
  • soft-wall dilaton parameter c = ≈2.40 GeV^2 (m_J/ψ^2/4)
    Sets the zero-temperature J/ψ mass in the soft-wall model; all absolute peak positions depend on it (Sec. II, Eq. (2)).
  • Breit-Wigner fit parameters a, b in Eq. (58) = fitted per configuration
    Introduced to extract masses and widths from numerical spectral functions; not needed for the central shift but used in Figs. 2–6.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption AdS/CFT correspondence: boundary current correlator is dual to bulk U(1) gauge field action (Sec. I, Eq. (1)).
    The whole computation of spectral functions relies on gauge/gravity duality for strongly coupled QCD.
  • domain assumption Soft-wall model with dilaton Φ=cζ^2 and generalized Maxwell action describes J/ψ meson (Sec. II, Eq. (2)).
    c is fixed to the J/ψ mass; the model is bottom-up AdS/QCD, not derived from QCD.
  • domain assumption Global rotation is represented by the rotating-coordinate AdS-Schwarzschild metric (6) and a local inertial frame via vielbein (10).
    Spin is defined in the local inertial frame; this is a model choice for rotation in the dual field theory.
  • ad hoc to paper Quasi-classical plane-wave/point-particle approximation (Eqs. (14)–(15)) freezes the transverse location (x,y) and decouples Fourier modes.
    Needed to derive a closed momentum-space equation of motion; not systematically controlled in the text.
  • standard math Incoming-wave condition near the horizon selects the retarded Green function; outgoing modes are neglected (Sec. III).
    Standard holographic prescription for retarded correlators.
  • domain assumption Projecting the retarded Green function onto fixed-spin polarization vectors (51)–(53) yields meaningful spectral functions even when J_z and transverse momentum do not commute.
    The paper itself notes this projection can produce negative values; interpretation as interference is an assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 16174 in / 18621 out tokens · 175341 ms · 2026-08-04T00:57:44.730591+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the spectral functions of the $J/\psi$ meson in a rotating thermal background within the soft-wall holographic model. The global rotation is implemented through a rotating AdS-like metric, while a local inertial frame is introduced in which the vector field can be decomposed into different spin states. We solve the equations of motion of the vector field in the bulk with incoming wave condition near the horizon and compute the retarded Green function, from which we extract the invariant-mass spectral functions for $J/\psi$. When the momentum is parallel to the rotation axis, the peak energies shift by $-\Omega J_z$, as expected by a coupling between rotation and angular momentum, while the widths are nearly independent to $\Omega$. When the momentum is in perpendicular direction, the spectral functions for spin-$\pm1$ states deviate significantly from the single-peak behavior and the energy shifts depart from $-\Omega J_z$. The resulting triplet splittings of the spectral functions provides a holographic perspective on spin-dependent vector meson properties in rotating systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00665 by Defu Hou, Hai-cang Ren, Jun-Xia Chen, Xin-li Sheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Invariant-mass spectral functions for J/ψ at T = 150 MeV. The particle’s momentum is set to q = (0, 0, 0) [panel (a)] or q = (0, 0, 3) GeV [panel (b)], while the global angular velocity Ω = 0 (solid lines) or Ω = 0.05 GeV (dashed lines). Within the holographic framework, we numerically cal￾culate the invariant-mass spectral functions of the J/ψ meson at T = 150 MeV, as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/fu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Masses of J/ψ at T = 150 MeV as functions of Ω. Results for λ = +1, 0, −1 states are shown by blue, orange, and green colors, respectively, with dots representing results of the holographic model and solid lines being determined by Eq. (57) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Width ratios Γλ(Ω)/Γλ(0) of J/ψ at T = 150 MeV as functions of Ω. Results for λ = +1, 0, −1 states are shown by blue, orange, and green colors, respectively. where a and b are dimensionless parameters, Mλ de￾scribes the mass of spin-λ state and Γλ its width. The extracted Mλ as functions of Ω are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Masses of J/ψ with transverse momentum qy = 0.5 GeV [panel (a)] or 1 GeV [panel (b)] as functions of Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Invariant-mass spectral functions for J/ψ with momentum q = (0, 1, 0) GeV at Ω = 0.05-0.1 GeV. Spin λ = 1, 0, −1 states are shown in panels (a), (b), and (c), re￾spectively. Small oscillations originate from numerical noise. not diagonal. At the operator level, the total angular momentum Jz = Lz + Sz does not commute with the transverse momentum, indicating that eigenstates can￾not have definite Jz and px,… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Invariant-mass spectral functions for J/ψ with mo￾mentum q = (0, 2, 0) GeV at Ω = 0-0.1 GeV. Spin λ = 1, 0, −1 states are shown in panels (a), (b), and (c), respectively. Small oscillations originate from numerical noise. VI. SUMMARY In this work, we investigate the spectral properties of J/ψ mesons in a rotating thermal background within the soft-wall holographic QCD model. The global rotation is included… view at source ↗

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

74 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    In this paper, we quantify the bulk behavior of a quasi- classical vector meson with momentumqµ and located at (x, y)on the transverse plane. We will show later that such a meson has an energy shift of−(x×q+s)·Ωdue to the coupling between its total angular momentum and the global rotation, as predicted by classical theories. III. SOLUTION NEAR HORIZON Sim...

  2. [2]

    D. H. Rischke, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.52, 197 (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0305030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  3. [3]

    Gyulassy and L

    M. Gyulassy and L. McLerran, Nucl. Phys. A750, 30 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0405013. 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  4. [4]

    E. V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. A750, 64 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0405066

    arXiv 2005

  5. [5]

    S. A. Voloshin, (2004), arXiv:nucl-th/0410089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  6. [6]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Lett. B629, 20 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0411101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  7. [7]

    Liang and X.-N

    Z.-T. Liang and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 102301 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 96, 039901 (2006)], arXiv:nucl-th/0410079

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    Banerjee, J

    N. Banerjee, J. Bhattacharya, S. Bhattacharyya, S. Dutta, R. Loganayagam, and P. Surowka, JHEP01, 094 (2011), arXiv:0809.2596 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  9. [9]

    Torabian and H.-U

    M. Torabian and H.-U. Yee, JHEP08, 020 (2009), arXiv:0903.4894 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  10. [10]

    D. T. Son and P. Surowka, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 191601 (2009), arXiv:0906.5044 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. A. Voloshin, and G. Wang, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.88, 1 (2016), arXiv:1511.04050 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Huang, K

    X.-G. Huang, K. Nishimura, and N. Yamamoto, JHEP 02, 069 (2018), arXiv:1711.02190 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Jiang, X.-G

    Y. Jiang, X.-G. Huang, and J. Liao, Phys. Rev. D92, 071501 (2015), arXiv:1504.03201 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    B. I. Abelevet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C76, 024915 (2007), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.C 95, 039906 (2017)], arXiv:0705.1691 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  15. [15]

    Adamczyket al.(STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    L. Adamczyket al.(STAR), Nature548, 62 (2017), arXiv:1701.06657 [nucl-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Phys. Rev. C104, L061901 (2021), arXiv:2108.00044 [nucl-ex]

    arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Karpenko and F

    I. Karpenko and F. Becattini, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 213 (2017), arXiv:1610.04717 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Li, L.-G

    H. Li, L.-G. Pang, Q. Wang, and X.-L. Xia, Phys. Rev. C96, 054908 (2017), arXiv:1704.01507 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Y. Guo, J. Liao, E. Wang, H. Xing, and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. C104, L041902 (2021), arXiv:2105.13481 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Sun and C

    Y. Sun and C. M. Ko, Phys. Rev. C96, 024906 (2017), arXiv:1706.09467 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  21. [21]

    Becattini, M

    F. Becattini, M. Buzzegoli, T. Niida, S. Pu, A.-H. Tang, and Q. Wang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430006 (2024), arXiv:2402.04540 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    M. S. Abdallahet al.(STAR), Nature614, 244 (2023), arXiv:2204.02302 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Yang, R.-H

    Y.-G. Yang, R.-H. Fang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. C97, 034917 (2018), arXiv:1711.06008 [nucl- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 101, 096005 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 105, 099903 (2022)], arXiv:1910.13684 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Sheng, L

    X.-L. Sheng, L. Oliva, Z.-T. Liang, Q. Wang, and X.-N. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 042304 (2023), arXiv:2205.15689 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Sheng, S

    X.-L. Sheng, S. Pu, and Q. Wang, Phys. Rev. C108, 054902 (2023), arXiv:2308.14038 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Chen, Z.-T

    J.-H. Chen, Z.-T. Liang, Y.-G. Ma, X.-L. Sheng, and Q. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, 211001 (2025), arXiv:2407.06480 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 231 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  29. [29]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 505 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9803131

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  30. [30]

    Witten, Adv

    E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.2, 253 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  31. [31]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept.323, 183 (2000), arXiv:hep- th/9905111

    arXiv 2000

  32. [32]

    Karch and E

    A. Karch and E. Katz, JHEP06, 043 (2002), arXiv:hep- th/0205236

    arXiv 2002

  33. [33]

    Sakai and S

    T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys.113, 843 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0412141

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  34. [34]

    Sakai and S

    T. Sakai and S. Sugimoto, Prog. Theor. Phys.114, 1083 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0507073

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  35. [35]

    Karch, E

    A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. D74, 015005 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602229

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  36. [36]

    Gherghetta, J

    T. Gherghetta, J. I. Kapusta, and T. M. Kelley, Phys. Rev. D79, 076003 (2009), arXiv:0902.1998 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  37. [37]

    Fujita, K

    M. Fujita, K. Fukushima, T. Misumi, and M. Murata, Phys. Rev. D80, 035001 (2009), arXiv:0903.2316 [hep- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  38. [38]

    L. A. H. Mamani, A. S. Miranda, H. Boschi-Filho, and N. R. F. Braga, JHEP2014, 1 (2014), arXiv:1312.3815 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  39. [39]

    N. R. F. Braga, L. F. Ferreira, and A. Vega, Phys. Lett. B774, 476 (2017), arXiv:1709.05326 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Erlich, E

    J. Erlich, E. Katz, D. T. Son, and M. A. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 261602 (2005), arXiv:hep- ph/0501128

    arXiv 2005

  41. [41]

    C. P. Herzog, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 091601 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0608151

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  42. [42]

    Andreev, Phys

    O. Andreev, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 212001 (2009), arXiv:0903.4375 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [43]

    Andreev and V

    O. Andreev and V. I. Zakharov, JHEP04, 100 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611304

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  44. [44]

    N. R. F. Braga, L. F. Faulhaber, and O. C. Junqueira, Phys. Rev. D105, 106003 (2022), arXiv:2201.05581 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    X. Chen, L. Zhang, D. Li, D. Hou, and M. Huang, JHEP 07, 132 (2021), arXiv:2010.14478 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Wang and S.-Q

    J.-H. Wang and S.-Q. Feng, Phys. Rev. D109, 066019 (2024), arXiv:2403.01814 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Y.-Q. Zhao, S. He, D. Hou, L. Li, and Z. Li, JHEP04, 115 (2023), arXiv:2212.14662 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    J.-X. Chen, S. Wang, D. Hou, and H.-C. Ren, Phys. Rev. D111, 026020 (2025), arXiv:2410.04763 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    S.-J. Rey, S. Theisen, and J.-T. Yee, Nucl. Phys. B527, 171 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9803135

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  50. [50]

    Brandhuber, N

    A. Brandhuber, N. Itzhaki, J. Sonnenschein, and S. Yankielowicz, Phys. Lett. B434, 36 (1998), arXiv:hep- th/9803137

    arXiv 1998

  51. [51]

    Rougemont, R

    R. Rougemont, R. Critelli, and J. Noronha, Phys. Rev. D91, 066001 (2015), arXiv:1409.0556 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  52. [52]

    Zhang, D.-f

    Z.-q. Zhang, D.-f. Hou, and G. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. A 52, 357 (2016), arXiv:1607.03985 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  53. [53]

    Chen and D.-F

    J.-X. Chen and D.-F. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 447 (2024), arXiv:2202.00888 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    H. Liu, K. Rajagopal, and U. A. Wiedemann, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 182301 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0605178

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  55. [55]

    C. P. Herzog, A. Karch, P. Kovtun, C. Kozcaz, and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP07, 013 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605158

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  56. [56]

    D. Hou, M. Atashi, K. Bitaghsir Fadafan, and Z.-q. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B817, 136279 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    Chen, D.-F

    J.-X. Chen, D.-F. Hou, and H.-C. Ren, JHEP03, 171 (2024), arXiv:2308.08126 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Zhu, J.-X

    Z.-R. Zhu, J.-X. Chen, X.-M. Liu, and D. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 560 (2022), arXiv:2109.02366 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    D. T. Son and A. O. Starinets, JHEP09, 042 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0205051

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  60. [60]

    Policastro, D

    G. Policastro, D. T. Son, and A. O. Starinets, JHEP09, 043 (2002), arXiv:hep-th/0205052. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  61. [61]

    Kim, J.-P

    Y. Kim, J.-P. Lee, and S. H. Lee, Physical Review D75, 114008 (2007)

    2007

  62. [62]

    M. A. Martin Contreras, A. Vega, and S. Diles, Physical Review D103, 086008 (2021)

    2021

  63. [63]

    Fujita, T

    M. Fujita, T. Kikuchi, K. Fukushima, T. Misumi, and M. Murata, Physical Review D81, 065024 (2010)

    2010

  64. [64]

    Sheng, Y.-Q

    X.-L. Sheng, Y.-Q. Zhao, S.-W. Li, F. Becattini, and D. Hou, Phys. Rev. D110, 056047 (2024), arXiv:2403.07522 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Zhao, X.-L

    Y.-Q. Zhao, X.-L. Sheng, S.-W. Li, and D. Hou, JHEP 08, 070 (2024), arXiv:2403.07468 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    N. R. F. Braga and Y. F. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D108, 094017 (2023), arXiv:2309.11643 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    Zhao and D

    Y.-Q. Zhao and D. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1076 (2023), arXiv:2306.04318 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Z.-R. Zhu, M. Sun, R. Zhou, Z. Ma, and J. Han, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1252 (2024), arXiv:2406.19661 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Wang and S.-Q

    X.-L. Wang and S.-Q. Feng, Phys. Rev. D110, 086018 (2024), arXiv:2407.00627 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Zhao and G

    Z. Zhao and G. Yuan-xing, Chinese Astronomy and As- trophysics7, 201 (1983)

    1983

  71. [71]

    Mashhoon, Physical review letters61, 2639 (1988)

    B. Mashhoon, Physical review letters61, 2639 (1988)

    1988

  72. [72]

    Mashhoon, R

    B. Mashhoon, R. Neutze, M. Hannam, and G. E. Sted- man, Physics Letters A249, 161 (1998)

    1998

  73. [73]

    F. W. Hehl and W.-T. Ni, Physical Review D42, 2045 (1990)

    2045

  74. [74]

    Dataset for

    X.-l. Sheng, J.-X. Chen, D. Hou, and H.-c. Ren, “Dataset for "spectral functions of$j/ψ$meson in rotating ther- mal background from holography",” (2026). Appendix A: Explicit expressions In this appendix, we collect explicit expressions of coefficient matrices appearing in Sec. III. The matricesT1,2,3 in Eq. (21) are given by T1 = ζ 4Q(ζ) L4   −1 0 0 0...

    2026