Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Particle-Vortex Duality of Hydrodynamics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Particle-vortex duality extends to classical hydrodynamics of 2d bosons.

desk verdict This paper seriously extends particle-vortex duality to Lindbladian hydrodynamics with transparent Keldysh math, but the duality is posited at the hydrodynamic level rather than derived from an operator map, and the appendix concedes a finite-length-scale caveat for exact 1-form SW-SSB. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02732 v1 pith:THTHSE6X submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.str-el quant-ph

Cenke Xu , Matthew P. A. Fisher This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elquant-ph
keywords particle-vortexdualityhydrodynamicsstrong-to-weakspontaneoussymmetrybreakingmodel-Fdynamicsmodel-A1-formLindbladianmagnetohydrodynamics
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 aims to show that the classical equations of hydrodynamics for a two-dimensional boson/rotor system are not tied to one description: the same diffusion and Goldstone modes can be derived either from the original charge symmetry $U(1)_c$ or from the dual vortex description with vortex-number symmetry $U(1)_v$ and an emergent electric 1-form symmetry $U(1)_e^{(1)}$. The central claim is that model-F dynamics (charge diffusion plus a propagating mode) arising from strong-to-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking (SW-SSB) is dual to model-A dynamics (pure relaxation) arising from weak-to-trivial spontaneous symmetry breaking (WT-SSB) of the dual symmetry, and vice versa. If this is right, particle-vortex duality—previously an equilibrium tool—applies to open quantum systems and their emergent hydrodynamics, and it gives a direct bridge between ordinary matter hydrodynamics and magnetohydrodynamics.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the particle-vortex duality map between rotor variables (phase $\phi_i$ and number $n_i$) and dual vortex variables ($\theta_i$, $N_i$) coupled to a noncompact gauge field $A_\ell$ with electric field $E_\ell$, together with the SW-SSB/WT-SSB classification of mixed-state symmetries. The argument runs through Keldysh path integrals for Lindblad dynamics: on the rotor side, SW-SSB makes the quantum phase field $\tilde{\phi}$ a spin-wave variable and turns discrete charge into a continuous hydrodynamic density; on the vortex side, the same condensation of the dual phase field makes the magnetic flux the hydrodynamic variable. The named identity is the duality statement in Section IV that 0-form SW-SSB with model-F dynamics is dual to 1-form WT-SSB with model-A dynamics, and vice versa.

What would settle it

Simulate the rotor Lindbladian and the dual vortex Lindbladian at finite time and compare the two-point correlations of charge density with those of magnetic flux and of the phase gradient with the dual electric field; if the vortex side does not reproduce the rotor diffusion constant and the damped Goldstone mode with the same transport coefficients, the duality is falsified. A cleaner check is to derive the dual Lindblad jump operators (Eqs. 36–44) from an explicit operator-level particle-vortex transformation of the rotor jumps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the rotor side, a Lindbladian with strong $U(1)_c$ symmetry has three phases—Mott insulator, normal fluid with charge diffusion, and superfluid with a damped Goldstone mode. The paper claims that each phase maps under particle-vortex duality to a phase of a dual vortex/gauge-field theory: the normal fluid is the SW-SSB phase of $U(1)_v$ (condensation of the dual phase field), whose only hydrodynamic variable is the diffusing magnetic flux $B$; the superfluid is the ST-SSB phase of the emergent $U(1)_e^{(1)}$, whose Goldstone mode is a damped photon. The matching is summarized as: model-F/model-A dynamics from SW-SSB/WT-SSB of $U(1)_c$ is dual to model-A/model-F dynamics from WT-SSB/SW-SSB of $U(1)_e^{(1)}$, respectively. The same equivalence is verified in the appendix for a lattice gauge theory with an exact 1-form symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the vortex-side jump operators are exact particle-vortex duals of the rotor jump operators—especially that the rotor normal fluid is the state where the dual vortex phase field condenses; if that mapping fails, the matched hydrodynamic modes are coincidental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Charge-density diffusion in the rotor normal fluid is the same physics as magnetic-flux diffusion in the dual gauge theory, which is a core ingredient of magnetohydrodynamics.
  • The superfluid Goldstone mode is the dual photon mode of the emergent electric 1-form symmetry, so the same weakly damped propagating mode appears on both sides of the duality.
  • The phase diagrams in terms of $U(1)_c$, $U(1)_v$, and $U(1)_e^{(1)}$ coincide, meaning the same classical hydrodynamics can be described from either side.
  • The general pattern extends to other spatial dimensions: model-F hydrodynamics of an $n$-form symmetry is dual to model-A hydrodynamics of a $(d-n-1)$-form symmetry in $d$ spatial dimensions, including self-dual cases in 1d and 3d.
  • Adding weak-symmetry jumps switches model-F to model-A on both sides, so the duality persists after the strong symmetry is explicitly broken.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the operator-level duality can be made exact, the same vortex/gauge-field mapping should apply to any Lindbladian with a $U(1)$ charge symmetry, not just the rotor model treated here.
  • The appendix admits that exact 1-form SW-SSB holds only within a finite length scale, which suggests the model-F/model-A duality is an infrared statement that may receive corrections at finite sizes or times.
  • The explicit connection to magnetohydrodynamics suggests testable signatures in cold-atom or trapped-ion simulators where decoherence strength can be tuned and Rényi correlators measured.
  • The paper hints at extending the duality to Navier-Stokes; a concrete next step would be to construct a dual description of momentum conservation and check whether viscosity maps across the duality.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a particle-vortex duality for 2d boson/rotor systems under Lindbladian decoherence, aiming to show that the classical hydrodynamics of the rotor model (model-F and model-A dynamics of U(1)_c) is equivalently described by the dual vortex theory and an emergent electric 1-form symmetry U(1)_e^(1). Section II derives the Keldysh action and Langevin equations for the rotor model with strong and weak symmetries. Section III introduces dual gauge variables, posits dual Lindblad jump operators, derives the corresponding hydrodynamic equations, and presents a phase table matching rotor and dual phases. Appendix A analyzes a compact U(1) gauge theory with exact 1-form symmetry and claims support for the main duality. The central assertion, stated in Sec. IV, is that model-F/model-A dynamics of U(1)_c is dual to model-A/model-F dynamics of U(1)_e^(1), respectively.

Significance. If the claimed duality were established at the level of Lindbladian dynamics, it would be a substantial advance: it would extend particle-vortex duality beyond equilibrium, unify charge diffusion and magnetohydrodynamics, and give a symmetry-based classification of hydrodynamic phases in open systems. The paper contains useful internal derivations: the Keldysh-to-Langevin steps in Secs. II and III are coherent, the phase tables are explicit, and the appendix treats a related gauge theory with exact 1-form symmetry. However, the central equivalence is not proven: the dual Lindblad operators and the phase identification are posited rather than derived, so the present manuscript supports a hydrodynamic-level correspondence, not yet a proven duality of open quantum dynamics.

major comments (4)
  1. [Secs. III A and IV, Eqs. (36)-(44) and Eq. (46)] The dual Lindbladian is posited, not derived, from the rotor Lindbladian Eq. (11). The paper does not provide an operator-level duality transformation that maps the rotor jump operators Eqs. (7), (9), and (23) to the dual jumps Eqs. (36), (40), (43), and (66). Since Sec. IV claims a duality of the quantum Lindbladian dynamics, not merely a coincidence of classical hydrodynamic limits, the matching of diffusion constants and mode structures in Eqs. (17)/(61) and (27)/(70) cannot by itself establish the equivalence. This is a load-bearing gap and should be addressed either by supplying the transformation or by explicitly reframing the claim as a hydrodynamic-level correspondence.
  2. [Sec. III A 2, Eq. (35)] The dual free energy F[N,A,E] in Eq. (35) is chosen "for generality" rather than obtained as the dual transform of the rotor free energy Eq. (2). The identifications n ~ B and E_T ~ grad phi are used to match hydrodynamic variables, and the identification of the rotor normal fluid (SW-SSB of U(1)_c, Sec. II A 2) with condensation of tilde-theta (SW-SSB of U(1)_v, Sec. III A 2) is asserted rather than derived. This identification is the step that makes the dual theory reproduce the rotor hydrodynamics in dual variables; if it fails, the matching of diffusion equations is coincidental, since any conserved density with conservative noise diffuses. The paper should either derive this mapping or weaken the claim to a correspondence between phase labels.
  3. [Appendix A1, Eqs. (A9)-(A11)] The appendix concedes that for a 2d compact U(1) gauge theory there is no finite-time SW-SSB transition for U(1)_e^(1) in the rigorous infrared limit, and that the polynomial expansion of tilde-B is justified only within a finite length scale xi. This is a significant limitation on the appendix's support for the main text's W*T-SSB statements. The manuscript should state clearly whether the claimed duality is an exact infrared duality or only a finite-scale approximate correspondence, and it should adjust the wording of Sec. IV accordingly.
  4. [Sec. III A, Eq. (28) and text after Eq. (30)] The vortex-number symmetry U(1)_v is introduced as an effective symmetry only when gauge fluctuations are neglected, because the phase rotation of theta is part of the gauge redundancy. Nevertheless, Table I and Sec. III A 2 assign SW-SSB and ST-SSB of U(1)_v as phase labels of the Lindbladian dynamics. The paper should specify the precise sense in which U(1)_v is a symmetry of the full Lindbladian and whether its spontaneous breaking is well-defined in the gauge-fixed theory; otherwise the U(1)_v column of Table I is not a statement about the open quantum dynamics.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are typographical issues such as "2dboson/rotor" and "1d and 3d" missing spaces; these should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (35) and Sec. III A 1] The symbol J is used both for the B^2 coefficient in Eq. (35) and for the phase stiffness J_R in Eq. (18); this notational clash should be resolved for clarity.
  3. [Table I and Table II] The notations "W*T-SSB", "S*T-SSB", and "weakly*-symmetric" are used without a definition in the main text; the asterisk denoting emergent symmetry should be defined before first use.
  4. [Sec. IV] The sentence "in d-dim space" is awkward; please rewrite for precision.
  5. [Appendix A1] The phrasing "there likely will not be" and "we can still discuss the possibility" is hedged; given that the appendix is used to support the main claim, the precise status of the SW-SSB expansion should be stated more rigorously.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The dual Lindblad generator is posited rather than derived, so the matched hydrodynamic modes are consequences of the dual construction; equilibrium duality input keeps the paper from being fully vacuous.

  1. self definitional [Sec. III, Eq. (35) and Eqs. (36)-(44)]
    "The targeted free energy is taken to be F[N,A,E]=K/2 Σℓ Eℓ² + K_v/2 Σi N_i² + J/2 Σp B_p². For generality, we have chosen a different convention of parameters in Eq. 35, from the literal dual of the free energy of the superfluid phase Eq. 18... The gauge-invariant vortex hopping jump operator is taken to be... The link-A jump... The closed-loop electric-field jump is..."

    The dual free energy (35) and all three dual jump operators (36)-(44) are not derived from the rotor Lindblad generator (11) by applying an operator-level particle-vortex map; they are written down directly with the same detailed-balance structure as the rotor jumps. The dual hydrodynamic equations that later appear as the paper's results—B diffusion (61), the photon mode (57), and the model-A relaxation (68)—follow algebraically from exactly these posited operators. Thus the claimed correspondence between rotor model-F/model-A modes and dual model-A/model-F modes is effectively inserted at the level of the dual Lindbladian; the later 'derivation' of matching equations of motion is a restatement of the construction rather than an independent test of duality.

  2. other [Sec. III A 2, normal-fluid paragraph]
    "Under particle-vortex duality, n∼B, and ẑ×∇ϕ↔E_T, so the dual statement is that B remains hydrodynamic, while E_T is not hydrodynamic. In the dual formalism, the normal fluid most naturally corresponds to the condensate of ˜θ, i.e. the SW-SSB of U(1)_v, therefore we can perform a polynomial-expansion of ˜Qij."

    This is the load-bearing step of the entire phase mapping. On the rotor side, the normal fluid is initially defined by SW-SSB of U(1)_c (condensation of ˜ϕ). The paper then asserts, rather than derives, that in the dissipative dual description this same phase is the condensate of ˜θ, i.e. SW-SSB of U(1)_v. But that identification is precisely what the paper claims to establish in Sec. IV. Using it as an input to obtain B-diffusion makes the matching hydrodynamic modes a consequence of the assumption. The stated support is the equilibrium particle-vortex duality (Refs. [2,3]); whether that phase correspondence survives in the Lindbladian setting is the open question being argued, so treating it as given is circular in structure.

full rationale

The rotor-side derivation is largely independent: the SW-SSB-to-hydrodynamics step is taken from Ref. [16] (a separate work, even though co-authored), and the equilibrium particle-vortex duality of Refs. [2,3] is an external anchor. The self-citations are therefore not the main problem. The circularity lies in the construction of the dual Lindbladian: the dual free energy and jump operators are chosen to reproduce the rotor hydrodynamics in dual variables, and the phase identifications (especially rotor normal fluid ↔ ˜θ condensate) are imported from equilibrium duality without a dissipative operator-level derivation. The appendix's caveat that exact 1-form SW-SSB holds only within a finite length scale is an honest limitation, but it further weakens the claim that the matching modes are generic. Overall, the paper's central hydrodynamic duality is partially built into its dual construction, warranting a score of 6 rather than full circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivations rest on prior SW-SSB results and on a posited extension of particle-vortex duality to Lindbladians. No parameter fitting to data occurs; model couplings (K, J, gamma's) are inputs. No new particles or forces are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A finite-time SW-SSB transition exists for the 2d rotor under Lindbladian decoherence, after which tilde-phi can be expanded quadratically (Eq. 14).
    This is taken from Ref. [16] (by the same group); the current paper does not rederive it. The hydrodynamic equations in Sec. II depend on this expansion.
  • ad hoc to paper The equilibrium particle-vortex duality extends to Lindbladian dynamics, including the mapping of jump operators and noise fields between the rotor and dual gauge theories.
    The dual Lindbladians in Eqs. (36)-(44) are posited to be the duals of the rotor jumps; no explicit duality transformation of the open system is provided.
  • domain assumption The dual gauge field is non-compact with no monopole operators, so magnetic flux B equals the rotor charge density and is exactly conserved.
    Stated in Sec. III after Eq. (28): 'The gauge field is non-compact, so that there is no monopole in the (2+1)d spacetime.' This is a modeling choice inherited from equilibrium particle-vortex duality.
  • ad hoc to paper In the normal fluid phase, the dual vortex field undergoes SW-SSB (condensation of tilde-theta), identifying the rotor normal fluid with a condensate of dual vortices.
    Sec. III A 2 states that the normal fluid 'most naturally corresponds to the condensate of tilde-theta'. This phase identification is assumed to produce the dual hydrodynamics rather than derived from the rotor dynamics.
  • domain assumption For an exact 1-form symmetry, the SW-SSB of U(1)_e^(1) and the resulting diffusion equations are valid only within a finite length scale xi, not in the strict infrared.
    Appendix A1 concedes that a finite-time SW-SSB transition likely does not exist in the rigorous 2d IR limit; the analysis proceeds under a large but finite gamma_E t.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle-Vortex Duality of Hydrodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/THTHSE6X

@misc{pith2026260802732,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle-Vortex Duality of Hydrodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/THTHSE6X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02732}
}
abstract

Equipped with the recently recognized symmetry structure of mixed states of matter and "strong-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking" (SW-SSB), we develop a quantum particle-vortex duality of emergent model-F and model-A hydrodynamics of 2d boson/rotor systems. This duality relation demonstrates that classical hydrodynamics of 2d bosons can be described in terms of the charge symmetry $U(1)_c$, but also equivalently in terms of the dual (emergent) 1-form symmetry $U(1)^{(1)}_e$, as well as $U(1)_v$ associated with the conservation of vortices. This duality provides a bridge between the hydrodynamics of matter and magnetohydrodynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02732 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The dynamical phase diagram of quantum rotor model with U(1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    We then turn on the Lindbladian dissipative dynamics

    Mott insulator phase At timet= 0 we start in a pure state withn i = 0 on each site - this is a Mott insulator. We then turn on the Lindbladian dissipative dynamics. At early times we stay in a mixed state Mott-insulator, where the charge is locally quantized and the rotor phase is strongly disordered. In the Keldysh language, ˜ϕis not in a Gaussian spin-w...

    work page

  2. [2]

    As was shown in Ref

    Normal fluid phase We next consider the normal fluid phase. As was shown in Ref. [16], for a 2drotor model under decoherence, there is a finite critical timet c beyond which the initial Mott insulator state develops SW-SSB, i.e. the condensation of ˜ϕ (more precisely it is a quasi-long range order ofe i ˜ϕ). Fort > tc in 2d, after the SW-SSB transition, w...

    work page

  3. [3]

    photon mode

    Superfluid phase Finally we consider the superfluid phase, which is the ST-SSB phase of U(1) c. In this phase, both ˜ϕandϕcondense and are amenable to spin-wave expansions. The free energy becomes, F≃ Z d2x K 2 n2 + JR 2 (∇ϕ)2 ,(18) whereJ R is the renormalized phase stiffness. We first assume that there is no Hamiltonian dynamics,H= 0, then Eq. 15 reduce...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Superfluid phase We first discuss the standard superfluid phase of U(1) c. In the dual gauge-field language, the vortices are gapped, and we should not perform a polynomial-expansion of ˜Qij, where ˜Qij = ˜θi − ˜θj − ˜Aij.(53) Equivalently, the vortex densityNis not a hydrodynamic variable. The Gauss-law constraint then ties the non- hydrodynamic longitud...

    work page

  5. [5]

    On the rotor side this is the phase with SW-SSB of U(1) c, but without spontaneous breaking of the weak U(1)c symmetry

    Normal fluid phase We now discuss the normal fluid phase. On the rotor side this is the phase with SW-SSB of U(1) c, but without spontaneous breaking of the weak U(1)c symmetry. Therefore the charge densitynis hydrodynamic, but the phaseϕis not. Under particle-vortex duality,n∼B, and ˆz× ∇ϕ↔E T , so the dual statement is thatBremains hydrodynamic, whileE ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    On the rotor side, this is the phase before SW-SSB of the strong U(1)c symmetry

    Mott insulator phase Finally we briefly discuss the Mott insulator phase. On the rotor side, this is the phase before SW-SSB of the strong U(1)c symmetry. The microscopic discreteness of the charge densitynremains visible, sonshould not yet be treated as a continuous hydrodynamic field. The Mott insulator is the phase where all vortices condense, hence it...

    work page

  7. [7]

    M. E. Peskin, Mandelstam-’t hooft duality in abelian lattice models, Annals of Physics113, 122 (1978)

    work page 1978

  8. [8]

    Dasgupta and B

    C. Dasgupta and B. I. Halperin, Phase transition in a lattice model of superconductivity, Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 1556 (1981)

    1981

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    M. P. A. Fisher and D. H. Lee, Correspondence between two-dimensional bosons and a bulk superconductor in a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B39, 2756 (1989)

    1989

  2. [10]

    C. Wang, A. Nahum, M. A. Metlitski, C. Xu, and T. Senthil, Deconfined quantum critical points: Symmetries and dualities, Phys. Rev. X7, 031051 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Senthil, D

    T. Senthil, D. T. Son, C. Wang, and C. Xu, Duality between (2+1)d quantum critical points, Physics Reports827, 1 (2019), duality between (2+1)d quantum critical points

    2019

  4. [12]

    J. Y. Lee, C.-M. Jian, and C. Xu, Quantum criticality under decoherence or weak measurement, PRX quantum4, 030317 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Ma, J.-H

    R. Ma, J.-H. Zhang, Z. Bi, M. Cheng, and C. Wang, Topological phases with average symmetries: The decohered, the disordered, and the intrinsic, Phys. Rev. X15, 021062 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    D. Gu, Z. Wang, and Z. Wang, Spontaneous symmetry breaking in open quantum systems: Strong, weak, and strong-to- weak, Phys. Rev. B112, 245123 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    L. Chen, N. Sun, and P. Zhang, Strong-to-weak symmetry breaking and entanglement transitions, Physical Review B111, 10.1103/physrevb.111.l060304 (2025)

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    Weinstein, Efficient detection of strong-to-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking via the r´ enyi-1 correlator, Physical Review Letters134, 150405 (2025)

    Z. Weinstein, Efficient detection of strong-to-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking via the r´ enyi-1 correlator, Physical Review Letters134, 150405 (2025). 14

    2025

  9. [17]

    Wang, Strong-to-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking (2026), arXiv:2606.02555 [quant-ph]

    C. Wang, Strong-to-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking (2026), arXiv:2606.02555 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    S. Wang, T. G. Kiely, D. Tell, J. Obermeyer, M. Barendregt, P. Bojovi´ c, P. M. Preiss, A. Sarma, T. Franz, M. P. A. Fisher, C. Xu, and I. Bloch, Observation of strong-to-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking in a dephased fermi gas (2026), arXiv:2604.16137 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Ogunnaike, J

    O. Ogunnaike, J. Feldmeier, and J. Y. Lee, Unifying emergent hydrodynamics and lindbladian low-energy spectra across symmetries, constraints, and long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 220403 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Huang, M

    X. Huang, M. Qi, J.-H. Zhang, and A. Lucas, Hydrodynamics as the effective field theory of strong-to-weak spontaneous symmetry breaking, Physical Review B111, 125147 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    L. Delacr´ etaz, Universality in (slightly) out-of-equilibrium dynamics in correlated matter: Hydrodynamic efts and transport bounds, Lectures for Boulder Summer School (BSS) 2025 (2025), pDF lecture notes, University of Chicago

    2025

  14. [22]

    Hauser, K

    J. Hauser, K. Su, H. Ha, J. Lloyd, T. G. Kiely, R. Vasseur, S. Gopalakrishnan, C. Xu, and M. P. A. Fisher, Strong- to-weak symmetry breaking in open quantum systems: From discrete particles to continuum hydrodynamics (2026), arXiv:2602.16045 [quant-ph]

    2026

  15. [23]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Rev. Mod. Phys.49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  16. [24]

    Gaiotto, A

    D. Gaiotto, A. Kapustin, N. Seiberg, and B. Willett, Generalized global symmetries, Journal of High Energy Physics2015, 10.1007/jhep02(2015)172 (2015)

    2015 doi

  17. [26]

    Grozdanov, D

    S. Grozdanov, D. M. Hofman, and N. Iqbal, Generalized global symmetries and dissipative magnetohydrodynamics, Phys- ical Review D95, 10.1103/physrevd.95.096003 (2017)

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    Hernandez and P

    J. Hernandez and P. Kovtun, Relativistic magnetohydrodynamics, Journal of High Energy Physics2017, 10.1007/jhep05(2017)001 (2017)

    2017 doi

  19. [28]

    Armas, J

    J. Armas, J. Gath, A. Jain, and A. V. Pedersen, Dissipative hydrodynamics with higher-form symmetry, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 10.1007/jhep05(2018)192 (2018)

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    Armas and A

    J. Armas and A. Jain, Magnetohydrodynamics as superfluidity, Physical Review Letters122, 10.1103/phys- revlett.122.141603 (2019)

    2019 doi

  21. [30]

    Armas and A

    J. Armas and A. Jain, One-form superfluids amp; magnetohydrodynamics, Journal of High Energy Physics2020, 10.1007/jhep01(2020)041 (2020)

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    Glorioso and D

    P. Glorioso and D. T. Son, Effective field theory of magnetohydrodynamics from generalized global symmetries (2018), arXiv:1811.04879 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Vardhan, S

    S. Vardhan, S. Grozdanov, S. Leutheusser, and H. Liu, Effective field theories of dissipative fluids with one-form symmetries, Journal of High Energy Physics2025, 10.1007/jhep05(2025)184 (2025)

    2025 doi

  24. [33]

    L. V. Delacr´ etaz, D. M. Hofman, and G. Mathys, Superfluids as higher-form anomalies, SciPost Physics8, 10.21468/sci- postphys.8.3.047 (2020)

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    Cherman and T

    A. Cherman and T. Jacobson, Emergent 1-form symmetries (2024), arXiv:2304.13751 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    prepare” the initial confined phase by evolving the system in the imaginary timet∈(−∞,0) with the “generating

    C. Zhang, Y. Xu, J.-H. Zhang, C. Xu, Z. Bi, and Z.-X. Luo, Strong-to-weak spontaneous breaking of 1-form symmetry and intrinsically mixed topological order, Phys. Rev. B111, 115137 (2025). Appendix A:2dcompactU(1)gauge theory Dynamics Phase U(1)(1) e U(1)c Hydro modes Model-F,...

    2025

  27. [36]

    A9 at any finite time, in the rigorous infrared limit

    SW-SSB ofU(1) (1) e We first clarify that for a compact gauge field in 2d, there likely will not be a finite-time SW-SSB transition for U(1) (1) e , meaning we cannot perform polynomial-expansion of ˜Bin Eq. A9 at any finite time, in the rigorous infrared limit. Mathematically...

  28. [37]

    In this phase the compactness of the gauge fields may be ignored

    ST-SSB ofU(1) (1) e We now consider the phase with ST-SSB of the electric 1-form symmetry (again within certain finite length scale ξ), which is often called the photon phase of the gauge field. In this phase the compactness of the gauge fields may be ignored. Equivalently, mo...

  29. [38]

    The Keldysh term is Sw,1f =γ w Z dt X ℓ 2 cos ˜Aℓ −iβKE ℓ sin ˜Aℓ,(A19) This term depends directly on ˜Aℓ, and physically it creates a dipole of gauge charges

    W eakU(1) (1) e symmetry and its WT-SSB Now we preserve only the weak-U(1) (1) e symmetry by allowing the open-string jumps ˆJ s E,ℓ = √γw exp(is ˆAℓ) exp − β 4 FE[ ˆEℓ +s]−F E[ ˆEℓ] , s=±1,(A18) which effectively hops electric charge from one site to its nearest neighbor. The...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.