Non-hermitian phase transitions on a generalized Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole bridge

J. Furtado; Jos\'e A. S. Louren\c{c}o; Ygor Par\'a

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 55 references

Non-hermitian phase transitions on a generalized Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole bridge

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dirac fermions on a wormhole surface undergo PT phase transitions, with exceptional points set by geometry.

desk verdict Plausible extension of the non-Hermitian curved-space wormhole program, but the EP locations rest on an under-specified finite-box spectrum without boundary conditions or coalescence checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17015 v1 pith:TLILX3GE submitted 2025-04-23 gr-qc quant-ph

José A. S. Lourenço , Ygor Pará , J. Furtado This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcquant-ph

keywords non-HermitianphasetransitionsPTsymmetryexceptionalpointsDiracequationincurvedspaceEllis-Bronnikovwormholecatenoidsurfaceimaginarymassgraphenestructures

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 establishes that a single Dirac fermion confined to a generalized Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole surface, with an imaginary mass term $M=i\Gamma$, undergoes PT-symmetric non-Hermitian phase transitions: sequences of exceptional points where energy eigenvalues coalesce and switch between real and complex. The positions of these exceptional points are controlled by the wormhole throat radius $R$, the deformation parameter $n$ that shapes the surface, and the strength $\Gamma$ of the imaginary mass. Using the tetrad formalism and spin connection, the authors reduce the curved-space Dirac equation to a single second-order differential equation and solve it numerically for the lowest positive eigenvalues. If correct, the result links surface curvature to dissipation-like spectral behavior and suggests wormhole-like graphene structures as physical settings for non-Hermitian effects.

What carries the argument

The core machinery is the second-order equation obtained by squaring the Dirac Hamiltonian on the wormhole surface, $$-\$partial_u^{2}$ \Psi + \frac{$u^{{n-1}}$}{f_n}\,\partial_u \Psi - \Upsilon_{n,m}(u,\Gamma)\,\Psi = $E^{2}$\Psi,$$ with $f_n(u)=(u^n+R^n)^{1/n}$ and the effective potential $\Upsilon_{n,m}$ collecting the spin-connection terms, the azimuthal quantum number $m$, and the imaginary mass via a $\Gamma^2$ contribution. This reduction turns the Dirac spectral problem into a one-dimensional eigenvalue problem whose branch crossings are read as exceptional points, allowing the paper to map non-Hermitian phase transitions onto the geometric parameters $R$ and $n$.

What would settle it

Solve Eq. (8) with explicit self-adjoint boundary conditions at the asymptotically flat ends, or on a much larger interval with controlled numerical error, and check whether the exceptional-point locations in $\Gamma$ and $R$ survive; if the crossings shift or disappear, the claimed phase transitions are numerical artifacts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the squared Dirac Hamiltonian on a generalized Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole, with $M=i\Gamma$, produces a spectrum with PT phase transitions: as $\Gamma$, $R$, or $n$ vary, adjacent energy levels coalesce at exceptional points, transitioning from real to complex or purely imaginary values. For the first four positive eigenvalues, the paper finds an isolated exceptional point for the ground state $E_1$ at small $\Gamma$, followed by exceptional points shared pairwise between $E_1$ and $E_2$, $E_2$ and $E_3$, and $E_3$ and $E_4$. The locations of these points shift with $R$ and $\Gamma$, and the deformation parameter $n$ moves them so that, for large $n$, the exceptional points of different levels cluster at nearly the same value. The paper takes these numerical coalescences as evidence that the wormhole's geometry acts as a tunable control on non-Hermitian spectral transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical spectrum is computed on the finite interval $u\in[-100,100]$ without stated boundary conditions or convergence checks, so the reported eigenvalue coalescences could be truncation artifacts if the true infinite-line spectrum has different self-adjoint boundary conditions or continuum contamination.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The wormhole radius $R$ and deformation parameter $n$ act as geometric knobs that tune where exceptional points appear in the spectrum.
Increasing the imaginary mass $\Gamma$ shifts the exceptional points and reorganizes how they are shared between adjacent eigenvalue pairs.
For large $n$, exceptional points of different eigenvalues cluster at nearly the same parameter values, a regime where the wormhole geometry approaches a locally flat cylindrical shape.
The loss-like approach of the real part of the ground-state energy toward zero mirrors dissipative dynamics, linking wormhole geometry to open-quantum-system behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

If the spectrum is stable under proper boundary conditions, the same exceptional-point structure should appear for other azimuthal quantum numbers $m$; the paper fixes $m=1/2$, so testing other values would extend the claim.
The large-$n$ clustering of exceptional points suggests a geometric limit in which the wormhole behaves like a locally flat cylinder; deriving the effective Hamiltonian in that limit could reveal why the coalescences coincide.
A direct experimental test could use a graphene wormhole-like structure with engineered gain and loss; observing the ground-state energy's real part dip toward zero as $\Gamma$ is tuned would support the mechanism, provided Klein-tunneling confinement issues are solved.
The paper analyzes the squared Hamiltonian $H_D^2$; genuine branch-point coalescences should also appear as level crossings in the first-order coupled formulation, a check the paper does not report.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper is a straightforward extension of the authors' earlier work on non-Hermitian Dirac fermions on curved surfaces to the generalized Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole with deformation parameter n. The genuinely new piece is the n-dependence of the exceptional points, and I don't see that result in the cited literature. The derivation itself is clean: tetrads, spin connection, reduction to the second-order equation (8), and the geometric discussion of n=2,4,6 is well presented. They also deserve credit for stating the experimental difficulties plainly, including Klein tunneling.

The soft spot is the numerical spectral problem, and it is load-bearing. The paper fixes m=1/2 even though the ansatz states m∈Z, gives no boundary conditions at u=±100, and offers no convergence checks. That would be a minor omission in a confining potential, but this operator is not confining: as |u|→∞, Eq. (8) tends to -∂_u^2 - Γ^2, so the continuum threshold for E^2 is at -Γ^2 (or 0 for Γ=0). The plotted E^2 values sit at or above that threshold, which means the 'eigenvalues' may be discretized continuum states from the box. If that's the case, the crossings in Figs. 4-6 are box artifacts rather than true exceptional points. The paper identifies EPs only from eigenvalue intersections; it never checks eigenvector coalescence or a Jordan-block structure, which is the definition of an exceptional point.

I think the stress-test note holds up. The reader's CONDITIONAL verdict is right. None of this is fatal in principle: state the boundary conditions, run an L-convergence study, test for coalescence, and fix the m inconsistency. The central mechanism — an imaginary mass driving PT transitions on a wormhole — is plausible and consistent with the group's earlier results.

The paper will interest people working on non-Hermitian physics in curved space and graphene wormhole analogs. It is not a field-opener, but it is a legitimate step in that niche. My own verdict would be conditional, not reject. I'd send it to a serious referee; the issues are concrete and fixable.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a single fermion on a generalized Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole surface with imaginary Dirac mass M=iGamma. Starting from the tetrad and spin-connection formulation, the authors derive a second-order differential equation (Eq. (8)) for the squared Dirac Hamiltonian and solve it numerically for the low-lying eigenvalues. They report PT-symmetric non-Hermitian phase transitions, with exceptional points appearing as functions of Gamma, wormhole radius R, and deformation parameter n (Figs. 4-6). The central claim is that the wormhole geometry controls the locations and pairwise sharing of exceptional points.

Significance. If the numerical spectra are correct, this is a useful extension of non-Hermitian and PT-symmetric physics to curved Dirac systems, connecting wormhole geometry with exceptional-point engineering. The paper has clear strengths: the tetrad formalism is standard, the model is explicitly defined, and the central result is obtained by solving a stated differential equation rather than by fitting parameters to external data. The present assessment is therefore not one of circularity. However, the central claim depends on the numerical treatment of a non-self-adjoint spectral problem on a non-compact domain; the missing boundary-condition and convergence analysis, together with the absence of eigenvector-level tests for exceptional points, currently leave the claim unverified. The topic is of interest to the gr-qc and condensed-matter analogue-gravity communities.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Eq. (8)] The numerical eigenvalue problem on u in [-100,100] is not fully specified: no boundary conditions are stated at u=+/-100, and no convergence checks with respect to box size or grid spacing are reported. This matters because Eq. (8) is a non-self-adjoint second-order equation on a non-compact interval, and the asymptotic form of H_D^2 is -d_u^2 - Gamma^2 + O(u^{-2}); the continuum threshold is therefore at -Gamma^2 (and at 0 for Gamma=0). For Gamma=0 the plotted E^2 values lie at or above threshold, so the computed levels may be discretized continuum states rather than discrete wormhole levels. The authors should specify the boundary conditions used, demonstrate convergence of the low-lying eigenvalues as the box size tends to infinity, and show that the crossings in Figs. 4-6 persist in that limit.
[Section III, Figs. 4-6] Exceptional points are identified exclusively from crossings of eigenvalue curves. This is insufficient for a non-Hermitian operator: a true EP requires coalescence of two eigenvalues and their eigenvectors (a Jordan-block degeneracy), whereas an avoided crossing or a crossing of discretized continuum levels can produce the same pattern in Re(E) or Re(E^2) plots. The authors should test for coalescence directly, for example by monitoring the overlap of the two eigenvectors, by evaluating the discriminant of the characteristic polynomial in the two-state subspace, or by checking the condition number of the eigenvalue problem near the candidate parameter values.
[Section III, Eqs. (5)-(9)] There is an unresolved inconsistency in the azimuthal quantum number: Eq. (5) states m in Z, but Section III fixes m=1/2 for all runs. This is not a harmless typo because the eigenvalue equation depends explicitly on m through Eqs. (7) and (9), and the admissible values of m are set by the boundary conditions in phi, which for a spinor on a wormhole may be periodic or anti-periodic. The authors must state the actual value of m used and justify it; if half-integer values are intended, Eq. (5) should be corrected, and the effect of this choice on the reported exceptional points should be discussed.

minor comments (3)

[Section II, after Eq. (4)] The symbol R is used both for the wormhole radius and for the Ricci scalar; the sentence 'separated by a cylindrical region (R = 0) around u = 0' is ambiguous because R is also the radius parameter. Please use distinct notation, such as calligraphic R for the curvature.
[Section III, Figs. 4-6] The figures and captions do not consistently state whether the plotted quantity is E or E^2. The text sometimes refers to 'eigenvalue E^2' and sometimes to 'the real part of the energy'; please clarify the vertical axes and the relation between the computed E^2 and the E shown in the figures.
[Fig. 5] The caption of Fig. 5 does not identify which line color corresponds to n=2, n=4, and n=6; the colors are mentioned only in the body text. Please add a legend or explicitly state the correspondence in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the spectrum is computed from the explicitly stated second-order equation (8)-(9); self-citations are contextual only.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a numerical eigenvalue computation for the Dirac equation on the generalized Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole geometry. The eigenvalue equation (8), with the effective potential (9), is obtained algebraically from the squared Dirac Hamiltonian built in Eqs. (5)-(7); no parameter is fitted to the reported exceptional-point locations, and the quantities R, n, m, and Gamma are independent inputs while the energies are outputs of the numerical solver. Ref. [11] is cited only to justify the choice of numerical domain u in [-100,100], and Ref. [45] is cited only as 'consistent with previous studies' after the crossings have already been computed; neither citation supplies the spectrum, the coalescence pattern, or the EP positions. The skeptical concerns about unspecified boundary conditions, possible discretized continuum states, and truncation artifacts are substantive numerical-validity risks, but they are not circularity: they do not show that any claimed output reduces to an input by construction. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate finding is a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The model inputs are the GEB geometry (R, n), the imaginary mass Gamma, and the quantum number m; none are fitted to external data. The main unstated burden is the numerical treatment of the noncompact domain and the PT-symmetry assumption.

free parameters (1)

m (azimuthal quantum number) = 1/2
All numerical runs fix m=1/2, but Section II states m is an integer. No justification is given for a half-integer value, making it an ad hoc choice.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Dirac equation with tetrad and spin connection is the correct single-particle description for a fermion confined to the wormhole surface.
Used in Section II, Eq. (1). Assumes a single-particle relativistic fermion on a curved 2D surface, with no second quantization or interactions.
domain assumption The replacement M to iΓ produces a PT-symmetric non-Hermitian Hamiltonian whose spectral transitions are physically meaningful.
Section II states an analogy to Lindblad dissipation, but PT symmetry of H_D is never explicitly proven.
ad hoc to paper Truncating u to [-100,100] without stated boundary conditions yields a discrete spectrum approximating the infinite wormhole.
Section III fixes u=[-100,100]; no boundary conditions are given, so the eigenvalue problem is not fully specified.
domain assumption Solving the squared Hamiltonian H_D^2 preserves the phase-transition structure of H_D.
Section II solves Eq. (8) for E^2 and takes positive square roots. Squaring can introduce spurious degeneracies and can obscure Jordan-block structure at exceptional points.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-hermitian phase transitions on a generalized Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole bridge." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TLILX3GE

@misc{pith2026250417015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-hermitian phase transitions on a generalized Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole bridge},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TLILX3GE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17015}
}

read the original abstract

In this paper, we investigate the emergence of non-Hermitian phase transitions on a quantum wormhole surface. We consider a single fermion whose dynamics are governed by the Dirac equation confined to move on a quantum wormhole surface. The effects of the geometry are taken into account using the tetrad formalism and the spin connection. The Dirac equation gives rise to two coupled first-order differential equations for each spinor component. The eigenvalues and eigenfunctions for each spinor component are computed numerically, and the non-Hermitian phase transitions are investigated in terms of the geometric features of the wormhole and the magnitude of the imaginary component of the mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17015 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Curvature for the Generalized Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Effect of curvature for three values of the deforming pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: First four positive eigenvalues for R = 1 and n = 2. Real (Re) and imaginary (Im) components of the eigenvalues E1, E2, E3, and E4, as functions of Γ. The confined oscillations of the curves highlight the formation of exceptional points (EPs) at intersections, where ei…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: a) Γ = 0.1, b) Γ = 0.7 and c) Γ = 4. spatially confined region. The collision of two eigenvalues generates an infinite sequence of exceptional points (EPs), which, as previously noted, emerge from the intersection of their corresponding trajectories. Initially, an eige…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: First four positive eigenvalues of E with variation of R for n = 2. a) Γ = 0.10, b) Γ = 0.70 and c) Γ = 4. to the curvature parameter R, dependent on the deformation parameter n, when n increases the exceptional points tend to the same value (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figu…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

J. E. Gomes Silva, J. Furtado, and A. C. A. Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. B 93, 225 (2020), arXiv:2006.12359 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[3]

R. C. T. da Costa, Phys. Rev. A 23, 1982 (1981)

1981
[4]

R. C. T. da Costa, Phys. Rev. A 25, 2893 (1982)

work page 1982
[5]

M. I. Katsnelson, Graphene: Carbon in Two Dimensions (Cam- bridge University Press, 2012)

work page 2012
[6]

A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Materials 6, 183 (2007)

2007
[7]

A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009), arXiv:0709.1163 [cond-mat.other]

arXiv 2009
[8]

Carvalho, M

A. Carvalho, M. Wang, X. Zhu, A. S. Rodin, H. Su, and A. H. Castro Neto, Nat Rev Mater 1, 1 (2016)

work page 2016
[9]

R. N. Costa Filho, S. Oliveira, V . Aguiar, and D. da Costa, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 129, 114639 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 55 references

[10]

Aguiar, S

V . Aguiar, S. M. Cunha, D. R. da Costa, and R. N. C. Filho, Phys. Rev. B 102, 235404 (2020)

2020
[11]

T. F. de Souza, A. C. A. Ramos, R. N. Costa Filho, and J. Fur- tado, Phys. Rev. B 106, 165426 (2022)

2022
[12]

Alencar, V

G. Alencar, V . Bezerra, and C. Muniz, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1 (2021)

2021
[13]

Iorio, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics D 24, 1530013 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1142/S021827181530013X

A. Iorio, International Journal of Mod- ern Physics D 24, 1530013 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1142/S021827181530013X

2015 doi
[14]

Iorio, Annals of Physics 326, 1334 (2011)

A. Iorio, Annals of Physics 326, 1334 (2011)

2011
[15]

Capozziello, R

S. Capozziello, R. Pincak, and E. Bartos, Symmetry 12, 10.3390/sym12050774 (2020)

2020 doi
[16]

Cveti ˇc and G

M. Cveti ˇc and G. Gibbons, Annals of Physics327, 2617 (2012)

2012
[17]

Pourhassan, M

B. Pourhassan, M. Faizal, and S. A. Ketabi, Interna- tional Journal of Modern Physics D 27, 1850118 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271818501183

2018 doi
[18]

Ye¸ silta¸ s and J

O. Ye¸ silta¸ s and J. Furtado, International Journal of Modern Physics A 37, 2250073 (2022)

2022
[19]

B. R. Goldsmith, J. G. Coroneus, V . R. Khalap, A. A. Kane, G. A. Weiss, and P. G. Collins, Science 315, 77 (2007), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1135303

2007 doi
[20]

Mannik, B

J. Mannik, B. R. Goldsmith, A. Kane, and P. G. Collins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 016601 (2006)

2006
[21]

Dandoloff, A

R. Dandoloff, A. Saxena, and B. Jensen, Phys. Rev. A 81, 014102 (2010)

2010
[22]

González and J

J. González and J. Herrero, Nuclear Physics B 825, 426 (2010)

2010
[23]

Pincak and J

R. Pincak and J. Smotlacha, Quantum Matter 5, 107–117 (2016)

2016
[24]

Dandoloff, Physics Letters A 373, 2667 (2009)

R. Dandoloff, Physics Letters A 373, 2667 (2009)

2009
[25]

Silva, J

J. Silva, J. Furtado, T. Santiago, A. C. Ramos, and D. da Costa, Physics Letters A 384, 126458 (2020)

2020
[27]

C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5243 (1998)

1998
[28]

C. M. Bender, Reports on Progress in Physics 70, 947 (2007)

2007
[29]

Rotter, J

I. Rotter, J. Phys. A: Math. and Theor. 42, 153001 (2009)

2009
[30]

W. D. Heiss, J. Phys. A: Math. and Theor. 45, 444016 (2012)

2012
[31]

Wei and L

B.-B. Wei and L. Jin, Scientific Reports 7, 2045 (2017)

2017
[32]

J. A. S. Lourenço, R. L. Eneias, and R. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. B 98, 085126 (2018)

2018
[33]

J. A. S. Lourenço, G. Higgins, C. Zhang, M. Hennrich, and T. Macrì, Phys. Rev. A106, 023309 (2022)

2022
[34]

Zhou and W

L. Zhou and W. Han, Phys. Rev. B 106, 054307 (2022)

2022
[35]

K. Ding, G. Ma, M. Xiao, Z. Q. Zhang, and C. T. Chan, Phys. Rev. X 6, 021007 (2016)

2016
[36]

Chakrabarty, A

D. Chakrabarty, A. Dhara, P. Das, K. Ghosh, A. R. Chaudhuri, and S. Dhara, arXiv:2305.17472 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[37]

X. Wu, K. Bai, P. Yu, Z. Dong, Y . He, J. Ma, V . V . Yakovlev, M. Xiao, X. Chen, and L. Yuan, arXiv:2407.03591 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[38]

Furtado, Physics Letters A 483, 129065 (2023)

J. Furtado, Physics Letters A 483, 129065 (2023)

2023
[39]

Iorio and G

A. Iorio and G. Lambiase, Phys. Rev. D 90, 025006 (2014)

2014
[40]

Iorio and G

A. Iorio and G. Lambiase, Physics Letters B 716, 334 (2012)

2012
[41]

J. E. G. Silva, J. Furtado, and A. C. A. Ramos, The European Physical Journal B 94, 127 (2021)

2021
[42]

S. Yao, F. Song, and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 136802 (2018)

2018
[43]

Ge, Y .-R

Z.-Y . Ge, Y .-R. Zhang, T. Liu, S.-W. Li, H. Fan, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B 100, 054105 (2019)

2019
[44]

Y . Pará, G. Palumbo, and T. Macrì, Phys. Rev. B 103, 155417 (2021). 7

2021
[45]

J. A. S. Lourenço, Y . Pará, and J. Furtado, Phys. Rev. B 110, 205420 (2024)

2024
[46]

D. Lehr, R. Alaee, R. Filter, K. Dietrich, T. Siefke, C. Rock- stuhl, F. Lederer, E.-B. Kley, and A. Tünnermann, Applied Physics Letters 105, 143110 (2014)

2014
[47]

Y . Chan, B. J. Cox, and J. M. Hill, Physica B: Condensed Matter 407, 3479 (2012)

2012
[48]

Klein, Zeitschrift für Physik 53, 157 (1929)

O. Klein, Zeitschrift für Physik 53, 157 (1929)

1929
[49]

Gutiérrez, L

C. Gutiérrez, L. Brown, C.-J. Kim, J. Park, and A. N. Pasupathy, Nature Physics 12, 1069 (2016)

2016
[50]

Du, M.-H

R. Du, M.-H. Liu, J. Mohrmann, F. Wu, R. Krupke, H. von Löhneysen, K. Richter, and R. Danneau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 127706 (2018)

2018
[51]

Zhang, Y

Z. Zhang, Y . Feng, F. Li, S. Koniakhin, C. Li, F. Liu, Y . Zhang, M. Xiao, G. Malpuech, and D. Solnyshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 233901 (2022)

2022
[52]

J. Li, A. K. Harter, J. Liu, L. de Melo, Y . N. Joglekar, and L. Luo, Nature Commun. 10, 855 (2019), arXiv:1608.05061 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

2019 arXiv
[53]

Y . Wu, W. Liu, J. Geng, X. Song, X. Ye, C.-K. Duan, X. Rong, and J. Du, Science 364, 878 (2019), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aaw8205

2019 doi
[54]

Scheel and A

S. Scheel and A. Szameit, Europhysics Letters 122, 34001 (2018)

2018
[55]

A. Guo, G. J. Salamo, D. Duchesne, R. Morandotti, M. V olatier- Ravat, V . Aimez, G. A. Siviloglou, and D. N. Christodoulides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 093902 (2009)

2009
[56]

B. Peng, S. K. Ozdemir, S. Rotter, H. Yil- maz, M. Liertzer, F. Monifi, C. M. Bender, F. Nori, and L. Yang, Science 346, 328 (2014), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1258004

2014 doi
[57]

Xiao, L., Z

Z. Xiao, L., Z. X., Bian, and et al., Nature Phys 13, 1117–1123 (2017) 122, 34001 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J. E. Gomes Silva, J. Furtado, and A. C. A. Ramos, Eur. Phys. J. B 93, 225 (2020), arXiv:2006.12359 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[2] [3]

R. C. T. da Costa, Phys. Rev. A 23, 1982 (1981)

1981

[3] [4]

R. C. T. da Costa, Phys. Rev. A 25, 2893 (1982)

work page 1982

[4] [5]

M. I. Katsnelson, Graphene: Carbon in Two Dimensions (Cam- bridge University Press, 2012)

work page 2012

[5] [6]

A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Materials 6, 183 (2007)

2007

[6] [7]

A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009), arXiv:0709.1163 [cond-mat.other]

arXiv 2009

[7] [8]

Carvalho, M

A. Carvalho, M. Wang, X. Zhu, A. S. Rodin, H. Su, and A. H. Castro Neto, Nat Rev Mater 1, 1 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [9]

R. N. Costa Filho, S. Oliveira, V . Aguiar, and D. da Costa, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 129, 114639 (2021)

work page 2021