Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 42 references

Hawking temperature in dispersive media: Analytical and numerical study

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives closed-form Hawking temperatures for dispersive analog black holes, both sonic and optical.

desk verdict Sonic results are solid and the second-order series is genuinely new; the optical master formula has a frequency mismatch that looks like a typo but needs fixing before the optical tables can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02368 v1 pith:VPMP7WYJ submitted 2019-08-06 gr-qc cond-mat.quant-gasphysics.optics

Alhan Moreno-Ruiz , David Bermudez (Cinvestav , Mexico) This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qccond-mat.quant-gasphysics.optics
keywords analoggravityHawkingradiationtemperaturedispersivemediaopticalfibersBose-EinsteincondensatesKerreffectcontourintegration
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 aims to make the Hawking temperature of analog black holes analytically computable when the medium is dispersive, meaning that wave speed depends on frequency, for both sonic and optical systems. It claims that two contour integrals, one in wavenumber for sound and one in frequency for light, give the effective temperature, and that for power-law velocity profiles these integrals are exactly solvable by Cauchy's residue theorem. The resulting closed-form spectra, given for $z^{\pm 1}$, $z^{\pm 1/2}$, $z^{\pm 1/3}$ and their optical counterparts, are thermal at low frequencies but generally drift from thermality as dispersion grows. Because real experiments in Bose-Einstein condensates and optical fibers cannot ignore dispersion, closed formulas are what allow quantitative predictions of analog Hawking radiation. The paper also gives a second-order approximation, as an infinite series with a stated convergence condition, for profiles such as $\tanh$ and $\operatorname{sech}^2$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the complex-plane map from the conjugate variable to spacetime position: $z(k)$ for sound and $\tau(\omega)$ for light. Around the horizon the Hawking effect connects positive- and negative-norm modes through the poles and branch structure of this map, so the effective temperature is the residue of $1/z(k)$ (or $1/\tau(\omega)$) enclosed by the contour $\Gamma$. The paper evaluates these residues for power-law profiles and normalizes the result by the surface gravity $\alpha$ at the phase horizon, writing $T/T_0$ in terms of the dispersion relations $c(k)=c_0\sqrt{1-k^2/k_0^2}$ and $\beta(\omega)=(\omega/c)\sqrt{1+\omega^2/\omega_0^2}$. The optical formula rests on the claim, made in Section III and Fig. 4, that the complex-plane topology of $\tau(\omega)$ is the same as that of $z(k)$.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate Eq. (23) along a contour that encloses the origin but crosses the assumed branch cuts of $\tau(\omega)$ for the optical dispersion $\beta(\omega)=\frac{\omega}{c}\sqrt{1+\omega^2/\omega_0^2}$; any discontinuous change in the result would falsify the topological-equivalence assumption. As a second check, compare the closed-form Tables III and V with direct numerical integration of Eq. (23) for a growing optical profile such as $\tau^{1/5}$, the case where the paper reports unexpectedly near-thermal behavior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the effective Hawking temperature in a dispersive analog spacetime is fixed by a Cauchy contour integral of the inverse velocity profile: $k_B T = i\hbar\omega / \oint_\Gamma z(k)\,dk$ in the sonic case and $k_B T = i\hbar\omega / \oint_\Gamma \tau(\omega)\,d\omega$ in the optical case. For profiles $u(z)\propto z^{\pm 1/n}$ and $\delta n(\tau)\propto \tau^{\pm 1/n}$, these integrals evaluate in closed form, expressing the spectrum $T/T_0$ through the phase and group velocities of the medium (Tables II–V). The closed forms match direct numerical integration to about $10^{-15}$. A second-order profile $\alpha_1 z + \alpha_2 z^2$ leads to an infinite-series temperature whose first 60 terms obey a stated convergence condition and match numerics inside the convergence region. A direct consequence is that the Schwarzschild-like profile $z^{-1/2}$ is not thermal once dispersion is included.

Load-bearing premise

The optical calculation presumes that the singularities of $\tau(\omega)$—its poles and branch cuts—mirror those of $z(k)$ inside the integration contour; if that mirroring fails for the optical dispersion or for a particular Kerr profile, the optical Hawking temperature formula would need correction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the linear profile $u\propto z$, the spectrum is exactly thermal at the standard Hawking temperature even with dispersion; every other studied profile deviates from thermality as the wavenumber grows.
  • The Schwarzschild-like decaying profile $z^{-1/2}$ produces a spectrum that starts at $T_0$ and then decreases, so exact thermality is not expected from a Schwarzschild-type flow in a dispersive analog system.
  • Optical-fiber analogs with Kerr perturbations can use the optical formulas directly, since the temperature is expressed through the relative phase and group velocities $v_{pr}(\omega)$ and $v_{gr}(\omega)$ without solving the wave equation numerically.
  • For tanh and sech$^2$ profiles, a second-order expansion yields a convergent infinite series for the temperature; the first 60 terms match numerics wherever the stated convergence condition holds.
  • The approach to thermality with growing profiles is not monotonic in the exponent: $z^{1/5}$ is closer to thermal than lower powers, a trend the paper verifies both analytically and numerically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's examples, the closed-form spectra could serve as fitting templates: a measured frequency-dependent Hawking temperature in a fiber or condensate would allow the dispersion scale $k_0$ or $\omega_0$ to be extracted directly.
  • If the claimed topological equivalence between the sonic and optical integrals is more than formal, the same residue method should transfer to other analog platforms, such as water waves, polaritons, or superconducting circuits, once their dispersion relations are cast in the same comoving form.
  • A testable extension is to replace power-law profiles with experimentally realistic pulse shapes such as Gaussians or super-Gaussians; the contour-integral method and the numerical routine in Section V can be applied unchanged to predict whether their spectra stay close to thermal.
  • The paper's remark that a Planck-scale dispersive spacetime would make Schwarzschild Hawking radiation nonthermal is an implication worth testing directly by evaluating the same contour integral with a Planckian dispersion relation.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the Leonhardt-Robertson complex-contour formula for the Hawking temperature in dispersive sonic analogs to optical analogs, and uses Cauchy's residue theorem to evaluate the contour integrals for power-law velocity profiles z^{±1/n} and τ^{±1/n} (n = 1, 2, 3, and numerically for 1/4 and 1/5). It also derives an infinite-series expression for a second-order profile u = α1 z + α2 z^2, studies its convergence, and applies it to tanh and sech^2 profiles. The authors report agreement between the analytic spectra and numerical contour integration to about 10^-15.

Significance. If the optical results are correct, the paper supplies closed-form effective Hawking temperatures for several experimentally relevant sonic and optical velocity profiles and a systematic second-order correction beyond the linear-profile approximation; the sonic closed forms and the high-precision numerical cross-checks are useful. Strengths include explicit residue calculations in the appendix, parameter-free expressions with no fitting to data, and a clearly stated convergence criterion for the series. However, the central optical master equation contains an energy-variable error that affects the optical tables and figures as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (23) and Table I] The optical master formula uses the wrong energy variable. Table I maps the sonic pair (k, ω) to (−ω, ω′), with ω′ defined in Eq. (15); applying that mapping to Eq. (22) gives k_B T = iℏω′ / ∮_Γ τ(ω)dω, not iℏω / ∮_Γ τ(ω)dω. The paper itself uses ℏω′ in the second-order optical result, Eq. (45). Taken literally, Eq. (23) multiplies every optical closed-form spectrum in Tables III and V and the optical panels of Fig. 5 by the frequency-dependent factor ω/ω′ = [1 − n(ω)/n_g0]^{-1}; for the linear τ profile the table entry T/T0 = 1 would no longer hold. No separate lab-frame effective temperature is defined. Because the numerical integrations in Sec. V evaluate the same Eq. (23), they verify the algebra of the contour integral but not the physical optical spectrum. This is the load-bearing formula for the optical half of the paper.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (23) and Fig. 4] The claim that the complex-plane topology of τ(ω) is the same as that of z(k) is only illustrated, not proven. The optical dispersion β(ω) = (ω/c)√(1 + ω^2/ω0^2) and the Kerr-induced δn(τ) define τ(ω) through a different analytic function than the sonic z(k); branch cuts or additional poles of τ(ω) inside the chosen contour would change the residue sum in Eq. (23). The authors should either provide an explicit analytic-continuation argument (or proof that the relevant Riemann surfaces are homeomorphic away from branch cuts) or state the topological equivalence as an assumption and verify the optical table entries against an independent wave-equation simulation.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV C, Eq. (45)] The summation index is inconsistent: the series is over m, but the derivative is written as ∂^{j−1}_ω; the index j is undefined and should be m.
  2. [Appendix A.6, Eq. (A.28)] The first term in the square brackets, k∞^2 v_g^2(k∞)/(2 v_g(k∞)), is not dimensionless; it should presumably be k∞ v'_g(k∞)/(2 v_g(k∞)) to match the structure of the corresponding Table IV entry.
  3. [Sec. V, paragraph after Eq. (23)] The statement that 'the real part of the integral in Eqs. 22 and 23 is zero' should be justified: for a general contour it is not automatic, and the authors should state the contour properties that guarantee it.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analytic spectra are independent evaluations of the external Leonhardt-Robertson contour formula, and the numerical checks are same-formula consistency checks rather than fitted predictions.

  1. other [Section V (Numerical Hawking temperature), first paragraph; compare with Introduction and Eqs. (22)-(23).]
    "For the cases that can be solved analytically, we confirmed that the numerical results were all the same up to the numerical error of ∼10−15."

    The numerical integration is performed on the same master contour integrals, Eqs. (22) and (23), that were used to derive the analytical closed forms. Both sides of the comparison are therefore evaluations of one common formula, so the agreement is guaranteed by Cauchy's theorem up to numerical error and contour-choice issues. This verifies the residue algebra and the practical contour implementation, but it is not an independent test of the physical Hawking-temperature formula against a wave-equation simulation or experimental data. The analytical results are not fitted to these numerical values, so this is a mild self-consistency check rather than a forced prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. The sonic master formula, Eq. (22), is imported from Leonhardt and Robertson (Ref. [19]), whose proof is explicitly located in Appendix A of that external paper; the present authors do not justify Eq. (22) by their own prior work. The subsequent residue evaluations in Section IV and the Appendix are explicit derivations for profiles z^{±1/n}, with no parameter fitted to data and with T0 defined through the standard surface gravity. The self-citations in the paper, notably Refs. [12] and [28], supply concrete dispersion-model and soliton-background assumptions whose content is stated in the text, so they are not load-bearing uniqueness arguments. The only quasi-circular element is the numerical section: the numerical curves are obtained by integrating the same contour integrals whose closed forms are being checked, so the claimed agreement to ~10^{-15} confirms algebraic consistency rather than providing an independent physical benchmark. That is a modest internal-validation issue, not a reduction of the central claim. Separately, the optical formula Eq. (23) is presented as following from the Section II D transformations, and Table I maps sonic ω to optical ω′, with Eq. (45) later using ℏω′; Eq. (23) instead retains ℏω. This is a correctness or derivation-support gap for Tables III and V, not a circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score but should be weighed as a separate technical risk.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fitted constants or entities; its results are parametric formulas. The main external inputs are the Leonhardt-Robertson master formula and the dispersion models. The profile coefficients u0, a, n, alpha1, alpha2, and delta n0 are free inputs of the model, not fitted to data. The numerical checks use the same master integral, so they do not independently validate the physical formula itself.

free parameters (4)
  • n (profile exponent) = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (integer)
    Exponent in velocity profiles u(z) = u0 (z/a)^{1/n} and u(z) = u0 (a/z)^{1/n}; chosen by the authors to define the profiles, not fitted to data.
  • u0 and a (sonic profile scale) = arbitrary (e.g., u1=-1.2, u2=-0.8, a=1/k0 for the tanh profile)
    Amplitude and length-scale constants of the velocity profile; inputs to the model, not fitted.
  • alpha1, alpha2 (second-order profile coefficients) = alpha1=1, alpha2 varied in Fig. 6; no fitted values
    Coefficients of u(z) = alpha1 z + alpha2 z^2 used to illustrate the series approach; chosen by hand, not derived from data.
  • delta n0 and a (optical pulse scale) = arbitrary
    Kerr perturbation amplitude and width for delta n(tau); these set the optical velocity profile and are not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Leonhardt-Robertson contour-integral formula kBT = i hbar omega / contourintegral z(k) dk is valid for dispersive sonic systems.
    The paper takes Eq. (22) as a starting point and cites the proof in Appendix A of Ref. [19]; no rederivation is given.
  • domain assumption The optical analog is obtained by the variable mapping in Table I, and the complex topology of tau(omega) is the same as z(k).
    Section III, between Eqs. (22) and (23) and Fig. 4; stated but not proven.
  • domain assumption The dispersion relations c(k) = c0 sqrt(1 - k^2/k0^2) and beta(omega) = (omega/c) sqrt(1 + omega^2/omega0^2) adequately model the systems.
    Taken from prior literature (Bogoliubov dispersion and fiber optics) and not validated in this paper.
  • standard math Cauchy's residue theorem and series expansions around k0 or k_infinity can be applied with a contour that avoids branch cuts.
    Used throughout Section IV and the Appendix; relies on analyticity of c(k) inside the chosen contour.
  • domain assumption The Kerr perturbation delta n(tau) is localized and fixed in the comoving frame, and pulse dynamics are slower than horizon physics.
    Section II.D; necessary for the optical analogy but not verified from the full fiber-optic equations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hawking temperature in dispersive media: Analytical and numerical study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VPMP7WYJ

@misc{pith2026190802368,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hawking temperature in dispersive media: Analytical and numerical study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VPMP7WYJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02368}
}
read the original abstract

In the context of analog gravity the Hawking effect can be generalized to domains outside astrophysics. Arguably, the most successful systems for this analogy have been so far the sonic and the optical ones. However, problems arise in the analog systems as their dispersive effects are too large to be ignored, and this in turn modifies the usual thermal spectrum of Hawking radiation. In this work we perform analytical and numerical studies on how the velocity profile modifies the Hawking temperature in dispersive media, including some with direct experimental application.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02368 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online). Geodesics of light rays around the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online). Dispersion relations for the sonic case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online). Dispersion relation for the optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online). Complex plane of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Hawking temperature for the sonic (top) and optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Hawking temperature for the second-order profile [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Hawking temperature for the tanh profile around [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Hawking temperature for the sonic case obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (A.1) From the dispersion relation in Eq

    Profile z A linear velocity profile is u(z) =u0 z a =αz. (A.1) From the dispersion relation in Eq. (5) we have u(z) = ω/k−c(k), eliminating u(z) we obtain z(k) = ω αk− c(k) α . (A.2) Considering thatc(k) is an analytic function, the contour integral for the effective temperature (22) is then ∫ Γ z(k)dk = ∫ Γ ( ω αk− c(k) α ) dk = ω α ∫ Γ dk k . (A.3) Finally...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (A.6) This function has a simple pole in k = 0, by Cauchy’s integral theorem we can integrate ℏω kBT =−4πωavg(0) u2 0

    Profile z1/2 For a square-root velocity profile u(z) =u0 (z a )1/2 , (A.5) and the dispersion relation (5) we have z(k) = a (u0k)2 (ω−kc(k))2. (A.6) This function has a simple pole in k = 0, by Cauchy’s integral theorem we can integrate ℏω kBT =−4πωavg(0) u2 0 . (A.7) We also haveu(0) = 0, then from the dispersion relation we define k0 as the solution of the...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (A.12) This function has a simple pole in k = 0, by Cauchy’s integral theorem we have ℏω kBT =−6πωav2 g(0) u3 0 ( 1 +ωv′ g(0) 2v2g(0) )

    Profile z1/3 For a cubic root velocity profile u(z) =u0 (z a )1/3 , (A.11) the dispersion relation (5) leads to z(k) = a (u0k)3 (ω−kc(k))3. (A.12) This function has a simple pole in k = 0, by Cauchy’s integral theorem we have ℏω kBT =−6πωav2 g(0) u3 0 ( 1 +ωv′ g(0) 2v2g(0) ) . (A.13) Following the same steps as in the previous case with c(k0) =|u(z0)|, the ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (A.17) The only pole is in z →∞ , where the velocity of the medium is zero ω =c(k∞)k∞

    Profile z−1 For an inverse velocity profile u(z) =−u0 a z, (A.16) and from the dispersion relation we get z(k) = au0k kc(k)−ω. (A.17) The only pole is in z →∞ , where the velocity of the medium is zero ω =c(k∞)k∞. Then, the integral is ℏω kBT = 2πau0k∞ vg(k∞), (A.18) and using the dispersion at infinity, we can calculate the surface gravity as α = ∂zu(z)|z∞ ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (A.22) This function has two poles, but only one contributes to the integral at z→∞ , which results in ℏω kBT = au2 0 v3g(k∞)(2vg(k∞)k∞−v′ g(k∞)k2 ∞)

    Profile z−1/2 For the Schwarzschild profile or inverse square-root ve- locity profile u(z) =−u0 (a z )1/2 , (A.21) and from the dispersion relation we get z(k) = au2 0k2 (ω−kc(k))2. (A.22) This function has two poles, but only one contributes to the integral at z→∞ , which results in ℏω kBT = au2 0 v3g(k∞)(2vg(k∞)k∞−v′ g(k∞)k2 ∞). (A.23) Again we calculate t...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Profile z−1/3 For the inverse cubic-root velocity profile u(z) =−u0 (a z )1/3 , (A.26) and from the dispersion relation we get z(k) = au3 0 (ω/k−c(k))3. (A.27) This function has three poles, but again the one that contributes to the integral is at z→∞ , the result is ℏω kBT =2π 3k∞au3 0 v3g(k∞) [ 1 +k2 ∞v2 g(k∞) 2vg(k∞) − k∞ 6v2g(k∞)(9v′ g(k∞) +k∞v′′ g (k∞)...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Schwarzschild, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1916)

    K. Schwarzschild, Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1916)

    work page 1916

  8. [8]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    1974

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    S. W. Hawking, Communications in Mathematical Physics 43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  2. [10]

    A. D. Helfer, Reports on Progress in Physics 66, 943 (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    W. G. Unruh, Physical Review Letters 46, 1351 (1981)

    1981

  4. [12]

    Drori, Y

    J. Drori, Y. Rosenberg, D. Bermudez, Y. Silberberg, and U. Leonhardt, Physical Review Letters 122, 010404 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    J. R. M. de Nova, K. Golubkov, V. I. Kolobov, and J. Steinhauer, Nature 569, 688 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Rousseaux, C

    G. Rousseaux, C. Mathis, P. Ma¨ ıssa, T. G. Philbin, and U. Leonhardt, New Journal of Physics10, 053015 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Barcel´ o and M

    C. Barcel´ o and M. Visser, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity 18, 1137 (2001)

    2001

  8. [16]

    Steinhauer, Nature Physics , 1 (2016)

    J. Steinhauer, Nature Physics , 1 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    T. G. Philbin, C. Kuklewicz, S. Robertson, S. Hill, F. K¨ onig, and U. Leonhardt, Science 319, 1367 (2008)

    2008

  10. [18]

    Bermudez and U

    D. Bermudez and U. Leonhardt, Physical Review A 93, 053820 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    H. S. Nguyen, D. Gerace, I. Carusotto, D. Sanvitto, E. Galopin, A. Lemaˆ ıtre, I. Sagnes, J. Bloch, and A. Amo, Physical Review Letters 114, 036402 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    P. D. Nation, J. R. Johansson, M. P. Blencowe, and F. Nori, Reviews of Modern Physics 84, 1 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Visser, International Journal of Modern Physics A 12, 649 (2003)

    M. Visser, International Journal of Modern Physics A 12, 649 (2003)

    2003

  14. [22]

    Brout, S

    R. Brout, S. Massar, R. Parentani, and P. Spindel, Phys- ical Review D 52, 4559 (1995)

    1995

  15. [23]

    Rubino, J

    E. Rubino, J. McLenaghan, S. C. Kehr, F. Belgiorno, D. Townsend, S. Rohr, C. Kuklewicz, U. Leonhardt, F. K¨ onig, and D. Faccio, Physical Review Letters 108, 253901 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Corley, Physical Review D 57, 6280 (1998)

    S. Corley, Physical Review D 57, 6280 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Leonhardt and S

    U. Leonhardt and S. Robertson, New Journal of Physics 14, 053003 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    C. W. Robson, L. Di Mauro Villari, and F. Biancalana, Physical Review D 99, 044042 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    C. W. Robson, L. Di Mauro Villari, and F. Biancalana, arXiv (2019), 1903.04627

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. B. Hartle, Gravity (Pearson Education, New York, 2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    Quantum fields in curved space,

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, “Quantum fields in curved space,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1982). 12

    1982

  22. [30]

    Leonhardt and T

    U. Leonhardt and T. G. Philbin, Lect. Notes Phys. 718, 229 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Biancalana, Physics 5, 68 (2012)

    F. Biancalana, Physics 5, 68 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Leonhardt, Nature 415, 406 (2002)

    U. Leonhardt, Nature 415, 406 (2002)

    2002

  25. [33]

    G. P. Agrawal, Nonlinear Fiber Optics, 5th ed. (Aca- demic Press, New York, 2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Bermudez, in Journal of Physics Conference Series (2016) p

    D. Bermudez, in Journal of Physics Conference Series (2016) p. 012017

    2016

  27. [35]

    W. G. Unruh, Physical Review D 14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  28. [36]

    H. B. G. Casimir and D. Polder, Physical Review 73, 360 (1948)

    1948

  29. [37]

    S. A. Fulling and P. C. W. Davies, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 348, 393 (1976)

    1976

  30. [38]

    Schwinger, Physical Review 82, 664 (1951)

    J. Schwinger, Physical Review 82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  31. [39]

    Jacobson, Physical Review D 53, 7082 (1996)

    T. Jacobson, Physical Review D 53, 7082 (1996)

    1996

  32. [40]

    Jacobson, 44, 1731 (1991)

    T. Jacobson, 44, 1731 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    W. G. Unruh, Physical Review D 51, 2827 (1995)

    1995

  34. [42]

    Corley and T

    S. Corley and T. Jacobson, Physical Review D59, 124011 (1999)

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.