Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Electrically induced bulk and edge excitations in the fractional quantum Hall regime

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that the bulk excitations electrically launched in the ν=2/3 fractional quantum Hall liquid are magneto-plasmons, with measured group velocities 1–6×10^4 m/s matching the parameter-free value 5.9×10^4 m/s.

desk verdict Solid experimental extension of stroboscopic PL to bulk FQH excitations, but the magneto-plasmon velocity 'agreement' is a bracket, not a test. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01052 v1 pith:ZLYHWENZ submitted 2025-02-03 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-elgr-qcquant-ph

Quentin France , Yunhyeon Jeong , Akinori Kamiyama , Takaaki Mano , Ken-ichi Sasaki , Masahiro Hotta , Go Yusa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-elgr-qcquant-ph PACS 73.43.-f
keywords fractionalquantumHalleffectfillingfactor2/3magneto-plasmonphotoluminescencespectroscopygroupvelocitybulk-edgecorrespondencestrainpulsetime-resolvedimaging
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 sets out to show that a voltage pulse can electrically excite not only the edge but also the bulk of the $\nu=2/3$ fractional quantum Hall liquid, and that the main bulk response is a magneto-plasmon. Using spatially and time-resolved photoluminescence, it tracks a blueshifted front leaving the gate and moving into the bulk at a group velocity of order $10^4$ to $10^5$ m/s. The measured values, $1\text{--}6\times 10^4$ m/s, bracket the parameter-free prediction $v_g = \nu e^2/(4\pi\varepsilon\varepsilon_0 h) \approx 5.9\times10^4$ m/s, with no adjustable parameters. A second, slower redshifted mode is attributed to a strain pulse. The result matters because it ties a bulk collective mode to the quantized Hall conductance and offers a direct way to study excitations relevant to the topological edge-bulk link.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magneto-plasmon, a collective charge-density wave in a two-dimensional electron gas under a perpendicular magnetic field, whose frequency combines the cyclotron motion with the 2D plasmon. Its dispersion $\omega_{\mathrm{mp}}(k) = \sqrt{\omega_c^2 + \omega_p(k)^2}$ is the mechanism: expanding at small $k$ turns the linear-in-$k$ piece of $\omega_p(k)^2$ into a constant group velocity $v_g = \nu e^2/(4\pi\varepsilon\varepsilon_0 h)$, independent of magnetic field at fixed filling. The experimental observable is the stroboscopic PL peak shift $\Delta E(t,x,y)$, whose space-time front is read as a wavefront whose slope gives $v_g$.

What would settle it

Repeat the position-versus-time imaging at fixed $\nu=2/3$ for several magnetic fields ($B=6$, $8$, $10$ T) with higher time resolution, and compare the speed of the leading front. Eq. (4) predicts the same $v_g\approx 5.9\times10^4$ m/s at all three fields (after the GaAs permittivity factor), so a large field-dependent shift, or a front that visibly splits into multiple separate peaks, would refute the single-magneto-plasmon interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that the primary bulk excitations of the $\nu=2/3$ state, electrically injected by a voltage pulse, are magneto-plasmons. The evidence is a space-time map of the photoluminescence energy shift: a blue-shifted region detaches from the excitation gate and propagates into the bulk, with reciprocal slopes giving $v_g$ between $1\times10^4$ and $6\times10^4$ m/s. This is quantitatively consistent with the low-wavenumber expansion of the magneto-plasmon dispersion, $\omega_{\mathrm{mp}}(k) = \sqrt{\omega_c^2 + \omega_p(k)^2}$ with $\omega_p(k)^2 = n_s e^2 k/(2\varepsilon\varepsilon_0 m^*)$, which yields $v_g = \nu e^2/(4\pi\varepsilon\varepsilon_0 h)$ using only fundamental constants, the filling factor, and the GaAs permittivity. The paper further reports a slower redshifted bulk mode at $\sim 10^3$ m/s, interpreted as a strain pulse, and a slight field dependence of $v_g$ that it attributes to the crossover to the hole-conjugate description of the 2/3 state at high field.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that the sloping boundary of the blue-shifted region in the space-time map is a single propagating wavefront; if that boundary is really a mixture of several modes or a slow density or thermal drift, the extracted group velocity could be systematically off.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the bulk group velocity of a fractional quantum Hall liquid at fixed $\nu$ is fixed by fundamental constants and $\nu$ alone; changing the magnetic field while keeping $\nu=2/3$ should not change $v_g$.
  • The experiment provides a bulk counterpart to edge transport: the same voltage pulse excites both, and the bulk response is not a quasiparticle edge mode but a magneto-plasmon, so measurements of edge velocity alone do not exhaust the collective dynamics.
  • Near $B_c\approx 7.5$ T, the lifetime of the bulk excitation drops because gapless exchange-induced 'edges' at spin-phase domain boundaries provide extra decay channels; this is a testable, spatially local signature of spin-phase domains.
  • The slow redshifted front is identified as a strain pulse, meaning the same measurement can separate electronic collective modes from lattice strain in a single space-time image.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not explicit in the paper: the same stroboscopic technique could sweep $\nu$ (for example through $\nu=1$, $2/3$, $1/3$) to test whether $v_g$ scales linearly with $\nu$ as Eq. (4) says; a strict proportionality would strengthen the universal claim.
  • The paper treats the y-t front as one mode. A finer time-resolved trace at several $y$ positions would resolve whether the front is a single dispersive branch or a superposition; if the latter, the extracted $v_g$ would need reinterpretation as an envelope velocity.
  • Because the pulse locally changes the filling factor under the gate, the same setup could be used as a local pump for inter-Landau-level excitations, not just the $\nu=2/3$ bulk; this is an extension of the paper's gate-engineering argument, not a claim the authors make.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports stroboscopic photoluminescence (PL) experiments on a GaAs/AlGaAs quantum well in the ν=2/3 fractional quantum Hall regime. A voltage pulse with an added offset is applied to a gate at the sample edge, and the time-resolved PL energy shift ΔE is mapped in space and time. The authors observe a blueshifted excitation propagating into the bulk and a slower redshifted mode. From the slope of the blue-shifted region in the y–t map they estimate a group velocity vg in the range 10^4–10^5 m/s (about 3×10^4 m/s, with values between 1 and 6×10^4 m/s as a function of B). They compare this with the parameter-free magneto-plasmon formula vg=ν e²/(4π ε ε0 h)≈5.9×10^4 m/s (Eq. (4)) and conclude that the primary bulk excitations are magneto-plasmons. The slower redshifted mode is attributed to a strain pulse. They also interpret a B-dependent variation of vg as evidence for a transition to a hole-conjugate picture of the ν=2/3 state.

Significance. If the identification is correct, the experiment is interesting: it electrically injects and images both edge and bulk collective modes in the FQH regime and provides a rare, parameter-free velocity comparison. The experimental setup—combining a coplanar waveguide, offset-voltage excitation, and stroboscopic PL microscopy—is a strength, and the observation that the measured range brackets Eq. (4) is suggestive. However, the quantitative support is currently loose: the velocity is read from the boundary of a PL shift region rather than from tracked wavefronts, no error bars are shown in Fig. 4(c), and the B-dependent adjustment to a hole-conjugate picture is post hoc. The paper is therefore a promising experimental report whose central claim needs strengthening before publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3(j) and text immediately after Eq. (3)] In Fig. 3(i)–(j) the group velocity is extracted from the borders of the blue-shifted region, but the text defines vg both as the reciprocal of the slope of these borders and as vg ≈ l_P/τ, where l_P is a penetration length and τ a lifetime. A ratio of decay scales is not a group velocity unless a propagating envelope or wavefront is separately tracked, and a single nondispersive mode with Eq. (1) would produce one slope rather than the reported factor-of-six range 10^4–10^5 m/s. In addition, Figs. 3(a)–3(h) are clipped at ±0.1 meV although ΔE reaches more than 0.25 meV near the gate, so the apparent boundary may be set by the color scale. Please define vg from a tracked feature in the unclipped ΔE(y,t) data and quote its statistical uncertainty; without this, Eq. (4) is not yet tested.
  2. [Fig. 4(c) and Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) is parameter-free and independent of the fitted measurements, which is a genuine strength, but the comparison in Fig. 4(c) is a bracket rather than a falsifiable test. The prediction 5.9×10^4 m/s lies inside the quoted range 1–6×10^4 m/s, and the abstract's central value of about 3×10^4 m/s is a factor of two below the prediction. Fig. 4(c) has no visible error bars, and the text does not state whether the quoted range is the spread over B, the fit uncertainty, or the scatter of the two slopes. Please report per-field vg values with errors and, if possible, a table or histogram of all extracted front positions so that the agreement with Eq. (4) can be evaluated quantitatively.
  3. [B-dependence paragraph near Fig. 4(c)] The B-dependence argument for the hole-conjugate picture is post hoc. Eq. (4) is B-independent at fixed ν, but Fig. 4(c) shows vg roughly doubling between B>8 T and B<7.5 T, and the division into two regions is made after seeing the data. The statement that the hole-conjugate picture 'becomes valid' when B>8 T needs an independent physical criterion—for example, spin polarization determined from the same PL data or a predicted velocity ratio with uncertainties—rather than accepting the two fitted plateaus themselves. As written, this part neither confirms nor refutes the magneto-plasmon model and should be presented as an interpretation, not as supporting evidence.
  4. [Paragraph around Fig. 4(d)] The launch region is not at ν=2/3, which complicates the use of Eq. (4). The text states that V_offset=0.5 V raises the local density by Δn≈2×10^11 cm^-2, increasing the local filling factor under the gate to about 2 at 6 T and 1.5 at 10 T, and that the pulse energy change ε_0≈3 meV is comparable to the Landau-level spacing. Since the excitation is launched under these local conditions, the paper should discuss whether the measured bulk velocity is set by the global ν=2/3 value or by the locally modified density and should include this in the error budget. Otherwise the parameter-free character of Eq. (4) is overstated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The Lorentzian is written with amplitude A but the denominator lacks the usual γ² factor, so A is not the spectral intensity as stated; please use A γ²/[(E−E_peak)²+γ²] (or define A accordingly) and check that the fitting routine uses the same convention.
  2. [Supplementary references] The main text refers to Fig. S1, S2, and S3 and to the fitting of the B-dependence, but the supplementary file is not included with the arXiv posting; please include it so the B_c determination and the l_P, τ, and vg fits can be checked.
  3. [Abstract and conclusion] The quantum-gravity and holography discussion in the abstract and concluding paragraph is speculative and not supported by the data; it would be better to state the bulk–edge correspondence link more modestly or to move the analogy to the outlook.
  4. [Throughout] Minor language issues such as the title line break 'fract ional' and the word 'hightlightthe' in the summary paragraph should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the magneto-plasmon velocity comparison is parameter-free and independent of the measured v_g.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim is the comparison of the measured bulk-excitation group velocity (v_g ~ 1–6e4 m/s) with Eq. (4), v_g = ν e^2/(4πεε0 h) ≈ 5.9e4 m/s. Eq. (4) is derived from the standard magneto-plasmon dispersion ω_mp(k)=sqrt(ω_c^2 + ω_p(k)^2) using n_e = νeB/h and ω_c = eB/m*, with no parameter fitted to the present data; the only material input is the low-frequency GaAs permittivity ε(0)=12.4 taken from an independent reference. The experimental v_g is obtained from the reciprocal slopes of the blue-shifted region in the y–t map and from the l_P/τ estimate, both of which are independent of Eq. (4). The self-citations [21,22,26,29] provide the stroboscopic PL technique and the known spin-phase transition field B_c; they are not used to define or derive the theoretical velocity. The post-hoc division of the v_g(B) data into ν=2/3 and hole-conjugate ν=1/3 regions is an interpretive step that weakens the test, but it does not make the prediction equivalent to its inputs, because Eq. (4) is not defined in terms of the measured v_g. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction, so the paper is not circular.

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

The central model comparison uses the standard 2D magneto-plasmon dispersion with no fitted coefficients; the only hand-chosen experimental parameter is the 0.5 V offset used to enhance signal. The main interpretive assumptions concern the mapping between PL shifts and excitation propagation, the capacitance model for the gate, and the applicability of the magneto-plasmon formula inside a strongly correlated FQH state.

free parameters (1)
  • V_offset = 0.5 V
    Chosen by hand to maximize the PL excitation signal; not used in the velocity formula itself, but it sets the local filling factor under the gate, which is part of the excitation mechanism.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 2D magneto-plasmon dispersion ω(q) = (ω_c^2 + n_s e^2 q / (2 ε ε0 m*))^{1/2} with n_s = ν e B/h applies to the ν=2/3 FQH bulk.
    The formula is standard for a 2DEG, but its application to a strongly correlated FQH state is not automatically justified; the paper argues magneto-plasmons differ from magneto-rotons but does not prove the dispersion still holds in the FQH regime.
  • domain assumption The measured photoluminescence energy shift ΔE is a linear, local indicator of the excitation density or temperature, so the spatial-temporal evolution of ΔE traces the propagation of the underlying collective modes.
    This is the central measurement premise; the paper fits PL spectra with Lorentzians and uses peak shifts as a proxy for local excitation, but does not independently calibrate the relation between ΔE and excitation amplitude.
  • domain assumption The gate-induced density change follows the parallel-plate capacitance formula C = ε ε0 / d, giving Δn_s ≈ 2×10^11 cm^-2 for V_offset = 0.5 V and a local filling factor near 2 under the gate at B = 6 T.
    The density change under the gate is estimated from the geometric capacitance; this underlies the claim that electrons near the edge can be excited to higher Landau levels.
  • domain assumption The hole-conjugate description of ν=2/3 predicts a magneto-plasmon velocity half that of the electron description; this is used to interpret the B-dependence.
    This is a theoretical interpretation applied to explain the observed drop in v_g at higher B; it is not derived within the paper and is based on the cited edge model picture.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electrically induced bulk and edge excitations in the fractional quantum Hall regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZLYHWENZ

@misc{pith2026250201052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electrically induced bulk and edge excitations in the fractional quantum Hall regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZLYHWENZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01052}
}
abstract

We apply a voltage pulse to electrically excite the incompressible region of a two-dimensional electron liquid in the $\nu=2/3$ fractional quantum Hall state and investigate the collective excitations in both the edge and bulk via photoluminescence spectral energy shifts. Introducing an offset in the voltage pulse significantly enhances the excitation signal. Real-space and time-resolved measurements reveal the dynamics of the bulk excitations, with an estimated group velocity of approximately $3 \times 10^4$ m/s. These bulk excitations align well with the magneto-plasmon model. Our results highlight the topological link between edge and bulk states, providing a novel approach to exploring solid-state analogs of quantum gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01052 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Scanning electron microscope image of a typical d [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a)–(h) Microscopic photoluminescence (PL) spectr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a)-(h) Real-space mapping of the energy shift [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Dependence of penetration length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dynamics of fractional quantum Hall Liquids with a pulse at the edge

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A short tip pulse at the edge of a nu=1/3 Laughlin droplet excites edge modes and bulk magnetoroton excitations, with the balance controlled by pulse position, duration, and strength.

  2. Anomalous Bulk Current in Quantum Hall Systems with an Expanding Edge

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For a quantum Hall system with an expanding edge, the authors show the edge carries a covariant gravitational anomaly and the bulk carries an equal and opposite integrated energy flux.

  3. Emergent Holographic Spacetime from Quantum Information

    hep-th 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Takayanagi's essay outlines a research program in which holographic spacetime, including the time direction, may emerge from entanglement, complexity, and complex-valued pseudo-entropy, without presenting a new derivation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    K. v. Klitzing, G. Dorda, and M. Pepper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 494 (1980)

    1980

  2. [2]

    D. C. Tsui, H. L. Stormer, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Let t. 48, 1559 (1982)

    work page 1982

  3. [3]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 405 (1982)

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    Girvin, A

    S. Girvin, A. MacDonald, and P. Platzman, Phys. Rev. B 33, 2481 (1986)

    work page 1986

  5. [5]

    Pinczuk, B

    A. Pinczuk, B. Dennis, L. Pfeiffer, and K. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3983 (1993)

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    Davies, J

    H. Davies, J. Harris, J. Ryan, and A. Turberfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4095 (1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    I. V . Kukushkin, J. H. Smet, V . W. Scarola, V . Umansky, and K. von Klitzing, Science 324, 1044 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Liang, Z

    J. Liang, Z. Liu, Z. Yang, Y . Huang, U. Wursbauer, C. R. Dea n, K. W. West, L. N. Pfeiffer, L. Du, and A. Pinczuk, Nature 628, 78 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Haldane, Physical review letters 107, 116801 (2011)

    F. Haldane, Physical review letters 107, 116801 (2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Golkar and S

    S. Golkar and S. Sethi, J. High Energy Phys. 2016 (5), 1

    2016

  3. [11]

    Ashoori, H

    R. Ashoori, H. L. Stormer, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. Baldwin, a nd K. West, Phys. Rev. B 45, 3894 (1992)

    1992

  4. [12]

    Kamata, T

    H. Kamata, T. Ota, K. Muraki, and T. Fujisawa, Phys. Rev. B 81, 085329 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    Matsuura, T

    M. Matsuura, T. Mano, T. Noda, N. Shibata, M. Hotta, and G. Yusa, Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 063104 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Y oshioka, The quantum Hall effect , Vol

    D. Y oshioka, The quantum Hall effect , Vol. 133 (Springer Sci- ence & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Hotta, Phys

    M. Hotta, Phys. Rev. A 80, 042323 (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    G. Yusa, W. Izumida, and M. Hotta, Phys. Rev. A 84, 032336 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Hotta, J

    M. Hotta, J. Matsumoto, and G. Yusa, Phys. Rev. A 89, 012311 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Hotta, Y

    M. Hotta, Y . Nambu, Y . Sugiyama, K. Yamamoto, and G. Yusa, Phys. Rev. D 105, 105009 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Nambu and M

    Y . Nambu and M. Hotta, Phys. Rev. D 107, 085002 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Y oshimoto and Y

    R. Y oshimoto and Y . Nambu, Phys. Lett. A529, 130100 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Kamiyama, M

    A. Kamiyama, M. Matsuura, J. N. Moore, T. Mano, N. Shibat a, and G. Yusa, Phys. Rev. Research 4, L012040 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Kamiyama, M

    A. Kamiyama, M. Matsuura, J. N. Moore, T. Mano, N. Shibat a, and G. Yusa, App. Phys. Lett. 122 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    MacDonald, H

    A. MacDonald, H. Oji, and S. Girvin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2208 (1985)

    1985

  16. [24]

    Thomsen, H

    C. Thomsen, H. T. Grahn, H. J. Maris, and J. Tauc, Phys. Re v. B 34, 4129 (1986)

    1986

  17. [25]

    Le Breton, R

    G. Le Breton, R. Delagrange, Y . Hong, M. Garg, K. Watanab e, T. Taniguchi, R. Ribeiro-Palau, P. Roulleau, P. Roche, and F. D. Parmentier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 116803 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Hayakawa, K

    J. Hayakawa, K. Muraki, and G. Yusa, Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 31 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    J. Smet, R. Deutschmann, W. Wegscheider, G. Abstreiter , and K. von Klitzing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2412 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    Verdene, J

    B. Verdene, J. Martin, G. Gamez, J. Smet, K. Von Klitzing , D. Mahalu, D. Schuh, G. Abstreiter, and A. Yacoby, Nature Phys. 3, 392 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    J. N. Moore, J. Hayakawa, T. Mano, T. Noda, and G. Yusa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 076802 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    J. H. Davies, The physics of low-dimensional semiconductors: an introduction (Cambridge university press, 1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    N. J. M. Horing and M. M. Yildiz, Annal. Phys. 97, 216 (1976)

    1976

  24. [32]

    T. N. Theis, Surf. Sci. 98, 515 (1980)

    1980

  25. [33]

    Volkov and S

    V . Volkov and S. A. Mikhailov, Sov. Phys. JETP67, 1639 (1988)

    1988

  26. [34]

    Sasaki, S

    K. Sasaki, S. Murakami, Y . Tokura, and H. Yamamoto, Phys . Rev. B 93, 125402 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    We assume t hat /u1D458 − 1 is on the order of a micrometer

    The wavelength in the horizontal plane, /u1D458 − 1, also corresponds to the localization length in the vertical plane. We assume t hat /u1D458 − 1 is on the order of a micrometer. For very small values of /u1D458 that satisfy /u1D714 c > /u1D450/u1D458 , the gauge field can ra...

  28. [36]

    Madelung, Semiconductors—basic data (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    O. Madelung, Semiconductors—basic data (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Nakamura, S

    J. Nakamura, S. Liang, G. C. Gardner, and M. J. Manfra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 076205 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Adachi, Physical Properties of III-V Semiconductor Com- pounds (Wiley, 1992)

    S. Adachi, Physical Properties of III-V Semiconductor Com- pounds (Wiley, 1992)

    1992

  31. [39]

    Susskind, J

    L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36, 6377 (1995)

    1995

  32. [40]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    Hartman, K

    T. Hartman, K. Murata, T. Nishioka, and A. Strominger, J . High Energy Phys. 2009 (04), 019

    2009

  34. [42]

    SM_Movie1a.gif

    F. Inamura, G. Ueda, S. Kim, M. Patrashin, I. Hosako, S. Komiyama, and K. Ikushima, APL Photonics 9, 116101 (2024). This figure "SM_Movie1a.gif" is available in "gif" format from: http://arxiv.org/ps/2502.01052v1 This figure "SM_Movie1b.gif" is available in "gif" format from: ...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.